What is the problem that people have with powerful pcs?

[DragonSorcererX]

Seriously, what is the problem that some people have with powerful pcs? Except for Simulacrum + Wish, 5e has no real cheese, so, I don't understand people who say that something RAW is too powerful and stuff like that. In my opinion the more powerful the pcs are, the more stuff I can throw at them... As a DM I feel limited by the weakness of the pcs, specially lv 1 ones. Level 1 pcs can easily kill an ogre, but, almost die while fighting some kobolds (yes, I know the math from the DMG). What can you guys say?

[Specter]

The biggest problem to me is power relative to other PCs. Usually when people think they're not measuring up to other party members, they tend to lose interest in the challenges. But in 5e that's not too big a deal.

[pwykersotz]

The biggest problem to me is power relative to other PCs. Usually when people think they're not measuring up to other party members, they tend to lose interest in the challenges. But in 5e that's not too big a deal.

Ditto this. The game is built with certain expectations in mind, but the GM can always adjust. It's only really a problem when certain players are left behind. Or when they push outside the agreed upon fiction level of the game.

[Spiritchaser]

The biggest problem to me is power relative to other PCs. Usually when people think they're not measuring up to other party members, they tend to lose interest in the challenges. But in 5e that's not too big a deal.

This is my DM's big beef exactly, but there are, and have always been, magic items to balance that out.

That said he seems more inclined to grant demonic booms of late...

[JakOfAllTirades]

If one PC is way above (or below) the power level of other PCs in the campaign, designing and balancing encounters of appropriate difficulty for the group as a whole can be problematic. An encounter that presents a serious challenge to the high-powered character might actually be deadly for the less powerful characters. While there are certain "gimmicks" for working around this problem, using them over and over again will eventually make the campaign seem rather... odd.

[Zman]

Powerful PCs aren't the problem, PCs that are way more powerful compared to other PCs, or when compared to expected power levels for the game. Now, the bigger problem is intraparty power imbalances, as imbalance compared to the CR system etc can be remedied by scaling monsters up.

[Sindeloke]

There's also the issue that if one particular feat or spell is notably more powerful than others, most players will feel obligated to take that feat or spell, because it feels like doing otherwise is intentionally handicapping themselves. No one wants to feel like they're weaker than they're meant to be or that they're letting down the team. Thus, these powerful options become "taxes" and restrict the ability of players to confidently, eagerly make diverse or interesting build choices.

[AvatarVecna]

The potential problem with allowing PCs to be more powerful than normal (whether it's a better stat generation system, a bonus feat for everybody at level 1, double max HP at lvl 1, max HP at all levels, whatever) is that it makes it more difficult to determine if things are still balanced; just because everybody's being affected in the same way doesn't mean things are being done fairly, just that things are being done equally. Some players will just be better at taking advantage of the power upgrade than others, which can lead to an imbalance between party members, which can (especially when an extreme difference in system mastery occurs) lead to a player being more or less useless at the game table. Moon Druids are a good example of a broken class: it's overpowered at the earliest levels you have it, tapers off past about 7th level to the point of being pretty sub-par, before the 20th lvl capstone returns them to being broken BS. Other classes, meanwhile, are just kinda mediocre from beginning to end, like Avatar Monk, Beastmaster Ranger, or Berserker Barbarian; sure, any of these can be optimized to the point that they're actually pretty good, but it requires more knowledge and effort to make a competitive Beastmaster than it does to make a competitive Paladin.

[RickAllison]

Additionally, it can depend on exactly how the party members are unbalanced. The Bard optimized for social encounters likely doesn't care that the Bearbarian is dominating combat, but he likely cares if he is either being killed off early or is unable to contribute in any way. The Purple Dragon Knight might not care about dealing a ton of damage, but he would like to be able to Shove or otherwise contribute to the combat.

[DragonSorcererX]

...bonus feat for everybody at level 1, double max HP at lvl 1, max HP at all levels...

If I would DM for a small party (let's say... two players), would these things I quoted from AvatarVecna balance the game until the players get powerful enough to don't get TPKed by lack of pcs?

[AvatarVecna]

If I would DM for a small party (let's say... two players), would these things I quoted from AvatarVecna balance the game until the players get powerful enough to don't get TPKed by lack of pcs?

I wouldn't say any of these things are necessary to make a 2-person party work; hell, my dad's been spending a good bit of time running a solo monk through an premade adventure by making them a stealth-focused Shadow Monk, and so far things have gone pretty well for him, despite (and sometimes even because of) his lack of party members. If you're working with a party that is significantly less capable than the adventure expects them to be (whether by being lower level, having fewer members, or both), you need to prepare to play a very different kind of game, where the PCs take things a lot more carefully.

That said, I don't think throwing any of these things I suggested onto a standard party would balance them badly; the changes are small enough that they should work out alright.

[DragonSorcererX]

That said, I don't think throwing any of these things I suggested onto a standard party would balance them badly; the changes are small enough that they should work out alright.

I will also use the Epic Heroism Rest Variant and the Spell Point Variant to give that shounen anime feel to the game.

[AvatarVecna]

I will also use the Epic Heroism Rest Variant and the Spell Point Variant to give that shounen anime feel to the game.

Haven't used the Spell Point system, so can't speak to its balance, but I've used the Epic Heroism rest variant, and it gave the game a nice power boost.

[Pex]

Because some DMs are on a power trip themselves and can't stand it that PCs get to do stuff. They feel threatened when PCs are able to manipulate the environment (figuratively speaking and occasionally literally) in which they interact with the gameworld. They feel only the DM should have such an ability. PCs are only there to react to what the DM gives them and within parameters the DM has permitted. I facetiously call them DMs who hate their players.

[Isidorios]

Because some DMs are on a power trip themselves and can't stand it that PCs get to do stuff. They feel threatened when PCs are able to manipulate the environment (figuratively speaking and occasionally literally) in which they interact with the gameworld. They feel only the DM should have such an ability. PCs are only there to react to what the DM gives them and within parameters the DM has permitted. I facetiously call them DMs who hate their players.

Now that we've heard from That Guy, let me say this as someone who's been DM/GMing for decades. At a certain point, DMs like to think that the players might invest some real creative input into the game session, as it's far more enjoyable for everyone when it's a group effort.
And not just out-of-character table talk and silly banter.

Some of us feel that people who plot out a level 20 Kill-bot right away have only a superficial desire to invest themselves in a real character. And no, your Gish anime character art or ludicrous backstory "Um....he's a devoted assassin for the church...who dabble's in black magic...." doesn't really add to the flavor of the game universe.

Really, we GMs will allow you to respec a Feat if it becomes redundant with a class ability later on, there's a good chance we might present you with a neat magic item that shores up a chink in your invincible killy-ness. All we ask is that you do us a favor and try and put thought into a character that would be interesting to read a story about, instead of dragging in some proto-multiclass abomination the forums say "does Optimal Damage".

Thank you.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Because some DMs are on a power trip themselves and can't stand it that PCs get to do stuff.

Just when I think you can't top yourself, you say something even more ludicrous.

[Sabeta]

My first and second DMs were close friends, and both killers. It was unfortunate that they were my first D&D experience, as just like many newbies before me I was pretty much just shoved into a Cleric Healbot. Nothing was ever explained for me, and I didn't know of this site to learn about balancing characters. I ended up being very weak, and feeling very useless. Meanwhile one player (who would be my second DM) was dropping Arc Angels onto the battlefield and soloing hordes of mooks. (This was 4th edition by the way) It made me feel bad, so I requested a character change. I got it and tried playing a Warden. Well, turns out my DM hates the Defender Role, and began designing encounters in such a way that monsters could essentially ignore me.

It sucked, to say the least. I quit after a few sessions of that (oh, did I mention their sessions where 12 hours long?), and wouldn't get back into D&D until after 5th edition came out, and someone I trusted as a friend ensured me that 5th edition made all the problems of 4th go away. Because of my experiences with my first session, I didn't want to feel powerless again, so I looked up guides and whatnot on how to optimize.

The problem with that, was that I had now become the Paladin dropping Archangels into battle. None of my other part members knew balance very well, and simply picked whatever they thought looked fun and rolled with it. I've played with a Dwarf who took Tavern Brawler and completed HotDQ with no other weapon besides his trusty Ale Mug. I've played with Tiefling Fighters who TWF Spear, and I even played a game with a Homebrewed Wizard who could do double-dice damage on ALL spells at the cost of only being able to recieve 1 or 2 HP every level up. (He did not last long!) Meanwhile my Shadow Monk is able to successfully scout an entire dungeon and use the Minor Illusion cantrip to bark out a short order from the leader, clearing out several encounters without a fight.

So, in short: the problem isn't powerful PCs, but imbalanced parties.

Which is why with my latest DM I've taken the following measures:
1) I told my DM I would be playing an optimized character, and that I would likely blow DPR out of proportions (GWM at level 1)
1a) I told him that if my character looks too strong or cheesy, he can reject it. I also told him my build plan, and how I plan to combine certain feats.(PAM at level 4) (I actually recommend this to anyone in general. Knowing beforehand if your DM isn't going to allow you to make Unarmed Strikes while two-handing a Quarterstaff as a Monk is pretty important before you decide to play one)
2) I told him that if any players express a disdain for my character, or concerns that they aren't pulling their weight; he is allowed to inflict a curse upon my character to bring me down.
3) I told him that most early magic items should go to other characters. Sweet loot keeps people invested even if they aren't #1 in damages

5e in my opinion does a very good job of keeping things balanced as long as you don't take certain feats (which are a variant anyway). Even with those feats the game doesn't break and sometimes they can be interesting in and of themselves if you explain why your character has any right to be that obscenely strong.

[Sir_Leorik]

My problem as a DM with powerful PCs has been that I find it hard to challenge them properly. Back in 3.5 it was worse, with an optimized party able to finish off a foe in 1 combat round. In my current 5E game, the players aren't that optimized, but there are now a lot of PCs, as opposed to when I began the campaign back in October with only two players. Right now I have a table with five players and two dedicated NPCs (one from back when the party only consisted of three PCs, the other Rictavio from "Curse of Strahd", which we are currently playing). I'm a skilled enough DM to keep combat running smoothly, but this many PCs and NPCs can overwhelm encounters, especially in a published adventure. My solution is to raise the hit points of the foes the PCs are going up against, rather than use the average hit points in the MM, so the fights will last a little longer. Adding more monsters/foes doesn't always seem like a good idea, but increasing the hit points by say 20% should restore the equilibrium to my campaign.

[AvatarVecna]

My problem as a DM with powerful PCs has been that I find it hard to challenge them properly. Back in 3.5 it was worse, with an optimized party able to finish off a foe in 1 combat round. In my current 5E game, the players aren't that optimized, but there are now a lot of PCs, as opposed to when I began the campaign back in October with only two players. Right now I have a table with five players and two dedicated NPCs (one from back when the party only consisted of three PCs, the other Rictavio from "Curse of Strahd", which we are currently playing). I'm a skilled enough DM to keep combat running smoothly, but this many PCs and NPCs can overwhelm encounters, especially in a published adventure. My solution is to raise the hit points of the foes the PCs are going up against, rather than use the average hit points in the MM, so the fights will last a little longer. Adding more monsters/foes doesn't always seem like a good idea, but increasing the hit points by say 20% should restore the equilibrium to my campaign.

The game is built around HP vs DPR as the balance between PCs and Monsters; if your response to more PCs is to use the same number of monsters but to increase their HP, that's good, but it's not solving the damage discrepancy. More PCs means more damage dealt, yes, and giving the monsters more HP can solve this, yes, but more PCs also means more PC HP, and to counter than you need to increase the monster's DPR as well. Quite frankly, I find it easier to just add monsters according to CR than to alter monster stat blocks to be more powerful, but to each their own.

[Sir_Leorik]

The game is built around HP vs DPR as the balance between PCs and Monsters; if your response to more PCs is to use the same number of monsters but to increase their HP, that's good, but it's not solving the damage discrepancy. More PCs means more damage dealt, yes, and giving the monsters more HP can solve this, yes, but more PCs also means more PC HP, and to counter than you need to increase the monster's DPR as well. Quite frankly, I find it easier to just add monsters according to CR than to alter monster stat blocks to be more powerful, but to each their own.

Before starting Curse of Strahd I mostly went by the CR calculations when designing my own adventures. Sometimes it worked better than others (the party's Assassin winning initiative alone can tip the balance of some encounters even with the best prep). The problem with Curse of Strahd is it is a big sandbox, and the players wanted to keep their original PCs rather than generate new ones for the adventure. (I was running a Ravenloft campaign before the announcement of CoS, and was able to tie the prior events of the campaign into the book.) Some encounters (the Windmill, the Vampire Spawn in Vallaki) were challenging, others (the Winery) were less so, but then they took out the Abbot (a CR 10 enemy) in two rounds, and I knew I had to make changes, either more monsters or raising the hp of the monsters in the book. I may have to recalculate some of the CRs in CoS to determine what will still challenge the party. I want the adventure to be enjoyable (and scary!), not boring or over too quickly.

[Inevitability]

It depends. In my former group I had two relative newbies and two heavy optimizers. If I let all of them built as powerful PC's as possible, the newbies would be massively outclassed.

On the other hand, I'm okay with powerful PC's if the game stays fun for all involved. If everyone builds an A-class character and decides to go novaing dragons in one round, that's fine, I'll write up a plot that involves you novaing dragons yet still faces you with challenges. Note that all players have to be on the table for this.

[IShouldntBehere]

I don't have any problem with high power PCs. However they do present their own challenges. As power level grows (at least in D&D) the minimum and maximum in a group tend to drift apart from each other, this is less pronounced in 5e but is still something to be mindful of.


I also just prefer low-powered PCs. I think D&D right around 5th-level without heavy optimization tends to hit the sweet spot for me. Characters are more much powerful than the common man, but not so much they're affectively alien supermen. They can turn the tide in an otherwise even battle, but can't single-handedly swing a war. They can deal with some pretty crazy monsters and otherwordly stuff, but probably still have reasons to be cautious about 10 angry guys with clubs. They can take a cool journey to discover a portal to another realm, but they can't casually open such portals under their own power. If a 40ft monster shows up they can go on a cool adventure to recover the McGuffin that stops it, even if they can't strangle it do death with their bare hands.

It's a nice balance where they're just one very important step above the rest of humanity in their respective areas... but just that one step.

[DragonSorcererX]

...My problem as a DM with powerful PCs has been that I find it hard to challenge them properly...

HA! That's easy, Half Twelve-Headed Hydra Ancient Red Dragon (Fire Immunity and Head Regeneration...) with cheesy Draconic Innate Spellcasting... I felt scared while statting this thing on 5e once... (I hope I don't have it's statblock anymore).

[pwykersotz]

HA! That's easy, Half Twelve-Headed Hydra Ancient Red Dragon (Fire Immunity and Head Regeneration...) with cheesy Draconic Innate Spellcasting... I felt scared while statting this thing on 5e once... (I hope I don't have it's statblock anymore).

Or you could drop one of these (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493824-Imperial-Knights&p=20968429#post20968429) on em!

[DragonSorcererX]

Or you could drop one of these (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493824-Imperial-Knights&p=20968429#post20968429) on em!

CR 44... Lawful Good... I know nothing about Warhammer 40k, but, if these guys are Lawful Good, the game should be called Peacehammer 40k a BRIGHTHAPPY Light Fantasy Game.

[RickAllison]

CR 44... Lawful Good... I know nothing about Warhammer 40k, but, if these guys are Lawful Good, the game should be called Peacehammer 40k a BRIGHTHAPPY Light Fantasy Game.

Do note that the DMG only has rules to go to CR 30. He had to homebrew just to calculate how hard it is!

[DragonSorcererX]

I also just prefer low-powered PCs. I think D&D right around 5th-level without heavy optimization tends to hit the sweet spot for me. Characters are more much powerful than the common man, but not so much they're affectively alien supermen. They can turn the tide in an otherwise even battle, but can't single-handedly swing a war. They can deal with some pretty crazy monsters and otherwordly stuff, but probably still have reasons to be cautious about 10 angry guys with clubs. They can take a cool journey to discover a portal to another realm, but they can't casually open such portals under their own power. If a 40ft monster shows up they can go on a cool adventure to recover the McGuffin that stops it, even if they can't strangle it do death with their bare hands.

That sounds awful, it almost makes me want to kill myself... :smalleek:
I like characters that can make buildings go down while fighting... Weapon attacks that make the ground shatter... That ultra powerful spell that explodes the whole are where the fight is ocurring...

[JNAProductions]

CR 44... Lawful Good... I know nothing about Warhammer 40k, but, if these guys are Lawful Good, the game should be called Peacehammer 40k a BRIGHTHAPPY Light Fantasy Game.

Nah. They're far from the biggest fish in the 40k pond. And plenty of them have gone to Chaos, anyway.

[AmayaElls]

Personally I am often the weaker member of the party, but I never have a problem with other characters being powerful. Maybe this is because I like playing buffing, healing or utility focussed classes, but even on my pathfinder conjuration wizard I don't mind that our fighter (the only one who optimized) was soloing the fights. I may be in the minority but the people I've played with aren't the sort to care really. We just have fun playing characters.

[comk59]

I like characters that can make buildings go down while fighting... Weapon attacks that make the ground shatter... That ultra powerful spell that explodes the whole are where the fight is ocurring...

Well, that's all well and good, but when I actually get to play a PC I prefer to NOT do those things. I want to play as a man who has to fight against impossible odds, risks life and limb, but manages to come out on top. Aragorn, Conan, and heroes of that nature would be a lot less appealing to me if they could blow out a wall by sneezing too hard.

[MrFahrenheit]

As a DM, I don't care if you kill the monsters I throw at you. If you're optimized for DPR, good on you, but I don't consider that *true* optimization. That honor I give to the bard who just banished the bone devil that was about to be my dungeon's boss encounter...

...or the wizard who counter-spelled the cloud giant's flight...

...or the sorcerer who twinned crown of madness on both hobgoblin warlords and set them against each other.

[MrFahrenheit]

But to answer the OP: I have no problem with that. It's part of the balance and consideration when creating encounters.

[CantigThimble]

If my character can influence the fate of the world I want him to be like that because he worked for it and has made friends and recruited allies who would lay down their lives for him and the wisdom to use the resources he has well, not because he killed enough random monsters in the wilderness to earn the 'destroy army' class feature. I don't like the idea of a single person who is so absurdly dangerous that he can bring cities to ruin by himself.

As a DM if my PCs are really powerful then I COULD throw appropriate CR encounters at them... but in a world where a significant number of those encounters existed there couldn't be any living creature lower than 8th level in a hundred mile radius. So either I surrender the verisimilitude of the world I want to run or I send my players on a quest to the demiplane of inordinately dangerous monsters. Either way I just hate the worldbuilding for a place like that.

[comk59]

If my character can influence the fate of the world I want him to be like that because he worked for it and has made friends and recruited allies who would lay down their lives for him and the wisdom to use the resources he has well, not because he killed enough random monsters in the wilderness to earn the 'destroy army' class feature. I don't like the idea of a single person who is so absurdly dangerous that he can bring cities to ruin by himself.

As a DM if my PCs are really powerful then I COULD throw appropriate CR encounters at them... but in a world where a significant number of those encounters existed there couldn't be any living creature lower than 8th level in a hundred mile radius. So either I surrender the verisimilitude of the world I want to run or I send my players on a quest to the demiplane of inordinately dangerous monsters. Either way I just hate the worldbuilding for a place like that.

It is difficult, I'll admit. I deal with it by upping the Lvl* for npcs up a tad. Knights, for example, I up to about 5th level or so. I even have a couple of 10th levels running around, as Champions of the realm or as royal wizards

*not actual levels, I prefer to divorce NPC character creatiom from PC character creation.

[RickAllison]

If my character can influence the fate of the world I want him to be like that because he worked for it and has made friends and recruited allies who would lay down their lives for him and the wisdom to use the resources he has well, not because he killed enough random monsters in the wilderness to earn the 'destroy army' class feature. I don't like the idea of a single person who is so absurdly dangerous that he can bring cities to ruin by himself.

As a DM if my PCs are really powerful then I COULD throw appropriate CR encounters at them... but in a world where a significant number of those encounters existed there couldn't be any living creature lower than 8th level in a hundred mile radius. So either I surrender the verisimilitude of the world I want to run or I send my players on a quest to the demiplane of inordinately dangerous monsters. Either way I just hate the worldbuilding for a place like that.

On the other hand, D&D 5e doesn't get to city-destroying levels (barring some particularly well-done plans) until level 15. At that point, the PCs are part of an elite group, among the most dangerous beings on the material plane. Even with some heavy optimization, a large enough swarm of commoners with longbows can still kill them. I don't think that lower level builds are powerful enough that they really break the world.

[comk59]

On the other hand, D&D 5e doesn't get to city-destroying levels (barring some particularly well-done plans) until level 15. At that point, the PCs are part of an elite group, among the most dangerous beings on the material plane. Even with some heavy optimization, a large enough swarm of commoners with longbows can still kill them. I don't think that lower level builds are powerful enough that they really break the world.

That's true. As of yet, we have not seen the creation of a PunPun. Bounded accuracy does a pretty good job of getting PCs to be powerful, but not ~too~ powerful.

[CantigThimble]

While bounded accuracy limits the raw damage outputs and means PCs will never be straight up immune to armies a tactical couple of spellcasters can still do disgusting things. e.g. Cast a 3rd-4th level fog cloud covering the entire army of commoners with longbows and send in the cleric with spirit guardians, your numbers advantage no longer means anything unless you have a squad of spellcasters with dispel magic to back you up and they have some way of stopping a rogue , shadow monk or volley of arrows from reaching them.

[Longcat]

Outside of outright gamebreakers, it's mainly intra party balance. This applies to both PCs that are too weak and too strong. For example, my group consists of the following type of players:
-Player A: Only plays Dwarves, strong preference for divine spellcasting. Very optimization savvy.
-Player B: Only plays Dwarves, slight preference towards martial characters.
-Player C: Plays whatever fits thematically. No clue about optimization.
-Player D: Tends to play the strongest options that are not explicitly forbidden, though he tends to prefer martials. Considers everything "weaksauce" that is below "highly optimized". Very optimization savvy.
-Player E: Only plays characters that can make stuff go boom.

The characters of player A, B and E tend to be roughly in line with each other. ABE is also roughly in line with C. D tends to be stronger than ABE, but it's doable. C and D tend to be miles apart though, and also have different ideas on how to play the game, particularly when it comes to combat. C likes to do whatever fits his character's flavor, D likes to approach it as a wargaming simulation where the PCs act as a well coordinated unit using metagame communication.

So TL;DR, it's not an issue with powerful PCs as long as they are within reason. Outliers in both directions are an issue though, especially if at the same table.

[Sabeta]

D likes to approach it as a wargaming simulation where the PCs act as a well coordinated unit using metagame communication.

This is one thing that I legitimately have a problem with. I tend to optimize somewhat (my current fighter being the most optimized I've ever done), but I never tell people what to do or give advice outside of what my character could advise. When it comes to encounters you either plan ahead or you hope your teammates live up to expectations. The greatest swordsman in the world isn't fighting off a Necromancer while shouting at his ranger (who is a Sharpshooter positioned more than 300 feet away) to use a Volley of Arrows on the nearby Zombie Hoard.

I usually dislike "meta" talk when it comes to social encounters as well, but that's ingrained in me by every DM treating all spoken communication as what our character says. (most of the time, anyway)

[Ashrym]

While bounded accuracy limits the raw damage outputs and means PCs will never be straight up immune to armies a tactical couple of spellcasters can still do disgusting things. e.g. Cast a 3rd-4th level fog cloud covering the entire army of commoners with longbows and send in the cleric with spirit guardians, your numbers advantage no longer means anything unless you have a squad of spellcasters with dispel magic to back you up and they have some way of stopping a rogue , shadow monk or volley of arrows from reaching them.

This isn't true because the army of commoners with longbows can pull back and wait, but since long bow range exceeds fog cloud range even pulling back might not be necessary. Shooting flaming arrows to hoping for lucky shots in the dark while possibly lighting a grass fire or forest fire around the spell casters is a distinct option. There's no need to have dispel magic for the the army of commoners to do something as simple as move out of the fog and possibly kite.

Consider giving the commoners actual options like moving or dipping their arrows in poison. Intelligent opponents shouldn't be standing there not making intelligent choices. What I would expect to happen, with or without the poison, is the commoner move clear of the fog and pelt the cleric with arrows the entire time he's closing to the range he needs for his spirit guardians radius. He either lacks AC to prevent the hits or he has armor that slows his movement so that more shots are fired while he's advancing. The archers can see the effect of the spirit guardians around the cleric unless he's waiting before casting it but a standard fighting withdrawal on a higher AC cleric with a 20 ft move gives the archers a bit of an advantage with their 30 ft movement rate.

Too many comments like yours aren't reasonable because they ignore the options the opponents have and skip details of how the combat might actually play out.

[CantigThimble]

This isn't true because the army of commoners with longbows can pull back and wait, but since long bow range exceeds fog cloud range even pulling back might not be necessary. Shooting flaming arrows to hoping for lucky shots in the dark while possibly lighting a grass fire or forest fire around the spell casters is a distinct option. There's no need to have dispel magic for the the army of commoners to do something as simple as move out of the fog and possibly kite.

Consider giving the commoners actual options like moving or dipping their arrows in poison. Intelligent opponents shouldn't be standing there not making intelligent choices. What I would expect to happen, with or without the poison, is the commoner move clear of the fog and pelt the cleric with arrows the entire time he's closing to the range he needs for his spirit guardians radius. He either lacks AC to prevent the hits or he has armor that slows his movement so that more shots are fired while he's advancing. The archers can see the effect of the spirit guardians around the cleric unless he's waiting before casting it but a standard fighting withdrawal on a higher AC cleric with a 20 ft move gives the archers a bit of an advantage with their 30 ft movement rate.

Too many comments like yours aren't reasonable because they ignore the options the opponents have and skip details of how the combat might actually play out.

I could also make the same argument in favor of the players, they might sneak up and attack the army from the rear so that when the panicked, fog-obscured retreat came it would just lead right into the meat grinder. Or the cleric might be melded into stone while the commoners moved overhead. Or the archers could be within fortifications that prevented them from easily moving out of the fog cloud. Or a druid could drop a spike growth after the fog went up killing every archer in the time it took them to walk ten feet if they didn't instantly realize what they were up against.

In an actual game scenario the tactics will be more complicated than a white room with 200 archers a wizard and a cleric, I just used that for the sake of simplicity. (I'm not going to throw a 2 page addendum onto every example I write) The point is that despite bounded accuracy giving quantity a chance in hell over quality, spellcasters can still easily turn that around.

I also would not roleplay regular soldiers as having flawless anti-caster tactics without an experienced commander who understood the situation giving orders. And commanders can be killed or silenced.

And a cleric in heavy armor can move 30 feet just fine if he has the strength for it.

[Ashrym]

I could also make the same argument in favor of the players, they might sneak up and attack the army from the rear so that when the panicked, fog-obscured retreat came it would just lead right into the meat grinder. Or the cleric might be melded into stone while the commoners moved overhead. Or the archers could be within fortifications that prevented them from easily moving out of the fog cloud. Or a druid could drop a spike growth after the fog went up killing every archer in the time it took them to walk ten feet if they didn't instantly realize what they were up against.

In an actual game scenario the tactics will be more complicated than a white room with 200 archers a wizard and a cleric, I just used that for the sake of simplicity. (I'm not going to throw a 2 page addendum onto every example I write) The point is that despite bounded accuracy giving quantity a chance in hell over quality, spellcasters can still easily turn that around.

I also would not roleplay regular soldiers as having flawless anti-caster tactics without an experienced commander who understood the situation giving orders. And commanders can be killed or silenced.

Movement isn't a flawless tactic. It's common sense. The rest is just contrivance. If we're arguing contrivance, then the archers could simply light the inn on fire where the wizard is staying and then ambush him when he leaves the burning building, which would also be a pretty simple tactic. Considering falling back is a real-world tactic without spell casters it's hardly an anti-caster tactic.

Your argument is predicated on the ability to injure vastly inferior opponents, which is hardly indicative of power, while ignoring even the simplest options for those opponents. You actually selected CR0 opponents for your example with commoners and even they know enough to get out of the fog if they cannot see through it, and smart enough to move the opposite direction from the party. Geez, if they were in fortifications they would also have gates, a portcullis, maybe a moat and drawbridge, possibly murder holes, cauldrons of flaming oil, etc.


And a cleric in heavy armor can move 30 feet just fine if he has the strength for it.

What is your 7th level cleric giving up for that strength? Wisdom or Constitution, or a feat? He could have strength at the cost of hit points and concentration checks (which ends his spell earlier) and/or at the cost of wisdom (which makes it easier to save against the spell in question) so unless the next argument is "oh he also rolled well" there's a trade-off somewhere. The cleric has had 1 ASI at 7th level and the only other option is he's an even higher level showing off how a moderately leveled character can inflict damage on the weakest of opponents.

Your tactic would likely get slaughtered by an army of CR 1/2 thugs, which are are still pretty weak opponents for 7th level characters, just with simple tactics.

[CantigThimble]

I don't really know what you want here. I suggested a simplistic tactic that a party could use against a large army, you suggested some more advanced tactics that are much more likely for an army to use against that simplistic tactic, I suggested more advanced tactics that are much more likely for a party to use against an army. (like attacking from behind so they don't know where to retreat or accidentally retreat into the enemy if they aren't well informed of the situation, that's pretty basic) Now you're saying that those options that the party has don't count because their inn could be burned down and pointing out that an army of mooks++ could survive the tactics designed to deal with mooks. If all you wanted to point out was that there were lots of other possibilities and details missing from my original example then you're right, you got me, it was a simplified example. But it was simplified on both sides of the equation, not just in favor of the party.

As for fortifications, I was assuming that the PCs would get inside before attacking, spellcasters are much better at getting into places than non-spellcasters are at keeping them out. (Dimension Door, Mold Earth, Passwall, Illusions to trick them into opening the gate, Shadow Monk Infiltrator) In that case the fortifications could end up doing nothing more than trapping the army inside a killbox, depending on the situation of course.

I've seen a lot of these tactics, or variations of them, used by my party or my players. They've had varying success depending on the situation and how they were used because in game things are a lot more complicated than white room scenarios. I'm not saying that these tactics work all the time or that PCs are automatically better than armies, just that smart PCs can still pose a significant threat to overwhelming numbers despite bounded accuracy. Hell, even if mid-level PCs are just wildly and foolishly flailing their power against a large force they can pretty easily down a hundred with a few spells before they die.

Variant Human Tempest Cleric Level 7
Heavy Armor Master feat
Str: 14 +1 feat
Con: 15 +1 racial
Dex: 8
Int: 8
Wis: 15 +1 racial +2 at level 4
Cha: 10

[Ashrym]

I don't really know what you want here. I suggested a simplistic tactic that a party could use against a large army, you suggested some more advanced tactics that are much more likely for an army to use against that simplistic tactic, I suggested more advanced tactics that are much more likely for a party to use against an army. (like attacking from behind so they don't know where to retreat or accidentally retreat into the enemy if they aren't well informed of the situation, that's pretty basic) Now you're saying that those options that the party has don't count because their inn could be burned down and pointing out that an army of mooks++ could survive the tactics designed to deal with mooks. If all you wanted to point out was that there were lots of other possibilities and details missing from my original example then you're right, you got me, it was a simplified example. But it was simplified on both sides of the equation, not just in favor of the party.

I never started with an advanced tactic. Moving isn't an advanced tactic.

When I pointed out a simple tactic compared to your party's more advanced tactic you moved the goal post by taking away range and movement options. What your more advanced options were assumed mass panic and control over that mass panic, and added what-if's like another spell caster.

The comment on the inn was just an example of the environment favoring the commoners as a counter to your scenario of giving a bunch of commoners a ranged weapon but putting them in an environment where movement and range were restricted, taking away the advantage given them after I pointed out those advantages.


As for fortifications, I was assuming that the PCs would get inside before attacking, spellcasters are much better at getting into places than non-spellcasters are at keeping them out. (Dimension Door, Mold Earth, Passwall, Illusions to trick them into opening the gate, Shadow Monk Infiltrator) In that case the fortifications could end up doing nothing more than trapping the army inside a killbox, depending on the situation of course.

I'd say a rogue is much better at getting in than a spell caster. A disguise and some quick subterfuge isn't complicated or magical either. A fighter looking for a job who has a soldier background can trick his way in with a deception proficiency. Magic isn't necessary.

It also doesn't take away from the resources available. At this point you are adding passwall so the party is even higher level while the cleric's terrible ability scores are going to cost him in the other options. It's not like the watch is likely to miss an excavation going on and it still takes time, and dimension door allows for taking one additional creature.

It's not much of a kill box if it's big enough to hold an army. That mean multiple buildings, archers would be on the walls instead of the ground, and the party is also blinded by the fog. All you are hoping for here is the cleric to wander around blindly in the same fog afflicting everyone else and hope he gets them all? Hopefully he doesn't trip into the well and drown. ;-)


I've seen a lot of these tactics, or variations of them, used by my party or my players. They've had varying success depending on the situation and how they were used because in game things are a lot more complicated than white room scenarios. I'm not saying that these tactics work all the time or that PCs are automatically better than armies, just that smart PCs can still pose a significant threat to overwhelming numbers despite bounded accuracy. Hell, even if mid-level PCs are just wildly and foolishly flailing their power against a large force they can pretty easily down a hundred with a few spells before they die.

Forgive me, but you already ignored your own party being blind in the fog and the previously mentioned option of moving out of the fog as well as range advantage until you simply took it away after I mentioned it. At this point, you are still specifically using extremely low hp opponents to illustrate your point but that is situational. It's not like there wouldn't be actual guards or your cleric would be quiet in the fog with disadvantage on his check in that armor and terrible DEX as he wanders around blindly.

My comment about low CR like a small army of thugs still stands. The cleric wouldn't do enough damage fast enough because not all low CR opponents have the hit points of kobolds or commoners. The also don't come in armies without leaders. Those leaders don't need magic to hear your cleric wandering around. They can be low CR and still have more than enough hit points to last a bit. They can do thing like open up the stables and stampede the warhorses in your direction or try their luck with ballista, or alchemist fire.

This is even assuming the weather is working with the group. It only takes 10 mph wind to disperse the fog.

All that effort for all those levels, and a 3rd level assassin can just enter in disguise, poison the food and water supply, and wreak havoc without magic.


Variant Human Tempest Cleric Level 7
Heavy Armor Master feat
Str: 14 +1 feat
Con: 15 +1 racial
Dex: 8
Int: 8
Wis: 15 +1 racial +2 at level 4
Cha: 10

So you pretty much dumpstat 3 ability scores in order to get the wisdom, strength, and constitution. Your cleric doesn't seem exceptionally capable of sneaking around or tricking people, and the spells available don't support him much given he's already using concentration. Ironically, the 0 CR commoners you chose as opponents win initiative more often than the cleric, and most likely a large portion compared to the wizard too. How are you also justifying going first as opposed to not going first a large portion of the time and taking the high initial assault?

Your entire premise seems like it omits far too much for how often you would have us believe in it's power.

[CantigThimble]

I feel like I've made my point well enough and this isn't going to go anywhere. Have a good day.

[Ashrym]

I feel like I've made my point well enough and this isn't going to go anywhere. Have a good day.

Except you haven't. I've poked holes all through your point. I can easily add more. The "hundreds" of combatants you can kill with just a few spells in your example means there are also non-combatants. The typical ratio is 1:4 which puts your numbers into a place the size of a small town. A smaller ratio is a large village. Ignoring non-combatants is still a location the size of a village. The fog cloud from the 4th-level slot used in the example is about the size of half a football field and nowhere need large enough to cover the entire area for "hundreds" of the weakest opponents possible.

Your point (magic is better) fails because:


it ignores the weather
it ignores the opponents options
it's not party friendly
it doesn't match the size of the area to the number
it doesn't acknowledge multiple structures
it makes assumptions on how the opponents will react
it requires constant roll advantages to the spell casters such as like initiative or for infiltration
when some of these points were mentioned the circumstances required changing for increased contrivance that isn't going to consistently exist
it ignored non-magical options your own party might have
it ignored any army of weak creatures that doesn't have pathetic hit points in the example
it requires the party is taking initiative in planning the attack and ignores the same army planning an assault on the pc's instead.


I'm sure there are more holes in your points, but those were just some of the most obvious and easy to point out.

[RickAllison]

Except you haven't. I've poked holes all through your point. I can easily add more. The "hundreds" of combatants you can kill with just a few spells in your example means there are also non-combatants. The typical ratio is 1:4 which puts your numbers into a place the size of a small town. A smaller ratio is a large village. Ignoring non-combatants is still a location the size of a village. The fog cloud from the 4th-level slot used in the example is about the size of half a football field and nowhere need large enough to cover the entire area for "hundreds" of the weakest opponents possible.

Your point (magic is better) fails because:


it ignores the weather
it ignores the opponents options
it's not party friendly
it doesn't match the size of the area to the number
it doesn't acknowledge multiple structures
it makes assumptions on how the opponents will react
it requires constant roll advantages to the spell casters such as like initiative or for infiltration
when some of these points were mentioned the circumstances required changing for increased contrivance that isn't going to consistently exist
it ignored non-magical options your own party might have
it ignored any army of weak creatures that doesn't have pathetic hit points in the example
it requires the party is taking initiative in planning the attack and ignores the same army planning an assault on the pc's instead.


I'm sure there are more holes in your points, but those were just some of the most obvious and easy to point out.

Ahhh, the consequences of discussion in a public forum. One can leave the discussion, but their words remain and will be dissected further.

[MrFahrenheit]

Ok question for you all who've played to these higher levels in 5e:

How many of you have (or have DMed for) characters with world-changing abilities that actually USED such abilities outside of combat or as required by plot?

I ask this because the party I DM for is pretty optimized (and only 1-2 levels away from 15, depending on the individual PC), but they haven't tried to break the game with their abilities. That to me is more of a table's social contract thing: don't be a jerk.

[RickAllison]

Ok question for you all who've played to these higher levels in 5e:

How many of you have (or have DMed for) characters with world-changing abilities that actually USED such abilities outside of combat or as required by plot?

I ask this because the party I DM for is pretty optimized (and only 1-2 levels away from 15, depending on the individual PC), but they haven't tried to break the game with their abilities. That to me is more of a table's social contract thing: don't be a jerk.

Does trying to conquer the world through crashing the economy by Fabricate count?

[Pex]

Now that we've heard from That Guy, let me say this as someone who's been DM/GMing for decades. At a certain point, DMs like to think that the players might invest some real creative input into the game session, as it's far more enjoyable for everyone when it's a group effort.
And not just out-of-character table talk and silly banter.

Some of us feel that people who plot out a level 20 Kill-bot right away have only a superficial desire to invest themselves in a real character. And no, your Gish anime character art or ludicrous backstory "Um....he's a devoted assassin for the church...who dabble's in black magic...." doesn't really add to the flavor of the game universe.

Really, we GMs will allow you to respec a Feat if it becomes redundant with a class ability later on, there's a good chance we might present you with a neat magic item that shores up a chink in your invincible killy-ness. All we ask is that you do us a favor and try and put thought into a character that would be interesting to read a story about, instead of dragging in some proto-multiclass abomination the forums say "does Optimal Damage".

Thank you.

Around here this is known as the Stormwind Fallacy, thinking that the player who likes to have a powerful character does not like to roleplay. The two concepts, powerful character and roleplaying, actually have nothing to do with other. It is quite possible to be powerful and be all gung ho excited about and engaging in the gameworld. If the campaign is all about the Holy Order of Good Deed Doer Philanthropist Saints, the powerful player does not automatically want to play a Pirate Ninja Assassin Doppelganger. However, he would play, in 5E terms, a Variant Human Order of Vengeance Paladin using great weapon style, with the feats Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, and Sentinel to vanguish the dastardly fiends and undead that plague the land all the while being Lawful Good sweetness to the people donating all his treasure save the minimum he needs to maintain equipment, simple lodging, and simple foods.


Just when I think you can't top yourself, you say something even more ludicrous.

Nice to know I can still surprise people.


As a DM, I don't care if you kill the monsters I throw at you. If you're optimized for DPR, good on you, but I don't consider that *true* optimization. That honor I give to the bard who just banished the bone devil that was about to be my dungeon's boss encounter...

...or the wizard who counter-spelled the cloud giant's flight...

...or the sorcerer who twinned crown of madness on both hobgoblin warlords and set them against each other.

That sounds to me you're saying warriors who dish out a lot of damage mean nothing compared to the spellcaster who casts a spell. While warriors can do other things their main shtick is to dish out the damage, and to dismiss that is offputting.

[RickAllison]

Around here this is known as the Stormwind Fallacy, thinking that the player who likes to have a powerful character does not like to roleplay. The two concepts, powerful character and roleplaying, actually have nothing to do with other. It is quite possible to be powerful and be all gung ho excited about and engaging in the gameworld. If the campaign is all about the Holy Order of Good Deed Doer Philanthropist Saints, the powerful player does not automatically want to play a Pirate Ninja Assassin Doppelganger. However, he would play, in 5E terms, a Variant Human Order of Vengeance Paladin using great weapon style, with the feats Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, and Sentinel to vanguish the dastardly fiends and undead that plague the land all the while being Lawful Good sweetness to the people donating all his treasure save the minimum he needs to maintain equipment, simple lodging, and simple foods.



(raspberry)



That sounds to me you're saying warriors who dish out a lot of damage mean nothing compared to the spellcaster who casts a spell. While warriors can do other things their main shtick is to dish out the damage, and to dismiss that is offputting.

It is not true that Roleplaying and optimizing have nothing to do with one another, but the nature of the given character means it varies widely. A PC that claims to be a great archery champion yet is poorly optimized is... Well there is a severe discrepancy between "Great Archer" and the reality of the guy who decided to lower Dexterity in order to have a higher Wisdom. Other concepts don't require the same level of optimization (a given soldier still makes sense if he is poorly optimized, he never claimed to be one of the great swordsman of the land, just needs to be decent). Optimization and RP are only opposed when one wants to play a PC who is bad at what they are trying to be. Obviously someone who is supposed to be a bad soldier, but mechanically is a fantastic soldier, is going to have a disjunction just as a legendary PC who is bad at his job is going to have.

[Ashrym]

Does trying to conquer the world through crashing the economy by Fabricate count?

LOL, I once tried to take out a nation by intentionally catching and spreading communicable diseases. I enjoy unexpected off-the-wall-tactics.

[RickAllison]

LOL, I once tried to take out a nation by intentionally catching and spreading communicable diseases. I enjoy unexpected off-the-wall-tactics.

Oh yes. The best part about those tactics is you haven't created a build that destroys the world, you are making a character who is doing so. He is doing it by interacting with the world, immersing himself in the setting and people.

Basically, someone who destroys the world using class abilities is possibly interested in experiencing the world. Someone who destroys the world without class abilities is definitely someone who is choosing to be part of the world.

[Kryx]

How many of you have (or have DMed for) characters with world-changing abilities that actually USED such abilities outside of combat or as required by plot?

I ask this because the party I DM for is pretty optimized (and only 1-2 levels away from 15, depending on the individual PC), but they haven't tried to break the game with their abilities. That to me is more of a table's social contract thing: don't be a jerk.
"Here's a big nuke, but don't ever use it, or you're a jerk!"

Of course they'll use it when the going gets tough. If them using said option is them being a jerk then they probably shouldn't have said option to begin with.

[MrFahrenheit]

That sounds to me you're saying warriors who dish out a lot of damage mean nothing compared to the spellcaster who casts a spell. While warriors can do other things their main shtick is to dish out the damage, and to dismiss that is offputting.

You read my post wrong...I should rephrase it: I expect DPR, and for my players to kill the monsters. But casters typically have nasty ways of controlling the battlefield. I enjoy showing off a monster's cool ability before it gets killed, and casters have more ways to stop that if they win initiative.

DPR focused builds will go toe to toe with team bad guy, but they can't control the latter's actions the way non-DPR builds can. It doesn't just have to be casters though: a battlemaster disarming his opponent and then using a free interact with object action to kick the weapon away can have a similar effect.

[MrFahrenheit]

Does trying to conquer the world through crashing the economy by Fabricate count?

I mean I guess...though prominent civilizations in a high fantasy setting could/should have ways to detect the fabrications.


"Here's a big nuke, but don't ever use it, or you're a jerk!"

Of course they'll use it when the going gets tough. If them using said option is them being a jerk then they probably shouldn't have said option to begin with.

Not sure how you mean...if the going gets tough, then they're not being jerks.

[RickAllison]

I mean I guess...though prominent civilizations in a high fantasy setting could/should have ways to detect the fabrications.



Not sure how you mean...if the going gets tough, then they're not being jerks.

Fabricate doesn't make fake-looking goods, it makes actual goods. For jobs that require high levels of craftsmanship (jeweler, locksmith, clockmaker) with low levels of martial, a wizard with the right proficiency can replace them all.

Why have a manual gemcutter when you have the wizard who is manufacturing better gems with less waste? Oh, and he is making them faster.

It doesn't work for all industries (anything with bulk materials is probably safe), but you can run a lot of people out of business...

[MrFahrenheit]

Yeah I know..,your reply gave me an idea to create customs NPCs who can use some sort of device I'll create to detect naturally occurring vs fabricated materials.

[RickAllison]

Yeah I know..,your reply gave me an idea to create customs NPCs who can use some sort of device I'll create to detect naturally occurring vs fabricated materials.

But aren't any processed materials fabricated, just by manual labor instead of the spell?

[Knaight]

Because some DMs are on a power trip themselves and can't stand it that PCs get to do stuff. They feel threatened when PCs are able to manipulate the environment (figuratively speaking and occasionally literally) in which they interact with the gameworld. They feel only the DM should have such an ability. PCs are only there to react to what the DM gives them and within parameters the DM has permitted. I facetiously call them DMs who hate their players.

The power level of the characters and the extent to which the players affect the game are largely decoupled. It's entirely possible to railroad a high power superheroes game, and it's entirely possible for a game with characters who are distinctly less capable than average real people to be almost entirely player directed. Given this, trying to paint people who prefer games about more normal people to superheroes as power tripping DMs is ridiculous.

[Pex]

The power level of the characters and the extent to which the players affect the game are largely decoupled. It's entirely possible to railroad a high power superheroes game, and it's entirely possible for a game with characters who are distinctly less capable than average real people to be almost entirely player directed. Given this, trying to paint people who prefer games about more normal people to superheroes as power tripping DMs is ridiculous.

But those aren't the types of DMs who have a problem with powerful PCs. That's just the game story of normal people learning new things and eventually stopping the big bad evil guy. It's the DM who never wants PCs to be powerful, ever. It's the 5E DM whom I met and said, quote: "I'm a DM who believes players should never get what they want." It's the 2E DM whom I met and said, quote: "Clerics are only good for healing."

[Knaight]

But those aren't the types of DMs who have a problem with powerful PCs. That's just the game story of normal people learning new things and eventually stopping the big bad evil guy. It's the DM who never wants PCs to be powerful, ever. It's the 5E DM whom I met and said, quote: "I'm a DM who believes players should never get what they want." It's the 2E DM whom I met and said, quote: "Clerics are only good for healing."
Putting aside how I never even mentioned a BBEG, and that it could easily be a game story of below average people getting into convoluted situations that end poorly for everyone involved while the players laugh their heads off (See: The entire point of the game Fiasco, which as a GMless game can't have power tripping GMs by definition); it could be a game story of a number of below average people struggling alongside their more talented peers in an organization, while also struggling to be accepted by said organization; or it could be any number of things - the DMs do have a problem with powerful PCs. What they don't have a problem with are PCs who are central figures in the emergent narrative of the game, and who thus direct it. Again, these are entirely different things.

In this thread, it is clear that "powerful" means "capable of extraordinary or supernatural feats". Not being particularly interested in that, or even not being particularly interested in that for a given game is not the same thing as being on a power trip or not wanting the PCs to do stuff or anything of the sort.

[NecroDancer]

I don't see a problem with powerful PCs as long as every character gets a chance to shine inside or outside of combat.

[Hooligan]

But those aren't the types of DMs who have a problem with powerful PCs. That's just the game story of normal people learning new things and eventually stopping the big bad evil guy. It's the DM who never wants PCs to be powerful, ever. It's the 5E DM whom I met and said, quote: "I'm a DM who believes players should never get what they want." It's the 2E DM whom I met and said, quote: "Clerics are only good for healing."

Well those 2 do sound like DM's who truly hate their players; I take it neither of them are angst-ridden 13 year-olds? Unless there was some crucial missing context, I would have promptly a game run by either of those DMs.

I guess I've always been fortunate to have a DM who skillfully walks the narrow line of allowing players the freedom to be as strong as they can be while always making each player feel like they are constantly being challenged.

[MrFahrenheit]

Fabricate doesn't make fake-looking goods, it makes actual goods. For jobs that require high levels of craftsmanship (jeweler, locksmith, clockmaker) with low levels of martial, a wizard with the right proficiency can replace them all.

Why have a manual gemcutter when you have the wizard who is manufacturing better gems with less waste? Oh, and he is making them faster.

It doesn't work for all industries (anything with bulk materials is probably safe), but you can run a lot of people out of business...

So wait...your wizard utilized his fourth level (and higher) slots each day during downtime to repeatedly fabricate enough precious items that the economy tanked? Seems like one combat encounter in the evening time would've been bad news for him, which would not be OP, then, just a balance thing IMHO.

[RickAllison]

So wait...your wizard utilized his fourth level (and higher) slots each day during downtime to repeatedly fabricate enough precious items that the economy tanked? Seems like one combat encounter in the evening time would've been bad news for him, which would not be OP, then, just a balance thing IMHO.

Well you still have all your 1st through 3rd level spells handy. But yeah, using your spells for a constructive, world-building purpose and then being ambushed at the end of the day should be a challenge.

And this wouldn't be over a day or even weeks. This is destroying an economy by driving different artisans out of business and creating a reliance on the wizard. It is more analogous to a fighter raising up a devoted army that he has personally trained than Pun-Pun...

[MrFahrenheit]

Well you still have all your 1st through 3rd level spells handy. But yeah, using your spells for a constructive, world-building purpose and then being ambushed at the end of the day should be a challenge.

And this wouldn't be over a day or even weeks. This is destroying an economy by driving different artisans out of business and creating a reliance on the wizard. It is more analogous to a fighter raising up a devoted army that he has personally trained than Pun-Pun...

Lol...nobody grabbed their pitch forks?!

[RickAllison]

Lol...nobody grabbed their pitch forks?!

I was an upstanding member of the community! Who would raise pitchforks against someone who builds houses for those who can't afford to do so, gives most of his time to helping others rather than himself, and has striven to drive prices into the ground so the poor could gain luxury goods.

I was beloved by the people for my philanthropy, and the nobles for my superior craftsmanship. The only people who disliked me were the ones that I drove out of business.

[MrFahrenheit]

XD

...maybe it's just my devious DM nature, but those out of business shopkeepers sound like just the type to form a vengeance cult and summon a demon lord.

[RickAllison]

XD

...maybe it's just my devious DM nature, but those out of business shopkeepers sound like just the type to form a vengeance cult and summon a demon lord.

Once I took over the kingdom, I hired on every one of them as instructors on a pension. I'm sure some of them might have tried to make a vengeance cult, but others were making more money than before...

[CantigThimble]

Once I took over the kingdom, I hired on every one of them as instructors on a pension. I'm sure some of them might have tried to make a vengeance cult, but others were making more money than before...

Was this D&D or Sim-City fantasy edition? :smalltongue:

[SmokingSkull]

I must be one of those lucky players who has a DM that manages to walk that narrow divide being too permissive and too punishing. Why just today in our session our group somehow survived crashing our ship into a mountainside (How did that happen? Short and sweet of it is we were trapped in some spacescape on our caravel, we managed to escape it only to crash-land into snow and mountain as far as the eye can see). We travelled down the mountain till we could no more and set up camp. We needed firewood so me and our other barbarian, Bo, went out to gather wood. On our way back we were ambushed by Ice Trolls, using my rage I didn't just get stronger, no I turned into my spirit beast.

It was awesome, the simple version is I turned into a big, nasty, primeval lizard that was shredding them apart, of course I didn't have the appropriate elements to stop them from regenerating but whatever. I got to tear them up like godzilla, but now the bigger question our group has is where are we? That'll be for next session though...cannot wait! For future reference my char is level 10.

[RickAllison]

Was this D&D or Sim-City fantasy edition? :smalltongue:

Yes?:smallbiggrin:

[Shaofoo]

Quite frankly I have yet to see anything that could even be considered as being so widely unfair to other classes. Even the usual hate train of Beastmaster, 4 elements and Frenzy... I mean Beserker can still contribute to the party fairly well without the DM having to go out of their way to try to get something for them. I feel that this is all a holdover from previous versions that did have this discrepancy and people would rather want to repeat the memes than reeducate themselves.

Also I find that a lot of "analysis" is all just white room theorycrafting devoid of any soul or even reason at some points. The only baddie is a big punching bag and whoever gets to deal the most damage gets the privilege of being called broken. Non combat analysis follow this style of analysis where the situation is contrived to force the end result even if said situation would rarely apply in reality if at all.

I doubt the player that selected the one of six subclasses that doesn't deal with magic will suddenly feel jealous that his wizard friend can do stuff that he can't, especially considering that only one class can truly be considered magic less. 5e has done a lot to shore up some discrepancies between classes.

[DragonSorcererX]

How weird... I started this thread asking why some people hated medieval/high-fantasy superheroes and people started to talk about and defend the bullied sub-optimal archetypes...

Well, if someone is weaker bacause he chose a sub-optimal archetype... tweak it! If someone is stronger than the others, make homebrew enemies to fight him and cut his cheese! You are the DM! DO IT!

[Shaofoo]

How weird... I started this thread asking why some people hated medieval/high-fantasy superheroes and people started to talk about and defend the bullied sub-optimal archetypes...

Well, if someone is weaker bacause he chose a sub-optimal archetype... tweak it! If someone is stronger than the others, make homebrew enemies to fight him and cut his cheese! You are the DM! DO IT!

Don't you know, the point isn't to fix it, the point is to beat over the head how bad the system as written is and how the writers should feel bad! And if someone else has a different idea than you then they are flat out wrong and trying to change the system as written will only point to how wrong it is and how right they are (If I put it in blue that makes it okay, right?)

But seriously there are plenty of people who played these "suboptimal" archetypes that have a great time and contributed meaningfully to the party.

Of course some classes might have an easier time to shine in certain campaigns than others (not just the magic users so please put away your 30 year old sign of "Caster Supremacy" please). I have heard "X player is doing too much and outshining everyone" not "X isn't pulling his weight around", the former hogs all the spotlight and gives none to others while the latter acknowledges that there is a spotlight but he fails to deliver. A Rogue would have a super easy time in a game filled to the brim with skill challenges.

The point is that powerful is basically too subjective for anyone to agree with. The Beserker in the campaign will probably be a great mover and shaker in the campaign world, feared by all and double so by his enemies, powerful you might even say, but show that character to the internet and all you'll get is sneers about how he should be dead already from abusing Frenzy and how his DPR is no where near a fully optimized charop.

[DragonSorcererX]

Don't you know, the point isn't to fix it, the point is to beat over the head how bad the system as written is and how the writers should feel bad! And if someone else has a different idea than you then they are flat out wrong and trying to change the system as written will only point to how wrong it is and how right they are (If I put it in blue that makes it okay, right?)

But seriously there are plenty of people who played these "suboptimal" archetypes that have a great time and contributed meaningfully to the party.

Of course some classes might have an easier time to shine in certain campaigns than others (not just the magic users so please put away your 30 year old sign of "Caster Supremacy" please). I have heard "X player is doing too much and outshining everyone" not "X isn't pulling his weight around", the former hogs all the spotlight and gives none to others while the latter acknowledges that there is a spotlight but he fails to deliver. A Rogue would have a super easy time in a game filled to the brim with skill challenges.

The point is that powerful is basically too subjective for anyone to agree with. The Beserker in the campaign will probably be a great mover and shaker in the campaign world, feared by all and double so by his enemies, powerful you might even say, but show that character to the internet and all you'll get is sneers about how he should be dead already from abusing Frenzy and how his DPR is no where near a fully optimized charop.

I'm not criticizing sub-optimals and extreme roleplayers, I'm offering the fast and dirty solution to keep the evil aligned blood and loot flowing...
Even being the DM I'm a murderhobo, if I would play Vampire (or anything from the WoD) I would make murderhoboring adventures, the same goes to Call of Cthulhu or anything else. My favorite Final Fantasy is the first one, the game who gave life to the term murderhobo...

[Shaofoo]

I'm not criticizing sub-optimals and extreme roleplayers, I'm offering the fast and dirty solution to keep the evil aligned blood and loot flowing...
Even being the DM I'm a murderhobo, if I would play Vampire (or anything from WoD) I would make murderhoboring adventures, the same goes to Call of Cthulhu or anything else. My favorite Final Fantasy is the first one, the game who gave life to the term murderhobo...

The problem is that your solution isn't really a solution, changing the system doesn't say anything. Of course the problem isn't defined either so there really isn't a problem, just people complaining.

If you want to kill everything and not care for anything else then pick any character really, I am sure they will all serve you well in the murder industry. The point is that you will then see people get into internet fights about DPR and how the best one for doing damage will dominate the campaign... which is exactly the point, just like a perfectly crafted character that excels at skills will dominate a skill heavy game and the player who is best at roleplaying will dominate a RP heavy game (character sheets be damned). Some people think that any character doing anything better than another character, even if said thing the character is better is the main focus, means that said thing is broken.

[R.Shackleford]

The biggest problem to me is power relative to other PCs. Usually when people think they're not measuring up to other party members, they tend to lose interest in the challenges. But in 5e that's not too big a deal.

Well no.

Power typically comes from one of two sources.

Able to kill super fast.

Being able to kill very well PLUS having tons of options.

If the classes are not balanced then t is hard for a DM to make decent encounters.

[MrFahrenheit]

Quite frankly I have yet to see anything that could even be considered as being so widely unfair to other classes. Even the usual hate train of Beastmaster, 4 elements and Frenzy... I mean Beserker can still contribute to the party fairly well without the DM having to go out of their way to try to get something for them. I feel that this is all a holdover from previous versions that did have this discrepancy and people would rather want to repeat the memes than reeducate themselves.

Also I find that a lot of "analysis" is all just white room theorycrafting devoid of any soul or even reason at some points. The only baddie is a big punching bag and whoever gets to deal the most damage gets the privilege of being called broken. Non combat analysis follow this style of analysis where the situation is contrived to force the end result even if said situation would rarely apply in reality if at all.

I doubt the player that selected the one of six subclasses that doesn't deal with magic will suddenly feel jealous that his wizard friend can do stuff that he can't, especially considering that only one class can truly be considered magic less. 5e has done a lot to shore up some discrepancies between classes.

Going back to the main topic...this is a good point, and I think now that 5e has been out for about two years, we will start to see more threads regarding higher level play as more campaigns reach that level, and arguments over issues that arise then. Curious to see how it all pans out, since we still see arguments over "suboptimal" subclasses on sporadic occasion.

[ClintACK]

Well no.

Power typically comes from one of two sources.

Able to kill super fast.

Being able to kill very well PLUS having tons of options.

Counterexample: The Support/Control Wizard.

One of the most powerful characters I've ever played had no ability to cause damage beyond a nonmagical quarterstaff and an 8 strength. His unthinking response to "Roll Initiative" was "I cast Haste."

He had *tons* of utility options. (This was a wizard who spent a slot every day preparing Leomund's Secure Shelter.) But in combat it was mostly buffs and de-buffs. Okay, technically, he could have done direct damage with Telekinesis, but he always used it for combat maneuvers instead.

[ClintACK]

Was this D&D or Sim-City fantasy edition? :smalltongue:

That's half the point of TTRPGs over computer RPGs: true Open World. (The other half is social.)

Get bored with dungeon crawling? Feel like opening a fantasy-world tavern/inn? Getting deeply involved with the community you just rescued -- help the town rebuild now that the dragons/orcs/demons have been driven off? You can do that!

[MrFahrenheit]

That's half the point of TTRPGs over computer RPGs: true Open World. (The other half is social.)

Get bored with dungeon crawling? Feel like opening a fantasy-world tavern/inn? Getting deeply involved with the community you just rescued -- help the town rebuild now that the dragons/orcs/demons have been driven off? You can do that!

Lol...to paraphrase a remark one of my players made once: "It must be terrifying to be a peasant in a d&d world. Like, sure, when a group of bad guys come on an-ogrin', you can rely on heroes showing up to save the day. But they're gonna be throwing fireballs left and right, destroying parts of the town in the process."

And I'd add...once those heroes slay enough ogres, they're only not gonna be your new masters if they decide such out of the kindness of their hearts.