I am pretty sure this was brought up before but I am not sure....
Crafting! There needs to be more rules for crafting. Not just magical items either but traps, weapons, armor, etc...
I know there are YouTubers who use "Mastercraft" weapons. These are above average weapons that get a +1/+2/+3 to attacks and damage but do not count as magical. This could be a fun way for a fighter to bolster his roster of weapons if he has a proficency in Smithing (most melee weapons) or Woodcarving (bows, etc...)
Plus traps and other mundane items that can be used outside of the normal "I attack with my shortbow".
No where, not even in a D&D world, should a humanoid be able to stop a Large creature on a dime with a single hand. It is beyond stupid, and don't give me any of that "the D&D players are heroic characters, capable of feats others are not." In my game, you to try Grapple even a Young Dragon flying 15 feet overhead, you are going to be carried away to your doom.
It's mostly the player saying I want to play someone who is really good at diplomacy and magic. After that, whether he has 14 or 20 charisma does not really matter, he probably has the highest in the group and the right skills anyway.
At the same time, I’m fairly sure you’re having everyone (including the built-for-combat fighter) roll dice in combat. All in all, the numbers on the character sheets seem to be fairly important here.
They are, but for me I try to make it so that cleverness and appropriate conscience of the situation are much more important than a +1 in a stat.
Well, I doubt you’ll accept a character with say, 16 Str 15 Dex 17 Con 12 Int 13 Wis 11 Cha from someone who says he wants to play someone good at diplomacy and magic. It’s not just about stated intentions, I assume the character sheet still has to reflect that intent.
As for the second bit, I prefer reflecting that through the DC, rather than foregoing the roll altogether. It’d feel strange for the warriors and explorers to have their fates decided by the dice while for the social characters success or failure would just be me giving the thumbs up or down.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It's mostly the player saying I want to play someone who is really good at diplomacy and magic. After that, whether he has 14 or 20 charisma does not really matter, he probably has the highest in the group and the right skills anyway.
At the same time, I’m fairly sure you’re having everyone (including the built-for-combat fighter) roll dice in combat. All in all, the numbers on the character sheets seem to be fairly important here.
They are, but for me I try to make it so that cleverness and appropriate conscience of the situation are much more important than a +1 in a stat.
Well, I doubt you’ll accept a character with say, 16 Str 15 Dex 17 Con 12 Int 13 Wis 11 Cha from someone who says he wants to play someone good at diplomacy and magic. It’s not just about stated intentions, I assume the character sheet still has to reflect that intent.
As for the second bit, I prefer reflecting that through the DC, rather than foregoing the roll altogether. It’d feel strange for the warriors and explorers to have their fates decided by the dice while for the social characters success or failure would just be me giving the thumbs up or down.
Yeah I mean its one thing for the player to say "My character is good at negotiating because he is a courtier background." But if you look at the sheet and the CHA is a 10 and they dont have proficiency in persuasion....its pretty obvious that they didn't try to engage the game mechanics to make them actually good at it.
So as a DM I would look at that and be like "Nah he is not very good at it...." and would have them roll normally to try to persuade someone.
The game has to have some mechanical balance to make player choice impactful. They have to have some drawback to not at least trying to optimize the character towards the choice they want to make. I would find it hard to believe someone with a CHA of 10 and no proficiency in persuasion would be a good courtier...they would in fact likely be pretty bad.
Regarding the above discussion, my opinion is thus: I agree that it should be newbie friendly (in terms of viability) but I also wouldn't want a system that does not reward mastery.
The problem is that you and I have very different opinions of what constitutes mastery. My view of mastery is actually playing the roleplaying game, understanding situations (social, tactical whatever), planning in character, finding the right solutions as the character and putting them in place, not being the player and optimising numbers for my character. If you (had) played a long time ago when there was no optimisation because you had random stats and very few choices to make as you progressed, you (would) probably understand what I mean, that kind of mastery is for me the real mastery of the game (and Gygax wrote books about this, by the way, not necessarily fantastic but there are some interesting tidbits in there).
I agree (because I know that this would be the first comment back) that one does not necessarily preclude the other, but the thing is that it does at least a bit, actually. Because you spend so much time minmaxing your character, any thinking that you do is preformatted by your technical strengths and weaknesses and these guide the way you think. The choices that you make in the game are those that allow the technical side of the character to show. It might not be a huge impact, and it might actually hardly show, but I can guarantee that the bias will be there, I have seen it every single time with minmaxers.
It should be like this - not caring about much but going by what the book suggests, you are able to squeeze about 80% of your class potential and it should be enough for enjoyable play. If you want the remaining 20%, learn to utilize the rules to your advantage.
And the game is not about using the rules and squeezing the class potential, it's about playing the game, because it's much, much more than rules, it's about the story, and about the characters and the roleplaying of the game. It actually makes me so sad when people reduce the game to 99% being the impact of rolling. I really wish some people would broaden their perspective and envision something not as black and white. I would not push as far as suggesting dieceless games, I think the cultural shock would be a bit too much, but they do exist and they are really, really good.
D&D can (and in my opinion should) be much more than minmaxing, dice rolling and combat...
Just because I want my system to reward mastery doesn't mean I acknowledge only one type of it. I mentioned the one relevant to the discussion.
Meanwhile you might want to check whether there is no unintentional hypocrisy in the way you form your argument because on one hand you write about "broadening the perspective" and on the other you say in no uncertain terms what the game is:
it's about the story, and about the characters and the roleplaying of the game.
As well as what it isn't:
And the game is not about using the rules and squeezing the class potential
So, inversely, I could invite you to broaden your perspective and embrace the mechanical qualities of the game.
I am not talking about finding broken combos but if player A actually bothers to read feats and take the optimal ones that synergize with their class and player B says "nah, I will just not use them at all" and it will result in player A being about 20% stronger then I am perfectly fine with that.
Then there is tactical mastery. Proper use of utility spells, combat actions etc. Once on Critical Role I've seen one player intentionally NOT using disengage action and tanking an attack of opportunity because his rogue was nearly full but he did it so that the enemy would burn their reaction so that a near dead player would be able to run past it unmolested. Again, it requires certain ability and knowledge of rules to pull off stunt like that.
The roleplaying bits I am going to ignore because this is not what I was talking about. Rewarding mastery of your character in narrative way is a whole different topic not mutually exclusive with the crunch. Yeah, it's a roleplaying game. A game after all.
There - I said it. Crunch can be fun. So let's just say that you wouldn't have fun at my table and vice versa.
Yeah I mean its one thing for the player to say "My character is good at negotiating because he is a courtier background." But if you look at the sheet and the CHA is a 10 and they dont have proficiency in persuasion....its pretty obvious that they didn't try to engage the game mechanics to make them actually good at it.
Why do you have to go to ridiculous extremes to try and make a point ? Who said anything about the above ? Please read the posts, OK ?
The game has to have some mechanical balance to make player choice impactful.
Why ? Where is it written ?
They have to have some drawback to not at least trying to optimize the character towards the choice they want to make.
I fully disagree with this sentence. The player does not have to optimise anything. Most of the heroes in the genre, are not perfect for what they are trying to do, and growing and changing into what you become is an integral part of the story. Of course, you have to be at least interested to play, and make a minimal effort to tailor your character towards what you want to play, I even wrote "Come on, a timid player chooses a bard, with an diplomatic background, has his Charisma as high as an be considering rolls, etc."
Asking a player to "optimise" is way beyond that, and certainly is not requested by the game. I have run games for players as young as 5 years old, are they supposed to optimise as well ?
And no, I feel absolutely no pressure whatsoever for rewarding a player that spends weeks optimising his character to the last detail. If he wants to do it, fine, he can do it fors his own pleasure and that should be his own reward. But doing it to be "better" in the game than the others is not something that I will support, at all.
I would find it hard to believe someone with a CHA of 10 and no proficiency in persuasion would be a good courtier...they would in fact likely be pretty bad.
Blah blah blah, no one said that, ever.
Sometimes going to the extreme end of a thought will illustrate the flaws in reasoning that are inherent with a statement....by saying a 14 CHA bard is as good as a 20 CHA bard at a persuasion simply because they share the same class is inherently nullifying that choice.
A 20 CHA bard should be better at negotiating yes...and how does the game reflect this? By giving them a much better statistical odd to have a good outcome if it come down to a roll.
Now I am all for if the player makes a good case that you could award something like ADV on a roll....but overall the major point of DnD is to let the dice decide. You say that the DMG suggests that there is an "Option" to suggest you do not use dice. Fine this an "option" but is going against the mechanical side of the game....which at its heart DnD has been and IMO if they want to remain at the hearts of core audience...will be for the foreseeable future.
The game has a built in way of balancing player build choices against the way the game plays out....by rolling dice.
You get a better outcome potentially based on the choices you have made. If you chose to play a bard with 14 CHA you should have a risker time trying to persuade someone than the bard who has spend resources to make their CHA 20. Even more so if they choose to gain expertise in the skill or pick a subclass that allows them to be even better (College of Eloquence for example)
By streamlining away from the rolls you are taking away the core mechanic of the game which is rolling die and using abilities/skills/spells/etc.. to augment that luck. You take away from the heart of the game and make it something else.
Now is this the right thing? Its not for me to say. If you simply want to ignore these things that is for you and your table to decide but honestly there are much better systems that would play better than DnD for this type of thinking.
You can make it work for 5e but you are forcing a bit of a square peg through a round hole.
And if you ask me if the baseline game should change in the next edition to try and match this play style?
Hell no. The game has always had cruch and IMO if they want to be successful always will. Math started this game and it should be there if it ever ends.
Sometimes going to the extreme end of a thought will illustrate the flaws in reasoning that are inherent with a statement....
And sometimes it's called strawmanning, and it's a really bad way to conduct an argument.
\by saying a 14 CHA bard is as good as a 20 CHA bard at a persuasion simply because they share the same class is inherently nullifying that choice.
Again, no one is saying this, please read my example again.
Now I am all for if the player makes a good case that you could award something like ADV on a roll....but overall the major point of DnD is to let the dice decide.
No it's not. It's just your perception of the game, but I assure you that this is not the way the game has been designed.
PH: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."
DMG: "One approach is to use dice as rarely as possible. Some DMs use them only during combat, and determine success or failure as they like in other situations."
Read the books with a different perspective, and you might find gems in there.
You say that the DMG suggests that there is an "Option" to suggest you do not use dice. Fine this an "option" but is going against the mechanical side of the game....which at its heart DnD has been and IMO if they want to remain at the hearts of core audience...will be for the foreseeable future.
Please start by really reading the rules with an open mind, and you will see that this is not an option.
By streamlining away from the rolls you are taking away the core mechanic of the game which is rolling die and using abilities/skills/spells/etc.. to augment that luck. You take away from the heart of the game and make it something else.
And again, you are mistaken about what the core of the game is: "None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."
Now is this the right thing? Its not for me to say. If you simply want to ignore these things that is for you and your table to decide but honestly there are much better systems that would play better than DnD for this type of thinking.
