I think we forget sometimes

[djreynolds]

Until I found this website and forum.... I made many a silly PC, and you may argue... and may be correct... that I still do.

But the information and guidance here are top notch.

But it makes me think... most of my players do not come here. They take stuff like weapon master and keen mind and are quite happy.

I have shown them a little of Mr Kryx's damage stuff... and it is incomprehensible to them that the damage out put of this class or that class is even possible.

We have warlocks without EB, and wizards without the shield spell, and fighter's dual wielding whatever, and literally 15 old "un" revised beastmasters

I wonder if knowing so much or having such a huge pool of expertise to search through, limits the "fantasy" of the game for us.

[pwykersotz]

It definitely can...but it allows us to open up worlds. Understanding something is the key to making it better. Maybe in the way you run the game, or maybe in the way you hack it, but knowing the advantages and disadvantages of ruling stealth in a particular way, or knowing about the contagion argument or about other peoples thoughts on whether feats are balanced, these things enable us to correct what might otherwise be flaws that trip us or others up. They let us create beautiful worlds that don't crack in half like an egg when someone casts the first spell, and they prevent us from trying to save that egg by making rulings or decisions at the expense of others.

Of course, it's not as necessary for players. There's a reason you shouldn't work where you eat. Sometimes seeing behind the curtain can make it hard to unsee it.

[Gwendol]

Yes and no. Gaming the system is one thing, but the dissemination of knowledge can't be all bad. Also, take comfort in the fact that whatever an opinion posted here is, someone is likely ready to argue it.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Until I found this website and forum.... I made many a silly PC, and you may argue... and may be correct... that I still do.

But the information and guidance here are top notch.

But it makes me think... most of my players do not come here. They take stuff like weapon master and keen mind and are quite happy.

I have shown them a little of Mr Kryx's damage stuff... and it is incomprehensible to them that the damage out put of this class or that class is even possible.

We have warlocks without EB, and wizards without the shield spell, and fighter's dual wielding whatever, and literally 15 old "un" revised beastmasters

I wonder if knowing so much or having such a huge pool of expertise to search through, limits the "fantasy" of the game for us.

At the end of the day, I believe it's a benefit to have everyone here pooling their knowledge and opinions. Because even if most don't, once in a while, a new player does come to the Playground, and they're struggling with 5E in one way or another. They're not sure how to play, and intimidated by the size of the PHB. Or not sure how to build a character, and confused by all the options. Or their characters keep dying on them, and they're frustrated because they don't know what they're doing wrong.

And the folks here help them out. I've seen this happen time and time again since I joined this forum; I've helped other players/GMs when I could, and they've offered advice to me when I needed it.

If we're losing out in some way by "knowing too much" about this game (but I don't think we are), then I think that alone makes it worthwhile.

[djreynolds]

Its great here, so much great advice and experience,

It could be just me,

it could just be that I know what's around the corner

I figured this would be an interesting thread with the New Year coming around

[Potato_Priest]

If you feel like we tear to deep at the foundations of 5e, step into the worldbuilding forum. You won't find so much discussion of balance there as a discussion of history, philosophy, and science.

I see your point, however; by homebrewing too much or by building too hard or worrying too much about balance we can end up hurting the fun of the game. Well, that may be true, but I feel like I can control myself. While I enjoy the academic debates here, I am really pretty moderate in the changes I actually make to a game that I run. This isn't some sort of Lovecraft thing where the pursuit of balance or a finely made build will drive us mad. It's just people putting a little effort into improving or playing a game that they love.

[ChildofLuthic]

As a DM, I'm really glad I do know the mathy side of DnD. I've seen DMs really disadvantage players because they didn't realize how one ruling might nerf someone's class, or by giving advice that made someone way less powerful than everyone else.

Because I get the math, I can warn a player if a choice isn't going to play out how they want. I can even let a player do something really impressive, if it doesn't actually make them overpowered.

Most importantly, I can make really bad combinations work really well. I love half-orcs, but it takes some thought to make them good bards, or rogues. Knowing how the math works, I can come up with something I really want to roleplay, and still be just as good as anyone else.

[djreynolds]

Its good to hear from so many DMs running tables, to hear about their woes and... cheers.

[Lombra]

Your group is doing the right thing: play what the gut says and have fun. For some having fun is class optimization, for others is just flavour. I like optimized builds but I wouldn't play many because most are redundant and boring. One thing that I would never do also is choosing the race because of the racial bonuses. That just doesn't make sense... if I want to play a wizard half-orc or a dragonborn rogue I'll do it regardless of bonuses and what not.

[Citan]

Until I found this website and forum.... I made many a silly PC, and you may argue... and may be correct... that I still do.

But the information and guidance here are top notch.

But it makes me think... most of my players do not come here. They take stuff like weapon master and keen mind and are quite happy.

I have shown them a little of Mr Kryx's damage stuff... and it is incomprehensible to them that the damage out put of this class or that class is even possible.

We have warlocks without EB, and wizards without the shield spell, and fighter's dual wielding whatever, and literally 15 old "un" revised beastmasters

I wonder if knowing so much or having such a huge pool of expertise to search through, limits the "fantasy" of the game for us.
Yes, it can. But it usually shouldn't.

The only times when it can happen is when someone comes on these forums to just get general feedback on his character and gets shoe-horned into something completely different by a horde of people "to be optimized"... Which happens far more than sometimes. ;)

Otherwise, if someone comes here, it is very probably because he does want some crunch to think about, as a player or as a DM.
One not interested in these aspects of the games should rarely get a chance to browse these forums, so seldom chance to get optimization biais restricting his creativity.

As long as a DM doesn't push it onto his players (I really see no good reason to do so, barring a player complaining about always dying although he is chaining bad building choices), there should be no problem.

If your players never tried coming here, there 99% chance there are having plenty of fun as is. "If it works, don't fix it". ;)

EDIT: by the way, I know that I'll be going reverse-flow of the general opinion here, but none of your examples are particularly shocking to me. There may be plenty of good reasons for a Wizard to not prepare Shield for example.

[2D8HP]

I wonder if knowing so much or having such a huge pool of expertise to search through, limits the "fantasy" of the game for us.Well kind of.
The more mechanics I know of the spell caster classes the less magical the effects seem to me.
But for good or ill I have a terrible memory for "crunch", so most of the optimization goes over my head, and I keep playing mostly "Champion" Fighters to keep the rules I need to remember in order to play and still able to contribute to the party minimal.

[mgshamster]

I wonder if knowing so much or having such a huge pool of expertise to search through, limits the "fantasy" of the game for us.

It's a good thought, but no - it doesn't. Unless you let it. Knowing the math behind the colors doesn't diminish the beauty of the painting.

Knowing the numbers behind the character sheet doesn't take away from the fantasy of the game.

Unless you let it.

See, I've seen this conversation before, in a different field. I'm a scientist by trade. A toxicologist and a chemist, to be specific, but I dabble in many of the scientific fields. I study the natural world as it is, and I understand much of the physics, mathematics, and chemistry behind how ecosystems work, how our bodies work, evolution, climate science, the solar system, drug interactions in the body, the flow of chemicals both inside us and through the environment, and many other aspects of how nature works.

But none of that takes away from the sheer beauty that nature can provide.

Some people don't believe that. They believe that as soon as you understand something, you take away the mysticism, and therefore the beauty of it. And therefore, they're against science, because they believe it takes away the beauty. And here, you're afraid that you're taking away the fantasy of the game by understanding the mathematics behind the rules.

It only takes away the beauty if you let it.

We don't need to forego an understanding of the math behind the game to enjoy the fantasy of the game. You don't need to forego an understanding of the world to enjoy the beauty of nature. You can do both.

[MrStabby]

I find the content of the site more useful as a DM than as a player.

When designing campaigns, encounters, creatures and denizens of a new world i find it useful to consider the "envelope" - the range of abilities of optimised characters of a given level. I also find it useful for consistency - if X, Y and Z are the most powerful combat spells in the world then most combat mages will learn these for preference.

Discussion of house rules or different interpretations can be useful (but less often than it could be given the way they are often discussed here - too often about which are right/legitimate/intended and not enough on what is fun and balanced)

As a player I prefer to come up with my own ideas, concepts and solutions but even then I find it interesting to come across others posts. Even characters I would never play can be tweaked to be NPCs in other campaigns.

I think the optimisation is useful - if there is a focus on it it is because it is a little more objective than other aspects. Even then the focus seems to be on damage more than anything else though which, whilst not entirely surprising, is a little disappointing.

[JAL_1138]

Understanding the underpinnings of something can change it for you, with the effect varying on how you came to understand something, and what that something is about.

But as mgshamster said, that doesn't have to reduce your enjoyment of it.

It may change how you enjoy it—once you know how the artist mixed which pigments, now there's less mystery behind the once-enigmatic colors to the painting, so you gain less enjoyment from the mysterious aspect of it. But now you can appreciate the artist's innovation and technique in a way you couldn't before, how they used a couple of ordinary pigments in just the right proportions and applied them with just the right brush strokes to create something vivid and striking. It's possible you might even appreciate the painting more in light of that.

If you're a DM, once you grok the game math of a TTRPG, there may be a little less fantastical about it for you. But now you can use it more effectively to create worlds without breaking the gameplay to bits. Knowing the Complete Book of Elves for 2e is broken to heck and back because nobody playtested it, for example, you know you can mine it for fluff, but shouldn't let the crunch from it into the game lest it hurt your or other players' overall experience. Your understanding of the game math might (or might not) strip away a little of the fantastical or mysteriousness for you, but might help you figure out how to make a houserule that will work well for your table and help you and your players have more fun, and avoid making a houserule that seemed like a good idea at first but would really hurt the game in practice—leading to a more enjoyable game overall.

As a player, knowing that the feat combo you were eyeing isn't actually very good might help you realize your character will not work the way you think it will ahead of time, saving you the disappointment of finding that out eight levels in when you feel like you're falling behind and your character doesn't seem halfway competent at the very things you wanted them to be really good at. Or knowing how the game works might open some new options up for you, knowing that the game math in this instance isn't so tight you need to wring every last decimal point of average damage or every single to-hit bonus out of your character to be competent and can be perfectly fine to trade a bit of optimization in one area for something that adds a significant degree of flavor.

[GlenSmash!]

Until I found this website and forum.... I made many a silly PC, and you may argue... and may be correct... that I still do.

But the information and guidance here are top notch.

But it makes me think... most of my players do not come here. They take stuff like weapon master and keen mind and are quite happy.

I have shown them a little of Mr Kryx's damage stuff... and it is incomprehensible to them that the damage out put of this class or that class is even possible.

We have warlocks without EB, and wizards without the shield spell, and fighter's dual wielding whatever, and literally 15 old "un" revised beastmasters

I wonder if knowing so much or having such a huge pool of expertise to search through, limits the "fantasy" of the game for us.

I think your players sound awesome. I think it's pretty freeing to play a Barbarian with the Tavern Brawler feat who wields a Longsword, and not worry about doing it wrong because I don't have GWM and Polearm Master Feats.

[jaappleton]

To me, it's incredibly fun to theorycraft and break down classes and builds, and under optimal conditions, realize it's possible for so many classes and builds to do X or Y, especially in terms of damage.

But I always remind myself it's typically foolish to actually attempt it.

It can often turn things into an arms race, where as the PCs become more and more optimized, the DM has to up his game so his encounters aren't trivialized by the PCs. And it's fine and fun for encounters to be trivialized occasionally. Sometimes fireballing a horde of Goblins is fun and satisfying. But the DM never wants to feel frustrated in his encounter building.

It's important to have the balance, I think.

EDIT: Though one thing I do love, and will never get tired of doing, is coming up with alternative uses for spells. Like Wall of Force.

It can form a hemispherical dome. That can protect your group, or capture an enemy. Or flip it upside down and you have a boat moving through a pool of acid!

[BW022]

I wonder if knowing so much or having such a huge pool of expertise to search through, limits the "fantasy" of the game for us.

I doubt it. People, including those on this site, play D&D for fun. If being on this site made the game not fun... they would stop playing.

I think most people here take advice with a grain of salt. Most of the build math falls down quickly at the table in real play -- where you spend rounds doing suboptimal things because you have to, where you select builds based on fun, and where all builds/tactics are limited in what you are facing, your play style, and party mix.

I've gone into a game with a spellcasting bard build... only to find out the character needed to tank because no one else had any AC or hit points. I've played in games where players have taken the feat for extra languages -- because it was RP heavy and no one could speak the local language.

I know a lot of optimization is useless if players aren't able or aren't willing to play a certain way. A bladelock might not be as optimal as a blastlock, but... if the players is a young kid having just watched Star Wars... he's racing in anyway. Finally, I've also specifically not optimized by PC because others aren't. If you are better... then the DM has to up the difficulty and then others end up in trouble.

[MrFahrenheit]

Every once in a while, a new DM will come in asking for advice. The number one answer?

Fun.

It doesn't matter if the players are optimized or not, nor how many house rules/homebrews are implemented. What matters the most is that everyone is having fun.

I'd much rather have a party filled with math-incompetent players who are enjoying themselves than statistics phds who could care less about the story I've created and world I've built as they only care about optimization.

[Ruslan]

I wonder if knowing so much or having such a huge pool of expertise to search through, limits the "fantasy" of the game for us.If you are willing to sell out your character concept for someone else's excel spreadsheet that says you can deal 0.51 more damage per round, then, yes, it does.

If you are smart enough to apply some of the concepts this pool of expertise teaches you without compromising on your character concept, then it doesn't.

[TrinculoLives]

I think your players sound awesome. I think it's pretty freeing to play a Barbarian with the Tavern Brawler feat who wields a Longsword, and not worry about doing it wrong because I don't have GWM and Polearm Master Feats.

Hear hear! Down with the cookie-cutter sameness of "fine-tuned" PCs!

[Ruslan]

Hear hear! Down with the cookie-cutter sameness of "fine-tuned" PCs!
One of the most fun character I ever DMed was a Barbarian with Inspiring Leader. He pushed his Charisma up to 13 just to take this feat, obviously hurting his point-buy for Str/Con/Dex. Nonetheless, the character ended up being fairly efficient, and the temp hit points came in handy always :)

[Dalebert]

I don't think I have it in me to make a truly sub-optimal character but I am trying to avoid making what amounts to the same characters over and over because they pick the most optimal choices possible instead of character-based ones.

[RickAllison]

Every time I make a new character, I often send tens and one time over a hundred emails with the DM discussing power-builds and how they could fit in the world. Then I end up choosing a concept that is firstly fun, and I end up optimizing that. For one campaign, I had over four hundred emails with the DM containing some ridiculous shenanigans. I ended up with a flying swashbuckling swordsman (aarakocra because bird-man seemed more awesome than winged devil), a Sun Soul who was allowed to add Undying Light to his ki blasts and instead focused on homebrew invocations to make his Chain familiar more powerful, and a cleric-wizard focused on grappling and being a tailor.

The point of my rant is that knowledge of the system is a boon not because it raises power levels significantly, but because it allows for making concepts that would be miserable in gameplay to be fun! A bard or sorcerer focused on utility and social play can pick one or two levels of warlock to contribute in combat while focusing on everything else, the different ways of getting Shillelagh (Druid/Nature Cleric, Tomepact, Nature Theurgist) lets me create a character who truly represents fighting using mental stats, and knowing how to get all skills proficient and with a minimum of 10 on the die roll means I know of how to get mine or others' PCs the abilities they desire while minimizing the deleterious effects. Knowledge allows for a world of possibilities to open up!

[MrFahrenheit]

There are so many ways to be optimal in 5e though, beyond just damage. My favorite is the thief/battlemaster combo, which I'll spare the details of as I've repeated why it rocks so often on this board ad nauseam. Suffice to say, it has tons of combat utility, dishes out sweet damage, and is fully online as of sixth level.

[Pex]

My maul-using Devotion Paladin will never take Great Weapon Master feat.
My Sorcerer will never have Quicken spell and took Magic Initiate for Hex and Eldritch Blast.
My Light Cleric took Healer feat at 4th level instead of boosting Wisdom to 18.

I do not need the Forum's approval.

[Socratov]

My maul-using Devotion Paladin will never take Great Weapon Master feat.
My Sorcerer will never have Quicken spell and took Magic Initiate for Hex and Eldritch Blast.
My Light Cleric took Healer feat at 4th level instead of boosting Wisdom to 18.

I do not need the Forum's approval.

My next dwarven barbarian takes a level of fighter and takes the dual wielder feat and is going to be a veritable batlleaxe blender. Because it's fun!

[JAL_1138]

One of 5e's really good points is that the gulf between "fully optimized" and "reasonably built" isn't that severe for the most part. There are ways to make a bad character, sure, but plenty of sub-optimal characters work plenty well enough--even with a rather highly-optimized character in the same group. There's enough leeway in the game math that plenty of build options, not just the "best" ones, work out fine. Compared to systems where taking one or two sub-optimal build choices can virtually wreck a character in terms of effectiveness, or where the optimization ceiling is so high that demigods, much less a "standard" character, simply can't keep up with an optimized build...it's just not that critical.

[Socratov]

One of 5e's really good points is that the gulf between "fully optimized" and "reasonably built" isn't that severe for the most part. There are ways to make a bad character, sure, but plenty of sub-optimal characters work plenty well enough--even with a rather highly-optimized character in the same group. There's enough leeway in the game math that plenty of build options, not just the "best" ones, work out fine. Compared to systems where taking one or two sub-optimal build choices can virtually wreck a character in terms of effectiveness, or where the optimization ceiling is so high that demigods, much less a "standard" character, simply can't keep up with an optimized build...it's just not that critical.

If I were to make a comparison to 3.5 material I feel as if 5e has been balanced to and by way of ToB. Now if only 5e would follow suit and give me my warblade (preferably with the diamond mind, Tiger Claw and White Raven disciplines). Please.

With my precious request aside, I feel that 5e is as close as we can get to a system that is closely balanced, yet not a system where every character is mechanically indistinguishable in every way. As long as there are game mechanics someone will find an exploit because all the editors in the world couldn't live up to the combined might of passionate geeks putting every skill in contract law they possess into breaking the system. I mean, look at the threads on these boards, a +10 dmg on an attack against the risk of -5 to hit is seen as an egregious breach of balance. Trading one resource that is rather hard to come by outside of the norm (i.e. proficiency and ability modifier) for a resource that is relatively easy to come by (smites, rage dmg, poison, spells, invocations, the list goes on). The moment when it's considered to be a clear example optimisation when someone advises the taking of an ASI over a feat, to me indicates that the floor and ceiling are pretty close to each other.

[Inchoroi]

Until I found this website and forum.... I made many a silly PC, and you may argue... and may be correct... that I still do.

But the information and guidance here are top notch.

But it makes me think... most of my players do not come here. They take stuff like weapon master and keen mind and are quite happy.

I have shown them a little of Mr Kryx's damage stuff... and it is incomprehensible to them that the damage out put of this class or that class is even possible.

We have warlocks without EB, and wizards without the shield spell, and fighter's dual wielding whatever, and literally 15 old "un" revised beastmasters

I wonder if knowing so much or having such a huge pool of expertise to search through, limits the "fantasy" of the game for us.

At this point, it's time to become the DM; at least, for me, anyway.

[Theodoxus]

In my group, our DMs read the forums for advice - both for characters and for encounters. Houserules have been incorporated, optional rules have been tried and kept or abandoned - it's been a fun collaborative process - each of us DMs differently and have selected different 'knobs' for our games - but we all enjoy both DMing and Playing in each others games.

Our non-DM players come to GitP for the comic. Some will read a thread or two regarding their current character build or the current campaign looking for ideas, but generally avoid looking behind the curtain because the Wizard is far more interesting than the Conman.

