D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Remathilis]

Is it a book I've had a chance to read? Not all subclasses are going to fit if we're talking hypotheticals with no other info.

By and large any book I own is fair game but for example some Eberron subclasses may not make sense or maybe it would work with tweaking. Dragonmarks for example don't exist in my world any more than guns.

As far as my curated species list I don't update it.

I legitimately wondered if there was any exception to the curated list. My players bring me 3pp options and I will review it and make a call on it. I can't know everything that exists, so I review them and make a call. I just wondered if you did the same or if the list was finite and unchanging.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Omce again that doesn't matter because there have been many many attempts to talk about the process of gm<>player cooperative collaboration on an abstract level many times. Often those were with intentionally absurd examples involving things Jedi and Klingons on TOS era federation ships that should have allowed the example to stand as an unreasonable one purely for purpose of discussing the process at an abstract. However ach time someone on the tortle side of the discussion would ignore that effort and try to justify how the trek verse could accommodate those things if only the gm were willing to be more accommodating.

About the closest that the tortle advocates ever came to making attempts at talking about the process was a few times where they suggested peppering the gm will throw away race/class combos with no further details that were regularly ascribed as things with deep player attachment the gm needs to endlessly dig through. No matter what critique was given to each of those shotgun blast process proposals it would just be ignored and go back to specifics about how the gm could make those work now that the player has fulfilled their end of simply listing a few PCs they might like to play

I disagree that that is what is happening here; I strongly disagree with your characterization of the "Jedi and Klingons in TOS ships" thing, because that was always the people proposing it being disingenuous jerks trying to paint EVERYONE who wants ANYTHING the GM doesn't like.

I have no desire to interact with this assertion beyond what I have just said, and will not respond to further about this.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That goes both ways. I shudder at the thought of playing in a campaign where action has do little consequence or concern that the gm doesn't even bother to consider tracking the impacts of play on it.

Maybe it's a symptom of a willingness to toss out anything previously established to be replaced by any spur of the moment throwaway idea supplied by a player during character creation?

Could you try a little harder to insult people who don't share your preferences? I don't think you've done enough to emphasize just how horrific, destructive, and cringey it is to spend five minutes caring about what players think rather than ploughing ahead with your own views, players be damned.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, depends on the ability. Dragonborn had their breath weapon and they were the weakest race in the game because of it for the longest time. Aarakocra on the other hand, well. Depends on your take on how strong flying is

Generally speaking each race has its one little gimmick ability that handles that which is typically just a 'can cast spell X times a day'. Firbolg and gnomes get speak with animals, duergar get enlarge self, so on and so forth. Little once in a while abilities like that tend to be how people represent that. Some even have it as a detriment, though that tends to be the charity options loacanth and grung who both have 'keep moist or perish' passives, due to being fish and frog respectively

In terms of balance, said once in a while abilities are also notoriously underpowered compared to passive abilities and the powerhouse that is the free feat humans get.

I was just curious whether "If they can be adventurers they can be PCs" was liable to come up against some species that are humanoid and theoretically can do that, but have too many baked in special abilities to make much sense to be placed in the same framework as standard PC species.

 

[billd91]

WHat if I bought you the book? Now can I use it?

If it works with the campaign, sure. If it doesn’t, we’ll see what we can salvage from the book.

 

[Zardnaar]

That bolded bit is just hyper technical hair splitting by misusing a dictionary.

When you pull back from that sophistry there is still the huge problem you've been defending while claiming otherwise. What you keep blatantly ignoring in your zeal to shift the entire burden of making characters fit onto the gm and absolve players as a whole of bearing even the slightest speck of responsibility to work with their GM is that what you are pointlessly calling "conversation" is still an example of players showing a complete refusal to engage in collaboration with their gm or a refusal accept that their gm is a human not gifted with mind reading capability rather than some flavor of an ai training robot.

Despite your claims to the contrary in 1297, this is not a problem rooted in the mere format of it being a forum discussion between two sides with no willingness to compromise and the discussion itself has demonstrated that repeatedly. Time and time again there have been efforts to talk about what the process of players working with the gm, and each time those efforts are crushed by either you reminding everyone of a point nobody is arguing about how players aren't required to join or keep playing a game they don't want to play --OR-- that effort to discuss a process of collaborative working with is blatantly dismissed and some suggestion is made for how deliberately absurd examples like Luke Skywalker Klingons and so on could totally fit settings they are violently in conflict with if only the gm was more flexible and changed the setting to make a deliberately absurd example if only the GM would ignore the absurd result.

Even beyond that there is the problem that this is on some levels a problem that wotc's choices in design marketing and community interaction§ 5e. All of those combined have shifted this from a past minor issue where the gm could reasonably expect a player with a poor approach to collaboration to engage with them on some level other than indignation and outrage after explaining things like how d&d works as a game between one DM and an average 3-5 players to an endemic problem where even trying to explain that gets the gm immediately labeled some kind of toxic control freak as we've seen many times through the thread.


§ ie tell your story, we designed this subclass to frustrate dms, the crushing video game mentality design focus.

Posters on ENworld can insist on whatever they like

Reality bye bye.

I do a players guide. Would ve nice if they read it occasionally.

I can cast summon player spell and get 5 or 6 replacements inside a week in reality.

Hard bans atm are flyers, silvery barbs and ask first for 2014 material.