As a DM, what one specific PC build would you HATE to have in your game? [Archive]

MrFahrenheit

2016-05-20, 01:11 PM

Been thinking about this one for a while, but I'd like to have some fun. If there were one build of PC you would hate to have in your party, what would it be?

Rules: multiclassing, feats, SCAG and EE are allowed, but UA is not.
The earlier it reaches its annoyance potential, the better!

Here's mine:
Lightfoot halfling archfey warlock 2/divination wizard X. Stats starting out are 8/16/12/14/8/16. Takes the luck feat at CL 6, then boosts cha. Eldritch blast is main form of damage; most if not all wizard spells taken will be control/OOC/buff ally spells.

Bulk of annoyance reached at CL 6.
Reason for annoyance- dice control.
Can reroll nat 1s he rolls (the first time) an unlimited amount (halfling racial).
Can force reroll a of up to 3d20 of his choice that directly affect him per long rest, regardless of initial roll (luck feat).
Can swap in pre-rolled 2d20 per long rest as he sees fit (portent). Adds one more d20 at CL 16, but that's just a cherry on top by that point.

MintyNinja

2016-05-20, 01:28 PM

The Petshop:

Ranger 3 / Druid 5

Important Levels:
1. V.Human, Magic Initiate: Wizard (Find Familiar, Mending, Prestidigitation)
3. Beast Master Ranger 3 - Animal Companion.
8. Moon Druid 5 - Conjure Animals.

This character doesn't care about the party so much as they do about their various animal friends. By adding up to another 6 combatants to any situation, the sheer tracking and adjusting of encounters would drive me mad. Not to mention that this character would probably cause nothing but scenes in city scenarios.

Ninja_Prawn

2016-05-20, 01:30 PM

Mechanics aside, my bugbear has to be goolocks and the hermit background. Both of them force me as the DM to do a lot of extra legwork on the setting and NPCs, which I do not appreciate at all. It's like, "oh, now you have to get inside the head of an inscrutable eldritch horror, work out its goals and motivations, and somehow fit it into your story in a believable and organic way." Joy!

DanyBallon

2016-05-20, 01:39 PM

MaxWilson

2016-05-20, 01:45 PM

Specter

2016-05-20, 01:48 PM

Anything with 2 Warlock levels for multiclass.

LaserFace

2016-05-20, 02:32 PM

As a DM, not that I'll hate, but I would very displeased with any PC create as a build instead of as a character. I don't mind that a character can be optimized, but it need to be more than just a pile of numbers.

Yeah, this is more or less how I feel. I'm fine with folks having fun with their character sheets, but it's my endeavor to make them excited about roleplaying and getting involved with the world; I feel like a measure of my success as a DM is my ability to make the players disregard builds and just do what they feel is natural.

RulesJD

2016-05-20, 02:39 PM

1. New players that play spellcasters. They end up just letting a more experienced player essentially tell them what to do, which isn't good. Usually I give them much more leeway by asking them "what do you want to do" and fudging their abilities, but eventually I have to tell them no and that sucks.

2. Minionmancers that haven't taken the time to automate their minions. Sitting around while one player rolls for 5 minutes isn't fun for anybody.

3. Optimized Clerics, largely because Spirit Guardians. Love that spell as a player, hate it as a DM.

JellyPooga

2016-05-20, 03:00 PM

1. New players that play spellcasters.

This is one of my pet hates as a Player, actually. Not necessarily *new* players, but *bad* spellcaster players; the guy that prepares Scorching Ray before delving into the fire-themed dungeon, for example, just because "it's a cool spell" or because "Magic Missile sucks; it only does 1d4 damage". I hate being the "more experienced player" telling them what they should or shouldn't be doing as a spell-slinger. On the one hand, it's up to them to make their own mistakes and it's not my place to tell them how to play their character. On the other, I want the party to succeed and that player not to feel useless when he could be feeling godlike.

2. Minionmancers

Urgh. Yes. Just Minionmancers in general. Even with auto-bot minions, they just slow down play soooo much and marching their small army into little villages expecting nothing untoward to happen just bugs me.

Clerics

Yeah, I just don't like Clerics.

MaxWilson

2016-05-20, 04:20 PM

This is one of my pet hates as a Player, actually. Not necessarily *new* players, but *bad* spellcaster players; the guy that prepares Scorching Ray before delving into the fire-themed dungeon, for example, just because "it's a cool spell" or because "Magic Missile sucks; it only does 1d4 damage". I hate being the "more experienced player" telling them what they should or shouldn't be doing as a spell-slinger. On the one hand, it's up to them to make their own mistakes and it's not my place to tell them how to play their character. On the other, I want the party to succeed and that player not to feel useless when he could be feeling godlike.

One of my first 5E experiences was with a guy who had twice as many levels as the rest of the party (He was a Wizard 11/Cleric 11 while everyone else was level 8-9) and whose PC had an Int of 20... but the player was simultaneously secretive, arrogant and not very bright. He would do things like blow his 9th level spell slot on Chromatic Orb just because it made him feel cool, or withhold vital information from the party about what he had learned from Legend Lore because he apparently wanted to emulate Gandalf's mystique.

It totally broke my suspension of disbelief and drove me up the wall. I made the mistake once of voicing my frustration that the supposedly Int 20 PC was playing like a moron and I'm afraid it may have hurt his feelings, judging by his defensive reaction. I left the group shortly thereafter (two or three sessions later, over the course of several months), partly because of DM issues (campaign was boring and railroady) but also because I didn't like feeling like I was raining on the poor guy's parade.

I can imagine being equally frustrated by a 20th level fighter with horrible tactical instincts or a Paladin who acts self-interested and selfish. Anything that screams to me "this PC would never have gotten where he is if he actually acted like that from level 1."

AttilatheYeon

2016-05-20, 05:20 PM

Level 1 barbarian, level 2 moon druid. He won't ever die.

thebiglost1

2016-05-20, 05:25 PM

A well played rogue.

Toadkiller

2016-05-20, 05:29 PM

JellyPooga

2016-05-20, 06:04 PM

Level 1 barbarian, level 2 moon druid. He won't ever die.

You don't have to kill a PC to defeat them...

Notafish

2016-05-20, 06:07 PM

Dip into another player's class that steals their thunder. (Looking at you Warlock 2/X)

Cheese can be dealt with one way or another. But a character that makes another player's time at the table less fun isn't any good.

Note- not all dips are created equal. There are of course ways to dip without stealing someone else's fun.

I hadn't expected multiclassing to be a source of unhappiness, but I think everyone has to be on the same page with it. I had one player (a rogue) who was not on board at all with other players having sneak attack. It took me completely by surprise as the DM.

Gastronomie

2016-05-20, 06:09 PM

I don't hate any particular builds (honesty, get over it), but as others aforementioned, I would hate to DM a player who doesn't consider his character a human being and not role-play at all. Not that I've actually met one (the communities I've played in are pretty darn nice).

Hrugner

2016-05-20, 06:31 PM

The sorcerer/warlock/paladin smite factory sounds really tedious. Also any build that includes a warlock camping in a bubble of darkness most encounters as I'd need to worry how to keep the effectively blind players engaged in those same encounters. Oh yes, and anyone who just collects rerolls.

Misterwhisper

2016-05-20, 07:14 PM

Human variant with feat Lucky.
Rogue level 1+, expertise in slight of hand and stealth.
Thief gloves, cloak and boots of elvenkind.
Bonus if he has ring of mind shielding and amulet of proof against detection.

Good luck ever finding him, or stopping him from taking whatever he wants.

Heaven forbid he gets high enough level where he gets the ability to never roll under 10 on and skill they have training in.
To make it more fun take the feat skilled at level 6 or 8, and expertise in perception and insight.

Knaight

2016-05-20, 07:42 PM

thebiglost1

2016-05-20, 07:45 PM

Misterwhisper

2016-05-20, 07:46 PM

It would take a full party, but if everyone in the party optimized for defense while simultaneously having terrible offensive abilities I would get somewhat annoyed. That's a perfect recipe for dragging combat out longer, and 5e takes long enough for my taste as it is.

That is something I never have understood about 5e, they base the game on 6+ encounters a session... every game I have played in 18 years of gaming was lucky if there was one fight every 4 or 5 sessions. Encountering a room of 3 goblins at level 4 is not an encounter, it is a waste of time that could be spend doing something useful.

JakOfAllTirades

2016-05-20, 08:12 PM

I just tell everyone up front that Wild Magic is OUT. I've never liked the concept and the mechanics make it even worse.

ProphetSword

2016-05-20, 08:18 PM

I would hate to have a level 10+ Cleric in my game, because then I'd have to figure out what to do with his (putative) god whenever he invokes Divine Intervention.

I mean, I'm confident that I'd work something out, but I'd hate having to deal with it because gods and player agency in D&D don't mix.

I've got a level 17 Cleric in the campaign I've been DMing. Despite multiple attempts to use Divine Intervention, it has not once worked since the player got it.

So far, his calls have gone completely unanswered.

Naanomi

2016-05-20, 08:19 PM

Belac93

2016-05-20, 09:01 PM

Imagine the poor DM who would have to deal with every character type on this list.

MaxWilson

2016-05-20, 09:24 PM

Most builds are only really obnoxious with an equally obnoxious player behind them. Two examples:

~Stealth intensive rogue/druid who scouted in small animal forms. Great, except the character/player was a huge coward, and ran and hid anytime things started to look like they would go bad... leaving the other characters to die or at least forcing them to retreat anytime things went bad. You shouldn't be proud you 'helped at least one person survive three potential TPKs'
~A warlock dip who wanted to use darkness/devil's sight to solve every problem.. demanding a short rest after every fight to recharge his 'unstoppable move' and always flabbergasted/irate when it didn't single-handedly win every fight

Both would have been fine builds if not for the players behind them

Oh wow, that sounds awful.

I'll add another: treacherous players who think it is fun to have their PCs keep secrets from and betray other PCs in the middle of combat "because that's what my character would do [according to his backstory which nobody has read or cares about]".

There's a certain context in which PCs can be jerks to each other without it getting on the players' nerves--that's not what I'm talking about--but when one player is feeling bad because he just got surprise-ganked by a supposed friend, and the other player is hiding behind "that's what my character would do" as an excuse... that is no fun to DM for or to be around.

INDYSTAR188

2016-05-20, 09:32 PM

For me its a sharpshooter, flying archer type. I would have a hard time coming up with creative ways to plan for that without feeling like I'm being unfair.

I agree with minion-mancer 'types'.

Naanomi

2016-05-20, 09:44 PM

There's a certain context in which PCs can be jerks to each other without it getting on the players' nerves--that's not what I'm talking about--but when one player is feeling bad because he just got surprise-ganked by a supposed friend, and the other player is hiding behind "that's what my character would do" as an excuse... that is no fun to DM for or to be around.
Bad players are always worse than bad characters...

Lets see... the world's worst party, built with people I've played with in the past (heck, some I still play with sometimes...)

1) A bad power-gamer who throws a fit anytime his 'brilliant unbeatable strategy' doesn't pan out, argues with rule interpretations on the flimsiest pretext
2) The drama-master who endeavors to take the spotlight from any situation; frequently attempts to engineer 'solo adventures' or one-on-one social scenes to monopolize game-time
3) Someone barely paying attention, possibly stoned. May fall asleep at the table.
4) The guy who consistently harms other party members/derail the plot because 'it's what his character would do'... Chaotic Neutral; so they can justify 'lol-random anything' they want as 'in character'

**Bonus points for anyone consistently late to game or has to leave early
**Extra points for anyone related to/dating the GM

MaxWilson

2016-05-20, 10:02 PM

Inspired by the comment about "bad powergamers", I must admit:

My pet peeve: people who call themselves "powergamers" but don't actually know how to wargame or powergame effectively and know zero about tactics, calculating outcomes, or adapting to adverse circumstances/bad luck. To these people, "powergaming" means "rolling high stats and getting magic items," which is more properly referred to as "munchkin" not "powergaming."

It's fun to have non-powergamers around too, but only if they don't try to claim the powergaming mantle inappropriately.

Foxhound438

2016-05-20, 10:03 PM

**Extra points for anyone related to/dating the GM

THAT ONE

Anyhow, the absolute most annoying ones i've played with as a player have strangely all been CX halfling rogues

they're like the Riven of 5e.

Foxhound438

2016-05-20, 10:06 PM

My pet peeve: people who call themselves "powergamers" but don't actually know how to wargame or powergame effectively and know zero about tactics, calculating outcomes, or adapting to adverse circumstances/bad luck. To these people, "powergaming" means "rolling high stats and getting magic items," which is more properly referred to as "munchkin" not "powergaming."

my face when someone does this

http://www.bloodygoodhorror.com/bgh/files/reviews/caps/vampires-kiss.jpg

although I would say that "I buy gauntlets of ogre str" in any campaign where buying x magic item from a shop is allowed is a pretty solid move

mgshamster

2016-05-20, 10:25 PM

The only builds I can't stand, as a player or GM, are the ones designed for solo play in a group setting. I really don't care what kind of player you have, but it must want to be with this group on this adventure.

This likely has more to do with the player than the character.

For example, I once played with a person who built an enchantress character. She then proceeded to cast enchantment spells like charm person or command on the fellow PCs so she could control their characters as well as her own. If that didn't work, she (the player) would heavily flirt with the player to until they did what she wanted. If that didn't work, she (the player) would heavily berate the player until they did what she wanted. And the GM let her.

The rest of us got to sit there and watch the two of them as they gamed with our characters.

Or in a game I ran, I had a player build a character who's only desire was to not be in the current campaign, and they did whatever they could so they wouldn't have to deal with the challenges or adventures in the campaign.

If you're going to join a group and be a part of a social game like D&D, then you should be playing a character that wants to be with the group, and you should be playing a character that wants to be on the adventure the GM is running. If you don't, then why are you playing this adventure or this game?

Specter

2016-05-20, 11:24 PM

Hrugner

2016-05-20, 11:28 PM

**Extra points for anyone related to/dating the GM

blegh, it's been years since I had to deal with this now(3/4 of my main group are married), but the breakup was almost worse than the dating. I don't know why DMs need to break up with a game just because they broke up with one of the party members, but it seems to happen often.

Logosloki

2016-05-21, 12:21 AM

Minionmancy. Because i hate the extra work it entails. Especially if there is more than one minionmancer.

Knaight

2016-05-21, 09:02 AM

blegh, it's been years since I had to deal with this now(3/4 of my main group are married), but the breakup was almost worse than the dating. I don't know why DMs need to break up with a game just because they broke up with one of the party members, but it seems to happen often.

I've never seen an issue with this, and I've been in plenty of games where the GM was dating a player (including as a GM). Granted, in every case the people involved were friends for a fairly long while before they started dating, so that might have changed the dynamic, but still.

The related "issue" with relatives has been similar. Bringing younger siblings to the game is a time honored tradition in my RPG circles, and it has never caused problems.

mgshamster

2016-05-21, 10:14 AM

I've never seen an issue with this, and I've been in plenty of games where the GM was dating a player (including as a GM). Granted, in every case the people involved were friends for a fairly long while before they started dating, so that might have changed the dynamic, but still.

The related "issue" with relatives has been similar. Bringing younger siblings to the game is a time honored tradition in my RPG circles, and it has never caused problems.

I've only seen it where the sibling or significant other of the GM has caused problems, but the GM won't do anything about (or actively supports it) because of the relationship.

The above scenario I described where the player was casting charm spells on the other PCs in order to control the other players' characters - her husband was the GM.

I've also been in a game (different group than the above) where the GM set up an adventure so his gf was the main character, and everyone else were just supporting characters. She had different character creation rules, she got all the magic items, her decisions were the only ones that mattered, we were all just side characters. Sometimes the two of them would play on weekday nights, so when we showed up for the weekend game, the story would skip ahead based on the game play they did during the week. This may be fine for some people (especially if it's advertised how this will be ahead of time), but most of us quit that game after a few sessions.

GraakosGraakos

2016-05-21, 10:47 AM

Obnoxious "Chaotic" or "Evil" characters that don't think of how being lawless or selfish actually work. Same for Lawful Stupid or Stupid Good characters. People that think "it's my alignment" means you can make absolutely idiotic decisions and expect to be rewarded.

X3r4ph

2016-05-21, 11:25 AM

I've got a level 17 Cleric in the campaign I've been DMing. Despite multiple attempts to use Divine Intervention, it has not once worked since the player got it.

So far, his calls have gone completely unanswered.
Isn't it just an effect equal to a spell? Basically the clerics God will mimic a spell once a week. Seems pretty harmless to me.

X3r4ph

2016-05-21, 11:34 AM

Tanarii

2016-05-21, 11:45 AM

But a well planned party will likely find ways to get their long rests fairly often.
This view assumes that long rests are under control of the players, and not the dm. Edit: not trying to say they should be or anything like that. I'm just saying that I've played (and run) games where if the players get a rest is completely under the DMs control. Even more so since 4e/5e rest mechanics came out, since it's easy enough to say 'yeah you stopped, but that's not a mechanical rest'.

X3r4ph

2016-05-21, 11:58 AM

This view assumes that long rests are under control of the players, and not the dm. you are totally right about this of course. However, for the sake of balance and versimilitude, the DM has to really really think about this when designing an adventure. I mean, sometimes a bedroll is enough for a long rest, but sometimes it ain't, just for the sake of getting encounters right. This is potential really harmful to the immersion.
Thank God for the BBEGs with Dream, random encounters while resting, and sudden bad weather to help with rest interruption.

monkey3

2016-05-21, 01:34 PM

Anything with 2 Warlock levels for multiclass.

This (we have one currently).
Also Moon-druid (same player, earlier campaign)

MaxWilson

2016-05-21, 02:36 PM

From my experience the powerfulness of a great weapon master bear Totem barbarian completely skewes encounters.
To challenge this beast, encounters has to be deadly or worse, killing off regular characters en masse.
Of course, one can blame my group for having too many long rests, meaning the barbarian always had rages left. But a well planned party will likely find ways to get their long rests fairly often.

This is hard to imagine, because he's a melee warrior, and melee warriors are easy to challenge. A pair of CR 1/2 Magma Mephits will challenge this guy (they just fly overhead and nuke him with Heat Metal and breathe fire on him) and it will be up to everyone else in the party with ranged weapons to save the day. Ditto for four hobgoblins spaced out in the corners of a 100' square. (If the barbarian gets near one of them, that hobgoblin will pull out his longsword and begin to Dodge while the other hobgoblins keep shooting; even if he kills the one, he still has to spend at least one round Dashing to get to the next hobgoblin, so they get in lots of free hits.)

Furthermore, he's a barbarian, which means he relies on rage, which means almost any enemy can shut down his rage by just not attacking him for a round while also withdrawing out of range. The hobgoblins, for example--if he Dashes one round and they decide to shoot at another PC, his Rage dissipates. Next round they start shooting at him again and do full damage unless he burns another Rage. Same thing if a Giant Spider snares him in a Web and then retreats (taking an opportunity attack)--the Barbarian's next turn has to be spending his action on getting out of Web, not attacking and not taking damage, which means Rage dissipates, unless he's at least 15th level.

I'm not saying you should do all these things to the barbarian every combat--you shouldn't deliberately make him feel useless--but if you are trying to make him feel useless, it's pretty easy given how limited he is. And that's why I hate playing single-classed barbarians.

X3r4ph

2016-05-21, 03:30 PM

This is hard to imagine, because he's a melee warrior, and melee warriors are easy to challenge. A pair of CR 1/2 Magma Mephits will challenge this guy (they just fly overhead and nuke him with Heat Metal and breathe fire on him) and it will be up to everyone else in the party with ranged weapons to save the day. Ditto for four hobgoblins spaced out in the corners of a 100' square. (If the barbarian gets near one of them, that hobgoblin will pull out his longsword and begin to Dodge while the other hobgoblins keep shooting; even if he kills the one, he still has to spend at least one round Dashing to get to the next hobgoblin, so they get in lots of free hits.)

Furthermore, he's a barbarian, which means he relies on rage, which means almost any enemy can shut down his rage by just not attacking him for a round while also withdrawing out of range. The hobgoblins, for example--if he Dashes one round and they decide to shoot at another PC, his Rage dissipates. Next round they start shooting at him again and do full damage unless he burns another Rage. Same thing if a Giant Spider snares him in a Web and then retreats (taking an opportunity attack)--the Barbarian's next turn has to be spending his action on getting out of Web, not attacking and not taking damage, which means Rage dissipates, unless he's at least 15th level.

I'm not saying you should do all these things to the barbarian every combat--you shouldn't deliberately make him feel useless--but if you are trying to make him feel useless, it's pretty easy given how limited he is. And that's why I hate playing single-classed barbarians.I am not saying it is impossible to challenge the barbarian, but these tactics becomes old pretty fast. Encounters becomes tailored to challenge him specifically instead of challenging the entire party.

I am in a group where we take turns being the DM and we all agree that we have to take special attention to the damn barbarian when designing encounters. The rest of the group is fairly balanced and with our death toll we have tried a lot of different classes. We will reach level 11 soon and I am thrilled to see a power shift towards the casters. Just to experience something new.

The day he gets dominated, the rest of the group is minced meat. Good thing our divination wizard has potent and counterspell. :)

MaxWilson

2016-05-21, 04:31 PM

I am not saying it is impossible to challenge the barbarian, but these tactics becomes old pretty fast. Encounters becomes tailored to challenge him specifically instead of challenging the entire party.

I am in a group where we take turns being the DM and we all agree that we have to take special attention to the ---- barbarian when designing encounters. The rest of the group is fairly balanced and with our death toll we have tried a lot of different classes. We will reach level 11 soon and I am thrilled to see a power shift towards the casters. Just to experience something new.

The day he gets dominated, the rest of the group is minced meat. Good thing our divination wizard has potent and counterspell. :)

But that's what I'm saying--you don't have to tailor encounters to challenge him specifically. In some ways you have to tailor encounters to him to make him useful. There are so many scenarios where a melee warrior isn't useful in 5E, which is why I would hate to play a Barbarian.

It may be that you guys are habitually tailoring your encounters in a certain way that makes melee combat stronger, and that the Barbarian is designed to take advantage of that. In which case I would say, don't change that just for him, just let the Barbarian be awesome a lot of the time instead of changing your style in mid-campaign.

But for the next campaign you might consider a wider variety of situations. Some enemies should be speedy and sneaky like goblins (Barbarian would have a tough time with them), others should be mounted on horses like Mongols (my hobgoblins are often mounted), others should be enormous brutes like T-Rexes, others should come in terrifying hordes (dozens of Slaads, like an infestation from James Cameron's movie Aliens), some should be spellcasters backed by mooks (drow warriors with mage or priestess support), some should be death knights flying around on the backs of nightmares/gryphons, some should be terrifying intelligent solos (spellcasting dragons), some should be vicious demons (teleporting Nycaloths employing Darkness spells for advantage), some should be apparently-friendly creatures hiding hostility behind illusions and deception, etc. Some enemies should be fought in underground dungeons, some on the high seas, some on the open steppes, and some in the air.

If you want to experience "something new", it's not the barbarian's fault. It's your metagame that is samey. Of the things I listed above, a melee barbarian isn't even effective against about half of them. You don't have to tailor things to the barbarian if you just change up the variety in the campaign.

But, I don't mean to beat a dead horse. I understand why you are tired of the barbarian, and I hope the change you speak of (level 11, all the spellcasters levelling up) makes it more fun for you.

WhiteEagle88

2016-05-21, 07:01 PM

Minionmancy. Because i hate the extra work it entails. Especially if there is more than one minionmancer.

I dm'd this game back in 3.5. Party was a bard, a conjurer and a necromancer. Worst part: they wanted me to control all their minions for them, so they each took a turn, the badguys took a turn then I would take like 16 turns for all the monsterous centipedes, ogre zombies, skeletons ect.

MrStabby

2016-05-21, 09:45 PM

People with characters for a different type of game - particularly innapropriate diplomancers.

Halfling Lore bard max cha, expertese in social skills, actor etc. can be a real pain. Either you set your campaign DCs so high that no one else can do anything, you tailor DCs to the character so you nerf one particular player, you make persuasion etc. very limited in what it can do so remove some fun from the ability or you let one player have a disproportionatly profound strategic effect on the whole campaign by effectively enchanting NPCs at will.

Also I second hating minions. A druid with a couple of bears is bad enough but a necromancer who just wants the biggest army possible is a real pain.

NewDM

2016-05-21, 10:06 PM

Any caster past level 10.

Hrugner

2016-05-21, 10:31 PM

Moo, I'm Human

2016-05-21, 11:56 PM

People who misuse/misunderstand the condition "Charmed" and it's power. :smallannoyed:
People who have to check the rulebook every time they cast a spell.:smallmad:
Warlocks that blast forever :smallfurious:

Tanarii

2016-05-22, 12:00 AM

People who misuse/misunderstand the condition "Charmed" and it's power. :smallannoyed:conversly: people that think the Charmed condition (used properly per RAW) is weak and/or useless in 5e.

Gastronomie

2016-05-22, 12:49 AM

I just realized there's actually one specific PC build I would hate to have in my game.

Four-Elements Monk. The original version in the Player's Handbook, not a fan-made revised version.

Because it's difficult to make him feel special.

MaxWilson

2016-05-22, 01:33 AM

conversly: people that think the Charmed condition (used properly per RAW) is weak and/or useless in 5e.

[raised eyebrows]

Aside from the "can't attack charmer" clause, inflicting the Charmed condition is inferior to the 2nd level spell Enhance Ability (Charisma), which gives advantage on Charisma checks against everyone, not just the charmed creature. It's not useless but it's pretty weak--less powerful than Persuasion Expertise.

Drackolus

2016-05-22, 04:10 AM

People with characters for a different type of game - particularly innapropriate diplomancers.

Halfling Lore bard max cha, expertese in social skills, actor etc. can be a real pain. Either you set your campaign DCs so high that no one else can do anything, you tailor DCs to the character so you nerf one particular player, you make persuasion etc. very limited in what it can do so remove some fun from the ability or you let one player have a disproportionatly profound strategic effect on the whole campaign by effectively enchanting NPCs at will.

In real life, you can talk your way out of some situations and not others. The "face" has been a traditional member of the adventuring party for as long as "healer" and "trap-disarmer."

That seems as odd as saying rogues are disruptive because the barbarian can't pick locks.

Kryx

2016-05-22, 04:45 AM

Bardbarian grapple build. Expertise + Rage = never fail at grapples. Probably the most boring CC build.

NewDM

2016-05-22, 06:34 AM

Any Rogue/Bard build that is better at Religion than the Cleric or better at Athletics than the Fighter/Barbarian or better at Arcana than the Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock through the use of expertise.

smcmike

2016-05-22, 06:45 AM

wunderkid

2016-05-22, 08:06 AM

Any Rogue/Bard build that is better at Religion than the Cleric or better at Athletics than the Fighter/Barbarian or better at Arcana than the Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock through the use of expertise.

If you've taken a class feature in religion then you deserve to be better than the cleric. 99% of rogues however I can see taking expertise in stealth, perception, deception or persuasion. If they sac one of these for an expertise elsewhere (bar grappling shenanigans) then fair play to them being better.

I'm playing a rogue/bard at the moment and I can assure you what I've lost in combat capabilities for having dual expertise (stealth, sleight of hand, deception and persuasion) more than balances out.

If I dipped two levels into wizard for portent I'd have even more crazy shenanigans. But I don't see this being any worse than what a caster could do.

Expertise does strain bounded accuracy. But it still doesn't guarantee success. It just tips the scales a maximum of 30% in your favor.

Fable Wright

2016-05-22, 08:39 AM

For example, I once played with a person who built an enchantress character. She then proceeded to cast enchantment spells like charm person or command on the fellow PCs so she could control their characters as well as her own. If that didn't work, she (the player) would heavily flirt with the player to until they did what she wanted. If that didn't work, she (the player) would heavily berate the player until they did what she wanted. And the GM let her.

See, this is one of the few occasions where PvP is justified. The moon druid gnome takes a long look at the enchantress, says "You just used hostile mind control magic on me," and then turns into a bear and defends himself. Because the other PC is a hostile force at this point.

The above scenario I described where the player was casting charm spells on the other PCs in order to control the other players' characters - her husband was the GM.

...Though this would complicate the above significantly, yes. Now I can see why that option wasn't tried.

As for one thing I would hate to be in my game... I honestly can't think of anything that bad in 5e in terms of one or two classed characters. They tend to be able to do something, and I like putting them in situations where escape is sometimes truly the best option, which means the PCs will constantly be using every resource at their disposal. I guess that I would really not want to see a Four Elements Monk 3/Fighter 1/Evoker 2/Druid 1/Ranger 1/Dragon Sorcerer 2 build, because I would feel pain every time I looked at that character sheet, but the character isn't going to last long at all, so it's not that bad.

Oh, wait. There is another thing. A Druid 5/Conjurer 14. That player built his character for exactly one thing, and that's summoning a horde of 64 wolves each with 30 bonus hit points, and whose concentration cannot break. Do not want to DM for that guy. Ever.

Asmotherion

2016-05-22, 09:24 AM

Honestly, as a dm I'm more concered about RP. A stereotypical paladin or cleric of pelor anoyes me the most, as I like having my players work with all kinds of alignments and make unpropable alliances. Heck, my standard for a secondary antagonist (like a team rocket of sorts) is a party of those characters who judge the PCs for their choices and decide that they are dangerous for their morality and need to be gone. Those Lawfull good self righteous Pellor worshipers. -_-

For Neverwinter Nights 2 players, remember when you allied yourselves with a ranger that was kind of a social darwinist and believed the weak need to suffer for it is their punishment for being weak? How about latter, when you were working with a lawful evil warlock who literally sold his soul to (the) a devil in order to aquire greater power? And all that, ironically for the greater good? Well, that's the kind of game I like to put my players through :)

MrStabby

2016-05-22, 09:43 AM

In real life, you can talk your way out of some situations and not others. The "face" has been a traditional member of the adventuring party for as long as "healer" and "trap-disarmer."

That seems as odd as saying rogues are disruptive because the barbarian can't pick locks.

Pretty much as disruptive. If the rogue picking locks had a 40 minute converstion about how they were getting the lock to open whilst everyone else stood around bored. If there were no other skills to get past locks - no ability to force lock or dropping a chest of a cliff. If picking locks didnt arrouse suspicion, if there was a whole population of locks out there that could give a huge range of treasure, manipulate plots, control characters...

Tanarii

2016-05-22, 10:01 AM

[raised eyebrows]

Aside from the "can't attack charmer" clause, inflicting the Charmed condition is inferior to the 2nd level spell Enhance Ability (Charisma), which gives advantage on Charisma checks against everyone, not just the charmed creature. It's not useless but it's pretty weak--less powerful than Persuasion Expertise.Enhance Ability (Charisma) takes a spell slot, requires concentration, has limited duration, and can be dispelled. Charmed is a condition, some (or in at least one case none) of those may apply, depending on how it comes about.

And it stacks with Expertise, so that's a moot point.

Jeebs

2016-05-22, 10:20 AM

I know you asked for specifics, but my least favorite builds tend to be Multiclass combos that slow down or simply weaken a PC. Usually people who think they need to MC like they did in 3.5 without thinking it through.

I don't like having to compensate for serious differences in power.

Cybren

2016-05-22, 10:28 AM

[raised eyebrows]

Aside from the "can't attack charmer" clause, inflicting the Charmed condition is inferior to the 2nd level spell Enhance Ability (Charisma), which gives advantage on Charisma checks against everyone, not just the charmed creature. It's not useless but it's pretty weak--less powerful than Persuasion Expertise.

you should also be respecting the fictional positioning that charmed entails. You don't have to make it mean "mind controlled and my slave", but charmed implies within the game world different things than "enhanced ability: charisma". Naturally, that's not useful in an abstract powergame evaluation but it is relevant within the game itself

Buckingham

2016-05-22, 10:30 AM

The one character who cast’s magical darkness and has devil’s sight = he/she is the only one in melee. Rest of the party standing by.

X3r4ph

2016-05-22, 10:38 AM

The one character who cast’s magical darkness and has devil’s sight = he/she is the only one in melee. Rest of the party standing by.
Yeah, we have that guy. Everybody told him that he has to fight alone if he drops the darkness blob. As a DM I don't mind too much. But the group hates that strategy. Now a few have taken the daylight spell to remove it if he becomes annoying. :)

NewDM

2016-05-22, 11:01 AM

If you've taken a class feature in religion then you deserve to be better than the cleric. 99% of rogues however I can see taking expertise in stealth, perception, deception or persuasion. If they sac one of these for an expertise elsewhere (bar grappling shenanigans) then fair play to them being better.

I'm playing a rogue/bard at the moment and I can assure you what I've lost in combat capabilities for having dual expertise (stealth, sleight of hand, deception and persuasion) more than balances out.

If I dipped two levels into wizard for portent I'd have even more crazy shenanigans. But I don't see this being any worse than what a caster could do.

Expertise does strain bounded accuracy. But it still doesn't guarantee success. It just tips the scales a maximum of 30% in your favor.

And why doesn't the Cleric have Expertise in Religion automatically? Whey doesn't the Wizard (at least) have Expertise in Arcana? Why doesn't the Fighter have Expertise in Athletics or Acrobatics (their choice at 2nd level)? Why doesn't the Barbarian have Expertise in Athletics while raging?

Its just ignorant that the Rogue and Bard can achieve a higher level of ability than the classes whose main focus is those skills.

you should also be respecting the fictional positioning that charmed entails. You don't have to make it mean "mind controlled and my slave", but charmed implies within the game world different things than "enhanced ability: charisma". Naturally, that's not useful in an abstract powergame evaluation but it is relevant within the game itself

Situation: "The guard is blocking the way to the Bards performance that you must get into."
Charmed: "Wow, you're my best friend and I might lose my job if they find out, but I'll let you in this once, at least until the charmed condition wears off and then I'm coming after you with a contingent of guards."
Expertise+Enhance Ability Charisma+Charisma(+5): "You are so awesome. They should be holding a show for you. I'll let you and your entire party in and I won't come after you because I still think you are awesome even after you walk away!"

Thrudd

2016-05-22, 11:03 AM

I would not like to have any PC that "dips" in a multiclass for mechanical/power reasons. I would seriously debate not allowing multiclassing at all. If I allowed it at all there would need to be an in-world, in-character reason for it and a significant period of training, with a teacher, for the character to achieve a level in a completely new profession.

A player that wants to "refluff" a class or ability to be something else, because they don't want to be limited by whatever balances the game has designed for that class or ability, or hope to use verisimilitude to argue for later changes to their abilities outside what the class normally allows (and which is inevitably an improvement over what characters normally have at that level).

Otherwise, any "build" that is by-the-book and doesn't use multiclass dipping is fine by me.

Cybren

2016-05-22, 11:04 AM

Situation: "The guard is blocking the way to the Bards performance that you must get into."
Charmed: "Wow, you're my best friend and I might lose my job if they find out, but I'll let you in this once, at least until the charmed condition wears off and then I'm coming after you with a contingent of guards."
Expertise+Enhance Ability Charisma+Charisma(+5): "You are so awesome. They should be holding a show for you. I'll let you and your entire party in and I won't come after you because I still think you are awesome even after you walk away!"

Those are not at all analogous situations. You're comparing one thing to three things.

Buckingham

2016-05-22, 11:07 AM

Yeah, we have that guy. Everybody told him that he has to fight alone if he drops the darkness blob. As a DM I don't mind too much. But the group hates that strategy. Now a few have taken the daylight spell to remove it if he becomes annoying. :)

That's funny but as a DM I hated it.

It ruined the gameflow for the rest of the party because the encounters had a lot of consequences for the story, and the teamwork became nonexistence. So I played on his pact and set him in a dilemma with his demon overlord. Which resulted in he had his devil’s sight removed and he gained sunlight sensitivity as a final warning from his overlord.

Tanarii

2016-05-22, 11:10 AM

wunderkid

2016-05-22, 11:25 AM

The one character who cast’s magical darkness and has devil’s sight = he/she is the only one in melee. Rest of the party standing by.

This shouldn't be as much of a problem as that.

Darkness is nasty but remember for allies they can't see the opponent so they get disadvantage. The opponents also can't see them so they get Advantage.

This nicely cancels each other out so your party members should be attacking as normal.

The only problem it causes is for example a barbarian wanting to reckless attack. Because one instance of disadvantage cancells out all advantages (personally I find this silly but oh well it's the rules)

smcmike

2016-05-22, 11:33 AM

And why doesn't the Cleric have Expertise in Religion automatically? Whey doesn't the Wizard (at least) have Expertise in Arcana? Why doesn't the Fighter have Expertise in Athletics or Acrobatics (their choice at 2nd level)? Why doesn't the Barbarian have Expertise in Athletics while raging?

Its just ignorant that the Rogue and Bard can achieve a higher level of ability than the classes whose main focus is those skills

I still don't see what this general design complaint has to do with this thread. Why would this bug you as a DM, unless your bizarre religious rogue is lording his slightly better skill checks over your cleric and making him jealous? Is this something that happens?

I would not like to have any PC that "dips" in a multiclass for mechanical/power reasons. I would seriously debate not allowing multiclassing at all. If I allowed it at all there would need to be an in-world, in-character reason for it and a significant period of training, with a teacher, for the character to achieve a level in a completely new profession.

A player that wants to "refluff" a class or ability to be something else, because they don't want to be limited by whatever balances the game has designed for that class or ability, or hope to use verisimilitude to argue for later changes to their abilities outside what the class normally allows (and which is inevitably an improvement over what characters normally have at that level).

Otherwise, any "build" that is by-the-book and doesn't use multiclass dipping is fine by me.

Oh man, no fun at all. "By the book builds only please!" Most refluffing is just for roleplaying, not power gaming. Or to get around artificial restrictions on multiclassing, I guess.

smcmike

2016-05-22, 11:41 AM

How about Sir Rollsalot.

Diviner 2/Wild Magic Sorcerer 6/Lore Bard 12.

Add in Lucky and make him a halfling. Also, the player is indecisive and/or slow.

Basically, any time anyone does anything, the player says "wait, let me think!"

Asmotherion

2016-05-22, 11:59 AM

That's funny but as a DM I hated it.

It ruined the gameflow for the rest of the party because the encounters had a lot of consequences for the story, and the teamwork became nonexistence. So I played on his pact and set him in a dilemma with his demon overlord. Which resulted in he had his devil’s sight removed and he gained sunlight sensitivity as a final warning from his overlord.

Don't punish players for out of the box thinking. >_> Unless you specifically asked for a non optimisation campain, you should rather reward your player for having an awesome character, and encourage the others to do the same.

NewDM

2016-05-22, 12:10 PM

Because those are optional skills for those classes, and not a required feature for them to function. They don't even have to be proficient in them at all, let alone an expert.

The class is for the hands-on & self-taught. Clerics don't need any training in Religion just faith. Wizards not in Arcana, just in rote memorization of some specific spells. Fighters don't need in Athletics or Arcobatics, they train to Fight. And Barbarians hey advantage on Strength checks while raging, so you kinda got what you wanted there.

No, those skills are what those classes are about. In any other edition they were the go to class for those kinds of checks. Now any check the Rogue/Bard is the go to class. Its just nonsensical. Its also the fact that its a single class feature that can make the Rogue/Bard better at both Religion AND Arcana at the same time. It would be different if they had to invest heavily in it to do that like choosing a background and a feat, but instead they are just better.

I still don't see what this general design complaint has to do with this thread. Why would this bug you as a DM, unless your bizarre religious rogue is lording his slightly better skill checks over your cleric and making him jealous? Is this something that happens?

See above, but in the end that's generally what happens.

DM "The statue is of a lordly figure wielding a Great Sword rimmed with Sulfurous flame. Its crown is plain but also fashioned into its helm."
Players all turn to the Cleric
Cleric rolls and gets a 10 "This looks like a statue of some religious figure."
Rogue rolls and gets a 10 "This is the Lord of Flame, son of Lord Gwyn who rekindled the great flame. Its usually a sign of great challenge ahead."

Now do you see?

Belac93

2016-05-22, 12:23 PM

I agree with the players who multiclass for pure optimization. If you want to do it to supplement your concept, I'm totally fine with that. So, if your highly religious sorcerer wants to multiclass into a cleric, I'm good with that. Or even if your weapon-wielding monk wants to take a couple levels in fighter for a fighting style and maybe some maneuvers, that's fine too. But no Warlock 2 dips with no warning. If you can say: "I want to make a deal with this Archfey we just worked for," I'm cool with that.

Kryx

2016-05-22, 12:59 PM

Don't punish players for out of the box thinking. >_> Unless you specifically asked for a non optimisation campain, you should rather reward your player for having an awesome character, and encourage the others to do the same.
Devil's Sight + Darkness is not creative. It has been debated hundreds of times dating back to older editions. I'm in full agreement with Buckingham that it is not fun for everyone who isn't that player.

I alter Devil's sight to be similar to the Devils in the monster manual:

You gain darkvision out to a range of 60 feet. If you already have darkvision, its range increases by 60 feet. Magical darkness doesn't impede your darkvision.
This version at least still makes it dim light (though that has no impact on attacks, just perception).

wunderkid

2016-05-22, 01:05 PM

No, those skills are what those classes are about. In any other edition they were the go to class for those kinds of checks. Now any check the Rogue/Bard is the go to class. Its just nonsensical. Its also the fact that its a single class feature that can make the Rogue/Bard better at both Religion AND Arcana at the same time. It would be different if they had to invest heavily in it to do that like choosing a background and a feat, but instead they are just better.

See above, but in the end that's generally what happens.

DM "The statue is of a lordly figure wielding a Great Sword rimmed with Sulfurous flame. Its crown is plain but also fashioned into its helm."
Players all turn to the Cleric
Cleric rolls and gets a 10 "This looks like a statue of some religious figure."
Rogue rolls and gets a 10 "This is the Lord of Flame, son of Lord Gwyn who rekindled the great flame. Its usually a sign of great challenge ahead."

Now do you see?

I really don't see the issue. Any Rogue that dumps both of their expertises into that deserves to be better. You're suggesting the cleric gets it for free?

A rogue that has taken expertise in religion is the book worm. He isn't gods chosen. The cleric was out and about doing gods work with his divine powers while the rogue read up on the God.

The best real world analogy i can think of is how a fan can have a much greater knowledge of facts and statistics than a professional football player.

comk59

2016-05-22, 01:16 PM

The best real world analogy i can think of is how a fan can have a much greater knowledge of facts and statistics than a professional football player.

See, this is the perfect explanation for why I have no problems with rogues knowing stuff.

Honestly, sometimes I wished that they had called the Rogue class an Expert, and renamed Sneak Attack to something like Deadly Precision. It wouldn't have changed diddly-squat about how the class functions, but it would've stopped people from getting into a "Rogues gotta be sneaky" mindset

Naanomi

2016-05-22, 01:16 PM

Besides, while someone may have complaints that a rogue beats a wizard in Arcana knowledge (or whatever)... Lore Bards seem to be the most likely pursing such options and seem perfectly reasonable to know more about... Anything... Than anyone else

solidork

2016-05-22, 01:46 PM

Buckingham

2016-05-22, 02:06 PM

This shouldn't be as much of a problem as that.

Darkness is nasty but remember for allies they can't see the opponent so they get disadvantage. The opponents also can't see them so they get Advantage.

This nicely cancels each other out so your party members should be attacking as normal.

The only problem it causes is for example a barbarian wanting to reckless attack. Because one instance of disadvantage cancells out all advantages (personally I find this silly but oh well it's the rules)

A solo character in our party didn’t work. Combat in magical darkness where everybody got disadvantage besides him was not to looked well upon. Even worse was it completely crippled the in-game mechanics between the players.

wunderkid

2016-05-22, 02:09 PM

See, this is the perfect explanation for why I have no problems with rogues knowing stuff.

Honestly, sometimes I wished that they had called the Rogue class an Expert, and renamed Sneak Attack to something like Deadly Precision. It wouldn't have changed diddly-squat about how the class functions, but it would've stopped people from getting into a "Rogues gotta be sneaky" mindset

Yep and if the cleric takes a 1 level dip into rogue that shows them taking a break from doing gods work to learn more about him. Doing some dedicated research.

I do like the suggestion that the Rogue be named the expert.because the Rogue doesn't need to be roguey.

Buckingham

2016-05-22, 02:18 PM

Don't punish players for out of the box thinking. >_> Unless you specifically asked for a non optimisation campain, you should rather reward your player for having an awesome character, and encourage the others to do the same.

I won’t go as far as calling it “outside the box” thinking. Rather, it was a weak attempt to give a character a gimmick, which was on the expense of the whole group. And I didn’t really punish him. He had a choice in-game, and went against his Pact Master, which had consequences.
Now the game mechanics are a lot better and it has improved the teamwork because now everybody has to work together as a group. Versus a solo-player and a party who don’t want to throw fireballs and call lightning into the blob of darkmatter.

wunderkid

2016-05-22, 02:28 PM

A solo character in our party didn’t work. Combat in magical darkness where everybody got disadvantage besides him was not to looked well upon. Even worse was it completely crippled the in-game mechanics between the players.

I can't see how it crippled them? They weren't getting disadvantage unless the person in darkness could see through it too? In which case the lock should drop it.

But as I said you get disadvantage from darkness. And advantage because they can't see you so it cancells out. No disadvantage.

Buckingham

2016-05-22, 02:39 PM

I can't see how it crippled them? They weren't getting disadvantage unless the person in darkness could see through it too? In which case the lock should drop it.

But as I said you get disadvantage from darkness. And advantage because they can't see you so it cancells out. No disadvantage.

In a party of 5, one had devil’s sight and frequently castes darkness. He had advantage, true. However, everybody else had disadvantage, heroes and foes.

Can’t see how it cancels out?

smcmike

2016-05-22, 02:44 PM

In a party of 5, one had devil’s sight and frequently castes darkness. He had advantage, true. However, everybody else had disadvantage heroes and foes.

Can’t see how it cancels out?

The theory is that you get disadvantage because you can't see your target, but advantage because your target can't see you, cancelling out (unless you WOULD have had advantage, in which case you lose it).

Personally, I think it's dumb and obnoxious even if it does work that way, partially because it breaks my suspension of disbelief to just attack into the darkness every fight.

wunderkid

2016-05-22, 02:49 PM

Buckingham

2016-05-22, 03:14 PM

Yeah p194/195

If you can't see your target you get disadvantage.

If your target can't see you then you get Advantage.

And Devil's Sight covers both of these.

It is kinda dumb. But it is the rules and it stops darkness Devil's Sight from shutting down the entire group

Thanks, and yeah it is dumb. By fault, guess I should have started by saying that we (friends and I) simplified it (before the whole devil’s sight and darkness frenzy began).
If you can’t see your opponent, then you have disadvantage. Nice and simple, and it works.

NewDM

2016-05-22, 03:36 PM

Are we talking about someone who is both a Rogue and a Bard? Or someone who is a Rogue OR a Bard? Because pure Rogues don't get either of those skills unless they take a background or a feat.

One or the other and yes, they get the skills from their background. They can still be better than both the Cleric and the Wizard at Religion and Arcana AT THE SAME TIME.

I wouldn't have had a problem if it would have been a feat or if it were sidelined to the "Skill Monkey" or "Explorer" Rogue/Bard Sub-class, but it wasn't. It was thrown into Rogue at what 2nd level? Yeah, you are better at Religion/Arcana than the Wizard/Cleric at 2nd level.:smallamused:

Yeah p194/195

If you can't see your target you get disadvantage.

If your target can't see you then you get Advantage.

And Devil's Sight covers both of these.

It is kinda dumb. But it is the rules and it stops darkness Devil's Sight from shutting down the entire group

Yeah, if you can't see your target you are blind and they get advantage against you. At worst it would be a regular attack roll.

Asmotherion

2016-05-22, 04:08 PM

I really don't see the issue. Any Rogue that dumps both of their expertises into that deserves to be better. You're suggesting the cleric gets it for free?

A rogue that has taken expertise in religion is the book worm. He isn't gods chosen. The cleric was out and about doing gods work with his divine powers while the rogue read up on the God.

The best real world analogy i can think of is how a fan can have a much greater knowledge of facts and statistics than a professional football player.

And some funs are cool wile other funs are hooligans? :p

wunderkid

2016-05-22, 04:16 PM

One or the other and yes, they get the skills from their background. They can still be better than both the Cleric and the Wizard at Religion and Arcana AT THE SAME TIME.

I wouldn't have had a problem if it would have been a feat or if it were sidelined to the "Skill Monkey" or "Explorer" Rogue/Bard Sub-class, but it wasn't. It was thrown into Rogue at what 2nd level? Yeah, you are better at Religion/Arcana than the Wizard/Cleric at 2nd level.:smallamused:

Yeah, if you can't see your target you are blind and they get advantage against you. At worst it would be a regular attack roll.

At first level the Rogue will be getting an extra +2.

Now if the wizards int doesn't more than make up for that I'd be incredibly surprised.

Even end game the Rogue is likely to dump int. So the Rogue will get +6 proficiency +6 expertise +1 int. 13 total

The wizard will get +6 proficiency +5 int. 11 total.

2 difference isn't exactly game breaking or OMG the Rogue is always better at Arcana than the Wizard.

And yes you're blind so are they. So they lose advantage because of disadvantage. So it's as if the darkness wasn't even there in the first place

NewDM

2016-05-22, 04:33 PM

At first level the Rogue will be getting an extra +2.

Now if the wizards int doesn't more than make up for that I'd be incredibly surprised.

Even end game the Rogue is likely to dump int. So the Rogue will get +6 proficiency +6 expertise +1 int. 13 total

The wizard will get +6 proficiency +5 int. 11 total.

2 difference isn't exactly game breaking or OMG the Rogue is always better at Arcana than the Wizard.

Unless of course the Rogue who's specifically grabbing those two skills doesn't dump them and instead pours their ASI's into them after getting dex to 20 from 18 (+2 from race). So we are talking +3 or +4 which in total is +15/+16 meaning they literally can't fail a moderate challenge and have almost no chance to fail a hard one.

Cybren

2016-05-22, 04:46 PM

I don't see a problem with rogues who want to invest in being good at knowledge being good at knowledge. Wizards have an incentive for higher int, clerics can be knowledge domain, and either can multiclass to rogue or bard

MaxWilson

2016-05-22, 04:53 PM

And yes you're blind so are they. So they lose advantage because of disadvantage. So it's as if the darkness wasn't even there in the first place

Except that now you can do things that would normally be at disadvantage, without the disadvantage. Such as throwing nets to restrain enemies for an easier kill next round (esp. if the warlock moves the Darkness sphere).

wunderkid

2016-05-22, 05:34 PM

Except that now you can do things that would normally be at disadvantage, without the disadvantage. Such as throwing nets to restrain enemies for an easier kill next round (esp. if the warlock moves the Darkness sphere).

You mean restraining them to get advantage? Which wait you already have?

My point is simply that it isn't as disruptive as people make out. It's still strong. So is Wolf barb. In fact that's stronger. I've just never seen the issue with Darkness and Devil's sight

wunderkid

2016-05-22, 05:38 PM

Unless of course the Rogue who's specifically grabbing those two skills doesn't dump them and instead pours their ASI's into them after getting dex to 20 from 18 (+2 from race). So we are talking +3 or +4 which in total is +15/+16 meaning they literally can't fail a moderate challenge and have almost no chance to fail a hard one.

And then congratulations you've built a character designed to be amazing at those skills. If you've invested that heavily you should be a guru.

While the wizard remains at full power and sacrifices nothing.

And if he really wanted to be a master of the arcane he can stop trying to increase his magical potential and spend some time studying hard (take a level in rogue/3 into bard)

Like I said football player is wizard amazing at the game (spells) vs super fan who knows all about the game (expertise) But is only an amature at playing (arcane trickster)

uraniumrooster

2016-05-22, 06:09 PM

Honestly, in this edition (so far), there aren't any PC builds that are so mechanically overpowered to have earned my hatred as a DM. Even a lot of the more overpowered material from Unearthed Arcana doesn't quite reach full-on broken status.

I would say the builds that are closest, for me, are:

1. A high level Bard or Wizard controlled by a smart player. Of any of the classes, they have the most versatile collection of tricks, spells and abilities with the most potential to derail a campaign if they so choose. Of course, most of these abilities don't come online until fairly high level, and I haven't run many campaigns that have reached that level, so it's not so bad. The concentration limitation also brings high level casters down a few notches from where they were in past editions.

2. A well-optimized Paladorc, with stupid-high AC and Saving Throws. I still wouldn't say I hate this build, but it can get frustrating. It's hard to hit them, hard to get them to fail a save, they can self heal, they can pull off high damage nova rounds several times a day, and they can use spells to be competitive with skill-monkey classes. It's basically a Mary Sue character with the mechanics to back it up, which can get frustrating for the DM (or the other players at the table).

For the most part though, I would say it's about the player behind the character. Either of the above builds are fine if the player is playing nice with the group and not actively trying to derail the campaign. The only reason I list them is because I find these builds have the potential to be mechanically disruptive to the game if the player behind them wants to be disruptive.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-05-22, 07:12 PM

And then congratulations you've built a character designed to be amazing at those skills. If you've invested that heavily you should be a guru.

While the wizard remains at full power and sacrifices nothing.

And if he really wanted to be a master of the arcane he can stop trying to increase his magical potential and spend some time studying hard (take a level in rogue/3 into bard)

Like I said football player is wizard amazing at the game (spells) vs super fan who knows all about the game (expertise) But is only an amature at playing (arcane trickster)
I just think it's kind of silly that "being good at skills" is a property of just one or two classes. The skill system is the main way characters- especially noncasters- interact with the world; it should be broadly available and well fleshed out. It shouldn't be an afterthought, something that only one person in the party needs.

But on topic, I'll add another vote for "spellcasters who don't know their spells," minionmancers, and... Not a specific build, but I despise amoral "just in it for the cash" characters. They always feel metagame-y, in a very specific "how can I get the most out of this scenario" sense. Like they're playing a video game instead of trying to portray a character. They don't care about the plot, they don't care about npcs, just gold.

NewDM

2016-05-22, 07:43 PM

And then congratulations you've built a character designed to be amazing at those skills. If you've invested that heavily you should be a guru.

While the wizard remains at full power and sacrifices nothing.

And if he really wanted to be a master of the arcane he can stop trying to increase his magical potential and spend some time studying hard (take a level in rogue/3 into bard)

Like I said football player is wizard amazing at the game (spells) vs super fan who knows all about the game (expertise) But is only an amature at playing (arcane trickster)

Again, why can't the Wizard (who is supposed to be good at arcana and magic) invest and do better than the Rogue, why do they have to learn Thieves' Cant, Sneak Attack, and Cunning Action to get Expertise? Why do they have to become a criminal to do it?

Why does the Cleric who's specific moral code denounces back stabbing and trickery have to learn the language of thieves and how to backstab people and give up lvl 20 features to be the best at Religion?

It makes no sense.

Naanomi

2016-05-22, 07:48 PM

NewDM

2016-05-22, 07:53 PM

Is this a real problem, or a conceptual one? Are lots of rogues in games you are playing taking Expertise in religion and arcana instead of stealth and perception? (Also 3 levels in Lore Bard or 1 in Knowledge Cleric can get those skills and not cost spell progression...)

I mentioned Rogue/Bard. Knowledge Cleric is limited to 4 skills, at least one of them is Religion, so there is that.

But then you have the problem of Rogue/Bard/Knoweric being able to do Nature and Arcana better than the Druid/Wizard.

Yes, its an actual problem. Especially since Rogues get 4 expertise skills and once they get Thieves' Tools and Stealth they can just spend the others on whatever they want, some do it right out of the gate though.

JNAProductions

2016-05-22, 07:57 PM

So you're saying you've observed it actually happening. That is, non-hypothetical, actual, in-game happening?

NewDM

2016-05-22, 08:00 PM

So you're saying you've observed it actually happening. That is, non-hypothetical, actual, in-game happening?

Yes, at least once in my 9 games.

JNAProductions

2016-05-22, 08:00 PM

And were your players upset?

NewDM

2016-05-22, 08:04 PM

And were your players upset?

Yep, I believe it was Arcana and one of the players was disappointed that they kept getting outdone by the Rogue on Arcana checks. It was a one shot though and it was awhile back, so I don't recall the specific circumstances.

wunderkid

2016-05-22, 08:09 PM

Again, why can't the Wizard (who is supposed to be good at arcana and magic) invest and do better than the Rogue, why do they have to learn Thieves' Cant, Sneak Attack, and Cunning Action to get Expertise? Why do they have to become a criminal to do it?

Why does the Cleric who's specific moral code denounces back stabbing and trickery have to learn the language of thieves and how to backstab people and give up lvl 20 features to be the best at Religion?

It makes no sense.

You get it level 1 and yeah you learn thieves can't too but but that's just an added bonus.

what you're after is munchkining giving classes extra features and removing the benefits of being a study class.

To you it doesn't make sense but once again I point you to the football example. You study to get Expertise.

Also you want the fluff reason?

Bard has to study for 3 levels to get enough knowledge to grant expertise.

The rogues knowing all the secrets can get it faster.

That is why to learn expertise you need to either take the shortcut and learn from the thieves. Or study with the true knowledge bearers being the lore bards.

You give up level 20 to learn. It's a sacrifice but that's what you need to do if you want to be an expert. Either be the best professional footballer or take some time out from practicing to learn the stats about it.

Naanomi

2016-05-22, 08:13 PM

A simple house rule saying expertise can only be in class skills should fix all the dissonance if it really bothers you

LVOD

2016-05-22, 08:22 PM

MrStabby

2016-05-22, 08:49 PM

As far as the expertise debate goes, it sounds to me like the issue isn't actually the rogue/bard being good at a nontraditional thing, its that they're undermining the abilities of another player. I can definitely see how that could be frustrating.

If a rogue wants to have the acolyte background (to get some religion knowlege) and play a character whos really interested in religion as a concept, kudos.

... But if there's a character already filling that role, then the rogue is stepping on the toes of an ally which is just silly. Players need to be valuable: they shouldn't compete with eachother.

Then again it all comes down to RP. Maybe the rogue is a nerd on all things religion, and the cleric only concerns himself with the gods in his pantheon and not those other heathens.

Personally I see it as a problem, if a very small problem. I don't have an issue with a cleric having to take some focus away from the practice of his/her faith to study more theology - taking a level of a non casting class to represent that. What I do have a problem with is that a cleric needs a minimum level of dexterity to go down this course of study (or charisma if a bard).

If the skills expert classes cant be better at skills than the no skills expert classes then that is really undermining their role. Why can't a bard be as capable at the study of arcana as a wizard? Sure the wizard reads more books but your lore bard has probably been out speaking to more people and getting a more diverse range of views on the subject. Likewise they are more likely to hear tales of foreign gods than a cleric or of wonderous creatures than a ranger.

I think part of the problem is that there is a bit of resistance to people dipping classes for features. If your character is a cleric and you dip rogue to get expertiese in religeon, it isn't bad role play or character building it is just you playing a more studeous cleric. If you worry about "thieves cant" then I am pretty sure most DMs would allow you to swap that for a secret language used by your faith to communicate.

uraniumrooster

2016-05-22, 08:50 PM

You get it level 1 and yeah you learn thieves can't too but but that's just an added bonus.

what you're after is munchkining giving classes extra features and removing the benefits of being a study class.

To you it doesn't make sense but once again I point you to the football example. You study to get Expertise.

Also you want the fluff reason?

Bard has to study for 3 levels to get enough knowledge to grant expertise.

The rogues knowing all the secrets can get it faster.

That is why to learn expertise you need to either take the shortcut and learn from the thieves. Or study with the true knowledge bearers being the lore bards.

You give up level 20 to learn. It's a sacrifice but that's what you need to do if you want to be an expert. Either be the best professional footballer or take some time out from practicing to learn the stats about it.

I see the analogy you're going for, but don't really agree with the assertion that Wizards and Clerics aren't "study classes".

To me, the Wizard in particular is the epitome of a study class. They spend their lives, from apprentice to arch-mage, specialized in learning Arcane knowledge and the craft of spellcasting. They are portrayed in the game (and in all past editions of the game) as book-learned sages, who spend hours studying dusty tomes to unlock arcane secrets and perfect their class.

Rogues and Bards are traditionally portrayed as free spirited "jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none" type characters who pick up bits and pieces of useful knowledge and handy skills as part of their daily lives. They are the typical skill-monkey classes, but the 5th Edition Expertise mechanic removes the "master-of-none" limitation, and allows them to achieve levels of knowledge surpassing the other classes' specialties.

That's where the frustration comes from, and I don't think it's munchkining at all for people to want Wizards to have the ability to be better at passing Arcana checks than Rogues or Bards without having to multiclass (or likewise for non-Knowledge Clerics). It's been a pet peeve of mine in this edition since it came out, and in the home games I run I just give Clerics and Wizards free expertise in Religion and Arcana at level 1 to compensate, as long as they gain proficiency in the skill. Those checks are fairly rare anyway, and generally only provide exposition about the game's setting, so it's far from overpowered, but it lets players feel like their characters are actually competent in their particular specialty. I also limit the Rogue's use of Expertise to Rogue class skills and Thieves' Tools, although I do let Arcane Tricksters use one of their second uses of Expertise on Arcana if they have proficiency in it from their background.

wunderkid

2016-05-22, 09:15 PM

I see the analogy you're going for, but don't really agree with the assertion that Wizards and Clerics aren't "study classes".

To me, the Wizard in particular is the epitome of a study class. They spend their lives, from apprentice to arch-mage, specialized in learning Arcane knowledge and the craft of spellcasting. They are portrayed in the game (and in all past editions of the game) as book-learned sages, who spend hours studying dusty tomes to unlock arcane secrets and perfect their class.

Rogues and Bards are traditionally portrayed as free spirited "jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none" type characters who pick up bits and pieces of useful knowledge and handy skills as part of their daily lives. They are the typical skill-monkey classes, but the 5th Edition Expertise mechanic removes the "master-of-none" limitation, and allows them to specialize and achieve knowledge surpassing the other classes' specialties.

That's where the frustration comes from, and I don't think it's munchkining at all for people to want Wizards to have the ability to be better at passing Arcana checks than Rogues or Bards without having to multiclass (or likewise for non-Knowledge Clerics). It's been a pet peeve of mine in this edition since it came out, and in the home games I run I just give Clerics and Wizards free expertise in Religion and Arcana at level 1 to compensate, as long as they gain proficiency in the skill. Those checks are fairly rare anyway, and generally only provide exposition about the game's setting, so it's far from overpowered, but it lets players feel like their characters are actually competent in their particular specialty. I also limit the Rogue's use of Expertise to Rogue class skills and Thieves' Tools, although I do let Arcane Tricksters use one of their second uses of Expertise on Arcana if they have proficiency in it from their background.

The thing is though they will nearly ALWAYS surpass the Rogue in arcana or religion.

I've never seen a single rogue build in game or on these forums that's taken one of their precious 2 expertise in arcana. It's just too valuable to put there UNLESS you're making the scholar who has devoted everything to that area of study.

The thing with wizards is studying it while also learning to bend it to your will is two completely different things and both will take a considerable level of effort. By Shere virtue of taking that as a proficiency and having a good intellect they will in 99% of cases be better than anyone else.

However the Rogue who devotes all that time purely to learning the theory and wasting no time on the practice becomes better at the theory. If he invests as heavily in int. Then he should be better at the theory. Taking that away from him seems needlessly harsh.

I agree there used to be a niche as a Jack of all trades but because of bounded accuracy even with expertise it largely comes down to the dice roll.

This means even a hobo with a good dice roll can correct the level 20 bard of ultimate knowlege using just his faeces and a stick if the bard rolls badly. Something which I'm sure you'd agree should never happen but can.

So there is no longer a Jack of all trades in the way there used to be. This makes expertise a very valuable class feature and one I hate to see being given out for free.

It's akin to me saying I want portent on my lore because he studies divination as much if not more than a divination wizard.

Armored Walrus

2016-05-22, 09:26 PM

I think it's ironic that we're worrying about a Rogue outshining a caster and "stepping on their toes." In most other facets of the game, it's generally the other way around.

Also - A Catholic priest will certainly know a ton about Catholicism, but Religion checks don't necessarily apply to a cleric knowing something about their own faith. Why would the catholic priest know more about, say, ancient Native American religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. than someone who literally went to "College" to learn about such? Lore Bard should have that knowledge and should outshine the Cleric if that's what the character studied at Bard College.

Now, some thug cat burglar being able to do the same is a little immersion-breaking...

MaxWilson

2016-05-22, 09:33 PM

This means even a hobo with a good dice roll can correct the level 20 bard of ultimate knowlege using just his faeces and a stick if the bard rolls badly. Something which I'm sure you'd agree should never happen but can.

It's better IMO if you work out a way to make the players be a bit uncertain as to how well they rolled. (My usual method is to call for a "hidden" check, which means the players tell me their die roll and the application bonus separately, and I roll randomly and secretly for each player to see whether they are trying to roll high or low.)

If the Bard of Ultimate Knowledge says that Arcane Gates fueled by black magic are invulnerable and the hobo says they collapse if you just cut your own head off while standing in them... the hobo could have rolled a natural 20 and the bard could have rolled a 1, but really, who are you probably going to listen to?

uraniumrooster

2016-05-22, 09:58 PM

The thing with wizards is studying it while also learning to bend it to your will is two completely different things and both will take a considerable level of effort. By Shere virtue of taking that as a proficiency and having a good intellect they will in 99% of cases be better than anyone else.

However the Rogue who devotes all that time purely to learning the theory and wasting no time on the practice becomes better at the theory. If he invests as heavily in int. Then he should be better at the theory. Taking that away from him seems needlessly harsh.

Even if we accept that there is a significant distinction between magical theory and magical practice, I would argue a Rogue's time is more divided than a Wizard's. The Rogue spends their time learning several other skills, training with armor and weapons, learning how to sneak attack, learning thieves' cant, and the other tricks of their trade.

A wizard devotes virtually all of their time to studying magic, including studying arcane tomes and spellbooks (theory), and rote spellcasting (practice). I don't think there's as significant a difference between the Theory and Practice as you suggest, but even if there were, since it's literally all Wizards do, their time isn't terribly divided (assuming they aren't multi-classed).

It's akin to me saying I want portent on my lore because he studies divination as much if not more than a divination wizard.

Not really. Portent is a unique sub-class ability that is a benefit of one particular specialty school. Expertise is a game mechanic shared by multiple base classes, and simulated by others. Expertise in Arcana or Relgion, specifically, are also far less potent than something like portent, as they can't be used to affect another creature in the game world, but are simply representative of one character's knowledge.

If we were arguing about whether Wizards should gain the Magical Secrets feature, then your Portent comparison would be apt. Those are both unique, powerful class features. However, arguing that Wizards should gain double-proficiency in Arcana (Or Religion for Clerics, or Nature for Druids), a largely esoteric knowledge skill, so that the player can feel like their character is actually the specialist in their field they're supposed to be, is not at all like asking to steal an important and powerful class feature. I view it as simply balancing out an oversight in the game's design.

Also - A Catholic priest will certainly know a ton about Catholicism, but Religion checks don't necessarily apply to a cleric knowing something about their own faith. Why would the catholic priest know more about, say, ancient Native American religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. than someone who literally went to "College" to learn about such? Lore Bard should have that knowledge and should outshine the Cleric if that's what the character studied at Bard College.

If you're talking about contemporary Catholic priests, then they do actually go to college, and to advance are typically required to have at least a Master's Degree in Theology (and not even specifically Catholic theology, so many do study other faiths and the history and evolution of Religion in general).

Also, in a world where the Gods are provably real like in most D&D settings, it seems more likely for a Cleric to have a natural understanding of how faith and divinity function, and what various deities are capable of, due to their personal connection with their own deity. There's less incentive to restrict your knowledge to your own faith's dogma when you know for a fact that the gods of other faiths are real entities in the multiverse.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-05-22, 10:03 PM

wisdom.
+1 to all of this.

Naanomi

2016-05-22, 10:04 PM

A wizard is an artist, a rogue with expertise in arcana is an art thief... I can easily imagine an art thief knowing more about art than someone who can create it

In any case I had players who were conceptually bothered by this as well (though, again in practice I would bet it isn't an issue 99% of the time... I am more bothered that wizards know more religion than clerics because they didn't dump int). We tried a house rule to address it which played fine but we eventually dropped as unnecessary. Details of said house rule were on this thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?417034-Homebrew-Playtest-Free-Expertise-for-All

Hrugner

2016-05-23, 12:29 AM

Regarding the skill specialization, I honestly don't see the concern. Both clerics and wizards can dump their intelligence down to 8 or whatever your game's lower boundary is. Mechanically, they don't need to know any of that stuff at all. No natural aptitude for knowing about it is required, no proficiency or study is enforced on them. It's pretty clear that knowing the ins and outs of arcana or religion just doesn't happen to be part of their kit. Yes, somewhere there's an idiot wizard with a knack for casting spells.

It's more like the difference between the lab doctor and an ER doctor. The guy in the lab needs to know everything, he helps create new research, runs lab samples, he can't really skip important journals and all his time is spent in gaining knowledge. The ER doctor works long demanding hours, is on call often times and can generally stay up to date enough through conferences. You can have someone who is both, but it certainly isn't a requirement.

uraniumrooster

2016-05-23, 12:42 AM

somewhere there's an idiot wizard with a knack for casting spells.

Yep, those are called Sorcerers. :smallcool:

It's more like the difference between the lab doctor and an ER doctor. The guy in the lab needs to know everything, he helps create new research, runs lab samples, he can't really skip important journals and all his time is spent in gaining knowledge. The ER doctor works long demanding hours, is on call often times and can generally stay up to date enough through conferences. You can have someone who is both, but it certainly isn't a requirement.

Well, by the same token, you could argue that a layabout crappy thief doesn't need to be an expert in anything, so why are they forced to gain all those skill proficiencies and Expertise?

I'm not arguing that all Wizards MUST have double-proficiency in Arcana, just that they should be able to achieve it without the need to multi-class.

The most elegant solution to the problem that I've seen is to allow any class to invest two of their skill proficiency "points" into one of the skills on their class skill list, thereby gaining double-proficiency in that skill. The Expertise class feature of the Rogue and Bard is still unique in that it grants those classes a free "upgrade" for two of their proficient skills without investing the extra points, but other classes are still able to gain the same level of knowledge by investing in their specialty skill of choice. It gives players the flexibility to build the Wizardly scholar who is the expert in all things Arcane, without multi-classing, but doesn't step on the toes of the skill-monkey classes because they still get to do their own cool stuff.

Hrugner

2016-05-23, 12:57 AM

Yep, those are called Sorcerers. :smallcool:

Well, by the same token, you could argue that a layabout crappy thief doesn't need to be an expert in anything, so why are they forced to gain all those skill proficiencies and Expertise?

I'm not arguing that all Wizards MUST have double-proficiency in Arcana, just that they should be able to achieve it without the need to multi-class.

The most elegant solution to the problem that I've seen is to allow any class to invest two of their skill proficiency "points" into one of the skills on their class skill list, thereby gaining double-proficiency in that skill. The Expertise class feature of the Rogue and Bard is still unique in that it grants those classes a free "upgrade" for two of their proficient skills without investing the extra points, but other classes are still able to gain the same level of knowledge by investing in their specialty skill of choice. It gives players the flexibility to build the Wizardly scholar who is the expert in all things Arcane, without multi-classing, but doesn't step on the toes of the skill-monkey classes because they still get to do their own cool stuff.

A layabout crappy thief still gets those proficiency though, it's built in. They aught to have expertise in some sort of anatomy and physiology across all creature types as well as really good math and physics knowledge in order to make precise and deadly strikes at long range, but they don't. We can bake that into rogues for the sake of narrative too, but it's probably not a good idea. I honestly don't see it as a problem in need of a solution. The rogue needed a specific background in order to grab those skills anyway, it's not like he just knows these things for no reason.

Bard obviously is the bard. Who knows why he knows everything and is slightly better at initiative and con checks.

uraniumrooster

2016-05-23, 01:22 AM

A layabout crappy thief still gets those proficiency though, it's built in. They aught to have expertise in some sort of anatomy and physiology across all creature types as well as really good math and physics knowledge in order to make precise and deadly strikes at long range, but they don't. We can bake that into rogues for the sake of narrative too, but it's probably not a good idea. I honestly don't see it as a problem in need of a solution. The rogue needed a specific background in order to grab those skills anyway, it's not like he just knows these things for no reason.

Bard obviously is the bard. Who knows why he knows everything and is slightly better at initiative and con checks.

I don't have any problem with Bards and Rogues being able to get Arcana Expertise if that's what the character focuses on, but it bothers me that Wizards aren't able to become Arcana experts without multi-classing. As you said, it's not a requirement that all Wizards MUST be Arcana experts, but it doesn't seem like a stretch to expect that some pure-classed Wizards could be. However, with Expertise defined as double-proficiency by the game's mechanics, and limited to only two classes, it is impossible for Wizards to become Arcana experts unless they multi-class to do so. To me, it's a bothersome oversight in the game design, and one that I like to fix with home-rules in my games.

Also, minor point, but if by con checks you mean Concentration, that's a Saving Throw not an Ability Check so Bards don't get any benefit from their Jack of All Trades feature.

JoeJ

2016-05-23, 02:09 AM

Yep, those are called Sorcerers. :smallcool:

If you look at the mechanics, sorcerers are the ones who understand magic, not wizards. Sorcerers change things up on the fly to make magic do what they need done. Wizards are just script kiddies; they know what buttons to push, but not how anything actually works.

Longcat

2016-05-23, 02:09 AM

1. Any character that is more a "build" than an actual character.

2. Variant Humans with strong combat feats and dumpstats. They outshine other races pretty hard if they optimize, with the ability to still get two 16s in their primary stats. Sure, you can always go out of your way to screw them, but the moment the DM needs to tailor the difficulty around certain characters, it becomes problematic.

3. Characters build around extreme Nova/Alpha Strike abilities. E.g. a Fighter2/Assassin3/Paladin2+. These kind of characters lead to three possible scenarios:
a) They get their way. Fights become one-sided stomps and Captain Alphastrike hogs the spotlight.
b) The DM adds additional enemies. Fights get more swingy and Captain Alphastrike feels justified.
c) The DM hard counters the build. In the case of the example build, enemies wear adamantine armor, have resistance to radiant damage and expertise in Perception. Captain Alphastrike got neutered.
No matter what you choose, I see no way to resolve this that is satisfactory for all players involved and the DM.

4. Players that bring a "Combat-as-War" mentality to a game that is explicitly "Combat-as-Sports".

Buckingham

2016-05-23, 05:42 AM

wunderkid

2016-05-23, 05:59 AM

Even if we accept that there is a significant distinction between magical theory and magical practice, I would argue a Rogue's time is more divided than a Wizard's. The Rogue spends their time learning several other skills, training with armor and weapons, learning how to sneak attack, learning thieves' cant, and the other tricks of their trade.

A wizard devotes virtually all of their time to studying magic, including studying arcane tomes and spellbooks (theory), and rote spellcasting (practice). I don't think there's as significant a difference between the Theory and Practice as you suggest, but even if there were, since it's literally all Wizards do, their time isn't terribly divided (assuming they aren't multi-classed).

Not really. Portent is a unique sub-class ability that is a benefit of one particular specialty school. Expertise is a game mechanic shared by multiple base classes, and simulated by others. Expertise in Arcana or Relgion, specifically, are also far less potent than something like portent, as they can't be used to affect another creature in the game world, but are simply representative of one character's knowledge.

If we were arguing about whether Wizards should gain the Magical Secrets feature, then your Portent comparison would be apt. Those are both unique, powerful class features. However, arguing that Wizards should gain double-proficiency in Arcana (Or Religion for Clerics, or Nature for Druids), a largely esoteric knowledge skill, so that the player can feel like their character is actually the specialist in their field they're supposed to be, is not at all like asking to steal an important and powerful class feature. I view it as simply balancing out an oversight in the game's design.

If you're talking about contemporary Catholic priests, then they do actually go to college, and to advance are typically required to have at least a Master's Degree in Theology (and not even specifically Catholic theology, so many do study other faiths and the history and evolution of Religion in general).

Also, in a world where the Gods are provably real like in most D&D settings, it seems more likely for a Cleric to have a natural understanding of how faith and divinity function, and what various deities are capable of, due to their personal connection with their own deity. There's less incentive to restrict your knowledge to your own faith's dogma when you know for a fact that the gods of other faiths are real entities in the multiverse.

There is a difference between magical theory and practice. It's the whole learning to actually cast the spells which I can imagine actually learning to twist reality to your will is harder than learning the theory behind it (quantum mechanics).

Just because a class ability is used by other classes too doesn't take anything away from it. Progression as a full caster with access to X spell list is one shared. As are several others. That doesn't make those features any less or more than one that is unique. It is still a core part to that class.

I feel that you're undervaluing expertise. And at the same time by giving away free expertises taking away people's enjoying from playing an expertise class. Why should I have to invest in rogue or bard while they get it for free on top of all their other stuff?

Everyone seems to be assuming this is Schrödinger's rogue who has the expertise to outshine and just happens to have chosen expertises to outshine other classes.

I personally wouldn't dream of taking expertise arcana when there was a mage.

Because even with expertise the mage would be better than me in my current game (I'd be getting +1+2+2 =5 he would be getting +5+2 =7)

If a rogue picks expertise arcana then he has gone beyond degree level. Degree level is proficiency. Expertise is a whole lot more information.

And being part of a religion in no way translates to being an expert in it. You simply have to look at extremists to see that. They are incredibly devout but only learn and memorise the bits that support their viewpoint. Whereas the expert has dug deeper and learnt more than what is on the surface.

Also "Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training." So unless the cleric wishes to devote time to study (ie takes a level of rogue) he won't have that level of expertise.

KorvinStarmast

2016-05-23, 10:08 AM

Yep, I believe it was Arcana and one of the players was disappointed that they kept getting outdone by the Rogue on Arcana checks.
I'd have a talk with that crybaby before I allowed that player at a table again. What is this "I am in competition with other characters" crap? That is what I would ask. If the players won't enjoy each others' success and encourage each other, and laugh about stuff like that, who needs such wet blankets at the table?

Life's too short.

There's not a single PC in 5e that gives me any pause from the DM perspective. Certain player styled, on the other hand, will get a talking too if need be.
Rules Lawyers and Attention Whores are on notice from session zero.

Tanarii

2016-05-23, 12:07 PM

4. Players that bring a "Combat-as-War" mentality to a game that is explicitly "Combat-as-Sports".Oh, you just totally triggered me. :)

A big pet peeve of mine: Players that assume that Combat-as-Sport is the default way D&D should be played, and get their panties in a twist when the game isn't 'fair'. Usually happens when the DM is a Combat-as-War DM but didn't make that explicit.

(Vice Versa would also be a problem of course. But that wouldn't be my personal pet peeve.)

I agree the way you stated it would be a big problem. But I've never seen 'Combat-as-Sports' stated explicitly for a campaign. I'm personally running an explicit 'Combat-as-War' campaign, but generally speaking there's nothing explicit. And that's where the problems start ...

MrStabby

2016-05-23, 12:18 PM

Oh, you just totally triggered me. :)

A big pet peeve of mine: Players that assume that Combat-as-Sport is the default way D&D should be played, and get their panties in a twist when the game isn't 'fair'. Usually happens when the DM is a Combat-as-War DM but didn't make that explicit.

(Vice Versa would also be a problem of course. But that wouldn't be my personal pet peeve.)

I agree the way you stated it would be a big problem. But I've never seen 'Combat-as-Sports' stated explicitly for a campaign. I'm personally running an explicit 'Combat-as-War' campaign, but generally speaking there's nothing explicit. And that's where the problems start ...

Can someone clarify for be what each of the "combat as X" game types entail and the differences between them?

smcmike

2016-05-23, 12:24 PM

Can someone clarify for be what each of the "combat as X" game types entail and the differences between them?

Yeah, there's a lot of talk about these concepts, but they've always seemed more than a little muddled to me.

I guess I'd like to see 1. A general statement of what these things mean and 2. Plenty of examples. The essay I found when googling them appeared to basically say that combat as sport = using your class abilities in a straightforward and boring way to win fights, while combat as war = chaos and terror.

Naanomi

2016-05-23, 12:37 PM

MrStabby

2016-05-23, 12:40 PM

The basic difference as I understand it is Sport assumes every combat is winnable and isn't 'fair' if it isn't; where War assumes skipping battles or fleeing is an important part of the tactics of the game

Ah, right. Thats what my players call "easymode" vs hard. Different terms.

I think ideally there should be balance - not every combat needs to be able to be won by the party, but the party should be able to work out where to not engage, when to run and when to negotiate?

mgshamster

2016-05-23, 12:40 PM

Can someone clarify for be what each of the "combat as X" game types entail and the differences between them?

Combat as Sport assumes the playing field is roughly even when you start the fight, and pre battle preparation generally does not influence the conditions of the fight (or at least minimally influences the fight). D&D combat is like a modern sports tournament, where the two sides come to the field roughly even and roughly prepared to duke it out. You use your abilities listed on the character sheet combined with some creative uses, and the two sides do their best to fight each other. All these "white room" anayses on the boards, such as the Fighter 10 vs Wizard 20 or Warlock 10 vs Fighter 20 are all combat as sport, as the only thing they bring to the table is what they can do as a game mechanic character with a little bit of ingenuity added by the player/poster. Builds tend to be important (especially in earlier certain editions of D&D), and roleplay is for fun, but not necessary to the campaign. The GM is expected to throw roughly level appropriate encounters at the group. If the GM does not and its too difficult, the GM is expected to let the players know in some fashion, either by killing an NPC as a warning or flat out telling the players or some other way of giving the message.

Combat as War does not make this same assumption, and generally the outcome of the battle is determined well before the battle is even started. Out of combat preparation is a huge deal and is typically the primary determining factor for who will win the battle. Abilities on a character sheet are much less important than roleplaying factors, such as alliances, double crosses, pre-battle poisoning of opponents, sabotage of enemy equipment, bribes, theft of enemy magical items, assassinations of key opponents, and more. Players and characters who enter into combat with little-to-no preparation tend to do very poorly, unless they are very very lucky. There is no such thing as a level appropriate encounter - CR 20 creatures can be defeated by level 1s with the appropriate pre battle preparations; CR 1 creatures can defeat unprepared high level PCs if they get too sloppy. Roleplay has a much greater impact on the campaign than mechanics and builds. And the GM is under no obligation to warn players about the difficulty of any given encounter.

MaxWilson

2016-05-23, 12:45 PM

Can someone clarify for be what each of the "combat as X" game types entail and the differences between them?

Read posts #1, #5, and #9 in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles

Combat as War does not make this same assumption, and generally the outcome of the battle is determined well before the battle is even started. Out of combat preparation is a huge deal and is typically the primary determining factor for who will win the battle. Abilities on a character sheet are much less important than roleplaying factors, such as alliances, double crosses, pre-battle poisoning of opponents, sabotage of enemy equipment, bribes, theft of enemy magical items, assassinations of key opponents, and more. Players and characters who enter into combat with little-to-no preparation tend to do very poorly, unless they are very very lucky. There is no such thing as a level appropriate encounter - CR 20 creatures can be defeated by level 1s with the appropriate pre battle preparations; CR 1 creatures can defeat unprepared high level PCs if they get too sloppy. Roleplay has a much greater impact on the campaign than mechanics and builds. And the GM is under no obligation to warn players about the difficulty of any given encounter.

I kind of agree with this, kind of don't. I think mgshamster is overstating things a bit. It's not so much that every single battle requires preparation and hijinks; it's just that you can engage in these things, and you may have to. For example, at the culmination of last session the players (3 PCs of levels 1-3) fought a 6x Deadly encounter while invading an ancient tomb. They ended up losing, which I didn't feel at all bad about because they could have won, for example by mining the corridor outside with caltrops before opening the door, and better exploiting their Turn Undead ability, and maybe setting up some flaming oil and exploiting their missile weapons better.

That's Combat As War. The DM is under no obligation to make things easy on you, but he also isn't going to complain if you try to stack the deck in your favor. And he's also not going to get upset if you find creative uses for a Bag of Devouring, or if you win fights by destroying a dam to flood the kobold warrens instead of fighting them all one at a time. But if your plan with the dam fails, you may wind up in a fight with hundreds of kobolds simultaneously.

I would hate to DM a Combat As Sport campaign, and I don't like playing in them either. The Fourth Wall is too clearly visible.

smcmike

2016-05-23, 01:04 PM

They ended up losing, which I didn't feel at all bad about because they could have won,

This is the key, though, right? Really you are still under an obligation to present "winnable" problems, even if "winning" is defined as "running away" or whatever.

My sense is that complaints about both of these styles largely come down to DMs erring too far on one side or the other of a line. Most people want the sort of interactive gameplay often described as "combat as war," while also having a real opportunity for success. So it's not so much that combat as war is ok with unwinnable problems, it's that it expects the players to do more to win them, or defines winning more broadly.

MaxWilson

2016-05-23, 01:06 PM

This is the key, though, right? Really you are still under an obligation to present "winnable" problems, even if "winning" is defined as "running away" or whatever.

My sense is that complaints about both of these styles largely come down to DMs erring too far on one side or the other of a line. Most people want the sort of interactive gameplay often described as "combat as war," while also having a real opportunity for success. So it's not so much that combat as war is ok with unwinnable problems, it's that it expects the players to do more to win them, or defines winning more broadly.

Yes, but the scope is different. In a CAS campaign I'd be under an obligation to present an encounter that was winnable if they just charged in and started making attack rolls. In a CAW campaign I can expect more creativity out of the players.

There's also more interaction with the roleplaying parts of the game. For example, if they died in a hopeless inescapable fight (e.g. if there had been a Mummy Lord in that chamber instead of regular mummies), the players would have the right to ask, "Why did the lich give us this map if it was just going to get us killed? If he wanted us dead, he could have just killed us himself." If I had deliberately set up the Mummy Lord to be too hard for them to kill, I might be kicking myself (or not) for not giving them more warning before they went in, or for not making it more obvious that they could have befriended the fire giants and gotten them to help, or whatever. But in a Combat As Sport game, the scenario is self-contained, so any DM mistakes must be made at the encounter level, like "Oh, I made this fight too hard for the 6th fight of the day." Blech. Boring and gamey, in my opinion. CAS is not to my taste.

Tanarii

2016-05-23, 01:14 PM

Can someone clarify for be what each of the "combat as X" game types entail and the differences between them?
Hack and Slash, and it includes a link to the original write-up on EnWorld. http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-combat-as-sport-versus-combat-as-war.html

It was posted during the run-up to 5e, and the terms went viral. It's actually a pretty good breakdown on two commonly opposing views of how to play D&D. Of course, the views have existed for a long time, this just gave name to them. It was particularly relevant at the time, because 4e was seen (accurately or not) as heavily Combat-as-Sport, and it was a common complaint against it by people that favor a Combat-as-War style of play.

(Note: I personally loved 4e D&D (and each previous edition). And most of the games I played in it were Combat-as-Sport style official play modules. Nowadays I'm enjoying DMing an explicitly Combat-as-War game. But as a player I'm enjoying playing in campaigns that are both and/or somewhere in between. No edition war or style war intented on my part in this post.)

mgshamster

2016-05-23, 01:15 PM

I kind of agree with this, kind of don't. I think mgshamster is overstating things a bit. It's not so much that every single battle requires preparation and hijinks; it's just that you can engage in these things, and you may have to. For example, at the culmination of last session the players (3 PCs of levels 1-3) fought a 6x Deadly encounter while invading an ancient tomb. They ended up losing, which I didn't feel at all bad about because they could have won, for example by mining the corridor outside with caltrops before opening the door, and better exploiting their Turn Undead ability, and maybe setting up some flaming oil and exploiting their missile weapons better.

That's Combat As War. The DM is under no obligation to make things easy on you, but he also isn't going to complain if you try to stack the deck in your favor. And he's also not going to get upset if you find creative uses for a Bag of Devouring, or if you win fights by destroying a dam to flood the kobold warrens instead of fighting them all one at a time. But if your plan with the dam fails, you may wind up in a fight with hundreds of kobolds simultaneously.

I would hate to DM a Combat As Sport campaign, and I don't like playing in them either. The Fourth Wall is too clearly visible.

I agree with you. I was trying to show clear differences by showing the far ends, rather than subtle differences. I especially like that you stressed that not every battle has to be won with preparation - but that the option for such is always there.

CoggieRagabash

2016-05-23, 01:40 PM

I'd have a talk with that crybaby before I allowed that player at a table again. What is this "I am in competition with other characters" crap? That is what I would ask. If the players won't enjoy each others' success and encourage each other, and laugh about stuff like that, who needs such wet blankets at the table?

This seems like a really uncharitable view to me. It's not about being better than everyone else (well, not necessarily; we certainly all know that kind of person), it's about having a chance to shine. It isn't important to everyone, but to others it is and it doesn't make them any less of a person IMHO. So long as they're fair and enable other people to shine in their respective fields also, that's reasonable.

Tanarii

2016-05-23, 01:56 PM

This seems like a really uncharitable view to me. It's not about being better than everyone else (well, not necessarily; we certainly all know that kind of person), it's about having a chance to shine. It isn't important to everyone, but to others it is and it doesn't make them any less of a person IMHO. So long as they're fair and enable other people to shine in their respective fields also, that's reasonable.
I agree with the uncharitable ... but a Wizard hardly needs a chance to shine at "Arcana Skill checks", nor a Cleric at "Religion skill checks", compared to a Bard or a Rogue. They already shine at actually casting spells in their field. Rogues and Bards shine at skill checks. It's part of what they do. Not only that, it's what Rogues/Bards historically have done in D&D. Shine at doing things others can't skill-wise, although it was a specific sub-set of adventuring / rogue-y related things. And in the case of Bards, also Lore things.

If Rogues being able to also shine at out-of-traditional-archetype things in 5e bothers anyone, it's easy enough to house-rule that they can only use Expertise for skills on the Rogue class skill list.

mgshamster

2016-05-23, 01:59 PM

This seems like a really uncharitable view to me. It's not about being better than everyone else (well, not necessarily; we certainly all know that kind of person), it's about having a chance to shine. It isn't important to everyone, but to others it is and it doesn't make them any less of a person IMHO. So long as they're fair and enable other people to shine in their respective fields also, that's reasonable.

Just because someone on your team is as effective as you in one thing you can do (+\-10%) does not mean that you cannot shine. Remember, we're talking a single skill here.

That rogue cannot cast the spells the wizard can cast, and even if the rogue is a AT, not nearly as many spells or as powerful of spells.

I mean, we're talking about a single skill here. The wizard has plenty of opportunities to shine, and based on many caster supremacy arguments I've seen (especially from NewGM himself), the wizard will get way more opportunities than the rogue will ever get. So a single skill overlap is hardly preventing the wizard from shining.

It's just a really baffling argument to see from someone who claims that the wizard class has so many more options than anyone else. And if a character might step on the toes of one of those many options, then something is wrong.

wunderkid

2016-05-23, 02:00 PM

RulesJD

2016-05-23, 02:01 PM

Yeah p194/195

If you can't see your target you get disadvantage.

If your target can't see you then you get Advantage.

And Devil's Sight covers both of these.

It is kinda dumb. But it is the rules and it stops darkness Devil's Sight from shutting down the entire group

To anyone with Devil's Sight problems on your table:

Dispel Magic from 65 ft away (only need to hit the edge of the Darkness spell, but too far away for Warlock to Counterspell.

Tada.

Also, Darkness doesn't stop an enemy from Grappling + Shoving prone the Warlock. Now everyone's even and start forcing those Concentration saves.

wunderkid

2016-05-23, 02:05 PM

To anyone with Devil's Sight problems on your table:

Dispel Magic from 65 ft away (only need to hit the edge of the Darkness spell, but too far away for Warlock to Counterspell.

Tada.

Also, Darkness doesn't stop an enemy from Grappling + Shoving prone the Warlock. Now everyone's even and start forcing those Concentration saves.

The GM can only pull that so many times before it starts getting stupid.

It's like saying that every single fight now has to take part in an anti magic field because spells are so powerful. Works for pvp or bbegs not so much for pve.

RulesJD

2016-05-23, 02:12 PM

The GM can only pull that so many times before it starts getting stupid.

It's like saying that every single fight now has to take part in an anti magic field because spells are so powerful. Works for pvp or bbegs not so much for pve.

Not really. If the player keeps charging in, just have 2-3 mooks bum rush the center of the Darkness with arms outstretched and ready to Grapple + knock Prone whatever they run into.

Unless you're fighting nothing but Zombies, the enemies shouldn't be that stupid.

If the Warlock is dumb enough to keep abusing the same tactic, then the DM can adjust. If the player wants to keep doing it after getting wrecked a few times, that's on them.

MrStabby

2016-05-23, 02:13 PM

This seems like a really uncharitable view to me. It's not about being better than everyone else (well, not necessarily; we certainly all know that kind of person), it's about having a chance to shine. It isn't important to everyone, but to others it is and it doesn't make them any less of a person IMHO. So long as they're fair and enable other people to shine in their respective fields also, that's reasonable.

So for me the questions are:

should more than one of any class be alowed at a table
and
Does it take more of that character's abilities than a second member of that class would?

If you worry enough about overlap between characters that you prohibit having two paladins or two cleric in a party then fain enough (although i am of the view that players should get to play the character they want and it isnt for other players to dictate to them what to build).

I also see a rogue who has expertese as having selected two areas in which they will shine. Handing out expertese to other players is as much taking away the rogues chance to shine as giving the rogue his class abilities is taking away from them.

wunderkid

2016-05-23, 02:20 PM

Not really. If the player keeps charging in, just have 2-3 mooks bum rush the center of the Darkness with arms outstretched and ready to Grapple + knock Prone whatever they run into.

Unless you're fighting nothing but Zombies, the enemies shouldn't be that stupid.

If the Warlock is dumb enough to keep abusing the same tactic, then the DM can adjust. If the player wants to keep doing it after getting wrecked a few times, that's on them.

Oh yes I forget everybody's natural reaction is to run into pitch black darkness and try to cuddle the things inside.

What you're suggesting is giving every npc some kind of omniscient knowlege. In fact zombies are about the only thing that would rush the center of darkness and try to cuddle it.

Unless they are attacking at the orders of a bbeg who has assessed the fighting strengths of the party (and should therefore counter every person in some way or another) then nobody without meta gaming would react in a way you say. It destroys immersion.

It's meta gaming at its most ridiculous form.

And the kind of GM who would meta game to that extent is the kind to put up antimagic fields or retroactively give NPCs the perfect item/spell to shut down a player. Also the kind of GM I loathe to play with.

RulesJD

2016-05-23, 02:52 PM

Oh yes I forget everybody's natural reaction is to run into pitch black darkness and try to cuddle the things inside.

What you're suggesting is giving every npc some kind of omniscient knowlege. In fact zombies are about the only thing that would rush the center of darkness and try to cuddle it.

Unless they are attacking at the orders of a bbeg who has assessed the fighting strengths of the party (and should therefore counter every person in some way or another) then nobody without meta gaming would react in a way you say. It destroys immersion.

It's meta gaming at its most ridiculous form.

And the kind of GM who would meta game to that extent is the kind to put up antimagic fields or retroactively give NPCs the perfect item/spell to shut down a player. Also the kind of GM I loathe to play with.

Metagaming would be doing it right from the get go.

Once the tactic is used once or twice, then yes, BBEG would tell their mooks to do exactly that. That kind of DM shows players that their favored tactic being abused again and again will, potentially, have consequences.

It also shows the players that Darkness doesn't mean jack to Grapple + Shove checks, which is always a fun discussion.

wunderkid

2016-05-23, 03:03 PM

Metagaming would be doing it right from the get go.

Once the tactic is used once or twice, then yes, BBEG would tell their mooks to do exactly that. That kind of DM shows players that their favored tactic being abused again and again will, potentially, have consequences.

It also shows the players that Darkness doesn't mean jack to Grapple + Shove checks, which is always a fun discussion.

The bbeg and his henchmen yes. Non intelligent creatures or ones that have not been told to do this then no.

A horde or barbarians do the same thing without needing to grapple. Reckless attack counters the disadvantage and the warlock was getting advantage already so nothing lost there.

But it's a tactic that should be used sparingly.

Darkness+Devil's Sight isn't that powerful. It is strong yes but takes precious resources. It doesn't hamstring the party as much as people think. And all it really gives is advantage/disadvantage which can be gained through many other ways.

To me it's not worth while annoying the player by countering his build.

If you've ever played as a full caster and run into an antimagic field fight you know just how boring it is when the DM pulls things like that.

uraniumrooster

2016-05-23, 03:48 PM

As a DM, I absolutely love players who come to the table with the Combat as War mindset. It generally means they're thinking beyond their game statistics, asking questions about the terrain, taking a more creative and improvisational approach to combat, and looking for ways to win the fight before either side ever engages. It allows me free reign to do the same on my side of the screen and design more interesting encounters, which gives me more enjoyment than the typical Combat as Sport encounter.

I find that CaW allows me to even break free of the "encounter-design" paradigm altogether, and instead focus on designing regions and areas of the world inhabited by realistic occupying forces with various asymmetrical strengths and weaknesses. It might seem like a semantic difference, but it comes down to where I start the design process. When I'm designing an encounter, my process is more bottom-up, starting by considering the party's composition and what they can reasonably handle, then using foes that fit within that limitation. When designing regions and forces, I can start with a top-down view and create them in a way that is appropriate to their place in the world and what they're trying to achieve, and it's up to the players where their characters go and what they end up fighting even if it means there's a possibility they can end up in over their heads.

That said, I don't typically run my games with a CaW approach unless I know the players enjoy it. My regular home-gaming group really enjoys it, so I have pretty much free reign to do as I please, and the fun for them is in figuring out how to overcome odds that are often stacked against them through scouting, clever planning, diplomacy, etc. When I DM for Adventurer's League on the other hand, the encounters are pre-made and I often have players who are completely new to 5th Ed, or even TRPGs in general, so for those groups I tend to use the Combat as Sport approach. They both have their merits, but I enjoy the added depth of Combat as War.

Hrugner

2016-05-23, 04:05 PM

I don't have any problem with Bards and Rogues being able to get Arcana Expertise if that's what the character focuses on, but it bothers me that Wizards aren't able to become Arcana experts without multi-classing. As you said, it's not a requirement that all Wizards MUST be Arcana experts, but it doesn't seem like a stretch to expect that some pure-classed Wizards could be. However, with Expertise defined as double-proficiency by the game's mechanics, and limited to only two classes, it is impossible for Wizards to become Arcana experts unless they multi-class to do so. To me, it's a bothersome oversight in the game design, and one that I like to fix with home-rules in my games.

Also, minor point, but if by con checks you mean Concentration, that's a Saving Throw not an Ability Check so Bards don't get any benefit from their Jack of All Trades feature.

Heh, I meant real con checks. Like to keep running or holding your breath. It was mostly a joke comment, I think it's funny that bards are potentially tied as best at those two things.

I do agree that there's room for a more specifically academic caster option in wizards, but feel that knowledge cleric covers that well enough for clerics. An academic wizard archetype could be interesting to put together, maybe borrowing a few things from lore bard.

Longcat

2016-05-23, 09:33 PM

I DM both styles, though I am currently focusing on CAS.

While my players like to use a CAW approach to games, they do so under the implicit assumption that they get to stack the deck on an already level playing field. Which, in a CAW game, is not the case. The other side fights just as dirty as they do. As a result, games tended to have a high lethality rate, which the players were not comfortable with. They were often stuck in analysis paralysis, discussing the merits of various approaches for 80% of the game time instead of actually playing the game.

Therefore, I've switched over to DMing CAS games. D&D, to me, is about heroic adventurers being heroes. CAW, on the other hand encourages and rewards perfidy. The characters tend to be psychopathic war criminals, more like Croaker and the Black Company. While that is cool some of the time, I don't want that to be the default D&D experience for me.