Now that I'm thinking about it: more spellcasting variations between the casting classes, a la Pact Magic.
I agree. And, more spellcasters using different ability scores, to make it so not everyone multiclasses Paladin/Bard/Warlock/Sorcerer so often. IMO, Sorcerers should use Constitution as their spellcasting ability. I'll talk about that more in my post on rebalancing the ability scores.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
They’re pointing out that for the worst offenders, it isn’t a matter of “making it the best you can with the combinations available” and becomes making it “THE BESTESTEST POSSIBLE EVER!!1!1!!!1” and that if they cannot they whine and piss and ***** and moan and cheat until the rest of the table collectively boots them.
In a previous thread you told me that you would refuse to play at a table that doesn't roll stats. I'm fine with that, that's just your desired style of play and I won't tell you that your fun is wrong. But if for you the game is no longer D&D unless you can play the most realistic-feeling version of the game, gaining the possibility of you have less than desirable stats in your class's main focus, why can't the game no longer be D&D to the people who see the game in an alternative way? If you see it one way and have fun in one style of play, why is it wrong to see it and play a different way?
I have never played with anyone who has acted the way you have, have never said or acted anywhere along the way you stated it, and never had a fun-destroying problem with powergaming in any of my campaigns. For me and everyone I have ever met that enjoys powergaming, it is all about making the best you can with the combinations available to your player choices, not about being the best in the game. If there are players who are jerks and problem-powergame, I assure you that it goes both ways, with characters so incorrigibly random and nonsensical that they're impossible to play with.
A few corrections:
I don’t want to play at a table where everyone insists on me having no choice but to play without random stats. That’s not the same thing as you describe.
I never said “your fun is wrong.” I said that if that is someone’s idea of fun, then I would not be a good fit for their group, nor they for mine. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I also never said that my current group plays the way I described. What I described was the way we played back in the 1990s. That was middle-high school. The group I play with now, I met after college because life happened. Gobback and reread my posts and you will see I only ever talked about “the way we played back then” when describing that method. Don’t get it twisted.
I never said “the game is no longer D&D unless you can play the most realistic-feeling version of the game.” Again, please don’t put words in my mouth.
I have also never said a kind word about “characters so incorrigibly random and nonsensical that they're impossible to play with.” I ban Wild Magic in my games specifically because of that horse poopy! Not having it when I DM.
Remember a while ago when I explained my philosophy about “Narative, Game, and Social aspects of D&D needing to be in relative balance for every table?” It was about how everyone in the group needs to be in roughly the same mindset about how important those three things are for their group. If everyone is there to “Experience The Story” then no problem. If everyone is there to “Play the Game” then no problem. If everyone is there to “Hang Out with Friends” then no problem.
But if one person mostly cares about Story, and another mostly cares about Game, and another mostly cares about Friends, then nobody ends up having fun. Story & Friends will resent “that boring rules Nazi,” Rules & Story will resent “the annoying distracting player,” and Friends & Rules will resent "the coffee table author.”
If the tripod of your table’s “alignment” is all balanced around “Playing The Game” then I know I would not be a good fit there. You’re either gonna find me socializing distracting, or my focus on a cool character over statistical effectiveness to be an anchor on the team. I don’t mind being having a strong character, but if I don’t have above a +3 from my prime ability until level 12, I really don’t see a problem with it as long as I like the character.
For highly Social tables, I get annoyed because of a lack of focus. When everyone is basically just fapping about most of the time, and when they are playing half of the characters are #randomandanoyingforfunzies an I just can’t with that. They get annoyed with my for leaving early and not coming back.
Of course, I’m not really the best fit for my group either, since they are mostly concerned with “Experiencing The Story.” For most of them, the rules mostly just get in the way. So when I point out rules stuff, they don’t always appreciate it. And as a player I occasionally chat too much which distracts them. But when they actually want to know the rules, they don’t reach for their books, they just turn and look at me, even when I’m not DMing. So they don’t resent my rules knowledge too much, and there are nights that I’m a player and I’m the one trying to reign in their cross talk so I can’t be too much of a distraction. And their story is never such a priority that they don’t generally know the rules. And they’re not like one of those groups that actually shushes people like it’s the theater or anything. So as a table the balance generally shifted slightly off of center over the Story leg. And if the table has to drift one of the three ways, I prefer it to be RP and Story leaning. I like when we speak in character a lot and really get into it more than I like rules and chitchat.
