D&D 5E Changeling (from the UA article): crazy broken?

[The Crimson Binome]

this makes no sense to me... leaving him with 1hp gives him 1 more round... not attacking and going for the rapier on the other hand gives him atleast 1 more round (if roll low on weapon damage may do less and give yet another round)

Maybe I wrote that wrong. The bear was closing in on the monk, and the fighter had to choose between moving to retrieve the rapier or moving in to engage the bear with just the dagger (and hopefully killing it before it killed the monk). The bear killed the monk on the next round, and the combat was down to just the fighter and the bear. The fighter hit the bear, but didn't kill it; the bear hit the fighter, and killed him. Had the fighter had his better weapon, he would have probably killed the bear instead.

yes, but at the same time you can make up for one short coming with another great attribute... my drunk paliden that was a coward who lost his faith...was also the Face of the party and the party detective...

Being a drunken, faithless coward is not a matter of better or worse. It's just a choice, like any other. You could have very well been the Face of the party, and the party detective, without being a drunken coward.

Choosing an inferior weapon doesn't make you good at role-playing. Being a good role-player makes you good at role-playing. Choosing an inferior weapon just means that your great RP character has a better chance of dying horribly.

 

[iserith]

First of all, I wanted to say that I think your interpretation is valid. I read it a different way, but I don't think my way is right or yours is wrong. I'm more likely to believe that my interpretation is wrong because I haven't played nor read 5E closely.

However - and this is because I'm playing a game of my own design - I lean towards the idea that, if following the mechanics and procedures of play without any other considerations don't produce the kind of experience the game says it's going to deliver, the mechanics and procedures of play are flawed (or at least a bad fit if you want a different experience). If the game has a mechanic that, if you use it as written, does not result in (for example) an exciting story, I'd consider it flawed. If it requires the players or DM to determine when the mechanic should be invoked, then make that a part of the mechanic. (These tend to be metagame mechanics because you're dealing with metagame issues.) The same goes for "procedures for play": how often wandering monster checks should be made, when skill checks should be invoked, how the DM determines the initial reaction of NPCs, those sorts of things.

That said, I can see that "make sure everyone has a good time" and "try to take actions/adjudicate actions in a way that results in an exciting story" are procedures for play...

I don't disagree with your take. I'm just dealing with what I see as the reality of D&D 5e. They give the goals of play. They provide some mechanics you can try to use to achieve them. The rest is on the DM and players. Other games in my experience have better mechanics that serve the goals of play. But truly hasn't that always been the case with D&D?

 

[Paraxis]

Choosing an inferior weapon doesn't make you good at role-playing. Being a good role-player makes you good at role-playing. Choosing an inferior weapon just means that your great RP character has a better chance of dying horribly.

THIS a 1,000 times this.

Making poor build choices as a way to prove you are a "role"player is so aggravating to those who play with those who do.

 

[iserith]

Fair enough. I think the issue of meta-gaming is somewhat tangential to the point at hand, but if you don't mind meta-gaming as a justification for taking certain actions, then it's entirely possible that the relative power of any given race/class/spell is irrelevant. That is entirely off-topic, though. Whether or not something is balanced is, at best, orthogonal to how much anyone cares about balance.

Regardless of how you or I feel about balance, this race is clearly not balanced within the Exploration pillar if it can turn into any flying or swimming creature. (It may also be overpowered in the Interaction pillar, although that seems to be the intent of the race). If we're trying to balance across all pillars, then we should look at the Combat pillar, where it clearly has nothing special going for it; it has lower than average stats, with no +2 to anything, so that's something of a trade-off. If I had to evaluate it over-all, I would say that it's too weak if you can't turn into something that flies or swims, but too strong if you can.

On the contrary, I think it's a something like giving a man a fish or teaching him how to fish.

I can tell you how to balance out the mechanic (and did, when I posted Mike Mearls' tweets) or I can tell you that maybe there's a way you can approach the game where you never have to worry about game balance ever again.

I leave it to the readers to decide whether they want the fish or want to know how to fish. I make no judgment either way on their choice.

 

[Werebat]

Maybe game balance isn't all that important in this particular game, given the default goals of play. Maybe spotlight is really the only thing that matters and this is a largely a table management issue in D&D 5e.

You may not want to hear that, but it's worth considering and discussing with one's players in my opinion. I don't have an issue with even one of the rules in this game as a result because the players understand that just because a thing is rules-legal doesn't mean anyone has a license to abuse it and impact the fun or the creation of an exciting, memorable story. As a happy side effect, I don't have to make house rules or police the players. We can just play the game.

What I'm seeing is this answer ("Session Zero makes this a non-issue!" or some variant) being given for any and all potential balance issues, and it is going to get annoying quickly (for some of us more than others, granted) because it isn't really useful for mitigating balance issues outside of tables where players don't care about optimization.

It's as if someone were to horn in on every Windows troubleshooting discussion with the statement that if the OP were using Linux, they wouldn't have that issue.

It might be true. It might be worth pointing out now and then. It's annoying if it's overdone.

 

[Werebat]

On the contrary, I think it's a something like giving a man a fish or teaching him how to fish.

I can tell you how to balance out the mechanic (and did, when I posted Mike Mearls' tweets) or I can tell you that maybe there's a way you can approach the game where you never have to worry about game balance ever again.

