Rogue Mastermind Archetype Up, Courtesy of Extra Life

They stole my my help as a bonus action idea...

 

[Aldarc]

Not if you're focused on contributing more in the realm(s) outside of direct combat than you are in being a direct combatant...

A lot of that does not receive the same level of mechanical support or incentives as combat rules do. But if you are a rogue who invests too heavily in Int and Cha (as per being a mastermind), you are kinda screwing yourself and your party in the realm of combat, probably either on the Dex or Con end. I don't think that D&D simulates "theater of the mind" as well as other systems. D&D leans more on the heavier crunch side, at least in terms of other systems I enjoy (e.g. FATE, Cypher, etc.). I think you were having a similar conversation earlier, though I may be mistaken. So we may have to agree to disagree on this point and chalk it up to our different experiences and approaches to D&D.

 

[Imaro]

A lot of that does not receive the same level of mechanical support or incentives as combat rules do. But if you are a rogue who invests too heavily in Int and Cha (as per being a mastermind), you are kinda screwing yourself and your party in the realm of combat, probably either on the Dex or Con end. I don't think that D&D simulates "theater of the mind" as well as other systems. D&D leans more on the heavier crunch side, at least in terms of other systems I enjoy (e.g. FATE, Cypher, etc.). I think you were having a similar conversation earlier, though I may be mistaken. So we may have to agree to disagree on this point and chalk it up to our different experiences and approaches to D&D.

So the issue is... a player wants to be ultra-competent in the mental and/or social arena of D&D and also be ultra-competent in combat (since that's what allowing their already jacked up mental scores to sub for physical scores is going to do, especially if they are neglecting them to the point that they become an actual liability in combat)... this really sounds like a case of "I want to have my cake, and eat it too...and eat your cake as well"...

 

[Aldarc]

So the issue is... a player wants to be ultra-competent in the mental and/or social arena of D&D and also be ultra-competent in combat (since that's what allowing their already jacked up mental scores to sub for physical scores is going to do, especially if they are neglecting them to the point that they become an actual liability in combat)... this really sounds like a case of "I want to have my cake, and eat it too...and eat your cake as well"...

I would say that the rules and mechanics of the game incentivize certain aspects of the game more heavily and regularly than others (i.e. combat). So it's not so much a matter of wanting to do everything well, but that sometimes the game discourages you from playing the sort of overall character you would like to play without being suboptimal in more a heavily-emphasized aspect of play that affects other PCs more measurably. This is to say, given the assumptions of 5e, in most cases, it's usually preferable that a character is optimized or sufficient for combat within the mechanical confines of their class, archetype, combat role, or what have you.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I would say that the rules and mechanics of the game incentivize certain aspects of the game more heavily and regularly than others (i.e. combat). So it's not so much a matter of wanting to do everything well, but that sometimes the game discourages you from playing the sort of overall character you would like to play without being suboptimal in more a heavily-emphasized aspect of play that affects other PCs more measurably. This is to say, given the assumptions of 5e, in most cases, it's usually preferable that a character is optimized or sufficient for combat within the mechanical confines of their class, archetype, combat role, or what have you.

Nah. AFAIC, this is a table problem, not a system one. If one or more players have expressed a desire to focus on the mental/social aspects of play, and the DM is just throwing dungeon crawls at them, you really shouldn't blame D&D.

 

[TwoSix]

So the issue is... a player wants to be ultra-competent in the mental and/or social arena of D&D and also be ultra-competent in combat (since that's what allowing their already jacked up mental scores to sub for physical scores is going to do, especially if they are neglecting them to the point that they become an actual liability in combat)... this really sounds like a case of "I want to have my cake, and eat it too...and eat your cake as well"...

Except it wouldn't. Giving Int to attack and damage for a Mastermind would make going Int-primary worth thinking about for an optimizer, since the balance would then be AC, Init, and superior saves versus increased capability at skills. It's still probably not as good, of course, but making your attack stat your Primary is pretty much 5e optimization 101, so it's not at the point of being ridiculous.

 

[Aldarc]

AFAIC, this is a table problem, not a system one. If one or more players have expressed a desire to focus on the mental/social aspects of play, and the DM is just throwing dungeon crawls at them, you really shouldn't blame D&D.

I mostly agree, but I also think it can be both, to be honest. A lot of D&D ventures towards the more mechanics of combat - baking them heavily in each class - as opposed to the mechanics of mental/social aspects, apart from skills. For a number of players I have GMed in D&D 3-5e, there can be a real conflict between "the sort of character my imagine encourages me to be" and "the sort of character the system mechanics encourage me to be." I think that the GM certainly can abate some of that effect or feeling, but I also believe that it's still there in portions of D&D.

 

[Imaro]

I would say that the rules and mechanics of the game incentivize certain aspects of the game more heavily and regularly than others (i.e. combat). So it's not so much a matter of wanting to do everything well, but that sometimes the game discourages you from playing the sort of overall character you would like to play without being suboptimal in more a heavily-emphasized aspect of play that affects other PCs more measurably. This is to say, given the assumptions of 5e, in most cases, it's usually preferable that a character is optimized or sufficient for combat within the mechanical confines of their class, archetype, combat role, or what have you.

Well first off the DM, not the books determine the campaign makeup...

As to the rest of your post...I don't think the answer is to allow you to become ultra-optimized in numerous areas for a minimal cost. And there is a big difference, especially with bounded accuracy in being decent in combat vs. being optimized for it. With a 12 stat you're still decent... and I'm sorry but there has to be a tradeoff, otherwise the person whose concept isn't "my highest attribute works for all things" is getting screwed over.

 

[Aldarc]

Well first off the DM, not the books determine the campaign makeup...

As to the rest of your post...I don't think the answer is to allow you to become ultra-optimized in numerous areas for a minimal cost. And there is a big difference, especially with bounded accuracy in being decent in combat vs. being optimized for it. With a 12 stat you're still decent... and I'm sorry but there has to be a tradeoff, otherwise the person whose concept isn't "my highest attribute works for all things" is getting screwed over.

And that's the Strawman right there.

 

[Imaro]

Except it wouldn't. Giving Int to attack and damage for a Mastermind would make going Int-primary worth thinking about for an optimizer, since the balance would then be AC, Init, and superior saves versus increased capability at skills. It's still probably not as good, of course, but making your attack stat your Primary is pretty much 5e optimization 101, so it's not at the point of being ridiculous.

The Rogue has enough buffers on saves that I don't see that being a limitation, If he's an optimizer he'll go ranged to minimize the effect a low AC has... so we're left with Initiative as the only real downside...See this ollustrates the other pitfall of this type of design, more interlocking pieces and combos that can be exploited... and this isn't even getting into the area of feats and multi-classing.

 

[Imaro]

And that's the Strawman right there.

Really... because your whole point has been around combat optimization... and with high mental stats the character is already optimized for an area of non-combat... so exactly how is it a Strawman?

Again.. bounded accuracy means you don't need exceptionally high attributes to stay relevant... so if we're talking about those, we're talking optimization...