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

[Warpiglet]

Hello All,

I am interested in your views on this matter. I am starting to see choices I have overlooked because others say "Its a trap!" that sucks! and so on. IN some cases, I think the warnings are just flat out wrong. In most cases they are overblown or partially true.

A long time ago, I wrote a blurb on Boardgamegeek about suboptimal play:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/580671/joy-suboptimal-play/page/1


This should expose my bias on the matter (I am not any kind of pure min-maxer/optimizer at all). Nevertheless, what FEATS, CLASSES, "builds" do you think are unfairly criticized as worthless or no good?

Where do you disagree with conventional wisdom? It is interesting to note that once something is repeated enough it is harder to dismiss even by creative folks. We start to move with the herd inadvertently.

So which FEAT, combo, race or whatever DOES NOT suck as much as people say?

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Sorcerer and berserker barbarian are better than conventional wisdom dictates, but not if you play them like you did in previous editions (although ironically, if you treat frenzy as a 4e-esqe "daily power" you don't have any problems*). I don't like that it feels like you are penalized for playing into the fluff, and having these two "wild and wooly" class/subclasses be played better with a cold, strategic approach seems like that.


* If they had written frenzy as "you can enter into a more intense state of rage then other barbarians [then list frenzy benefits]. You need to complete a long rest before you can use this ability again.", then there would have been no complaints.

 

[iserith]

I would say what does and does not suck depends mostly on the kind of game the DM runs. This is further mitigated or exacerbated by the skill of the player (and how much a player's skill is offset by how often the DM interjecting randomness into resolution). Many would say that a PHB beast master ranger sucks, but my games frequently features exploration challenges in which such characters shine, plus my players are quite skilled. As a result, they don't suck at all. As another example, the Observant feat is going to be relatively "overpowered" in a game where the DM treats passive Perception as "always-on radar" despite what tasks the PC is performing, whereas in my game where I don't do that, Observant is good, but not "overpowered."

I guess what I'm saying is I don't buy into the conventional wisdom. It often fails to take into account the DM and the player and there's really no objective standard by which we can judge what an "average DM" or "average player" might be in my view in order to make these sorts of judgments.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Some degree of table talk is fine but when it becomes overly critical or patronizing it's time for it to stop. Let the player have their turn, please. I've seen all kinds of strange PC builds and none stand out as all that bad. I'm more turned off by players who don't bother to learn their PC's class abilities and waste time deciding what to do on their turn.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Phasestar]

On a slight tangent, something I've noticed several times is that after a while, a party of players can settle into a sort of fixed menu of solutions when it comes to dealing with challenges and combat tactics and a new player can often act as a breath of fresh air to shake up that status quo and get people thinking creatively again.

If you don't have a new player ready to join your group, it's worth trying to step outside your own comfort zone and try new things you wouldn't normally try in terms of characters, feats, roleplaying styles, or tactics. Some groups like to play similar characters and similar adventures repeatedly and that's fine if that's what you like, but you don't know what you're missing.

 

[pogre]

This is one of the only reasons I am tempted to play some Adventure League. I like to meet new players and I like to experience the game in new ways. A lot of their choices and tactics can be eye-opening.

 

[cmad1977]

Frenzy Barbarian.
People fear the exhaustion far too much. It’s never been a problem for my barbarian and when it ‘has’ it’s been a meaningful choice.

Plus the wreckage left behind after a good frenzy is awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Warpiglet]

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.

But table variances make a huge difference. For example, mobile (feat) goes from really good to not very good depending on whether you're playing grid or ToTM.

Great minds think alike. I all but refuse to take the conventional blaster. In fact, I toy with not taking EB at all. Most recently, I started a hexblade. I took EB but did this with the idea of having repelling blast primarily for use if my average strength character is grappled.

All the complaints about boring warlocks were lost on me since I don't do what makes them boring!

My fiend blade pact took EB without any invocations just as a ranged option if absolutely necessary.

But then again I also play single classed blade pacts...(i know, heresy...but variant human can get stronger and have better armor at first and mountain dwarves, well you get the idea).

 

[Phasestar]

This is one of the only reasons I am tempted to play some Adventure League. I like to meet new players and I like to experience the game in new ways. A lot of their choices and tactics can be eye-opening.

I've had a great time with Adventurer's League, especially at conventions. I give AL a hearty endorsement.