The fact that, consistently, martial characters feel like they cannot participate. Even when I specifically design encounters to highlight their strengths... the casters dominate.
I once had a puzzle I set up for my players, they were repairing a massive arcane engine. I had a barbarian, so I made absolutely certain to include big heavy things that needed moved. The barbarian realized it was a puzzle, said "Oh, no combat? Well, nothing I can do to help then" and even with me all but saying "pick up and move the pieces!" and forcing him to participate, he felt there was not a single thing he could do that was worth even attempting. Because the magic-users had it covered.
I know you say it later on, and I know you say it's across tables, but how is this not a player problem? I mean, you are also a common variable in this equation. The fact that I have never seen a fighter say that doesn't prove that what you say is not true, but it does refute that it is a common problem. I cannot imagine any of my players or myself as a player ever just not interacting
unless we do it purposefully to allow someone else the limelight.
Blame me for poor encounter design. Blame the players for being bad players. But what I find strange about all this "but it is the DMs fault!" "But that is the players fault!" is that it happens to multiple different unconnected players, it happens with multiple unconnected DMs... and in fact the only common denominator is the game. That game we are told CANNOT be at fault. The game that we are told would run perfectly fine and never have this issue if we just had Good DMs who played the right way.
I have never said you can't blame the game. But I think the onus is on the DM and players before the game. The game has proven itself as millions and millions play while not encountering this problem. This isn't a Monopoly board that has one property that costs 20 million dollars. This is a game with many variables, and time has proven that this system holds those variables in place for most tables.
Heck, another example? I'm playing a solo game as a monk Sheriff. We made up the town, and set things up so my character would have things to do... and immediately we had to adjust things, because we absolutely needed a cleric who could cast healing magic. And when my sheriff encountered an undead who challenged them to a do or die... my character called for the cleric, because it was an undead and other than playing the game the undead was designed to win, I had no options. And going forward with my character... I still am going to have no options. I have one tool other than punching things, and that's because I'm a tiefling and have magic.
So in this homemade campaign built for a solo character, an encounter was designed to be a no-win situation unless you called for a cleric? Am I misinterpreting that? That makes zero sense. In a town, you as a player supposedly helped design and create a path for things to do, you helped make an encounter that needed a cleric?
Apart from not even understanding the premise, I still don't understand why you needed a cleric. There are hundreds of work-arounds for this.
The hyperbolic statement was a statement of the feel I get from these arguments. Because it is always the same question, "Don't you trust your DM?"
If you answer yes, "Then, there is no problem."
If you answer no, "Then why are you playing with them? Find a better DM so you can answer yes."
If you do not trust your DM (the person whose sole job is to help create a story, design an environment, and make interesting and fair encounters that match said story), then maybe you do need to find another DM. One you
can trust. I mean, the game is set up to be a social contract. That contract exists so
everyone can have fun. If the DM refuses to listen to your side, or worse for you, refuses to accept that this flaw in the game's design exists, then maybe it is time to switch tables. Or, even better, be DM and address the problem as you see fit.
I'm all for adult communication between player and DM, but I also don't think it is fair for every single DM to have to homebrew solutions to fundamental flaws in the rules.
And, as has been stated many, many times, every single DM
does not have to find homebrew solutions.
And I'm trying to fix that burden. Heck, I even made an entire series of posts that I linked in this thread with solutions, as demanded by the people in this thread who called for people to stop just whining and actually do something. So I did. And yet... interesting how very few people seemed interested in looking at those solutions, how instead they just want to claim there is no possible problem, that the REAL problem is bad DMs playing the game badly.
The fact that everyone claims "there is no problem" says a lot.
So at what point is the reverse true? At what point is there an actual game design problem that needs addressed, like Moon Druid Wildshape to just randomly come up with one. Or Warlock Pact Magic on a Short rest, that the designers need to actually address. And what if someone says that due to their combinations don't see that problem, do we keep the status quo that that table has, and tell the everyone else that nothing should be fixed?
All great questions. That is why we debate these things.
Or can we accept that this problem, which has existed for years and years and years, which gets brought up time and time and time and time again, might move beyond a simple table issue? That maybe upwards of 50% of tables run into this at some point. That seeing patterns in the questions commonly asked points to this being a problem. After all, you know what I see all the time looking at Reddit threads and such? People asking how to handle high level casters. People saying "I reached X level, and now the casters in my game can do X,Y,Z and I don't know what to do." You know what I never see? Not even once? "The fighter in our party hit X level and now they are so powerful, what do I do?"
Maybe, just maybe, there is an actual hole here. Maybe, just maybe, we have legitimate concerns and would like legitimate consideration.
Again, I never said there wasn't a hole. I said that with all the variables at each table, there will be holes for your game that don't exist in others, and holes in others that don't exist in yours. A common problem I read about is the amount of time it takes to run combat. That surely is a design choice. There are probably a thousand threads on how to make it go faster. Yet, I have never seen it actually work because the truth is, you are bound by the speed of your players. Just like hiking up a mountain with a group, you don't finish until the slowest gets to the top. So is the game design flawed because hundreds of people complain about this, or is it part of the system that works, but is bound by the players at the table?
And at what point are Reddit threads considered inconclusive? I mean, a 20th level wizard cannot defeat a CR15+ with minions no matter how hard they try or how well they are built. They need help, like a fighter or ranger or paladin or barbarian or cleric. Please allow an evil 20th level wizard to try and enter an androphinx's lair and kill it. A cursory thought of five minutes has allowed me as DM to pose a very serious (if not devastating) threat to the "can do everything" wizard.
