"'Kill it before it grows'...he said 'Kill it before it grows'..."

[avin]

I'm honestly interested: what happened?

My guess: the monk was quite good at 1st to maybe 3rd, but didn't outshine anyone at least after a few levels. Unless of course you had several monks... in that case the rest would have been outclassed.

He outshined us always, that little grappler bastar

A Samurai just quit the game because this monk was overpowered. We kept playing but things were unease, he was clearly superior... and to be worst, the guy was horrible at roleplaying... WIS 18 and trying to teach an old Monk how to pray... horrible, horrible...

...but I think that won't be a big deal, array of abilities, rolling dice, point buy, I'm sure all of these will be 5E options.

 

[Hassassin]

He outshined us always, that little grappler bastar

A Samurai just quit the game because this monk was overpowered. We kept playing but things were unease, he was clearly superior... and to be worst, the guy was horrible at roleplaying... WIS 18 and trying to teach an old Monk how to pray... horrible, horrible...

Wow, wouldn't have expected that. Too bad for your group.

 

[Mallus]

Why do you feel that the online community doesn't mirror the actual community?

Mainly because my experience with the face-to-face community has been overwhelmingly pleasant and low on the kind of conflict people like to engage --myself included, at times-- on the Internet.

Ultimately, I would say that in this hobby, most people are either introverts or extroverts, and it's a minority that actuality fall towards the center of that spectrum. And beyond gaming, people in general have poor conflict resolution skills.

I'll grant you this: sometimes the online community leaves me with the impression this hobby is chock full of pedants with axes to grind. But then I take a step back. I realize that *I* might come off like a pedant --hmmm, I'm probably more a snark-aficionado-- with an axe to grind sometimes, and, at the very least, I too am part of a small, self-selecting subset of D&D/RPG players who likes to talk/debate about them online.

 

[Felon]

Some how I think your understanding of what is selfish and what isn't is different than mine. Let's just say that I don't think that its Lanefan that's exhibiting the selfish stance here.

It may well be that your understanding of what is selfish deviates sharply, not just from mine but from anything in any lexicon. Feel free to regale me with how I'm ehibiting a selfish stance. It would be interesting since I haven't been discussing anything relating to my own welfare or anything to my personal advantage. The only agenda I've promoted is that of mutual consideration.

 

[Felon]

Mainly because my experience with the face-to-face community has been overwhelmingly pleasant and low on the kind of conflict people like to engage --myself included, at times-- on the Internet.


I'll grant you this: sometimes the online community leaves me with the impression this hobby is chock full of pedants with axes to grind. But then I take a step back. I realize that *I* might come off like a pedant --hmmm, I'm probably more a snark-aficionado-- with an axe to grind sometimes, and, at the very least, I too am part of a small, self-selecting subset of D&D/RPG players who likes to talk/debate about them online.

Suffice to say, perhaps I'm simply not as fortunate as others have been. As to online behavior, don't be so hard on yourself. It's hard not to engage in pedantry when you're trying to speak your full thoughts on a subject. At least most pedants feel obliged to be articulate. I'll take that.

 

[Felon]

They lead me to understand that he is talking about what he wants at his own table, in his own world, and not about what everyone at every table should always play.

That may or may not be a game I'd be willing to play in (I don't think I'd personally have a problem with either of those restrictions), but it is pretty clearly his own game, and he doesn't appear to be saying no one should ever have halfling wizards or elves with low-light vision, just that he doesn't want them. In fact, he specifically says they'll design and run their own world, and seems to be pretty not-upset over the idea of someone else running a game in which halfling wizards are peachy keen.

I can only repeat what I said: we're not talking about a misanthrope or bully by any means. It's just a simple matter of being concerned with you want and not particularly concerned with what other participants might want. If one of'em wants to play a halfling wizard, he or she is free to go start their own campaigns....which, y'know, they won't be players in, but hey, no plan is perfect.

To advocate that everyone who wants character creation freedom should go off and run their own campaign does seem to leave you a lot of DM's and no players. But perhaps that is a more pragmatic solution than the atmosphere of mutual consideration that I don't think our community is ready to achieve. Well, maybe 5e will solitaire rules.

 

[Felon]

He outshined us always, that little grappler bastar

A Samurai just quit the game because this monk was overpowered. We kept playing but things were unease, he was clearly superior... and to be worst, the guy was horrible at roleplaying... WIS 18 and trying to teach an old Monk how to pray... horrible, horrible...

Hate to get off topic, but this was 1st level characters we're talking about? Even with good stats, low-level monks do lousy damage and their flurry of blows put their attack bonus significantly behind just about any other front-liner. Strikes me as odd is all.

 

[avin]

Hate to get off topic, but this was 1st level characters we're talking about? Even with good stats, low-level monks do lousy damage and their flurry of blows put their attack bonus significantly behind just about any other front-liner. Strikes me as odd is all.

NP, we started at level 5 IIRC. And we're getting levels pretty fast.

Group was formed by this Monk, my Sohei (solid background story, cool weapon, horrible stats and no much system support... ), two Samurais (one quit pretty soon after been beated on a bridge) and a Sugenja (who had to quit a few sessions later).

Almost forgot to mention that our beloved Monk became tainted pretty soon...

 

[BryonD]

I don't understand why people are so accepting of a sword having to chew through a persons hit points while a spell or petrifying gaze can kill you instantly. Swords can kill people instantly, too. I don't see the logic in made up things that can kill you being more lethal than things that can kill you in real life.

In my D&D games, if you get run through with a sword just once, you die.

But it is HIGHLY reasonable for a sword blow to be turned away or to deal a far from fatal wound. There is a vast range of in-between.

The "petrifying gaze" of Medusa (ignoring the misnomer for game mechanical expediency) either does not happen or it turns you to stone. There is no in between.

 

[Lanefan]

They DM is the world-builder. That the DM has final authority is not the issue. What I am endeavoring to communicate is that because DM's are often selish with their authority is what ultimately undermines any attempt by WotC to mollify the community through the offering of moduler sets of rules. We are our own worst enemies.

I'm not sure there's much of a connection between selfish DMs and WotC putting out modular rules.

A DM still has the right to houserule - doesn't she?

Take race/class restrictions. You're taking an option away from the players.

Who says it's me taking it away? If I'm running 1e as written the restrictions are right there in the PH. And, in case you're wondering, I still run a 1e variant and have removed most - not quite all, but most - of the 1e race-class bans.

Who benefits? Since the general disposition you express is that players can take your world or leave it, that begs the question of whether you feel DM authority has any onus attached to it.

DM authority carries the onus to give her players a playable, entertaining*, and fun game. Whether that works or not is soon enough determined by whether said players keep coming back for more.

* - in contrast, I see an onus on the players to entertain the DM - it goes both ways.

Lanefan