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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Basic Expert" data-source="post: 9791375" data-attributes="member: 7054049">A lot of this depends on the experience you value as a player or as a DM.A certain player desires victory more than anything. They want combats in which they can contrive an overpowered solution to (say a potent control spell from command to Tasha's to forcecage or what have you). They feel good about dominating the combat and smart for selecting "the most OP option". They will be happy cakewalking through the entire campaign in such a fashion. I, on the other hand, don't know how "smart" one can really be for taking the obviously BEST spells at each level (or Googling "most OP build and spells" and following that advice), but people can play any way they want.Some DMs might not see a problem with the above player, and continue to feed them a series of under-tuned encounters that play out almost the exact same way. These DMs are probably under-represented in these sorts of forums but are undoubtedly out there. If they and their groups don't have a problem with their play, there's no problem. Play on.I on the other hand, value situation and a variety of game experiences. I would quickly loose interest in a campaign in which every encounter played out in the same over-tuned, optimized fashion. I want the fight with the Goblin Horde in the Fire Pits feel fundamentally different from the fight with the Minotaur Death Knight. That goes as a player or as a DM. Any rule system that doesn't support this out of the box, and can be relatively easily over-ridden by OP build options and one-trick ponies is a non-starter for me.It helps that I don't value the character builder mini-game of Spreadsheets & Splatbooks. Plotting out the perfect 1-20 character build for maximum effectiveness holds no appeal to me. Once again, the OP builds are relatively easy to find in most systems and easy enough to Google. I generally prefer rules-light systems with less character complexity wherein the emphasis is on the "character" rather than the "character build". Unfortunately, most games with less complex characters usually pair this with less complex rules in general, such as the basic combat system. Many OSR games have a simple fighter with a simple attack option to be repeated each round. Now we're getting back into the "every encounter is the same" territory.The solution to having simple, repetitive attacks is to have a solid array of situational options (fight defensively, fight aggressively, attempt a disarm or other trick, and so on) in the basic combat system. These must have meaningful, situational limitations to them. If disarm is ALWAYS the best option, then it will always be used. Power Attack in 3e was like this--virtually always used as it was mathematically superior. Is it hard balancing these sorts of options? YES. Does a competently-written system need to include a reasonable amount of balance between options? Also YES.This is the same solution to seemingly-OP spells and similar abilities. They MUST have meaningful limitations to them (outside of expending spell slots and the like, which hold true for all such abilities). There should be situations for which they are flat-out inappropriate.Should command work against undead? Or against those that don't speak the language of the caster? It never used to, now it does. The spell goes from situational and thematic ability to a cool-ability button press. Easier to use, certainly, but resulting in better gameplay? Not in my mind.Most of 5e's magic has been denuded of all style and substance to make it maximally utile for players. I can understand the impetus for these changes. It lowers the barrier for entry into playing spellcasters (spells are easy to understand and use, without a ton of fine print getting in the way) and it increases spellcasting in general (more magic = more fun!). The same goes for increased spell slots, hybrid Vancian casting and similar changes.However, in making all of this easier and more straight-forward while maintaining power, you are definitely in danger of losing balance. Power-Usability-Balance (choose two).Limitations tend to work best if the players can work to overcome them, or make choices or tradeoffs. If command only works on enemies that can understand the caster...what's orcish for "Grovel"? Maybe try and find out. That gives challenge and texture to gameplay which, again, I favor.For those playing 5e, a wholesale rewriting of the magic system is probably not in the cards, so you're left with the following options:1. Ignore the problem and have fun regardless. Results may vary.2. Talk to your players or fellow players about not always spamming OP combinations or power-building characters. If these are ruining anyone's fun (including the DM's), just have a conversation about it. See how everyone feels and adjust. Results may vary.3. Ramp up the challenge or adapt to the players' strategize with OP combinations of your own. As a DM you hold the high ground and all the advantages. "Wait, when did dire wolves learn counterspell and dispel magic?!?!" "Uhh, the Wolf God taught them, deal with it!" Results may vary.4. Switch systems. Maybe 5e isn't the right system for your group and you want to try something different. However, few if any games are perfect and each comes with their own "peculiarities". Results may vary.</blockquote>

Verification