D&D 5E Why Good Players Do Not 14.25.

[The Crimson Binome]

I get your point, but PC meta-game far more then DM's, and its not close. Every PC guide here has dump stats, players follow those and then act like it didn't exist. They have Barbarians in rage using GWF feat making the decision not to use that feat when advantage is cancelled out for one round then using it again, and every veteran player "tells" their PC's exactly what resistances monsters have that the PC has never seen before. Stuff like that all the time.

I'm not sure about the barbarian deciding whether to power attack or not, because combat instinct is hard to understand when you're not there, but those other things are examples of poor role-playing that are likely to be called out as such. Not all players ignore their dump stats, and not all players pretend that their characters know what resistances a monster has (if the player even knows them).

The DM has to put in a lot more work in determining what their characters do and do-not know, but it's still the same basic process as for the players. When determining whether an ogre is wearing plate armor, that determination can only depend on in-game factors (such as whether that ogre is working for a fire giant), because basing that determination on external factors (such as whether you want to challenge the player at the table) ruins the integrity of the model; there's zero satisfaction for a player to reach a goal post that was intentionally moved so that they could (or could-not) reach it.

The DM is also working without oversight, which means the players need to trust the DM to play fairly. A bad DM, who abuses that trust by meta-gaming, can put players off from the hobby entirely. From what I understand, this was a major issue in the eighties and early nineties, with players being paranoid that the DM was out to get them - because earlier DMs, in true adversarial style, were out to get them.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...it doesn't matter if you have combat monsters or the knitting club, the enemies are making their decisions to wear heavier armor because of some other factor in the fiction.

Correct. Regardless of what the characters can or cannot do, there are story reasons for their decisions, and thus the same decisions can be made no matter the characters in the campaign - even though making choices the same way for group A and group B can have very different results.

If, however, they wear heavy armor because the players are combat monsters and the DM wishes these enemies to be tougher to offset that, then the decision is being made because the enemies are pieces in a game and the reasoning is for game reasons, whatever other justification you come up with to obscure this.

That's entirely irrelevant though. You are letting the fact that the DM is thinking of the game they are playing as being a game, and trying to make it fun for the people playing I might add, distract you from the fact that the same thing is happening if you make a different decisions for the same reason.

By which I mean there is no difference in state - either metagame thinking or not - between the choices of A) use more enemies with higher AC because the of the characters, and B) refuse to use more enemies with higher AC because of the characters.

To phrase it differently: there isn't any disagreement inherent to the enemies wearing heavier armor for story reasons and the DM choosing to use a story that explains heavier armored enemies because their players have built combat specialized characters and yet do not enjoy that meaning the combat challenges they face are not as difficult. It is the imagination that there is a disagreement that invents the specter of "metagaming" and causes the scenario wherein a DM insists he should avoid metagaming, and as a result intentionally forces their self to make decisions they do not like the outcomes of, rather than the decisions that would lead to the outcome they desire.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The DM is also working without oversight, which means the players need to trust the DM to play fairly.

The DM is not working without oversight - the players are the oversight.

Also, because the game establishes it as a rule that all of the challenges faced are the DM's responsibility to establish, it is playing fairly for the DM to do just that - which is what raising monster AC by choosing their equipment and/or choosing the monster in particular is.

What would not be fair is establishing the challenge (an unarmored ogre, for example), relaying the conditions of the challenge to the players (telling them their characters see an unarmored ogre), and then changing the details as the challenge is being engaged with (such as having an unarmored ogre have a 20 AC despite no indication of anything outside the norm for an ogre).

And players aren't going to start thinking their DM is out to get them unless the DM is actually out to get them - if they are having a great time playing the game and everything is fun (which is what is being discussed here, making a change to improve enjoyment for a group) there is no suspicion otherwise... at least not without actual paranoia being involved to suggest that the DM running an enjoyable game is trying to lull the players into a false sense of security before figuratively pulling the rug out from under them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Correct. Regardless of what the characters can or cannot do, there are story reasons for their decisions, and thus the same decisions can be made no matter the characters in the campaign - even though making choices the same way for group A and group B can have very different results.

That's entirely irrelevant though. You are letting the fact that the DM is thinking of the game they are playing as being a game, and trying to make it fun for the people playing I might add, distract you from the fact that the same thing is happening if you make a different decisions for the same reason.

By which I mean there is no difference in state - either metagame thinking or not - between the choices of A) use more enemies with higher AC because the of the characters, and B) refuse to use more enemies with higher AC because of the characters.

To phrase it differently: there isn't any disagreement inherent to the enemies wearing heavier armor for story reasons and the DM choosing to use a story that explains heavier armored enemies because their players have built combat specialized characters and yet do not enjoy that meaning the combat challenges they face are not as difficult. It is the imagination that there is a disagreement that invents the specter of "metagaming" and causes the scenario wherein a DM insists he should avoid metagaming, and as a result intentionally forces their self to make decisions they do not like the outcomes of, rather than the decisions that would lead to the outcome they desire.

No, I disagree, they are very different. There's a world of difference between having enemies equip better armors due to fictional events in the story and deciding that your players have made game mechanic choices that you don't like and you're going to rebalance the game so that those choices are less effective while hiding it behind a story made up to do just this.

Again, making a decision to change the game because of choices in game mechanics does not become the same as story just because you find a justification for it. The actual reason is still to rebalance the game because you don't like the effect of some character mechanic choice.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...deciding that your players have made game mechanic choices that you don't like and you're going to rebalance the game so that those choices are less effective...

That's a different motivation than the one I was assuming for the change. I was assuming that the DM was making a change to improve the group's fun, not for selfish reasons of putting their own fun above that of the rest of the group.

Again, making a decision to change the game because of choices in game mechanics does not become the same as story just because you find a justification for it. The actual reason is still to rebalance the game because you don't like the effect of some character mechanic choice.

If a player chooses a particular feat, there are two possibilities; A) it is irrelevant to how you choose whatever you choose for the campaign, or B) whatever decisions you do make - even to not change what has been the norm up to this point of the campaign - are what they are because of that players' choice.

Where you are getting confused is that you are insisting that a decision which has absolutely been made the way it has because of a feat - the decision that enemies will not have heavier armor - is exempt from being called metagaming.

 

[Bacon Bits]

So in all likelihood, best case scenario (fully optimized *and* a magic weapon), the archer spent two feats to do an extra 4-and-a-half-ish damage per hit? And, as you admit later, with higher AC targets that bonus drops considerably? That's it? That's what all the hullabaloo is about?

Ok, let's break it down again.


Take our +11 attack bonus mundane against, say, AC 16: (4.5 + 5) * 0.80 = 7.6

Here's -5/+10: (4.5 + 5 + 10) * 0.55 = 10.725

+2 weapon: (4.5 + 5 + 2) * 0.90 = 10.35

+3 weapon: (4.5 + 5 + 3) * 0.95 = 11.875

So here -5/+10 it's a bit better than having +2 to attack and damage.



+11 vs AC 20:

Regular: (4.5 + 5) * 0.60 = 5.7

-5/+10: (4.5 + 5 + 10) * 0.35 = 6.825

+1 weapon: (4.5 + 5 + 1) * 0.65 = 6.825

Against high AC, it's exactly as good as having a +1 to attack and damage.



And for completeness, +11 vs AC 13:

Against AC 13: (4.5 + 5) * 0.95 = 9.025

Here's -5/+10: (4.5 + 5 + 10) * 0.80 = 15.6

+3 weapon: (4.5 + 5 + 3) * 0.95 = 11.875

Here, -5/+10 is significantly better than having +3 to attack and damage. This comparison is unfair because the AC is so low, but that's also the fault of the attack bonus being so high. AC 16 is actually the minimum where the +3 weapon's attack bonus gets it's full effect.


So:

1. Almost all monsters in the Monster Manual have an AC of 20 or lower
2. It's very easy for a character with Archery Style to get a +11 mundane attack bonus by level 9
3. A feat gives you, among other very good abilities, an optional -5/+10
4. The cost of a feat is an ASI
5. An ASI only gives you +2 to a stat, and ASIs are capped at 20
6. -5/+10 is at least as good as a +2 to a stat, will often be as good as +4 to a stat, and can even be better than +6 to a stat

So, with just Sharpshooter alone, at level 9 you get more out of just Sharpshooter's -5/+10 ability against virtually every opponent in the game than you would get from making your Dex 22, and in many cases it's as good as getting Dex 24. Sharpshooter is like making +2 longbow or +4 Dex a feat... except this one stacks with another magic weapon or isn't capped like your other ASIs.

Tell me again why people shouldn't find a problem with that?

If you get something better than +2 Dex and get several abilities on top of that, and if all you're paying is at best +2 Dex, exactly what is the cost you're paying for the feat? Sharpshooter is having your cake and eating it.

 

[Corwin]

Tell me again why people shouldn't find a problem with that?

Look at all that wonderfully selective, sketchy, and myopic math. I love it. I noticed you gave the feat guy the same bonus as the regular one. Why is that, do you think? I mean, isn't he supposed to be +1 or +2 behind the "regular" guy? After all, he's taken a feat (or two, as most people are arguing). Yet here you are hand-waving that significant opportunity cost. Was that intentional?

But irregardless, no, I can't say that you shouldn't have a problem with it. I just don't get the problem you think you are having. It baffles me. Are you saying I am *supposed* to have a problem with it? Like, is it a requirement?

Yes, the feat gives you more damage on average. Shouldn't it? I mean, seriously here. Stop and think about that for a minute. Shouldn't it?!

Also, and besides all that, you also conveniently neglected to factor in all the non-attack/damage benefits you get from instead taking that dexterity increase. You know, like valuable initiative, very useful skills, and an extremely common save bonus. Stuff like that. Just those amazingly useful benefits. So, yes. That's precisely how its supposed to work. If you sacrifice the bulk of a wide benefit to focus on a single, restricted aspect of that broader bonus, should it not exceed the otherwise general benefit in that narrowly focused area? Please answer that specific question. I'm curious about your take on that common design feature.

 

[Zardnaar]

Look at all that wonderfully selective, sketchy, and myopic math. I love it. I noticed you gave the feat guy the same bonus as the regular one. Why is that, do you think? I mean, isn't he supposed to be +1 or +2 behind the "regular" guy? After all, he's taken a feat (or two, as most people are arguing). Yet here you are hand-waving that significant opportunity cost. Was that intentional?

But irregardless, no, I can't say that you shouldn't have a problem with it. I just don't get the problem you think you are having. It baffles me. Are you saying I am *supposed* to have a problem with it? Like, is it a requirement?

Yes, the feat gives you more damage on average. Shouldn't it? I mean, seriously here. Stop and think about that for a minute. Shouldn't it?!

Also, and besides all that, you also conveniently neglected to factor in all the non-attack/damage benefits you get from instead taking that dexterity increase. You know, like valuable initiative, very useful skills, and an extremely common save bonus. Stuff like that. Just those amazingly useful benefits. So, yes. That's precisely how its supposed to work. If you sacrifice the bulk of a wide benefit to focus on a single, restricted aspect of that broader bonus, should it not exceed the otherwise general benefit in that narrowly focused area? Please answer that specific question. I'm curious about your take on that common design feature.

Its because at level 11 you can have 20 dex and sharpshooter. You can have both by level 6.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The DM is not working without oversight - the players are the oversight..

This can't be overstated, and yet always seems to be forgotten. No one forces anyone to play with a bad DM. If you think the DM is being unfair and your conversation with him or her isn't working, don't play in their games anymore. Either play in another game or DM a game yourself.

It's a pretty simple solution. You don't need to spend tuition and go to DM school to be a DM; there are no requirements and no D&D police show up to arrest you if you don't have them.

 

[Corwin]

Its because at level 11 you can have 20 dex and sharpshooter. You can have both by level 6.

Wait. What happened to that crossbow expert feat you are always going on and on about? Don't you always take that, too. So that's a total of 4 ASIs. All committed to one, singular focus: To be the best, most deadliest, crossbowman in the world. If you *aren't* the best by that point, the system is flawed.