Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Psikerlord#" data-source="post: 6638507" data-attributes="member: 93321">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 &quot;striker&quot; 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 &quot;strikers&quot; break that balance to the table's detriment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Psikerlord#, post: 6638507, member: 93321"] 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 [I]too [/I]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. [/QUOTE]

Verification