Recent content by tetrasodium

Not true and 5e itself has over a decade of lip service aimed at GM's supporting me on that. For over a decade now we have heard over & over again how every problem of 5e's creation is a positive feature because the GM can just choose to ignore or fix it (including the one mearls brought up...

It's not just damage per attack and per round that was messed up. Much of the problem is rooted in pointless changes like the shift from 3 functional& thematic saves+totally neutral SR to a pointlessly minced to and distinguishable 6 saves +arbitrary feeling LR...or the fact that rather than...

More damage isn't really a solution. 5e stripped down monsters too much and all that was left to handle PCs who were cranked to 11 with unlimited will abilities that were often nearly certain to land was hp. That left monster ho ballooning to levels that made spike damage at cost abilities...

I'd say that shifting from flat energy resist and DR to 50% pretty squarely falls under that "if". The change erased the downside posed for multiple smaller instances of damage each getting nickeled & dimed while nullifying the benefit of a single big instance powering through a small ding

https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells?filter-attack-type=1&filter-partnered-content=f&filter-search= https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells?filter-attack-type=2&filter-partnered-content=f&filter-search= Your white room scenario is still a variation of "look at these negatives that are worse than that...

The multiple attacks pc also gets the benefit being hurt less when one attack misses or they roll low on an attack that adds mods/attrib. This kind of stuff is one area where 5e fundamentally missed the boat statistically in the way so many things shifted to make sure that PC's making multiple...

Actually up until 5e casters faced a problem directly related to that. Specifically very low hp and the general inability to wear armor other than a few very specific magic/generally unavailable varieties like elven chain shirt & bracers of defense while still being able to succeed at...

It's been over a decade. Not including so much as a sidebar setting an expectation of need for GM action in a UA or ALPH/ALDMG in all of that time is a choice highlighting priorities by now. 745 phrased it well

I agree. Likewise with the comment someone else made about designing it to avoid the wheels falling off or whatever. The fact that they didn't do that --AND-- didn't include a notice like that sets the GM up for a. Uphill battle where they need to convince players to work with them willingly...

The entirety of your post straight up ignores the additional problem caused here by your own hypothetical "if" that you mentioned where spells need to be designed targeting all six saves under a six save system. That means either creating a bunch more spells allowing players a wider selection...

Nah, I'm going to disagree with this because it's somewhat reliant on the assumption of correlation equals causation where the wheels come off the system after the gm runs out of steam with no allowance for the possibility that the campaigns themselves break down at about the same level ranges...

This reads a lot like "6 is better than 3 if d&d d&d 5e had done something hypothetical that it didn't do and that hypothetical did not also create a bunch of new problems instead of being pixie dust" it falls apart immediately because players are still equipped with neovancian prep and could...

3.5's move and attack did not have individual players spending multiple minutes dragging out their attack xhain in drips and drabs pumping the gm for information about how the monster is doing so they don't potentially make an attack that is overkill or whatever. It was objectively better for...

No it really does not. You keep asserting that it's great but never expound on the reasons why without contradicting your earlier posts about how easy it is to target weak monster saves. This is straight up ROLEplay vrs ROLLplay and to make matters worse it's using a pure fluff vut if roleplay...