I have a few things for you. Are you just theorizing that Circle of Stars is overpowered? If you have not actually seen it in action repeatedly over many player levels over the course of a campaign, can you be sure it in fact is?
Also remember that "Powergaming" is only powergaming if that player is bothering or criticizing other player's characters over it. You didn't mention the player in question doing this, so I'll assume that isn't the case. So then don't confuse him or her with power gaming when they are just simply good at D&D. When you play long enough you trend to this naturally. You thoroughly learn the mechanics and are able to recognize optimal or powerful character choices as well as become tactically sound in combat. This is a natural thing for veteran players. Don't punish them for that... makes no sense.
The player has admitted a few times that he likes to build his character as combat powerful as he can because thats where he gets part of his enjoyment out of. But the other players aren't that experienced or lean more towards making their combat abilities perfectly reflect their roleplay of the character rather than tactically viable. The player himself has admitted before that him building a powerful combat character is a problem and in the previous campaign he himself at one point suggested I nerf his character because it was noticeable that the encounters were getting out of balance and that the party as well as me as the DM relied to heavily of the combat prowess of his character. Thats why I want to avoid that happening in this campaign by making such changes even before the game actually starts.
And I haven't seen any of the new subclasses in action yet. I never allow UA stuff in my campaigns apart from the feats but only after Ive reviewed them because sometimes UA can be broken. But now that Tasha's came out and a whole 22 new subclasses were added I wanted to give my players the ability to play them but I wanted to review them first because I believe that things are yet to be found in these subclasses thats absolutely broken. The reason I expect this subclass to be too powerfull is because I believe it might **** with the Action Economy too much, which is something extremely important to keep in mind when making combat encounters. The fact he can either deal damage as a bonus action thats equal to a longsword but a damage time thats rarely if ever resisted, or he could heal what amounts to a full casting of a cure wounds when also in the same turn casting another healing spell seems like its going to be broken.
For example. If the party had a fighter with them that used a longsword, he would deal as much damage pers turn on average as this subclass could do as a bonus action (from level 1 to 4) but when another fighter would get to level 5 it would get extra attack making it be able to put out more damage than the bonus action of the druid could. But at the same time the druid would get 3rd level spells which, as everyone knows, will suddenly bring some very hard hitters into the game.
Because most games are played in low level (between lvl 3 and level 11) this scares me that this imbalance of power could result in the campaign never being able to get to a high level, which is where people say it would balance out more.
Also remember that "Powergaming" is only powergaming if that player is bothering or criticizing other player's characters over it. You didn't mention the player in question doing this, so I'll assume that isn't the case. So then don't confuse him or her with power gaming when they are just simply good at D&D. When you play long enough you trend to this naturally. You thoroughly learn the mechanics and are able to recognize optimal or powerful character choices as well as become tactically sound in combat. This is a natural thing for veteran players. Don't punish them for that... makes no sense.
Its also power gaming if its creating issues for the DM when they're building encounters. Having one person who's wildly different in strength from others can create problems when designing things. Which really sucks the fun out of DMing, and causes burn out. Remember, the DM is a player too.
"When you play long enough you trend to this naturally. "
And this line is total BS. I've played 5e since release, and I'm not an optimizer (aka min-maxer, aka power gamer, etc). I routinely make choices based on the Rule of Cool far more than "optimal or powerful character choices." That's a playstyle. People of all different playstyles get better at what they do with experience.
Now, there's nothing wrong with being a power gamer... if your group is full of power gamers. Or a casual gamer if your group is full of casual gamers. Its when you start mixing the disparate playstyles that it can become a problem. And, the DM has come here admitting that its a problem for them.
Now, there's nothing wrong with being a power gamer... if your group is full of power gamers. Or a casual gamer if your group is full of casual gamers. Its when you start mixing the disparate playstyles that it can become a problem. And, the DM has come here admitting that it's a problem for them.
I wouldn't have a problem with it if EVERYONE was optimising combat. Then I could make it challenging because Everyone is overpowered. But for example, it happened in the last campaign that this player had a +11 to hit while all the other players had a +7 or +8 and that makes it terribly difficult to find an AC thats good for both types of players. And thats only AC. Thats not taking into account some very high saving throw bonusses, damage output and other versitility they got through race of feat choices.
Out of the 4 players I have one only played in a one-shot once before playing in the previous campaign (and will be joining us in the new one as well), one has almost 2 year of dnd experience but has only played in 1 serious campaign (where we actually adhere to the rules and I didn't pull everything out of my butt like I did when I started), and one who is a very experienced player but focusses more on the roleplay side of things (not meaning he optimizes his character for roleplay encounters but that he would choose a known underpowered spell over something better just because it would fit his character better)
Im not saying the guy can't play like he likes the game, but I have to make sure EVERYONE is having fun.
The reason I expect this subclass to be too powerfull is because I believe it might **** with the Action Economy too much, which is something extremely important to keep in mind when making combat encounters. The fact he can either deal damage as a bonus action thats equal to a longsword but a damage time thats rarely if ever resisted, or he could heal what amounts to a full casting of a cure wounds when also in the same turn casting another healing spell seems like its going to be broken.
Its not messing with the action economy. You admitted yourself that what's going on with Archer is little different from a persistent Spiritual Weapon. A level 1 life cleric can boost healing effects of all spells (though to a lesser extent than Chalice can). This fits perfectly fine within the established action economy.
Now, level 2 might be too early to get a free, persistent Spiritual weapon from a DPR standpoint. That's an understandable issue. Likewise, getting Reliable Talent at level 2 might be seen as too strong, given that Rogues need to be level 10? 11? And Chalice might be getting better heally buffs than the Dream Druid, who supposedly specializes in heals. If you wanted to say that level 2 is far too powerful, I won't really argue with that.*
But suggesting that it has anything to do with action economy? That's not true. If anything, its rather nicely designed in order to allow fluid usage of all the abilities in such a way that it feels good to play, irregardless of the numbers involved.
* I consider Tasha's Cauldron to be the equivalent of the 3.5 line, or 4th edition's Essential's line. In short, its the half-way book that provides a new way of looking at the old classes with streamlined designs and power boosts. It creates an entirely new level of strength that's balanced with everything from this book and forwards, but not really balanced with anything backwards. And, interestingly enough, I think that a lot of the subclasses introduced are deliberately remakes of themes from old subclasses.
Like, take the Genie Pact for Warlock. Lots of the same spells/abilities as Fiend and Archfey mixed in while being better at it, while the Fathomless Pact is a re-imagining of Great Old One.
If you're going to be comparing power levels, I really think its best to stick with the classes from Tasha's, or not at all, because they're very different from each side.
Also remember that "Powergaming" is only powergaming if that player is bothering or criticizing other player's characters over it. You didn't mention the player in question doing this, so I'll assume that isn't the case. So then don't confuse him or her with power gaming when they are just simply good at D&D. When you play long enough you trend to this naturally. You thoroughly learn the mechanics and are able to recognize optimal or powerful character choices as well as become tactically sound in combat. This is a natural thing for veteran players. Don't punish them for that... makes no sense.
Its also power gaming if its creating issues for the DM when they're building encounters. Having one person who's wildly different in strength from others can create problems when designing things. Which really sucks the fun out of DMing, and causes burn out. Remember, the DM is a player too.
"When you play long enough you trend to this naturally. "
And this line is total BS. I've played 5e since release, and I'm not an optimizer (aka min-maxer, aka power gamer, etc). I routinely make choices based on the Rule of Cool far more than "optimal or powerful character choices." That's a playstyle. People of all different playstyles get better at what they do with experience.
Now, there's nothing wrong with being a power gamer... if your group is full of power gamers. Or a casual gamer if your group is full of casual gamers. Its when you start mixing the disparate playstyles that it can become a problem. And, the DM has come here admitting that its a problem for them.
Ok, but there really isn’t anything the DM can do about it. The player isn’t bothering others and is playing by the rules.
And, the point is I bet you understand HOW to optimize a character. If you chose not to then that’s fine, but the difference between you and a new player is you know how to if you wanted, the new player doesn’t. That’s what I mean when I say players trend in that direction as the get more experience.
Just like with anything in life the more you do it the more competent and competitive you become. D&D isn’t any different.
The player has admitted a few times that he likes to build his character as combat powerful as he can because thats where he gets part of his enjoyment out of. But the other players aren't that experienced or lean more towards making their combat abilities perfectly reflect their roleplay of the character rather than tactically viable. The player himself has admitted before that him building a powerful combat character is a problem and in the previous campaign he himself at one point suggested I nerf his character because it was noticeable that the encounters were getting out of balance and that the party as well as me as the DM relied to heavily of the combat prowess of his character. Thats why I want to avoid that happening in this campaign by making such changes even before the game actually starts.
First, I think its good that you're allowing the player to use the subclass rather than banning it outright. In the previous campaign did the other players agree that combat was a problem or not fun because of the actions of the one player? If this player's min-maxing is causing problems then that should also place some responsibility on him and not just you as the DM to nerf all his choices. If the rest of the party wasn't overly concerned about it then I wouldn't worry about it as much.
Because most games are played in low level (between lvl 3 and level 11) this scares me that this imbalance of power could result in the campaign never being able to get to a high level, which is where people say it would balance out more.
I do agree Archer is powerful at level 2, but I don't think its game breaking as it doesn't scale like spiritual weapon and its limited by number of wild shape uses and the other two forms offer legitimate contenders. If you're starting at level 3, how quickly do you let them level up in the early part of the campaign? Comparing the archer form to spiritual weapon, by level 5 spiritual weapon can be up-cast which makes it substantially better than the archer form. Also you can compensate for some of this by having your enemies use cover more often, not let your party take short rests consistently, etc... My first campaign, my four players tended to stomp on combat encounters because I was letting them get in short rests too often so they could nova my monsters without much trouble. It was an adjustment on my part to balance multiple encounters throughout the session.
Ok, but there really isn’t anything the DM can do about it. The player isn’t bothering others and is playing by the rules.
The DM is here saying that it is a problem. Trying to pretend its not is doing yourself and others a disservice. We have one person who prefers to play one way that's at odds with the rest of the group. If you cannot see the inherent problem with that, there's nothing more to say.
Just like with anything in life the more you do it the more competent and competitive you become. D&D isn’t any different.
The more competent? Sure. Competitive? HELL TO THE NO. This is a cooperative storytelling game. I think you are confusing your own personal experience, and perhaps those of a few others you play with, with everyone in general. That is not true. People have different experiences.
Ok, but there really isn’t anything the DM can do about it. The player isn’t bothering others and is playing by the rules.
The DM is here saying that it is a problem. Trying to pretend its not is doing yourself and others a disservice. We have one person who prefers to play one way that's at odds with the rest of the group. If you cannot see the inherent problem with that, there's nothing more to say.
Just like with anything in life the more you do it the more competent and competitive you become. D&D isn’t any different.
The more competent? Sure. Competitive? HELL TO THE NO. This is a cooperative storytelling game. I think you are confusing your own personal experience, and perhaps those of a few others you play with, with everyone in general. That is not true. People have different experiences.
And that's all I'm going to say on the matter.
Well, then maybe DMing isn’t for this person. I mean if they are playing by the rules, what can you do? It is like a basketball referee penalizing a player for being a better shooter than the rest of the field. Makes zero sense.
And by “competitive” what I mean is you have a desire to meaningfully contribute for your team, in and out of combat. You want to fight well and slay monsters and not be a burden to the team.
There is nothing wrong with that, and in my experience (yes it is my own “personal” experience, what other experience could it be) that is the overall general trend as players improve.
Now, if I was going to suggest fixing the Star Druid to make it a bit less strong while keeping the feeling and action flow.
I don't see an issue with how you handled all the Guiding Bolts.
Archer - at level 2, this is an Action to use. At level 6, it becomes Bonus Action. At low levels, this functions like a glorified longbow. One attack action. By the time you reach level 6, the default cleric would have enough spell slots and/or magic items to have Spiritual Weapon almost up continuously, so it shouldn't be a problem if the Star Druid does too. Reduce the damage die if it still feels too strong.
Chalice - A flat boost by WIS or proficency bonus should be good for a level 2 feature. You can boost at 6/10 as needed. there definitely needs to be an increase between tiers, but for low levels? Simple bonus is good.
Dragon - grant proficiency in CON saves (or just Concentration checks, if you want to be a bit more targeted about it) and Expertise in a INT/WIS skill. Maybe a second skill later on.
The important thing is that you want things so that its easy to use, relevant but not domineering.
I'd have to agree that this druid subclass is not really overly powerful. Circle of the Moon set that bar, and I don't think this passes it. Nerfing the duration only ensures that he'll only use it for combat, which limits a lot of the RP potential for the feature.
But as said elsewhere, the real issue is your player mismatch. Nerfing the character may work, but it may also cause problems. This player gets part of his enjoyment by being good at combat. Knowing the DM is purposely limiting him and only him could lead to frustration and resentment. Or not. It depends on your relationship.
One interesting way to handle a lone powergamer is to ask them to bring the best support character they can build. Let them optimize their ability to make everyone else better at combat. I have had some success with this in the past and it makes everyone happy.
So what is the actual problem here? One player is good at combat and the others aren’t, either because A). they are new and need more experience with it, or B). They purposefully built their characters to explore unusual roleplay archetypes, knowingly at the expense of combat competence. (Like a “dumb” Wizard dropping intelligence? Idk.)
If it is the former, then give these players some tips and pointers if they are receptive to it. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact it is the DMs job to do so with new players I would argue. If the latter, well then clearly they don’t care about combat to begin with! So what’s the issue?
I think the whole concept of powergaming in 5e is a bit laughable. It seems to be a knee jerk reaction to the 3.5 days where you really did need an intimate knowledge of every little interaction and character ability to make a top tier character, regardless of how little sense it made roleplay wise.
In 5e, the extent of powergaming amounts to putting your highest ability score into your classes’ top ability, your second into Con for some HP, and 3rd into Dex or something for more AC and initiative. Other than not making blatantly eyebrow raising choices on level ups, that’s about all it is.
In 5e, the extent of powergaming amounts to putting your highest ability score into your classes’ top ability, your second into Con for some HP, and 3rd into Dex or something for more AC and initiative. Other than not making blatantly eyebrow raising choices on level ups, that’s about all it is.
For the most part, I agree completely with what you're saying!
However, I HAVE seen powergaming in 5e, it just takes a different form. Rather than making a REALLY powerful character, 5e power-characters usually focus on and are centered around having a SINGLE reeeeeally broken "trick". Like a thing that does something insane, but they can really only do that one specific thing.
But yeah, Having a character that's better in combat than others isn't powergaming, its just a good fighter o: I guarantee the other characters will be better than the Star Druid at SOMETHING that comes up
Well, then maybe DMing isn’t for this person. I mean if they are playing by the rules, what can you do? It is like a basketball referee penalizing a player for being a better shooter than the rest of the field. Makes zero sense.
The problem with this analogy is that, as Mephista has pointed out, basketball is a competitive sport, and roleplaying is cooperative, not competitive. There is no winning in a roleplaying game, except the winning that comes from everyone having fun. But there sure as heck is losing in a roleplaying game: when one person's play style (rules legal or not) is allowed to make the other players at the table unhappy (including the DM).
And before anyone says the DM's job is to make others happy and do all the work -- the DM is not supposed to just take it on the chin and be miserable all the time. If the DM doesn't mind tweaking every gosh darn encounter so that the guy with the +11 doesn't outshine everyone else with the +6, that's very kind of the DM. But the DM is well within his/her rights not to want to have to freaking deal with that kind of encounter balancing headache week in, week out, encounter after encounter, dungeon after dungeon. No, it is not OK for one player to make the DM's life miserable or the DM's jot dramatically harder -- I do not care if the character is "game legal" or not. Some DMs are OK with wildly disparate power levels, and good at handling them. But other DMs are not, and any DM is well within his or her rights to say no, I am not DMing for a group of wildly different power levels. You can't have a campaign with the DM being miserable. We all know what happens -- the campaign will die, each and every time, because miserable DMs will eventually realize (and usually it takes very little time) that they can make all their problems go away by just not DMing anymore.
After all, the player running the Chaotic Neutral thief who keeps robbing the other party members is game legal either, but many DMs will not allow it any sort of PVP, regardless of how "game legal" the character, and behavior, may technically be.
When I GMed Champions, a game in which it was much easier to powergame to an insane degree, I had tons of house rules designed explicitly to halt powergaming and min-maxing. All the things I prohibited were either fully game legal, or else listed as a "GM's option" (my option in almost every case was "nope"). I disallowed them because I refused to GM for a group of ultra-powergamed characters. As GM, that was my option. The players had a choice -- they could ask someone else to GM. Guess what? Nobody wanted to do the work. OK, then if I do the work, I get to enjoy the game too -- we play by my house rules.
I'm not advocating for GMs to be arbitrary or capricious... but GMs have a right to enjoy the game they run, and if they are not having fun dealing with one player wildly outstripping the other players and having to keep coming up with ways not to have the rest of the party shown up week after week by the powergamer, that little Mr./Ms. Powergamer needs to cut it the heck out. Or maybe GM for the party and let the GM play.
In 5e, the extent of powergaming amounts to putting your highest ability score into your classes’ top ability, your second into Con for some HP, and 3rd into Dex or something for more AC and initiative.
What about feats? Multiclassing 1 level dips? That kind of thing? Those can dramatically alter character effectiveness and there are combos that some DMs outright ban because the combo is so much more effective than anyone else can get without the combo.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The moon druid is powerful enough that you sort of have to nerf it at low levels (turning into a CR 1 at level 2 is wildly out of power level) though by level 5 it's no big deal, so saying the star druid is no worse than the moon druid isn't saying much. The Dragon ability is 'never fail concentration checks against attacks doing less than 12+Con damage', which is a big deal at mid levels.
Yes the players were noting it was becoming a problem. They started to notice they weren't equipped to deal with some of the encounters and they only survived because of the one powerful character.
Yes the players were noting it was becoming a problem. They started to notice they weren't equipped to deal with some of the encounters and they only survived because of the one powerful character.
And that right there is a problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I still think that turning off Multiclassing, using Point Buy stats, and restricting everyone to the new class changes + subclasses from Tasha's would nicely keep everyone on the same power level. At least roughly.
For those who are interested, there is a conclusion to this story.
Because I made a new world and I was aware that some of the players really already had a character in mind, I told all the players to make 3 characters (with just a 20 word "backstory") to have them invest in some other characters too. To make sure they didnt jump into anything they thought was really cool but they realise later isn't as cool as some other thing they could come up with. I also did it because I knew some of the characters people had in mind wouldn't fit in the world and the type of game I was planning on running.
Meaning... the player who made the stars druid did have his eyes focussed on that character at first. But when I brought to his attention that I think the subclass would break the action economy in the early game too much, I gave him the alternate version that I would allow him to play with the possibility to buff it back into its original state if my alterations seemed to have brought its power level too low.
The player told me he had been working on a Dwarvish Forge Cleric and he eventually chose to want to go and player that character because he felt more for it than he did his druid.
He told me he was okay with my suggestions for the subclasses nerfs, suggesting that maybe at one point he should get the second guiding bolt. The only thing he thought was too far nerfed was the healing ability and the fact that it was no longer a free action but it would cost a bonus action to do. This was because that would mean he wouldn't have been able to combine it with something like Healing word, which in and of itself is a bonus action. When I told him I would either take a look at it again or even allow it to be a free action (because I had the least problem with the healing ability) he chose to do the cleric instead. He understood my changes to the DRAGON and ARCHER abilities tough he wished he could have played with the D8 version and the reliable saving throw if he did choose that subclass.
I told him why I was scared of allowing the subclass as it is right now comparing the archer ability to his heavy reliance on the Crossbow Expert Feat in the last campaign, where that feat basically gave him a third attack. In that he could recognise and accept my fears of this subclass.
After he chose to definitely go for his Forge Domain Cleric, I told him I would reconsider my position on the subclass in the future, when more people have played games with it and the community has been able to figure out its possibilities for character builds/multiclasses or if I ever saw someone play it in another campaign such as the players' own game.
He and I have been friends for a long time and we both play in each others games all the time. Because I could explain my concerns with this brand new subclass clearly he understood and we both moved on as adults.
Maybe, in the next campaign when more is known about it, he can play his Circle of the Stars Druid.
Thank you all for contributing, I saw some disheartening comments from some people saying that either I am a bad DM or he is a bad player, I assure you, we don't think of each other in that way.
I hope everyone has a great day, and if someone played or someone dm'ed for someone who played this subclass for a substantial period of time, I'd love to hear about it!
That could have been a solution too yes, but I myself enjoy multi-classing. Especially if it comes organically from the story. Point buy could've been a better option. Some people rolled really high and some really low when we rolled for stats but noone wanted to re-roll or use another system for getting ability scores, so I assume all the players are happy.
My player's weren't even sure if I would allow Tasha's subclasses because it was all so new. When I told them I would allow it but only if I reviewed it first they all agreed that was fair, so thats also what happend to this subclass.
I similarly gave my concerns about the 6th level ability of the Pact of the Ginie warlock that would allow them to fly half as fast as the fly spell for the same duration as a bonus action without concentration.
But I also read through the phantom rogue and the Order of the Scribes subclasses and was happy enough to tell my players those subclasses are fine and that I didn't see any issue with them. This Druid of the Stars subclass was definitely the exeption, not the norm.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a few things for you. Are you just theorizing that Circle of Stars is overpowered? If you have not actually seen it in action repeatedly over many player levels over the course of a campaign, can you be sure it in fact is?
Also remember that "Powergaming" is only powergaming if that player is bothering or criticizing other player's characters over it. You didn't mention the player in question doing this, so I'll assume that isn't the case. So then don't confuse him or her with power gaming when they are just simply good at D&D. When you play long enough you trend to this naturally. You thoroughly learn the mechanics and are able to recognize optimal or powerful character choices as well as become tactically sound in combat. This is a natural thing for veteran players. Don't punish them for that... makes no sense.
The player has admitted a few times that he likes to build his character as combat powerful as he can because thats where he gets part of his enjoyment out of. But the other players aren't that experienced or lean more towards making their combat abilities perfectly reflect their roleplay of the character rather than tactically viable.
The player himself has admitted before that him building a powerful combat character is a problem and in the previous campaign he himself at one point suggested I nerf his character because it was noticeable that the encounters were getting out of balance and that the party as well as me as the DM relied to heavily of the combat prowess of his character.
Thats why I want to avoid that happening in this campaign by making such changes even before the game actually starts.
And I haven't seen any of the new subclasses in action yet. I never allow UA stuff in my campaigns apart from the feats but only after Ive reviewed them because sometimes UA can be broken.
But now that Tasha's came out and a whole 22 new subclasses were added I wanted to give my players the ability to play them but I wanted to review them first because I believe that things are yet to be found in these subclasses thats absolutely broken.
The reason I expect this subclass to be too powerfull is because I believe it might **** with the Action Economy too much, which is something extremely important to keep in mind when making combat encounters. The fact he can either deal damage as a bonus action thats equal to a longsword but a damage time thats rarely if ever resisted, or he could heal what amounts to a full casting of a cure wounds when also in the same turn casting another healing spell seems like its going to be broken.
For example. If the party had a fighter with them that used a longsword, he would deal as much damage pers turn on average as this subclass could do as a bonus action (from level 1 to 4) but when another fighter would get to level 5 it would get extra attack making it be able to put out more damage than the bonus action of the druid could. But at the same time the druid would get 3rd level spells which, as everyone knows, will suddenly bring some very hard hitters into the game.
Because most games are played in low level (between lvl 3 and level 11) this scares me that this imbalance of power could result in the campaign never being able to get to a high level, which is where people say it would balance out more.
Its also power gaming if its creating issues for the DM when they're building encounters. Having one person who's wildly different in strength from others can create problems when designing things. Which really sucks the fun out of DMing, and causes burn out. Remember, the DM is a player too.
And this line is total BS. I've played 5e since release, and I'm not an optimizer (aka min-maxer, aka power gamer, etc). I routinely make choices based on the Rule of Cool far more than "optimal or powerful character choices." That's a playstyle. People of all different playstyles get better at what they do with experience.
Now, there's nothing wrong with being a power gamer... if your group is full of power gamers. Or a casual gamer if your group is full of casual gamers. Its when you start mixing the disparate playstyles that it can become a problem. And, the DM has come here admitting that its a problem for them.
I wouldn't have a problem with it if EVERYONE was optimising combat. Then I could make it challenging because Everyone is overpowered. But for example, it happened in the last campaign that this player had a +11 to hit while all the other players had a +7 or +8 and that makes it terribly difficult to find an AC thats good for both types of players.
And thats only AC. Thats not taking into account some very high saving throw bonusses, damage output and other versitility they got through race of feat choices.
Out of the 4 players I have one only played in a one-shot once before playing in the previous campaign (and will be joining us in the new one as well), one has almost 2 year of dnd experience but has only played in 1 serious campaign (where we actually adhere to the rules and I didn't pull everything out of my butt like I did when I started), and one who is a very experienced player but focusses more on the roleplay side of things (not meaning he optimizes his character for roleplay encounters but that he would choose a known underpowered spell over something better just because it would fit his character better)
Im not saying the guy can't play like he likes the game, but I have to make sure EVERYONE is having fun.
Its not messing with the action economy. You admitted yourself that what's going on with Archer is little different from a persistent Spiritual Weapon. A level 1 life cleric can boost healing effects of all spells (though to a lesser extent than Chalice can). This fits perfectly fine within the established action economy.
Now, level 2 might be too early to get a free, persistent Spiritual weapon from a DPR standpoint. That's an understandable issue. Likewise, getting Reliable Talent at level 2 might be seen as too strong, given that Rogues need to be level 10? 11? And Chalice might be getting better heally buffs than the Dream Druid, who supposedly specializes in heals. If you wanted to say that level 2 is far too powerful, I won't really argue with that.*
But suggesting that it has anything to do with action economy? That's not true. If anything, its rather nicely designed in order to allow fluid usage of all the abilities in such a way that it feels good to play, irregardless of the numbers involved.
* I consider Tasha's Cauldron to be the equivalent of the 3.5 line, or 4th edition's Essential's line. In short, its the half-way book that provides a new way of looking at the old classes with streamlined designs and power boosts. It creates an entirely new level of strength that's balanced with everything from this book and forwards, but not really balanced with anything backwards. And, interestingly enough, I think that a lot of the subclasses introduced are deliberately remakes of themes from old subclasses.
Like, take the Genie Pact for Warlock. Lots of the same spells/abilities as Fiend and Archfey mixed in while being better at it, while the Fathomless Pact is a re-imagining of Great Old One.
If you're going to be comparing power levels, I really think its best to stick with the classes from Tasha's, or not at all, because they're very different from each side.
Ok, but there really isn’t anything the DM can do about it. The player isn’t bothering others and is playing by the rules.
And, the point is I bet you understand HOW to optimize a character. If you chose not to then that’s fine, but the difference between you and a new player is you know how to if you wanted, the new player doesn’t. That’s what I mean when I say players trend in that direction as the get more experience.
Just like with anything in life the more you do it the more competent and competitive you become. D&D isn’t any different.
First, I think its good that you're allowing the player to use the subclass rather than banning it outright. In the previous campaign did the other players agree that combat was a problem or not fun because of the actions of the one player? If this player's min-maxing is causing problems then that should also place some responsibility on him and not just you as the DM to nerf all his choices. If the rest of the party wasn't overly concerned about it then I wouldn't worry about it as much.
I do agree Archer is powerful at level 2, but I don't think its game breaking as it doesn't scale like spiritual weapon and its limited by number of wild shape uses and the other two forms offer legitimate contenders. If you're starting at level 3, how quickly do you let them level up in the early part of the campaign? Comparing the archer form to spiritual weapon, by level 5 spiritual weapon can be up-cast which makes it substantially better than the archer form. Also you can compensate for some of this by having your enemies use cover more often, not let your party take short rests consistently, etc... My first campaign, my four players tended to stomp on combat encounters because I was letting them get in short rests too often so they could nova my monsters without much trouble. It was an adjustment on my part to balance multiple encounters throughout the session.
The DM is here saying that it is a problem. Trying to pretend its not is doing yourself and others a disservice. We have one person who prefers to play one way that's at odds with the rest of the group. If you cannot see the inherent problem with that, there's nothing more to say.
The more competent? Sure. Competitive? HELL TO THE NO. This is a cooperative storytelling game. I think you are confusing your own personal experience, and perhaps those of a few others you play with, with everyone in general. That is not true. People have different experiences.
And that's all I'm going to say on the matter.
Well, then maybe DMing isn’t for this person. I mean if they are playing by the rules, what can you do? It is like a basketball referee penalizing a player for being a better shooter than the rest of the field. Makes zero sense.
And by “competitive” what I mean is you have a desire to meaningfully contribute for your team, in and out of combat. You want to fight well and slay monsters and not be a burden to the team.
There is nothing wrong with that, and in my experience (yes it is my own “personal” experience, what other experience could it be) that is the overall general trend as players improve.
@TheLSpike
Now, if I was going to suggest fixing the Star Druid to make it a bit less strong while keeping the feeling and action flow.
The important thing is that you want things so that its easy to use, relevant but not domineering.
I'd have to agree that this druid subclass is not really overly powerful. Circle of the Moon set that bar, and I don't think this passes it. Nerfing the duration only ensures that he'll only use it for combat, which limits a lot of the RP potential for the feature.
But as said elsewhere, the real issue is your player mismatch. Nerfing the character may work, but it may also cause problems. This player gets part of his enjoyment by being good at combat. Knowing the DM is purposely limiting him and only him could lead to frustration and resentment. Or not. It depends on your relationship.
One interesting way to handle a lone powergamer is to ask them to bring the best support character they can build. Let them optimize their ability to make everyone else better at combat. I have had some success with this in the past and it makes everyone happy.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I can’t help but laugh reading this thread.
So what is the actual problem here? One player is good at combat and the others aren’t, either because A). they are new and need more experience with it, or B). They purposefully built their characters to explore unusual roleplay archetypes, knowingly at the expense of combat competence. (Like a “dumb” Wizard dropping intelligence? Idk.)
If it is the former, then give these players some tips and pointers if they are receptive to it. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact it is the DMs job to do so with new players I would argue. If the latter, well then clearly they don’t care about combat to begin with! So what’s the issue?
I think the whole concept of powergaming in 5e is a bit laughable. It seems to be a knee jerk reaction to the 3.5 days where you really did need an intimate knowledge of every little interaction and character ability to make a top tier character, regardless of how little sense it made roleplay wise.
In 5e, the extent of powergaming amounts to putting your highest ability score into your classes’ top ability, your second into Con for some HP, and 3rd into Dex or something for more AC and initiative. Other than not making blatantly eyebrow raising choices on level ups, that’s about all it is.
For the most part, I agree completely with what you're saying!
However, I HAVE seen powergaming in 5e, it just takes a different form. Rather than making a REALLY powerful character, 5e power-characters usually focus on and are centered around having a SINGLE reeeeeally broken "trick". Like a thing that does something insane, but they can really only do that one specific thing.
But yeah, Having a character that's better in combat than others isn't powergaming, its just a good fighter o:
I guarantee the other characters will be better than the Star Druid at SOMETHING that comes up
The problem with this analogy is that, as Mephista has pointed out, basketball is a competitive sport, and roleplaying is cooperative, not competitive. There is no winning in a roleplaying game, except the winning that comes from everyone having fun. But there sure as heck is losing in a roleplaying game: when one person's play style (rules legal or not) is allowed to make the other players at the table unhappy (including the DM).
And before anyone says the DM's job is to make others happy and do all the work -- the DM is not supposed to just take it on the chin and be miserable all the time. If the DM doesn't mind tweaking every gosh darn encounter so that the guy with the +11 doesn't outshine everyone else with the +6, that's very kind of the DM. But the DM is well within his/her rights not to want to have to freaking deal with that kind of encounter balancing headache week in, week out, encounter after encounter, dungeon after dungeon. No, it is not OK for one player to make the DM's life miserable or the DM's jot dramatically harder -- I do not care if the character is "game legal" or not. Some DMs are OK with wildly disparate power levels, and good at handling them. But other DMs are not, and any DM is well within his or her rights to say no, I am not DMing for a group of wildly different power levels. You can't have a campaign with the DM being miserable. We all know what happens -- the campaign will die, each and every time, because miserable DMs will eventually realize (and usually it takes very little time) that they can make all their problems go away by just not DMing anymore.
After all, the player running the Chaotic Neutral thief who keeps robbing the other party members is game legal either, but many DMs will not allow it any sort of PVP, regardless of how "game legal" the character, and behavior, may technically be.
