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

[mamba]

Balance is not important at all. I don't think it improves the play experience one bit.

and I disagree

I realize that may be unpopular, but it is based on extensive play and there is no compelling evidence or proof to the contrary.

how extensive, your group? That is called anecdotal. Also, have you tried that with truly / intentionally unbalanced games?

You be you. You have the same choices and options as everyone else at the table, with the same balance implications. Pick the options for how you want to play.

at which point whoever needs to feel superior to enjoy the game might not be in a position to, but yeah, I am certainly not going to play X so someone who needs to feel superior can enjoy playing a superior Y

 

[Nebulous]

Try Dragonbane or Shadowdark. People in those communities actually like the games they play, instead of whining all the time.

Maybe because both of those games adhere to a design philosophy, instead of to a marketing philosophy?

Dragonbane is awesome if you want a more old school feel to your fantasy. Nimble 2.0 is great if you want that high fantasy D&D tone but with streamlined rules.

 

[Nebulous]

I have been playing 5.5 for 6 months now. My opinion is that it is good that Crawford left.

Personally, I will not run 5.5. If I continue with D&D, then it will be 5.0.

And, noticing how they are building more 5.0 elements into DDB makes me think that a large portion of people are sticking with the original.

Can you specify the parts of 5.5 that most drive you away?

 

[ECMO3]

how extensive, your group? That is called anecdotal.

Sure, it is anecdotal, that is the only evidence I have though. The repeated claims that balance is good are often made without even that, as if it is an assumption or foregone conclusion.

I am currently playing in 6 campaigns; 3 weekly campaigns, 1 biweekly, 2 that don't have a schedule and occasional one-shots on top of that. Over the last year or so I am playing anywhere from 11 hours minimum to 40 hours maximum of D&D a week, probably averaging around 15 (median). This has varied more or less over the time since 2016 when I started 5e. This does not include prep time for the two games I DM.

I've seen lots of things cause problems at the table, I've never seen imbalance do this though. On the other hand rules that are implemented to better balance things are frequently klunky, non-sensical or just flat ignored.

Also, have you tried that with truly / intentionally unbalanced games?

2104 5E is unbalanced, and the 2024 version is even more unbalanced day-to-day in play. The unbalance in the 2014 was consistent and predictable, 2024 is less so with very wide swings based on build choices and leveling. Both of those versions of 5E are "truly unbalanced" in terms of mechanics.

When it comes to "intentionally unbalanced" - trying to unbalance something with mechanics is as bad IMO as trying to balance it, as I noted in earlier discussions.

at which point whoever needs to feel superior to enjoy the game might not be in a position to,

Ok a few things. First it is a minority that want this in play, so it is not likely.

Second they will be in position to because of how luck plays into it. Picking the strongest options at the table does not mean you will actually be the strongest in play, because luck is a factor in that. But you will have the strongest available player (within whatever constraints you choose or the scenario places on you).

It is easy - you see the options. Pick what suits you and the character you want to play. Let others pick what they want to play.

I'm not saying there will never be disappointment. There will be, and IME it is people picking the strongest options that are most often faced disappointed when they do not pan out as overpowering in play as they want them to be.

 

[Lanefan]

I've seen lots of things cause problems at the table, I've never seen imbalance do this though. On the other hand rules that are implemented to better balance things are frequently klunky, non-sensical or just flat ignored.

Forever or permanent imbalance caused by factors other than luck is generally bad.

Temporary pendulum-style imbalance, or long-term imbalance caused by sheer luck, is generally fine.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Forever or permanent imbalance caused by factors other than luck is generally bad.

Temporary pendulum-style imbalance, or long-term imbalance caused by sheer luck, is generally fine.

if you mean like the long term influence from your luck on something like your rolled stats i'm going to have to disagree with you on that one, everyone should have the right to at least start out on a level playing field before the dice get a chance to screw them over.

 

[Lanefan]

if you mean like the long term influence from your luck on something like your rolled stats i'm going to have to disagree with you on that one, everyone should have the right to at least start out on a level playing field before the dice get a chance to screw them over.

The level playing field ends the moment the first dice are rolled.

It also depends, though, on how lethal the game is likely to be particularly at low levels. In a reasonably lethal game the odds are you're going to get to repeat the rolling-up process, maybe several times, and try out a series of different characters.

Via running a lot of numbers from our games I've also found that starting stats play a surprisingly minor (as in, maybe or maybe not even statistically relevant) role in determining the projected lifespan or career length of a character.

 

[ECMO3]

Forever or permanent imbalance caused by factors other than luck is generally bad.

This claim is often repeated, but I do not believe it and have seen no evidence it is true.

 

[ECMO3]

if you mean like the long term influence from your luck on something like your rolled stats i'm going to have to disagree with you on that one, everyone should have the right to at least start out on a level playing field before the dice get a chance to screw them over.

A lot of tables and players prefer to roll abilities. I don't know if it is most since 2024 was published, but it is still a lot.

If you are rolling stats it is the dice right from the get go.

In one of the games I DM I give players the option. Well over half choose to roll abilities. In another game I DM rolling is mandatory, but I use a custom method. I've never had a player in that game ask to do point buy instead.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I think MichaelSomething subsists on the tears of new players and those with busy work schedules.

Like how Snarf despises bards with every fiber of their whole being.

I do not. I simply want what is best for D&D. And we all know the quality of the players is the biggest factor in how well a D&D game does. And what produces quality players better then Gygaxian Naturalism??