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

[Psikerlord#]

If every class has to be fairly equal in combat then every class has to be fairly equal out of combat as well. Then we have a single class -adventurer, that does everything reasonably well. Fair but boring as all get up.

No, every class does not have to contribute equally in combat.

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.

 

[Sunseeker]

How powerful your character is, while quantifiable through dpr, is much more a function of optimization, in-game skill, style of campaign and luck.

High optimization mitigates low luck, but not entirely. In-game skill leverages optimization. Style of campaign modifies how effective all of these things will be at any given time. I'm sure the equation is quite complicated.

As pointed out already, DPR is just the most obvious number.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

A monk should do similar damage to other classes. He doesn't do a great deal else in the course of battle.

Except their speed and special abilities let them choose and then temporarily disable premium targets the other characters have a MUCH harder time getting to or even drawing a bead on. In a white room when everyone is only 30' away with no obstacles, a monk seems underpowered, against nova-ing foes that keep their distance and break LOS, the monk shines.

 

[billd91]

when I was just learning to RPG about 20 years ago, my friend who introed me to D&D had played with his uncle when he was a kid years earlier. His uncle had a story about at a con (although I can't remember wich) where people would compare damage on throwing darts as a specialized fighter compaired to having the wizard fireball... I don't remember all the specfics, but even in 1e and 2e people did it, long before WOW...

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.

 

[Kinneus]

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.

 

[kalil]

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

 

[Saeviomagy]

Is it possible (in any given game system, not just D&D) for a character to deviate in practice from the expectations that a player has when they create that character in such a way as to harm that player's enjoyment of the game?

If so, is this something that is governed at least in part by the rules?

My answer to those two questions is yes.

Given that, it's possible for a player to be lead to believe that a character in D&D has abilities that deviate from what they actually have, that the players enjoyment may be impacted by that, and that the mismatch is at least partly governed by the rules.

Furthermore, this is most easily done as a comparison to another class, because it's really hard to answer the question "Can a wizard charm people well enough?" as a stand alone sort of thing. It's much easier to answer "Can a wizard charm people better than a bard?", and then to say "If the answer is yes, isn't that a bit counter intuitive given expectations about a bard?"

Or in short "why X is underpowered compared to Y, and why I care enough to make a forum post about it"

 

[Celtavian]

Except their speed and special abilities let them choose and then temporarily disable premium targets the other characters have a MUCH harder time getting to or even drawing a bead on. In a white room when everyone is only 30' away with no obstacles, a monk seems underpowered, against nova-ing foes that keep their distance and break LOS, the monk shines.

Ranged strikers and casters can accomplish exactly the same thing. I've seen the monk in a party. All the movement does is all its ever done: get him into combat faster and targeted in battle. If Stunning Fist fails, it's a wasted ki point and the monk getting targeted. The ability is situationally useful.

The monk is weaker in standard play. His AC isn't the highest because you have to max two stats to maximize AC making heavy armor and shield better. If using feats, heavy armor mastery is far and away better. He still needs to be in melee combat to do damage. If he separates from the group outdistancing the heavy melee, he gets targeted first and can't take the damage. If he is the only melee and runs far away from the casters and ranged, he gets targeted and wasted. He doesn't have a great way to do effective ranged damage.

My play experience with the monk is that his abilities look nifty in the white room you're speaking of. In actual play, they work against him a lot of the time. If you multiclass rogue and get the Cunning Action, mobility can be great. Otherwise, you have to take the Mobility feat and spread your attacks amongst multiple targets to make it work or use precious ki points to disengage. Taking the Mobility feat slows down your stat progression for a class that needs two good stats to get AC close to a heavy armor wearer.

I'm hoping he comes into his own at higher level as monks usually do. Thy seem like a class highly dependent on situational abilities that don't allow him to keep up with damage of other classes or provide anything other classes can't do as well with alternate means like striking from range or knocking someone prone with a shove. I'm unimpressed at the moment. He is the one class that has dropped during battle more than any other I've played. The rogue's mobility was more valuable early on due to Cunning Action being usable at will.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

He still needs to be in melee combat to do damage.

What makes you believe this?

My games have a human shadow monk/druid and a wood elf shadow monk, 12th and 8th levels respectively IIRC. Both of them are effective at range but the wood elf moreso, because obviously she has longbow proficiency and the human does not.

 

[Celtavian]

What makes you believe this?

My games have a human shadow monk/druid and a wood elf shadow monk, 12th and 8th levels respectively IIRC. Both of them are effective at range but the wood elf moreso, because obviously she has longbow proficiency and the human does not.

Because Flurry of Blows does not work at range. Without Flurry of Blows or the Bonus Action attack, the monk is weaker on damage than any of other ranged classes. No Hex, No Hunter's Mark, no haste. He's not an optimized ranged damage dealer. It's like building a ranged attacking paladin. Sure, he can do some damage, but you're not maximizing your capabilities.

Effective is a relative term. The monk can fire his bow. It doesn't do much compared to the Warlock Eldritch Blaster in the group with Hex or the Eldritch Knight Sharpshooter Archer. It looks like that Eddie Murphy movie Harlem Nights when Arsenio Hall's character is firing a Tommy Gun Eddie's car while his partner is firing a .22.

I'm finding the class underwhelming in a group with a well built archer and eldritch blast lock.

I feel like it is easier to make a stronger character that uses a less limited resource to accomplish exactly what the monk can accomplish.