D&D General Requesting permission to have something cool

[Oofta]

A game is better balanced the more choices it presents to the player that are both meaningful and viable.

Humor me for a second, and explain how it's not important to present the player with choices?
Is it your position that an RPG with no choices is just fine?

Or how is it not important that those choices be meaningful, or that they be viable?

If I'm playing a champion fighter it's likely because I want to play something that's simple from a tactical point of view in combat. There's a lot of reasons for that, for some people running around hitting things may be all they're interested in or feel they're capable of. For a lot if people too many options and choices, especially ones that need to be made fairly quickly is stressful. For me, I DM a lot so it's kind of a nice break. Figure out what critter we're focusing on or which one I need to distract and have at it.

Outside of combat tactics I can still have a fair number of options, contributing to RP, decisions and other challenges pretty much as much as anyone else. I've never needed to be the best possible in order to contribute meaningfully on a regular basis.

People like simple because complex and/or more choices are not as enjoyable. Simple is relaxing and fun and it can leave more head space for getting into character if you value RP over tactics.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If I'm playing a champion fighter it's likely because I want to play something that's simple from a tactical point of view in combat. There's a lot of reasons for that, for some people running around hitting things may be all they're interested in or feel they're capable of. For a lot if people too many options and choices, especially ones that need to be made fairly quickly is stressful. For me, I DM a lot so it's kind of a nice break. Figure out what critter we're focusing on or which one I need to distract and have at it.

Outside of combat tactics I can still have a fair number of options, contributing to RP, decisions and other challenges pretty much as much as anyone else. I've never needed to be the best possible in order to contribute meaningfully on a regular basis.

People like simple because complex and/or more choices are not as enjoyable. Simple is relaxing and fun and it can leave more head space for getting into character if you value RP over tactics.

Sure, but to be fair, champion is underwhelming performance-wise. They could easily give it just somewhat numerically better features that still were passive and simple to play.

 

[Oofta]

Sure, but to be fair, champion is underwhelming performance-wise. They could easily give it just somewhat numerically better features that still were passive and simple to play.

I would say it depends on the analysis and the player. Some people will choose it because it's simple to run and that's all they care about. If, like a recent game I ran, the person playing a battle master almost never uses any of their maneuvers they would have been better off playing a champion from a DPR perspective. I chose champion for my fighter/rogue because of the extra chance to crit. It also depends on analysis, it's hard to judge how often other subclass options will be useful.

In any case it looks like they're beefing up the champion fighter quite a bit for the 2024 edition though, which is probably a good thing.

 

[Oofta]

"If you don't have a solution, don't argue" isn't giving a solution either though. The argument defeats itself.

The solution to the problem is for WotC to actually goddamn analyze their own game. A bit of statistical analysis, avoiding some really boneheaded math simplification choices (like treating all AoE spells as though they only ever hit 2 targets), and letting a computer run some simulations. Just a bit of computer simulation to perform bulk data tests over time can make a huge difference. (Heck, now that BG3 exists, just crack it open, program in the stuff you want to try, and let the AI go to town. It does a lot of stupid things, to be fair, but you'll get some idea of how things play out.) Then you can focus the live, human playtesting, the part that is expensive and time-consuming, on the things that actually need human brains to think through.

Hence, I will continue to call for such things. I will continue to criticize WotC's piss-poor survey design, lackluster to nonexistent mathematical testing, and frankly bizarre logic on when to abandon something as unworkable (tons of stuff in the original playtest died after only ONE attempt!) vs when to keep something long past its pull date (e.g. "proficiency dice," Specialties, several attempts at Fighter mechanics).

So...yeah. I do have a solution. The solution is to actually bloody test the rules--and when rules are found to be busted, FIX THEM, don't just let them sit there broken for a bloody decade. But WotC is allergic to the very concept of serious errata. That's (another reason) why we're getting 5.5e; they can't not fix things, but they can't print errata because they're afraid of the backlash from admitting that anything could be wrong and in need of fixes.

That's a whole lot of words to say "They didn't design a game I personally like so they're a stinking pile of donkey doo!"

The game can be improved because everything under the sun can be improved but it will never be, cannot be, the right game for everyone. Meanwhile the fact that it's the best selling TTRPG shows that they succeeded at their goal. Their goal? Stop D&D from the trend of slowly dying and make a game that appeals to a broad audience. Their goal was not, and thank goodness will never be, to cater to your personal preferences.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Luke Skywalker is higher than level 1 1e at the start of EP4.
He's like like 1e level 2 or 3 which is 5e level 1
Luke then gets, something I'd think should be more common in D&D, a class swap. going from a normal class to a jedi class.

Then he levels up like crazy.

How? What does he do that a 1st level PC can't?

 

[Remathilis]

Luke Skywalker was no more competent in Episode IV than a 1st level 1e character, and you don't get more Hero's Journey than Luke.

I'm going to agree. Luke isn't another moisture farmer like his buddies at the Toshi Station. He's already a good pilot, mechanic, and a crack shot. He breaks into an Imperial battle station and rescues the Princess. Oh, and he's the son of one of the most powerful Jedi in history. He's special from the jump.

He's not randomly created by sending a dozen moisture farmers into the Death Star and being the lucky one who survived the trash compactor. He doesn't get shot and his brother Duke takes over the quest. Yes, it's a movie and Luke has +5 plot armor on, but if we want D&D to emulate the fiction (and part of this whole thread was about fighters emulating action movie fiction) then you take that into account from level one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"If you don't have a solution, don't argue" isn't giving a solution either though. The argument defeats itself.

The solution to the problem is for WotC to actually goddamn analyze their own game. A bit of statistical analysis, avoiding some really boneheaded math simplification choices (like treating all AoE spells as though they only ever hit 2 targets), and letting a computer run some simulations. Just a bit of computer simulation to perform bulk data tests over time can make a huge difference. (Heck, now that BG3 exists, just crack it open, program in the stuff you want to try, and let the AI go to town. It does a lot of stupid things, to be fair, but you'll get some idea of how things play out.) Then you can focus the live, human playtesting, the part that is expensive and time-consuming, on the things that actually need human brains to think through.

Hence, I will continue to call for such things. I will continue to criticize WotC's piss-poor survey design, lackluster to nonexistent mathematical testing, and frankly bizarre logic on when to abandon something as unworkable (tons of stuff in the original playtest died after only ONE attempt!) vs when to keep something long past its pull date (e.g. "proficiency dice," Specialties, several attempts at Fighter mechanics).

So...yeah. I do have a solution. The solution is to actually bloody test the rules--and when rules are found to be busted, FIX THEM, don't just let them sit there broken for a bloody decade. But WotC is allergic to the very concept of serious errata. That's (another reason) why we're getting 5.5e; they can't not fix things, but they can't print errata because they're afraid of the backlash from admitting that anything could be wrong and in need of fixes.

Unfortunately, your solution is untenable, for the reason you outlined (WotC won't make the changes you want). If you won't accept any other solution, you've put yourself in a tough space.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm going to agree. Luke isn't another moisture farmer like his buddies at the Toshi Station. He's already a good pilot, mechanic, and a crack shot. He breaks into an Imperial battle station and rescues the Princess. Oh, and he's the son of one of the most powerful Jedi in history. He's special from the jump.

He's not randomly created by sending a dozen moisture farmers into the Death Star and being the lucky one who survived the trash compactor. He doesn't get shot and his brother Duke takes over the quest. Yes, it's a movie and Luke has +5 plot armor on, but if we want D&D to emulate the fiction (and part of this whole thread was about fighters emulating action movie fiction) then you take that into account from level one.

I will reiterate the rather banal point that D&D has never been good at emulating characters from fiction. Ever.

Some editions are less terrible, but they're still terrible. If you're looking to play a fictional character from a movie or book, D&D isn't the right game for it. You can loosely base a character concept after a fictional character, but you can never emulate that character.

D&D is great for ... playing a game of D&D. Not for modeling Star Wars, or LoTR, or John Wick.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm going to agree. Luke isn't another moisture farmer like his buddies at the Toshi Station. He's already a good pilot, mechanic, and a crack shot. He breaks into an Imperial battle station and rescues the Princess. Oh, and he's the son of one of the most powerful Jedi in history. He's special from the jump.

He's not randomly created by sending a dozen moisture farmers into the Death Star and being the lucky one who survived the trash compactor. He doesn't get shot and his brother Duke takes over the quest. Yes, it's a movie and Luke has +5 plot armor on, but if we want D&D to emulate the fiction (and part of this whole thread was about fighters emulating action movie fiction) then you take that into account from level one.

Well, there's the problem right there. I don't really want D&D to emulate fiction. I want to emulate a setting with consistency, where the mechanics flow from the in-universe world that's been created (not the other way round), and the "story" is what we talk about after it's all over.

 

[Remathilis]

All that said, one thing I'd really like to see happen is a very harsh chop-down of the whole "character build" side of the game. Char-gen in the WotC era has become far too complex; if I can't go from a blank page to something playable in 15 minutes, there's a problem.

Look, I get it. I don't name every soldier I play in Call of Duty. They don't get backstories or family history and aren't mourned when they die to enemy fire. I curse a bit and respawn my next soldier to go find death and/or glory. I might tell a great tale of a double kill with a sniper rifle or a tale of walking into an ambush, but I don't tell the tale of Srg Lawrence who valiantly defended the flag of his nation for 30 straight minutes and received the admiration of his peers for most kills in the 315th battle of Nuketown.

But I do ask more than that of my D&D games. If you like spawning toons though, have fun. Not my style and I'm glad the game has moved from it.