D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

It stared off well, until people shortly clued onto the most abusive stuff which is in core.

We didn't really have that problem, although it certainly existed for other tables. Some of it was in core, but alot showed up in prestige classes that gave no thought to balance at all. Instead of the original (very cool, IMO) concept they began as, they instead became Class+ (and occasionally Class-).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

We didn't really have that problem, although it certainly existed for other tables. Some of it was in core, but alot showed up in prestige classes that gave no thought to balance at all. Instead of the original (very cool, IMO) concept they began as, they instead became Class+ (and occasionally Class-).


Not a problem for me either, but it was there, if you wanted to. And yeah, PrCs, I had a player who ran a Divine Bard 4/Fighter 1/Battlesmith 1/Deepwarden 2/Dwarven Paragon 1/Hammer of Moradin 4...
 

Not in my experience. I've played plenty and DMed more and I've never been 'demanded' to min/max anything. Games don't demand anything, and if 3e encourages one thing, it's customization, which may or may not lead to a particularly powerful character as a result.
This is the cycle that happened both in my game and in the entire campaign of Living Greyhawk as a whole:

1) Everyone just learns to play the game. Everyone is single classed and takes feats out of the PHB. People are seen taking some of the "substandard" feats because they sound good and people say, "It works for my character concept".

2) Then someone shows up to the table with a character that takes only the good feats. Their first attack they say "I hit for X damage" and everyone at the table stops and stares and says "How did you do that much damage, did you crit or something?" and the player explains that no, they just took this feat which gives a bonus to damage and they were using this class feature and this magic item. Everyone at the table says "Wow...that's awesome. I didn't know you could do that."

3) The next session, one of the other players has shown up with a virtual copy of the first character and asked to retire his old character and play this instead. Though, he announces all proudly that he has one upped the original character by taking a feat that the first person didn't think of.

4) The DM starts getting a little frustrated. The average damage of the party has gone up fairly dramatically with these new characters in the group. Monsters are dying a round or two earlier every combat now. Battles that used to leave the group battered and bruised are now not causing any damage at all. It doesn't feel nearly as satisfying to run combats when the party isn't afraid of them at all. It feels pointless spending 30 minutes to an hour running a battle where the PCs take no damage at all. So, he decides to increase the average CR of the enemies he uses by 1. Everything starts to feel better after that.

5) A new book comes out and the players eagerly buy it and read through it looking for cool options for their character. There is a large discussion about how this new feat looks super awesome and it would compliment their character WAY more than what they have now and the DM is begged to allow people to switch feats out for the new ones. The average damage of the party goes up again.

6) Someone notices a new concept entirely that they didn't think of in the new book and decides to bring in that as a character. Sometimes without even meaning to they end up being even more powerful than the existing characters.

7) There are a couple of people left who decided not to change their characters at all. They start getting rather frustrated because they are doing 4 damage a round while other people are doing 30. They start to feel like their character is worthless and might as well not contribute at all. They start tuning out during battles because they don't care about them anymore. Eventually they do one of three things: They complain to the DM that they aren't having any fun because everyone else is overpowered, they quit the game, or the give up and come back with an overpowered character of their own. The DM may decide to ban something if he is told about it. If he does, everyone switches to the second most powerful option instead of the first.

8) Pretty much repeat steps 2 through 7 for each new book that comes out
 


In your game, where was the DM and the communication between the DM and player in all of this before the character sheet hit the game table?
The communication went kind of like this:

Player: "Hey, I have a new character for your game"
DM: "What? You never told me you were making up a new character. We're about to start, everyone's here now and I kind of wanted to get started playing. I kind of wish you had told me in advance."
Player: "Yeah, sorry, been busy all week and didn't really have time to let you know. Plus, I just finished the character late last night."
DM: "Well, I kind of don't want people switching characters randomly. It ruins my storyline if characters just keep leaving and showing up for no good reason."
Player: "Yeah, I know. I'm really sorry but I'm just not having any fun playing my other character. He's just doesn't fit in with the group that well and I think my new character will be a lot more fun."
DM: "*sigh* Alright, if this character will be more fun for you. What is this new character?"
Player: "Oh, I'm just a Human Fighter, no big deal. You can look through my character if you want, but I didn't take anything special or out of the ordinary."
DM: "That's alright, I don't really have time. We need to start the game."
OR
DM: "Sure, let me take a look....*scans page quickly*...Human...Fighter...some feats...not sure what all of those are but I'm not going to look them all up....looks like you have magic items appropriate for your level....alright, looks good to me."
 

