Wrt that bolded bit the gm had a lot of ways to push back and put their thumb on the scale for each party member as needed by using things like body slot conflicts or magic item churn expectations. The "Christmas tree" was literally a bit of well designed gm empowerment with a dedicated behind the curtain entry about why the slots were so varied
Scry and fry(like codzilla) was more of a punpun adjacent whiteroom thing than something to see in the wild beyond perhaps a one off twist
Pun pun was white room, I am fairly certain we did Scry and Fry in some campaigns.
And the DMG also contained a wealth by level rules and treasure guidelines, IIRC, and of course the DM can do whatever, including not handing out body-slot fitting magic items (though the default magic items in the DMG neatly fit really well to get your christmas tree going) and not have magic item shops (or magic item crafting) - but then, would the CR and encounter design guidelines still apply? What else does the DM then have to handle on their own without help from the DMG?
Though I admit, that was very theoretical, I don't think the CR guidelines and monster CRs were so neatly well designed that you could rely on them, there were plenty of outliers and your party's optimization created such a wide spectrum...
Pun pun was white room, I am fairly certain we did Scry and Fry in some campaigns.
And the DMG also contained a wealth by level rules and treasure guidelines, IIRC, and of course the DM can do whatever, including not handing out body-slot fitting magic items (though the default magic items in the DMG neatly fit really well to get your christmas tree going) and not have magic item shops (or magic item crafting) - but then, would the CR and encounter design guidelines still apply? What else does the DM then have to handle on their own without help from the DMG?
Though I admit, that was very theoretical, I don't think the CR guidelines and monster CRs were so neatly well designed that you could rely on them, there were plenty of outliers and your party's optimization created such a wide spectrum...
4e's Hit/Defense scaling was too high.
5e's Save/DC was too slow because it handed out proficiency and expertise too infrequently.
Basically 5e need to give PCs and monsters a 3rd Save proficiency in Tier 3. And a 4th in Tier 4. And Solo boss monsters get one more.
4e's half level bonus of +10 over 20 levels to everything was too much. Because it just became a level check. It didn't add much because you typically didn't run monsters more that 4 levels away. So it's just -2 to +2.. Really you could play 4e without the level bonus. It's just a lot of math to recalculate everything.
And all it did was push the numbers up more to the point that you needed to get saving throw feats to fill up the ever-increasing bonuses so if you had a slower number progression you could eliminate the feat bonus as well.
5e's proficiency is slightly too slow. +2 to +6 is almost alright. But it only offers 4 bumps for progression. Not enough to feel it nor really matter. And for saving throws...
Player Characters only got proficiency in 2 saves. And most monsters in 2014 got NONE.
I mean 5.5e missed an easy fix while being backwards compatible. Give most nonfullcasters and most high CR monsters proficiency with saving throws. And sometimes expertise in saving throws.
4E works much better with +1/2 thrown out of the window.
monsters are usable then in much higher level
expertise bonus to attacks and raise of primary/secondary attribute is more than enough to describe advancements.
skills were also not bad
+5 on proficient skill, +3 for skill focus(now expertise), maybe add +2(skill mastery)
Now it could be: if we ditch proficiency bonus:
IE. at 5th+ level when you get skill proficiency, you can give proficient skill expertise instead.
at 11th+ level when you get skill proficiency you can give expert skill mastery level instead.
maybe morph skill master into all levels of proficincy:
proficiency: d20 roll for this skill minimum is 5
expertise: d20 roll for this skill minimum is 8
mastery: d20 roll for this skill minimum is 10
Pun pun was white room, I am fairly certain we did Scry and Fry in some campaigns.
And the DMG also contained a wealth by level rules and treasure guidelines, IIRC, and of course the DM can do whatever, including not handing out body-slot fitting magic items (though the default magic items in the DMG neatly fit really well to get your christmas tree going) and not have magic item shops (or magic item crafting) - but then, would the CR and encounter design guidelines still apply? What else does the DM then have to handle on their own without help from the DMG?
Though I admit, that was very theoretical, I don't think the CR guidelines and monster CRs were so neatly well designed that you could rely on them, there were plenty of outliers and your party's optimization created such a wide spectrum...
There is an ocean of difference between a one off scry & fry because it's usedul to the gm or something compared to business as usual. My post accounted for that and at least one other poster has pointed out similar.
Meanwhile the 5e dmg practically tells players to decide for themselves what body slot usage is appropriate & provides the GM zero tools or guidance on it.
