NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 6679381" data-attributes="member: 6799649">Thanks for the well thought out reply.Banning things for flavour reasons, because they don't fit the narrative of your world, makes sense. If you decide magic doesn't work, then by all means ban spellcasting classes if you want. If you didn't, they'd be a trap option. In your monk example, they would make the scenario pointless, so players can accept that.But those are things that are evident to creatures in the game. If magic worked, this is knowable to the inhabitants (by experiencing it). There are some things it would be very strange to ban. Using your monk example, you may very well say that such monasteries don't exist on your world, but would you ban creatures from punching other creatures?And some things you cannot ban for story reasons because they only exist as game mechanics. If you think a d12 for hit points is too powerful, if you ban the d12 it won't be a story reason. Creatures are unaware of game mechanics. You could ban it for game balance reasons, but not story reasons.I've found the 5E MC rules to be very good. What you gain on the swings, you lose on the roundabouts. My Pal2/War3 doesn't get two attacks like the Bar5,  nor does he get 3rd level spells like the Clr5. I get the impression that some people assume they are unbalanced, and ban MCing based on that pre-conception. First, the solution to having players of mixed skill is not to ban skill but to develop more skill. If you have some people who are good at, say, soccer, and some not so good, do you ask the better ones not to play so well to gives the others a fair chance, or do you have them teach the poorer ones to be more skillful? Do you have the mathematicians promise not to solve complex equations on the grounds that some people aren't so good?It's in our nature to help our friends, so we can forgive those who try to help their fellow players make a more effective character, but I understand that this may be annoying. But 5E single classes are robust enough to work well without MCing, therefore there should be no problems playing alongside a skilled optimiser who can't cast 3rd level spells or get two attacks.Of course, optimisers tend to build more effective characters, but that would be true anyway! There are many things to like about RPGs; role-playing is one thing and optimisation is another. Some people prefer one more than the other, but it is a fallacy (the Stormwind Fallacy) to say that if you like optimising that you can't be a good role-player. In my experience, those players who put a lot of time and effort into optimising also put a lot of time and effort into character, while those who are not bothered about the game mechanics also tend to be less bothered about the whole thing. Exceptions exist, of course. I'm DMing LMoP, and have taken them from 1st to half-way through 4th. I encouraged them to consider feats, and even hoped that some would MC. No-one has MC'd so far, although the dual-wielding rogue wants a fighter level to get the style at some point. When he does, it won't be a free lunch; that fighter level has cost him a rogue level! There are a good mix of feats and ASIs.As to feats, in the history of D&D spellcasters tended to be interesting and varied in play, but fighters tended to be limited to 'I hit him with my stick' every round. The 5E feats allow the non-casters to do cool stuff too! In the game I'm DMing, the newbie paladin player was 'helped' by her friends to choose Shield Master at 4th (instead of +2 Str). She now is not only more effective, she also enjoys playing her paladin more than she did before. She now has options to think about; when should I shove? Should I push 5 feet or knock prone?The game isn't ALL about concept though. I can't rock up to a table and say I wan't to play Elric, who is the most powerful sorcerer in the world with the most powerful weapon in the world, and be upset when the DM reminds me that we're starting at 1st. Our concepts are limited by the rules of the game, and therefore we must consider the available abilities and weave or concept around that.Because it is absolutely required to do this, we can't fairly be accused of being dirty munchkin powergamers if that's what we do!My concept of a plate armoured greatsword swinging raven/imp toting false god-botherer was developed in conjunction with the game rules, not independently of them. If I were a War5 with no feats, then no plate armour for me, and that's just one of many things.Feats and MCing give more choices and therefore more playable concepts, but they don't subtract any choices from those players who don't want to use them.As you've just shown, it isn't MCing or feats which make sucky players suck, therefore banning feats/MCing isn't the solution. Educating them is, and if they do not want to be bothered with that (which is fair enough) they can't complain when other people are 'better' than them. Do the work!In real life, if I came to your table I'd be impressed if we could discuss it between us and come up with a character we both liked, feats/MCing and all. If you wouldn't entertain the thought, I'd feel frustrated. I'm sure I could make a PC without feats or MCing, but I'd always be thinking that my PC would be so much cooler if...For me, the most important thing for a player is that he thinks that his own PC is cool. If he doesn't think that, why would he want to play?</blockquote>

Verification