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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7758755" data-attributes="member: 6779196">That is definitely a benefit of 5e’s design. For me personally, high-level barbarians being fast and easy to make is not a worthwhile tradeoff for barbarians of all levels being boring to play. But that’s just my personal taste, and I’ll grant that thee are definite benefits and drawbacks of less mechanically complex design.I understand that they have to pick a set of design goals and run with them, I just don’t care for all of the goals they picked in this case. I agree with some of them and disagree with others.No, it’s not. It’s clearly explained why they decided to move away from trying to “fix” poor DM and player behavior with rules and design for flexibility over consistency of play. It’s also explained that the design for consistency of play was at odds with designing for a heavy emphasis on mechanical options. But you only have to change one of those two design goals to resolve that conflict. They instead changed both, and I would have preferred they only change one.6e is exactly what I want, so...His words, not mine. Kindly leave the pedantry aside and engage with my point, which is that mechanical options can be designed to support narrative identiy.First of all, I don’t consider power gaming an inherently bad thing. It’s certainly not at odds with roleplaying. Players can do one, the other, both, or neither, there is no conflict between them. More importantly, the ability to break the power curve stops being a problem when the design philosophy is to empower the DM to make decisions based on the needs of their table, rather than designing to make the rules as consistent as possible. My point is, Mearls clearly illuminated a conflict between two parts of their previous design philosophy. They changed both parts instead of just one, and I would have preferred they just change the one.I think I may have miscommunicated to you what I meant by mechanical options. I don’t want more races, classes, and subclasses. There are plenty of those available between official products, 3rd party, and fan-made content. What I want is more than one choice of race, one choice of class, one choice of subclass, and four ability score increases/feats to differentiate one character from another. For all the flack 4e got for “every class feeling the same,” I see that issue much more with 5e.</blockquote>

Verification