D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[Minigiant]

Ah, got it.

I kinda prefer both at once: that the item (talking mostly about weapons and armour here) has a root '+', including but not limited to +0, and then may also have some other properties or abilities.

So, you might find:

--- a +0 shortsword that when wielded gives the wielder resistance to fire
--- a +2 shield that twice per day can (when laid down as if a shallow bowl) fill itself with clear water for drinking or whatever other use
--- a +1 suit of scale mail with always-on feather fall

That sort of thing.

Im not against +X items. +X items are traditional and I think they should exist.

But not be the norm.

Like I'm okay with +1 swords and spears being everywhere and mass produced in the long past Gorden Age or The Empire or The Ancient Kingdom or poured on via magic oils.

I wouldn't go above +1 without being an artifact, being sentinent item, have race or class requirements, or have drawback.

 

[nevin]

Same here, but while players are happy enough to track charges in wands they IME don't always think to do so with weapons etc., leading ultimately to a bit of a bookkeeping nightmare.

The Thief I'm playing in a game right now has a track-the-uses weapon: it gives her Detect Magic 3x / day. As it's the only such item she has, tracking its daily use count is simple, but if she had a bunch of items like that the tracking would soon get messy.

In my experience that happens with potions and other stuff as well with players that don't like tracking stuff. It's not really anything different than tracking at will abilities rests, money , food, oil , torches etc. . That's a people problem.

 

[Yaarel]

Why on earth not? You're laying down a blast of raw electricity that in theory shouldn't care what it happens to hit and-or damage.

That gives the caster far too much control.

Each spell has its own spell description. Here, the spell uses magic to harm two targets electrically.

Then again, I'm pretty hard-line on saying casters should have to roll to aim their AoE spells in the first place.

I prefer the casters roll attacks to "wield" their magic accurately (similar to 4e).

 

[Remathilis]

If Int doesn't matter, why have it at all?

Let it affect skills, saves, languagues known, and other "not as important to my day job" elements.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If Int doesn't matter, why have it at all?

Not affecting casting doesn't mean it wouldn't matter at all. Arcana and Search are IME two of the most important skills in the game for the party to possess and History is pretty useful.

Now the score I find annoying is Constitution. It's too passive.

 

[Yaarel]

It is a limited bell curve spread, without numbers increasing exponentially. Leaves a chance of failure or success when a roll is called for.

Heh, still not seeing the benefit of using scores 3-18 and rolling d20 under.

During character creation, I prefer the ability array over a random 3d6 bellcurve, to ensure comparable participation from each player during the rest of game.

Presumably a score 18 with a +2 sword would be an auto-win anyway. There seems no way to account for resistance against the score check, and if there was, the math would start getting convoluted for each check during gameplay.

 

[payn]

Honestly? "We're working on updating your favorite class, but it's taking awhile" is... completely fine by me. Page count and man-hours are limited resources, and it makes sense to do the most mainstream stuff first-- because the people who like the mainstream stuff are, by definition, more numerous than the people who like the niche stuff and we tend to forget that the people who like vanilla also get really sad when their flavor isn't on the menu.

Bard, Barbarian, and sorcerer were PHB1 for 3E and fan favorites. They were not niche. I get why they saved them for book 2 so it would actually sell but I didn’t appreciate it.

My issue is developers' and fandoms' tendency to scrap something from the last edition and then tell the people who are disappointed that they're wrong-- not even wrong for liking it, but wrong about actually liking it in the first place, and complaining about its current, indefinite, and deliberate absence is "concern trolling"... from people whose Edition War agenda, apparently, doesn't actually have anything to do with enjoying the game.

Yeah agree with this. I don’t care about the warlord but it should exist in 5E.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

Likes:
1) Decreased cognitive loading
2) The subclasses
3) Simplified movement

Dislike:
1) Majority magic is combat, less utility spells
2) WoTC @tm gamer species. Just opinion, I just don't like the lizard heads and the DnD take on drow.

Probably more I don't like... but hey I still play, it is a decent vehicle for my preferred fantasy.

 

[Parmandur]

Heh, still not seeing the benefit of using scores 3-18 and rolling d20 under.

During character creation, I prefer the ability array over a random 3d6 bellcurve, to ensure comparable participation from each player during the rest of game.

Presumably a score 18 with a +2 sword would be an auto-win anyway. There seems no way to account for resistance against the score check, and if there was, the math would start getting convoluted for each check during gameplay.

The array is desireable because the bell curve has been broken and mangled. In a roll under d20 system that wouldn't be an issue.

Not that I expect this to happen, mind you, just that I think the d20 roll high direction was a historical mistake.