D&D 5E The tyranny of small numbers

[Charlaquin]

Well, sure, and at the same time the high DEX guy has "amazing riposte" or something that does a slightly different but pretty much equally useful effect.

Is having all PCs be equally useful not the ideal?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Is having all PCs be equally useful not the ideal?

In general yes, but of course there's nothing wrong with saying "and in this specific situation your DEX fighter really got to shine with that move." So, GOOD spotlighting IMHO involves a fairly short time in the spotlight and shining it around on everyone reasonably often and in roughly equal measure. BAD spotlighting is that thing where one character is indispensible for the entirety of three whole sessions because "undead" or something, while another one or two are pretty much boned.

The nice thing about having a useful power or 'skill' as the differentiator is it should be fairly easy to let it shine sometimes, and then the rest of the time the character can be ordinarily effective at the same baseline as the others, as the post I was responding to seems to suggest. It is probably best if its more of a situational kind of thing vs "you are always good against monsters with this specific tag" sort of thing. I mean, 'Turn Undead', while logical, was not a great game design choice back in classic D&D, but the 4e version of it is better, as you can only use it 2x/day IIRC.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In general yes, but of course there's nothing wrong with saying "and in this specific situation your DEX fighter really got to shine with that move." So, GOOD spotlighting IMHO involves a fairly short time in the spotlight and shining it around on everyone reasonably often and in roughly equal measure. BAD spotlighting is that thing where one character is indispensible for the entirety of three whole sessions because "undead" or something, while another one or two are pretty much boned.

Firstly: I see what you did there. (Bolded for emphasis.)

Secondly: it is incredibly refreshing to have someone, ANYONE, try to debunk the idea that spotlight balance is the end-all, be-all, cure-all technique. Or even admit that it could ever be faulty. I've had so many discussions where folks will just refuse to engage AT ALL "because spotlight balance."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

"Optimizing the fun out of the game" is not what's going on here.

The principle driving this is a thing called Loss Aversion Bias: People hate a loss about twice as much as they like a win. Meaning you have to win (in this case land a hit) about 67% of the time to feel like you are actually winning. And lo and behold, the 5e devs thought of this, if you dig into the DMG tables, a character with a starting 16 who pumps the main stat with ASIs will hit a generic monster 65% of the time, close enough to "feel right", even more so when you consider situational bonuses.

While you might not think a mere 5% loss in accuracy that stems from starting with a 14 instead of a 16 would matter, it is enough to change that 65% into a 60%, going from skirting the "this feels good" squarely into the "this feels bad" side of the equation.

And yes, obviously not all people are as susceptible to Loss Aversion as others, which is why that 60% feels fine for them.

Never heard that. But it makes sense.
I also do like optimization. I also do deviate from ot often enough. And if I do I carefully weight advantages and disadvantages of my decision.

But I did see people optimize the fun out of a game. I think it happened a lot more in 3.5 than 5e.
Characters didn't hit the succeed 67% mark, but 95% mark. Which in turn srole the fun for the DM. And when youbtargeted their neglected parts, they cried foul.
I can also say that I have been there too. And nowadays I try to achieve the 67% mark and try to spread optimization around a bit.

 

[Maxperson]

Is having all PCs be equally useful not the ideal?

Sure, but absolutely not equally useful in all things. That's just boring.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, but absolutely not equally useful in all things. That's just boring.

No, of course you want strengths and weaknesses between various characters; ideally everyone would contribute equally but in different ways. You know, like if they all had some sort of… ability… and each character has a different one of these “abilities” that they focused on… primarily. Perhaps influenced by their class. In this hypothetical scenario, I would imagine you’d want everyone in the party to be similarly competent in the whatever ability their class primarily focused on, but generally be less competent in the abilities the other characters’ classes focused on.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, of course you want strengths and weaknesses between various characters; ideally everyone would contribute equally but in different ways. You know, like if they all had some sort of… ability… and each character has a different one of these “abilities” that they focused on… primarily. Perhaps influenced by their class. In this hypothetical scenario, I would imagine you’d want everyone in the party to be similarly competent in the whatever ability their class primarily focused on, but generally be less competent in the abilities the other characters’ classes focused on.

Going a step further, it'd be pretty cool if we had some way of quantifying what a particular character is contributing. Not in a prescriptive, restrictive kind of way--purely descriptive, like how one can say that any version of Barbarian you play, you're meant to be pretty durable, due to high HP and Rage giving resistance to physical forms of damage (and then certain Totem Barbs are even moreso, having resistance to nearly all forms of damage.) Some kind of label or term that could quickly and concisely indicate "I can consistently contribute X." Just seems like it would be really useful.

That way, you'd know for sure that each person has something to contribute, even if it isn't always the most useful thing, and (going off what you'd said) you'd have as much confidence as you could that, when that thing comes up, a given character will be about as good at doing it as some other character is at doing what they would do.

