D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

since you have no better place to look....

Also, show me where the rules say that this is not a human as we know them, but some magical mutant that only has the name in common
I would refer to near the entirety of the character creation options... which include many..many..many..many..many capabilities for D&D PCs which extend significantly beyond real-world human capabilities and note that D&D humans are not forbidden from attaining these capabilities.

And I'd say again.

One way of explaining it is to say that humans in D&D are biologically/metaphysically/whatever different from D&D humans..

The other is to appropriately(IMO) acknowledge that in fantasy settings real-world human limitations may just not be applicable.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The other is to appropriately(IMO) acknowledge that in fantasy settings real-world human limitations may just not be applicable
yeah, I usually go with this one, makes much more sense to me

Don’t think I ever said they are limited to what real humans can do either. The only thing we are discussing is how far removed they should be
 

Don’t think I ever said they are limited to what real humans can do either.
'Outrun Usan Bolt in full plate' was already too far.

There's not much room left, especially since we keep ignoring how well people trained with it actually move in full plate because appeals to 'realism' or 'verisimilitude' are rarely remotely grounded in actual reality but rather a hyper-mundane understanding of a planet of psychotic apes who keep breaking physics, moon-worshipping behemoths, a shrimp with a sonic cannon, small predators that take over societies with mind control parasites, and a venomous beaver duck that glows in blacklight.
 


It's not and you can't rationally argue that, because "older" doesn't make something "more D&D".
It does when one would like to see D&D take a lot more cues from its early iterations than it does.
In 5E magic item with more pluses is worth MORE than they were in previous editions. In 3E and 4E, magic items were assumed into the rules. Whereas in 5E, they're not - and thus in 5E, they break bounded accuracy (inarguably), and thus more plus are more powerful, pound for pound as it were, in 5E. 5E some really insane high-damage items too, like the +2d6 on a flaming sword, which absolutely laughs at the bonus values on items in earlier editions (relative to the per-swing damage).
Relative to the per-swing damage, sure, but relative to the monsters' hit points it's just keeping up with the arms race.

1e capped weapons at +5, and (in most campaigns) +5 weapons were pretty damn rare. Flip side: monsters didn't often have very many hit points.

3e made a bonus d6 (usually of a specific damage type e.g. fire, acid, etc.) for damage a fairly common thing, in addition to the weapon's base '+' bonus. Flip side: 3e monsters generally had lots more hit points than their 1e counterparts.

5e monsters generally have even more hit points, so it's no surprise to see +2d6 show up as a damage bonus.
 

What fluff doesn't match here?

There's no fluff saying "these humans are Earth humans".
Well, other than the name "human", which kinda carries a big whack of fairly basic assumptions in with it; and most (all?) of those assumptions start with the idea that a human in the game's fiction is fairly similar in many ways to the humans in the room with you.
 

No, it isn't.

That's a dreadful science-obsessed worldview that absolutely doesn't match with the worlds of fantasy, whether it's Tolkien, REH, Fritz Leiber, Moorcock, LeGuin, Jordan, Kay, or whoever!
I dunno - Tolkein's humans always come across as being ordinary people first and foremost. Ditto Jordan, other than his imbuing many of them with psionic powers beyond the pale. You can still see the "zero" behind the hero, and that's what makes them relatable to us Earthly types.

IMO the most relatable humans are in Game of Thrones. Sure there's some people with magical powers, but most of the characters are down-to-earth enough to make it easy to imagine oneself in the setting. And it helps greatly that the setting doesn't have ridiculous rates of natural healing: you get hurt, you're gonna stay hurt for a while if not longer.

As for science-obsessed: absobloodylutely! I want my fictional science - including magic - to integrate as seamlessly as possible with real-world science, thank you very much; and have put a lot of thought over the years as to how this can be made to work.
 


yeah, if you answer by the book, then my answer by the book is just fine too, not sure why that would work for you but not for me

Also says nothing about the human either, it just says you can mix something in
I don't really understand your objection. You asked where the rules say that D&D humans are not humans as we know them. I showed you where the rules clearly state that D&D humans often show traits of other species, such as elves and orcs. Humans as we know them cannot have such traits. Therefore, these are not humans as we know them.

Also, D&D humans can do things like cast spells, channel ki, commune with deities, and all kinds of other super heroic stuff that no IRL humans can do.
 

the abilities a char has increased, making gear somewhat less essential
Well, it's more that the bonus increased in the key 12-17 range over what they were in 1e-2e, and that makes a big difference.

Time was, bonuses for anything didn't kick in until 15 but then went up pretty fast. Now they start at 12 but go up more slowly. At about 18-20 they meet.
 

Remove ads

Top