D&D (2024) 2024 needs to end 2014's passive aggressive efforts to remove magic items & other elements from d&d

[Minigiant]

No you're supposed to have glaring weaknesses, like not even making a DC 20 Int save even if you roll 20 on the die (because you dumped Int). The game was designed this way, and even if you try you can only shore up your weaknesses by completely abandoning any hope of being actually good at the things you're supposed to be good at. (Spending multiple feats just to bring your poor saves from abysmal to still extremely poor just isn't an attractive option)

PC are supposed to have glaring weaknesses. However the punishment for having a weakness should not be a spiral if focused on and every PC has 4 of them.

And that is the question.

Is D&D supposed to devolve into rocket tag. Because if you turn off the optional rules, it's rocket tag.

 

[Vaalingrade]

See, I don't agree. I don't think foundational D&D (ANY of the various editions) are so difficult to parse or run in their baseline form that it can make for a bad play experience in and of itself that would sending someone running away from D&D or the hobby on the whole. If that was to occur, in my opinion it would come out of the personality of the DM who was trying to run it. I do not believe any game of this type is so bad that it make someone swear off of the hobby altogether from the game itself... only the persons they are playing with that would ever be able to accomplish that. The social part of the hobby has WAY more import to the overall experience than any of the rules do.

A bad RPG run by a good DM will be able to mask any issues and make the experience a positive one-- at least positive enough to not send the new playere scrambling for the hills. However, even the BEST game out there WILL drive someone away from the hobby if it is being run by someone who just royally F-things up because they just don't know how to handle the social situation of the game between themselves and the players.

Thing is, I've seen it.

I remember at least five players back in college who CR in and of itself hurled bodily out of the hobby when their first game featured and accidentally too hard encounter leaving them frustrated and upset when after all the build up, character building and anticipation, their character simply sucked and died because the DM couldn't solve the archaic puzzlebox that is CR.

 

[tetrasodium]

So when the game tells you "magic items and feats are optional, play the characters you want", it never comes out and says "but there's a price to be paid there, and the DM has to be very careful to tailor challenges to the players". Experienced DM's know this and have their own approaches to the problems. New players and DM's will have to learn the hard way, when that could have been avoided by warning them up front.

It's worth noting that there is an additional hurdle you didn't mention & it's a pretty significant trap. TTRPG players as a community have a long history of acknowledging that there is a line between helping someone build the PC they are trying to build and "just helping" in a way that amounts to strong-arming someone out of having a say in building their character.

By wotc not admitting the kinds of things you note gms winds up lacking both the in system tools p to massage things after some fraction of their players build character stoo poorly or too good for the campaign. Adding in how the books themselves are lacking any text the gm could point to as backup for why their players need to step up rather than blaming the gm for effectively executing a PC when a question like "what could we have done different so we can do better going forward" comes up.

 

[CreamCloud0]

even if magic items aren't 'required to be effective' i feel like a masterwork '+0' weapon is for any martial character past 5th level, because you can't assume you'll be having a caster using magic weapon on your fighter's greatsword

 

[MichaelSomething]

See, I don't agree. I don't think foundational D&D (ANY of the various editions) are so difficult to parse or run in their baseline form that it can make for a bad play experience in and of itself that would sending someone running away from D&D or the hobby on the whole. If that was to occur, in my opinion it would come out of the personality of the DM who was trying to run it. I do not believe any game of this type is so bad that it make someone swear off of the hobby altogether from the game itself... only the persons they are playing with that would ever be able to accomplish that. The social part of the hobby has WAY more import to the overall experience than any of the rules do.

A bad RPG run by a good DM will be able to mask any issues and make the experience a positive one-- at least positive enough to not send the new playere scrambling for the hills. However, even the BEST game out there WILL drive someone away from the hobby if it is being run by someone who just royally F-things up because they just don't know how to handle the social situation of the game between themselves and the players.

So the solution is for WOTC to offer DM certification to help players know if their DM is skilled enough to run D&D?

 

[Yaarel]

Thing is, I've seen it.

I remember at least five players back in college who CR in and of itself hurled bodily out of the hobby when their first game featured and accidentally too hard encounter leaving them frustrated and upset when after all the build up, character building and anticipation, their character simply sucked and died because the DM couldn't solve the archaic puzzlebox that is CR.

Yeah.

Everyone understands what "level" means.

To use a separate mechanic like "CR" is an unhelpful minigame.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So the solution is for WOTC to offer DM certification to help players know if their DM is skilled enough to run D&D?

Or mayhaps put out some form of guide for Dungeon Masters.

Like a good one like they're promising for 5.5

 

[DEFCON 1]

So the solution is for WOTC to offer DM certification to help players know if their DM is skilled enough to run D&D?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

 

[Minigiant]

even if magic items aren't 'required to be effective' i feel like a masterwork '+0' weapon is for any martial character past 5th level, because you can't assume you'll be having a caster using magic weapon on your fighter's greatsword

The mistake is that many conflate the Magic Items Treadmill with Magic Items Importance.

WOTC removed the need for magic items from the Attack roll and the Damage roll.

But they never addressed how the previous editions put the importance of magic items on Movement Speed, Movement types, Saving Throws, Attack Variety, Sensory Enhancement, and eventual Condition Immunity and Planar Travel

The 0e-4e martial was simple because the game was designed around them having magic items that matched the DMs game.

The game was designed if the DM ran the whole MM, they ran all the magic items. If the DM cut out some magic items, they had to cut out some monsters from use or modify them heavily.

That's the issue. You cannot design D&D for high magic, normal magic, low magic, and no magic simultaneously. Each base magic style has different assumptions on PCs, NPCs, Monsters, Technology and Items. D&D can only choose 1 of the 4 and have optional rules to go up or down

5e is not designed for low magic or no magic games. Their are only 3 purely nonmagical classes and made them too simple and narrow for low/no magic play.

Remember the 1e fighter lacked skills. It was proficient in everything. And even there it was magic reliant.

 

[Scott Christian]

Nuance is lost. Dichotomous understanding is lost. This entire argument is ridiculous.