D&D General Richard Whitters poll on twitter, "Will you be buying the newest edition of D&D?"

@SlyFlourish is not usually someone using clickbait for his videos. If Crawford just wants to say 'I think this is something that comes in handy for the characters and the players will like', then maybe he should say that instead.

If you tell the players 'your DM will hate this skill' and the DMs 'your players will hate this monster' then you are imo focusing on the wrong thing or at least expressing it in a questionable way
He quoted out of context and without registering thst it was a joke. They did not actually say they were making the game harder, just thst players get a few fun new tricks up their sleeves.

If one wishes to hyperfocus on something that Crawford said in context and paying attention to his avtual words, maybe look to his statements about how their internal playtests found that Weapon Masteries are fun in play. Or listen to the goljs who have already integrated the UA at the table and had fun. Not some concern mongering toxic YouTube nonsense.
 

log in or register to remove this ad





Things just seem so "messy" right now - which is kinda typical during an edition change. There are so many variants of "D&D" (not to mention countless other systems): 2014, 2024, Level Up, Tales of the Valiant - and I'm sure there are others.
I need more tools than what's in 2014. I'd like better monster design. I'm aware that comes with some degree of added complexity, but hopefully I can find the right ratio between fun and complexity for our group.
Currently, I'm needing to recharge and going to less complex systems (leaning to Dragonbane for a short campaign).
As far as monster design is concerned... yeah, pretty much any of the non-WotC monster books are more "complex" because they give monsters more options in their statblock for things to do. The more things they can do, the more you as a DM have to remember to use during a fight... but at the same time the more varied the results of fights will be.

The 5E14 MM is in a lot of ways like AD&D monsters... where for a lot of monsters there's nothing more than a melee attack, ranged attack, and maybe a single feature (for defense or added offense or whatever.) The difference though is that monster HP was considerably lower in AD&D, which meant monsters died faster. But that was okay back in AD&D because most PCs (through their classes) didn't have much of anything advanced to do with actions either-- they had pretty much just a melee and ranged attack as well.

The results of which meant that combats had little in the way of "interesting" results... but they all finished so quickly that it didn't matter-- the party would just move on to the next part of the adventure (a lot of which was exploration and did not involve combat, which meant their lack of interesting combat abilities wasn't an issue.)

But in these later editions of D&D... we've wanted to give PCs more and more "interesting" actions to take and ways to build your characters, so on and so forth. And that results in more things for the PCs to do, but also a lot more time needed for them to do it. As well as needing more and more things for the monsters to do in combat to match.

Which is all to say that it makes all the sense to me in the world why so many people DO migrate to older games (or OSR remakes)... because they often make combat shorter and less involved by comparison. And as a result, players and the DM are forced to make the narrative / non-mechanical parts of the adventures (exploration, socialization etc.) more important. Thus covering over the fact that combat is over so quick and doesn't have that those "action movie set pieces" we've all come to expect in modern D&D nowadays. But if that's better for you as a DM-- more focus on verbal exploration and socialization with players telling you what they wish to do, and you telling them back what happens and what they find-- rather than strictly mechanical dice-rolling that you have to remember all the rules for... then going more old school certainly makes the DMs job easier. Other than having to think up and create all that exploration and socialization for the adventures of course, LOL!
 



eh, I frequently hear stories here about chars going nova and the boss going down without much of a fight, this is making it worse, not better
The degree to which that is a problem is dependent on what your purposes in play in general and boss fights in particular are. If your intent is a big set piece boss battle, you have tons of options at your disposal to make sure that happens and there isn't any particular singular class ability that is going to disrupt that. Unless you are bad at making set piece boss battles. in which case, like I said, you need more practice.
 

eh, I frequently hear stories here about chars going nova and the boss going down without much of a fight, this is making it worse, not better
True. But then again if the DM knows they have allowed the PCs the opportunity to refresh everything, and the players also know they can GO nova without there being subsequent encounters after that which they might need to save resources for... that's kind of on the DM isn't it? They have set their own BBEG up for failure. So it shouldn't be a surprise when it does in fact happen. And giving PCs more things to do in 5E24 isn't changing that fact.
 

Remove ads

Top