Don’t get me wrong, I like rules, and I like some friendly socializing. I personally prefer more of a balance towards center. I like a table full of people who are very knowledgeable about the rules, but don’t worry about optimization. A table full of people who love to RP and really get into character, but alsp aren’t going to blatantly ignore that there are rules to do it. People don’t resent a little crosstalk because we’re humans for crying out loud, but also remember that we are there for a group activity, not a cocktail party. So basically anywhere generally around the middle of the table is fine by me.
...fine. It's not like I spent hundreds of dollars on this account or anything. Ugh.
@Sposta/Lyxen:
Hitting the "Randomize" button on DDB and committing to trying to treat what comes out as a 100% serious character is neither High Art nor the Only True Road to Roleplaying. It is a method, certainly, but it is hardly the only method or even the best method, and neither I nor anyone else care that it was the first method. But this is a tangent. The real point of discussion, and what everyone seems to get super pissed off about and constantly berate the Evil Cheating Baby-Eating Powergaming Munchkin Buttholes for, is a difference in game tone. Namely, a difference between Underdogs and Competent Men.
Randomized characters are almost always Underdogs. They have abso-gobsmack-terrible stats, a miserable numbers/class line-up, and are generally just...just really bad. Really bad. Their stories and lore and fluff are not necessarily better or worse than the ECBEPMB's characters, they're simply mechanically awful. Where the ECBEPMB might see a +2 in a given check as the floor of basic usability and a +5 in one's attack roll as the start of Actually Being Good, a randomizer will see that +2 and that +5 as a gift from the gods. Those numbers are hella great, because the randomizer is usually used to rolling either a straight die or a negative number on their bonus. They like doing so. For them, watching the story of a bunch of ragtag ****-up underdogs who have no business being heroes turn out to be heroes anyways is awesome. Whether it's a life lesson or an Affirmative Message or even just the way they prefer their fiction, doesn't matter. These are folks who figure there's no entertainment value in watching a Heroic Hero do Hero Things with their Hero Face. They'd rather be Samwise Gamgee - just a regular-ass dood who's not at all suited to haring off on an Adventure, but has to anyways for reasons and scrapes through with nothing but determination, heart, and friendship.
Now. Allow me to start the other half of this by saying that one of my absolute favorite authors of all time is a man named David Weber. David Weber writes primarily science fiction, but also dabbles in fantasy occasionally. In either case, he's well known for a type of story some folks (disparagingly) refer to as "competence ****". In a David Weber novel, the protagonist is generally so skilled and highly trained that it borders on the absurd. They are possessed of exceptional talent and that talent has been sharpened to a razor's edge. When operating within their favored ability set, a Weber protagonist is extremely difficult to surpass. Bahzell Banahkson is an eight foot mountain of muscle possessed of explosive power, tremendous speed, superhuman strength and all the magical abilities of his status as a paladin of Tomanak; he does not lose fights to mortal foes. Honor Harrington does not lose naval battles; she's so far ahead of most of her peers, and so well known for her work, that she's not even the focus of her own series anymore - Weber had to put her on a shelf via promotion to the Admiralty in order to progress the series. Alicia DeVries is a single soldier with enough skill and power to topple governments. These characters are so good at what they do that a chunk of each book is devoted to establishing that these individuals are vastly rarer than one in a million.
Thing is? Their enemies are just as exceptional as they are. Sure, sometimes Weber indulges in the catharsis of letting his exceptionally competent heroes just absolutely walk over a boob what got in over their heads, but the primary antagonists of any given Weber series are every bit as outlandishly competent as the protagonists, and often possessed of far greater resources. Only bureaucratic incompetence on the part of the Baddites or feverish brilliance on the part of the Goodites keeps the protagonist ahead of the game - if they even are.
That is what is exciting to a great many of those Evil Cheating Baby-Eating Powergaming Munchkin Buttholes. Not 'killing' the plot with lolwinning, but creating an exceptional individual - one who is just exceptional enough to take on the challenge of dealing with truly devious, diabolical, or outright horrific villains. We want the DM to bring his A game, hit us with BBEGs that push us to our limits and challenge us in areas we're not strong in, force us to adapt and display even greater brilliance to keep up. I love stories where exceptional individuals are put through exceptional hell, and still manage to scrape a win. Those stories are ****in' awesome. But you don't get to play them unless you carefully craft an exceptionally talented and well-trained individual who can handle being subjected to an exceptional level of hell.
There's plenty of variation between those two extremes, of course. But nobody ever, ever, ever, EVER seems to acknowledge that maybe the Evil Cheating Baby_Eating Powergaming Munchkin Buttholes are not actually any of those things...but are instead simply looking for a different kind of story than Ragtag Underdog Farm Boy Uses the Schwartz to Save Hyrule?
Alright, we can go to the loony bin together on this one I suppose. We are friends after all:
Hitting the "Randomize" button on DDB and committing to trying to treat what comes out as a 100% serious character is neither High Art nor the Only True Road to Roleplaying.
For them, watching the story of a bunch of ragtag ****-up underdogs who have no business being heroes turn out to be heroes anyways is awesome.
I have never once said any of that horse poo. So kindly please, stop putting words I never effing said in my effing mouth and then going off on me like I’m the devil.
When the hell did I endorse or advocate for hitting the randomize button?
When the hell did I ever call anyone anything even remotely resembling an “Evil Cheating Baby-Eating Powergaming Munchkin Buttholes” in any context.
When the hell did I say anything approximately suggesting that I thought playin “a bunch of ragtag ****-up underdogs who have no business being heroes turn out to be heroes anyways is awesome.“
Point to a single gorram post of mine advocating for or endorsing absolutely 100% randomized characters. Or one that called anyone an “ECBEPMB.” Or one where I said a bunch of abjectly ridiculous characters makes a good party.
I post a shedload, so there is absolutely no lack of source material for you to go through. And you and I are friends, and we PM a good deal, so I’ll even count those too just to be on the safe side. That gives you over 11,000 statement I have made that you could look through for even the slightest shred of reference to back up your claim. And I can guaran-flippin’-tee that you will not find it anywhere.
I suggested that folks try starting from random and then building a character from that and not worrying about “optimized.” I have said that rolling random Ability Scores and then building a character from that is a worthwhile, rewarding, and educational experience. I have said that I personally believe that D&D is more fun if one doesn’t optimize.
So I will repeat my request that you stop twisting what I say up into a vindictive caricature of what I actually said, and then getting angry at me for it. It is uncalled for. If you wanna get angry at me for things I actually say I cannot object to that. But stop intentionally misrepresenting my statements or I will give you something to be pissed at me about. Deal?
(I'm making a large post about rebalancing ability scores (STR, CON, INT) and changes that I hope come in 5.5e/6e, but it will be awhile until it is posted, as it is taking awhile to write.)
Yeah con feels like just a score tax currently, and not a score in itself. Imo there either needs to be skills based on it, or it needs to be removed and become a standard modifier between different hit die.
Also I'll be on the lookout for the 5.5/6e post!
Now that I'm thinking about it: more spellcasting variations between the casting classes, a la Pact Magic.
Would love to see this. I want there to be a proper mechanic difference between divine, primal, arcane, occult, and psionic powers. 5e has blurred them so much that even psionics seems to be just normal spellcasting. These different sources used to be shown and acknowledged, but 5e seems to have removed it.
With...respect...it doesn't help when accusations of "entitlement" are thrown at a portion of the playerbase for wanting to generate and play a character a certain way, especially when comparisons are being made to how the game used to be played. If I can be frank, it kind of does shift the tone of the conversation quite negatively.
Again, with respect, I'm not aware of anyone who has made that argument. Certainly, there's been people stating their preferred method, and perhaps they could represent themselves differently than they have been, but that's a different argument.
I'm well aware of what the thread is. And I'm still not aware of anyone saying who has made that argument, other than to say, "I wish that X blurb could have been added", which is very much in the scope of the thread, whereas debating the merits of such a statement is, frankly, not in the scope of this thread.
Power gamer Perry creates his pc to be the best at the table and fights for the extra point 0002 damage per round. Thinks everyone build their pc in the same method and talks down to those players who don’t do so. Aka goober
Optimizer Odo creates his pc to best in his class with the DM’s campaign in mind. Will fight for the extra point 0002. Does care how other players build their pc.
Idea Indiana. I have an idea. Builds their class toward their idea. Occasionally a goober.
Randomize Roger. Does not care about stats just here to play the game.
Role-play Ralph. Cares about role play only. Will try to turn every fight into a social encounter even if they stats will not allow it Talks down to people who don’t dig his style. Aka goober.
As long as the table is having fun, everything is cool. But there is badwrongfun if the table is not in sync.
Idea Indiana. I have an idea. Builds their class toward their idea.
That sums up how I do it.
10/10 don't recommend building a character like that. Every time I try to build around a cool idea I find I can't build my character in a satisfying manner and get mad because earlier editions along with pathfinder allow that idea.
Imo the best way to build a character is pick a class first, and then try to come up with an idea within that class definition.
W...what? That's like the entire core feature of druid, the thing which makes the class be a druid in DnD.
I mean I'd remove it from the class as a whole and make it moon druid specific, which opens up people playing shamans which are primal casters not built around wildshape. But removing the entire feature seems pretty absurd.
It works really well for beginners, and it can work for more experienced players too, if:
You don't have too precise an idea of the character that you want to build, just general ideas, and
You accept that you will start him as "Young XXX" with room to grow in the future.
If you can in and want to play exactly Kaladin Stormblessed with all his power array, then obviously you will fail. Some system might approximate the character a bit better, but these are systems with hundreds of inconsistent and untested options that create a mess.
But if a player comes in and say "I would like to play an elven archer like Legolas" and you explain that it will be "Young Legolas" at start with obviously lesser skills, you will find multiple way to build it without any problem.
It's not the power levels which I have issues with trying to build from an idea. I'll happily play non optimal combos and almost never pick the species with the correct ASI's for the class I pick. I enjoy lvl 1-5 the most as the characters feel weak and in realistic danger all the time.
But there are certain character ideas which simply don't work well at all in 5e. I've given in trying to build the type of character which is ideal for me as DnD 5e just does not include it in a satisfying way, and I'll be just left comparing it endlessly to those classes in prior editions and finding it wanting.
There are tons of other classes and characters I enjoy in 5e, but there are a few in particular which this edition completely fails at.
With...respect...it doesn't help when accusations of "entitlement" are thrown at a portion of the playerbase for wanting to generate and play a character a certain way, especially when comparisons are being made to how the game used to be played. If I can be frank, it kind of does shift the tone of the conversation quite negatively.
Nothing is stopping anybody from playing a power character. There' s an entire database on DnDBeyond of classes that you can ask your GM to let you play.
With...respect...it doesn't help when accusations of "entitlement" are thrown at a portion of the playerbase for wanting to generate and play a character a certain way, especially when comparisons are being made to how the game used to be played. If I can be frank, it kind of does shift the tone of the conversation quite negatively.
That’s a fair point. And to that I apologize.
Good on ya!
Yeah I feel it moves either to "old tryhards gonna ruin my RP!" or "New players are snowflakes who dont understand real pain!" too much and I am guilty of it as well.
As many have stated its good that we recognize our own bias and let tables play as they will is the best option.
I can say I am sorry as well if I did not show the respect to the older editions. They are very much deserving of reverence as they are the reason we still have the game to this day!
About point buy, even the most powergamey setup, three 15's and three 8's, actually feels like you are gimping your character. Sure you are going to be great at somethings, but you will die form saving throws. I like point buy, but I rarely deviate very far from the standard array.
Same. I normally recommend Standard Array over Point Buy for newer players who might not understand the consequences of putting 3 8's in stats that you think you don't need. Anyway, if this discussion is to continue, it probably should in another thread. Maybe we (as a thread) should discuss a different aspect of 5e that we think should change?
(I'm making a large post about rebalancing ability scores (STR, CON, INT) and changes that I hope come in 5.5e/6e, but it will be awhile until it is posted, as it is taking awhile to write.)
When I draw up chars, using the 27 point buy, they inevitably have a pair of 16's, a 14, a 12, and two 8's', after species specific bonuses are added. (Slight variations may occur, depending how my build plan for that char). That is in my mind the best outcome possible. And totally reasonable for a 1st level char.
Another thing I would change is to alter a Warlock's Mystic Arcanum's spells into the equivalent of a spell slot, with limitations.
Say Mr. 12th level Warlock wants to upcast Summon Greater Demon. He could use the 6th level spell slot, but whatever Mystic Arcanum spell he learned at 11th level is lost until a long rest is competed. This would allow Warlocks to cast spells that scream "Upcast Me!", while incurring a real penalty for that privilege. If the Warlock was say 13th level, and wanted to upcast his 11th level Mystic Arcanum spell to a 7th level spell slot, both the 6th level spell slot, and the 7th level spell slot, would be used.
With...respect...it doesn't help when accusations of "entitlement" are thrown at a portion of the playerbase for wanting to generate and play a character a certain way, especially when comparisons are being made to how the game used to be played. If I can be frank, it kind of does shift the tone of the conversation quite negatively.
That is fair enough but when it is pointed out to some people that they can currently play that way if their group is into that, that the rules themselves say that DM's can alter things for their campaigns and that there will be no 'rules police' coming by to enforce anything, they insist that is not good enough and their preferred playstyle should be the official playstyle, or at least an official playstyle.
And insist they are doing all this out of some sort of altruism rather than simply saying that is the style they prefer.
Under those circumstances, it does come across as a sense of entitlement.
That is not what is happening, that is twisting what has been said. This whole subthread was started by someone stating that they want to remove a way of stat generation from the game. Neither Yurei, Mezzurah, I, nor any other powergamer in this thread has acted superior to anyone else who uses a different playstyle. In fact, the reverse has happened. Multiple people on the other side has stated that powergaming is bad for the game, the game should change to avoid powergaming, and that our fun is wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
About point buy, even the most powergamey setup, three 15's and three 8's, actually feels like you are gimping your character. Sure you are going to be great at somethings, but you will die form saving throws. I like point buy, but I rarely deviate very far from the standard array.
Same. I normally recommend Standard Array over Point Buy for newer players who might not understand the consequences of putting 3 8's in stats that you think you don't need. Anyway, if this discussion is to continue, it probably should in another thread. Maybe we (as a thread) should discuss a different aspect of 5e that we think should change?
(I'm making a large post about rebalancing ability scores (STR, CON, INT) and changes that I hope come in 5.5e/6e, but it will be awhile until it is posted, as it is taking awhile to write.)
When I draw up chars, using the 27 point buy, they inevitably have a pair of 16's, a 14, a 12, and two 8's', after species specific bonuses are added. (Slight variations may occur, depending how my build plan for that char). That is in my mind the best outcome possible. And totally reasonable for a 1st level char.
That is totally fine if you do that, I didn't say it wasn't an incorrect way to play. I instead said that I recommend standard array instead of point buy for new players who may not be aware of the consequences of doing that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Now that I'm thinking about it: more spellcasting variations between the casting classes, a la Pact Magic.
I agree. And, more spellcasters using different ability scores, to make it so not everyone multiclasses Paladin/Bard/Warlock/Sorcerer so often. IMO, Sorcerers should use Constitution as their spellcasting ability. I'll talk about that more in my post on rebalancing the ability scores.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
A few corrections:
Remember a while ago when I explained my philosophy about “Narative, Game, and Social aspects of D&D needing to be in relative balance for every table?” It was about how everyone in the group needs to be in roughly the same mindset about how important those three things are for their group. If everyone is there to “Experience The Story” then no problem. If everyone is there to “Play the Game” then no problem. If everyone is there to “Hang Out with Friends” then no problem.
But if one person mostly cares about Story, and another mostly cares about Game, and another mostly cares about Friends, then nobody ends up having fun. Story & Friends will resent “that boring rules Nazi,” Rules & Story will resent “the annoying distracting player,” and Friends & Rules will resent "the coffee table author.”
If the tripod of your table’s “alignment” is all balanced around “Playing The Game” then I know I would not be a good fit there. You’re either gonna find me socializing distracting, or my focus on a cool character over statistical effectiveness to be an anchor on the team. I don’t mind being having a strong character, but if I don’t have above a +3 from my prime ability until level 12, I really don’t see a problem with it as long as I like the character.
For highly Social tables, I get annoyed because of a lack of focus. When everyone is basically just fapping about most of the time, and when they are playing half of the characters are #randomandanoyingforfunzies an I just can’t with that. They get annoyed with my for leaving early and not coming back.
Of course, I’m not really the best fit for my group either, since they are mostly concerned with “Experiencing The Story.” For most of them, the rules mostly just get in the way. So when I point out rules stuff, they don’t always appreciate it. And as a player I occasionally chat too much which distracts them. But when they actually want to know the rules, they don’t reach for their books, they just turn and look at me, even when I’m not DMing. So they don’t resent my rules knowledge too much, and there are nights that I’m a player and I’m the one trying to reign in their cross talk so I can’t be too much of a distraction. And their story is never such a priority that they don’t generally know the rules. And they’re not like one of those groups that actually shushes people like it’s the theater or anything. So as a table the balance generally shifted slightly off of center over the Story leg. And if the table has to drift one of the three ways, I prefer it to be RP and Story leaning. I like when we speak in character a lot and really get into it more than I like rules and chitchat.
Don’t get me wrong, I like rules, and I like some friendly socializing. I personally prefer more of a balance towards center. I like a table full of people who are very knowledgeable about the rules, but don’t worry about optimization. A table full of people who love to RP and really get into character, but alsp aren’t going to blatantly ignore that there are rules to do it. People don’t resent a little crosstalk because we’re humans for crying out loud, but also remember that we are there for a group activity, not a cocktail party. So basically anywhere generally around the middle of the table is fine by me.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Alright, we can go to the loony bin together on this one I suppose. We are friends after all:
I have never once said any of that horse poo. So kindly please, stop putting words I never effing said in my effing mouth and then going off on me like I’m the devil.
Point to a single gorram post of mine advocating for or endorsing absolutely 100% randomized characters. Or one that called anyone an “ECBEPMB.” Or one where I said a bunch of abjectly ridiculous characters makes a good party.
I post a shedload, so there is absolutely no lack of source material for you to go through. And you and I are friends, and we PM a good deal, so I’ll even count those too just to be on the safe side. That gives you over 11,000 statement I have made that you could look through for even the slightest shred of reference to back up your claim. And I can guaran-flippin’-tee that you will not find it anywhere.
I suggested that folks try starting from random and then building a character from that and not worrying about “optimized.” I have said that rolling random Ability Scores and then building a character from that is a worthwhile, rewarding, and educational experience. I have said that I personally believe that D&D is more fun if one doesn’t optimize.
So I will repeat my request that you stop twisting what I say up into a vindictive caricature of what I actually said, and then getting angry at me for it. It is uncalled for. If you wanna get angry at me for things I actually say I cannot object to that. But stop intentionally misrepresenting my statements or I will give you something to be pissed at me about. Deal?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah con feels like just a score tax currently, and not a score in itself. Imo there either needs to be skills based on it, or it needs to be removed and become a standard modifier between different hit die.
Also I'll be on the lookout for the 5.5/6e post!
Would love to see this. I want there to be a proper mechanic difference between divine, primal, arcane, occult, and psionic powers. 5e has blurred them so much that even psionics seems to be just normal spellcasting. These different sources used to be shown and acknowledged, but 5e seems to have removed it.
With...respect...it doesn't help when accusations of "entitlement" are thrown at a portion of the playerbase for wanting to generate and play a character a certain way, especially when comparisons are being made to how the game used to be played. If I can be frank, it kind of does shift the tone of the conversation quite negatively.
Again, with respect, I'm not aware of anyone who has made that argument. Certainly, there's been people stating their preferred method, and perhaps they could represent themselves differently than they have been, but that's a different argument.
I'm well aware of what the thread is. And I'm still not aware of anyone saying who has made that argument, other than to say, "I wish that X blurb could have been added", which is very much in the scope of the thread, whereas debating the merits of such a statement is, frankly, not in the scope of this thread.
My definitions to the player types.
Power gamer Perry creates his pc to be the best at the table and fights for the extra point 0002 damage per round. Thinks everyone build their pc in the same method and talks down to those players who don’t do so. Aka goober
Optimizer Odo creates his pc to best in his class with the DM’s campaign in mind. Will fight for the extra point 0002. Does care how other players build their pc.
Idea Indiana. I have an idea. Builds their class toward their idea. Occasionally a goober.
Randomize Roger. Does not care about stats just here to play the game.
Role-play Ralph. Cares about role play only. Will try to turn every fight into a social encounter even if they stats will not allow it Talks down to people who don’t dig his style. Aka goober.
As long as the table is having fun, everything is cool. But there is badwrongfun if the table is not in sync.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
That sums up how I do it.
10/10 don't recommend building a character like that. Every time I try to build around a cool idea I find I can't build my character in a satisfying manner and get mad because earlier editions along with pathfinder allow that idea.
Imo the best way to build a character is pick a class first, and then try to come up with an idea within that class definition.
hmmm, remove wildshape
W...what? That's like the entire core feature of druid, the thing which makes the class be a druid in DnD.
I mean I'd remove it from the class as a whole and make it moon druid specific, which opens up people playing shamans which are primal casters not built around wildshape. But removing the entire feature seems pretty absurd.
It's not the power levels which I have issues with trying to build from an idea. I'll happily play non optimal combos and almost never pick the species with the correct ASI's for the class I pick. I enjoy lvl 1-5 the most as the characters feel weak and in realistic danger all the time.
But there are certain character ideas which simply don't work well at all in 5e. I've given in trying to build the type of character which is ideal for me as DnD 5e just does not include it in a satisfying way, and I'll be just left comparing it endlessly to those classes in prior editions and finding it wanting.
There are tons of other classes and characters I enjoy in 5e, but there are a few in particular which this edition completely fails at.
Unless you replace wild shape with something very unique, then druid will feel almost identical to clerics.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
That’s a fair point. And to that I apologize.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Nothing is stopping anybody from playing a power character. There' s an entire database on DnDBeyond of classes that you can ask your GM to let you play.
Good on ya!
Yeah I feel it moves either to "old tryhards gonna ruin my RP!" or "New players are snowflakes who dont understand real pain!" too much and I am guilty of it as well.
As many have stated its good that we recognize our own bias and let tables play as they will is the best option.
I can say I am sorry as well if I did not show the respect to the older editions. They are very much deserving of reverence as they are the reason we still have the game to this day!
When I draw up chars, using the 27 point buy, they inevitably have a pair of 16's, a 14, a 12, and two 8's', after species specific bonuses are added. (Slight variations may occur, depending how my build plan for that char). That is in my mind the best outcome possible. And totally reasonable for a 1st level char.
Another thing I would change is to alter a Warlock's Mystic Arcanum's spells into the equivalent of a spell slot, with limitations.
Say Mr. 12th level Warlock wants to upcast Summon Greater Demon. He could use the 6th level spell slot, but whatever Mystic Arcanum spell he learned at 11th level is lost until a long rest is competed. This would allow Warlocks to cast spells that scream "Upcast Me!", while incurring a real penalty for that privilege. If the Warlock was say 13th level, and wanted to upcast his 11th level Mystic Arcanum spell to a 7th level spell slot, both the 6th level spell slot, and the 7th level spell slot, would be used.
That is not what is happening, that is twisting what has been said. This whole subthread was started by someone stating that they want to remove a way of stat generation from the game. Neither Yurei, Mezzurah, I, nor any other powergamer in this thread has acted superior to anyone else who uses a different playstyle. In fact, the reverse has happened. Multiple people on the other side has stated that powergaming is bad for the game, the game should change to avoid powergaming, and that our fun is wrong.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That is totally fine if you do that, I didn't say it wasn't an incorrect way to play. I instead said that I recommend standard array instead of point buy for new players who may not be aware of the consequences of doing that.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms