D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[KYRON45]

You sound like like a Virgo

OMG!!! I'm a Virgo!!!!

 

[el-remmen]

This thread is like a Greatest Hits of every ENWorld argument ever all at the same time!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No, their PCs are strong in different ways. One deals much better damage, another has skills etc.

That's simply not how 5E works.

There's no such thing as a character who "has skills" instead of being good at combat in 5E. This isn't 1/2/3E. And the only actually example you've given is a character who appears to be mediocre or bad at pretty much everything, and anti-optimized.

Why can you not accept that the issue is with the subclass, not the other players or their PCs? Their characters are just as optimized for what they are. The RK is just that much more powerful when "maxed out".

Because I've seen the subclass in play with players who are clearly much more interested in optimizing than the ones you're describing, and whilst it's good, it's not "night and day" compared to other Fighter subclasses. I'd say it's top three personally, but a lot of people would rate it lower.

Hell, on the top optimization site, it doesn't even make 4/4 stars.

DnD 5e Fighter Subclasses Guide

Character optimization guide for the DnD 5e Fighter's subclasses.

rpgbot.net

Why can't you accept that the problems you had were down the specific setup in your game? Occam's razor makes that a lot more likely than this subclass being insanely super-powerful but no-one else having experienced that. Further, you're saying the other PCs are "just as optimized", but literally everything you've said suggests that they aren't.

AT/WM is a very effective combination.

More effective than just AT? I instinctively don't believe it for one second, and you'd have to specify exactly how. More effective than other Rogue subclasses? Not most of them.

Due to his sneak attacks, he routinely dealt more damage than the RK did.

I am pretty skeptical that a Rogue/Wizard MC did better DPR (so with lower-than-expected SA), encounter-on-encounter, than a STR-maxed Fighter with a 2H weapon. I could see it being very similar, but "routinely more"? Hmmm.

Could he have gotten a better MC mix? Sure, but better how?

Not multiclassing would be a better MC mix. That's literally anti-optimizing, which is why I call it that. It's fine to do that, but we can't pretend that's "optimized".

But his mobility kept him out of danger often. With WM he boosts saves when needed, he has most slots for mage armor and such

And yet your complaint is he died all the time? Seems like it didn't help much!

 

[KYRON45]

I’ve never optimized a character. Y’all are speaking Greek to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’m not a labels person. A game is just a game. Labels create division.

Yes, they do. But without division it's impossible to talk about or even describe anything, because nothing is different from anything else.

How exactly does that work?

 

[Guest 85555]

This thread is like a Greatest Hits of every ENWorld argument ever all at the same time!

It is just to hold people over until we can get into the Studio and record new material

 

[KYRON45]

Yes, they do. But without division it's impossible to talk about or even describe anything, because nothing is different from anything else.

How exactly does that work?

If every person playing every game came up with a label for every style of play in action….we’d be buried under semantic distinctions. At some point all of the distinctions become meaningless. To me at least.

How I play is personal to me and I can describe it without assigning labels.

People being people…they use labels as a reason to argue with one another about their labels. I prefer to take the high road.

I do understand the value of all these distinctions…I just find them tiresome.

It’s not a judgement value. It’s just my outlook.

 

[Guest 7037866]

That's simply not how 5E works.

It's a team game, of course it is how it works!

There's no such thing as a character who "has skills" instead of being good at combat in 5E. This isn't 1/2/3E.

I completely disagree.

And the only actually example you've given is a character who appears to be mediocre or bad at pretty much everything, and anti-optimized.

What are you talking about? What example? How are the mediocre or bad, etc.?

Because I've seen the subclass in play with players who are clearly much more interested in optimizing than the ones you're describing, and whilst it's good, it's not "night and day" compared to other Fighter subclasses. I'd say it's top three personally, but a lot of people would rate it lower.

All I can tell you then is obviously experiences differ. I rate it as probably the second most OP subclass for fighter, with Echo Knight likely taking the top prize (like I would ever allow one of those...).

Hell, on the top optimization site, it doesn't even make 4/4 stars.

DnD 5e Fighter Subclasses Guide

Character optimization guide for the DnD 5e Fighter's subclasses.

rpgbot.net

Oh please, this is one thing and their interpretation. Besides, what the heck with the annoying color-coded rating system? Just use stars or grades or something people more often know at a glance instead of trying to decode the system to understand the rating.

I mean, come on, the rate the Cavalier above the Rune Knight??? Not even close!

Why can't you accept that the problems you had were down the specific setup in your game? Occam's razor makes that a lot more likely than this subclass being insanely super-powerful but no-one else having experienced that.

Because it blatantly isn't true? Occam's razor makes it a lot more likely a later subclass full of bloat and power creep is likely OP compared to the ones that came before it.

Further, I've already stipulated this was also a case of "perfect storm" when you consider HAM, CON 20, Relentless Endurance, etc.

Further, you're saying the other PCs are "just as optimized", but literally everything you've said suggests that they aren't.

How is a AT/WM combo not as optimized? Max ability 20 for DEX, great damage, nearly the same AC, mobile compared to tanky, and a stealth/perception god. Even more versitile magic, ritual casting, etc.

I would LOVE to see what you consider "optimized" by comparison.

More effective than just AT? I instinctively don't believe it for one second, and you'd have to specify exactly how. More effective than other Rogue subclasses? Not most of them.

Yes, he gives up 1 die of sneak attack for attack cantrips and ritual casting and a lot wider spell selection. I would most certainly say at 8/2 he is better off than 10 AT.

I'm not comparing his choice of subclass to other rogue subclasses. My point is about the RK compared to other fighter subclasses. Everyone in our group saw how powerful it was, and yes were happy that PC was retired!

I am pretty skeptical that a Rogue/Wizard MC did better DPR (so with lower-than-expected SA), encounter-on-encounter, than a STR-maxed Fighter with a 2H weapon. I could see it being very similar, but "routinely more"? Hmmm.

His character is optimized for dealing damage either at a distance or by moving in, striking, and moving out. His melee is 1d8 (cantrip) + 5d6 (shortsword and 4d6 SA) + 5, for an average of 27 damage on a hit (ignoring critical damage), not to mention the extra 2d8 damage if the target then moves to come after him OR the additional damage to a secondary target--depending on the cantrip used.

Who said 2H-weapon? He fought with two weapons. Sorry if you misunderstood or I mispoke, but just to be clear.

And yes, routinely more. Why? Because often his ONE attack was fully utilized, while the RK might not get all his attacks in. He had two but often his third via the bonus action conflicted with his RK power, Second wind, etc. The rogue has no such issue. Also, the rogue could get sneak attacks on OA on occasion, further increasing his DPR potential.

I'm not saying the rogue did 30 and the RK 10 every round or anything like that, but the rogue definitely counted more for dealing damage than the RK. Could you make a RK with even better damage? Sure, drop his AC a point and go 2H with GWM, removing the Tough Feat. Great, now he is near-impossible to take down AND a better damage dealer... In that sense the RK wasn't even optimized--he was optimized to survive--which he did.

Frankly, as I've said, I already posted in another thread why the RK is OP compared to other fighter subclasses pre-Tasha's. Others can be strong certainly, but combining things like you can do with Runes is sick, absolutely sick. The easiest fix is to remove the "In addition" second paragraph from each Rune. You'd have a strong subclass still, but not OP then IMO.

Not multiclassing would be a better MC mix. That's literally anti-optimizing, which is why I call it that. It's fine to do that, but we can't pretend that's "optimized".

Huh? What? Are you kidding me? Why do you think there are so many people who hate MC dips??? MCing for a level or two often produces much more optimized PCs than going straight class.

And yet your complaint is he died all the time? Seems like it didn't help much!

No, I said he went down more. And along with the other PCs it was common for one of them to drop in most encounters while the RK was still at half HP or better.

The only encounter the RK was pretty much screwed in was a battle against a spellcaster. There the rogue's evasion was worth more than the higher HP the RK had.

At any rate, we won't ever see eye-to-eye on this. Do your OWN comparison of the pre-Tasha's fighter subclasses to Rune Knight and then come back to me if you want to discuss it further. Prove to me I'm wrong, that other subclasses offer as much, allow as much capabilities for as long, etc. because once I saw this happening, I did to my own comparison and decided, "RK? Never again (without serious nerfing)."

 

[Remathilis]

No.

See, in a linear adventure, the GM has prepped for the town, the forest, and the cave, and maybe has a list of random encounters, but that's about it. If the player say "*(&@! that, let's go somewhere else"... there's no adventure. Game over.

In a sandbox adventure, the idea that the players may choose to not go to the town, forest, or cave is built in to the entire game. The players don't get to do those things, but that's OK because there's all that other stuff. Even if the rest of the map is blank, as in my adventure, the GM of a sandbox can grab a random location and plunk it down right in front of the PCs mid-game, or pause the gave until next week so they have time to write up something in full.

Of course, in a linear adventure, the GM can do that as well... but then it may not be a linear adventure anymore.

Let me ask the infamous sandbox question: at what point does the "box" apply? What if the players decide they don't want to go to the town, forest, or cave, but decide to find a Spelljammer vessel and fly to Faerun? Or take a portal to Sigil and explore Ysgard? Obviously those are extreme examples, but a certain point, the boundary of what the DM will allow becomes apparent. If at any point, when the DM says there are no available Spelljammers or Sigil portals because the DM does not want to move his campaign to Faerun or Planescape, has his campaign stopped being a sandbox?

 

[Remathilis]

I’ve never optimized a character. Y’all are speaking Greek to me.

It's rude to suck at Warcraft