D&D 5E So Was That Z Fellow right?

DEFCON 1 said:

Because I like pointing out when people on the boards here are acting silly. And someone starting a thread that basically says "Hey, you know all that stuff I said three years ago? Was I right or was I right? Huh? Huh?!?" is basically asking for people to congratulate him for being so smart.

If he wants that pat on the head, he should just come right out and ask for it.

Click to expand...

Well...if that's your thing. I don't see it as an excuse to be a jerk, though.

Zardnaar said:

My observations were.

Click to expand...

Zardnaar said:

1. Some feats are OP, Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Fighter would be on this list, I would probably add healer feat these days.

Click to expand...

Since 3e on there's always been feats that can become problematic. Actually since 1e UA with it's weapon specialization, double weapon specialization, point-blank shots, & Cavaliers.... And they differ by the group too.
But! All that's required to prevent those problems is that the DM pay attention to the characters being played /options being used & design adventures (or modify existing ones since WoTC claims they don't assume Feats/Magic Items when they write) so that proper challenges will still be had.
There IS a learning curve to this on the DM's end.

Zardnaar said:

2. Feats in general break the game (in the PCs favour). Big offenders here are warcaster, resilient: con, and healer as they tens to negate the concentration mechanic and pacing of the gamer.

Click to expand...

On this you're wrong. Feats change the game. If the game breaks because of them it's the DMs fault. See above.
Personally on the concentration mechanic? So what. My preferred edition is 1e where spells just have a set duration, so (as the DM) I don't care if there's some feat that all but negates the concentration mechanic. I'm used to spells simply continuing. Now if they drop? Bonus! As a player? I'll only consider taking those feats only if those are what best helps me express a particular character. They haven't been yet.
The healer feat? Really? I'm the DM, I can always dish out some more damage.

Zardnaar said:

3. Dex is stupidly OP unless feats are used (assuming you are melee, there is still sharpshooter).

Click to expand...

The only real change to Dex here in 5e is adding it to your ranged (& some melee) damage.
Otherwise, same as forever: +s to AC, +s to initiative, +s to hit with range.

Zardnaar said:

4. Bless was OP/broken.

Click to expand...

You, I , & others will just have to agree to disagree. Maybe you found this to be problematic in the games you ran/played in, but this has not been my experience to date.

Zardnaar said:

5. The encounter guidelines did not work that well past level 10 or so (or 7 perhaps).

Click to expand...

I won't disagree with this. But then I don't think WoTC has ever produced a decent set of encounter building guidelines. So I'm not shocked they missed it again in 5e. They won't manage it come 6e either.

Zardnaar said:

6. High level 5E was stupidly easy even ignoring the encounter guidelines with combats X5 deadly.

Click to expand...

This is mostly a DM style problem. Also not a new problem as various DMs I had were complaining about it way back in the mid-80s. Mostly it's the result of the DM not taking into account what the characters at their tables can actually do & writing/modding things to challenge that.

Zardnaar said:

So here we are 3 years later, was I right, wrong somewhere in the middle?

Click to expand...

Somewhere in the middle.

Thanks for tuning into Zardnaar's November Self Congratulatory thread. Tune in in January, to ring in the New Year with a special episode of I Was Right!, where Zardnaar pats himself on the back for saying that some people agree that the fighter is lacking in non combat ability. With special guest, Richard Ayoade!




Ok, if he was on, I'd probably watch that...

This thread is gut-loaded with sanctimonious pap from all sides.

Werebat said:

This thread is gut-loaded with sanctimonious pap from all sides.

Click to expand...

"He said sanctimoniously, perhaps unaware of the irony inherent in his statement."

DEFCON 1 said:

Because I like pointing out when people on the boards here are acting silly. And someone starting a thread that basically says "Hey, you know all that stuff I said three years ago? Was I right or was I right? Huh? Huh?!?" is basically asking for people to congratulate him for being so smart.

If he wants that pat on the head, he should just come right out and ask for it.

Click to expand...

I prefer a scratch under the chin and a cookie.

Oh don't think Zard was actually looking for a pat on the back. It's just been too long since he's made some kind of over-the-top, extreme claim that starts a chain reaction of responses. He needed an attention fix, so he said something outrageous. And look what happened!

Zard for President?

I get OP point, every edition has or had some flaw or loop in it that could be exploited. Every game does, you cant fix everything and playtest forever, the games would never get published. Every table has had players (or should have anyway) say "I know its RAW but its cheese, so I am not going to do it." I just don't see the point in arguing over it, you just move along.

5E is the most balanced, well designed version of D&D yet. While some things could have been slightly tweaked and improved, there is NOTHING BROKEN IN THE GAME. To that extent, you're wrong.

jgsugden said:

5E is the most balanced, well designed version of D&D yet. While some things could have been slightly tweaked and improved, there is NOTHING BROKEN IN THE GAME. To that extent, you're wrong.

Click to expand...

Except the binding on my 1st printing PHB.