Zardnaar
Legend
This thread is more or less a spin off from the "Most players prefer no feats thread".
In another thread that Mistwell started he is speculating about feats and if they are really needed. A few yeara ago (circa 3E) I noticed a disconnect between how we were playing D&D and how other groups were. My games had a lot of source books, other games had the core books and maybe 1-2 splats and a pre published adventure. Back then the "hivemind" was things like ENworld and the WoTC forums.
The disconnect between the hivemind and the way most players play D&D also explains a few things such as 4E tanking like it did and why did so many player migrate to Pathfinder when the hivemind basically knew 3.5 was a broken mess.
The disconnect explains a lot.
A lot of the disconnect is also came about how the game evolved. IN the various edition changes generally late edition material is incorporated into the following edition. It kind of happens slowly if you are on the ground but if you read 3E or 4E and compare it to OD&D you notice how big the gulf is. Material from the OD&D book IV-VII was incorporated into 1E, UA was incorporated into 2E and things from 2E splat such as the Players Option books was refined into 3E and late 3E books like Book of Nine Swords and Races of the Dragon made it into 4E.
And one can also see the growth in size of the RPG books as a result and while the 4E and 3E books were similar in size they also left out 5/11 classes form the 3.5 PHB which if included would have added another 60-75 pages to the 4E PHB. The 5E PHB has a lot of subclasses (good value for money) but it is similar in size to the BECMI Rules Cyclopedia. The point of this is not to claim BECMI is better than 5E more to illustrate the changes that D&D has had over the years. A stripped down "simple" version is still almost triple the size of the RC when you add in the MM and DMG and the RC gives you an additional 18 levels to play with (that you will probably never actually use).
So why would the hivemind players on the other thread out right deny that Crawford is telling the truth with his statements. Generally people IRL do not like being told what to do or even worse they are wrong. This can apply even when they are being paid to do something- everyone hates there boss
. If you played older D&D you will know that feats are not actually required to have fun and 5E made them optional. Feats add complexity and not everything is actual progress. For example a BECMI Rogue has a d4 hit dice along with the wizard and the 5E ones have a d6 and d8 it looks like a great improvement until you realise 5E monsters deal double the damage. 5E has more generous healing obviously but its monsters are also a lot more powerful.
Basically the hivemind tends to lean heavily towards the one true way and forum posters are usually veterans of an edition or 2 (or 5 or 6 in some cases) and if you are under the age of 30 you probably never played TSR era D&D so feats are part of that one true way mentality. According to the hivemind 3.5 was a broken mess and everyone was using wands of cure light wounds and had access to all these combos and the knowledge to use them. Our group could do that most groups I saw never made it to the high levels, did not have the 1st 4 completre books let alkone the Complete Gnome Cobblers books and as late as 2014 I saw Pathfinder players playing Pathfinder more like a complicated 2E rather than the hiveminds assumption of how 3.5 should be played online.
Note this is just my opinion but it explains a lot. For example ask yourselves these questions and think about them objectively.
1. Why did so many players stick with 3.5 and then Pathfinder if the game is so broken? Probably because they were not playing it optimally like the hivemind assumed and they were not seeing CoDzilla dominating and the Druid doesn't seem to be that popular anyway in any edition of D&D- even in AD&D reading old Dragons.
2. Why did people not embrace 4E? Probably because they did not have major problems with 3.5 the hivemind did and the D&D Tactics: With Minatures the JRPG solution cure was worse than the disease.
3. Why did 5E put so much effort into the classic 4 races and classes? Probably because they are the most popular ones more or less backed up by all of the data we have.
4. Why can't you buy magic items in 5E? Probably because it creates new problems, combos and headaches along with complexity. One thing TSR D&D got right IMHO.
Feats just add complexity to the game, create power problems worse than ASI and a few are either better than the others or create other problems/trivialise aspects of 5E so some players may prefer to play without them. The worst offenders IMHO are Great Weapon Master, Healer, Resilient (con), Sharpshooter, Warcaster. The -5/+10 feats are obvious, healer trivialises things at low level making the wonky CR system basically collapse while Warcaster and Resilient con mitigate the concentration mechanic a bit to well. If you reduce options the DMs life gets easier, happy DM happy group generally, and it makes most published adventures (which have never really been that hard with a few exceptions) function a bit smoother.
When 5E came out we pushed the hell out of the system just because we could, most of the killer combos were known about before 2014 finished. Our group of uber powerful PCs?
4d6 drop the lowest
LG Paladin of Apollo (Oath of Devotion, Thyatian think Roman)
Wood Elf Arcane Cleric of Isis
Halfling Thief (20 dex level 4 Weapon Specialisation feat)
Human Hexblade
The only thing missing is a Dwarf, in this game the players definitely choose a back to basics group almost. Shortsword using fighter, AD&D type Paladin, classic thief and of course Mr Snowflake had to pick a hexblade (there is always 1). Not the most combat heavy party, the 5E encounter guidelines were also useful for once. I'm sure we are playing wrong according to the hivemind but eh. Now where did I put my random harlot table.......
In another thread that Mistwell started he is speculating about feats and if they are really needed. A few yeara ago (circa 3E) I noticed a disconnect between how we were playing D&D and how other groups were. My games had a lot of source books, other games had the core books and maybe 1-2 splats and a pre published adventure. Back then the "hivemind" was things like ENworld and the WoTC forums.
The disconnect between the hivemind and the way most players play D&D also explains a few things such as 4E tanking like it did and why did so many player migrate to Pathfinder when the hivemind basically knew 3.5 was a broken mess.
The disconnect explains a lot.
A lot of the disconnect is also came about how the game evolved. IN the various edition changes generally late edition material is incorporated into the following edition. It kind of happens slowly if you are on the ground but if you read 3E or 4E and compare it to OD&D you notice how big the gulf is. Material from the OD&D book IV-VII was incorporated into 1E, UA was incorporated into 2E and things from 2E splat such as the Players Option books was refined into 3E and late 3E books like Book of Nine Swords and Races of the Dragon made it into 4E.
And one can also see the growth in size of the RPG books as a result and while the 4E and 3E books were similar in size they also left out 5/11 classes form the 3.5 PHB which if included would have added another 60-75 pages to the 4E PHB. The 5E PHB has a lot of subclasses (good value for money) but it is similar in size to the BECMI Rules Cyclopedia. The point of this is not to claim BECMI is better than 5E more to illustrate the changes that D&D has had over the years. A stripped down "simple" version is still almost triple the size of the RC when you add in the MM and DMG and the RC gives you an additional 18 levels to play with (that you will probably never actually use).
So why would the hivemind players on the other thread out right deny that Crawford is telling the truth with his statements. Generally people IRL do not like being told what to do or even worse they are wrong. This can apply even when they are being paid to do something- everyone hates there boss
. If you played older D&D you will know that feats are not actually required to have fun and 5E made them optional. Feats add complexity and not everything is actual progress. For example a BECMI Rogue has a d4 hit dice along with the wizard and the 5E ones have a d6 and d8 it looks like a great improvement until you realise 5E monsters deal double the damage. 5E has more generous healing obviously but its monsters are also a lot more powerful.Basically the hivemind tends to lean heavily towards the one true way and forum posters are usually veterans of an edition or 2 (or 5 or 6 in some cases) and if you are under the age of 30 you probably never played TSR era D&D so feats are part of that one true way mentality. According to the hivemind 3.5 was a broken mess and everyone was using wands of cure light wounds and had access to all these combos and the knowledge to use them. Our group could do that most groups I saw never made it to the high levels, did not have the 1st 4 completre books let alkone the Complete Gnome Cobblers books and as late as 2014 I saw Pathfinder players playing Pathfinder more like a complicated 2E rather than the hiveminds assumption of how 3.5 should be played online.
Note this is just my opinion but it explains a lot. For example ask yourselves these questions and think about them objectively.
1. Why did so many players stick with 3.5 and then Pathfinder if the game is so broken? Probably because they were not playing it optimally like the hivemind assumed and they were not seeing CoDzilla dominating and the Druid doesn't seem to be that popular anyway in any edition of D&D- even in AD&D reading old Dragons.
2. Why did people not embrace 4E? Probably because they did not have major problems with 3.5 the hivemind did and the D&D Tactics: With Minatures the JRPG solution cure was worse than the disease.
3. Why did 5E put so much effort into the classic 4 races and classes? Probably because they are the most popular ones more or less backed up by all of the data we have.
4. Why can't you buy magic items in 5E? Probably because it creates new problems, combos and headaches along with complexity. One thing TSR D&D got right IMHO.
Feats just add complexity to the game, create power problems worse than ASI and a few are either better than the others or create other problems/trivialise aspects of 5E so some players may prefer to play without them. The worst offenders IMHO are Great Weapon Master, Healer, Resilient (con), Sharpshooter, Warcaster. The -5/+10 feats are obvious, healer trivialises things at low level making the wonky CR system basically collapse while Warcaster and Resilient con mitigate the concentration mechanic a bit to well. If you reduce options the DMs life gets easier, happy DM happy group generally, and it makes most published adventures (which have never really been that hard with a few exceptions) function a bit smoother.
When 5E came out we pushed the hell out of the system just because we could, most of the killer combos were known about before 2014 finished. Our group of uber powerful PCs?
4d6 drop the lowest
LG Paladin of Apollo (Oath of Devotion, Thyatian think Roman)
Wood Elf Arcane Cleric of Isis
Halfling Thief (20 dex level 4 Weapon Specialisation feat)
Human Hexblade
The only thing missing is a Dwarf, in this game the players definitely choose a back to basics group almost. Shortsword using fighter, AD&D type Paladin, classic thief and of course Mr Snowflake had to pick a hexblade (there is always 1). Not the most combat heavy party, the 5E encounter guidelines were also useful for once. I'm sure we are playing wrong according to the hivemind but eh. Now where did I put my random harlot table.......
Last edited:
