why do people dislike tiers in dnd?

[Pleh]

I'd be shocked if someone who is playing a halfling is not playing a rogue.

Not counting that one shot 2E game where everyone was a halfling, I've only seen a non-rogue PC halfling once in all my years of playing, and it took 5E to happen. He played a battlemaster fighter who went with the double light hand crossbow shtick with crossbow expert which was in fashion at the time.

Hanging around in the 3.5 forum, I've seen Strongheart Halfling Paladin.

The build seems to be "one of the few nice things paladins get is Special Mount, but mounts are often too big for dungeons, so Halfling Paladins can have a Riding Dog, go everywhere the party can, and optimize the mounted combat charging rules."

Humans are usually the second best choice for any build due to the bonus feat. Strongheart Halflings get the same bonus feat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd be shocked if someone who is playing a halfling is not playing a rogue.

Not counting that one shot 2E game where everyone was a halfling, I've only seen a non-rogue PC halfling once in all my years of playing, and it took 5E to happen. He played a battlemaster fighter who went with the double light hand crossbow shtick with crossbow expert which was in fashion at the time.

I have a halfling bard currently (as well as a halfling rogue). Both in 5e. I guess playing with teenagers (and new players almost exclusively) means that I see "weird" combinations (strange ones in bold):

Party 1:
* halfling bard
* high elf wizard (ok, this one's normal)
* tiefling druid

Party 2:
* halfling rogue (going for an indiana jones expy)
* wood elf rogue (this player, while not new, has played nothing else)
* variant human fighter
* tiefling (I think) paladin

Party 3:
* dragonborn monk
* high elf rogue
* half-elf warlock
* variant human druid (but did not choose an "optimal" feat)

I've had lots of dragonborn (mostly from female players, oddly enough). Quite a few tieflings, a reasonable number of aasimar, and very few straight humans or half-elves. My players just aren't that mechanically inclined. Optimization is not what they care about. They've also never taken any of the "max DPR" feats (GWM, Crossbow Expert, Polearm master, etc). The warlock tends to use telekinesis instead of just EB spam.

I think that we have to remember that forum goers are not a valid statistical sample of all players (even just of D&D).

[Max_Killjoy]

I have a halfling bard currently (as well as a halfling rogue). Both in 5e. I guess playing with teenagers (and new players almost exclusively) means that I see "weird" combinations (strange ones in bold):

Party 1:
* halfling bard
* high elf wizard (ok, this one's normal)
* tiefling druid

Party 2:
* halfling rogue (going for an indiana jones expy)
* wood elf rogue (this player, while not new, has played nothing else)
* variant human fighter
* tiefling (I think) paladin

Party 3:
* dragonborn monk
* high elf rogue
* half-elf warlock
* variant human druid (but did not choose an "optimal" feat)

I've had lots of dragonborn (mostly from female players, oddly enough). Quite a few tieflings, a reasonable number of aasimar, and very few straight humans or half-elves. My players just aren't that mechanically inclined. Optimization is not what they care about. They've also never taken any of the "max DPR" feats (GWM, Crossbow Expert, Polearm master, etc). The warlock tends to use telekinesis instead of just EB spam.

I think that we have to remember that forum goers are not a valid statistical sample of all players (even just of D&D).

Love seeing that diversity of concepts and combinations.

It drives me buggy that we see so many threads with people seeking mechanical combinations for biggest effect, and so few where a player is trying to build to match their concept.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Love seeing that diversity of concepts and combinations.

It drives me buggy that we see so many threads with people seeking mechanical combinations for biggest effect, and so few where a player is trying to build to match their concept.

It's a reason I like playing with new players. They're not jaded with "must optimize" or "this is the one true build." They're actually better roleplayers (more focused on "what my character does given the circumstances") than a lot of the more experienced players I've seen. To them, even medium difficulty fights/traps (that I as an experienced DM know aren't really a threat) are exciting and tense. It makes my job as a DM so much more enjoyable and easy because I can focus on crafting interesting situations without having to struggle to counteract munchkins who are intent on breaking things. They also follow adventure hooks willingly--after all, to them that's the point of the game. To go adventure and have fun.

