Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Daztur" data-source="post: 9439595" data-attributes="member: 55680">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'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.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.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.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.More's the pity <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> 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...Yes, I'm perfectly fine enforcing the clearly-worded rules of the spell.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification