Unpopular D&D Opinions

[JNAProductions]

Sure, humans are "default".

But mechanically, they're just weak in most editions. Arguably more so in TSR D&D, since there light was more important and having access to multiclassing was more limited.

But default or not, the things other races get are pretty much shown as straight up being better than humans. Or, at least, being better for certain niches - dwarves are pretty much straight up better fighters, for instance, and the downsides they have don't really matter if you're a fighter. For almost any character concept, there's a race that is strictly better than humans, even if it's not always the same race.

IOW, humans win on flexibility, but flexibility doesn't matter in a class-based system. "Dwarves are better at fighters, but worse at being mages, while elves are great mages but poor fighters" doesn't really matter. All that ends up mattering is "dwarves are better fighters, elves are better mages, humans.... eh, they exist."

Which is why racial choices shouldn't be that huge a deal-something 5E does well.

An Elvish Wizard is generally a smidge better than a Half-Orc Wizard... But it's a small enough gap that they're both very playable, and the Half-Orc has some tricks that are cool too, like the ability to say "Nah, didn't die" once per long rest.

[Milodiah]

Sure, humans are "default".

But mechanically, they're just weak in most editions. Arguably more so in TSR D&D, since there light was more important and having access to multiclassing was more limited.

But default or not, the things other races get are pretty much shown as straight up being better than humans. Or, at least, being better for certain niches - dwarves are pretty much straight up better fighters, for instance, and the downsides they have don't really matter if you're a fighter. For almost any character concept, there's a race that is strictly better than humans, even if it's not always the same race.

IOW, humans win on flexibility, but flexibility doesn't matter in a class-based system. "Dwarves are better at fighters, but worse at being mages, while elves are great mages but poor fighters" doesn't really matter. All that ends up mattering is "dwarves are better fighters, elves are better mages, humans.... eh, they exist."

5e variant humans are in my opinion the only humans, the only way a +1 to all stats really helps you is if you're using point buy and you're being clever about moving stuff around.

And even then, feats in 5e are less the "core aspects of the system that make or break a build" they were in previous editions, having one more feat is no longer the difference between your spring attack mobility fighter's feat trees coming together at this level or not. I just make a big deal out of them because I'm a 3.PF player at heart when it comes to d&d and some habits die hard.

[Satinavian]

Sure, humans are "default".

But mechanically, they're just weak in most editions. Arguably more so in TSR D&D, since there light was more important and having access to multiclassing was more limited.

But default or not, the things other races get are pretty much shown as straight up being better than humans. Or, at least, being better for certain niches - dwarves are pretty much straight up better fighters, for instance, and the downsides they have don't really matter if you're a fighter. For almost any character concept, there's a race that is strictly better than humans, even if it's not always the same race.

IOW, humans win on flexibility, but flexibility doesn't matter in a class-based system. "Dwarves are better at fighters, but worse at being mages, while elves are great mages but poor fighters" doesn't really matter. All that ends up mattering is "dwarves are better fighters, elves are better mages, humans.... eh, they exist."

I don't know.

Humans in AD&D2 had exclusive classes like paladin and were the only race with access to all classes. they ended up being the best option for a certain class in a couple of cases.

Furthermore they had dual classing where everyone else multiclassing. Not only could they do more combinations than all other races, they really really good for switching when higher levels of a class only cost many xp without giving much in goodies. Starting as thief, getting levels cheaply and when you got your thief-skills high enough, switch to your real class, was a thing you only could do as human.

In 3E they got the extra feat and remained the best race in core for a multitude of builds.

[Easy e]

Super unpopular opinion here. Warning!

GMs can make terrible players for the same reason Bruce Campbell never goes to see movies. When he watches a movie, he can't look beyond the technical; like an actor successfully hitting his marks.

GMs as players are often the same way. They can not look beyond "How a GM" is running the campaign and therefore take themselves out of the game state flow.

GMs can no longer see the magic, they only see sausage being made.

[kyoryu]

Super unpopular opinion here. Warning!

GMs can make terrible players for the same reason Bruce Campbell never goes to see movies. When he watches a movie, he can't look beyond the technical; like an actor successfully hitting his marks.

GMs as players are often the same way. They can not look beyond "How a GM" is running the campaign and therefore take themselves out of the game state flow.

GMs can no longer see the magic, they only see sausage being made.

Not always, but frequently.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not always, but frequently.

I know I'm a better DM than a player. Not so much due to "not seeing the magic", but for two reasons.

1) Bad worldbuilding (ie every single published setting[1]) makes me lose focus. The part of a FR campaign (Princes of the Apocalypse) we played drove me to distraction.
2) I get...ADD (for lack of a better word, I'm not really diagnosed)...when I get bored. And when other players are dithering, I get bored fast. As a DM, I've got plenty of other things to occupy my attention even when the players are dragging or flying off on tangents.

[1] I might be a snob. And probably a blind one, since I know I'm guilty of bad worldbuilding a lot myself. But when I notice it in my own stuff, it irks me. And as a player, I can't "fix" the DM's setting. I can always adjust my own.

[kyoryu]

2) I get...ADD (for lack of a better word, I'm not really diagnosed)...when I get bored. And when other players are dithering, I get bored fast. As a DM, I've got plenty of other things to occupy my attention even when the players are dragging or flying off on tangents.

That can be a real problem. I find games that

a) have quicker turn resolution
b) have turn resolution more focused on "fiction" than modifiers/movement etc

can vastly help to alleviate that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That can be a real problem. I find games that

a) have quicker turn resolution
b) have turn resolution more focused on "fiction" than modifiers/movement etc

can vastly help to alleviate that.

In my experience, it's more about decision making than actual resolution. Resolution is fast[1]. It's figuring out what they're going to do in the first place that's slow. I'm leaning toward banning the whole "hey guys, what should I do" cross-talk. Make a decision, take your turn. Even if it's sub-optimal--my games aren't challenge-focused enough for optimal play to really matter decisively.

[1] except prismatic spray that hits 20 people, that sucks to resolve.

[Hytheter]

[1] except prismatic spray that hits 20 people, that sucks to resolve.

Prismatic Spray is clunky to resolve and definitely seems like a failure of design... But somehow I just can't help but love it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Prismatic Spray is clunky to resolve and definitely seems like a failure of design... But somehow I just can't help but love it.

My players love it. I quail, because it means 2-3 separate rolls and a table lookup for each person hit, none of which you can bulk roll. So it scales really really badly with number of targets, but has a huge aoe (60' cone, really?).

[Lacco]

In my experience, it's more about decision making than actual resolution. Resolution is fast[1]. It's figuring out what they're going to do in the first place that's slow. I'm leaning toward banning the whole "hey guys, what should I do" cross-talk. Make a decision, take your turn. Even if it's sub-optimal--my games aren't challenge-focused enough for optimal play to really matter decisively.

[1] except prismatic spray that hits 20 people, that sucks to resolve.

Unpopular GM move: When I see one of my players think too much about their next move or whenever the cross-talk starts, I hold up my hand and start counting down on fingers from 5. We reach 0 = the player hesitates and can only defend this round.

Used only with experienced players, it provides some additional tension to decisions.

[kyoryu]

In my experience, it's more about decision making than actual resolution. Resolution is fast[1]. It's figuring out what they're going to do in the first place that's slow. I'm leaning toward banning the whole "hey guys, what should I do" cross-talk. Make a decision, take your turn. Even if it's sub-optimal--my games aren't challenge-focused enough for optimal play to really matter decisively.

[1] except prismatic spray that hits 20 people, that sucks to resolve.

Yeah I was including that.

But what factors into the decision-making also matters. "Hrm, what are the bonuses and how many targets can I get if I move here first vs. there" gets people to tune out a lot faster (and usually takes more time than) "hrm, what line of reasoning do I want to use with the informant? Should I bully them? Bribe them? Hrm...."

For most people, watching others math out their turn is pretty dull.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah I was including that.

But what factors into the decision-making also matters. "Hrm, what are the bonuses and how many targets can I get if I move here first vs. there" gets people to tune out a lot faster (and usually takes more time than) "hrm, what line of reasoning do I want to use with the informant? Should I bully them? Bribe them? Hrm...."

For most people, watching others math out their turn is pretty dull.

Fortunately I don't have a big issue with turn-level optimizers in my games. The big thing is back-seat driving and people trying to micro manage other players' characters. And chronic indecisiveness. Which is ironic, since the player most prone to that also has the simplest character. He's a melee blender who basically always ends up charging in headlong (a trait which has made him rack up the most KOs of any of the PCs) and straight up attacking.

[Tanarii]

How do level caps serve as a balancing factor? If you're below the level cap, they don't do anything. If you're above the level cap they make your character increasingly underpowered the higher above the cap you go.

It affected player choosing to be non-humans regularly. Just the idea you'd be level capped was enough.

IOW, humans win on flexibility, but flexibility doesn't matter in a class-based system. "Dwarves are better at fighters, but worse at being mages, while elves are great mages but poor fighters" doesn't really matter. All that ends up mattering is "dwarves are better fighters, elves are better mages, humans.... eh, they exist."

Same as above. It did matter if you were a dwarves fighter or elven mage, even with AD&D where you had relatively high level limits, because of perception that you'd be limited eventually weighing in on making the choice. Even more so in AD&D, where the theoretical human limit was 36 vs Demi human 8/10/12. Very few groups would go even as high as name level without skipping ahead, but IMX non-humans were relatively uncommon in TSR D&D as primary characters. They were far more common as henchmen.

You do bring up one I left out though, class restrictions. Also a good balancing factor.

[kyoryu]

Same as above. It did matter if you were a dwarves fighter or elven mage, even with AD&D where you had relatively high level limits, because of perception that you'd be limited eventually weighing in on making the choice. Even more so in AD&D, where the theoretical human limit was 36 vs Demi human 8/10/12. Very few groups would go even as high as name level without skipping ahead, but IMX non-humans were relatively uncommon in TSR D&D as primary characters. They were far more common as henchmen.

Right. I was talking about WotC D&D without level restrictions.

[icefractal]

The big thing is back-seat driving and people trying to micro manage other players' characters. And chronic indecisiveness.

Teamwork does have a dark side. I actually prefer games where tight coordination is optional and only applicable some of the time, because high-coordination games tend toward the Pandemic (the board game) issue - that the best strategy is to act as a single unit, primarily controlled by the 1-2 most skilled players.

But that said, I don't like "no advising people" as a solution either, because there are also players who'll agonize over decisions when there's a obviously-correct choice they just didn't notice, and everyone involved would be happier if they're informed of that.


As both a potential solution to that, and also just because it's fun, I like games where different character types have their own subsystems, and it's entirely possible that players legitimately don't know what the other PCs are capable of, beyond what they've seen happen or been told about. Both surprising other people with a trick and being surprised by one are exciting. That does require all the players being on-the-ball about their own mechanics though, since it's harder for anyone else to help.


Edit: Re: Humans not being a good pick ...
IME, they've usually been a good pick from 3E onward, and I've seen a lot of them played.
3E - that feat is always useful, and depending on the setting there may not be an option that's better stat-wise.
PF1 - with also getting a stat boost, they're a good option for literally every class.
4E - maybe a little weaker here, since feats don't seem as crucial in 4E, but I'm not that experienced in it.
5E - IDK about standard-human, but variant-human is fire, an extra feat is awesome.

[JNAProductions]

It affected player choosing to be non-humans regularly. Just the idea you'd be level capped was enough.

Same as above. It did matter if you were a dwarves fighter or elven mage, even with AD&D where you had relatively high level limits, because of perception that you'd be limited eventually weighing in on making the choice. Even more so in AD&D, where the theoretical human limit was 36 vs Demi human 8/10/12. Very few groups would go even as high as name level without skipping ahead, but IMX non-humans were relatively uncommon in TSR D&D as primary characters. They were far more common as henchmen.

You do bring up one I left out though, class restrictions. Also a good balancing factor.

This operates under the assumption that you WANT Humans to be the majority of PCs.

Which isn't a safe assumption to make as a general statement. It's certainly true for SOME people, but definitely not all!

To me, though, level caps isn't a good solution to the "problem" (put in quotes because it's not a problem for everyone) because, as mentioned above, it either does nothing (game ends below or at the level cap) or does far too much (game spendsa decent chunk of time above the level cap).

It's also an issue that it's balance over a long period of time-if, in a single session, I'm garbage at one encounter, good at three, and the MVP of one, that's fine. If, in a short campaign, I'm garbage in one session, good at three, and the MVP of one... I'm gonna feel real bad about the one session I was garbage in, and probably about the MVP session too, since that likely occurred because OTHER players were garbage for that session.

[Batcathat]

I suppose it depends on how you define "balance". Personally, I don't really see how that sort of caps or restrictions would make things any more balanced. A lot of them also seem weird from a world-building POV (though I suppose a setting could be adapted to explain the differences. Maybe all the gods who grant paladin-powers are just really speciest against non-humans or something).

[kyoryu]

I suppose it depends on how you define "balance". Personally, I don't really see how that sort of caps or restrictions would make things anymore balanced. A lot of them also seem weird from a world-building POV (though I suppose a setting could be adapted to explain the differences. Maybe all the gods who grant paladin-powers are just really speciest against non-humans or something).

"Is there a mechanical reason to every choose <option>?"

As long as that's true, everything else is just degrees.

[Batcathat]

"Is there a mechanical reason to every choose <option>?"

As long as that's true, everything else is just degrees.

I guess. It just seems like a very weird way to go about it. If only halflings could be wizards, wizards would still be just as unbalanced compared to martials, they would just be shorter.

[kyoryu]

I guess. It just seems like a very weird way to go about it. If only halflings could be wizards, wizards would still be just as unbalanced compared to martials, they would just be shorter.

At that point the question is "why would you play anything except a halfling wizard?" There needs to be a reason.

[BRC]

At that point the question is "why would you play anything except a halfling wizard?" There needs to be a reason.

I mean, this gets into the idea of why people play.

Let's say that a Halfling Wizard is objectively the Most Powerful Character. Does the existence of a Most Powerful Character mean that any other build is unusable? Alternatively, if we've "Solved" the Most Powerful Character, is there any point to keeping playing the "Build a powerful character" Game?

[NichG]

I think playstyle is a more interesting and satisfying diversifying factor than trying to handcraft non-overlapping roles. So the reason to play something other than the game theoretic optimal can be 'it's mechanics are more to my liking' or 'I'm more interested in exploring the context it comes with' or 'I can attain a higher fraction of the theoretical limit with my level of skill, even if the limit is lower' or ...

But it is important that those options be comfortably viable, even if they're dominated when it comes to mechanical optimality.

[Milodiah]

I mean, this gets into the idea of why people play.

Let's say that a Halfling Wizard is objectively the Most Powerful Character. Does the existence of a Most Powerful Character mean that any other build is unusable? Alternatively, if we've "Solved" the Most Powerful Character, is there any point to keeping playing the "Build a powerful character" Game?

Everyone knows level twenty characters are by far the most powerful, why are we starting at lower levels? /s

[KorvinStarmast]

The Battlemaster Fighter is the best pure martial artist in 5th edition D&D. Their maneuvers represent developing a unique combat style, whereas others have a relatively pedestrian and predictable style, with each member of the class being relatively the same; sure, other fighters might take two-handed or two-weapon or whatever, but they're still fighting much the same as anyone else with that style. Monks may have their own styles, but within a subclass, everyone is more or less the same, except for fluff.

Yeah.

Yup. It's exactly because they're basically the 5e version of the 4e martial that they're so awesome. 4e made martials awesome, and Mike Mearls took most of that away in 4e Essentials, which was his test bed for 5e.

Hmm, since I missed 4e I have no frame of reference for this.

For example, we have the Eldritch Knight, who combines fighting and arcane spellcasting; I think there is a wizard version, as well. However, we don't have the Divine Knight, who uses clerical magic in the same way.

Ah, Paladin.

Or the Nature Knight (which is a horrible name) which uses Druid Magic.

Ranger.

Or the Blooded Knight, who is a part sorcerer.

Sorcadin multiclass handles this nicely.

Or the Pact Knight, who is a semi-warlock.

Hexblade if you strain your eyes.

[1] And then the random treasure roll gave them 4 legendary items--3 legendary weapons and a cubic gate. This has distorted the gameplay from there on.

Hmm, I thought we got those great weapons (the back biter in particular) after the fight; but that's my memory likelyl being shaky. That cubic gate has been handy on occasion but not used anywhere near as often as that teleport helm. And in that one battle mea culpa on the details for planeshift - one of those demons might not have been sent bye-bye. (We have not yet pulled off the Gate/Shove shennanigans). I like how the gate is mostly a utility item with some selected capacity for combat uses.

From where I sat, the most distorting item for early tier 3 was that legendary staff mixed with the sorc's ability to adjust damage types. (Was that your homebrew feat or is that a metamagic that I don't recall very well?).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hmm, I thought we got those great weapons (the back biter in particular) after the fight; but that's my memory likelyl being shaky. That cubic gate has been handy on occasion but not used anywhere near as often as that teleport helm. And in that one battle mea culpa on the details for planeshift - one of those demons might not have been sent bye-bye. (We have not yet pulled off the Gate/Shove shennanigans). I like how the gate is mostly a utility item with some selected capacity for combat uses.

From where I sat, the most distorting item for early tier 3 was that legendary staff mixed with the sorc's ability to adjust damage types. (Was that your homebrew feat or is that a metamagic that I don't recall very well?).

Those came from the treasure roll for that fight (ie afterward). And yeah, the staff is bad, although the Defender isn't nice either (with another +3 to AC). The metamagic is, IIRC, from Tasha's. Transmuted Spell, IIRC.

[RandomPeasant]

Provably false. There's a host of game design tricks to, say, create a rock-paper-scissors relationship between feats, or make feats usable in mutually exclusive situations so that there isn't a single best archery feat.

Neither of those mean there isn't a best feat. They just mean, at best, that there isn't a best feat in a vacuum. But, in practice, you're going to end up with a situation where one side of the RPS triangle is best, or where one mutually-exclusive option comes up more often.

How do level caps serve as a balancing factor? If you're below the level cap, they don't do anything. If you're above the level cap they make your character increasingly underpowered the higher above the cap you go.

They don't. Level caps, like THAC0 and different classes having different XP tables, is bad design. People like it for the same reason we keep getting Ghostbusters movies: nostalgia. Even the people supporting level caps in this thread have "it exploits human irrationality" as the reason they think it's good. Power now for power later is a bad idea and always has been. You're not guaranteed to have either a "now" or a "later" in every game, let alone both.

Reduction of the difficulty of casting was the biggest factor in the caster-dominance of 3e.

This is not really true. The caster dominance of 3e came from spells you didn't cast in combat. It doesn't matter how easy it is to disrupt the casting of planar binding by stabbing the caster, because if you cast planar binding when there's someone around to stab you, you're doing it wrong. Casting spells in combat was basically none of the problem with 3e casters, and the problems martial had were a result of HP bloat in monsters, not because the game was better when casters were unreliable in combat.

I think playstyle is a more interesting and satisfying diversifying factor than trying to handcraft non-overlapping roles.

This is the way. Trying to divvy things up so that Fighters and Wizards and Rogues and Clerics have "protected roles" tends to lead to games that aren't fun. You end up with people being forced to not do anything in certain situations so that other characters not doing anything in different situations is okay. Or you end up with people being forced to play a class because someone needs to cover the role.

I mostly meant PC AC, which scales, at the top intended by the system (heaviest armor should provide top AC, right?), from maybe 16-18 (scale mail +DEX) at level 1 to around...35 if you only get the expected bonuses (+5 mithral full plate, +5 natural armor, +5 deflection). Shields can add a bunch too, but I don't think every PC is expected to have an Animated Heavy Shield +5. Everything on top of that is not really expected.

Well, yeah, but PCs are meant to get Power Attacked too. Look at all the monsters that have the feat.

[Cluedrew]

So next thread Unpopularer D&D Opinions anyone? Yes, I know that is not how you are supposed to say it.

Personally I think D&D doesn't do enough to differentiate the races a lot of the time. Actually forget races, sometimes we are talking about species that are based off of entirely different sections of the animal kingdom, if an animal at all. And yet a lot of the time they feel like skins on people instead of the wildly different beings they could be. I can guess why it might be done that way, but it always feels like it is underselling the idea.

[Telok]

I suppose it depends on how you define "balance". Personally, I don't really see how that sort of caps or restrictions would make things any more balanced. A lot of them also seem weird from a world-building POV (though I suppose a setting could be adapted to explain the differences. Maybe all the gods who grant paladin-powers are just really speciest against non-humans or something).

So the ad&d level caps & class restrictions do have a point, its just not a "game balance" one. You have to actually read the ad&d dmg like its one of those "how to make youself <thing>" books, and not as a hard & fast set of rules. The point of them is world building and an attempt to avert every race being humans with different rubber ears.

The "default" ad&d setting was supposed to be one with the 'younger' human race in ascendency while the 'elder' races were declining, and the adventures were intended to happen on the wilderness frontiers of the human kingdoms. It wasn't that there weren't supposed to be high level demihumans, it was that they weren't supposed to be the focus of the game, so characters that reached those levels were supposed to wander off back to the homeland and be big impirtant npcs there.

The level & class limits weren't for balance, the "ok to play a young balrog" bit should have told you the idea of balance was optional (never mind implementation). They were world building so that the dm could run a mostly human party having mostly human adventures with characters that players could rp & relate to easily.

[Batcathat]

So the ad&d level caps & class restrictions do have a point, its just not a "game balance" one. You have to actually read the ad&d dmg like its one of those "how to make youself <thing>" books, and not as a hard & fast set of rules. The point of them is world building and an attempt to avert every race being humans with different rubber ears.

I can admire that as a goal, a lot of fictional races/species do tend to be of the rubber ear variety, but I don't see how a level cap can contribute to fixing that. Class restrictions... could maybe do it a little, I guess, but it seems like a clumsy way of doing it that doesn't always work well with the world-building (Class restrictions always makes me think of the character in Baldur's Gate 2 who's a halfling paladin in everything but name because halflings can't be paladins for... reasons).