Sometimes I think that we on the forums take this whole thing (RPGs) way too seriously and forget the sense of wonder and fun that new players (properly introduced) have. It's like watching babies interact with things. They find everything fascinating, even stuff adults find boring and normal. I'd argue that that sense of wonder is a good thing and killing it (however that happens) is a negative.

[Pleh]

It's a reason I like playing with new players. They're not jaded with "must optimize" or "this is the one true build." They're actually better roleplayers (more focused on "what my character does given the circumstances") than a lot of the more experienced players I've seen. To them, even medium difficulty fights/traps (that I as an experienced DM know aren't really a threat) are exciting and tense. It makes my job as a DM so much more enjoyable and easy because I can focus on crafting interesting situations without having to struggle to counteract munchkins who are intent on breaking things. They also follow adventure hooks willingly--after all, to them that's the point of the game. To go adventure and have fun.

Sometimes I think that we on the forums take this whole thing (RPGs) way too seriously and forget the sense of wonder and fun that new players (properly introduced) have. It's like watching babies interact with things. They find everything fascinating, even stuff adults find boring and normal. I'd argue that that sense of wonder is a good thing and killing it (however that happens) is a negative.

That's also why I work hard to keep my games from discouraging the mechanical pitfalls. I like my new players feeling free to make unoptimized low tier characters. I mentally weight the system in their favor to help keep it from slapping them.

That's why I like JaronK's tiers. When you take them for what they are (a general guideline, not a hard science) they really can help a DM fill in those mechanical potholes before a player blows out their fantasy on a stupid broken rule.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's also why I work hard to keep my games from discouraging the mechanical pitfalls. I like my new players feeling free to make unoptimized low tier characters. I mentally weight the system in their favor to help keep it from slapping them.

That's why I like JaronK's tiers. When you take them for what they are (a general guideline, not a hard science) they really can help a DM fill in those mechanical potholes before a player blows out their fantasy on a stupid broken rule.

I find 3.5e to be harder (not impossible, but certainly more difficult) to do that with except at low levels (where the tiers are much more even). The power gradient is just too big and the trap options (even at the "what skills do I invest in" level) are too common.

But as to philosophy, I agree. I'd rather reweight the scenarios to the optimization level than to require a certain optimization level to pass the fixed challenges. In doing so, the lower-power party is facing qualitatively different scenarios, but they're scenarios that they have a chance of shining in. Different rides, but no visible "you must be this tall to ride"/"You must have these abilities/DPR/items to play" signs.

[Quertus]

forum goers are not a valid statistical sample of all players (even just of D&D).

that sense of wonder is a good thing and killing it (however that happens) is a negative.

Somebody ate their wheaties. That's two very signature worthy quotes right there. Words to live by, even. Kudos!

[PhoenixPhyre]

Somebody ate their wheaties. That's two very signature worthy quotes right there. Words to live by, even. Kudos!

Thanks! Sig them at will.

[Quertus]

Thanks! Sig them at will.

If I ever make a Sig, I definitely will. Thanks!

[Talakeal]

People do not want to play halflings, period. Halfling is chosen less often then Dragonborn, Tiefling, or Genasi. I mean, they still beat out half-orcs and gnomes, but the reality is that the most popular D&D race is humans, by an immense margin, with elves as the second most popular, also by a large margin. Everyone else is second or third tier.

Really? I play a low fantasy game and strongly encourage all human groups, but I have to fight tooth and nail for more than a single token human in any group.

I would say elves are the most popular, and I have more people wanting to play catfolk, dragonborn, and assimar / tiefelings than humans.

Heck, I probably have as many people wanting to play some weird race out of the MM than humans.

[Darth Ultron]

Really? I play a low fantasy game and strongly encourage all human groups, but I have to fight tooth and nail for more than a single token human in any group.

I would say elves are the most popular, and I have more people wanting to play catfolk, dragonborn, and assimar / tiefelings than humans.

