Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7413816" data-attributes="member: 6880599">I agree but I also believe in a separation form Player and character meaning that if a player doesn't understand how to play his class its not meta to point out their "poor play" and advise them once in a while because the character they are playing would know better. Sometimes you have a tactical deficient player playing soldier tactician and I don't expect them to suddenly understand tactics because of their character choice any more than I expect the introvert playing the face to become a fast talker on session 1, the wizard to player to actually know who to investigate a room thoroughly, or the ranger player to know how to describe how he tracks with any sort of realism or authority. That is to say, poor play is its own punishment I just let it happen and hope they learn but on the other hand if I actually see a flaw I might make character specific advice in the form of "well, you could do that and can if you really want to but your character would know X and that might serve you better in this case" if they still want to do it the "poor" way I would make sure their is test/roll involved somehow so that its possible to fail forward even with bad discussions... of course its also possible for them to fail hard. I just want to balance the player vs the character to maximize fun but at the same success has no value if there is no failure. I actually love playing characters/classes and GMing others play characters/classes in odd ways. Which is why my GM often thinks of me as a munchkin player. I find there is a thin line there and some people can't see it. So I agree with you 100% it should not be punished but at the same time I have learned to respect that it is hard to see player intent from the out side. I could be doing a 2 level dip just to steal a class feature as min/max power gamer or I could be doing a 2 level dip because I wanted a back ground of a fighter hunting undead armies through a portal who got "infected" in the Shadow Fel and is now a Fighter shadow sorcerer multi-class but since both end up with action surge letting them cast 2 spells in a single turn once per long rest it makes little difference to many weather it was the goal or just a side effect, they just feel your "stealing" class features making you a munchkin player. Also, they will look at any single class option as proof, in this case why did the player not pick eldritch knight at level 3 instead... where the answer is they wanted to be a sorcerer not a fighter, the fighter is just background but others will say no your fighter who cast spells so be an eldritch knight. I see both sides and we do have some people at our table who want to play as a munchkin taking a level of war cleric for full plate and melee proficiencies but not bothering to pic a Deity and don't even consider roleplaying the faith to that deity because its not story drive its just a feature grab. In my mind I can even with feature grab munchkin character IF the player can follow up with the relevant story background and role play to tie it into the character and the campaign in a way that is meaningful and that does not step on other player namely by stealing from a class and subclass already represented in the group.</blockquote>

Verification