Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6938732">Agreed, CR appears additive, but it isn't.  There is clearly something different about a CR 8 encounter made up of 64 Kobolds and a CR 8 encounter with one Mind Flayer.  Both are CR 8 encounters, but interestingly, the party is more likely to defeat a lone Illithid with ease than 64 kobolds because of nothing more than statistics.  Against a lone Illithid, a single poorly performing or even non-performing party member is unlikely to substantially affect the encounter outcome.  Against a more drawn-out fight against large numbers of enemies, a single poorly or non-performing ally is likely to make a substantial difference, even against much much weaker enemies due to his affect on the turn economy of the party.  4-against-1 is still nearly as good as 5-against-1.  It only changes from a 20% ratio to a 25% ratio, however 12(.5)-against-5 changes to 16-against-4.  Upping the number of foes each ally needs to deal with by 3(.5) or meaning that they will be taking 3(.5) more attacks per turn.  But it's well established that the CR math breaks down under the strain of large numbers due to the action-economy of each turn.  The ability to do more things per turn is superior to simply being individually more powerful.  Even Bob the Lame trying to do something each turn, if doing nothing more than absorbing a few hits is superior to having a party of 4 instead of 5.  To answer the question though: yes, Mr Deadweight can be that dead and weighty as to force the party to quit early but frankly, not substantially more than lacking reliable healing would do.  Mr Deadweight is more likely to be a table problem than a mathematical one in the vast majority of situations.  I've met plenty of people who want to be creative and flavorful, but they've all done so while still building fully operational battl...player characters.  In 5e, it is easier than ever to not power-build and still make a highly flavorful and highly functional character.  Which is why I reiterate my stance that non-functional characters are made by choice and that is a table and potential player problem.  This isn't 3.5 and this isn't 4e.  Building right out of the box will give you a 100% playable character, even the poor misbegotten Ranger is fully functional at the table.  There are ways to function at 200% and ways to function at 50% but you have to knowingly choose those options.Quid-pro-quo.I'm tempted to write up a more in-depth response, but I do believe your post really says it all.  We (power gamers of which I do consider myself one) do not need your approval.  We would however generally appreciate a reduction in the amount of vitriol we regularly receive when we make our preferences known.  Of course, that's a two-way street, but you cannot predicate a reduction in vitriol on a change in the way they play, though you can certainly predicate it on the attitude with which they play, to which I agree  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=54380" target="_blank">shoak1</a>'s response was inappropriate.  And no, I'm not directing this at you, you just happened to make the comment that triggered this post, but one would have to be blind to say that power-gaming and people who do it do not receive a much more raucous response from the gaming community than many other styles of play.If you do not want to play with people who power-game, as always, please say so.  Reasonable people, even power-gamers, will understand that not all tables are okay with all playstyles.  When you encounter a player whose method of gaming you do not appreciate, the best approach is to talk to them politely and explain the situation.  Most power-gamers are 100% capable to play in non-power-gaming ways, they may choose not to as is their right, and in such cases it is equally your right to ask them to leave (or if you are at at their table, leave yourself).  I can't speak for everyone, but I would rather someone tell me that what I am doing in game is bothering them (whatever that may be) and ask me to tone it down than to bottle it up and potentially blow up, or go home having had no fun at the table.  EX: I recently had a very bad week at work, and the session before that week had been really no fun at all because we have a couple of players who are easily "excited" and they get loud and lack good personal boundaries.  So I told them up-front in the new session that I hoped to a much more "chill" day and they obliged.  Sure the energy picked up by the end, but that was the end of the session.  For 5/6 hours those people made an express effort to control themselves and I greatly appreciated it.People who do not respond well to reason about what they're doing as players and characters are people who are best not played it, regardless of their playstyle.</blockquote>

Verification