# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  What is a really unbalanced party?

## sun_flotter

Hi!

I'm a new D&D player and, last month, I had my first few sessions ever. I was made aware beforehand of what the other players would play (their races, classes,etc.) and my DM helped me navigate character creation. I ended up making a centaur druid, mostly for fun, which my DM was really enthousiatic about (she really likes having druids and rarer races in her campaigns).

So far we had 3 sessions, all of which went fairly well (considering I'm a new player) and the other players are all very patient and kind to me. All but one.

When I made my character, I considered making her a barbarian, but ended up deciding against it, which one of the other players seem angry about, saying that because of me, their party is really unbalanced. 

Our party is made of:
1 tabaxi rogue1 shadar-kai paladin1 warforged bard1 aaracokra sorcerermy centaur druid

Is it really unbalanced? My druid isn't a really offensive character (she's mainly a support), but should she have been? What makes for an "unbalanced" or "balanced" party?

I'm really worried, because I love my character (she's cute) but I don't want her class to cause problem, so if anyone has insight about what makes for an "unbalanced" party, and if there's anything I could do to maybe fix the problem, I'd greatly appreciate!

Thank you, and have a nice day

----------


## Spacehamster

> Hi!
> 
> I'm a new D&D player and, last month, I had my first few sessions ever. I was made aware beforehand of what the other players would play (their races, classes,etc.) and my DM helped me navigate character creation. I ended up making a centaur druid, mostly for fun, which my DM was really enthousiatic about (she really likes having druids and rarer races in her campaigns).
> 
> So far we had 3 sessions, all of which went fairly well (considering I'm a new player) and the other players are all very patient and kind to me. All but one.
> 
> When I made my character, I considered making her a barbarian, but ended up deciding against it, which one of the other players seem angry about, saying that because of me, their party is really unbalanced. 
> 
> Our party is made of:
> ...


Your druid can fill the same role as the barbarian if you make her a moon druid & nope nothing unbalanced about the party, Paladin frontliner, rogue striker, bard that depending on build can heal/control/support, sorcerer that can rain death from above(if anything thats the only character that can cause problems for a DM du to at will flight at lvl 1). So probably just a grumpy player that likes to complain for no good reason.

----------


## Amnestic

An unbalanced party is one that can't adequately cover some major threats - at its most extreme something like a party of four barbarians who are all melee and lack any face skills. Even then they'll be able to rampage over a lot of the stuff that gets in their way, even if they'll struggle with some encounters (flyers).

As Spacehamster said your party is perfectly balanced. You've got skillmonkeys with the rogue and bar, 'offensive' and 'support' casters, and a frontliner. That's the definition of balanced. Honestly I'd prefer a druid in that party to a barbarian, but absolutely either works and you should play what you want to play and will enjoy.

----------


## Sigreid

Honestly, if you were a Barbarian instead of a druid the party would be less balanced in the traditional sense.  Is the angry player by chance the bard?

----------


## Xihirli

This looks like 
A) a really balanced party
And
B) Like something you should never bother a new player with.

The only time anyone has ever made a thing about party balance was when I was in a group of all newbies other than me and DM. I went first and made a wizard, then everyone else made some variety of a squishy ranged character or caster.
The DM spoke specifically to ME, the one experienced with the system, about the possibility of ME, not one of the new players, changing my character, so I ended up making a fighter (as I often tend to). 
Had I wanted to, I could have argued that party balance isnt all that important, and that I could tailor my spells and subclass to make a tanky wizard. In the first game of 5e I ever played, I ended up as the tank as a dual welding ranger for the first nine levels of the game until she got stuck on another plane of existence and I had to make a new character. We had four players and two wizards, and we were fine! And theres ways to make a wizard tank that didnt appeal to me at all with the character I made too.
So Id say if youre really worried, ask your DM if theyre concerned about party balance. And also you are describing a balanced party in a game that doesnt REALLY require one.

----------


## sun_flotter

> Honestly, if you were a Barbarian instead of a druid the party would be less balanced in the traditional sense.  Is the angry player by chance the bard?


No, it's our sorcerer, the bard is actually really supportive and a big team player (for instance, they don't need to eat but my character needs to eat _a lot_ so they gave me their rations, things like that). 
The sorcerer has been playing for the longest time (if you don't count our DM) out of all of us, and he likes to remind us (especially me).

----------


## Mastikator

You're not the problem, the other player is. Ask your DM what you should do if the other player keeps complaining.

----------


## Theodoxus

> And also you are describing a balanced party in a game that doesnt REALLY require one.


This. Because D&D is a human driven game - the DM sets up the dominoes and the players knock them over, the only unbalanced party is one the DM can't handle - and that can include a party that is stereotypical Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard! 

Play your character as you envision her. Let the DM deal with balanced combat, and if you find you're missing another hulking striker that a barbi would represent, turn into a bear and eat the characters face of the player who is complaining about  :Small Wink:

----------


## sun_flotter

> So Id say if youre really worried, ask your DM if theyre concerned about party balance. And also you are describing a balanced party in a game that doesnt REALLY require one.


When I made my character, my DM said I could choose any class and that she'd try to make it work, and if she couldn't, she could ask our rogue if she didn't want to play another character (apparently our rogue loves to make new characters everytime she gets a fun idea, so she has a few spare character sheets she wants to play -although according to both the DM and the other players, she doesn't like her "babies" dying so she does her best to keep them alive and ends up never playing her other characters) but I don't want to cause drama, especially since the DM is my girlfriend and I'm scared it might look like she shows favoritism because of it

----------


## CTurbo

Never ever let another player dictate what you play. 

Besides, there's no real rule about how a party should be made up. In 5e, literally any combination can work. 

I actually think unbalanced parties can be even more fun too. One of the groups I used to play with had a rule where nobody could discuss their characters until the first session so we all created our characters not having any idea what every body else would bring to the table. One campaign, we showed up to the table with a Bard, Wizard, Monk, and two Sorcerers. Absolutely NO front liner or tank. You know what we all did? We laughed about it, and carried on. Nobody made any effort to become "the tank". The Bard still went Lore as planned. And we had fun. 

You're party make up is fine.

----------


## Xihirli

"Not making a new player change their character" isn't favoritism. And I'll reiterate both that the game doesn't require a balanced party, and that your party with a druid is balanced.

If you really don't want to make things too hard on your DM, all I'd recommend is that you don't summon more than 2 animals with Conjure Animals.

----------


## Sigreid

> No, it's our sorcerer, the bard is actually really supportive and a big team player (for instance, they don't need to eat but my character needs to eat _a lot_ so they gave me their rations, things like that). 
> The sorcerer has been playing for the longest time (if you don't count our DM) out of all of us, and he likes to remind us (especially me).


That's odd because a balanced party is a fighter type, skill/scout/single target dps rogue, wizard/sorcerer and a cleric/druid with additional characters backing up 1 or 2 of those.  I thought it might be the bard because they can do heal/control which is what a druid excels at.

----------


## sun_flotter

> If you really don't want to make things too hard on your DM, all I'd recommend is that you don't summon more than 2 animals with Conjure Animals.


I'll try to keep that in mind, thank you for the advice!

----------


## sun_flotter

> That's odd because a balanced party is a fighter type, skill/scout/single target dps rogue, wizard/sorcerer and a cleric/druid with additional characters backing up 1 or 2 of those.  I thought it might be the bard because they can do heal/control which is what a druid excels at.


I think it's more on the player personalities than their actual classes (even if I didn't want to believe it at first).

The bard player is really kind natured, and I have known him for a while now, while the sorcerer player is anxious and competitive, and we met about a month before the first session and he already knew everyone else by that point. 

Initially I even thought he was being "hostile" to me because he was used to everyone else playing together and he just didn't like me being "added" to a familiar group, but apparently it's not even that since according to the DM, he also didn't know our paladin before (as a player I mean, they knew each other but never played D&D together), and she had DMed for him and the others in a now over campaign with other people who decided to take a break from D&D... That's kind of the reason I got worried he might be right and I was ruining the game for everyone else (even if everyone seemed to have fun)

----------


## Willie the Duck

> The sorcerer has been playing for the longest time (if you don't count our DM) out of all of us, and he likes to remind us (especially me).


Fundamentally, I think this is the issue. Someone thinks they know best, has plans for the forthcoming game, and your decision doesn't fit into it. When they say something like that, I would suggest something along the lines of "well then, you've had all the time in the world to play every class. If you want a specific character in the party, perhaps you should play it (since you've undoubtedly played a sorcerer before)."




> No, it's our sorcerer, the bard is actually really supportive and a big team player (for instance, they don't need to eat but my character needs to eat _a lot_ so they gave me their rations, things like that).


It sounds like much of the group is immersion focused, while the sorcerer's player is more accomplishment focused. 


All that said, I'm still scratching my head about the basic claim that switching a druid to a barbarian in this party makes it more balanced. The party has one heavy melee character and two mid-liners (a rogue and a bard, the later of which can even go College of Swords or Valor to up their combat ruggedness), and a druid (Circle of Moon in particular, but any of them as well) can either do some direct combat or otherwise has many abilities which help keep the enemies off the casters and hold them to be mopped up by everyone else. They also add some needed healing, utility, and situational magic as well.

----------


## Sigreid

> Fundamentally, I think this is the issue. Someone thinks they know best, has plans for the forthcoming game, and your decision doesn't fit into it. When they say something like that, I would suggest something along the lines of "well then, you've had all the time in the world to play every class. If you want a specific character in the party, perhaps you should play it (since you've undoubtedly played a sorcerer before)."
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like much of the group is immersion focused, while the sorcerer's player is more accomplishment focused. 
> 
> 
> All that said, I'm still scratching my head about the basic claim that switching a druid to a barbarian in this party makes it more balanced. The party has one heavy melee character and two mid-liners (a rogue and a bard, the later of which can even go College of Swords or Valor to up their combat ruggedness), and a druid (Circle of Moon in particular, but any of them as well) can either do some direct combat or otherwise has many abilities which help keep the enemies off the casters and hold them to be mopped up by everyone else. They also add some needed healing, utility, and situational magic as well.


That's why I thought the complainer would be the bard.  The bard can be built to play on the druids battle field.  The Sorcerer and the druid aren't competitors for the same role.

Regardless, a perfect party isn't that important.  Right now we are running a floor in the Dungeon of the Mad Mage with a battle Smith, warlock, 2 clerics and a wizard and it's working fine.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> You're not the problem, the other player is. Ask your DM what you should do if the other player keeps complaining.


 +1. 



> Never ever let another player dictate what you play. 
> -snip-
> You're party make up is fine.


 I agree. 



> "Not making a new player change their character" isn't favoritism. And I'll reiterate both that the game doesn't require a balanced party, and that your party with a druid is balanced. 
> 
> If you really don't want to make things too hard on your DM, all I'd recommend is that you don't summon more than 2 animals with Conjure Animals.


 <--- very much this. 
Two dire wolves is my default; two giant octopi if we are in water, two giant eagles if I need air cover/support.  



> Someone thinks they know best, has plans for the forthcoming game, and your decision doesn't fit into it.


 Bingo


> When they say something like that, I would suggest something along the lines of "well then, you've had all the time in the world to play every class. If you want a specific character in the party, perhaps you should play it (since you've undoubtedly played a sorcerer before)."


 Stole my thunder. This player is more or less using the other players to cater to their own power fantasy.  



> It sounds like much of the group is immersion focused, while the sorcerer's player is more accomplishment focused.


 Yep.  

For the OP. Stick to your guns.  Be the Druid.  And let the sorcerer player know that you'll play your character, they can play theirs, and that your choice is your prerogative.  
Don't put up with bullying.
I get the feeling that this is some of what this person is doing, even if they are not self aware enough to grasp that.

Also: they are flat out wrong about the party being unbalanced. 



> my DM helped me navigate character creation.


 Which is as it should be. 



> Our party is made of: 1 tabaxi rogue, 1 shadar-kai paladin, 1 warforged bard, 1 aaracokra sorcerer, my centaur druid


 They made an aaracokra PC and they kvetch about balance? I can't roll my eyes hard enough.  



> Is it really unbalanced?


No. What druid circle have your chosen?  I'd suggest circle of the moon, so that if you want to turn into a bear or a dire wolf and mix it up in melee, you can, and if you want to be more of a support/control spell caster, you can.  (If your campaign lasts to level 10 and your character is a circle of the moon druid, you can turn into an elemental!  Fun!)  



> I'm really worried, because I love my character (she's cute) but I don't want her class to cause problem,


Your class doesn't cause a problem, that sorcerer player is causing it.

----------


## sun_flotter

> Fundamentally, I think this is the issue. Someone thinks they know best, has plans for the forthcoming game, and your decision doesn't fit into it. When they say something like that, I would suggest something along the lines of "well then, you've had all the time in the world to play every class. If you want a specific character in the party, perhaps you should play it (since you've undoubtedly played a sorcerer before)."


Ooouh, thank you so much for the idea! This, I think, would be the best answer considering it's not rude, but it doesn't let him stomp on me either! tysm






> It sounds like much of the group is immersion focused, while the sorcerer's player is more accomplishment focused.


This is quite an accurate vision of things... Like, so far we had 2 crit failures, one of which was his. Everyone laughed the first one off (it was our rogue somehow getting caught red handed and deciding to try and pretend she was trying to touch the guard's behind instead of stealing his keys, and the descriptions of it all were really fun),but _his_ crit fail ended up ending the session because he left.





> All that said, I'm still scratching my head about the basic claim that switching a druid to a barbarian in this party makes it more balanced. The party has one heavy melee character and two mid-liners (a rogue and a bard, the later of which can even go College of Swords or Valor to up their combat ruggedness), and a druid (Circle of Moon in particular, but any of them as well) can either do some direct combat or otherwise has many abilities which help keep the enemies off the casters and hold them to be mopped up by everyone else. They also add some needed healing, utility, and situational magic as well.


Probably should have mentionned that, but we reached level 3, so I'm a Circle of Moon druid (because I wanted to wildshape into a horse, and I felt like it worked thematically) and our bard is a College of Valor bard (again, it worked thematically for him). We both serve as support and he made sure to chose spells that wouldn't just do exactly what mine could do, and we chose most our spells together (with the help of our DM)

----------


## Unoriginal

> When I made my character, my DM said I could choose any class and that she'd try to make it work, and if she couldn't, she could ask our rogue if she didn't want to play another character (apparently our rogue loves to make new characters everytime she gets a fun idea, so she has a few spare character sheets she wants to play -although according to both the DM and the other players, she doesn't like her "babies" dying so she does her best to keep them alive and ends up never playing her other characters) but I don't want to cause drama, especially since the DM is my girlfriend and I'm scared it might look like she shows favoritism because of it


You aren't and wouldn't be causing drama, the one person who complains is doing that on their own.

They didn't explain why your character was supposedly bad for the party, did they? Just said the PC was bad with no one else agreeing?

EDIT:

Anyone who ruin a session over a regular nat 1 should not be invited back without serious apologies and a promise they'll be kicked out for good if it happens again. I think the "nat 1 is auto-failure for ability checks" houserule make the game not fun, but if you've agreed to play with that houserule quitting the session because of a 5% chances event is just being toxic.

----------


## Particle_Man

Am I the only one wondering if the sorcerers player would rather that the DM be his girlfriend instead of the OPs?

----------


## sun_flotter

> No. What druid circle have your chosen?  I'd suggest circle of the moon, so that if you want to turn into a bear or a dire wolf and mix it up in melee, you can, and if you want to be more of a support/control spell caster, you can.  (If your campaign lasts to level 10 and your character is a circle of the moon druid, you can turn into an elemental!  Fun!)


I chose Circle of Moon... I fact that circle is even the reason I chose druid over barbarian (I wanted to be able to wildshape into a full horse early on and potentially as an otter later on, because I love otters, they are cute, fun and mischievous creatures)

Also, I didn't know about elementals, that's so fun! Right now, we have to travel north to escape a mysterious sickness inducing mist, but I'm not exactly sure how long the overall campaign will take. Our DM said it's likely we reach level 12 or more by the end, but she said that we could stop whenever if we weren't having fun anymore

----------


## sun_flotter

> Am I the only one wondering if the sorcerers player would rather that the DM be his girlfriend instead of the OPs?


She's a lesbian, but she did apparently turn him down once in the past

----------


## Xihirli

> This is quite an accurate vision of things... Like, so far we had 2 crit failures, one of which was his. Everyone laughed the first one off (it was our rogue somehow getting caught red handed and deciding to try and pretend she was trying to touch the guard's behind instead of stealing his keys, and the descriptions of it all were really fun),but _his_ crit fail ended up ending the session because he left.


If one of your players is going to rage quit every 1 in 20 rolls I think it might be time for him to seriously consider if he actually wants to play in this game.

----------


## KillingTime

Sorcerer player sounds like they have issues.
Ignore.
Their issues are not your problem.

----------


## Unoriginal

> If one of your players is going to rage quit every 1 in 20 rolls I think it might be time for him to seriously consider if he actually wants to play in this game.


IMO it's the other way around: everyone else should seriously consider why they are still playing with that one I-have-1/20-chances-of-ruining-the-session-whenever-I-roll player.

It's not like he's nice to the other people at the table the rest of the time, either.

----------


## nickl_2000

This party isn't unbalanced, this party has a lot of roles available.  You have a tank in the Paladin, healing and support in the Bard/Druid, Striker in the rogue, and blasting in the Sorcerer.  Social interaction covered with Paladin/Bard, Exploration tier by the Druid.  You really have all the major roles covered.

If nothing else, you actually helped cover the exploration tier being a Druid, which wasn't covered as well.



The other nice thing is that Druid can really do just about anything with the right spells and subclasses.  If the other player is worried about there not being enough frontliner, I would suggest you look into the Summon and Conjure spells.  Using you concentration on a Summon spell can be very effective in creating a disposable resource between the baddies and the squishies and if a summon is killed, oh well make another.  If there isn't enough control on the field, then you create crowd control and battlefield control spells in Web and Fog Cloud.  If you need more blasters you choose Land Druid or Wildfire Druid and invest in spells to make things go boom.  If you need more healing, Wildfire Druid or Dream Druid.  If you need more striking Star Druid.

I would avoid the Conjure Animals spells most of the time.  They are great spells, but can massively slow down combat and make it less fun for some players.  Alternately, give control of some of the conjured creatures to each player (i.e. you summon 8 Velicoraptors.  Give control of 2 of them to each other player to avoid your turn taking forever with all the rolling and attacks).



EDIT: sounds like there are all kinds of personal issues at the table to.  Those are super difficult and suck.

----------


## sun_flotter

> If one of your players is going to rage quit every 1 in 20 rolls I think it might be time for him to seriously consider if he actually wants to play in this game.


He did later apologised on our group chat, saying he had somewhere else to be but considering we always block at the very least 1h30 per session and at that point it had been around 30 minutes, no one really believed him but mostly everyone forgave him (even if our rogue is still a bit upset at him, since planning our sessions can be a bit messy and he just lost us over an hour of game)

----------


## Unoriginal

> He did later apologised on our group chat, saying he had somewhere else to be but considering we always block at the very least 1h30 per session and at that point it had been around 30 minutes, no one really believed him but mostly everyone forgave him (even if our rogue is still a bit upset at him, since planning our sessions can be a bit messy and he just lost us over an hour of game)


Let me guess: sorcerer player tends to either be late, be on time but waste time by speaking about [insert thing they once did or topic they enjoy] when the DM wants to start (or they start going on a tangent while the session has started), or both?


Further guess: they make their sorcerer acts as if NPCs didn't matter, outside a couple exceptions who are described as attractive or as having power, and gets confused/upset if a NPC doesn't react positivelyto the way they're treated or doesn't show the character special respect?

----------


## sun_flotter

> IMO it's the other way around: everyone else should seriously consider why they are still playing with that one I-have-1/20-chances-of-ruining-the-session-whenever-I-roll player.
> 
> It's not like he's nice to the other people at the table the rest of the time, either.


He brings pizza and drinks. That may sound silly but when you know that both the DM and the rogue are vegetarians, that the bard is an hawaian pizza lover while I hate pineapple on pizza and that the rogue has a bunch of allergies, it's nice to have someone accomodate everything. Sure, we could do without, but the DM, myself and the paladin have 6 hours of swimming lessons a week, and he and the rogue are part of a theater troup, so most our sessions take place kinda late and not having to worry about dinner is nice for all of us, myself included. 

Plus, he lives with the bard, and we sometimes go to their place to play 

EDIT: To clarify, we had 3 sessions, 2 of which were at their place, and 1 at the DM. She lives with her parents, so their place is honestly better. The time he left was the 1 time we played at the DM's, which is part of the reason why we aren't planing on doing that again, since he can't exactly leave his own appart over a crit fail

----------


## sun_flotter

> Let me guess: sorcerer player tends to either be late, be on time but waste time by speaking about [insert thing they once did or topic they enjoy] when the DM wants to start (or they start going on a tangent while the session has started), or both?


YES, he's the kind of person that will talk about their week and not let anyone talk and if someone is late, he'll start everything all over so that the person has all of the context everyone else has




> Further guess: they make their sorcerer acts as if NPCs didn't matter, outside a couple exceptions who are described as attractive or as having power, and gets confused/upset if a NPC doesn't react positivelyto the way they're treated or doesn't show the character special respect?


He gave his sorcerer a noble background (apparently, from what he told us, his aaracokra came from a noble lineage but when his family discovered he had magic, they threw him out because where he's from magic is associated with warlocks and their patrons and people don't believe you can get magic in any other way) so most NPC respect him in some way or form, but he does act as if he's character was extremely charismatic, when he really isn't. But he let the NPC speak (most of the time) because he respects our DM (I think he mostly apologised for his outburst for her)

----------


## Sigreid

Well, based on the information we have, don't work yourself up.  It doesn't sound like you or the DM are the problem here.

Disclaimer: I'm aware that we are only getting one side of the story, but the sorcerer would have to chime in here with a very different description of the situation for him to not be the problem.

----------


## sun_flotter

> The other nice thing is that Druid can really do just about anything with the right spells and subclasses.  If the other player is worried about there not being enough frontliner, I would suggest you look into the Summon and Conjure spells.  Using you concentration on a Summon spell can be very effective in creating a disposable resource between the baddies and the squishies and if a summon is killed, oh well make another.  If there isn't enough control on the field, then you create crowd control and battlefield control spells in Web and Fog Cloud.  If you need more blasters you choose Land Druid or Wildfire Druid and invest in spells to make things go boom.  If you need more healing, Wildfire Druid or Dream Druid.  If you need more striking Star Druid.


Honestly, my character is one to mostly stay back and defend herself if needed rather than go head first to help her allies fight(she does very much rush to their side if they need healing, and she charged an ennemy once to help out) so I do think Summon and Conjure spells are her best shot at more offensive spells







> EDIT: sounds like there are all kinds of personal issues at the table to.  Those are super difficult and suck.


Yeah... I'd wish there wouldn't be, really, because I'm having a lot of fun regardless but there are still remarks about how I play or how I look that make me a little insecure

----------


## Unoriginal

> YES, he's the kind of person that will talk about their week and not let anyone talk and if someone is late, he'll start everything all over so that the person has all of the context everyone else has
> 
> 
> 
> He gave his sorcerer a noble background (apparently, from what he told us, his aaracokra came from a noble lineage but when his family discovered he had magic, they threw him out because where he's from magic is associated with warlocks and their patrons and people don't believe you can get magic in any other way) so most NPC respect him in some way or form, but he does act as if he's character was extremely charismatic, when he really isn't. But he let the NPC speak (most of the time) because he respects our DM (I think he mostly apologised for his outburst for her)


Further further guess: he needs to be reminded of the kind of pizza people like/can safely eat, except for the DM's and rogue's vegetarian pizza, and/or he regularly makes comments on the pizza other people chose/on their allergies, but rarely about the vegetarian pizza (and if he does, he quicly shut up/change topic if the DM object to what he says, but continues undettered if it's anyone else)?

----------


## Xihirli

> IMO it's the other way around: everyone else should seriously consider why they are still playing with that one I-have-1/20-chances-of-ruining-the-session-whenever-I-roll player.
> 
> It's not like he's nice to the other people at the table the rest of the time, either.


I don't think it's an either/or situation, I can't really think of a table that WOULD be right for this kind of player.

----------


## Sigreid

> Honestly, my character is one to mostly stay back and defend herself if needed rather than go head first to help her allies fight(she does very much rush to their side if they need healing, and she charged an ennemy once to help out) so I do think Summon and Conjure spells are her best shot at more offensive spells
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... I'd wish there wouldn't be, really, because I'm having a lot of fun regardless but there are still remarks about how I play or how I look that make me a little insecure


Comments on another player's appearance are out of line.

----------


## Snails

> I chose Circle of Moon... I fact that circle is even the reason I chose druid over barbarian (I wanted to be able to wildshape into a full horse early on and potentially as an otter later on, because I love otters, they are cute, fun and mischievous creatures)


I am having trouble imagining a more balanced choice than a centaur moon druid to add to that party.  You are an interesting race that adds some RP opportunities.  You can go melee, in centaur form or wildshaped.  You can cast spells.  You have skills options to buttress or expand on what the rest of the party brings.  You are potentially a jack of all trade-ish character sort of like the Bard but different.

_The "real problem" is absolutely not that your choice makes the party imbalanced._  The "real problem" is you were "supposed" to defer to this other player's judgement on what kind of PC to play.  He had other ideas, and you annoyed him by thinking for yourself about your own character.  He is also probably bothered because centaur + druid does not fit within his world view on how to build a PC.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

A barbarian would have unbalanced the party because it's way cooler than all the other classes, so all of the awesome would have been only in one character.

Luckily, you picked druid and now everything is okay.  :Small Cool: 

But as all the others have said, this isn't something that needs to be worried about in the first place. And a druid is one of the most versatile classes in the game, so the player is just flat out wrong that you've thrown the balance off.

Sounds like the player has a personality problem. Do your best to focus on the other players and ignore this other guy.

----------


## sun_flotter

> Further further guess: he needs to be reminded of the kind of pizza people like/can safely eat, except for the DM's and rogue's vegetarian pizza, and/or he regularly makes comments on the pizza other people chose/on their allergies, but rarely about the vegetarian pizza (and if he does, he quicly shut up/change topic if the DM object to what he says, but continues undettered if it's anyone else)?


I was going to say no but actually, yes, kinda. He usually has the pizza delivered at his place, since we play there, but the one time we played at the DM, he went to a pizzeria not too far from her house, and since he couldn't take the exact same pizzas as the last time (since the pizza he got for the paladin and myself was sort of exclusive), he texted us to make sure it'd be ok.

