Tashas is Disappointing in a way i don't see people talking about

[Luccan]

That 3.x flaw was an after the fact rationalization - rather than admit they were incompetent at balance, they said it was on purpose.

Whether it was or not (I'm inclined to believe at least some of it was, if for no other reason than they explicitly made decisions targeted to make classes they didn't like weaker), it's still not a design philosophy I'm comfortable with for a co-operative tabletop RPG. And it seemed to be the sort of thing Bilbron was advocating.

[Amdy_vill]

It's a rule in the new book that addresses your concern. I can play a sorcerer as any element and change the element with sorcery points to fill in the gaps.

I don't put too much stake on it being optional. Feats are optional and I've yet to see a game run without them.

I understand this point of view but the class options have been controversial since they were in ua. I will allow them at my table but a large group has dislike both the new class options and the race choices because of their increased power I also don't believe we know if their al legal which if they are not would likely make the division worse IMHO

[Moreb Benhk]

But this also applies to subclasses as well. I can count the number of frenzy barbarians, 4 elements monks, champion fighters that I have DMed for on the fingers of one head. Whatever it is people are choosing from they tend to pick the better option. Its true of any content. Yet still they release new subclasses.

400% Same criticism applies for subclasses. Some of the most ridiculous stuff to come through has been stealth patches on weak stuff (cough... Hexblade... cough). Balance issues in subclasses are worse than the subclass not existing in some ways, because they give you the appearance of choice (much like a bloated spell list) but without actual choices to make, and a lot of the time the fluffy and concept of the subclasses can be really cool, but just poorly implemented. But this has been a fairly constant issue in DnD. Heck even 4e the 'balance is all' version of DnD was rife with power options that were absolutely awful which were up against some really strong options, and had a few classes in them that were worse at their schtick than adapting one of the other classes for it.

I dont think that the issue of a characters spell list being too powerful is an issue either. Much like alternative class features, create some spells as alternatives. If there was a spell that was a explicit replacement for wall of force, as in you could have one or the other, then there wouldnt be much of a problem at all.

Unless it was a stealth errata for Wall of Force that is either better or worse (depending on the issue with the original spell) under the guise of a new spell option - in which case you have a trap option and (potentially) still leave any existing issues unaddressed. I think spell lists become too powerful because they are improved/expanded in ways that no other class features experience. Spellcasting is already the most versatile and customisable and power-scaling class feature that exists, and DnD has a bad habit of beefing it up further while leaving everything else more or less as-is.

[MaxWilson]

That 3.x flaw was an after the fact rationalization - rather than admit they were incompetent at balance, they said it was on purpose.

Are you talking about Monte Cook's blog post? (Quoted at https://4thmaster.wordpress.com/2014...r-game-design/) Because that's not his point. What he said is that given that certain feats like Toughness are niche, he wishes they'd been more upfront and conversational in communicating what those feats are NOT for.

5E made this same mistake BTW. If they'd taken Monte's advice, Weapon Master for example would have some advice about who ought to take it, a la "this feat isn't for serious warriors, it's for niche low-level wizards who want to pretend to be warriors without delaying their access to spells--but if you're planning to go beyond 5th level this feat isn't good for you."

Quoting Monte's post: "To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It’s also handy when you know you’re playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don’t want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).

"Ivory Tower Game Design requires a two-step process on the part of the reader. You read the rule, and then you think about how it fits in with the rest of the game. There’s a moment of understanding, and then a moment of comprehension. That’s not a terrible thing, but neither is just providing the reader with both steps, at least some of the time.

"While there’s something to be said for just giving gamers the rules to do with as they please, there’s just as much to be said for simply giving it to the reader straight in a more honest, conversational approach. Perhaps that’s what the upcoming D&D for Dummies book will be. I hope so."

5E is also an Ivory Tower game.

[Bilbron]

Not sure I agree with the "it is not enough for me to succeed; others must fail" mentality being applied to a cooperative game. The biggest flaw of 3.X was Ivory Tower game design, which ended up bloating the game with a fair amount of crap. Imagine how much better it could've been if they weren't actively trying to make the game worse for some people. I'm in favor of more spells (and maneuvers and feats and so on) for providing a greater number of options, but they absolutely should not put stuff in the game to potentially make certain players play worse. And if not for those players' sake then for the sake of their groups.

I don't think it's necessarily about others failing (though Vidal has a point about the human experience of schadenfraude), but rather a personal competitiveness that is present in many players in sports/games. Optimizing rules and becoming personally powerful is the most fun aspect of the game for me and many others (which is not to imply that we don't value RP or understand that the point of the game is for everyone to have fun).

[Pex]

I agree with all of this but I feel that all the summon x spirit spells could have just been compressed into 2 a 3rd level and 4th level with all the same features but just more options. what do you think of that?

They're separated to reflect the class theme. A druid isn't thematically appropriate to cast Summon Celestial. A cleric wouldn't cast Summon Fey. Not counting class list they could, but it stretches verisimillitude. Combining them may save space in the physical printing of pages in the book, but the choice of thematics taking priority is not unreasonable.

I agree but we are talking about there being ideas you just can execute in dnd. acid draconic sorcerers are almost impossible. they have more support now but still lack spells in certain levels. When I say we need more spells I am focusing on this type of spell expantion.

Slightly fixed with Transmuted Spell. A player could find it cool to get Acidball using it, but your point stands. That metamagic becomes a tax, not a choice. A new player may not notice and have genuine fun in his ignorance. Once you become experienced playing the game is when it becomes a bother.

[Luccan]

I don't think it's necessarily about others failing (though Vidal has a point about the human experience of schadenfraude), but rather a personal competitiveness that is present in many players in sports/games. Optimizing rules and becoming personally powerful is the most fun aspect of the game for me and many others (which is not to imply that we don't value RP or understand that the point of the game is for everyone to have fun).

I'll acknowledge the satisfaction that comes from system mastery and being able to know the most efficient way of achieving X or why you might actually want to do it this other way and so on. But I believe you can get that without screwing over "bad" players. At the very least you can do so while focusing on trying to make everything you add to the game worthwhile. Apologies if I misunderstood your sentiment, but it was what I read as the implication that trap options are desirable that frustrated me. In my view, piling books with bad options makes them worth less to the overall game.

[RifleAvenger]

I'll acknowledge the satisfaction that comes from system mastery and being able to know the most efficient way of achieving X or why you might actually want to do it this other way and so on. But I believe you can get that without screwing over "bad" players. At the very least you can do so while focusing on trying to make everything you add to the game worthwhile. Apologies if I misunderstood your sentiment, but it was what I read as the implication that trap options are desirable that frustrated me. In my view, piling books with bad options makes them worth less to the overall game.

It's also incredibly annoying when you DO have system mastery, and see an option that would make for a really cool character... if it wasn't garbage from being incredibly conditional or otherwise awful.

There's also the fact that having good options does not mean those good options will be applied well in play. I once forgot that my PF1e Arcanist had recently acquired Scrying before another player angrily reminded me, after I puttered around in the inn for several hours ICly while another party member was missing. Another player in that same game has not used Power Attack ONCE in the entire game, despite taking it.

[Devils_Advocate]

I dont think that the issue of a characters spell list being too powerful is an issue either.

I get what you mean, of course, but saying that an issue isn't an issue is somewhat amusing phrasing. ;)

An unweildy list to select from is how a game gives good players the opportunity to have better PCs than bad players. A small list of nothing but good spells/options forces bad players into good choices. A game that forces everyone to be good is like a school exercise with no winners and participation trophies all around... a great safe space, but no fun for anyone.

A large and unbalanced list of traits to select for a player character lets better character-builders have better-optimized PCs than bad character-builders. I would hesitate to call character creation and level-up choices part of "playing" Dungeons & Dragons. It's more like a prerequisite to playing D&D, with the actual play part consisting of choosing what one's character does. I do believe that there is a contingent of old-school gamers who dislike "character builds" because they remove the need to be a good player.

The opposite sentiment may now be more common. I recall someone lamenting that it was possible to create a perfectly functional character in 4th Edition by selecting powers randomly. It seems that at least some players have become enamored of character generation as a winnable minigame to the extent that game balance is distasteful if not outright loathsome to you.

No set of functionally different options will ever be perfectly balanced anyway. A slew of options of widely varying power levels doesn't add the opportunity to do better through greater system mastery. It adds the opportunity to relatively easily have a cheesed-out character by reading through all of the books and contrasting varying possibilities to find the overpowered ones, and it also adds the opportunity to relatively easily have a pathetically underpowerd character by just fleshing out a character concept based on the limited material you're aware of.

Someone who wanted system mastery to be challenging wouldn't want any of that. Someone who wanted optimizing a character to be a true test of skill would want limited options that were intended to be balanced with each other, so that seriously smashing that intended balance would then be really hard. Then having a super min/maxed PC would be an accomplishment that demonstrated more than just the time and the willingness to read through all of the available options and make the easy comparisons.

As-balanced-as-possible systems aren't just for those who want different character options to be equally supported. They're also for those who want to truly show off their leet character-optimization skillz. To the extent that powerful characters are easy to make, the players who don't have them will generally be the ones who don't care to.

[MaxWilson]

As-balanced-as-possible systems aren't just for those who want different character options to be equally supported. They're also for those who want to truly show off their leet character-optimization skillz. To the extent that powerful characters are easy to make, the players who don't have them will generally be the ones who don't care to.

You would think that would be true but it doesn't seem to be in practice. What's obvious to and easy for one person is not to and for another.

[PhoenixPhyre]

On the topic of system mastery (and its multiple meanings), my ideal world would be one where system mastery doesn't really increase power, but instead increases the range of characters one can build.

Imagine a system where the "core character types" have obvious builds. You want a strong, tanky melee fighter? There's an obvious path for that. You want a nimble archer? There's an obvious path for that. Etc for a group of aesthetically-chosen character types. All of these are roughly balanced (as much as you can balance characters), but the important thing is that they're obvious. Any new player picking up the book will, just by virtue of choosing the options that "sound like" one of those character types will get a competent character. Just picking things at random without any thought for thematics would end up leaving you sub-par. Not terminally so, but noticeably.

And then imagine that knowing all the ins-and-outs of the system really couldn't give you more raw power. Instead, it would let you play in parts of the character-build space that aren't obvious, thus widening the range of themes you could make competent characters for. So system mastery is capped hard in power terms--the most "clever" build isn't going to have more raw power than one of the obvious ones, but will let you play things that aren't covered in the obvious paths.

I don't know if that kind of system is even feasible to make, but yeah.
-------------
On that note, trap options, for me, have negative value. Having 100 options, of which 50 are meh, 20 are traps, and 30 are actually good is way worse than just having 10 good options and 20 meh ones. And I'd prefer 15 good options with no meh or traps to even 50 good options and 50 traps. Each trap roughly counts as -2 or -3 good options.

Edit: And I find "showing off system mastery" in competitive builds (or "winning at character creation") to be utterly repugnant. Do that in a wargame. Don't do it in a cooperative roleplaying game.

[Bilbron]

Edit: And I find "showing off system mastery" in competitive builds (or "winning at character creation") to be utterly repugnant. Do that in a wargame. Don't do it in a cooperative roleplaying game.

I actually think powergamers have a valuable role in a cooperative RPG. D&D is particularly lethal due to the single d20 system and a plethora of save-or-suck mechanics, so bad dice can easily lead to a TPK scenario. But if there's a powergamer lurking in the back, who doesn't go all out most battles in the interests of everyone having fun and contributing hero moments, but in the face of a TPK can really ramp it up and bail the party out... man, that's a real nice thing to have in D&D. Because we're all here to have fun, and TPK's or even permanent PC deaths are no fun for anyone.

And don't forget, some campaigns DO run the game as war. Like my own... where 4x 9th level PCs recently encountered a CR 16 Legendary Devil and his legion of 15x CR4 minions. Almost a TPK until my PC exerted himself.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I actually think powergamers have a valuable role in a cooperative RPG. D&D is particularly lethal due to the single d20 system and a plethora of save-or-suck mechanics, so bad dice can easily lead to a TPK scenario. But if there's a powergamer lurking in the back, who doesn't go all out most battles in the interests of everyone having fun and contributing hero moments, but in the face of a TPK can really ramp it up and bail the party out... man, that's a real nice thing to have in D&D. Because we're all here to have fun, and TPK's or even permanent PC deaths are no fun for anyone.

And don't forget, some campaigns DO run the game as war. Like my own... where 4x 9th level PCs recently encountered a CR 16 Legendary Devil and his legion of 15x CR4 minions. Almost a TPK until my PC exerted himself.

I find that horrible design. Because now, everyone knows that either
a) we can slack off and <person> will cover for us (which breaks team-based verisimilitude to pieces)
b) we're only here so that <person> can show off when rescuing us (which sets up a protagonist vs supporting cast vibe I dislike, like a bad shonen anime).

D&D is supposed to be a team of equals, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. If one person doesn't really need the party, or if one person can turn an encounter like that around just by "exerting himself", that's not a team of equals. That's a pity save and condescending pats on the head.

And it has nothing to do with war vs sport (I hate those terms FYI)--it has to do with internal competitiveness. If the objective is to win vs the rest of the party (to show them that you're better/smarter/whatever), then play a competitive game. That mentality (winning vs other players) has absolutely no place in a cooperative game, at least one that I want to play.

I don't have the issue with trying to build good characters for its own sake. I do have the issue when one person is trying to beat another person at a non-competitive game.

[Bilbron]

I find that horrible design. Because now, everyone knows that either
a) we can slack off and <person> will cover for us (which breaks team-based verisimilitude to pieces)
b) we're only here so that <person> can show off when rescuing us (which sets up a protagonist vs supporting cast vibe I dislike, like a bad shonen anime).

D&D is supposed to be a team of equals, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. If one person doesn't really need the party, or if one person can turn an encounter like that around just by "exerting himself", that's not a team of equals. That's a pity save and condescending pats on the head.

And it has nothing to do with war vs sport (I hate those terms FYI)--it has to do with internal competitiveness. If the objective is to win vs the rest of the party (to show them that you're better/smarter/whatever), then play a competitive game. That mentality (winning vs other players) has absolutely no place in a cooperative game, at least one that I want to play.

I don't have the issue with trying to build good characters for its own sake. I do have the issue when one person is trying to beat another person at a non-competitive game.

I wouldn't say that I'm trying to be more powerful than anyone else. It's that I'm trying to become as powerful as possible, and if I'm doing so effectively, I must ipso facto be stronger than my colleagues, otherwise I'm just spinning my wheels. It's not with the intent of showing anyone up or ruining anyone else's fun, which seems baked into your perspective but doesn't seem to me to be a given when dealing with a powergamer.

I think there is a significant philosophical conflict here. You have a vision in your head of what D&D is "supposed to be", whereas in my view, PCs are never exactly equal because players themselves are never exactly equal... some are just smarter, more talented, or more experienced at whatever aspects of the game/sport are relevant in the moment.

As a result, (please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm painting with a broad brush here) players like you tend to want to "fix" the game so that you achieve your desire of "everyone being equal", in large part by proverbially "baby-proofing" the game by removing all traps and sharp corners (i.e. limiting all options to neutral or positive outcomes). Players like me say "life isn't fair, and there's nothing that can be done to change that no matter how tempting central planning might be (due to the Information Problem and the Calculation Problem, but I digress) but if I work at it, I can gain an advantage, and this is both warranted and just by the fact that I'm investing so many more resources, and it's pretty lame that all these other folks seem to have more fun by cutting me down to their level rather than observing and learning and working to rise to mine."

My own campaign is one powergamer (me) and 4x flavor players who aren't concerned with their power level and are developing their characters according to their vision of their personalities in the context of campaign influences. I participate heavily in the RP and interaction and exploration aspects of the game, and I very rarely flaunt my power, just quietly getting beastlier and beastlier with every level. In combat, I support the party in non-flashy ways, so that usually the excited chatter after the battle is about my Light Cleric's Sunlight Javelins and my Paladin's amazing Smites, while I am just happy knowing that my Slow silently eliminated 18x halberd attacks per round, my 10x Tiny Servants gave a good accounting of themselves, my obscurement shut down the BBEG's main attack as I'd planned, etc.

I do understand that powergaming often comes with an arrogant, condescending attitude and a showboating playstyle that turns people off, but I think that's bad powergaming. I should actually probably do a video on this, now that I think about it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I wouldn't say that I'm trying to be more powerful than anyone else. It's that I'm trying to become as powerful as possible, and if I'm doing so effectively, I must ipso facto be stronger than my colleagues, otherwise I'm just spinning my wheels. It's not with the intent of showing anyone up or ruining anyone else's fun, which seems baked into your perspective but doesn't seem to me to be a given when dealing with a powergamer.

I think there is a significant philosophical conflict here. You have a vision in your head of what D&D is "supposed to be", whereas in my view, PCs are never exactly equal because players themselves are never exactly equal... some are just smarter, more talented, or more experienced at whatever aspects of the game/sport are relevant in the moment.

As a result, (please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm painting with a broad brush here) players like you tend to want to "fix" the game so that you achieve your desire of "everyone being equal", in large part by proverbially "baby-proofing" the game by removing all traps and sharp corners (i.e. limiting all options to neutral or positive outcomes). Players like me say "life isn't fair, and there's nothing that can be done to change that no matter how tempting central planning might be (due to the Information Problem and the Calculation Problem, but I digress) but if I work at it, I can gain an advantage, and this is both warranted and just by the fact that I'm investing so many more resources, and it's pretty lame that all these other folks seem to have more fun by cutting me down to their level rather than observing and learning and working to rise to mine."

My own campaign is one powergamer (me) and 4x flavor players who aren't concerned with their power level and are developing their characters according to their vision of their personalities in the context of campaign influences. I participate heavily in the RP and interaction and exploration aspects of the game, and I very rarely flaunt my power, just quietly getting beastlier and beastlier with every level. In combat, I support the party in non-flashy ways, so that usually the excited chatter after the battle is about my Light Cleric's Sunlight Javelins and my Paladin's amazing Smites, while I am just happy knowing that my Slow silently eliminated 18x halberd attacks per round, my 10x Tiny Servants gave a good accounting of themselves, my obscurement shut down the BBEG's main attack as I'd planned, etc.

I do understand that powergaming often comes with an arrogant, condescending attitude and a showboating playstyle that turns people off, but I think that's bad powergaming. I should actually probably do a video on this, now that I think about it.

Sorry, that whole post oozes arrogance and condescension. The fact that you don't see that is exactly the problem here. You're talking about how you're just so much better than everyone else--you can RP but also do the power stuff, and they can't, those poor pitiful little fools.

You see power in relative terms--that to be powerful you must be more powerful than your colleagues. That's an inherently arrogant, condescending attitude. Instead of measuring vs neutral yardsticks, you're measuring in a win/loss (either I win at being the most powerful or I lose) way. And that's the opposite of cooperation--that's the essence of competition.

I take my vision of what D&D is "supposed to be" from the designers themselves--

D&D is about small bands of characters embarking on adventures together. Teamwork and friendship are a huge part of what makes D&D distinct as a brand. The lone knight fighting a dragon is less characteristic of D&D than an adventuring team fighting a dragon. People on their own get into trouble; a team that works together can triumph.

Those that can "do it all" have no part in D&D. And note, a character that can turn around a mega-deadly just by "exerting themselves" is out-of-balance with the rest of the team. It's like having a level 20 character along with a bunch of level 5s. In 3e. From an in-character viewpoint, the other characters have to wonder (as do those in places like FR with mega-NPCs) "why doesn't he just do it all himself" or "why are we struggling? He can just blow it all away if he tries." It's literally the shonen anime trope of the chosen hero having the sidekicks along so that he has a reason to get worked up and actually defeat the big bad. The sidekicks can't really do anything, they're just along for the ride as the cheer squad and convenient targets.

I don't want everyone to be equal by force--I want the obvious solutions to be good solutions. Adding trap options wastes developer time, player time, and causes friction at the table. Adding them intentionally just so that arrogant power-gamers can show off how great they are is not just a waste, it's toxic. It'd be like a fighting game adding "trap characters" who look attractive to noobs but suck. Except worse, because now you're stuck with them for a game that goes on and on instead of just a single match. In something that's supposed to be cooperative.

Ideally, a new player could pick up "what fits my idea" on a quick read and have a competent character. Traps make that impossible. As do broken abilities and combos, because they reset the acceptable level of competence. Which turns the game inevitably into an arms race. The powergamers want to be challenged[1], so the DM has to challenge them. But the only way to do that is to amp up the difficulty, so now the non-powergamers either can't contribute or get instantly blown away by the challenges that actually stretch the powergamer. Which breaks their fun entirely. I've seen it happen.

It also shatters worldbuilding and verisimilitude (something I care about deeply) entirely. Having that huge gap in power levels without substantial differences in starting points means that the worlds stop making sense. Same with all superhero settings--the very existence of such people means that the world becomes incoherent, unless the sups are limited so substantially that they aren't that much different than normal people. This is the OP NPC problem--why are there problems for little guys to do, when the big guys canonically could do it all themselves without trouble? And worse. Why aren't there villains with that much power who crush the heroes before they can get off the ground and accumulate any power? The only way to stop that is to permanently weld the idiot ball into the villains hands. Huge power gaps are fatal to anything like coherent worlds or stories. They work in media that doesn't care about coherence (ie superhero and anime, where it's all about the spectacle), but I actually do care about coherence in my worlds.

[1] or worse, they just want to win without being challenged and will whine if they ever can't do their special thing. Those are a lot of the powergamers I see on these forums--they whine if the DM doesn't let them twist rules and ignore limitations to their hearts' delight--they get their pleasure from breaking things and finding loopholes. And that's not a style I want to have anything to do with.

[Pex]

I actually think powergamers have a valuable role in a cooperative RPG. D&D is particularly lethal due to the single d20 system and a plethora of save-or-suck mechanics, so bad dice can easily lead to a TPK scenario. But if there's a powergamer lurking in the back, who doesn't go all out most battles in the interests of everyone having fun and contributing hero moments, but in the face of a TPK can really ramp it up and bail the party out... man, that's a real nice thing to have in D&D. Because we're all here to have fun, and TPK's or even permanent PC deaths are no fun for anyone.

And don't forget, some campaigns DO run the game as war. Like my own... where 4x 9th level PCs recently encountered a CR 16 Legendary Devil and his legion of 15x CR4 minions. Almost a TPK until my PC exerted himself.

There's nothing wrong with Powergaming. What's wrong is having fun dependent on other players being The Suck to prove superiority.

[Azuresun]

I don't have the issue with trying to build good characters for its own sake. I do have the issue when one person is trying to beat another person at a non-competitive game.

One very telling thing about CharOp threads that I notice over and over is that almost none of them assume the character has allies (other than any they bring with them). The wizard will never cast Fly or Haste on the barbarian. The rogue will never have advantage because the druid entangled the enemies. It seems to be based around a bunch of grim loners all fighting to do the most solo DPS.

[Bilbron]

Sorry, that whole post oozes arrogance and condescension. The fact that you don't see that is exactly the problem here. You're talking about how you're just so much better than everyone else--you can RP but also do the power stuff, and they can't, those poor pitiful little fools.

You see power in relative terms--that to be powerful you must be more powerful than your colleagues. That's an inherently arrogant, condescending attitude.

I appreciate your response and perspective. Many thanks.

One very telling thing about CharOp threads that I notice over and over is that almost none of them assume the character has allies (other than any they bring with them). The wizard will never cast Fly or Haste on the barbarian. The rogue will never have advantage because the druid entangled the enemies. It seems to be based around a bunch of grim loners all fighting to do the most solo DPS.

That's not a very good powergamer then, IMO. Personally I need the party as I'm fairly toothless myself (my only offense is cantrips, Tiny Servants, Polymorph, and a Summon). I've been mostly spending my concentration on debuffs like Sleet Storm and Slow. My powergaming takes the form of being impossible to kill and always having options, and involves few hero moments.

But I definitely sense powergaming gets a bad rap. I certainly think it's a minority of players.

There's nothing wrong with Powergaming. What's wrong is having fun dependent on other players being The Suck to prove superiority.

From my perspective, what's wrong is that powergaming is immediately viewed that way without a more charitable presumption. Getting a sense of the zeitgeist of modern D&D is a fascinating journey.

I will add that there is a perfectly legitimate reason for a powergamer to hold back... you never know when a Demon will pop up as you're making camp. It makes sense to keep a lot of juice in reserve and let the other party members have most of the hero moments.

The alternative is that the powergamer is blowing all his resources early, in which case all the DM has to do is add a few more battles so that the tapped powergamer can't hog all the glory.

There is a lot more going on here than combat dynamics, in my view.

[Wooloo]

noob question: Is the book even out yet?

[EggKookoo]

Customizing spells, this looked like it would be a discussion on things like burning hands and frost fingers, but instead, it was just a blip about flavoring a spell's appearance. I would have loved it if it explained upon the ideas set in the DMG about customizing spells but instead, it is a restating of the "Let players describe their spells how they want" from the same section of the DMG.

This one jumped out at me too (and I posted about it here). I was pretty disappointed in this. I was expecting a system to let us play with damage types at the very least.

Puzzles, this is what many of the other systems needed. it's well developed and great but I feel it gameifys puzzles a little too much. but this type of development is what most of the other systems needed.

I agree about the gaminess. I've never found it hard to come up with puzzle or logic games. The difficulty for me as a DM was figuring out how to contextualize the puzzle in the setting. Why is there suddenly a puzzle here? Who would put that there? Why not just have, I dunno, a locked door or something? Who hides their stuff behind a mechanism designed to provide entertainment for the thieves trying to steal it?

[Xervous]

noob question: Is the book even out yet?

Yessiree it is.


Again I suspect the apparent rushed nature of the content is exactly what it seems to be. Corporate leaned on WotC to peddle the latest buzzword and handed them a deadline.


On the topic of 5e design and optimization I recall that one quote from Mearls that paraphrases to choice and impactful options being undesirable for 5e because of the types of players it attracts. The interesting thing with 5e is that since the distribution around the normal is assumed to be so tight any deviation that trends towards competency or specialization tends to stand out above the assumed crowd of monkeys on typewriters. It’s not that the system presents a clear and obvious path to making the exceptional melee combatant, more that the system assumes that’s something that shouldn’t exist to begin with.

[WadeWay33]

So, uh, what are the thoughts on some of the magic items? I haven’t seen that discussed a ton yet and I think some are absolutely bonkers, like the spell save DC ones. Those I would give to the half-casters rarely, and outright ban them from full casters.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Summon spells are a useful necessity. Some players are really bothered by the Conjure spells. Some don't like multiple creatures appearing lengthening combat time. Some insist the DM chooses what comes and players don't like loss of control of their own spell or the DM doesn't give them what they want.

A better exposition than my own on why the new summons spells are a good addition.

I like more spells. An unweildy list to select from is how a game gives good players the opportunity to have better PCs than bad players.

The 3.5 forums are over there. ------------------->

There's also the fact that having good options does not mean those good options will be applied well in play.

*raises hand* failed to use cutting words on an attack that did ample damage but only beat AC by one. Had used no bardic inspiration yet that day ... why was someone in our party taking damage? My not thinking clearly. (That I was on my third beer is no excuse)

... b) we're only here so that <person> can show off when rescuing us (which sets up a protagonist vs supporting cast vibe I dislike, like a bad shonen anime).

Seems that our youtube creating colleague finds fun in that style, though.

D&D is supposed to be a team {snip the rest}

Yeah, but unfortunately some people stink at being teammates.

There's nothing wrong with Powergaming. What's wrong is having fun dependent on other players being The Suck to prove superiority.

Same idea, different presentation, concur.

One very telling thing about CharOp threads that I notice over and over is that almost none of them assume the character has allies (other than any they bring with them).

Yep. There is a 'team optimization' thread (Eldariel started it) but we've discovered that it's a bit of a complex multi variable problem.

So, uh, what are the thoughts on some of the magic items? I haven’t seen that discussed a ton yet and I think some are absolutely bonkers, like the spell save DC ones. Those I would give to the half-casters rarely, and outright ban them from full casters.

Like the spell lists, half baked. I'll get back to you on the overall after another review, but I think they almost got the tattoos right.

Why I play support characters in this edition: there are a lot of tools that allow me to do that. I am all about team success. One of the places that Treantmonk's approach to wizards sort of got it right, early on in 5e, was the focus on CC and support spells that amplify effectiveness of the whole team. Not DPR. My brother's gnome transmuter took that as his approach and it was remarkably effective once the rest of us 'got' what he was doing for the party.

[Pex]

I agree about the gaminess. I've never found it hard to come up with puzzle or logic games. The difficulty for me as a DM was figuring out how to contextualize the puzzle in the setting. Why is there suddenly a puzzle here? Who would put that there? Why not just have, I dunno, a locked door or something? Who hides their stuff behind a mechanism designed to provide entertainment for the thieves trying to steal it?

It could depend on what's being protected. The Mcguffin could be something that's supposed to be found, but you have to be worthy. Guardians test your brawn. Puzzles test your brain. A different take is puzzles are supposed to slow down the burglars. A skilled enough thief can pick a lock or disarm a trap. It takes time to sort out puzzles. Slow down the infiltrators enough so the owner can intercept them or get to the Mcguffin first by their own method of getting there.

[EggKookoo]

It could depend on what's being protected. The Mcguffin could be something that's supposed to be found, but you have to be worthy. Guardians test your brawn. Puzzles test your brain. A different take is puzzles are supposed to slow down the burglars. A skilled enough thief can pick a lock or disarm a trap. It takes time to sort out puzzles. Slow down the infiltrators enough so the owner can intercept them or get to the Mcguffin first by their own method of getting there.

I never really understood why the thief couldn't just disarm the puzzle?

"TO PASS YOU MUST ARRANGE THESE GEMS IN THE RIGHT SEQUENCE. MANY HAVE TRIED, NONE HAVE... hey, what are doing? Put that panel cover back in place! You're cheating!"

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree about the gaminess. I've never found it hard to come up with puzzle or logic games. The difficulty for me as a DM was figuring out how to contextualize the puzzle in the setting. Why is there suddenly a puzzle here? Who would put that there? Why not just have, I dunno, a locked door or something? Who hides their stuff behind a mechanism designed to provide entertainment for the thieves trying to steal it?

I've only very rarely used puzzles. Two were in-context as a ritual memory aid for the priests of the temples. And one of those had the answers already given (they came in from the "protected" side and needed to get out. It was really fun to watch them try a bunch of things before realizing that the answers were on the handout they'd gotten in the previous room and they just needed to put the things into place in any order). The other real puzzle was a completely out-of-context humor break. The entrance code to the BBEG's lair was the konami code, rebus style. Basically there to lighten the mood after some intense stuff and before some more intense stuff. Totally OOC fun.

My big issue with puzzles is especially with word puzzles. They often rely on the peculiarities of <insert OOC language here>. Things that would make absolutely no sense in universe. I'm all for word play, but those just frustrate me. Especially when they're the "obvious to the DM, but totally out of context" type.

[Amechra]

My big issue with puzzles is especially with word puzzles. They often rely on the peculiarities of <insert OOC language here>. Things that would make absolutely no sense in universe. I'm all for word play, but those just frustrate me. Especially when they're the "obvious to the DM, but totally out of context" type.

The big brain move would be to write the word puzzles in one of the languages you constructed for your setting and then translating it into <insert players' use-language here>... but that idea is so dumb that I can't even satisfactorily explain how dumb it'd be.

[samcifer]

Honestly, I feel that the racial stat change allows for much more fun characters to rp as.

We did a one-shot and the gal of our group played as a gnome barbarian with maxed out strength and loved roleplaying as her very much. I'm looking forward to playing a half-orc sorc in my alternate weekend games and warforged wizards with maxed Intelligence or maybe a Tabaxi barbarian with max Strength.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The big brain move would be to write the word puzzles in one of the languages you constructed for your setting and then translating it into <insert players' use-language here>... but that idea is so dumb that I can't even satisfactorily explain how dumb it'd be.

Yeah. Translating word play between languages you're already fluent in is nearly impossible. Doing it between a con-lang (which yeah, 5+ 9's of DMs don't have) and a real language, in such a way as to preserve the clues and hints you need...yeah. Not gonna happen.

I'll admit that I don't actually have conlangs. I just steal bits and phrases of real languages, mutate them so they sound right, and call it good whenever I need an in-language piece. Dwarvish is based on mongolian, for instance. In keeping with tradition, high-elven is welsh and wood-elven is finnish.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah. Translating word play between languages you're already fluent in is nearly impossible. Doing it between a con-lang (which yeah, 5+ 9's of DMs don't have) and a real language, in such a way as to preserve the clues and hints you need...yeah. Not gonna happen.

I'll admit that I don't actually have conlangs. I just steal bits and phrases of real languages, mutate them so they sound right, and call it good whenever I need an in-language piece. Dwarvish is based on mongolian, for instance. In keeping with tradition, high-elven is welsh and wood-elven is finnish.

I guess that makes Common either Old or Middle English?