I leave it to the readers to decide whether they want the fish or want to know how to fish. I make no judgment either way on their choice.

Given that knowing how to fish is generally going to be better than getting the fish, it would seem that you are in fact making a judgement.

 

[iserith]

What I'm seeing is this answer ("Session Zero makes this a non-issue!" or some variant) being given for any and all potential balance issues, and it is going to get annoying quickly (for some of us more than others, granted) because it isn't really useful for mitigating balance outside of tables where players don't care about optimization.

It's as if someone were to horn in on every Windows troubleshooting discussion with the statement that if the OP were using Linux, they wouldn't have that issue.

It might be true. It might be worth pointing out now and then. It's annoying if it's overdone.

My players care a great deal about optimization. They just know when not to use it to ruin the game experience. This comes from DM and players agreeing upon the goals of play.

Your comment on the frequency of posts on this matter is noted.

 

[iserith]

Given that knowing how to fish is generally going to be better than getting the fish, it would seem that you are in fact making a judgement.

That's not a judgment I'm making. It doesn't mean anything to me either way what a given poster chooses to do. You're free to make whatever judgments you like.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Maybe I wrote that wrong. The bear was closing in on the monk, and the fighter had to choose between moving to retrieve the rapier or moving in to engage the bear with just the dagger (and hopefully killing it before it killed the monk). The bear killed the monk on the next round, and the combat was down to just the fighter and the bear. The fighter hit the bear, but didn't kill it; the bear hit the fighter, and killed him. Had the fighter had his better weapon, he would have probably killed the bear instead.

this makes much more sense now (not sure if you typed badly or I read badly) but I can't imagine more then one or two groans, maybe a few min of jokeing then just move on to the next campaign...

Being a drunken, faithless coward is not a matter of better or worse. It's just a choice, like any other. You could have very well been the Face of the party, and the party detective, without being a drunken coward.

yes I could have been, and there is a lot more to the story, but I made sure that I was useful and helpful and since I am a bit of a powergamer myself made sure I contributed more then average to the party...just not so much in combat (and still wasn't weakest in combat I might add). I choose to play out a fun character that would take me out of my normal comfortzone... and I was an asset not a liability. COuld I have made a better more kick but character...yes, infact I had a 'backup character' that could out power half the party and when people complained I pointed out that if they would rather an equal level druid come in

Choosing an inferior weapon doesn't make you good at role-playing. Being a good role-player makes you good at role-playing. Choosing an inferior weapon just means that your great RP character has a better chance of dying horribly.

the choice of inferior or superior anything is a choice... and takeing one or two little hits (like say average 1pt of damage per hit from a short sword over a longsword) isn't game breaking...

THIS a 1,000 times this.

Making poor build choices as a way to prove you are a "role"player is so aggravating to those who play with those who do.

I don't make characters to be the best (ok totally funny but sometimes I do...I mean I get called the one man party sometimes) I ingerneral make characters with 5 criteria in order of importants:

1) will this be fun for me to play
2) will the personality fit with the other party memebers
3) does this fit the mood and theme the DM is going for
4) will I be able to contribute to the parties successes
5) do I have at least 2 jokes lined up based on my idea...

number 4 is the closest I come to what you are looking for. I have no problem playing a surly fighter who tells alies and nobles where to shove it...even if that isn't the most helpful. I wont play one in a mostly poltical game (see #3). I have no problem playing the shy necromancer who just wants to be a sage and study in his tower...but in a game with a cleric of Pelor who hates all things undead that wont work well (see#2). I can also play the powerful gish who is smart, strong, health, and charismatic... but then I also know that sometimes it's more fun not to be perfect...


I can't imagine a game where chooseing to fight with a glaive instead of a great axe, or a short bow over a long bow, or even a kama over a greatsword really matters that much. I can't imagine that if I put my fighter in chain mail instead of plate I'm costing the team that much...especialy once magic items come up.

 

[Paraxis]

I can't imagine a game where chooseing to fight with a glaive instead of a great axe, or a short bow over a long bow, or even a kama over a greatsword really matters that much. I can't imagine that if I put my fighter in chain mail instead of plate I'm costing the team that much...especialy once magic items come up.

Quirks, flaws, tragic back stories for of plot hooks, and other things all add to the game and fun, even when those things cause issues. Most of those issues don't come up in combat and if they do then that is where I have an issue, screw around during the social and exploration pillars and make life difficult for everyone else fine mostly add to the roleplaying experience.

Now during the combat pillar I like people to bring their A game. But doing so does mean you have to understand your DM.
A short bow is a great option if your DM likes to impose disadvantage on longbow use in a dungeon environment.
A glaive is a wonderful weapon all on it's own and easily equal to or better than a great axe for some builds.
Kama over greatsword, ehh unless you are a monk that is a bit to far for my tastes.
Chain mail over plate if you don't have that 15 strength I can see it but no reason to not use the plate if you have it.

The idea that the DM will fix these combat quirks with magic item patches also is something I don't like, it is like when the character puts a low stat in strength knowing his DM will just give out Gauntlets of Ogre power to compensate, kinda lame to me.

But the above like pretty much most stuff on the internets is one guys opinion, there is no wrong way to play the game, just different ways.