NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8978720" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Whereas if a player gets Tasha’s before I do, I only need to read their character once made to see what it’s strengths and weaknesses are in order to better run a fun and challenging game, same as if I ran a PHB only game. I don’t need to check for balance, because nothing they’ve printed so far has been outside the phb balance, and the PHB is much narrower than folks act like it is. They literally are, they’ll just be revised versions. The 2014 core books are not the exclusive entirety of 5e D&D. New revised versions will still be 5e. This whole line of thought relies on bunk premises. That is false. Anyone reading the thread can see very easily that it is false. It is wrong, but it’s also not what they said. [spoiler]1. 5th Edition Core Rulebooks are going away.The 5E Monster Manual, Player’s Handbook, and Dungeon Master’s Guide will not stay in print. New players must either use purely digital rulebooks (which works for some people) or find a new version.[/spoiler] this dishonestly indicates that the 2024 rule books won’t be 5e, and even implies (accidentally if we give them benefit of the doubt, but they refuse to change it so I don’t care if it was accidental) that wotc will reduce or remove support for 5e that isn’t digital, especially by saying “or find soemthing new” in contrast to that statement. That isn’t just marketing or opinion, it is a communication presented as statements of fact that are not accurate, and indeed are inaccurate in ways that we can and should expect them to know are innacurate. That’s dishonest. [spoiler]We aim to keep the spirit of tabletop alive by producing beautiful, inviting versions of the core rulebooks for those who prefer to play face-to-face and those who don’t want to pay a monthly subscription to play.[/spoiler]Indicating as if factually that wotc won’t be keeping the spirit of tabletop alive, and that sticking with official 5e will require a monthly subscription, which isn’t remotely in evidence. Also positions them rhetorically as the saviors of tabletop roleplaying, which is insanely arrogant, and relies upon fear-mongering sourced in, at best, debunked rumors and “reporting” from known liars. [spoiler]We want to keep 5E vibrant and strong at the heart of a community of players and publishers. Your investment in 5E will be supported by Project Black Flag because it is compatible with the game you already know.”[/spoiler]This is the only part of this bullet point that is just marketing. The only issue is that combined with the above it implies a disparity between this and what wotc is doing, which is not in evidence. This is a disingenuous query. It is extremely clear that they are saying no such thing, and that you are twisting their words and using pedantry to target the way the talk rather than the substance of their statements. So you’re…literally just nitpicking. What purpose do you think this behavior serves?Yes, it does. You’re quite clear, and are being pretty egregiously gaslit, talked down to for no reason, and generally snarked at way beyond what could ever be called appropriate. Right, and the idea that wotc is abandoning 5e by revising it a bit, while KP is “keeping it alive” by…revising it a bit, is dishonest. It is misleading, indicating a dynamic that isn’t extant from any evidence available to us, and relies on viewing “5e” as only the 2014 core book set in one part, but defining it much more loosely in another, in order to paint themselves as the saviors of 5e D&D. Your apperently interpretation of the definition you snidely posted (dictionary quoting, really?) indicated that the statement needs be incorrect in order to be dishonest. They are saying that this is incorrect. It’s not remotely a confusing statement. No, they’re right. Wotc material is vastly better balanced, and its playtesting isn’t remotely “dubious”, you just dislike the communication about it because they don’t break down the nitty gritty math of the results. If you think 5e is erratic about power levels, I’m not sure what to even say to that. Did you ever play any D&D before 4e? Because 5e is barely less balanced than 4e, just more loosely defined, but previous editions were about as balanced as a tumbleweed that’s been run over a few times, in comparison. There is an immense different between official 5e and any 3pp I’ve read this far, from small publications to Green Ronin and Kobold Press. I don’t have to review 5e books before letting players use them. At all. They just work. I have to rebuild KP books before use. I mean, people still call the Hexblade and Gloomstalker “broken”, so I don’t expect to see much great balance analysis online about wotc products, but come on, this is kinda silly. It’s like people screeching that the ranger was broken in 4e and the assassin was “worthless”, when in reality the power difference was barely noticeable in play, akin to differently built members of either class. 4e had exponentially more feats than would have been reasonable. It had too many by a wider margin than most people think. It had so many feats most players I know absolutely despised even thinking about feats, much less choosing one, by the time our 4e games finally slowed down as we grudgingly checked out 5e around 2015ish. We were grateful for the character builder separating feats in such a way we could just only look at a couple dozen at most, and pretend the rest didn’t exist, especially after essentials came out.</blockquote>

Verification