 

[Gimby]

I wouldn't. Nobody can really cover the 3. It's true that if someone else is with me, they might see something that I do not with my 3 wisdom and crappy perception, but it's inevitable that there will be many instances where I'm the only one who might notice something, but my 3 kills me. Or falling into a pit or other trap and the 3 dex kills me. Or where I'm the one conscious and have to drag my companion, but nope, because 3 strength. Or...

That 3 is going to hurt you much more than the 18 will help.

Amusingly, I rolled something very similar to this for a currently running game and am playing a 4 STR fairy wizard. It's not been too much of a handicap so far and has been a source of a lot of amusement, but I really wouldn't want to try it on a non-full caster.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

A +1 modifier may not be all that noticeable in play, but +2 definitely is, and +1 is halfway to +2.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I find that maxing out the stat really depends on what the character is designed to do -

For one character I played recently, a Battlemaster Artificer, I wanted to max out his Intelligence because it improved both his spells and his weapon attacks (due to a class feature, he used Int as his weapon attack stat most of the time), and because the concept for him was that he was the smartest guy in the room.

For a dwarf rogue I'm playing right now, the GM wanted rolled stats, so I didn't really get to choose to max out (or even have his highest stat in) his dexterity. Careful choices, however, gave me a stat array of 16, 15, 15, 15, 10, 7. Having only a +2 in his attack stat doesn't stop him from being an excellent skill monkey.

Is 16 your Str score?
Then how is your attack stat +2?

 

[Maxperson]

Is 16 your Str score?
Then how is your attack stat +2?

It might be a misreading of this ability.

"BATTLE READY
3rd-level Battle Smith feature

Your combat training and your experiments with magic have paid off in two ways:

• You gain proficiency with martial weapons.
• When you attack with a magic weapon, you can use your Intelligence modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity modifier, for the attack and damage rolls."

 

[Agametorememberbooks]

The group I run for doesn’t optimize their stats. They take feats/ASIs at about half/half. Having all the numbers perfect doesn’t radically affect players that play as a coordinated unit.

 

[Remathilis]

Lots of games (video, ccg, minis, etc) have a "meta" that people determine is considered the optimal setup for play. MMO 's will often have the best gear and skill options for each role, Magic has deck's that are considered top tier, etc. It's natural that such thinking would come to RPGs. The charops board has been a thing for 20+ years.

Of course, RPGs have an advantage that other games don't: a human DM who can tailor a game to a group. What is meta is partially decided by what content your DM is running. Which is why most rpg meta assumes either btb adventure paths or organized play (or both). If you're in a stable group and know your other players, meta is whatever you want.

Even so, off meta isn't bad. Unless you're in serious competitive play, meta is rarely a major factor. Most MMO content can be completed with non-meta builds. You can win Magic games with casual decks. In RPGs, you can make non-optimized characters and still function fine in OP or in the latest Paizo AP.

So I don't give any thoughts to the meta-chasers who demand a 20 prime stat ASAP and only pick the best spells per level. Meta is one way to play, not the only.

 

[tetrasodium]

So I don't give any thoughts to the meta-chasers who demand a 20 prime stat ASAP and only pick the best spells per level. Meta is one way to play, not the only.

I think it's important to accept that for some people doing that is a big part of their gameplay fun. THEN after accepting it to design so those players can have it and other deeper/more nuanced styles of optimization bred gameplay have room to flourish in the other 5 stats(or other areas) for players who find fun in those areas instead. Some editions do that better than other editions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Lots of games (video, ccg, minis, etc) have a "meta" that people determine is considered the optimal setup for play. MMO 's will often have the best gear and skill options for each role, Magic has deck's that are considered top tier, etc. It's natural that such thinking would come to RPGs. The charops board has been a thing for 20+ years.

That's not what the metagame or meta for short is. That's just optimisation.

The metagame or meta for short is the game beyond the mechanics of the game. It's looking at what the other players are doing and using that to influence your plans. It says that if most of your possible opponent's are going rock to be paper even if the paper options in theory have a lower DPS - but the advantage over rock counteracts that.

Metagaming is however a bit of a dirty word in RPG circles and the nearest thing most groups have to a meta is to turn up e.g. with waterbreathing and swim speeds in a pirate campaign.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It might be a misreading of this ability.

"BATTLE READY
3rd-level Battle Smith feature

Your combat training and your experiments with magic have paid off in two ways:

• You gain proficiency with martial weapons.
• When you attack with a magic weapon, you can use your Intelligence modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity modifier, for the attack and damage rolls."

But you don´t have to. So it should be +3 to attack.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

But you don´t have to. So it should be +3 to attack.

Unless he's attacking with a ranged weapon, either dex or int will give +2.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think it's important to accept that for some people doing that is a big part of their gameplay fun THEN design so they can have it and other deeper/more nuanced styles of optimization bred gameplay have room to flourish in the other 5 stats(or other areas). Some editions do that better than other editions.

