|
I think doing in-game things to "punish" players for out of game behavior is a bad road to go down. It's like, the wizard's overpowered and doing too many spells that just end encounters therefore the answer is to have someone steal his spellbook every week. If someone's doing something that's actively an issue for the game, talk to them about it. If you don't like that sorcerers multiclassing into warlock for eldritch blast sucks, take it up with D&D for writing their rules that way, or ask your player not to build a character like that or... I dunno, gently caress it. Is the sorcerer having EB really such a big issue that you need to come down on them for it? I mean, by all means if someone's dipping warlock encourage them to actually make a pact with a devil or something. Hell, since they're only going 2 levels deep, make it a weaker demon. Maybe a particularly talented imp or something (that could also be their familiar if they go 3 deep) who teaches them how to eldritch blast and promises deeper magical secrets. That'd be fun.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
Glagha posted:I think doing in-game things to "punish" players for out of game behavior is a bad road to go down. It's like, the wizard's overpowered and doing too many spells that just end encounters therefore the answer is to have someone steal his spellbook every week. I agree, in general. I just really hate 5E multiclassing, the entire "design" of Eldritch Blast, and the fact that Sorcerer and Warlock are even two different classes to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
Glagha posted:I think DMs making warlocks deal with their patron all the time is just as dangerous as paladins getting forced to have situations that rub up on their convictions and oaths all the time. Yeah there's definitely room for interesting roleplay opportunities but I see lots of people giving advice like "why would someone wanna be a warlock if they don't wanna have a patron, DMs have your warlock players get demands from their patrons a lot!" Which putting aside the fact that the book explicitly details cases where you have patrons you might not know about or straight up don't care about you at all, I feel like it's the kind of advice that makes DMs treat their warlock players like "Satan says you need to eat that baby right now or he'll drag your soul to hell right now. Do it. Do it pussy, eat the baby. Doitdoitdoitdoit!" It is every bit as bad as making the paladin be party to torturing a goblin for information or making it so they fall because they killed an orc and unknowingly orphaned the orc's children so now he's party to killing children ergo OATHBREAKER! I want to interact with my patron about as much as I want my shadowrun shamen interacting with their totem spirit. I get my power from a bear, so I get angry alot, get bonuses to enhancement magic, penalties to illusion magic, and that's the extent of the interactions we have barring very specific rituals needed to increase my magical powers. Basically in D&D I'd have patron demands show up any time the warlock gained a new spell level. They can have long term (or not) consequences, but having them be constantly harassing the player would be annoying af.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:I agree, in general. I was just thinking about this since my last post actually. Warlock totally could be a subclass of Sorcerer pretty easily but I feel like Warlock does bring something different to the table mechanically even if not flavor wise. They're both casters that get special, natural magical talent through some means, but Warlocks do have a weird mechanical identity tied up in Eldritch Blast which has just been like, their "thing" since 3E for some reason. I dunno why Warlock got saddled with the "shoots magical lasers" thing but hey, there it is. But in game they tend to be a lot more like half-casters like Paladins where they attack like martials and cast fewer spells, which I think is an interesting niche for them, and something that a subclass rather than a full class probably wouldn't cover. It wouldn't have broke my heart if they just added a "dark pact" sorcerous origin instead of Warlock the class but such as it is, I'm glad it exists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
The patron should demand (1) things the players at the table want to do anyway, but probably shouldn't, or (2) things that don't sound bad all, but 50% of the time, blow up the plot a bit in interesting ways. The game is supposed to be fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
It's dumb to be an adversarial DM in literally every circumstance, don't do it. Do you have Cleric players have their gods show up and gently caress with them just for funsies? It's literally the same thing. The fact that one class has edgelord "you did a sort of bad thing!" flavor built-in, and the rest are very flavor neutral doesn't mean that Warlocks (of all things) should get a roleplaying penalty that nobody else has, that's just not part of the game design. If the patron ever shows up or communicates, it should be an adventure hook that's fun and cool, not a punishment. All the optimizers choose Hexblade anyway. "A mysterious magical force/object picked me to give power to" is a perfectly good pact without selling your soul to Cthulhu, and it works even if you sold your soul to Cthulhu.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
Yeah I agree. I feel like patrons should be a player driven thing though. DMs roleplay them and kind of initiate patron to player contact but I feel like players should be the ones to determine what kind of relationship they want with their patron. Whether they're going to be disobedient and fight against their patron or to obey them begrudgingly or even willingly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
Didn't we solve the multiclassing problem in 4e as well with hybrid characters?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
Ramos posted:Didn't we solve the multiclassing problem in 4e as well with hybrid characters? Oh, very. And Pathfinder 2E basically took a page from 4E for their version of it instead of doubling down on the 3E poo poo. Hybrids had some of the same balance issues 3E-style multiclassing does in that you can make a slightly weaker or stronger character than you might get building single-class, but it's way less of a problem, and hybrids weren't even the original 4E multiclass rules (which were very limited, mostly work fine, and are what core multiclassing should be limited to).
