D&D 5E Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb

[theliel]

Thus the, "then again" qualifier. I kinda forgot about the rules in the playtest because I don't use them. That said, I have no plans to house rule anything because I haven't seen what they came up with yet. I would prefer multiclassing to be more about concept and less about ability-stacking. But with background and feats already letting a PC dabble in non-typical areas of their class, both mechanically and fluff-wise, I'm not sure multiclassing is necessary.

Based on what's seen from the Starter Set most of the CharOP is going to be based around targeting specific saves.
Also, too I would not in any way call even basic 5E 'rules light'. It's medium crunch at best.

Mapless play without 'zones' such as 13th Age & Legends of the Wulin tend to get really interesting with 'who gets caught' or 'who can I attack'.

 

[fjw70]

I agree with Rob that the fun of D&D (for me) is at the table, but luckily I never fell into the character creation sub game. Ask me to play 4e and I will grab a single book and have a perfectly viable character ready to go in 5 minutes with no electronic aid.

it seems to me he is blaming the way he played 4e on the 4e rules, but not all of us play it that way.

 

[Obryn]

Speaking of targeting saves...

Wasn't 5e supposed to be the rebirth of evocation magic? It looks like it has the same low damage and high hp that made evocation useless in 3e.

 

[Grossout]

I haven't posted in forever, but this guy's blog post reminds me of a topic I brought up years ago - I didn't understand why many folks were so obsessed with such specific character options.. Needless to say the responses were all over the board, and I'm sure those who thought it was a stupid post then, will think the same now haha! Needless to say, I relate to this blog post..


Here's the beginning and end of my old post:


"I’m a little surprised at how many players seem to be very “character-focused” when it comes to playing D&D. I know it’s an ROLE PLAYING GAME - just hear me out."


"I just think playing the game and ADVENTURING itself is what makes the game fun. I want to go to these places the DM has cooked up for me and kill the monsters he puts in my way. Traveling to new places, fighting new (and old) monsters, and telling a story through the party’s actions and dialogue – that’s what makes the game fun for me. People seem to get so caught up in what the characters’ abilities are. They are what they are. Choose what you can and move on with the game. "


"Just my two cents"

The old post:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?219953-A-Question-of-Character

 

[The Hitcher]

Totally down with everything Rob is saying. It's not that no-one will be able to min-max in 5E. But if it turns out to be way more fun to create a character with interesting limitations and quicker and simpler to get playing, then why would most people bother? Sure, some people will continue to insist on being boring, but it should be a lot less common.

 

[Uchawi]

Some players obsess over specifics because each version of D&D brings in a new experience, new roots, new basis for nostalgia, fun, etc. And with each passing edition, it will be harder to bring everyone back into the same experience. Add to that the numerous choices available, and the game has to be more than the rules, and must include content to inspire and provide ideas, or simply do the work for those that do not want to do it or have no time.

So I believe the specifics are important to help identify what experience 5E is attempting to muster, and therefore it should not be all over the place in it's approach.

A simple game can be a let down just as easily as a very complex one, if the vision for the game is not clear. That is very hard to nail down for D&D. Let's hope they accomplish that goal.

 

[Hutchimus Prime]

From that day on, I went to Landon’s house or he went to mine. We swilled Mountain Dew and Sundrop. We devoured chili dogs and lasagna. And best of all, we had awesome adventures in a world of our imagination.

This brought me right back to playing 2nd Edition in my friend's basement in high school at least once a week.

Great Blog post!

 

[LFK]

Phrexus says:

"Let me start with this: I’ve been playtesting next since the encounter with 18 rats, to Vault of the Dracolich and beyond, all the way to Dead in Thay. It has not been an enjoyable journey. I’ve really tried, I swear, to make an awesome Rogue, and when that didn’t pan out I tried Fighter. Nada. Meanwhile in our Dead in Thay run that’s likely about to finish (we’re up against a Lich who has Time Stop and Meteor Shower), the two teams have been carried exclusively by Warrior Cleric and a slightly altered pre-gen Wizard. The rest of the crew are just there to mop up whatever the two ‘Walking Apocolypse’ classes leave crippled.

Then I read this blogpost, and I see that the problem wasn’t just noticed, but met with a throwing up of hands and ‘Eh, it’s always been like that (except in the edition that must not be named), whataya gonna do?’

Everything I’ve seen in the playtests feels like 5e was made solely from happy memories of when the designers were 17 while completely ignoring the breakthroughs since then. There have been monumental breakthroughs, from computers that help make formatting a snap, to indepth study of balance from 40 years of gaming, to realizing that aesthetics count and making things easy to read and reference, to realizing it sucks having to swap back and forth between two books because of monsters that use spells.

Everything up to this point has felt like a desperate bid for nostalgia, and you’ve explicitly stated that (1) 5e was knowingly created a sub-optimal product because “that’s the way it’s always been”, and (2) when presented with the opportunity to rectify the known issues of past editions, the designers opted not to because “Gosh, math and balance is hard work!” and “It’s was broken and I still enjoyed (*cough* because I played a wizard or cleric *cough*).”

I know the playtests already presented sufficient evidence, but thank you Mr. Schwalb. This article has been eye opening."


Yuuuup.

My two biggest disappointments with 5e so far: needlessly fragile low levels (showing that they either learnt nothing from 4e or actively ignored what they did learn), and the Wizard (and, short ways behind, Cleric) not carved into several different classes, or hit with a severely restrained spell list.

The game actually does play pretty well if you ban Wizards, though.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Only in 3e are casters overpowered. AD&D has this thing called casting time. A meteor shower spell has a one in 6 chance of having a one round cast time - If a 6 is rolled for initiative. Hold person can easily take two rounds to cast and it's a 2nd level spell (for clerics). This gives the opposition plenty of time to interrupt a spell, which can be done by a six year old with a rock. Casters in AD&D are only overpowered if you don't play the game as intended.

 

[Emerikol]

LFK

The mechanics used to devise a game have but one objective which is fun. Everything else has to serve that purpose.

I've never played a spellcaster in any serious campaign. I have tended towards rogues and to a lesser degree fighters. I remember having great fun with BECMI, 1e, 2e, and 3e. I hated 4e and don't consider it any fun at all.

I admit fun is subjective. My own evaluation of those games no doubt differs from yours. The problem is that 4e is by no means universally acclaimed as more fun. In fact wotc is changing 5e for a reason. They've felt the pinch of customer dissatisfaction.

So when you act like 4e was the second coming of rules realize you probably annoy people in the exact same way wotc annoyed people when they told players they had been playing wrong all those years.