D&D General Do you care how about "PC balance"?

[Greenstone.Walker]

I want imbalance, at least in the sense of player skill. I want some classes to be harder to play. I want to see guides (or maybe even the rulebook) saying, "This class is difficult to play. If you are not willing to invest time and effort into learning its mechanincs, we suggest you play something else."

 

[Reynard]

I want imbalance, at least in the sense of player skill. I want some classes to be harder to play. I want to see guides (or maybe even the rulebook) saying, "This class is difficult to play. If you are not willing to invest time and effort into learning its mechanincs, we suggest you play something else."

What is the benefit you see coming from that? How does that enhance the fun of everyone at the table? And how does that change or fail when someone not willing or capable of the mastery required for the class plays one anyway because they think it is cool or comply overestimate their ability to play the class?

 

[Voadam]

What is the benefit you see coming from that? How does that enhance the fun of everyone at the table? And how does that change or fail when someone not willing or capable of the mastery required for the class plays one anyway because they think it is cool or comply overestimate their ability to play the class?

People find different styles fun.

Some liked the resource management of the 3e wizard.

Some wanted an arcane blaster with as little resource management as possible and there was the 3.5 warlock that fit that niche.

It was great the game could accommodate those different playstyle preferences. It would have been better if they were better balanced.

In 5e it is good they have the straight forward fighter subclass and the complicated ones to accommodate both playstyle preferences. it is even better that they are well balanced.

 

[clearstream]

Fairly regularly, threads appear that are mostly interested in examining character options -- classes, mostly -- relative to how competent or powerful they are relative to other character classes, etc... The most common is martials versus casters, but there are lots of variations. The thing is, outside of message boards, I have never encountered a player that actually cares about these things relative to other PCs. I have encountered many players who are concerned about how they stack up to the adventure or the world, but that makes a lot of sense since (to use video game parlance) D&D is essentially a PvE experience.

So, do you, as a player, actually worry about how your character stacks up to other players' characters? If so, in what ways? What about it is important to you? By what metric do you judge? What do you do if you feel your choices aren't as good or your character isn't as competent?

Thanks.

For me as DM, it is the power of PCs relative to one another that matters far more than their power relative to the world. In many ways, the weaker they are relative to the world, the easier it is to offer interesting challenges. Note here that weaker is not the same as having fewer valid strategies, but I think it is true that if the PCs are too weak, their valid strategies narrow (just as if they are too strong, their valid strategies stop being differentiable).

Anyway, groups with large power differences between the PCs are more difficult to create appropriate challenges for. The reasons are fairly obvious: anything that challenges the strong PC destroys the weak ones! Additionally, it can be no fun at all to see a PC discover they're worse at their main focus than some other optimised PC who does it as an afterthought.

I overall like asymmetrical power among possible characters... just not to take that too far.

 

[jmartkdr2]

People find different styles fun.

Some liked the resource management of the 3e wizard.

Some wanted an arcane blaster with as little resource management as possible and there was the 3.5 warlock that fit that niche.

It was great the game could accommodate those different playstyle preferences. It would have been better if they were better balanced.

In 5e it is good they have the straight forward fighter subclass and the complicated ones to accommodate both playstyle preferences. it is even better that they are well balanced.

But now you've linked "difficulty of play" to "character fantasy" - in other words, you're assuming everyone who wants to play a smart character wants to work hard to do so.

How certain are you that this is a reliably true correlation?

 

[Hussar]

I think that's a "jerk" versus "not a jerk" thing. I know plenty of really great players that have no desire to get behind the screen.

I think GMs are better GMs if they play on occasion, though. It'shard to provide a good play experience if you don't remember what makes a good play experience.

I do 100% agree with your second point. It does a world of good not only to get out from behind the screen and be a player, but, also, to see how other DM's do stuff as well. Whether you agree or disagree with how another DM operates doesn't really matter. What matters is the self-reflection that comes with being a player.

To be honest though, @Reynard, I have not seen plenty of really great players with no DMing experience. Really great players, IMO, give DMing a shot. Not that they have to DM for hundreds of hours or anything like that. Certainly not. But, at least running one adventure, front to back, just to see behind the curtain and understand why the DM's they have do what they do, makes for a much better player. Again, it's all about a bit of self-reflection. I find that pure players are, IMO, so self-absorbed that they just don't understand why the DM is doing whatever the DM is doing and are generally only at the table to satisfy themselves, rather than working with the group to make sure that everyone is happy.

 

[Voadam]

But now you've linked "difficulty of play" to "character fantasy" - in other words, you're assuming everyone who wants to play a smart character wants to work hard to do so.

How certain are you that this is a reliably true correlation?

How so?

I'm advocating mechanical playstyle variability to be able to match variable playstyle preferences. Ideally most any concept would have an accompanying option to match their mechanical playstyle preference. So a smart character concept could be a difficult to play resource management intensive class with lots of little bits, or a mechanically easy to run one.

I'm linking specifically similar character concepts to different styles of mechanical play. A fighter who has an expanded crit range and does big static bonuses is mechanically simple. One who has lots of expendable points to resource manage and spend on different optins and situational powers and modifiers is mechanically complex. Both are warrior character concepts that appeal to different playstyle preferences.

So I'd say go with a house rule for an int based mechanically simpler sorcerer or warlock chassis instead of wizard if you want a mechanically simple smart guy spellcaster.

It is just an artefact of D&D evolution that int in D&D generally only goes for wizard with high complexity and (at some mid to high level) great power.

I'm also all for saying play your character as smart as you want for your concept regardless of your stats. Let the int dictate or guide your roleplay if you want, or let it simply dictate the mechanical numbers for your int-linked mechanics rolls as you prefer. If you want a smart character roleplay concept with a mechanical low int build that is easy to justify if you want to.

 

[ccs]

What you are when you begin to run a game is a DM. That's going to stick with you. You are no longer a player in a static sense. You've become a DM who plays as a player now. Or was a DM that is currently playing as a player.

Incorrect. I'm both. (I'm Mutli-Classed! DMlv.40/PlayerLV. about 38.5 to be exact)
Wich role I'm fulfilling more depends upon the day

I believe you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you should not be both a DM and a player. I'm saying that because that isn't the expectation, a player should never read such books as a player.

Given WoTC (and other companies) current publishing styles I think you're wrong.
Given the shear # of people who both DM & play? I'd say it's fairly common occurrence.

Those books are optional, open to the DM permitting the characters to be any of the races available to them. Or banning every single one of them. If you're like me, you'll typically allow players to play such races and classes. However, the books need special care.

For the sake of argument you can just assume book x is allowed.

And are you going to explain what this special care is??

That's a funny statement. I wish more people were as passionate about the DMG as you are with supplementary books.

But I disagree not having knowledge of the setting makes it harder to enjoy. In fact, I believe it's the opposite. Not knowing Eberron, FR, SC, WM, MtG makes each of them much more fun as you get to be surprised and the lore can be experienced rather than spoken.

I disagree.
FR (and Greyhawk & Mystara)? All you really need to know is "Picture medieval Europe - with monsters".
But these other setting books sell because people are fans of the unique imagery/vision each present. In the case of the MTG settings they are particularly aimed at fans of that game. Who're fans because of the sets they've enjoyed. They read the background via their cards (and whatever novels WoTC pumped out).
Me? I haven't played MTG - except for the extremely occasional casual game (as in, years in-between evenings of play) - with cards likely older than you are - in 20 years.
Here's what I know about the Ravnica card block: The planets covered in a mega-city. It's run by x# of guilds. The big hype of the Ravnica sets is that it's full of multi-colored card combos (how that translates into D&D = ??). I know it sold really well. I gather that Ravnica is a popular setting. (I assume these last two points are because it had some broken ass/$$$ cards in it).
So were I to find myself in a Ravnica game? I wouldn't have any idea what types of characters are in-character for this setting.
Without reading about the setting, that would 100% negatively affect my enjoyment of the campaign right from the start.
This stuff is written down for a reason.
Yet according to you? I should rely upon all this rich detail being related via the DM. (depending upon the DM that could be anywhere between awesome -WT*??? are you describing?) Oh, if only I'd played the card game.....
And the Crit Roll setting? That's even more specific & unique than the MTG settings.
So yeah, I'm going to read the setting book. And I'll worry about whatever the DM might change from there. But at least we're starting from the same concept.

Absolutely. I've ran into a similar problem before. However, that doesn't mean I should act as someone that knows the mechanics are.

Ah, time to move your goal posts!
1st it was that such knowledge shouldn't be had. NOW it shifts to it shouldn't be used....

Be in the shoes of a player that never has been a DM playing alongside you. Same exact character build, except you have the knowledge of the system beyond the PHB. The player isn't able to predict an enemy's movement like you can and you can shut them down using their knowledge.

1st, I don't make "builds". I make characters. Because this is a ROLEplaying game. So someone copying mine will run into way more of a challenge than whatever the monster is presenting. So let's pretend I'm using a clone of theirs.
2nd, It doesn't matter where my knowledge comes from. I have it. Maybe I ran the thing as a DM. Maybe I've only read about it. Maybe I've fought dozens/hundreds/thousands of it over the years. Maybe I 1st encountered it last Sunday..... Regardless, once I know the info, I've simply got more XP than that other player.

Now the question is, does my character have that info?
Well, that depends upon the exact character that we're looking at. And it's a different discussion.

There's no reason why the other player would know Orcs have agressive and understand how to properly position themselves to avoid it. You do, though, and you've artifically tipped the balance in your favor because you've DM'ed before.

You do realize that this is not a competition between me and another player, right?
I've also enjoy the power of speech.... So if my character would know x? Then I'll just tell my less experienced fellow player. Either way, by me telling them, or them seeing what the monster does, they'll have the info soon enough.

And in my groups? There's no balance to tip. 9/10 of us are both DMs & players - depending upon day/campaign.
#10? She's brand new to ALL of this. Completely. As in she's never heard of Conan. Never watched LotR. Harry Potter - who? Hell, she didn't even know King Arthur & the Knights of the Round Table.
To her? An orc is O R C. It doesn't matter to her what it does, she can't even visualize it.
She's there because her girlfriend is. She's been playing for all of 6 weeks now. She can't reliably sort her own dice yet (we gave her a color coded set - the d8...."Oh, the yellow one!" "Yes, the yellow one".), let alone DM.
Have no fear, we'll mold her into a decent player. And if she sticks with us long enough she'll DM.
It's just going to take awhile longer than usual as we need to teach her the genre - from scratch.

But being a DM should not be something that decides whether or not your character is more effective than the other. Otherwise, people will feel underpowered because they don't have as great system mastery. In that case, it will feel like a requirement that they must look at metagame data to keep up with you. They need to be able to predict the circumstances as well as you.

If someone feels bad that I simply have more experience doing this than they do.... Oh well.
There's only one cure for that. They just need real life XP with the game.
How to get that? Play more D&D. Play as many different race/class/stat combos as you can. When you're ready take up the challenge DMing yourself. Read whatever books you please - regardless of Asisreo's opinion on that.

It's almost like having ran an adventure before and now being the player. It's bad form to use metagame knowledge to try to be preemptive about your choices.

In these instances I like to play things like Divination Wizards, Oracles, etc. Or characters with plausible means of knowledge.
Because even though I'm very good at sandbagging concerning what I know as a player vs what my character knows? Sometimes I error. But that doesn't mean it can't still fit the story. It also allows the DM to provide info as needed.

 

[jmartkdr2]

How so?

I'm advocating mechanical playstyle variability to be able to match variable playstyle preferences. Ideally most any concept would have an accompanying option to match their mechanical playstyle preference. So a smart character concept could be a difficult to play resource management intensive class with lots of little bits, or a mechanically easy to run one.

I'm linking specifically similar character concepts to different styles of mechanical play. A fighter who has an expanded crit range and does big static bonuses is mechanically simple. One who has lots of expendable points to resource manage and spend on different optins and situational powers and modifiers is mechanically complex. Both are warrior character concepts that appeal to different playstyle preferences.

So I'd say go with a house rule for an int based mechanically simpler sorcerer or warlock chassis instead of wizard if you want a mechanically simple smart guy spellcaster.

It is just an artefact of D&D evolution that int in D&D generally only goes for wizard with high complexity and (at some mid to high level) great power.

I'm also all for saying play your character as smart as you want for your concept regardless of your stats. Let the int dictate or guide your roleplay if you want, or let it simply dictate the mechanical numbers for your int-linked mechanics rolls as you prefer. If you want a smart character roleplay concept with a mechanical low int build that is easy to justify if you want to.

Ah, okay. That makes a little more sense. You want the variety within each class.

It's not a small amount of work to implement, but I could see how it could happen. I was just worried you were suggesting doing what 13th Age did with their tiers of complexity by class, which results in a lot of mismatches for players playstyle and fantasy preferences.

 

[Asisreo]

Incorrect. I'm both. (I'm Mutli-Classed! DMlv.40/PlayerLV. about 38.5 to be exact)
Wich role I'm fulfilling more depends upon the day

What I'm saying is that once a DM, you have that badge on you for the rest of the time. You've thought as a DM and you've played as a DM. Now, this experience carries over in your games in a way that it would not if you never were the DM.

For the sake of argument you can just assume book x is allowed.

And are you going to explain what this special care is??

Describe the races and the classes and give the player the basic understandings of the setting and where their character fits. Let them read through the races and classes section as well as any spell section they're allowed to have. Backgrounds as well. Everything else is for the DM's eyes. They can show the players, but they don't have to and players are not expected to know anything beyond their own options.

Without reading about the setting, that would 100% negatively affect my enjoyment of the campaign right from the start.
This stuff is written down for a reason.
Yet according to you? I should rely upon all this rich detail being related via the DM. (depending upon the DM that could be anywhere between awesome -WT*??? are you describing?) Oh, if only I'd played the card game.....
And the Crit Roll setting? That's even more specific & unique than the MTG settings.
So yeah, I'm going to read the setting book. And I'll worry about whatever the DM might change from there. But at least we're starting from the same concept.

You're free to understanding the setting. I'm not saying that you can't. However, it's less about knowing the lore and more about knowing the adventure. It's fine to read a setting book about the FR and have a good understanding of the setting. It is different to have read LMoP and use the knowledge you have to do something your character wouldn't know about.

If your character doesn't know there's a beholder in Waterdeep (but they probably would), he shouldn't be the first to suggest going there.

I find it more enjoyable when I know nothing about the world, which is why I only read setting books when I'm DM'ing the setting.

Ah, time to move your goal posts!
1st it was that such knowledge shouldn't be had. NOW it shifts to it shouldn't be used....

I feel this whole "goal post movement" thing isn't actually some sort of discussion point and more of a way to refuse some sort of movement within an argument.

But whatever. I didn't change my first assertion and I added on with a second. Both assertions can coexist.

I shouldn't have this when being a player and it shouldn't be used. No moving goalpost.

Now the question is, does my character have that info?
Well, that depends upon the exact character that we're looking at. And it's a different discussion.

This is what I'm discussing, though. I'm not arguing that you can't know an orc when you see one or that you should never have seen a skeleton before. I'm saying you shouldn't have Metagame knowledge that isn't obvious to your character. If your character has heard the tales of a troll and how to defeat them, good, they have the knowledge and they should use it. But they shouldn't see a troll and say "Okay, trolls have a 30ft move speed and has no rock throw ability so I'll cast fly and kite him with my firebolt cantrip." That's too much knowledge. There's no reason why your character would know a troll can't throw a rock like a hill giant can nor their move speed.

You do realize that this is not a competition between me and another player, right?
I've also enjoy the power of speech.... So if my character would know x? Then I'll just tell my less experienced fellow player. Either way, by me telling them, or them seeing what the monster does, they'll have the info soon enough.

Communication is good but it's the difference between metagame info and regular info being spread.

If, during a level up, your spellcasting PC says "Hey, we've fought vampires alot, maybe we should prepare Protect against good and evil." That's something I'd love to see in a player. If you instead say "Okay, Vampires only have a +3 to int saves so the bard should prepare Phantasmal Force. He has 3 legendary resistances so me and the cleric will try to force as many saves as possible." That's too much too. That goes well beyond player knowledge.