D&D 5E Why You May Be Playing D&D Wrong

[Zardnaar]

You are good at pushing peoples' buttons.

IDK what you are talking about

 

[billd91]

My players take feats first.

As do mine.

 

[jasper]

Darn right I do! I PLAY D&D WRONG!
I mixed d6 which have numbers and pips.
I roll damage with my off hand but d20s with my prime hand.
I dm facing south but play always facing east.
Not all my dice are color coordinated.
I mix REAL lead, pewter, plastic minis which are unpainted, slop and go, and totally painted. I even use cardboard counters as well. Once I use a piece of glass for a hobbit.

 

[billd91]

Well again, you'd have to build for that capacity, you'd also have to run an epic level game (which few people do) and you'd have to have the desire to do that.

So again my point is that your comment is largely theorycrafting, which if I understand your OP correctly (I don't think I do) you seem to be talking about that sort of thing as the "disconnect" between what happens in actual play and what people speculate could happen.

I totally disagree that you needed to really try to break the game with spells like Harm nor that it was theorycrafting. It comes up too easily and too often without even really planning for it. In the case of Harm, it was largely the same spell in 3.0 as it was in AD&D - it left the target with 1d4 hp. But it was broken in 3e far more than in AD&D because it involved an unexpected or unintended consequence of adding a Touch AC and caster-affected save DCs. In AD&D, the cleric needed to hit the target's full AC - which could be pretty difficult since they weren't fighters, were far less likely to have a strength-based attack bonus, and had no bonuses to hit from a magic weapon. Contrast that with nailing a dragon with Harm in 3.0 - child's play since the dragon's natural armor bonus was ignored and clerics usually could get a strength bonus. The addition of the saving throw wasn't enough compensation because of the addition of a caster's ability to boost the save DC (add in the daily routine of casting an extended Owl's Wisdom and things got even crazier).

But then, that's often what you get when you hold one element stable while changing others that interact with it. As far as I'm concerned, the impact of Harm was chicken feed compared to the impact of allowing such easy item crafting. That was a far bigger game changer with far-reaching implications.

 

[BookBarbarian]

My players take feats first.

When I was playing I took feats first.

While DMing my player's never took feats until our very last session. We've been playing since before the 5e PHB came out. And to get them to do that I had to point out which ones might work best for their characters.

Some players just want to play even if they don't want to open the PHB. Any optional rule is going to fall by the wayside for them.

 

[Gadget]

Basically the hivemind tends to lean heavily towards the one true way and forum posters are usually veterans of an edition or 2 (or 5 or 6 in some cases) and if you are under the age of 30 you probably never played TSR era D&D so feats are part of that one true way mentality. According to the hivemind 3.5 was a broken mess and everyone was using wands of cure light wounds and had access to all these combos and the knowledge to use them. Our group could do that most groups I saw never made it to the high levels, did not have the 1st 4 completre books let alkone the Complete Gnome Cobblers books and as late as 2014 I saw Pathfinder players playing Pathfinder more like a complicated 2E rather than the hiveminds assumption of how 3.5 should be played online.

You make some good points, yet I remember as early as late 3.x and certainly by 4e designers and other industry people were not publicly visible in the 'Hivemind' space and were making statements about how they needed to be careful not to let the "few" "skew" the results. Maybe it took a while to really set in. More likely it also took a while to properly collect, analyze and interpret their data such that they could connect with average joe six-pack player (if there is indeed such a thing).

Also, by the logic presented above, the 'Hivemind' should have embraced 4e, as it was supposedly built in response to its issues. Yet the reception by the 'Hivemind' was decidedly...mixed, to say the least.

When 5E came out we pushed the hell out of the system just because we could, most of the killer combos were known about before 2014 finished. Our group of uber powerful PCs?

4d6 drop the lowest

LG Paladin of Apollo (Oath of Devotion, Thyatian think Roman)
Wood Elf Arcane Cleric of Isis
Halfling Thief (20 dex level 4 Weapon Specialisation feat)
Human Hexblade

The only thing missing is a Dwarf, in this game the players definitely choose a back to basics group almost. Shortsword using fighter, AD&D type Paladin, classic thief and of course Mr Snowflake had to pick a hexblade (there is always 1). Not the most combat heavy party, the 5E encounter guidelines were also useful for once. I'm sure we are playing wrong according to the hivemind but eh. Now where did I put my random harlot table.......

I'm slightly confused, how were you playing a Hexblade in 5e circa 2014? Do you mean a Warlock that choose the Pack of the Blade Pact Boon? And if so, out of the book blade'lock is hardly considered uber (decent when you take your first level as fighter), I don't remember it being considered so even in 2014. Cool flavor, yes; but hardly uber. Also, what Weapon Specialization feat? I'm missing something here.

Or is the 'we' above referring to the 'Hivemind', not your group, and the uber above being sarcastic tongue in cheek? If so I still don't get the hexblade and weapon specialization feat.

 

[Zardnaar]

You make some good points, yet I remember as early as late 3.x and certainly by 4e designers and other industry people were not publicly visible in the 'Hivemind' space and were making statements about how they needed to be careful not to let the "few" "skew" the results. Maybe it took a while to really set in. More likely it also took a while to properly collect, analyze and interpret their data such that they could connect with average joe six-pack player (if there is indeed such a thing).

Also, by the logic presented above, the 'Hivemind' should have embraced 4e, as it was supposedly built in response to its issues. Yet the reception by the 'Hivemind' was decidedly...mixed, to say the least.




I'm slightly confused, how were you playing a Hexblade in 5e circa 2014? Do you mean a Warlock that choose the Pack of the Blade Pact Boon? And if so, out of the book blade'lock is hardly considered uber (decent when you take your first level as fighter), I don't remember it being considered so even in 2014. Cool flavor, yes; but hardly uber. Also, what Weapon Specialization feat? I'm missing something here.

Or is the 'we' above referring to the 'Hivemind', not your group, and the uber above being sarcastic tongue in cheek? If so I still don't get the hexblade and weapon specialization feat.

Hex blade is a recent thing and the weapon specialization feat is 3rd party.

Idk how much influence the hivemind had on 4E iirc the RPGA influence d it. The hivemind had suggested fixes to 3.5

 

[jasper]

Speaking of the "few" "the loud" will "skew. What was USA Congress rule of thumb. One written letter was worth 10,000 voters. Posters we are the few, the loud, and out spoken.

 

[Eis]

Darn right I do! I PLAY D&D WRONG!
I mixed d6 which have numbers and pips.
I roll damage with my off hand but d20s with my prime hand.
I dm facing south but play always facing east.
Not all my dice are color coordinated.
I mix REAL lead, pewter, plastic minis which are unpainted, slop and go, and totally painted. I even use cardboard counters as well. Once I use a piece of glass for a hobbit.

I tried to use a plastic rifleman green army guy for a mini once and my DM got mad and threw it across the room

 

[Tony Vargas]

Also, by the logic presented above, the 'Hivemind' should have embraced 4e, as it was supposedly built in response to its issues. Yet the reception by the 'Hivemind' was decidedly...mixed, to say the least.

Nod. It was the 'hivemind' - at least, the one centered around 3.5 system-mastery-reverence - that rejected 4e so violently. It may be a dumb way of putting it, 'hivemind,' but there /is/ a lot of groupthink in D&D communities and in the established fanbase. It's /the/ RPG that people are most likely to start with, the only one with mainstream name recognition, so it gatekeeps the hobby to an extent. Most people come to the hobby through D&D - if they weren't down with D&D, they're not part of the hobby.
Given how very little D&D changed for the first 25 years, that is a lot of accumulated group-think & inertia.

average joe six-pack player (if there is indeed such a thing).

Oh, there is, I suppose. There are casual players - and new players, of course, always trickling in (and usually right back out again). They, indeed, do not care about the bizarre controversies over 3.x brokedness, 4e not-D&D-ness, or 5e gloriously evoking the classic game. They try the game, they're taken enough to play some more, but don't become trapped in the eternal ice of the innermost circle.