Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 8053080" data-attributes="member: 5889">So to me the fundamental metric by which I as DM measure classes is their ability to make players feel &quot;cool and special&quot;. When a player feels that way, the class is doing their job.This is a combination of some niche protection, core mechanical competence, and &quot;hooks&quot; built in the class that allow a DM to easily adjust encounters to allow each player some time to shine.Now DPR is a good mechanic when discussing &quot;core competency&quot;... fighter who wants his stick to be &quot;good damage&quot; and he is obviously at a mathematical level not doing &quot;good damage&quot; .... its going to be hard for the character to feel cool and special. Likewise DPR is a good way to evaluate different fighting options. A person who is using TWF vs THF ... well if the first person does significantly less damage they aren't going to feel good about their choice.But DPR is simply one measure, and it has to be taken into a larger analysis of what the class offers. Further, as many classes are team focused you do have to look at DPR in terms of the entire Party's DPR buff. This is something people in the monk thread are doing now, talking about how the Monk's stun can augment the entire party's DPR...which is important.Now in terms of Treantmonk's analysis, he was using DPR as a way to showcase that if your playing a Monk, you are not going to pull the &quot;damage&quot; lever to feel cool and special. You also won't be able to pull the &quot;tank&quot; lever because of its demonstrable lack of defensive abilities compared to other classes. That is something you can do with clear simple math. Now the murkier question is around the &quot;control&quot; element, ie the stun. Treantmonk's point is that the Stun is very hard to pull off, and is a control effect that casters can simply do better.This is where the DM adjustment steps in. Treantmonk showcased average fort saves based on monster CR. That is not the full picture though, a DM with a monk in their party is expected to put in encounters here and there that let the monk show off. So I would expect more encounters in such a group with &quot;low fort&quot; monsters that are more stunnable.That doesn't mean the average fort save analysis is useless ... but it probably should be adjusted a bit due to &quot;DM favoritism&quot;. So I would adjust the average fort save by a few points to account for that. So in summary, DPR is important....its just not enough. Since the removal of HP is the core combat proficiency, in a game that is at least partial focused on combat, a core way to feel important as a character is to do good DPR (either by yourself or by augmenting the party). And if its shown that a class does not do high DPR....then the analysis should review its other class features to determine if they are &quot;enough&quot; to justify the lower DPR.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stalker0, post: 8053080, member: 5889"] So to me the fundamental metric by which I as DM measure classes is their ability to make players feel "cool and special". When a player feels that way, the class is doing their job. This is a combination of some niche protection, core mechanical competence, and "hooks" built in the class that allow a DM to easily adjust encounters to allow each player some time to shine. Now DPR is a good mechanic when discussing "core competency"... fighter who wants his stick to be "good damage" and he is obviously at a mathematical level not doing "good damage" .... its going to be hard for the character to feel cool and special. Likewise DPR is a good way to evaluate different fighting options. A person who is using TWF vs THF ... well if the first person does significantly less damage they aren't going to feel good about their choice. But DPR is simply one measure, and it has to be taken into a larger analysis of what the class offers. Further, as many classes are team focused you do have to look at DPR in terms of the entire Party's DPR buff. This is something people in the monk thread are doing now, talking about how the Monk's stun can augment the entire party's DPR...which is important. Now in terms of Treantmonk's analysis, he was using DPR as a way to showcase that if your playing a Monk, you are not going to pull the "damage" lever to feel cool and special. You also won't be able to pull the "tank" lever because of its demonstrable lack of defensive abilities compared to other classes. That is something you can do with clear simple math. Now the murkier question is around the "control" element, ie the stun. Treantmonk's point is that the Stun is very hard to pull off, and is a control effect that casters can simply do better. This is where the DM adjustment steps in. Treantmonk showcased average fort saves based on monster CR. That is not the full picture though, a DM with a monk in their party is expected to put in encounters here and there that let the monk show off. So I would expect more encounters in such a group with "low fort" monsters that are more stunnable. That doesn't mean the average fort save analysis is useless ... but it probably should be adjusted a bit due to "DM favoritism". So I would adjust the average fort save by a few points to account for that. So in summary, DPR is important....its just not enough. Since the removal of HP is the core combat proficiency, in a game that is at least partial focused on combat, a core way to feel important as a character is to do good DPR (either by yourself or by augmenting the party). And if its shown that a class does not do high DPR....then the analysis should review its other class features to determine if they are "enough" to justify the lower DPR. [/QUOTE]

Verification