Helldritch
Hero
And I the same.I agree.
And I the same.I agree.
Perhaps you should stop gatekeeping.Then perhaps you should create a thespian group and stop pretending you are playing D&D. Given you played 5 sessions before even selecting a class, it is impossible to say you were playing D&D, since there is no level 0 in 5e, and you have to pick a class from the beginning.
It does.If you assume that Rule 0 means you can make up any rule you like,
At a ridiculous extreme, yes it is.then you may as well call chess D&D, because you call your Knights Rogues, your Queen a Wizard, and your pawns Fighters. It is the equivalent.
Well... if you scroll through DM's Guild, you'll see thousands of products offering new and variant rules of all sorts, including (I'm guessing) plenty of options for starting off with a classless level 0.Then perhaps you should create a thespian group and stop pretending you are playing D&D. Given you played 5 sessions before even selecting a class, it is impossible to say you were playing D&D, since there is no level 0 in 5e, and you have to pick a class from the beginning.
Oh the monk is amazing.
It's just very squishy at what the roles you expect it to be and/or gasses out very quickly because its' core design is based on ability scores with other classes' are based on equipment and proficiency.
All the classes and subclasses based on ability score are lower on the totem pole.
I definitely think the large group helped. And often, especially at higher levels, we only had one combat per long rest. That made the monk (and paladin for that matter) really really shine.I think you hit the answer there: it was a large group.
Suboptimal characters can often do far better in a larger group where their weaknesses can be more easily covered off by other characters yet their strengths can still shine through.
A Monk in a three-character party is probably going to end up a liablility, assuming typical-average play.
A Monk in a party of 8? Rock on, dude!
Edit to add: and this was just as true in 1e as it seems to be now.
Then we are all in agreement!And I the same.![]()
Er, that's literally what rule 0 means. That wasn't rule 0, though. That was advice on how to play 5e in a rulings over rules system.If you assume that Rule 0 means you can make up any rule you like
False Equivalence for the lose!, then you may as well call chess D&D, because you call your Knights Rogues, your Queen a Wizard, and your pawns Fighters.
No it ain't.It is the equivalent.
I had a portion of my campaign where the PCs spent hours in a demiplane slaying a dragon where time ran very fast as compared to their home plane.If you assume that Rule 0 means you can make up any rule you like, then you may as well call chess D&D, because you call your Knights Rogues, your Queen a Wizard, and your pawns Fighters. It is the equivalent.
Not really. I can agree that "building a reasonably efficient character and not gimping yourself" by making your primary ability scores highest - as you are advised to do in the PHB - is not power gaming.
Up thread your actual words implied that choosing an alignment of ASI and efficacy in play, was always power gaming. If true, the order of choosing race, class, and score allocation doesn't change that. I feel like your position has changed and I certainly would not find fault for that or hold you to any previous position.
From the OP - "For some reason the world comes together to mandate one very important rule that will permeate all societies for the endless future. Oddly, this declaration reflects how WotC is allowed to present character options during creation in their D&D game. There can only be ONE official method."
I very happily agree that there are a wide range of behaviours. In saying that, I cannot help but recall with irony that you recently very firmly told me that there was no such wide range of behaviours.
That you knew player motivations better than they knew themselves, and any alignment of scores with efficacy in game must amount to power gaming. You don't recall making those arguments up-thread? Comments like "...it still boils down to exactly one thing: "I want a 16 because others can have it, and the game is unappealing to me because I am not as powerful as others (coud be)"?
Do you recall your words up-thread that "let's look at rolling stats, which is still the only default option in the game. I'm not sure how many people are using this, in percentage. There are lots of people who use it for power reasons, because it's the only way in the rules to get really powerful scores..." Is it right to say that over the course of our conversation, you have changed your mind?
It's not really a dichotomy, though. You don't have to pick a race because it's cool or because it has a good stat bonus. It can be both and in equal amounts. I have at time picked a race because it was cool and I had a good concept and the bonus didn't align. Other times I picked a race because it was cool and I had a good concept, and the bonus did align. I've never picked any race for bonus only, or a race that I didn't think was cool.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.