Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 7940659" data-attributes="member: 93670">lmaro's point would have been a good one had you made one, instead all he did is jump in late and not realize that you were speaking useless words that don't support your claims so he too was told that your point was never actually relevant to the discussion.Given your insistence of this being relevant It's clear that you simply don't understand the problem.  To bastardize the oft made "maybe 5e is not the game for you if you want that" point, maybe this is not the discussion for you & your pointslwe are talking about 5e not d20, 5e being overly "paired down" is the problem[spoiler]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">additional monster abilities</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Monster building/customization</li> </ul>[/spoiler]Also missing the problem.  You can add stuff to monsters sure, but that doesn't change that there is no meaningful tactical combat & the attrition of combat goes away from going to sleep rather than angling for forced march penalties at the end of the day.[spoiler]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">revised classes</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">new classes</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Extra classes</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Monster PC races</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> </ul>[/spoiler]adding magnets to the fridge does not change the fact that the fridge lacks shelves you can use to arrange that trunk of groceries I mentioned earlier inside the fridge.  Not only that, they did not in any way notably change the 5e system itself just by having a couple more options.[spoiler]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">revising advantage which methods of ‘spending’ advantage to get additional results.</li> </ul>[/spoiler]This too has nothing to do with the discussion & you have not shown how it represents any significant changes to how 5e plays at the table[spoiler]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">new spell systems.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">alternative proficiency systems.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Developed tool proficiencies</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Madness</li> </ul>[/spoiler]I can't even address this because it could be anything & any answer can simply be an endless rabbit hole of  "no I meant a different one" until you are willing to be specific about which and how they relate to the problems raised.[spoiler]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">new feats</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Racial feats</li> </ul>[/spoiler]None of which address the specific problems raised in the thread or significantly change the core of 5e even if some might change how a particular pc or class changes.[spoiler]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Expanded actions between adventures</li> </ul>[/spoiler]This one was actually worse because it spotlights how 5e does not support meaningful attrition of resources but added ways that players can expect to gather themselves more phatlewtz.  It's made worse by the fact that at no point has wotc ever published guidelines for awarding downtime in any public format.[/spoiler][spoiler]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Psionics</li> </ul>[/spoiler]Needed for certain settings, but last I checked it was still UA & more importantly 5e is still massively problematic with many parts missing for the most significant of them (darksun).  Darksun without rules for exploration, foraging, substandard equipment, & much more with PCs who reover from the rigors of life in apost apocalyptic desert hellscape by sleeping through the night in a ritually cast 3rd level improved forcecube wotc refuses to errata is problematic.[spoiler]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Patrons</li> </ul>[/spoiler]This was admittedly a nice improvement, but the key detail is that it did not address any of the problems raised & literally has nothing to do with them. What is more glaring is the fact that it would have been even more impactful & continue with turning up the simple in a more robust complex system that allowed for attrition of resources over time & tactical combat without huge amounts of homebrew.[spoiler]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Vehicle rules</li> </ul>[/spoiler]Now you are just throwing out random things... This changes things in relation to the original problems you dismissed how?[spoiler]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Firearms and futuristic weapons</li> </ul>[/spoiler]it's not a crossbow it's a rifle bro!  Even having payed into the low teens with a gunslinger in the party it literally did not change the game & certainly did nothing to address any of the original problems raised.[spoiler]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Followers</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Strongholds</li> </ul>[/spoiler]Credit to mercer for trying & I had my hopes, but in a world where you recover all resources by resting for the night you don't need to have followers caring for your wagons of lewt.  I was excited about strongholds, but it was still hampered by the 5e system.  This one seems to be just a random adition to the list with nothing relevant though.[spoiler]<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Alternate worlds</li> </ul>[/spoiler]It's pedantic to say that ravenloft is not a world, but barovia is just one domain within ravenloft and it was heavily faerunized complete with development of AL factions rather than anything that does exost in ravenloft filling those roles.  They learned their lessons when they did eberron though & it was a great much needed addition.  More importantly this dart does not even hit the same all as the metaphorical target representing the problems raised before you jumped in[spoiler]There are so many many ways that 5e could be developed in time...if... and this is a big if... If there was a market for it beyond, ultra-committed forum posters.Saying that 5e isn’t modular because of critical hits affecting paladins is a really patchy argument.[/spoiler]There have been a lot of other examples including the failure that is 5e's own variant flanking & facing rules without any meaningful AoO rules & the very specific problems already raised in this thread before you jumped in that hamper trying to solve it</blockquote>

Verification