Thanks, I needed a chuckle this morning.
A minor change to one first level spell is not at all comparable. I tweak a couple of spells, effectively ban a couple others because I don't care how they work. I assume many, if not most DMs make little changes here and there. It's not like we're rewriting the game. People are really making a mountain out of a molehill on this one in my opinion.
Like I said upthread you're confusing hill to die on with litmus test. For example, if my DM tells me "sneak attack is really OP" then I'm noping out of that game since any DM that thinks that doesn't know 5e mechanics well enough to run a good 5e game. This is the case even if I'm playing a barbarian and nobody at the table has a rogue. It shows me what the DM's approach to the game is and gives me a good enough picture of how they'll roll to know that the game isn't for me.
Similarly if a DM tells me "Command is a badly-written spell, it's too open ended" I'm noping out of that game since any DM that thinks that has a VERY different idea of what is fun than I do, to the extent that I'd struggle to have fun in their campaign. This is the case even if I'm playing a barbarian and nobody at the table has Command on their class spell list. It shows me what the DM's approach to the game is and gives me a good enough picture of how they'll roll to know that the game isn't for me.
And I don't want to sign on for an edition that is written by people who I wouldn't trust to DM a game for me. They obviously don't see eye to eye with me about what makes D&D fun so I don't expect that future D&D products will be fun for me.
I can definitely see 5e as a follow-up to 2e but with different technology under the hood. The reversion of magic items to pre-3e structure is a major part of that because one of the biggest shifts in D&D play was the magic item economy in 3e - it really changed (or damaged depending on your perspective) how players approached their characters. It gave you something to do with treasure other than spend on training costs from the ol' 1e days, but it sucked the joy out of the room with respect to most oddball magic items.
And I have to say, 5e's reversion on magic items is a significant reason I prefer it to the 3e family. For many years after 3e first come out (then 4e, then PF), remained my second favorite edition. 2e cleaned up some of the worst of 1e, filled in many of its gaps (still managed to cock up the ranger, oh well, not everyone's perfect), while still keeping what was best about 1e. 5e shifted play back toward 2e to the point where I found it extremely comfortable and easy to work with, easier than any of the 3es.
I've mentioned it a few times in this thread, but if you want a 3.5e spin-off that isn't dependent on magic items at all, check out Mongoose d20 Conan 2e. I absolutely adore its magic system and everything works perfectly fine if the PCs have no magic whatsoever.
Well, part of it too is that when you have memories of rules across different editions, it gets hard to remember what edition has what rules, and this is one of those cases where I don't know if I want to change something that we've established in our game for awhile now.
Indeed. I didn't realize that 3.5e command didn't allow you to use any verb you wanted until I'd been playing that edition for YEARS since my head was so full of 2e-isms. For me it's often easier to pick up a whole new RPG than to make my brain accept a new edition of D&D without getting details mixed up.
I do not disagree with the idea that 5.5e will be similarly not so great for getting new DMs injected into the hobby.
That's why I fully expect the rumblings of a 6th edition to begin sometime in the next four to six years. An edition made from the ground up for the new blood that 5e brought in, rather than the (IMO incomplete/half-baked) effort represented by 5.5e. Every edition "update" or "revision" has a shorter lifespan than the pre-update did.
Good point. I think the first thing they should do to make 6e rules match how 5e is actually played is make sure that the game's wheels don't fall off if you only have 1-2 fights per long rest. That's the single biggest mis-match between actual play and system from what I've seen.
Sure. Literally dozens of players, both in groups I've DM'd and played in, across decades of play.
If literally dozens of players across countless groups and decades of play really really enjoy doing something, maybe you should let them? I mean, you wouldn't have people constantly do that if it wasn't fun. I don't mean just roll over and let players do anything they want, but it's important for DMs to look for patterns of things that players enjoy and embrace that rather that fight it. I mean I don't really give a naughty word about pets in D&D, but players love that naughty word I make sure they have plenty of opportunities to get themselves pets. Makes them happy and happy players make me happy.
The changes in 5.24 are simply a continuation of the general tightening of the rules that's been wending its way through the game for years.
More's the pity
Next they'll remove Fast Hands I suppose...They already proposed gutting it in one of the 5.5e UAs so I know that at least someone on the 5.5e team wants to...
So we're all cool that anyone trying to convince a target to breathe poison, jump off a galloping horse, swim in plate mail or throw themselves off a cliff attempting to fly is effectively wasting a first level spell slot to do nothing more creative than "do nothing for one round" if even that.
Yes, I'm perfectly fine enforcing the clearly-worded rules of the spell.
All of your examples - jumping around, fighting stuff, using the scenery, all that sort of stuff? Yeah, fantastic. No problems at all since it's very different from what we're discussing.
For me a lot of the stuff we're talking about is exactly like that. I don't see much of a difference between the rogue using scenery to get advantage and the caster using the specifics of what the enemies are doing to tailor a Command word for the specific situation they're in.
Now trying to play stupid metagame naughty word games to make a spell do something that was never intended to do because of semantic games is one thing ('har har, I cast create water in his lungs and drown him, right after casting heat metal on the iron in his blood"), having Command do exactly what it's supposed to do is quite another.
...
I just had a bit of an epiphany.
I don't have to argue this point. I won this time. WotC has changed the rules to what I want, for a change, instead of throwing me under the bus.
Imma gonna take the win and walk away. Y'all have fun complaining about how WotC hates creativity or whatever it is you've been trying to say. I'm going to make myself a little schadenfreude sandwich and go over here and enjoy it.
Good gaming folks. I'm bowing out.
Yup, you're exactly right. People like you have convinced WotC to take your side of the argument instead of trying to find a compromise. That's exactly why I posted this thread. I'm going to miss 5e's attempt at a compromise as messy as it was instead of coming down increasingly hard on one side of this issue. 5e succeeded because it was a compromise (however imperfect). We'll see how 5.5e does. I don't have high hopes for it.
