D&D 5E The Annotated PHB

[Oofta]

Well that's a tangent sure. But why?

It's a MASSIVE benefit to have a properly annotated PHB - and it's a 5e PHB, so discussions of 4e shouldn't enter into the actual annotations. they might, but maybe a strict warning in the OP?

That's where the curated annotation comes in. Elect someone (not it!) to be an editor, have others give pros and cons to the overall design philosophies in the intro. Have two relatively concise opinion pieces and be done with it. Don't have 5,000 comments on the fighter class going back and forth on why they're better or worse than 4E.

If you want to argue why 4E was awesome, you get your say. Someone else can explain why they disliked the design philosophy. Each side gets some arbitrary word limit. Ultimately I think it can be summarized in 3 words: "I liked it" versus "I did not". Same goes for things like halflings.

Anyway, do that, have a single person coordinate and then publish it to the DmsGuild as a free PDF. Just don't ever expect consensus.

 

[overgeeked]

If I were to attempt it, I would start the the free basic rules and add footnotes with a curated list of rulings and house rules. Even if the rulings disagree, you could still present them as different options, perhaps with survey data on which ones are most popular.

That could work. But as you say in your follow up post, it would need one person to take charge and not try to do things by committee.

But don't think the internet will ever reach consensus on many things.

It's part of the charm. I'm told.

 

[overgeeked]

They could have, but it's clear that they were going for a 2e-3e mixed feel - so they didn't.

I started with B/X and AD&D, collected 2E settings but never played 2E proper, skipped 3E entirely, and jumped on 4E and now 5E. So I have no frame of reference for this comment. So, honest question: what aspects of 5E are reminiscent of 2E? It seems to be a generally positive comparison.

 

[Charlaquin]

The martial players were the ones who actually pushed back on the idea of complex Fighters.

I don’t think there’s really such thing as “martial players” or “caster players” most players who have played more than one or two games play characters of a variety of classes. That said, there were definitely fans of the simple fighter who pushed for that, and fans of the complex fighter who pushed for that. The result was the current 5e fighter which has a bit more complexity at base than the AD&D Fighter but far less than the 4e fighter, and subclass options with varying degrees of additional complexity. Pretty reasonable compromise, I’d say.

 

[Nefermandias]

I started with B/X and AD&D, collected 2E settings but never played 2E proper, skipped 3E entirely, and jumped on 4E and now 5E. So I have no frame of reference for this comment. So, honest question: what aspects of 5E are reminiscent of 2E? It seems to be a generally positive comparison.

For starters, they removed feats as a base option. They also toned down the role of skill checks and removed a lot of things introduced by 3e like extra spell slots based on spellcasting ability scores and flanking.
Overall, the design has shifted back to a more simple approach to character building and combat options, which goes against what we had in 3rd and 4th editions.

 

[Nefermandias]

I don’t think there’s really such thing as “martial players” or “caster players” most players who have played more than one or two games play characters of a variety of classes. That said, there were definitely fans of the simple fighter who pushed for that, and fans of the complex fighter who pushed for that. The result was the current 5e fighter which has a bit more complexity at base than the AD&D Fighter but far less than the 4e fighter, and subclass options with varying degrees of additional complexity. Pretty reasonable compromise, I’d say.

That's completely true.

 

[Bolares]

I learned from 4e that people apparently don't like transparent GAME DESIGN in their role-playing GAME.

For some reason, some people don't want to admit they're playing a GAME.

Aaaaand the thread becomes edition wars hahaha

 

[Mort]

I started with B/X and AD&D, collected 2E settings but never played 2E proper, skipped 3E entirely, and jumped on 4E and now 5E. So I have no frame of reference for this comment. So, honest question: what aspects of 5E are reminiscent of 2E? It seems to be a generally positive comparison.

It is generally positive - certainly for me.

The classes are very 3e, but with twists to lessen the caster disparity.
The magic items etc. are back to 2e (not easy to craft, set stat score items as opposed to just bonuses etc - not exact but certainly more like)
The roles are less defined than 4e, at least officially - they're still there but again not explicitly called out.
Those are the things that jump out immediately.

 

[Bolares]

I didn't read anything after the post I quoted... was I right? (I feel like I was)

 

[Charlaquin]

I didn't read anything after the post I quoted... was I right? (I feel like I was)

Not really.