evilbob
Explorer
Aw, no need to be that way.
D&D 5E Criticizing the new edition of D&D (because I like it a lot)
- Thread starter Sonofapreacherman
- Start date
Sorry, snark is kind of my default response to stuff like this. But I really don't see the complaint here. Feats already work the way the OP wants. You can mix and match. You can have characters who get all ability boosts, characters who get all feats, and characters with some of each playing at the same table in the same party. What difference does it make that the option exists to play without feats if your group prefers it that way?
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
That one is sanctioned and the other one is subject to DM's caprice, making it opt-in in a group (read DM) instead of purely personal basis. Many DMs out there will be petty enough to want to intrude too much into character building -and it is bad enough when the rules don't explicitly give them the freedom to do so, IME they are worse in this circumstances- and it being called a variant will scare the heck out of new DMs who might think it is too complicated.
It is more complicated. I don't see why it's a bad thing that new groups have the option to use feats or not use them. If they're wary of allowing feats, they can choose not to use feats. Later they can decide they're ready to add that to their game. Why do you insist they must have them from the get-go?
And for every complaint I see about dictatorial DMs, I can find another about whiny entitled players. Frankly, all that is on you to sort out with your fellow gamers. The "variant rules" tag on feats makes it clear that the game can work fine without feats. Things will not break if feats are removed. That is useful information for everybody. What you do with that information is up to you.
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Of course it is more complicated, but not too complicated. A matter of degrees.
I know it goes both ways, but I think that the designers taking the DM side was a mistake, the basic set is meant to teach new generations of DMs and players. There was no need to say "with the DM's permission", something more along "with your group's consent", or "your DM might allow or disallow certain options with the group consensus" would have been better IMO.
evilbob
Explorer
This is a fair point; it's almost like their "old" wording got mixed in with the newer stuff.
Thaumaturge
Wandering. Not lost. (He/they)
You are not allowed to think or feel things unless your DM allows you to.
That's how it works at my table.
And I tell them they like it that way.
Thaumaturge.
That's how it works at my table.
And I tell them they like it that way.
Thaumaturge.
mcintma
First Post
That would be patently incorrect.(As probably the only person who has done multiple high level PvP tests of 5E here). By the third test; no one even wanted to play a caster, even assuming you get all spells back when one respawns. Casters get wrecked.
Every time someone carouses about casters at high level in this game, please go read the sheer amount of spells that require concentration, and then realize that you can ever only have a single one of them up at a time.
Also, is there a reason we have a giant flood of just created accounts? Not sure if this happens normally or we have a lot of secondary and tertiary accounts being made...
I haven't play tested high levels, but this matches my expectations based on reading 5B.
Concentration is a huge problem for casters, many spells have been nerfed, and slots above 5th level are very, very few.
It's not a problem for me as the casters are still fun to play, but I do chuckle at the ongoing LFQW chatter - I just don't see it. If anything is OP it could be the Rogue
evilbob
Explorer
LOL - I also want to give you XP for this post!
Sonofapreacherman
Explorer
It's the first sign that you have an over-controlling DM. They crave power over player generation decisions. If I can handle the complexity of feats, which, let's be honest, doesn't requires a whole lot of game mastery since they became 'Super' feats, that's my business. Making feats 'optional' or 'variant' only encourages over-controlling DMs to exercise power that doesn't need to be wielded. Especially if you're trying to raise up a new generation of DMs.
Last edited:
Mouseferatu
Hero
I've gamed with plenty of over-controlling DMs, and plenty of good one. This sort of thing? Feats being called out as optional? Makes no difference. A good DM will allow them, or explain why s/he won't, no matter whether they're called "optional" or "core." An over-controlling DM will forbid them regardless, if s/he chooses.
Bad DMs don't need permission to be bad, and nothing in any rulebook will stop them.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Besides, even if the rules could somehow force a DM to allow feats, an over-controller will still find plenty of other ways to make the game miserable. Think of it as an early warning sign that your tastes and theirs don't overlap well.
Sadras
Legend
For Feats and Ability Score Improvements: Our group's limit for Ability Score Improvements is you are allowed to take it once from levels 1-10 (we usually play in that range only), so that we encourage the taking Feats and discourage the min/maxing munchkinism of Attribute scores.
Nice catch. Even if this is not what they intended (although I come to the same conclusion you do from a strict reading of the language utilised), this is how we will play it.
Nice catch. Even if this is not what they intended (although I come to the same conclusion you do from a strict reading of the language utilised), this is how we will play it.
Last edited:
wedgeski
Adventurer
Interesting list, I both agree and disagree. A couple of things:
Long weapon lists: Stick 'em all in there! As long as there are no traps for inexperienced players, it makes a lot of people very happy to see a page full of weapons in the PHB. Let's not deny them their fun.
Spell components: Since only expensive components need to be actually managed outside of a Component Pouch, this seems fine to me and is usually first on the agenda for house-ruling anyway. I might not do that this time, just to see what happens.
Identifying magic items: I will be house-ruling the "fondle it for a Short Rest and know what it does" rule. This is a 4E hold-out that I never liked in that edition either.
Advantage/Disadvantage not stacking: To me, as someone who has DM'd hundreds of 4E sessions, this is a direct and appropriate response to the horrible bonus-hunting sweep that would circle the table every time someone rolled a number where the result wasn't immediately apparent. Collapsing stacked bonuses into a more simple "You have a advantage here, sir" is great design. This is the basic game after all. I think it's exactly the right call.
Charge: I will wait and see on this one, as it depends on the interactions between attack ranges, movement, terrain, action economy, and other factors, plus is really only needed on a battle-mat. Since the basic game doesn't need a grid, Charge becomes less important.
Death Saves: When I read your comment about Death Saves and Con bonus, I mis-read it at first to think that you meant your Constitution *score* should be the save value instead of the normal 10. Now that I've thought of that, "Roll equal to or under your Con score to make a Death Save" seems like quite a fun house rule.
Long weapon lists: Stick 'em all in there! As long as there are no traps for inexperienced players, it makes a lot of people very happy to see a page full of weapons in the PHB. Let's not deny them their fun.
Spell components: Since only expensive components need to be actually managed outside of a Component Pouch, this seems fine to me and is usually first on the agenda for house-ruling anyway. I might not do that this time, just to see what happens.
Identifying magic items: I will be house-ruling the "fondle it for a Short Rest and know what it does" rule. This is a 4E hold-out that I never liked in that edition either.
Advantage/Disadvantage not stacking: To me, as someone who has DM'd hundreds of 4E sessions, this is a direct and appropriate response to the horrible bonus-hunting sweep that would circle the table every time someone rolled a number where the result wasn't immediately apparent. Collapsing stacked bonuses into a more simple "You have a advantage here, sir" is great design. This is the basic game after all. I think it's exactly the right call.
Charge: I will wait and see on this one, as it depends on the interactions between attack ranges, movement, terrain, action economy, and other factors, plus is really only needed on a battle-mat. Since the basic game doesn't need a grid, Charge becomes less important.
Death Saves: When I read your comment about Death Saves and Con bonus, I mis-read it at first to think that you meant your Constitution *score* should be the save value instead of the normal 10. Now that I've thought of that, "Roll equal to or under your Con score to make a Death Save" seems like quite a fun house rule.
A
amerigoV
Guest
I really wish you had not said it that way. Very bad image.
In the background, a mumbling Dwarf "Oh yeah, I really want to find out what you can do. Where did I put my bear grease?" as he lustfully handles a magic axe taken off a foe.
Foreground, the cleric says to the others "Ummm, lets give Tordek some alone time. This is not going to be pretty."
TwoSix
Unserious gamer
Let's just be happy it wasn't a Rod of Lordly Might.
Iry
Hero
Not at all. I am not speaking about PVP, but about the variety of tools that can be used to solve non-combat problems. While we have not seen the Paladin and Ranger yet, the Fighter and Rogue appear to be even less capable of stacking non-combat bonuses than prior editions (both 3.5 and 4).That would be patently incorrect.
I picked up a 5E starter set at my local convention, then came on here to comment about it after playing for several days. I had a previous account, but the forums have changed since I last visited and required a re-register.
So far, in terms of problem solving, the non spellcasters have oddly enough solved most of the problems. But they're also less prone to overthink the situations.
That said, I'm curious as to how it continues as we hit double digit levels, but the spells "known" and spells "prepared" bit does limit spellcasters a lot in terms of given versatility at a given moment. I picked up a 5E starter set at my local convention, then came on here to comment about it after playing for several days. I had a previous account, but the forums have changed since I last visited and required a re-register.
Oh right, the great hackening of a lil bit ago; totally forgot about that. >_< My bad!
Identify can be cast a as a ritual by a wizard - so it takes 11 minutes, and doesn't use a spell slot, or need to be prepared for the day.
Similar Threads