Heck, I problem have as many people wanting to play some weird race out of the MM than humans.

I find this true as well. Often a group will look like a zoo. and this is a really bad thing about Pathfinder is they have like a hundred races...and too often you will have a player that wants to be 'super weird race''.

[Quertus]

I find this true as well. Often a group will look like a zoo. and this is a really bad thing about Pathfinder is they have like a hundred races...and too often you will have a player that wants to be 'super weird race''.

Quertus is human. Armus is elven mixed breed. Ikou is... I don't even remember, tbh. But, if I'm making a new character, I'm going to want to make it something I haven't made before. I've made around 200 D&D characters. So, probably some "super weird race" is gonna be my preference. For myself, and for my companions. Normal party? Been there, done that to death.

[adrian23]

Why does it make sense that a fireball is stronger than my longsword being shoved through your gut?

In order for a mage being more powerful than a fighter to be okay, one must accept the postulate that magic is more powerful than technology.

I reject this claim, and therefore stabbing someone, possibly multiple times, should be about as effective as a fireball.


I reject this claim on the ground that if magic was significantly more powerful than non-magic means, the world would be an autocratic mageocracy with the most powerful magic users in the highest positions of power, and all institutions of magic tightly regulated and under the direct power of the ruler, if not outright banned.

Since the world is not an autocratic mageocracy, then magic is not significantly more powerful than non-magical means.

still reading through the responses but mageocracies do exist in the world(as well as magical theocracies psionocracies etc) in most settings i think.

[Lord Raziere]

I just realized:

proponents of the tier system say that its supposed to be a check against player skill.

yet isn't optimization and therefore the use of the tier system, the purest expression of player skill? The players skill to game the system beyond the abilities they are meant to have and thus break the game? you cannot claim to be a check against player skill when its so obvious that optimization itself is the player skill thats screwing things up. to assume that the strong player will always choose a weak class and that a weak player will always choose a strong class is ridiculous. if nothing else, dunning-krueger effect will rear its ugly head: the incompetent will self-report as being highly competent and take a weak class and the competent will see themselves as a normal DnD player and thus take a strong class.

the conceit that you can balance against player skill when the very system you use it with enables that very player skill is foolish. there is no true "system/player" balance because mastery of the system itself is a player skill that imbalances a player by making the group see things in the light of such system mastery, thus twisting it into their version of the game where they will always win. thus imbalance in the system is an expression of player skill of optimization and the only way to balance against the player skill is balance, while any other player skill is too abstract to ever be balanced against, I mean what are you going to balance against? a players skilled descriptions of what they do? Ridiculous.

[Max_Killjoy]

Aside -- Dunning-Kruger mentioned, obligatory link: https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010...t-is-and-isnt/

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm horribly confused by now. Is the point of this thread

Proponents of ranking classes based on versatility vs People who believe that such rankings are useless/invalid/bad/etc.

OR

Pro/con the existence of the underlying disparity that is summarized in the tiers.

It seems both are being thrown together.


Also--

I just realized:

proponents of the tier system say that its supposed to be a check against player skill.

They do? That's not a claim I've heard before.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm horribly confused by now. Is the point of this thread

Proponents of ranking classes based on versatility vs People who believe that such rankings are useless/invalid/bad/etc.

OR

Pro/con the existence of the underlying disparity that is summarized in the tiers.

It seems both are being thrown together.

There's a lot of conflation and talking-past-each-other going on because those two axes are being blurred.

Also--

They do? That's not a claim I've heard before.

I can see where some of the statements here might well be read that way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can see where some of the statements here might well be read that way.

Rereading things, I can sort of see that reading. I think a lot of that is due to the aforementioned cross-talk due to different understandings of the original topic. I'm still quite confused.

[Nifft]

In the various 3e forums, I've never seen anyone advocate for the value of preserving nor enshrining Tiers.

Rather, I've seen people advocate for the understanding of Tiers, and for designing a game to compensate for the existence of Tiers.

[Quertus]

In the various 3e forums, I've never seen anyone advocate for the value of preserving nor enshrining Tiers.

