D&D 5E Non choices: must have and wants why someone that hates something must take it

[ExploderWizard]

The problem is, by the same classification a long sword and short sword are the same thing and should be the same weapon.

For a D&D level of abstraction I agree. I prefer OD&D where all weapons do about 1 die of damage.

 

[Argyle King]

The problem is, by the same classification a long sword and short sword are the same thing and should be the same weapon.

The different between the two is that a long sword is much longer than a short sword. The same difference between a rapier and a small sword.

Thus the idea that it should be under a different category.

Hopefully they'll put out a historically accurate module that has each sword listed from history, but until then we have to classify weapons the way they do in D&D and the small sword fits a lesser damage type and should thus be merged with short sword rather than rapier.

There's a bit more of a difference between the small sword and rapier just having different lengths. However, most of those differences fall below what D&D covers with equipment. I can understand saying small sword = rapier in D&D because one is essentially the evolution of the other; thought it could be argued that the small sword evolve just as much because of a need for fashion statements rather than being strictly intended as a weapon. It can be (and is) a very effective weapon though; the lighter weight and shorter length makes it a very quick weapon; even quicker than a rapier. However, versus a rapier, a small sword has much less reach.

I could also understand saying small sword = short sword in D&D. The two weapons are intended for very different purposes. It could be argued that the small sword evolved as almost more of a fashion statement than a weapon. Small sword is generally pretty good for thrusting, but not cutting; the short sword is generally designed for both. I'd say the short sword has more attack modes and versatility on a battlefield against armored opponents, but the small sword is likely better for quick defense and fencing; especially in an urban and/or social setting. I would also say that the small sword is a fencing weapon while the short sword is not, but I believe (but am not sure if) D&D allows finesse for short sword, so that blurs the line between the two. I suppose you could say a D&D small sword would be represented by some manner of short sword that does piercing (as opposed to cutting/slashing) damage, but then I'm not sure how to define the rapier in D&D.

In the end, I believe the differences aren't significant enough for them to matter in D&D. If a player wants to say he's using a small sword, I suppose the best answer for D&D is to pick either rapier or short sword, and then just fluff it differently.

 

[Kobold Stew]

In the end, I believe the differences aren't significant enough for them to matter in D&D. If a player wants to say he's using a small sword, I suppose the best answer for D&D is to pick either rapier or short sword, and then just fluff it differently.

really well said.

 

[Lokiare]

I still prefer the Old School Hack method of weapon classification. At character creation you pick Light, Reach, Ranged, Heavy, or Very Heavy (each has their distinct advantages and disadvantages) and then you as a player are free to describe what the weapon looks like, as long as it makes sense.

So if you want to call your light weapon a Small Sword, you can do it. Or, if you want to call it a heavy weapon, you can do that. As long as it could logically fit in either category, it would be fine (though it's fixed once you choose).

This allows a LOT more flexibility in character customization, without any rules changes.

I agree, that would be ideal. Then we could easily see that the small sword is very short and would therefore fall into the light category.

However this probably won't happen as D&D is a tradition based game where every sacred cow has its own temple filled with worshipers.

Of course none of this matters. Whether we are discussing small swords or rapiers or whatever the fact of the matter remains: 5E forces you to trade mechanical effectiveness for concept. A trade I personally don't like to make and pushes me away from the game.

For example in 4E you can easily play a light weapon light armor fighter with no problem. Various mechanical choices allow you to effectively do that so you can have a swashbuckler fighter in 4E with little or no problem.

You cannot do this in 5E.

 

[Mistwell]

I agree, that would be ideal. Then we could easily see that the small sword is very short and would therefore fall into the light category.

However this probably won't happen as D&D is a tradition based game where every sacred cow has its own temple filled with worshipers.

Of course none of this matters. Whether we are discussing small swords or rapiers or whatever the fact of the matter remains: 5E forces you to trade mechanical effectiveness for concept. A trade I personally don't like to make and pushes me away from the game.

For example in 4E you can easily play a light weapon light armor fighter with no problem. Various mechanical choices allow you to effectively do that so you can have a swashbuckler fighter in 4E with little or no problem.

You cannot do this in 5E.

I disagree but I am tired of going in circles on this. So time to bottom line it - why are you responding to every D&D Next thread, if you've already concluded 4e is the game for you? And let's not play games about how you never said 4e is the game for you - you know it, and I know it, and everyone knows it, that you've already come to the conclusion 5e is not the game for you. So just bottom line it - why are you still doing this?

 

[Plaguescarred]

For example in 4E you can easily play a light weapon light armor fighter with no problem. Various mechanical choices allow you to effectively do that so you can have a swashbuckler fighter in 4E with little or no problem.

You cannot do this in 5E.

Sure can. Just pump DEX and grab a light armor and finesse weapon.

 

[Lokiare]

I disagree but I am tired of going in circles on this. So time to bottom line it - why are you responding to every D&D Next thread, if you've already concluded 4e is the game for you? And let's not play games about how you never said 4e is the game for you - you know it, and I know it, and everyone knows it, that you've already come to the conclusion 5e is not the game for you. So just bottom line it - why are you still doing this?

I just want to know how you made 'guide' with this kind of assumption filled negative attitude.

I have not concluded 4E is the game for me. I have concluded that I like games that are balanced mechanically. I like games that allow me and my players to trade mechanics for mechanics and allow us to choose our character concepts without trading for mechanics. I also like games that allow for interesting tactical choices on level up and during each round of play. It just so happens so far 4E is the only game I've found that even comes close.

However that aside. I'm here to point out where the design goal of "allow everyone to play the major play styles of D&D (including the one in 4E)." is failing to allow for the play style I describe above in the hopes that they will make many changes in the private play test to allow everyone to play with the play style they want.

Don't worry I'll stop posting about 5E when they put it out and it doesn't include enough of the tactical and balanced play style and I move on to another game. You've only got what 4-6 months before release right?

 

[Lokiare]

Sure can. Just pump DEX and grab a light armor and finesse weapon.

There are many things the Fighter class requires that is not dex based.

High hit points if you plan on being a front liner along with the defy death feature and survivor mean you have to pump Constitution.

Devastating Critical at 15th requires you to have a high Strength score to set the DC at a reasonable level (otherwise its 10).

Not only that, but I said Light, not Finesse.

 

[Mistwell]

I just want to know how you made 'guide' with this kind of assumption filled negative attitude.

LOL I didn't even know what you meant until I looked at my user name. It's a meaningless thing. Pay it no mind. I assume it has something to do with how long ago I registered and/or how many posts I have. Which isn't particularly meaningful.

I have not concluded 4E is the game for me. I have concluded that I like games that are balanced mechanically. I like games that allow me and my players to trade mechanics for mechanics and allow us to choose our character concepts without trading for mechanics. I also like games that allow for interesting tactical choices on level up and during each round of play. It just so happens so far 4E is the only game I've found that even comes close.

So you are going to play this game? Really? Look, nothing wrong with 4e. I played 4e for many years and enjoyed it. I used to be called a 4e fanboy on many boards, and also it's poster child, so you're not getting any 4e negativity from me.

4e is the closest you've found to the game you like. OK, but will you admit you've already concluded 5e is so far from what you like that 4e is extraordinarily likely to be the game you stick with? Or at least, can you admit it's almost certainly not going to be 5e for you?

However that aside. I'm here to point out where the design goal of "allow everyone to play the major play styles of D&D (including the one in 4E)." is failing to allow for the play style I describe above in the hopes that they will make many changes in the private play test to allow everyone to play with the play style they want.

Look, you yourself said recently that you were shocked when people actually agreed with you on something. You know full well your opinion isn't a particularly popular one. Which means you know equally well that, at this late a date in the playtest development, with you not on the private playtest nor a paid consultant nor even posting on WOTC's board, that they are simply not going to listen to you. So you've got to know all this effort you're putting in is absolutely useless, if your real goal is to use it to try and persuade WOTC to make changes to the game to bring it to the point where you view it more favorably than 4e or other games.

Don't worry I'll stop posting about 5E when they put it out and it doesn't include enough of the tactical and balanced play style and I move on to another game. You've only got what 4-6 months before release right?

What would be the point of those extra months? How about once you're certain they will not listen to you? Or at least once you're certain they sent it to he printers?

 

[Lokiare]

LOL I didn't even know what you meant until I looked at my user name. It's a meaningless thing. Pay it no mind. I assume it has something to do with how long ago I registered and/or how many posts I have. Which isn't particularly meaningful.

Ok, noted.

So you are going to play this game? Really? Look, nothing wrong with 4e. I played 4e for many years and enjoyed it. I used to be called a 4e fanboy on many boards, and also it's poster child, so you're not getting any 4e negativity from me.

4e is the closest you've found to the game you like. OK, but will you admit you've already concluded 5e is so far from what you like that 4e is extraordinarily likely to be the game you stick with? Or at least, can you admit it's almost certainly not going to be 5e for you?

If they give me the options I want out of it, then yes I'll play it. I may buy it used so that WotC doesn't get any of my money, but I will definitely play it.

I will admit that what we have seen so far is far enough away from a game that I want to play that if the finished product looks 85% like it, that I won't play it. However we can still change that with feedback.

Look, you yourself said recently that you were shocked when people actually agreed with you on something. You know full well your opinion isn't a particularly popular one. Which means you know equally well that, at this late a date in the playtest development, with you not on the private playtest nor a paid consultant nor even posting on WOTC's board, that they are simply not going to listen to you. So you've got to know all this effort you're putting in is absolutely useless, if your real goal is to use it to try and persuade WOTC to make changes to the game to bring it to the point where you view it more favorably than 4e or other games.



What would be the point of those extra months? How about once you're certain they will not listen to you? Or at least once you're certain they sent it to he printers?

It doesn't matter if there is almost no chance of me getting any changes in at this stage of the game. I'm going to keep trying right up until this thing goes to the printers. Then I'm going to wash my hands of it. And explain to the people that ask me "Why didn't you give feedback and ask for changes to be made and speak up." that I did right up until it released. So there will be no excuses when many 4E players don't migrate and instead choose something else like 13th age or just stick with 4E.