As always, the fact that a rule doesn't match your priorities doesn't mean it's poorly implemented. They created a system where you have one Armor Class, and bonuses to Armor almost always replace the old AC with a better one, rather than grant a bonus to an existing one. Seems pretty solid to me.
My prioraty is to make sense of this mess they call an AC system. The problem is the devs are afraid of AC stacking, thus they ended up creating an unrealistic system for AC. Just read about one of my posts about the AC.
This may be shocking, but a lot of people like their books to have actual description, not a series of lists.
Personal opinion, a rule book should contain a well organized set of rules, with a short descriptor just to get the players a fell for that rule, ability, spell and so forth, and not a whole page full of descriptors.
Because they playtested on many thousands of people and healing (mostly) fully after a rest was the majority opinion? Why is your preference somehow better?
Yea, thats true and sad at the same time. My opinion is that a game should never cater to the players, the players should adept to the game. But thats bad marketing, and that leads to a small player base. I guess WoTC decided on casual for this edition.
I'm always amazed at people's continual insistence that a desire to streamline rules is due to a developer's condescension towards their audience's cognitive skills.
I'll keep on insisting on it, the devs when with much simpler rules so they can cater to a wider player base, to try to get new players. This edition is about marketing and getting new blood.
And it's the developers who lack faith in the player's thinking skills? Really?
well ok, not the devs, but those who decide who the game will be targeted at. Its like a video game, if the distributor wants a game to be played by a wider audience, the game will have to have a lower system requirement.
"Yes, no TTRPG has ever used a mostly fluff construction to help define characters", said the Malkavian.
Well now, WoD is a different type of game, they did the fluff over crunch correctly in their books. While Shadowrun concentrates on crunch over fluff in their books, again correctly.
I feel like D&D 5 got it right at most point, but where they got it wrong, they got it horribly wrong.
Sure it is. You've turned the whole thread into whether you like it or not.
In a way yes, cause I am focusing on the negative aspects of the PHB. But there are many thin I find to be great ideas, and ones that I will use in other versions of D&D.
Sure. That's the only possible explanation. Anyone who disagrees with you is psychologically impaired on the subject.
Well, yes and no. I just feel that those who have purchased it have a bias towards giving it a more positive review. In the end it doesent matter what I say, I am well aware if that, I just feel that I need to show people that its not the messiah of D&D. Its just a C average RPG so far.
Dude. C'mon. This is turning into a Monty Python sketch.[/QUOTE]
I think the Argument Clinic would be a great title.
Good thing you can do that, and quite easily.
Yes, but that brings up a good question, why would I but the PHB if I would just change most of the things?
How does having an official background inhibit this natural process?
What I was getting at is that during play the player makes the decisions, reacts to situations...simply put he lives his characters background, he creates it, just by playing.
While if the character just picks up a background, the player and even the other players will have a bit more detached connection to that characters background.
Example - #1 (IMO - Natural development):
PC1 - Jim you smuggler, why is out cart full of illegal goods again?
PC2 - Instead of complaining you could thank me for buying you that sword, it was payed for by the last shipment of "illegal" goods. Maybe this time I'll get that masterwork thief-tools for PC3 this this time.
PC3 - Thats all nice, but why do I have to be the wife this time. Its PC2s turn.
PC1- Cause the last time we were in this time you disguised yourself as a women to join the thief's guild, and we would like to make this transaction go smoothly.
Example - #2 (IMO - Background)
PC1 - Use your background feature PC3, to help us sell these illegal goods.
PC3 - Since I have the background criminal I will use my background feature to get in touch with the thief's guild and sell some stuff.
In most media characters don't start as blank slates - they have a background when the story starts, even if it is "farmboy" or "blacksmith's apprentice" or "circus performer." Think of the backgrounds in the PHB as what a character did before they took up a life of adventuring. Most people want to start a campaign when the adventure starts, not when they're shoeing horses (that said, I hope that the DMG provides an optional rule for something akin to 1E's "zero-level characters").
You misunderstood what I was trying to say. As you said the story starts when the adventuring starts. But, the character skill, language and tool choices should represent his past and current life choices. Now, this is under customizing backgrounds, which is great. But that makes the 15 pages after that a waste of space, at best it should have been 1/2 page per background examples (but thats just my engineering side disliking the waste/lack of optimal use of space).
I think I really derailed this tread. Sned your responses via PM in the future please. Lets get this thread back on track.
