This thread is pretty interesting in that it gives a little insight into how much people box themselves in on what other classes can or should be. I can see how a cleric or paladin might be intelligent based. Religious leaders can also be academics (think the Pope) but besides that, why could a patron grant someone the ability to use intelligence for their spellcasting, but a god could not? Or rigorous study that leads to a binding oath? A sorcerer could use intelligence. Their natural talent might lend to their mind rather than their will. Wizards might lack the intellectual capacity to attain great wizarding heights, but they make up for it in a strong intuitive sense (wisdom).
Pull the lever on all spellcasters being flexible.
Very true, and how much they define a class only by its casting stat instead of,,, you know it's class features.
These are the core class features & concepts of each class that make them distinct regardless of their casting stat:
Wizards - write their spells in a spellbook and have the largest number of the most complex/best spells available to them, they focus all their energies on magic ignoring all physicality, and are focused on preparation rather than improvization.
Sorcerers - intuitively 'know' a smaller number of spells, but are experts in improvizing with them by altering their effects, they too focus their energies on mastering their magic while ignoring physicality.
Bard - are the jack of all trades, collecting knowledge, experience, combat skills and magical secrets from all sources and sharing them to inspire their allies.
Cleric - are able to channel divine will through themselves. They train themselves in defensive combat skills as they cannot serve their deity if they die.
Druid - are have learned the inner workings of the natural world, and use them to power themselves. They can transform to use the skills and abilities of different animals or conjure their preferred aspects of the natural world
These mechanics can be flavoured all kinds of ways if we ignore the fluff text that would suit any of the casting stats:
CHA-wizard : They are the creatives, discovering new spells by creative experimentation with magic combined with sheer stubbornness, their spellbooks are works of art detailing different ways to combine arcane words and certain items to produce magical effects encoded in poetry-like language (e.g. old timey alchemy).
WIS-wizard : The intuitive genius, they just seem to know what to do and how to do it despite never spending time studying. Magic just makes sense to them, their spellbooks are simply a disorganized mess of shorthand notes that they need to simply glance at to guess what they meant when they scribbled that particular note.
INT-sorcerer : touched by the outer planes their magic is more akin to psionics, deriving from their magically enhanced brain.
WIS-sorcerer : Relying on intuition, they channel the raw magic of the world around them whatever it may be to create spectacular displays.
INT-bard : through hard study at their Bardic college they have memorized the patterns and rhythms of the world and the stories, songs or poems required to manipulate them.
WIS-bard : by wandering the world, they have gathered the wisdom and experience to recognize what is needed in any situation. Giving their allies sage advice, while channeling their experiences to mimic a diverse range of magic.
INT-cleric : they study ancient religious texts, memorize ceremonies and rituals, they maybe followers of a god of knowledge or magic.
CHA-cleric : they study rhetoric and rely of force of personality to proselytize the beliefs and values of their god.
INT-druid : they study the natural world and all things in it, learning how to manipulate it for their own ends.
CHA-druid : through force of personality they tame the wilderness and bend it to their will.
Gandalf is a famous wizard that does not fit the mechanics of the game.
I'd hesitate to call Gandalf a Wizard in D&D terms. Middle Earth is a pretty low magic setting, where there aren't really enough people who go around casting spells to put them into as many distinct categories as D&D has. It makes sense to just generalize them as "wizards."
Gandalf is a INT or WIS based Bard. Saruman is a CHA-based wizard.
This thread is pretty interesting in that it gives a little insight into how much people box themselves in on what other classes can or should be. I can see how a cleric or paladin might be intelligent based. Religious leaders can also be academics (think the Pope) but besides that, why could a patron grant someone the ability to use intelligence for their spellcasting, but a god could not? Or rigorous study that leads to a binding oath? A sorcerer could use intelligence. Their natural talent might lend to their mind rather than their will. Wizards might lack the intellectual capacity to attain great wizarding heights, but they make up for it in a strong intuitive sense (wisdom).
Pull the lever on all spellcasters being flexible.
Very true, and how much they define a class only by its casting stat instead of,,, you know it's class features.
These are the core class features & concepts of each class that make them distinct regardless of their casting stat:
Wizards - write their spells in a spellbook and have the largest number of the most complex/best spells available to them, they focus all their energies on magic ignoring all physicality, and are focused on preparation rather than improvization.
Sorcerers - intuitively 'know' a smaller number of spells, but are experts in improvizing with them by altering their effects, they too focus their energies on mastering their magic while ignoring physicality.
Bard - are the jack of all trades, collecting knowledge, experience, combat skills and magical secrets from all sources and sharing them to inspire their allies.
Cleric - are able to channel divine will through themselves. They train themselves in defensive combat skills as they cannot serve their deity if they die.
Druid - are have learned the inner workings of the natural world, and use them to power themselves. They can transform to use the skills and abilities of different animals or conjure their preferred aspects of the natural world
These mechanics can be flavoured all kinds of ways if we ignore the fluff text that would suit any of the casting stats:
CHA-wizard : They are the creatives, discovering new spells by creative experimentation with magic combined with sheer stubbornness, their spellbooks are works of art detailing different ways to combine arcane words and certain items to produce magical effects encoded in poetry-like language (e.g. old timey alchemy).
WIS-wizard : The intuitive genius, they just seem to know what to do and how to do it despite never spending time studying. Magic just makes sense to them, their spellbooks are simply a disorganized mess of shorthand notes that they need to simply glance at to guess what they meant when they scribbled that particular note.
INT-sorcerer : touched by the outer planes their magic is more akin to psionics, deriving from their magically enhanced brain.
WIS-sorcerer : Relying on intuition, they channel the raw magic of the world around them whatever it may be to create spectacular displays.
INT-bard : through hard study at their Bardic college they have memorized the patterns and rhythms of the world and the stories, songs or poems required to manipulate them.
WIS-bard : by wandering the world, they have gathered the wisdom and experience to recognize what is needed in any situation. Giving their allies sage advice, while channeling their experiences to mimic a diverse range of magic.
INT-cleric : they study ancient religious texts, memorize ceremonies and rituals, they maybe followers of a god of knowledge or magic.
CHA-cleric : they study rhetoric and rely of force of personality to proselytize the beliefs and values of their god.
INT-druid : they study the natural world and all things in it, learning how to manipulate it for their own ends.
CHA-druid : through force of personality they tame the wilderness and bend it to their will.
Well said with better, more clear examples than what I had used. I admit, in another thread, I had trouble letting go of the charisma warlock a bit. Thankfully the conversations I had there simmered in my mind for a while and eventually, I asked myself why I hold to that idea so strongly. Really, I held that idea because it is what I was taught about how warlocks should be and people are creatures of habit and routine. I had to deconstruct my beliefs a bit and that led to me wondering why not other classes too. If, years ago when I started playing, someone told me warlocks use wisdom as their spellcasting ability, I can guarantee that I would have rationalized it in my mind to the point that just a few days ago, the thought of them being charisma casters would have been as personally offensive as some here found my idea of all casters being flexible. People should take a moment to challenge their own ideas. There is so much more to a class identity than one ability score.
Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
Honestly, who cares? power gamers will break the game regardless, but they will ruin the game for themselves if they do so as non-powergamers won't want to play with them which means they will have managed to ultimate way to LOSE at D&D.
Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
I think people forget the Min when they speak of Min/Maxers. The fact that you do one thing really well usually means you do another thing pretty bad.
Min/maxing isn't really about the min anymore. Or rather, it is but the min has become irrelevant. For example, I know that Redpelt made a magic missile build that does insane amounts of damage with magic missiles. It's bad at everything else but that doesn't make it balanced. The truth is, doing more than thirty damage ( a lot more) with a first level spell that doesn't require an attack roll negates the need for literally anything else. And that's a weak example, especially since it's level twenty. Plenty of character builds in all four tiers of play are absolutely broken and the nature of DnD means that the fact that they don't do anything other than their gimmick is redundant. Every published enemy can be one shotted by a variety of builds, every skill check can be passed, and every situation has a pallylock solution just waiting for it, usually with action surge as well. There is no min in minmax, and the only thing that allows DnD to function is the ignorance/basic decency of every player that doesn't default to a minmaxed character in every single scenario.
EDIT:Nothing against minmaxing, it just should only be done with DM consent and when it's fun. Minmaxing isn't inherently bad, it just gets a bad rep since frequently it's done when it really shouldn't be.
Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
I think people forget the Min when they speak of Min/Maxers. The fact that you do one thing really well usually means you do another thing pretty bad.
Min/maxing isn't really about the min anymore. Or rather, it is but the min has become irrelevant. For example, I know that Redpelt made a magic missile build that does insane amounts of damage with magic missiles. It's bad at everything else but that doesn't make it balanced. The truth is, doing more than thirty damage ( a lot more) with a first level spell that doesn't require an attack roll negates the need for literally anything else. And that's a weak example, especially since it's level twenty. Plenty of character builds in all four tiers of play are absolutely broken and the nature of DnD means that the fact that they don't do anything other than their gimmick is redundant. Every published enemy can be one shotted by a variety of builds, every skill check can be passed, and every situation has a pallylock solution just waiting for it, usually with action surge as well. There is no min in minmax, and the only thing that allows DnD to function is the ignorance/basic decency of every player that doesn't default to a minmaxed character in every single scenario.
EDIT:Nothing against minmaxing, it just should only be done with DM consent and when it's fun. Minmaxing isn't inherently bad, it just gets a bad rep since frequently it's done when it really shouldn't be.
I disagree. Unless your party covers you in the places you minimized you will have a tough time with the game as a whole. If you have a party of combat novas you will struggle in other parts of the game. You will trivialize most combats, but then get stuck when it’s it’s time to climb a mountain. Now a bigger problem is spell versatility. If my major damage is from magic missile I can use utility spells to trivialize most other checks. This is really only a problem you see with full casters. Other classes that min/max can’t just use spells to cover their weaknesses. A party of min/maxers who cover each other’s weaknesses are just a good party to me. A party with a single min/maxer who just stays out of everyone’s way until the thing they are good at comes up is fine unless they are trying to force that thing to come up all the time. The Fey Wanderer/eloquence Bard who tries to be the face of every NPC conversation can get annoying, but there are ways to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
I think people forget the Min when they speak of Min/Maxers. The fact that you do one thing really well usually means you do another thing pretty bad.
Min/maxing isn't really about the min anymore. Or rather, it is but the min has become irrelevant. For example, I know that Redpelt made a magic missile build that does insane amounts of damage with magic missiles. It's bad at everything else but that doesn't make it balanced. The truth is, doing more than thirty damage ( a lot more) with a first level spell that doesn't require an attack roll negates the need for literally anything else. And that's a weak example, especially since it's level twenty. Plenty of character builds in all four tiers of play are absolutely broken and the nature of DnD means that the fact that they don't do anything other than their gimmick is redundant. Every published enemy can be one shotted by a variety of builds, every skill check can be passed, and every situation has a pallylock solution just waiting for it, usually with action surge as well. There is no min in minmax, and the only thing that allows DnD to function is the ignorance/basic decency of every player that doesn't default to a minmaxed character in every single scenario.
EDIT:Nothing against minmaxing, it just should only be done with DM consent and when it's fun. Minmaxing isn't inherently bad, it just gets a bad rep since frequently it's done when it really shouldn't be.
I disagree. Unless your party covers you in the places you minimized you will have a tough time with the game as a whole. If you have a party of combat novas you will struggle in other parts of the game. You will trivialize most combats, but then get stuck when it’s it’s time to climb a mountain. Now a bigger problem is spell versatility. If my major damage is from magic missile I can use utility spells to trivialize most other checks. This is really only a problem you see with full casters. Other classes that min/max can’t just use spells to cover their weaknesses. A party of min/maxers who cover each other’s weaknesses are just a good party to me. A party with a single min/maxer who just stays out of everyone’s way until the thing they are good at comes up is fine unless they are trying to force that thing to come up all the time. The Fey Wanderer/eloquence Bard who tries to be the face of every NPC conversation can get annoying, but there are ways to make sure that doesn’t happen.
a party of min/maxers or specialists isn't wrong, but does end up feeling a bit more like a boardgame. that's fine for who it's fine for. bob's issue seems to have been of someone trying to be the big fish in a small pond, trivializing one aspect of the game (combat, persuasion, perception, etc...) while in the company of others just having fun. not everyone wants to be carried up the cliffs of insanity just because someone else can carry literally everyone else in the party. same could be said for a lone roleplayer in the party of carefully choreographed optimizers.
Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
I think people forget the Min when they speak of Min/Maxers. The fact that you do one thing really well usually means you do another thing pretty bad.
Min/maxing isn't really about the min anymore. Or rather, it is but the min has become irrelevant. For example, I know that Redpelt made a magic missile build that does insane amounts of damage with magic missiles. It's bad at everything else but that doesn't make it balanced. The truth is, doing more than thirty damage ( a lot more) with a first level spell that doesn't require an attack roll negates the need for literally anything else. And that's a weak example, especially since it's level twenty. Plenty of character builds in all four tiers of play are absolutely broken and the nature of DnD means that the fact that they don't do anything other than their gimmick is redundant. Every published enemy can be one shotted by a variety of builds, every skill check can be passed, and every situation has a pallylock solution just waiting for it, usually with action surge as well. There is no min in minmax, and the only thing that allows DnD to function is the ignorance/basic decency of every player that doesn't default to a minmaxed character in every single scenario.
EDIT:Nothing against minmaxing, it just should only be done with DM consent and when it's fun. Minmaxing isn't inherently bad, it just gets a bad rep since frequently it's done when it really shouldn't be.
I disagree. Unless your party covers you in the places you minimized you will have a tough time with the game as a whole. If you have a party of combat novas you will struggle in other parts of the game. You will trivialize most combats, but then get stuck when it’s it’s time to climb a mountain. Now a bigger problem is spell versatility. If my major damage is from magic missile I can use utility spells to trivialize most other checks. This is really only a problem you see with full casters. Other classes that min/max can’t just use spells to cover their weaknesses. A party of min/maxers who cover each other’s weaknesses are just a good party to me. A party with a single min/maxer who just stays out of everyone’s way until the thing they are good at comes up is fine unless they are trying to force that thing to come up all the time. The Fey Wanderer/eloquence Bard who tries to be the face of every NPC conversation can get annoying, but there are ways to make sure that doesn’t happen.
a party of min/maxers or specialists isn't wrong, but does end up feeling a bit more like a boardgame. that's fine for who it's fine for. bob's issue seems to have been of someone trying to be the big fish in a small pond, trivializing one aspect of the game (combat, persuasion, perception, etc...) while in the company of others just having fun. not everyone wants to be carried up the cliffs of insanity just because someone else can carry literally everyone else in the party. same could be said for a lone roleplayer in the party of carefully choreographed optimizers.
Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
I think people forget the Min when they speak of Min/Maxers. The fact that you do one thing really well usually means you do another thing pretty bad.
Min/maxing isn't really about the min anymore. Or rather, it is but the min has become irrelevant. For example, I know that Redpelt made a magic missile build that does insane amounts of damage with magic missiles. It's bad at everything else but that doesn't make it balanced. The truth is, doing more than thirty damage ( a lot more) with a first level spell that doesn't require an attack roll negates the need for literally anything else. And that's a weak example, especially since it's level twenty. Plenty of character builds in all four tiers of play are absolutely broken and the nature of DnD means that the fact that they don't do anything other than their gimmick is redundant. Every published enemy can be one shotted by a variety of builds, every skill check can be passed, and every situation has a pallylock solution just waiting for it, usually with action surge as well. There is no min in minmax, and the only thing that allows DnD to function is the ignorance/basic decency of every player that doesn't default to a minmaxed character in every single scenario.
EDIT:Nothing against minmaxing, it just should only be done with DM consent and when it's fun. Minmaxing isn't inherently bad, it just gets a bad rep since frequently it's done when it really shouldn't be.
I disagree. Unless your party covers you in the places you minimized you will have a tough time with the game as a whole. If you have a party of combat novas you will struggle in other parts of the game. You will trivialize most combats, but then get stuck when it’s it’s time to climb a mountain. Now a bigger problem is spell versatility. If my major damage is from magic missile I can use utility spells to trivialize most other checks. This is really only a problem you see with full casters. Other classes that min/max can’t just use spells to cover their weaknesses. A party of min/maxers who cover each other’s weaknesses are just a good party to me. A party with a single min/maxer who just stays out of everyone’s way until the thing they are good at comes up is fine unless they are trying to force that thing to come up all the time. The Fey Wanderer/eloquence Bard who tries to be the face of every NPC conversation can get annoying, but there are ways to make sure that doesn’t happen.
My experience is the opposite issue - an interrogation scene with one player whose character has the proper skills, and a bunch of impatient players who used Cha as a dump stat falling all over themselves trying to be intimidating, ruining the chances of the Face character to actually play their role.
My experience is the opposite issue - an interrogation scene with one player whose character has the proper skills, and a bunch of impatient players who used Cha as a dump stat falling all over themselves trying to be intimidating, ruining the chances of the Face character to actually play their role.
I experience that from time to time too, but often it's just from players being over-enthusiastic and wanting to be part of a moment, which is a good thing, albeit chaotic; it's a good opportunity for a DM to ask players to take a moment to decide who's leading the action, and also to remind them that the Help action exists to allow characters that are worse at something to assist those that are better at it.
I wouldn't want to discourage players from contributing because their character isn't the best at something, but it's good to get them thinking a little about how they contribute, and how that works in the group dynamic. For example, a character with terrible Charisma could make an excellent argument, and the DM either waives the check or lets the party's face interject in a "what my friend means to say" way to smooth over anything that could be taken the wrong way etc., so the face's modifier can still be used to the benefit of the other player's roleplay.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
My experience is the opposite issue - an interrogation scene with one player whose character has the proper skills, and a bunch of impatient players who used Cha as a dump stat falling all over themselves trying to be intimidating, ruining the chances of the Face character to actually play their role.
I experience that from time to time too, but often it's just from players being over-enthusiastic and wanting to be part of a moment, which is a good thing, albeit chaotic; it's a good opportunity for a DM to ask players to take a moment to decide who's leading the action, and also to remind them that the Help action exists to allow characters that are worse at something to assist those that are better at it.
I wouldn't want to discourage players from contributing because their character isn't the best at something, but it's good to get them thinking a little about how they contribute, and how that works in the group dynamic. For example, a character with terrible Charisma could make an excellent argument, and the DM either waives the check or lets the party's face interject in a "what my friend means to say" way to smooth over anything that could be taken the wrong way etc., so the face's modifier can still be used to the benefit of the other player's roleplay.
^^^ 100% this. At least those players are engaged.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
I think people forget the Min when they speak of Min/Maxers. The fact that you do one thing really well usually means you do another thing pretty bad.
Min/maxing isn't really about the min anymore. Or rather, it is but the min has become irrelevant. For example, I know that Redpelt made a magic missile build that does insane amounts of damage with magic missiles. It's bad at everything else but that doesn't make it balanced. The truth is, doing more than thirty damage ( a lot more) with a first level spell that doesn't require an attack roll negates the need for literally anything else. And that's a weak example, especially since it's level twenty. Plenty of character builds in all four tiers of play are absolutely broken and the nature of DnD means that the fact that they don't do anything other than their gimmick is redundant. Every published enemy can be one shotted by a variety of builds, every skill check can be passed, and every situation has a pallylock solution just waiting for it, usually with action surge as well. There is no min in minmax, and the only thing that allows DnD to function is the ignorance/basic decency of every player that doesn't default to a minmaxed character in every single scenario.
EDIT:Nothing against minmaxing, it just should only be done with DM consent and when it's fun. Minmaxing isn't inherently bad, it just gets a bad rep since frequently it's done when it really shouldn't be.
I disagree. Unless your party covers you in the places you minimized you will have a tough time with the game as a whole. If you have a party of combat novas you will struggle in other parts of the game. You will trivialize most combats, but then get stuck when it’s it’s time to climb a mountain. Now a bigger problem is spell versatility. If my major damage is from magic missile I can use utility spells to trivialize most other checks. This is really only a problem you see with full casters. Other classes that min/max can’t just use spells to cover their weaknesses. A party of min/maxers who cover each other’s weaknesses are just a good party to me. A party with a single min/maxer who just stays out of everyone’s way until the thing they are good at comes up is fine unless they are trying to force that thing to come up all the time. The Fey Wanderer/eloquence Bard who tries to be the face of every NPC conversation can get annoying, but there are ways to make sure that doesn’t happen.
a party of min/maxers or specialists isn't wrong, but does end up feeling a bit more like a boardgame. that's fine for who it's fine for. bob's issue seems to have been of someone trying to be the big fish in a small pond, trivializing one aspect of the game (combat, persuasion, perception, etc...) while in the company of others just having fun. not everyone wants to be carried up the cliffs of insanity just because someone else can carry literally everyone else in the party. same could be said for a lone roleplayer in the party of carefully choreographed optimizers.
If I were starting my own adventuring party with my old army buddy who's a medic, I'd probably not be recruiting more fighters or priests, I'd probably be looking to add capabilities that I haven't already gotten like magical support and stealth. That's not boardgame like, that's just common sense. It's the same RP logic I use for flat refusing to play in a game with a 'wild magic X' unless it's random effects have been customized. As a player I have had nothing but bad experiences with them, and am utterly tired of getting hit by things because they get their rocks off on 'let's see what happens!!!!!'. If they want to turn themselves blue, that's fine, I don't care. When you hit me with fireballs and grease me all the time, it's a problem. From an RP perspective, I would not go to the field with a guy who continually drops his grenades, so why would my character do the same?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
I think people forget the Min when they speak of Min/Maxers. The fact that you do one thing really well usually means you do another thing pretty bad.
Min/maxing isn't really about the min anymore. Or rather, it is but the min has become irrelevant. For example, I know that Redpelt made a magic missile build that does insane amounts of damage with magic missiles. It's bad at everything else but that doesn't make it balanced. The truth is, doing more than thirty damage ( a lot more) with a first level spell that doesn't require an attack roll negates the need for literally anything else. And that's a weak example, especially since it's level twenty. Plenty of character builds in all four tiers of play are absolutely broken and the nature of DnD means that the fact that they don't do anything other than their gimmick is redundant. Every published enemy can be one shotted by a variety of builds, every skill check can be passed, and every situation has a pallylock solution just waiting for it, usually with action surge as well. There is no min in minmax, and the only thing that allows DnD to function is the ignorance/basic decency of every player that doesn't default to a minmaxed character in every single scenario.
EDIT:Nothing against minmaxing, it just should only be done with DM consent and when it's fun. Minmaxing isn't inherently bad, it just gets a bad rep since frequently it's done when it really shouldn't be.
I disagree. Unless your party covers you in the places you minimized you will have a tough time with the game as a whole. If you have a party of combat novas you will struggle in other parts of the game. You will trivialize most combats, but then get stuck when it’s it’s time to climb a mountain. Now a bigger problem is spell versatility. If my major damage is from magic missile I can use utility spells to trivialize most other checks. This is really only a problem you see with full casters. Other classes that min/max can’t just use spells to cover their weaknesses. A party of min/maxers who cover each other’s weaknesses are just a good party to me. A party with a single min/maxer who just stays out of everyone’s way until the thing they are good at comes up is fine unless they are trying to force that thing to come up all the time. The Fey Wanderer/eloquence Bard who tries to be the face of every NPC conversation can get annoying, but there are ways to make sure that doesn’t happen.
a party of min/maxers or specialists isn't wrong, but does end up feeling a bit more like a boardgame. that's fine for who it's fine for. bob's issue seems to have been of someone trying to be the big fish in a small pond, trivializing one aspect of the game (combat, persuasion, perception, etc...) while in the company of others just having fun. not everyone wants to be carried up the cliffs of insanity just because someone else can carry literally everyone else in the party. same could be said for a lone roleplayer in the party of carefully choreographed optimizers.
If I were starting my own adventuring party with my old army buddy who's a medic, I'd probably not be recruiting more fighters or priests, I'd probably be looking to add capabilities that I haven't already gotten like magical support and stealth. That's not boardgame like, that's just common sense. It's the same RP logic I use for flat refusing to play in a game with a 'wild magic X' unless it's random effects have been customized. As a player I have had nothing but bad experiences with them, and am utterly tired of getting hit by things because they get their rocks off on 'let's see what happens!!!!!'. If they want to turn themselves blue, that's fine, I don't care. When you hit me with fireballs and grease me all the time, it's a problem. From an RP perspective, I would not go to the field with a guy who continually drops his grenades, so why would my character do the same?
not every group "oceans 11s" a team together. not every quest begins at Elrond's house. sometimes it's more fun to become Aramaki's Public Security Section 9 rather than begin there. sometimes the scooby gang just sorta finds themselves solving mysteries in the vacuum formed by no other competent force operating in this area.
the flexibility to do either of these is nice. what are we arguing about?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
I think people forget the Min when they speak of Min/Maxers. The fact that you do one thing really well usually means you do another thing pretty bad.
Min/maxing isn't really about the min anymore. Or rather, it is but the min has become irrelevant. For example, I know that Redpelt made a magic missile build that does insane amounts of damage with magic missiles. It's bad at everything else but that doesn't make it balanced. The truth is, doing more than thirty damage ( a lot more) with a first level spell that doesn't require an attack roll negates the need for literally anything else. And that's a weak example, especially since it's level twenty. Plenty of character builds in all four tiers of play are absolutely broken and the nature of DnD means that the fact that they don't do anything other than their gimmick is redundant. Every published enemy can be one shotted by a variety of builds, every skill check can be passed, and every situation has a pallylock solution just waiting for it, usually with action surge as well. There is no min in minmax, and the only thing that allows DnD to function is the ignorance/basic decency of every player that doesn't default to a minmaxed character in every single scenario.
EDIT:Nothing against minmaxing, it just should only be done with DM consent and when it's fun. Minmaxing isn't inherently bad, it just gets a bad rep since frequently it's done when it really shouldn't be.
I disagree. Unless your party covers you in the places you minimized you will have a tough time with the game as a whole. If you have a party of combat novas you will struggle in other parts of the game. You will trivialize most combats, but then get stuck when it’s it’s time to climb a mountain. Now a bigger problem is spell versatility. If my major damage is from magic missile I can use utility spells to trivialize most other checks. This is really only a problem you see with full casters. Other classes that min/max can’t just use spells to cover their weaknesses. A party of min/maxers who cover each other’s weaknesses are just a good party to me. A party with a single min/maxer who just stays out of everyone’s way until the thing they are good at comes up is fine unless they are trying to force that thing to come up all the time. The Fey Wanderer/eloquence Bard who tries to be the face of every NPC conversation can get annoying, but there are ways to make sure that doesn’t happen.
a party of min/maxers or specialists isn't wrong, but does end up feeling a bit more like a boardgame. that's fine for who it's fine for. bob's issue seems to have been of someone trying to be the big fish in a small pond, trivializing one aspect of the game (combat, persuasion, perception, etc...) while in the company of others just having fun. not everyone wants to be carried up the cliffs of insanity just because someone else can carry literally everyone else in the party. same could be said for a lone roleplayer in the party of carefully choreographed optimizers.
If I were starting my own adventuring party with my old army buddy who's a medic, I'd probably not be recruiting more fighters or priests, I'd probably be looking to add capabilities that I haven't already gotten like magical support and stealth. That's not boardgame like, that's just common sense. It's the same RP logic I use for flat refusing to play in a game with a 'wild magic X' unless it's random effects have been customized. As a player I have had nothing but bad experiences with them, and am utterly tired of getting hit by things because they get their rocks off on 'let's see what happens!!!!!'. If they want to turn themselves blue, that's fine, I don't care. When you hit me with fireballs and grease me all the time, it's a problem. From an RP perspective, I would not go to the field with a guy who continually drops his grenades, so why would my character do the same?
Sorry but this sends up so many red flags; it sounds incredibly arrogant to assume that your character would be in charge of the adventuring party and would be recruiting members based on what you want or need in terms of skills and expertise.
This isn't your world or your game where you get to dictate what everyone else does and how everyone else has fun. You are just one person at the table, your fun is not more important or valuable than anyone else's. What you think is "common sense" from your narrow perspective is not any more valid that what anyone else thinks "makes sense". If you don't want to play with a wild magic sorcerer, fine, go find yourself a different table to play at, or better yet, go play a single-player game like BG3 where you can design the party to be exactly how you think it should be.
Adventuring parties come together for all kinds of reasons, rarely IME it is because they just decide to go adventuring. It may be circumstance - like all of you ending up in the same prison cell, or happening to be in the same town that gets attacked, or happening to be chosen by some god or hero to take up their legacy, or you may all have been travelling together when you get attacked by the BBEG. It may be convenience - you all happen to have a grudge against the same person, or you may all belong to the same faction, or you may all be trying to reach the same location. Or it might be fate - a prophecy links you all together, various political leaders choose each of you to represent some faction to participate in a world-saving mission, or you all receive a vision guiding you to the same path.
Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
I think people forget the Min when they speak of Min/Maxers. The fact that you do one thing really well usually means you do another thing pretty bad.
Min/maxing isn't really about the min anymore. Or rather, it is but the min has become irrelevant. For example, I know that Redpelt made a magic missile build that does insane amounts of damage with magic missiles. It's bad at everything else but that doesn't make it balanced. The truth is, doing more than thirty damage ( a lot more) with a first level spell that doesn't require an attack roll negates the need for literally anything else. And that's a weak example, especially since it's level twenty. Plenty of character builds in all four tiers of play are absolutely broken and the nature of DnD means that the fact that they don't do anything other than their gimmick is redundant. Every published enemy can be one shotted by a variety of builds, every skill check can be passed, and every situation has a pallylock solution just waiting for it, usually with action surge as well. There is no min in minmax, and the only thing that allows DnD to function is the ignorance/basic decency of every player that doesn't default to a minmaxed character in every single scenario.
EDIT:Nothing against minmaxing, it just should only be done with DM consent and when it's fun. Minmaxing isn't inherently bad, it just gets a bad rep since frequently it's done when it really shouldn't be.
I disagree. Unless your party covers you in the places you minimized you will have a tough time with the game as a whole. If you have a party of combat novas you will struggle in other parts of the game. You will trivialize most combats, but then get stuck when it’s it’s time to climb a mountain. Now a bigger problem is spell versatility. If my major damage is from magic missile I can use utility spells to trivialize most other checks. This is really only a problem you see with full casters. Other classes that min/max can’t just use spells to cover their weaknesses. A party of min/maxers who cover each other’s weaknesses are just a good party to me. A party with a single min/maxer who just stays out of everyone’s way until the thing they are good at comes up is fine unless they are trying to force that thing to come up all the time. The Fey Wanderer/eloquence Bard who tries to be the face of every NPC conversation can get annoying, but there are ways to make sure that doesn’t happen.
a party of min/maxers or specialists isn't wrong, but does end up feeling a bit more like a boardgame. that's fine for who it's fine for. bob's issue seems to have been of someone trying to be the big fish in a small pond, trivializing one aspect of the game (combat, persuasion, perception, etc...) while in the company of others just having fun. not everyone wants to be carried up the cliffs of insanity just because someone else can carry literally everyone else in the party. same could be said for a lone roleplayer in the party of carefully choreographed optimizers.
If I were starting my own adventuring party with my old army buddy who's a medic, I'd probably not be recruiting more fighters or priests, I'd probably be looking to add capabilities that I haven't already gotten like magical support and stealth. That's not boardgame like, that's just common sense. It's the same RP logic I use for flat refusing to play in a game with a 'wild magic X' unless it's random effects have been customized. As a player I have had nothing but bad experiences with them, and am utterly tired of getting hit by things because they get their rocks off on 'let's see what happens!!!!!'. If they want to turn themselves blue, that's fine, I don't care. When you hit me with fireballs and grease me all the time, it's a problem. From an RP perspective, I would not go to the field with a guy who continually drops his grenades, so why would my character do the same?
I’m right there with you. I was so mentally and emotionally scarred by wild magic back in 2e that I absolutely, categorically refuse to play with any PC that uses Wild Magic. The wild magic sorcerer and the path of wild magic barbarian are the only two things I absolutely ban at my table.
Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
I think people forget the Min when they speak of Min/Maxers. The fact that you do one thing really well usually means you do another thing pretty bad.
Min/maxing isn't really about the min anymore. Or rather, it is but the min has become irrelevant. For example, I know that Redpelt made a magic missile build that does insane amounts of damage with magic missiles. It's bad at everything else but that doesn't make it balanced. The truth is, doing more than thirty damage ( a lot more) with a first level spell that doesn't require an attack roll negates the need for literally anything else. And that's a weak example, especially since it's level twenty. Plenty of character builds in all four tiers of play are absolutely broken and the nature of DnD means that the fact that they don't do anything other than their gimmick is redundant. Every published enemy can be one shotted by a variety of builds, every skill check can be passed, and every situation has a pallylock solution just waiting for it, usually with action surge as well. There is no min in minmax, and the only thing that allows DnD to function is the ignorance/basic decency of every player that doesn't default to a minmaxed character in every single scenario.
EDIT:Nothing against minmaxing, it just should only be done with DM consent and when it's fun. Minmaxing isn't inherently bad, it just gets a bad rep since frequently it's done when it really shouldn't be.
I disagree. Unless your party covers you in the places you minimized you will have a tough time with the game as a whole. If you have a party of combat novas you will struggle in other parts of the game. You will trivialize most combats, but then get stuck when it’s it’s time to climb a mountain. Now a bigger problem is spell versatility. If my major damage is from magic missile I can use utility spells to trivialize most other checks. This is really only a problem you see with full casters. Other classes that min/max can’t just use spells to cover their weaknesses. A party of min/maxers who cover each other’s weaknesses are just a good party to me. A party with a single min/maxer who just stays out of everyone’s way until the thing they are good at comes up is fine unless they are trying to force that thing to come up all the time. The Fey Wanderer/eloquence Bard who tries to be the face of every NPC conversation can get annoying, but there are ways to make sure that doesn’t happen.
a party of min/maxers or specialists isn't wrong, but does end up feeling a bit more like a boardgame. that's fine for who it's fine for. bob's issue seems to have been of someone trying to be the big fish in a small pond, trivializing one aspect of the game (combat, persuasion, perception, etc...) while in the company of others just having fun. not everyone wants to be carried up the cliffs of insanity just because someone else can carry literally everyone else in the party. same could be said for a lone roleplayer in the party of carefully choreographed optimizers.
If I were starting my own adventuring party with my old army buddy who's a medic, I'd probably not be recruiting more fighters or priests, I'd probably be looking to add capabilities that I haven't already gotten like magical support and stealth. That's not boardgame like, that's just common sense. It's the same RP logic I use for flat refusing to play in a game with a 'wild magic X' unless it's random effects have been customized. As a player I have had nothing but bad experiences with them, and am utterly tired of getting hit by things because they get their rocks off on 'let's see what happens!!!!!'. If they want to turn themselves blue, that's fine, I don't care. When you hit me with fireballs and grease me all the time, it's a problem. From an RP perspective, I would not go to the field with a guy who continually drops his grenades, so why would my character do the same?
I’m right there with you. I was so mentally and emotionally scarred by wild magic back in 2e that I absolutely, categorically refuse to play with any PC that uses Wild Magic. The wild magic sorcerer and the path of wild magic barbarian are the only two things I absolutely ban at my table.
LOL, well at least you advertise your ignorance of the rules to your players. The published Wild Magic Barbarian is no more dangerous to the party than any 1st level caster that can cast an AoE spell. They have full control of the positioning of all their Wild Magic rage effects so can avoid their party if they so choose.
Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
I think people forget the Min when they speak of Min/Maxers. The fact that you do one thing really well usually means you do another thing pretty bad.
Min/maxing isn't really about the min anymore. Or rather, it is but the min has become irrelevant. For example, I know that Redpelt made a magic missile build that does insane amounts of damage with magic missiles. It's bad at everything else but that doesn't make it balanced. The truth is, doing more than thirty damage ( a lot more) with a first level spell that doesn't require an attack roll negates the need for literally anything else. And that's a weak example, especially since it's level twenty. Plenty of character builds in all four tiers of play are absolutely broken and the nature of DnD means that the fact that they don't do anything other than their gimmick is redundant. Every published enemy can be one shotted by a variety of builds, every skill check can be passed, and every situation has a pallylock solution just waiting for it, usually with action surge as well. There is no min in minmax, and the only thing that allows DnD to function is the ignorance/basic decency of every player that doesn't default to a minmaxed character in every single scenario.
EDIT:Nothing against minmaxing, it just should only be done with DM consent and when it's fun. Minmaxing isn't inherently bad, it just gets a bad rep since frequently it's done when it really shouldn't be.
I disagree. Unless your party covers you in the places you minimized you will have a tough time with the game as a whole. If you have a party of combat novas you will struggle in other parts of the game. You will trivialize most combats, but then get stuck when it’s it’s time to climb a mountain. Now a bigger problem is spell versatility. If my major damage is from magic missile I can use utility spells to trivialize most other checks. This is really only a problem you see with full casters. Other classes that min/max can’t just use spells to cover their weaknesses. A party of min/maxers who cover each other’s weaknesses are just a good party to me. A party with a single min/maxer who just stays out of everyone’s way until the thing they are good at comes up is fine unless they are trying to force that thing to come up all the time. The Fey Wanderer/eloquence Bard who tries to be the face of every NPC conversation can get annoying, but there are ways to make sure that doesn’t happen.
a party of min/maxers or specialists isn't wrong, but does end up feeling a bit more like a boardgame. that's fine for who it's fine for. bob's issue seems to have been of someone trying to be the big fish in a small pond, trivializing one aspect of the game (combat, persuasion, perception, etc...) while in the company of others just having fun. not everyone wants to be carried up the cliffs of insanity just because someone else can carry literally everyone else in the party. same could be said for a lone roleplayer in the party of carefully choreographed optimizers.
If I were starting my own adventuring party with my old army buddy who's a medic, I'd probably not be recruiting more fighters or priests, I'd probably be looking to add capabilities that I haven't already gotten like magical support and stealth. That's not boardgame like, that's just common sense. It's the same RP logic I use for flat refusing to play in a game with a 'wild magic X' unless it's random effects have been customized. As a player I have had nothing but bad experiences with them, and am utterly tired of getting hit by things because they get their rocks off on 'let's see what happens!!!!!'. If they want to turn themselves blue, that's fine, I don't care. When you hit me with fireballs and grease me all the time, it's a problem. From an RP perspective, I would not go to the field with a guy who continually drops his grenades, so why would my character do the same?
I’m right there with you. I was so mentally and emotionally scarred by wild magic back in 2e that I absolutely, categorically refuse to play with any PC that uses Wild Magic. The wild magic sorcerer and the path of wild magic barbarian are the only two things I absolutely ban at my table.
LOL, well at least you advertise your ignorance of the rules to your players. The published Wild Magic Barbarian is no more dangerous to the party than any 1st level caster that can cast an AoE spell. They have full control of the positioning of all their Wild Magic rage effects so can avoid their party if they so choose.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with “ignorance” thank you very much. I am quite aware of the rules and how they work. I think this has more to do with your lack of empathy than my lack of rules knowledge. I simply detest the entire concept of wild magic at this point and do not allow it at my table on principle. I’m allowed to not like something.
Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
I think people forget the Min when they speak of Min/Maxers. The fact that you do one thing really well usually means you do another thing pretty bad.
Min/maxing isn't really about the min anymore. Or rather, it is but the min has become irrelevant. For example, I know that Redpelt made a magic missile build that does insane amounts of damage with magic missiles. It's bad at everything else but that doesn't make it balanced. The truth is, doing more than thirty damage ( a lot more) with a first level spell that doesn't require an attack roll negates the need for literally anything else. And that's a weak example, especially since it's level twenty. Plenty of character builds in all four tiers of play are absolutely broken and the nature of DnD means that the fact that they don't do anything other than their gimmick is redundant. Every published enemy can be one shotted by a variety of builds, every skill check can be passed, and every situation has a pallylock solution just waiting for it, usually with action surge as well. There is no min in minmax, and the only thing that allows DnD to function is the ignorance/basic decency of every player that doesn't default to a minmaxed character in every single scenario.
EDIT:Nothing against minmaxing, it just should only be done with DM consent and when it's fun. Minmaxing isn't inherently bad, it just gets a bad rep since frequently it's done when it really shouldn't be.
I disagree. Unless your party covers you in the places you minimized you will have a tough time with the game as a whole. If you have a party of combat novas you will struggle in other parts of the game. You will trivialize most combats, but then get stuck when it’s it’s time to climb a mountain. Now a bigger problem is spell versatility. If my major damage is from magic missile I can use utility spells to trivialize most other checks. This is really only a problem you see with full casters. Other classes that min/max can’t just use spells to cover their weaknesses. A party of min/maxers who cover each other’s weaknesses are just a good party to me. A party with a single min/maxer who just stays out of everyone’s way until the thing they are good at comes up is fine unless they are trying to force that thing to come up all the time. The Fey Wanderer/eloquence Bard who tries to be the face of every NPC conversation can get annoying, but there are ways to make sure that doesn’t happen.
You raise some good points here, but I think that what I was fundamentally trying to say was that DnD as a game has been solved enough that you can build a character with insane nova and versatility (usually spellcasters). While casters don't get the same six hundred damage novas of paladin fighter warlock gloomstalker multiclasses, they can still easily do enough to trivialize combat encounters, as well as utility and social stuff due to spellcasters being fundamentally broken in DnD 5e. Anyways, it's still very easy to make a character that's exceptionally good at many different things, and you can build an entire party of just that character. Or you can play a bunch of clerics and wizards, that works as well. And on another note, many characters that are made normally are less versatile than minmaxed builds, even martial ones that focus on nova damage. The game isn't balanced and I maintain my position that minmaxing has no pure gameplay downside, or rather has no downside that is in any way worse than playing a "normal" character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
N/A
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Very true, and how much they define a class only by its casting stat instead of,,, you know it's class features.
These are the core class features & concepts of each class that make them distinct regardless of their casting stat:
Wizards - write their spells in a spellbook and have the largest number of the most complex/best spells available to them, they focus all their energies on magic ignoring all physicality, and are focused on preparation rather than improvization.
Sorcerers - intuitively 'know' a smaller number of spells, but are experts in improvizing with them by altering their effects, they too focus their energies on mastering their magic while ignoring physicality.
Bard - are the jack of all trades, collecting knowledge, experience, combat skills and magical secrets from all sources and sharing them to inspire their allies.
Cleric - are able to channel divine will through themselves. They train themselves in defensive combat skills as they cannot serve their deity if they die.
Druid - are have learned the inner workings of the natural world, and use them to power themselves. They can transform to use the skills and abilities of different animals or conjure their preferred aspects of the natural world
These mechanics can be flavoured all kinds of ways if we ignore the fluff text that would suit any of the casting stats:
CHA-wizard : They are the creatives, discovering new spells by creative experimentation with magic combined with sheer stubbornness, their spellbooks are works of art detailing different ways to combine arcane words and certain items to produce magical effects encoded in poetry-like language (e.g. old timey alchemy).
WIS-wizard : The intuitive genius, they just seem to know what to do and how to do it despite never spending time studying. Magic just makes sense to them, their spellbooks are simply a disorganized mess of shorthand notes that they need to simply glance at to guess what they meant when they scribbled that particular note.
INT-sorcerer : touched by the outer planes their magic is more akin to psionics, deriving from their magically enhanced brain.
WIS-sorcerer : Relying on intuition, they channel the raw magic of the world around them whatever it may be to create spectacular displays.
INT-bard : through hard study at their Bardic college they have memorized the patterns and rhythms of the world and the stories, songs or poems required to manipulate them.
WIS-bard : by wandering the world, they have gathered the wisdom and experience to recognize what is needed in any situation. Giving their allies sage advice, while channeling their experiences to mimic a diverse range of magic.
INT-cleric : they study ancient religious texts, memorize ceremonies and rituals, they maybe followers of a god of knowledge or magic.
CHA-cleric : they study rhetoric and rely of force of personality to proselytize the beliefs and values of their god.
INT-druid : they study the natural world and all things in it, learning how to manipulate it for their own ends.
CHA-druid : through force of personality they tame the wilderness and bend it to their will.
Gandalf is a INT or WIS based Bard. Saruman is a CHA-based wizard.
Well said with better, more clear examples than what I had used. I admit, in another thread, I had trouble letting go of the charisma warlock a bit. Thankfully the conversations I had there simmered in my mind for a while and eventually, I asked myself why I hold to that idea so strongly. Really, I held that idea because it is what I was taught about how warlocks should be and people are creatures of habit and routine. I had to deconstruct my beliefs a bit and that led to me wondering why not other classes too. If, years ago when I started playing, someone told me warlocks use wisdom as their spellcasting ability, I can guarantee that I would have rationalized it in my mind to the point that just a few days ago, the thought of them being charisma casters would have been as personally offensive as some here found my idea of all casters being flexible. People should take a moment to challenge their own ideas. There is so much more to a class identity than one ability score.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Powergamers will break game balance with what you propose.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Honestly, who cares? power gamers will break the game regardless, but they will ruin the game for themselves if they do so as non-powergamers won't want to play with them which means they will have managed to ultimate way to LOSE at D&D.
I think people forget the Min when they speak of Min/Maxers. The fact that you do one thing really well usually means you do another thing pretty bad.
Min/maxing isn't really about the min anymore. Or rather, it is but the min has become irrelevant. For example, I know that Redpelt made a magic missile build that does insane amounts of damage with magic missiles. It's bad at everything else but that doesn't make it balanced. The truth is, doing more than thirty damage ( a lot more) with a first level spell that doesn't require an attack roll negates the need for literally anything else. And that's a weak example, especially since it's level twenty. Plenty of character builds in all four tiers of play are absolutely broken and the nature of DnD means that the fact that they don't do anything other than their gimmick is redundant. Every published enemy can be one shotted by a variety of builds, every skill check can be passed, and every situation has a pallylock solution just waiting for it, usually with action surge as well. There is no min in minmax, and the only thing that allows DnD to function is the ignorance/basic decency of every player that doesn't default to a minmaxed character in every single scenario.
EDIT:Nothing against minmaxing, it just should only be done with DM consent and when it's fun. Minmaxing isn't inherently bad, it just gets a bad rep since frequently it's done when it really shouldn't be.
N/A
I disagree. Unless your party covers you in the places you minimized you will have a tough time with the game as a whole. If you have a party of combat novas you will struggle in other parts of the game. You will trivialize most combats, but then get stuck when it’s it’s time to climb a mountain. Now a bigger problem is spell versatility. If my major damage is from magic missile I can use utility spells to trivialize most other checks. This is really only a problem you see with full casters. Other classes that min/max can’t just use spells to cover their weaknesses. A party of min/maxers who cover each other’s weaknesses are just a good party to me. A party with a single min/maxer who just stays out of everyone’s way until the thing they are good at comes up is fine unless they are trying to force that thing to come up all the time. The Fey Wanderer/eloquence Bard who tries to be the face of every NPC conversation can get annoying, but there are ways to make sure that doesn’t happen.
a party of min/maxers or specialists isn't wrong, but does end up feeling a bit more like a boardgame. that's fine for who it's fine for. bob's issue seems to have been of someone trying to be the big fish in a small pond, trivializing one aspect of the game (combat, persuasion, perception, etc...) while in the company of others just having fun. not everyone wants to be carried up the cliffs of insanity just because someone else can carry literally everyone else in the party. same could be said for a lone roleplayer in the party of carefully choreographed optimizers.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
That goes back to my principle of the “three legged table:” (https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/166611-anything-but-the-ogl-2-0-literally-anything?comment=3278).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My experience is the opposite issue - an interrogation scene with one player whose character has the proper skills, and a bunch of impatient players who used Cha as a dump stat falling all over themselves trying to be intimidating, ruining the chances of the Face character to actually play their role.
I experience that from time to time too, but often it's just from players being over-enthusiastic and wanting to be part of a moment, which is a good thing, albeit chaotic; it's a good opportunity for a DM to ask players to take a moment to decide who's leading the action, and also to remind them that the Help action exists to allow characters that are worse at something to assist those that are better at it.
I wouldn't want to discourage players from contributing because their character isn't the best at something, but it's good to get them thinking a little about how they contribute, and how that works in the group dynamic. For example, a character with terrible Charisma could make an excellent argument, and the DM either waives the check or lets the party's face interject in a "what my friend means to say" way to smooth over anything that could be taken the wrong way etc., so the face's modifier can still be used to the benefit of the other player's roleplay.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
^^^ 100% this. At least those players are engaged.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
If I were starting my own adventuring party with my old army buddy who's a medic, I'd probably not be recruiting more fighters or priests, I'd probably be looking to add capabilities that I haven't already gotten like magical support and stealth. That's not boardgame like, that's just common sense. It's the same RP logic I use for flat refusing to play in a game with a 'wild magic X' unless it's random effects have been customized. As a player I have had nothing but bad experiences with them, and am utterly tired of getting hit by things because they get their rocks off on 'let's see what happens!!!!!'. If they want to turn themselves blue, that's fine, I don't care. When you hit me with fireballs and grease me all the time, it's a problem. From an RP perspective, I would not go to the field with a guy who continually drops his grenades, so why would my character do the same?
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
not every group "oceans 11s" a team together. not every quest begins at Elrond's house. sometimes it's more fun to become Aramaki's Public Security Section 9 rather than begin there. sometimes the scooby gang just sorta finds themselves solving mysteries in the vacuum formed by no other competent force operating in this area.
the flexibility to do either of these is nice. what are we arguing about?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Sorry but this sends up so many red flags; it sounds incredibly arrogant to assume that your character would be in charge of the adventuring party and would be recruiting members based on what you want or need in terms of skills and expertise.
This isn't your world or your game where you get to dictate what everyone else does and how everyone else has fun. You are just one person at the table, your fun is not more important or valuable than anyone else's. What you think is "common sense" from your narrow perspective is not any more valid that what anyone else thinks "makes sense". If you don't want to play with a wild magic sorcerer, fine, go find yourself a different table to play at, or better yet, go play a single-player game like BG3 where you can design the party to be exactly how you think it should be.
Adventuring parties come together for all kinds of reasons, rarely IME it is because they just decide to go adventuring. It may be circumstance - like all of you ending up in the same prison cell, or happening to be in the same town that gets attacked, or happening to be chosen by some god or hero to take up their legacy, or you may all have been travelling together when you get attacked by the BBEG. It may be convenience - you all happen to have a grudge against the same person, or you may all belong to the same faction, or you may all be trying to reach the same location. Or it might be fate - a prophecy links you all together, various political leaders choose each of you to represent some faction to participate in a world-saving mission, or you all receive a vision guiding you to the same path.
I’m right there with you. I was so mentally and emotionally scarred by wild magic back in 2e that I absolutely, categorically refuse to play with any PC that uses Wild Magic. The wild magic sorcerer and the path of wild magic barbarian are the only two things I absolutely ban at my table.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
LOL, well at least you advertise your ignorance of the rules to your players. The published Wild Magic Barbarian is no more dangerous to the party than any 1st level caster that can cast an AoE spell. They have full control of the positioning of all their Wild Magic rage effects so can avoid their party if they so choose.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with “ignorance” thank you very much. I am quite aware of the rules and how they work. I think this has more to do with your lack of empathy than my lack of rules knowledge. I simply detest the entire concept of wild magic at this point and do not allow it at my table on principle. I’m allowed to not like something.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You raise some good points here, but I think that what I was fundamentally trying to say was that DnD as a game has been solved enough that you can build a character with insane nova and versatility (usually spellcasters). While casters don't get the same six hundred damage novas of paladin fighter warlock gloomstalker multiclasses, they can still easily do enough to trivialize combat encounters, as well as utility and social stuff due to spellcasters being fundamentally broken in DnD 5e. Anyways, it's still very easy to make a character that's exceptionally good at many different things, and you can build an entire party of just that character. Or you can play a bunch of clerics and wizards, that works as well. And on another note, many characters that are made normally are less versatile than minmaxed builds, even martial ones that focus on nova damage. The game isn't balanced and I maintain my position that minmaxing has no pure gameplay downside, or rather has no downside that is in any way worse than playing a "normal" character.
N/A