D&D 5E A change of perspective: From DM to Player

[Rya.Reisender]

Then you'll hate me.

I don't hate anyone, I just don't want to be a player because of that.

I assume by this you only play published adventures? And that the PCs only do actions anticipated by the authors of those adventures?

Yes, only published adventures. But that's not an issue, if the DM recruits and says "I'm going to run XYZ" I instantly know what to expect and can easily filter out homebrew DMs. When it comes to rulings it's not so easy to tell on first look. I'd need to create a list of like 100 different situations and ask the DM how he would decide in each of them and only if all where answered correctly I could accept him, but that seems like a hassle for both me and him, so I never even tried.

As for the second question, there needs to be some room for improvisation, but at the very least, the adventure should lead through the places intended for the adventure and not go completely off-rail. For example deciding some DC for an action not listed in the adventure is perfectly fine. But the group being all like "We don't like dungeon crawling, let's open a shop in town instead" would be a bit too much deviation. Note that this is absolutely theoretical as I never experienced a group derailing a campaign to this extend ever. My groups always stick to the adventure path even though they might to things in unexpected order. Of course it's also a little bit my job as the DM to give them the right pointers so they know how to follow the adventure path without feeling railroaded.

I guess that's another reason I find it hard to be a player. I put in a lot of effort into DMing and when I noticed a DM does not put enough effort in or just isn't skilled enough for doing a good job as DM, then it's super hard for me to accept him as DM.

@KarinsDad
For me, when I play a game, I want to play the game as intended by the designers. When I play a board game, I want to play that game by the official rules. If one player was like "Hey, let's play this game, but let's change this and that rule, it's more fun.", I wouldn't want to play it anymore. Same for me with DMs that go against official rules in D&D.

 

[KarinsDad]

@KarinsDad
For me, when I play a game, I want to play the game as intended by the designers. When I play a board game, I want to play that game by the official rules. If one player was like "Hey, let's play this game, but let's change this and that rule, it's more fun.", I wouldn't want to play it anymore. Same for me with DMs that go against official rules in D&D.

That's fine. To each their own. I take it you rarely play poker.


I think on page 6 of the PHB (not sure, I don't have my book in front of me) there is a RULE that the DM is the authority of his campaign or some such. So by definition, you disagreeing with a DM ruling is basically violating the rules of the game, right? The game as intended by the designers is that the DM is the final authority of his game. That doesn't mean that many rules decisions cannot be made collaboratively, but it does mean that once he has heard what his players are telling him, he makes the final decision which may or may not be what some, most, or all of his players wanted.


Btw, there are a lot of examples where I think the designers were asleep at the wheel. Dragons are one of them. 1 spell per CHA mod as an optional give dragon spells rule??? WT?

Dragons are supposed to be the most powerful creatures around. It's even on the name of the game. In 5E without the optional rule, Dragons are just big flying brutes. Ho hum. Boring for the DM. Boring for the players. A sack of hit points with a few extra attacks outside of their own turn.

So in my game, I doubled the number of CHA mod spells for all normal dragons (i.e. all dragons can cast spells and double what the Monster Manual allows), and gave caster levels to "True Dragons". Btw, the designers of Storm King's Thunder created what I call a "True Dragon" and put it in their adventure. In my world, a dragon might Dimension Door away and then come back several rounds later with 3 buff spells up, or they might cast area effect spells while waiting for their breath to recharge, or they might cast Banishment or Polymorph on PCs, or a Wall of Ice to cut off PCs. It's scarier when even a smaller dragon totally controls the battlefield.


Another example. Sorcerers. Every player I ever had who ran a 5E sorcerer regretted it very quickly. Why play the game exactly as is if one class is obviously subpar to virtually all of the other classes in nearly all ways? Metamagic. Ho hum. Wasting spell slots, just so that you can metamagic your same one or two trick pony an extra time or two a day? Ho hum. The designers did not just fall asleep at the wheel with sorcerers, they subcontracted them out to the lowest price bidder.


Finally, there are gray areas where the rules can be interpreted in multiple ways. I have on a few occasions seen one designer rule one way in a tweet and another in another way. If RAW or even RAI was so obvious, then why do designers sometimes disagree with each other?

As for the second question, there needs to be some room for improvisation, but at the very least, the adventure should lead through the places intended for the adventure and not go completely off-rail.

How as a player would you know if the adventure went off-rail? In Storm King's Thunder, there are many detailed places where the PCs are never intended to go (if you go in one direction, you are not going in another). So, I changed the adventure so that the PCs end up going to nearly every location in that adventure. That way, they get to experience them all and not just a few here and there.

The first casualty of a battle is the plan, and the first casualty of an adventure is the script.

 

[S'mon]

My main problem is when the DM intentionally doesn't follow RAW and doesn't consider Sage Advice or Jeremy Crawford tweets as how it should be done. Like I'm fine if he makes mistakes when he corrects them after I provided sufficient evidence, but some DMs are like "That ruling is stupid, I'll stick with mine" and that just makes me want to instant quit. For me the DM is basically just another player, he doesn't make the campaign nor the rules.

I definitely wouldn't like a player who kept saying "But Jeremy Crawford Tweeted ...!"
Whether I'm a player or GM, I do want a GM who takes responsibility for the rules and the campaign. That said, I am enough of a rules lawyer that as a player I will clarify the RAW and ask the GM if their different approach is a house rule - sometimes GMs genuinely make mistakes and are happy to be corrected.

 

[CydKnight]

I finally got to experience 5th Edition as a player after 5 months of being only a DM. That change of perspective has helped me to be a more well rounded DM in my opinion. I also feel the DM experience has helped me to be a more well rounded player. Now I am the DM of a regular weekly game and a Player in another regular weekly game and find the balance quite refreshing.

 

[Kalshane]

Absolutely anything can be made our of the blue. It's not that hard, also, but that doesn't mean that is actually a good concept. Yes, I believe that you could actually made a backstory about something weird, but also there is no reason for, other than "I want to have that and that power". If I would DM your character, I would actually rip the paladin's connections to their gods in the very moment that you pacted with a fiend. Archfiends and good gods don't get along. Smiting, Lay on Hands and any aura/ power would be gone. That character will only be a second-class fighter, and a good warlock.

It would be Ok an archfey pact-ancient's oath, from a RP standing point. But, fiend? Nah. I don't really like blackguards unless they were that from the very beginning.

Thing is you can't really be a "blackguard" from the very beginning. The Oath (and associated powers and behavioral restrictions) don't come online until level 3. Remember, the only official evil paladin we have in 5E is the Oathbreaker. Up until a paladin takes an Oath at level 3, they don't have any built-in strictures on their behavior (though, understandably, most players in games that start below 3rd level are going to RP based on the Oath they intend to take.) In any case, this was a replacement character brought in at 7th level, so we didn't see his pre-pact behavior. (The character in question also isn't evil. He's more LN "protect the world from the forces of the Abyss by any means necessary" sort.)

In any case, my own character (a Devotion paladin) and his rarely see eye to eye but--as long as he doesn't harm innocents and is actively fighting against the horde of demons threatening to overrun the world--the source of his powers (which my character doesn't know, though he suspects) are something to address when the world is no longer in peril.

 

[Erechel]

The comments about optimization intrigue me, given that poster's character is above average in five ability scores. I wonder how the experience would have changed if five of them had been below average instead? I'm thinking it would still be positive, since ability modifiers aren't the game-breakers they used to be.

