D&D 5E Game design allow sub optimal class build. Confirmed by M Mearls

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Maxperson]

Blowing a social pillar roll doesn't generally get you killed.

Blowing an attack roll doesn't generally get you killed, either. I've found that dying due to a blown attack roll is about as rare is dying to a single social pillar roll. Given how many attack rolls there are in any given combat, and how many combats there are where death isn't on the table for any PC, it's rare to be in that situation.

 

[Corwin]

I'm not saying it's related, but I've experienced tables where the social and exploration pillars of the game are largely hand-waved, or given the flimsiest of lip service, so as to get to the only important part of the game for them: the next combat. I can see where 5e has problems at tables like that. Those kinds of players probably see a lot of things in this edition as "broken".

 

[Tony Vargas]

George Sutherland H ‏@Acr0ssTh3P0nd
@mikemearls Does the game math assume characters use races with class-optimal Ability Score increases?

(((Mike Mearls)))– ‏@mikemearls
@Acr0ssTh3P0nd no

The game 'math' also doesn't assume magic items. It doesn't assume party composition.
It /does/ assume DM Empowerment.

The whole question of balance in 5e is kinda moot: the game will be as balanced as the DM wants it to be, in the ways he wants it to be (limited only by his ability/willingness to make it so).

We can play a class with a race we like, use feat that look cool, use spell for fun and role play. Surprising indeed!

Not really surprising. For one thing, you always could. Well, since 3e, anyway (in 1e, there were outright prohibited race/class combos and no feats, obviously). It's just that if you made enough sub-optimal choices they would add up to a non-viable character. In 3e there were a lot of choices, and a lot of them were sub-optimal or even 'traps' and a few of them really optimal. In 5e there are simply fewer choices, so you can't make a huge number of sub-optimal choices that dis-synergize with eachother and cripple your character completely. You'll be sub-optimal, strictly-inferior, even non-viable to some definitions, perhaps - but you won't be non-playable. You'll still get to roll, and might succeed. Heck, the DM might just rule you succeed.

Heck, even in 3e you could play that Half-Orc Paladin or whatever - if you had the system mastery, you just made lots of other more optimal choices to round him out.

 

[Krachek]

The game 'math' also doesn't assume magic items. It doesn't assume party composition.
It /does/ assume DM Empowerment.

The whole question of balance in 5e is kinda moot: the game will be as balanced as the DM wants it to be, in the ways he wants it to be (limited only by his ability/willingness to make it so).

Not really surprising. For one thing, you always could. Well, since 3e, anyway (in 1e, there were outright prohibited race/class combos and no feats, obviously). It's just that if you made enough sub-optimal choices they would add up to a non-viable character. In 3e there were a lot of choices, and a lot of them were sub-optimal or even 'traps' and a few of them really optimal. In 5e there are simply fewer choices, so you can't make a huge number of sub-optimal choices that dis-synergize with eachother and cripple your character completely. You'll be sub-optimal, strictly-inferior, even non-viable to some definitions, perhaps - but you won't be non-playable. You'll still get to roll, and might succeed. Heck, the DM might just rule you succeed.

Heck, even in 3e you could play that Half-Orc Paladin or whatever - if you had the system mastery, you just made lots of other more optimal choices to round him out.

Totally agree with you.
The 'surprising' was a sarcasm to the emphasis on optimization we see on this forum and others.

DM empowerment is one of the main line of DnD 5. Build the game you want!

It is the main key that some posters forgets about the -5/+10 debate.
If you see a feat or anything that dont fit at your table change it, but dont try to impose that change around the world.

 

[Satyrn]

I'm not saying it's related, but I've experienced tables where the social and exploration pillars of the game are largely hand-waved, or given the flimsiest of lip service, so as to get to the only important part of the game for them: the next combat. I can see where 5e has problems at tables like that. Those kinds of players probably see a lot of things in this edition as "broken".

I resemble this post. Except that I've found only one thing broken so far.



(flanking grants advantage, if you're curious)

 

[Satyrn]

Isn't that an optional rule? As far as I can recall, the only advantage to flanking is that a rogue can use their sneak attack if an enemy is engaged with an ally.

Aye, I mean the optional rule in the DMG.

 

[Zardnaar]

I resemble this post. Except that I've found only one thing broken so far.



(flanking grants advantage, if you're curious)

We tried this rule and yeah it's to nuts. Flanking +2 bonus seems fine?

 

[Lanliss]

We tried this rule and yeah it's to nuts. Flanking +2 bonus seems fine?

Is it as nuts if you also use the Facing rules? Just curious because I was thinking of trying both.

 

[Zardnaar]

Is it as nuts if you also use the Facing rules? Just curious because I was thinking of trying both.

Did not try the facing rules. The flanking one lasted 1 session.