D&D 5E New Race Feats Appearing in D&D's 'Xanathar's Guide to Everything

[Mephista]

If everyone is complaining because one character kicks but in combat and no one else is doing anything then the GM is not sending a stronge enough force at your group that one player can't handle them.

That's difficult. The problem is less obvious in 5e, but we've seen other games where one min-maxed character was so much better than the other PCs, the D ran into the issue of that anything that could challenge the min-maxer would basically kill off the rest of the group.

Discrepancy between characters can lead to problems this way. Now, some groups can handle groups with wildly different power levels. This is as much a function of good GMs combined with good players. But that's not something one can assume

 

[ClaytonCross]

That's difficult. The problem is less obvious in 5e, but we've seen other games where one min-maxed character was so much better than the other PCs, the D ran into the issue of that anything that could challenge the min-maxer would basically kill off the rest of the group.

Discrepancy between characters can lead to problems this way. Now, some groups can handle groups with wildly different power levels. This is as much a function of good GMs combined with good players. But that's not something one can assume

The GM makes the groups sends the groups into battle and chooses who they attack. There is no reason for a more powerful fighter not to have a reputation that causes the boss/champion of the group of NPCs to head striate for your min/maxer player (if he kills your min/maxer he leaves considering the rest of the group not worth his time and leaving the minions to fight a square fight). Also large numbers of weak enemies that are inelegant enough to attack from different directions an target the strength of the players team, so that they are not vulnerable to AoEs and can overwhelm the min/maxer if not supported. Enemies could shut the door dividing the min/maxer from his group so that the fight different enemies before reuniting for the story. You put so many little minion NPCs that the even the min./maxer can't stop them all but if he fails to be as scary as he normally is the group has to retreat, so that at a point where that player could shine, its not an option but a requirement. Then he is placed in position of bein responsible for the welfare of the whole group if he roles bad, because that is the character he made and the role he chose in the group. put the pressure on but let him succeed, if that player fails, let the face negotiate a way out, let the brute force open and close a door to let the less characters retreat, while the min/maxer licks his wounds in defeat. More than a few options here. Use them all.

There is no assumption here. In a world where the DM is basically god the excuse that the GM does not have enough control to challenge the min/maxers without killing those that are not is silly and falls short of the truth. If the GM is not building to his players and running the game to target his players skills then that is a choice by the GM to run a game where some players aren't useful or having fun. Players have no control over that regardless there character builds.

That is not to say there aren't "bad players". There are. The way D&D works though, their is some way to benefit from almost anything. It will be harder and harder to make characters NOT USEFUL in some way as they level up. A good GM looks at what they are good at and ensures some of that is in the game. A bad player happens, when he builds a character up for skills, then never wants to use them. You have one high charisma player in your group and he never wants to talk to anyone or make deals, you have one strong player in your group who refuses to do physical labor, one tough player who hides in the back afraid to get hit, etc. Basically min. maxing is not bad but playing to your weaknesses is... I seriously had a wizard in a group with high intelegance and investigation skill who NEVER did investigation checks because he considered it beneath himself unless it only helped him. But any player could have that issue not just a min maxer, because no one is not stronger some where and weaker in another. Even I you give your character all 14 stats as flat as your can make it your strength becomes your a jack of all trades and your weakness is that you are a master of none. If you have player that gets knocked out a lot you as a GM give the group a ring of defense and some healing potions and another player steals them all letting that player continue to get knocked out even with means to prevent that, well yes bad player. If you have character, getting knocked out a lot and you will not give the group any means of helping with that ... bad GM. But those are actions not builds.

 

[Mephista]

The GM makes the groups sends the groups into battle and chooses who they attack.

And what happens if the GM miscalculates and defeats the min-maxer? That's a TPK. Or what if the one optimizer acts differently than expected?

You're breaking this down into somehow a plan will execute perfectly, but that's just not happening outside of some theoretical white room with theoretical players that do everything as expected, and dice don't have good or bad streaks of luck.

The simple truth of the matter is that this is a problem multiple GMs have encountered, irregardless of system, throughout the history of TT gaming. Trying to trivialize the problem, as if the GM isn't doing their "job" (which in this case does take time and planning in a very busy world that isn't so generous with such free time) is just ignoring the fact of the problems existence.

Good day.

 

[ClaytonCross]

And what happens if the GM miscalculates and defeats the min-maxer? That's a TPK. Or what if the one optimizer acts differently than expected?

