Characters dying in D&D is dumb unless it's intentional or deserved for some reason. It doesn't matter how fast a new character can be created because it's unlikely that the DM will get a chance to introduce a new character into the middle of a dungeon or any other type of encounter where a player is likely to die. Even if resurrection is free (which I think is dumb since there's no real penalty for dying which makes it fairly meaningless -- most of our games are no-rez), that character is still out of the game until the resurrection can happen. This means that there's some player who has absolutely nothing to do, likely for the rest of the night. They might as well go home and come back next week, and if that's not shitty I don't know what is.
I also don't dish out EXP; we have a house rule where you always have half as much exp as you need to level, just in case you need/want to spend exp on something, and you level when the dm says you get a level. And while money loss is something that doesn't matter at all right now, it will be fairly easy to deal with even when there's stuff to spend money on.
We also house rule that players always have ammo, unless it's some ridiculously enchanted stuff.
I do like this starting at level 3 idea. I might do that.
Seriously, if you insist on the game's mechanics to do everything for you, then why not just stick to computer RPG's? Then everything, for better or for worse, is strictly enforced and requires zero initiative on anyone's part to make it work.
Tabletop systems are intended to be mutable by design. The GM/DM has the power to make changes and decisions according to what he or she feels is best of the campaign they are running. Call it names if you like, but that has been a core to every TT RPG ever.
This is just a bad argument. Just because I can fix a bike that slips it's chain every 100 feet doesn't mean that a bike that slips it's chain every 100 feet is good. That a problem is something that can be coped with doesn't eliminate the problem. A better bike would slip it's chain much less often.
Now can we quit whinging over how 5E is not 4E? I mean, 4E does have it's own thread here.
This I do agree with. While obviously my opinion matters little as I'm not a mod or anything but the 5e thread constantly being about how 5e really sucks to the point where it drowns out those playing the game is not very classy.
Not classy at all.
To borrow your analogy, if that one malfunction is the only problem you have, the rest of the "bike" works to your liking, then perhaps the extra elbow grease is worth it?
Running a TT RPG is more than just rolling dice and reading from a module (or should be anyways). Expecting it to work perfectly in such a fashion does not seem reasonable to me.
Seriously, if you insist on the game's mechanics to do everything for you, then why not just stick to computer RPG's? Then everything, for better or for worse, is strictly enforced and requires zero initiative on anyone's part to make it work.
Tabletop systems are intended to be mutable by design. The GM/DM has the power to make changes and decisions according to what he or she feels is best of the campaign they are running. Call it names if you like, but that has been a core to every TT RPG ever.
This is just a bad argument. Just because I can fix a bike that slips it's chain every 100 feet doesn't mean that a bike that slips it's chain every 100 feet is good. That a problem is something that can be coped with doesn't eliminate the problem. A better bike would slip it's chain much less often.
Now can we quit whinging over how 5E is not 4E? I mean, 4E does have it's own thread here.
This I do agree with. While obviously my opinion matters little as I'm not a mod or anything but the 5e thread constantly being about how 5e really sucks to the point where it drowns out those playing the game is not very classy.
Not classy at all.
To borrow your analogy, if that one malfunction is the only problem you have, the rest of the "bike" works to your liking, then perhaps the extra elbow grease is worth it?
Why would it be worth it when there are other, perfectly functional bikes you could buy instead?
Now can we quit whinging over how 5E is not 4E? I mean, 4E does have it's own thread here.
There is certainly a sense that 4E was ended too soon. Fans would have enjoyed more material, superior electronic tools, and the like.
However, for the most part, that's been put behind us. The distaste for 5E is not simply because it is here instead of more 4E. Financial reasons for pushing a new edition of D&D are obvious and understandable, and I'm not sure anyone in this thread wanted 5E to just be a rehash of 4E. After all, the complaints about 5E are largely that it has tended toward regression in design.
I would have loved a 5E that took a step beyond 4E to bring D&D into the next level of RPG design; a forward-looking game that dared to take risks, innovate, and challenge. There just isn't much of it there, and what is there tends toward the dubious. It still has all the old problems with D&D that even 4E possessed, such as utterly uninteresting noncombat mechanics and an over-reliance on the full rest mechanic to recharge high-powered abilities. I wanted a 5E that would fix my frustrations with 4E and make an even better game than the iterations that preceded.
I can understand the frustrations you might have as a 5E fan that just wants to talk about 5E with other fans, sharing ideas and stories and knowledge without having to wade through the critics pointing out why this or that is bad or broken. But this is a general 5E discussion thread, and we're still in the earliest days of the edition. The core books aren't even all out yet. This is the period where opinions will be the strongest and most vocally shared.
In time, that will fade. Assuming the upcoming material doesn't contain paradigm-shifting revelations, I for one will be paying less and less attention, eventually ignoring all 5E threads entirely. I assume most other detractors will follow suit, moving to other games that better fit their tastes. But we're not there yet. We're still learning about the game, seeing what all the final version really has to offer. Commenting on that is entirely suitable and appropriate.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
I think my post got lost behind the wall of other types of dicussion (or maybe no one knows the answer off hand as I don't either) but does anyone know if that downloable stuff from WotC has more animals for Druids to Wildshape into, at least for the druids that choose that path?
I still want to make a bear shaping druid based a bit around WoW to be perfectly honest but I didn't see anything past a brown bear so I'm really looking for what a dire bear might be in power wise.
That aside, I started my campaign with my daughter and wife officially. The little one was originally planning on Tiefling but she changed her mind to elf. Since my wife's an elf too, I took this in a different direction than I had planned. Both of them enjoy elves and fae/fey. Between the Paladin Ancient Ones Oath (Green Knights) and the Warlock Fey Pact ... I decided to have the campaign take place about a power struggle between the Seelie and Unseelie Courts with the two of them caught in the middle. Not too many dice throws went out with little combat (as I admittedly still have to do some math and try to adjust fights for two people for now) but everyone had a great time with both wanting to play again.
Character creation took a bit of time but we weren't in a hurry.
The campaign will be a lot of fey/elves along with elementals if I can find some (plant or twisted Thorn Elementals). Maybe goblins too if I twist them towards that route. I was planning to make thie Forgotten Realms but now I'm not sure. Don't think they're Courts are divided into Seelie and Unseelie (what DO they use anyway?)
@Nyht - That all sounds pretty boss. I'd put it in a homebrew world myself, rather than try to shoehorn the Seelie/Unseelie conflict into the Elven politics of one of the official worlds. I'd also probably wind up using conflict with the Fomorians to unite the courts, but that's my Changeling: the Dreaming background bleeding through, I think.
Realizing lately that I don't really trust or respect basically any of the moderators here. So, good luck with life, friends! Hit me up on Twitter @DesertLeviathan
Unless you're referring to something else, I don't think the Basic Rules available for download even mention Druid as a class.
I have the basic rules that came from the Starter Set but not sure if their site had more downloadable monsters. And I'm not asking about the druid class, per say, as I'm asking about other animal creatures that a druid could turn into. So basically anything they have out that has more animals in it.
@The Hanged Man , I'm actually already plotted to do that with the fomorians, or at least have them be a common threat. Out of ALL the games WoD did, Changeling was easily the one that grabbed at me. I'm enthralled with the fae/fey as a thing that makes my head spin with ideas. I don't have stats for them yet (if Wizards even does them) so I might just create them once I learn how to do something like that (as it seemed pretty easy in 4e to do and I'm hoping it's easy in this edition as well).
Also, thanks for the advice and it's where I'm leaning as well at this point. Or I could just bastardize the realms into whatever I need it to be for my game, using their world and deities but doing whatever I'd like with this part. I usually like the Realms as is but ... eh.
