D&D General ENWorld is better that the pundits…change my mind

[Zardnaar]

A lot of time, the advice I see is white room theory or pushing something really hard on a 1% or so difference or mostly a matter of preference. Sometimes though, it does feels spot on.

Overall though, I find my own experience with something is the best teacher - discovering what I like and don't like rather than just blindly following someone else's advice. While D&D is a game, sometimes the best move isn't the most optimal one or may be too circumstantial to work/not work depending on how the group works and what the DM is running.

White room theory crafting also makes some weird assumptions.

PCs might be maximizing accuracy over damage (or both 5.0 -5/+10 feats). Or spell DCs. Or party synergy often after the fact.

Alot of its also high level. See simulacrums broken!!! Game ended 10 levels earlier. More simulacrum+wish is the problem.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

A lot of time, the advice I see is white room theory or pushing something really hard on a 1% or so difference or mostly a matter of preference. Sometimes though, it does feels spot on.

One advantage that ENWorld has over YouTube is that, in my experience, you get fewer silly "hey, if you follow the language of this feat literally and combine it with this multiclassing option in a way your DM will definitely veto, then you can break the game!"

On YouTube, especially in short vertical videos (imported from Tiktok), that's a huge part of the conversation. On ENWorld, in contrast, everyone goes "yeah, but that's obviously not intended and your DM will say no," which really makes the silliest takes less rewarding to post, except as an obvious joke.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

After some years of making 5e characters in particular, I am struck by the usefulness of ENWorld vis a vis dedicated blogs and sites regarding optimization and other matters.

Where ENWorld has a usually robust discussion about choices, both pros and cons, I am amazed at the certainty of some pundits with relatively little critical analysis.

I have been reading here and there tier recommendations about various choices and am amazed at how wrong they seem to me.

What is more, they are wrong without realizing the other choices available, other goals involved and so on. No disclaimer…X is best, Y sucks.

Here on the community section I disagree with a lot of opinions but they’re side to side with other opinions and context.

The collective wins most of the time from my perspective. Sadly I know newbies want quick answers for tonight’s game…but man what a minefield of subpar advice out there…

Take some time and read conflicting viewpoints. Play and see what you like! And be armed knowing your wants and needs should guide character creation.

Sometimes you will find you know more than a pundit/blogger…

Robust discussion wins and teaches. Following a blowhard usually helps make a character they would make for the games they play in with choices they find interesting. Take it for what it’s worth.

Why should I want to change your mind about something I agree with?

Like I'm saying that slightly tongue-in-cheek...but honestly, even folks I disagree with on a lot of things, like Snarf, Zardnaar, Lanefan, Crimson Longinus, Micah Sweet...they clearly take the conversation seriously (most of the time) and generally do have very good thoughts. I disagree about how or where those thoughts are applicable, but the thoughts themselves are not bad ones in the vast majority of cases.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

White room theory crafting also makes some weird assumptions.

And yet ignoring it has led to many of the design things that personally bother you. Like silvery barbs. Yes, I'm going to keep bringing that up whenever you invoke "white room". Same goes for Twilight cleric and various other things that I know you dislike specifically for being unbalanced.

PCs might be maximizing accuracy over damage (or both 5.0 -5/+10 feats). Or spell DCs. Or party synergy often after the fact.

Party synergy is almost entirely worthless to optimize for in 5e, regardless of version, so that one's pretty well out of the picture. 5e is almost entirely like 3e in that respect. Party optimization is almost always less efficient, less impactful, and less reliable than ruthless personal optimization.

Accuracy is always going to be prioritized--and that means both "to-hit" and "spell DCs". Which is great for spellcasters, because most things that increase their DCs also give them more accuracy. Sucks for non-spellcasters though, as outside of increasing their prime stat, increasing the DC for actions they take is, to the best of my knowledge, not possible on their own.

And outright relying on the charity of your allies in order to get to do your cool tricks sucks. A lot.

Alot of its also high level. See simulacrums broken!!! Game ended 10 levels earlier. More simulacrum+wish is the problem.

Yes, the problems get objectively out of hand at very very high level unless the GM is actively putting seven thumbs on various scales. That doesn't mean they don't appear earlier. The earlier ones are just smaller than "literally duplicating a slightly weaker version of yourself" and--I cannot stress this enough--"outright rewriting reality".

 

[overgeeked]

One advantage that ENWorld has over YouTube is that, in my experience, you get fewer silly "hey, if you follow the language of this feat literally and combine it with this multiclassing option in a way your DM will definitely veto, then you can break the game!"

On YouTube, especially in short vertical videos (imported from Tiktok), that's a huge part of the conversation. On ENWorld, in contrast, everyone goes "yeah, but that's obviously not intended and your DM will say no," which really makes the silliest takes less rewarding to post, except as an obvious joke.

Did you forget some of the “promoted” article(s) on here about just that?

The one I remember is someone tried to argue you could cast something like six eight spells in a round.

I’m not sure what the right phrase is for posts that are “promoted” to articles on the site, but that post was made into an article.

ETA: Here it is. Turns out they argued it was eight spells per round, not six.

Rules FAQ Thread 'How Many Spells Can You Cast in a Round in D&D 5E?'

Sep 19, 2021

NOTE: In the light of information missed in the first version of this article, it has been revised.

Spellcasting in D&D 5E is normally a pretty straightforward thing, especially at lower levels. But there are some tricky edge cases that can and do cause more play imbalance and more arguments than they need to. So how many spells can a player character cast in a single round in D&D 5E?

As many as eight, depending on your character build and the circumstances, though four or five are much more common limits, and even those don’t come up...

• Timespike
• Replies: 42
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

• 
• 

 

[Zardnaar]

Did you forget some of the “promoted” article(s) on here about just that?

The one I remember is someone tried to argue you could cast something like six eight spells in a round.

I’m not sure what the right phrase is for posts that are “promoted” to articles on the site, but that post was made into an article.

ETA: Here it is. Turns out they argued it was eight spells per round, not six.

Rules FAQ Thread 'How Many Spells Can You Cast in a Round in D&D 5E?'

Sep 19, 2021

NOTE: In the light of information missed in the first version of this article, it has been revised.

Spellcasting in D&D 5E is normally a pretty straightforward thing, especially at lower levels. But there are some tricky edge cases that can and do cause more play imbalance and more arguments than they need to. So how many spells can a player character cast in a single round in D&D 5E?

As many as eight, depending on your character build and the circumstances, though four or five are much more common limits, and even those don’t come up...

• Timespike
• Replies: 42
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

• 
• 

Its 6 spelks a round atm in 5.5. I may have missed something though.

5.0 could be 8.

 

[Seramus]

Party synergy is almost entirely worthless to optimize for in 5e, regardless of version, so that one's pretty well out of the picture. 5e is almost entirely like 3e in that respect. Party optimization is almost always less efficient, less impactful, and less reliable than ruthless personal optimization.

Only in the sense that it's difficult to find situations where multiple players are willing to do it, so it's less efficient to discuss on a forum. If you DO find yourself in a situation with players willing to build for party synergy, the results can be absolutely stunning.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Indeed.
Which is why I advocate that Enworld should rule D&D instead of WOTC.

 

[Zardnaar]

Only in the sense that it's difficult to find situations where multiple players are willing to do it, so it's less efficient to discuss on a forum. If you DO find yourself in a situation with players willing to build for party synergy, the results can be absolutely stunning.

This. Basic combo is two concentration spells combo.

Spellcaster casting hokd spells+strikers is amazing. 5.0 accuracy +5/-10.

I haven't seen players design a party around something just using existing synergy.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Only in the sense that it's difficult to find situations where multiple players are willing to do it, so it's less efficient to discuss on a forum. If you DO find yourself in a situation with players willing to build for party synergy, the results can be absolutely stunning.

And yet, in 4e, the exact opposite was true. Ruthless personal optimization was significantly less efficient than teamwork and team optimization--to the point that there were several well-known team-synergy strategies, such as the Radiant Mafia.

If players aren't willing to do it, maybe one should consider that as evidence that it is not actually "absolutely stunning" in most cases.