Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6686700" data-attributes="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... anything, Optional or not... is taken to an extreme by some player who shows up at the table, then is is the duty 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. <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.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=":)" />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: "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 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 his idea, he said it didn't make any sense to be a "Sharpshooter" with every 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 one fricken arrow!?! 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, everyone MUST take something equivalent, 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.   <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=";)" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification