True enough. At least this conversation isn't one of the few where I start wondering if the folks commenting actually play the game.
D&D 5E What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
True enough. At least this conversation isn't one of the few where I start wondering if the folks commenting actually play the game.
guess there's no white room excel sheet calculation disputes over how many elephants you can squeeze into an inn, huh?
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Oh, give it time...
...says he, who a few years back actually had one of his PCs killed by being in a small space where a summoned elephant (via her own wand of wonder and incredibly bad luck) happened to show up...
Manbearcat
Legend
Question for 5e GMs who are concerned with the player of a Warlock or Cleric or Divine Soul Sorcerer not having the nature of their bargain, pact, relationship mediated by the GM.
5e isn't a tightly balanced game. GMs, in order to balance the game (intraparty and party: obstacle and party:adventuring day), have to deploy a hefty amount of extra-system or nonstandard obstacle manipulation (in all of the axes of potency and breadth coupled with dealing with the various time pressures that come with significantly asymmetric resource suites entangled with the game's varying recharge schedules) in order to appropriately challenge and balance a 5e party.
Given this and given that there are no similar benefactor-based pressure points for other player characters (who also aren't balanced against not having those pressure points), why does a player of a "divine-sponsored" character altering (or even removing) those potential pressure-points of sponsorship suddenly upend game balance (intraparty or group: obstacle or group:adventuring day)?
5e isn't a tightly balanced game. GMs, in order to balance the game (intraparty and party: obstacle and party:adventuring day), have to deploy a hefty amount of extra-system or nonstandard obstacle manipulation (in all of the axes of potency and breadth coupled with dealing with the various time pressures that come with significantly asymmetric resource suites entangled with the game's varying recharge schedules) in order to appropriately challenge and balance a 5e party.
Given this and given that there are no similar benefactor-based pressure points for other player characters (who also aren't balanced against not having those pressure points), why does a player of a "divine-sponsored" character altering (or even removing) those potential pressure-points of sponsorship suddenly upend game balance (intraparty or group: obstacle or group:adventuring day)?
You do realize that the answer to this question has been posted at least 10 times in the last 10 pages of this thread? There comes a point where continuing the conversation along the same lines is just a simple indication of how stupid some folks are.
..and with this post I remove myself from enworld proper and go lurk at Circus Maximus. There comes a point where the retarded people really start to congregate under the banner of well-meaning forum rule civility. You've passed it.
Farewell
KB
cmad1977
Hero
.
My position on the "backgrounding" of drawbacks (which expended beyond its original use case) is not at all hinged on balance concerns - tho of course i am one of those described in your first graph (which says nothing at all about balance before the rest of your post dives into balance concerns exclusively.)
It is interesting how several times it seems some have tried to sort of narrow the scope of the objection to rather exclusive foundations.
We have seen it in this thread before with demands on show how it "breaks the game" or "wrecks the world" and such not other such things and again here we have the direction narrowed to "suddenly upend game balance" as if even a gradual "upending" is acceptable.
However, let me add, shouldnt the same "challenge" apply both ways?
Are you also wanting to challenge those who pointed to other class abilities of other classes and said "see this doesnt have drawbacks" have to answer you about how having the divinely sponsored stuff matter is a "suddenly upending game balance" thing?
If your only criteria for an assessment is the S-U-G-B, dont both the yea and nay case proponents have to meet it?
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
wow, you agree with [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] in the post before this, but, tell me I'm inventing things.
What exactly, then, do you mean that I must accept the consequences of choosing a class if you aren't going to force anything?
No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to read or respond to posts in this thread. And it's not like the discussion has even veered completely off topic with people dropping into a thread and hijacking it.
Astonishingly, we are approaching 1000 posts and we are still on topic, though that's probably because the discussion keeps going in circles and lapping itself.
Hussar
Legend
See, at the end of the day, I really have to ask, who is all this for? I mean, the other players probably don't care too much about my character's relationship with his patron. I obviously don't care (as an example. I would actually not background this, but, I'm using myself as an example) because I want to background this element. So, exactly who is this for?
"Mr. DM. I really liked that session, but, you know what would have really put it over the top? Orc babies!" said no player ever.
"Last night was pretty good, but, what would have really made it great was if we spent more time hiding the druid's allosaurus," again, said no player ever.
So, if it's not for the player of the character, and the rest of the group likely couldn't give two rat's petoots, all we're left with is the DM. Who, at the end of the day, is just doing it for him or herself. Because the DM certainly isn't doing it for the group.
"Mr. DM. I really liked that session, but, you know what would have really put it over the top? Orc babies!" said no player ever.
"Last night was pretty good, but, what would have really made it great was if we spent more time hiding the druid's allosaurus," again, said no player ever.
So, if it's not for the player of the character, and the rest of the group likely couldn't give two rat's petoots, all we're left with is the DM. Who, at the end of the day, is just doing it for him or herself. Because the DM certainly isn't doing it for the group.
Similar Threads
D&D General
What is player agency to you?
