D&D 5E (2024) Is 5E better because of Crawford and Perkins leaving?

[AlViking]

Not addressing what I said there

Did I misunderstand? My takeaway is that you believe natural language is inferior to technical writing. IMHO (and it would seem the authors of 5e) technical language is dry, a barrier to entry to newbies and meanwhile the rules were just as contentious in 3e. I can always imagine a rulebook that is completely clear and understood by everyone, I've just never seen it in a game with the complexity of D&D.

 

[TiQuinn]

Seems like a poor policy, since people with older printings will have incorrect text and not know it.

Been this way forever, and that's typical amongst game companies. Errata is meant to be corrected as it is found. If they took the habit of announcing it, they'd also probably get accused of trying to goose their sales numbers.

 

[AlViking]

And people believe the line that 5e is written in natural language

The thing is, the game already has a standardized (and functional!) way to express that. It’s used by the Ready action, and in the corrected text of the feature in question. Someone apparently just forgot that when they initially wrote the feature, and it somehow didn’t get caught and corrected prior to release.

Well, no, they told you you can take an action that is allowed by the rules, but doesn’t do anything. That’s the problem.

It is actually written pretty technically. It’s just also written to sound natural. One of the very noticeable distinctions between 1st and 3rd party content is that 3rd party publishers often lack the technical precision of 1st party content. Which is why this mistake concerned me. It indicated that 5e’s writers may be slipping in what used to be one of their key selling points.

Personally I don't see it as a big issue, the intent was clear. If I'm going to argue about rules I don't like it will be for rules that are completely clear that I disagree with.

In any case it sounds like they changed the wording.

 

[Yaarel]

These two statements are in direct contradiction to each other.

Strengthening the weaker options while at the same time not weakening the stronger options is power creep, all day long: the average has become more powerful.

There is no power creep.

When a player, I evaluate the character options for each feature. I rate them from worst to best: subpar, meh, good, and excellent. (I note if any of the excellent ones are too excellent for their current level or even game breaking. Nerfs are rare but they do happen.) The subpar and meh options are nonviable and dont exist in my eyes. I hate game imbalance because it means fewer choices in a game about choices. Only the good and excellent choices exist in my eyes.

There is no power creep because D&D 2024 filled every decision point with good and excellent choices. Features that didnt even exist because they were subpar, now enter existence with appealing possibilities. Sometimes entire classes, species, and feats, manifest as if out of nowhere because they now offer good and excellent choices.

Barbarians are effectively neutered by changes to their class mechanics and enemy design. Druids' unique features are nerfed in favour of imitating Cleric features. Rangers are derailed into "Hunter's Mark, the class". Monks can't do anything meaningful except punch people and aren't even any better at dealing damage than more versatile classes.

The Lucky feat is nerfed, but a new origin feat confers the exact same benefit to multiple characters, multiple times a day. Healer is nerfed, while Magic Initiate is made significantly stronger. Crafter and Savage Attacker are completely useless in comparison to most options.

Imbalance is baked into every aspect of 2024 5e.

I say there is no power creep. There are still a few options that are concerning. But these are incidental problems, not system problems.

I agree the Lucky feat is too excellent, compared to the rest of the options. (But not broken.) Luck-Fate-Spacetime is an important archetype and needs to be there at the origin level. Yet it merits recalibration. I would split it into Lucky for ones own alliance, and Unlucky against hostiles. These two distinctions are also archetypally significant.

Spellcasting rules are changed to benefit some subclasses and builds over others.

The functionality of the game engine, especially for higher levels, needs every spell in a slot to be about equally appealing. Spell slots need a smooth continuum, that is also used to measure higher level nonspell options.

It is ok if a class feature improves a particular spell, but the spell itself needs to equal the other spells of the slot. I would rather Eldritch Blast be a normal cantrip, with less damage that a Warlock feature can improve.

I know some players want each class to have "niche spells". But I prefer such specializations to be class mechanics, not imbalanced spells.

Numerous options that weren't even considered that strong were made even worse for no reason. Even with a new mechanic, Weapon Mastery, the designers were fully aware that certain masteries were far better than others and would be the primary picks of the majority of players

Because of the variables in play, I expect designers want Weapon Mastery out in the wild with all of the exploitable combos, before finetuning the Masteries for balance.


Anyway, I love the game engine of D&D 2024. I like how it arranges backgrounds, feats, species, and classes. It is a great consolidation of 2014. 2014 did an excellent job of nerfing the broken options of earlier editions. 2024 does an excellent job of improving the subpar options.

D&D is an evolving game. It is valuable when DMs and players voice their personal preferences, while accepting a kind of democracy whose majority determines the eventual outcomes. Part of the job of the designers is figuring out how to implement conflictive preferences.

 

[Charlaquin]

Been this way forever, and that's typical amongst game companies. Errata is meant to be corrected as it is found. If they took the habit of announcing it, they'd also probably get accused of trying to goose their sales numbers.

You know there’s an official errata document, right…?

 

[MichaelSomething]

I think you should try to make the game enjoyable for everyone at the table. Sometimes you can't do that, but when you can you should IMO.

Sorry but I believe that D&D should purge the weak from its ranks. If you lack sufficient tactics/system matery/fictional positioning then you deserve negative outcomes in your D&D game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Personally I don't see it as a big issue, the intent was clear. If I'm going to argue about rules I don't like it will be for rules that are completely clear that I disagree with.

In any case it sounds like they changed the wording.

The problem is not that their intent was unclear or that I didn’t like the rule. It was that there’s a standardized way of writing what they were trying to make the rule do, that has been used consistently in all other cases, but this time they just… forgot how to write for their own game for a minute. I’m glad they fixed it, but it’s a weird mistake to have made and I just hope it isn’t a sign of quality control slipping.

 

[tetrasodium]

Did I misunderstand? My takeaway is that you believe natural language is inferior to technical writing. IMHO (and it would seem the authors of 5e) technical language is dry, a barrier to entry to newbies and meanwhile the rules were just as contentious in 3e. I can always imagine a rulebook that is completely clear and understood by everyone, I've just never seen it in a game with the complexity of D&D.

Yes drastically. You are pushing the erroneous idea pointed out in bold

For whatever reason there is this , (erroneous) idea of that technical writing required and immediate catapult into the realm of knockoff ikea engrish assembly instructions. The proofreading for something like d&d should (at minimum) be filtered through something like technical writing for dummies if not a full on technical writing set of courses rather than perpetuating a bucket of bad pixie dust.

I deliberately chose to include a link to technical writing for dummies because one of the earliest concepts it covers is striking the right balance between clarity and losing the reader. In fact if you've ever read one of the for dummies books it was probably a good example of technical writing that does a good job of striking the balance needed for its intended reader