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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 6955472" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I do think that is what happened with 5E. The game is made for beginner to intermediate players and DMs. There are not a ton of complex areas as-is. That doesn't mean that there can't be. The system was designed with customizability in mind. So the first step in attempt to address ANY game issue is to see if you can modify the game mechanics to get what you want.  I havent played Out of the Abyss, so I can't really comment on that. And my familiarity with Celtavian amounts to a thread where he did not seem the most reasonable of folks, so I cannot take his view as anything meaningful. I do own the book and I have read through a good portion of it, and I don't really recall being that concerned about what i saw. However, reading the adventure is a poor replacement for actually playing it, so I certainly could be wrong. I don't think that your points are without merit. There are criticisms of 5E that I think are valid to one degree or another. I agree with you that I'd like more variety in monster abilities and capabilities. It'd also be nice to have some more high level monsters. However, these are problems that I can address myself, and through no great effort. It's pretty simple, honestly. My high level campaign is running just fine, and that campaign does seem to be more in line with how you play (big threats, fewer total encounters per day, etc).I honestly think that you are overlooking player proficiency and how big of an impact that has on the game. It's really not "easy to break" the game without some level of mastery. Take players who are familiar with past editions, or even just with RPGs in general, and you will find them more capable of testing the game's limits. However, depending on the group, proficient players may recognize such "flaws" in design as exploitable ways to ensure victory, and other players may see them as boring ways to try and always "win". Player mindset is a big factor here. The game does seem to slant things toward ranged combat, to some extent. I agree with you on that. However, the idea that it's "cool" is one I'm not so sure about. My players don't all specialize in ranged attacks precisely because they tend to think of melee combat as the cool area of the game. My players are proficient enough to see feat combos that are highly potent, and class synergies and so on. But they aren't compelled to use them. They don't generally multi-class unless they have a really strong story related reason to do so. They aren't building their characters solely to win combats. I don't know what it is exactly about your game that makes such a big deal out of what are minor concerns in mine. However, my guess would have to be your players' level of skill and their play style. My suggestion would not be to add options, but to remove them. The fact that almost all of them are multi-classed speaks volumes...especially when you refer to them most often by one class (i.e. "the monk" rather than "the monk-fighter"). Maybe removing feats and multi-classing from the game for a while would help things. Maybe your player should would then think more tactically and come up with ideas for how to resolve situations rather than simply viewing character building as being "tactical".</blockquote>

Verification