PDA

View Full Version : Saira's Guide to Game Mastery



TheNerdQueen
2022-04-20, 04:41 PM
Well, my last post got mixed reviews... at most. However, someone suggested that I write a three-part guide for dnd. I'm rather busy, but I think I can begin to write the first part! So, welcome to Saira's Guide to Game Mastery!

What is Game Mastery?

Good question! Because this is a guide about game mastery, we (or I) need to define it first. For this guide, game mastery is your knowledge of the rules, where to find them, where to apply them, and how they fit together.
But hey, that's a lot of things!
Correct! That is a lot of things! That's why this post will be separated into a few parts.

Before I begin, I'm going to establish a few things.

Levels of mastery
Okay, so I will use the following four-point scale:
0 - No knowledge. You know literally nothing. Most of you are not at this point, so I'll be mostly ignoring this level of knowledge.
1- Beginner. At this point, you have a vague understanding of the rules. For example, this might be your level of comprehension between a sorcerer and a wizard: "A wizard casts spells, and so does a sorcerer? And I think the sorcerer has points it can use to do things." You are mostly reliant on others knowing the rules more than you. Spells mostly confuse you, and you look up each spell more complicated than firebolt.
2 - Proficient. At this point, you have a solid understanding of the rules. You generally know what the classes do, and the difference between them. This also applies to different categories, such as spells and feats. When you look at a character sheet, you know where each item is (mostly) and what it's used for. You still have to look niche rules up most of the time, but you do know where/how to do it. You are also comfortable with a higher level of complexity, and can play wizards without dying! Most dnd players are at this level of mastery.
3 - Master. At this point, you have complete knowledge of the rules. You rarely have to look things up, and when you do it takes around ten seconds. When you look at mechanics you see how they interlock with other mechanics, even the obscure or mostly forgotten ones. Nobody questions your knowledge, and your characters are generally fine-tuned and taken from many sourcebooks, if needed.

NOTE: The above are generalizations. Please don't get mad at me, I'm just trying to show a scale. If you think it needs improvement, I'll do my best to incorporate any suggestions, within reason.

Part 1: RAW Rules knowledge
Pun intended.

This is the simplest part (hypothetically). It's your recall of the rules. Or, in other words, your ability to remember a rule(s) that fit the current situation or to solve a problem.

How do you boost this?
In order to boost RAW knowledge, you have to study. Read the sourcebooks, find stories of other campaigns, and come up with hypotheticals. It's not particularly exciting, but it's practical. An unintentional side effect might be about thirty more characters created than you will ever play. Of course, it's practically impossible to memorize every rule in existence. That's why it's important to know how to

Part 2: Where to find rules and where to apply them

In all seriousness, knowing how (and when) to look up rules is more important than the number of rules you know (within reason). After all, memorizing lots and lots of rules takes a bunch of time that many of us can't spend. In fact, the most valuable things to learn is not what every rule does, but what situations rules cover. For example, you don't have to know the exact amount of falling damage, but you do have to know that it happens when something falls, and where to find that damage. How to find it is often as simple as searching it up online. However, here are a few traps:

1. Make sure it doesn't say "Homebrew" at the top.
I'm not kidding. One time, I was looking up a race or something and I clicked on a dnd wiki. But I thought it looked odd, as it didn't look right. Then, I realized I was on dndwiki, and it was their homebrew section. Please make sure that what you're reading is official.
2. Make sure it is updated
Whatever website or something, sometimes they haven't updated to the latest information. Say it wasn't updated in a few years. Its information was right once, but no longer. Check the date to make sure it's updated if it needs to be.
3. Make sure it's the right rule
Some rules are closely related. For example, a page about a race might have both the new and old versions of a subrace. Often, these look similar, so you have to make sure you're looking at the correct one. There are other examples of situations like this, but this is the general idea. Make sure the rule you're seeing is the rule you actually want.

Now, what about when to look something up? There's a principle called "second-order knowledge", or knowing what you don't know. Basically, you have to know where the gaps in your knowledge. Everyone has them, so don't think that you are somehow immune. Dnd has been out for so long that, as a rule of thumb, if there is a situation, there is probably a rule or a set of rules that covers it. Basically, if (for example) you want to command animals to remove the ogre's eyes because the idiot wizard just had to go into melee you'd have to find the rules to do so. Here they are:
- The spell animal friendship and bribes can get them to do it (possibly)
- Smaller creatures can climb onto the backs of larger ones.
- Eyes are generally unguarded
- Ogres aren't immune/resistant to piercing damage
- DM who sent ogres after a 3rd level wizard and 1st level druid probably feels very guilty (okay, joking for this one).
And who knows? There could be a bunch more!

Now, what about guides?


(NOTE: rules are never final. Everything is up to the DM. They could very well veto any strategy, which would kind of ruin the next section)

Part 3: Putting them together
One of my earlier posts was about something I call "soft broken", where the character isn't broken because of stats, they're broken due to versatility. That is the end result of this part of mastery.

Think of putting rules together like a puzzle, except you don't know when pieces will appear. This is where guides can come in handy. As it turns out, there are many other people whose jobs are to present rules. These guides are helpful because they give a starting point, a way to narrow down many choices into just a few. Guides also present the options in simple terms, allowing you to just look at them quickly, rather than staring at some complicated text for five minutes, or getting caught off guard when something is far more complicated when it looks like because you didn't realize what it meant, unlike a guide which had to. Here are some examples (feel free to add more in the comments. If I really like any of them I will add them here with the username of the person who posted it, with permission) Keep in mind: spell combos are a more obvious form of this, which is why I'm including my favorite combos.
- Forcecage + sickening radiance is god. If someone casts forcecage on a group of things and another casts sickening radiance then they die very soon because of the exhaustion effects.
- The Coffeelock. This is a classic example because of how theoretically broken it is. Personally, I find it rather boring and more of a one trick pony. However, having a bajillion spell slots is undeniably effective if the DM will let you get away with it.
- The Aberrant Mind sorcerer can get any divination or enchantment spell on the wizard spell list. Geas is one of those spells. Sorcerers can force disadvantage on saving throws using Heightened Spell. Geas only has one saving throw. If the target fails, then they basically become your slave for a month at a minimum (if you're clever). Geas doesn't require concentration. End result: Aberrant mind gets to force a whole bunch of people to become their slaves, one minute at a time. WARNING: A sane DM will either not allow this or will allow it exactly once. (Note: although this is an example, it could ruin the fun if not discussed beforehand. Don't be an *******).

Now, combining rules with real-life common sense or situations that happen (for example, there are no rules for poisoning your enemies with wood alcohol, but if you can do it. Wood alcohol is extremely deadly). Is often just as, if not more effective. But this isn't about that, so you'll have to come up with that on your own.

Conclusion

To gain mastery, you have to study. You have to look at rules and guides. You'll probably have to play a lot to get a feel for when rules actually come into play. But guess what? In the end, that doesn't really matter. You don't need to know every rule to have fun. You don't need the most broken character at the table, and you certainly don't need to have a list of races and classes banned. And don't forget that your DM might not allow shenanigans like this. I've always been lucky to have relatively leniant DMs (sometimes too lenaint.) in order to get away with all of these shenanigans. But if you don't, or if you don't want to, that's okay! In the end, play however you want, and have fun doing it.

Afterword:
Yes, I am describing academic study a bit. That's partially intentional, but I do want to mention that one of the best ways to learn this stuff is to play. After all, that way you get to try new stuff out and have a lot of fun at the same time.

What do you guys think? Constructive feedback is always welcome, and I'll update this guide according to your responses and as time permits.

Unoriginal
2022-04-20, 07:07 PM
Game mastery is not system mastery is not rule knowledge. What you're describing is a specific interpretation of rule knowledge.

No amount of rule knowledge is going to give you the control/power/mastery you're describing in your OP.

A DM who think the rules must be respected in a literalist fashion or who allows rule lawyering *may* grant you that kind of control/power/mastery, but even then it's a question of what the DM takes into account, not what is written in the rules.



Dnd has been out for so long that, as a rule of thumb, if there is a situation, there is probably a rule or a set of rules that covers it. Basically, if (for example) you want to command animals to remove the ogre's eyes because the idiot wizard just had to go into melee you'd have to find the rules to do so. Here they are:
- The spell animal friendship and bribes can get them to do it (possibly)
- Smaller creatures can climb onto the backs of larger ones.
- Eyes are generally unguarded
- Ogres aren't immune/resistant to piercing damage
- DM who sent ogres after a 3rd level wizard and 1st level druid probably feels very guilty (okay, joking for this one).


1. there is no rule about damaging a creature's eyes in D&D 5e with conventional attacks.

2. Ogres, while not immune or resistant to piercing damage, are tough combatants who can animals trying to climb on them to attack them.

3. Why would eyes be "generally unguarded" against attempts to remove them? Anyone who has the capacity to move will protect their eyes.

So there is nothing about game mastery in your example (from the player's side, at least), nothing about system mastery, and nothing about rule knowledge either. It's just that the DM allowed it to happen.



Conclusion

To gain mastery, you have to study. You have to look at rules and guides. You'll probably have to play a lot to get a feel for when rules actually come into play. But guess what? In the end, that doesn't really matter. You don't need to know every rule to have fun. You don't need the most broken character at the table, and you certainly don't need to have a list of races and classes banned. And don't forget that your DM might not allow shenanigans like this. I've always been lucky to have relatively leniant DMs (sometimes too lenaint.) in order to get away with all of these shenanigans. But if you don't, or if you don't want to, that's okay! In the end, play however you want, and have fun doing it.

I sincerely don't understand why, if you admit that it's not actually a question of system mastery or rule knowledge, just a question of if the DM allows the shenanigans or not, you wrote this guide that argue the exact contrary.

Bovine Colonel
2022-04-20, 07:50 PM
And this is part of the reason why I'm not allowed to play arcane tricksters anymore. (No Saira, you cannot have a third-level character that could solo the terrasque!).


Or being banned from playing some race/class combos.


Basically, if (for example) you want to command animals to remove the ogre's eyes because the idiot wizard just had to go into melee you'd have to find the rules to do so.


For example, the advantage machine for the rogue combined the help action for familiars with the fact that rogues get sneak attack when they get advantage to make a rogue that deals way more damage than they were probably supposed to (I only got to pull this trick once.)


- Forcecage + sickening radiance is god. If someone casts forcecage on a group of things and another casts sickening radiance then they die very soon because of the exhaustion effects.
- The Coffeelock. This is a classic example because of how theoretically broken it is. Personally, I find it rather boring and more of a one trick pony. However, having a bajillion spell slots is undeniably effective if the DM will let you get away with it.
- The Aberrant Mind sorcerer can get any divination or enchantment spell on the wizard spell list. Geas is one of those spells. Sorcerers can force disadvantage on saving throws using Heightened Spell. Geas only has one saving throw. If the target fails, then they basically become your slave for a month at a minimum (if you're clever). Geas doesn't require concentration. End result: Aberrant mind gets to force a whole bunch of people to become their slaves, one minute at a time. WARNING: A sane DM will either not allow this or will allow it exactly once.


(for example, there are no rules for poisoning your enemies with wood alcohol, but if you can do it. Wood alcohol is extremely deadly)


And don't forget that your DM might not allow shenanigans like this. I've always been lucky to have relatively leniant DMs (sometimes too lenaint.) in order to get away with all of these shenanigans.

There are plenty of good reasons why a player or DM might want a better grasp of the game system and how the rules interact with one another. A player might want to have more options available, for example, or to feel like they're pulling their weight as a new player, or to thrive in a high-difficulty game, or to fulfill a very specific character concept, or to make sure a group of first-time players don't end up TPKing.

For some reason, this guide ignores almost all of them to focus on "so I can hog the spotlight with my 'broken' character."

I'm sure there are things that could be said one way or the other about whether any of OP's examples work, or whether better options are available (Sneak Attack every turn doesn't seem particularly broken, for example) but my key takeaway from this guide is that I wouldn't want to play at OP's table.

KorvinStarmast
2022-04-20, 09:34 PM
For the OP: no sale.
You have left out the crucial element of a TTRPG, which is the human element.

Game mastery for a TTRPG includes a number of things. At the very least, it includes:
1. Understand the game's structure
2. Understand its fundamental mechanics
3. Understand its limits
4. Understand its genre
5. Apply points 1 through 4 for players at the level of beginner, novice, master, expert. (That means learning by doing, so your 'play a lot' line certainly gets agreement here (ETA))

You have to see how the tools at hand (structure, mechanics, limitations, genre) interact with the players, and are applied by the players, to begin to walk the path of mastery.
To do that you have to understand and observe, and adapt to, real people whose decisions and choices inform the play itself.

Rules are a tool, a means to that end.

Spo
2022-04-20, 11:09 PM
For some reason, this guide ignores almost all of them to focus on "so I can hog the spotlight with my 'broken' character."

I'm sure there are things that could be said one way or the other about whether any of OP's examples work, or whether better options are available (Sneak Attack every turn doesn't seem particularly broken, for example) but my key takeaway from this guide is that I wouldn't want to play at OP's table.

I don’t know if your examples are being exaggerated for effect (“no you cannot play a level 3 arcane trickster because you have solo’ed a Terrasck (sp?) in the past with the help action of you familiar”) or if your DM lacks the creativity to use this creature competently or not, but I am confused as to the actual intent of this “guide”. Over the years I have played at multiple tables across the nation in both Adventures League and “regular” games and the information you present here would not be that practical to the players (novice and experienced) I have associated with.

Burley
2022-04-21, 07:33 AM
So, I think, if I remove the specificity of D&D from your guide, it makes a lot of sense. I thing I have a level 4 mastery of D&D and maybe a level 2 or 3 mastery of Monster of the Week (I don't get to play much else).
Correct me if I'm wrong: I don't think you're trying to define "What makes a good GM," rather "what are the signs that somebody has Mastery of the game."
When I sit back and think about what "mastery of a game" means, I think you're on the right path. Maybe a little refining needed. Mastery of a skill requires many hours of study and practice. Mastery also generally implies that you have a student, so, Mastery of a Game would mean you can teach the game.

If I extrapolate your guide (which isn't so much a guide as it is proposed guidelines and is maybe splitting hairs on my part): I've been playing a certain board game called Quacks of Quedlinburg with my partner. It's not a very complicated game, but I'd say I have Mastery (based on your guide) of it. I know the rules and, when I don't, I know exactly where they are and can understand the rule with a cursory glance to refresh my memory. I'd say I similarly have Mastery of Settlers of Catan, Love Letters and I dunno... dozens of other smaller games.
Do I win every time, because I have Mastery? Nope. I mean, usually, but not always. Because other people play the game and there are elements like luck, deception, critical thinking that I use and are used against me. These elements are the things that gamify the game.

Now, to play OP's Advocate here: Some of the above responses imply that other people being at the table and making decisions renders this guide moot. That the "human element" somehow negates the idea that a person can have Mastery of a game. Other people being at the table, though, is simply the element that makes the thing you have Mastery over a game, rather than a rule book. They are mutually inclusive. I can, and am, by this guides definitions a level 4 Master of D&D and that doesn't change based on the people at the table, their mastery level, or their love of chaos.
I don't think this guide is intended to say that a Master follows rules strictly and unerringly. I think it's saying that a Master is informed and experienced enough to follow the rules when needed and repurpose or reapply rules in the absence of rules.

It's an interesting idea and one which I delight in entertaining, because I can call myself a Master.

Unoriginal
2022-04-21, 08:34 AM
So, I think, if I remove the specificity of D&D from your guide, it makes a lot of sense. I thing I have a level 4 mastery of D&D and maybe a level 2 or 3 mastery of Monster of the Week (I don't get to play much else).
Correct me if I'm wrong: I don't think you're trying to define "What makes a good GM," rather "what are the signs that somebody has Mastery of the game."
When I sit back and think about what "mastery of a game" means, I think you're on the right path. Maybe a little refining needed. Mastery of a skill requires many hours of study and practice. Mastery also generally implies that you have a student, so, Mastery of a Game would mean you can teach the game.

If I extrapolate your guide (which isn't so much a guide as it is proposed guidelines and is maybe splitting hairs on my part): I've been playing a certain board game called Quacks of Quedlinburg with my partner. It's not a very complicated game, but I'd say I have Mastery (based on your guide) of it. I know the rules and, when I don't, I know exactly where they are and can understand the rule with a cursory glance to refresh my memory. I'd say I similarly have Mastery of Settlers of Catan, Love Letters and I dunno... dozens of other smaller games.
Do I win every time, because I have Mastery? Nope. I mean, usually, but not always. Because other people play the game and there are elements like luck, deception, critical thinking that I use and are used against me. These elements are the things that gamify the game.

Now, to play OP's Advocate here: Some of the above responses imply that other people being at the table and making decisions renders this guide moot. That the "human element" somehow negates the idea that a person can have Mastery of a game. Other people being at the table, though, is simply the element that makes the thing you have Mastery over a game, rather than a rule book. They are mutually inclusive. I can, and am, by this guides definitions a level 4 Master of D&D and that doesn't change based on the people at the table, their mastery level, or their love of chaos.
I don't think this guide is intended to say that a Master follows rules strictly and unerringly. I think it's saying that a Master is informed and experienced enough to follow the rules when needed and repurpose or reapply rules in the absence of rules.

It's an interesting idea and one which I delight in entertaining, because I can call myself a Master.

What OP argues is at best self-contradictory, even if you follow her definition and 'level of mastery' grading system.

Having your DM agree that wood alcohol is 'extremely deadly' requires neither studying nor system mastery nor game mastery. Having your DM decide that Charmed animals will risk their lives to blind Ogres who do nothing to protect their body parts requires neither studying nor system mastery nor game mastery. Having your DM agree that the Kaiju isn't going to kill the familiar who Help every turn requires neither studying nor system mastery nor game mastery.

And so ln and so on.

TheNerdQueen
2022-04-21, 10:44 AM
I don’t know if your examples are being exaggerated for effect (“no you cannot play a level 3 arcane trickster because you have solo’ed a Terrasck (sp?) in the past with the help action of you familiar”) or if your DM lacks the creativity to use this creature competently or not, but I am confused as to the actual intent of this “guide”. Over the years I have played at multiple tables across the nation in both Adventures League and “regular” games and the information you present here would not be that practical to the players (novice and experienced) I have associated with.

Yes, this is exaggerated (a bit). It's because terrasques don't have any ranged attacks and can't regenerate hp, so a very determined archer who can fly can kill a terrasque given a lot of time. And yes, I'm mostly joking. Game and rules mastery isn't necessary, and right now I'm just giving a shot at this whole "guide" buisness.

TheNerdQueen
2022-04-21, 10:45 AM
What OP argues is at best self-contradictory, even if you follow her definition and 'level of mastery' grading system.

Having your DM agree that wood alcohol is 'extremely deadly' requires neither studying nor system mastery nor game mastery. Having your DM decide that Charmed animals will risk their lives to blind Ogres who do nothing to protect their body parts requires neither studying nor system mastery nor game mastery. Having your DM agree that the Kaiju isn't going to kill the familiar who Help every turn requires neither studying nor system mastery nor game mastery.

And so ln and so on.

Fair enough. I find it difficult to seperate this sort of stuff. However, I specifically mentioned that that example had nothing to do with rules (I think) and that, although it could be effective, it isn't part of the rules.

TheNerdQueen
2022-04-21, 10:53 AM
So, I think, if I remove the specificity of D&D from your guide, it makes a lot of sense. I thing I have a level 4 mastery of D&D and maybe a level 2 or 3 mastery of Monster of the Week (I don't get to play much else).
Correct me if I'm wrong: I don't think you're trying to define "What makes a good GM," rather "what are the signs that somebody has Mastery of the game."
When I sit back and think about what "mastery of a game" means, I think you're on the right path. Maybe a little refining needed. Mastery of a skill requires many hours of study and practice. Mastery also generally implies that you have a student, so, Mastery of a Game would mean you can teach the game.

If I extrapolate your guide (which isn't so much a guide as it is proposed guidelines and is maybe splitting hairs on my part): I've been playing a certain board game called Quacks of Quedlinburg with my partner. It's not a very complicated game, but I'd say I have Mastery (based on your guide) of it. I know the rules and, when I don't, I know exactly where they are and can understand the rule with a cursory glance to refresh my memory. I'd say I similarly have Mastery of Settlers of Catan, Love Letters and I dunno... dozens of other smaller games.
Do I win every time, because I have Mastery? Nope. I mean, usually, but not always. Because other people play the game and there are elements like luck, deception, critical thinking that I use and are used against me. These elements are the things that gamify the game.

Now, to play OP's Advocate here: Some of the above responses imply that other people being at the table and making decisions renders this guide moot. That the "human element" somehow negates the idea that a person can have Mastery of a game. Other people being at the table, though, is simply the element that makes the thing you have Mastery over a game, rather than a rule book. They are mutually inclusive. I can, and am, by this guides definitions a level 4 Master of D&D and that doesn't change based on the people at the table, their mastery level, or their love of chaos.
I don't think this guide is intended to say that a Master follows rules strictly and unerringly. I think it's saying that a Master is informed and experienced enough to follow the rules when needed and repurpose or reapply rules in the absence of rules.

It's an interesting idea and one which I delight in entertaining, because I can call myself a Master.

Thank you! This is what I'm trying to say, and thank you for saying it explicitly! Do you mind if I put this quote (that isn't directly about your experience) to clarify things? And thank you so much for saying this!

Burley
2022-04-21, 12:12 PM
I do not need attribution to be quoted, until you start makin' money off'a me.

Feel free to quote me, but I do suggest pruning your examples. That seems to be where your detractors are getting stuck. Let them find their own examples to your guidelines.

Unoriginal
2022-04-21, 12:40 PM
Fair enough. I find it difficult to seperate this sort of stuff. However, I specifically mentioned that that example had nothing to do with rules (I think) and that, although it could be effective, it isn't part of the rules.

My point is that the way you're using those examples, which go against your argument, destroys said argument.

A guide needs a thesis, as the raison d'être of a guide is to present how to do something, or at least help the reader go from Point A to Point B.

Your OP presents a certain conception of how the game and rules work, and I disagree with it. But then you also adds elenents showcasing why the conception of game & rules you're defending doesn't actually work, and conclude by reiterating that said conception is something you can ignore without anything being lost.

TheNerdQueen
2022-04-21, 10:46 PM
My point is that the way you're using those examples, which go against your argument, destroys said argument.

A guide needs a thesis, as the raison d'être of a guide is to present how to do something, or at least help the reader go from Point A to Point B.

Your OP presents a certain conception of how the game and rules work, and I disagree with it. But then you also adds elenents showcasing why the conception of game & rules you're defending doesn't actually work, and conclude by reiterating that said conception is something you can ignore without anything being lost.

Thank you for your feedback (seriously). Can you point to a specific example so I can reevaluate it?

Bovine Colonel
2022-04-22, 07:23 AM
Feel free to quote me, but I do suggest pruning your examples. That seems to be where your detractors are getting stuck. Let them find their own examples to your guidelines.

Speaking for myself, my issue isn't so much with the examples themselves as the attitude that the guide appears to be encouraging where mastery is expressed by playing "broken" characters, showing off, and creating DM headaches severe enough to ban certain subclasses. D&D is not a competitive game. You don't "master" the game by trivializing the other PCs in combat.

Mind you, I'm not saying character optimization is bad or even that a lot of character optimization is bad. The Nuclear Wizard (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23998967&postcount=170) build certainly uses familiarity with the game rules and how they interact with one another to create an extremely combat-effective character. I'm sure there are games where a Nuclear Wizard would be a perfectly reasonable character to play. But would I be a "master" of the game if I brought a Nuclear Wizard to a session where several first-time players are being introduced to the game, or really any session where most players don't have a good enough grasp of the rules to know how a Nuclear Wizard works? No, I'd be a problem player and the DM would be right not to invite me back next session.

Tanarii
2022-04-22, 08:29 AM
This isn't a guide to game mastery.

It's a overly long post saying: System Mastery is a thing!

Cheesegear
2022-04-22, 09:56 AM
Because this is a guide about game mastery, we (or I) need to define it first.

Change 'Game Mastery' to literally anything, and you're basically just describing the process of (academic) learning:

1. Research,
2. Apply Research, acquire Results,
3. Using Results, propose new Research.

Congratulations. You've just described...School?


For this guide, game mastery is your knowledge of the rules

For this guide, carpentry is your knowledge of woodworking.

1. Read some books. Watch some videos.
2. Using what you've learned; make a simple chair, a table. Do some joinery.
3. Now that you know everything make anything you want!


To gain mastery, you have to study. You have to look at rules and guides. You'll probably have to play a lot to get a feel for when rules actually come into play. But guess what? In the end, that doesn't really matter. You don't need to know every rule to have fun.

Again...If you just change some of the nouns, you're just describing one of the processes of human learning.

Guide to Humans: Part 5, Skill Development; Pattern Recognition via Play and Repetition

TheNerdQueen
2022-04-22, 11:38 AM
Speaking for myself, my issue isn't so much with the examples themselves as the attitude that the guide appears to be encouraging where mastery is expressed by playing "broken" characters, showing off, and creating DM headaches severe enough to ban certain subclasses. D&D is not a competitive game. You don't "master" the game by trivializing the other PCs in combat.

Mind you, I'm not saying character optimization is bad or even that a lot of character optimization is bad. The Nuclear Wizard (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23998967&postcount=170) build certainly uses familiarity with the game rules and how they interact with one another to create an extremely combat-effective character. I'm sure there are games where a Nuclear Wizard would be a perfectly reasonable character to play. But would I be a "master" of the game if I brought a Nuclear Wizard to a session where several first-time players are being introduced to the game, or really any session where most players don't have a good enough grasp of the rules to know how a Nuclear Wizard works? No, I'd be a problem player and the DM would be right not to invite me back next session.

With that, I was mostly joking. But you're right. I'll remove those bits.