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

[FrozenNorth]

I was in retail my whole career and believe me, you can only put so much lipstick on a pig before you have to just admit it's a pig and stop promoting it.

Since you haven’t played or GMed 2024 5e, why should we give any weight to your claim that it is « lipstick on a pig »?

 

[ezo]

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.

Yeah, broken. Not my personal axe or anything. 90% of Tasha's is power creep for new subclasses and class features, variants, etc. The same player with his new PC (a monk) tried to bring in the optional stuff from Tasha's for that class (Ki-Fueled attack, Quickened Healing, etc.) and my response was "Wait, what are these features?" until I realized, "Oh, of course, moar power from Tasha's..."

As I've said, I've gone over how RK is broken and gets too many goodies. It is OP compared to other fighter subclasses (pre-Tasha's).

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?

Rolled scores, two 18's and half-orc so STR 20, CON 20. Like most tables, we have a feat at 1st level, so he was able to later use an ASI to bump CON to 20.

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

The extra at 1st level for HAM. Then CON/DEX ASI, Tough, and something else at 8th... Even without the 1st level, he could have HAM thrown in there instead of the "something else", just the order of things would shift.

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

Correct. He didn't need them. He was adequate DPR with STR 20 and the "tank" for the group.

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?)

Yes, rolled. And I understand that contributes to situations like this, but I stand by my statement the RK is OP regardless. Even if we used the standard array, it would have been problematic--although admittedly probably slightly less so.

Skill issue.

Oh, he used the shield when he could. But what other RK feature focuses on helping allies really more than just making your PC more powerful?

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

LOL hey I can easily admit I'm far from perfect.

 

[FrozenNorth]

IMO This is why some GMs end up running games they don't like and get burned out. The players don't want to compromise (and the culture tells them they shouldn't have to), and the GM gets tired of enabling play he doesn't care for.

But you aren’t arguing for compromise. You’re arguing that the players accept with what the GM proposes regardless of what they want.

And, let’s be real here. Even if the GM has to « grit their teeth » and accept a game in which the players are more powerful then they would like, the GM gets their way in 90% of the game decisions. If the GM proposes a swashbuckling epic, the campaign is likely going to be a swashbuckling epic.

 

[ezo]

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 never played 4E and I am only passingly familiar with teh AEDU structure. Generally, it all depends on total cognitive load for the player, so how many AEDU features do they have? If it is more than 9 or 10, IME that becomes too much for many (not all certainly!) players.

 

[ezo]

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.

Sounds like a fair assessment from what I know of 4E.

 

[Lanefan]

Then you aren’t responding to the argument, you are inventing a new one.

The comment that touched off the reponse, and that you agreed with was:

It IS easier to up the challenge in an « easy » game than to downgrade the challenge in a « hard » game, particularly for the experienced DMs that are more likely to have players that build powerful characters.

I'm not talking about just upping the challenge, I'm talking about changing the rules.

Players argue far more against rule changes that go against their characters than they do against rule changes that benefit their characters. It's simple human nature. But, arguments are hard on the DM. Therefore, if the game's made hard by default and leaves room for the DM to ease it off, there's less argument if-when she does and thus it's easier on the DM than making it easy by default while leaving room to toughen it up.

What you are saying is that a GM can increase the difficulty, they just don’t want to because they dismiss powerful PCs as « superheroes », even if they exist in a world where all creatures are powerful.

Not sure where this comes from.

Which naturally begs the question: if the GM’s players enjoy playing powerful characters to the point that the players resist efforts to rein in their characters, why is GM trying to sell them on a game that they clearly don’t want to play?

Or this.

When a GM sells a game the players don’t want to play, it falls apart. For instance, in a game I was a player in, one of the principal reasons the game fell apart was that the GM failed to identify what the players enjoyed in RPGs. The GM thought the characters would principally be motivated by greed and violence, and was completely taken aback when the party refused to kill people other than in the defense of innocents.

That's in large part a GM failing to hit the curveball thrown by the players.

That said, why did the players join that game in the first place? Or was it pitched as one thing and then run as another?

 

[Lanefan]

What’s the counterargument then?

@Lanefan made a bald-faced claim that was also wrong and didn’t provide any evidence for it.


I disputed the claim and justified my reasoning: the evidence of high-level monsters and challenges means that it is possible to increase the challenge of a campaign by substituting greater challenges. I also added that the DMs that tend to have more players with more experience in system mastery also tend to be more experienced and better situated to knowledgeably ramp up the challenges.

Again, you're talking about in-play challenges using the same rules while I'm talking about changes to (and-or presentation of) the actual rules or system.