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
Like, limited 4E/PF2E-style multiclassing is fine if what you want is to splash a little alternative flavor in, to make your Fighter a little more of a skulky shitbag or learn a little magic on a Rogue. Between that and 5E's spec options that do stuff like offering a gish for almost every class in the game, the only person who should run into problems executing a broad concept like "guy who fights and does magic" in 5E is someone who wants to be really good at everything, and that person shouldn't be playing a class-based roleplaying game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
Some small details about upcoming Artificer Class in the new Eberron book. Person who watched the video about it posted:Homunculus is now an Infusion available to any Artificer instead of an Alchemist-specific feature. Artillerists get an "arcane firearm", presumably giving them a more focused identity by reaching back to steal some Gunsmith bits. Also a new cover.  No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:Like, limited 4E/PF2E-style multiclassing is fine if what you want is to splash a little alternative flavor in, to make your Fighter a little more of a skulky shitbag or learn a little magic on a Rogue. I agree I don't think Multiclassing in its current form has any reason to be used. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Sep 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
I feel like instead of having the warlock's Patron constantly making annoying demands of the players, a more subtle solution would be to have the Patron's various enemies make the party's lives more difficult, solely based on the fact that they oppose the warlock's Patron, and thus view the warlock as an extension of the Patron, regardless of whatever relationship exists between the two. The fact that some Patrons are explicitly written to be alien and inhuman even helps foster this; their enemies might not even care that the warlock doesn't work directly for the Patron, all they care about is that they can sense their enemy's touch upon the warlock, and that's reason enough for them to attack what they perceive as a potential threat. As long as you're not just using it as an excuse to punish the player for taking the class, and don't overuse it, it can really help drive home the idea of "even if you're not directly working on their behalf, you're still paying a price for the power you got from your Patron."
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
Warlocks should be an INT based caster to even out the number of full caster classes based on each mental stat, and then there wouldn't be as many classes who can take a warlock dip without being MAD
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Would there even be much synergy between an INT-based warlock and a wizard?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Technically Call Lightning is a Druid-limited spell. The only way you're going to be able to cast it as a Sea Sorcerer is if you're multiclassing or have the Izzet Guild background, which adds the spell to your list (since this comes out of the Ravnica book, this would lock you out of Faerun Adventurers League games, if that matters to anyone). Additionally, the added Curse of the Sea damage is only applied once per turn, even if the spell hits multiple targets, and the curse ends if it isn't applied to a cantrip. So it's an issue even if you are using a similar spell like Storm Sphere or Lightning Surge. Sea Sorc gets it as an original spell 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:I think the appropriate situation to be an adversarial DM about Warlocks is when it becomes a thing that people keep taking 2 level Warlock dips for Eldritch Blast, a thing that's only possible because the designers stridently adhered to 3E's very bad multiclass rules and that those players are only doing so they can (in most cases) deal even more damage while also playing a caster without having even a hint of an in-character explanation for why their Sorc/Paladin/whatever took a detour in worshiping Hastur. This is loving stupid. Why are you being an adversarial DM? Because a player made a mechanical choice that rubs you the wrong way? Are you 12? Man up and tell the player in their face "you're not allowed to have fun". Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Man up and tell the player in their face "you're not allowed to have fun". More realistically, tell the player "please find a different build because I'm sick to death of running games for people who take two levels in Warlock for the overpowered EB." As the DM you should have veto power over PCs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Just play a different game if the optimization level within 1 point of "fighter with a longbow" sets you off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:More realistically, tell the player "please find a different build because I'm sick to death of running games for people who take two levels in Warlock for the overpowered EB." As the DM you should have veto power over PCs. Eh, as the DM you should be collaborating with your players to make sure everyone enjoys the game and can play what they want to play, as long as that doesn't hurt anyone else's enjoyment. it's not a loving contest, and it's not your novel. It's a cooperative storytelling experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:More realistically, tell the player "please find a different build because I'm sick to death of running games for people who take two levels in Warlock for the overpowered EB." As the DM you should have veto power over PCs. Yes, exactly. "Sacrificing spellcasting progression on what's considered the worst spellcasting class, so you can have the option of spending resources to deliver comparable damage as a Fighter isn't fun for me, so you're not allowed to have fun with it either."
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:More realistically, tell the player "please find a different build because I'm sick to death of running games for people who take two levels in Warlock for the overpowered EB." As the DM you should have veto power over PCs. One fella, in his ad looking for players, said he would only allow multiclassing if it was done from the start, and every other level (or every 3rd level for a tri class) must go to keep the classes as even as possible. So (I think his game started at level 3) a person starts at 1/2, goes to 2/2, then can go either way, but next level has to be 3/3, etc.. This kind of rule stops cheese optimization dips but still allows for multiclassed characters to have a cool flavor. That hits a thread for me because it hearkens back to the old 2nd edition multiclasses where you advanced concurrently. Another fella (it may have been a woman) only allowed multiclassing once, and if you multiclassed, you left the ability to advance in the old class behind, and could only level moving forward in the new class. Again, this I believe was inspired by the dual classing rules from 2nd ed, but nixes the whole losing all your primary class abilities until your second class meets/exceeds the primary class level bit from 2nd ed, which was  . There are plenty of other ways to also allow multiclassing, but nip stupid optimization builds in the bud. Say it has to be built into their character backstory from the beginning, or that any multiclass needs DM approval, etc.. As put earlier: thespaceinvader posted:Eh, as the DM you should be collaborating with your players to make sure everyone enjoys the game and can play what they want to play, as long as that doesn't hurt anyone else's enjoyment. DMs around here certainly seem to be doing this more and more. I have to assume, at least in my neck of the woods, that folks are getting tired of munchkin-y builds/players and have started looking for ways to weed them out. I'll never understand the constant thread of folks in online D&D discussions that only want to play and play with folks with optimal builds. If that's your preferred way to play, that's okay, but some people like to play suboptimal things because they are fun to them. That's okay too. If a DM wants to run their game to cater to folks that put concept and flavor before optimization, there's nothing wrong with accommodating the players that prefer that sort of thing, and it's especially helpful for new players, as at a non-optimizer table, they don't have to worry nearly as much about 'ruining someone else's fun' by designing a character they might enjoy but isn't perfectly spec'd. There's AL for the power-gamers / optimizers / people that think they can 'win' D&D.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Yes, exactly. This is a dumb take honestly. If you're over the age of 5 it's pretty easy to come to a compromise about things. If you as the DM are not having fun, it's just as important as if a player isn't. Though honestly if you're running enemies as intelligent beings, they're going to gently caress with casters a lot so I personally never care if a caster is being super optimal or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
It's not a take, it's exactly what you should do, with the sugarcoating and passive-aggressiveness washed off. You don't like something? That's fine! But you own it, and give the player the courtesy of telling them your reasons. Everyone is there to have fun, so leave the drama for the school/office. Marathanes posted::snip: The funny thing is that, as an optimizer, I can assure you multiclassing in 5e isn't even particularly strong compared to PHB single-classed options. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
Being honest and straightforward is not the same thing as being a dick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
Come on, tell me then: how would you sugar-coat it so you don't come off as a dick?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Come on, tell me then: how would you sugar-coat it so you don't come off as a dick? "I have gotten sick of everyone taking two levels in warlock for Eldritch Blast cheese. It's gotten tedious and it makes the encounters harder to balance. Please come up with a character concept that does not do that."
