D&D 5E (2024) Martials and Magic. Two Years of Testing.

[Emerikol]

This leads to a serious question.

Should Fighters be required to never have anything complex, for the people who like both the Fighter archetype and complexity, so that the class is always specifically "made for" the people who like both the Fighter archetype and simplicity?

That is what I thought subclasses were for? If second wind was part of subclass #2 then I could ban it in my home games but still have a game.

That seems pretty one-true-way-ist, doubly so when we have a game that they refuse to create alternatives because they aren't starkly different. If we can't have a Warlord, the Fighter has to be able to accommodate both people who like simplicity and people who like complexity.

I think you misread my comment. I was not advocating against an option for you.

This is one of those areas where we have some pretty serious problems in the community. It's fine--by itself--to want some classes as simple, some classes as complex. It's fine--by itself--to want some specific class to be the way you like best. And it's fine--by itself--to want very few classes.

It's not fine for a single game to enforce a simple/complex divide with classes and always give specific fans what they want while not giving other fans what they want AND having very few options to choose from. Because that inherently, and unavoidably, means that you're telling some people "Your preferences aren't welcome here." That's a serious, serious problem if the game is presenting itself as a generic, built-for-everyone RPG.

Well the simple class they provided was close to acceptable. They just put second wind in the base. It tells me despite my speaking with the designers directly that they chose to completely ignore the issue. Hey losing us was no great loss apparently. I don't play 5e and I didn't buy it. If I could undo my purchase of 4e I would but at that time my preferences were less well defined. I didn't like it but it took some time to realize what was destroying the feel of the game for me.

 

[tetrasodium]

I've already shown how neovancian isn't relevant,

No, other than a misleading claim you've not shown anything of the sort & that's largely because you insist on limiting the hypothetical scope of play to level 20 where the stepdown on slot progression has maximum hypothetical impact

Spoiler: side by side

However any possible gains that stem from that step down are entirely inverted rather than just erased because upcastable neovancian prep allows players to have more prepared spells of all slot levels including those single slot levels and to burn the slots themselves with less restraint should there ever be a scenario where one might come in handy

 

[Sorinth]

"Encouraging" would imply that it is fully optional, but rewarding if pursued.

It is not fully optional. It is absolutely mandatory.

That is why it's a problem. That it is mandatory. That's why I gave the examples I gave upthread. A cookbook that refused to give any measurements for its ingredients because "well I don't know your taste" would not just be a bad cookbook, it would be a laughingstock, a joke, the kind of thing that gets brought up at parties as one of those "no, that's impossible" believe-it-or-not conversation pieces. Both a cookbook and a rulebook are instruction sets. Why should one get a pass for literally not communicating how to do that, and the other be held to task for even occasionally committing an error?

I haven't read all your posts in this thread, but if you stick to a published adventure and the PCs follow the "expected" path then what exactly is the DM having to invent themselves?

Creative solutions should already be rewarded by the rules. If creativity is not rewarded by the rules as they already exist, then they are bad rules and should be replaced.

That you think having rules means creativity is automatically extinguished is precisely the problem I have with forcing GMs to be literally constantly re-designing the system. The hostility to the very idea that rules are helpful tools IS the problem.

Just to be clear are you saying a DM who has to come up with a DC on the fly because the rules didn't tell them exactly which number to use is the DM "re-designing the system"? If not can you provide some examples of stuff you had to "re-design the system" around?

Because I very much see the rules as they are being helpful tools, so I'm not hostile to that idea at all, it's in fact the great draw of being a D&D DM, you have a bunch of tools and you build something out of it.

 

[Zardnaar]

I've already shown how neovancian isn't relevant, because even if every spell was used for combat, it can't match the 3.5e wizard in combat. And even if some of those spells are used for non-combat, so will the 3.5e wizard, because they prep commonly used non-combat spells, not obscure ones like Wipe Nose of Dragon or whatever. The versatility isn't relevant, because it fails to be good enough to match the 3.5e wizard even with that versatility in slots.

So first, I play both 3.5e and 5e to high level, including 20, so it's relevant. Second, It doesn't matter, because the 3.5e wizard wins at low level as well. Look at 5th level.

The 5e wizard has 9 spell slots and 9 spells prepared to pick from. I'm using 18 Int for both. The 3.5e wizard has 12 spell slots that can be up to 12 different spells, which include combat, commonly encountered utility, and/or hybrid utility/combat spells. That's much closer, yes, but it's still 25% more spell slots and it's likely that all or almost all can be cast before the next rest. As I mentioned earlier, vancian wizards aren't in the habit of memorizing spells that are unlikely to be used. It's highly unlikely that the vancian wizard would have more than 3 spells unused, so at a minimum he's equal to the 5e wizard and on many days will be better and use 10, 11 or 12 spells.

Relevant to your game and table sure. Cf 20th to 20th.

More Relevant would be lvl 6 and 10 comparisons imho.

 

[Maxperson]

because you insist on limiting the hypothetical scope of play to level 20 where the stepdown on slot progression has maximum hypothetical impact

I literally just gave you an example of 5th level wizards to compare and your neovancian wizard at best equaled the 3.5e wizard, and much of the time didn't quite do that well. But hey, I guess 5th is the new 20th.

 

[Zardnaar]

I literally just gave you an example of 5th level wizards to compare and your neovancian wizard at best equaled the 3.5e wizard, and much of the time didn't quite do that well. But hey, I guess 5th is the new 20th.

Generally if you have ro pick a specific example to support an argument and ignore everything else outside that scenario you lose the argue.

In that specific scenario sure. Overall that the first 10 levels matter.

 

[Maxperson]

Generally if you have ro pick a specific example to support an argument and ignore everything else outside that scenario you lose the argue.

In that specific scenario sure. Overall that the first 10 levels matter.

What specific scenario. The 3.5e wizard was better at level 5 and at 20. There was no specificity involved. The 3.5e wizard just outpaces the 5e wizard by more and more as it goes up in levels, so the only place the 5e wizard might be better is at levels 1-4, but I haven't looked at that yet. Levels 1-2 are training levels that the game recommends skipping, so 3rd is essentially 1st level. That means that 3rd and 4th levels are the only places the 5e wizard might win. 2 levels. That's not looking for specific levels to see if the 3.5e wizard is better. It is better from at least 5th-20th level.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Encouraging the GM to be an "amateur game designer" is a big selling point to me and I would imagine many others.

And really if the GM is having to make off the cuff rulings constantly it probably means the players are coming up with creative solutions/approaches. That again is a big selling point because the alternative is either not allow stuff that the rules don't cover and/or have an encyclopedia of rules which sucks for a TTRPG.

I found another person(s) who would prefer D&D be a DELTA over a TTRPG!

 

[Zardnaar]

I found another person(s) who would prefer D&D be a DELTA over a TTRPG!

DELTA?

 

[Maxperson]

DELTA?

DM Excellence Likely The Awesomesauce?