I'd disagree with you in that GWM is equivalent/worse than the Half-Org Racial "feat" in terms of optimization, GWM will get more DPS. Fully optimized STR at lvl 1 is a +3 on the Point buy system. with the -5 for GWM, that's a net -2. Most low level monsters have lower AC and -2 to hit for a +10 damage is ridiculously OP, especially since this happens with EVERY attack.
The Savage attack is nice, but ONLY happens on crits. Even for the highest damage roll for a common martial weapon, that's 1d12. Average of +6, only on crits vs a set +10 on a -2 to hit. I'd pick the latter any day. Yes, the not dying outright is nice, but that's 1/day and still leaves you at 1hp. That can help you run away to get healed. Darkvision is very nice, but is situational. In terms of filling the role of a fighter/DPS, Variant human shines in early levels. Again, as levels increase and monsters get higher AC and HP, this advantage falls off. But at level 1? It's stupid.
I don't consider DPS optimization as the threshold for power and disregard every other feature as "is nice, but...", instead it is everything taken as a whole.
You have a little bit less damage output, but you gain bonuses to hit, damage (even if it's not as much), strength save, strength skills, darkvision and a free stabilization.
I'd disagree with you in that GWM is equivalent/worse than the Half-Org Racial "feat" in terms of optimization, GWM will get more DPS. Fully optimized STR at lvl 1 is a +3 on the Point buy system. with the -5 for GWM, that's a net -2. Most low level monsters have lower AC and -2 to hit for a +10 damage is ridiculously OP, especially since this happens with EVERY attack.
The Savage attack is nice, but ONLY happens on crits. Even for the highest damage roll for a common martial weapon, that's 1d12. Average of +6, only on crits vs a set +10 on a -2 to hit. I'd pick the latter any day. Yes, the not dying outright is nice, but that's 1/day and still leaves you at 1hp. That can help you run away to get healed. Darkvision is very nice, but is situational. In terms of filling the role of a fighter/DPS, Variant human shines in early levels. Again, as levels increase and monsters get higher AC and HP, this advantage falls off. But at level 1? It's stupid.
I don't consider DPS optimization as the threshold for power and disregard every other feature as "is nice, but...", instead it is everything taken as a whole.
You have a little bit less damage output, but you gain bonuses to hit, damage (even if it's not as much), strength save, strength skills, darkvision and a free stabilization.
As a whole, from 1-3 I still think it is more powerful. A little bit less? I clearly demonstrated that it was MUCH less. Again, all of this concentrating on levels 1-3, +10 damage is a lot. Like, kills most low level monsters with JUST that bonus, a lot. Strength save? That's not from race...Not sure if typo/mistake. Strength skill, again is only +1 more, and that won't effect the modifier on the point buy. 16 vs 17 is still a +3 mod. Up to level 3, there is no difference. Darkvision and stabilization are the 2 things that half-orc has over variant human.
Most low level adventurers are not that likely to be delving into dungeons yet. So the darkvision is likely dependent on what kind of DM you have. It COULD come in clutch, but it could also just kinda be there. Stabilization also depends on how the DM sets up the CR. Again, when it's low levels, that makes me assume new players, because who actually wants to start low level. The GWM perks are ALWAYS there.
So while I am making some assumptions, I don't think those assumptions are that much of a stretch. If you're playing a DPS character, you're gonna wanna do lots of damage. Variant human wins in that regard in the early levels.
As a whole, from 1-3 I still think it is more powerful. A little bit less? I clearly demonstrated that it was MUCH less. Again, all of this concentrating on levels 1-3, +10 damage is a lot. Like, kills most low level monsters with JUST that bonus, a lot. Strength save? That's not from race...Not sure if typo/mistake. Strength skill, again is only +1 more, and that won't effect the modifier on the point buy. 16 vs 17 is still a +3 mod. Up to level 3, there is no difference. Darkvision and stabilization are the 2 things that half-orc has over variant human.
Most low level adventurers are not that likely to be delving into dungeons yet. So the darkvision is likely dependent on what kind of DM you have. It COULD come in clutch, but it could also just kinda be there. Stabilization also depends on how the DM sets up the CR. Again, when it's low levels, that makes me assume new players, because who actually wants to start low level. The GWM perks are ALWAYS there.
So while I am making some assumptions, I don't think those assumptions are that much of a stretch. If you're playing a DPS character, you're gonna wanna do lots of damage. Variant human wins in that regard in the early levels.
It seems your only metric for power is DPS. If your games are full of nothing but murder hobos with an occasional skill challenge or roleplay scenario, then the combat feats indeed seem overpowered. My fighters are more than a sack of hit points on one end and a sword on the other.
To be fair, the question was "Is Variant Human OP?" That's a question of balance, which is in turn a question involving optimization, and everybody knows the only thing anyone ever optimizes for is combat. Ten flat damage is basically equivalent to 2d10 on every attack; ask a munchkin if they'd take a feat that gave them the chance to add 2d10 to every swing of their weapon and they'd look at you and ask why it's not already on their sheet.
On the original question: variant human is not so much overpowered as it is (ironically) bloody boring. Every single goddamned munchkin in the entire flippin' world takes it because it saves them four levels on their Feat Combo DPS Optimization Quest, so VH Crossbow Sharpies or Great Polearm Sentinels with the personality of a plank of wood can be found six to a dozen at any gaming shop. Nobody ever takes variant human and then grabs a cool, flavorful feat that fits their background and the interesting foundation story they've woven for their character. Nah. It's either Lucky or one of the Big Fighty feats. Boring.
I'd disagree with you in that GWM is equivalent/worse than the Half-Org Racial "feat" in terms of optimization, GWM will get more DPS. Fully optimized STR at lvl 1 is a +3 on the Point buy system. with the -5 for GWM, that's a net -2. Most low level monsters have lower AC and -2 to hit for a +10 damage is ridiculously OP, especially since this happens with EVERY attack.
The Savage attack is nice, but ONLY happens on crits. Even for the highest damage roll for a common martial weapon, that's 1d12. Average of +6, only on crits vs a set +10 on a -2 to hit. I'd pick the latter any day. Yes, the not dying outright is nice, but that's 1/day and still leaves you at 1hp. That can help you run away to get healed. Darkvision is very nice, but is situational. In terms of filling the role of a fighter/DPS, Variant human shines in early levels. Again, as levels increase and monsters get higher AC and HP, this advantage falls off. But at level 1? It's stupid.
Since you mention that most low level monsters have lower AC to offset the "-2", how often do the low level creatures have lower less than 10 hp? There is no bonus for overkill in the game. That will sometimes mitigate the extra damage possibility since it simply isn't needed outside of making sure a creature is killed versus possibly rolling low and not killing the creature. Of course, that same argument can be used against the Savage Attacks option. Much like Darkvision and the not dying ability, GWM can be situational, though it can be better in situations where a hit is almost guaranteed and a kill is almost required.
Edit: I saw in the next post that you addressed the low hp in the form of basically stating that GWM does offer a quasi autokill on hit.
To be fair, the question was "Is Variant Human OP?" That's a question of balance, which is in turn a question involving optimization, and everybody knows the only thing anyone ever optimizes for is combat. Ten flat damage is basically equivalent to 2d10 on every attack; ask a munchkin if they'd take a feat that gave them the chance to add 2d10 to every swing of their weapon and they'd look at you and ask why it's not already on their sheet.
On the original question: variant human is not so much overpowered as it is (ironically) bloody boring. Every single goddamned munchkin in the entire flippin' world takes it because it saves them four levels on their Feat Combo DPS Optimization Quest, so VH Crossbow Sharpies or Great Polearm Sentinels with the personality of a plank of wood can be found six to a dozen at any gaming shop. Nobody ever takes variant human and then grabs a cool, flavorful feat that fits their background and the interesting foundation story they've woven for their character. Nah. It's either Lucky or one of the Big Fighty feats. Boring.
^^^this.
I think that the Variant Human is just fine, but I tend to take Feats that fit with the background of the character. For my current Barbarian I went with the Urchin background and Athlete Feat. She grew up parkoring her way around the city chasing after rogues that couldn't keep up with their dues to the local thieves guild.
If all you do is build to min/max combat, then everything can be broken.
To be fair, the question was "Is Variant Human OP?" That's a question of balance, which is in turn a question involving optimization, and everybody knows the only thing anyone ever optimizes for is combat. Ten flat damage is basically equivalent to 2d10 on every attack; ask a munchkin if they'd take a feat that gave them the chance to add 2d10 to every swing of their weapon and they'd look at you and ask why it's not already on their sheet.
You pretty much need to be a Barbarian spamming Reckless Attack (which is still a double-edged sword if you're not currently raging) or have a Bard/Druid in the party indulging you with Faerie Fire if you want to be a pre-4th level Variant Human wrecking things left and right with GWM.
The other part that everyone conveniently leaves out is that humans are flat out blind in the dark. Your options in dark dungeons are:
be blind
waste a hand on a light source
be joined at the hip with someone that's carrying a light source
bum off of someone's Light cantrip if they're not already using it themselves, or
bum off of someone's Darkvision spell (which is a really steep price to pay at low levels.)
Meanwhile the half-orc is doing just fine without a lantern and still has both hands on their weapon.
Remember, “overpowered” and “underpowered” aren’t as important in D&D as in other games. You can have as much fun playing a Dragonborn Beast Master as playing a Variant Human Hexblade.
Resisting is simply standing in front of the tide and pushing at it. Even if you endure at first, you will eventually break down. Adapting, by contrast, is turning into a fish.
-me
Rangers are not underpowered. They’re just exploration-oriented.
To be fair, the question was "Is Variant Human OP?" That's a question of balance, which is in turn a question involving optimization, and everybody knows the only thing anyone ever optimizes for is combat. Ten flat damage is basically equivalent to 2d10 on every attack; ask a munchkin if they'd take a feat that gave them the chance to add 2d10 to every swing of their weapon and they'd look at you and ask why it's not already on their sheet.
You pretty much need to be a Barbarian spamming Reckless Attack (which is still a double-edged sword if you're not currently raging) or have a Bard/Druid in the party indulging you with Faerie Fire if you want to be a pre-4th level Variant Human wrecking things left and right with GWM.
The other part that everyone conveniently leaves out is that humans are flat out blind in the dark. Your options in dark dungeons are:
be blind
waste a hand on a light source
be joined at the hip with someone that's carrying a light source
bum off of someone's Light cantrip if they're not already using it themselves, or
bum off of someone's Darkvision spell (which is a really steep price to pay at low levels.)
Meanwhile the half-orc is doing just fine without a lantern and still has both hands on their weapon.
You are correct. I've actually done the math on this, and Sharpshooter/GWM end up amounting to only a minor damage increase in the majority of cases, and in a minority of cases it ends up being a net negative.
Higher AC detracts from the value of (-5 / +10), as does having a higher base damage.
Short answer, yes. I don't allow then in my games, not so much because of power levels, but becausethey are a bit of a min-maxer's wet dream (and that is not the sort out game I like to be involved in). I might allow them, but only if the list of feats available were severely restricted. Or better yet, the player describes the culture their variant human comes from then the DM decides what feat that culture grants you (and surprise! your barbarian great weapon based culture does not grant you the great weapon mastery feat you were hoping for).
I will never understand this sort of combative vitriol some DM's have against us players who like to optimize. If you have players who wisely choose attributes, spells, and abilities, then give us more challenging encounters. Have of some of your savvy baddies gang up on the spellcasters just like we do to them. Get it out of your head that we want to just steamroll your encounters. No, we want a challenge. We just want the challenge to come because your monsters are strong and YOU as the DM did not play them as if their minds are AI from a 1985 video game.
PS: There is absolutely NOTHING about having a strong character that - in ANY way - takes away from roll playing or engaging in the story.
No, you're not a real roleplayer unless you play a quirky tiefling bard who took the Chef feat and spends all their combat actions doing knowledge checks on the surrounding flora because their mother was a botanist!
We just want the challenge to come because your monsters are strong and YOU as the DM did not play them as if their minds are AI from a 1985 video game.
The thing that players need to understand is that as the DM, I don't get to sit and think about my next move for 5-10 minutes while the rest of the party takes their turn, and it wouldn't be very fun for you guys if I took 40 minutes every round of combat to sit and think about every single creature's turn (sometimes over a dozen creatures per round).
Keep in mind that I'm also trying to track status effects, rolling dice for multiple attacks having to reference multiple statblocks with different bonuses, gauge party resources for the next encounter, act out NPC's during the combat and narrate in an entertaining way, not to mention remembering the details about everyone else's characters because players can't be bothered to know what their spells do.
It's really not easy to run a rewardingly challenging combat encounter each and every time. There is a very fine line between steamrolling an encounter, and TPKing your group every session. Most DM's tend to err on the side of "not killing your entire party", for obvious reasons.
D&D combat is a 5 on 1 chess match. Excuse me for not being able to regularly outplay 5 people working as a team. Give your DM a break, we are doing our best because we all love this game. Keep shitting on the people who run the games like that, and we're going to stop.
Toshly, I'm very understanding and appreciative of my DM's. I'm NOT understanding, nor appreciative of people who disparage players who optimize. I certainly don't rant about people who do things like make Con their dump stat for a story hook they came up with. It's their character. Making making your own decisions (in cooperation with a team) is what the game is all about.
By the way, players do have a responsibility to be prepared and not to take 40 minutes to make a decision, but that's another topic. Talk to them and ask them to write down the basic info of their spells on a cheat sheet. Spell Name: Range, Attack/Save type, Damage, Effects, etc.
It sounds to me like you are not very understanding or appreciative at all, and in fact you are disparaging the average DM by likening them to old, shitty video games with terrible A.I.
And sorry, what I said wasn't very clear; My players don't take 40 minutes to take their turn, but they get to think about what they are going to do on their next turn, while the rest of the party takes theirs. They can sit and think about possible outcomes, and watch the battlefield while the other players make their moves. Basically, it means that for the 5 players, they each get 5 minutes per character to think about the next combat move they are going to make.
I don't have a single second to think about "what is the optimal move that I should make". If I took 5 minutes to think about each character that I control (like my players get to think about their character), each round of combat would be over 40 minutes long, and the game would be incredibly boring. Even if I only took 1 minute per monster, that would still be 5-20 minutes. PER ROUND. Very few DMs are going to be able to outplay an entire team of people.
Unless the DM has explicitly stated "This is a power gaming group that focuses on combat", then you need to give your DM a break. This game system was not balanced for min-maxing, and I am not a team of devs with access to balancing simulations to run experimental combats thousands of times to find an optimal challenge level, like they do for video games. I'm just a dude with a book saying "idk that seems about right". I don't get paid for this, and I'm doing the best I can because if I didn't, well then none of us would be playing ANY D&D period.
I'm totally fine with that. I'm only concerned with what is actually the case, not what "sounds to you like" is the case. Any reasonable person who read the exchange in context should be able to clearly see that my beef is with DM's who disparage players who optimize. I understand that's a more difficult thing for you to address, so if you want to continue pretending to believe the AI remark was my main point, knock yourself out.
Question: Why is it when you do point buy you are not allowed to reduce a stat below 8, nor raise a stat above 15?
If the DM doesn't explicitly state, "this is a power gaming group that focuses on combat", what are the specifics of the approved spells, feats, and race/class combos? If a DM can't handle, say, optimized level 4 PCs, how does he/she deal with non-optimized level 8 PCs?
Well then, I am sorry. But honestly only your first sentence was about DM's who disparage players who optimize...
The rest of the paragraph was about how you as a player wanted to be provided with more of a challenge, and why can't DM's just gang up on spellcasters, and stupid DM's think players want encounters to be easily steamrolled, and why can't we get it through our thick skulls that players want to be challenged, and it's our fault as the DM that you are not having fun because we play monsters like shitty old computer games.
It honestly seemed like your beef was with average DM's who aren't providing you with the power gaming experience you are looking for, and I felt like someone needed to explain that this isn't as easy as you seem to think it is. We desperately try to provide fun, challenging encounters, and it really sucks when a player says "Why can't you just get it through your head that we don't want it to be easy".
As for DM's who disparage power gamers, I have to imagine it's the same as any other group of people. Some are just *****.
Um... that's generally how paragraph structure goes. Typically the first sentence is the main point and the subsequent sentences are in support of the main point. Kind of like this paragraph that I'm writing right now. Let's break down the first two sentences.
" I will never understand this sort of combative vitriol some DM's have against us players who like to optimize. <-- main pointIf you have players who wisely choose attributes, spells, and abilities, <--i.e players who optimize then give us more challenging encounters."
The subsequent sentences were just an example of how to make the encounters more challenging. Hell, there's a myriad of ways. Aside from making them fight smarter (which really doesn't have to involve excessive brainstorming), you can give them more hit points, use higher CR monsters, use more of them, backup can arrive if they're losing too easily, resistances, flying, spellcasting, hazardous terrain, etc. Again, if you can handle non-optimized level 8 PC's, you should be able to handle optimized level 4, correct?
And this isn't about me making demands of a DM. If you, as a DM, are having a tough time balancing an encounter - **I am understanding** - but IT IS NOT THE PLAYERS' FAULT. Irrespective of whether they optimize. Don't disparage players who are following the rules and who are not violating any sort of game etiquette.
If the DM doesn't explicitly state, "this is a power gaming group that focuses on combat", what are the specifics of the approved spells, feats, and race/class combos? If a DM can't handle, say, optimized level 4 PCs, how does he/she deal with non-optimized level 8 PCs?
Because the monster statblocks provided in the Monster Manual assume that they are facing a group of non-optimized PC's. If I throw a CR 6 monster out of the Monster Manual against a group of optimized level 4 PC's, they will easily steamroll that encounter. If I try to provide a harder challenge by throwing a CR 7 or 8 Monster at the party, I will TPK the entire group with one attack. If I throw in an extra dozen lower CR monsters as fodder, then I have to take 13 turns per round, and I don't have any time for anything more complex besides "ok this guy attacks the nearest target", without grinding combat to a standstill.
If I want to provide a good challenge to a group of optimized PC's, then I need to go in and start modifying monster statblocks. Once again, I am not a Dev with access to balancing mechanics, nor do I necessarily have hours every week to modify monsters before each game.
The funny thing about "optimizing" a character, is that it actually has kind of the opposite effect. D&D was designed so that any character concept is perfectly valid and playable. Finding ways to combine mechanics to provide big numbers actually makes the entire game less optimized, and falls under the category of "metagaming", which is quite clearly understood by pretty much everyone who plays D&D to be something that detracts from the game.
Unless you have a DM who lives for that stuff, and builds his entire game around it.
If the DM doesn't explicitly state, "this is a power gaming group that focuses on combat", what are the specifics of the approved spells, feats, and race/class combos? If a DM can't handle, say, optimized level 4 PCs, how does he/she deal with non-optimized level 8 PCs?
Because the monster statblocks provided in the Monster Manual assume that they are facing a group of non-optimized PC's. If I throw a CR 6 monster out of the Monster Manual against a group of optimized level 4 PC's, they will easily steamroll that encounter. If I try to provide a harder challenge by throwing a CR 7 or 8 Monster at the party, I will TPK the entire group with one attack. If I throw in an extra dozen lower CR monsters as fodder, then I have to take 13 turns per round, and I don't have any time for anything more complex besides "ok this guy attacks the nearest target", without grinding combat to a standstill.
If I want to provide a good challenge to a group of optimized PC's, then I need to go in and start modifying monster statblocks. Once again, I am not a Dev with access to balancing mechanics, nor do I necessarily have hours every week to modify monsters before each game.
The funny thing about "optimizing" a character, is that it actually has kind of the opposite effect. D&D was designed so that any character concept is perfectly valid and playable. Finding ways to combine mechanics to provide big numbers actually makes the entire game less optimized, and falls under the category of "metagaming", which is quite clearly understood by pretty much everyone who plays D&D to be something that detracts from the game.
Unless you have a DM who lives for that stuff, and builds his entire game around it.
Sorry, but optimizing your character is not even remotely "metagaming." That's just absurd. "How dare you look up the stats of that spell you chose." What are you talking about?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't consider DPS optimization as the threshold for power and disregard every other feature as "is nice, but...", instead it is everything taken as a whole.
You have a little bit less damage output, but you gain bonuses to hit, damage (even if it's not as much), strength save, strength skills, darkvision and a free stabilization.
As a whole, from 1-3 I still think it is more powerful. A little bit less? I clearly demonstrated that it was MUCH less. Again, all of this concentrating on levels 1-3, +10 damage is a lot. Like, kills most low level monsters with JUST that bonus, a lot. Strength save? That's not from race...Not sure if typo/mistake. Strength skill, again is only +1 more, and that won't effect the modifier on the point buy. 16 vs 17 is still a +3 mod. Up to level 3, there is no difference. Darkvision and stabilization are the 2 things that half-orc has over variant human.
Most low level adventurers are not that likely to be delving into dungeons yet. So the darkvision is likely dependent on what kind of DM you have. It COULD come in clutch, but it could also just kinda be there. Stabilization also depends on how the DM sets up the CR. Again, when it's low levels, that makes me assume new players, because who actually wants to start low level. The GWM perks are ALWAYS there.
So while I am making some assumptions, I don't think those assumptions are that much of a stretch. If you're playing a DPS character, you're gonna wanna do lots of damage. Variant human wins in that regard in the early levels.
It seems your only metric for power is DPS. If your games are full of nothing but murder hobos with an occasional skill challenge or roleplay scenario, then the combat feats indeed seem overpowered. My fighters are more than a sack of hit points on one end and a sword on the other.
To be fair, the question was "Is Variant Human OP?" That's a question of balance, which is in turn a question involving optimization, and everybody knows the only thing anyone ever optimizes for is combat. Ten flat damage is basically equivalent to 2d10 on every attack; ask a munchkin if they'd take a feat that gave them the chance to add 2d10 to every swing of their weapon and they'd look at you and ask why it's not already on their sheet.
On the original question: variant human is not so much overpowered as it is (ironically) bloody boring. Every single goddamned munchkin in the entire flippin' world takes it because it saves them four levels on their Feat Combo DPS Optimization Quest, so VH Crossbow Sharpies or Great Polearm Sentinels with the personality of a plank of wood can be found six to a dozen at any gaming shop. Nobody ever takes variant human and then grabs a cool, flavorful feat that fits their background and the interesting foundation story they've woven for their character. Nah. It's either Lucky or one of the Big Fighty feats. Boring.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
Since you mention that most low level monsters have lower AC to offset the "-2", how often do the low level creatures have lower less than 10 hp? There is no bonus for overkill in the game. That will sometimes mitigate the extra damage possibility since it simply isn't needed outside of making sure a creature is killed versus possibly rolling low and not killing the creature. Of course, that same argument can be used against the Savage Attacks option. Much like Darkvision and the not dying ability, GWM can be situational, though it can be better in situations where a hit is almost guaranteed and a kill is almost required.
Edit: I saw in the next post that you addressed the low hp in the form of basically stating that GWM does offer a quasi autokill on hit.
^^^this.
I think that the Variant Human is just fine, but I tend to take Feats that fit with the background of the character. For my current Barbarian I went with the Urchin background and Athlete Feat. She grew up parkoring her way around the city chasing after rogues that couldn't keep up with their dues to the local thieves guild.
If all you do is build to min/max combat, then everything can be broken.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
That's pretty misleading framing. In practice the -5 penalty on the attack roll will cause you to miss so much more frequently that on average you'll do less damage unless you have advantage. In fact, the more damage you're capable of doing without the damage bonus, the more you stand to lose from that -5 penalty causing you to miss, and the less of a relative boost you're getting from that +10 damage bonus.
You pretty much need to be a Barbarian spamming Reckless Attack (which is still a double-edged sword if you're not currently raging) or have a Bard/Druid in the party indulging you with Faerie Fire if you want to be a pre-4th level Variant Human wrecking things left and right with GWM.
The other part that everyone conveniently leaves out is that humans are flat out blind in the dark. Your options in dark dungeons are:
Meanwhile the half-orc is doing just fine without a lantern and still has both hands on their weapon.
Remember, “overpowered” and “underpowered” aren’t as important in D&D as in other games. You can have as much fun playing a Dragonborn Beast Master as playing a Variant Human Hexblade.
All hail the great and mighty platypus.
My homebrew setting: Wakai
Resisting is simply standing in front of the tide and pushing at it. Even if you endure at first, you will eventually break down. Adapting, by contrast, is turning into a fish.
-me
Rangers are not underpowered. They’re just exploration-oriented.
You are correct. I've actually done the math on this, and Sharpshooter/GWM end up amounting to only a minor damage increase in the majority of cases, and in a minority of cases it ends up being a net negative.
Higher AC detracts from the value of (-5 / +10), as does having a higher base damage.
I will never understand this sort of combative vitriol some DM's have against us players who like to optimize. If you have players who wisely choose attributes, spells, and abilities, then give us more challenging encounters. Have of some of your savvy baddies gang up on the spellcasters just like we do to them. Get it out of your head that we want to just steamroll your encounters. No, we want a challenge. We just want the challenge to come because your monsters are strong and YOU as the DM did not play them as if their minds are AI from a 1985 video game.
PS: There is absolutely NOTHING about having a strong character that - in ANY way - takes away from roll playing or engaging in the story.
No, you're not a real roleplayer unless you play a quirky tiefling bard who took the Chef feat and spends all their combat actions doing knowledge checks on the surrounding flora because their mother was a botanist!
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
The thing that players need to understand is that as the DM, I don't get to sit and think about my next move for 5-10 minutes while the rest of the party takes their turn, and it wouldn't be very fun for you guys if I took 40 minutes every round of combat to sit and think about every single creature's turn (sometimes over a dozen creatures per round).
Keep in mind that I'm also trying to track status effects, rolling dice for multiple attacks having to reference multiple statblocks with different bonuses, gauge party resources for the next encounter, act out NPC's during the combat and narrate in an entertaining way, not to mention remembering the details about everyone else's characters because players can't be bothered to know what their spells do.
It's really not easy to run a rewardingly challenging combat encounter each and every time. There is a very fine line between steamrolling an encounter, and TPKing your group every session. Most DM's tend to err on the side of "not killing your entire party", for obvious reasons.
D&D combat is a 5 on 1 chess match. Excuse me for not being able to regularly outplay 5 people working as a team. Give your DM a break, we are doing our best because we all love this game. Keep shitting on the people who run the games like that, and we're going to stop.
Toshly, I'm very understanding and appreciative of my DM's. I'm NOT understanding, nor appreciative of people who disparage players who optimize. I certainly don't rant about people who do things like make Con their dump stat for a story hook they came up with. It's their character. Making making your own decisions (in cooperation with a team) is what the game is all about.
By the way, players do have a responsibility to be prepared and not to take 40 minutes to make a decision, but that's another topic. Talk to them and ask them to write down the basic info of their spells on a cheat sheet. Spell Name: Range, Attack/Save type, Damage, Effects, etc.
It sounds to me like you are not very understanding or appreciative at all, and in fact you are disparaging the average DM by likening them to old, shitty video games with terrible A.I.
And sorry, what I said wasn't very clear; My players don't take 40 minutes to take their turn, but they get to think about what they are going to do on their next turn, while the rest of the party takes theirs. They can sit and think about possible outcomes, and watch the battlefield while the other players make their moves. Basically, it means that for the 5 players, they each get 5 minutes per character to think about the next combat move they are going to make.
I don't have a single second to think about "what is the optimal move that I should make". If I took 5 minutes to think about each character that I control (like my players get to think about their character), each round of combat would be over 40 minutes long, and the game would be incredibly boring. Even if I only took 1 minute per monster, that would still be 5-20 minutes. PER ROUND. Very few DMs are going to be able to outplay an entire team of people.
Unless the DM has explicitly stated "This is a power gaming group that focuses on combat", then you need to give your DM a break. This game system was not balanced for min-maxing, and I am not a team of devs with access to balancing simulations to run experimental combats thousands of times to find an optimal challenge level, like they do for video games. I'm just a dude with a book saying "idk that seems about right". I don't get paid for this, and I'm doing the best I can because if I didn't, well then none of us would be playing ANY D&D period.
I'm totally fine with that. I'm only concerned with what is actually the case, not what "sounds to you like" is the case. Any reasonable person who read the exchange in context should be able to clearly see that my beef is with DM's who disparage players who optimize. I understand that's a more difficult thing for you to address, so if you want to continue pretending to believe the AI remark was my main point, knock yourself out.
Question: Why is it when you do point buy you are not allowed to reduce a stat below 8, nor raise a stat above 15?
If the DM doesn't explicitly state, "this is a power gaming group that focuses on combat", what are the specifics of the approved spells, feats, and race/class combos? If a DM can't handle, say, optimized level 4 PCs, how does he/she deal with non-optimized level 8 PCs?
Well then, I am sorry. But honestly only your first sentence was about DM's who disparage players who optimize...
The rest of the paragraph was about how you as a player wanted to be provided with more of a challenge, and why can't DM's just gang up on spellcasters, and stupid DM's think players want encounters to be easily steamrolled, and why can't we get it through our thick skulls that players want to be challenged, and it's our fault as the DM that you are not having fun because we play monsters like shitty old computer games.
It honestly seemed like your beef was with average DM's who aren't providing you with the power gaming experience you are looking for, and I felt like someone needed to explain that this isn't as easy as you seem to think it is. We desperately try to provide fun, challenging encounters, and it really sucks when a player says "Why can't you just get it through your head that we don't want it to be easy".
As for DM's who disparage power gamers, I have to imagine it's the same as any other group of people. Some are just *****.
Um... that's generally how paragraph structure goes. Typically the first sentence is the main point and the subsequent sentences are in support of the main point. Kind of like this paragraph that I'm writing right now. Let's break down the first two sentences.
" I will never understand this sort of combative vitriol some DM's have against us players who like to optimize. <-- main point If you have players who wisely choose attributes, spells, and abilities, <--i.e players who optimize then give us more challenging encounters."
The subsequent sentences were just an example of how to make the encounters more challenging. Hell, there's a myriad of ways. Aside from making them fight smarter (which really doesn't have to involve excessive brainstorming), you can give them more hit points, use higher CR monsters, use more of them, backup can arrive if they're losing too easily, resistances, flying, spellcasting, hazardous terrain, etc. Again, if you can handle non-optimized level 8 PC's, you should be able to handle optimized level 4, correct?
And this isn't about me making demands of a DM. If you, as a DM, are having a tough time balancing an encounter - **I am understanding** - but IT IS NOT THE PLAYERS' FAULT. Irrespective of whether they optimize. Don't disparage players who are following the rules and who are not violating any sort of game etiquette.
Because the monster statblocks provided in the Monster Manual assume that they are facing a group of non-optimized PC's. If I throw a CR 6 monster out of the Monster Manual against a group of optimized level 4 PC's, they will easily steamroll that encounter. If I try to provide a harder challenge by throwing a CR 7 or 8 Monster at the party, I will TPK the entire group with one attack. If I throw in an extra dozen lower CR monsters as fodder, then I have to take 13 turns per round, and I don't have any time for anything more complex besides "ok this guy attacks the nearest target", without grinding combat to a standstill.
If I want to provide a good challenge to a group of optimized PC's, then I need to go in and start modifying monster statblocks. Once again, I am not a Dev with access to balancing mechanics, nor do I necessarily have hours every week to modify monsters before each game.
The funny thing about "optimizing" a character, is that it actually has kind of the opposite effect. D&D was designed so that any character concept is perfectly valid and playable. Finding ways to combine mechanics to provide big numbers actually makes the entire game less optimized, and falls under the category of "metagaming", which is quite clearly understood by pretty much everyone who plays D&D to be something that detracts from the game.
Unless you have a DM who lives for that stuff, and builds his entire game around it.
Sorry, but optimizing your character is not even remotely "metagaming." That's just absurd. "How dare you look up the stats of that spell you chose." What are you talking about?