From my experience, as Inchoroi noted, when a player comes to the forums and quickly goes beyond seeking a specific piece of advice and begins becoming one with the community - it's at that point that they're ready to take up the mantle of DM. Even if they're not comfortable with actually running a game (and given we're a fairly introverted lot, that's pretty common) - world building, campaign writing and encounter generation is a great assist to a more accomplished DM - and lets that player see his work come to fruition.

There's certainly not any one way to get into the leadership role - but this route has few downsides. You literally have hundreds of fellow gamers rooting you on. The support is fantastic.

[ad_hoc]

It's easy to get stuck in Group Think in any group including ones formed on message boards.

Also, just because the goal of a group/person is optimization does not mean they achieve that goal. It's easy for a group to fool themselves.

[Dimers]

Does a professional musician stop loving music? Does an experienced wine taster swear off alcohol?

... Yep, I went there, I'm calling the Playground a bunch of experts in a rich cultural field.

[Herobizkit]

I get where the OP is coming from. 4e taught me that I need to optimize to survive and I haven't seemed to break this mindset in 5e's design.

Used to be I'd just roll a character and take whatever I got. With Point Buy, however, there's no reason NOT to optimize since you're picking your stats. At least with random roll, the dice helped you shape your character a little bit. Now it's all "dump stats" and "DEX builds".

Taking spells "for fun" is no longer as viable an option as it used to be (unless you count Cantrips, and even then, not so much).

I dunno, I wish I knew a lot less about D&D than I did. Once you look behind the curtain, a lot of the magic goes away. I mentioned in another thread that I've reunited with some of my old junior high gaming group and they haven't played D&D since the 90's. They're having a blast with their new characters, rolling and hitting stuff. That's all they need for fun. I can't go back to that - I know too much.

[Socratov]

Well, funnily I spoke about this just yesterday with a friend of mine: we both had the same trajectory regarding optimisation:


you start out ignorant of optimisation. sometimes this matters nothing as the group is at a comparable level or you have a fantastic DM who knows how to make optimisation not mater for your enjoyment of the game
Then you become aware of options that seem to be objectively better then others: you become aware that not all classes are created to be equal
This is where the learning starts: you learn about what it means to optimise and how power works in the game. this is also the point where you can veer off into munchkinry if you are left to your own devices.
As your proficiency in optimisation (or knowledge of famous optimised builds) accumulates your builds become more powerful and stronger. but you also learn something: more power is not always more fun. At least not in any sustainable way. Especially if the rest of the party is not optimised and either you are not challenged, or they die.
This is the point where optimisation meets roleplaying: you no longer optimise to get the most power or the bestest character, no you optimise a concept; a build that uses a funny interaction between rules to cause a bit of mischief, a build to get the most out of a less powerful class to make it fun to play or maybe just to cause a bit of shenanigans. At this point optimisation has not become the goal, but a means to an end. Personally this is where I have the most fun as an optimiser: trying to make something wacky that requires the interaction of several rules (like a Greatsword sneak attack build, even if that was shot down right after UA publication of the Kensai, just for the fun of yelling "SURPRISE GREATSWORD TO THE FACE!")
We both haven't reached this step yet so I couldn't tell you about it. Ask me again in another couple of years.

[Tanarii]

I wonder if knowing so much or having such a huge pool of expertise to search through, limits the "fantasy" of the game for us.Two terms I've found people that haunt the internet as a whole, but especially any small sub-group of it, should be aware of are zeitgeist and groupthink. The first is kind of cool, the latter is not so cool.

Internet forums definitely have their own feeling and flavor. And sometimes that turns to the darker side of it, where we convince ourselves of the rightness or wrongness of something.

Of course nobody is 100% in line with either of these across the board. That's why I loved the 'unpopular opinions' thread so recently.

Edit: fix quote tags

[Socratov]

Two terms I've found people that haunt the internet as a whole, but especially any small sub-group of it, should be aware of are zeitgeist and groupthink. The first is kind of cool, the latter is not so cool.

Internet forums definitely have their own feeling and flavor. And sometimes that turns to the darker side of it, where we convince ourselves of the rightness or wrongness of something.

Of course nobody is 100% in line with either of these across the board. That's why I loved the 'unpopular opinions' thread so recently.

Edit: fix quote tags

The funny thing is that a lot of those unpopular opinions are quite popular indeed.

[Tanarii]

The funny thing is that a lot of those unpopular opinions are quite popular indeed.
Absolutely. It exposed a lot of both.

[RickAllison]

(like a Greatsword sneak attack build, even if that was shot down right after UA publication of the Kensai, just for the fun of yelling "SURPRISE GREATSWORD TO THE FACE!")

"Thorax the Impaler sneakily drives his battleaxe through the puny mortal's head!"

I love doing this! I have a Druid build waiting that is optimized for being a cargo hauler. His backstory was that his spider farm in the Underdark equivalent was destroyed along with his childhood friend-spider, Lilah, by an airship that crashed and broke the surface. Now, he is devoted to running airships out of business through ecologically-friendly shipping! So he is fully optimized to rapidly move across the land with a great amount of cargo. My setup had far greater mass-speed than airships, though it could not compete with the largest of naval vessels (which he didn't care about). It also was generally safer as delicate cargo was folded into his body for Wild Shape and the transit across the land was far swifter so danger simply couldn't keep up. Was it OP for a campaign? Not unless the campaign is the sled-dog race to Nome!

