D&D 5E Current take on GWM/SS

[Ristamar]

In either case, the story can continue with new characters, raised characters, or the same characters in the aftermath of the catastrophic event. Whether or not the story was an exciting, memorable one and whether everyone had a good time creating it is what matters, according to the goals of play. That's how you "win."

You don't need to keep quoting the basic roleplaying tenets in the DMG. We all know them.

Perhaps I've done a poor job, but I've been trying try to spell out in so many words that for many groups, suboptimal choices are not fun. They expect to push themselves in every game, leaving little margin for error, and if they have to hold back or make suboptimal choices, the game isn't engaging or fun.

Players that want a hardcore experience aren't going to easily mesh with more casual players that are often making suboptimal choices for the sake of the story. This is a problem that needs to be managed up front by the DM, otherwise the DM will likely start killing off the suboptimal characters, or the hardcore players will get bored because they don't feel that they are being truly challenged.

That's why, IMO, it is not the players' job to manage the rules, expectations, and challenge level(s) of the game. If the DM knows his group, that sort of thing should already have been dealt with before the game even starts.

 

[DaveDash]

Balance is important to the extent that it helps everyone playing share the spotlight more or less equally. This doesn't mean that everyone needs to do the same damage in a combat as there are two other pillars in the game. So it's okay if some classes do more damage than others because those other classes can have their time in the spotlight in other scenes - provided the opportunity for those scenes are provided by the DM and engaged by the players.

But you have one class that by level 8 can start out damaging the rest of the party combined, has some of the best HP, great AC, one of the best stats in the game (Dex), and none of us this is entirely apparent to new players or DMs until you get to these levels.

Also you're not looking at it from the DMs perspective.

You're a new DM, you're a dad, you work 40 hours a week, Saturdays you spend all day with your kids, and what precious little time you have on Sundays go into running Princes of the Apocalypse more or less as written, because it saves you time.

Then you start to find this combination of feats is trivializing the combat pillar in the module. The Sorcerer player is complaining about it. The Cleric player doesnt want to be casting bless all the time, but he does because he see's its so powerful, and the Fighter player has invested at least 8 months of time into his character. Now what?

You honestly say that you can't see how this can cause issues?

 

[iserith]

You don't need to keep quoting the basic roleplaying tenets in the DMG. We all know them.

I keep quoting them to point out that if one plays the game with those expectations, the game works fine. When one has other goals of play, the game doesn't work as well and thus needs to be changed. It is therefore not an objective fact that these feats or tactics used in combination with these feats represent a design flaw. It's only a flaw when one approaches the game a particular way.

 

[iserith]

You honestly say that you can't see how this can cause issues?

As I've said, it's not an issue if the group is playing to achieve the goals of play stated in the Basic Rules.

 

[DaveDash]

As I've said, it's not an issue if the group is playing to achieve the goals of play stated in the Basic Rules.

Yes it is. Jim the Sorcerers idea of creating an exciting and memorable story is by doing the most damage in the party, he is a Sorcerer after all with a d6 hp and lowish AC. He should be able to make up for that in damage right?
He's come into D&D with that expectation from many other game systems where that expectation is a reality.

On the other hand, house ruling these feats from the getgo WILL ensure there are never issues - and tell me - what have you lost from the game by doing so?

 

[DaveDash]

I keep quoting them to point out that if one plays the game with those expectations, the game works fine. When one has other goals of play, the game doesn't work as well and thus needs to be changed. It is therefore not an objective fact that these feats or tactics used in combination with these feats represent a design flaw. It's only a flaw when one approaches the game a particular way.

D&D 5e is designed with that "approach" in mind - these feats have just slipper through the cracks - because its a combination of factors that make them too powerful.

The game ATTEMPTS to stay off these potential issues because the game designers - unlike you - understand they are a reality.

That's why the game does attempt balance, from making MCing harder, to generally having feats that don't just go and pile on numbers, to ensuring each class has its ability to shine.

What happens with these feats may be a player issue, but its a game design issue that acts as the catalyst in this regard. Otherwise we would see no attempt at balance at all.

 

[iserith]

He's come into D&D with that expectation from many other game systems where that expectation is a reality.

And therein is the problem - dragging expectations from one game into another. Classic issue.

On the other hand, house ruling these feats from the getgo WILL ensure there are never issues - and tell me - what have you lost from the game by doing so?

I'm not arguing against changing the feats if you're already pursuing goals of play different from those stated in the Basic Rules.

 

[DaveDash]

And therein is the problem - dragging expectations from one game into another. Classic issue.



I'm not arguing against changing the feats if you're already pursuing goals of play different from those stated in the Basic Rules.

These expectations are pretty common - otherwise the designers wouldn't have attempted to create a reasonably balanced game in the first place.

In order to grow D&D players need to jump on board from MMOs and the like. All my new players have a lot more MMO experience than D&D experience and those expectations are deeply rooted in their psychology.

Instead of being completely oblivious to any potential issues that may pop up as a result of this, it's much wiser to actually be aware and house rule accordingly.

As a note I don't think any of my new players have read or even care about that first chapter in the basic rules, because they all know what their own goals of play are to begin with.

 

[iserith]

D&D 5e is designed with that "approach" in mind

I don't believe that's the case.

because its a combination of factors that make them too powerful.

A combination the players are actively choosing even though it impacts the fun of other people at the table.

That's why the game does attempt balance, from making MCing harder, to generally having feats that don't just go and pile on numbers, to ensuring each class has its ability to shine.

As I said, balance is important to the extent that players all have a chance to contribute to the creation of the emergent story. That doesn't mean they need to have nearly equal damage output because there is more than one pillar.

What happens with these feats may be a player issue, but its a game design issue that acts as the catalyst in this regard. Otherwise we would see no attempt at balance at all.

At least you're beginning to admit that it's a player issue. (Unless you did before and I missed it.) The game mechanics don't exploit themselves.

 

[DaveDash]

I don't believe that's the case.



A combination the players are actively choosing even though it impacts the fun of other people at the table.



As I said, balance is important to the extent that players all have a chance to contribute to the creation of the emergent story. That doesn't mean they need to have nearly equal damage output because there is more than one pillar.



At least you're beginning to admit that it's a player issue. (Unless you did before and I missed it.) The game mechanics don't exploit themselves.

Its both a potential player issue and a game design issue. Its a game design issue because it has missed the fact that it can create a very powerful character that can overshadow other characters, allowing an avenue for those player issues to appear.

The rest of the game takes great pain in heading off anything that can make one class too powerful, so its clearly design INTENT to acknowledge and avoid such issues.

You actually agree with me even though you're playing with semantics. You said a few posts up that you agree balance is important so one player doesnt continuously steal the spot light, otherwise you'd let fighters run around with at-will meteor swarms.
This combination does allow one character to overshadow and steal the spot light, so I am glad you agree that its important that its house ruled.