D&D 5E Mechanics you don't want to see, ever

[Coroc]

Could be we're talking about slightly different things then.

I'm referring to the type of character that's intentionally built to be a bit (or a lot) of everything - or as many things as it can - all at once. Many strengths, no weaknesses.

In previous editions, every time I ever saw someone pushing for a more "gish"-like build it invariably meant that person was really after a powerful JoaT. "Gestalt" may be the current term for the same thing but I'm not sure, and no doubt someone will correct me if it isn't.

If it can fight (almost) as well as the Fighter, cast spells (almost) as well as the Wizard or Cleric, and sneak (almost) as well as the Thief or Rogue, then it's a JoaT - otherwise known as a one-character party.

I normally communicate to the players which builds are preferable for the campaign I master.
That maybe a roster of chars where each has at least some point in the social stats like Cha Wis Int if RP situations come up often, or I tell them to optimize more for damage output and effectiveness in their class speciality if combat comes up most of the time, or if the scenario needs these charbuilds for other reasons.

 

[Coroc]

Just because they find it doesn't mean they should automatically know how to use it (RAW be damned!); and if the only way they can learn about it is trial by error then you've got the potential for several (mis)adventures when they find themselves somewhere they really shouldn't be and have to find a way out.

I've had several Amulets of the Planes come up - and the PCs still only use them in dire emergencies as they still, after much divination etc., only know of about 10 destinations (out of 50!) and that some of those are decidedly risky.

(side note: reminding self to go into the mechanics-that-need-to-come-back thread and add in "magic item field testing")

I just assume these sort of things are going to appear at some point in any case, and don't fret it too much.

It's only a worry if you-as-DM have pre-decided how you want the PCs to travel or to approach an adventure.

Uh, you got a detailed vision for your other planes in your campaign then, this is work I only would do if I always run in the same campaign world, it is just to much preparation for the eventuality that some McGuffin comes up as random treasure


I assume that only things come up that I as a DM want to come up, and therefore also do not fret about it

 

[Lanefan]

The fact that you say this as a good thing tells me that we aren't going to see eye to eye much on what constitutes a fun play experience.

Hey, what's wrong with a little cloak-and-dagger around the table party?

 

[Lanefan]

Uh, you got a detailed vision for your other planes in your campaign then, this is work I only would do if I always run in the same campaign world, it is just to much preparation for the eventuality that some McGuffin comes up as random treasure

Way I see it, most of the non-Prime planes are going to be the same no matter what campaign world I'm using - Olympus will always be Olympus, Valhalla will always be Valhalla, the Abyssal and Elemental planes are what they are, etc.

That way, I only ever had to think about them once and I'm set for life.

I assume that only things come up that I as a DM want to come up, and therefore also do not fret about it

That's another way to do it, to be sure, but it's rare that I either intentionally place an item I otherwise wouldn't have or redact one that otherwise the module or my dice would have placed.

 

[NotAYakk]

In previous editions, every time I ever saw someone pushing for a more "gish"-like build it invariably meant that person was really after a powerful JoaT. "Gestalt" may be the current term for the same thing but I'm not sure, and no doubt someone will correct me if it isn't.

If it can fight (almost) as well as the Fighter, cast spells (almost) as well as the Wizard or Cleric, and sneak (almost) as well as the Thief or Rogue, then it's a JoaT - otherwise known as a one-character party.

Swordmage in 4e wasn't a Jack of all Trades, but it was a Gish.

Bard in 5e is a Jack of all Trades.

 

[Mercule]

This might be a controversial one, but class abilities that give the players narrative control of the world.

I agree... kinda. My issue isn't with players having narrative control abilities, it's with it being class-based. Either everyone gets meta toys or no one does. My 5E game's inspiration has evolved to something more like Savage Worlds bennies and it works really, really well. But, it does so because it's baked into the cake, so to speak. I could see having feats or class abilities that played off that (a Bardic "fatespinner"?), but if the baseline mechanic isn't universal, it'd be like one player at the table was playing a different system.

 

[Mercule]

You'd get a howl of argument from me on that one, if only because it's not your right as DM to tell me how to play my character.

If my character doesn't fit in with the party it's up to the party - in character! - to deal with, either by accommodating him or throwing her out or leaving him behind or killing her outright. Or just making things such that my character's best option is to leave.

Kinda. I've had times, over the years, when a play brought in a character that just never clicked with the group. Most of the time, the player realizes this and either tweaks the character or switches again. A few times, though, they insisted on continuing to bring that character to the table every week. It could be that the party is Good aligned and the offending character is being the annoying tag-along so they wouldn't necessarily take drastic action strictly in-character, but the players want the character gone. Or, I've also had a player tell the rest of the table, in a raised voice, that they all just need to stop raining on their parade and everyone at the table can have fun in their own way.

In either case, if all else fails, it's the GM's responsibility to step up and actually referee (which is a term interchangeable with GM/DM). I have a lot more sympathy for the first player, though, than the second. For a concrete instance, we were playing a mixed nWoD game and one of the players was trying to do an EMT (I think), but the way things worked out, he came off as a creepy guy with a white van and some candy -- which is really weird because the player is super likable, personally. After a few sessions, we decided that, since he'd switch to a Changeling and the character he'd been playing was actually his fetch, which is why everyone got vibes from it. Problem solved.

In the second case, I have a lot less (read: zero) sympathy. When there are a half-dozen people at the table, there needs to be a willingness for everyone to work together. Maybe you really wanted to play an Outer Rim Star Wars game, but everyone else really wanted to play Dark Sun. You do not get to throw a fit about the GM being the guy to tell you that anything that looks like a blaster is inappropriate. There may be an option that isn't anyone's first choice, but everyone thinks would be fun. If you yell and throw a fit, I will call you out.

Also, the GM gets a bit of veto power, just because they have to keep the plates spinning. The game needs to be fun for everyone and the GM should take feedback. The GM does not have to run a game he doesn't enjoy, though. For my part, after 35-ish years of gaming, mostly GMing, I've learned a few things that will make me hate running a game and I call them out, up front. There's a lot on my list I'm fine playing along side, if someone else wants to GM, but I'm not going to run a game where I think I'm not able to help you move your character along.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree... kinda. My issue isn't with players having narrative control abilities, it's with it being class-based. Either everyone gets meta toys or no one does. My 5E game's inspiration has evolved to something more like Savage Worlds bennies and it works really, really well. But, it does so because it's baked into the cake, so to speak. I could see having feats or class abilities that played off that (a Bardic "fatespinner"?), but if the baseline mechanic isn't universal, it'd be like one player at the table was playing a different system.

Yeah, like I said, I think they can work at the system level, if they’re done with intention and care. I just don’t think they’d work well as class abilities.