If your character is outshining your party mates to the point that your DM feels the need to restrain your power level, you're likely annoying the crap out of your party. Personally as a player, I like loot enough that I will self-regulate my character's combat abilities so I /do/ get the loot.
Say our Sorcerer gets a good Fireball or Chain Lightning, I'm so happy he's doing so much to help the party. If someone wants to get annoyed I'm pumping a guy full of arrows....IMO, they're on the wrong side. I cheer when our other Rogue gets good hits and say "well done" when our Monk deals good damage. I'm going to say this is a Strawman argument, you're assuming something to be true though you have no proof of it and you're coming at me for your assumption.
What you seem to be saying is that if you sandbag & don't play to your best....your DM gives you loot. If you were to play @ your best, your DM wouldn't give you loot? This seems dishonest and deceitful. When needed, you can "up your game" with the loot you got while sandbagging...taking the DM by surprise?
ATM, I'm just going to assume there will be no more magic items for me and I'll grab Elven Accuracy and Crossbow Expert for my next feats...and work on level 9 Scout for increased movement speed & extra SA dice.
If your character is outshining your party mates to the point that your DM feels the need to restrain your power level, you're likely annoying the crap out of your party. Personally as a player, I like loot enough that I will self-regulate my character's combat abilities so I /do/ get the loot.
Say our Sorcerer gets a good Fireball or Chain Lightning, I'm so happy he's doing so much to help the party. If someone wants to get annoyed I'm pumping a guy full of arrows....IMO, they're on the wrong side. I cheer when our other Rogue gets good hits and say "well done" when our Monk deals good damage. I'm going to say this is a Strawman argument, you're assuming something to be true though you have no proof of it and you're coming at me for your assumption.
What you seem to be saying is that if you sandbag & don't play to your best....your DM gives you loot. If you were to play @ your best, your DM wouldn't give you loot? This seems dishonest and deceitful. When needed, you can "up your game" with the loot you got while sandbagging...taking the DM by surprise?
ATM, I'm just going to assume there will be no more magic items for me and I'll grab Elven Accuracy and Crossbow Expert for my next feats...and work on level 9 Scout for increased movement speed & extra SA dice.
you know most of your replies seem defensive, people aren't attacking you, they are trying to explain to you why your DM might be trying to limit you.
For example, your counterpoint here has nothing to do with what the other poster was stating (minus his assumption that other players are annoyed). If you are constantly dealing high amounts of damage and other players are as you state "When" they get good hits, implying you always deal good damage and they can occasionally deal good damage. So for you to cheer them is saying "Yeah, you finally did as much damage as me".
Our defense is that your DM may be trying to balance your always good damage with the other players "occasional" damage.
Without hearing from your co-players or DM we have no other context than your statements.
I'm saying that is if a player builds his guy around defense, should I get jealous that he can take the hits and I can't?
Moreso, if the DM then gives out rare/epic/legendary weapons and items to said defensive player so they can do more damage/participate in taking down mobs....is that fair? That character then has incredible defense & offense. I'm just stuck with the offense my build offers and whatever defense I can scrounge up via class abilities and features.
I usually deal fairly consistent damage, the Sorcerer sometimes gets some good AoE (including his Wand of the War Mage +2). The other Rogue does exceptional damage with her Flaming Whip of Haste and the Monk we have puts out great damage with his Electric Short Sword of Bursting. War Cleric deals damage and keeps people in the fight if something goes wrong, Paladin gives buffs and his Aura (not to mention mobs wasting their time trying to hit him). Giving Kudos to other players who deal good damage isn't being condescending, its good sportsmanship. Sometimes they do more damage than me. Sometimes less. Again, a Strawman argument.
If it IS a total party effort, then everyone in the party should be eligible for loot. Instead, what happens is....the DM looks at who did top damage in combat and gives loot accordingly. I can't get Studded Leather +1, I do too much damage. DPS is being used as a measure of how effective a person is in combat. Nevermind how much damage the tanks soaked up or how much healing was done, DPS is being used as the sole "scale" as to who gets more magic items.
There's more to combat than just dealing damage to monsters.
I'll try to make it simple, if there are 4 people playing in the game and 3 rare/super rare/legendary/artifact items are in the party, who should get the next such item? That is the DM's dilema; give items out equally or give out items fairly? Say a player isn't really doing well in the game, do you reward their inability? By that same token, if someone has a well-built character, you then....don't reward them?
"Sorry, you don't get any magic items for the BBEG, you dropped him too fast with your crazy DPS....but every other party member gets something."
I think most people responding to you, do understand what you are trying to say. Shoot even my previous response wasn't me trying to say you shouldn't be getting loot. I think what most people are doing is trying to explain to you the DM's mindset.
It isn't us trying to tell you that you shouldn't talk to your DM or that your DM is right. We are simply trying to provide you with the context in what we believe might be behind the DM's choices, once again we are trying to provide this information with very little context, we once again only have your side of the story.
My players all have magic loot, I personally don't control the loot, I give it all to the party and they decide who gets what. That, however, is how I DM, your DM might have a different idea and that is what great about D&D it is completely different depending on not only the campaign but who you play with.
I usually deal fairly consistent damage, the Sorcerer sometimes gets some good AoE (including his Wand of the War Mage +2). The other Rogue does exceptional damage with her Flaming Whip of Haste and the Monk we have puts out great damage with his Electric Short Sword of Bursting. War Cleric deals damage and keeps people in the fight if something goes wrong, Paladin gives buffs and his Aura (not to mention mobs wasting their time trying to hit him). Giving Kudos to other players who deal good damage isn't being condescending, its good sportsmanship. Sometimes they do more damage than me. Sometimes less. Again, a Strawman argument.
You do know you just made mine and others points, those people have magic items that help that deal the good amount of damage you say you can deal without them.
Also, it never helps to keep calling peoples rational to your situation a "strawman" argument. I and I am assuming the others, are not trying to argue in favor of your DM, once again, I believe we are just trying to provide you with context on why your DM might be doing what he is doing. That doesn't make his choice right or wrong, that is simply something you have to work out with your DM and other players.
Here's a hypothetical & I think some people posting here got the gist:
Player A: I'm going to make a Barbarian with a 14 Str.
Player B: I'm going to make a Rogue with an 18 Dex.
DM: I better give Player A some Gauntlets of Ogre Power or he's just not going to be effective. Player B doesn't need any magic items, he has a good character build.
I get your point, you built a character specifically to deal DPS. Which is good, you know what you want and you accomplished it.
My question to you is are you getting the point people are making when they are trying to explain why your DM might be overlooking you in magic items? Here I'll provide you with an example:
Player A: I'm going to make a Barbarian with a 14 Str. Player B: I'm going to make a Rogue with an 18 Dex. DM: I better give Player A some Gauntlets of Ogre Power or he's just not going to be effective. Player B doesn't need any magic items, he has a good character build.
Once again, it doesn't make the DM overlooking you for magic items a good thing. I personally think it is just the DM trying to balance what he sees as an imbalance. Which once again is just my opinion. It doesn't make me nor your DM correct.
Out of curiosity, I couldn't find it, how many people are you playing with and how long have each of them been playing D&D including yourself.
Ah, its a party that can be upwards of 8 people at a time. I've been playing since 2nd edition; not sure how long some of the others have been playing. Some are old school, some aren't.
Players were rolled up with a point buy system, so if the Barbarian went with a 14 Str...then he spent his stat points somewhere else. It isn't like it was a random roll. If the Paladin has a 12 Str, a 14 Dex and a 20 Charisma...that's his choice.
If you make a very defensive build, don't be surprised (or jealous) that you aren't doing a lot of damage, not taking down mobs, its part of a team effort; parties need tanks/front line people. When the team wins, the loot shouldn't be decided by who is doing the most damage. Its an unfair metric.
Naw, that's ok. I'm looking for a discussion about the issue...and maybe someone who can present a decent argument to change my mind. I love loot and gear maybe too much...isn't that part of the game, kill the dragon, take its loot, be more powerful? Otherwise, if its just about me and only me, I'll just go kill a few thousand boars in the forest. Dragon? Why kill it at all?!
Maybe I've just been playing too much WoW between 3.5 and 5?!?!
A game of "kill a dragon, take the loot, become more powerful" and nothing more is anything but an RPG, imho.
An RPG should be played primarily for the story. Obviously the rewards are important, but they should not be the end, they should just be a mean for the characters to face stronger opponents the story puts in front of them.
Edit: I know you said "part of", but feels like loot is quite up in your scale of priorities, no offense.
Because I'm not having a problem with the story or the RP, which is good....killing the dragon IS part of the story. Actually, I think out current plotline needs us to kill 2 more.
A game of "kill a dragon, take the loot, become more powerful" and nothing more is anything but an RPG, imho.
An RPG should be played primarily for the story.
Objection : opinion.
Around some tables, the story is there to give meaning to the combat.
I like action films, but when they start with a fight scene or a car chase they don't 'involve' me as I have no connection to the players. It's just meh. In Lethal Weapon there is a scene where Riggs says to Murtaugh "We're gonna get bloody on this one, Roger." For me, that is the highlight of the film. Despite all the great chases, helicopter battles, gunfights, suicide attempts etc.
But take away the action and all you have left is a love story; the fights and explosions are what I'm there for.
Riggs is better than Murtaugh in just about every department - even his gun is better ("Yeah, but it's an it's an old gun and he's not a very good shot," Riggs notes at one point) yet they share scene time fairly evenly. Then Leo comes along (later film) and steals every scene he is in! The writer/director feel no need to give Roger a .44 Magnum, and Leo could certainly Getz himself some improved hardware to cover his complete ineptitude, but there is no need. Roger is the Tank, Leo is the scout, and Rigg's love interest can take his confession and kiss it better later. (Although not in the first film, as
she is dead!)
Here's another opinion - 7 or 8 players around a table is just way too many - No wonder the DM is bribing them with magic items to stay! Name three of the Magnificent Seven. Three character tags for the Reservoir Dogs, 5 of the hundred and one dalmations..... (Yes, you can name all nine of the 'Company of the Ring' and every dwarf in The Hobbit....but that's just Fantasy 101 for us. It doesn't count. )
Enough talking - roll that initiative bone and let's get down to the real monkey business.....
A game of "kill a dragon, take the loot, become more powerful" and nothing more is anything but an RPG, imho.
An RPG should be played primarily for the story.
Objection : opinion.
Around some tables, the story is there to give meaning to the combat.
I like action films, but when they start with a fight scene or a car chase they don't 'involve' me as I have no connection to the players. It's just meh. In Lethal Weapon there is a scene where Riggs says to Murtaugh "We're gonna get bloody on this one, Roger." For me, that is the highlight of the film. Despite all the great chases, helicopter battles, gunfights, suicide attempts etc.
But take away the action and all you have left is a love story; the fights and explosions are what I'm there for.
Riggs is better than Murtaugh in just about every department - even his gun is better ("Yeah, but it's an it's an old gun and he's not a very good shot," Riggs notes at one point) yet they share scene time fairly evenly. Then Leo comes along (later film) and steals every scene he is in! The writer/director feel no need to give Roger a .44 Magnum, and Leo could certainly Getz himself some improved hardware to cover his complete ineptitude, but there is no need. Roger is the Tank, Leo is the scout, and Rigg's love interest can take his confession and kiss it better later. (Although not in the first film, as
she is dead!)
Here's another opinion - 7 or 8 players around a table is just way too many - No wonder the DM is bribing them with magic items to stay! Name three of the Magnificent Seven. Three character tags for the Reservoir Dogs, 5 of the hundred and one dalmations..... (Yes, you can name all nine of the 'Company of the Ring' and every dwarf in The Hobbit....but that's just Fantasy 101 for us. It doesn't count. )
Enough talking - roll that initiative bone and let's get down to the real monkey business.....
It was most definitely an opinion, but I might have given the wrong impression, probably... As the followup sentence from the one you cut the quote to should have made clear (probably not to the extent I hoped for) my objection was not on combat not being important (for me it is an integral and necessary part of the story itself), but on making the loot the focus of the experience, which, if I am not wrong, you agree to.
I am sorry if my message came through as saying only the "story" story bits are important, that was not my intention at all. To clarify further: story bits are important, at the same level of importance we have the combat, when used organically to connect and help progressing the story bits, loot (while extremely nice in some cases) if not integrated into the story should not feel like something to focus on, IMHO.
Read everything I write as if I am smiling at the same time, realise that playing Devil's advocate is my favourite pastime (especially while I am in my office), and forget about ever upsetting me (unless you call for the damage from a whip to be increased! Grrrr....)
Also, despite my slow crawl towards senility, I still know what IMHO means (It's the first name of Mr. Tep, King of Egypt before he became a paragon mummy.) I left that sentence in to show you were not demanding we play a certain way...
Every story and every active Forum must have conflict, otherwise it is no better than a dictionary*.
*I mean no offence; my fondness for dictionaries is often mocked. :)
Eggs, milk, flour : I would consume 1 of those in that state, but mix them together.....Mmmm, I'm staying for some of that!
Well, as of last update, we had a game that was at level 15. At this point, we're nearing that level 17 milestone, the last big jump in power. Even assuming the game does last past level 20, the new boons aren't exactly going to offer a new massive jump in power. Before this, we've dealt with armies led by death knights, challenged, the greatest of sphinxes, and so on.
At 17? We start shifting focus to start looking beyond. Fiendish / celestial / elemental rulers, ancient dragons and immortal liches are the name of the game now; all lesser beings are considered an average challenge; with legendary equipment, you could theoretically solo these death knights and sphinxes that challenged the group last tier. Singular beings and their lower level hordes and followers. The PC under discussion definitely has the power to remain challenging at this current tier of power. But the next?
Now, part of the problem I have with multiclassing is that, at low levels, you can stack front loaded classes for boosts in power and ability. That said, you don't get the same power bumps from the milestone levels. So, if you're not a power gamer with a good amount of system expertise at doing this, chances are you're hurting yourself more than helping at high levels. If I'm reading the OP's build right, he's relying heavily on Sharpshooter and accuracy fishing to deal damage, as well as several evasive maneuvers. At this point, though, I don't know if he is going to have another power boost while everyone else does. There's two attribute / feat bumps coming up, but I'm not sure if there's any feats that will significantly help the OP.
So, right now we have the situation where everyone else is dealing damage equal to the OP with their magic items. At level 17, they'll be getting a bit of a bump in power, generally in the form of some kind of nova-surge type thing. That's a deliberate design choice, because level 17+ tends to have either lots of low level swarms or singular juggernauts. So, most of the abilities revolve around that in some way - either some way to deal with a singular powerful monster, or the army (True Polymorph v. Meteor Swarm, basically). Our OP (again, if I'm reading things right) isn't going to get that boon. They're stuck with their consistent damage output, which, admittedly is useful in its own right. That said, everyone seems to be able to roughly match the OP's consistent damage output with their magic items.
Here's where the problems I foresee cropping up. In theory, I could have a level 17 valor bard match the damage output of the OP with the right spells, and no feats, no magic items, no multiclassing. With either a bow OR a sword, and have a wide assortment of healing or damaging spells to fall back on if necessary. That's kind of frustrating. Meanwhile, at the OP's table? My theoretical bard would have a shapeshifting +3 Moonblade to turn into any weapon I want (that also deals +1d6 thunder damage), the legendary iron Horn of Valhalla, and an Effriti Chain. As well, against a boss, like an elemental Prince or the Tarrasque, the OP will lack the nova capacity others will get; same consistent damage, but no spike damage, and no magical defense against our BBEG's abilities.
So, yeah. I can see where there's some frustration going on. Conversely, I can also see where the GM is frustrated - having someone with the power level of a near-epic character at lower levels is challenging to run without killing everyone else. I've been there, both as a GM, and as a player. The OP's GM has chosen to re-balance things through the use of magic items. Not my favorite method (I personally find that it exasperates matters, and complicates things in the long run, since some magic items end up being too powerful and unbalanced on their own, but to each their own), but I can understand what the GM is thinking.
There's any number of solutions, but what works best is going to have to be hashed out between you and the GM, ultimately. Right now, I think that this is a band aid method, and you'll have issues long term, but its up to your table to balance things out. I still believe that this is the result of clashing playstyles - each person in your group comes with different expectations, and as a result, have different problems with these goals clash.
Hmmm, Fighter @ 17 gets a 2nd Action Surge. Ranger gets absolutely nothing @ 17 with Scout coming up the best - another attack AND Sneak Attack every round in optimal circumstances. I think my biggest regret about not sticking with Ranger is the lack of Volley.
My plan is to eek out THREE more ASIs by finishing off with 6 levels of Fighter, including Elven Accuracy and Crossbow Expert. With one left, I'm not sure but really leaning towards Lucky; although Mobile fits the theme & Alert would give a big boost to Initiative and prevent being Surprised. Someone in the party currently has a Weapon of Warning, so the last one really isn't as helpful anymore.
I think most melee "lose power" vs. a pure caster at higher levels. Melee of course can slog on as long as they have hit points.
Not sure where your theoretical Bard is getting the legendary/sentient Moonblade from...but that IS very nice. Is the +1d6 Thunder damage all the time or vs. one creature type? I'm curious how you would do lots of damage with a weapon of any kind; with a Long bow you might have 1d8+8 with an additional d6 vs. one creature type twice a round? Efreeti chain mail is decent, but puts your AC at 19 without anything else as you can't use any Dex bonus to AC. 21 if you have a shield, though that'd greatly limit the weapons your Moonblade shapes.
A Tarrasque would be interesting to fight, if outside (I've never fought one inside before) then the Boots of Flying (the item I rolled up my character with...was allowed to pick one Uncommon) would give me a very good defense since it has no ranged attack. Just Frightful Presence and once you save vs. that, you're good. It DOES have some distinct magic resists and Legendary Saves not to mention Reflective Carapace. Should have 3 attacks a round with +14 to hit so the AC of 25 is doable, particularly if I can gain Advantage and roll 3d20 thrice. That isn't easy to do while flying way, way up in the air though as there's usually no hiding spots. For me, think it'd be a pretty boring fight & my biggest problem might be running out of arrows/bolts. Of course, not sure how the rest of the party would be doing....probably half the party Swallowed & the other remainder dead/fleeing from its massive attacks.