Rather, I've seen people advocate for the understanding of Tiers, and for designing a game to compensate for the existence of Tiers.

I mean, I kinda am. A lot of my friends definitely are.

Making characters able to operate at completely different levels of power and/or flexibility has numerous advantages. The biggest is as a balancing tool.

There are many potential sources of imbalance in a game. Player Skills, Setting knowledge, being in sync with the GM, being in sync with the character, level of distraction, luck, and even cheating could lead to a party of statistically identical characters having radically different effective capabilities. Most of those, the player can't do much about. But the dial that they can really tune is their build. Making that dial have as large a range as possible, and capable of as much fine tuning as possible, makes it easiest to balance out an otherwise imbalanced game.

I just realized:

proponents of the tier system say that its supposed to be a check against player skill.

yet isn't optimization and therefore the use of the tier system, the purest expression of player skill? The players skill to game the system beyond the abilities they are meant to have and thus break the game? you cannot claim to be a check against player skill when its so obvious that optimization itself is the player skill thats screwing things up. to assume that the strong player will always choose a weak class and that a weak player will always choose a strong class is ridiculous. if nothing else, dunning-krueger effect will rear its ugly head: the incompetent will self-report as being highly competent and take a weak class and the competent will see themselves as a normal DnD player and thus take a strong class.

the conceit that you can balance against player skill when the very system you use it with enables that very player skill is foolish. there is no true "system/player" balance because mastery of the system itself is a player skill that imbalances a player by making the group see things in the light of such system mastery, thus twisting it into their version of the game where they will always win. thus imbalance in the system is an expression of player skill of optimization and the only way to balance against the player skill is balance, while any other player skill is too abstract to ever be balanced against, I mean what are you going to balance against? a players skilled descriptions of what they do? Ridiculous.

The biggest player skill is caring about the fun of everyone playing the game.

Those skilled players might attempt to play a weaker character to balance out their superior player skills in parties where the players care about game balance.

Or those skilled players might help players who are frustrated by having an ineffective or "doesn't-match-my-concept" build to rebuild their character into something that makes them happier.

I'm sad that most humans are too dumb to get it, if other gamers' tales are to be believed. I'm so glad that I game with better people, where that kind of behavior is the exception, rather than the rule. Thank all of y'all for helping remind me how truly blessed I've been.

[Talakeal]

Aside -- Dunning-Kruger mentioned, obligatory link: https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010...t-is-and-isnt/

This is futile. People who don't understand what the DK effect is will assume they do and thus skip the article, while those who think they don't know now what it is will read the article but as they already know what it is they won't learn anything new.

[Nifft]

I mean, I kinda am. A lot of my friends definitely are.

Making characters able to operate at completely different levels of power and/or flexibility has numerous advantages. The biggest is as a balancing tool.

Okay, I'm going to translate what I see, because I'm not sure you mean what it looks like you're saying:

Making characters able to operate at completely different levels of power and/or flexibility has numerous advantages. The biggest is as a balancing tool.

Imbalance has numerous advantages. The biggest is as a balancing tool.

"Advocating for tiers" means advocating for invisible imbalance between classes -- which are presented to new players as though they were all equally valid choices.

Is that really what you are advocating for?

If you like variety, and if you like different kinds of games -- that stuff is all achievable without tiers.

[Quertus]

Okay, I'm going to translate what I see, because I'm not sure you mean what it looks like you're saying:

"Advocating for tiers" means advocating for invisible imbalance between classes -- which are presented to new players as though they were all equally valid choices.

Is that really what you are advocating for?

If you like variety, and if you like different kinds of games -- that stuff is all achievable without tiers.

Me talk much goodly.

I am absolutely not advocating for invisibility, or noob traps. In fact, in several threads, I have presented the idea of writing the game such that the best options are the basic ones in the core book, and that build skill allows you to customize to match your vision at the cost of overall power. Probably the first such time was in a thread about what percentage power increase should build skill give, and I stated a negative number.

