D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[ezo]

You don’t have to remove anything to challenge players, just ramp up the difficulty.

Ah, yes, the "DM has infinite dragons" argument. As a near-forever DM frankly I don't like to have to use harder creatures to challenge PCs who are OP for the level of creatures the game design means they should be facing.

In my current game, now that the Rune Knight has retired, another player commented "Good, now you can stop ramping up the encounters to challenge him and the rest of us can take a breath!" (near verbatim). His PC is a Rogue (Arcane Trickster) / Wizard (War Magic) with about half the HP the Rune Knight had, and I often had encounters where one or more of the other PCs would be down, or well under half-HP, and the Rune Knight would be still ready for the next bout.

Also, I want to remove features because there are too many for players to keep track of consistantly, to the point it becomes "why bother adding more when they don't even use what they have?"

 

[TiQuinn]

I considered how actual access to spells was based on finding them (unless you were a cleric). I didn't want to muddy up the point with technicalities. The rules did state you gained a free spell of a new spell level when you became able to cast that level, but like all rules of the era, it was often missed or ignored. That said, I think the odds that a magic user would have access to 3rd or 4th level spell slots but have no 3rd or 4th level spells was very rare.

You wouldn't have none, but it was not a guarantee that you got Fireball or Haste or Slow or Lightning Bolt.

 

[el-remmen]

That Method requires the player know the AC of the creature, which isn't something all DMs like to share. It was a bloody nightmare if you DM tried to keep AC secret.

I kept AC hidden when I used THAC0. We just had modified THAC0 numbers on the PC sheet, they’d subtract the d20 result from that number and tell me the result which is what AC they hit and I’d tell them if that was good enough.

It worked fine for us for over a decade, and I don’t think it was as bad as some people say, but I also wouldn’t go back to it.

Edit to add: unless the only other option was a combat matrix. I hated 1e’s tables

That said, I run 5e now and I still keep AC hidden for the first round or two of combats.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

His PC is a Rogue (Arcane Trickster) / Wizard (War Magic) with about half the HP the Rune Knight had, and I often had encounters where one or more of the other PCs would be down, or well under half-HP, and the Rune Knight would be still ready for the next bout.

So his PC sounds like a disaster - AT/WM is a remarkably bad combination that is likely to put him on the frontline, with a probably-bad AC and apparently intentionally terrible HP.

Do you roll for HP at your table? Because the fact that he had "about half" the HP an RK had is remarkable if it wasn't unlucky with rolls (or the RK was incredibly lucky). With no rolling if he was say, L10 and a 5/5 split, you'd expect him to have 45 HP with 10 CON, and an RK would expect to have normal Fighter HP - i.e. 60. That's only 33% more. For it to be 100% more, the RK would need a +4 CON (or +3 if you're overstating slightly) bonus and for the AT/WM player to have insisted on having +0 CON despite making class selections to indicate he wanted to be on the frontline! (Or I guess -1 or worse, but surely he wasn't that suicidal?) Which is a spectacularly weird and anti-success choice from the AT/WM.

Odd too that everyone else was down when RKs have a major ability that can only be used to protect others, and are generally pretty good at doing so.

Honestly it sounds like you are just having an issue that can occur in literally any combat-oriented TTRPG, even OSR ones. One PC has a normally-designed, not even min-maxed character (the RK here), and one PC insists on making an incredibly fragile character who isn't a glass cannon, because he can't even do good damage, and doesn't provide good utility or CC either (which is most assuredly the case with an AT/WM), so is basically a largely defenceless guy on the front lines. Obviously he's going to get downed a lot! It's actually remarkable his PC isn't dead from three failed death saves! The other PCs must be working very hard to keep him alive, and/or you as a DM must be cutting him a serious break.

But again, this can happen in any RPG.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If a GM in any game is having issues that other GMs are not I would suggest that they ask for advice on what they need to do differently. They then need to heed that advice or at least attempt to do so along with trying different options until they find something that does work. Nothing I do is particularly out of the ordinary and it's worked most of the time for a wide variety of groups and levels.

That doesn't address the post I made, unless what you're suggesting is that a GM who has the "PC superhero" problem I described needs to speak to other GMs about how they can stop feeling that way.

 

[ezo]

So his PC sounds like a disaster - AT/WM is a remarkably bad combination that is likely to put him on the frontline, with a probably-bad AC and apparently intentionally terrible HP.

Actually, he is rarely on the front line (shortbow sniper SA type), AC 19 (mage armor, DEX, ROP +1--so not great but not bad at all), and average HP with CON 14. But he can front line, but moves in to strike and then back out. He rarely goes "toe-to-toe."

Anyway, the combination has worked out very well but it is just an 8/2 split, so heavily favors the rogue.

It is more the Rune Knight was an insane tank. HAM, CON 20, tough feat, Hill Giant rune (boy is THAT broken!), etc.

Do you roll for HP at your table? Because the fact that he had "about half" the HP an RK had is remarkable if it wasn't unlucky with rolls (or the RK was incredibly lucky). With no rolling if he was say, L10 and a 5/5 split, you'd expect him to have 45 HP with 10 CON, and an RK would expect to have normal Fighter HP - i.e. 60. That's only 33% more. For it to be 100% more, the RK would need a +4 CON (or +3 if you're overstating slightly) bonus and for the AT/WM player to have insisted on having +0 CON despite making class selections to indicate he wanted to be on the frontline! (Or I guess -1 or worse, but surely he wasn't that suicidal?) Which is a spectacularly weird and anti-success choice from the AT/WM.

None one rolls, or at least not often.

