D&D 5E Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

[ph0rk]

Probably people who want to play a Fighter want that sort if help.more than people interested in the Warlock.

They did it, so it must have been the right thing to do?

Does that mean it must be the case that the Weapon Master feat is good for some battlemasters?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

That's my point.
The flail is supposedly is good at bypassing shields. And axes should cut poorly made shields. And hammers more effective vs heavy armor.

Flails are just good at bypassing most parries and blocks. But a shield is much better at stopping them that trying to parry with my sword, particularly if the user has a friend who could attack me if my sword gets entangled.

And as you say, the hammer would be effective against armour, so I'm going to want to have my shield available to intercept attacks.

But D&D has never been granular enough to take factors like these into account.

I use it.
Since PCs and NPCs have access to it.
I wish their weapon weapon based bonuses to them.

What sort of other effects would you want to see?

 

[Parmandur]

They did it, so it must have been the right thing to do?

Does that mean it must be the case that the Weapon Master feat is good for some battlemasters?

All Feats are bad.

They did it because the information they have tells them it is the right thing to do, 100%. Not saying they are impeccable nor infallible, but they are self-interested.

 

[Sithlord]

Oh, I don't think it's an actual problem. Giving players an extra Feat, esp. if there are any limits on it, at level 1, doesn't massively impact balance, and the Gifts aren't much more extreme and allow more customization, which is a major bonus. But denying that power creep is even happening is just unhelpful.

I doubt it. If there isn't a 6E or something very like it in 2024 I'll be shocked. And your entire understanding of the Psionics issue wrong. They tried to get Psionics out relatively quickly, but they applied an idiotic test to it that any full-caster class would have certainly failed, and then all the attempts thereafter have been half-hearted and confused, and not the result of "years of internal playtesting". Psionics was certainly intended to be out by late 2017 or early 2018 though. Also it's a terrible measure for edition length. 3E got Psionics out 2001, even earlier than 4E. 2E got them out in 1991, only two years after release. In every edition after 1E, D&D has tried to get out Psionics in pretty quickly. This includes 5E. 5E is just the one they failed at due to what was, frankly, their own stupidity/perversity, when they were taking an entirely different and vastly more cautious approach to 5E, one I would argue was significantly less successful than the more recent approach at moving books and keeping people happy and excited for new product.

On the other hand I think that whatever form 6E takes it is likely to be heavily backwards-compatible with 5E, to the point where some people will claim it's "just 5.5E" even when that is manifestly false. It almost certainly won't be called 6E by WotC.

And that’s the way a new edition should be imho. It shouldn’t be creating a new game.

 

[ph0rk]

All Feats are bad.

This is one of those credibility undermining statements.

 

[Parmandur]

This is one of those credibility undermining statements.

I mean, if you are into that sort of thing, go for it, but it would have been better if Feats and Multiclassing had nit made it into into rulebook, IMO.

 

[ph0rk]

I mean, if you are into that sort of thing, go for it, but it would have been better if Feats and Multiclassing had nit made it into into rulebook, IMO.

One thing I think even you must admit is true is that we will see more feats as 5e continues, so by that argument it began flawed and will continue to decline.

Feats are tremendously popular, though, so does the ad populum argument not work also in this case? Many players use it, so it must be good.

 

[Minigiant]

Flails are just good at bypassing most parries and blocks. But a shield is much better at stopping them that trying to parry with my sword, particularly if the user has a friend who could attack me if my sword gets entangled.

And as you say, the hammer would be effective against armour, so I'm going to want to have my shield available to intercept attacks.

But D&D has never been granular enough to take factors like these into account.

It was granular when it added all those charts, tables, feats, kits, prcs, and stuff in the past.

The page after the first ranger in Strategic Review was a buch of polearms and bonuses.

What sort of other effects would you want to see?

Feints, jabs, combos, counterattacks, bonuses to certain types of armor, zoning, holds, locks, followups, flurries, useful kicks, shield bashes, and punches..

 

[Parmandur]

One thing I think even you must admit is true is that we will see more feats as 5e continues, so by that argument it began flawed and will continue to decline.

Feats are tremendously popular, though, so does the ad populum argument not work also in this case? Many players use it, so it must be good.

Well, a significant minority of players use them, which makes it worth WotC time, even if I think the game would have been better without then. Bit make no.mistake, the majority of players do not use Feats or even play in games that allow Feats, per WotC. However, the minority they serve is significant enough that they exist, and they have put out a few new ones over time. That goes to my point that WotC will serve niches of sufficient size...but not all niches are as big as Feats.

 

[ph0rk]

Well, a significant minority of players use them, which makes it worth WotC time, even if I think the game would have been better without then. Bit make no.mistake, the majority of players do not use Feats or even play in games that allow Feats, per WotC. However, the minority they serve is significant enough that they exist, and they have put out a few new ones over time. That goes to my point that WotC will serve niches of sufficient size...but not all niches are as big as Feats.

A 2018 Crawford tweet based on a convenience sample is not very good evidence for a fact.

All WOTC has are convenience samples. By contrast, the majority of online discussion about 5e involves feats. I can make just as strong a claim about the representativeness of that anecdata as WotC can for their convenience samples.


If only a minority used them, why would they keep designing more?