Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8940229" data-attributes="member: 6877472">This reminds me of how many people insist 3.5 was "broken" because of Pun-Pun.What is a Pun-Pun, you might ask?  Well, basically, it's an exercise in what could happen if all the books were available, and the DM was asleep at the wheel, by allowing players to acquire NPC powers and abuse them.  Once the trick was revealed, it became a race to see how early it could happen (but  not really, since the most famous example is making a Paladin just so you could fall from grace in exchange for a wish from Pazuzu).It was a joke, but a lot of people got bent out of shape about it.  And worse, it became such a meme that people began using it as an attack against the game itself.  I mean, it's not like 3.5 didn't commit sins against game balance, but using this as the ur-example was extremely unfair (I'd rather point to Incantatrix shenanigans, the Jumplomancer, or the Hulking Hurler as more credible examples of crazy builds).Anyways, to answer your question, a lot of this is really going to be up to the individual.  Different people have different ideas about how games "should" be played.  Someone who takes the game very seriously is going to be bent out of shape when you demonstrate something they find questionable.  Most of the time you get a "haha, no DM would ever allow that" or "I'd ban that instantly" reaction, whether it's warranted or not.The power level you are comfortable with is another factor; I've played with groups who encourage cracked-out builds, and if you show up with "Torek the Dwarf Fighter" (a stand-in for a perfectly reasonable character), you might find yourself struggling to stay relevant.On the other hand, some groups might give you the stink eye if you even mention multiclassing, as that's only something a "roll player" would consider!My personal test is if character A is better than character B at doing something character B should be good at.  Then I try to isolate what's going on here.  I do try to take things into perspective, however.  For example, if a particular class is known for having weak subclasses, and someone shows up playing a strong subclass, I might let that slide (unless I have someone else playing a different subclass).  But for example, I think the Bladesinger is too good.  While it's true that they can only replicate what a melee character does for a limited time, and by level 11, a Fighter should always outperform them, the fact is, even without Bladesong, they're still a full caster with some of the best spells in the game!I find this especially egregious if you compare the Bladesinger to an Eldritch Knight, who gets a much more limited to "pretend to be a Wizard", and their fallback option, just being a Fighter, is only truly superior once they get their third attack!On the other hand, there are sometimes core options that outshine everything else.  The Totem Barbarian is still the gold standard for Barbarian power, 8 years later.  Everyone sort of ignores this, but it would really make an outsider to the game wondering why we aren't banning this subclass if it's really that much better.On the gripping hand, however, even "is X better than Y" is truly subjective.  You can make a power point presentation of why the Monk is an inferior class, but if a DM had his campaign wrecked by judicious use of Stunning Strike, they will never accept your data.Play a Cleric and eschew the use of Healing Word because it seems like a weak spell, because what you want to do is heal your allies, and you'll come away with the impression that the Cleric is a terrible class.Play a Cleric and build yourself to wade into combat with Spirit Guardians, turning you into a walking AoE effect, and you probably have a DM that hates your guts.</blockquote>

Verification