D&D 5E PC Exceptionalism

[Maxperson]

I'm actually very curious how many people this in their world.

For example, you got to a local temple. Is it a 5th level "cleric" capable of laying down some 3rd level clerical might, or a 5th level "priest", with maybe the religion skill of a 5th level cleric but with much weaker spellcasting.

How many people utilize weaker "classes" as compared to weaker "levels" with their npcs?

Most shrines and smaller temples in my game don't have a cleric, and if they do, that cleric is probably level 3 or under. A major temple might be run by a level 7-10 cleric and is likely to have a few other lower level clerics there. The entire faith might have a high priest(level 10+) or two in the entire world. The vast majority of priests in my game are just non-spellcasters with a lot of faith and religious knowledge, and a desire to lead the faithful.

 

[GMMichael]

So here's my question to the board. In a world filled with exceptional people -- where you're mostly interacting with other powerful beings -- what can a GM or other players do to help one another remember that their characters actually are special?

Give them some Tyler. "You are not special. This doesn't belong to you."

Lots of PCs tend to act like they're free to do anything...

 

[ph0rk]

Going back to the superhero example, the Avengers has everything from Thor and Hulk to Black Widow and Hawkeye. The latter to contribute a great deal, sometimes even saving the former, because they are still exceptional.

My fun isn't dependent on everyone being at the same power level. I don't allow it to be.

In those cases, it requires more work on the part of the DM so that Hawkeye has stuff to do.

Why? Because pretty much anything Hawkeye can do Cap or Tony could do as an afterthought. This is easy in a movie or comic book, because characters are in different places (not something happens that regularly at dnd tables, in part because it drastically slows things down) and in part because the camera focus. Camera focus is communal at a game table, though, and when people are together it requires some players (or characters) to sit on their hands while the hawkeye attempts something they could make trivial.

I'm not saying a good group can't work around it, I'm saying it is a weakness of the system if a good group has to.

 

[Maxperson]

In those cases, it requires more work on the part of the DM so that Hawkeye has stuff to do.

Why? Because pretty much anything Hawkeye can do Cap or Tony could do as an afterthought.

Not really. If I want to do something, I'm going to do it. I don't need the DM to create the opportunity for me. I can do that myself. I set my own personal goals and work towards those resolutions. The DM reacts to me and what I do.

This seems very similar the whole party "face" thing. Even if the Bard has +10 and you have +3, it's ridiculous to think that everyone is going to just talk to the Bard and ignore the rest of the party, or that people would be okay with one person doing all of their talking for them. The entire concept of a party face is meta and wouldn't exist in the vast majority of scenarios. Sure, you can opt into a game where the party "face" outshines you are social interactions, but that's because the game isn't being run very realistically and the other players are just sitting back, rather than entering into social situations of their own. So what if you're a butt scratching Barbarian with the social grace of an elephant. Those sorts of social interactions are often far more fun and enjoyable, and accomplish a lot more than a Bard rolling a high number.

Another thing wrong with statement is in assuming that Cap or Tony are even close to being the marksman that Hawkeye is, or that they possess his variety of arrows. I mean, Cap can hit a spot with a shield, but it's unlikely that the shield will accomplish anything close to what Hawkeye's variety of arrows can accomplish. Tony would be hard pressed be as accurate as Hawkeye, and even if he hits, his repulser ray would almost certainly be overkill. Each has different skills and there will be many situations where the Cap and Ironman just aren't the right tool for the job.

If Cap and Ironman outshine you, it's because you let them. Not everything requires a hammer, and that's mostly what Ironman and Cap are.

 

[Seramus]

The existence of Captain Marvel doesn't make Daredevil unexceptional.

You don't need to be the most powerful thing in your universe in order to be special or to have amazing stories.

Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit. Together, they fight crime!

 

[Stalker0]

This seems very similar the whole party "face" thing. Even if the Bard has +10 and you have +3, it's ridiculous to think that everyone is going to just talk to the Bard and ignore the rest of the party, or that people would be okay with one person doing all of their talking for them. The entire concept of a party face is meta and wouldn't exist in the vast majority of scenarios.

this is why I don't think this is a real problem in 5e compared to previous editions. Now lets take your example give the bard a +24 to Persuasion. Aka him on his worst day (rolled a 1) is better than you on your best (rolled a 20). In that example, there is literally nothing you can say that is more persuasive than the bard making a fart noise. By you "including" yourself in the conversation, all you have done is increased the chance of failure.

Such degrees were very possible in older editions. Now you could play it the reverse, where the non-bard can do something social that the bard failed to do, but then of course you have the issue of "what is the point of having my +24 persuasion if I literally don't have mythical persuasion?"

But 5e solved a lot of that with greater bounded accuracy (though there are some +5 magic items that can bring it back a tad). Your right that when your dealing with +10 vs +3....sure the bard is going to be the best, but not so good that others can't be better at the right oppurtunity.

 

[ph0rk]

But 5e solved a lot of that with greater bounded accuracy (though there are some +5 magic items that can bring it back a tad). Your right that when your dealing with +10 vs +3....sure the bard is going to be the best, but not so good that others can't be better at the right oppurtunity.

A 35% greater likelihood of success is rather striking. In any scenario where DCs are set independent of the skills of the character making the check, that's the difference we're talking about. Maybe you can ignore that. Good for you - but that's not a system that rewards new and inexperienced players well.

Now, if a DM alters DCs to fit the more meagre checks of some characters, that's different, but then why use a system with skills and ability scores at all?

Some characters will always be better than others at certain things in 5e, and it is also possible to put together a particularly weak character. If success in any of the three pillars matters to the player, that is going to feel like being a weak thing alongside a strong thing, and that gets old. Maybe not for you - again, good for you. Unless classes have "this class is weak at x" disclaimers in the PHB, though, it is a problem.

Further, the long standing existence of these class difference in performance in different pillars shores up the player conceptions about which classes can do which things.

5e is better than some previous editions about this stuff, but it still exists. Game balance within pillars is atrocious, and as there is no universally agreed upon distribution of game session time to each pillar, it means table to table balance is both atrocious and unpredictable.

 

[Maxperson]

this is why I don't think this is a real problem in 5e compared to previous editions. Now lets take your example give the bard a +24 to Persuasion. Aka him on his worst day (rolled a 1) is better than you on your best (rolled a 20). In that example, there is literally nothing you can say that is more persuasive than the bard making a fart noise. By you "including" yourself in the conversation, all you have done is increased the chance of failure.

First, if you're foregoing your skill by farting, you're still going to fail. Second, it's not about the numbers and possible failure. Sure the bard has a silver tongue, but that doesn't mean that in the game world the other PCs would sit around and not talk OR that the NPC(s) would not look over at the fighter or cleric and start engaging them in conversation. If you roleplay a conversation as they generally occur, among multiple people, then everyone gets included. Sure, that increases the chance of failure, but all that really means is that the bard over invested his skill points in persuasion and probably should have gone with a wider spread of skills.

Such degrees were very possible in older editions. Now you could play it the reverse, where the non-bard can do something social that the bard failed to do, but then of course you have the issue of "what is the point of having my +24 persuasion if I literally don't have mythical persuasion?"

In my game, the point was when dealing with high level NPCs who are going to be much harder to convince to do things. See below though, for how I ran things in 3e.

But 5e solved a lot of that with greater bounded accuracy (though there are some +5 magic items that can bring it back a tad). Your right that when your dealing with +10 vs +3....sure the bard is going to be the best, but not so good that others can't be better at the right oppurtunity.

It's not even about the numbers, though. I played this way in 3e, but 5e just codified it. You don't get a roll unless the outcome is in doubt. If the player of the bard with his +10 says some dubious things, he's either going to get a roll or a flat out no it doesn't work. if the guy with the +3 or even no bonus says something that is really good, he might succeed without even having to roll.

 

[AmerginLiath]

Don’t focus on raw power — remember that there’s always a bigger fish. If the PCs are exceptional it’s because they have the bigger story, the key connections to something in the world that matters, something about their nature that can change things when a thousand others with the same skills can’t. Think of the hobbits of Bag’s End saving the day or any tale of a farmboy who decides to set out to become a knight.

Build connections; use background and the bits it provides for a character, or simply include ties within the story that bind different PCs in (especially the “weaker” ones) where their involvement beyond rolling dice affects the world. The Natural 20 you rolled and the massive damage you did makes a cool story for that week, but the change you wrought on the world of the campaign is a great tale to last years.

 

[Stalker0]

Think of the hobbits of Bag’s End saving the day...

So if we think of LoTRs in dnd terms..... Frodo effectively had a super bonus against evil effects, like a massive bonus. He basically had the equivalent of a powerful magic item to protect him from the other super powerful magic item that he possessed. The dm gave the weak character a contrivance to make him useful

In a normal dnd party, if a player had to carry the ring, they would have given it to a dwarven cleric with the big wisdom, not the halfling rogue.