That is a lot of assumptions for me. Meaning, feats and variant human, and custom lineage.
I guess from both of your perspectives, dealing damage is a "main function"? And the things given up are inferior to the thing gained. Is that fair to say?
Yeah for barbarian (especially Zealot) that is your primary purpose in the mechanical side of your character. You deal damage and a lot of it consistently.
As for the flavor or RP of your character that is skys the limit as usual.
I know people dont really like to hear this but DnD is built for and best played as a dungeon crawler...its just designed with that in mind.
80% of your character details is what you do in combat.....for fighter and barb its more like 90%.
That is a lot of assumptions for me. Meaning, feats and variant human, and custom lineage.
I guess from both of your perspectives, dealing damage is a "main function"? And the things given up are inferior to the thing gained. Is that fair to say?
Yeah for barbarian (especially Zealot) that is your primary purpose in the mechanical side of your character. You deal damage and a lot of it consistently.
As for the flavor or RP of your character that is skys the limit as usual.
I know people dont really like to hear this but DnD is built for and best played as a dungeon crawler...its just designed with that in mind.
80% of your character details is what you do in combat.....for fighter and barb its more like 90%.
I don't disagree with that. Not only the rules for combat, which I think is more because of the detail needed to run it more so than the weight it carries in the game, but also the game suggests it with things like the suggestion for an adventuring day and short rests. I do think the importance of combat is overweighted, personally. I find it interesting how some of the "least powerful" classes and subclasses are those that don't double down on only combat.
Flavor is free, right? As Optimus said, sky is the limit.
I strongly believe that all rules, classes, mechanics and the crunchy part of this game are just simple complements to run the character concept you have in your mind. Everything goes with creativity and dedication.
If you have a detailed, clear and rich background for some character, it doesn’t matter if he is a bland basic Human Fighter, he will probably be super interesting and funny to roleplay.
If the only thing you know about your character is that you just want to throw fireballs all around dressed like a Paladin, it is ok, you are an exotic combination of Cleric / Wizard, and this is it. And it’s fine, you could develop your character concept and background from there.
So how does it change the rankings if you take away all feats? No CBE+SS, No PAM+GWM, no sentinel, alert resilient, etc?
I think if you “take those away”, which for me means simply not using the optional feat rule, fighters, paladins, and barbarians as huge damage dealers come down to hang out with the rest of the pack. And this place in the game is the place where things are balanced; NOT using feats.
So how does it change the rankings if you take away all feats? No CBE+SS, No PAM+GWM, no sentinel, alert resilient, etc?
I think if you “take those away”, which for me means simply not using the optional feat rule, fighters, paladins, and barbarians as huge damage dealers come down to hang out with the rest of the pack. And this place in the game is the place where things are balanced; NOT using feats.
Fighters pretty much cease to matter at that point.
Barbarian and Pallys still have a place but they drop in damage a lot.
Paladins probably use spells more and barbarian uses shields more.
So how does it change the rankings if you take away all feats? No CBE+SS, No PAM+GWM, no sentinel, alert resilient, etc?
I think if you “take those away”, which for me means simply not using the optional feat rule, fighters, paladins, and barbarians as huge damage dealers come down to hang out with the rest of the pack. And this place in the game is the place where things are balanced; NOT using feats.
Fighters pretty much cease to matter at that point.
Barbarian and Pallys still have a place but they drop in damage a lot.
Paladins probably use spells more and barbarian uses shields more.
I think fighters still matter but it’s much more about background/backstory for the character. Your still going to need damage dealers and the 3&4 attacks fighters get are going to be big helps. But combats are probably going to stretch out to 4-6 rounds instead of 2-4. Clerics and healing magics are going to be more important, etc.
So how does it change the rankings if you take away all feats? No CBE+SS, No PAM+GWM, no sentinel, alert resilient, etc?
Martials will get much worse while spellcasters will only get a bit worse. So e.g. Fighters will suffer the most, Wizards probably the least. Warlocks will get better relative to other ranged attack competitors (Fighters, Rogues, and Rangers), and since the utility of heavy weapons will drop through the floor, certain specific builds, like Bladesinger, will also get radically better, as their opportunity cost will drop.
Theoretically, without Resilient, Paladins will get a lot better, but I don't know how commonly that's taken. That's for tanking, though, not for DPR.
I think fighters still matter but it’s much more about background/backstory for the character. Your still going to need damage dealers and the 3&4 attacks fighters get are going to be big helps. But combats are probably going to stretch out to 4-6 rounds instead of 2-4. Clerics and healing magics are going to be more important, etc.
You will fall behind casters so much by T3 you need to MC into a caster to even stay relevant without feats for most subclasses...
Rune Knight would be fine likely as they get some crazy good debuff stuff.
So how does it change the rankings if you take away all feats? No CBE+SS, No PAM+GWM, no sentinel, alert resilient, etc?
