Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 7287793" data-attributes="member: 6802951">IME, most players are aware of much of that. They simply are less interested in &quot;spanking encounters&quot; and more interested in playing a character concept that resonates with them.&nbsp;Case in point: your optimised sorcerer was much more mathematically superior to your battlemaster, so you probably enjoyed winning encounters with him. To the rest of your group, who regarded having fun as the way to win D&amp;D, the battlemaster was probably more fun. I'm guessing partly in the way he played more probably more in the character interactions that had with him as an established group member.&nbsp;Its not really hidden: I've found that many are aware of good ways to eke out extra performance. For most however, its just not their highest priority. If they want to play a Dwarven strength-based melee combatant, then they'll play a Dwarven strength-based melee combatant, even though they know that a wood elf handcrossbow expert might be theoretically more optimal mathematically.&nbsp;Bear in mind I'm guessing that that is intended as a sustained figure for an entire party.When my wizard threw a fireball into a werewolf pack, his damage for that round was much higher than 20. While he was hitting the survivors with his Chill Touch cantrip, his damage was considerably less.Likewise, the Hasted, blessed, GWM fighter is likely going to be doing more damage than that, but those concentration buffs, and the time taken to cast them, are reducing the DPR of the cleric and wizard.When considering party capabilities, particularly when evaluating their performance against a single climactic encounter, I think on-demand nova damage capability is probably more important than the sustainable party average though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cap'n Kobold, post: 7287793, member: 6802951"] IME, most players are aware of much of that. They simply are less interested in "spanking encounters" and more interested in playing a character concept that resonates with them. Case in point: your optimised sorcerer was much more mathematically superior to your battlemaster, so you probably enjoyed winning encounters with him. To the rest of your group, who regarded having fun as the way to win D&D, the battlemaster was probably more fun. I'm guessing partly in the way he played more probably more in the character interactions that had with him as an established group member. Its not really hidden: I've found that many are aware of good ways to eke out extra performance. For most however, its just not their highest priority. If they want to play a Dwarven strength-based melee combatant, then they'll play a Dwarven strength-based melee combatant, even though they know that a wood elf handcrossbow expert might be theoretically more optimal mathematically. Bear in mind I'm guessing that that is intended as a sustained figure for an entire party. When my wizard threw a fireball into a werewolf pack, his damage for that round was much higher than 20. While he was hitting the survivors with his Chill Touch cantrip, his damage was considerably less. Likewise, the Hasted, blessed, GWM fighter is likely going to be doing more damage than that, but those concentration buffs, and the time taken to cast them, are reducing the DPR of the cleric and wizard. When considering party capabilities, particularly when evaluating their performance against a single climactic encounter, I think on-demand nova damage capability is probably more important than the sustainable party average though. [/QUOTE]

Verification