D&D 5E Unused content

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean, I have read the subclass, played it and thoroughly enjoyed playing it. I'm not sure why you're explaining to me why I shouldn't like the thing I like, unless I'm misreading you. What you're describing is not my experience of it - perhaps when you played it you had a different experience?

I'm not saying you shouldn't like it, so yeah, you are misreading me (or I misstated). Where did I suggest that?

I'm explaining the specific issues it has, in response to the question of:

Mastermind is unplayed content?

There's a reason why it's "unplayed content" for most players. That has literally nothing to do with you liking it or not. Particularly because, as I pointed out at some length, it's extremely DM-dependent, and if your DM works well with it, as I strongly imagine yours does, it's actually pretty solid.

I mean, you're talking to me, someone who has played countless subpar and ill-designed classes and races across countless games, tabletop and video, because I "liked the vibe" lol. I'm definitely not saying you can't like it!

 

[GreyLord]

Played the Monk (but only at lower levels, maybe to level 4 or 5 at most?? I think if I recall right, it wasn't a long campaign).

 

[Tutara]

There's a reason why it's "unplayed content" for most players. That has literally nothing to do with you liking it or not. Particularly because, as I pointed out at some length, it's extremely DM-dependent, and if your DM works well with it, as I strongly imagine yours does, it's actually pretty solid.

I think we're coming at this from different experiences, because I don't see most of the issues you do. To each their own!

 

[delph]

I've been played next to Mistermind and it was great. One of his "help on distant" completely change a heavy fight with a boss to an easy battle. Well, co-played group knows what others do and can do, so using help isn't a wasted much time.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've been played next to Mistermind and it was great. One of his "help on distant" completely change a heavy fight with a boss to an easy battle. Well, co-played group knows what others do and can do, so using help isn't a wasted much time.

Advantage on one attack per round did all that by itself? Colour me extremely skeptical. What exactly happened?

And it doesn't get wasted because people don't cooperate, that's shenanigans on your part. It gets wasted because the situation fundamentally changes. Some DMs are more flexible and will allow a Help action to apply to attack even though the enemy it was being used on is dead or out of range and now another enemy is being attacked or the like, but that's not RAW/RAI and it's not how all or even most DMs will act.

I think we're coming at this from different experiences, because I don't see most of the issues you do. To each their own!

I mean, like I said, a lot of these issues can be negated a DM who is being intentionally helpful to the Mastermind. Not all DMs will be that skilled or thoughtful. But whether you see them or not, they're real issues and limitations, and pretending they don't exist is, whilst funny, not helpful to this or any other classes/subclasses.

 

[Argyle King]

I voted yes and positive, but that's not true for all options.

Mastermind: yes and positive
4 Elements: yes and negative
Purple Dragon: no - I like the concept but it appears to be obviously worse than other options for building the same concept

 

[CubicsRube]

I've played the 4 elements to a high level and had a blast. I could fly into the middle of a group, cast fireball centred on self, succeed on a dex save and take no damage.

Not the most effective use of power but the flavour of stuff like that was excellent.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I have had a player play a 4 Elements Monk and they enjoyed it. I didn't even need to use the Revised Monk even though I had it, as they were not an "optimal player" type who would notice or compare what they were doing to the others in the group to know or recognize they were at a "disadvantage" per se. They never saw the issue that folks here do.

Just like the Mastermind thing... it all comes down to what a player focuses on and what the DM can do to make their character be all they want it to be. If I can make their playtime better by using my stance as DM to give a bit of a shine on the mechanics they have at their disposal when it would help, I'll do so. That's part of the reason I myself don't go into the whole "neutral arbiter" stance of Dungeon Mastering-- that always struck me as keeping at arm's length from all the characters and thus letting their mechanics stand or fall on their own... and at that point no wonder some work better than others and there is an unbalance.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I've played them or played with them as companions.
Let's say that there's...a gap...between a 4E Monk and a Twilight Cleric. But that does not matter unless you have those ''weaker'' archetypes played next to a ''little-too-strong'' archetype AND the players are the type of players who care about those things.

So all-in-all, while pretty bad on paper, most of them made for some enjoyable games.

Of course the PDK would have been better as a Battlemaster, but patched with support-y feats, it was ok.

The non-spells ability of the 4E monk are pretty cool, they should just get those + the spells casting because they lack actual features. It's like if an EK would only learn 4 spells as its only features.

At high level a Mastermind gains mostly nothing, but the Rogue is already a powerful class, so it not that a big of a deal and Rogue's archetype high level features are pretty much all forgettable, IMO.

 

[Blue]

Fey Hobgoblins make amazing Masterminds. They have a unique and powerful way of contributing buffs to people every turn. Outside of that exception, I have not seen any good experiences with those subclasses.

Unfortunately, this is no longer true. In MPMM they redid them: "Starting at 3rd level, choose one of the options below each time you take the Help action with this trait"

So it now only adds the booster when you use the trait, which is limited to Proficiency times per day.

In a friend's campaign they misread the 4 elements monk rules and had an entirely separate pool of Ki for their normal abilities and their subclass abilities. Even then they did not outshine the other PCs.

One "simple" (but that doesn't mean good) fix I saw for 4 Elements monk was just to reduce the starting cost of all abilities by 1 Ki. So something like Fangs of the Fire Snake were 0 Ki to get Reach and do fire damage, but still 1 Ki for the extra d10 damage. and all of the Elemental spells were 1 cheaper. Do you think that would have worked? I don't have any experience actually seeing them played to judge it.