D&D 5E "My X is underpowered compared to Y." So?

[Riley37]

Yes, there's always been a bit of alpha-nerd posturing in RPGs. That's how I mainly see that sort of behavior - the boasting about dominating builds, about "winning" at D&D, boasting about doing the most damage - all casting their bid in the competition to be alpha-nerd.

"My Damage Per Round is BIGGER THAN YOURS!"

There are lots of people who play D&D for power fantasy. Some of them define that in the crudest terms: if we fight, I will beat you up. Some want power over the external foes (monsters, villains) and some want to establish that they are the BIGGEST at the table, by comparison if not by direct PvP.

WOW is an influence towards superbuilds and calculating damage with decimal points, but D&D began as a variation within miniature wargaming; emphasis on dominating the battlefield was built into D&D before it was even published under that name.

Personally, I was quite happy in the sessions when my bard cast Faerie Fire, and the Advantage helped the fighters and barbarians get more hits, and the players of those fighters and barbarians recognized that my character was contributing to DPR. If there had been no inter-player recognition, though, I would have been less happy.

And then, after the fight, when it was time to get clues from captured foes: my bard had Detect Thoughts plus high Persuasion, so the bard got clues, and that was also a spotlight moment.

I'm not about having THE MOST, I'm just about having enough.

 

[Minsc]

I'm reading so very often people complaining that their Sorcerer/Monk/Ranger whoever doesn't do as much damage as some other class, and I'm wondering why some of us assume that all characters should deal damage equally. My understanding of the game is that different classes have strengths and weaknesses, and that the litmus test is whether or not my character has a chance to shine, not whether or not I can do 80 points of damage (which is one of many ways to shine). During a combat, for example, when the ranger uses Ensnaring Stike and impedes/hems in opponents, that's an impact that is not necessarily measured in damage. Or when a spellcaster casts a buff or healing spell. You get the idea.

I'm not saying there aren't issues where things just don't make logical sense and limit your character (I'm looking at you, Ranger's Companion). But why is damage output so often the be all and end all? It's only a third of the game (the others being exploration and social interaction).

Perhaps this is just because of differing styles of play/campaigns. It makes sense to me that if a gaming group focuses on combat, a player whose character doesn't do as much damage is going to feel sub-par. But in a balanced game, I would think that the PC's who have strengths other than dealing damage have their chance to shape the game, too.

Disclaimer: I am newly reacquainted to D&D (haven't played since 2nd Edition). Am I feeling this way because I haven't lived through 4th Edition and it's emphasis on combat? Thoughts?

As a guy who really hasn't played since 2e myself, I look at it like this: since WotC released 3rd edition, they have tried to balance the classes out. My evidence is that every class now takes the same amount of XP to advance.

Back in 2e, classes had different XP charts. A level 10 Thief had the same XP as a level 7 Fighter.

Their strengths are different, and this will remain throughout any edition. But, for instance, Rogues now dish out a lot more damage than they used to. It's closer.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have to say, the underlying question of the original post is kind of mean-spirited. If somebody thinks a particular class or race is underpowered, can't they discuss it on an Internet forum without being ridiculed?

I can't get behind the thinking that "balance" is a bad idea, a toxic and terrible thing that will make the game unfun. On the other hand, literally everyone is going to have a different idea of what constitutes "balance," so I can see a certain Zen-like wisdom in just throwing the whole stupid concept out the window. All the same, I think discussions about balance, how important it is, whether balance only needs to exist on the battlefield, etc., are valid and interesting and important.

Balance not just for combat Kinneus san, but for WHOLE game. Understand?

If we measure balance only or largely on the combat encounter level, there is very little room for meaningful differences in character types. The first thing that needs to go is the presumption that all classes need to have the same XP requirements and level at the same time. Overall combat effectiveness is something that not every class HAS to have either.

The thief as a DPS rogue is one of those design elements that hurts the brain if you bother to think about it. The FIGHTER is the trained killing machine, a supposed expert at putting the business end of weapons into people yet it is the THIEF who "knows where to strike" and routinely makes weapon attacks that hit with the impact of a fireball. Why does the 2nd story jewel thief know how to do this while the murder machine by comparison delivers only love taps?

I'll tell you why? It is because the fighter and the thief HAD to have the same XP table and advance at the same rate. Going with that assumption uses the same thought process that determines that 6+3 MUST equal 10. Fill in the missing piece with whatever BS is required to get desired end result. That happens to produce a result that makes a sane person question the fighter's expertise at fighting.

No, being in the same ballpark damage wise in combat does not mean classes need to be similar out of combat. Damage is just one component of combat, and different players rate the 3 pillars at different levels of importance.

What I have found, via practical experience, is if you have a true "striker" style PC in 5e, the best way to win combat is simply buffing the striker.... and unfortunately that tends to mean most of the table doesnt feel like they are significantly contributing, or contributing in a meaningful way. Which of course leads to disinterested players and the campaign ending, ie: everyone loses.

