D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[mamba]

Well, considering it was a design goal.of 2014 as well, the fact that 2024 is simply more successful at the stated design goals seems pretty unambiguous positive from a 5E perspective.

depends on where in the range your personal preferences sit, but I agree that greater harmonization in power is generally better

 

[el-remmen]

I just wish they could/would make an edition of D&D that is designed to be a toolbox, with a GM (or group collaboratively) mixing and matching different tiers of powers and kinds of ability based on the setting and/or desired level of power, whether it be homebrew or official ones. One of those tiers would be a basic game for new players/DMs, adding layers of complication and power, with a clear expressed understanding that the game is not meant to necessarily include ALL of that, but that it is all a menu to be picked from (while remaining class-based).

 

[Mephista]

If the dude doesn't want to play 5E24 and wants to remain with 5E14, that's fine. No skin off of anyone else's nose. Same way no one cares if someone wants to keep playing 4E or 3.5 or PF, or switch over to TotV, A5E, Shadowdark, Draw Steel! or the like. Everyone can play what they want.

WRONG. Everyone plays MY way, or they shall be made to SUFFER. You know, the usual.

His reticence on the 2024 rules reminds me a lot of A Knight At The Opera, another 5e blog that found themselves not liking the new edition's moves despite wanting to.

It takes guts to say you aren't jiving with the direction the ruleset you've made your name on is now going. I think people are dismissing this too flippantly. Moreover, there's something to be said for losing such a dedicated fan as him. What happened?

I think its one thing to admit that you aren't vibing with the new rules. Its another to complain about sour grapes on the way out and engage in mud-slinging edition-warring using memes and hurt feelings instead of facts.

The complaints about warlock are silly, and not even in the core book - they're from a video, and its trivially easy to have a warlock that knows who their patron is from level 1. The issue with spirit beasts on ranger companions? Like I said earlier, the paladins made that switch back in 3.5 in order to make play easier, and no ones cares about it now, and lets be honest - they have druid magic, the book says they have druid magic, and druid magic calls upon nature spirits. Calling upon spirit beasts is completely in theme for all their stuff.

The complaints about munchkin-ism is likewise over-the-top. There's been quite a lot of cutting out of the worst offenders - paladin PAM smite fishing, twin-casting removal, power attack in some feats, easy two-SA rogue builds, etc. The cries of about the lost "best builds" was quite loud in some circles. There's still people who complain about the nerfing of their favorite over-the-top stuff.

And lets not forget this gem. "But at the same time, since the freaking dawn of creation, the normal distribution of human ability scores in D&D has been from 3 to 18. That’s foundational. It’s bedrock. Anything outside that range is either subhuman or superhuman." That's pure grognard, old man yelling at clouds stuff. That might have been true back in the day when 3d6 was your stat, no growth as you level, but we've had multiple editions now where that was simply not true.

The only thing really truthful in this entire rant about 5e24 is that it very much is more mechanics-first, narrative second than 5e. I mean, the lacking amount of lore and fluffy bits to bite into was rather shocking. And that's a very valid thing to complain about. There's other valid complaints, such as the tendency to label flesh-and-blood beings as fiends or elementals, but... he didn't.

The rest is just a messy break up.

 

[Parmandur]

I just wish they could/would make an edition of D&D that is designed to be a toolbox, with a GM (or group collaboratively) mixing and matching different tiers of powers and kinds of ability based on the setting and/or desired level of power, whether it be homebrew or official ones. One of those tiers would be a basic game for new players/DMs, adding layers of complication and power, with a clear expressed understanding that the game is not meant to necessarily include ALL of that, but that it is all a menu to be picked from (while remaining class-based).

Don't reckon that is coming from WotC ever, but you might want to check k out what Brotherwise Games is laying down with Plotweaver, the forthcoming open license generic engine they built for the Cosmere RPG, it does exactly that (while having solved the fighter/caster balance issue, and even the combatant/non-combatant balance issue):

About — Plotweaver Roleplaying Game

 

[the Jester]

One person's "optimize" is another person's "playable".

Fair enough!

 

[Remathilis]

I just wish they could/would make an edition of D&D that is designed to be a toolbox, with a GM (or group collaboratively) mixing and matching different tiers of powers and kinds of ability based on the setting and/or desired level of power, whether it be homebrew or official ones. One of those tiers would be a basic game for new players/DMs, adding layers of complication and power, with a clear expressed understanding that the game is not meant to necessarily include ALL of that, but that it is all a menu to be picked from (while remaining class-based).

And I want a unicorn with a shiny saddle. But I've never seen a system that can handle that. The mythical Lego RPG that can be used to build any genre, any complexity and any power level is just that, mythical. Or GURPs. But I don't want my character sheets prepared by H R Block.

 

[Minigiant]

if they are exactly alike, there is no new edition…

Exactly

WotC is not in the business of listening to solutions and then incorporating them into their game. At best they propose something and unless enough people object, they include it - and it’s not like the D&D player base at large agrees on any solution to anything

WOTC is not above copying popular solutions to popular mechanical complaints.

But folk who downplay complaints, decry solutions, and don't offer replacement or advice can't expect to be catered to.

 

[Pedantic]

For me, it was more the statements of "They're making changes for the game first, and not basing it on the STORY!"

That's been the cri de coeur of frustrated simulationists for decades now.

To be fair (and acknowledging we have to give a lot of grace if someone was basing a sim perspective on 5e to begin with), the complaint isn't adversarial, it's about inclusion; why was my design goal not worth the complexity?

It's not that someone else put some part of the gameplay experience first, it's that they didn't do the follow-up work to justify the choice and meet whatever naturalistic criteria the sim proponent measures worlds against.

 

[TiQuinn]

There's the exclusionary OneTrueWay 5e has spent far too many years catering to

Accusations of OneTrueWayism cut both directions to the degree that the argument itself is pointless. It’s the D&D equivalent of “I know you are but what am I.”

 

[TwoSix]

To be fair (and acknowledging we have to give a lot of grace if someone was basing a sim perspective on 5e to begin with), the complaint isn't adversarial, it's about inclusion; why was my design goal not worth the complexity?

It's not that someone else put some part of the gameplay experience first, it's that they didn't do the follow-up work to justify the choice and meet whatever naturalistic criteria the sim proponent measures worlds against.

That's fair. From my perspective, it's relatively easy to generate supporting fiction from rules inferences (like magically empowered humanoid monsters being fiends or elementals), but I can understand a desire to have some of those inferences be more concrete and detailed.

I do have less sympathy when complaints are not "These rules aren't generating a fiction" but in reality are "These rules are generating a fiction I don't like", which is how I view the "ranger spirit pet" complaints. Rangers as a class using magical rituals to summon spirits in the shape of animals makes perfect sense for D&D-like fantasy; if you don't like it, that's a personal preference, not a failure of the game design. Creators are always going to make aesthetic choices we might not like!