D&D 5E Criticizing the new edition of D&D (because I like it a lot)

[evilbob]

I tell you what. Go to the store. Buy a black Magic Marker. When you get your Player's Handbook, find every place where feats are referred to as an "optional rule," and black out the word "optional."

Aw, no need to be that way.

 

[Dausuul]

Aw, no need to be that way.

Sorry, snark is kind of my default response to stuff like this. But I really don't see the complaint here. Feats already work the way the OP wants. You can mix and match. You can have characters who get all ability boosts, characters who get all feats, and characters with some of each playing at the same table in the same party. What difference does it make that the option exists to play without feats if your group prefers it that way?

 

[evilbob]

Just because you're right doesn't mean you should be snarky, though.

 

[MoonSong]

Sorry, snark is kind of my default response to stuff like this. But I really don't see the complaint here. Feats already work the way the OP wants. You can mix and match. You can have characters who get all ability boosts, characters who get all feats, and characters with some of each playing at the same table in the same party. What difference does it make that the option exists to play without feats if your group prefers it that way?

That one is sanctioned and the other one is subject to DM's caprice, making it opt-in in a group (read DM) instead of purely personal basis. Many DMs out there will be petty enough to want to intrude too much into character building -and it is bad enough when the rules don't explicitly give them the freedom to do so, IME they are worse in this circumstances- and it being called a variant will scare the heck out of new DMs who might think it is too complicated.

 

[Dausuul]

That one is sanctioned and the other one is subject to DM's caprice, making it opt-in in a group (read DM) instead of purely personal basis. Many DMs out there will be petty enough to want to intrude too much into character building -and it is bad enough when the rules don't explicitly give them the freedom to do so, IME they are worse in this circumstances- and it being called a variant will scare the heck out of new DMs who might think it is too complicated.

It is more complicated. I don't see why it's a bad thing that new groups have the option to use feats or not use them. If they're wary of allowing feats, they can choose not to use feats. Later they can decide they're ready to add that to their game. Why do you insist they must have them from the get-go?

And for every complaint I see about dictatorial DMs, I can find another about whiny entitled players. Frankly, all that is on you to sort out with your fellow gamers. The "variant rules" tag on feats makes it clear that the game can work fine without feats. Things will not break if feats are removed. That is useful information for everybody. What you do with that information is up to you.

 

[MoonSong]

It is more complicated. I don't see why it's a bad thing that new groups have the option to use feats or not use them. If they're wary of allowing feats, they can choose not to use feats. Later they can decide they're ready to add that to their game. Why do you insist they must have them from the get-go?

Of course it is more complicated, but not too complicated. A matter of degrees.

And for every complaint I see about dictatorial DMs, I can find another about whiny entitled players. Frankly, all that is on you to sort out with your fellow gamers. The "variant rules" tag on feats makes it clear that the game can work fine without feats. Things will not break if feats are removed. That is useful information for everybody. What you do with that information is up to you.

I know it goes both ways, but I think that the designers taking the DM side was a mistake, the basic set is meant to teach new generations of DMs and players. There was no need to say "with the DM's permission", something more along "with your group's consent", or "your DM might allow or disallow certain options with the group consensus" would have been better IMO.

 

[evilbob]

There was no need to say "with the DM's permission", something more along "with your group's consent", or "your DM might allow or disallow certain options with the group consensus" would have been better IMO.

This is a fair point; it's almost like their "old" wording got mixed in with the newer stuff.

 

[Thaumaturge]

You are not allowed to think or feel things unless your DM allows you to.

That's how it works at my table.

And I tell them they like it that way.

Thaumaturge.

 

[mcintma]

That would be patently incorrect. (As probably the only person who has done multiple high level PvP tests of 5E here). By the third test; no one even wanted to play a caster, even assuming you get all spells back when one respawns. Casters get wrecked.

Every time someone carouses about casters at high level in this game, please go read the sheer amount of spells that require concentration, and then realize that you can ever only have a single one of them up at a time.

Also, is there a reason we have a giant flood of just created accounts? Not sure if this happens normally or we have a lot of secondary and tertiary accounts being made...

I haven't play tested high levels, but this matches my expectations based on reading 5B.

Concentration is a huge problem for casters, many spells have been nerfed, and slots above 5th level are very, very few.

It's not a problem for me as the casters are still fun to play, but I do chuckle at the ongoing LFQW chatter - I just don't see it. If anything is OP it could be the Rogue

 

[evilbob]

You are not allowed to think or feel things unless your DM allows you to.

That's how it works at my table.

And I tell them they like it that way.

Thaumaturge.

LOL - I also want to give you XP for this post!