Better in my view to keep the damage aspect in the same ballpark. Everyone then feels like they can bring the smackdown, that their PC matters in combat, and the fights are more varied, fun, etc because you have more than one effective option.

I have found most players come to understand this issue over time. Most players wont min max their PC too much to get out of whack with the other PCs power wise. Because they know that, if they do, the game will come to an end. Another poster said it in a recent thread - it is everyone's responsibility, and in everyone's best interests, to maintain intraparty balance for as long as possible. True "strikers" break that balance to the table's detriment.

If every class matters equally in combat but NOT equally out of combat, what is the reason to play a character whose sole competency is combat? It seems that logically in order to enjoy all parts of the game you would avoid those classes.

To spin the question around: What is the purpose of having classes with vastly different power levels? How does it improve the game?

Define power levels? How are we measuring power here, by overall combat effectiveness? Damage dealing ability?

 

[spongebob1138]

D&D is a game.
People like to win games.
Building the best character is the best empirical way of "winning" at D&D.
Simple as that.

You make my point exactly. To my thinking, the best character is not necessarily the one who deals the most damage. The best character is the one who helps the group tell the collective story in a fun way.

 

[spongebob1138]

I have to say, the underlying question of the original post is kind of mean-spirited. If somebody thinks a particular class or race is underpowered, can't they discuss it on an Internet forum without being ridiculed?

I can't get behind the thinking that "balance" is a bad idea, a toxic and terrible thing that will make the game unfun. On the other hand, literally everyone is going to have a different idea of what constitutes "balance," so I can see a certain Zen-like wisdom in just throwing the whole stupid concept out the window. All the same, I think discussions about balance, how important it is, whether balance only needs to exist on the battlefield, etc., are valid and interesting and important.

Mean-spirited? Truly? I'm not sure what words or phrases (or what you are reading into them) suggest that to you. Let me rephrase and clarify: I'm coming from a situation of rejoining D&D (5e) from not having played since I was in my teens with 2nd Edition. I'm puzzled by the emphasis on damage output and the complaints about one class or another being underpowered in comparison to others. It's not the kind of thing I've heard before. So I tossed the question out there on a discussion board to try and gain understanding/context. And the ensuing conversation has been helpful, which I'm grateful for. It's opened my eyes to the fact that the game, and peoples' understanding of it, is generally different than the one I experienced back decades ago.

 

[spongebob1138]

I have to say, the underlying question of the original post is kind of mean-spirited. If somebody thinks a particular class or race is underpowered, can't they discuss it on an Internet forum without being ridiculed?

I've re-read through my original post, looking for the "ridicule." Not seeing it. At most, I suppose you could accuse me of being a condescending old person who is playing the "what's the matter with the game these days" card. Even if that was my stance (not exactly what I was shooting for), it's another thing to suggest I'm ridiculing people by raising the question. If somebody finds a preoccupation with damage output confusing, can't they discuss it on an Internet forum without it being labeled mean-spirited and ridiculing?

 

[Jester David]

You make my point exactly. To my thinking, the best character is not necessarily the one who deals the most damage. The best character is the one who helps the group tell the collective story in a fun way.

But you can't quantify that. You can't look at a character away from the table and know it's fun, or post it on a message board and have everyone acknowledge its funness.

 

[spongebob1138]

But you can't quantify that. You can't look at a character away from the table and know it's fun, or post it on a message board and have everyone acknowledge its funness.

True enough. This may just be about the subjectivity of the play experience, and the fact that the game is malleable enough to accommodate different play styles. If people want to play the damage output game, that's their option. If it works for them, enjoy!

 

[CM]

"Somebody's playstyle is different from my own! What's up with that?"

 

[steeldragons]

Yes there are. Sorlocks, or high-level fighters with the Magic Initiate feat and Hex, do damage that is competitive with Sharpshooter against e.g. AC 18 Fire Giants. The primary difference is that Sharpshooter has better range than Hex. A 20th level Action Surging Archery-based Dex 20 fighter can expect to do 86.4 damage in one round against a Fire Giant; using Sharpshooter he would do 87.6.

I dont allow multiclassing for the same reason.

Right.

These kinds of arguments are used all of the time, "If I use <special thing A> with my <extra doohicky B> I get <Corner Case "Proof">."

It is utterly meaningless.

It is...somewhat...understandable, given the game's history [at least in regards to multiclassing]. But multiclassing and feats are both OPTIONS to be added to the game. And doing so creates all kinds of "but this doesn't that" and "that doesn't this, then" = "broken/bad design/useless options".

The game is not/can not be based around every corner case eventuality. Citing "put in blender options A does not equal/is better/worse/over-under-powered than blender options B" does not mean anything when looking at how the game is actually designed. Every option you allow/add to the game creates a whole garden full of different eventualities.

You can play with them! Absolutely. They are there for you to use/add as makes things "fun" for your table. But adding them, inherently CHANGES what you are working with. So you can't say, justifiably, "Hey I made Bananas Foster and now my dish no longer tastes like Applesauce! Those bastards!"

Everything can not...and i will continue to maintain til my dice run-eth out, "should not"...be "balanced = equal."