I am advocating the capability to create weaker-than-core characters as a means of achieving game balance. For those who care about that kind of thing.

I am advocating letting people try the challenge of an all-ninja party. I am advocating letting people who don't find statistical balance to be conducive to fun in their games have imbalanced parties. I am advocating the joy of reading the one awesome commoner build that defeats the Tarrasque at 1st level through the power of RAW and Name Optimization.

I am saying that there is so much fun to be had, if you only follow the simple rule(s) of "care about other people" and "don't be a ****". Statistical balance isn't important to that.

[Lord Raziere]

I am saying that there is so much fun to be had, if you only follow the simple rule(s) of "care about other people" and "don't be a ****". Statistical balance isn't important to that.

Yes it is. It is the core of that. people who care about other people and not be a jerk think far enough to advocate for a system where its easier to not be so.

[Dimers]

optimization and therefore the use of the tier system

"Optimization" and "use of the tier system" are separate concepts. I use an understanding of tiering to evaluate what a character will be good at and what they won't.* I don't use an understanding of tiering to try to make a character amazing at everything. Even if I were to succeed, it doesn't give me the kind of game I'm interested in playing.

Heck, it doesn't give me a game. "Here's a challenge." "Okay, I beat it." That's not a game.

*Ideally, I can use this to enhance RP. If I know that, say, swimming is dangerous for a character, I can RP their response to water as a danger -- act dismissive if the character is brash, jump right in if the character loves to push his own boundaries, refuse to go in if the character is overcautious even if that makes for more difficulty overall.

[2D8HP]

....I would say elves are the most popular, and I have more people wanting to play catfolk, dragonborn, and assimar / tiefelings than humans....

That's been my experience with 5e.

There's even been an all Elf and Half-Elf party, but in.the late 1970's and early 80's D&D games I played most PC's were human.

[Nifft]

Me talk much goodly.

I am absolutely not advocating for invisibility, or noob traps. In fact, in several threads, I have presented the idea of writing the game such that the best options are the basic ones in the core book, and that build skill allows you to customize to match your vision at the cost of overall power. Probably the first such time was in a thread about what percentage power increase should build skill give, and I stated a negative number.

Then you ought to be opposed to perpetuating or preserving the tier system.

I am advocating the capability to create weaker-than-core characters as a means of achieving game balance. For those who care about that kind of thing.

1 - You don't need tiers to do that; and
2 - It's actually easier to do that without tiers.

For example: in 5e, you can just lower your character's ability scores. Boom, weaker-than-core character, using all the same tools as Core.

I am advocating letting people try the challenge of an all-ninja party. I am advocating letting people who don't find statistical balance to be conducive to fun in their games have imbalanced parties. I am advocating the joy of reading the one awesome commoner build that defeats the Tarrasque at 1st level through the power of RAW and Name Optimization.

I am saying that there is so much fun to be had, if you only follow the simple rule(s) of "care about other people" and "don't be a ****". Statistical balance isn't important to that.

Um.

That's a bunch of non-sequiturs.

Playing an all-Ninja party is not inherently more fun if Ninjas always suck mechanically. Playing all-Ninjas while being awesome seems like a concept that would sell more games.

People who want imbalance can trivially create it. If you start with a balanced system, it's easy to imbalance one or more characters. It's very difficult to do the reverse, which is why people pay for game designers to design games. Balance is hard. Imbalance is very easy.

Commoner vs. Tarrasque is the joy of reading about TO, which is basically the bloopers roll of game design. It's a hilarious failure. I'm happy that you got to laugh at the hilarity, but please get out of the way when the rest of us want to fix the blooper.

Finally, setting traps for noobs (or enshrining the current traps) is being a **** to noobs. If you don't want to be a ****, help fix the trap instead of defending it.

[Quertus]

Then you ought to be opposed to perpetuating or preserving the tier system.

1 - You don't need tiers to do that; and
2 - It's actually easier to do that without tiers.

Um... You need to be able to create characters of differing levels of capabilities in order to do balance for player skill. "Tiers" represents a success in creating such vast gulfs in capabilities that, given equal player skill, many of the classes seem unplayable in the same party. Tales like those of a Greenbound Summoner being useless in a party indicates that the existing tiers aren't even enough to overcome the fact that Player > Character.

So, which do you prefer? That all characters are equal, and new players are turned away from the hobby when they just fail at the game, thus the hobby only attracts hardcore enthusiasts? Or that there is a lever we can use to make the game more balanced despite vast differences in player skill? Or some third option?

Because I'm all for player skills, and perfectly willing to resume screaming, "suck it up, git gud noob", but I'm trying to be nice, and advocate a better way.

For example: in 5e, you can just lower your character's ability scores. Boom, weaker-than-core character, using all the same tools as Core.

Back in 2e, I created a character specifically as a challenge. I picked the weakest chassis I could. I used 2-for-1 trading of stats to lower my stats ("I take 2 from my strength, and add one to my strength..."). And I was still a huge contributor (while the rest of the party would deal their massive damage to whatever was closest, I'd hold my action to deal 2 damage to the enemy caster, disrupting their spell, for example).

I haven't played 5e (let alone with a diverse set of players) to know if solely different base stats is adequate to compensate for that range of player skills that I'm describing.

Um.

That's a bunch of non-sequiturs.

Not exactly. It's a list of some of the cool things you wouldn't get in, say, 4e. It's examples of the value of imbalance.

Now, those examples might not be anywhere near as good as the reasons to make things more balanced, but the existence of 4e as the flagship of D&D game balance makes that a hard sell.

Playing an all-Ninja party is not inherently more fun if Ninjas always suck mechanically. Playing all-Ninjas while being awesome seems like a concept that would sell more games.

Sorry, I explicitly meant playing the challenge (I believe I used that very word) of the 3e underpowered Ninjas.

If you want your all-Ninjas party to be awesome, gestalt them with a tier 1 class. Deity's Body Part, I hate that sentiment.

People who want imbalance can trivially create it. If you start with a balanced system, it's easy to imbalance one or more characters. It's very difficult to do the reverse, which is why people pay for game designers to design games. Balance is hard. Imbalance is very easy.

Balance is hard. Agreed. Why remove one of the best tools to help produce balance?

Now, as to making a balanced game for players with the same amount of skill... If that skill level is high, they can do it themselves. If it is low, yes, make all the core, dead simple options balanced. Is there a flaw in my plan I'm not seeing? (other than if that otherwise high universal skill level oddly didn't include skill at things like comprehending game balance, I suppose)

Commoner vs. Tarrasque is the joy of reading about TO, which is basically the bloopers roll of game design. It's a hilarious failure. I'm happy that you got to laugh at the hilarity, but please get out of the way when the rest of us want to fix the blooper.

... I'm opposed to stupid versions of the fix. Like 4e. Look at absolutely everything of value in 3e before trying to "fix" it. Even the blooper real.

Finally, setting traps for noobs (or enshrining the current traps) is being a **** to noobs. If you don't want to be a ****, help fix the trap instead of defending it.

How many times do I have to repeat that I'm against noob traps?

Yes it is. It is the core of that. people who care about other people and not be a jerk think far enough to advocate for a system where its easier to not be so.

Let me just quote myself in explaining why being able to create characters with different levels of power and versatility is advantageous to allow players to work around imbalances in player skill:

I mean, I kinda am. A lot of my friends definitely are.

Making characters able to operate at completely different levels of power and/or flexibility has numerous advantages. The biggest is as a balancing tool.

There are many potential sources of imbalance in a game. Player Skills, Setting knowledge, being in sync with the GM, being in sync with the character, level of distraction, luck, and even cheating could lead to a party of statistically identical characters having radically different effective capabilities. Most of those, the player can't do much about. But the dial that they can really tune is their build. Making that dial have as large a range as possible, and capable of as much fine tuning as possible, makes it easiest to balance out an otherwise imbalanced game.



The biggest player skill is caring about the fun of everyone playing the game.

Those skilled players might attempt to play a weaker character to balance out their superior player skills in parties where the players care about game balance.

Or those skilled players might help players who are frustrated by having an ineffective or "doesn't-match-my-concept" build to rebuild their character into something that makes them happier.

I'm sad that most humans are too dumb to get it, if other gamers' tales are to be believed. I'm so glad that I game with better people, where that kind of behavior is the exception, rather than the rule. Thank all of y'all for helping remind me how truly blessed I've been.

So, let me push this back to you. Tell me, if all the characters are identical, how do you propose dealing with a huge gulf in player skills? Just yelling, "git gud noob!"? Or do you have a better plan in mind?

Or do you just not care about the other players?

[Lord Raziere]

Optimization which causes imbalance, is the purest expression of player skill that causes the "git gud" response, optimization, the char-op game? that IS the hardcore elite player thing, optimizing at all is the hardcore gamer experience for anything. we don't complain about a players skill to notice something another player wouldn't in game, but do we complain about a character suddenly being able to pull an infinite loop combo and break the game? YES. optimization is the only player skill that causes any imbalance at all, which is produced by the tier system.

I mean, what player skills are you seeking to protect me from with the optimizer's tier system?

the ability for a player to describe their characters actions? oh yes that purple prose is so dangerous.

their ability to think up of a crazy in character plan that works despite not being optimal that we all enjoy? what madmen.

their ability to observe things and piece things together by themselves? Yes its so bad we have someone to solve an IC thing like that, I'm so worried.

Or are you referring to the clearly unfair skill of rolling dice so that it always lands on a natural 20? a skill which y'know, totally exists.

this "protection from player skill" nonsense is just that: nonsense. because it presumes that the optimizer player skill is somehow morally better than all the rest and can somehow fix a problem which doesn't exist, because every time its mentioned, its vague like some looming scary threat, but never actually described in detail as to which skills cause which problems and how this or that solves it in specifics. I've never had any problems with "player skill", but I've had a lot of problems with players optimizing their characters for the sake of winning and causing imbalances because of it. There is no reason to accept imbalance as the default and allow such people the foot to stand on so that they may wreck the game easier.

[Nifft]

So, let me push this back to you. Tell me, if all the characters are identical, how do you propose dealing with a huge gulf in player skills? Just yelling, "git gud noob!"? Or do you have a better plan in mind?

Or do you just not care about the other players?

First of all, I set the strawman on fire, then take a 5 ft. step back, and ready a marshmallow as a Swift action.

Seriously, if your "pushing back" is an assertion that balance = "all the characters are identical", then you need to find a new argument. That's a very poor argument.


To answer the questions at the end, I'd teach the players by talking to them, both in and out of game. I'd encourage them to talk to the DM (which might also be me) in non-mechanical terms, so the DM can help fill in the gaps in mechanical knowledge while engaging with the new players' imaginations.

I'd use my skill as a tutor and mentor to figure out what they're struggling with, and help them learn to not struggle so much.

I'd use my skill as a manager to see what they enjoy doing, and help them find ways to do more of those things.

I'd use my character in-game to support the others, including any noobs, so they could both learn to cooperate and hopefully learn all my tricks. D&D is a cooperative game, so I can do that better with a normal character. Self-gimping would reduce my capability to teach.


It sounds like Quertus plays in a more antagonistic every-PC-for-herself environment, where cooperation is scarce and "git gud noob" (the rallying cry of video games like Dark Souls) is common. If I were hoping to introduce new players to D&D, what I'd do first is remove that antagonistic environment. Cooperative games are a better learning environment, and in my opinion also a lot more fun.


Since I set your straw man on fire, shall I provide one of my own in compensation?

Here's what I would NOT do:
- Make an obviously gimped character.
- Use my meta-game knowledge to show off how awesome I am in spite of playing a gimped character.
- Rub it in the noob's faces.

That's the real choice: either rubbing dirt in noob faces, or playing a more balanced game in a more cooperative way.

Why do you want to rub dirt in poor, innocent noob faces?

Why do you hate all other players?