[Shaofoo]

I would never take what anyone says here at face value, especially white room analysis.

A lot of people trying to analyze white room style will utterly fail when you actually apply it in real life.

For example people might say that Great Weapon has the highest DPR in the entire game, but if the target is flying then that DPR becomes 0 due to the great weapon being unable to reach the target. A lot of these analysis are not practical and for all intents and purposes are just a bunch of punching bags with DPR counters and whoever gets to deal the highest damage is broken.

Another thing is that people don't really take into account rests at all. Some operate on the 5MWD mentality where everyone with limited resources are considered to be basically infinite because there is no expenditure. The only thing that matters is the analysis and that has no time, next analysis you'll have a fresh character.

So I wouldn't consider anyone that talks about anything here to be gospel, no matter how many spreadsheets they throw at people. You can easily play how you want it to be although I would like to remind people that the book itself does expect some sort of optimization and tries to tell you how to go about it. You are free to ignore it of course.

[Socratov]

I would never take what anyone says here at face value, especially white room analysis.

A lot of people trying to analyze white room style will utterly fail when you actually apply it in real life.

For example people might say that Great Weapon has the highest DPR in the entire game, but if the target is flying then that DPR becomes 0 due to the great weapon being unable to reach the target. A lot of these analysis are not practical and for all intents and purposes are just a bunch of punching bags with DPR counters and whoever gets to deal the highest damage is broken.

Another thing is that people don't really take into account rests at all. Some operate on the 5MWD mentality where everyone with limited resources are considered to be basically infinite because there is no expenditure. The only thing that matters is the analysis and that has no time, next analysis you'll have a fresh character.

So I wouldn't consider anyone that talks about anything here to be gospel, no matter how many spreadsheets they throw at people. You can easily play how you want it to be although I would like to remind people that the book itself does expect some sort of optimization and tries to tell you how to go about it. You are free to ignore it of course.

sort of agreed: a whiteroom analysis is not the end-all and be-all of DnD, however, it is the only analysis you can reliably carry out (well, without any advance knowledge of what you are going to face that is). Personally I'd like to borrow from productdevelopment processes: there is a proof of concept (the whiteroom analysis, which answers the question wether or not something is possible) and there is the actual field test (or playtesting). The proof of concept is all about simulation and theory (which in DnD will come down to statistical analysis most of the time), it is also a way to compare builds on quantitive measures (like extected DPR, expected survivability, etc.). Qualitive measures (like is this build fun to play, can the build contribute effectively in the ways it was designed to do) can only be assessed during playtesting.

so in short: whiteroom analysis, while not conclusive, can be a useful tool. It as useful as it is limited by probability analysis.

[MrStabby]

sort of agreed: a whiteroom analysis is not the end-all and be-all of DnD, however, it is the only analysis you can reliably carry out (well, without any advance knowledge of what you are going to face that is). Personally I'd like to borrow from productdevelopment processes: there is a proof of concept (the whiteroom analysis, which answers the question wether or not something is possible) and there is the actual field test (or playtesting). The proof of concept is all about simulation and theory (which in DnD will come down to statistical analysis most of the time), it is also a way to compare builds on quantitive measures (like extected DPR, expected survivability, etc.). Qualitive measures (like is this build fun to play, can the build contribute effectively in the ways it was designed to do) can only be assessed during playtesting.

so in short: whiteroom analysis, while not conclusive, can be a useful tool. It as useful as it is limited by probability analysis.

Things like tables of hitpoints and damage may be of some small use to very experienced players but overall i think they do more harm than good.

An ability to do 15%-20% more damage is pretty much less important in combat than any non-ribbon ability but as damage can be easily quantified people examine that instead of more important abilities. People then building characters make the mistake of taking these tables seriously and ignoring how unimportant small changes in damage are.

In the analysis easy ends up trumping relevant. This is fine for experienced players who know what is relevant but for newer players it could get frustrating.

[Socratov]

Things like tables of hitpoints and damage may be of some small use to very experienced players but overall i think they do more harm than good.

An ability to do 15%-20% more damage is pretty much less important in combat than any non-ribbon ability but as damage can be easily quantified people examine that instead of more important abilities. People then building characters make the mistake of taking these tables seriously and ignoring how unimportant small changes in damage are.

In the analysis easy ends up trumping relevant. This is fine for experienced players who know what is relevant but for newer players it could get frustrating.

fine point, however, as this game (and most of the previous editions before it) is at heart mostly a combat simulator (just compare the amount of effort spent at explaining or quantifying combat versus the other of the 3 pillars), so damage will eventually be a deciding factor in the success of your party. It's not the only deciding factor (the ability to survive, as well as the ability to get somewhere and solve the puzzle of social contact and information gathering) but a major one regardless. Speaking of combat, If you really want to quantify expected damage, I find it's better to set a decent AC (an AC you could be expected to encounter at that level) and incorporate to-hit chances into the DPR calculation (this works wonders for feats like sharpshooter and GWM as the -5/+10 shows it's not exactly all that great and requires quite some thought to make work).

