Unearthed Arcana Light, Dark, Underdark - November's Unearthed Arcana

Interesting stuff.

 

[JohnLynch]

Well, it's certainly not to please pre 3e fans like you claim

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. The fact [some|most] 2e fans turn out to be happy with 5e feats after the book was published does not change the reason this design decision was made before the book was published.

4e was a blip on the D&D radar

This is not relevant to the point I was making.

and if you're using that as the base comparison, that's....pretty flawed. D&D existed long before 4e.

You are making my point for me. Before 4e characters at level 1 were weaker than 4e level 1 characters were. 4e was considered after the fact to be an unsuccessful edition by the designers who created 5e. When deciding how to make a new edition that would please fans of 3e and earlier they decided to go with a power level that was closer to earlier editions instead of going with a power level that was closer to 4e. This was done because it was believed more fans would be happier with this approach. Therefore characters in 5e are at the power level they are at level 1 to please those fans who liked earlier editions of D&D and disliked 4e.

None if this is intended as judgement, but merely a recitation of facts. But we can agree to disagree on this point as well (although to be honest we don't seem to disagree. Perhaps the way I'm communicating my point is simply unclear).

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. The fact [some|most] 2e fans turn out to be happy with 5e feats after the book was published does not change the reason this design decision was made before the book was published.

Do you have any evidence that shows the reason they made feats optional was to please pre 3e fans? I'm here to tell you, as a pre 3e fan, that I play with feats on in 5e, and that pre 3e fans all play with them turned off because we all don't like them is a false implication that's not true.

You are making my point for me. Before 4e characters at level 1 were weaker than 4e level 1 characters were. 4e was considered after the fact to be an unsuccessful edition by the designers who created 5e. When deciding how to make a new edition that would please fans of 3e and earlier they decided to go with a power level that was closer to earlier editions instead of going with a power level that was closer to 4e. This was done because it was believed more fans would be happier with this approach. Therefore characters in 5e are at the power level they are at level 1 to please those fans who liked earlier editions of D&D and disliked 4e.

None if this is intended as judgement, but merely a recitation of facts. But we can agree to disagree on this point as well (although to be honest we don't seem to disagree. Perhaps the way I'm communicating my point is simply unclear).

You said 5e 1st level PCs are weak. That's only true when compared against one of the editions of D&D, and an edition that didn't have a very long shelf life. The shortest lifespan, IIRC, of any major redesign of D&D in fact. Compared to every other edition, 5e level 1 PCs are not weak. In fact they are stronger than any level 1 PC was for 25 years of the game's lifecycle. That's not making your point for you. That's directly refuting your point. You're ignoring most of D&D's lifecycle for a rather short period you randomly selected to make a blanket statement. People need to stop assuming that when people talk about D&D, they are talking about 4e like there was nothing that came before it. According to your logic, if they really wanted to please old school fans, they would have made level 1 PCs where you rolled for hp instead of starting with max, and the hit dice of the classes would all be shifted down one dice category. d4s for wizards again. But they didn't. So your assumption sort of goes out the window.

 

[JohnLynch]

Do you have any evidence that shows the reason they made feats optional was to please pre 3e fans? I'm here to tell you, as a pre 3e fan, that I play with feats on in 5e, and that pre 3e fans all play with them turned off because we all don't like them is a false implication that's not true.

I did go looking but unfortunately after all the overhauls and deleted content I can no longer find their reasons for making feats optional.

You said 5e 1st level PCs are weak. That's only true when compared against one of the editions of D&D

Yes. I thought it was clear that I was making a comparison of 5e level 1 characters and 4e level 1 characters.nif it wasn't then I apologise. At least now we are on the same page and can continue the discussion without talking past each other.

That's not making your point for you. That's directly refuting your point.

My post was comparing 5e characters with 4e characters. Again I apologise for not making that clearer.

People need to stop assuming that when people talk about D&D, they are talking about 4e

Again I am making it clear (now, at least) that I am talking about 4e characters. At no point did I assume anyone else was talking about 4e.

Anyway it doesn't seem that we have anything productive to discuss so I'm going to drop this conversation. Apologies if my post offended you. At no point was that my intent.

 

[Radaceus]

well this went quickly from a dissection of the new UA article to an all out editions war on an arbitrary topic

 

[Azurewraith]

One day we shall all live in harmony untill then 4e is king and any one that disagrees is a primitive bufoon

 

[Radaceus]

One day we shall all live in harmony untill then 4e is king and any one that disagrees is a primitive bufoon

That's what they said about, Disco, Breaking, New Wave, Grunge...

But the Rock remains solid, long live the spirit of Gary_1E/2E<skip>5E!!

 

[Uchawi]

Not ignored. They saw it in 4e. Which they considered a business failure and appealed to too small of a group of players, and got tons of feedback that supported that in the form of the surveys and gamers voting with their wallet. I'm sure it was a conscious decision to not go the same route 4e did by giving the mundane classes all kinds of powers and abilities that pretty much made them not mundane. So not ignored.

I agree with you on the 4E AEDU structure, it was a concept a lot of previous edition D&D players did not like. But AEDU is not the same as adding flexibility of choice or easy expansion of class ability which spells or maneuvers offer. You could still have a different feel for each class and/or sub-systems whether it is a martial class or spell caster.

 

[Leugren]

Not pleased at having to wade through so much off-topic pettifoggery in this thread to find the posts that actually talk about the UA article.

 

[Azurewraith]

Same way i am not pleased that sorcerers get a pet that acts on its own and Bm hunters get left as a trap.

 

[gyor]

I'll point out that if you want a beast companion that acts on its own, the ranger can cast conjure animals. But such a beast will be weak.