Oh, absolutely. This is why transparent design is such a big deal. By making your design transparent, you enable those players who don't want to dance to the expected tune to see exactly what cost they're paying, if they care to, and thus enable them to mitigate that choice if it suits their fancy. By contrast, an obfuscated game is going to have continuous issues with players not realizing that the thing they've done purely because it sounds cool is directly (albeit subtly) leading to long-term dissatisfaction with the play experience, even though every component of what they're trying to do aligns with the rules and with their personal interests.

And I can say that with confidence because that's exactly what happened to me in 3e. That's where I was before I tried 4e, back either before it existed or when I was (believe it or not) a 4e hater because I'd never played it and a former friend told me it was hot garbage (despite the fact that she, also, had not played it.) Really reading (and playing) 4e was an epiphany. I finally saw how my dissatisfaction with 3.X had had nothing to do with all the things I'd been trying to fix. I've been trying to find just the right homebrew Paladin or PrC option or feat or whatever to make the experience work, and assuming I just wasn't having good luck finding that stuff. It turned out, I wanted a system that actually made good on the kind of game 3e sold itself as being, because 3e manifestly failed to be that game.

That's not what the metagame or meta for short is. That's just optimisation.

Likely a clash of definitions. Optimization is a form of meta-game thinking, in that it is not thinking about playing the game, but rather about how the game is (or should be) played, much as ethics is the study of correct behavior and meta-ethics is the study of how one should think about correct behavior in the first place.

As you say, in the wider sphere of gaming, counting video games, "the meta," with the definite article, refers to a very specific form of meta-game thinking. I.e. strategies which pursue success contingent on empirical (rather than theoretical) chances of success. But such thinking is merely one subset of the broader meaning of "meta-gaming."

The metagame or meta for short is the game beyond the mechanics of the game. It's looking at what the other players are doing and using that to influence your plans. It says that if most of your possible opponent's are going rock to be paper even if the paper options in theory have a lower DPS - but the advantage over rock counteracts that.

Metagaming is however a bit of a dirty word in RPG circles and the nearest thing most groups have to a meta is to turn up e.g. with waterbreathing and swim speeds in a pirate campaign.

Yeah, there's rather an antagonistic perception of meta-game thinking in general (not just pursuing "the meta") in TTRPGs, though I find that that antagonism is spotty and self-contradictory at times. E.g. people love to trot out examples of players who make presumptions about creatures and then get upset when their presumptions are intentionally defied. Yet there is (and has essentially always been) a style of play that expects exactly this, going back to the time of Gygax. E.g. if you know there will be trolls, it is not only correct to try to prepare for them as much as possible, it is a mark of being a superior player that you know that both fire and acid will do the trick. Even if your individual character has never fought trolls and never had any reason to know their weaknesses, you as a player know, and that's what matters. Hence why older editions discouraged players from reading the DMG and MM; to do so would confer a survival advantage without "earning" it through play. (Many people really underestimate just how much old-school D&D was committed to "it is a game, it should be played like a game, other considerations are secondary.")

 

[tetrasodium]

Oh, absolutely. This is why transparent design is such a big deal. By making your design transparent, you enable those players who don't want to dance to the expected tune to see exactly what cost they're paying, if they care to, and thus enable them to mitigate that choice if it suits their fancy. By contrast, an obfuscated game is going to have continuous issues with players not realizing that the thing they've done purely because it sounds cool is directly (albeit subtly) leading to long-term dissatisfaction with the play experience, even though every component of what they're trying to do aligns with the rules and with their personal interests.

And I can say that with confidence because that's exactly what happened to me in 3e. That's where I was before I tried 4e, back either before it existed or when I was (believe it or not) a 4e hater because I'd never played it and a former friend told me it was hot garbage (despite the fact that she, also, had not played it.) Really reading (and playing) 4e was an epiphany. I finally saw how my dissatisfaction with 3.X had had nothing to do with all the things I'd been trying to fix. I've been trying to find just the right homebrew Paladin or PrC option or feat or whatever to make the experience work, and assuming I just wasn't having good luck finding that stuff. It turned out, I wanted a system that actually made good on the kind of game 3e sold itself as being, because 3e manifestly failed to be that game.

3.x bent over backwards with ""behind the curtain" sections that went into detail explaining a great many aspects in detail to convey a deeper understanding of a great many functionally complex & nuanced* things. Both the DMG & monster manual had them, I'm sure some of the other books did as well. 2e had some similar content but it was not called out in such a way that allows easy reference. I believe more than a few dragon mag issues had similar guidance on specific topics too. I mostly skipped 4e but 5e's design is anything but transparent despite the simplicity.

*"Obfuscated" is a deliberate effort to hide through complexity & similar, that doesn't mean that any complex or nuanced thing is automatically obfuscated as 5e's simplicity above all design suggests

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mostly skipped 4e but 5e's design is anything but transparent despite the simplicity.

4e is an extremely transparent game. I recommend giving it a look at some point, even if you don't intend to play it. It's got a lot of very smart design in it.

And yes, I completely agree that 5e obfuscates despite striving for simplicity. It's one of my major frustrations with the system. Particularly because 4e was so good about this.