D&D 5E Not upgrading? What version of D&D 5e are you sticking with?

Which version of D&D 5e are you playing (see post of explanation)

  • 5.0 (PHB - Tashas)

    Votes: 38 62.3%
  • 5.1 (Post Tashas)

    Votes: 23 37.7%

I'm not even necessarily unhappy with floating ASIs- I can see the appeal of wanting players to play an elf because they like the idea of an elf, not because of the +Dex.
Buuut many players will be using the floating ASIs to pair the "best" race features with whatever ASIs they want, not because of the narrative-character choice. "Now I can get heavy armor proficiency AND +2 intelligence for my wizard!"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If I was running/playing 5e, it would be post-Tasha's.

But this was the point where every D&D group I was in was willing to break off and try other systems, so I'm not actually playing any D&D right now.
 

Buuut many players will be using the floating ASIs to pair the "best" race features with whatever ASIs they want, not because of the narrative-character choice. "Now I can get heavy armor proficiency AND +2 intelligence for my wizard!"

I don't think this is a problem for the design of the game. It's a player to table mismatch. That mismatch is in how the player wants to play and how the DM, or group, desires for the game to play. And this mismatch will manifest regardless of ASIs floating or not.

We see this type of debate come up a lot in these forums. We have a behavior problem, a player using a mechanic purely for mechanical benefit in a narrative game and is, presumably in opposition to the rest of the group. The way ASIs are presented in species/races actually doesn't solve the underlying issue. Its like if you are in a boat and a scuba diver is drilling holes in the bottom of the boat. You stick a plug in one hole. You didn't address the underlying issue. You band-aided a symptom.

Here we have that exact situation. Binding ASIs to the species plugs a hole. But the underlying issue is the player's behavior being unaligned with the group's expectations. This behavior will just manifest in other ways, be it with feats or another mechanic or during play itself.

The only way to effectively solve the issue is social and is to address the player. If you try to just "plug holes" you will find that there is always a new one popping up. Always a new annoying loophole players can use to cause problems. But if you just choose like-minded players, those loopholes stop mattering and the flexibility is all upside.

A long way of saying, this is a player problem and not a rule problem.
 



I stopped collecting after Tasha's. That's about the time that things had gotten real political in the community. I now don't feel comfortable playing. I feel like I'm walking on eggshells, and am always concerned that I may hurt someone and make them mad at me. I have feelings too and I'm scared.

Have you tried being nice?


What is it specifically that you are worried about? Do you lean on tropes that you think folks will be offended by? Are you unable to leave your own political beliefs at the door? What is the actual issue?

(I assume you want to figure it out since you posted, but if you don't want to discuss it that's cool too.)
 

I don't think this is a problem for the design of the game. It's a player to table mismatch. That mismatch is in how the player wants to play and how the DM, or group, desires for the game to play. And this mismatch will manifest regardless of ASIs floating or not.

We see this type of debate come up a lot in these forums. We have a behavior problem, a player using a mechanic purely for mechanical benefit in a narrative game and is, presumably in opposition to the rest of the group. The way ASIs are presented in species/races actually doesn't solve the underlying issue. Its like if you are in a boat and a scuba diver is drilling holes in the bottom of the boat. You stick a plug in one hole. You didn't address the underlying issue. You band-aided a symptom.

Here we have that exact situation. Binding ASIs to the species plugs a hole. But the underlying issue is the player's behavior being unaligned with the group's expectations. This behavior will just manifest in other ways, be it with feats or another mechanic or during play itself.

The only way to effectively solve the issue is social and is to address the player. If you try to just "plug holes" you will find that there is always a new one popping up. Always a new annoying loophole players can use to cause problems. But if you just choose like-minded players, those loopholes stop mattering and the flexibility is all upside.

A long way of saying, this is a player problem and not a rule problem.
Very well put!
 

What is it specifically that you are worried about? Do you lean on tropes that you think folks will be offended by? Are you unable to leave your own political beliefs at the door? What is the actual issue?

(I assume you want to figure it out since you posted, but if you don't want to discuss it that's cool too.)
You know what, this was a mistake. Just forget I brought it up.
 


5.0
for the rules and character options.

Others, esp Volo's for monster stuff, new magic, items, etc.

I see additional books and rules expansions as purely optional. Mine what you want, ignore the rest.

I don't really find any classes/ options in Tasha's or Xanthar's to be particularly attractive. Same for the races, with the exception of the Aasimar. I felt kinda let down that they included the Tiefling but not it's opposite, the Aasimar in the PHB. Thus, I'm not including any as options in my campaign world. None of us has played it enough to be jaded or sick of the PHB options, yet.

I never saw extras like that as core elements that I HAD to allow- just because it was from an official D&D product. (Because they've NEVER published anything broken, ill thought out, or game breaking in any official publications before, right, lol) Esp, if it's totally wrong for the campaign at hand.



or:
3.0/3.5 I enjoyed playing and DMing it quite a bit. Probably just mine it for ideas and goodies tho, unless I find players who really want to play that edition.

The heavy handed restrictions/ balance decisions of AD&D just don't really fly well, now. too much water under the bridge. The FEEL of the games? HECK yes!! I gotta say, tho- the idea of playing a B/X game, just for old time's sake does have a lot of charm, lol.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top