Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 6862911" data-attributes="member: 6802951">5e's Bounded Accuracy may be giving you an issue here. Its designed to keep balance in terms of low-level monsters and players vs high level ones. However it does mean that unlike 3.5, you can't generally build a character to the extreme of you requiring anything other than a natural 1 to fail for example. Neither are there many automatic effects such as in 4th edition: if you want to shove a monster away, you have to roll for it.Without memorising the MM or expecting the DM to tell you what a monster's Str(Athletics) score is, you're unlikely to be able to calculate the exact odds for any action, but you can get a pretty good idea generally simply because there is less stat inflation compared to 3.5 for example. If playing a combat monster all the time is what he enjoys, then there isn't a problem with it. I get the impression that some of the concepts of 5e are already outside his comfort zone, so sticking to something familiar in terms of roleplaying is perfectly natural.Besides, there is no reason to suppose that he plays all his characters the same way. Just because a character is mechanically effective in combat doesn't mean that it has to be roleplayed as a violent thug. There are actors (not Keanu Reeves) who can play different characters even if they generally star in action films for example.</blockquote>