From how your talking and arguing you sound like someone who is playing a glass cannon in an mmo. Talking to my own party of WoW enthusiasts, I tell them it doesn't matter if you can knock the balls off a dragon at 500 pages with maximum damage. Can you do it in character with style?
How is the rest of the party feeling in character to your min-maxed build. In fact what is the general sentiment to it ooc too?
Irregardless of the answers, without input from other members of your group or DM this entire thread can go on forever without giving you the answer you seek or change your mind about how your being treated.
"Dear Jim'll Fixit, My character can solo the Tarrasque. Please can you fixit for me to have some more magic items to help the fight be less boring. At the moment, before going up against this beast, I am so confident that I don't even need to plan even so far as having a hidden cache of arrows nearby in case I run out during the 'fight'.
Yours RenfaireMan.
PS Please could our rogue have a healing potion, cos his maximum hit points are quite low. "
"Hitting an AC of 25 with +14 to hit is doable." Doable? That's literally flip a coin*. Although you seem to want to flip two, or maybe even three, depending on cloud cover?
I am beginning to think we have all been trolled on this thread. If so, well played, Sir.
*Actually, the coin can't critical.....so not literally, but literally slightly better odds.
Well...the 5E Tarrasque is very vulnerable to (flying) archers since it doesn't have a ranged attack. Doesn't really prove anything. Plus, I don't have +14 to hit & those feats right now....that post about the Tarrasque was hypothetical. Obviously. There are some monsters I would struggle with and other party members would be strong against. Obviously.
For example, last night we fought 5 Revenants (undead Wizards from the (white/Solinari) Order of High Sorcery?) and the DM thought it'd be a really rough fight (since they drain Int and most people in the party have fairly low Int scores, just one Int caster (the Rogue). The Paladin with a Sun Blade made the fight trivial...because the spirits have Sunlight Sensitivity and flee from natural sunlight. Then a later fight, the Monk/Fighter made our next fight super easy, large fiends coming at us one at a time (down a hallway). He'd Stunning Fist the first one, we'd all drop it pretty much in time for the Monk to stun the next one.
Fasphoenix,
It IS a bit difficult to do combat "in character & with style" since we have 7-8 people at the table. My guy has personality quirks, an important background, thoughts, goals, etc, etc. I do a good job of keeping track of the campaign's myriad NPCs, history and background of the world, blah, blah, blah.
Its a discussion, there doesn't have to be a "win" here. There have been many good points made in the thread & I'm glad people have taken the time to post their thoughts.
Like, if your motivation for playing the game is to get the shiny loot, and your character is motivated by avarice, really you should be getting the shiny loots. All things being equal your character looks to just not be getting an even cut of the treasure from your adventures and since they are clearly doing lots of heavy lifting, thats bullshit. it might not be bullshit enough to consider going on strike, or mercenary work, but i'm sure there are some evil lords out there that would give a pretty shirt to the most skilled sniper that ever lived.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's funny, last session we found a Headband of Intellect. Thinking about giving it to a horse....
you know most of your replies seem defensive, people aren't attacking you, they are trying to explain to you why your DM might be trying to limit you.
I'm saying that is if a player builds his guy around defense, should I get jealous that he can take the hits and I can't?
Moreso, if the DM then gives out rare/epic/legendary weapons and items to said defensive player so they can do more damage/participate in taking down mobs....is that fair? That character then has incredible defense & offense. I'm just stuck with the offense my build offers and whatever defense I can scrounge up via class abilities and features.
I usually deal fairly consistent damage, the Sorcerer sometimes gets some good AoE (including his Wand of the War Mage +2). The other Rogue does exceptional damage with her Flaming Whip of Haste and the Monk we have puts out great damage with his Electric Short Sword of Bursting. War Cleric deals damage and keeps people in the fight if something goes wrong, Paladin gives buffs and his Aura (not to mention mobs wasting their time trying to hit him). Giving Kudos to other players who deal good damage isn't being condescending, its good sportsmanship. Sometimes they do more damage than me. Sometimes less. Again, a Strawman argument.
If it IS a total party effort, then everyone in the party should be eligible for loot. Instead, what happens is....the DM looks at who did top damage in combat and gives loot accordingly. I can't get Studded Leather +1, I do too much damage. DPS is being used as a measure of how effective a person is in combat. Nevermind how much damage the tanks soaked up or how much healing was done, DPS is being used as the sole "scale" as to who gets more magic items.
There's more to combat than just dealing damage to monsters.
I'll try to make it simple, if there are 4 people playing in the game and 3 rare/super rare/legendary/artifact items are in the party, who should get the next such item? That is the DM's dilema; give items out equally or give out items fairly? Say a player isn't really doing well in the game, do you reward their inability? By that same token, if someone has a well-built character, you then....don't reward them?
"Sorry, you don't get any magic items for the BBEG, you dropped him too fast with your crazy DPS....but every other party member gets something."
I think most people responding to you, do understand what you are trying to say. Shoot even my previous response wasn't me trying to say you shouldn't be getting loot. I think what most people are doing is trying to explain to you the DM's mindset.
It isn't us trying to tell you that you shouldn't talk to your DM or that your DM is right. We are simply trying to provide you with the context in what we believe might be behind the DM's choices, once again we are trying to provide this information with very little context, we once again only have your side of the story.
My players all have magic loot, I personally don't control the loot, I give it all to the party and they decide who gets what. That, however, is how I DM, your DM might have a different idea and that is what great about D&D it is completely different depending on not only the campaign but who you play with.
You do know you just made mine and others points, those people have magic items that help that deal the good amount of damage you say you can deal without them.
Here's a hypothetical & I think some people posting here got the gist:
Player A: I'm going to make a Barbarian with a 14 Str.
Player B: I'm going to make a Rogue with an 18 Dex.
DM: I better give Player A some Gauntlets of Ogre Power or he's just not going to be effective. Player B doesn't need any magic items, he has a good character build.
I get your point, you built a character specifically to deal DPS. Which is good, you know what you want and you accomplished it.
My question to you is are you getting the point people are making when they are trying to explain why your DM might be overlooking you in magic items? Here I'll provide you with an example:
Player A: I'm going to make a Barbarian with a 14 Str.
Player B: I'm going to make a Rogue with an 18 Dex.
DM: I better give Player A some Gauntlets of Ogre Power or he's just not going to be effective. Player B doesn't need any magic items, he has a good character build.
Once again, it doesn't make the DM overlooking you for magic items a good thing. I personally think it is just the DM trying to balance what he sees as an imbalance. Which once again is just my opinion. It doesn't make me nor your DM correct.
Out of curiosity, I couldn't find it, how many people are you playing with and how long have each of them been playing D&D including yourself.
Ah, its a party that can be upwards of 8 people at a time. I've been playing since 2nd edition; not sure how long some of the others have been playing. Some are old school, some aren't.
Players were rolled up with a point buy system, so if the Barbarian went with a 14 Str...then he spent his stat points somewhere else. It isn't like it was a random roll. If the Paladin has a 12 Str, a 14 Dex and a 20 Charisma...that's his choice.
If you make a very defensive build, don't be surprised (or jealous) that you aren't doing a lot of damage, not taking down mobs, its part of a team effort; parties need tanks/front line people. When the team wins, the loot shouldn't be decided by who is doing the most damage. Its an unfair metric.
Naw, that's ok. I'm looking for a discussion about the issue...and maybe someone who can present a decent argument to change my mind. I love loot and gear maybe too much...isn't that part of the game, kill the dragon, take its loot, be more powerful? Otherwise, if its just about me and only me, I'll just go kill a few thousand boars in the forest. Dragon? Why kill it at all?!
Maybe I've just been playing too much WoW between 3.5 and 5?!?!
A game of "kill a dragon, take the loot, become more powerful" and nothing more is anything but an RPG, imho.
An RPG should be played primarily for the story. Obviously the rewards are important, but they should not be the end, they should just be a mean for the characters to face stronger opponents the story puts in front of them.
Edit: I know you said "part of", but feels like loot is quite up in your scale of priorities, no offense.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
LeK,
Because I'm not having a problem with the story or the RP, which is good....killing the dragon IS part of the story. Actually, I think out current plotline needs us to kill 2 more.
In Lethal Weapon there is a scene where Riggs says to Murtaugh "We're gonna get bloody on this one, Roger." For me, that is the highlight of the film. Despite all the great chases, helicopter battles, gunfights, suicide attempts etc.
she is dead!)
Here's another opinion - 7 or 8 players around a table is just way too many - No wonder the DM is bribing them with magic items to stay!
Name three of the Magnificent Seven. Three character tags for the Reservoir Dogs, 5 of the hundred and one dalmations.....
(Yes, you can name all nine of the 'Company of the Ring' and every dwarf in The Hobbit....but that's just Fantasy 101 for us. It doesn't count. )
Enough talking - roll that initiative bone and let's get down to the real monkey business.....
Roleplaying since Runequest.
As the followup sentence from the one you cut the quote to should have made clear (probably not to the extent I hoped for) my objection was not on combat not being important (for me it is an integral and necessary part of the story itself), but on making the loot the focus of the experience, which, if I am not wrong, you agree to.
To clarify further: story bits are important, at the same level of importance we have the combat, when used organically to connect and help progressing the story bits, loot (while extremely nice in some cases) if not integrated into the story should not feel like something to focus on, IMHO.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Hi, Lek.
Read everything I write as if I am smiling at the same time, realise that playing Devil's advocate is my favourite pastime (especially while I am in my office), and forget about ever upsetting me (unless you call for the damage from a whip to be increased! Grrrr....)
Also, despite my slow crawl towards senility, I still know what IMHO means (It's the first name of Mr. Tep, King of Egypt before he became a paragon mummy.)
I left that sentence in to show you were not demanding we play a certain way...
Every story and every active Forum must have conflict, otherwise it is no better than a dictionary*.
*I mean no offence; my fondness for dictionaries is often mocked. :)
Eggs, milk, flour : I would consume 1 of those in that state, but mix them together.....Mmmm, I'm staying for some of that!
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Well, as of last update, we had a game that was at level 15. At this point, we're nearing that level 17 milestone, the last big jump in power. Even assuming the game does last past level 20, the new boons aren't exactly going to offer a new massive jump in power. Before this, we've dealt with armies led by death knights, challenged, the greatest of sphinxes, and so on.
At 17? We start shifting focus to start looking beyond. Fiendish / celestial / elemental rulers, ancient dragons and immortal liches are the name of the game now; all lesser beings are considered an average challenge; with legendary equipment, you could theoretically solo these death knights and sphinxes that challenged the group last tier. Singular beings and their lower level hordes and followers. The PC under discussion definitely has the power to remain challenging at this current tier of power. But the next?
Now, part of the problem I have with multiclassing is that, at low levels, you can stack front loaded classes for boosts in power and ability. That said, you don't get the same power bumps from the milestone levels. So, if you're not a power gamer with a good amount of system expertise at doing this, chances are you're hurting yourself more than helping at high levels. If I'm reading the OP's build right, he's relying heavily on Sharpshooter and accuracy fishing to deal damage, as well as several evasive maneuvers. At this point, though, I don't know if he is going to have another power boost while everyone else does. There's two attribute / feat bumps coming up, but I'm not sure if there's any feats that will significantly help the OP.
So, right now we have the situation where everyone else is dealing damage equal to the OP with their magic items. At level 17, they'll be getting a bit of a bump in power, generally in the form of some kind of nova-surge type thing. That's a deliberate design choice, because level 17+ tends to have either lots of low level swarms or singular juggernauts. So, most of the abilities revolve around that in some way - either some way to deal with a singular powerful monster, or the army (True Polymorph v. Meteor Swarm, basically). Our OP (again, if I'm reading things right) isn't going to get that boon. They're stuck with their consistent damage output, which, admittedly is useful in its own right. That said, everyone seems to be able to roughly match the OP's consistent damage output with their magic items.
Here's where the problems I foresee cropping up. In theory, I could have a level 17 valor bard match the damage output of the OP with the right spells, and no feats, no magic items, no multiclassing. With either a bow OR a sword, and have a wide assortment of healing or damaging spells to fall back on if necessary. That's kind of frustrating. Meanwhile, at the OP's table? My theoretical bard would have a shapeshifting +3 Moonblade to turn into any weapon I want (that also deals +1d6 thunder damage), the legendary iron Horn of Valhalla, and an Effriti Chain. As well, against a boss, like an elemental Prince or the Tarrasque, the OP will lack the nova capacity others will get; same consistent damage, but no spike damage, and no magical defense against our BBEG's abilities.
So, yeah. I can see where there's some frustration going on. Conversely, I can also see where the GM is frustrated - having someone with the power level of a near-epic character at lower levels is challenging to run without killing everyone else. I've been there, both as a GM, and as a player. The OP's GM has chosen to re-balance things through the use of magic items. Not my favorite method (I personally find that it exasperates matters, and complicates things in the long run, since some magic items end up being too powerful and unbalanced on their own, but to each their own), but I can understand what the GM is thinking.
There's any number of solutions, but what works best is going to have to be hashed out between you and the GM, ultimately. Right now, I think that this is a band aid method, and you'll have issues long term, but its up to your table to balance things out. I still believe that this is the result of clashing playstyles - each person in your group comes with different expectations, and as a result, have different problems with these goals clash.
Mephista,
Hmmm, Fighter @ 17 gets a 2nd Action Surge. Ranger gets absolutely nothing @ 17 with Scout coming up the best - another attack AND Sneak Attack every round in optimal circumstances. I think my biggest regret about not sticking with Ranger is the lack of Volley.
My plan is to eek out THREE more ASIs by finishing off with 6 levels of Fighter, including Elven Accuracy and Crossbow Expert. With one left, I'm not sure but really leaning towards Lucky; although Mobile fits the theme & Alert would give a big boost to Initiative and prevent being Surprised. Someone in the party currently has a Weapon of Warning, so the last one really isn't as helpful anymore.
I think most melee "lose power" vs. a pure caster at higher levels. Melee of course can slog on as long as they have hit points.
Not sure where your theoretical Bard is getting the legendary/sentient Moonblade from...but that IS very nice. Is the +1d6 Thunder damage all the time or vs. one creature type? I'm curious how you would do lots of damage with a weapon of any kind; with a Long bow you might have 1d8+8 with an additional d6 vs. one creature type twice a round? Efreeti chain mail is decent, but puts your AC at 19 without anything else as you can't use any Dex bonus to AC. 21 if you have a shield, though that'd greatly limit the weapons your Moonblade shapes.
A Tarrasque would be interesting to fight, if outside (I've never fought one inside before) then the Boots of Flying (the item I rolled up my character with...was allowed to pick one Uncommon) would give me a very good defense since it has no ranged attack. Just Frightful Presence and once you save vs. that, you're good. It DOES have some distinct magic resists and Legendary Saves not to mention Reflective Carapace. Should have 3 attacks a round with +14 to hit so the AC of 25 is doable, particularly if I can gain Advantage and roll 3d20 thrice. That isn't easy to do while flying way, way up in the air though as there's usually no hiding spots. For me, think it'd be a pretty boring fight & my biggest problem might be running out of arrows/bolts. Of course, not sure how the rest of the party would be doing....probably half the party Swallowed & the other remainder dead/fleeing from its massive attacks.
How are you role-playing this uber dps character?
From how your talking and arguing you sound like someone who is playing a glass cannon in an mmo. Talking to my own party of WoW enthusiasts, I tell them it doesn't matter if you can knock the balls off a dragon at 500 pages with maximum damage. Can you do it in character with style?
How is the rest of the party feeling in character to your min-maxed build. In fact what is the general sentiment to it ooc too?
Irregardless of the answers, without input from other members of your group or DM this entire thread can go on forever without giving you the answer you seek or change your mind about how your being treated.
"Dear Jim'll Fixit, My character can solo the Tarrasque. Please can you fixit for me to have some more magic items to help the fight be less boring. At the moment, before going up against this beast, I am so confident that I don't even need to plan even so far as having a hidden cache of arrows nearby in case I run out during the 'fight'.
Yours RenfaireMan.
PS Please could our rogue have a healing potion, cos his maximum hit points are quite low. "
"Hitting an AC of 25 with +14 to hit is doable."
Doable? That's literally flip a coin*.
Although you seem to want to flip two, or maybe even three, depending on cloud cover?
I am beginning to think we have all been trolled on this thread. If so, well played, Sir.
*Actually, the coin can't critical.....so not literally, but literally slightly better odds.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
The_Plundered_Tombs,
Well...the 5E Tarrasque is very vulnerable to (flying) archers since it doesn't have a ranged attack. Doesn't really prove anything. Plus, I don't have +14 to hit & those feats right now....that post about the Tarrasque was hypothetical. Obviously. There are some monsters I would struggle with and other party members would be strong against. Obviously.
For example, last night we fought 5 Revenants (undead Wizards from the (white/Solinari) Order of High Sorcery?) and the DM thought it'd be a really rough fight (since they drain Int and most people in the party have fairly low Int scores, just one Int caster (the Rogue). The Paladin with a Sun Blade made the fight trivial...because the spirits have Sunlight Sensitivity and flee from natural sunlight. Then a later fight, the Monk/Fighter made our next fight super easy, large fiends coming at us one at a time (down a hallway). He'd Stunning Fist the first one, we'd all drop it pretty much in time for the Monk to stun the next one.
Fasphoenix,
It IS a bit difficult to do combat "in character & with style" since we have 7-8 people at the table. My guy has personality quirks, an important background, thoughts, goals, etc, etc. I do a good job of keeping track of the campaign's myriad NPCs, history and background of the world, blah, blah, blah.
Its a discussion, there doesn't have to be a "win" here. There have been many good points made in the thread & I'm glad people have taken the time to post their thoughts.
Like, if your motivation for playing the game is to get the shiny loot, and your character is motivated by avarice, really you should be getting the shiny loots. All things being equal your character looks to just not be getting an even cut of the treasure from your adventures and since they are clearly doing lots of heavy lifting, thats bullshit. it might not be bullshit enough to consider going on strike, or mercenary work, but i'm sure there are some evil lords out there that would give a pretty shirt to the most skilled sniper that ever lived.