Let's Get Real - the DM's responsibility is balance

[ProsecutorGodot]

More pedantry. I will not justify every spell for you.

But someone will... and isn't that the point that Unoriginal is making? Casters are equally bound by the DM's whims insofar as "creative" spell applications are concerned. The only meaningful difference is that Casters have a broader tool set of things that do a lot of wide but specific things (spells) where Martials don't have anything like that.

How Illusion spells are treated from table to table is the best comparison I can think of.

And it's not as if every spell is as specific as we'd like for keeping the DM's grubby little fingers out of making a ruling that might be different than another's, pick any number of recent or long past threads about a specific spell and what it can and can't do.

I think your insistence that this is exclusively a martial issue is wrong, however its easy to believe that because it's so substantially more a martial problem than a caster problem.

[Chaos Jackal]

But someone will... and isn't that the point that Unoriginal is making? Casters are equally bound by the DM's whims insofar as "creative" spell applications are concerned. The only meaningful difference is that Casters have a broader tool set of things that do a lot of wide but specific things (spells) where Martials don't have anything like that.

How Illusion spells are treated from table to table is the best comparison I can think of.

And it's not as if every spell is as specific as we'd like for keeping the DM's grubby little fingers out of making a ruling that might be different than another's, pick any number of recent or long past threads about a specific spell and what it can and can't do.

I think your insistence that this is exclusively a martial issue is wrong, however its easy to believe that because it's so substantially more a martial problem than a caster problem.

"Creative uses", as you put it, are definitely more subject to the DM's whims (although in many scenarios they're at least stemming from reasonable expectations following what a spell is doing), especially considering that, at its base, a spell does exactly what it says on the description and nothing more. Illusions, as you noted, are the worst culprits, primarily because they more often than not lack specific descriptions in the first place. I'll add suggestion to them as another commonly debated spell. The magic system is definitely not set in stone.

But there's an ocean of difference between whether a DM will allow you to use a spell that specifically targets a creature only, like green-flame blade or eldritch blast, to light a candle or break a branch and whether a DM will tell you that your spell doesn't exist in his game once you announce you're casting it. Deciding on the fly whether climbing a wall requires no check, an athletics check, an athletics or acrobatics check or is flat out impossible is par for the course, given that there are no real specifics of climbing walls or using athletics or acrobatics outside of examples, suggestions and some tables which, if I recall correctly, aren't even in the core books. Deciding on the fly (pun not intended) that the fly spell only lets you move horizontally isn't par for the course, it's the DM being adversarial the same way he'd be if you reached lv5 on your fighter and during your first combat, as you make an attack, he tells you that Extra Attack doesn't work.

The DM making a ruling on the spot to cover something not included in the base ruleset is one thing. The DM altering an existing rule on the spot, with no prior warning, to mess up what you're doing is another. As far as DM calls are concerned, most skill checks and their effects fall under the first sentence. Most spells and their effects fall under the second. To claim that the magic system and skill system are subject to the same limitations and DM-dependency is unreasonable to say the least.

Spells, for the most part, do things. Specific things. Not all spells, and not all their effects, but that's generally the case. 8d6 fire damage to all creatures in a 20ft-radius is something very specific, even if whether or not it damages the iron door at the back of the room might not be. On the other hand, skills, on their own, do nothing specific. It's just a dice roll with strings attached, and it's he who holds the strings that decides whether or not the dice roll ends up actually mattering (outside of things like shoving contests or getting out of a maze).

You add the strings for a spell; they come prepackaged with a skill.

[OvisCaedo]

There's a lot of mention of "trust" of DMs in regards to how skills will be handled, but... I don't think that's really accurate to the problem, either. A DM does not need to be malicious in any way to have a wildly different idea from another similarly fine DM of what skill checks should be capable of, when they should be called for, or what DCs should actually be scaled around. Climbing a tree was an example situation given, and I would not be surprised or suspect malice from any GM assigning it a difficulty of anywhere from "no check needed" to "DC 10 athletics i guess? that feels like where the low range should start". Especially with how massive the swing of the d20 roll will tend to be compared to any non-expert's die bonus for early into mid levels, I can see a lot of people feeling uneasy about figuring out where DCs should even "start" from.

(personally I just don't really think having skills go by the same kind of bounded accuracy progression/number scale as attacks was a very good call. It works well enough for combat because every character is supposed to be at least competent at it, but I think it's much sketchier for a variety of skills where different characters should be very notably good or bad at them relative to each other, even from the earliest levels)

Spells having potential creative uses that a DM can adjudicate on doesn't quite feel like a proper equivalency to me, either. It's certainly true, but the issue people tend to complain about spells for is the wide range of things they are concretely stated to do WITHOUT trying for creative application.

