no just not happening. I am sick of my problem being framed as "any DM can do anything"
right now on these boards you can search a dozen conversations and find atleast half of them come down to "Outside of DM ruleing here is what the defualt is" when you change the defualt you change that conversation.
As I have said (many times and it always gets brushed away) my table with my friends use a ton of house rules. However I would not expect if I sat down at a gaming store with 5 acquaintances/strangers that they know any of my house rules. I would expect we have a baseline to discus the game.
I'm not trying to frame it as "any DM can do anything". But you went through a massive example, with a specific class, using a specific spell, and postulated that this design is bad because they won't know if a DM is using rules that will prevent this specific spell from being used and that is a problem with this specific class that they wish to use. This was the worst case scenario of these rules.
So, let me ask this. 100% serious. If a player is using ANYTHING other than Counterspell, how does this new design hurt them? How does this hurt the fighter, or the rogue, or the cleric or the Ranger or the Monk, ect ect ect. From where I am sitting... it can only possibly affect a single spell.
and with this you moved from "Hey it's a problem that already could come up every now and then," to "If the problem comes up every game who cares" notice the HUGE difference.
That isn't what I said at all. If the problem is that players will complain if encounters don't match with their expectations, then this isn't a design problem. I don't care if they complain about the design occassionally, or if they complain about it every single day. The fact of the matter is that, according to your own words, they are complaining because the design of the encounter doesn't match what they feel it should be. No design is immune to that. No design change is immune to that.
If this is our standard for a "problematic design" then any design that changes anything ever created is problematic. Mythic Monsters that restore to full health when killed (Theros design) is problematic. Monsters having non-standard equipment is problematic. Using a variant set of abilities that the player's didn't expect, like the Ice Devil spear, is problematic.
This has nothing to do with the merits of the design, and everything to do with the players.
I don't understand this sentence. if it is the assumed default then (by defualt) it is the baseline.
Then calling this new design the assumed default is wrong. Because it isn't the assumed default. It is an official variant for some and the default design for new things that don't have a previous version. Because even if they release a new version of the Archmage that uses this design... neither design is the default.
see here is the problem. WotC isn't Disney or Pixar (as much as they are owned by they are not even Hasbro).
if (as I have been repeatedly told) they have very limited production ability, then it isn't "Most will use CGI but some will be hand drawn" it is "Going forward we will be useing CGI but feel free to hand draw your own"
1) I am not hand drawing my own... if I was I would be working on my 4e retroclone with update sensibilities
2) I am not even dislikeing the CGI... my complaint isn't "I don't like the new direction" my complaint is "Pick a lane, update or don't" (and my vote is update.... bring on 6e, fix all the flaws we have found over the last 10ish years and produce form teh ground up D&D that works going forward)
#3 continuing using the old material.
This isn't a false option. This isn't a trick. This isn't a lie. When that Monsters of the Mulitverse book is released, you can still use Volo's and Mordenkainen's. If you don't own those books... then you haven't needed to use those monsters anyways.
me too. I love the idea tbh. It is a step in the right direction. I would actually be fine if 5.5/6/anniversary edition just did away with counterspell and made all monsters like 4e did.
You have missunderstood my problme. I don't dislike the direction... I want clearer labels.
I was 100% on your side of this... until people insisted that the whitchlight abilities were not counterspell able then the battle lines started and I just want them to lable new as new.
They have labeled new as new. They don't need to label these books as "Dungeons and Dragons Sixth Edition" for them to be new, and for everyone to understand that these books are new, and full of a new design.
And, frankly, they've talked about DnD 5e being "evergreen" since... the beginning? So, it sounds like they have a lane that they've been in and you don't like it. I can't help they are trying to keep their word. And frankly... if this isn't a new edition, why would they call it a new edition? Why break that "evergreen" promise before it has become untenable?
Trust me, there is A LOT I wish was fixed about DnD 5e. But I don't see labeling as a problem. If we need new labels, the community will provide.
