D&D 5E Why Good Players Do Not 14.25.

[Sacrosanct]

Compete? Wow, I'm so glad I don't play at tables like this anymore.

Yeah, I don't get it either. It falls in line with those comments about how if the PCs aren't perfectly balanced with each other in all ways, then the game is broken somehow and they are being punished (arguments I've actually heard). D&D is a team sport, by and large. PCs shouldn't compete with each other, and players shouldn't feel like they are being punished if one PC is doing better than their PC at something. I don't feel like I'm being punished because my friend is a better engineer than I am, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't feel like he is losing because he can't compete with me in the looks department

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, I don't get it either. It falls in line with those comments about how if the PCs aren't perfectly balanced with each other in all ways, then the game is broken somehow and they are being punished (arguments I've actually heard).

I'm not sure when the tyranny of balance began, but once upon a time it was one tool in an arsenal of design; now it seems to be the actual goal.

Here's a perfectly balanced game: every player has a stat called "Stat". It is 3. To do something roll d6 and roll higher than your Stat. Fun, eh?

 

[TwoSix]

Compete? Wow, I'm so glad I don't play at tables like this anymore. I'd be willing to bet your sorcerer was helping take down the bad guys. But number envy made it hard for you to see your various contributions. *Including* killing monsters.

Wow, thanks for taking the most charitable reading of my post!

I gave up scorching ray because I didn't NEED it. We have a party of 5, 3 are exceptional single target damage dealers (thanks to Sharpshooter and GWM). I didn't need to be the 4th when I could use one of my precious spells known slots for another control or buff option.

I love that you thought your sorcerer should have been at least close to comparable to a fighter who invested two feats in his attack shtick. Two feats. If he's *not* vastly better than you at that point the entire premise of the feat system is what is failing. Not your character.

Until the characters (not fighters, actually) took those feats, I was competitive. Now it's not a niche I need to fill, so I stopped filling it. I'm A-OK with them being way better than me (as I said!)

So the real truth is that your scorching ray should have been able to somehwat "compete" with the fighter, *and* you get to have fireball. Poor fighter. Everyone secretly wants to be him. No one is willing to let him be good at his thing.

Just as a possibility, you might want to default to "fun conversation" instead of "presumptive jerk". But whatever floats your boat. I'm sure you'll have fun examining this post and previous ones of mine for reasons why I didn't mean what I actually said.

 

[Cyrinishad]

Until the characters (not fighters, actually) took those feats, I was competitive. Now it's not a niche I need to fill, so I stopped filling it. I'm A-OK with them being way better than me (as I said!)

The main point that is trying to be made is that the D&D game is not designed as a competitive zero-sum tactical board game, it is designed as a cooperative survival story-driven game... The character with the highest damage output is not "better" than the other characters at the table, and isn't "winning" the game more than the other characters.

 

[Corwin]

Wow, thanks for taking the most charitable reading of my post!

Hey. I work with what I'm given.

I gave up scorching ray because I didn't NEED it. We have a party of 5, 3 are exceptional single target damage dealers (thanks to Sharpshooter and GWM). I didn't need to be the 4th when I could use one of my precious spells known slots for another control or buff option.

Until the characters (not fighters, actually) took those feats, I was competitive. Now it's not a niche I need to fill, so I stopped filling it. I'm A-OK with them being way better than me (as I said!)

Just as a possibility, you might want to default to "fun conversation" instead of "presumptive jerk". But whatever floats your boat. I'm sure you'll have fun examining this post and previous ones of mine for reasons why I didn't mean what I actually said.

Hehe. None of this matches what you said in the post I quoted. So, oh I dunno, may I suggest actually say real things instead of re-skinning your experiences to fit a desired narrative or agenda...

But I'm going to go ahead believe your initial post. IMO, the impression I get is that the bitterness you feel towards the situation rings more true there than this new, improved, altruistic re-fluff here.

Let's recap a few choice words you used in the last post: gave up, compete, pointless, humbling, outclassed.

Yeah, you're A-OK with it. Clearly.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm not sure when the tyranny of balance began, but once upon a time it was one tool in an arsenal of design; now it seems to be the actual goal.

That's a good way to phrase it. Balance is important, and should be a tool for every table to use it how they like. But it shouldn't be the main goal, often in spite of everything else. IMO anyway. When everything is balanced, everything feels the same, and that's boring to me. Doesn't matter if the fluff is different (the fighter uses her bow, the sorcerer uses a spell) if the result is always the same (both have the same chance to hit and do the same damage). To me, that means player choice doesn't really matter. It's just an illusion of choice. Also, just because I rolled lower stats than another player for his PC, doesn't mean I'm incompetent and can't contribute. When that happens (like getting a 7 and 8 for two of my stats), I try to make the character memorable by how I play them. Lemons into lemonade and all that. I don't feel like I'm being punished, because I know some times I get good rolls and other player gets bad rolls, the situation may be reversed. Then again, our group places the social aspect of the game (friends getting together) higher than the game part of the game, so we don't get resentful over balance issues. YMMV obviously.

 

[Zardnaar]

Wow, thanks for taking the most charitable reading of my post!

I gave up scorching ray because I didn't NEED it. We have a party of 5, 3 are exceptional single target damage dealers (thanks to Sharpshooter and GWM). I didn't need to be the 4th when I could use one of my precious spells known slots for another control or buff option.



Until the characters (not fighters, actually) took those feats, I was competitive. Now it's not a niche I need to fill, so I stopped filling it. I'm A-OK with them being way better than me (as I said!)


Just as a possibility, you might want to default to "fun conversation" instead of "presumptive jerk". But whatever floats your boat. I'm sure you'll have fun examining this post and previous ones of mine for reasons why I didn't mean what I actually said.

Those feats also obsolete class feature based damage. Look at things like warlocks and hunter ranger which are designed as high damage options.
Bonus damage in 5E is more or less a d6, d8 or add spellcasyer stat to cantrip damage and thats on high damage classes.

Those feats can be abused to +10 damage per attack. Sure feats are optional but the overshadow the other optional rules as the bonus damage is on top of the other effects which are ver good on their own merits.

Sure a DM can add higher ACs to the game but should not have to its the same as using s heap of fire immune creatures if there is a fire sorcerer in the party.

It also impacts the other martial types in the party or players reliant on attack rolls. Classes using save DC's won't care to much.

So those feats over shadow the other players, encourage the DM to metagame against you which then encorages you to metagame back (such as using bless all the time).

Upping ACs was one of the 1st things tried. I saw one DM using average ACs around 18. The players doing it just buffed more the players not using those feats got hosed and spellcasters just used hypnotic pattern and fireballs more.

DM ended up using deadly encounters as default. Also tried the more enconters thing which topped out at 13 in one day (5E doesn't handle 6 member parties well).

And on some rounds the sharpshooter fighter dealt more damage than the rest of the party put togather.

 

[Corwin]

The main point that is trying to be made is that the D&D game is not designed as a competitive zero-sum tactical board game, it is designed as a cooperative survival story-driven game... The character with the highest damage output is not "better" than the other characters at the table, and isn't "winning" the game more than the other characters.

Yup. And to re-reiterate, the guy spent two feats to be that good. If he hadn't pulled noticeably ahead in the doing, what's the point of taking two feats?

Some people seem like they demand to remain "competitive" with others, yet without committing the same number of resources or applying the same focus. They want to eat their cake and have it too.

 

[Corwin]

Those feats can be abused to +10 damage per attack.

Repeatedly shown to be not true. At least not in the way you are implying. Yet here you are saying it again. It never gets old for you, does it?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Those feats can be abused to +10 damage per attack. .

Only if you never, ever miss. And that's not true.