[ProsecutorGodot]

To claim that the magic system and skill system are subject to the same limitations and DM-dependency is unreasonable to say the least.

They are, but to stress this again, magic is just significantly less prone to this sort of scrutiny. That's the point here, just because it doesn't happen as frequently doesn't mean it never happens. The secondary point, to reiterate my previous post, is that when you attempt to do something outside of the bounds of the text (which is not wrong under either system) you will be dealing with a DM ruling, which might change from table to table. I think we agree on the secondary point at least, even in the best cases you will have a player who asks for A, which we'll assume for the sake of argument is a reasonable request, when the text clearly says B and two different DM's will disagree on the ruling. One may cite that the rules are clear, one may cite rule 0, another third DM watching on the sidelines might even suggest C.

To summarize the point: Your character and their abilities only affect the chances of there being variations of rulings between tables, it will happen. The degree of occurrence is the only difference.

Finally, I think we can all agree it would unreasonable if a DM does drastic and sweeping changes without warning, but that seems to be a tangent drawn from an exaggerated example as far as I can tell. This wouldn't even be caused by a system thing, this is just poor communication or actively malicious rulings rather than differing interpretations or preferences.

[Chaos Jackal]

They are, but to stress this again, magic is just significantly less prone to this sort of scrutiny. That's the point here, just because it doesn't happen as frequently doesn't mean it never happens. The secondary point, to reiterate my previous post, is that when you attempt to do something outside of the bounds of the text (which is not wrong under either system) you will be dealing with a DM ruling, which might change from table to table. I think we agree on the secondary point at least, even in the best cases you will have a player who asks for A, which we'll assume for the sake of argument is a reasonable request, when the text clearly says B and two different DM's will disagree on the ruling. One may cite that the rules are clear, one may cite rule 0, another third DM watching on the sidelines might even suggest C.

To summarize the point: Your character and their abilities only affect the chances of there being variations of rulings between tables, it will happen. The degree of occurrence is the only difference.

Finally, I think we can all agree it would unreasonable if a DM does drastic and sweeping changes without warning, but that seems to be a tangent drawn from an exaggerated example as far as I can tell. This wouldn't even be caused by a system thing, this is just poor communication or actively malicious rulings rather than differing interpretations or preferences.

I think that for the most part we're in agreement, yes. When I say that they aren't subject to the same limitations I include the degree of occurence regarding DM interference; "less prone to this sort of scrutiny", as you put it. Apologies for the misunderstanding there, if it wasn't clear.

And of course, as far as going outside the text is concerned, different DMs are entitled to and will make different rulings, regardless of the system in question.

[Osuniev]

a DM that disturbs long rest regularly and thus hampers spell recovery disempowers casters;

<Nitpick> RAI and (arguably) RAW, long rests being disturbed by anything shorter than an hour doesn't hamper spell recovery </Nitpick>

I know this isn't the matter at hand, it's just a pet peeve of mine : the rules were designed with the expectation that you cannot prevent a long rest with a random encounter (which is why Leomund's Tiny Hut is supposed to be good, but not broken : getting back spell slots , hit dice and HP is supposed to happen anyway)

[Osuniev]

The idea that a DM is both a petty control freak *and* someone who can be foiled by pointing at the book simply doesn't hold water.

I feel this is a false dichotomy. In between a permissive DM and the jerk you describe, there's room for a DM that is going to try to stick to the RAW, for example.

I don't believe I'm petty, but I'm probably close to what some people would describe as a control freak. I want my world to maintain verisimilitude, and it's quite possible I'd ask for a Strength (Athletics or Acrobactics) check to climb a tree or a wall, unless I described it to be covered in ivy or something.

HOWEVER 99.9 % of the time, if players point at the books and say "it says here I can do this", I'll allow it. (If I feel it's broken, I'll discuss it later on and add it to my list of houserules, which we go over in session 0 of each campaign and which is updated during the campaign as it comes). And that mostly happens with spells, because spells are the only part of the book I might not know as well as my players.

There is value in having a clear set of rules so everyone know which game we play, and part of that value is that the DM is less likely to be accidentally unfair.

To answer your other example : sure, Shape Water, and Mordenkainen's Hound are DM dependent, just like Illusion Magic or Suggestion. But Mordenkainen Hound WILL attack hostile goblins with any sane DM. And the majority of spells are much more explicit : FLY, DIMENSION DOOR, DISINTEGRATE, or MISTY STEP will do what a player expects it to do at 99 % of tables, whilst "the Athletics check" will vary A LOT from one table to another, even without a jerk DM, because the DCs are much less detailed than the "60 feet of movement". This is a button caster have by default with any reasonable DM, whilst the Skill system isn't nearly as "reasonable".

