D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Parmandur]

yeah that is it with us and 4e

By all accounts, thst was also the case with Rob Heinsoo and a lot of the other designers.

It seems that 3E allowed room for people playing it like 4E or 5E, as well as people happy with 3E style specifically. 4E's provlem, from a marketing perspective, was that it was more tightly tuned than specific style.

I do wonder if my friends were porting 2E assumptions into how the game ran, because I started in College but they had started in Middle School by and large.

 

[Eric V]

Not acting in an SC means you don't get a success or failure. If you're bad at everything you can think of for the challenge, doing nothing is a viable tact.

However, SCs often were deployed when they shouldn't have been, such as gates where everyone needs to get through to advance. Group challenges were not skill challenges, but players and designers alike just... forgot this and forgot group challenges.

Coincidence is funny; I just was going over the Skill Challenge section in 4e DMG2 and they seem to have realized they didn't mention group checks in the original material because they mention them a lot in the advice.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Coincidence is funny; I just was going over the Skill Challenge section in 4e DMG2 and they seem to have realized they didn't mention group checks in the original material because they mention them a lot in the advice.

Which is hilarious because one of the early attacks were based around the Elf ability to give bonuses on group checks.

Also weird because I just found a DMG 2 at HBP!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Most studies reply on a sample size of 2.

This is how we know all people have brown hair and eyes.

I don't know if it was sarcastic or not, so I clarify: both posters said, they never encountered anyone who was confused by it.
I think the average person who visits this forum has played with 15+ people, so the sample size is 30+, which is not good, but better than 2.
Concluding that some people are confused on 0 people who are confused in a sample of size 30 or more (I add my 30+ people (including fifteen 7th to 10th graders) if you want, so 0 out of 60+) is a bit far fetched...

Edit: reading my original post, I understand why you thought the sample size is 2. Thanks for noting it. I edited the original post for clarification.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That’s cool. To an extent, I get it. I play blade warlocks or even clerics but fighters less often.

Most people enjoy new toys! I just did not have a good feeling about the flavor of martial Characters with nearly spell like effects. And it’s totally fine. Taste is just that. Mine is not really “contemporary” but I value what I value.

I think you are far from alone in some of your preferences. Warlords etc are missed by a fair number of folks.

yeah, 5 years ago I was pushing to do away with the 5e fighter... then I was convinced that somepeople really did want it, so I changed to adding a new martial class with power utlity and options at least close to a full caster... since the 2024 redo is coming up I keep pushing splitting the fighter into 3... the 3 subclasses form PHB 2014 each getting there own class... a complex one (warlord.warblade.animeswordguy.swordsage... whatever you name it) based on battlemaster but with more options. then the champion getting its own and as such allowing for people to get what they want from it, and a eldritch knight instead of being a sub fighter make a full 1/2 caster gish (Magus, bladesinger, duskblade, gish... again names aplenty to pick)

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't know if it was sarcastic or not, so I clarify: both posters said, they never encountered anyone who was confused by it.
I think the average person who visits this forum has played with 15+ people, so the sample size is 30+, which is not good, but better than 2.
Concluding that some people are confused on 0 people who are confused in a sample of size 30 or more (I add my 30+ people (including fifteen 7th to 10th graders) if you want, so 0 out of 60+) is a bit far fetched...

This data means actually less than nothing.

Anecdotal evidence used to support an opinion on the internet that is then extrapolated to generate a number from nothing (15+ gaming group) that still only come up with a wholly fabricated sample size of 60 to 'prove' that no one found something confusing while in the same thread where that data was obtained multiple people have said it was confusing.

All people are brown haired and brown eyed based on the heresay of three people I asked who were also trying to prove all people are brown haired while I ignored all those dumb blondes and redheads trying to tell me something I wasn't listening to.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

we live in times where you just don't believe in statistics

i don't think that is a modern thing... mark twain said "There are three types of lies... lies, damn lies, and statistics" long before anyone here was born (most likely before our parents were)and we skew older then teh average D&D player...

my issue (and I beleive his) is when you manipulate the statistics to say things, or just infer things not in them... like "4e out sold 3e so 4e is better" or "1 in 5 babies born are chinese (true) so if YOU have 4 kids and your pregnant (or your wife is) with twins odds are good they are chinese"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This data means actually less than nothing.

Anecdotal evidence used to support an opinion on the internet that is then extrapolated to generate a number from nothing (15+ gaming group) that still only come up with a wholly fabricated sample size of 60 to 'prove' that no one found something confusing while in the same thread where that data was obtained multiple people have said it was confusing.

All people are brown haired and brown eyed based on the heresay of three people I asked who were also trying to prove all people are brown haired while I ignored all those dumb blondes and redheads trying to tell me something I wasn't listening to.

this also leads me to how people throw around "the plural of anecdote isn't data" and in some circles and fields (like research scientists) I can see that being true... but the only Data even the most knowledgeable of us have is taking all the anecdotes into account.

even if WotC takes all there sales numbers (remember they sell to store and it sits on a self it is still a sale to them) and 10,000 survey respondents into account... each 1 of that 10,000 is just baseing there answers on there own anecdotes.

 

[Willie the Duck]

yeah, 5 years ago I was pushing to do away with the 5e fighter... then I was convinced that somepeople really did want it, so I changed to adding a new martial class with power utlity and options at least close to a full caster... since the 2024 redo is coming up I keep pushing splitting the fighter into 3... the 3 subclasses form PHB 2014 each getting there own class... a complex one (warlord.warblade.animeswordguy.swordsage... whatever you name it) based on battlemaster but with more options. then the champion getting its own and as such allowing for people to get what they want from it, and a eldritch knight instead of being a sub fighter make a full 1/2 caster gish (Magus, bladesinger, duskblade, gish... again names aplenty to pick)

Now this I can get behind completely*. Give everyone what they want, and if you have to disassemble the core body of the thing into multiple versions, no problem.
although if subclasses are still a thing, a 1/3 caster in the champion section would still be appreciated -- some people like the 'ever so slightly a mage' concept.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This data means actually less than nothing.

Anecdotal evidence used to support an opinion on the internet that is then extrapolated to generate a number from nothing (15+ gaming group) that still only come up with a wholly fabricated sample size of 60 to 'prove' that no one found something confusing while in the same thread where that data was obtained multiple people have said it was confusing.

All people are brown haired and brown eyed based on the heresay of three people I asked who were also trying to prove all people are brown haired while I ignored all those dumb blondes and redheads trying to tell me something I wasn't listening to.

This is bollocks and shows a lack of understanding what I said:

Concluding that a lot of people find it confusing by finding zero people in a sample who actually do is not statistic or logic or anything comparable.

If I missed something in the thread he based his conclusion on, he was not referring to, I am sorry. But that was what I got from his single reply.

So please, make fun of statistics... you are in good company these days.