Yes, I know what you are saying. Basically, I was lucky when I rolled the dice. But I could not be lucky, and I would play nevertheless. About optimization: I didn't optimize my character basically in this way: its much more convenient to have high Dexterity as a strength fighter than Intelligence or Charisma. I would have better unarmored or light-armored AC (+2); better Dex Saving Throws (according to many, the most common ST) with +4 (Shield Master), and better Initiative (+2). Also, I would be almost competent on Stealth checks. Intelligence mostly give my character +2 to History, Religion, Nature and Investigation, seemingly "useless" skills, at least in combat. In combat it is very powerful to act first: I only act first when I'm lucky. Also, if I would be a DPR guy, I would choose Great Weapon Master and Great Weapon Fighting for humongous damage (aprox 18,33 if the enemies have low armor, aprox 14,33 if its something be 13-15 -don't have with me the exact numbers, and I'm bad at math), or maybe a Polearm master for extra attacks. I would have less AC, but the DPR+better initiative would suffice to save me from harm's way. With my character, I'm more of a party guy (I trip my enemies, and my comrades vanquish them). I've chosen Intelligence, Charisma and Wisdom purposefully for RP reasons, although if I would have lesser dice, I would tried to mantain the character balanced, not spiky. I would dumped Wisdom first (the other "major" saving throw), then Charisma, then Intelligence. I would try to mantain my highest roll on Strength, basically because I like to be the big guy. But by all means, although I could be a more powerful fighter, I'm in love with the classic sword and shield/ sword and lance imagery, and with a character concept that isn't a stupid person with weapons.

 

[jasper]

As a DM I with some of the posters here, if the RAW need to be cleared up by the designer then said designer did a POOR job. I not talking about grammar problems, but things like Magic Missile vs Mirror Image and those various rules that spawn 40 pages plus of comments.
As a player, I hate if a DM has lot of house rules which void RAW. Also I hate other players who take too long to make a decision. In my homebrew group which just folded, I wanted to continue the game after 20 minutes. Not "we can take 4 hours to make the decision of 3 different choices of climbing the castle wall". As player it does help to see how different dm handle the same adventure/ situation.

 

[Erechel]

Thing is you can't really be a "blackguard" from the very beginning. The Oath (and associated powers and behavioral restrictions) don't come online until level 3. Remember, the only official evil paladin we have in 5E is the Oathbreaker.

Yes, and this is an NPC class, absolutely optional, so it hasn't even to work as if every fallen paladin becomes an Oathbreaker with powers. If a paladin severs its link with the gods or the "good" philosophy by becoming a fiendish warlock, its divine powers should be severed too. A blackguard would be a paladin aligned wit evil gods (a paladin of Tiamat, EG), like Steel Brightblade, no matter the oath itself.

Up until a paladin takes an Oath at level 3, they don't have any built-in strictures on their behavior (though, understandably, most players in games that start below 3rd level are going to RP based on the Oath they intend to take.) In any case, this was a replacement character brought in at 7th level, so we didn't see his pre-pact behavior. (The character in question also isn't evil. He's more LN "protect the world from the forces of the Abyss by any means necessary" sort.)

There is no RAW, indeed, but there is RAI and in-world verisimilitude. No good-aligned god would give powers to a fiend servant. It's not a rule, but a ruling. And one with some history behind.
And it is even worse that the character was straight-up made from level 7th. I'll never, as a DM, allow anyone play a character from that level. The highest level a character would initiate, and only in extraordinary circumstances, is 3rd. He quickly catch up with the rest of the party (I've done it twice, and the level 1 fighter within a level 8 party advanced very quickly, although he always is 1-2 levels behind). Levels are earned. And this character not only never earned its levels, but also take a heavy contradictory combo only for powergaming reasons.
But, as Angry says: you can play your game in any wrong way you want.

In any case, my own character (a Devotion paladin) and his rarely see eye to eye but--as long as he doesn't harm innocents and is actively fighting against the horde of demons threatening to overrun the world--the source of his powers (which my character doesn't know, though he suspects) are something to address when the world is no longer in peril.