Firebolt DOES state it lights objects on fire, for example, unlike Green-Flame Blade.

[Unoriginal]

More pedantry. I will not justify every spell for you.

The point wasn't for you to "justify" anything.


Do you expect a DM to answer those questions if asked, at a table?

[ad_hoc]

I don't believe I'm petty, but I'm probably close to what some people would describe as a control freak. I want my world to maintain verisimilitude, and it's quite possible I'd ask for a Strength (Athletics or Acrobactics) check to climb a tree or a wall, unless I described it to be covered in ivy or something.

You're applying a purpose to the rules that they weren't designed for so then you're going to end up with problems.

The rules in 5e aren't designed for verisimilitude. They're designed to create action adventure stories. They're written narrative first. It's not heroic for an action star to fail to climb a tree or a wall or whatever.

The only time you should call for a check is when there are stakes and drama. Not to make things 'realistic'.

That's how 3e is written. 5e is an entirely different game with different design philosophy.

[JNAProductions]

You're applying a purpose to the rules that they weren't designed for so then you're going to end up with problems.

The rules in 5e aren't designed for verisimilitude. They're designed to create action adventure stories. They're written narrative first. It's not heroic for an action star to fail to climb a tree or a wall or whatever.

The only time you should call for a check is when there are stakes and drama. Not to make things 'realistic'.

That's how 3e is written. 5e is an entirely different game with different design philosophy.

I wouldn't go that far. 5E, while less constrained by rules than 3.P, is NOT a narrative system.

It does say that you shouldn't call for a check unless the outcome is in doubt and success/failure is interesting, but that alone does not a narrative system make.

And, I believe that was Osuniev's point. They try to stick to RAW, or at least RAI, but have an incomplete knowledge of it. So, due to their preconceptions (possibly stemming form having played earlier editions of D&D) they would, by default, call for a check even when it's not needed. But the rulebook, when pointed out to them that it's not needed, would be sufficient to change their mind.

[Pex]

"Creative uses", as you put it, are definitely more subject to the DM's whims (although in many scenarios they're at least stemming from reasonable expectations following what a spell is doing), especially considering that, at its base, a spell does exactly what it says on the description and nothing more. Illusions, as you noted, are the worst culprits, primarily because they more often than not lack specific descriptions in the first place. I'll add suggestion to them as another commonly debated spell. The magic system is definitely not set in stone.

But there's an ocean of difference between whether a DM will allow you to use a spell that specifically targets a creature only, like green-flame blade or eldritch blast, to light a candle or break a branch and whether a DM will tell you that your spell doesn't exist in his game once you announce you're casting it. Deciding on the fly whether climbing a wall requires no check, an athletics check, an athletics or acrobatics check or is flat out impossible is par for the course, given that there are no real specifics of climbing walls or using athletics or acrobatics outside of examples, suggestions and some tables which, if I recall correctly, aren't even in the core books. Deciding on the fly (pun not intended) that the fly spell only lets you move horizontally isn't par for the course, it's the DM being adversarial the same way he'd be if you reached lv5 on your fighter and during your first combat, as you make an attack, he tells you that Extra Attack doesn't work.

The DM making a ruling on the spot to cover something not included in the base ruleset is one thing. The DM altering an existing rule on the spot, with no prior warning, to mess up what you're doing is another. As far as DM calls are concerned, most skill checks and their effects fall under the first sentence. Most spells and their effects fall under the second. To claim that the magic system and skill system are subject to the same limitations and DM-dependency is unreasonable to say the least.

Spells, for the most part, do things. Specific things. Not all spells, and not all their effects, but that's generally the case. 8d6 fire damage to all creatures in a 20ft-radius is something very specific, even if whether or not it damages the iron door at the back of the room might not be. On the other hand, skills, on their own, do nothing specific. It's just a dice roll with strings attached, and it's he who holds the strings that decides whether or not the dice roll ends up actually mattering (outside of things like shoving contests or getting out of a maze).

You add the strings for a spell; they come prepackaged with a skill.

This.

It means nothing to argue whether Green Flame Blade can light a candle. That's hypothesizing more than what the spell says it does. What's the DC to climb a tree? Is it no roll at all? DC 10? DC 15? Does it matter what type of tree it is? That's all on the DM. The wizard casts Spider Climb and up he goes.

