D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: Travelers of the Multiverse

New free content from WotC - the latest 4-page Unearthed Arcana introduces six new races: astral elf, autognome, giff, hadozee, plasmoid, and thri-kreen.

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

Looks like Spelljammer and/or Planescape is back on the menu!

 

[Scribe]

I assume they did not test properly or just were apathetic to it.

examples please I am unable to see your point?

The problem is one of context.

If you have 2 abilities that are roughly equal in a vacuum, however one is simply more applicable within the common states of the game, then that option is 'better' as it will be utilized more.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I assume they did not test properly or just were apathetic to it.

examples please I am unable to see your point?

Pick literally anything that is considered "bad": The PHB Ranger? It works and is fun to play. It's also "bad" (the UA version is better, though it still needs work). Pick anything else. My point is that you say that they should "test the options for 'fun' and playability." That's not enough because I honestly can't think of a single "bad" option that can't be 'fun' or 'playable' in the right context. The problem is that there are other options that are better. There are ALSO options that are TOO GOOD. Those are just as "bad".

 

[Mind of tempest]

The problem is one of context.

If you have 2 abilities that are roughly equal in a vacuum, however one is simply more applicable within the common states of the game, then that option is 'better' as it will be utilized more.

but is the other a bad option or merely overshadowed?

Pick literally anything that is considered "bad": The PHB Ranger? It works and is fun to play. It's also "bad" (the UA version is better, though it still needs work). Pick anything else. My point is that you say that they should "test the options for 'fun' and playability." That's not enough because I honestly can't think of a single "bad" option that can't be 'fun' or 'playable' in the right context. The problem is that there are other options that are better. There are ALSO options that are TOO GOOD. Those are just as "bad".

I will give you a counterpoint the ranger fails because no one knows what it is supposed to be and exploration was not defined properly thus it was doomed out the gate.
way of four elements fails because it does not let one live out the fantasy properly thus it is bad at its task.

 

[ad_hoc]

but is the other a bad option or merely overshadowed?

I will give you a counterpoint the ranger fails because no one knows what it is supposed to be and exploration was not defined properly thus it was doomed out the gate.
way of four elements fails because it does not let one live out the fantasy properly thus it is bad at its task.

You might be using the term 'bad' in a different way than what I and likely others are used to.

Should there be no terrible or deceptive options? Sure, that would be great.

4 Elements Monk is a great example. It was poorly designed and shouldn't be in the game.

But most of the game works well. Things are what they say they are. There are a couple more exceptions.

I think you're going to find that when most people say 'bad' they mean that in a competitive situation one option is going to be weaker than another. In an RPG this is less of an issue because it is both a cooperative game and one where enjoyment often comes from experiencing a character rather than just how much power they have.

But in a competitive game? Everything that is not the best is bad.

 

[Mind of tempest]

You might be using the term 'bad' in a different way than what I and likely others are used to.

Should there be no terrible or deceptive options? Sure, that would be great.

4 Elements Monk is a great example. It was poorly designed and shouldn't be in the game.

But most of the game works well. Things are what they say they are. There are a couple more exceptions.

I think you're going to find that when most people say 'bad' they mean that in a competitive situation one option is going to be weaker than another. In an RPG this is less of an issue because it is both a cooperative game and one where enjoyment often comes from experiencing a character rather than just how much power they have.

But in a competitive game? Everything that is not the best is bad.

so bad means sub-optimum to you then?

 

[Chaosmancer]

More people use the base Human than the Variant.

And? That doesn't make it suddenly mechanically interesting or well-designed. It is in the base rules and many people ban variant humans because feats at level 1.

 

[ad_hoc]

so bad means sub-optimum to you then?

It all depends on how we're defining it. What is sub-optimal? What is optimal? It depends on what the goals are.

Are the goals to do more damage in combat? Then something that does 5 damage is bad compared to something that does 6 damage.

If I was playing a competitive game and I win by dealing the most damage then my goal would probably be to do that and I would think the lower damage option is bad.

But in an RPG I can have a lot of goals with differing priorities.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It all depends on how we're defining it. What is sub-optimal? What is optimal? It depends on what the goals are.

Are the goals to do more damage in combat? Then something that does 5 damage is bad compared to something that does 6 damage.

If I was playing a competitive game and I win by dealing the most damage then my goal would probably be to do that and I would think the lower damage option is bad.

But in an RPG I can have a lot of goals with differing priorities.

the ability to be useful to the party and experiencing the fantasy properly.

 

[Parmandur]

And? That doesn't make it suddenly mechanically interesting or well-designed. It is in the base rules and many people ban variant humans because feats at level 1.

Just that you said many people pick the Variant over the standard, when we know the standard Himan is the single most popular choice in the game.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

but is the other a bad option or merely overshadowed?

I will give you a counterpoint the ranger fails because no one knows what it is supposed to be and exploration was not defined properly thus it was doomed out the gate.
way of four elements fails because it does not let one live out the fantasy properly thus it is bad at its task.

You'd be absolutely right, but playing one can still pass your "fun and playable" criteria. Avoiding bad options has to be more than that. All I'm trying to say is: It's not easy to not put "bad" options into the game. Can they do better than they have? Probably. But I don't think they could avoid any bad options - in particular because one person's bad is not anothers.