D&D 5E (2024) Indirectly Buffing Rogues, Rangers, Monks Via Magic Items?

[Zardnaar]

I think bias and favoritism for any reason are toxic unless you state explicitly that you are going to do it ahead of time.

You can read many horror stories about DMs who favored one PC over another and those stories never conclude that it made for a good gaming experience.

I'm doing the reverse of that. Smoothing the gaps over.
Big damage dealers are thing beezerker barbarians and dual wielding.

Im saying they might get a +d4 or d6 weapon while someone using a d6 trident might get a vicious weapon.

Other way round that vicious weapon on a barbarian its pouring gas on a .

If the DM sells whatever you like theres also huge incentive to always go for the same weapons over an over.

Put on my first legendary level 6. Even if they find it it's a glorified spell stick with 3 or 4 charges. Weaker than a wand of fire/lightning.

 

[ECMO3]

I'm oing the reverse of that. Smoothing the gaps over.

I don't think so. You are favoring certain PCs. That you have a logical reason (or some would argue excuse) to do it does not really make it ok. Players expect the DM to be a neutral arbitor.

Like I said if you say this explicitly in session 0 it is fine. If you just do it though without telling players it is not fine IMO.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think bias and favoritism for any reason are toxic unless you state explicitly that you are going to do it ahead of time.

You can read many horror stories about DMs who favored one PC over another and those stories never conclude that it made for a good gaming experience.

Hang on. - You have repeatedly said that bias and favouritism are beneficial and correct, even though WotC don't explicitly state that casters are designed to be superior and more interesting to play in general compared to martial classes.

I don't think so. You are favoring certain PCs. That you have a logical reason (or some would argue excuse) to do it does not really make it ok. Players expect the DM to be a neutral arbitor.

Like I said if you say this explicitly in session 0 it is fine. If you just do it though without telling players it is not fine IMO.

You encourage favouring certain PCs. That you have an excuse ("magic should be more powerful than skill") does not really make it OK.
Players expect the rules to provide balance.

After all, if players weren't happy with their characters getting worse and/or fewer magic items, they could just play a class that does get more favourable treatment.
Right?

 

[THEMNGMNT]

How can you tell if you evaluate it by watching play?

How else can you evaluate it?

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think so. You are favoring certain PCs. That you have a logical reason (or some would argue excuse) to do it does not really make it ok. Players expect the DM to be a neutral arbitor.

Like I said if you say this explicitly in session 0 it is fine. If you just do it though without telling players it is not fine IMO.

I do specifically say in players guide reasonably basic weapons are more common.
One handed melee weaps, speats, daggers bow.

Pole arms and hand crossbows are a bit more rare.

Latest player guide also indicated less magic last game. Slight higher tgan default assumptions.

I do sell basic items though. Common and +1 equivalents.

Best items are exploration. Go find them or find vendor. You can't buy whatever you like in unlimited quantities. You can craft specific items as well. Some downtime is available.

 

[FrogReaver]

So the main issue of these classes is falling odds in damage while not really having any big unique advantages or gaining the

Monks the best but still isnt hitting as hard.
1 rare item can drop tier 1.

Tier two more come along with very rares.

So generally I dont use vicious weapons. They're rare, no attunement +2d6 damage.

Also adding BG3 items.

If youre a thief scrolls of true strike and a wand of magic missiles into fire or lightning. Poisons, grenades etc tier 1.

BG3 items.

The graceful cloth. Robes +2 dexterity, +1 to hit.

Gloves that deal an extra +1d4 radiant, frost, or fire damage with a spell attached (lvl 3 guiding bolt, burning hands, ice knife).


Basically if you pick a "weak" class youre getting your ites dropped a bit earlier and theyre a bit better.

Thoughts?

I thought monk did good damage while having alot of useful tools. Extra speed, deflect attacks, stun, subclass. AC tends to line up with damage focused fighters, potentially better later.

 

[Zardnaar]

I thought monk did good damage while having alot of useful tools. Extra speed, deflect attacks, stun, subclass. AC tends to line up with damage focused fighters, potentially better later.

On paper yes. Real game with feats and magic weapons not so much.

Even with less damage at 14+ would play one over most martials except fighter/paladin.
I like them more than the internet and YouTubers. They're not a d tier class.

Hell I had one carry hard. Recent YouTuber rating didnt use synergy for example in his criteria.

1 level dip into to fighter or ranger does wonders and depending on how DM assigns equipment.

 

[FrogReaver]

On paper yes. Real game with feats and magic weapons not so much.

Even with less damage at 14+ would play one over most martials except fighter/paladin.
I like them more than the internet and YouTubers. They're not a d tier class.

Hell I had one carry hard. Recent YouTuber rating didnt use synergy for example in his criteria.

1 level dip into to fighter or ranger does wonders and depending on how DM assigns equipment.

Most analysis greatly depends on the starting parameters. I find most YouTubers don’t set initial parameters that align well with my campaign, nor probably most others.

The monk in my game does good damage.

 

[Zardnaar]

Most analysis greatly depends on the starting parameters. I find most YouTubers don’t set initial parameters that align well with my campaign, nor probably most others.

The monk in my game does good damage.

I think monk damage is fine. Its when you add in things like Berzerker Barbarians going HAM with GWM feat snd things like dual wielding huntervrangers tier 1.

Stunning strike is also unreliable.