D&D 5E Group Think and the Wisdom of New Players

[pming]

Hiya!

I think @iserith nailed it. Our game (I'm DM) doesn't use Feats or MC...so there's that. But iserith said in his game that the Ranger (Beast Master) works just fine. Same thing in my game. In fact, I think of every single ranger ever played by any player over the 3.5 years of playing, only ONE person took the 'other' Ranger archtype (Archer/Hunter or something?...I can't even remember what it's called it's so rarely used). My games involve a lot of 'wandering around and exploration' as well. Additionally, my players will tend to fall towards the "Well, what would my PC do in this situation?" more than "Well, what tactical move will give my PC the best bonus?". This counts for all aspects of the PC...so combat, exploration, role-playing, decision making, etc.

Anyway, the individual Players and DM are really the ones who define if something in an RPG is "overpowered" or "optimal" nine times out of ten. At least IME at any rate.

(PS: The reason we don't use Feats is simply because we found that there were 'expected choices'? I guess? Based on a very rough PC idea; the 'Big Tough Warrior' would be half-orc, barbarian, GWM'. If you tried to make a BTW be a halfling, fighter, with no Feat...you were *automatically* NOT a 'BTW' simply because the choice to take the other things was there. In short, Feats made PC's faaaar more 'Same-ey' then without them. And MC? It just doesn't feel right at all to us. Maybe if we used 'many/all options from available books' we would see a more 'optimal choice' thing going on. So...uh...yeah. Drop feats, MC, and only use PHB. Problem solved! [note smiley] ).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[abirdcall]

Wild Sorcerer is my number one here. It's not only not bad, it is very strong. Much stronger than the Draconic one.

As has been mentioned non-agonizing blast and/or Hex Warlock. It's more that I think those 2 are highly overrated. The inverse though, that if you don't use them the character is bad makes it fit here. Warlocks have so much potential. On the topic of Warlocks, Blade Pact is underrated. It's just a Pact, it's not meant to be powerful. It gives the Warlock a good way to keep attacking when enemies close in to melee.

 

[ccs]

Fighters - any edition.

 

[ccs]

Interesting question. A lot depends on the table.

That said, IME a non-EB Warlock is pretty cool. You don't have to be a pew pew blaster to be a Warlock, and you can have a lot more fun if you aren't.

As the player of a non-EB warlock I completely agree with you.
When I made my warlock I looked at all the available cantrips & invocations, concluded that yes, EB is good - but it just doesn't fit this character.
In fact, given that an EB build takes up a cantrip + 2(? maybe more now?) invocations & maybe a feat.... Vs all the other really cool things you could make a warlock do... I doubt I'll ever get around to making an EB based warlock.

 

[Satyrn]

I always disagree when a thread pops up looking to "fix" medium armor. I've had several characters who have used it, and for whom it's been the best choice.

Likewise, the group's warlock is doing great without eldritch blast.

 

[iserith]

Additionally, my players will tend to fall towards the "Well, what would my PC do in this situation?" more than "Well, what tactical move will give my PC the best bonus?". This counts for all aspects of the PC...so combat, exploration, role-playing, decision making, etc.

There's also the possibility that the PC could do the tactical move that produces the best chances of success, even if it's not intentional. I've often described my, shall we say, dumber characters as blundering into a tactically brilliant move. In any case, I never think about what a character "would" do. It's always "might," "could," or "can." Whatever it "would" do is whatever I say, after all.

Anyway, the individual Players and DM are really the ones who define if something in an RPG is "overpowered" or "optimal" nine times out of ten. At least IME at any rate.

(PS: The reason we don't use Feats is simply because we found that there were 'expected choices'? I guess? Based on a very rough PC idea; the 'Big Tough Warrior' would be half-orc, barbarian, GWM'. If you tried to make a BTW be a halfling, fighter, with no Feat...you were *automatically* NOT a 'BTW' simply because the choice to take the other things was there. In short, Feats made PC's faaaar more 'Same-ey' then without them. And MC? It just doesn't feel right at all to us. Maybe if we used 'many/all options from available books' we would see a more 'optimal choice' thing going on. So...uh...yeah. Drop feats, MC, and only use PHB. Problem solved! [note smiley] ).

I don't have feats in my one-shots for this reason. Because I end up with a wide range of players (30 or so in the campaign hub right now) and run these scenarios multiple times, having feats mean I get to see a lot of the same stuff over and over and it's rather boring for me. Sharpshooter. GWM. Heavy Armor Master. Repeatedly. They don't seem to lack for power without feats, so I think it's fine.

For my regular campaigns, sometimes they have feats and sometimes they don't. Two campaigns ago, there were feats which the PCs often used to increase their ability to deal with exploration challenges (Observant, Dungeon Delver, etc.) because it was a big dungeon campaign. Last campaign, there were no feats and instead I included UA options so we could playtest stuff. This campaign, there are feats and some UA options, but only if you join factions (Planescape). I'm into using certain optional rules as incentives to do things that speak to the theme of the campaign.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I'm playing a regular non-variant human and things have been going great. Sure, it can be a tad annoying that I'm the only character without darkvision and I lose out on some other nifty abilities. But I also started with 16s in two stats and had no negative ability modifiers which is pretty useful.

 

[Guest 6801718]

I've had two beast master rangers in my group and the both did really well. Plus the rest of the group liked having the animal companion around too. Another guy in my group played the standard human for his wizard. He wanted that across the board stat boost rather than the benefits of the variant human and it worked out well for him. That +1 boosted a couple of odd number stats that gave him bonuses in skills and saves, which made him happy. That wizard did rather well. One player in my group played a halfling strength fighter. His character background was that he was found and raised by dwarves, so he identified himself as a dwarf and favored building up his strength over his dex. Didn't hurt his fighter on bit to play a race against type and even go against the racial bonuses. His battlemaster fighter was a good member of the group and held his own every fight.

I found that if a player likes something and is drawn to certain choices based on their character concept, they'll find ways to make it work. Then you get all kinds of interesting additions to your game and fun surprises. That choice may not be considered "optimal" but it works for the player and they have fun.

 

[abirdcall]

I'm playing a regular non-variant human and things have been going great. Sure, it can be a tad annoying that I'm the only character without darkvision and I lose out on some other nifty abilities. But I also started with 16s in two stats and had no negative ability modifiers which is pretty useful.

Darkvision is also overrated.

Being in complete darkness still means disadvantage on Perception. Being surprised is a quick way to get TPK'd. It's much better to have a light source.

 

[Warpiglet]

I've had two beast master rangers in my group and the both did really well. Plus the rest of the group liked having the animal companion around too. Another guy in my group played the standard human for his wizard. He wanted that across the board stat boost rather than the benefits of the variant human and it worked out well for him. That +1 boosted a couple of odd number stats that gave him bonuses in skills and saves, which made him happy. That wizard did rather well. One player in my group played a halfling strength fighter. His character background was that he was found and raised by dwarves, so he identified himself as a dwarf and favored building up his strength over his dex. Didn't hurt his fighter on bit to play a race against type and even go against the racial bonuses. His battlemaster fighter was a good member of the group and held his own every fight.

I found that if a player likes something and is drawn to certain choices based on their character concept, they'll find ways to make it work. Then you get all kinds of interesting additions to your game and fun surprises. That choice may not be considered "optimal" but it works for the player and they have fun.

I love that kind of stuff. I am hoping to play a very strong dwarven rogue shortly...he will be grapple tastic! Not slow, but he is not sporting an 18 dex or wielding a rapier I can tell you.