But he does joke about allergies, and the one time I made a comment about how my autistic best friend _loves_ hawaiian pizza and it's sort of a comfort food for them but I really didn't like pineapple on pizza (we were having a debate of whether or not pineapple belongs on pizza), he decided it'd be appropriate to joke about my best friend's autism, and asking questions (one that made me see red: "Are they like, Asperger or are they defficient"). The DM had left the room at that time and everyone kept quiet in shock. I ended up excusing myself and going to the bathroom so I don't know what happened after that, but I know he didn't apologize even after I explained that my best friend was my everything and that I'd _kill_ for them

----------


## Xihirli

> I was going to say no but actually, yes, kinda. He usually has the pizza delivered at his place, since we play there, but the one time we played at the DM, he went to a pizzeria not too far from her house, and since he couldn't take the exact same pizzas as the last time (since the pizza he got for the paladin and myself was sort of exclusive), he texted us to make sure it'd be ok.
> 
> But he does joke about allergies, and the one time I made a comment about how my autistic best friend _loves_ hawaiian pizza and it's sort of a comfort food for them but I really didn't like pineapple on pizza (we were having a debate of whether or not pineapple belongs on pizza), he decided it'd be appropriate to joke about my best friend's autism, and asking questions (one that made me see red: "Are they like, Asperger or are they defficient"). The DM had left the room at that time and everyone kept quiet in shock. I ended up excusing myself and going to the bathroom so I don't know what happened after that, but I know he didn't apologize even after I explained that my best friend was my everything and that I'd _kill_ for them


Yo, autist here. Drop him and play at a game store.

Is my visceral reaction, I understand things are more complicated than that. That was my gut instinct to say, so take it with a pound of salt.

----------


## Sigreid

> Yo, autist here. Drop him and play at a game store.
> 
> Is my visceral reaction, I understand things are more complicated than that. That was my gut instinct to say, so take it with a pound of salt.


I think my response would be along the lines of "it's less awkward being autistic than being the kind of person that would mock it".

----------


## sun_flotter

> Comments on another player's appearance are out of line.


To clarify, that was when we first met. Our DM had DMed for him and some of their common friends, but the rest of his party ended up taking a break from D&D at the end of their campaign, so he asked if he could join another party, to which she agreed. Her other D&D group IRL was a group of friends and acquaintances of mine, and since she had convinced me to give D&D a try (which I don't regret doing despite everything btw) and she wanted me to be with people I knew to begin, but didn't want to let him down, she introduced us to one another and I guess I just wasn't what he expected (although considering I met my GF in our swimming classes, I don't know what he expected me to look like? I'm a swimmer, of course I'm not a fragile little creature??)

He didn't comment on my appearance again after that, safe for one remark about my helix

----------


## Sigreid

> To clarify, that was when we first met. Our DM had DMed for him and some of their common friends, but the rest of his party ended up taking a break from D&D at the end of their campaign, so he asked if he could join another party, to which she agreed. Her other D&D group IRL was a group of friends and acquaintances of mine, and since she had convinced me to give D&D a try (which I don't regret doing despite everything btw) and she wanted me to be with people I knew to begin, but didn't want to let him down, she introduced us to one another and I guess I just wasn't what he expected (although considering I met my GF in our swimming classes, I don't know what he expected me to look like? I'm a swimmer, of course I'm not a fragile little creature??)
> 
> He didn't comment on my appearance again after that, safe for one remark about my helix


I guess it would depend on the comment and the way its delivered.  But in general, commenting on another player's appearance at a game or if you know they're in a relationship is bad form.  Not unforgivable, but just off in most cases.  Saying that, I've on occasion told someone they were pretty after I knew them a bit in a way that made it clear I wasn't hitting on them.

----------


## sun_flotter

> Yo, autist here. Drop him and play at a game store.
> 
> Is my visceral reaction, I understand things are more complicated than that. That was my gut instinct to say, so take it with a pound of salt.


I still like playing with my friends, but I think I might just do worse and actually call Alix (my best friend) during one of our games and let them deal with that if he says anything about autism again. They are sassy enough when upset to shut him up, and knowing them? *scrubbed*

----------


## sun_flotter

> I guess it would depend on the comment and the way its delivered.  But in general, commenting on another player's appearance at a game or if you know they're in a relationship is bad form.  Not unforgivable, but just off in most cases.  Saying that, I've on occasion told someone they were pretty after I knew them a bit in a way that made it clear I wasn't hitting on them.


He just told me I looked boyish. I know I do, especially since I cut my hair, but I'm really insecure about my body and judging by my GF reaction, she had told him before. I don't think it was meant as an insult, but it stinged

----------


## Sigreid

> I still like playing with my friends, but I think I might just do worse and actually call Alix (my best friend) during one of our games and let them deal with that if he says anything about autism again. They are sassy enough when upset to shut him up, and knowing them? *scrub the post, scrub the quote*


And now I have to look up Asperger to understand this context because I have no clue.

----------


## sun_flotter

> And now I have to look up Asperger to understand this context because I have no clue.


*scrubbed*

----------


## Sigreid

> *scrub the post, scrub the quote*


*scrubbed*

----------


## sun_flotter

> *scrub the post, scrub the quote*


*scrubbed*

----------


## Unoriginal

I have to advise you that mentioning historical events and figures such as the ones you mention in your post above is against the forum's rules. 


Regarding the sorcerer player: based on everything you told us,it is quite clear he is a jerk in general and in specific he's infatuated with your girlfriend and sees you as an obstacle in wooing her (regardless of all the other factors making so it won't happen).

Notice how even in the few posts in this thread, his Nice Guy persona evaporates when your girlfriend is not here.


Furthermore, notice how he managed to get invited in a campaign where everyone was supposed to be people you were comfortable with sharing a game table, then made you wonder if *you* were the problem when no one else did.

He's also been repeatedly insulting you and you friends with every opportunity he can get away with, including belitteling you by bring the fact he's been playing longer as if it made him superior.

And don't forget how he manages to control when the sessions start by holding the floor and refusing to give it up until everyone listened to everything from A to Z, he also manages to control if the session happens at all by leaving if things don't go the way he wants, regardless of how hard it is for the rest of you to set the time aside to meet and play AND, to reiterate, the fact people were supposedly invited to make it easier/more agreable for you to start D&D.

All in all, if I were in ypur place, I would bring the facts to the other members of your group, see if they have noticed other red flags, and then to your girlfriend.

You're not the one who should leave the group, but it seems he's in 'best behavior' mode when your girlfriend is around (except when the mask cracks/he think he can get away with it), and since she's tolerating him/excusing him and including him, everyone kinds of follow the DM's lead even when he's being a jerk to their faces.

----------


## BRC

> I have to advise you that mentioning historical events and figures such as the ones you mention in your post above is against the forum's rules. 
> 
> 
> Regarding the sorcerer player: based on everything you told us,it is quite clear he is a jerk in general and in specific he's infatuated with your girlfriend and sees you as an obstacle in wooing her (regardless of all the other factors making so it won't happen).
> 
> Notice how even in the few posts in this thread, his Nice Guy persona evaporates when your girlfriend is not here.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, notice how he managed to get invited in a campaign where everyone was supposed to be people you were comfortable with sharing a game table, then made you wonder if *you* were the problem when no one else did.
> ...


Eh, I wouldn't want to assume all of that from what we've seen. Let's not assume malice where everything is covered by simple thoughtlessness. 


To me, this seems like pretty straightforward "Alpha-Nerd" behavior. He's in a space (A D&D game) where he feels comfortable and enjoys the idea of being the "Expert" at the table. Talking about his week because he thinks he's among friends and wants to vent about his week, but lacks the social skills to realize that he's dominating the conversation. All this seems pretty standard for somebody who enjoys the sound of his own voice but lacks the awareness to realize that time is a limited resource and that he's been taking 10 minutes to "Finish his thought". 

Complaints about the "Party Imbalance" for a well balanced party, throwing a fit over a Nat 1, yeah, not great behavior, but also consistent with somebody who walks into the game expecting to be the Expert who is the Best At This Game and enjoys that idea, but then gets salty when their greater experience doesn't translate into perfect success or instant respect from everybody else at the table. 


It's probably worth the DM having a conversation with them about all this, but I wouldn't assume malice on their party.


Edit: Specifically, I can picture his thought processes 

When you said you were going to play a barbarian, he probably nodded to himself that a Barbarian would be a good fit with the other characters. Another frontliner to help protect the squishies (Bard and Sorc) and provide sneak attacks for the Rogue. Barbarian is also a pretty good choice for a new player unaccustomed to the rules, since they're fairly straightforward as far as both tactics and mechanics go. 

Then you switch to a druid. A druid is ALSO fine in this party. Party balance is overrated anyway, but even so a druid can serve a similar role to the Barbarian, and if you're comfortable with the mechanical complexity, a druid's fine. 


But it's a deviation from what he'd already decided would be a Good Fit for the party. He enjoys the thought of being the Expert at the table, and deviating from what he decided is a Good Idea is a threat to that. Hence the complaints.

----------


## sun_flotter

> I have to advise you that mentioning historical events and figures such as the ones you mention in your post above is against the forum's rules.


Not to sound rude or bitter or anything but could I see the specific rule? I re-read the rules and I've seen that mentions of IRL politics and religions were banned, but I haven't seen discussions of historical events being banned. Thank you so much if you can find me the rule, I'd really appreciate




> To me, this seems like pretty straightforward "Alpha-Nerd" behavior. He's in a space (A D&D game) where he feels comfortable and enjoys the idea of being the "Expert" at the table. Talking about his week because he thinks he's among friends and wants to vent about his week, but lacks the social skills to realize that he's dominating the conversation. All this seems pretty standard for somebody who enjoys the sound of his own voice but lacks the awareness to realize that time is a limited resource and that he's been taking 10 minutes to "Finish his thought".


I agree with that, I do believe there is some clumsyness from his part. In my posts, everything seems a bit condensed but he is a good player (when he doesn't throw tantrums over a nat 1) and there were really cool moments with his character too, both in RP and in combats

The only thing is that, yeah, there is a switch in his behavior when the DM is there and when she isn't, but that might also really just be because she has the most experience out of any of us... I will talk about this to my group, and see if a discussion with him might be useful here or not

----------


## Unoriginal

> Eh, I wouldn't want to assume all of that from what we've seen. Let's not assume malice where everything is covered by simple thoughtlessness.


Even without malice, that level of entitlement is not something I would accept.

Think about it that way: how thoughtless do you need to be to ruin a session over rolling a 1?

You have to ignore how hard it is for everyone to find time to game. You have to ignore they are already here and playing and can't repurpose that hour into something readily. You have to ignore the fact it's a d20 and that rolling a 1 is likely to happen. You have to ignore how it's just random chance in a game. You have to ignore everyone is trying to have fun and did have fun when it was the rogue who rolled a 1.

If someone ignores all that, well, I don't think that "not being malicious" is a justification for keeping them in the group. 

And that's not getting into how people who think themselves as superior because they're the Expert and belitle others based on it are, in fact, malicious.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Eh, I wouldn't want to assume all of that from what we've seen. Let's not assume malice where everything is covered by simple thoughtlessness. {snip excellent post} He enjoys the thought of being the Expert at the table, and deviating from what he decided is a Good Idea is a threat to that. Hence the complaints.


 You encapsulated a bunch of stuff I was thinking but could not articulate. Well done!   :Small Smile:

----------


## Dr.Samurai

The solution remains the same whether there is malice or not. We can't control other people, only ourselves. The group has to stand up to this guy's entitlement and put a stop to it. Either by the DM having a nice conversation with him, the group explaining their frustrations, or someone finally having enough and having an outburst. Whatever it is, someone has to meet this guy half way and let him know to knock it off.

----------


## Sigreid

> He just told me I looked boyish. I know I do, especially since I cut my hair, but I'm really insecure about my body and judging by my GF reaction, she had told him before. I don't think it was meant as an insult, but it stinged


Completely off topic, but don't ever let that bother you.  There are plenty of people into that look so those that aren't just aren't worth you taking to heart.

----------


## Chronos

I kind of get the impression that if you _had_ chosen a barbarian, then this player would still have complained that you were unbalancing the party, and that you should have picked druid or something.

----------


## Jack of Spades

Even if they've played quite a bit more than anyone in the group, rage quitting on a nat 1 and complaining about party balance (particularly given this makeup) are both flags that this player isn't very knowledgeable at all about some very important aspects of the gaming hobby-- or, like, socializing with humans, in the former case.

Unfortunately this kind of person is quite common. It gets even more frustrating when you've been playing games for over a decade and they still feel the need to assume you've no idea what you are doing or talking about. Silly immature dominance games, consciously or no.

Welcome to the sorority, I suppose. I'm sorry to hear you're having this particular flavor of new-player experience. Hopefully you're able to give the jerk either the boot or the muzzle.

----------


## Reach Weapon

> Our party is made of:
> 1 tabaxi rogue1 shadar-kai paladin1 warforged bard1 aaracokra sorcerermy centaur druid


Not that it excuses any of the behavior, but it may be that the quirky build choice had him grumping that the party was unbalanced in terms of (his conceptions of) optimization.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Not that it excuses any of the behavior, but it may be that the quirky build choice had him grumping that the party was unbalanced in terms of (his conceptions of) optimization.


Centaure Druid isn't any more quirky than Aaracokra Sorcerer.

----------


## Leon

Seems a reasonable party, without a Druid you'd have no reliable Divine magic support (because the number of times you see a paladin actually cast a spell you can generally count on one hand) and the party has plenty of "offensive" power so a support character is good to have. Druid spell lists are not as good as Cleric ones but are still up there as a great list.

----------


## Kane0

My initial guess is that the sorcerer wanted an extra meatshield.

----------


## sithlordnergal

That looks like a very balanced party...I'm not sure what the one player is talking about. You could toss any class in there and you'd be fine. The only thing unbalanced is the fact that you guys are gonna punch above your weight level...but that's not imbalance on your part

----------


## Snails

> My initial guess is that the sorcerer wanted an extra meatshield.


That, or perhaps some kind of classic cleric build.

----------


## diplomancer

Is the Paladin by any chance Dex-based? Because that's the only possible hole I can see in the party that would have a Barbarian be preferable to a Druid: the lack of a strong guy to break doors and lift portcullis as needed; and even then a Wildshaped Moon Druid would probably still be able to pull it off, unless it was a Str check that required opposable thumbs.

Incidentally- 1 level in Barbarian goes quite well on a Moon Druid, as both Unarmored Defense and damage resistance while raging greatly increase the staying power of the animal shapes, and the damage bonus while raging is quite nice as well. But this is speaking about mechanics; it might not be wise to do the multiclass on this particular situation and have the other player think he's "won". If it'd shut him up, it might be worth it, but he'll probably find something else to complaing about.

----------


## Sigreid

> Is the Paladin by any chance Dex-based? Because that's the only possible hole I can see in the party that would have a Barbarian be preferable to a Druid: the lack of a strong guy to break doors and lift portcullis as needed; and even then a Wildshaped Moon Druid would probably still be able to pull it off, unless it was a Str check that required opposable thumbs.
> 
> Incidentally- 1 level in Barbarian goes quite well on a Moon Druid, as both Unarmored Defense and damage resistance while raging greatly increase the staying power of the animal shapes, and the damage bonus while raging is quite nice as well. But this is speaking about mechanics; it might not be wise to do the multiclass on this particular situation and have the other player think he's "won". If it'd shut him up, it might be worth it, but he'll probably find something else to complaing about.


The multiclassing depends on where the game will stop.  If the plan is for a 20+ game, I don't think there's a multiclass option as good as unlimited shapeshift.

----------


## sun_flotter

> Is the Paladin by any chance Dex-based? Because that's the only possible hole I can see in the party that would have a Barbarian be preferable to a Druid: the lack of a strong guy to break doors and lift portcullis as needed; and even then a Wildshaped Moon Druid would probably still be able to pull it off, unless it was a Str check that required opposable thumbs.


Our paladin is stronger than dexterous (18 to I think 16? I might be wrong about the Dex score, but I'm sure about the Strenght score since she somehow rolled four 6 in front of the DM) and there's no way I would have had a higher score than she did (she had a 1/1296 chance of getting all 6, even if I did roll as well as she did, or even only rolled three 6 for a 1/216 chance instead of 4, I still probably wouldn't have given my character a 20 in Strenght, except if I didn't roll anything else over a 15) so I doubt he just wanted more muscles

----------


## diplomancer

> The multiclassing depends on where the game will stop.  If the plan is for a 20+ game, I don't think there's a multiclass option as good as unlimited shapeshift.


Sure, for that one level, definitely. But, honestly, unless you are starting the campaign at very high level, I'd never forego a good multiclass for a possibly great level 20 capstone- life happens; and I believe OP mentioned that the DM's plan is to wrap the campaign around level 12.

Edit, to sun_flotter: Just a random thought. Tell the problem player:  " you know, 3 charisma-based classes is really unbalanced, and the party is missing an Int-based character, maybe you should stop playing a Sorcerer and play a Wizard instead; as the only Wisdom based character in the party, it is essential that I remain a Druid". Wait for fireworks.

----------


## Sigreid

> Sure, for that one level, definitely. But, honestly, unless you are starting the campaign at very high level, I'd never forego a good multiclass for a possibly great level 20 capstone- life happens; and I believe OP mentioned that the DM's plan is to wrap the campaign around level 12.
> 
> Edit, to sun_flotter: Just a random thought. Tell the problem player:  " you know, 3 charisma-based classes is really unbalanced, and the party is missing an Int-based character, maybe you should stop playing a Sorcerer and play a Wizard instead; as the only Wisdom based character in the party, it is essential that I remain a Druid". Wait for fireworks.


Sure, but particularly a new player can use a little help seeing the different tradeoffs.

----------


## diplomancer

> Sure, but particularly a new player can use a little help seeing the different tradeoffs.


True. But the trade-off I'd point out is the delay in spell levels. It will be far more significant than the hypothetical capstone, and it's a considerable trade-off, enough of one that even were I to multiclass, I'd do it after level 6.

----------


## Sigreid

> True. But the trade-off I'd point out is the delay in spell levels. It will be far more significant than the hypothetical capstone, and it's a considerable trade-off, enough of one that even were I to multiclass, I'd do it after level 6.


Foe a moon druid, I'd consider the delay in new available forms a bigger deal.

----------


## diplomancer

> Foe a moon druid, I'd consider the delay in new available forms a bigger deal.


The forms are the reason that I'd suggest waiting until Druid 6. For most casters who dip, I suggest taking it after level 5.

----------


## DomesticHausCat

Imo balanced parties are overrated. All you need is some sort of healing, even if it's just a means to get a lot of potions and you're good. The dm if he's decent will cater the balance of the game to the group's abilities.

----------


## Kane0

Absolutely. Ive had games of all-warlock, all-dex builds, all-primals, all-dwarves, all-melee, etc and its a lot of fun as long as you are willing to accept there are some situations that an imbalanced party will excel at, and some they will absolutely fail.

Current game im in is swashbuckler rogue, battlemaster fighter, nature (shilelagh) cleric and armorer (gauntlet) artificer.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

Yeah I'm currently in a party made up of an open hand monk, a hunter ranger, my rune knight fighter, and a moon druid, and we're doing great. Even if the moon druid insists on using wild-shape almost exclusively out of combat, and the DM can basically scuttle him in any encounter by throwing an animal or two in and watching the druid spend his turns trying to befriend it lol.

----------


## Zuras

Imbalanced parties are really only a problem if the DM wants to run a specific module or style of adventure and the party doesnt have the capabilities to succeed without the DM massively re-working the adventure.

The most imbalanced parties, like an all barbarian or all rogue party, are actually pretty easy to handle as a DM, because you have a good gauge of the partys capabilities and can either provide NPC help or figure out how they can move the plot forward using the skills they do have.

Really, the only time I have seen party capability coverage is a real problem is when youve got a 3 PC party going through something written for a balanced 4 PC party as a newer DM, or at a convention where youre just not familiar enough with their capabilities to get the balance right on the first pass.

----------


## NeoVid

Some of us would be tempted to kill for a party comp that covers the bases as well as what OP's game ended up having.  

However, a player who walks out on a nat 1 would also tempt some of us to kill.  I must agree with everyone saying the OP is clearly not the problem for the group.

----------


## sun_flotter

> Edit, to sun_flotter: Just a random thought. Tell the problem player:  " you know, 3 charisma-based classes is really unbalanced, and the party is missing an Int-based character, maybe you should stop playing a Sorcerer and play a Wizard instead; as the only Wisdom based character in the party, it is essential that I remain a Druid". Wait for fireworks.


I love how mostly everyone agreed on calling him "problem player"

Unfortunately, while it's true we technically have 3 charisma based characters, not all of them are charismatic. Our paladin for instance is mostly strong, and his aaracokra sorcerer is as charismatic as my druid (I rolled for my stats, but he asked to use point buy instead and ended up with I think the lowest overall stats) so when it comes to ability checks and such, we are mostly fine, although now that I think about it, every other character excels at _at least_one thing except for him (and now I kinda wonder if he isn't just jealous or insecure because of it?):

Our paladin is super strong (18 in strenght)Our bard is quiet charismatic (16 or 17 in charisma, I don't remember) and has the highest constitution out of any of usOur rogue is super dexterousAnd my druid is wise (17 in wisdom) and smart (16 in intelligence)
 All the while his highest stat is my second lowest stat (14)

Back to the actual suggestion, it would upset him for sure and he'd probably leave the table (again) but it would also be uncalled for, especially from me, considering my druid is more than capable of showing intelligence. I'll keep the suggestion in the back of my head tho, thank you!

----------


## diplomancer

> I love how mostly everyone agreed on calling him "problem player"
> 
> Unfortunately, while it's true we technically have 3 charisma based characters, not all of them are charismatic. Our paladin for instance is mostly strong, and his aaracokra sorcerer is as charismatic as my druid (I rolled for my stats, but he asked to use point buy instead and ended up with I think the lowest overall stats) so when it comes to ability checks and such, we are mostly fine, although now that I think about it, every other character excels at _at least_one thing except for him (and now I kinda wonder if he isn't just jealous or insecure because of it?):
> 
> Our paladin is super strong (18 in strenght)Our bard is quiet charismatic (16 or 17 in charisma, I don't remember) and has the highest constitution out of any of usOur rogue is super dexterousAnd my druid is wise (17 in wisdom) and smart (16 in intelligence)
>  All the while his highest stat is my second lowest stat (14)
> 
> Back to the actual suggestion, it would upset him for sure and he'd probably leave the table (again) but it would also be uncalled for, especially from me, considering my druid is more than capable of showing intelligence. I'll keep the suggestion in the back of my head tho, thank you!


I was thinking he was an unpleasant optimizer (note-I'm an optimizer). Now I'm beginning to think he has very little idea of how to play the game, despite all his experience. It's _doable_ to have 14 as your highest stat, but, specially post-Tasha's, there's very little reason to actually do so with point-buy.

----------


## sun_flotter

> I was thinking he was an unpleasant optimizer (note-I'm an optimizer). Now I'm beginning to think he has very little idea of how to play the game, despite all his experience. It's _doable_ to have 14 as your highest stat, but, specially post-Tasha's, there's very little reason to actually do so with point-buy.


If I recall correctly, he has three 14, two 12 and one 10 (I might be wrong tho, and I don't understand point buy very well so I can't check if that makes sense). If you sum everything up, it adds up to 76. Considering I'm not even the one with the highest overall score yet all my ability scores add up to 87, there's a bit of a difference, but as I said, I don't understand point buy very well so maybe we just all rolled great?

----------


## Leon

> I was thinking he was an unpleasant optimizer (note-I'm an optimizer). Now I'm beginning to think he has very little idea of how to play the game, despite all his experience. It's _doable_ to have 14 as your highest stat, but, specially post-Tasha's, there's very little reason to actually do so with point-buy.


Its reminding me of a bad player I had once long ago, tried to present himself as a good player but was frankly terrible. After his first character death he tried to pass off all 18s for his next character and was more or less laughed out of the room by everyone else. It was not a loss when he left except it meant his wonderful new player girlfriend left aswell.

----------


## diplomancer

> If I recall correctly, he has three 14, two 12 and one 10 (I might be wrong tho, and I don't understand point buy very well so I can't check if that makes sense). If you sum everything up, it adds up to 76. Considering I'm not even the one with the highest overall score yet all my ability scores add up to 87, there's a bit of a difference, but as I said, I don't understand point buy very well so maybe we just all rolled great?


You've all rolled exceptionally well (87 is amazing!), but even with point-buy you can always have at least one, preferably two 16s.

----------


## Chronos

You rolling explains how it's possible that you all got high stats.  But him using point-buy is not an explanation for how he got all low stats.  With point buy, unless you're making some weird build that's truly independent of all stats (possible, but rare), you'll almost always buy your main stat to 14 or 15, and then use a racial bonus to get it to 16 to the start.

That said, some of those stat-independent builds are sorcerers.  If he happened to choose only spells with no save nor attack roll, like buffs, walls, summons, etc., then charisma hardly actually matters.  Although, he was rolling _something_ when he got that natural 1 he ragequit over.

The only possibilities I see are either "powergamer but really bad at it", or "troll".  And with a 14 in his main stat via point-buy, it's hard to imagine a powergamer that's _that_ bad at it.

----------


## sun_flotter

> You've all rolled exceptionally well (87 is amazing!), but even with point-buy you can always have at least one, preferably two 16s.


Yeah, but then I sort of understand where he's coming from, especially considering I'm a newer player... 

Like, imagine playing D&D for years and then your party leaves you at the end of your campaign, so you ask your DM if she DM other campaign, to which she tells you that, yes, and that she's starting a new campaign soon, with two of your friends, one acquaintance and a stranger. She then informs you that the stranger is a new player, and haven't decided on a character yet for the campaign to come, but that she's a furry and will probably chose a race with animal characteristics. Fine. 
You make your character, nothing too serious (considering his Aaracokra is named "Suss", I doubt it was a really serious character), and about a week later, your DM creates a group chat an the new player explains in the chat that she'll be playing either a barbarian centaur or a druid centaur. A barbarian centaur would probably have a strong build, and would fit the racial +2, but the new player choses druid. 

Chosing druid pushed me to chose either strenght or charisma as my lowest stat, whereas barbarian would have pushed me to chose intelligence as my dump stat. My lowest roll was 11, and I chose to put that in strenght. With my racial +2, that gives us a 13, my lowest stat. If I had chosen barbarian tho, my 11 would have went to intelligence. That barely changes anything, really, but that still makes it so that my character has at the very least +1 to mostly every throw I make, which wouldn't have been the case had I chosen barbarian

So maybe he's just grumpy because it doesn't fit his idea of how a new player's character should be balanced? Maybe it's not really about my character as a party member but rather as a character? I don't know, I'll ask

P.S; I know it can sound a bit weird that we all rolled pretty high, but I rolled with my DM and we made sure the dice were balanced (I am still a bit confused about the glass of water part, but hey, I'm no expert), me and the paladin are both just really lucky with dice (although never challenge me to a card game because I'm going to lose for sure, I have the worst luck with cards)

----------


## Kane0

The numbers of your stats are only of limited importance really, unless youre actively sabotaging your own character. He might be miffed that his stats simply arent as good as everyone elses, but its not going to be a problem for a competent DM

----------