Druids are indeed listed, wild shape works like this:
You can assume the form of an animal you have seen up to a challenge rating based on your level
There are limitations until 8th level on flying and swimming creatures. At 2-3rd level no flying or swimming creatures, at 4 no flying and at 8 there are no limitations.
You swap STR, DEX and CON with the animal but retain your INT, WIS and CHA
You assume the creatures hit dice
You cannot cast spells, but you can continue to maintain concentration on previously cast spells
Generally you gain the best of the creature's or your saves and proficiencies.
Unless you're referring to something else, I don't think the Basic Rules available for download even mention Druid as a class.
I have the basic rules that came from the Starter Set but not sure if their site had more downloadable monsters. And I'm not asking about the druid class, per say, as I'm asking about other animal creatures that a druid could turn into. So basically anything they have out that has more animals in it.
Player's Basic Rules have no creature stats.
DM's Basic Rules has stats for the Allosaurus, Ankylosaurus, Ape, Axe Beak, Baboon, Badger, Bat, Black Bear, Blood Hawk, Boar, Brown Bear, Camel, Cat, Constrictor Snake, Crab, Crocodile, Deer, Dire Wolf, Draft Horse, Eagle, Elephant, Elk, Flying Snake, Frog, Giant Ape, Giant Badger, Giant Bat, Giant Board, Giant Centipede, Giant Constrictor Snake, Giant Crab, Giant Crocodile, Giant Eagle, Giant Elk, Giant Fire Beetle, Giant Frog, Giant Goat, Giant Hyena, Giant Lizard, Giant Octopus, Giant Owl, Giant Poisonous Snake, Giant Rat, Giant Scorpion, Giant Sea Horse, Giant Shark, Giant Spider, Giant Toad, Giant Vulture, Giant Wasp, Giant Weasel, Giant Wolf Spider, Goat, Hawk, Hunter Shark, Hyena, Jackal, Killer Whale, Lion, Lizard, Mammoth, Mastiff, Mule, Octopus, Owl, Panther, Plesiosaurus, Poisonous Snake, Polar Bear, Pony, Pteranodon, Quipper, Rat, Raven, Reef Shark, Rhinoceros, Riding Horse, Saber-Toothed Tiger, Scorpion, Sea Horse, Spider, Stirge, Swarm of Bats, Swarm of Insects, Swarm of Poisonous Snakes, Swarm of Quippers, Swarm of Rats, Swarm of Ravens, Tiger, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus Rex, Vulture, Warhorse, Weasel, and Wolf.
I don't know if any of those are compatible with Druid stuff (does "animal" mean "beast"? Because there is no "animal" creature type), but there you go.
Thanks, this is exactly what I was curious about. Still no Dire Bear in that listing but it gives me more animals to look over. And yeah, I suppose it's "beast" thanks
Seriously, if you insist on the game's mechanics to do everything for you, then why not just stick to computer RPG's? Then everything, for better or for worse, is strictly enforced and requires zero initiative on anyone's part to make it work.
Tabletop systems are intended to be mutable by design. The GM/DM has the power to make changes and decisions according to what he or she feels is best of the campaign they are running. Call it names if you like, but that has been a core to every TT RPG ever.
This is just a bad argument. Just because I can fix a bike that slips it's chain every 100 feet doesn't mean that a bike that slips it's chain every 100 feet is good. That a problem is something that can be coped with doesn't eliminate the problem. A better bike would slip it's chain much less often.
Now can we quit whinging over how 5E is not 4E? I mean, 4E does have it's own thread here.
This I do agree with. While obviously my opinion matters little as I'm not a mod or anything but the 5e thread constantly being about how 5e really sucks to the point where it drowns out those playing the game is not very classy.
Not classy at all.
To borrow your analogy, if that one malfunction is the only problem you have, the rest of the "bike" works to your liking, then perhaps the extra elbow grease is worth it?
Why would it be worth it when there are other, perfectly functional bikes you could buy instead?
This has been the unanswered counterpoint for essentially the life of this thread. Really, it's sort of the existentialist question of RPGs: "Why would I buy this game when there are other, perfectly functional games I could buy instead?"
A lot of them simply can't answer that question. A few, particularly older ones, have an X factor that sort of ameliorates it: "Here, take your father's sword and go be the hero" isn't just cliche fodder for RPGs, it's art imitating life.
There's certainly a lot to be said for video games. I like them just fine. They provide a very nice curated play experience. But that's not what I sit down at a table for, and I think that's something D&D in specific and TTRPGs in general have struggled with for the last five years or so, when the option to "just go play some video games" has been a real and significant one. 5e's jerk back to "role-playing is the central thesis of what this game is about" would be utterly laudable if it wasn't also ridiculously laughable. Experienced gamers will point out that the engine is built around combat resolution with a side of conflict resolution, which is not really what most of us would call "role-playing." It's like role-playing, sure, if you consider jumping off the porch the equivalent of HALO parachuting.
I mean, sure, there are characters like the Fighter who has 9 purchases of Skill Focus: Diplomacy and a +36 Diplomacy modifier as a result, but they're deviations from the norm. These sorts of characters are objectively discouraged by the engine, and would be openly mocked on minmax forums even after you demonstrated that said Fighter was both capable of persuading and thrashing a dragon. It's just not something D&D maps well. It never has and it probably never will (d20 Star Wars notably had problems with the socially adept archetypes; Nobles felt and played a lot like magicless Bards, and I don't think I need to specify why that is a bad thing).
But there's no point in ragging on 5e. It's here. It's acceptably lukewarm. We no longer have any particular need to write reams of house rules for it, as it's no longer the only game in town.
Twitter rulings from Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford for 5E rules questions.
They're not very concrete rulings, and I get the sense that a lot of these are things they didn't think of and are kind of just answering off-the-cuff, but at least they're answering questions.
Unless you're referring to something else, I don't think the Basic Rules available for download even mention Druid as a class.
I have the basic rules that came from the Starter Set but not sure if their site had more downloadable monsters. And I'm not asking about the druid class, per say, as I'm asking about other animal creatures that a druid could turn into. So basically anything they have out that has more animals in it.
Player's Basic Rules have no creature stats.
DM's Basic Rules has stats for the Allosaurus, Ankylosaurus, Ape, Axe Beak, Baboon, Badger, Bat, Black Bear, Blood Hawk, Boar, Brown Bear, Camel, Cat, Constrictor Snake, Crab, Crocodile, Deer, Dire Wolf, Draft Horse, Eagle, Elephant, Elk, Flying Snake, Frog, Giant Ape, Giant Badger, Giant Bat, Giant Board, Giant Centipede, Giant Constrictor Snake, Giant Crab, Giant Crocodile, Giant Eagle, Giant Elk, Giant Fire Beetle, Giant Frog, Giant Goat, Giant Hyena, Giant Lizard, Giant Octopus, Giant Owl, Giant Poisonous Snake, Giant Rat, Giant Scorpion, Giant Sea Horse, Giant Shark, Giant Spider, Giant Toad, Giant Vulture, Giant Wasp, Giant Weasel, Giant Wolf Spider, Goat, Hawk, Hunter Shark, Hyena, Jackal, Killer Whale, Lion, Lizard, Mammoth, Mastiff, Mule, Octopus, Owl, Panther, Plesiosaurus, Poisonous Snake, Polar Bear, Pony, Pteranodon, Quipper, Rat, Raven, Reef Shark, Rhinoceros, Riding Horse, Saber-Toothed Tiger, Scorpion, Sea Horse, Spider, Stirge, Swarm of Bats, Swarm of Insects, Swarm of Poisonous Snakes, Swarm of Quippers, Swarm of Rats, Swarm of Ravens, Tiger, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus Rex, Vulture, Warhorse, Weasel, and Wolf.