These things are, though related, not the same.

 

[ezo]

What’s the counterargument then?

Stop power creep. Stop giving players more and more options than they know what do to with or could ever even use. Stop making design player-focused and make it "adventure-focused" so the DM can enjoy it as well as the players.

@Lanefan made a bald-faced claim that was also wrong and didn’t provide any evidence for it.

Ah, they are "wrong" huh?

Well, you're wrong IMO.

Seriously, though, if I have a killer game, I can pull back on things more easily--decreasing MY BURDEN as DM as well, or keep my burden the same and house-rule power-ups for the PCs to get them in a better place.

If I have an easy game because PCs are too powerful as designed, my choices are "nerf the PCs" to bring them down to the game design level--not something players care for in general, OR use my "infinite dragons" and increase my load as DM.

With the first option, the DM's life is either easier (players gain nor lose anything) or the DM's life remains the same (players gain power-ups to compensate). I like that option as a near-forever DM. My life easier or at worst no harder.

With the second option, the DM's life stays the same (PCs get nerfed---rarely popular) or the DM's life gets harder (players gain nor lose anything). I don't care for that option: unhappy players or unhappy DM.

So, how is that "wrong"???

I disputed the claim and justified my reasoning: the evidence of high-level monsters and challenges means that it is possible to increase the challenge of a campaign by substituting greater challenges. I also added that the DMs that tend to have more players with more experience in system mastery also tend to be more experienced and better situated to knowledgeably ramp up the challenges.

Which I refuted by the above. With your way things escalate out of control and we have power creep, etc. when new editions come out. PCs are too strong? Infinite dragons. Players gets frustrated when it goes too far and DM has more work load. New version escalates PCs to compensate for infinite dragons. Game gets too easy again, so DM brings in more dragons. And so on.

A losing formula for myself, personally. You seem to like it, so good for you then.

You and @Micah Sweet may not like the option, but it exists. Meanwhile no one has offered any justification for why it would be HARDER to reduce the challenge.

I think you have that backwards? It is easier to reduce a challenging game than just keep throwing infinite dragons.

This seems like an issue concerning a power imbalance between classes, and believe me, I am sympathetic. But this is a different issue.

Well, between this subclass and everything else we use, yes.

 

[Lanefan]

Since you haven’t played or GMed 2024 5e, why should we give any weight to your claim that it is « lipstick on a pig »?

I have yet to mention 5e specifically, in either version, so I'm not sure where this comes from.

Your point was - or seemed to be - around GMs selling players on systems they didn't want to play; to which my response was - and remains - that you can only "sell" so much before you have to admit they ain't gonna buy because what you're trying to sell is an inferior product. That inferiority can be via simple customer perception (this one looks cheaply made) or factually through specs and reviews (this one has half the battery life compared to most of the others).

Same applies to GMs pitching a game or campaign. Sooner or later if players keep rejecting the pitch the GM has to admit that what's being pitched is somehow inferior.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes, rolled. And I understand that contributes to situations like this, but I stand by my statement the RK is OP regardless. Even if we used the standard array, it would have been problematic--although admittedly probably slightly less so.

I think it would have been significantly less problematic in this case, because with 16 STR (or DEX) and no offensive Feats, he'd be noticeably bad at damaging people (or causing conditions on them) compared to the 20 Primary Stat and probably at least one offensive Feat that the other PCs had. It'd have pushed him more towards the "hard to kill but doesn't do much" side of things, which is a lot easier to handle as a DM I think.

I've played 5E with rolled stats and without - rolled are really fun but they absolutely throw balance out the window, for better or worse (they do open up some interesting multiclass build possibilities and so on though).

Oh, he used the shield when he could. But what other RK feature focuses on helping allies really more than just making your PC more powerful?

It's about how you play the PC, not just the features you possess. RK is unusual in that it has a feature just for protecting other PCs at all (and a pretty good one).

But on top of that, if you are very hard to kill, you can do stuff, you can put yourself in situations, which mean that the enemies have to pay attention to you, or naturally will, rather than targeting more vulnerable PCs. That's why I say "skill issue". He was, from the sound of things, more focused on showing how badass he was rather than playing as part of a team.

If it is more than 9 or 10, IME that becomes too much for many (not all certainly!) players.

It was 9 - 3 At Will, 3 Encounter, and 3 Daily - I don't think that was an accident either, I think it was very much intentional.

Sometimes there were ways you could kind of get more, but that took some effort. IIRC the later-added classes which didn't follow the AEDU structure almost all lead to the PC having fewer abilities to consider.