Actually, with 5e, we are close to the optimum from my perspective. Which is why 90& of the suggestions in whis forum are from minmaxers who want more crunch, and really should be playing Pathfinder.
As for me, I'm happy with the balance I have, I do not need crunch, but having a set of simple rules so that there is a common baseline of understanding is fine. If there was a change I'd like, it's a bit more randomness in the generation process to disable the possibility of builds.
And note that this does not again go against your argument, you can still do crunch with that, but the environment is suddenly much richer.
And if you ask me if the baseline game should change in the next edition to try and match this play style?
It's already matching it, it's there, plain to see in all the rules and the intent of the designers. just because players from the two previous editions want to complexify it does not mean that it's going to happen, and they are the one being frustrated by the "simplicity" of 5e because they can't get a grip on it to optimise it more.
Hell no. The game has always had cruch and IMO if they want to be successful always will. Math started this game and it should be there if it ever ends.
Well, I was there when the game started, almost, and I can tell you that in the first editions, there was actually very little math. Unfortunately 3e came into this and gave free reins to players but before that, the game was in a sense much more interesting without any need for more crunch, it was really good because of the settings, and the stories, and the NPCs...
Literally everything in this reply is simply incorrect and its obvious you do not want to discuss in good faith. Good luck to you and your game.
Well, I doubt you’ll accept a character with say, 16 Str 15 Dex 17 Con 12 Int 13 Wis 11 Cha from someone who says he wants to play someone good at diplomacy and magic. It’s not just about stated intentions, I assume the character sheet still has to reflect that intent.
It has to be, but it does not have to be technically perfect, and that's a major difference.
It doesn't have to be technically perfect for anyone but a min/maxer. And I think those are, especially in 5E°, not as prevalent as it may seem from the advice threads on this forum. The thing with advice is that those giving it usually assume the person asking for it wants the best possible advice, in a verifiable, by-the-numbers this works best kind of way. Or that they might get corrected by someone else if they post anything but the absolute strongest choice to make. A lot of the people creating these threads are very happy being told whatever quirky idea they have isn't completely optimized but will still get the job done, or this choice they are pondering is - as they suspected, or they wouldn't have asked - not the best one possible but certainly viable. Every class gets played, while clearly not all classes are (mechanically) equal. I've seen most of the archetypes that exist get played, happily. We use point buy for stat generation, and I see plenty of variation - the quick build suggested stats are almost always the high ones and Con is rarely dumped, but I can't even off-hand remember a character with more than one stat under 10. Quite a few warrior-type characters I see go with a Cha or Int bonus over Wis, to support a background skill instead of shoring up their Wis save and boosting Perception. It's not very hard to create characters that are good at what they're supposed to be good at and have some atypical qualities as well, without doing everything some perceived hive mind says is optimal. And that's all most of the players I know want: to know that the character they created and are invested in can do a good job. They don't have to be the best at what they do, just good enough not to hold everyone else back.
° it's the limited ruleset. No 50 sourcebooks to comb through, fewer mechanical choices to make, rarely any choices that significantly affect options down the line. Not a lot of 3rd party crunch either. I like 3E as a ruleset, but especially after a few years it was massive and if you allowed OGL material that increased exponentially. Same with other RPGs, like Legend of the 5 Rings. Great system in 3rd edition, but the more material you add the bigger the chance somebody goofed and min/maxers find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
As for the second bit, I prefer reflecting that through the DC, rather than foregoing the roll altogether. It’d feel strange for the warriors and explorers to have their fates decided by the dice while for the social characters success or failure would just be me giving the thumbs up or down.
But who says that warriors and explorers do not have the same kind of treatment ? First, of you look at the extract from the DMG, you will see that it's only combat that gets the extra treatment. If explorers are doing a good job of their work, I will give them sufficient advantage at least in my mind to make sure that they succeed. On this particular topic, however, I must confess that, on general principle, I will have the scout(s) roll a stealth check, but of course a hidden one so that they don't know how well they did. But it's more for the stress generation than for the result although, obviously, I will take it in to account in particular if it's really high or low. And the same for opening doors, detecting and disarming traps, etc.
As for combat, I will of course give a huge advantage if the party is clever about the set-up, but will also give a huge disadvantage if they managed it poorly. Stats are less important that way anyway. And the same if someone does something really clever or cinematic, the advantage will smooth over most of the rolling.
But you see, the difficulty is that the minmaxer will (and they have) continue to pester me about getting their "due" for being, at least in their own personal opinion of themselves, "masters at technically building a character, and will not be happy when someone does something heroic like jumping on the back of a legendary boar to prevent it from goring the prophetess, and gets advantage for doing this whereas their optimised build would give them +2 to hit and +5 to damage more than the hero above, and they can't even try to hit because they risk hitting their friend... This is an actual example from play a few weeks back in Odyssey of the Dragonlords, by the way. Fortunately, the guy saw immediately where the wind blew. And the same, a few weeks later when, instead of launching a fight in which they had really prepared for technically and being provocative to make sure the combat would be on their term, two players did not end up having any combat because my paladin embraced the potential adversary as a sister (much to the surprise of the "sister" in question, I admit, but she played along).
These are not bad players, and they roleplay very well in general, but these are clear examples of minmaxer bias where the technical capabilities, when allowed and pushed, steer the game in a technical direction.
Well, if combat gets that treatment that's still 1/3 of your game right there. That's a big chunk, not chump change. Explorers doing a good job can be situationally challenging to describe. Searching a room is searching a room. Being the lookout isn't a vivid picture to paint either. And for many groups spending a long time on actions that are not interactions, just a player doing a thing nobody else is really involved in, detracts from the fun. A lot of these may not require a check at all - if I, as the DM, want them to notice or find something, they just do. It'll be easy to spot - but sometimes they might potentially discover something that isn't strictly needed for them to progress, but will make it easier for them. For me that warrants a roll; otherwise, what's the point of them having given their character a good modifier for that kind of check?
Being optimized also doesn't mean players can't think outside the box (and quite possibly still get good use out of their stats), and thinking out of the box doesn't have to equal success necessarily. Jumping on top of a charging boar is an awesome move, whether it succeeds or not. Most of my players will encourage others when they intend to try something cool, and will commiserate with failure as much as they'll cheer on success. Being heroic is its own reward already.
(as an aside, why not let someone try to attack a boar without risking hitting their buddy on top if it? I'm still not getting it, I guess)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm a little disapointed with how the term "mix/maxer" is thrown around as almost a slur against players who enjoys the technical side of the game. I personally really do care about mechanics and finding intereesting mechanical interactions, and I consider this as much a part of the game as roleplaying. I completely understand if some people prefer a loser way of playing, but it seems to me that people like to hold up their own preferences as the "correct" way of playing the game, and constantly wanting to combat the preferences of other people.
Lyxen, you have very clear non technical preferences and therefore run your games in a manner that undermines the effort of more technical minded players. I don't have a an issue with this inherently, aslong as you've amde it clear frmo the beginning... But I don't understand why you're so hostile against the very idea of running the game in a very mechnical manner. After all, the mechanics are there to set limits to what a character can and cannot do.
When Lathlear gives an example of how playing around with game mechanics can be intesrting and fun you respond with a sarcastic and hostile answer... Like why take it there?
Arguing the most "correct way" of playing the game seems pointless to me... Clearly the game has a set of mechanical rules for most situations, which implies that you are intended to use them. However, as you have noted yourself, the game also states that you don't actually need to get hung up on all the technical details... So clearly both ways of playing are entirely within the spirit of the game.
I guess my point is that there's absoutely no reason for this discussino of yours to have turned this sour and frankly, toxic.
For the first time in human history I find myself in agreement with Snetterton. 5e's grappling rules are a joke, and one of the most frequently Homebrew-Corrected things I've ever seen. While I understand that 5e is intended to be extremely fluid, fast, and simple, this is an area where the designers cut far too close to the bone. Improved grappling rules would go a long way towards spicing up oversimplified melee combat, and do wonders for improving the very popular but sadly underperforming PC archetype of the Grappler/Wrestler/Strongman. Many players want to make an unarmed brawler reliant on incredible might rather than the precision and accuracy of a monk, but the current 5e just doesn't let that happen. Improvements to grappling and unarmed combat would go a long way towards revitalizing melee. I know my own preferences for such a notion, but I'm curious what other folks might think?
For the first time in human history I find myself in agreement with Snetterton. 5e's grappling rules are a joke, and one of the most frequently Homebrew-Corrected things I've ever seen. While I understand that 5e is intended to be extremely fluid, fast, and simple, this is an area where the designers cut far too close to the bone. Improved grappling rules would go a long way towards spicing up oversimplified melee combat, and do wonders for improving the very popular but sadly underperforming PC archetype of the Grappler/Wrestler/Strongman. Many players want to make an unarmed brawler reliant on incredible might rather than the precision and accuracy of a monk, but the current 5e just doesn't let that happen. Improvements to grappling and unarmed combat would go a long way towards revitalizing melee. I know my own preferences for such a notion, but I'm curious what other folks might think?
[REDACTED]
As for grappling...its hard to make them more complex but I would be willing to read how it would be done. PF2e pretty much as the same mechanics for grappling/tripping but its against a static DC instead of a roll so its easier to ensure you grapple/trip.
I could see 5e go that route and it would make stuff more streamlined yet and make it so the strongperson wins a lot more often.
The other approach would be to give a boon to the subclasses that grapple. More damage/debuff effects/ etc.. could be used to up the usefulness of grapple.
I once had a 30 minute discussion with a rogue player who wanted to grapple a caster NPC and keep him from doing somatic components. While at the time I thought this was silly for a dex based character to attempt I could maybe see this for a Mage Slayer barbarian who wants to cripple his caster enemies.
Yea, honestly the ability to control the movement of a creature you'd be able to mount seems a bit crazy...The fact that you can do it with one hand is even more over the top. I guess demanding the player explain how exactly they intent to grapple the creatue could help, but I do think that simply restricting grappling to medium and small creatures is an easy quick fix... I'd probably allow for races with powerful build to still grapple large creatures if they can flavor it well.
The lack of support for a brawler character has bothered me for a while aswell... Luckily we seem to be getting an unarmed fighting style in Tasha's, even if it's been nerfed a lot since the UA version, which sucks, as it wasn't overpowered in my opinion.
This information about more unarmed fighting styles makes it even more difficult for me to resist buying Tasha's at this time.😖
It would be nice if I didn't have to reflavor every move a Monk makes to make a brawler. I don't want a wrestler but rather a pugilist/fisticuffs fighter. Because I favor smaller characters, grappling wasn't really much of an option for me anyway. I've never seen anyone use homebrew grapple rules. I'm really interested to go search how people change it up when I get off work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
This information about more unarmed fighting styles makes it even more difficult for me to resist buying Tasha's at this time.😖
It would be nice if I didn't have to reflavor every move a Monk makes to make a brawler. I don't want a wrestler but rather a pugilist/fisticuffs fighter. Because I favor smaller characters, grappling wasn't really much of an option for me anyway. I've never seen anyone use homebrew grapple rules. I'm really interested to go search how people change it up when I get off work.
If you have never seen the Pugilist homebrew you should take a look at it! I honestly think its a great homebrew and perfectly captures the pugilist feel.
I doubt they would ever add it officially but one can dream!
I think the more likely route is they go with an unarmed barbarian subclass.
I'm a little disapointed with how the term "mix/maxer" is thrown around as almost a slur against players who enjoys the technical side of the game. I personally really do care about mechanics and finding intereesting mechanical interactions, and I consider this as much a part of the game as roleplaying. I completely understand if some people prefer a loser way of playing, but it seems to me that people like to hold up their own preferences as the "correct" way of playing the game, and constantly wanting to combat the preferences of other people.
For me min/maxer is a bit of a slur, but that's because I think it's different from optimizing and certainly from seeking understanding of the mechanics - which I have nothing against. So, to clarify, to me a min/maxer is a player who will always take only the mechanically strongest options and deliberately looks for ways to break the game. Always the same few classes and archetypes, same skill selections unless the campaign focuses on a specific skillset (and then it's always that skillset), same races, same stat arrays and feats. That's putting stats ahead of everything else, and I consider that a bad thing. Optimizers are more open, and look for the mechanically best way to implement whatever concept they have in mind. This doesn't rule out more than half the book before you even get started. Nothing wrong with that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I certainly agree with the idea that always picking the same 1-3 optimal builds is an unhealthy way of playing the game. Breaking the game even more so... However I think the issue i take with terms like "min/maxxer" is that people don't all agree on when they assign the term "min/maxxer" to a player, so I think it runs the risk of creating a negative idea of leaning in that general direction. I'm not saying I take issue with how you in particular use the term, I just don't think having these dismissive categories to throw on people is very good for the community.
Personally I always start out with a cool concept I like, and then try to see if the rules of the game allow me to build a mechanically sensible/strong character around it.... Sadly I often come up empty handed :P
It's funny because I've seen the "old days" mentioned here and I am literally now watching a Matt Colville video where he says that the early days were quite competitive between players (not players vs. DM!) when the goal was to "beat the dungeon" and you could boast that your character was better because he survived while the other didn't (and how dare you create a new one at the same higher level, start at level 1).
Soo...I guess there is no universal experience regarding the old gygaxian days.
It's funny because I've seen the "old days" mentioned here and I am literally now watching a Matt Colville video where he says that the early days were quite competitive between players (not players vs. DM!) when the goal was to "beat the dungeon" and you could boast that your character was better because he survived while the other didn't (and how dare you create a new one at the same higher level, start at level 1).
Soo...I guess there is no universal experience regarding the old gygaxian days.
Yeah a lot of rosy glasses about 1e out there for sure...looking back at the actual material it was a mess of concepts that did not really help you build a coherent story or was collaborative in any real sense. First off characters died way to often to try to build a narrative for them and most characters were 1-D carbon copies of Tolkien stereotypes with racial ability caps to match. The restrictions for class and characters were so much that you pretty couldn't play anything but a specific race/class combo as it was literally forbidden.
The only reason any real story elements were built was because the lore was good enough to support it.
Honestly the crunch of 5e is about perfect to me as it has enough that it rewards those players who want to optimize a character but has little to no restrictions for how you play a character. Gone are the days of monks being Lawful only. You can have a chaotic good monk who steals others blind or a Chaotic neutral Paladin that cares only about avenging his family.
How you decide to roleplay your character is entirely up to you.
You can have a completely min/maxed Crossbow expert, sharpshooter fighter with the optimal maneuver choices but still play them as a goofy farm boy who was just good at shooting rabbits with his dad's old handcrossbow...and they could *gasp* be the best roleplayer you have!
Literally nothing is impacted by allowed mechanical complexity as long as your players are engaging in the RP side of things. This nonsense about complexity ruining RP is outright silly.
Being fairly rule-oriented and keeping a somewhat level playing field is not going to hinder your RP experience...unless you can't think your way around it. If that is the case there are much much better systems out there that don't have the mechanical complexity and they are likely better for you.
I'm a little disapointed with how the term "mix/maxer" is thrown around as almost a slur against players who enjoys the technical side of the game. I personally really do care about mechanics and finding intereesting mechanical interactions, and I consider this as much a part of the game as roleplaying. I completely understand if some people prefer a loser way of playing, but it seems to me that people like to hold up their own preferences as the "correct" way of playing the game, and constantly wanting to combat the preferences of other people.
I agree, it sucks that it is somehow acceptable to shame other players and call them names in the D&D community because they like playing a different way from you. I prefer to call my style of play "powergaming," because it is less loaded with negative connotations than "minmaxing" or "munchkining."
As I stated earlier in the thread, probably more than 10 pages ago now, the one main thing I would want to change about the D&D 5e community is the inherent hostility towards powergamers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I'm a little disapointed with how the term "mix/maxer" is thrown around as almost a slur against players who enjoys the technical side of the game. I personally really do care about mechanics and finding intereesting mechanical interactions, and I consider this as much a part of the game as roleplaying. I completely understand if some people prefer a loser way of playing, but it seems to me that people like to hold up their own preferences as the "correct" way of playing the game, and constantly wanting to combat the preferences of other people.
I agree, it sucks that it is somehow acceptable to shame other players and call them names in the D&D community because they like playing a different way from you. I prefer to call my style of play "powergaming," because it is less loaded with negative connotations than "minmaxing" or "munchkining."
As I stated earlier in the thread, probably more than 10 pages ago now, the one main thing I would want to change about the D&D 5e community is the inherent hostility towards powergamers.
My game style will vary from campaign to campaign. Sometimes I will run a low end gritty game where horror or realism will be the theme. Other times I will run a more super-heroic save the cheerleader save the world kind of game where I'm going to throw crazy shit at the players and I want the players built like superheroes. Some may call the later 'powergaming'. For me it's just the level of play for that campaign. I don't see why anyone has to be tied to one style. It should vary on your need for that campaign. Some people enjoy playing the high end crazy epic stuff a lot more or vice versa, so they tend to lean that way. But ultimately, I think it depends on the game expectations for that particular campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am pretty sure this was brought up before but I am not sure....
Crafting! There needs to be more rules for crafting. Not just magical items either but traps, weapons, armor, etc...
I know there are YouTubers who use "Mastercraft" weapons. These are above average weapons that get a +1/+2/+3 to attacks and damage but do not count as magical. This could be a fun way for a fighter to bolster his roster of weapons if he has a proficency in Smithing (most melee weapons) or Woodcarving (bows, etc...)
Plus traps and other mundane items that can be used outside of the normal "I attack with my shortbow".
The Grappling Rules are utterly ridiculous.
No where, not even in a D&D world, should a humanoid be able to stop a Large creature on a dime with a single hand. It is beyond stupid, and don't give me any of that "the D&D players are heroic characters, capable of feats others are not." In my game, you to try Grapple even a Young Dragon flying 15 feet overhead, you are going to be carried away to your doom.
Well, I doubt you’ll accept a character with say, 16 Str 15 Dex 17 Con 12 Int 13 Wis 11 Cha from someone who says he wants to play someone good at diplomacy and magic. It’s not just about stated intentions, I assume the character sheet still has to reflect that intent.
As for the second bit, I prefer reflecting that through the DC, rather than foregoing the roll altogether. It’d feel strange for the warriors and explorers to have their fates decided by the dice while for the social characters success or failure would just be me giving the thumbs up or down.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah I mean its one thing for the player to say "My character is good at negotiating because he is a courtier background." But if you look at the sheet and the CHA is a 10 and they dont have proficiency in persuasion....its pretty obvious that they didn't try to engage the game mechanics to make them actually good at it.
So as a DM I would look at that and be like "Nah he is not very good at it...." and would have them roll normally to try to persuade someone.
The game has to have some mechanical balance to make player choice impactful. They have to have some drawback to not at least trying to optimize the character towards the choice they want to make. I would find it hard to believe someone with a CHA of 10 and no proficiency in persuasion would be a good courtier...they would in fact likely be pretty bad.
Just because I want my system to reward mastery doesn't mean I acknowledge only one type of it. I mentioned the one relevant to the discussion.
Meanwhile you might want to check whether there is no unintentional hypocrisy in the way you form your argument because on one hand you write about "broadening the perspective" and on the other you say in no uncertain terms what the game is:
As well as what it isn't:
So, inversely, I could invite you to broaden your perspective and embrace the mechanical qualities of the game.
I am not talking about finding broken combos but if player A actually bothers to read feats and take the optimal ones that synergize with their class and player B says "nah, I will just not use them at all" and it will result in player A being about 20% stronger then I am perfectly fine with that.
Then there is tactical mastery. Proper use of utility spells, combat actions etc. Once on Critical Role I've seen one player intentionally NOT using disengage action and tanking an attack of opportunity because his rogue was nearly full but he did it so that the enemy would burn their reaction so that a near dead player would be able to run past it unmolested. Again, it requires certain ability and knowledge of rules to pull off stunt like that.
The roleplaying bits I am going to ignore because this is not what I was talking about. Rewarding mastery of your character in narrative way is a whole different topic not mutually exclusive with the crunch. Yeah, it's a roleplaying game. A game after all.
There - I said it. Crunch can be fun. So let's just say that you wouldn't have fun at my table and vice versa.
Sometimes going to the extreme end of a thought will illustrate the flaws in reasoning that are inherent with a statement....by saying a 14 CHA bard is as good as a 20 CHA bard at a persuasion simply because they share the same class is inherently nullifying that choice.
A 20 CHA bard should be better at negotiating yes...and how does the game reflect this? By giving them a much better statistical odd to have a good outcome if it come down to a roll.
Now I am all for if the player makes a good case that you could award something like ADV on a roll....but overall the major point of DnD is to let the dice decide. You say that the DMG suggests that there is an "Option" to suggest you do not use dice. Fine this an "option" but is going against the mechanical side of the game....which at its heart DnD has been and IMO if they want to remain at the hearts of core audience...will be for the foreseeable future.
The game has a built in way of balancing player build choices against the way the game plays out....by rolling dice.
You get a better outcome potentially based on the choices you have made. If you chose to play a bard with 14 CHA you should have a risker time trying to persuade someone than the bard who has spend resources to make their CHA 20. Even more so if they choose to gain expertise in the skill or pick a subclass that allows them to be even better (College of Eloquence for example)
By streamlining away from the rolls you are taking away the core mechanic of the game which is rolling die and using abilities/skills/spells/etc.. to augment that luck. You take away from the heart of the game and make it something else.
Now is this the right thing? Its not for me to say. If you simply want to ignore these things that is for you and your table to decide but honestly there are much better systems that would play better than DnD for this type of thinking.
You can make it work for 5e but you are forcing a bit of a square peg through a round hole.
And if you ask me if the baseline game should change in the next edition to try and match this play style?
Hell no. The game has always had cruch and IMO if they want to be successful always will. Math started this game and it should be there if it ever ends.
Literally everything in this reply is simply incorrect and its obvious you do not want to discuss in good faith. Good luck to you and your game.
It doesn't have to be technically perfect for anyone but a min/maxer. And I think those are, especially in 5E°, not as prevalent as it may seem from the advice threads on this forum. The thing with advice is that those giving it usually assume the person asking for it wants the best possible advice, in a verifiable, by-the-numbers this works best kind of way. Or that they might get corrected by someone else if they post anything but the absolute strongest choice to make. A lot of the people creating these threads are very happy being told whatever quirky idea they have isn't completely optimized but will still get the job done, or this choice they are pondering is - as they suspected, or they wouldn't have asked - not the best one possible but certainly viable. Every class gets played, while clearly not all classes are (mechanically) equal. I've seen most of the archetypes that exist get played, happily. We use point buy for stat generation, and I see plenty of variation - the quick build suggested stats are almost always the high ones and Con is rarely dumped, but I can't even off-hand remember a character with more than one stat under 10. Quite a few warrior-type characters I see go with a Cha or Int bonus over Wis, to support a background skill instead of shoring up their Wis save and boosting Perception. It's not very hard to create characters that are good at what they're supposed to be good at and have some atypical qualities as well, without doing everything some perceived hive mind says is optimal. And that's all most of the players I know want: to know that the character they created and are invested in can do a good job. They don't have to be the best at what they do, just good enough not to hold everyone else back.
° it's the limited ruleset. No 50 sourcebooks to comb through, fewer mechanical choices to make, rarely any choices that significantly affect options down the line. Not a lot of 3rd party crunch either. I like 3E as a ruleset, but especially after a few years it was massive and if you allowed OGL material that increased exponentially. Same with other RPGs, like Legend of the 5 Rings. Great system in 3rd edition, but the more material you add the bigger the chance somebody goofed and min/maxers find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Well, if combat gets that treatment that's still 1/3 of your game right there. That's a big chunk, not chump change. Explorers doing a good job can be situationally challenging to describe. Searching a room is searching a room. Being the lookout isn't a vivid picture to paint either. And for many groups spending a long time on actions that are not interactions, just a player doing a thing nobody else is really involved in, detracts from the fun. A lot of these may not require a check at all - if I, as the DM, want them to notice or find something, they just do. It'll be easy to spot - but sometimes they might potentially discover something that isn't strictly needed for them to progress, but will make it easier for them. For me that warrants a roll; otherwise, what's the point of them having given their character a good modifier for that kind of check?
Being optimized also doesn't mean players can't think outside the box (and quite possibly still get good use out of their stats), and thinking out of the box doesn't have to equal success necessarily. Jumping on top of a charging boar is an awesome move, whether it succeeds or not. Most of my players will encourage others when they intend to try something cool, and will commiserate with failure as much as they'll cheer on success. Being heroic is its own reward already.
(as an aside, why not let someone try to attack a boar without risking hitting their buddy on top if it? I'm still not getting it, I guess)
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm a little disapointed with how the term "mix/maxer" is thrown around as almost a slur against players who enjoys the technical side of the game. I personally really do care about mechanics and finding intereesting mechanical interactions, and I consider this as much a part of the game as roleplaying. I completely understand if some people prefer a loser way of playing, but it seems to me that people like to hold up their own preferences as the "correct" way of playing the game, and constantly wanting to combat the preferences of other people.
Lyxen, you have very clear non technical preferences and therefore run your games in a manner that undermines the effort of more technical minded players. I don't have a an issue with this inherently, aslong as you've amde it clear frmo the beginning... But I don't understand why you're so hostile against the very idea of running the game in a very mechnical manner. After all, the mechanics are there to set limits to what a character can and cannot do.
When Lathlear gives an example of how playing around with game mechanics can be intesrting and fun you respond with a sarcastic and hostile answer... Like why take it there?
Arguing the most "correct way" of playing the game seems pointless to me... Clearly the game has a set of mechanical rules for most situations, which implies that you are intended to use them. However, as you have noted yourself, the game also states that you don't actually need to get hung up on all the technical details... So clearly both ways of playing are entirely within the spirit of the game.
I guess my point is that there's absoutely no reason for this discussino of yours to have turned this sour and frankly, toxic.
[REDACTED]
In that spirit...
For the first time in human history I find myself in agreement with Snetterton. 5e's grappling rules are a joke, and one of the most frequently Homebrew-Corrected things I've ever seen. While I understand that 5e is intended to be extremely fluid, fast, and simple, this is an area where the designers cut far too close to the bone. Improved grappling rules would go a long way towards spicing up oversimplified melee combat, and do wonders for improving the very popular but sadly underperforming PC archetype of the Grappler/Wrestler/Strongman. Many players want to make an unarmed brawler reliant on incredible might rather than the precision and accuracy of a monk, but the current 5e just doesn't let that happen. Improvements to grappling and unarmed combat would go a long way towards revitalizing melee. I know my own preferences for such a notion, but I'm curious what other folks might think?
Please do not contact or message me.
[REDACTED]
As for grappling...its hard to make them more complex but I would be willing to read how it would be done. PF2e pretty much as the same mechanics for grappling/tripping but its against a static DC instead of a roll so its easier to ensure you grapple/trip.
I could see 5e go that route and it would make stuff more streamlined yet and make it so the strongperson wins a lot more often.