You're breaking this down into somehow a plan will execute perfectly, but that's just not happening outside of some theoretical white room with theoretical players that do everything as expected, and dice don't have good or bad streaks of luck.

The simple truth of the matter is that this is a problem multiple GMs have encountered, irregardless of system, throughout the history of TT gaming. Trying to trivialize the problem, as if the GM isn't doing their "job" (which in this case does take time and planning in a very busy world that isn't so generous with such free time) is just ignoring the fact of the problems existence.

Good day.

Please, Read the whole entry not just the first sentence before judging a post. I addressed that in the very next sentence.

"The GM makes the groups sends the groups into battle and chooses who they attack. There is no reason for a more powerful fighter not to have a reputation that causes the boss/champion of the group of NPCs to head striate for your min/maxer player (if he kills your min/maxer he leaves considering the rest of the group not worth his time and leaving the minions to fight a square fight)." ... continued with other examples....

The problem is largely the GM. You can't blame the players or luck (good/bad). I listed multiple ways to deal with that not just one. On top of that what if the min/maxer is defeated? As GM you could capture the squad instead of killing them all. PHB p198 (PDF p182)

K n o c k i n g a C r e a t u r e O u t
Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe,
rather than deal a killing blow. When an attacker
reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack,
the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker
can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt.
The creature falls unconscious and is stable.

If your TPKing the group as a GM, you made the choice to do that. Your choice most likely sounded like "I am going to pit this group vs a hard challenge I think they can beat but I am going to let the dice fall where they may and if its a TPK its a TPK. That way they know the threat is real." So you basically chose to leave it to luck and you chose to do it with a group that could potentially kill them. If that is the case then you as the GM killed the group. Now if you gave them fair warning. Let them know this is fight they could TPK on and gave them another option to stall the fight until they were more powerful but they chose to go now... Then sure its down to the players and luck. ... but if you didn't and you provided no way out but death or victory... its on you as GM. Being defeated can be part of a story. A GM TPKing a group because he doesn't want to put in the effort to give them a chance out or who has decided that the players are running the game even though the GM made the story, built the encounters, built the world, told them everything they needed to know to make decisions, but "thats just how the dice fell"... is at fault.

I am not saying you don't ever allow a TPK.... but that is exactly it... you have to allow a TPK it doesn't ever happen without the GMs consent.

Players need to know if your that kind of GM. If they do and they agree to it that is fine. However, if you are... don't blame them for wanting to min/max... your creating the environment where you are punishing players who didn't. Then getting upset and complaining about "group balance" for doing it!?!?!

 

[ro]

I disliked Racial feats idea; I do not dislike some of the feats they have just the way they restricted them so i will just open them up as a house rule I may have a few exceptions were I restricted but that depends on what gets released wait and see on that part for me. other than that I will ignore the racial part in general and just treat them as feats for characters. Since I do not use AL I do not have to deal with the stupid restrictions

I agree. Unless they replaced the UA feats with well-balanced ones, I think it is poor design to give race-only features whether as feats or subclasses (Bladesinger) unless similarly-powered abilities are available to all races. I am in favor of removing the race restrictions, and I have a feeling some of the feats will have to be nerfed right from the start.

Already Elves are one of the strongest races, with a big Dex boost and great racial abilities, perhaps second to Dwarfs in power. Now they get to be Bladesingers (a very powerful option) and get Elven Accuracy (always-on Lucky?), and they also get the Eladrin (UA) subclass, which replaces weapon proficiency with Misty Step per rest (3 free 2nd level spells per day!) and a single cantrip with a set of four options (choose one per day). Why are they trying to make Elves crazy powerful?

Encouraging everyone to be the same races by making some super powerful is a bad idea.

 

[hejtmane]

I agree. Unless they replaced the UA feats with well-balanced ones, I think it is poor design to give race-only features whether as feats or subclasses (Bladesinger) unless similarly-powered abilities are available to all races. I am in favor of removing the race restrictions, and I have a feeling some of the feats will have to be nerfed right from the start.

Already Elves are one of the strongest races, with a big Dex boost and great racial abilities, perhaps second to Dwarfs in power. Now they get to be Bladesingers (a very powerful option) and get Elven Accuracy (always-on Lucky?), and they also get the Eladrin (UA) subclass, which replaces weapon proficiency with Misty Step per rest (3 free 2nd level spells per day!) and a single cantrip with a set of four options (choose one per day). Why are they trying to make Elves crazy powerful?

Encouraging everyone to be the same races by making some super powerful is a bad idea.

I do not think Blade Singers are that powerful and me personally I opened it to all races (even says that is an option in the book)

What I meant by restrictions would be like Barbed Hide that I would put some restrictions because it would have to make sense. Like totem barbarian Porcupine totem; or warlock you get it from your patron .

Elven Accuracy that would be open to all in my game any one can be a great shot

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think the biggest problem with optimzing for combat is that it tends to ramp up damage. In response, the DM ramps up monsters, and most monsters ramp up their own damage in a way that outpaces their defenses. That means that the line for a DM is quite fine: it's easy to end up with encounters that are hard and deny the PCs any real tactical choice, because all that is happening is that incoming damage is overwhelming. The game turns into rocket tag.

Rocket tag is all well and good in games that are designed with it in mind, but D&D really isn't.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I think the biggest problem with optimzing for combat is that it tends to ramp up damage. In response, the DM ramps up monsters, and most monsters ramp up their own damage in a way that outpaces their defenses. That means that the line for a DM is quite fine: it's easy to end up with encounters that are hard and deny the PCs any real tactical choice, because all that is happening is that incoming damage is overwhelming. The game turns into rocket tag.

Rocket tag is all well and good in games that are designed with it in mind, but D&D really isn't.

You are not wrong. However, you do realize that the same thing happens if players use sub optimal characters and good tactics? or all decent characters but bad tactics? Just as a result of one player not making it one week but making it the next? What about all your players rolling really bad for a session then really good for another session? I am not saying that is not a thing GMs don't have to deal with. I am saying that is always a thing that GMs have to deal with on the basic premise of a game where characters level and develop new options and tactics, luck is involved, and attendance can vary do to real life pulling a player out once in a while.

Blaming it on min/maxers is pointless. First, because its not there fault and secondly because its still there weather they are or not. It is one of the many challenges of being a GM, but as GM you have to deal with it. You make an encounter too easy then you have to justify some surprise reinforcements or maybe secretly add some hit points after the fact. You make an encounter too hard, you have some allies show up or shave some hit points off secretly. Their are other options of course just examples for moments of panic when you realize things are going bad or players are getting board because its too easy.

In my mind an ideal encounter, is one where you players have a chance at TPK but should win with a safe margin. There is however, no planning for bad player tactics and a string of unlucky rolls. The GM simply has to perform damage reduction. I believe player character death should be a real possibility for most fights but if a TPK looks imminent then I drew the line to close. One player character death could be bad roles or tactics on the players fault, and they can work to fix the issue. TPK is campaign killer the GM should fix and build a plan to escape. Also, not every battle has to be on the bring of death, sometimes you need to let players beat up their level 5 high school enemies now that they are level 15. Also, if you have a min/maxer and you thinks its too powerful... you seem to have forgotten that by definition they created there own kryptonite min. Your high charisma sorcerer with 8 inelegance might not do so well against an intellect devour the rest of the group could easily kill in a couple of turns.

One that note, a bit of levity to illustrate my point by anthers words:
DM/GMs controlling character Death and TPK

 

[Ovarwa]

Min-maxing is good.

Players who min-max are engaged with the rules of the game. They are paying attention.

It is a great gift to the GM if he can count on his players to min-max. He can design scenarios that best fit his group, because he knows their real capabilities. And if he is not sure, he *still* knows their capabilities, because he can just design around a min-maxed party.

There's no game in which all character concepts work equally well, except those in which the outcome is inevitable. This is true even in well-balanced games, such as chess, in which the white character class is usually considered overpowered compared to black...

Anyway,

Ken

 

[ClaytonCross]

Min-maxing is good.

Players who min-max are engaged with the rules of the game. They are paying attention.

That is so true. Its funny if a player knows the rules and what they can/can't do I have seen them called rule lawyers. I personally want players in a game to know there characters, the rules that are useful to them, and what their spells do. I would prefer playing with "rules lawyers" because I don't like having to repeatedly tell someone how to play their character ...every .... single .... session. I mean how can you push the bounds of a character if you don't even know what they are? Like a level 14 character discovering an level 1 ability that is awesome... that they have never used...

If arguments about rules start slowing a game down. "I use a simple rule. GM judgment calls are official in play at the moment, if you disagree with a rule, look it up, site sources PHB, Sage Advice, etc... then send it in and email, the GM can reply in an email what he will agree to moving forward. Then you print out the email and use that as a player/GM contract of understanding.