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Sea Sorc gets it as an original spell I believe you may be thinking of the UA Storm Sorcerer. Their Heart of the Storm ability does work with Call Lightning (and does better damage, though it has a range of 10 ft).
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The funny thing is that, as an optimizer, I can assure you multiclassing in 5e isn't even particularly strong compared to PHB single-classed options. Over the long term, I tend to agree with you, but some classes have really good abilities built into the first 1-3 levels, which tends to encourage dipping. This is especially true given that most D&D is played in tiers 1/2, and you can really get some good poo poo in that playspan by dipping a few levels with certain kinds of builds. I know I've multiclass dipped myself, purely to get a mechanic I thought would syngerize well, from time to time, and I've often regretted it later because it didn't fit the concept or character as well as I'd hoped. These days, I try to constrain my optimization urges and just make fun, flavorful characters that don't worry so much about pure crunch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:"I have gotten sick of everyone taking two levels in warlock for Eldritch Blast cheese. It's gotten tedious and it makes the encounters harder to balance. Please come up with a character concept that does not do that." I think this is a pretty good answer, certainly better than "punishing" a player by constantly giving them a plot focus on a feature that isn't core to their character. If I were to try a mechanical improvement of 5e, it would be heavily based on a more explicit level tiering and balancing (I.e. A level 4 Ranger and a level 4 Wizard should be comparable Tier 1 characters, even if there are level-by-level inequalities). And multiclassing would involve committing to a class tier by tier, rather than level by level. Kaal fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Sep 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
IMO either ban multiclassing or only allow it if there's actual good RP justification for it. Some of the classes and especially Warlock say a hell of a lot about your background, and if you haven't done anything in game to justify the second class then nope. People who start as a Warlock have already been contacted or made contact with a patron, and if you haven't had that happen yet as a level x otherclass then you clearly haven't done anything to impress someone enough to contact you yet and you'd better get out there and find a patron if you want to be a Warlock. I've said it before but the game already has sort of gone half way to pseudo-multiclassing based on subclass choice plus feat choices and should have gone further instead of presenting multiclassing as a (half-baked and ill-considered) option.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:"I have gotten sick of everyone taking two levels in warlock for Eldritch Blast cheese. It's gotten tedious and it makes the encounters harder to balance. Please come up with a character concept that does not do that." Reliable direct damage is the easiest thing to balance for in this piece of poo poo system  BattleMaster posted:IMO either ban multiclassing or only allow it if there's actual good RP justification for it. Some of the classes and especially Warlock say a hell of a lot about your background, and if you haven't done anything in game to justify the second class then nope. Reskinning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Reliable direct damage is the easiest thing to balance for in this piece of poo poo system Yeah as much as I dislike multiclass "dipping" as a powergamer option I'd rather people delay getting access to spells that make any attempt to tell a story other than "you go into a dungeon and fight things and pick up loot" impossible to tell
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Come on, tell me then: how would you sugar-coat it so you don't come off as a dick? I wouldn't "sugar coat" it. I'd say what I say whenever a situation like this happens. "I want you to have fun playing your character, but I'm not having fun when you play like this. Do you think there's a way we can both have fun together?" If not, then I'll gladly help them find another group.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 01:28
|
|
|
Marathanes posted:Over the long term, I tend to agree with you, but some classes have really good abilities built into the first 1-3 levels, which tends to encourage dipping. This is especially true given that most D&D is played in tiers 1/2, and you can really get some good poo poo in that playspan by dipping a few levels with certain kinds of builds. I know I've multiclass dipped myself, purely to get a mechanic I thought would syngerize well, from time to time, and I've often regretted it later because it didn't fit the concept or character as well as I'd hoped. These days, I try to constrain my optimization urges and just make fun, flavorful characters that don't worry so much about pure crunch. Yes, it encourages dipping, but most multi-classes don't really come into their own until around levels 8-9. They're detrimental until then, as they delay the general level 4-5-6 power spike. For example the maligned Sorlock, at level 5 on a 3-2 Sorc/Warlock spread, compared to a Sorcerer sure you've gained the EB+AB+Hex attack option, but you've delayed the amazing level 5 spells by two whole levels, you're behind on your primary combat stat, and you don't even have the SP pool available to do your Quicken gimmick on consecutive turns. Nasgate posted:I wouldn't "sugar coat" it. I'd say what I say whenever a situation like this happens. I didn't see there the part where you explain why it isn't fun for you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
What does everyone have against optimizing a D&D character? Sure for the first few levels when you're fighting bandits and goblins you don't need to maximize your hit bonus/AC. But after that the way that attack bonuses for monsters shoot up and AC sort of hits a ceiling around 20ish you really can't afford to be missing and dragging out fights. I'm not saying you have to always push to 20 in your attack stat ASAP. But there's a reason that even an ostensibly narrative focused group like Critical Role did exactly that with their characters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
NeurosisHead posted:What does everyone have against optimizing a D&D character? Sure for the first few levels when you're fighting bandits and goblins you don't need to maximize your hit bonus/AC. But after that the way that attack bonuses for monsters shoot up and AC sort of hits a ceiling around 20ish you really can't afford to be missing and dragging out fights. I'm not saying you have to always push to 20 in your attack stat ASAP. But there's a reason that even an ostensibly narrative focused group like Critical Role did exactly that with their characters. In general, my table tends to take issue with folks that put mechanical advantage ahead of good roleplaying, story, and character development. That said, I don't think anyone would deny that using your ASIs in your primary attack stat is a good call. Everyone optimizes to some extent - it's just the degree that they do and what they might see as priorities over or under that optimization that varies. Some folks see average DPR or a spell list as the end all be all of a character, some folks see the concept and flavor of a character as more important. It kind of comes down to an argument of those that see their character as what they can do vs those that see their character who they are. Neither type is right or wrong, and most successful players are a blend of both, but often people do lean one way or another. Someone that leans heavily to the former type of player would likely choose a class nearer to the top of the charts (bard, paladin, etc..) and never play a beastmaster ranger or anything similarly suboptimal, and would likely be annoyed if they were in a party with suboptimal classes. The latter kind of player would potentially play a suboptimal class (beastmaster ranger, elements monk, mastermind rogue, etc..) if it fit a character concept well that they wanted to play, and likely wouldn't care very much about what another player's character was mechanically, so long as they had an interesting story to tell. Both would probably choose ASIs and feats that help them to be more effective in the story that they were telling together with their party members and DM. My table very much leans to the 'your character is who they are' side of things, vs the 'your character is what they can do' side.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
You're supposed to play that way. The game assumes you will and encourages it. Why would the game have so many charisma classes with so much front loading if they didnt? Surely the designers thought about this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:This is loving stupid. come here and say that to my face u little binch
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
But in all seriousness Conspiratorist you post like somebody hit you in the head with a brick when you were a kid and it damaged the parts of your brain responsible for social interaction and empathy, which kinda runs contrary to your rage about whether a player is being treated fairly
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
My favorite of your extremely breathlessly smug takes is the time you called people idiots for thinking a Life-domain Cleric might be a "healing spec" or class, as if anything incorrect about that perception is on them and not the extremely weird set of rules you for some reason are freakishly obsessed with defending from any attempt to alter them itt
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 02:16
|
|