Though granted, not each whiteroom analysis is as good as another. Indeed, if your to- hit suffers too much, GWM will cease to work and even work against your DPR. And this is where most analyses will break down: false or missing assumptions. I myself caught myself doing so in the sustained DPR thread a while back: eventually I just started putting the to-hit chances into the expected DPR calculations and ended up with an unexpected answer: being barbarian with GWM while most people considered fighter with GWM or rogue to be the best contenders.

Besides, experienced players will recognise when enough damage has been achieved and when it's important to focus some resources into other areas (like the ability to actually survive the fight or the ability to do other stuff as well). However, that is a lesson soon learned as either the character becomes a one trick pony and fails to contribute in a lot of situations, or the character dies quickly (opening the doors to a new character and continuing the learning curve that is optimisation).

[MrStabby]

GWM isn't bad, but I find that it tends to excel in fights that you would be likely to win anyway - rather than turn a loss into a win. Sure it may cut a few resources from healing but it often isn't that great in the fights that count. Even against hordes you are far better off with a couple of fireballs.

Places where you have really tough enemies with low AC are not entirely rare but they are not that common either.

[ad_hoc]

For those who think they have mastered/optimized 5e:

I suggest you play a competitive game.

It will be rewarding in the way that attempting to optimize 5e is, it will be challenging, and in many cases there will be real monetary rewards as well.

[Socratov]

For those who think they have mastered/optimized 5e:

I suggest you play a competitive game.

It will be rewarding in the way that attempting to optimize 5e is, it will be challenging, and in many cases there will be real monetary rewards as well.

But to me that's not the fun of optimising, nor of DnD. There is no character who can survive on his own against CR appropriate encounters and really replace the party at encounters. To me optimisation is rewarding when it works: when you attempt something completely stupid nobody in their right mind would want to do and to pull it off. Something that makes people laugh and facepalm. It's to make those characters that people will remember simply because of how fun they were to watch work. Ultimately the joy of optimising is equal to the joy of engineering: to make something that that doesn't, well, work. To me it's never about the competition.

[Citan]

"Thorax the Impaler sneakily drives his battleaxe through the puny mortal's head!"

I love doing this! I have a Druid build waiting that is optimized for being a cargo hauler. His backstory was that his spider farm in the Underdark equivalent was destroyed along with his childhood friend-spider, Lilah, by an airship that crashed and broke the surface. Now, he is devoted to running airships out of business through ecologically-friendly shipping! So he is fully optimized to rapidly move across the land with a great amount of cargo. My setup had far greater mass-speed than airships, though it could not compete with the largest of naval vessels (which he didn't care about). It also was generally safer as delicate cargo was folded into his body for Wild Shape and the transit across the land was far swifter so danger simply couldn't keep up. Was it OP for a campaign? Not unless the campaign is the sled-dog race to Nome!
That is actually very refreshing to see someone that builds a character, not just starting "from the concept", which is actually common enough imo (what is my character like? How does he behave? This sort of thing), but even building it by using its actual place in the world as the pivot point. ;)

Very interesting approach, and I think for some people I know it would even make it much easier for them to define their character like this, rather than asking themselves first "how was he born? What was his/her childhood like" etc...

Like, instead of "growing up" your character, you just jump at a random point in his lifeline then look back and see what gets out... ;)

[MBControl]

Plenty of posts already, and I skipped everyone of them, so this might be repetition.

I do agree, that it does limit creativity.

I don't like playing perfect PC's. I think it's boring, and simply video game culture bleeding into fantasy. The difference isn't one way is right, and the other is wrong. The difference is in how you view the experience of playing D&D.

I do not view D&D as a game. It is an interactive story telling experience, with the thrill of epic battles, made better with the real possibility of "dying". So if this is a story, then we have to look at good story telling as a model. Hero's have flaws. Some heroes aren't even very good at much (I'm looking at you Aquaman). Their is a reason why we create flawed heroes in fiction. We can relate to flaws. It says that even you, with your trick knee, and fear of dogs, can be a hero too.

So when it comes to telling a story in a fantasy "game", it is no different. Having flaws, learning to adapt to them, and even use them to your benefit, and still save the world every Sunday, is far more exciting, and immersive.

So if you have created a character of a Wizard, that you know in your mind is too reckless and aggro to cast a shield spell, then don't learn a shield spell. Let it be a challenge to find a way to play effectively without it. You might die quickly, who knows, probably. But you might die the most badass epic death saving orphans, and your legend will live forever. You'll be back next week with the Druid who's allergic to grass, and you get to save the world all over again.

Or you can figure out how to make your fighter attack seven times in a round, and everybody can take a 20 minute break while you roll 84 dice. There is a fun challenge to this too. It's the video game model. Video games are biggest portion of the entertainment industry. I love video games. But In my opinion, D&D is not a video game.

[Citan]

sort of agreed: a whiteroom analysis is not the end-all and be-all of DnD, however, it is the only analysis you can reliably carry out (well, without any advance knowledge of what you are going to face that is).
I think you actually nailed an important point without realizing it: imo, many spells just can't bear a "whiteroom analysis" precisely because they are depending on too many things: DM, settings, party, encounter etc. Especially the spells that deal absolutely no damage but only apply conditions or affect environment.

So any tentative of "whiteroom analysis" would actually be "one's personal view of spell/feature usefulness because of what they consider being the default situation".
Which is the main reason for endless discussions sometimes. :smallbiggrin:

And that is why "pure damage" should never be neither the only metric not even the main metric imo, except threads where someone specifically asks about dealing the most direct damage.

[jas61292]

I think the problem with optimization is that people forget how many aspects of the game there are. Being optimized at combat is by far the most common form of optimization, and when a person generically asks for help making a character better, everyone just looks at combat and then calls it a day. But that is not all there is to D&D, and it is impossible to optimize for every single aspect of the game. So whenever I see someone asking for help optimizing, the first thing that pops to mind is the question "optimizing what?"

Also, I have to say, I think it is funny that people always default to combat. Yeah, I acknowledge that it is the easiest to think about in the abstract, but I have always stood by the stance that (assuming at least semi-open-ish non-railroad plot and a DM that will give experience for overcoming challenges, no matter the method) being optimized for combat is suboptimal. In almost any kind of campaign, circumventing a fight is always more advantageous than actually fighting. After all fights are only what happens when you fail at the other aspects of the game. Optimal characters don't fail.

[Demonslayer666]

Until I found this website and forum.... I made many a silly PC, and you may argue... and may be correct... that I still do.

But the information and guidance here are top notch.

But it makes me think... most of my players do not come here. They take stuff like weapon master and keen mind and are quite happy.

I have shown them a little of Mr Kryx's damage stuff... and it is incomprehensible to them that the damage out put of this class or that class is even possible.

We have warlocks without EB, and wizards without the shield spell, and fighter's dual wielding whatever, and literally 15 old "un" revised beastmasters

I wonder if knowing so much or having such a huge pool of expertise to search through, limits the "fantasy" of the game for us.

If I ever say something like having too much information is bad, I'm no longer me and have become a doppelganger. You should kill me now.

[Ruslan]

I think you actually nailed an important point without realizing it: imo, many spells just can't bear a "whiteroom analysis" precisely because they are depending on too many things: DM, settings, party, encounter etc. Especially the spells that deal absolutely no damage but only apply conditions or affect environment.

So any tentative of "whiteroom analysis" would actually be "one's personal view of spell/feature usefulness because of what they consider being the default situation".
Which is the main reason for endless discussions sometimes. :smallbiggrin:

And that is why "pure damage" should never be neither the only metric not even the main metric imo, except threads where someone specifically asks about dealing the most direct damage.
Unfortunately, "pure damage" is the metric that's most suitable for whiteroom analysis, in fact, possibly the only metric suitable for whiteroom analysis, so looks like we're stuck with everyone and their sister posting DPR tables for a while.

[mgshamster]

If I ever say something like having too much information is bad, I'm no longer me and have become a doppelganger. You should kill me now.

There is a such thing as too much information; specifically when a field is inundated with really bad information that makes it difficult to separate it from good information (or even the specific information you're trying to look for).

Also known as separating the signal from the noise.

Although sometimes blatantly false information is added specifically to hide the good information (known as disinformation to the intelligence community), or to gain a profit of some sort based on the false information (such as in the case of those who peddle false "science" for a bad product, or those who pen fake news in order to drive advertisement clicks).

[Shaofoo]

sort of agreed: a whiteroom analysis is not the end-all and be-all of DnD, however, it is the only analysis you can reliably carry out (well, without any advance knowledge of what you are going to face that is). Personally I'd like to borrow from productdevelopment processes: there is a proof of concept (the whiteroom analysis, which answers the question wether or not something is possible) and there is the actual field test (or playtesting). The proof of concept is all about simulation and theory (which in DnD will come down to statistical analysis most of the time), it is also a way to compare builds on quantitive measures (like extected DPR, expected survivability, etc.). Qualitive measures (like is this build fun to play, can the build contribute effectively in the ways it was designed to do) can only be assessed during playtesting.

so in short: whiteroom analysis, while not conclusive, can be a useful tool. It as useful as it is limited by probability analysis.

It can be a useful tool but you must know the limitations. This is further compounded by the fact that some people start their analysis with an outcome already in mind and will try to manipulate the data so that it matches (See DPR analysis not including potential invalid targets). If people were more neutral and analytical I'd probably rag less on whiteroom analysis but it seems that people use these analysis to make sweeping statements about the state of the game (This has the highest DPR therefore it is broken and must be nerfed!) while making their bias very well known and not caring at all.

[djreynolds]

Unfortunately, "pure damage" is the metric that's most suitable for whiteroom analysis, in fact, possibly the only metric suitable for whiteroom analysis, so looks like we're stuck with everyone and their sister posting DPR tables for a while.

You have some great insights on your posts. Players get fixated on damage and stats.