D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Warpiglet]

Same here. I don't build or play characters because of some in depth analysis on a spreadsheet somewhere. First of all the "massive" differences tend to be a couple of points per round at higher levels. Second my fighter/rogue scratched an itch (an homage to one of my first PCs). Last, but not least, the spreadsheets never take into account utility and simple fun to play.

But according to some people, my PC would have been more "optimal" if I had been a different race, focused on dex and so on. They even have a spreadsheet to prove it. Then again, it seems to me that they are the same ones that complain about cookie cutter PCs and there not being enough options in 5E.

Bingo. A hearty hell yes to all of that.

It's often a few points that we are talking about...sometimes I wonder how much playing the person who yells about suboptimal builds has actually done!

 

[Sacrosanct]

Bingo. A hearty hell yes to all of that.

It's often a few points that we are talking about...sometimes I wonder how much playing the person who yells about suboptimal builds has actually done!

I made this comment yesterday, but can't recall which thread it was in, and it bears repeating:

There is no such thing as a trap option unless your focus is on min/maxing (because math is impartial). for any group that isn't focused on that, there is no such thing as a trap option because none of us know what the priorities are for that gaming group or player. For example, taking the actor feat is not a trap option or "suboptimal" over sharpshooter if that group is very heavy in to role play and light on combat, or more importantly, the player likes to have their PC be like that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is no such thing as a trap option unless your focus is on min/maxing (because math is impartial).

Funny, I see it the opposite way: once you have sunk system mastery investment from all at the table, there's no trap options, because nobody falls into them, anymore - you've resolved balance issues by reducing the subset of the game you play to the 'optimal' (for your group's notions, anyway), only.

Traps, are for the unwary.

And, of course, openly labeling traps as such is kinda giving away hard-won system mastery to the masses, so....

 

[CapnZapp]

I made this comment yesterday, but can't recall which thread it was in, and it bears repeating:

There is no such thing as a trap option unless your focus is on min/maxing (because math is impartial). for any group that isn't focused on that, there is no such thing as a trap option because none of us know what the priorities are for that gaming group or player. For example, taking the actor feat is not a trap option or "suboptimal" over sharpshooter if that group is very heavy in to role play and light on combat, or more importantly, the player likes to have their PC be like that.

Well, that kind of glosses over the fact that some designer decided that in order to gain the actor benefits, you need to give up the Greatweapon Fighter feat (or somesuch).

In other words, you can think Actor to be a trap without devaluing its benefits or be a mere minmaxer.

You're paying a very steep price for Actor. I believe that to be a trap for everyone.

 

[Oofta]

Well, that kind of glosses over the fact that some designer decided that in order to gain the actor benefits, you need to give up the Greatweapon Fighter feat (or somesuch).

In other words, you can think Actor to be a trap without devaluing its benefits or be a mere minmaxer.

You're paying a very steep price for Actor. I believe that to be a trap for everyone.

Unless of course you have a very RP heavy campaign where actor comes into play more often than GWM feat ever would.

It depends on the game. In addition, it's not a "trap". It's a choice to not optimize for combat.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Unless of course you have a very RP heavy campaign where actor comes into play more often than GWM feat ever would.

It depends on the game. In addition, it's not a "trap". It's a choice to not optimize for combat.

Indeed. Optimization isn't the one true way to play the game. Ironically, it seems many of the folks who complain that WotC isn't a big enough tent for their style are the same ones who infer or imply that other playstyles are wrong (using terms to describe people who make those choices as "traps"--an inherently negative descriptor, or are "wrong" choices to make).

So for playstyles that find more value in feats like actor, they have that option to choose that. And it wouldn't be a trap. it would be a way to facilitate their preferred style.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, that kind of glosses over the fact that some designer decided that in order to gain the actor benefits, you need to give up the Greatweapon Fighter feat (or somesuch).

Well, that the two were equivalent alternatives as a build resource, even though each was confined to a specific 'pillar' so their relative value would be heavily dependent on the scope and focus of the campaign.

 

[Garthanos]

Well, that the two were equivalent alternatives as a build resource, even though each was confined to a specific 'pillar' so their relative value would be heavily dependent on the scope and focus of the campaign.

I wanted more of that than in 4e too. Split up more explicitly the resources spent for different arenas of use, Linguistics I am thinking of you.

 

[Garthanos]

Short answer (brace yourself, you'll like this one): Nothing.

Long answer: Multi-classing a level at a time, as if each class/level were a module you could just plug into your character is a brilliant, simple, even elegant mechanic. With just 12, minor, problems - the classes. They just aren't designed to work with it. They're kludged, in some cases, and in others left problematic. Combining full-caster classes, for instance, is functional* in 5e, while it wasn't in 3e. Conversely, in 3e combining full-BAB classes was perfectly functional, while in 5e, combining classes with the corresponding Extra Attack is not.

I am pretty sure level gating in general is done for a reason (potency and impact is the normal assumption - but only if those are done carefully there are low level abilities you get in 5e which are high impact and high level ones which are more ribbon like - in the same arena, pretending this is about cross pillar emphasis of character is I think called a red herring)

 

[Tony Vargas]

in the same arena, pretending this is about cross pillar emphasis of character is I think called a red herring)

'Balancing across pillars' = 'fig-leaf to cover total lack of balance.'
'Balancing within each pillar' = 'actually trying for balance.'