The other approach would be to give a boon to the subclasses that grapple. More damage/debuff effects/ etc.. could be used to up the usefulness of grapple.
I once had a 30 minute discussion with a rogue player who wanted to grapple a caster NPC and keep him from doing somatic components. While at the time I thought this was silly for a dex based character to attempt I could maybe see this for a Mage Slayer barbarian who wants to cripple his caster enemies.
Yea, honestly the ability to control the movement of a creature you'd be able to mount seems a bit crazy...The fact that you can do it with one hand is even more over the top. I guess demanding the player explain how exactly they intent to grapple the creatue could help, but I do think that simply restricting grappling to medium and small creatures is an easy quick fix... I'd probably allow for races with powerful build to still grapple large creatures if they can flavor it well.
The lack of support for a brawler character has bothered me for a while aswell... Luckily we seem to be getting an unarmed fighting style in Tasha's, even if it's been nerfed a lot since the UA version, which sucks, as it wasn't overpowered in my opinion.
This information about more unarmed fighting styles makes it even more difficult for me to resist buying Tasha's at this time.😖
It would be nice if I didn't have to reflavor every move a Monk makes to make a brawler. I don't want a wrestler but rather a pugilist/fisticuffs fighter. Because I favor smaller characters, grappling wasn't really much of an option for me anyway. I've never seen anyone use homebrew grapple rules. I'm really interested to go search how people change it up when I get off work.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
If you have never seen the Pugilist homebrew you should take a look at it! I honestly think its a great homebrew and perfectly captures the pugilist feel.
I doubt they would ever add it officially but one can dream!
I think the more likely route is they go with an unarmed barbarian subclass.
For me min/maxer is a bit of a slur, but that's because I think it's different from optimizing and certainly from seeking understanding of the mechanics - which I have nothing against. So, to clarify, to me a min/maxer is a player who will always take only the mechanically strongest options and deliberately looks for ways to break the game. Always the same few classes and archetypes, same skill selections unless the campaign focuses on a specific skillset (and then it's always that skillset), same races, same stat arrays and feats. That's putting stats ahead of everything else, and I consider that a bad thing. Optimizers are more open, and look for the mechanically best way to implement whatever concept they have in mind. This doesn't rule out more than half the book before you even get started. Nothing wrong with that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I certainly agree with the idea that always picking the same 1-3 optimal builds is an unhealthy way of playing the game. Breaking the game even more so... However I think the issue i take with terms like "min/maxxer" is that people don't all agree on when they assign the term "min/maxxer" to a player, so I think it runs the risk of creating a negative idea of leaning in that general direction.
I'm not saying I take issue with how you in particular use the term, I just don't think having these dismissive categories to throw on people is very good for the community.
Personally I always start out with a cool concept I like, and then try to see if the rules of the game allow me to build a mechanically sensible/strong character around it.... Sadly I often come up empty handed :P
It's funny because I've seen the "old days" mentioned here and I am literally now watching a Matt Colville video where he says that the early days were quite competitive between players (not players vs. DM!) when the goal was to "beat the dungeon" and you could boast that your character was better because he survived while the other didn't (and how dare you create a new one at the same higher level, start at level 1).
Soo...I guess there is no universal experience regarding the old gygaxian days.
Yeah a lot of rosy glasses about 1e out there for sure...looking back at the actual material it was a mess of concepts that did not really help you build a coherent story or was collaborative in any real sense. First off characters died way to often to try to build a narrative for them and most characters were 1-D carbon copies of Tolkien stereotypes with racial ability caps to match. The restrictions for class and characters were so much that you pretty couldn't play anything but a specific race/class combo as it was literally forbidden.
The only reason any real story elements were built was because the lore was good enough to support it.
Honestly the crunch of 5e is about perfect to me as it has enough that it rewards those players who want to optimize a character but has little to no restrictions for how you play a character. Gone are the days of monks being Lawful only. You can have a chaotic good monk who steals others blind or a Chaotic neutral Paladin that cares only about avenging his family.
How you decide to roleplay your character is entirely up to you.
You can have a completely min/maxed Crossbow expert, sharpshooter fighter with the optimal maneuver choices but still play them as a goofy farm boy who was just good at shooting rabbits with his dad's old handcrossbow...and they could *gasp* be the best roleplayer you have!
Literally nothing is impacted by allowed mechanical complexity as long as your players are engaging in the RP side of things. This nonsense about complexity ruining RP is outright silly.
Being fairly rule-oriented and keeping a somewhat level playing field is not going to hinder your RP experience...unless you can't think your way around it. If that is the case there are much much better systems out there that don't have the mechanical complexity and they are likely better for you.
I agree, it sucks that it is somehow acceptable to shame other players and call them names in the D&D community because they like playing a different way from you. I prefer to call my style of play "powergaming," because it is less loaded with negative connotations than "minmaxing" or "munchkining."
As I stated earlier in the thread, probably more than 10 pages ago now, the one main thing I would want to change about the D&D 5e community is the inherent hostility towards powergamers.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
My game style will vary from campaign to campaign. Sometimes I will run a low end gritty game where horror or realism will be the theme. Other times I will run a more super-heroic save the cheerleader save the world kind of game where I'm going to throw crazy shit at the players and I want the players built like superheroes. Some may call the later 'powergaming'. For me it's just the level of play for that campaign. I don't see why anyone has to be tied to one style. It should vary on your need for that campaign. Some people enjoy playing the high end crazy epic stuff a lot more or vice versa, so they tend to lean that way. But ultimately, I think it depends on the game expectations for that particular campaign.