Martials will get much worse while spellcasters will only get a bit worse. So e.g. Fighters will suffer the most, Wizards probably the least. Warlocks will get better relative to other ranged attack competitors (Fighters, Rogues, and Rangers), and since the utility of heavy weapons will drop through the floor, certain specific builds, like Bladesinger, will also get radically better, as their opportunity cost will drop.
Theoretically, without Resilient, Paladins will get a lot better, but I don't know how commonly that's taken. That's for tanking, though, not for DPR.
Rangers too...
The CON save feats are godly for them in the later game.
I think playing without feats really helps people understand certain aspects of the game alot better. It builds out of the box thinking. Every class has feats they want. Every class has advantages just from their own base features. You really begin to understand all the strengths and weeknesses of various features and builds. controlling line of sight has direct links to the number of concentration checks you make. positioning and equipment directly affect how far your HP goes.
So I belive mesuring the value of playing with feats and with out is important. That's why The original team made feats optional. it provides new depth and training for the whole game not just the limited bits we prefer.
How do you know it narrows the gap if you have never experienced it? How should a dm adjust encounters for a semi-balanced experience for all classes? there is a lot of intresting dynamics at play that just seem to be lost by the assumtion of things like multiclassing, feats, or (my least favorite) flanking. every optional rule has consequenses. some are bad some are good. For me, I am glad that I know I can make builds an have fun if any are turned on or off"
Casters with out feats all of a sudden have new weaknesses. for example how many casters rely on "resiliant"or "fey touched" instead of tactics. resource management becomes a real thing to cover for those gaps. now you have to prepare extra spells you wouldn't normally take but the martials usually just keep on functioning basically the same.
also, the number of complaints about AL play tells me that the experience has flaws along with its standardized rules. it also has its benifits but i find most people move on after a year or two and join other tabels in the end.
DDAL is great for folks first stepping into the hobby or folks with only a small nugget of time every week or two to unwind. People “graduate” from DDAL pretty quick from what I’ve seen. DDAL is literally a formulaic, murder-hobo, one-shot factory. Which can be fun, for a while.
How do you know it narrows the gap if you have never experienced it? How should a dm adjust encounters for a semi-balanced experience for all classes? there is a lot of intresting dynamics at play that just seem to be lost by the assumtion of things like multiclassing, feats, or (my least favorite) flanking. every optional rule has consequenses. some are bad some are good. For me, I am glad that I know I can make builds an have fun if any are turned on or off"
Casters with out feats all of a sudden have new weaknesses. for example how many casters rely on "resiliant"or "fey touched" instead of tactics. resource management becomes a real thing to cover for those gaps. now you have to prepare extra spells you wouldn't normally take but the martials usually just keep on functioning basically the same.
also, the number of complaints about AL play tells me that the experience has flaws along with its standardized rules. it also has its benifits but i find most people move on after a year or two and join other tabels in the end.
Oh I've played in a campaign or two without.... But nobody but the DM wanted it...we stuck with it for a while but ultimately all agreed to add them as it was apparent pretty quickly that it was the best way to enjoy the system.
Since then we have always done them and honestly it's better that way IMO
DDAL is great for folks first stepping into the hobby or folks with only a small nugget of time every week or two to unwind. People “graduate” from DDAL pretty quick from what I’ve seen. DDAL is literally a formulaic, murder-hobo, one-shot factory. Which can be fun, for a while.
It's the introduction for a lot of people is my point and it's creation method becomes the norm for a lot of folks I've found.
The only deviation is more sources are open and occasionally people will roll for stats but other than that MC and feats are the norm.
Oh I've played in a campaign or two without.... But nobody but the DM wanted it...we stuck with it for a while but ultimately all agreed to add them as it was apparent pretty quickly that it was the best way to enjoy the system.
Since then we have always done them and honestly it's better that way IMO
which of these is true and which is the lie? am i missing a train of thought where both could actually be true?
Oh I've played in a campaign or two without.... But nobody but the DM wanted it...we stuck with it for a while but ultimately all agreed to add them as it was apparent pretty quickly that it was the best way to enjoy the system.
Since then we have always done them and honestly it's better that way IMO
which of these is true and which is the lie? am i missing a train of thought where both could actually be true?
Both are true as I don't consider being in a game without feats for only 5 sessions or so to be a full game....
It was enough to know it's not good is my point and we quickly adapted so it's not really fair for me to say I've done a full campaign without them but have played about 10 sessions or so without in two separate campaigns but quickly agreed to allow them due to how poor martials do without them .
Now it's fair to ask if that's enough to judge as many would say it's not and that's fair.... But it was enough to us and honestly it was pretty clear pretty fast.
Yeah for barbarian (especially Zealot) that is your primary purpose in the mechanical side of your character. You deal damage and a lot of it consistently.
As for the flavor or RP of your character that is skys the limit as usual.
I know people dont really like to hear this but DnD is built for and best played as a dungeon crawler...its just designed with that in mind.
80% of your character details is what you do in combat.....for fighter and barb its more like 90%.
I don't disagree with that. Not only the rules for combat, which I think is more because of the detail needed to run it more so than the weight it carries in the game, but also the game suggests it with things like the suggestion for an adventuring day and short rests. I do think the importance of combat is overweighted, personally. I find it interesting how some of the "least powerful" classes and subclasses are those that don't double down on only combat.
Flavor is free, right? As Optimus said, sky is the limit.
I strongly believe that all rules, classes, mechanics and the crunchy part of this game are just simple complements to run the character concept you have in your mind. Everything goes with creativity and dedication.
If you have a detailed, clear and rich background for some character, it doesn’t matter if he is a bland basic Human Fighter, he will probably be super interesting and funny to roleplay.
If the only thing you know about your character is that you just want to throw fireballs all around dressed like a Paladin, it is ok, you are an exotic combination of Cleric / Wizard, and this is it. And it’s fine, you could develop your character concept and background from there.
So how does it change the rankings if you take away all feats? No CBE+SS, No PAM+GWM, no sentinel, alert resilient, etc?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I think if you “take those away”, which for me means simply not using the optional feat rule, fighters, paladins, and barbarians as huge damage dealers come down to hang out with the rest of the pack. And this place in the game is the place where things are balanced; NOT using feats.
Fighters pretty much cease to matter at that point.
Barbarian and Pallys still have a place but they drop in damage a lot.
Paladins probably use spells more and barbarian uses shields more.
I agree.
I think fighters still matter but it’s much more about background/backstory for the character. Your still going to need damage dealers and the 3&4 attacks fighters get are going to be big helps. But combats are probably going to stretch out to 4-6 rounds instead of 2-4. Clerics and healing magics are going to be more important, etc.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Martials will get much worse while spellcasters will only get a bit worse. So e.g. Fighters will suffer the most, Wizards probably the least. Warlocks will get better relative to other ranged attack competitors (Fighters, Rogues, and Rangers), and since the utility of heavy weapons will drop through the floor, certain specific builds, like Bladesinger, will also get radically better, as their opportunity cost will drop.
Theoretically, without Resilient, Paladins will get a lot better, but I don't know how commonly that's taken. That's for tanking, though, not for DPR.
You will fall behind casters so much by T3 you need to MC into a caster to even stay relevant without feats for most subclasses...
Rune Knight would be fine likely as they get some crazy good debuff stuff.
Rangers too...
The CON save feats are godly for them in the later game.
I think playing without feats really helps people understand certain aspects of the game alot better. It builds out of the box thinking. Every class has feats they want. Every class has advantages just from their own base features. You really begin to understand all the strengths and weeknesses of various features and builds. controlling line of sight has direct links to the number of concentration checks you make. positioning and equipment directly affect how far your HP goes.
So I belive mesuring the value of playing with feats and with out is important. That's why The original team made feats optional. it provides new depth and training for the whole game not just the limited bits we prefer.
That being said....
Ive never been in a game without them nor been in one where people didn't want to use them.
They are also default for Adventure League which tells a lot to me.
Overall I think they are good for the game as they help narrow the gap between casters and martials to a degree it's tolerable.
How do you know it narrows the gap if you have never experienced it? How should a dm adjust encounters for a semi-balanced experience for all classes? there is a lot of intresting dynamics at play that just seem to be lost by the assumtion of things like multiclassing, feats, or (my least favorite) flanking. every optional rule has consequenses. some are bad some are good. For me, I am glad that I know I can make builds an have fun if any are turned on or off"
Casters with out feats all of a sudden have new weaknesses. for example how many casters rely on "resiliant"or "fey touched" instead of tactics. resource management becomes a real thing to cover for those gaps. now you have to prepare extra spells you wouldn't normally take but the martials usually just keep on functioning basically the same.
also, the number of complaints about AL play tells me that the experience has flaws along with its standardized rules. it also has its benifits but i find most people move on after a year or two and join other tabels in the end.
DDAL is great for folks first stepping into the hobby or folks with only a small nugget of time every week or two to unwind. People “graduate” from DDAL pretty quick from what I’ve seen. DDAL is literally a formulaic, murder-hobo, one-shot factory. Which can be fun, for a while.
Oh I've played in a campaign or two without.... But nobody but the DM wanted it...we stuck with it for a while but ultimately all agreed to add them as it was apparent pretty quickly that it was the best way to enjoy the system.
Since then we have always done them and honestly it's better that way IMO
It's the introduction for a lot of people is my point and it's creation method becomes the norm for a lot of folks I've found.
The only deviation is more sources are open and occasionally people will roll for stats but other than that MC and feats are the norm.
which of these is true and which is the lie? am i missing a train of thought where both could actually be true?
Both are true as I don't consider being in a game without feats for only 5 sessions or so to be a full game....
It was enough to know it's not good is my point and we quickly adapted so it's not really fair for me to say I've done a full campaign without them but have played about 10 sessions or so without in two separate campaigns but quickly agreed to allow them due to how poor martials do without them .
Now it's fair to ask if that's enough to judge as many would say it's not and that's fair.... But it was enough to us and honestly it was pretty clear pretty fast.
These situations always sound more to me like people are playing a Voltron of magic items and feats and not a character.