D&D (2024) It goes to show you can't please everbody!

[Frozen_Heart]

That’s why we need an advanced and basic line of official D&D products.

Please!

At this point it's clear that the things different groups want are so far apart that it's not really compatible.

 

[grimslade]

Armor Class is such an abstraction, I don't see what additional armors bring to the table. If we changed from armor granting AC bonus to a DR system, I could see more granularity, but mostly more armor would be fluff rather than mechanic.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Armor Class is such an abstraction, I don't see what additional armors bring to the table. If we changed from armor granting AC bonus to a DR system, I could see more granularity, but mostly more armor would be fluff rather than mechanic.

The problem with using DR in D&D is there's so much range in damage that it would mean as you start dealing with the upper end, the armor effect would become progressively more trivial, and damage absorption armor tends to work poorly with level-elevating hit points as the people who did the Dragon Age game demonstrated all too well above the first six levels.

 

[occam]

I agree with GM. I’m tired of being told that 3pp is the answer to fixing a busted system. I don’t want to buy six extra books to make my core 5E books work at a basic level. They should work on their own. Complete game in one set and all that. I want WotC to put out a good, functional, complete game. I get that there’s an industry popped up around WotC’s failings, and good for the 3pp for doing what they can to bandaid 5E, there’s no fault or blame directed at them, the problem is entirely WotC. But let’s stop pretending that there’s no problems with 5E.

What's a problem for you, however, is just peachy for someone else, and vice versa. Which this thread highlights; WotC literally cannot please everyone on every point.

But has WotC produced "a good, functional, complete game" which "works at a basic level"? Millions of D&D players seem to think so.

 

[MNblockhead]

My inner pedant compels me to point out that "everybody" is misspelled in the thread title.

My outer pedant compels me to point out that it isn't your "inner" pedant if you are compelled to post your pedantry publicly. ;-)

 

[grimslade]

The problem with using DR in D&D is there's so much range in damage that it would mean as you start dealing with the upper end, the armor effect would become progressively more trivial, and damage absorption armor tends to work poorly with level-elevating hit points as the people who did the Dragon Age game demonstrated all too well above the first six levels.

I agree that DR is problematic in D&D. I am simply saying that more armor types would be fluff rather than mechanics. A DR system may require more or less armor. Check out Mr. Rhexx idea for armor. Fewer types of armor would strip away fluff and flavor for simplifying something that is already abstract. If you want to really strip down D&D armor is one of the least of your worries, the bulk of the PHB is spell description.

 

[Lojaan]

Y

I agree that DR is problematic in D&D. I am simply saying that more armor types would be fluff rather than mechanics. A DR system may require more or less armor. Check out Mr. Rhexx idea for armor. Fewer types of armor would strip away fluff and flavor for simplifying something that is already abstract. If you want to really strip down D&D armor is one of the least of your worries, the bulk of the PHB is spell description.

Yeeeeesssssssss! Get rid of spell bloat!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Y

Yeeeeesssssssss! Get rid of spell bloat!

Good luck with that. Ten million special cases called spells has been a thing in D&D from the start, and it hasn't exactly decreased over time.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think it could be interesting to have the heavier armors give special THP (called them armor points, to avoid be able to have both) at the start of battle, recovering at the end of the encounter if you have Mending or the relevant Tool proficiency. So its not an always on damage mitigation, but having a thick cumbersome plate on your back helps you stand against your foes a little longer than a lightly armored rogue of the same AC.

You could even base those number of Armor Points on proficiency bonus, something like 3 AP per prof. bonus for chainmail, for example.

 

[Mistwell]

I agree with GM. I’m tired of being told that 3pp is the answer to fixing a busted system. I don’t want to buy six extra books to make my core 5E books work at a basic level. They should work on their own. Complete game in one set and all that. I want WotC to put out a good, functional, complete game. I get that there’s an industry popped up around WotC’s failings, and good for the 3pp for doing what they can to bandaid 5E, there’s no fault or blame directed at them, the problem is entirely WotC. But let’s stop pretending that there’s no problems with 5E.

"I'd like to do more with this aspect of the existing system" is what most third party products are about. Not that the existing system is busted and non-functional without houserules or a third party product, but that it expands on existing good functional stuff in a different direction. I don't see anyone pretending there is no room for improvement in 5e. But I do see a lot of comments like yours - acting like any improvement that can be made is proof the existing product was non-functional and busted. The darn game has run successfully for a decade and an awful lot of the people playing it use essentially no houserules or third party products and still report the system is working just fine for them. You liking some other stuff that isn't currently in the system is fine - but the claims it's a broken non-functional system and anyone who disagrees is pretending is a bridge too far.