The communication went kind of like this:

Player: "Hey, I have a new character for your game"
DM: "What? You never told me you were making up a new character. We're about to start, everyone's here now and I kind of wanted to get started playing. I kind of wish you had told me in advance."
Player: "Yeah, sorry, been busy all week and didn't really have time to let you know. Plus, I just finished the character late last night."
DM: "Well, I kind of don't want people switching characters randomly. It ruins my storyline if characters just keep leaving and showing up for no good reason."
Player: "Yeah, I know. I'm really sorry but I'm just not having any fun playing my other character. He's just doesn't fit in with the group that well and I think my new character will be a lot more fun."

DM: "*sigh* Alright, if this character will be more fun for you.
What is this new character?"
Player: "Oh, I'm just a Human Fighter, no big deal. You can look through my character if you want, but I didn't take anything special or out of the ordinary."
DM: "That's alright, I don't really have time. We need to start the game."
[/quote]

As a DM, this, to me, was mistake 1. Just, because it would be more fun, doesn't negate your responsibility as a DM to the game as a whole and the other players. My reply would have been for the player to stick with the original character that night. I would look it over and ensure it will fit the campaign and at the power level.


OR
DM: "Sure, let me take a look....*scans page quickly*...Human...Fighter...some feats...not sure what all of those are but I'm not going to look them all up....looks like you have magic items appropriate for your level....alright, looks good to me."

Mistake 2 was allowing sources you were not familiar with
Mistake 3 was realizing there was material you were unfamiliar with still allowing the character in play rather than having the player hold off
Mistake 4 allowing the character and not telling the player that the allowance would be provisional and you reserved the right to a) deny the character or b) require changes/nerfs if the character proved unbalanced.

Then, from the sound of your previous post, you just kept making the same mistake.

Sorry, this was on you as a DM and to a lesser extent your player for springing it on you at the last minute. However as the DM, it, ultimately, rested on you to delay the character entering and you ignored the opportunity to have the player to do so which led to the same problem with other players and the game getting out of hand.
 

I'm positive someone sat down and said "So, Wizards should be able to turn invisible. How long should they be able to turn invisible for? Well, it can't be too low, because in this novel the Wizard turns invisible and wanders the entire complex without being seen and it takes him a couple of hours. And in this novel, this wizard stays invisible for a week straight. I think D&D should allow that. So, let's say it lasts forever until they want to become visible. But wait, it might be too powerful if you can attack while invisible. So, let's make it end when you attack."

No one sat back and said "Wait, if Wizards can turn invisible forever doesn't that make hiding in shadows a little bit of a weak power?" because balance wasn't really the focus, except to prevent anything from becoming absurdly powerful.

The primary goal of the system almost always appears to be "Can it properly simulate the fantasy novels we like?"

If so, I'd have to say they utterly failed at it. D&D (especially old-school) rarely comes off like a novel. Rather than try to simulate fantasy novels, I think they were just trying to steal/adapt/feature tropes and trappings of those stories for their little tactical skirmish game. They often did so in a tongue-in-cheek manner as well. Just look at all the little "jokes" or easter eggs scattered throughout the rules and the adventures from back then. I'm much more comfortable with the idea that they were shooting for a good tactical/strategy game to sit around and enjoy geeky humor than I am with the idea of them trying to write a simulation of fantasy literature. The conversation about "Invisibility" most likely centered around what would be fun and/or interesting at the table. Even your example finishes with a balance/gameplay concern: "It might be too powerful..." I'm unfamiliar with any example in literature where magic functions the way it does in D&D. (Although I haven't read Vance, I've heard others who have say that it misses on that count as well.)
 


If so, I'd have to say they utterly failed at it. D&D (especially old-school) rarely comes off like a novel.
It always did come off like a novel (or more like a TV show) to me. But as to your opinion, I'd have to ask "compared to what?". Were there other games at the time D&D was created that did a better job of emulating fantasy novels? I doubt it. D&D was (and still to some extent is) a very rough product, a foray into previously unexplored territory.
 

Like Chess, rather than Chutes and Ladders. Both players start with equal resources, but its the play that distinguishes them.
Except that in Chess, the two players are competing against one another, while in D&D, they are (generally) on the same side. D&D characters are more comparable to chess pieces (which have wildly disparate power levels and functions), while the two sides of white and black are more comparable to the players and the DM's NPCs. Obviously, if one were to run a PVP game, the relative power levels of PCs would take on a new meaning.
 

Remove ads

Top