D&D General DMing Theory #2: Strong and Fast

[Clint_L]

Conceptually similar question: A player proposes an alternative class feature for their PC Monk where they can use Str modifier in place of Wisdom for all Monk class and subclass features that use Wisdom. (Not saves or skills.) Do you accept the proposal?

I’d be a “no.” I don’t want to get into creating bespoke classes for every player whim. D&D offers PLENTY of choices. There are other systems, like Rolemaster, that allow players to assign their scores exactly as they like; the player should try one of those.

I used to run Rolemaster. It’s a good game, though somewhat surprisingly greater freedom in character creation leads to less variety, not more, as players home in on the relatively narrow slice of optimal builds, with minor variations. It turns out that enforcing class distinctiveness leads to more class distinctiveness.

 

[Clint_L]

Stealth comes up in virtually every game I play. Disadvantage on stealth is a real pain in the butt, and often means that heavy armour users have to hang back, costing them time in combat and thus lowering their effective DPR.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Conceptually similar question: A player proposes an alternative class feature for their PC Monk where they can use Str modifier in place of Wisdom for all Monk class and subclass features that use Wisdom. (Not saves or skills.) Do you accept the proposal?

Probably not, it doesn't seem to add much story wise, just to be a straight "I want mechanical advantage" since it just facilitates multiclassing with other martial classes. If someone wants to do something to fix a Tasha's class to work with 2024 rules, like revising Shepherd Druid so their stuff works decently with 5.5 rules, or making Wildfire Druid's produce flame work with their fire spirit, I'd probably be good with that.

If someone is just out to be better mechanically rather than to do something that's interesting story wise, and they're asking for a sweeping change and not a narrow fix, I tend to say no because I don't think it adds much and it takes a lot of work as a DM to evaluate it initially and over time.

 

[TwoSix]

Probably not, it doesn't seem to add much story wise, just to be a straight "I want mechanical advantage" since it just facilitates multiclassing with other martial classes. If someone wants to do something to fix a Tasha's class to work with 2024 rules, like revising Shepherd Druid so their stuff works decently with 5.5 rules, or making Wildfire Druid's produce flame work with their fire spirit, I'd probably be good with that.

If someone is just out to be better mechanically rather than to do something that's interesting story wise, and they're asking for a sweeping change and not a narrow fix, I tend to say no because I don't think it adds much and it takes a lot of work as a DM to evaluate it initially and over time.

Huh, I see it completely in reverse. There’s no mechanical benefit to swapping out a secondary stat; if anything, Str is a worse secondary than Wis. And we’ve already established that no other class is looking for a Str/Dex build. (There’s also little benefit in MCing monk.)

What it enables is a different set of tropes and narratives for the character. A character who is high in Dex and Wis is generating a different image than one that’s high in Dex and Str. And I consider enabling my players’ visions to be one of my primary goals as a 5e GM.

If you come me to with a crazy character concept that’s at least workable, I will treat the rulebook like Bane treated Batman’s spine to enable you.

 

[tombowings]

Huh, I see it completely in reverse. There’s no mechanical benefit to swapping out a secondary stat; if anything, Str is a worse secondary than Wis. And we’ve already established that no other class is looking for a Str/Dex build. (There’s also little benefit in MCing monk.)

What it enables is a different set of tropes and narratives for the character. A character who is high in Dex and Wis is generating a different image than one that’s high in Dex and Str. And I consider enabling my players’ visions to be one of my primary goals as a 5e GM.

If you come me to with a crazy character concept that’s at least workable, I will treat the rulebook like Bane treated Batman’s spine to enable you.

It also helps represent more of the DragonBall squad better than the current monk modal.

 

[TwoSix]

It also helps represent more of the DragonBall squad better than the current monk modal.

Yep. I was thinking of the difference between, say, Zangief and Dhalsim, but there’s a bunch of media where you can see the difference in tropes.

 

[AlViking]

It also helps represent more of the DragonBall squad better than the current monk modal.

The game can only support so many genres and to me a strength based monk kind of steps on the barbarians massively muscled toes.

 

[VashVet]

I think it largely depends on the system but for 5e, I’d probably go a level deeper than just the high stats, because ultimately it’s the class abilities and feats that define the character, and what they can do. For example, high dexterity doesn’t automatically equate to speed, and while a high dex score is great for being quick, it’s ultimately about picking the right class and subclass that makes the 5e character unique.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Huh, I see it completely in reverse. There’s no mechanical benefit to swapping out a secondary stat; if anything, Str is a worse secondary than Wis. And we’ve already established that no other class is looking for a Str/Dex build. (There’s also little benefit in MCing monk.)

If there's no mechanical benefit, why make a mechanical change at all? Just use the magic of flavor to describe a character that's like what you want. If you're arguing that there's no mechanical benefit, you're telling me that I shouldn't put in the effort to deal with changed mechanics.

What it enables is a different set of tropes and narratives for the character. A character who is high in Dex and Wis is generating a different image than one that’s high in Dex and Str. And I consider enabling my players’ visions to be one of my primary goals as a 5e GM.

If you come me to with a crazy character concept that’s at least workable, I will treat the rulebook like Bane treated Batman’s spine to enable you.

This is absolutely not a goal at all for me. I want to run a fun D&D game, but if I'm playing D&D then I want a D&D game, I don't want a huge number of house rules to fit every character concept someone comes up with. And I especially don't want to spend my effort managing and abjudicating a bunch of house rules because a player didn't want to put in the effort to make a character work in D&D or to reflavor things to their liking, and especially dealing with the 'oh you let Tommy swap what uses this stat, why aren't you letting me swap what uses this other stat?'.

If you want a bulky character, just describe them that way. The fact that their stunning save DC comes from wisdom vs strength doesn't stop you from having a particular look

It also helps represent more of the DragonBall squad better than the current monk modal.

The thing is, I'm playing D&D not DragonBall - if I wanted something like DragonBallZ there are a lot of systems that are better for it. I'm not very familiar with DragonBall, but it might have it's own RPG, and things like Exalted, Hero System, and a variety of superhero RPGs seem to fit it much better than D&D. Most of what goes on in the show doesn't look like it fits regular D&D all that well, and the magic (or psionics or whatever the power is) system really doesn't seem like the D&D magic system at all.

 

[Seramus]

Conceptually similar question: A player proposes an alternative class feature for their PC Monk where they can use Str modifier in place of Wisdom for all Monk class and subclass features that use Wisdom. (Not saves or skills.) Do you accept the proposal?

That would be a pretty decent self-nerf. I don't think I would have a problem with it. I'm reluctant to change things like this in a general sense, but I also look for "Parity" to see if the result is stronger or weaker than how things normally are. And in this case, trading Wisdom for Strength is definitely a downgrade.

Of course, I already fancied the Mountain Stance idea of Monks using Str + Wis.