Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana:Are they revealing limitations in the 5th edition system?

Sacrosanct

Legend
Personally, I'm glad they aren't adding a bunch of "new" mechanics. That just screws things up. All the "I wish D&D would use this mechanic similar to how 13th age/Fate/etc/etc do it" is more harmful than good, because if you have tons of mechanics, the identity of the game suffers. Especially since no one ever agrees about what mechanics are better. For better or worse, D&D is certain things. If you don't like those things, then a choice is made to keep playing it, or to play a different game.

So IMO, that's why we're seen a lot of variation to existing mechanics, rather than brand new ones.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Corpsetaker

First Post
Wrong options

Also, you've stated you want new mechanics, and in the same breath have stated you want them to play around with old mechanics. Essentially, I feel you posts are diametrically opposed to themselves.

I see you are obviously quoting my posts but are you actually reading them? I never said anything about playing around with old mechanics? I said I wanted them to expand on existing 5th edition mechanics while giving us some new ones to playtest.
 



ArchfiendBobbie

First Post
I think what we're seeing are the limits of the design philosophy behind 5E. As far as mechanics go, I don't think they've even begun to stretch the system yet.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
There is such a thing as having too much of something which is what we are getting. People want more but they want something different.
Meh. If you don't want anymore sub-classes, fine, stop paying attention to them, don't use 'em. I can see being disappointed at the lack of something you still want, but not angered at the surfeit of things others' want.

How many scouts do we really need?
Ranger-as-scout has baggage: it's a nature-oriented caster. Fighter-as-scout has issues, too, it's a tough-DPR frontliner. Rogue-as-scout has the inverse issue as the fighter. Depending on what sort of 'scout' you want - magicky nature dude stalking about, badass stalking about, expert stalking about - yeah, several might be called for. Then there's feats and backgrounds. ;)


The advantage mechanic is inherently limited as once you have it, it doesn't stack.
Which is elegant, in a way.
With Bounded Accuracy you can't hand out many numerical bonuses or you break the system.
At least not many stacking bonuses. Sure.
5E is a more limited system than even 4E in my opinion due to its core mechanical design.
Not a very meaningful comparison. RPGs, by their very nature, aren't too terribly limited, 4e certainly not standing out for being particularly more so than usual, even less so, by D&D standards (D&D's traditions like class/level, Vancian magic, and the like /are/ somewhat limiting). 5e may be back to a more traditional presentation of classes and smaller numbers (when it comes to d20 modifiers), but it subverts that do a degree. Hps/damage scale rapidly, so there's room for advancement & modifiers in spite of BA. Classes are back to locking concepts down with mechanics, but there's lots of sub-classes and independently-chosen, customizeable backgrounds to round characters out. And there are 'modular' options the DM can opt into or out of. Every new option that comes out is just that, optional - bloat only happens if the DM bloats his campaign, if he picks and chooses options, no bloat.

And, most of all, 5e, like the classic game, is very open to being modded, making it, ultimately, completely unlimited, even when it hasn't got that much material out yet.
 

Patrick McGill

First Post
Okay let's take a crack at this.

I think some people on these boards are acting a little "naive" on purpose.

1: When people say they want shorter adventures that means they want "new" shorter adventures. The old ones have already been out for years and loads of people have already converted them to 5th edition.

As someone who said they wanted shorter adventures, no that's not what I meant. I'd like new ones as well, but old ones redone for 5e is definitely something I wanted and am now excited about. The Yawning Portal book scratches my itch.

Perhaps it'd be best to stick to conveying your own opinion instead of other peoples, mate.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
[MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION] Perhaps you can give some examples from the UA playtests released so far that you think fit your description from the OP? You speak in very broad terms, and you haven't really given any specific criticisms of the actual UA releases other than asking "who really needs another scout?" and saying they should do more maneuvers for the Battle Master (which would seem to be an example of playing it safe with an established mechanic, but okay).

Which mechanics from these sub-classes do you find boring or uninteresting? Which do you feel are covering the same ground?

Perhaps if you had some more specific points then folks would discuss them with you rather than simply addressing your vague assertions.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I'm glad they aren't either so why are you bringing up "a bunch
of new mechanics?

Um, because that's what you're inferring?

I would like to see them experiment more with "new" mechanics than giving us 5 different ways to make the same character. Why haven't they done more with the fighter's maneuver system? I mean they are playtest articles so I want to see some bold new mechanics being tested instead of the same old boring "safe" stuff we keep getting?

What I believe we are seeing here is someone going from one chocolate bar to the next without even finishing the first. I want to see some actually expansion on the current mechanics. .

My argument would be that Unearthed Arcana is the perfect time to not be cautious and just let it all out for us to judge.

3: What Wizards is doing at the moment is giving us mainly one thing over and over. It's like having chocolate ice cream, you love chocolate ice cream but you also like non chocolate flavours. Well you tell them you want more ice cream but you want something different so they give you double and triple chocolate. You complain that you wanted something that was non chocolate and you get shouted at because you asked for more ice cream.
.

Well since they have made it well known that this stuff is playtest material then I would expect to them branching out from the norm, sometimes even going a little crazy if need be.


When you keep saying things like they need to be bold and take chances, and use an analogy of wanting more ice cream besides chocolate, that infers you are wanting more than just a couple new mechanics. I.e., there are a bunch of flavors outside of chocolate, and it would be hardly bold or going crazy if they only did a couple new mechanics.
 


Remove ads

Top