I don't know if any of those are compatible with Druid stuff (does "animal" mean "beast"? Because there is no "animal" creature type), but there you go.
I was not quoting verbatim, it says beast, common sense would equate animal and beast as the same. It also has to be something the druid has seen before, so either it has shown up in an adventure or something the druid would have reasonably seen in their background (i.e. Sea Horse would be far fetched if the druid were from a land locked area and the party had not been on any undersea adventures to that point).
I was not quoting verbatim, it says beast, common sense would equate animal and beast as the same. It also has to be something the druid has seen before, so either it has shown up in an adventure or something the druid would have reasonably seen in their background (i.e. Sea Horse would be far fetched if the druid were from a land locked area and the party had not been on any undersea adventures to that point).
I didn't know, which is why I asked. It is legitimately hard to tell in 5E when something is a game term versus natural language.
Seriously, if you insist on the game's mechanics to do everything for you, then why not just stick to computer RPG's?
Then you haven't read my posts and this is basically the kind of "Iconic" argument that we've been mocking repeatedly in the thread. It's not about having the mechanics do "everything for me", it's about having the mechanics coherently and succinctly do what they are supposed to. This is where I feel 5E is poorly written and where it's problems, like levels 1-2 being up in lethality and then dropping significantly are problems with the system. It's not that I cannot fix these things: The question is, why should I have to when other systems apparently have already done so.
Tabletop systems are intended to be mutable by design. The GM/DM has the power to make changes and decisions according to what he or she feels is best of the campaign they are running. Call it names if you like, but that has been a core to every TT RPG ever.
Now can we quit whinging over how 5E is not 4E? I mean, 4E does have it's own thread here.
This thread isn't for you to talk only about how much you enjoy 5E - neither was the 4E thread on its release incidentally. The main difference being nobody had to wait 3 months to see what 4E actually was doing, because they released all the books at once. This is not a strategy they have done for 5E. Particularly because nobody has actually seen all of what 5E actually offers as the Monster Manual and DMG are (stupidly) not out yet. So I'm afraid you're going to have to put up with people critiquing positions and mechanics in the game until everything can be fully appreciated.
Because I know how it works, if I write "This system is plainly not what I want and mechanically poorly thought out based on the PHB" then I will get snarky "But you never know what the DMG and modules might show later, it could be super good as they anted to make it modular designed!" responses.
Also, I am in fact running some adventures/one-offs of 5E for others IRL at the moment. Just because I dislike the system does not mean my actual experiences are not valid for the thread either.
Edit: And if it makes you feel any better, with the way wizards did things to the 4E tools, some of their latter releases (which were awful) and treatment of things post-essentials like epic tier, I was also incredibly critical of 4E as well for a long time. You know what? I don't recall a single person in the 4E thread ever telling me that I shouldn't be criticizing 4E in there.
But there's no point in ragging on 5e. It's here. It's acceptably lukewarm. We no longer have any particular need to write reams of house rules for it, as it's no longer the only game in town.
I've been a pretty vocal critic of 5E, but it's well worth noting that the actual full rules aren't out yet and especially because it's designed to have other rules or similar added in/out as desired. I am hoping that this is something the DMG addresses. A good smart collection of rules that address some of these problems could be in there and is really their last hope for me.
Especially when there are clearly good ideas amongst all the really bad ones, like how they have handled solo-monsters lair mechanics as an inherent part of them as a challenge.
Seriously, if you insist on the game's mechanics to do everything for you, then why not just stick to computer RPG's?
Then you haven't read my posts and this is basically the kind of "Iconic" argument that we've been mocking repeatedly in the thread. It's not about having the mechanics do "everything for me", it's about having the mechanics coherently and succinctly do what they are supposed to. This is where I feel 5E is poorly written and where it's problems, like levels 1-2 being up in lethality and then dropping significantly are problems with the system. It's not that I cannot fix these things: The question is, why should I have to when other systems apparently have already done so.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but following your posts is not one of my daily activities. So no, I do not hang on your every word.
Nobody has really said what they find wrong with 5E, just that it's wrong, because they say so. And then offer no ways they see to fix it. That would be constructive criticism. Just saying it's broken and everyone should go play something else is not productive or useful.
Maybe it was said further back, but seriously, in a thread this size, I'm not going back 50 pages to look things up. At that point replies practically constitute necroposting.
Tabletop systems are intended to be mutable by design. The GM/DM has the power to make changes and decisions according to what he or she feels is best of the campaign they are running. Call it names if you like, but that has been a core to every TT RPG ever.
You're welcome, happy to be of service. Oh wait, you were being sarcastic. That's helpful discourse I guess. I am sure your 4E posts are full of wisdom and of immeasurable value... to the 4E crowd, this is 5E, so not entirely relevant here.
Now can we quit whinging over how 5E is not 4E? I mean, 4E does have it's own thread here.
This thread isn't for you to talk only about how much you enjoy 5E - neither was the 4E thread on its release incidentally. The main difference being nobody had to wait 3 months to see what 4E actually was doing, because they released all the books at once. This is not a strategy they have done for 5E. Particularly because nobody has actually seen all of what 5E actually offers as the Monster Manual and DMG are (stupidly) not out yet. So I'm afraid you're going to have to put up with people critiquing positions and mechanics in the game until everything can be fully appreciated.
Suggesting that because people bitched about 4E when it came out, so it is ok to bitch about 5E here is a really silly argument. They should not have been shitting up that thread either.
The problem I have here, as I said before, is people complain about things but offer no solutions. That accomplishes absolutely nothing at all. And when others offer solutions, they are dismissed out of hand. That is unacceptable.
Because I know how it works, if I write "This system is plainly not what I want and mechanically poorly thought out based on the PHB" then I will get snarky "But you never know what the DMG and modules might show later, it could be super good as they anted to make it modular designed!" responses.
That would be a poor argument to take, you can only judge what you have in hand. Arguing that a future addition will "fix" things is an argument that is easily dismissed.
Also, I am in fact running some adventures/one-offs of 5E for others IRL at the moment. Just because I dislike the system does not mean my actual experiences are not valid for the thread either.
Of course they are, good and bad. The issue I have had, and it isn't with you specifically, is people just want to complain. No effort is made to find solutions, and worse, when solutions are offered, they are just dismissed and told the game is broken and go play 13th Age or 4E. That does not promote discussion of 5E which one would presume this thread to be about.
Edit: And if it makes you feel any better, with the way wizards did things to the 4E tools, some of their latter releases (which were awful) and treatment of things post-essentials like epic tier, I was also incredibly critical of 4E as well for a long time. You know what? I don't recall a single person in the 4E thread ever telling me that I shouldn't be criticizing 4E in there.
I honestly could care less about 4E. I don't hate it, but I don't use it. It is also largely incompatible with 5E (campaign settings aside), so it's usefulness to me is basically nil.
Not to be confused with discussion of D&D 4e, or general RPG discusison.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited September 2014
You would almost think that talking about a new edition would involve actual comparisons to previous editions (especially when 5E is such a frankensteins monster of different concepts cobbled together from multiple previous editions). Also, it is not "unacceptable" to disagree with other peoples solutions when those solutions are not good. Like, I am entirely aware that you can just start a campaign at level 3 to avoid the problems with the limited character options and lethality at levels 1-2. This does not automatically suddenly mean it's a great solution.
Otherwise your post didn't have anything meaningful to respond to.
Edit: We've also discussed 1E, 2E, 3.5 and Pathfinder too, because there are some relevant similarities in style and function (EG Fight Man being incredibly limited options wise).
Not to be confused with discussion of D&D 4e, or general RPG discusison.
I have a query related to this: how else do you propose a comparison and contrast of useful elements in the newest version of Dungeons & Dragons without callbacks to what has been done before? I have seen more than 4th and 5th edition D&D mentioned here. 3rd, 2nd and even first has been mentioned at various points in relating to 5th edition, for good or for ill.
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
Not to be confused with discussion of D&D 4e, or general RPG discusison.
I have a query related to this: how else do you propose a comparison and contrast of useful elements in the newest version of Dungeons & Dragons without callbacks to what has been done before? I have seen more than 4th and 5th edition D&D mentioned here. 3rd, 2nd and even first has been mentioned at various points in relating to 5th edition, for good or for ill.
That is fine. But how is telling people that 5E is broken garbage and they should play 13th Age or 4E instead a useful discussion here?
I think folks are getting frustrated, and are talking past each other a little bit because of the frustration.
@Yoshua, the reason a lot of the people in this thread seem very terse and impatient about 5E rules is because for a very long time - for many months and many pages - they have been reading the playtest packets that WOTC has been putting out, discussing them, and even (extensively) playtesting them. These discussions and playtests turned up tons of problems, big and small, mostly owing (I think) to ambiguous and imprecise rules. So, it's a little frustrating to see these same problems carry through to the final product when they were found - and commented on at length! - early on. I think you can see how, as a fan, it can be demoralizing to watch a company in charge of a product you love ignore input and blindly trundle in the direction opposite of where you want the product to go. I think a lot of the folks in the thread are emotionally spent from watching, discussing, and playtesting 5E over the last I dunno, year or so. I know I am, and I've only ever lurked in the thread.
On the other hand, I can also see your point of view as well: You're digging a thing, and when you come into a thread about that thing to discuss that thing, you're greeted with a lot of posts that amount to "This thing is broken and dumb, ugh, yuck". I'm sorry about that! As a fan of a thing, that's a really frustrating thing to see. I promise you, though, that no one is in this thread because they hate D&D and want to literally shit on it. We all want 5E to be awesome, but for a bunch of the folks in the thread, 5E turned out to be a disappointment, and sort of a betrayal of trust. You can understand why they would be hurt, frustrated, and annoyed, right?
It seems like there's a sharp divide between folks in these discussions into two groups:
Group A: It is WOTC's job to provide the rules for the game, in as complete and consistent a fashion as possible. It is the DM's job to provide the story, characters, histories, ecology, and so on. WOTC is creating the engine; this is why we are paying them. We are creating the fluff built on top of that engine.
Group B: It is WOTC's job to give us a game that gets us going. Rules are great, but if there are any inconsistencies or holes or whatever, no big deal - we'll just patch them over with our own house rules. After all, it's the DM's game, and the DM decides what goes!
I don't think these positions are mutually exclusive, because we all recognize that it's the DM's job to tinker with the rules to create an environment that's most fun for their groups, and we all recognize that it's WOTC's job to give us the rules we build our games on. It's really a question of where do we draw the boundary about how much work WOTC puts into the rules and how much work DMs put into the rules.
@Yoshua, you mentioned that people here are griping without providing solutions. I've been lurking here for like a year or something, and I've seen solutions offered all the time, especially during the 5E playtesting period, when folks brought up many work-arounds for things they saw as problems. I think that by this point, they're tired of doing it, you know? And, furthermore, I think that the attitude now is "Why is it my job to fix WOTC's broken mess?". Which, in my opinion, is a pretty reasonable stance. Of course, someone who doesn't think that 5E is a broken mess would probably feel differently.
Not to be confused with discussion of D&D 4e, or general RPG discusison.
I have a query related to this: how else do you propose a comparison and contrast of useful elements in the newest version of Dungeons & Dragons without callbacks to what has been done before? I have seen more than 4th and 5th edition D&D mentioned here. 3rd, 2nd and even first has been mentioned at various points in relating to 5th edition, for good or for ill.
That is fine. But how is telling people that 5E is broken garbage and they should play 13th Age or 4E instead a useful discussion here?
It's not the best criticism, but you'd be hard pressed to argue it's not criticism. There's no standard of criticism required to participate here. We generally prefer constructive criticism, but a tear down is no less legitimate.
Most of us are already playing 13th Age and/or 4e, so those suggestions are more tongue-in-cheek than serious.
Nobody has really said what they find wrong with 5E, just that it's wrong, because they say so. And then offer no ways they see to fix it. That would be constructive criticism. Just saying it's broken and everyone should go play something else is not productive or useful.
We have, but I'll save you some reading:
Problem 1: Ambiguously-written, incomplete rules relying on "natural language" which leads to arguments and forces house rules.
Suggested Solution: Clearly-written, complete rules, using more technical English.
Problem 2: Weird lethality curve that makes the first couple of levels extra deadly.
Suggested Solution: Increase early survivability via HP and the like.
Problem 3: Casters Rule, Fighters Drool.
Suggested Solution: Actually balance the classes instead of just giving fighters actual spells for when people realize that they're not anywhere near as effective as magical classes.
Not to be confused with discussion of D&D 4e, or general RPG discusison.
I have a query related to this: how else do you propose a comparison and contrast of useful elements in the newest version of Dungeons & Dragons without callbacks to what has been done before? I have seen more than 4th and 5th edition D&D mentioned here. 3rd, 2nd and even first has been mentioned at various points in relating to 5th edition, for good or for ill.
That is fine. But how is telling people that 5E is broken garbage and they should play 13th Age or 4E instead a useful discussion here?
It's not the best criticism, but you'd be hard pressed to argue it's not criticism. There's no standard of criticism required to participate here. We generally prefer constructive criticism, but a tear down is no less legitimate.
Most of us are already playing 13th Age and/or 4e, so those suggestions are more tongue-in-cheek than serious.
Well I have to disagree. Is it allowed? Yes. Is it a legitimate argument? No, it really isn't because it has no substance to it. It is an attack meant to take down and destroy, yet offers nothing in return. So sure, you can do that, but why should you?
Not to be confused with discussion of D&D 4e, or general RPG discusison.
I have a query related to this: how else do you propose a comparison and contrast of useful elements in the newest version of Dungeons & Dragons without callbacks to what has been done before? I have seen more than 4th and 5th edition D&D mentioned here. 3rd, 2nd and even first has been mentioned at various points in relating to 5th edition, for good or for ill.
That is fine. But how is telling people that 5E is broken garbage and they should play 13th Age or 4E instead a useful discussion here?
It's not the best criticism, but you'd be hard pressed to argue it's not criticism. There's no standard of criticism required to participate here. We generally prefer constructive criticism, but a tear down is no less legitimate.
Most of us are already playing 13th Age and/or 4e, so those suggestions are more tongue-in-cheek than serious.
Well I have to disagree. Is it allowed? Yes. Is it a legitimate argument? No, it really isn't because it has no substance to it. It is an attack meant to take down and destroy, yet offers nothing in return. So sure, you can do that, but why should you?
You are literally engaging in the very behavior you are decrying by decrying it. So why are you doing something that you admit has no value?
Not to be confused with discussion of D&D 4e, or general RPG discusison.
I have a query related to this: how else do you propose a comparison and contrast of useful elements in the newest version of Dungeons & Dragons without callbacks to what has been done before? I have seen more than 4th and 5th edition D&D mentioned here. 3rd, 2nd and even first has been mentioned at various points in relating to 5th edition, for good or for ill.
