I hate seeing people pick feats/subclasses/spells that are disappointing or underperform as I feel it diminishes their experience.
This unhealthy attitude, right here, is everything. You you don't get to be upset for someone else because you think they're going to have a bad time because you think they made suboptimal choices. If they're dissatisfied, that's on them.
There are no bad races, classes, subclasses, spells, or feats. The ones available aren't for everyone, and that's okay. Some will get more, or less, mileage out of the same choice as someone else because that's just how things work out. There are no universal tools. So long as they get what they want out of it, they're good.
You act as if flight from level 1 is a big deal. I have a campaign that just turned 6 months, and one of my players is a winged tiefling. It's not hard to balance. You don't even really have to balance it. Asymmetrical encouters are fine, too.
I hate seeing people pick feats/subclasses/spells that are disappointing or underperform as I feel it diminishes their experience.
This unhealthy attitude, right here, is everything. You you don't get to be upset for someone else because you think they're going to have a bad time because you think they made suboptimal choices. If they're dissatisfied, that's on them.
There are no bad races, classes, subclasses, spells, or feats. The ones available aren't for everyone, and that's okay. Some will get more, or less, mileage out of the same choice as someone else because that's just how things work out. There are no universal tools. So long as they get what they want out of it, they're good.
You act as if flight from level 1 is a big deal. I have a campaign that just turned 6 months, and one of my players is a winged tiefling. It's not hard to balance. You don't even really have to balance it. Asymmetrical encouters are fine, too.
Would you feel the same if a player came in with an extremely min-maxed character if destroyed encounters?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
If I am projecting about underperformance then you are for sure projecting about min/maxing. That may be your experience but its antidotal the same as mine and obviously is not evidence based.
In my experience underperforming characters tend to disrupt play just as much, if not more, than min/max play. I have had min/max players who do RP exceptionally well and then perform well in combat or their chosen focus (Rogue/Bard MC to be just stellar at certain checks). If a character cannot even do their base function well then they pull down 1 whole pillar of play and you as the DM have to accommodate for that. You have to make things hit less hard for an 8 con player and never use poison. You have to pick creatures with low saves to their terrible DC to ensure their spells hit/function.
I fully disagree its on the DM to adjunct an entire game to fit one characters playstyle regardless of what that playstyle is. Players have just as much responsibility to provide to general enjoyment as the DM as its a partnership to ensure everyone is having fun. To say the DM has to make it work is putting a lot of undue pressure on the DM, especially if they are new.
You may not adhere to it but balance is important to a lot of people and it is clear that even though they struggle with it at times WotC will drastically change how a feature works to make it perform better (Beastmaster ranger changes in Tasha's) or pull it back to expected levels (Healing Spirit Errata).
They care about it and so should you IMO.
Also we are discussing "broken" aspects so the archer flying character for sure is a fair topic discussion and is actually the most on target TBF.
For me "broken" means it does not function within the framework of the game. Things that are super underperforming are "broken" in the sense they do not accomplish what they set out to do.
Grapper feat is "broken" in the sense it is objectively terrible at what it adds to a grappler build. Its actively worse than picking another feat that would be better (Skill Expert to add expertise to ATH, Tavern Brawler to grapple as a BA, Fighting initiate to get unarmed fighting style to do damage to grappled enemies, etc...). There are so many objectively better options that its literally a never pick unless its free. They should do what they did to beastmaster ranger and fix it in another book IMO.
To me that is "broken" as is essentially a trap option for players to pick. "Broken" is not just overpowered its also means that it functions outside of the expectations of the designers due to poor design, unforeseen interactions (blade cantrips and quicken metamagic), or simply because they refused to listen to change suggestions (Hexblade).
I hate seeing people pick feats/subclasses/spells that are disappointing or underperform as I feel it diminishes their experience.
This unhealthy attitude, right here, is everything. You you don't get to be upset for someone else because you think they're going to have a bad time because you think they made suboptimal choices. If they're dissatisfied, that's on them.
There are no bad races, classes, subclasses, spells, or feats. The ones available aren't for everyone, and that's okay. Some will get more, or less, mileage out of the same choice as someone else because that's just how things work out. There are no universal tools. So long as they get what they want out of it, they're good.
You act as if flight from level 1 is a big deal. I have a campaign that just turned 6 months, and one of my players is a winged tiefling. It's not hard to balance. You don't even really have to balance it. Asymmetrical encouters are fine, too.
Would you feel the same if a player came in with an extremely min-maxed character if destroyed encounters?
This is exactly the perspective you should try to see this from....
People never look at how much work it is to fix underperforming aspects of the game but always focus on the "powergaming" which is frustrating.
I hate seeing people pick feats/subclasses/spells that are disappointing or underperform as I feel it diminishes their experience.
This unhealthy attitude, right here, is everything. You you don't get to be upset for someone else because you think they're going to have a bad time because you think they made suboptimal choices. If they're dissatisfied, that's on them.
In addition to my agreement with the general tone of your answer, I just want to reinforce, right here, that it's not only on them. If they make suboptimal choices for the right reason, which is not to piss anyone off, but to have a good story, background, cool powers, etc. it is also the DM's right to support this choice and to give the player at least as many options as the other characters. Maybe the character is less rich in some areas but much better in others.
I once created a bard spy for a pathfinder campaign (which are fairly heavy on combat and dungeons, as are a lot of published campaigns), she was brilliant in exploration and roleplaying and abysmal in combat. My choice, I assumed it, but everyone found it fun to try to bypass the heavy combat areas through diplomacy, intrigue and subterfuge. When combat broke out, I was hopelessly out of my debt, but in the end I bot the be the bearer of one artefact that at least allowed me not to be too bad at support. I did not need it to have fun, but because combat is fairly long in that game, at least it gave me something to do. And everybody was happy.
There are no bad races, classes, subclasses, spells, or feats. The ones available aren't for everyone, and that's okay. Some will get more, or less, mileage out of the same choice as someone else because that's just how things work out. There are no universal tools. So long as they get what they want out of it, they're good.
You act as if flight from level 1 is a big deal. I have a campaign that just turned 6 months, and one of my players is a winged tiefling. It's not hard to balance. You don't even really have to balance it. Asymmetrical encouters are fine, too.
Same with the campaign that I started with my daughter, her boyfriend and some friends from the UK. The Aarakocra has been nothing but a joy to make play, he accepted limitations about flying into storms, we had lots of funny incidents of him crashing into barns, he roleplayed perfectly his fear of going underground, and enjoyed a lot picking up a kobold to drop him on another one. Nothing wrong in there, and everyone is enjoying it immensely, in particular when his beautiful plumage gets ruffled.
The problem is that you could make the same argument for min/maxing a character as well. Someone who has trained tirelessly to make themselves the best archer in the world at the cost of being a complete dimwit when it comes to social situations. If they RP it well then it makes sense in the world and fleshes out the character with strengths and weaknesses.
You are demonizing min/max play and saying they "tend" to be disruptive which is pretty heavy generalization and logically does not make sense.
Yet you say a underperforming character with the same idea is fine? I am not sure your logic pans out here.
If you truly believed that as long as character choices are justified by lore and character building you would have no issue with how a character was built regardless if its min/max, average, or underperforming.
But 90% of the time, they don't. They don't roleplay their dump stat wells, and they steer the game towards fighting all the time because this is what they are good at. And the for the 10% remaining, it's boring roleplay. Being the best XXX in the world as a trop disappeared a long time ago in the genre and in general movies and books, it's dull and tiring, and usually a bad excuse for not wanting to do anything else in the game.
Not only is this blatant generalization which is problematic in itself but you also go further to say that they can never RP an "steer everything towards combat"....I am not sure how to say how wrong you are in making this generalization but maybe you need to break out of your box and try to be a bit more accepting in general of the concept.
It makes tons of sense, and you should listen when so many people tell you that they have had these bad experiences. Honestly, I'm not surprised you did not because you play a game by a powergamer for powergamers. Again, nothing wrong about this in itself if this is what your players and yourself are looking for. And of course, in that kind of context, a non-optimised gamer is going to be disruptive to the way you want to play the game.
Now you go from making assumptions about large groups of people to making assumptions about me...which is neither warranted nor even correct lol.
I happen to play RP heavy campaigns with limited combat....I am just not close minded to the idea of people wanting to make a good fighty character in a game that focuses on fighting....
First, it's not what I'm saying, but you are not listening. If a player is not only OP but rulelawyering about it and steering the game constantly towards fighting, it disrupts the entire table. One guy underperforming in his corner will not do the same to your table of powergamers, he might find it a bit dull but will not disrupt the other's game.
You advocate for me listening to experiences then entirely dismiss mine in this regard which does not do much for you case.... My experiences with underperforming characters has been as bad or worse than those with a heavy power game mentality.
At least I am saying both could be true as you seem to only want to reinforce the idea (incorrectly I may add) that only "tends to happen".
Neither of us can fully understand all different playstyles we can only strive to better understand other's perspectives and discuss.
You seem to not be willing to open your mind to anyone else experiences which makes it hard to take what you say with any kind of seriousness.
Hmmm. I don't want to disparage your experience, but I've been playing for more than 40 years in a wide variety of environments, from friends groups to gaming clubs. What I am telling you about the disruptiveness of powergamers is not theory, it is practical experience. And I have seen things from your angle, in particular in gaming clubs where there is this elitist mentality of some groups that say things like "this is a tough game, you need to master the game, we only take in tough characters", etc.
So don't worry, I am not closed to the mindset in question, if anything I have played this heavily in particular with AD&D, and very possibly at a level that you have not yourself tried.
And I don't dismiss your experiences, if you read me completely, you will see that I have written many times that if that is what you are looking for, it's absolutely fine, and I have actually indulged myself into this in the past. It's not my preference now, but I understand it really well.
But the part that I causes me some problem is the contradiction in what you express, when you say that you are playing a roleplaying heavy campaign and still that underpowered characters are disruptive. How can they be disruptive if they roleplay properly, when it seems to be the focus of the campaign.
On the other hand, I'm telling you that my groups and I are actually running roleplaying heavy campaigns, and what we find disruptive are powergamers who either do not roleplay or always steer the game towards fighting or in any case towards the strengths of their characters, even if they have a roleplay as an excuse to do this. This is from a lot, I mean really a lot of experience and it also makes much more sense than what you are claiming above.
So several things....
You assume roleplay ends when combat starts.
This is probably the most puzzling part of your comments as you say you are "40 year veteran" which I do not doubt but it never occurred to you in that time that combat could add to roleplay rather than detract from it? That is not a new concept nor is it one that takes a lot of effort as a DM to do. You assume that because I see players getting frustrated that they want to succeed at crucial moments as I play "Powergames" seems not only as a close minded assumption but lacking any nuisance of the game beyond your seemingly narrow take.
You say you don't dismiss my experiences but then outright say I am wrong when I express them.
