FlyingChihuahua
Hero
A while back during one of the Warlord Happy Fun Hours, Mike Mearls said, in response to Warlords potentially allowing Rogues to get extra sneak attacks, that they tend not to balance things around base case scenarios because they want players to feel good about finding those best case scenarios. It kinda reminded me of 3e's idea of "trap options" in order to reward system mastery, but better implemented. Instead of punishing players for not learning the game enough, it rewards players decide to go in depth with the rules, as well as allowing the players to feel awesome when they find something powerful.
I personally think it's a good idea, because of the reasons above, and that it lets players feel like their "breaking the game", which is generally a good feeling. My question is, do you agree with this idea of system mastery, as well as allowing the players to break the game in "acceptable" ways? In addition, do you think 5e does this well enough in most cases (reminder that core rules don't have feats or multiclassing) or not, as well as other potential games that might follow this philosophy?
I personally think it is a good idea for both ideas, and that 5e does a well enough job of pulling off this idea.
I personally think it's a good idea, because of the reasons above, and that it lets players feel like their "breaking the game", which is generally a good feeling. My question is, do you agree with this idea of system mastery, as well as allowing the players to break the game in "acceptable" ways? In addition, do you think 5e does this well enough in most cases (reminder that core rules don't have feats or multiclassing) or not, as well as other potential games that might follow this philosophy?
I personally think it is a good idea for both ideas, and that 5e does a well enough job of pulling off this idea.