Spellcasters use skills too and are subject to the same problems. What's the DC to know the abilities of a mindflayer? That's also the DM making it up on his own. It's a problem of the skill system, but the idea was to improve it so that warriors can use it to do Known Things out of combat. The point wasn't spells replace the Skill system., The point was spellcasters know what they can do out of combat because their spells say what they do. Their effects are known. If a DC is involved it is predetermined. The idea was to improve the skill system to have that equal strength, defined Things that can be done and the DC associated to achieve them as a means to improve the non-Spellcaster lot for out of combat utility. Spellcasters can do them too, so I added the idea that it be class exclusive. Anyone can jump their Strength Score, but only Fighters and Barbarians can jump twice their Score at Athletics DC 10. (Or 15, or must be a specific level, or also Rangers, devil in the details, it's just an example not a definitive)

The point wasn't for you to "justify" anything.


Do you expect a DM to answer those questions if asked, at a table?

You're asking for more than what the rules say. The spells say what they do. (Admittedly a few spells are vague, like who determines the specific creatures Summoned.) Of course the DM decides things the rules don't cover, but that's the point. Spells say what they do. The Skills don't. Casting Green Flame Blade I know what it does and how it works, but I don't have that if I want to climb a tree. I can never know my ability to climb a tree until the DM decides how that works. As was mentioned, I may not know for sure if Green Flame Blade can light a candle, but I sure do know Fire Bolt can. So does Prestidigitation. Am I able to climb a tree? I never know until the DM says so. I know for sure I can if I cast Spider Climb, The idea was to improve the Skill system so that I do know I can climb the Tree just because I want to, as well as more Supernatural affects with a given DC. For example, I may want to jump over a 30 ft wide chasm. As of now, Fighter can't do it unless the DM says he can at a made up DC but the Wizard can cast Misty Step with no DM input at all. (Spare me the pedantry of what if there was an Anti-Magic Field there.) The idea was to define a DC so that the Fighter can without question.

[Mr. Wonderful]

The point of this thread was to respond to the complaints that certain character classes - mostly martials - were unsuited for the non-combat portions of the game.

I believe that the DM can and should find ways to incorporate them. I also believe that players should accept that they won't be perfect in every regard, and that this lack of perfection can add a lot of interest and fun to the game.

That doesn't mean that flaws in a system are automatically excused because you are clever enough to work around them

It also doesn't mean that people should be forced to do what they don't want to do. (Though I honestly scratch my head trying to understand why someone would object to roleplaying in a roleplaying game.)

In summary: All game systems have flaws and one of the jobs of the referee is to work around them, thank you, the end.

[JNAProductions]

The point of this thread was to respond to the complaints that certain character classes - mostly martials - were unsuited for the non-combat portions of the game.

I believe that the DM can and should find ways to incorporate them. I also believe that players should accept that they won't be perfect in every regard, and that this lack of perfection can add a lot of interest and fun to the game.

That doesn't mean that flaws in a system are automatically excused because you are clever enough to work around them

It also doesn't mean that people should be forced to do what they don't want to do. (Though I honestly scratch my head trying to understand why someone would object to roleplaying in a roleplaying game.)

In summary: All game systems have flaws and one of the jobs of the referee is to work around them, thank you, the end.

That’s much more reasonable than your earlier posts.

[ad_hoc]

The point of this thread was to respond to the complaints that certain character classes - mostly martials - were unsuited for the non-combat portions of the game.

I believe that the DM can and should find ways to incorporate them. I also believe that players should accept that they won't be perfect in every regard, and that this lack of perfection can add a lot of interest and fun to the game.

That doesn't mean that flaws in a system are automatically excused because you are clever enough to work around them

It also doesn't mean that people should be forced to do what they don't want to do. (Though I honestly scratch my head trying to understand why someone would object to roleplaying in a roleplaying game.)

In summary: All game systems have flaws and one of the jobs of the referee is to work around them, thank you, the end.

Flaws or just things that aren't to someone's tastes?

[Pex]

Flaws or just things that aren't to someone's tastes?

Why can't it be both? Something can be ill advised, but a few people like it anyway.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why can't it be both? Something can be ill advised, but a few people like it anyway.

Who gets to decide if something is a flaw or "ill advised" (by whom? To whom? For what purposes?)? You? The cultural forum zeitgeist? Or the developers? I think we'd see radically different answers in each of those cases. And even the developers themselves would disagree on what parts are flawed[1].

There are many things I don't like. That doesn't make them flaws. For me, a flaw is something that does not meet its stated purpose. A feature that meets its intended purpose is not flawed, even if I think that intended purpose is bad.

[1] other than the trivial answer that everything is flawed because it's a product of human design, and humans are flawed creatures. While true, that's a rather useless statement.

[ad_hoc]

Why can't it be both? Something can be ill advised, but a few people like it anyway.

If the point is to create a game that people find fun then it's not ill advised when people like it.

We're not talking about 'a few' people liking it. We're talking about 10s of millions of new gamers liking it and a few people on the internet thinking it's broken.

Maybe the rules aren't broken, you just don't like them? Maybe the rules aren't broken, they just don't work with the way you're trying to play the game which was not to the designer's intent.

It's okay not to like something. That doesn't mean it's broken.

[Cheesegear]

In summary: All game systems have flaws and one of the jobs of the referee is to work around them, thank you, the end.

1. Roleplaying. People with more real-world life experience, a wide social circle, and more empathic connections (e.g; TV/Movies, Books, etc.) will be better at roleplaying than other players. The game is unbalanced. It is nearly impossible to balance this.

2. Mechanics. Not all choices are equal in effectiveness. Even choices that arguably do the same thing. The game is unbalanced. Players will often balance this of their own accord, simply by not choosing the bad options that they have available. This can result in a 'Good Stuff Only' table that the DM will have to reconcile. The DM can always win the arms race, if they so choose to. Which means that in order to have a satisfying experience, the DM has to choose to not to win the arms race, which only feels like the power-gaming players are being rewarded for power-gaming, whereas the players who aren't power-gaming, just have to live with their bad choices and being outshone.

3. Spellcasting. Some characters might be able to achieve something via a Skill or Ability Check. Of course, we know that Skill and/or Ability Checks run the risk of failure because that's how dice work. Failure, will often have consequences, because that's how life just kind of works...Because if there was no consequence for failure, the DM would just have you pass, right? That being said, spells will often allow characters to bypass roleplaying and/or mechanics without even rolling a dice, without a chance of failure, in a matter of six in-game seconds...Some of these spells are also Cantrips. Not all characters get access to these spells. The game is unbalanced.
In order to reconcile this, the DM has to go through the entire spell list and figure out what works for their table, and what doesn't. But then each spell often only works depending on the adventure, depending on the campaign. Not every 'broken' spell is going to be broken in every situation that it could be applied in...So does it really need to be nerfed? Guess not.

The DM can't balance the game. Not really. Everyone is different. The DM can't provide solutions that everyone will be happy with. Instead, everyone just has to compromise. Some people, are not willing to compromise what they want to do.

[Kymme]

TBH, I'm tired of seeing thread that say "such and such class is boring or unbalanced." Usually (but not always) it's aimed at martial classes, whose primary benefits are combat.

Folks, that is what a DM is for. The DM is there to make sure that EVERYONE has fun, and that usually means EVERYONE participates in the classic three pillars of RPGs = social, exploration and combat.

I don't think the DM should be responsible for everyone at the table having a good time. I think that the rules can do a hell of a lot more to keep everyone interesting and give every player the means to contribute in scenes. Foisting all of the responsibility for creating a good experience on the DM is a crushing weight, and a leading cause of DM burnout.

[heavyfuel]

The whole game is like Mother May I, by those standards.



Wizard player: "So I cast Fireball at the goblin horde..."

DM: "No you don't."

Wizard player: "What?"

DM: "I don't allow Fireball at my table, since last week. It's overpowered and unimaginative."

Wizard player: "Well it's the only AoE spell I have prepared today, and you didn't tell us about Fireball not being allowed. Can I switch my spell list?"

DM: "Not before your next long rest."

Wizard player: "..."

This is reason to walk. A DM that bans something that was used before without telling the player and not allowing the player to change their choice is one I would never play with, even if I wasn't the one who had the ability banned.

Can you imagine playing an Assassin and the DM says you don't get to use Assassinate any more? And then also being told you don't get to choose a new subclass? That's not even remotely similar to a DM deciding that climbing a tree is a DC 15 instead of simply costing double movement.

We're not talking about 'a few' people liking it. We're talking about 10s of millions of new gamers liking it and a few people on the internet thinking it's broken.

TBF, new gamers have no frame of reference pretty much by definition. New gamers might get hit with a completely unfair DM call, and they won't know this is the DM being a jerk, they might just think that is how the game is supposed to work.

The few people on the internet that are vocal about these problems are the only ones you experience complaining because most new players don't decide to go to a super specific forum about the game they just started playing. Still, it doesn't mean you new players don't notice the disparity.

For some anecdotal evidence, every time a group of new players see someone just solving a problem with magic, some one ALWAYS remarks on how spells are OP or broken. Not necessarily with a bad connotation, mind you. "OMG, you can just <turn invisible/walk on the ceiling/teleport out/create food/cure any disease>?! That's so broken hahahaha!" is super common for players that are still discovering the magic system.

[Zuras]

How many people really want to balance spellcasters and martials by giving everyone spell-like abilities? I thought the general consensus was that it worked great mechanically but was incongruent with the fiction most players wanted to follow.

It seems to me that the real problem 5e has is that there are no rules for concrete, player-invokable social relationships. In terms of narrative control over the plot, for example, the most powerful characters in the Avengers are Iron Man, Black Panther and Thor, and two of those are clearly martial archetype characters—Neither Thor nor T’Challa build the weapons they use. Nevertheless, in a RPG built to follow the fiction, they will have many more options than Hulk or Captain America.

In D&D 5e there’s no equivalent to a Megawealth or Gadgeteer Ally feature for the more mundane PCs to use to gain reliable access to external resources without relying on DM fiat each time. Functionally that results in a game world where the Martial/Caster comparisons look like Hawkeye vs. Dr. Strange instead of Nick Fury vs. Scarlet Witch. Scarlet Witch is certainly more powerful than Fury, but it’s not like Nick is ever running out of things to do or ways to impact the story.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It seems to me that the real problem 5e has is that there are no rules for concrete, player-invokable social relationships.

I have yet to see proposals for such where the cure isn't worse than the supposed disease. And I say supposed, because I also haven't seen casters having supremacy in narrative power based on their class abilities. Casters are generally out of tune with martials in other ways, but narrative balance is much more about players and willingness to engage than it is about having class-based buttons to press. People seem to assume "I'm a barbarian, which means I have to be dumb and unsocial[1]", usually coupled with a DM attitude that only specialists (and spellcasters whose limits have been removed because they're "annoying") are allowed to do anything[2]. The problem there isn't the system, it's that false assumption, basically playing earlier editions in 5e. Stop doing that and the issue drops below the noise floor.

[1] usually because they've dumped those parameters hard in a misguided search for combat optimality, often lead by #2
[2] often by setting DCs super high or just flat disallowing any attempt to do anything without having a button that says "solve this particular problem" on it (often while allowing spells to deviate from what they say "because magic"). Button-based thinking is the problem here--it trains players into a sense that they're only allowed to interact with the world via those buttons. Which turns the game into a bad parody of a board or video game.

[ad_hoc]

This is reason to walk. A DM that bans something that was used before without telling the player and not allowing the player to change their choice is one I would never play with, even if I wasn't the one who had the ability banned.

Can you imagine playing an Assassin and the DM says you don't get to use Assassinate any more? And then also being told you don't get to choose a new subclass? That's not even remotely similar to a DM deciding that climbing a tree is a DC 15 instead of simply costing double movement.



TBF, new gamers have no frame of reference pretty much by definition. New gamers might get hit with a completely unfair DM call, and they won't know this is the DM being a jerk, they might just think that is how the game is supposed to work.

The few people on the internet that are vocal about these problems are the only ones you experience complaining because most new players don't decide to go to a super specific forum about the game they just started playing. Still, it doesn't mean you new players don't notice the disparity.

For some anecdotal evidence, every time a group of new players see someone just solving a problem with magic, some one ALWAYS remarks on how spells are OP or broken. Not necessarily with a bad connotation, mind you. "OMG, you can just <turn invisible/walk on the ceiling/teleport out/create food/cure any disease>?! That's so broken hahahaha!" is super common for players that are still discovering the magic system.

This is hubris.

People on this forum aren't better than the people who enjoy the game. They don't have hidden knowledge or insight. People really do enjoy the game because they like it not because they 'don't know any better'.

If people didn't really enjoy the game they wouldn't enthusiastically share it with friends who then share it with other friends and so on. How do you think it got to be as popular as it is? There was a time when people thought the height of D&D was always going to be in the 80s. There was a time when people thought D&D might be dead. Then 5e happened.

I've never actually seen people in real life say those things about spells. I've seen spellcasters be overjoyed about the cool things they can do but I've never seen anyone think it was 'broken' to turn invisible or whatever. If anything, it is the opposite, they wished they had more spell slots and the non-spellcasters were happy they could do their things more.

This is another case of group think. You play with people who are like you, as do I. Think about it though, if people thought spells were broken would they like the game? Would they like it enough to become a hobby gamer and invite all their friends to play?

[JNAProductions]

This is hubris.

People on this forum aren't better than the people who enjoy the game. They don't have hidden knowledge or insight. People really do enjoy the game because they like it not because they 'don't know any better'.

If people didn't really enjoy the game they wouldn't enthusiastically share it with friends who then share it with other friends and so on. How do you think it got to be as popular as it is? There was a time when people thought the height of D&D was always going to be in the 80s. There was a time when people thought D&D might be dead. Then 5e happened.

I've never actually seen people in real life say those things about spells. I've seen spellcasters be overjoyed about the cool things they can do but I've never seen anyone think it was 'broken' to turn invisible or whatever. If anything, it is the opposite, they wished they had more spell slots and the non-spellcasters were happy they could do their things more.

This is another case of group think. You play with people who are like you, as do I. Think about it though, if people thought spells were broken would they like the game? Would they like it enough to become a hobby gamer and invite all their friends to play?

Depends how broken they think they are.

Let's say you love Fallout 3. Will anyone defend that game as being free of glitches and bugs? Not anyone who's actually PLAYED it, for sure! But it still gets recommended, because it's tons of fun in SPITE of its bugs.

Likewise, there could be people who have tons of faults with 5E, but it's still a great time. So they play with their friends, not because of flaws, but in spite of them.

And I don't think it's hubris to say that many of the people on this forum have taken a more critical eye to 5E and other TTRPG systems than newcomers. We're not BETTER than a bright-eyed sprout who just started and is rocking their Half-Elf Berserker, but we're more likely to notice when something goes wrong and be able to fix it.

Put another way, we're the cynics who notice all the bad stuff, but hopefully aren't too cynical to at least try and fix the issues. They're the newbies who are just having a fun time, and good for them. 5E is fun, when you play with good people, and they deserve all the time in the world of enjoying it before they become crotchety old cynics like us. :P

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is hubris.

People on this forum aren't better than the people who enjoy the game. They don't have hidden knowledge or insight. People really do enjoy the game because they like it not because they 'don't know any better'.

If people didn't really enjoy the game they wouldn't enthusiastically share it with friends who then share it with other friends and so on. How do you think it got to be as popular as it is? There was a time when people thought the height of D&D was always going to be in the 80s. There was a time when people thought D&D might be dead. Then 5e happened.

I've never actually seen people in real life say those things about spells. I've seen spellcasters be overjoyed about the cool things they can do but I've never seen anyone think it was 'broken' to turn invisible or whatever. If anything, it is the opposite, they wished they had more spell slots and the non-spellcasters were happy they could do their things more.

This is another case of group think. You play with people who are like you, as do I. Think about it though, if people thought spells were broken would they like the game? Would they like it enough to become a hobby gamer and invite all their friends to play?

I agree that I've never heard new people say that about spells. And I've mostly played with new people. It's the grognards and the mechanics/optimization/forum junkies who are prattling about how imbalanced things are, not new people.

And I agree that enthusiasm means a lot. I've taught lots of people to play, and a bunch of them have gone on to DM. And many of them brought friends in. That just doesn't happen for things that are fatally flawed. Even beginners can see when things are awkward or annoying--that's relatively obvious. In fact, new people are among the most sensitive to such things; old hands have internalized the avoidance routines and often overlook the utter :sideways_owl: nature of broken things. For example, introducing a new player to 3e is painful. The number of hoops needed to just make a level 1 character, the number of pitfalls, and the sheer amount of "things that must be considered" just to play. Yet to old hands, it's nothing.

5e is the most user-friendly, least annoying to learn (either as a DM or a player) edition of D&D ever. And that says something about how well it works. I started DMing in 4e, with no prior experience at the tabletop. Learning 5e was a breath of fresh air (which is why I switched almost immediately). And the learning curve for the new DMs I've taught has been relatively[1] smooth. My experience with 3e/PF was spending a day trying to get a basic character up, while using a specialized software package and having help from experts.

Edit: people on these forums are more likely to be opinionated. Mostly from an old-edition and high-optimization[2] mindset though. So most of what people point out as "flaws" are really just their opinions on things; often they're things I consider as features.

[1] It's never entirely smooth, but I've helped my nephew (at the time 9 years old) pick up and start running games without significant issues. In fact all my nephews and nieces play, with only having seen me run one one-shot for them as background. And most of them are < 15.
[2] Ie "not playing the game how it's designed to be played". Which means those flaws? Yeah, they're because you're using it out of spec. Pitchforks aren't good soup spoons, but that doesn't make them flawed at being pitchforks.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Depends how broken they think they are.

Let's say you love Fallout 3. Will anyone defend that game as being free of glitches and bugs? Not anyone who's actually PLAYED it, for sure! But it still gets recommended, because it's tons of fun in SPITE of its bugs.

Likewise, there could be people who have tons of faults with 5E, but it's still a great time. So they play with their friends, not because of flaws, but in spite of them.

And I don't think it's hubris to say that many of the people on this forum have taken a more critical eye to 5E and other TTRPG systems than newcomers. We're not BETTER than a bright-eyed sprout who just started and is rocking their Half-Elf Berserker, but we're more likely to notice when something goes wrong and be able to fix it.

Put another way, we're the cynics who notice all the bad stuff, but hopefully aren't too cynical to at least try and fix the issues. They're the newbies who are just having a fun time, and good for them. 5E is fun, when you play with good people, and they deserve all the time in the world of enjoying it before they become crotchety old cynics like us. :P

This... is probably the best way that I've heard used to describe us that I've ever seen.

[Man_Over_Game]

This is hubris.

People on this forum aren't better than the people who enjoy the game. They don't have hidden knowledge or insight. People really do enjoy the game because they like it not because they 'don't know any better'.

If people didn't really enjoy the game they wouldn't enthusiastically share it with friends who then share it with other friends and so on. How do you think it got to be as popular as it is? There was a time when people thought the height of D&D was always going to be in the 80s. There was a time when people thought D&D might be dead. Then 5e happened.

I've never actually seen people in real life say those things about spells. I've seen spellcasters be overjoyed about the cool things they can do but I've never seen anyone think it was 'broken' to turn invisible or whatever. If anything, it is the opposite, they wished they had more spell slots and the non-spellcasters were happy they could do their things more.

This is another case of group think. You play with people who are like you, as do I. Think about it though, if people thought spells were broken would they like the game? Would they like it enough to become a hobby gamer and invite all their friends to play?

Your reasoning's sound, but we aren't exactly the average player at a 5e table.

We are players on a fairly-unknown DnD internet forum, on the topic of modifying DM behavior and game mechanics to balance around the players. That's not normal.

For contrast, the other 3 party members of my last session argued what kind of skill we should be rolling for a "Vibe Check" for the area.

We have more experience, more passion, and we learn this game for fun. I don't know about the rest of us, but I'm fairly confident I can recite all of the 5e mounting rules and most of the unique interactions by memory.


To put simply, we are doctors. We're better at this sort of thing because we put in the effort to be, and the average player probably doesn't have enough system-mastery to understand or care, they're still figuring out how to play a level 3 Fighter optimally. Most of the people I play with don't even know what a Hit Die is, they wouldn't be able to give any insight on anything that wasn't directly relevant to what they're playing, and even then it'd be limited to how they​ were playing it.

A lot of players in the position of having a party-member who outshines them will just think that they're playing the game poorly. However, after playing different kinds of characters, I can definitely attest to the fact that there is a difference in how you can optimize one character vs. another, and it's not always fair or fun, and it's not even always the player's fault.

I tried playing a Barbarian the same way I would a Wizard, trying to leverage skills and tools instead of magic and be a master of utility. It was the worst character I've ever played, and the best advice I got for it was "Don't play a Barbarian". Sure enough, I rerolled a Warlock, tried playing it the same way, and it was the most fun I've ever had. The problem here is, I can make a Warlock that plays like a Barbarian, but the reverse isn't nearly as true without losing a LOT of what makes Barbarians good in the first place.

[JNAProductions]

For contrast, the other 3 party members of my last session argued what kind of skill we should be rolling for a "Vibe Check" for the area.

That's hilarious. What'd the DM decide?

[Man_Over_Game]

That's hilarious. What'd the DM decide?

Perception, I think. I try not to think about it too much.

[Pex]

Who gets to decide if something is a flaw or "ill advised" (by whom? To whom? For what purposes?)? You? The cultural forum zeitgeist? Or the developers? I think we'd see radically different answers in each of those cases. And even the developers themselves would disagree on what parts are flawed[1].

There are many things I don't like. That doesn't make them flaws. For me, a flaw is something that does not meet its stated purpose. A feature that meets its intended purpose is not flawed, even if I think that intended purpose is bad.

[1] other than the trivial answer that everything is flawed because it's a product of human design, and humans are flawed creatures. While true, that's a rather useless statement.

No one, and that's the point. Someone says something is bad. It's fine that is someone's opinion, but that opinion is not to be dismissed because someone else likes whatever it is the first person said was bad. Disagree. Say it is good, but the one who said it was bad is not wrong. That someone just doesn't like what the other person does like. Both people may even double down on their opinion and be vehemently supportive of their position on the matter. Let people make up their own mind to agree with one person or the other or maybe find a third option.