That is fine. But how is telling people that 5E is broken garbage and they should play 13th Age or 4E instead a useful discussion here?
It's not the best criticism, but you'd be hard pressed to argue it's not criticism. There's no standard of criticism required to participate here. We generally prefer constructive criticism, but a tear down is no less legitimate.
Most of us are already playing 13th Age and/or 4e, so those suggestions are more tongue-in-cheek than serious.
Well I have to disagree. Is it allowed? Yes. Is it a legitimate argument? No, it really isn't because it has no substance to it. It is an attack meant to take down and destroy, yet offers nothing in return. So sure, you can do that, but why should you?
Complaints about D&D have not changed significantly in the 20 years I've been playing RPGs (including D&D). Most of the good things that can be said about D&D have already been said. The most violent reaction to D&D I can recall was 4e; there are several obvious reasons for that, including it being the only major RPG to turn into the tide rather than try to ride it out.
Complaining about how people are participating in a thread just ensures the thread will veer further off course. Like this one has.
So, it's a little frustrating to see these same problems carry through to the final product when they were found - and commented on at length! - early on. I think you can see how, as a fan, it can be demoralizing to watch a company in charge of a product you love ignore input and blindly trundle in the direction opposite of where you want the product to go.
We need to be careful of this.
The reason I'm so wary of the "This feature is bad because it removes player agency" argument is because I've spent several years watching Team Fortress 2 burn.
Basically, I've watched it move from being a game where a lot of game sense/skill is required to a higher lethality game where first to fire wins. And this has correlated with a move from Valve from selling the game for money, to the game selling hats to new players for money. Every change to that game has been away from me and towards the new players because of this aim, and so it's very easy for me to say that TF2 is bad when in reality Valve doesn't consider me their audience anymore.
So if I seem to be playing the devil's advocate here and supporting some weird decision from 5E to make levels 1-3 intolerable, then it's just because I'm trying to believe there is someone else out there who actually enjoys this stuff.
The "These two things are contradictory and so when combined make things worse for all players" arguments are far better.
Not to be confused with discussion of D&D 4e, or general RPG discusison.
I have a query related to this: how else do you propose a comparison and contrast of useful elements in the newest version of Dungeons & Dragons without callbacks to what has been done before? I have seen more than 4th and 5th edition D&D mentioned here. 3rd, 2nd and even first has been mentioned at various points in relating to 5th edition, for good or for ill.
That is fine. But how is telling people that 5E is broken garbage and they should play 13th Age or 4E instead a useful discussion here?
It might keep some people that would be disappointed with 5E from spending their money on it. Or someone that doesn't know much about non-D&D roleplaying games might find something that they'd be interested in.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
So, it's a little frustrating to see these same problems carry through to the final product when they were found - and commented on at length! - early on. I think you can see how, as a fan, it can be demoralizing to watch a company in charge of a product you love ignore input and blindly trundle in the direction opposite of where you want the product to go.
We need to be careful of this.
The reason I'm so wary of the "This feature is bad because it removes player agency" argument is because I've spent several years watching Team Fortress 2 burn.
Basically, I've watched it move from being a game where a lot of game sense/skill is required to a higher lethality game where first to fire wins. And this has correlated with a move from Valve from selling the game for money, to the game selling hats to new players for money. Every change to that game has been away from me and towards the new players because of this aim, and so it's very easy for me to say that TF2 is bad when in reality Valve doesn't consider me their audience anymore.
So if I seem to be playing the devil's advocate here and supporting some weird decision from 5E to make levels 1-3 intolerable, then it's just because I'm trying to believe there is someone else out there who actually enjoys this stuff.
The "These two things are contradictory and so when combined make things worse for all players" arguments are far better.
I agree on that last point, absolutely: objective criticisms are more universally-applicable than subjective ones. Which, I guess, is actually pretty much a tautology, so I shouldn't be patting myself on the back for that phrasing.
I'm just trying to verbalize why a lot of the folks in the thread are a little prickly. WOTC is entirely justified in saying "Nah dudes, we've read your feedback and we're going a different way; you guys don't have to come with us if you don't want", but I think that fans are also justified in saying "Why are you guys going in that other direction, away from us? That sucks."
If nothing else, even if it's not a super-useful criticism, it might color the emotional climate of any discussion that those fans will have.
0
Options
KalnaurI See Rain . . .Centralia, WARegistered Userregular
Not to be confused with discussion of D&D 4e, or general RPG discusison.
I have a query related to this: how else do you propose a comparison and contrast of useful elements in the newest version of Dungeons & Dragons without callbacks to what has been done before? I have seen more than 4th and 5th edition D&D mentioned here. 3rd, 2nd and even first has been mentioned at various points in relating to 5th edition, for good or for ill.
That is fine. But how is telling people that 5E is broken garbage and they should play 13th Age or 4E instead a useful discussion here?
I am not going to claim that is useful discussion. I never did. However, that's not all that's being said; it's just most of what you see, I'd wager, because you like the product more than most here and are hurt more by slights to it, intentional or otherwise.
Now, I have not read the Player's Handbook, so I have only so much to give. I know this current iteration is not for me. It wasn't actually designed with a player like me in mind, I could tell that simply from reading the basic rules and the playtests. It's so hard to read for me because I'm trying to pick through and find the rules in the wording.
Though I personally suck at writing programing languages, I prefer games to have simple words that always mean the same thing stated clearly, much as 4th edition D&D does with things such as keywords and status effects. I prefer less lethality, as it is more welcoming to new players and able to be changed through increasing difficulty for more experienced players. I prefer basic standardized class building (i.e. all classes built within the same structure, but with the possibility of different rules within that structure) instead of a special structure for each class that requires the players to relearn large portions of the game if they choose a different class. I enjoy a largely modular design where abilities, classes, backgrounds and more fit almost Tetris-like together to form a whole. I prefer a visual presentation of the game via at least tokens and a grid, as I am a visual person. I also personally prefer crunch over fluff, but given a solid example of easy ways to create what elements I want, I'll not be bothered over extra fluff.
I prefer all of these things, and from all my reading of 5th edition material, none of that is sufficiently supported. I remain in the thread to see what others see and say for the reason that I'm interested in making games, and so I must always be willing to see things outside my perspective.
However, I still agree that solid rules with simple, clear keywords instead of natural language may not be as fun to read but is surely easier in managing a system of any sort. I also agree with those here that argue for more equivalent power in class design, and a slow but steady climb up a hill over a big hump of difficulty at the beginning. Those are basic design decisions I would side with, and which I do not feel 5th edition has implemented. The solution to this is simple and should, I think, not have to be stated; basically, don't do this, do that. For example, don't write in natural language, regardless of how fun it makes the rules to read; rules aren't written to be fun to read, they're written to work like a well oiled machine.
But the game is done, and there's really nothing left to do but point out where any flaws are and then move on, sometimes staying with a game we like, sometimes suggesting new ones. There's really no way to fix the published material that is worth the time.
There was a bike analogy used back a page or so, comparing a bike that slips its chain ever 100 feet to a game that works poorly. You asked if, in this instance, might it not be worth keeping the bike if everything but the chain works perfectly, and to that question I would have to answer a no, with caveats. Because if the chain slips 100 feet out of the bike shop, I could see assuming it was simply an oddity. After it happens twice, maybe three times, it's time to go back to the bike shop and get an exchange or refund for a bike that works. Or if you know all about bikes you might attempt to fix it yourself. Or you might pay a bike mechanic to fix it for you. But simply placing the chain back every 100 feet is a stop-gap solution at best. And not going back and asking for a working bike seems silly. So no, the bike has to work, and if it takes additional work by you or a trained professional, then that's a problem on their point.
