I think this is one of those things that is subjective thus meaning it will depend on the player and the group.
If nobody in the group min-maxes their character then there will likely be no issue. If everyone min-maxes save for one person, well... that one person might feel less effective or their group may see them as a detriment.
There are definitely optimal and sub-optimal choices in all facets of the game (ie. weapon picks, stat allocations, ASIs, Feats, Races, Classes, etc).
For me, one of the (minor) issues I have is the fact that you have to choose between an ASI and a Feat. A lot of the time it's hard to justify giving up an ASI for a Feat. Some of the half-ASI Feats are definitely worthwhile for rounding out a stat and providing an additional bonus and are thereby easily justifiable. Some of the feats are just leaps and bounds better than others (ie. Polearm Master, Sentinel, Lucky). But then Feats are an optional rule anyway, so...
The game isn't perfectly balanced, to be sure, but I think it could also be much worse - I'm looking at you, 2E AD&D's "The Complete Book of Elves."
I think this is one of those things that is subjective thus meaning it will depend on the player and the group.
If nobody in the group min-maxes their character then there will likely be no issue. If everyone min-maxes save for one person, well... that one person might feel less effective or their group may see them as a detriment.
There are definitely optimal and sub-optimal choices in all facets of the game (ie. weapon picks, stat allocations, ASIs, Feats, Races, Classes, etc).
For me, one of the (minor) issues I have is the fact that you have to choose between an ASI and a Feat. A lot of the time it's hard to justify giving up an ASI for a Feat. Some of the half-ASI Feats are definitely worthwhile for rounding out a stat and providing an additional bonus and are thereby easily justifiable. Some of the feats are just leaps and bounds better than others (ie. Polearm Master, Sentinel, Lucky). But then Feats are an optional rule anyway, so...
The game isn't perfectly balanced, to be sure, but I think it could also be much worse - I'm looking at you, 2E AD&D's "The Complete Book of Elves."
This is a pretty fair take....I think it does strike a good balance between "too much balance" of 4e and "One guy one shots the encounter" of 2e and to some extent 3.5.
Overall I feel as if the DM has a decent eye for what is underperforming and if that is frustrating the player then they can make a fix that brings things back in line.
You don't have to know all the rules but you for sure need to know some semblance of balance and some basic design philosophies if you are going to dedicate your time and efforts to a full blown campaign its one of the core aspects you should strive to at least have some knowledge on as I think it will make your life a lot easier if it comes up.
Now you don't have to if your group is pretty loose with balance but if they have at some inclination towards it I would go ahead and read the sections in the DMG about making spells/races/etc...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think this is one of those things that is subjective thus meaning it will depend on the player and the group.
If nobody in the group min-maxes their character then there will likely be no issue. If everyone min-maxes save for one person, well... that one person might feel less effective or their group may see them as a detriment.
There are definitely optimal and sub-optimal choices in all facets of the game (ie. weapon picks, stat allocations, ASIs, Feats, Races, Classes, etc).
For me, one of the (minor) issues I have is the fact that you have to choose between an ASI and a Feat. A lot of the time it's hard to justify giving up an ASI for a Feat. Some of the half-ASI Feats are definitely worthwhile for rounding out a stat and providing an additional bonus and are thereby easily justifiable. Some of the feats are just leaps and bounds better than others (ie. Polearm Master, Sentinel, Lucky). But then Feats are an optional rule anyway, so...
The game isn't perfectly balanced, to be sure, but I think it could also be much worse - I'm looking at you, 2E AD&D's "The Complete Book of Elves."
This is a pretty fair take....I think it does strike a good balance between "too much balance" of 4e and "One guy one shots the encounter" of 2e and to some extent 3.5.
Overall I feel as if the DM has a decent eye for what is underperforming and if that is frustrating the player then they can make a fix that brings things back in line.
You don't have to know all the rules but you for sure need to know some semblance of balance and some basic design philosophies if you are going to dedicate your time and efforts to a full blown campaign its one of the core aspects you should strive to at least have some knowledge on as I think it will make your life a lot easier if it comes up.
Now you don't have to if your group is pretty loose with balance but if they have at some inclination towards it I would go ahead and read the sections in the DMG about making spells/races/etc...