D&D (2024) Wow, 5.5e characters are STRONG!

[Horwath]

Seems that is what it is actually about. You seem to play D&D to "win".

you play D&D for fun, but combat encounters are played to win, because if you do not win, your PC is mostly dead and there is not fun left with that PC.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

you play D&D for fun, but combat encounters are played to win, because if you do not win, your PC is mostly dead and there is not fun left with that PC.

You can't win if the DM does not want it. Chosing only the same spells over and over again will make your DM do so too.

 

[Horwath]

You can't win if the DM does not want it. Chosing only the same spells over and over again will make your DM do so too.

OFC, but how to "convince" a player to take garbage over good stuff?

No one in their right mind will take bad spells.
You need to buff them up to being good or at least practical.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You are going to war.

You have your choice from rifle with infrared scope and DU rounds or an ancient musket?

Sure, you can be unique and use a musket. Unique and dead.


Players normally use what is best available, it's WotC job to make ALL spells balanced with each other. And in the worst case to be houseruled into some sense of balance.

I don't disagree that some spells need a balance pass. But you can make a thematic character and still be efficient.

Lets say. Some spells feel like bug exploit. Chosing one of those is fine. Chosing all of them all the time is boring.

Lets take a different example:
By your logic, not using nuclear weapons is dumb. Those are the most destructive weapons.
Why are they not used all the time?
Because if you use them, the enemy will do so either.

So if you have some kind of unspoken pact woth your DM that both of you don't use the best weapons available all the time seems logical.

Or is your DM always using the same copy pasta wizards as enemies?

Why have a MM with NPCs at all. Just have the same spell selection for all casters.

Necromancer?
Hypnotic pattern, polymorph, banishment. ..

Illusionist?
Hypnotic pattern, polymorph, banishment. ..

Elementalist?
Hypnotic pattern, polymorph, banishment. ..

 

[UngeheuerLich]

OFC, but how to "convince" a player to take garbage over good stuff?

No one in their right mind will take bad spells.
You need to buff them up to being good or at least practical.

See post above.
Ot is not about convincing.

D&D can't be played to win. The DM can always send more. The DM can always chose to use the same spells you use.

Once you understand that, "underpowered" options are back on the table.

Up to 2nd edition there actually were some "convincing" mechanisms:

Spell learn chance, and for specialists enhanced chance for your school and forbitten schools. Seems like a very wise decision to have such a mechanic. Because as you say: players just take the best all the time otherwise.

 

[Horwath]

I don't disagree that some spells need a balance pass. But you can make a thematic character and still be efficient.

Lets say. Some spells feel like bug exploit. Chosing one of those is fine. Chosing all of them all the time is boring.

then rework other spells,
it's not players fault to take what works.
That is like forcing a barbarian with GWM to use a dagger. It does not work as expected.

Lets take a different example:
By your logic, not using nuclear weapons is dumb. Those are the most destructive weapons.
Why are they not used all the time?
Because if you use them, the enemy will do so either.

eh, another topic for another time why they are not used...

So if you have some kind of unspoken pact woth your DM that both of you don't use the best weapons available all the time seems logical.

Or is your DM always using the same copy pasta wizards as enemies?

Why have a MM with NPCs at all. Just have the same spell selection for all casters.

Necromancer?
Hypnotic pattern, polymorph, banishment. ..

Illusionist?
Hypnotic pattern, polymorph, banishment. ..

Elementalist?
Hypnotic pattern, polymorph, banishment. ..

See above, fix bad spells.
even fireball is so-so in term of effectiveness.

 

[Horwath]

See post above.
Ot is not about convincing.

D&D can't be played to win. The DM can always send more. The DM can always chose to use the same spells you use.

Once you understand that, "underpowered" options are back on the table.

Up to 2nd edition there actually were some "convincing" mechanisms:

Spell learn chance, and for specialists enhanced chance for your school and forbitten schools. Seems like a very wise decision to have such a mechanic. Because as you say: players just take the best all the time otherwise.

maybe undepowered options are not fun for the players, I know for most they are not, I have seen few off builds to try to work something out, but it does not last long and usually those characters are either reworked a little(or a lot) or just retired.

I had lot's of fun with a character that was proficient in all skills with some abomination of multiclass, but damn what that character bad in combat.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

then rework other spells,

Yes. Rework all spells that are too GOOD or too BAD.

it's not players fault to take what works.
That is like forcing a barbarian with GWM to use a dagger. It does not work as expected.

Yes, it is. Only playing the same 3 characters over and over again is limiting yourself and forcing the DM to use those spells themselves.

Anecdote:
In my first 3e group, every melee character started getring one level of barbarian because rage, because they would be dumb, not to. So now I gave 1 level of barbarian to all the trolls, because they would be dumb, not to have it. The players got the message and we had a fun game for many years. The last group I played 3.5 with had a player who notoriously ignored every such message and this was what ultimately burned me out on this system.

eh, another topic for another time why they are not used...

You started that argument, why noone uses the most destructive weapon possible, and now you back out.

See above, fix bad spells.
even fireball is so-so in term of effectiveness.

Nope. Nerf too good spells AND fix bad spells.

And most of all: play thematic characters, not OPTIMIZED characters. Take one or two really good spells that fit that theme and then go for fun, not exploits.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

maybe undepowered options are not fun for the players, I know for most they are not,

I never suggested building underpowered characters.

I have seen few off builds to try to work something out, but it does not last long and usually those characters are either reworked a little(or a lot) or just retired.

Yes. Sometimes concepts don't work. Reworking them seems like a good idea. Sometimes elements work less good on the table than on the paper.
I actually have seen underpowered spells taken for flavour having a great impact on the table and the overpowered ones were never used.

I had lot's of fun with a character that was proficient in all skills with some abomination of multiclass, but damn what that character bad in combat.

Sounds cool.
I had an arcane trickster rogue with abysmal stats but skills and ritual casting. I intended him to just be a skill monkey, but the story (magic items, multiclass, shadow blade) turned him into a quite capable fighter.

 

[Horwath]

Yes. Rework all spells that are too GOOD or too BAD.

agree.

Yes, it is. Only playing the same 3 characters over and over again is limiting yourself and forcing the DM to use those spells themselves.

then make options that work for barbarian as good as GWM+PAM that is not that.

Anecdote:
In my first 3e group, every melee character started getring one level of barbarian because rage, because they would be dumb, not to. So now I gave 1 level of barbarian to all the trolls, because they would be dumb, not to have it. The players got the message and we had a fun game for many years. The last group I played 3.5 with had a player who notoriously ignored every such message and this was what ultimately burned me out on this system.

amateurs!
you ALWAYS take 2 levels of barbarian in 3.5e as you want Uncanny dodge ASAP.
And we all know that you cannot go to the docks of the city at night without Uncanny dodge.

You started that argument, why noone uses the most destructive weapon possible, and now you back out.

you do not use nuclear weapons because of fallout and them being really indiscriminate about who they kill and what they destroy.

If someone now makes a chemical explosive that is 10 or 20 times stronger, it would be in all 155mm shells as quickly as it can be produced.

Nope. Nerf too good spells AND fix bad spells.

And most of all: play thematic characters, not OPTIMIZED characters. Take one or two really good spells that fit that theme and then go for fun, not exploits.

fireball is really not a good spell, it being the best 3rd level damaging spell is another thing.
Also it's upcasting damage scaling is horrible.