Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8716478" data-attributes="member: 6790260">When has equipment been relevant for monsters in 5e?There is no "default rule." 4e never published explicit "rules" for how to design monsters. Any ideas like this were always calculated from observations of published monsters.Skill DCs did not "scale with level" unless the DM chose for them to do so. That is explicitly not what the Page 42 rules are for. They are for determining what a skill DC should be, if you already know that it's supposed to be challenging for an Xth level character.Doors had fixed break DCs in 4e. I'm fairly sure I can get you the table if you really want it. It has always been false to assert that the difficulty numbers of objects or beings in the world automatically scaled up the moment players did.I cannot question your experience, particularly not of 5e. Your feelings are yours, and require no validation from anybody, least of all me.But you have made at least two incorrect statements about what the 4e rules do or what the books advise doing. In that sense, relevant to those statements, it is possible for one person to be right, and another to be wrong.You are using two very different senses of "does not work" here, and as a result making an unfair comparison.When you refer to the 4e math, you speak of it working (in the sense that it does what it was designed to do), but your approach to it (and some, as noted mistaken, beliefs about how to use it) caused it to feel wrong to you. Conversely, when you speak of the 5e math "working," you are referring to the fact that some people have gotten enjoyable, successful games out of it, therefore it cannot fail to work in a universal sense.These two senses are sharply different, and one is clearly more favorable than the other. When I say "the math of 5e does not work, while the math of 4e does," I am using that in one consistent sense. The math of 4e, as actually presented in the books using its default state, performs the functions for which it was designed admirably and consistently across a large spectrum of possible inputs and outputs, with the few exceptions generally arising from the impact of features that are not directly considered by that math, or from attempting to down-scale a very high-level monster to extreme low levels (e.g. 1-3.) Conversely, the math of 5e, as actually presented in the books using its default state, frequently produces undesirable results, specifically in the areas of: resting, healing, damage output, class balance, encounter balance, and non-combat contributions. It requires active attention from the DM essentially at all times in order to correct for these issues. This characteristic is not present in 4e. Thus, 5e math "does not work."Yes, I'm aware. I am of the opinion this is vastly superior design, because it means the classes can actually be designed in such a way that you know what you're getting. I find it silly--well beyond the point of unreason, even--for someone to get so upset that their damage-dealing, armor-wearing, non-magical, weapon-using character is called "Ranger" rather than "Fighter" by the rules that it makes them unable to play the character anymore.What's in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet. (Emphasis added.) But apparently if you call a rose a fnord, you destroy its fragrance in D&D-logic.I disagree with much of this, as well, but have no real interest in even further litigating the 4e edition war. Suffice it to say, I think 4e was massively a victim of circumstance, faulty presentation, and (in some cases extremely) poor decision-making on WotC's part, in ways that had literally nothing whatsoever to do with the rules themselves.More to the point: the archetypes all existed, and were very well-supported. You had the swordmage as your martial-inclined spellcaster. You had the entire Primal power source instead of literally just Druid and maybe Ranger a bit. You had support for playing Ezio Auditore and being damned awesome while doing it. You had the Warlord, and it was really good, and it finally re-introduced the "leader of men" archetype D&D has been missing for so long. And all of these things were available from level 1. No need to wait for subclass. No need to push all the way to 6th, 10th, 15th level before you're allowed to get your cool stuff.Yes, it meant people had to stop being so precious about writing "Fighter" at the top of their character sheet. That's still something I think most D&D players need to get the heck over. People are so willing to do what works when it comes to zany madcap character schemes. I truly do not understand why the exact same logic applied to what character class one chooses to play is blasphemous anathema.It is absolutely NOT the most user-friendly edition of D&D ever if you consider DMs to be users. That edition was 4e.Er...no. Sorry. Having someone who can do 80% of my job and also 100% of his job and also 60% of a third person's job is not "balancing out." It just, flat, isn't.Which wouldn't be a problem, if non-supernatural fighters were allowed to have nice things. But because they aren't supernatural, they are forced into the ghetto of "less capable than actual IRL Olympic athletes." And that's really the problem. The same people who demand that Fighters be totally devoid of the supernatural (even though they apparently accept things like self-healing...) also demand that the supernatural be always, consistently, significantly superior to the non-supernatural.That's not an acceptable state of affairs. One of the three requirements must be broken: either Fighters must be allowed to be powerful without being supernatural, or they must be allowed to be supernatural so they can be powerful, or supernatural character options must be brought down so they are not objectively more powerful than non-supernatural alternatives. But because all three paths are unacceptable to the pro-caster crowd--not surprising, this is asking them to voluntarily give up power, solely so other people can gain, a rationally self-interested agent would never do that--we are left in the limbo we've been in since 2e at least.I would not be at all surprised if modern players had far, far fewer hangups about a ton of this stuff. I think the vast majority of new players brought in by 5e would be baffled at the concept of being so attached to the label "Fighter" that you flip the table if someone tells you, "Oh, you want to start out doing lots of damage? Ranger is a better fit for that starting out. Fighters can become good damage-dealers if you work for it though!" Likewise, it was older players who turned up their noses at these newfangled dragonborn and their obvious Mary Sue/Gary Stu tendencies. Someone working at WotC during the D&D Next playtest even published a blog post explicitly making a bunch of jokes about dragonborn fans and how he couldn't understand their bad opinions (it was clearly tongue-in-cheek....but it also, like with Mearls' jokes about "shouting hands back on," clearly indicated which side of the edition wars the staff had rooted for.) And now, dragonborn are the third-most-popular non-human race in 5e, after elves and half-elves, at least as of the last time we got D&D Beyond statistics, having risen past tieflings.Of course, as you say, neither of us has any proof of these assertions. But I am pretty well convinced that they are true. There is a changing of the guard going on, driven almost purely by generational turnover. (After all, if Gygax were still alive today, he'd be in his mid-80s. The earliest adopters of D&D are succumbing to the ravages of time. Genuinely a loss for the hobby in many ways, but at the same time, an opportunity for growth and change.)Oh I'm with you on that. PPs were great. EDs were even better, but I can see how there are folks who wouldn't want those. I love myself some high-flying action or even outright gonzo gaming.</blockquote>

Verification