Anything that makes the game easier for the players is bad idea. Any PB focused feature falls into that category.
Tasha's is riddled with new buffs to classes and subclasses with zero tradeoffs, just a straight gift.
I am so sick of the "the game must be easier for me to have fun" crowd.
Some of us actually LOVE playing within a set of restrictive set of rules, not opening the floodgates like Tasha's did. Not nearly enough of us, but some. We recognize that playing a harder game actually takes MORE creativity to accomplish something, and a mastery of the actual rules. And when something is accomplished in such a game, it is way more satisfying, and lasting.
But no, WOTC said, "tell you what, we will soften all the restrictions, by giving you way more stuff your classes can do. There are the cheat codes in Tashas, so buy the book."
You do know that as DM you can sic anything you want against them, even making creatures up completely on the spot.... it is not a Them vs You game. The DM has infinite power.
I was speaking as player when I wrote what I just did, not as a DM.
The game is too easy. From either side of the table. Good players, who in my opinion = ones who know the rules, and maximize their effectiveness within those rules, should be rewarded. Players who can't be bothered to grasp the basic concepts of the game and decide to go off book and hope the DM thinks their actions are cool and allow them should not be rewarded."
Here is a missive I just sent to a DM of a new campaign that is gearing up tomorrow. He and I have already discussed the fact that I like to place restrictions on my chars that are tougher than even RAW, and he is fine with that. Hopefully, the following blurb will reveal my mindset. If everyone thought and played like this it would be a far more challenging game, and certainly easier for the DM to adjudicate, while many players, especially the new ones, would hate it:
"Going with the idea that I like to make things more difficult for my char, a question for you. Would you be OK with the following? Though the PHB does not specifically say this, I am going to assume that any new spells I learn when I level up (2 per level) must follow the same costs of writing them into my book as copying them into my book from some other source, like a scroll. Further, I am debating on the idea that though I can be anywhere when I attempt a copy of a spell into my spellbook (assuming I have the inks/ mat components available), when it comes to acquiring new spells when I level up, that can't be done on the road/ in a dungeon. Though it might be handwaved, I still need downtime in a library/lab/quiet place to research/experiment. So when we level up, my guy would need some downtime, likely in a fairly urban setting/ friendly wizard's tower, to get the spells into my book. What do you think?"
This last part really feels like that meme where the guy is riding his bike, puts a stick in the wheel, then complains its someone else's fault that he fell off. Like, you are literally choosing to make the game harder for yourself (which is fine if that is fun for you) and then complaining about the game being so much easier for everyone else, even when everyone else isn't "going off book" by using officially published materials like Tashas
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
That combo specifically doesn’t make it more powerful. But the fact that if they keep producing subclasses that use that metric it’ll inevitably create the situation where 1-3 levels in 10 different classes to gobble up those features will eventually be the thing that pushes the meta. It’s inevitable and it’s lame.
I get that it's a concern. The reason I'm pushing back on that as hard as I am is that it seems completely hypothetical so far and because people have already been breaking the game in all sorts of stupid ways well before the devs started experimenting with PB. But I'm guessing you don't ban feats just because some of them are clearly broken, or all multiclassing just because some builds are crazy OP. Hell, the grappling and shoving rules are broken and that's part of the core rules.
Why not just veto the stupidly overpowered 10 class PB build when it finally appears in a real game and let the normal players enjoy perfectly reasonable subclasses in the meantime?
Yeah. That's part of why I don't get it. The game already has broken things that some powergamers will go for, and dms can ban the blatantly broken things. The same is the case here.
It's like when people complain about the flexibility in racial asis with Tashas. Okay sure, now you can say, have an elf get a +2 to strength and be a better barbarian or fighter. So? All that does it put them on the same playing field as say, an elven rogue or ranger, a half elf paladin, a tiefling warlock etc.
If you get someone trying to be Abserd but powerful with dipping into tons of classes, then ban that at your table. Just as you can currently ban things like hexblade paladin if you like. But I don't see the concept of PB scaling in and of itself as being inherently broken just because they 'might' make more subclasses in the future that are broken in multiclassing because of it. The example of 10 classes was probably hyperbole to make a point, but would also quickly start running into requirement issues unless you rolled for stats and got lucky enough to have 13+ in everything you need. If it's a point buy character you could make it work but then wouldn't have any particularly high stats.
Getting off-topic, but a lot of people who dislike’s Tasha’s racial flexibility do so because they think it erodes racial identity too much, not because of perceived powergaming issues. As for multiclassing requirements, 13+ in three stats (which you have with the standard array regardless of racial bonuses) suffices for 9 of the classes that currently exist (pick Dex, Wis & Cha). Not disagreeing with the general points, but the arguments used are a bit flaky.
Fair point on the multiclass with standard array. Though I think multiclasisng into that many classes is going to gimp your character more than empower them all in all anyway even with some PB scaling features thrown in.
In terms of people not liking flexible ASIs for racial flavor, I know that but focused on the player power part of it since that ties more into the overall point of power gaming and we weren't so much talking about the lore flavor of things. And yeah not going into my thoughts on that side of it as not to derail anything.
Anything that makes the game easier for the players is bad idea. Any PB focused feature falls into that category.
Tasha's is riddled with new buffs to classes and subclasses with zero tradeoffs, just a straight gift.
I am so sick of the "the game must be easier for me to have fun" crowd.
Some of us actually LOVE playing within a set of restrictive set of rules, not opening the floodgates like Tasha's did. Not nearly enough of us, but some. We recognize that playing a harder game actually takes MORE creativity to accomplish something, and a mastery of the actual rules. And when something is accomplished in such a game, it is way more satisfying, and lasting.
But no, WOTC said, "tell you what, we will soften all the restrictions, by giving you way more stuff your classes can do. There are the cheat codes in Tashas, so buy the book."
You do know that as DM you can sic anything you want against them, even making creatures up completely on the spot.... it is not a Them vs You game. The DM has infinite power.
I was speaking as player when I wrote what I just did, not as a DM.
The game is too easy. From either side of the table. Good players, who in my opinion = ones who know the rules, and maximize their effectiveness within those rules, should be rewarded. Players who can't be bothered to grasp the basic concepts of the game and decide to go off book and hope the DM thinks their actions are cool and allow them should not be rewarded."
Here is a missive I just sent to a DM of a new campaign that is gearing up tomorrow. He and I have already discussed the fact that I like to place restrictions on my chars that are tougher than even RAW, and he is fine with that. Hopefully, the following blurb will reveal my mindset. If everyone thought and played like this it would be a far more challenging game, and certainly easier for the DM to adjudicate, while many players, especially the new ones, would hate it:
"Going with the idea that I like to make things more difficult for my char, a question for you. Would you be OK with the following? Though the PHB does not specifically say this, I am going to assume that any new spells I learn when I level up (2 per level) must follow the same costs of writing them into my book as copying them into my book from some other source, like a scroll. Further, I am debating on the idea that though I can be anywhere when I attempt a copy of a spell into my spellbook (assuming I have the inks/ mat components available), when it comes to acquiring new spells when I level up, that can't be done on the road/ in a dungeon. Though it might be handwaved, I still need downtime in a library/lab/quiet place to research/experiment. So when we level up, my guy would need some downtime, likely in a fairly urban setting/ friendly wizard's tower, to get the spells into my book. What do you think?"
If that is the way you like to play, no book published can keep you from it. If you are worried that the number of people that are willing to play the way you like to play is dwindling, well I guess that will take a bit of reflection on your part. As the game changes do you change with it or eventually just stop playing as the effort to find like minded players get to be too much? This is a question that ALL of us have to answer about a lot of things as we get older and the world changes around us.
Anything that makes the game easier for the players is bad idea. Any PB focused feature falls into that category.
Tasha's is riddled with new buffs to classes and subclasses with zero tradeoffs, just a straight gift.
I am so sick of the "the game must be easier for me to have fun" crowd.
Some of us actually LOVE playing within a set of restrictive set of rules, not opening the floodgates like Tasha's did. Not nearly enough of us, but some. We recognize that playing a harder game actually takes MORE creativity to accomplish something, and a mastery of the actual rules. And when something is accomplished in such a game, it is way more satisfying, and lasting.
But no, WOTC said, "tell you what, we will soften all the restrictions, by giving you way more stuff your classes can do. There are the cheat codes in Tashas, so buy the book."
You do know that as DM you can sic anything you want against them, even making creatures up completely on the spot.... it is not a Them vs You game. The DM has infinite power.
I was speaking as player when I wrote what I just did, not as a DM.
The game is too easy. From either side of the table. Good players, who in my opinion = ones who know the rules, and maximize their effectiveness within those rules, should be rewarded. Players who can't be bothered to grasp the basic concepts of the game and decide to go off book and hope the DM thinks their actions are cool and allow them should not be rewarded."
Here is a missive I just sent to a DM of a new campaign that is gearing up tomorrow. He and I have already discussed the fact that I like to place restrictions on my chars that are tougher than even RAW, and he is fine with that. Hopefully, the following blurb will reveal my mindset. If everyone thought and played like this it would be a far more challenging game, and certainly easier for the DM to adjudicate, while many players, especially the new ones, would hate it:
"Going with the idea that I like to make things more difficult for my char, a question for you. Would you be OK with the following? Though the PHB does not specifically say this, I am going to assume that any new spells I learn when I level up (2 per level) must follow the same costs of writing them into my book as copying them into my book from some other source, like a scroll. Further, I am debating on the idea that though I can be anywhere when I attempt a copy of a spell into my spellbook (assuming I have the inks/ mat components available), when it comes to acquiring new spells when I level up, that can't be done on the road/ in a dungeon. Though it might be handwaved, I still need downtime in a library/lab/quiet place to research/experiment. So when we level up, my guy would need some downtime, likely in a fairly urban setting/ friendly wizard's tower, to get the spells into my book. What do you think?"
This last part really feels like that meme where the guy is riding his bike, puts a stick in the wheel, then complains its someone else's fault that he fell off. Like, you are literally choosing to make the game harder for yourself (which is fine if that is fun for you) and then complaining about the game being so much easier for everyone else, even when everyone else isn't "going off book" by using officially published materials like Tashas
Hardly. It is more like the guy that who adds a 10 kilo weight to his bike because the ride is too easy otherwise, and shaking his head at a number of riders adding a motor to their bikes because they think the ride is too hard, and then looking at the organizers of the ride who are advertising for sale the motors in the first place.
So you just think you are better than everyone else just because you like to add a challenge, whereas other people are just out for a ride on a nice day? Not everyone plays D&D to "work out" some are just wanting to have fun with their friends. No one is stopping you from riding your bike with extra challenge, but you seem to be intent on telling the ones that are cruising along that they should get out of your lane
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Anything that makes the game easier for the players is bad idea. Any PB focused feature falls into that category.
Tasha's is riddled with new buffs to classes and subclasses with zero tradeoffs, just a straight gift.
I am so sick of the "the game must be easier for me to have fun" crowd.
Some of us actually LOVE playing within a set of restrictive set of rules, not opening the floodgates like Tasha's did. Not nearly enough of us, but some. We recognize that playing a harder game actually takes MORE creativity to accomplish something, and a mastery of the actual rules. And when something is accomplished in such a game, it is way more satisfying, and lasting.
But no, WOTC said, "tell you what, we will soften all the restrictions, by giving you way more stuff your classes can do. There are the cheat codes in Tashas, so buy the book."
You do know that as DM you can sic anything you want against them, even making creatures up completely on the spot.... it is not a Them vs You game. The DM has infinite power.
I was speaking as player when I wrote what I just did, not as a DM.
The game is too easy. From either side of the table. Good players, who in my opinion = ones who know the rules, and maximize their effectiveness within those rules, should be rewarded. Players who can't be bothered to grasp the basic concepts of the game and decide to go off book and hope the DM thinks their actions are cool and allow them should not be rewarded."
Here is a missive I just sent to a DM of a new campaign that is gearing up tomorrow. He and I have already discussed the fact that I like to place restrictions on my chars that are tougher than even RAW, and he is fine with that. Hopefully, the following blurb will reveal my mindset. If everyone thought and played like this it would be a far more challenging game, and certainly easier for the DM to adjudicate, while many players, especially the new ones, would hate it:
"Going with the idea that I like to make things more difficult for my char, a question for you. Would you be OK with the following? Though the PHB does not specifically say this, I am going to assume that any new spells I learn when I level up (2 per level) must follow the same costs of writing them into my book as copying them into my book from some other source, like a scroll. Further, I am debating on the idea that though I can be anywhere when I attempt a copy of a spell into my spellbook (assuming I have the inks/ mat components available), when it comes to acquiring new spells when I level up, that can't be done on the road/ in a dungeon. Though it might be handwaved, I still need downtime in a library/lab/quiet place to research/experiment. So when we level up, my guy would need some downtime, likely in a fairly urban setting/ friendly wizard's tower, to get the spells into my book. What do you think?"
What you are describing is "Ivory Tower" game theory and it was a cornerstone of the 3.5 system. Basically every choice had an "optimal" time to be chosen and used and if things were taken out of order or at the "Wrong" time their effectiveness varied dramatically. Some argue this incentivizes you to optimize....and it does....but the question being if that is a good or bad thing.
Some people see it as a good thing because if you spend time and effort to get better at something you should be rewarded with having a leg up.
Some people see it as a bad thing because to them TTRPGs are about a collaborative story process and that by making the game more accessible you make it more enjoyable for more people. What you would call "easy" is another persons "accessible" meaning that they do not have to devote a long time to learning to play the game and their choices, while unique, produce more or less the same amount of power for the level/cost they are.
Now we all know in process the game is not balanced and still does generally favor those who know what they are doing in terms of making mathematically effective characters.
However what you should ask yourself instead is....is that what the table is focusing on?
Some people use the game as an escapist way to roll some dice and maybe avoid the stress and anxiety of their lives. This is not "wrong" in any way and is just one way to play the game.
Low stakes games are perfectly compatible with 5e. So are hardcore meatgrinders. Your tables desires and your own desire as a DM are what shape what you want to get from the system....just like any human interaction.
The point of 5e, however, was to purposefully go away from that "Ivory Tower" process to make the game more generally accessible to more play styles. In this it has been massively successful as it is the single most popular TTPRG ever...
Part of that is due to brand recognition
Part of that is due to media representation (Critical Role)
But a big part of that is how they decided to approach the game.....they made it easier than ever for new TTRPG players to jump into the game and play.
Right, wrong, or indifferent that was the approach and it has paid off for them.
Now the real question is if the system is meeting your needs as a player or DM. If you are having a hard time finding more "hardcore" games then maybe a move to a different system where that style of play is more routinely explored would be a better fit.
PF1 and PF2 both have these components (1 more so than 2). 3.5 is still available as well.
Anything that makes the game easier for the players is bad idea. Any PB focused feature falls into that category.
Tasha's is riddled with new buffs to classes and subclasses with zero tradeoffs, just a straight gift.
I am so sick of the "the game must be easier for me to have fun" crowd.
Some of us actually LOVE playing within a set of restrictive set of rules, not opening the floodgates like Tasha's did. Not nearly enough of us, but some. We recognize that playing a harder game actually takes MORE creativity to accomplish something, and a mastery of the actual rules. And when something is accomplished in such a game, it is way more satisfying, and lasting.
But no, WOTC said, "tell you what, we will soften all the restrictions, by giving you way more stuff your classes can do. There are the cheat codes in Tashas, so buy the book."
You do know that as DM you can sic anything you want against them, even making creatures up completely on the spot.... it is not a Them vs You game. The DM has infinite power.
I was speaking as player when I wrote what I just did, not as a DM.
The game is too easy. From either side of the table. Good players, who in my opinion = ones who know the rules, and maximize their effectiveness within those rules, should be rewarded. Players who can't be bothered to grasp the basic concepts of the game and decide to go off book and hope the DM thinks their actions are cool and allow them should not be rewarded."
Here is a missive I just sent to a DM of a new campaign that is gearing up tomorrow. He and I have already discussed the fact that I like to place restrictions on my chars that are tougher than even RAW, and he is fine with that. Hopefully, the following blurb will reveal my mindset. If everyone thought and played like this it would be a far more challenging game, and certainly easier for the DM to adjudicate, while many players, especially the new ones, would hate it:
"Going with the idea that I like to make things more difficult for my char, a question for you. Would you be OK with the following? Though the PHB does not specifically say this, I am going to assume that any new spells I learn when I level up (2 per level) must follow the same costs of writing them into my book as copying them into my book from some other source, like a scroll. Further, I am debating on the idea that though I can be anywhere when I attempt a copy of a spell into my spellbook (assuming I have the inks/ mat components available), when it comes to acquiring new spells when I level up, that can't be done on the road/ in a dungeon. Though it might be handwaved, I still need downtime in a library/lab/quiet place to research/experiment. So when we level up, my guy would need some downtime, likely in a fairly urban setting/ friendly wizard's tower, to get the spells into my book. What do you think?"
