Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7528443" data-attributes="member: 7006">Saying 'maybe' though, is meaningless.  If the rogue player or the eldritch knight player *didn't* want to make grappling characters, then the monk getting a part of a free feat means nothing in the long run.  The monk is merely making a character they wish to play and can be somewhat successful at it (moreso than if they tried to make a grappling monk concept using the rules straight as-is.)And if the rogue or knight also wanted to make grappling characters too?  Then hopefully the DM would accommodate them by switching some minor rules around for them too.  Because why not?  There are hundreds of character concepts that can't be made even moderately effectively just by using the rules straight.  So why not allow for a change here and a change there... within the precepts of the party for which they are going to appear... so that a person can get into a fairly good place to be effective.The thing is... and I admit it's why a whole bunch of you are going to get hung on the idea... it just means you as a DM have to treat this party and this game as a bubble.  Where you only need to compare a tweaked character's effectiveness ONLY against the other PCs at the table. Which I know is hard probably for a lot of you to do.  Many of you run your games with this idea of "universality" where any house rule or change in your game has to then apply to every other game you run because its a "consistent world" or whatnot.  And you're probably thinking "I can't give the monk character this X ability in the campaign we're playing now even if it is balanced, because in the next campaign someone might want to use X in this other combination and that combination WOULD be overpowered!  And if I allowed it here, I'd HAVE to allow it then too!"To me... that idea is a load of rubbish.  To me... all game mechanics are is just different ways to roll funny dice.  Who the character *is* is what is important, not the decision on which funny dice you roll and which random numbers you add together to change or impact what the character does.  And if a player would like to play a concept of a jujitsu type of grappling monk but the funny numbers the book has written down for the monk doesn't allow for this concept to actually work even moderately effectively compared to the rest of the players in the game... then do whatever you can to the funny numbers and dice to build it up.  And if next time someone else has the concept of a warrior who uses magic to bind and hold foes... do what you need to do to make the funny dice and numbers work out for that player too, even if the method of changing the funny numbers and dice is different than the changes you made for the monk.  Because to me what matters is getting the character to work, not to have a universal set of "rules" that apply across the board to every single game in every single campaign I run.  Because those "rules" only really produce a certain small subset of character ideas that can be moderately effective against each other.</blockquote>

Verification