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
+4
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
It was more that WotC turned their play test feedback into an echo chamber right from the beginning, with no actual interest in engaging with people who were critical. I actually looked up if I mentioned in the play test hashtag the whole problem with the first two levels discussed here. Sure enough, I and a fair number of others actually had done this. Additionally their play test surveys were total garbage, asking pointless self-affirming questions and preventing genuinely meaningful feedback.
This is why I am waiting for the dmg though, because 5E was always supposed to be very modular and that was a narrative they established early. A very good set of DMs tools that alleviate some of my issues with the way the system works could be in there. Honesty and my requirement to give something a full look before deciding my opinion is why I want to wait and see. If the lair rules, monster creation and similar all proves to be as easy to do as it was in 4e (with as consistent results), that would go a long way to dramatically improving my opinion.
Posts
I also don't dish out EXP; we have a house rule where you always have half as much exp as you need to level, just in case you need/want to spend exp on something, and you level when the dm says you get a level. And while money loss is something that doesn't matter at all right now, it will be fairly easy to deal with even when there's stuff to spend money on.
We also house rule that players always have ammo, unless it's some ridiculously enchanted stuff.
I do like this starting at level 3 idea. I might do that.
To borrow your analogy, if that one malfunction is the only problem you have, the rest of the "bike" works to your liking, then perhaps the extra elbow grease is worth it?
Running a TT RPG is more than just rolling dice and reading from a module (or should be anyways). Expecting it to work perfectly in such a fashion does not seem reasonable to me.
Why would it be worth it when there are other, perfectly functional bikes you could buy instead?
However, for the most part, that's been put behind us. The distaste for 5E is not simply because it is here instead of more 4E. Financial reasons for pushing a new edition of D&D are obvious and understandable, and I'm not sure anyone in this thread wanted 5E to just be a rehash of 4E. After all, the complaints about 5E are largely that it has tended toward regression in design.
I would have loved a 5E that took a step beyond 4E to bring D&D into the next level of RPG design; a forward-looking game that dared to take risks, innovate, and challenge. There just isn't much of it there, and what is there tends toward the dubious. It still has all the old problems with D&D that even 4E possessed, such as utterly uninteresting noncombat mechanics and an over-reliance on the full rest mechanic to recharge high-powered abilities. I wanted a 5E that would fix my frustrations with 4E and make an even better game than the iterations that preceded.
I can understand the frustrations you might have as a 5E fan that just wants to talk about 5E with other fans, sharing ideas and stories and knowledge without having to wade through the critics pointing out why this or that is bad or broken. But this is a general 5E discussion thread, and we're still in the earliest days of the edition. The core books aren't even all out yet. This is the period where opinions will be the strongest and most vocally shared.
In time, that will fade. Assuming the upcoming material doesn't contain paradigm-shifting revelations, I for one will be paying less and less attention, eventually ignoring all 5E threads entirely. I assume most other detractors will follow suit, moving to other games that better fit their tastes. But we're not there yet. We're still learning about the game, seeing what all the final version really has to offer. Commenting on that is entirely suitable and appropriate.
I still want to make a bear shaping druid based a bit around WoW to be perfectly honest but I didn't see anything past a brown bear so I'm really looking for what a dire bear might be in power wise.
That aside, I started my campaign with my daughter and wife officially. The little one was originally planning on Tiefling but she changed her mind to elf. Since my wife's an elf too, I took this in a different direction than I had planned. Both of them enjoy elves and fae/fey. Between the Paladin Ancient Ones Oath (Green Knights) and the Warlock Fey Pact ... I decided to have the campaign take place about a power struggle between the Seelie and Unseelie Courts with the two of them caught in the middle. Not too many dice throws went out with little combat (as I admittedly still have to do some math and try to adjust fights for two people for now) but everyone had a great time with both wanting to play again.
Character creation took a bit of time but we weren't in a hurry.
The campaign will be a lot of fey/elves along with elementals if I can find some (plant or twisted Thorn Elementals). Maybe goblins too if I twist them towards that route. I was planning to make thie Forgotten Realms but now I'm not sure. Don't think they're Courts are divided into Seelie and Unseelie (what DO they use anyway?)
I have the basic rules that came from the Starter Set but not sure if their site had more downloadable monsters. And I'm not asking about the druid class, per say, as I'm asking about other animal creatures that a druid could turn into. So basically anything they have out that has more animals in it.
@The Hanged Man , I'm actually already plotted to do that with the fomorians, or at least have them be a common threat. Out of ALL the games WoD did, Changeling was easily the one that grabbed at me. I'm enthralled with the fae/fey as a thing that makes my head spin with ideas. I don't have stats for them yet (if Wizards even does them) so I might just create them once I learn how to do something like that (as it seemed pretty easy in 4e to do and I'm hoping it's easy in this edition as well).
Also, thanks for the advice and it's where I'm leaning as well at this point. Or I could just bastardize the realms into whatever I need it to be for my game, using their world and deities but doing whatever I'd like with this part. I usually like the Realms as is but ... eh.
EDIT: Thanks to @am0n for fixing my brokenness
To @ someone that has spaces, use ""
So @ "The Hanged Man" no space between @ and "The Hanged Man"
@The Hanged Man
You can assume the form of an animal you have seen up to a challenge rating based on your level
There are limitations until 8th level on flying and swimming creatures. At 2-3rd level no flying or swimming creatures, at 4 no flying and at 8 there are no limitations.
You swap STR, DEX and CON with the animal but retain your INT, WIS and CHA
You assume the creatures hit dice
You cannot cast spells, but you can continue to maintain concentration on previously cast spells
Generally you gain the best of the creature's or your saves and proficiencies.
And that is about the basics of it.
Player's Basic Rules have no creature stats.
DM's Basic Rules has stats for the Allosaurus, Ankylosaurus, Ape, Axe Beak, Baboon, Badger, Bat, Black Bear, Blood Hawk, Boar, Brown Bear, Camel, Cat, Constrictor Snake, Crab, Crocodile, Deer, Dire Wolf, Draft Horse, Eagle, Elephant, Elk, Flying Snake, Frog, Giant Ape, Giant Badger, Giant Bat, Giant Board, Giant Centipede, Giant Constrictor Snake, Giant Crab, Giant Crocodile, Giant Eagle, Giant Elk, Giant Fire Beetle, Giant Frog, Giant Goat, Giant Hyena, Giant Lizard, Giant Octopus, Giant Owl, Giant Poisonous Snake, Giant Rat, Giant Scorpion, Giant Sea Horse, Giant Shark, Giant Spider, Giant Toad, Giant Vulture, Giant Wasp, Giant Weasel, Giant Wolf Spider, Goat, Hawk, Hunter Shark, Hyena, Jackal, Killer Whale, Lion, Lizard, Mammoth, Mastiff, Mule, Octopus, Owl, Panther, Plesiosaurus, Poisonous Snake, Polar Bear, Pony, Pteranodon, Quipper, Rat, Raven, Reef Shark, Rhinoceros, Riding Horse, Saber-Toothed Tiger, Scorpion, Sea Horse, Spider, Stirge, Swarm of Bats, Swarm of Insects, Swarm of Poisonous Snakes, Swarm of Quippers, Swarm of Rats, Swarm of Ravens, Tiger, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus Rex, Vulture, Warhorse, Weasel, and Wolf.
I don't know if any of those are compatible with Druid stuff (does "animal" mean "beast"? Because there is no "animal" creature type), but there you go.
