D&D 5E Whats your dealbreaker for 5E?

[Weather Report]

If the party is well-built, Daze and Stun aren't much of an issue. That tells me the party wasn't put together very well.

Not all parties are put together/built (I would hate that, beyond meta-gaming), like a contrived mechanism.

 

[Herschel]

Not all parties are put together/built (I would hate that, beyond meta-gaming), like a contrived mechanism.

Every party should be put together well. There's a reason these characters would adventure with eachother. That means filling in gaps, covering eachothers' weaknesses, etc. What's "contrived" is thinking a bunch of morons with no clue on how to work together or plan accordingly would survive adventuring. Surviving adventurers need to know how to cover their backsides and each others' if they want to survive.

 

[Herschel]

Actually, I thought the guys playing strikers were the most effective characters in the group. Perhaps that is why I thought it was an offensive minded party? Plus, while the wizard was a Controller, he was also fairly offensive minded. The guy playing the shaman leader was a good player, but sometimes had spotty attendance and was indifferent (at best) towards 4e, so somebody else would run his PC if he was gone, so that might have contributed as well.

The kid playing the archer ranger also had uncanny luck rolling "to hit", while his father, playing the fighter defender, was the opposite: Twice during the campaign, the ranger was blinded and still attacked and rolled natural 20s. His father could have three attacks that need only a five or better to hit and he'd miss all three, or he'd miss two out of three on a good day. If it were a one time thing, I'd have laughed it off, but it continued for the duration of the two year long campaign with only rare exceptions. And, the exceptions were the fighter having the occasional good day. The kid playing the ranger never really had a "bad" day, just good days and great days, with only an occasional so-so day.

Decent Controller Wizards suck the soul out of enemies and make them hate the remainder of their short, painful existence by locking them in some sort of box while the rest of the party tears their allies and them apart but rarely deliver killing blows. Sure, you can build a Blaster but then you're a light-weight striker rather than a controller and the enemies are less miserable. Defenders and Controllers can dictate which enemy dies and when not just with their damage but by mitigating threats.

Ie: The fighter has some mook jacked up in the corner while two other schmucks are chasing illusory gold via Visions of Avarice. The fourth failed meatsack now is harried by a Spirit Companion and has two Strikers about to unload on him. "Hey, I ain't fallin' for none o' that illusi.....aw, crap!" *Thwack* *Thump**Thump**Thud*

 

[Weather Report]

Every party should be put together well. There's a reason these characters would adventure with eachother. That means filling in gaps, covering eachothers' weaknesses, etc. What's "contrived" is thinking a bunch of morons with no clue on how to work together or plan accordingly would survive adventuring. Surviving adventurers need to know how to cover their backsides and each others' if they want to survive.

...ugh, how offensive; no, still parties might come together from a lot of happenstance, not some conspired meta-action, let's make sure there are none of these phony "role" deals happening.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Every party should be put together well. There's a reason these characters would adventure with eachother. That means filling in gaps, covering eachothers' weaknesses, etc. What's "contrived" is thinking a bunch of morons with no clue on how to work together or plan accordingly would survive adventuring. Surviving adventurers need to know how to cover their backsides and each others' if they want to survive.

So, there is no place for a group that want to play a band of swashbuckling pirate rogues? The fact that they're all one type of party (striker), IMHO, can make for a lot of fun at the table. Lots of damage, but weaknesses in other areas that can be exploited, but not abused, by a good DM.

Similarly, if everybody wanted to play a Knight of the Round Table, and thus be paladin defenders, that could be a different type of fun...

Yes, an ideal adventuring party has one Leader, one Controller, a striker and a defender. But, sometimes people don't want that ideal.

 

[Herschel]

So, there is no place for a group that want to play a band of swashbuckling pirate rogues? The fact that they're all one type of party (striker), IMHO, can make for a lot of fun at the table. Lots of damage, but weaknesses in other areas that can be exploited, but not abused, by a good DM.

Similarly, if everybody wanted to play a Knight of the Round Table, and thus be paladin defenders, that could be a different type of fun...

Yes, an ideal adventuring party has one Leader, one Controller, a striker and a defender. But, sometimes people don't want that ideal.

No, what there should be are options to actually play that party AND cover eachothers' weaknesses fairly well. That means be able to either make a swashbuckling Warlord or Bard if you really want to fully cover your bases, or (what I really want) is also have enough options where said five rogues can get by on their own, setting eachother up, being able to cover some very basic healing, etc. needs well enough to function on a basic level by themselves. The party would be better served to have an actual leader/healer on board for big battles, sure, but they can get by many/most standard battles as they are without being an almost automatic TPK.

More dangerous (less leeway) but not insurmountable.

That not only means alternate ways for some very basic healing, but also more skill slots available for the Fighter.

 

[Herschel]

...ugh, how offensive; no, still parties might come together from a lot of happenstance, not some conspired meta-action, let's make sure there are none of these phony "role" deals happening.

The only thing "phony" is a group surviving without basic functionality covered. Ie: some sort of basic healing, some sort access to skills (like reading magical runes, or locksmithing, foraging, etc.)

That specifically means not carrying a bag of CLW wands or lugging a case of potions around.

 

[Weather Report]

No, what there should be are options to actually play that party AND cover eachothers' weaknesses fairly well.

...what weaknesses...?

 

[Weather Report]

The only thing "phony" is a group surviving without basic functionality

...I...wait...what...functionality...is this some sort of bizarre bashing, or am I wrong...?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes, there are optional skills in it, but I find them lacking and I do not believe in optional modules.

So when you see options presented in the rules are you going roll to disbelieve?