D&D 5E So Was That Z Fellow right?

[Pathkeeper24601]

Someone sounds cranky.

Wow, this is getting pretty personal very quickly. Just remember, this isn't Congress, so at a basic level we should continue on with the agree to disagree concept.

Players and DM's all want different things and the ideal spot is where both are fully engaged. While I don't really condone "headhunting" specific PC's, I do advocate throwing out there deadly level encounters the rely and something other than DPS (or some other assumption the players are making about combat). If the party is well built, then such encounters shouldn't be an issue unless the players can't adapt. I personally prefer tactical fights where non-combat actions may have just as big effect (or more) then "hitting it with a big stick" approach. Not saying every encounter has to be as such.

 

[Caliban]

Wow, this is getting pretty personal very quickly.

Nah. Just don't care much anymore. I really don't know why he keeps responding to me.

Just remember, this isn't Congress, so at a basic level we should continue on with the agree to disagree concept.

You must be new here.

Players and DM's all want different things and the ideal spot is where both are fully engaged. While I don't really condone "headhunting" specific PC's,

Great, we agree. Headhunting specific PC's is bad.

I do advocate throwing out there deadly level encounters the rely and something other than DPS (or some other assumption the players are making about combat). If the party is well built, then such encounters shouldn't be an issue unless the players can't adapt. I personally prefer tactical fights where non-combat actions may have just as big effect (or more) then "hitting it with a big stick" approach. Not saying every encounter has to be as such.

Sure, and I even agree with you. But none of this is relevant to the point that was being discussed. It's a separate topic.

 

[Oofta]

Wow, this is getting pretty personal very quickly. Just remember, this isn't Congress, so at a basic level we should continue on with the agree to disagree concept.

Players and DM's all want different things and the ideal spot is where both are fully engaged. While I don't really condone "headhunting" specific PC's, I do advocate throwing out there deadly level encounters the rely and something other than DPS (or some other assumption the players are making about combat). If the party is well built, then such encounters shouldn't be an issue unless the players can't adapt. I personally prefer tactical fights where non-combat actions may have just as big effect (or more) then "hitting it with a big stick" approach. Not saying every encounter has to be as such.

This whole side-track started with

Personally, if I saw a player trying to do this [have higher than normal DPR], the character wouldn't make it to level 10 alive without some amazing luck and footwork.

If that's not "headhunting" I don't know what is. Maybe it's not meant that way. Maybe it's meant more along the line of a player going to a DM and boasting that they created an unkillable unstoppable machine and challenging the DM to prove the player wrong. It just sounds more like "you made a build I don't like so enemies are always going to ignore the other PCs while targeting your weakest defense until your PC is dead".

 

[FrogReaver]

This whole side-track started with



If that's not "headhunting" I don't know what is. Maybe it's not meant that way. Maybe it's meant more along the line of a player going to a DM and boasting that they created an unkillable unstoppable machine and challenging the DM to prove the player wrong. It just sounds more like "you made a build I don't like so enemies are always going to ignore the other PCs while targeting your weakest defense until your PC is dead".

Just wanted to add, if it wasn't about "headhunting" then he had ample opportunities to correct us all...

 

[Hussar]

@Hussar, how much more damage would a character need to do than other characters for you to consider it OP or Broken? Can you give me a number or percentage?

Well, it would actually need to make a difference in play. 2.4 round=3 rounds, so, who cares? Baddies still get the same number of actions, more or less.

In fact, it wouldn't make much difference until the baddies had 500+ HP. And, at 10th level, if you're throwing 500+HP encounters at the party, you have a LOT of dead PC's.

Like I said before, the 2e 2WF rules were broken. They doubled the DPR for the entire PARTY. At the cost of 1 or 2 Proficiencies (most characters started with 8 or 9) and maybe 1 point of AC. Yeah, that's broken. And it impacts play. Seriously impacts play.

You've added an extra 25 points of damage per round. No status effects, no buffs, no debuffs, no controlling, at the cost of 10 levels, 4 feats and created a character that is incapable of adding anything out of combat. No Str, so, his Exploration contributions are limited, no Cha, so, social's out. Int and Wis are both pretty low, so, no information gathering.

Yippee, you made a tank. Cool. In a game that's 100% combat, I can see this being an issue. I tend to split a little lower though - about 50% combat, 50% exploration and 50% social. The fact that this character adds zero to half the game pretty much means that it's not an issue, for me.

Ask yourself this, as a 5th character in a party, which would impact play more, this 10th level combat focused battle master, or a 10th level full caster?

 

[Hussar]

While I'm not about to defend [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION] about the head hunting thing, I think he's gone too far, he does make a point. This is a one trick pony that adds nothing else to the group.

I LOVE characters like this because it's so easy to challenge them. Drop them in a pit filled with water - watch that dump stat Str try to swim and climb. Use the rules for buying magic items as a downtime activity and watch them fail every time because they have no social skills. Fun.

Or, heck, the Ravenloft module has no magic pistol crossbows at all, and no magic bolts. At least, none that we found. Watch Mr. Specialist whine and complain because he's doing half damage to every single major opponent in the entire module, that, after all, only goes to about 10th level, so, this build actually only comes into play in the very, very tail end.

 

[Parmandur]

Whenever one of my players foils my plan, I throw a tarassque at them.

Hey, it's in the book, so not on me.

Has not one of the poets said, "History shows again and again/How nature points put the folly of man"?

 

[Parmandur]

Someone sounds cranky.

Cranky, no; amused, yes.

 

[Parmandur]

This whole side-track started with



If that's not "headhunting" I don't know what is. Maybe it's not meant that way. Maybe it's meant more along the line of a player going to a DM and boasting that they created an unkillable unstoppable machine and challenging the DM to prove the player wrong. It just sounds more like "you made a build I don't like so enemies are always going to ignore the other PCs while targeting your weakest defense until your PC is dead".

Nah, that last bit is a silly strawman.

 

[Parmandur]

Just wanted to add, if it wasn't about "headhunting" then he had ample opportunities to correct us all...

More like brain targeting, but that's just splitting hairs.