Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How to Break 5E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6686700" data-attributes="member: 45197"><p>Hiya!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If a player is using conjuring spells in a disruptive manner that is detracting from others (including the DM's) fun in a way that becomes "not worth it"? Then, wholeheartedly, yes. My conjecture is that when something... <em>anything</em>, Optional or not... is taken to an extreme by some player who shows up at the table, then is is the <em>duty</em> of the DM to kick that player out. Period. To do otherwise makes the entire point of having a "Code of Conduct", well, pointless.</p><p></p><p>I see that you disagree with me on that. That's cool. I don't play AL anyway, but if I did I'd say there would be a 95% or better chance that I'd be DM'ing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>To quote someone above ... I believe your "O" is wrong. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> The game was not, by definition of them being labled as "Optional", designed around them. I'm sure they kept them in mind, but I'd bet dimes to dollars that when they were thinking about some spell, monster, skill, or rule for how to handle something in the game, how some Feat or MC combo came into play was pretty far down the list. If for nothing else than the sheer number of combinations of just those two Options alone.</p><p></p><p>I think this is just another aspect we are just in disagreement on, and unless we hear from the actual designers on the matter, we'll just have to leave it at "Well, I *think* this is the way it was designed, YMMV" and leave it at that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Just a few hours ago, I had a player 'argue' with me over a Feat. Sharpshooter. Mostly about the -5/+10 bullet point. She (the character) is a 4th level drow ranger focusing on archery. After about 15 to 20 minutes of back and forth, the conclusion from him was: <em>"Yeah. Wow. That is kinda unbalanced. I see your point on the other feats...especially ones like this, like Great Weapon Master. How about we nix that -5/+10 and just make it +2 on attack rolls?"</em> I thought about it a bit, then decided modify it a bit. The third bullet point is now "+2 to hit and damage with one group of missile weapons (Bows, Crossbows, Thrown Weapons, Slings, Pistols, Rifles, etc)". (Yes, my game has the optional 'gunpoweder' stuff from the DMG...even though it's never been encountered in any of our 5e games; and yes, the "Weapon Group" thing was <em>his</em> idea, he said it didn't make any sense to be a "Sharpshooter" with <em>every</em> missile weapon). The -5/+10 was just faaar too "win"; at level 4 she has +9 to hit and +9 damage; the Feat as is would mean "only" +4 to hit (with pretty much never rolling to hit at Disadvantage or with any penalty due to cover or concealment), and her damage would jump to +19! For <em>one fricken arrow</em>!?! Meanwhile, the "powerhouse" dwarf is limited to 1d12+4 I think. Same level. She did NOT take Great Weapon Fighter.</p><p></p><p>So... because she didn't take GWF, she is now waaaaay out classed by the archer. How is it that "the designers were taking Feats into account in designing the game" again? Or by "design" you mean "yeah, if someone takes something like GWF, <em>everyone MUST take something equivalent</em>, or suck". If that's the case, then failure to do so would result in an unbalanced game. Which would prove that Feats are unbalancing by default.</p><p></p><p>IMHO, of course. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>^_^</p><p></p><p>Paul L. Ming</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pming, post: 6686700, member: 45197"] Hiya! If a player is using conjuring spells in a disruptive manner that is detracting from others (including the DM's) fun in a way that becomes "not worth it"? Then, wholeheartedly, yes. My conjecture is that when something... [I]anything[/I], Optional or not... is taken to an extreme by some player who shows up at the table, then is is the [I]duty[/I] of the DM to kick that player out. Period. To do otherwise makes the entire point of having a "Code of Conduct", well, pointless. I see that you disagree with me on that. That's cool. I don't play AL anyway, but if I did I'd say there would be a 95% or better chance that I'd be DM'ing. To quote someone above ... I believe your "O" is wrong. ;) The game was not, by definition of them being labled as "Optional", designed around them. I'm sure they kept them in mind, but I'd bet dimes to dollars that when they were thinking about some spell, monster, skill, or rule for how to handle something in the game, how some Feat or MC combo came into play was pretty far down the list. If for nothing else than the sheer number of combinations of just those two Options alone. I think this is just another aspect we are just in disagreement on, and unless we hear from the actual designers on the matter, we'll just have to leave it at "Well, I *think* this is the way it was designed, YMMV" and leave it at that. :) Just a few hours ago, I had a player 'argue' with me over a Feat. Sharpshooter. Mostly about the -5/+10 bullet point. She (the character) is a 4th level drow ranger focusing on archery. After about 15 to 20 minutes of back and forth, the conclusion from him was: [I]"Yeah. Wow. That is kinda unbalanced. I see your point on the other feats...especially ones like this, like Great Weapon Master. How about we nix that -5/+10 and just make it +2 on attack rolls?"[/I] I thought about it a bit, then decided modify it a bit. The third bullet point is now "+2 to hit and damage with one group of missile weapons (Bows, Crossbows, Thrown Weapons, Slings, Pistols, Rifles, etc)". (Yes, my game has the optional 'gunpoweder' stuff from the DMG...even though it's never been encountered in any of our 5e games; and yes, the "Weapon Group" thing was [I]his[/I] idea, he said it didn't make any sense to be a "Sharpshooter" with [I]every[/I] missile weapon). The -5/+10 was just faaar too "win"; at level 4 she has +9 to hit and +9 damage; the Feat as is would mean "only" +4 to hit (with pretty much never rolling to hit at Disadvantage or with any penalty due to cover or concealment), and her damage would jump to +19! For [I]one fricken arrow[/I]!?! Meanwhile, the "powerhouse" dwarf is limited to 1d12+4 I think. Same level. She did NOT take Great Weapon Fighter. So... because she didn't take GWF, she is now waaaaay out classed by the archer. How is it that "the designers were taking Feats into account in designing the game" again? Or by "design" you mean "yeah, if someone takes something like GWF, [I]everyone MUST take something equivalent[/I], or suck". If that's the case, then failure to do so would result in an unbalanced game. Which would prove that Feats are unbalancing by default. IMHO, of course. ;) ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How to Break 5E
Top