When I GMed Champions, a game in which it was much easier to powergame to an insane degree, I had tons of house rules designed explicitly to halt powergaming and min-maxing. All the things I prohibited were either fully game legal, or else listed as a "GM's option" (my option in almost every case was "nope"). I disallowed them because I refused to GM for a group of ultra-powergamed characters. As GM, that was my option. The players had a choice -- they could ask someone else to GM. Guess what? Nobody wanted to do the work. OK, then if I do the work, I get to enjoy the game too -- we play by my house rules.
I'm not advocating for GMs to be arbitrary or capricious... but GMs have a right to enjoy the game they run, and if they are not having fun dealing with one player wildly outstripping the other players and having to keep coming up with ways not to have the rest of the party shown up week after week by the powergamer, that little Mr./Ms. Powergamer needs to cut it the heck out. Or maybe GM for the party and let the GM play.
What about feats? Multiclassing 1 level dips? That kind of thing? Those can dramatically alter character effectiveness and there are combos that some DMs outright ban because the combo is so much more effective than anyone else can get without the combo.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The moon druid is powerful enough that you sort of have to nerf it at low levels (turning into a CR 1 at level 2 is wildly out of power level) though by level 5 it's no big deal, so saying the star druid is no worse than the moon druid isn't saying much. The Dragon ability is 'never fail concentration checks against attacks doing less than 12+Con damage', which is a big deal at mid levels.
Yes the players were noting it was becoming a problem. They started to notice they weren't equipped to deal with some of the encounters and they only survived because of the one powerful character.
And that right there is a problem.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I still think that turning off Multiclassing, using Point Buy stats, and restricting everyone to the new class changes + subclasses from Tasha's would nicely keep everyone on the same power level. At least roughly.
For those who are interested, there is a conclusion to this story.
Because I made a new world and I was aware that some of the players really already had a character in mind, I told all the players to make 3 characters (with just a 20 word "backstory") to have them invest in some other characters too. To make sure they didnt jump into anything they thought was really cool but they realise later isn't as cool as some other thing they could come up with. I also did it because I knew some of the characters people had in mind wouldn't fit in the world and the type of game I was planning on running.
Meaning... the player who made the stars druid did have his eyes focussed on that character at first. But when I brought to his attention that I think the subclass would break the action economy in the early game too much, I gave him the alternate version that I would allow him to play with the possibility to buff it back into its original state if my alterations seemed to have brought its power level too low.
The player told me he had been working on a Dwarvish Forge Cleric and he eventually chose to want to go and player that character because he felt more for it than he did his druid.
He told me he was okay with my suggestions for the subclasses nerfs, suggesting that maybe at one point he should get the second guiding bolt. The only thing he thought was too far nerfed was the healing ability and the fact that it was no longer a free action but it would cost a bonus action to do. This was because that would mean he wouldn't have been able to combine it with something like Healing word, which in and of itself is a bonus action.
When I told him I would either take a look at it again or even allow it to be a free action (because I had the least problem with the healing ability) he chose to do the cleric instead.
He understood my changes to the DRAGON and ARCHER abilities tough he wished he could have played with the D8 version and the reliable saving throw if he did choose that subclass.
I told him why I was scared of allowing the subclass as it is right now comparing the archer ability to his heavy reliance on the Crossbow Expert Feat in the last campaign, where that feat basically gave him a third attack. In that he could recognise and accept my fears of this subclass.
After he chose to definitely go for his Forge Domain Cleric, I told him I would reconsider my position on the subclass in the future, when more people have played games with it and the community has been able to figure out its possibilities for character builds/multiclasses or if I ever saw someone play it in another campaign such as the players' own game.
He and I have been friends for a long time and we both play in each others games all the time. Because I could explain my concerns with this brand new subclass clearly he understood and we both moved on as adults.
Maybe, in the next campaign when more is known about it, he can play his Circle of the Stars Druid.
Thank you all for contributing, I saw some disheartening comments from some people saying that either I am a bad DM or he is a bad player, I assure you, we don't think of each other in that way.
I hope everyone has a great day, and if someone played or someone dm'ed for someone who played this subclass for a substantial period of time, I'd love to hear about it!
- TheLSpike
That could have been a solution too yes, but I myself enjoy multi-classing. Especially if it comes organically from the story. Point buy could've been a better option. Some people rolled really high and some really low when we rolled for stats but noone wanted to re-roll or use another system for getting ability scores, so I assume all the players are happy.
My player's weren't even sure if I would allow Tasha's subclasses because it was all so new. When I told them I would allow it but only if I reviewed it first they all agreed that was fair, so thats also what happend to this subclass.
I similarly gave my concerns about the 6th level ability of the Pact of the Ginie warlock that would allow them to fly half as fast as the fly spell for the same duration as a bonus action without concentration.
But I also read through the phantom rogue and the Order of the Scribes subclasses and was happy enough to tell my players those subclasses are fine and that I didn't see any issue with them.
This Druid of the Stars subclass was definitely the exeption, not the norm.