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

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure it does. When you don't know which way to go, you have to come up with something and it can be anything.

But that isn't "contradiction".

Contradiction is where 90% of the paths forward are actually dead ends, but you won't find that out until you walk into them. When the rules themselves are actually broken, every direction is now (massively) uphill. That's not "potential". That's "become an amateur game designer so you can literally build a whole game yourself, except you paid us for the privilege."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In an RPG, yes it is. I play RPGs to play my character, not have someone else in the group play it for me by directing me on what I have to do.

A party leader should do nothing more than break ties or in the case of the party spinning its wheels in indecision, make the decision for the group. For example, rather than let the group sit there and debate for 2 hours on whether to go right, left or rest and talk to Zeus in the morning about which way to go, after a reasonable amount of time when it's clear that this is going to go on for hours, the leader should step in and be like, "We are going to go left." He shouldn't at all be a micromanager.

That isn't what was said though.

You are drawing a false equivalence between "someone was in front, so it was easier to go the same direction" with "someone else told me exactly what to do and what to be and I was simply a witness to it".

That's you creating the thing you're claiming is there.

Why is what I actually described bad?

 

[Synthil]

I started with 4E so the changes will be solely from that to 5E.

Likes:

1. Bounded Accuracy: I like it from both a game play perspective and from an immersion perspective. It keeps the math simpler and allows enemies to stay relevant, which makes it more "realistic".
2. Advantage/Disadvantage: Simple and elegant. Makes the game flow faster.
3. Alignment being even more sidelined.

Dislikes:

1. Monster abilities (like spells) not being on the monster stat block. This is the worst change by far and makes DMing a chore.
2. Feats being mixed in with ASIs. There's already nary a way to customize characters and then they punish you for doing it on top of it.
3. Different classes being short rest based while others are long rest based and "short" rests being an hour long. Just an unnecessary way to cripple players depending on the groups play style.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'd like to offer a different perspective to DoAM with area effect saves.

Firreball hits the area (doesn't "miss"). Some targets caught off guard or in the open (failed save), takes full damage. Other targets duck low, take shelter behind table, or just get lucky as the fiery blaze swirls around and manage to take less damage.

No "miss" involved.

I'd like to offer a different perspective to DoaM.

Your "attack roll" is not one singular strike. It's half a dozen strikes, and whether or not the collective of them was worth it or not.

DoaM is saying, "Sure, you barely did anything...but 'barely anything' is not 'nothing.'" This is a concept that has been present from the very beginning.

Also: the existence of Evasion contradicts your theory. When a person with Evasion makes a Dexterity saving throw, they don't take any damage at all on a success. Hence, it cannot be true that the fireball definitely actually does hit all of its area of effect, because it is possible for someone to remain wholly within that area, use zero magical abilities (unless we count baseline Rogue as magical now?), and yet take no damage whatsoever, regardless of terrain or any other possible explanation for this state of affairs.

So, either your "caught off guard" argument should apply just as much to those things which allow DoaM, or it shouldn't apply to fireball and thus an opposition to DoaM should also take umbrage with save-for-half, if it is logically consistent.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes it's bad, if people in the line want to think for themselves and choose their own direction instead of just following the line's leader (who may or may not know which way to go any better than anyone else in the line).

Except all you agreed to was that it was easier to follow whoever was in front. Why is that (perfectly real effect) a problem?

Frankly, it comes across as your playstyle being openly hostile to the very idea of teamwork. "Ew! No! Then I might accidentally do something because someone told me to, and not exclusively because I wanted to!" Someone else coming up with a plan automatically motivates you to disrupt that plan, simply because following it would mean you had subordinated yourself to them.

 

[Mulciber]

Bringing back THAC0.. kids these days need to improve their maths, and this was one of the best ways! I can take or leave Ascending AC, I like the 3e method of saves vs 5e, and would like saves to be used more exclusively than ability checks, for some skills or other non-combat checks.

I don't mind standard array, point-buy and max starting HP.. but does loose some of the feeling of the game, and makes characters so standardized .. maybe dare i say boring.

Feats, love/hate on those, seems everyone takes the same feats... scale them to fun/unique not power so much.

I did NOT like advantage/disadvantage, if you have Advantage maybe you just auto-hit, and if using a weapon just does max on that like longsword is 8 dmg + anything else. maybe just roll disadvantage. Annoys me to see this mechanic imported into other games, especially if it doesn't fit.. like say OSE, Mothership.

I would like to see similar to 3E, where multiclassing was a little more restrictive in 5e.

I have more grips with 5e than likes at this point, so I/we just moved to other systems. I did like it until the game began to get bloated - which started around Xanthers guide. I began with the playtest(2014?), DM'd at GENCON 2014, did AL for awhile, we wrapped up our last campaign with 5e with Frost Maiden in 2/2022. So I don't have much D&D 5e 2024 experience, perused the book and left on the shelf.

 

[Maxperson]

But that isn't "contradiction".

Contradiction is where 90% of the paths forward are actually dead ends, but you won't find that out until you walk into them. When the rules themselves are actually broken, every direction is now (massively) uphill. That's not "potential". That's "become an amateur game designer so you can literally build a whole game yourself, except you paid us for the privilege."

Have you read the 1e rules? Gygax contradicts himself all over the place. DMs should do X! And in another spot DMs should never do X! Where X is the same thing.

 

[Reynard]

Have you read the 1e rules? Gygax contradicts himself all over the place. DMs should do X! And in another spot DMs should never do X! Where X is the same thing.

Examples would be helpful.

 

[nevin]

Yeah I have to agree. The very concept of a Team Leader means sat some point the team agreed to that. Just the act of joining a group is indicative of adjusting your actions to fit in. If you don't want anyone affecting your decisions there is only one clear path. Do everything alone.

Except all you agreed to was that it was easier to follow whoever was in front. Why is that (perfectly real effect) a problem?

Frankly, it comes across as your playstyle being openly hostile to the very idea of teamwork. "Ew! No! Then I might accidentally do something because someone told me to, and not exclusively because I wanted to!" Someone else coming up with a plan automatically motivates you to disrupt that plan, simply because following it would mean you had subordinated yourself to them.

 

[Maxperson]

That isn't what was said though.

You are drawing a false equivalence between "someone was in front, so it was easier to go the same direction" with "someone else told me exactly what to do and what to be and I was simply a witness to it".

That's you creating the thing you're claiming is there.

Why is what I actually described bad?

Because your description in that post was itself a False Equivalence, because that's not how the term "Leader" was being used. You were trying to change what "Leader" meant, so I ignored that attempt and actually responded to "Leader" as it was being used in the discussion.

Person 1: "It's horrible to be left behind by the party."
Person 2: "Being left behind isn't that bad, because you can just track the party and rejoin it later."
Person 1: " Being left behind is abandonment and that doesn't feel good."
You: "Maybe the party just went left at the intersection. Why is that bad?"
Me: "It's bad because being abandoned is emotionally harmful."
You: "False Equivalence! That's not what I said."

In 4e leaders direct others, pushing and pulling them, as well as giving other bonuses that represent the other PC doing as the leader directs.

Commander's Strike: "With a should, you command an ally to attack."
Furious Smash: "You slam your shield into your enemy, bash him with your weapon’s haft, or drive your shoulder into his gut. Your attack doesn’t do much damage—but your anger inspires your ally to match your ferocity."
Wolf Pack Tactics: "Step by step, you and your friends surround the enemy."
And on and on.

These are all examples of the leader directing the play of others. In some cases it can be ignored. In others the other PC has no choice but to do as the leader wishes.