Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jmartkdr2" data-source="post: 8230049" data-attributes="member: 7017304">I've only see this in 5e when three things come into play at once:1. Rolled stats, and at least one player rolls way outside the normal range (either really good or really bad),2. AND there's highly different levels of optimization at some point in play, again where at least one is way outside the 'normal' range,3. AND the player of the lower-powered character cares about character power. (that is, they were trying to optimize but are really bad at it).IE: The dex-based drow sorcadin with crazy good rolls starts with a 20 dex and 18 cha, has a +7 stealth at level 1, while the half-orc rouge with a 14 dex on has a +4 because they took expertise to shore up weak skills... and now the rogue's player doesn't feel &quot;sneaky&quot; because they're noticeably less sneaky than the other guy.The further into the game you get, the bigger this can become if the less-optimized player keeps making bad choices. And they're making these choices not because it fits their concept/story/rp-goal better, but because they think the choices are good but they aren't. There's also the aspect of optimizing individual actions: a rogue who always takes disadvantage on the attack to go for a called shot rather than go for a sneak attack can look fine on paper but be really ineffective in play, and thus feel overshadowed by a well-optimized fighter in the same party since the rogue isn't even getting the occasional big hit that's supposed to be their balance point. But, as I noted, it takes a lot to come together like that in 5e. I would also note that &quot;being bad at optimization/gameplay&quot; is probably the core issue here, not the rules themselves. While I haven't seen it in 5e, hypothetically #1 or #2, if more than one character falls outside the normal ranges in opposite directions, combined with #3, you could get the same result.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jmartkdr2, post: 8230049, member: 7017304"] I've only see this in 5e when three things come into play at once: 1. Rolled stats, and at least one player rolls way outside the normal range (either really good or really bad), 2. AND there's highly different levels of optimization at some point in play, again where at least one is way outside the 'normal' range, 3. AND the player of the lower-powered character cares about character power. (that is, they were trying to optimize but are really bad at it). IE: The dex-based drow sorcadin with crazy good rolls starts with a 20 dex and 18 cha, has a +7 stealth at level 1, while the half-orc rouge with a 14 dex on has a +4 because they took expertise to shore up weak skills... and now the rogue's player doesn't feel "sneaky" because they're noticeably less sneaky than the other guy. The further into the game you get, the bigger this can become [B]if[/B] the less-optimized player keeps making bad choices. And they're making these choices not because it fits their concept/story/rp-goal better, but because they think the choices are good but they aren't. There's also the aspect of optimizing individual actions: a rogue who always takes disadvantage on the attack to go for a called shot rather than go for a sneak attack can look fine on paper but be really ineffective in play, and thus feel overshadowed by a well-optimized fighter in the same party since the rogue isn't even getting the occasional big hit that's supposed to be their balance point. But, as I noted, it takes a lot to come together like that in 5e. I would also note that "being bad at optimization/gameplay" is probably the core issue here, not the rules themselves. While I haven't seen it in 5e, hypothetically #1 or #2, if more than one character falls outside the normal ranges in opposite directions, combined with #3, you could get the same result. [/QUOTE]

Verification