If that is the way you like to play, no book published can keep you from it. If you are worried that the number of people that are willing to play the way you like to play is dwindling, well I guess that will take a bit of reflection on your part. As the game changes do you change with it or eventually just stop playing as the effort to find like minded players get to be too much? This is a question that ALL of us have to answer about a lot of things as we get older and the world changes around us.
At least you grasp the situation and accept that newer players want it easier.
If that is all you took away from that post, then your D&D future is looking pretty bleak. I wish you the best.
At least you grasp the situation and accept that newer players want it easier.
There is a vocal faction of players who want more synergy. That does translate as 'easier' but most of them do not think of it in those terms. However as I said a few posts ago, the DM can make the campaign easy or hard regardless. They do not need Tasha's to do this. Finding a DM that suits one is not easy. I have had a lot of luck over the decades but I have had my share of campaigns that haven't worked well for me too.
I can say this, though. Good DMing or bad, it is rarely the fault of the rules.
Yeah. How hard a game is generally comes down to the DM. As an example of the games I've played, the one where our characters were actually overpowered for our levels was also the most difficult, because the DM was sitll great at challenging us with creative, devious encounters that accommodated for us being stronger than usual for our levels. I've also been in much more RAW focused games that weren't nearly as difficult because the encounters were more straightforward and predictable.
I'm just laughing at the idea of making things "harder" on your character by not taking free spells but also expecting to have an extra 100 gp in your pocket when you get to second level to transcribe those new spells that would otherwise be freebies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm just laughing at the idea of making things "harder" on your character by not taking free spells but also expecting to have an extra 100 gp in your pocket when you get to second level to transcribe those new spells that would otherwise be freebies.
Making things harder by requiring downtime for scribing while at the same time getting the DM to agree to give downtime for scribing feels like pretty next level logic too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm just laughing at the idea of making things "harder" on your character by not taking free spells but also expecting to have an extra 100 gp in your pocket when you get to second level to transcribe those new spells that would otherwise be freebies.
Making things harder by requiring downtime for scribing while at the same time getting the DM to agree to give downtime for scribing feels like pretty next level logic too.
All while saying "Players who can't be bothered to grasp the basic concepts of the game and decide to go off book and hope the DM thinks their actions are cool and allow them should not be rewarded."
That combo specifically doesn’t make it more powerful. But the fact that if they keep producing subclasses that use that metric it’ll inevitably create the situation where 1-3 levels in 10 different classes to gobble up those features will eventually be the thing that pushes the meta. It’s inevitable and it’s lame.
So, you're complaining about a hypothetical situation where eventually there will be subclasses for every class that have initial PB-based features that you could potentially stack up, and you think this will somehow "push the meta" to make that a common practice rather than a 10-class build being something no DM in their right mind would allow at their table?
I mean, tilt away at that windmill I guess, but I don't think the problem there is the PB-based features...
That combo specifically doesn’t make it more powerful. But the fact that if they keep producing subclasses that use that metric it’ll inevitably create the situation where 1-3 levels in 10 different classes to gobble up those features will eventually be the thing that pushes the meta. It’s inevitable and it’s lame.
I get that it's a concern. The reason I'm pushing back on that as hard as I am is that it seems completely hypothetical so far and because people have already been breaking the game in all sorts of stupid ways well before the devs started experimenting with PB. But I'm guessing you don't ban feats just because some of them are clearly broken, or all multiclassing just because some builds are crazy OP. Hell, the grappling and shoving rules are broken and that's part of the core rules.
Why not just veto the stupidly overpowered 10 class PB build when it finally appears in a real game and let the normal players enjoy perfectly reasonable subclasses in the meantime?
No, the complaint is that the mechanic should never have been used in the first ******* place. It should never have been used. Class features should only scale with Class Level or by explicitly locking in a resource through an ASI. The entire concept should have never been implemented. You’re pushing back because there isn’t a problem and I say the fact that it exists is the problem. It should never have happened. It is as antithetical to a class based gaming system as floating ASIs are to a race/class based system. It should have never happened.
To be fair it was the same compliant that people had about Eldritch blast and low dips in warlock. 2 levels of warlock is all you need to maintain an average or slightly above average damage for any CHA build.
Granted you pay in lower spell progression but if your goal is good damage and Bard spells/inspiration then bob's yer uncle.
I would say that multiclassing is a larger investment than an ASI and can even potentially cost you an ASI in the long run, so I am still not sure where the problem lies. If an ASI is a high enough cost, why isn't an entire level or possibly 3 in the case of classes like Fighters and Rogues?
A multiclass would be a high enough cost for a static feature that didn’t improve anymore without further investing in that other class. But not for a feature that automatically improves. To dip for a feature that improves should take the multiclass, and further ASI investment. Not “either or,” both.
Why? Your whole premise boils down to "because that's how I think it should be." I'd be happy to agree to disagree if you could articulate the actual problem.
I have articulated it. Class features should not automatically scale without leveling that specific class, or the player actively investing a resource into that features through an ASI. Since this whole entire thread is purely an opinion based conversation, “because that’s how I think it should be” is enough. Disagree all you like (you obviously do), but you ain’t gonna change my mind. I feel strongly enough about this that I have repeatedly called for Crawford to be fired over it. If things keep going like this we may as well throw away races and classes and levels and D&D and go play something else, because that’s what the game is turning into.
A multiclass would be a high enough cost for a static feature that didn’t improve anymore without further investing in that other class. But not for a feature that automatically improves. To dip for a feature that improves should take the multiclass, and further ASI investment. Not “either or,” both.
You are trading ASIs for that progress, but you don't consider that an "investment"? Fascinating.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
A multiclass would be a high enough cost for a static feature that didn’t improve anymore without further investing in that other class. But not for a feature that automatically improves. To dip for a feature that improves should take the multiclass, and further ASI investment. Not “either or,” both.
You are trading ASIs for that progress, but you don't consider that an "investment"? Fascinating.
You're not really. You're delaying ASIs, sure, but unless you go out of your way with how you multiclass you're not trading away ASIs. Let's not exaggerate the tradeoff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
A multiclass would be a high enough cost for a static feature that didn’t improve anymore without further investing in that other class. But not for a feature that automatically improves. To dip for a feature that improves should take the multiclass, and further ASI investment. Not “either or,” both.
You are trading ASIs for that progress, but you don't consider that an "investment"? Fascinating.
What?!? Does not compute. If you take a level in Cleric, and then ignore it but your cleric feature continues to improve all by itself, how have you traded anything? You haven’t, you just took a dip and now get to benefit from an automatically scaling class feature. Its 🐴💩.
Well, if you put it like that… Clearly the way to go then.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This last part really feels like that meme where the guy is riding his bike, puts a stick in the wheel, then complains its someone else's fault that he fell off. Like, you are literally choosing to make the game harder for yourself (which is fine if that is fun for you) and then complaining about the game being so much easier for everyone else, even when everyone else isn't "going off book" by using officially published materials like Tashas
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Fair point on the multiclass with standard array. Though I think multiclasisng into that many classes is going to gimp your character more than empower them all in all anyway even with some PB scaling features thrown in.
In terms of people not liking flexible ASIs for racial flavor, I know that but focused on the player power part of it since that ties more into the overall point of power gaming and we weren't so much talking about the lore flavor of things. And yeah not going into my thoughts on that side of it as not to derail anything.
If that is the way you like to play, no book published can keep you from it. If you are worried that the number of people that are willing to play the way you like to play is dwindling, well I guess that will take a bit of reflection on your part. As the game changes do you change with it or eventually just stop playing as the effort to find like minded players get to be too much? This is a question that ALL of us have to answer about a lot of things as we get older and the world changes around us.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
So you just think you are better than everyone else just because you like to add a challenge, whereas other people are just out for a ride on a nice day? Not everyone plays D&D to "work out" some are just wanting to have fun with their friends. No one is stopping you from riding your bike with extra challenge, but you seem to be intent on telling the ones that are cruising along that they should get out of your lane
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
What you are describing is "Ivory Tower" game theory and it was a cornerstone of the 3.5 system. Basically every choice had an "optimal" time to be chosen and used and if things were taken out of order or at the "Wrong" time their effectiveness varied dramatically. Some argue this incentivizes you to optimize....and it does....but the question being if that is a good or bad thing.
Some people see it as a good thing because if you spend time and effort to get better at something you should be rewarded with having a leg up.
Some people see it as a bad thing because to them TTRPGs are about a collaborative story process and that by making the game more accessible you make it more enjoyable for more people. What you would call "easy" is another persons "accessible" meaning that they do not have to devote a long time to learning to play the game and their choices, while unique, produce more or less the same amount of power for the level/cost they are.
Now we all know in process the game is not balanced and still does generally favor those who know what they are doing in terms of making mathematically effective characters.
However what you should ask yourself instead is....is that what the table is focusing on?
Some people use the game as an escapist way to roll some dice and maybe avoid the stress and anxiety of their lives. This is not "wrong" in any way and is just one way to play the game.
Low stakes games are perfectly compatible with 5e. So are hardcore meatgrinders. Your tables desires and your own desire as a DM are what shape what you want to get from the system....just like any human interaction.
The point of 5e, however, was to purposefully go away from that "Ivory Tower" process to make the game more generally accessible to more play styles. In this it has been massively successful as it is the single most popular TTPRG ever...
Part of that is due to brand recognition
Part of that is due to media representation (Critical Role)
But a big part of that is how they decided to approach the game.....they made it easier than ever for new TTRPG players to jump into the game and play.
Right, wrong, or indifferent that was the approach and it has paid off for them.
Now the real question is if the system is meeting your needs as a player or DM. If you are having a hard time finding more "hardcore" games then maybe a move to a different system where that style of play is more routinely explored would be a better fit.
PF1 and PF2 both have these components (1 more so than 2). 3.5 is still available as well.
If that is all you took away from that post, then your D&D future is looking pretty bleak. I wish you the best.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yeah. How hard a game is generally comes down to the DM. As an example of the games I've played, the one where our characters were actually overpowered for our levels was also the most difficult, because the DM was sitll great at challenging us with creative, devious encounters that accommodated for us being stronger than usual for our levels. I've also been in much more RAW focused games that weren't nearly as difficult because the encounters were more straightforward and predictable.
I'm just laughing at the idea of making things "harder" on your character by not taking free spells but also expecting to have an extra 100 gp in your pocket when you get to second level to transcribe those new spells that would otherwise be freebies.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Making things harder by requiring downtime for scribing while at the same time getting the DM to agree to give downtime for scribing feels like pretty next level logic too.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
All while saying "Players who can't be bothered to grasp the basic concepts of the game and decide to go off book and hope the DM thinks their actions are cool and allow them should not be rewarded."
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
No, the complaint is that the mechanic should never have been used in the first ******* place. It should never have been used. Class features should only scale with Class Level or by explicitly locking in a resource through an ASI. The entire concept should have never been implemented. You’re pushing back because there isn’t a problem and I say the fact that it exists is the problem. It should never have happened. It is as antithetical to a class based gaming system as floating ASIs are to a race/class based system. It should have never happened.
At all.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
To be fair it was the same compliant that people had about Eldritch blast and low dips in warlock. 2 levels of warlock is all you need to maintain an average or slightly above average damage for any CHA build.
Granted you pay in lower spell progression but if your goal is good damage and Bard spells/inspiration then bob's yer uncle.
I would say that multiclassing is a larger investment than an ASI and can even potentially cost you an ASI in the long run, so I am still not sure where the problem lies. If an ASI is a high enough cost, why isn't an entire level or possibly 3 in the case of classes like Fighters and Rogues?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
A multiclass would be a high enough cost for a static feature that didn’t improve anymore without further investing in that other class. But not for a feature that automatically improves. To dip for a feature that improves should take the multiclass, and further ASI investment. Not “either or,” both.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Why? Your whole premise boils down to "because that's how I think it should be." I'd be happy to agree to disagree if you could articulate the actual problem.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I have articulated it. Class features should not automatically scale without leveling that specific class, or the player actively investing a resource into that features through an ASI. Since this whole entire thread is purely an opinion based conversation, “because that’s how I think it should be” is enough. Disagree all you like (you obviously do), but you ain’t gonna change my mind. I feel strongly enough about this that I have repeatedly called for Crawford to be fired over it. If things keep going like this we may as well throw away races and classes and levels and D&D and go play something else, because that’s what the game is turning into.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You are trading ASIs for that progress, but you don't consider that an "investment"? Fascinating.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You're not really. You're delaying ASIs, sure, but unless you go out of your way with how you multiclass you're not trading away ASIs. Let's not exaggerate the tradeoff.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What?!? Does not compute. If you take a level in Cleric, and then ignore it but your cleric feature continues to improve all by itself, how have you traded anything? You haven’t, you just took a dip and now get to benefit from an automatically scaling class feature. Its 🐴💩.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting