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

[smbakeresq]

I also believe it's the DM job to set up situations that highlight one character over the others so each player has a chance to shine.

The crossbow expert mentioned above will get a ranged encounter. He/she will also get an encounter at point blank range wherein the crossbow is useless or even disarmed so the monk team mate can flurry them. The enchanter needs an encounter to show off those charm spells, and the thunder cleric needs an encounter with enough space to use Call Lightening, probably during a natural storm that makes ranged weapons useless to kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

The creatures in the MM do need help, I have been at this so long it's just second nature. Tony Vargas appears to be in same boat as me. Get some old adventures or some old dragon magazines to see how MM were run before. Ogres with plate mail and Trolls with rings of fire resistance were not common but were a "standard" twist. Mages behind a locked iron door with a 1" peephole to cast spells through but prevent attacks happened. Bowstrings getting wet and thus limiting range or making them useless happened.

I do think that all the problems with sharpshooter and it's related strategies all revolve around DEX getting added to damage, a bad design decision IMO. Getting a composite bow (or making your own) was a big thing at lower levels, a good thing for players to strive for. The aspect is gone. Crossbows too, a magical crossbow was a big thing since you couldn't get dmg bonuses any other way, you just got bigger dice. Things change.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Okay, so, if I understand it, you recommend altering the game baselines to offset the problem caused by one player because you believe it will improve the game for everyone else. Why would you not discuss the problem choice with the one player? And, if that player is putting his fun above the rest of the group, why would you continue to allow him to play in your game?

What I'm getting from this is that you agree SS can be a problem, but see no point in addressing it before play or having a discussion with players to correct it if discovered after play has begun. Instead you prefer to attribute the problem to the player's attitude and change your game to punish that player (and the other players, just in a lesser way) for making the choice you've characterized as the player putting their fun above the other players. Frankly, if you allow choices in your game that allow for a player to do this, the fault is yours at the beginning.

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.

This... doesn't make sense. Let's posit something and apply your frame work:

The player chooses feat A. You make no changes to your game because the player chose feat A. Is this because a) it is irrelevant or b) your choice to make no changes is because the player chose feat A?

The problem here is that b) is circular -- it assumes that the player choice is the reason for any DM choice, including the choice to do nothing. You then say that since the DM made a choice, it's evidence that it's because the player picked the feat. Your premise assumes your conclusion.

So, I have no idea what you're actually trying to say here. I believe you're trying to say that the player's character build choices affect all decisions the DM makes. I actually disagree with this. How the player plays the character affects my choices. I would not, for instance, add armor to my bad guys just because my players are good at hitting and I felt the need to offset that. I would add armor to my bad guys if the bad guys leaders developed intel that the PCs were very good and that additional equipment could help the bad guys achieve their goals. Then, if they have the resources, they'd better equip their minions. But because the player's picked up SS and were decimating encounters? Nope. That's a reward for making a good choice. If, however, I found it unfun to run for that group because of that choice, I'd discuss it with the players openly and find a mutually agreeable solution that didn't involve me running behind my screen and just up armoring everything so that the players didn't do as well.

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.

Sorry, where did I say it wasn't metagaming? I said that post facto metagaming is a bad sort. Changing the way the game works because of the way a player chose a legal options in that game just to offset that choice is poor DMing. If you don't like the choice, remove it ahead of time or have a discussion with the players on how best to fix the issues being seen. I did exactly this in my game where I changed SS from -5/+10 to +1 DEX -- I discussed it with my players, laid out my concerns and why, listened to feedback, and we agreed that this was a reasonable change and enacted it. What I didn't do was allow a player to pick the unaltered feat and then decide I didn't like the way it worked so I'd just uparmor everything to make it less useful.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I also believe it's the DM job to set up situations that highlight one character over the others so each player has a chance to shine.

The crossbow expert mentioned above will get a ranged encounter. He/she will also get an encounter at point blank range wherein the crossbow is useless or even disarmed so the monk team mate can flurry them. The enchanter needs an encounter to show off those charm spells, and the thunder cleric needs an encounter with enough space to use Call Lightening, probably during a natural storm that makes ranged weapons useless to kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

The creatures in the MM do need help, I have been at this so long it's just second nature. Tony Vargas appears to be in same boat as me. Get some old adventures or some old dragon magazines to see how MM were run before. Ogres with plate mail and Trolls with rings of fire resistance were not common but were a "standard" twist. Mages behind a locked iron door with a 1" peephole to cast spells through but prevent attacks happened. Bowstrings getting wet and thus limiting range or making them useless happened.

I do think that all the problems with sharpshooter and it's related strategies all revolve around DEX getting added to damage, a bad design decision IMO. Getting a composite bow (or making your own) was a big thing at lower levels, a good thing for players to strive for. The aspect is gone. Crossbows too, a magical crossbow was a big thing since you couldn't get dmg bonuses any other way, you just got bigger dice. Things change.

Of course, this is good DMing, and the kind of ex ante metagaming that's usually good. However, as a point of note, one of the largest complaints about CE is that putting them in melee doesn't reduce their effectiveness (with the small caveat that Corwin believes that OAs level that field), so... A storm that prevents ranged weapon attacks is neat, but I'd be hesitant to often rely on such a device that cripples any ranged weapon reliant character. Removing the entire ability of a character to be effective is something you should do very rarely and only for good (story) reasons. And it should be telegraphed far in advance.

Example: recently my players entered an area of elemental disturbance. In one area, clearly visible from a distance, there are a number of massive whirlwinds. Normal missile combat will be impossible here, but by letting the players see it ahead of time, it's not a surprise and they can plan/choose how best to adapt their tactics to the situation. This isn't to say that you should surprise your players with challenging battlefield conditions, but just that those challenges should almost never be of the kind that cripple a character without at least some foreshadowing. If the player doesn't plan accordingly, then you don't have to feel bad.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I find it somewhat amusing that the defense here for Aaron's suggestion is that no one has to play with a bad DM. That's praising with faint damnation. Unintentional, I'm sure, but there it is.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Okay, so, if I understand it, you recommend altering the game baselines to offset the problem caused by one player because you believe it will improve the game for everyone else.

No, that is not at all what I recommend. I was merely stating that I was not assuming a self-centered motivation for the change like you were.

You've clearly misunderstood me.

What I'm getting from this is that you agree SS can be a problem, but see no point in addressing it before play or having a discussion with players to correct it if discovered after play has begun.

I don't know where you are getting that, but it isn't from me. I only agree that SS can be a problem with a proviso; it can be a problem if you make it a problem by playing to it's strengths even when you don't actually want to.

Instead you prefer to attribute the problem to the player's attitude and change your game to punish that player (and the other players, just in a lesser way) for making the choice you've characterized as the player putting their fun above the other players.

I have no idea who you are talking about, but it definitely is not me.

This... doesn't make sense. Let's posit something and apply your frame work:

The player chooses feat A. You make no changes to your game because the player chose feat A. Is this because a) it is irrelevant or b) your choice to make no changes is because the player chose feat A?

The problem here is that b) is circular -- it assumes that the player choice is the reason for any DM choice, including the choice to do nothing. You then say that since the DM made a choice, it's evidence that it's because the player picked the feat. Your premise assumes your conclusion.

So, I have no idea what you're actually trying to say here.

Allow me to rephrase to try and help you understand me:

At the point where a player has Great Weapon Master and the DM feels that the game is being negatively affected as a result (which I want to add is not a point that everyone is going to experience), the DM has a choice to make about how to fix the problem. If that DM considers the facts, they can see that using more enemies with higher AC is a potential fix. So the DM has to decide whether to use that fix, or refuse it... but if they say "I can't change my campaign to fix this problem because that would be metagaming, so I have to change it some other way," they are also saying that they have intentionally chosen "As a result of a player taking Great Weapon Master, I'm going to make sure that the majority of monsters I use do not have higher AC," and have done exactly the thing they insist they are trying not to do.

The proof that the second option - not changing monster AC - is just as much metagaming as the first supposedly is, is that there would be no issue at all for the DM to raise the overall average of AC that the party faces at some point during a campaign that didn't involve Great Weapon Master. Thus it is because of Great Weapon Master that the decision was made, and that's the exact thing that supposedly shall not be done.

It is the imaginary capability of knowing a piece of information and that knowledge having no effect upon what decisions you make that I am refuting.

Sorry, where did I say it wasn't metagaming? I said that post facto metagaming is a bad sort.

You'll have to excuse me, when people start involving language other than casual English in a discussion, I have a tendency to stop paying close attention because in the majority of such cases that I have experienced it is being done for underhanded reasons. You'll also have to excuse me for not going back to read in detail what you said in the posts that might explain what you meant by whatever language it is you've chosen to inject into a conversation that can be had just fine in the casual English it began in.

Changing the way the game works because of the way a player chose a legal options in that game just to offset that choice is poor DMing.

I agree, which is why I was trying to point out to the people asking for a change that no change to the way the game works is actually necessary - they just need to change their attitude towards the standard tasks the game gives to the DM.

Because "I'm going to have some ogres in plate mail" is not changing the way the game works - but "This feat does something different than it says in the book" is.

What I didn't do was allow a player to pick the unaltered feat and then decide I didn't like the way it worked so I'd just uparmor everything to make it less useful.

If you had been using a higher-trending AC set of monsters since the beginning, which is entirely within the way the game works (and is what I've done, since I happen to like hobgoblins, fire giants, dragons, and other monsters that happen to have higher AC), there would be no "up-armor everything to make it less useful." So there is no basis for vilifying such an act. Or at least no more basis for vilification than exists for the act of changing how the feat is written.

 

[Bacon Bits]

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?

No, it was using the same character in my first post. A level 9 character that was either a Fighter or a Variant Human that had taken the Sharpshooter feat.

I'm ignoring Crossbow Expert my posts because I don't have a big problem with that feat. Crossbow Expert adds +1 damage per attack, which is less than 1 average damage. That's worse than +2 Dex. I think Crossbow Expert is a poor feat because it breaks my suspension of disbelief (I can't imagine loading a heavy crossbow that quickly) and because it makes bows less desirable. I prefer the default scheme where single attack classes prefer crossbows, and multi-attack classes prefer bows. Then both have a place.

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?

No, not at all. However, every time people bring this up, there are invariably people in every thread who say, "Oh, I haven't observed that in my game," or, "Oh, feats are optional so just don't play with them," or, "Oh, it's really not better than an ASI," or, "Oh, just change the way you DM the game," or any of a dozen other responses that say, "You're wrong and this isn't a problem." In other words, their concerns get dismissed, and instead of the thread being about, you know, the common problem that some people are having, it's always about defending their statement that the problem they're having is even a problem at all.

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.

Is it ok for -5/+10 to be a universal damage bonus against all opponents as long as you are following the restriction of using a weapon of the requisite type because it's still more restrictive than an attribute bonus? No, not as presented.

If the feat is supposed to just make you deal more damage as an archer, than -5/+10 is a horrible game mechanic to do it with. If they wanted the Feat to make you deal more damage to all targets, then it should say, "When you make a ranged weapon/heavy weapon attack, you deal an additional +3 damage." Having the game say, "Before you attack, you may take a -5 penalty to your attack roll. If you do, you deal an additional +10 damage when you hit." is poor design. Why? Because if you can't evaluate the outcome of a mechanic and be right about it, then it's a poor mechanic. And -5/+10 isn't an obvious mechanic. It's not at all obvious that, after a certain point, the feat is just always worth it to use against every target you find. That means players will evaluate the mechanic incorrectly, and that makes them frustrated. The advantage of mechanics like +1 longsword over, for example, a -1 to hit/+2 damage longsword is that it's easy to evaluate and you know you should use it. You know it's a benefit all the time, and you don't have to worry that you'll find out six months later that you've been "playing wrong" the whole time. The game just tricked the player. That's the kind of stuff that makes people quit playing a game.

This is one of the common problems they have designing Magic cards: you have to make the power level of cards understandable so that when people read them, they can evaluate them correctly. If they produce cards that are much more powerful than people evaluate, then they won't understand why they keep losing and will quit the game. For a long time WotC specifically created "testing" cards that they knew were bad just so players would be happy that they could correctly evaluate cards.

Look at the other abilities on feats. Not just Sharpshooter or GWM's other abilities. Any feat. How many of them do you opt not to use every time you possibly could, excepting cases where the use is limited in number (e.g., Defensive Duelist, Lucky)? Hint: None of them. Feats are all designed that you want to use them whenever they come up, and whenever they come up they're always good. Except for -5/+10. You read that and think, "Hm, this won't be good all the time."

How about if -5/+10 is supposed to be situational or just for dealing more damage to low armored targets? Or for some high risk/high reward mechanic where you are gambling because you're sacrificing average dpr in exchange for maybe dealing higher burst dpr and maybe taking out a target one round sooner? Those, I believe, is what they actually intend for you to use this ability for. However, if that's what it's supposed to do, then it does a poor job because -- as I think I've already adequately shown -- after level 9 the mechanic doesn't punish you for using it "incorrectly" against high AC targets. The mechanic doesn't reinforce the design. The highest AC you're likely to see for the vast majority of the game is AC 20, and it's still often better to use it against those targets.

How about 5e design tenants? Does -5/+10 follow those? Ease of play, simplicity of rules, intuitiveness of design, quickness of play, and relatively quick game pacing? No, not really. If -5/+10 is something you're just always supposed to use then, yeah, it's pretty easy, but it adds an additional set of modifiers to your attacks, making it not very simple. If -5/+10 is supposed to be situational, then it encourages players to stop and calculate whether or not it's advantageous to use their ability. It encourages stopping play to do math which breaks up the flow of the game and slows down the pacing. Now, it's not as bad as 3.5e Power Attack, which really made you stop and do math, but it's still not an improvement.


So, if -5/+10 is supposed to be a straight damage bonus against all opponents, then it's very poorly designed because nobody will evaluate it correctly. If -5/+10 was supposed to be situational or high risk/high reward, then it's very poorly designed because by level 9 it stops being situational and it stops being a gamble. It becomes a safe bet. If -5/+10 was supposed to reinforce 5e's design goals, then it's very poorly designed because it's either needlessly complicated (if you're supposed to always use it) or slows the game down (if it's supposed to be situational).

So, no, the problem with -5/+10 doesn't need to be that it deals additional damage against all targets -- although that's a problem, too, and it's how you're likely to discover the issue in-game -- it's that a) it's difficult to evaluate, b) isn't situational or a gamble when it looks like it should be, and c) doesn't fit the design tenants of 5e. It doesn't have to be broken or overpowered. It's just a bad design.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...or, "Oh, just change the way you DM the game," or any of a dozen other responses that say, "You're wrong and this isn't a problem." In other words, their concerns get dismissed, and instead of the thread being about, you know, the common problem that some people are having, it's always about defending their statement that the problem they're having is even a problem at all.

A response which says that changing the way you DM will alleviate the problem you are experiencing is absolutely not "You're wrong and this isn't a problem." It's an offer of a potential solution for a problem, and you just can't possibly be insisting a problem doesn't exist if you are offering up a solution.

So maybe conversations about problems would go a lot smoother if the people asking for solutions didn't outright refuse to even consider those solutions, and instead choose to try and paint the people genuinely offering up assistance as being dismissive jerks or what have you.

 

[Corwin]

No, it was using the same character in my first post. A level 9 character that was either a Fighter or a Variant Human that had taken the Sharpshooter feat.

I admit you have me a bit confused. Are you saying you were *not* comparing a character with the feat to one without it?

If the feat is supposed to just make you deal more damage as an archer, than -5/+10 is a horrible game mechanic to do it with. If they wanted the Feat to make you deal more damage to all targets, then it should say, "When you make a ranged weapon/heavy weapon attack, you deal an additional +3 damage."

But -5/+10 isn't designed to be a universal damage bonus. That's the genius and nuance of its design.

Having the game say, "Before you attack, you may take a -5 penalty to your attack roll. If you do, you deal an additional +10 damage when you hit." is poor design. Why? Because if you can't evaluate the outcome of a mechanic and be right about it, then it's a poor mechanic.

Your opinion is noted. And rejected for its inaccuracy. Maybe 5e just isn't your kind of game. Because there are plenty of examples of risk/reward decisions to be found in its play.

And -5/+10 isn't an obvious mechanic.

...to you.

It's not at all obvious that, after a certain point, the feat is just always worth it to use against every target you find. That means players will evaluate the mechanic incorrectly, and that makes them frustrated. The advantage of mechanics like +1 longsword over, for example, a -1 to hit/+2 damage longsword is that it's easy to evaluate and you know you should use it. You know it's a benefit all the time, and you don't have to worry that you'll find out six months later that you've been "playing wrong" the whole time. The game just tricked the player. That's the kind of stuff that makes people quit playing a game.

I have found none of this to correlate with my considerable experiences playing 5e over the several years its been out. And I've played with children, as well as several individuals with, shall we say, "learning difficulties".

The rest of your post just came across as the classic, "Won't someone please think of the children!" fallacy. So I skipped it.

 

[cmad1977]

Zardinaar: Good Players shouldnt game a monsters AC or optimise too heavily.

Last week the advice was to avoid playing either Champions or Rogues using bows because they're suboptimal.

Is anyone else seeing the disconnect here?

Seems like there is a very narrow sweet spot to be a 'Good player' in Zaards books.

One day he'll twig onto the fact that a Good DM can accomodate all the above. In other words, the problem lies elsewhere.

How dare you suggest that the DM bear responsibility for the game he runs!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk