Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8524595" data-attributes="member: 6801228">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.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.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.#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.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.</blockquote>

Verification