D&D 5E (2024) This Feels Like 4E

[Reef]

Well, I certainly feel chastened. I’m obviously mixing up rules, either from other versions or other games. As I have a clear memory of a Rule Zero style sidebar in either the PHB or DMG. Clearly I am wrong. And I apologize for any confusion or consternation I may have caused.

 

[Marc17]

This is an "explicit rule" too.

Spoiler: Fair Rules Adjudicator

View attachment 430465

Ha, that's rich. Gave me a laugh. Anyway, that is an Adventure League thing. It's reasonable that for organized (dare I says 'association') play, you would want standard rules so people don't walk into strange situations. I don't see how it would apply to home play. Indeed, from the printed version of the 5.24 DMG, the relavant portion I can find just says this: "You oversee how the group uses the game's rules, making sure the rules server the group's fun." House rules have been a de facto part of home games forever. Otherwise, they are taking the old school bit a bit too far in channeling Gary's "“house rules” poker" speech.

ETA: My appologies, my DMG quote above was actually from the PHB. The 5.24 DMG actually has a "House Rules" section on page 13 that says "If you're confident that the answer to both questions is yes*, give the new rules a try."

*That it would improve the game and the players will like it.

 

[tetrasodium]

Ha, that's rich. Gave me a laugh. Anyway, that is an Adventure League thing.

That's hardly a revelation given that I made sure to include the footer at the bottom affirming that very thing. Nit exactly a big find.

It's reasonable that for organized (dare I says 'association') play, you would want standard rules so people don't walk into strange situations. I don't see how it would apply to home play. Indeed, from the printed version of the 5.24 DMG, the relavant portion I can find just says this: "You oversee how the group uses the game's rules, making sure the rules server the group's fun." House rules have been a de facto part of home games forever. Otherwise, they are taking the old school bit a bit too far in channeling Gary's "“house rules” poker" speech.

Like this from post 65...

Not everyone plays exclusively with a closed circle of friends. Some of my tables are a close circle. Others are a close circle plus ransoms. Still more are a bunch of unknowns.

I used to run open AL tables at a nearby FLGS twice a week, some of my home game players are sourced from there.

Not only that, only that, but it speaks volumes to how shaky your point is and very much undermines the entire thing given that you chose not to quote the part of the post containing the lines directly contradicting it

Spoiler: note the bold

The GM comes off as hostile because players who start in AL tend to be extremely resistant to the very idea that the GM could be allowed to change the rules because of that box & wotc's refusal to support GM's in a host of issues dismissed under Oberoni results in that attitude having very much spread beyond those who started with AL to players who simply started with 5e.

You might have had some traction if you had claimed that AL doesn't cast a wide enough shadow or isn't widespread enough to matter, but it's absurd to suggest that the answer is "not at all" given that posts like 111, perhaps 108, and possibly others from this very thread provide examples of that very outlook.

@Reef it is there somewhere (I can't be bothered to find what everyone agrees exists), but saying that something is not a problem because the gm could be using it to fix problems that shouldn't exist is the very definition of the Oberoni fallacy . That's especially problematic in 5e because just about every problem from yoyo healing to 5mwd nova rest loops weapon juggling and more gets dismissed with "well Crawford∆ 'had a ball' and he self moderated so nobody could possibly abuse this rule/subsystem if we don't lock down excess for the gm since the gm could fix it"

∆ "had a ball" were his words in the earlier linked weapon juggling mastery announcement quote of his.

 

[Reef]

Just when I thought I was out...

I'm not sure what you want me to say here. Intended or not (and to be honest, I don't believe a comment during the Playtest necessarily applies to the final rules, but for the sake of argument, lets say it does), it's a done deal. All that we can do now is to decide whether it is a good rule or not, when applied to our tables.

This is my one and only point. If you like it, use it. If you don't, don't. Complaining you don't like it serves no purpose (outside of a playtest or an imminent new edition). I certainly don't expect WOTC to read this thread and issue an retraction. Especially since it seems there are definite defenders who want it this way. And if there are groups who enjoy it, who am I to say they are wrong?

For me and mine, it's not a good rule. It would add a layer of unwarranted slowdown to combat. It rubs us wrong narratively. And the benefit is so small, it's not worth the squeeze. But I don't need an official errata to be able to say it's not a good fit for us.

This is how we play. We prioritize the fun of the whole group over any specific rule, and we make the game our own. My error earlier was conflating our 40+ year social contract with any official guidance.

I understand it must be different if you are running official AL games. And I apologize that I never took that into account, because I have never played with someone that wasn't a friend (and a long time friend, for the most part at this point). So, I can only judge this by my own experience. Which is, every edition of every game ever has had at least one rule we didn't agree with and ditched, for the benefit of our game. That was why I was flabbergasted that anyone could have a group who mostly hated it, but still used it.

And just to be clear, I'm not trying to argue whether it was officially intended or not anymore. I've realized it doesn't matter. We're having fun without it. And I hope every table has the same amount of fun, whichever side of the line they fall on.