D&D General 5.5 and making the game easier for players and harder for DMs

[Scott Christian]

Since we are on the subject of framing, I am instantly suspicious of "think of the newbs" arguments. Especially, when it comes to old schooler frustrations.

I agree.

 

[Scott Christian]

That is certainly the original idea.

On the other hand, "because realism" has never been a great argument for anything regarding D&D...

That game indeed works better on average if everybody starts at equal footing, so the only way I would consider random stats is if a) stats doesn't matter as much as in D&D and/or if b) the game features an equalizing mechanism somehow.

Just to take the simplest possible example to show what I mean by b): if every player uses the SAME set of random stats, that'd be something, I guess. (Whether the group rolls 18, 18, 16, 16, 13, 12 or 12, 10, 8, 8, 6, 4 no longer matters as much since every player gets the same array to use for stats placement, and the DM can always make encounters harder or easier to match the party's abilities). Of course, a more involved solution would probably be preferable, but the main reason so few games try such solutions is because it's just not worth the increased complexity. In the end, just sticking with the standard array is much simpler and perfectly adequate. After all, it COULD happen that random rolls resulted in precisely this distribution... I mean, if you only play a single character in a year, why waste that on grossly imbalanced groups?

I was with a group of six players once. We each rolled 4d6 one time. Dropped the lowest. That determined the abilities for all the PCs. I was the lucky one that rolled a 17. We had two that rolled 9s. The rest were all solid, I think the 12-14 range. So it worked out nicely, in the fact they we all had the same starting ability scores, just placed differently.

 

[Scott Christian]

No we absolutely should not "wait and see", what reason has wotc given GMs to hang that sort of hope on? We have a decade of wotc focusing exclusively on giving more of the candy that 19/20 todd..players voted for and nine of nine UAs with an identical focus on candy. Plus the lead rules designer is spinning up the or machine to excitedly share with us how much gm's are going to hate s subclass with the same grinning excitement displayed whenever talking up weapon masteries. There is absolutely no justification for a "wait and see" approach because these are not problems that can be patched after the fact by mm or dmg and wotc has shown zero interest in loading that hype machine with details and discussions related to anything that was a gm pain point they even recognized

That same lead rules designer will be grinning ear to ear explaining how the players are going to hate the new (fill in the monster here) and its ability to (fill in the power here). That is part of his job.

 

[tetrasodium]

That same lead rules designer will be grinning ear to ear explaining how the players are going to hate the new (fill in the monster here) and its ability to (fill in the power here). That is part of his job.

Except the obvious problem with how some of these can't be patched retroactively with monsters because the root of the ability goals was an adversarial "who cares the dm can be considered in the dmg" rather than advocating for the gm early enough on to course correct before publishing

 

[tetrasodium]

Unfortunately, nothing will change now. The books are done.

This thread blew up because this isn't the first time these kinds of concerns were raised through the UAs play "tests", it's just a case where it wasn't shut down by a chorus if calls to wait for the dmg stuff because this is the phb test stuff.. the dm is very much impacted by the phb rules and phb player options but "just house rule it" carried forward and they were treated as if they are not.

 

[Scott Christian]

Except the obvious problem with how some of these can't be patched retroactively with monsters because the root of the ability goals was an adversarial "who cares the dm can be considered in the dmg" rather than advocating for the gm early enough on to course correct before publishing.

Again, that might be true, it might not. We'll have to wait and see.

But none of that refutes what I said: He is a spokeperson for a company, and he will do the same schtick when it comes time to woo the DM.

 

[Belen]

Again, that might be true, it might not. We'll have to wait and see.

But none of that refutes what I said: He is a spokeperson for a company, and he will do the same schtick when it comes time to woo the DM.

Not really. The DMG is not a wooable book. At most, the marketing will continue to be player focused on items like "look at these cool magic items, or additional options, or more about players crafting gear...."

The playtest should have included DMG items and have been more focused on smooth running of the game.

 

[Belen]

This thread blew up because this isn't the first time these kinds of concerns were raised through the UAs play "tests", it's just a case where it wasn't shut down by a chorus if calls to wait for the dmg stuff because this is the phb test stuff.. the dm is very much impacted by the phb rules and phb player options but "just house rule it" carried forward and they were treated as if they are not.

I agree.

This is why I said the playtest was a largely run by gamists and influencers. The vast majority of people who are going to playtest are highly engaged folks who like the rules.

We are not going to get the larger number of players who just play and may not care so much about the mechanics or the ones who cannot even manage the options in base 5e.

There is a reason that a lot of people play fighters. They want a less complex class. They want to just swing a sword and not think too much about it. This is one reason 4e had trouble as an example.

I engaged with the playtest early but did not have a group that was willing to test or even cared so I provided feedback only early tests until life became too much to continue.

I am fairly concerned about how Weapon Mastery will play out as it is giving me nightmares of 3.5/PF1e/4e that it will add horrible complexity and only benefit tactical and power gamers. I already have issues with people not understanding their class and taking forever.

I sped way too much time as a DM studying the classes my players choose so that I can "help" them in game.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I agree.

This is why I said the playtest was a largely run by gamists and influencers. The vast majority of people who are going to playtest are highly engaged folks who like the rules.

We are not going to get the larger number of players who just play and may not care so much about the mechanics or the ones who cannot even manage the options in base 5e.

There is a reason that a lot of people play fighters. They want a less complex class. They want to just swing a sword and not think too much about it. This is one reason 4e had trouble as an example.

I engaged with the playtest early but did not have a group that was willing to test or even cared so I provided feedback only early tests until life became too much to continue.

I am fairly concerned about how Weapon Mastery will play out as it is giving me nightmares of 3.5/PF1e/4e that it will add horrible complexity and only benefit tactical and power gamers. I already have issues with people not understanding their class and taking forever.

I sped way too much time as a DM studying the classes my players choose so that I can "help" them in game.

My players already forget about the myriad of stuff their characters can do, I can't wait to see even more stuff stacked on top of that.

Why players think they love bloat I'll never understand.

 

[jerryrice4949]

I am a DM and none of these things concern me in the least. I think people in general just like to complain. It’s all going to be fine.