This is not how someone who is "accepting" would likely act. I do not think you actually want to learn from anyone else but rather interject your own experiences as the truth. This is not even remotely possible as you have no idea of how the vast majority of the world plays the game. You have your own world and circle of play that has some experiences but is in no way representative of an entire community. To say otherwise is both narcissistic and just logically incohesive. You just simply cannot represent all forms of play as its impossible.
Overall you seem to care less about learning about others playstyles and why they worry about things like balance but simply want to interject your own experiences and ignore everyone elses.
My experience is that min/max play can be a detriment.
My experience is that purposefully weak characters can be a detriment
My experience is that a better understanding of game balance...shockingly....creates a better balanced game.
Despite your experiences there is a whole study of game design and intention that goes behind features and combat. The designers of the game do not simply just throw thematic things out for the sake of it...they balance that theme against established mechanics and get the combat features we see in the final product. Balance is a huge part of the game and is discussed by Jeremy Crawford in several Dragon+ talks. They have had whole articles/videos about the math behind DnD.
Just because you do not like it does not mean it does not exist nor should not exist.
I hate seeing people pick feats/subclasses/spells that are disappointing or underperform as I feel it diminishes their experience.
This unhealthy attitude, right here, is everything. You you don't get to be upset for someone else because you think they're going to have a bad time because you think they made suboptimal choices. If they're dissatisfied, that's on them.
There are no bad races, classes, subclasses, spells, or feats. The ones available aren't for everyone, and that's okay. Some will get more, or less, mileage out of the same choice as someone else because that's just how things work out. There are no universal tools. So long as they get what they want out of it, they're good.
You act as if flight from level 1 is a big deal. I have a campaign that just turned 6 months, and one of my players is a winged tiefling. It's not hard to balance. You don't even really have to balance it. Asymmetrical encouters are fine, too.
Would you feel the same if a player came in with an extremely min-maxed character if destroyed encounters?
To a point. What matters is whether everyone is having a good time. As a DM, that's how I measure my success. If my players aren't having fun, then I take the time to figure out why. Is it something I did, or is someone being disruptive? If I have one power gamer who's destroying encounters to the detriment of others, then that needs to be addressed. Sometimes, all it takes is a conversation. And we shouldn't be afraid to have those.
That said, there are three pillars of the game: combat, exploration, and social interaction. There's plenty of room for everyone in the party to shine; even if not all at once. But, in my experience, power gamers tend to focus on themselves and not how to best help the party. The game is, ostensibly, both collaborative and cooperative. Someone who doesn't want to be a team player is going to hamper the team. This can include both making highly optimized characters and chaffing at the choices of other players. If you're going to play at my table, then you need to respect me and the other players.
I hate seeing people pick feats/subclasses/spells that are disappointing or underperform as I feel it diminishes their experience.
This unhealthy attitude, right here, is everything. You you don't get to be upset for someone else because you think they're going to have a bad time because you think they made suboptimal choices. If they're dissatisfied, that's on them.
There are no bad races, classes, subclasses, spells, or feats. The ones available aren't for everyone, and that's okay. Some will get more, or less, mileage out of the same choice as someone else because that's just how things work out. There are no universal tools. So long as they get what they want out of it, they're good.
You act as if flight from level 1 is a big deal. I have a campaign that just turned 6 months, and one of my players is a winged tiefling. It's not hard to balance. You don't even really have to balance it. Asymmetrical encouters are fine, too.
Would you feel the same if a player came in with an extremely min-maxed character if destroyed encounters?
To a point. What matters is whether everyone is having a good time. As a DM, that's how I measure my success. If my players aren't having fun, then I take the time to figure out why. Is it something I did, or is someone being disruptive? If I have one power gamer who's destroying encounters to the detriment of others, then that needs to be addressed. Sometimes, all it takes is a conversation. And we shouldn't be afraid to have those.
That said, there are three pillars of the game: combat, exploration, and social interaction. There's plenty of room for everyone in the party to shine; even if not all at once. But, in my experience, power gamers tend to focus on themselves and not how to best help the party. The game is, ostensibly, both collaborative and cooperative. Someone who doesn't want to be a team player is going to hamper the team. This can include both making highly optimized characters and chaffing at the choices of other players. If you're going to play at my table, then you need to respect me and the other players.
This is a fair take. I respect it's sentiment and I think if the group as a whole sees something as "Broken" (underperforming or overperforming) then its a fair discussion to change it.
That being said I think certain things fit in there more often than others and that is why people discuss them more.
I hate seeing people pick feats/subclasses/spells that are disappointing or underperform as I feel it diminishes their experience.
This unhealthy attitude, right here, is everything. You you don't get to be upset for someone else because you think they're going to have a bad time because you think they made suboptimal choices. If they're dissatisfied, that's on them.
There are no bad races, classes, subclasses, spells, or feats. The ones available aren't for everyone, and that's okay. Some will get more, or less, mileage out of the same choice as someone else because that's just how things work out. There are no universal tools. So long as they get what they want out of it, they're good.
You act as if flight from level 1 is a big deal. I have a campaign that just turned 6 months, and one of my players is a winged tiefling. It's not hard to balance. You don't even really have to balance it. Asymmetrical encouters are fine, too.
Would you feel the same if a player came in with an extremely min-maxed character if destroyed encounters?
To a point. What matters is whether everyone is having a good time. As a DM, that's how I measure my success. If my players aren't having fun, then I take the time to figure out why. Is it something I did, or is someone being disruptive? If I have one power gamer who's destroying encounters to the detriment of others, then that needs to be addressed. Sometimes, all it takes is a conversation. And we shouldn't be afraid to have those.
That said, there are three pillars of the game: combat, exploration, and social interaction. There's plenty of room for everyone in the party to shine; even if not all at once. But, in my experience, power gamers tend to focus on themselves and not how to best help the party. The game is, ostensibly, both collaborative and cooperative. Someone who doesn't want to be a team player is going to hamper the team. This can include both making highly optimized characters and chaffing at the choices of other players. If you're going to play at my table, then you need to respect me and the other players.
This is a fair take. I respect it's sentiment and I think if the group as a whole sees something as "Broken" (underperforming or overperforming) then its a fair discussion to change it.
That being said I think certain things fit in there more often than others and that is why people discuss them more.
We have found some common ground, so that's something at least.
I still disagree on characters underperforming; deliberately or otherwise. You can make an effective wizard with 8 intelligence because so many of their spells don't require attack rolls or saving throws. A person would have to actively try and make such a character, and the system is still incredibly forgiving. Even the odd feat like Grappler and Weapon Master have their places. Grappler is still a solid buff for the initiator, even if they don't restrain the target, and it gets even better with Tavern Brawler. Weapon Master can be useful for some clerics and rogues who value class features over multiclassing.
Having those choices is important because it empowers the player. When we say something to the effect of, "Don't do that, do this instead," we're trying to take that choice away. We shouldn't be doing that. And if someone asks for advice, then we should be honest with the pros and cons.
In the end, it's a collaborative game, and the people that I've found the less collaborative in 42+ years of D&D are powergamers who are only interested in showing that their build "rules", and rule-lawyer for hours to make it work, and to twist situations in the world so that it works to the advantage of their build. Because these people are not interesting in playing with the others, they are just interested in playing over the others.
So, as a DM, if someone comes with a flawed character concept that is not optimised and that the player will enjoy playing, I don't care if it's one of the sub-classes that "should never be chosen". This is a very short--sighted assessment because if I know that the player will enjoy playing it, I will make damn sure that he will and I will enjoy much more making him having fun playing him than constantly managing the expectations of the powergamer who thinks he is owed everything because he has "the build".
Pretty much that right there is why I don't like Feats.
In order to have the "perfect build" you NEED to take certain Feats. If you don't, I have seen people Feat shame other players because they are not "optimized."
Feats are used as a crutch to eliminate or break rules in the game legally.
And lastly, I'm a lazy GM. I have all kinds of other stuff to keep track of, I don't want to have to know all the Feats too. Although I'd really only have to know 6 because they are the "best" and no PC should be without them /sarcasm.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Agree to disagree on the suggestions part. I will likely tell a player if a feat is terrible IMO. I will first try to understand what they want to accomplish with it and then explain why I believe another option is better. If they still want to run with it I will likely let them but have an easy out for them to swap to something different if they dislike it. I feel like as an experienced player giving insight and perspective is something that is a good edition to session 0.
As for the 8 INT wizard...it honestly depends on the player. If its an experienced player with a firm understanding of the game and knows the spells and points you make then that is one thing. It is another thing to have an 8 INT wizard from a newer player who then picks all attack/saves spells and none of the ones you mentioned. If I had the latter I would likely try to understand the concept and if they did not want to make any changes I might actually prefer not to play with them. I would have too much work as a DM to balance against that.
My fun as a DM matters too and if I feel an 8 INT wizard with only attack spells is not something I want to deal with then I have the right to express that to the group.
But in all honestly I have never had it come up outside of one shots. Generally speaking it seems in my groups no one wants to be fully bad at their main thing unless its for a small amount of time.
Lyxen your experiences mean little to nothing to me to be honest. The fact that you have been playing for 40 years means next to nothing to me if your only reason for bringing it up is to say your experiences trump mine because you have had more of them. That is such a flawed way of thinking and if I cannot convince you of that then there is little hope for common ground.
You say that no one agrees underwhelming characters are disruptive but you have literally the say of about 4 people on this thread...that is hardly a consensus of the entire playbase. The fact that you put your own experiences on such a high pedestal and downplay mine does not add to the conversation in a meaningful way.
I never said you have to fully optimize a character to make it work in a game...but rather avoid "trap" options that have been already improved upon (Tasha's Ranger) or outright outclassed (Grappler feat) by better options that will likely enhance the playing experience.
Also one big issue I take with your thoughts:
"The best example that I've seen is a guy who had of course optimised his character for combat and prevented others from ever negotiating with the potential enemy by always attacking first. He claimed that his character was aggressive and paranoid and he was therefore always attacking first.
So yes, it was in accordance with his role, but it was still an extremely selfish behaviour and totally detrimental to the group play, always steering his group towards his strengths."
But then you say your character:
"I once created a bard spy for a pathfinder campaign (which are fairly heavy on combat and dungeons, as are a lot of published campaigns), she was brilliant in exploration and roleplaying and abysmal in combat. My choice, I assumed it, but everyone found it fun to try to bypass the heavy combat areas through diplomacy, intrigue and subterfuge. "
Your hypocrisy here is kind of staggering....
You state you actively steered a whole group who was better at combat away from combat to play to your strengths but then chastise a player for doing the same?
Agree to disagree on the suggestions part. I will likely tell a player if a feat is terrible IMO. I will first try to understand what they want to accomplish with it and then explain why I believe another option is better. If they still want to run with it I will likely let them but have an easy out for them to swap to something different if they dislike it. I feel like as an experienced player giving insight and perspective is something that is a good edition to session 0.
As for the 8 INT wizard...it honestly depends on the player. If its an experienced player with a firm understanding of the game and knows the spells and points you make then that is one thing. It is another thing to have an 8 INT wizard from a newer player who then picks all attack/saves spells and none of the ones you mentioned. If I had the latter I would likely try to understand the concept and if they did not want to make any changes I might actually prefer not to play with them. I would have too much work as a DM to balance against that.
My fun as a DM matters too and if I feel an 8 INT wizard with only attack spells is not something I want to deal with then I have the right to express that to the group.
But in all honestly I have never had it come up outside of one shots. Generally speaking it seems in my groups no one wants to be fully bad at their main thing unless its for a small amount of time.
We're all experienced players. And those experiences color our perceptions. So long as we're honest about that and don't offer advice unsolicited (because it's never welcome), then fine. That said, part of that experience also means seeing how different things interact with one another. Some stuff has terrific synergy, like a Rogue/Thief with the Healer feat and a healer's kit. And newer players might need a little guidance, I think they definitely require patience, but they also require the freedom to explore.
You are, IMO, overly-dismissive, bordering on myopic, in your opinions on how useful some things are. You are not someone I would trust for advice, but if I were a new player I might not know better. If we're going to exist in that space, as people dispensing advice, then we should do more to check our biases. And that can mean actually seeing how something works during a session, rather than rely on the theory-crafting of others. My opinions evolved because I experimented.
Agree to disagree on the suggestions part. I will likely tell a player if a feat is terrible IMO. I will first try to understand what they want to accomplish with it and then explain why I believe another option is better. If they still want to run with it I will likely let them but have an easy out for them to swap to something different if they dislike it. I feel like as an experienced player giving insight and perspective is something that is a good edition to session 0.
As for the 8 INT wizard...it honestly depends on the player. If its an experienced player with a firm understanding of the game and knows the spells and points you make then that is one thing. It is another thing to have an 8 INT wizard from a newer player who then picks all attack/saves spells and none of the ones you mentioned. If I had the latter I would likely try to understand the concept and if they did not want to make any changes I might actually prefer not to play with them. I would have too much work as a DM to balance against that.
My fun as a DM matters too and if I feel an 8 INT wizard with only attack spells is not something I want to deal with then I have the right to express that to the group.
But in all honestly I have never had it come up outside of one shots. Generally speaking it seems in my groups no one wants to be fully bad at their main thing unless its for a small amount of time.
We're all experienced players. And those experiences color our perceptions. So long as we're honest about that and don't offer advice unsolicited (because it's never welcome), then fine. That said, part of that experience also means seeing how different things interact with one another. Some stuff has terrific synergy, like a Rogue/Thief with the Healer feat and a healer's kit. And newer players might need a little guidance, I think they definitely require patience, but they also require the freedom to explore.
You are, IMO, overly-dismissive, bordering on myopic, in your opinions on how useful some things are. You are not someone I would trust for advice, but if I were a new player I might not know better. If we're going to exist in that space, as people dispensing advice, then we should do more to check our biases. And that can mean actually seeing how something works during a session, rather than rely on the theory-crafting of others. My opinions evolved because I experimented.
Fair points.
I am mostly honest with the value in things and how I view their worth. If something is overtly terrible (Grappler Feat) I make my feelings known in a respectful way. I feel I can be more honest in forums simply because we talk in a short form rather than having the benefit of more long form discussions like talking.
Trying to sugar coat how bad a feat is in a forum IMO kind of a waste of time. Especially if there are just objectively better options. Rather than try to buff something that is just bad I feel there is more value in discussing a better option.
Agree to disagree on the suggestions part. I will likely tell a player if a feat is terrible IMO. I will first try to understand what they want to accomplish with it and then explain why I believe another option is better. If they still want to run with it I will likely let them but have an easy out for them to swap to something different if they dislike it. I feel like as an experienced player giving insight and perspective is something that is a good edition to session 0.
As for the 8 INT wizard...it honestly depends on the player. If its an experienced player with a firm understanding of the game and knows the spells and points you make then that is one thing. It is another thing to have an 8 INT wizard from a newer player who then picks all attack/saves spells and none of the ones you mentioned. If I had the latter I would likely try to understand the concept and if they did not want to make any changes I might actually prefer not to play with them. I would have too much work as a DM to balance against that.
My fun as a DM matters too and if I feel an 8 INT wizard with only attack spells is not something I want to deal with then I have the right to express that to the group.
But in all honestly I have never had it come up outside of one shots. Generally speaking it seems in my groups no one wants to be fully bad at their main thing unless its for a small amount of time.
We're all experienced players. And those experiences color our perceptions. So long as we're honest about that and don't offer advice unsolicited (because it's never welcome), then fine. That said, part of that experience also means seeing how different things interact with one another. Some stuff has terrific synergy, like a Rogue/Thief with the Healer feat and a healer's kit. And newer players might need a little guidance, I think they definitely require patience, but they also require the freedom to explore.
You are, IMO, overly-dismissive, bordering on myopic, in your opinions on how useful some things are. You are not someone I would trust for advice, but if I were a new player I might not know better. If we're going to exist in that space, as people dispensing advice, then we should do more to check our biases. And that can mean actually seeing how something works during a session, rather than rely on the theory-crafting of others. My opinions evolved because I experimented.
Fair points.
I am mostly honest with the value in things and how I view their worth. If something is overtly terrible (Grappler Feat) I make my feelings known in a respectful way. I feel I can be more honest in forums simply because we talk in a short form rather than having the benefit of more long form discussions like talking.
Trying to sugar coat how bad a feat is in a forum IMO kind of a waste of time. Especially if there are just objectively better options. Rather than try to buff something that is just bad I feel there is more value in discussing a better option.
When we state our opinions, we make subjective claims. You cannot, in all seriousness, claim there are "objectively better options" to, what is in your opinion, a poor choice. This refrain keeps popping up on these forums, and every time it does the people spouting such nonsense prove themselves fools. We would all like to think everyone here is too old and experienced to so easily confuse facts and opinions, and yet it keeps happening. And it actively undermines whatever points you try to raise because you come across as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
The funny thing about grappler is it is objective as you literally have options that are just better from a mechanical stand point.
Its just inferior in every way. The other feats are just better....its not even a subjective thing. There is no one who would suggest you take it over another option. Like True Strike its just bad....and thats ok.
Beastmaster is a toss up as it could be seen as more thematic to have the 8 hour bonding with the creature which does add some RP potential. Its less objective and more preferential in that case. It has more mechanical benefits to go with the new version but less of the thematic elements which I could see being something that someone might want.
The funny thing about grappler is it is objective as you literally have options that are just better from a mechanical stand point.
Its just inferior in every way. The other feats are just better....its not even a subjective thing. There is no one who would suggest you take it over another option. Like True Strike its just bad....and thats ok.
Beastmaster is a toss up as it could be seen as more thematic to have the 8 hour bonding with the creature which does add some RP potential. Its less objective and more preferential in that case. It has more mechanical benefits to go with the new version but less of the thematic elements which I could see being something that someone might want.
"These facts and opinions look so similar!" -Joy (Amy Poehler), Inside Out (2015)
Seriously, you're not doing yourself any favors. There are no objectively better options than Grappler. It all comes down to what you want to do and how.
The funny thing about grappler is it is objective as you literally have options that are just better from a mechanical stand point.
Its just inferior in every way. The other feats are just better....its not even a subjective thing. There is no one who would suggest you take it over another option. Like True Strike its just bad....and thats ok.
Beastmaster is a toss up as it could be seen as more thematic to have the 8 hour bonding with the creature which does add some RP potential. Its less objective and more preferential in that case. It has more mechanical benefits to go with the new version but less of the thematic elements which I could see being something that someone might want.
"These facts and opinions look so similar!" -Joy, Inside Out (2015)
You can deny it but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
A good amount of stuff is subjective....but True Strike and Grappler feat being terrible...that is dem facts.
The funny thing about grappler is it is objective as you literally have options that are just better from a mechanical stand point.
Its just inferior in every way. The other feats are just better....its not even a subjective thing. There is no one who would suggest you take it over another option. Like True Strike its just bad....and thats ok.
Beastmaster is a toss up as it could be seen as more thematic to have the 8 hour bonding with the creature which does add some RP potential. Its less objective and more preferential in that case. It has more mechanical benefits to go with the new version but less of the thematic elements which I could see being something that someone might want.
"These facts and opinions look so similar!" -Joy, Inside Out (2015)
You can deny it but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
A good amount of stuff is subjective....but True Strike and Grappler feat being terrible...that is dem facts.
Like a great many things, their use is situationally dependent. But if you want to keep digging yourself that hole, be my guest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This unhealthy attitude, right here, is everything. You you don't get to be upset for someone else because you think they're going to have a bad time because you think they made suboptimal choices. If they're dissatisfied, that's on them.
There are no bad races, classes, subclasses, spells, or feats. The ones available aren't for everyone, and that's okay. Some will get more, or less, mileage out of the same choice as someone else because that's just how things work out. There are no universal tools. So long as they get what they want out of it, they're good.
You act as if flight from level 1 is a big deal. I have a campaign that just turned 6 months, and one of my players is a winged tiefling. It's not hard to balance. You don't even really have to balance it. Asymmetrical encouters are fine, too.
Would you feel the same if a player came in with an extremely min-maxed character if destroyed encounters?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
If I am projecting about underperformance then you are for sure projecting about min/maxing. That may be your experience but its antidotal the same as mine and obviously is not evidence based.
In my experience underperforming characters tend to disrupt play just as much, if not more, than min/max play. I have had min/max players who do RP exceptionally well and then perform well in combat or their chosen focus (Rogue/Bard MC to be just stellar at certain checks). If a character cannot even do their base function well then they pull down 1 whole pillar of play and you as the DM have to accommodate for that. You have to make things hit less hard for an 8 con player and never use poison. You have to pick creatures with low saves to their terrible DC to ensure their spells hit/function.
I fully disagree its on the DM to adjunct an entire game to fit one characters playstyle regardless of what that playstyle is. Players have just as much responsibility to provide to general enjoyment as the DM as its a partnership to ensure everyone is having fun. To say the DM has to make it work is putting a lot of undue pressure on the DM, especially if they are new.
You may not adhere to it but balance is important to a lot of people and it is clear that even though they struggle with it at times WotC will drastically change how a feature works to make it perform better (Beastmaster ranger changes in Tasha's) or pull it back to expected levels (Healing Spirit Errata).
They care about it and so should you IMO.
Also we are discussing "broken" aspects so the archer flying character for sure is a fair topic discussion and is actually the most on target TBF.
For me "broken" means it does not function within the framework of the game. Things that are super underperforming are "broken" in the sense they do not accomplish what they set out to do.
Grapper feat is "broken" in the sense it is objectively terrible at what it adds to a grappler build. Its actively worse than picking another feat that would be better (Skill Expert to add expertise to ATH, Tavern Brawler to grapple as a BA, Fighting initiate to get unarmed fighting style to do damage to grappled enemies, etc...). There are so many objectively better options that its literally a never pick unless its free. They should do what they did to beastmaster ranger and fix it in another book IMO.
To me that is "broken" as is essentially a trap option for players to pick. "Broken" is not just overpowered its also means that it functions outside of the expectations of the designers due to poor design, unforeseen interactions (blade cantrips and quicken metamagic), or simply because they refused to listen to change suggestions (Hexblade).
This is exactly the perspective you should try to see this from....
People never look at how much work it is to fix underperforming aspects of the game but always focus on the "powergaming" which is frustrating.
The problem is that you could make the same argument for min/maxing a character as well. Someone who has trained tirelessly to make themselves the best archer in the world at the cost of being a complete dimwit when it comes to social situations. If they RP it well then it makes sense in the world and fleshes out the character with strengths and weaknesses.
You are demonizing min/max play and saying they "tend" to be disruptive which is pretty heavy generalization and logically does not make sense.
Yet you say a underperforming character with the same idea is fine? I am not sure your logic pans out here.
If you truly believed that as long as character choices are justified by lore and character building you would have no issue with how a character was built regardless if its min/max, average, or underperforming.
Not only is this blatant generalization which is problematic in itself but you also go further to say that they can never RP an "steer everything towards combat"....I am not sure how to say how wrong you are in making this generalization but maybe you need to break out of your box and try to be a bit more accepting in general of the concept.
Now you go from making assumptions about large groups of people to making assumptions about me...which is neither warranted nor even correct lol.
I happen to play RP heavy campaigns with limited combat....I am just not close minded to the idea of people wanting to make a good fighty character in a game that focuses on fighting....
You advocate for me listening to experiences then entirely dismiss mine in this regard which does not do much for you case.... My experiences with underperforming characters has been as bad or worse than those with a heavy power game mentality.
At least I am saying both could be true as you seem to only want to reinforce the idea (incorrectly I may add) that only "tends to happen".
Neither of us can fully understand all different playstyles we can only strive to better understand other's perspectives and discuss.
You seem to not be willing to open your mind to anyone else experiences which makes it hard to take what you say with any kind of seriousness.
So several things....
You assume roleplay ends when combat starts.
This is probably the most puzzling part of your comments as you say you are "40 year veteran" which I do not doubt but it never occurred to you in that time that combat could add to roleplay rather than detract from it? That is not a new concept nor is it one that takes a lot of effort as a DM to do. You assume that because I see players getting frustrated that they want to succeed at crucial moments as I play "Powergames" seems not only as a close minded assumption but lacking any nuisance of the game beyond your seemingly narrow take.
You say you don't dismiss my experiences but then outright say I am wrong when I express them.
This is not how someone who is "accepting" would likely act. I do not think you actually want to learn from anyone else but rather interject your own experiences as the truth. This is not even remotely possible as you have no idea of how the vast majority of the world plays the game. You have your own world and circle of play that has some experiences but is in no way representative of an entire community. To say otherwise is both narcissistic and just logically incohesive. You just simply cannot represent all forms of play as its impossible.
Overall you seem to care less about learning about others playstyles and why they worry about things like balance but simply want to interject your own experiences and ignore everyone elses.
My experience is that min/max play can be a detriment.
My experience is that purposefully weak characters can be a detriment
My experience is that a better understanding of game balance...shockingly....creates a better balanced game.
Despite your experiences there is a whole study of game design and intention that goes behind features and combat. The designers of the game do not simply just throw thematic things out for the sake of it...they balance that theme against established mechanics and get the combat features we see in the final product. Balance is a huge part of the game and is discussed by Jeremy Crawford in several Dragon+ talks. They have had whole articles/videos about the math behind DnD.
Just because you do not like it does not mean it does not exist nor should not exist.
To a point. What matters is whether everyone is having a good time. As a DM, that's how I measure my success. If my players aren't having fun, then I take the time to figure out why. Is it something I did, or is someone being disruptive? If I have one power gamer who's destroying encounters to the detriment of others, then that needs to be addressed. Sometimes, all it takes is a conversation. And we shouldn't be afraid to have those.
That said, there are three pillars of the game: combat, exploration, and social interaction. There's plenty of room for everyone in the party to shine; even if not all at once. But, in my experience, power gamers tend to focus on themselves and not how to best help the party. The game is, ostensibly, both collaborative and cooperative. Someone who doesn't want to be a team player is going to hamper the team. This can include both making highly optimized characters and chaffing at the choices of other players. If you're going to play at my table, then you need to respect me and the other players.
This is a fair take. I respect it's sentiment and I think if the group as a whole sees something as "Broken" (underperforming or overperforming) then its a fair discussion to change it.
That being said I think certain things fit in there more often than others and that is why people discuss them more.
Animate Objects is another one with good discussions. Think DM had a good article on it.
We have found some common ground, so that's something at least.
I still disagree on characters underperforming; deliberately or otherwise. You can make an effective wizard with 8 intelligence because so many of their spells don't require attack rolls or saving throws. A person would have to actively try and make such a character, and the system is still incredibly forgiving. Even the odd feat like Grappler and Weapon Master have their places. Grappler is still a solid buff for the initiator, even if they don't restrain the target, and it gets even better with Tavern Brawler. Weapon Master can be useful for some clerics and rogues who value class features over multiclassing.
Having those choices is important because it empowers the player. When we say something to the effect of, "Don't do that, do this instead," we're trying to take that choice away. We shouldn't be doing that. And if someone asks for advice, then we should be honest with the pros and cons.
Pretty much that right there is why I don't like Feats.
In order to have the "perfect build" you NEED to take certain Feats. If you don't, I have seen people Feat shame other players because they are not "optimized."
Feats are used as a crutch to eliminate or break rules in the game legally.
And lastly, I'm a lazy GM. I have all kinds of other stuff to keep track of, I don't want to have to know all the Feats too. Although I'd really only have to know 6 because they are the "best" and no PC should be without them /sarcasm.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Agree to disagree on the suggestions part. I will likely tell a player if a feat is terrible IMO. I will first try to understand what they want to accomplish with it and then explain why I believe another option is better. If they still want to run with it I will likely let them but have an easy out for them to swap to something different if they dislike it. I feel like as an experienced player giving insight and perspective is something that is a good edition to session 0.
As for the 8 INT wizard...it honestly depends on the player. If its an experienced player with a firm understanding of the game and knows the spells and points you make then that is one thing. It is another thing to have an 8 INT wizard from a newer player who then picks all attack/saves spells and none of the ones you mentioned. If I had the latter I would likely try to understand the concept and if they did not want to make any changes I might actually prefer not to play with them. I would have too much work as a DM to balance against that.
My fun as a DM matters too and if I feel an 8 INT wizard with only attack spells is not something I want to deal with then I have the right to express that to the group.
But in all honestly I have never had it come up outside of one shots. Generally speaking it seems in my groups no one wants to be fully bad at their main thing unless its for a small amount of time.
Lyxen your experiences mean little to nothing to me to be honest. The fact that you have been playing for 40 years means next to nothing to me if your only reason for bringing it up is to say your experiences trump mine because you have had more of them. That is such a flawed way of thinking and if I cannot convince you of that then there is little hope for common ground.
You say that no one agrees underwhelming characters are disruptive but you have literally the say of about 4 people on this thread...that is hardly a consensus of the entire playbase. The fact that you put your own experiences on such a high pedestal and downplay mine does not add to the conversation in a meaningful way.
I never said you have to fully optimize a character to make it work in a game...but rather avoid "trap" options that have been already improved upon (Tasha's Ranger) or outright outclassed (Grappler feat) by better options that will likely enhance the playing experience.
Also one big issue I take with your thoughts:
"The best example that I've seen is a guy who had of course optimised his character for combat and prevented others from ever negotiating with the potential enemy by always attacking first. He claimed that his character was aggressive and paranoid and he was therefore always attacking first.
So yes, it was in accordance with his role, but it was still an extremely selfish behaviour and totally detrimental to the group play, always steering his group towards his strengths."
But then you say your character:
"I once created a bard spy for a pathfinder campaign (which are fairly heavy on combat and dungeons, as are a lot of published campaigns), she was brilliant in exploration and roleplaying and abysmal in combat. My choice, I assumed it, but everyone found it fun to try to bypass the heavy combat areas through diplomacy, intrigue and subterfuge. "
Your hypocrisy here is kind of staggering....
You state you actively steered a whole group who was better at combat away from combat to play to your strengths but then chastise a player for doing the same?
We're all experienced players. And those experiences color our perceptions. So long as we're honest about that and don't offer advice unsolicited (because it's never welcome), then fine. That said, part of that experience also means seeing how different things interact with one another. Some stuff has terrific synergy, like a Rogue/Thief with the Healer feat and a healer's kit. And newer players might need a little guidance, I think they definitely require patience, but they also require the freedom to explore.
You are, IMO, overly-dismissive, bordering on myopic, in your opinions on how useful some things are. You are not someone I would trust for advice, but if I were a new player I might not know better. If we're going to exist in that space, as people dispensing advice, then we should do more to check our biases. And that can mean actually seeing how something works during a session, rather than rely on the theory-crafting of others. My opinions evolved because I experimented.
Fair points.
I am mostly honest with the value in things and how I view their worth. If something is overtly terrible (Grappler Feat) I make my feelings known in a respectful way. I feel I can be more honest in forums simply because we talk in a short form rather than having the benefit of more long form discussions like talking.
Trying to sugar coat how bad a feat is in a forum IMO kind of a waste of time. Especially if there are just objectively better options. Rather than try to buff something that is just bad I feel there is more value in discussing a better option.
When we state our opinions, we make subjective claims. You cannot, in all seriousness, claim there are "objectively better options" to, what is in your opinion, a poor choice. This refrain keeps popping up on these forums, and every time it does the people spouting such nonsense prove themselves fools. We would all like to think everyone here is too old and experienced to so easily confuse facts and opinions, and yet it keeps happening. And it actively undermines whatever points you try to raise because you come across as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
The funny thing about grappler is it is objective as you literally have options that are just better from a mechanical stand point.
Its just inferior in every way. The other feats are just better....its not even a subjective thing. There is no one who would suggest you take it over another option. Like True Strike its just bad....and thats ok.
Beastmaster is a toss up as it could be seen as more thematic to have the 8 hour bonding with the creature which does add some RP potential. Its less objective and more preferential in that case. It has more mechanical benefits to go with the new version but less of the thematic elements which I could see being something that someone might want.
"These facts and opinions look so similar!" -Joy (Amy Poehler), Inside Out (2015)
Seriously, you're not doing yourself any favors. There are no objectively better options than Grappler. It all comes down to what you want to do and how.
You can deny it but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
A good amount of stuff is subjective....but True Strike and Grappler feat being terrible...that is dem facts.
Like a great many things, their use is situationally dependent. But if you want to keep digging yourself that hole, be my guest.