It is OK your character reaction. You could, as character, tolerate certain behaviours for the common good. But fiendish and holy powers don't merge. In Argentina we have a say: "No podés estar bien con Dios y con el Diablo" (you cannot be good with both God and the Devil)

 

[KarinsDad]

I'll never, as a DM, allow anyone play a character from that level. The highest level a character would initiate, and only in extraordinary circumstances, is 3rd. He quickly catch up with the rest of the party (I've done it twice, and the level 1 fighter within a level 8 party advanced very quickly, although he always is 1-2 levels behind). Levels are earned. And this character not only never earned its levels, but also take a heavy contradictory combo only for powergaming reasons.
But, as Angry says: you can play your game in any wrong way you want.

True.

I consider it "playing wrong" to start a PC any lower than one or two levels lower than the rest of the party.

Why? Because it is a game. Made to be fun for every player at the table, not just players who have been your friends the longest, or players whose PC didn't happen to get disintegrated by a Beholder last session.

Bringing even a third level PC into our current 10th level fights with 5+ Frost Giants per encounter would quickly force that PC to die or retire. The rest of the group (in character) would not want this wet behind the ears PC tagging along where the PCs have to keep bringing him back from unconsciousness or death. It doesn't make a lot of sense from a roleplaying perspective. Can it be done? Sure. Should it be? Err, no. Let ALL of the players have reasonably similar capable PCs so that ALL of the players can have fun.

And yes, there is that player who might want to play a 3rd level PC in a 10th level adventure. Have at it. But, most players in my experience want to be able to contribute in reasonable ways. Not be the punching bag du jour or the mighty Paladin who hides because the Frost Giants can knock him out with a single shot (and possibly kill him if they take 2 shots at him).

 

[Kalshane]

Yes, and this is an NPC class, absolutely optional, so it hasn't even to work as if every fallen paladin becomes an Oathbreaker with powers. If a paladin severs its link with the gods or the "good" philosophy by becoming a fiendish warlock, its divine powers should be severed too. A blackguard would be a paladin aligned wit evil gods (a paladin of Tiamat, EG), like Steel Brightblade, no matter the oath itself.

There is no RAW, indeed, but there is RAI and in-world verisimilitude. No good-aligned god would give powers to a fiend servant. It's not a rule, but a ruling. And one with some history behind.
And it is even worse that the character was straight-up made from level 7th. I'll never, as a DM, allow anyone play a character from that level. The highest level a character would initiate, and only in extraordinary circumstances, is 3rd. He quickly catch up with the rest of the party (I've done it twice, and the level 1 fighter within a level 8 party advanced very quickly, although he always is 1-2 levels behind). Levels are earned. And this character not only never earned its levels, but also take a heavy contradictory combo only for powergaming reasons.
But, as Angry says: you can play your game in any wrong way you want.

It is OK your character reaction. You could, as character, tolerate certain behaviours for the common good. But fiendish and holy powers don't merge. In Argentina we have a say: "No podés estar bien con Dios y con el Diablo" (you cannot be good with both God and the Devil)

My group hasn't punished players by forcing them to start at low level since the early 90s. We'd rather everyone have fun and play an effective character than be forced to churn through a dozen characters before one manages to luck their way through a few battles and level up to be useful every time their original character dies or retires.

As far as him retaining his paladin abilities, I haven't spoken to the DM, so I don't know if he's ruling that pre-Oath paladins don't receive powers from the gods (though I don't recall 5E actually requiring a paladin to have a deity) or that the warlock/paladin's patron is providing those powers herself. It doesn't really matter, in the long run.

In any case, I'm not sure where he's power-gaming. He basically plays as a bladelock in heavy armor that has three 1st level paladin slots that he can cast from or use to smite. (The DM is using the original rule that smites must come from paladin slots, not the errata version that opens it up to any slots.)

Let me put it this way. I've loved playing paladins since 2nd Edition and in the games I DM, I require all paladins to have a deity and a code of conduct (and I enforce it). I absolutely despised the "paladins of any alignment" in 4E. But I don't have a problem with this character, due to the backstory and the way he's RPed.