The gm didn't need to be adversarial with it by " not handing out body slot fitting items" because it was a well designed set of subsystems & the GM could use giving cool stuff as a power check. Instead the gm could give problematically underoptimized Alice stuff that fills her needed gaps enough to bring her up to a functionality useful state. In conjunction with bringing Alice up, the GM could use those same tools to give problematically hyper optimized Bob gear that does any of the following & maybe does it in a common slot needed for the build(ie head/arms for caster/martial.
Helps him with a feat or PrC prereq he wants/would like but can't really swing now or in any reasonable time. This can literally sidetrack Bob off of his overoptimized role and set him down a path where he might be a little less or differently effective in terms of raw power but is doing something that is ultimately more fun. Bonus points when this could be done with a bonus type that is later erased from relevance at some point in that feat chain/PrC
Brings up a crippling weakness of his laser focused idiot savant build to a less painful level.
Benefits his build in being directly more powerful but does so in a way that binds them to needing the party rather than simply carrying them. Bracers of shielding/protection/etc taking up the same slot needed for the more commonly strength/dex boosting items is a great example that doesn't need a hypothetical build or anything
More situation specific things
.
A lot of those depend on talking to Bob and it shows the missing piece of gm support of 5e's dismissive "talk to your players"mantra by being something cool the gm can offer as a result of the talk using gm support structures like magic item churn and body slot/bonus type conflicts. All of those are mechanical hooks and tools that 5e removed or even designed against being bolted on by the gm.
Even your mention of wbl as some kind of player facing workaround to overrule these kinds of gm tools was factored into the tools themselves complete with spotlighting on the important reasons to make sure the GM knew
My personal experience is that zero war gamers are mellow. They are the most meticulous and uptight types I have ever met. Statistics says they must exist, but my mind boggles at the notion of a war gamer saying "just move 12 inches, 13 inches, whatever. No biggie. We're just here to have fun, don't let the rules get in the way."
Looking back, “mellow” is not exactly the best word choice, but I am also not sure if there actually is a single perfect adjective that captures what I was trying to say.
I wanted a succinct way to describe how EGG’s attitude seemed to change as the 70’s turned into the 80’s. In the 70’s he developed D&D within a freewheeling, collaborative war gaming scene that was experimenting with new rules and play styles, and he actively encouraged DMs to home brew or roll their own rule variants and settings. By the 80’s he seemed to have become much more jealous and paranoid about D&D fans coloring outside the lines in any way.
The only war game I ever played extensively was the Trek-themed spaceship war game Star Fleet Battles. Most of the time the “vibes” at our sessions were actually pretty mellow, because our group consisted of friends who also played AD&D and occasional board games. We learned how to play from an older guy who knew the game well because he owned most of the rule books, supplements, and accessories available at the time (late 80’s to early 90’s). We played at either his house or mine, and he ran the game in a manner somewhat like a D&D session. As n00bz we were not likely to beat him in an equal setup, so to make things more interesting he would give himself a “golf handicap” of sorts by using a force somewhat inferior to ours in numbers and/or firepower.
I have a vague memory of one time when tempers flared somewhat. The guy who always played as the Klingons got a bit hot under the collar, probably because of a disputed ruling. Once people had time to cool down a bit he made up with the guy who ran the game and (IIRC) even apologized to the group. We accepted and things returned to normal.
There is an ocean of difference between a one off scry & fry because it's usedul to the gm or something compared to business as usual. My post accounted for that and at least one other poster has pointed out similar.
View attachment 421496
Meanwhile the 5e dmg practically tells players to decide for themselves what body slot usage is appropriate & provides the GM zero tools or guidance on it.
The gm didn't need to be adversarial with it by " not handing out body slot fitting items" because it was a well designed set of subsystems & the GM could use giving cool stuff as a power check. Instead the gm could give problematically underoptimized Alice stuff that fills her needed gaps enough to bring her up to a functionality useful state. In conjunction with bringing Alice up, the GM could use those same tools to give problematically hyper optimized Bob gear that does any of the following & maybe does it in a common slot needed for the build(ie head/arms for caster/martial.
Helps him with a feat or PrC prereq he wants/would like but can't really swing now or in any reasonable time. This can literally sidetrack Bob off of his overoptimized role and set him down a path where he might be a little less or differently effective in terms of raw power but is doing something that is ultimately more fun. Bonus points when this could be done with a bonus type that is later erased from relevance at some point in that feat chain/PrC
Brings up a crippling weakness of his laser focused idiot savant build to a less painful level.