Where's Samuel L. Jackson when you need him.
Thanks, this is exactly what I was curious about. Still no Dire Bear in that listing but it gives me more animals to look over. And yeah, I suppose it's "beast" thanks
A lot of them simply can't answer that question. A few, particularly older ones, have an X factor that sort of ameliorates it: "Here, take your father's sword and go be the hero" isn't just cliche fodder for RPGs, it's art imitating life.
There's certainly a lot to be said for video games. I like them just fine. They provide a very nice curated play experience. But that's not what I sit down at a table for, and I think that's something D&D in specific and TTRPGs in general have struggled with for the last five years or so, when the option to "just go play some video games" has been a real and significant one. 5e's jerk back to "role-playing is the central thesis of what this game is about" would be utterly laudable if it wasn't also ridiculously laughable. Experienced gamers will point out that the engine is built around combat resolution with a side of conflict resolution, which is not really what most of us would call "role-playing." It's like role-playing, sure, if you consider jumping off the porch the equivalent of HALO parachuting.
I mean, sure, there are characters like the Fighter who has 9 purchases of Skill Focus: Diplomacy and a +36 Diplomacy modifier as a result, but they're deviations from the norm. These sorts of characters are objectively discouraged by the engine, and would be openly mocked on minmax forums even after you demonstrated that said Fighter was both capable of persuading and thrashing a dragon. It's just not something D&D maps well. It never has and it probably never will (d20 Star Wars notably had problems with the socially adept archetypes; Nobles felt and played a lot like magicless Bards, and I don't think I need to specify why that is a bad thing).
But there's no point in ragging on 5e. It's here. It's acceptably lukewarm. We no longer have any particular need to write reams of house rules for it, as it's no longer the only game in town.
Twitter rulings from Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford for 5E rules questions.
They're not very concrete rulings, and I get the sense that a lot of these are things they didn't think of and are kind of just answering off-the-cuff, but at least they're answering questions.
I was not quoting verbatim, it says beast, common sense would equate animal and beast as the same. It also has to be something the druid has seen before, so either it has shown up in an adventure or something the druid would have reasonably seen in their background (i.e. Sea Horse would be far fetched if the druid were from a land locked area and the party had not been on any undersea adventures to that point).
I didn't know, which is why I asked. It is legitimately hard to tell in 5E when something is a game term versus natural language.
Then you haven't read my posts and this is basically the kind of "Iconic" argument that we've been mocking repeatedly in the thread. It's not about having the mechanics do "everything for me", it's about having the mechanics coherently and succinctly do what they are supposed to. This is where I feel 5E is poorly written and where it's problems, like levels 1-2 being up in lethality and then dropping significantly are problems with the system. It's not that I cannot fix these things: The question is, why should I have to when other systems apparently have already done so.
Wow, thanks for telling me something I already knew! I totally wasn't aware of that to the point where you can look at any of my old 4E game threads here and the handful of things I felt needed to be changed directly in the OP.
This thread isn't for you to talk only about how much you enjoy 5E - neither was the 4E thread on its release incidentally. The main difference being nobody had to wait 3 months to see what 4E actually was doing, because they released all the books at once. This is not a strategy they have done for 5E. Particularly because nobody has actually seen all of what 5E actually offers as the Monster Manual and DMG are (stupidly) not out yet. So I'm afraid you're going to have to put up with people critiquing positions and mechanics in the game until everything can be fully appreciated.
Because I know how it works, if I write "This system is plainly not what I want and mechanically poorly thought out based on the PHB" then I will get snarky "But you never know what the DMG and modules might show later, it could be super good as they anted to make it modular designed!" responses.
Also, I am in fact running some adventures/one-offs of 5E for others IRL at the moment. Just because I dislike the system does not mean my actual experiences are not valid for the thread either.
Edit: And if it makes you feel any better, with the way wizards did things to the 4E tools, some of their latter releases (which were awful) and treatment of things post-essentials like epic tier, I was also incredibly critical of 4E as well for a long time. You know what? I don't recall a single person in the 4E thread ever telling me that I shouldn't be criticizing 4E in there.
I've been a pretty vocal critic of 5E, but it's well worth noting that the actual full rules aren't out yet and especially because it's designed to have other rules or similar added in/out as desired. I am hoping that this is something the DMG addresses. A good smart collection of rules that address some of these problems could be in there and is really their last hope for me.
Especially when there are clearly good ideas amongst all the really bad ones, like how they have handled solo-monsters lair mechanics as an inherent part of them as a challenge.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but following your posts is not one of my daily activities. So no, I do not hang on your every word.
Nobody has really said what they find wrong with 5E, just that it's wrong, because they say so. And then offer no ways they see to fix it. That would be constructive criticism. Just saying it's broken and everyone should go play something else is not productive or useful.
Maybe it was said further back, but seriously, in a thread this size, I'm not going back 50 pages to look things up. At that point replies practically constitute necroposting.
You're welcome, happy to be of service. Oh wait, you were being sarcastic. That's helpful discourse I guess. I am sure your 4E posts are full of wisdom and of immeasurable value... to the 4E crowd, this is 5E, so not entirely relevant here.
Suggesting that because people bitched about 4E when it came out, so it is ok to bitch about 5E here is a really silly argument. They should not have been shitting up that thread either.
The problem I have here, as I said before, is people complain about things but offer no solutions. That accomplishes absolutely nothing at all. And when others offer solutions, they are dismissed out of hand. That is unacceptable.
That would be a poor argument to take, you can only judge what you have in hand. Arguing that a future addition will "fix" things is an argument that is easily dismissed.
Of course they are, good and bad. The issue I have had, and it isn't with you specifically, is people just want to complain. No effort is made to find solutions, and worse, when solutions are offered, they are just dismissed and told the game is broken and go play 13th Age or 4E. That does not promote discussion of 5E which one would presume this thread to be about.
I honestly could care less about 4E. I don't hate it, but I don't use it. It is also largely incompatible with 5E (campaign settings aside), so it's usefulness to me is basically nil.
Have you even read the first post of this thread?
I have, but wonder how many others have.
Otherwise your post didn't have anything meaningful to respond to.
Edit: We've also discussed 1E, 2E, 3.5 and Pathfinder too, because there are some relevant similarities in style and function (EG Fight Man being incredibly limited options wise).
I have a query related to this: how else do you propose a comparison and contrast of useful elements in the newest version of Dungeons & Dragons without callbacks to what has been done before? I have seen more than 4th and 5th edition D&D mentioned here. 3rd, 2nd and even first has been mentioned at various points in relating to 5th edition, for good or for ill.
That is fine. But how is telling people that 5E is broken garbage and they should play 13th Age or 4E instead a useful discussion here?
@Yoshua, the reason a lot of the people in this thread seem very terse and impatient about 5E rules is because for a very long time - for many months and many pages - they have been reading the playtest packets that WOTC has been putting out, discussing them, and even (extensively) playtesting them. These discussions and playtests turned up tons of problems, big and small, mostly owing (I think) to ambiguous and imprecise rules. So, it's a little frustrating to see these same problems carry through to the final product when they were found - and commented on at length! - early on. I think you can see how, as a fan, it can be demoralizing to watch a company in charge of a product you love ignore input and blindly trundle in the direction opposite of where you want the product to go. I think a lot of the folks in the thread are emotionally spent from watching, discussing, and playtesting 5E over the last I dunno, year or so. I know I am, and I've only ever lurked in the thread.
On the other hand, I can also see your point of view as well: You're digging a thing, and when you come into a thread about that thing to discuss that thing, you're greeted with a lot of posts that amount to "This thing is broken and dumb, ugh, yuck". I'm sorry about that! As a fan of a thing, that's a really frustrating thing to see. I promise you, though, that no one is in this thread because they hate D&D and want to literally shit on it. We all want 5E to be awesome, but for a bunch of the folks in the thread, 5E turned out to be a disappointment, and sort of a betrayal of trust. You can understand why they would be hurt, frustrated, and annoyed, right?
It seems like there's a sharp divide between folks in these discussions into two groups:
Group A: It is WOTC's job to provide the rules for the game, in as complete and consistent a fashion as possible. It is the DM's job to provide the story, characters, histories, ecology, and so on. WOTC is creating the engine; this is why we are paying them. We are creating the fluff built on top of that engine.
Group B: It is WOTC's job to give us a game that gets us going. Rules are great, but if there are any inconsistencies or holes or whatever, no big deal - we'll just patch them over with our own house rules. After all, it's the DM's game, and the DM decides what goes!
I don't think these positions are mutually exclusive, because we all recognize that it's the DM's job to tinker with the rules to create an environment that's most fun for their groups, and we all recognize that it's WOTC's job to give us the rules we build our games on. It's really a question of where do we draw the boundary about how much work WOTC puts into the rules and how much work DMs put into the rules.
@Yoshua, you mentioned that people here are griping without providing solutions. I've been lurking here for like a year or something, and I've seen solutions offered all the time, especially during the 5E playtesting period, when folks brought up many work-arounds for things they saw as problems. I think that by this point, they're tired of doing it, you know? And, furthermore, I think that the attitude now is "Why is it my job to fix WOTC's broken mess?". Which, in my opinion, is a pretty reasonable stance. Of course, someone who doesn't think that 5E is a broken mess would probably feel differently.
Most of us are already playing 13th Age and/or 4e, so those suggestions are more tongue-in-cheek than serious.
We have, but I'll save you some reading:
Problem 1: Ambiguously-written, incomplete rules relying on "natural language" which leads to arguments and forces house rules.
Suggested Solution: Clearly-written, complete rules, using more technical English.
Problem 2: Weird lethality curve that makes the first couple of levels extra deadly.
Suggested Solution: Increase early survivability via HP and the like.
Problem 3: Casters Rule, Fighters Drool.
Suggested Solution: Actually balance the classes instead of just giving fighters actual spells for when people realize that they're not anywhere near as effective as magical classes.
Well I have to disagree. Is it allowed? Yes. Is it a legitimate argument? No, it really isn't because it has no substance to it. It is an attack meant to take down and destroy, yet offers nothing in return. So sure, you can do that, but why should you?
You are literally engaging in the very behavior you are decrying by decrying it. So why are you doing something that you admit has no value?
Complaining about how people are participating in a thread just ensures the thread will veer further off course. Like this one has.
We need to be careful of this.
The reason I'm so wary of the "This feature is bad because it removes player agency" argument is because I've spent several years watching Team Fortress 2 burn.
Basically, I've watched it move from being a game where a lot of game sense/skill is required to a higher lethality game where first to fire wins. And this has correlated with a move from Valve from selling the game for money, to the game selling hats to new players for money. Every change to that game has been away from me and towards the new players because of this aim, and so it's very easy for me to say that TF2 is bad when in reality Valve doesn't consider me their audience anymore.
So if I seem to be playing the devil's advocate here and supporting some weird decision from 5E to make levels 1-3 intolerable, then it's just because I'm trying to believe there is someone else out there who actually enjoys this stuff.
The "These two things are contradictory and so when combined make things worse for all players" arguments are far better.
It might keep some people that would be disappointed with 5E from spending their money on it. Or someone that doesn't know much about non-D&D roleplaying games might find something that they'd be interested in.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I agree on that last point, absolutely: objective criticisms are more universally-applicable than subjective ones. Which, I guess, is actually pretty much a tautology, so I shouldn't be patting myself on the back for that phrasing.
I'm just trying to verbalize why a lot of the folks in the thread are a little prickly. WOTC is entirely justified in saying "Nah dudes, we've read your feedback and we're going a different way; you guys don't have to come with us if you don't want", but I think that fans are also justified in saying "Why are you guys going in that other direction, away from us? That sucks."
If nothing else, even if it's not a super-useful criticism, it might color the emotional climate of any discussion that those fans will have.
I am not going to claim that is useful discussion. I never did. However, that's not all that's being said; it's just most of what you see, I'd wager, because you like the product more than most here and are hurt more by slights to it, intentional or otherwise.
Now, I have not read the Player's Handbook, so I have only so much to give. I know this current iteration is not for me. It wasn't actually designed with a player like me in mind, I could tell that simply from reading the basic rules and the playtests. It's so hard to read for me because I'm trying to pick through and find the rules in the wording.
Though I personally suck at writing programing languages, I prefer games to have simple words that always mean the same thing stated clearly, much as 4th edition D&D does with things such as keywords and status effects. I prefer less lethality, as it is more welcoming to new players and able to be changed through increasing difficulty for more experienced players. I prefer basic standardized class building (i.e. all classes built within the same structure, but with the possibility of different rules within that structure) instead of a special structure for each class that requires the players to relearn large portions of the game if they choose a different class. I enjoy a largely modular design where abilities, classes, backgrounds and more fit almost Tetris-like together to form a whole. I prefer a visual presentation of the game via at least tokens and a grid, as I am a visual person. I also personally prefer crunch over fluff, but given a solid example of easy ways to create what elements I want, I'll not be bothered over extra fluff.
I prefer all of these things, and from all my reading of 5th edition material, none of that is sufficiently supported. I remain in the thread to see what others see and say for the reason that I'm interested in making games, and so I must always be willing to see things outside my perspective.
However, I still agree that solid rules with simple, clear keywords instead of natural language may not be as fun to read but is surely easier in managing a system of any sort. I also agree with those here that argue for more equivalent power in class design, and a slow but steady climb up a hill over a big hump of difficulty at the beginning. Those are basic design decisions I would side with, and which I do not feel 5th edition has implemented. The solution to this is simple and should, I think, not have to be stated; basically, don't do this, do that. For example, don't write in natural language, regardless of how fun it makes the rules to read; rules aren't written to be fun to read, they're written to work like a well oiled machine.
But the game is done, and there's really nothing left to do but point out where any flaws are and then move on, sometimes staying with a game we like, sometimes suggesting new ones. There's really no way to fix the published material that is worth the time.
There was a bike analogy used back a page or so, comparing a bike that slips its chain ever 100 feet to a game that works poorly. You asked if, in this instance, might it not be worth keeping the bike if everything but the chain works perfectly, and to that question I would have to answer a no, with caveats. Because if the chain slips 100 feet out of the bike shop, I could see assuming it was simply an oddity. After it happens twice, maybe three times, it's time to go back to the bike shop and get an exchange or refund for a bike that works. Or if you know all about bikes you might attempt to fix it yourself. Or you might pay a bike mechanic to fix it for you. But simply placing the chain back every 100 feet is a stop-gap solution at best. And not going back and asking for a working bike seems silly. So no, the bike has to work, and if it takes additional work by you or a trained professional, then that's a problem on their point.
This is why I am waiting for the dmg though, because 5E was always supposed to be very modular and that was a narrative they established early. A very good set of DMs tools that alleviate some of my issues with the way the system works could be in there. Honesty and my requirement to give something a full look before deciding my opinion is why I want to wait and see. If the lair rules, monster creation and similar all proves to be as easy to do as it was in 4e (with as consistent results), that would go a long way to dramatically improving my opinion.