RK (at 10th) has 134 hp. AT/WM (8/2) has 71 hp, so roughly half. RK has AC 20 IIRC

Odd too that everyone else was down when RKs have a major ability that can only be used to protect others, and are generally pretty good at doing so.

LOL I don't know what RK you've seen in play, but the RK in my game was not about protecting others. The only feature for protecting others IIRC is Runic Shield (?).

Honestly it sounds like you are just having an issue that can occur in literally any combat-oriented TTRPG, even OSR ones. One PC has a normally-designed, not even min-maxed character (the RK here), and one PC insists on making an incredibly fragile character who isn't a glass cannon, because he can't even do good damage, and doesn't provide good utility or CC either (which is most assuredly the case with an AT/WM), so is basically a largely defenceless guy on the front lines. Obviously he's going to get downed a lot! It's actually remarkable his PC isn't dead from three failed death saves! The other PCs must be working very hard to keep him alive, and/or you as a DM must be cutting him a serious break.

While such scenarios can happen, that is not the case here--in fact you're wrong with just about everything in this case.

But again, this can happen in any RPG.

No, in this case it is the RK who is OP. The class is broken, honestly. Nerfing it a bit brings it back on par with other subclasses and classes in general. The runes are ridiculous IMO, but I've gone over that in other threads...

At any rate, the other players are all very happy that PC is out of the picture, and so am I. It was ridiculous the crap I had to throw at that PC to even threaten him at all. Granted, he was a maxed-out PC but the subclass was the greatest issue. It is the first subclass from Tasha's I allowed (and the last!) because the theme appealed to the player and I liked the concept, just not its' execution.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No, in this case it is the RK who is OP. The class is broken, honestly.

Nah, you keep saying that, but it's a personal axe you're grinding. It's definitely one of the top 3 2014 Fighter subclasses (not sure how it stacks up against 2024 ones), but if it's "broken", then the top 3 subclasses for most classes (not all!) are "broken", which, nah.

At any rate, the other players are all very happy that PC is out of the picture

Sounds to me like 20 CON was the main issue (given they had nearly the same AC). Also I'm intrigued to know more about how his build, because Toughness is a pretty mediocre/bad Feat, and not something you'd normally see on a "broken" PC, but rather a slightly incompetently designed one.

Also like, how did he have 20 CON at L10?

A 2014 Fighter only has 3 ASIs at L10 (unless I can't read, which y'know, I must allow is not impossible lol!)

But this guy also has 2 Feats - Toughness and Heavy Armour Master. So only one ASI for boosting stats (and no offensive Feats).

Assuming he started with the highest possible non-rolled stat in CON, so 17 (15 + species bonus of +2), he should have only have had 19 CON if he dumped his entirely other ASI into CON? Did you roll stats? I mean, fine if you did, trying to understand how this is even physically possible though.

Presumably his STR was, at absolute max, 16? If you didn't roll (maybe 17 if a Dwarf?)

LOL I don't know what RK you've seen in play, but the RK in my game was not about protecting others. The only feature for protecting others IIRC is Runic Shield (?).

Skill issue.

(On the part of the player, not you, obviously.)

 

[CreamCloud0]

Also, I want to remove features because there are too many for players to keep track of consistantly, to the point it becomes "why bother adding more when they don't even use what they have?"

what is your opinion on the way it worked (at least the way i think it worked, i only have secondhand knowledge) in 4e? where characters only had so many slots for their various AEDUs and they had to swap abilities in and out, i'd imagine this resulted in players being more familiar with their loadout given that a) they have less total abilities to worry about at any given time during gameplay and b) the ones they have were the ones they specifically picked out and want to be using.

 

[AlViking]

That doesn't address the post I made, unless what you're suggesting is that a GM who has the "PC superhero" problem I described needs to speak to other GMs about how they can stop feeling that way.

What other answer is there? The rules aren't going to change. I can't change anyone else's opinion. I've bounced off other games or concepts, sometimes I was able to find advice or figure out resolutions for myself, sometimes I just had to look for alternatives.

But it starts with accepting what I can change and what I cannot. I can adjust my approach, I can adjust my attitude, I can find some alternative to modify the situation or I can just find something else. I don't see the point of complaining about something if I'm not willing to do one of those things.

Personally I don't have a superhero issue even if characters have more options than they did in the TSR days. If I did, I'd play something else. What other option is there?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

what is your opinion on the way it worked (at least the way i think it worked, i only have secondhand knowledge) in 4e? where characters only had so many slots for their various AEDUs and they had to swap abilities in and out, i'd imagine this resulted in players being more familiar with their loadout given that a) they have less total abilities to worry about at any given time during gameplay and b) the ones they have were the ones they specifically picked out and want to be using.

I'm not @ezo but that definitely worked pretty well for my group in 4E.

And it did do what it said on the tin - i.e. players were more aware of the specific abilities they currently had and tended to think those were cool, and felt more ownership of their characters, too, interestingly. The tactical focus of the game and the way a lot of abilities (and the conditions they inflicted or fixed) were complimentary to each other (often between characters) also caused people to think about them more.

So it was definitely beneficial there to have more abilities than were actually in use. It was also cool as you went into higher tier to get even fancier abilities that you could use, but didn't have to if you really liked what you had going.

The one downside I saw was that WotC decided to design them so higher-level abilities tended to be more mechanically complex and/or to use mechanical stuff that kind of a slow-down on the game, like immediate interrupts which could be used whenever. I think that should have been maybe avoided (but 4E, like 5E, was designed in haste, which lead to some of these issues I think). So at higher level this tended to contribute (together with monster design) to combat slowing down and become a bit too fiddly.