Benefits his build in being directly more powerful but does so in a way that binds them to needing the party rather than simply carrying them. Bracers of shielding/protection/etc taking up the same slot needed for the more commonly strength/dex boosting items is a great example that doesn't need a hypothetical build or anything
More situation specific things
.
A lot of those depend on talking to Bob and it shows the missing piece of gm support of 5e's dismissive "talk to your players"mantra by being something cool the gm can offer as a result of the talk using gm support structures like magic item churn and body slot/bonus type conflicts. All of those are mechanical hooks and tools that 5e removed or even designed against being bolted on by the gm.
Even your mention of wbl as some kind of player facing workaround to overrule these kinds of gm tools was factored into the tools themselves complete with spotlighting on the important reasons to make sure the GM knew
A lot of that is due to 5e being designed to older veteran DMs who didn't need much guidance to play their way.
But WOTC miscalculated and most of those fans never adopted 5e. The majority of 5e fans are born after 1980 and play styles popular after 2000. And those fans would need more guidance
A lot of that is due to 5e being designed to older veteran DMs who didn't need much guidance to play their way.
But WOTC miscalculated and most of those fans never adopted 5e. The majority of 5e fans are born after 1980 and play styles popular after 2000. And those fans would need more guidance
That might apply to the lack of gm facing advice, but not the mechanical subsystems that supported it on the player's sheets. Yes pre-3.x didn't have it either, but it could provide a much higher level of risk facing PCs to make room for the gm to provide stuff and a much lower level of CharOp. With 5e there is no mechanical support for the gm high levels of trivially accessable CharOp and a risk level facing PCs that somehow says "hold my beer and watch" to the fluffy slice of life cozyrpg market.
Taking random bits of the 1e/2e and 3.x stuff in isolation without their supporting elements creates as many problems as it solves at best. Heck the adnd2e DMG even had a whole page dedicated to threading that needle provided by the low CharOp high risk system & that's on top of the many pages on working with players to create/quest for custom spells magic items and so on in that same book... 5e shrugged about those reasons and just went with "magic items are totally optional" while shifting their impact to the base PC and providing no room for them to fill a need
Nah. He said what to look for; he doesn't have to do the work to provide links and whatnot. It'd be nice, but there's no demand; if someone wants to see for themselves, it's a google search away.
Besides, even if he did, it's not looking that it would change anyone's mind, anyway. People would likely just say that the proof isn't saying what he says it does, or whatever.
If someone isn't willing to do a search to see if something is true, they're not interested in the truth really; they're interested in being right.
Meanwhile the 5e dmg practically tells players to decide for themselves what body slot usage is appropriate & provides the GM zero tools or guidance on it.
The DMG doesn't tell the players anything. It tells the DM. Also, 3e's body slots were designed to limit the amount of bonus-providing magic items you could have. This role is primarily taken up by the Attunement rules in 5e. And the DMG body slots were often too restrictive regarding which things went where (notably, cloaks were used for both resistance bonuses to saves and for Charisma bonuses), which is why they were loosened up in the Magic Item Compendium along with allowing you to add a numerical bonus to an item with an active effect (e.g. making a cape of the mountebank and resistance +2 without paying a two-effects surcharge).
A lot of that is due to 5e being designed to older veteran DMs who didn't need much guidance to play their way.
But WOTC miscalculated and most of those fans never adopted 5e. The majority of 5e fans are born after 1980 and play styles popular after 2000. And those fans would need more guidance
That is probably not true. I mean, it might be my bias, but it seems a lot of fans of previous editions switched to 5e, at least initially. Some may have moved on to other alternatives, but my impression is that few have gone back to older versions of D&D specifically. Those who want a simpler game focused on dungeon crawling go for Shadowdark, those who want complex character creation with deep customization go for Pathfinder 2e, and so on.
I think you're confusing two similar but related ratios. It's true that most D&D players today started with 5e. But that's not the same as saying most players of previous editions stuck with those. It's just that there have been so many new players that the old-timers are a minority.
Nah. He said what to look for; he doesn't have to do the work to provide links and whatnot. It'd be nice, but there's no demand; if someone wants to see for themselves, it's a google search away.
Besides, even if he did, it's not looking that it would change anyone's mind, anyway. People would likely just say that the proof isn't saying what he says it does, or whatever.
If someone isn't willing to do a search to see if something is true, they're not interested in the truth really; they're interested in being right.
Saying "google it" or waving your hands nebulously in a general direction doesn't cut it. Show me the money. If you make a claim, cite your sources or it doesn't exist.
