D&D General Practical advice for running 5.5e and 5e PCs side by side

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes? It “proves” (I mean, it doesn’t really prove anything, it’s an anecdote) that players will trade complexity for even a relatively simple power boost. Which only demonstrates that some players aren’t attached to the fiddly complexity and prefer “numbers go up”.

I would call that a pretty minimal conclusion. We can get a much more useful conclusion from it.

If you give people the choice between something more fiddly than they care about right at this moment, and something obviously useful and completely passive, they'll choose the latter 9 times out of 10.

That doesn't mean they'll be happier 9 out of 10 times. And that's precisely the problem that I feel has affected so much of 5e's design. It treats ALL complexity as ALWAYS the enemy unless it's magic (which almost always specifically means neo-Vancian spellcasting), in which case, the sky's the limit, be as complex as you want. That's...kind of a problem, because it's a totalizing and polarizing perspective on something that should be far more distributed.

Because I've seen the exact same trade happen in reverse. People trading away a couple of stat points for some obviously useful active effects. I mean, isn't that very literally why you had so many people hating on the poor +N sword back in the "D&D Next" days? (God, why are D&D playtests so stupidly named...) How "boring" and "basic" such options are, and how they crowd out all the cool and interesting things because they're so boring and basic while still being useful? How people wanted "magic to feel magical again" and all that...less-than-nuanced argumentation, to be as polite as humanly possible.

There are people in my Monday 5.5e group that would not trade away their weapon masteries even for two +2s to their stats. And there are quite a few people who found the 5.0 feats irritating specifically because they did not offer any stats, you always had to choose between doing something cool and new and interesting, and...actually getting better at your core functions.

When the choice is "obviously useful and passive" vs "fiddly, finicky and active" then people are going to choose the former, not because it's passive, but because of its obvious utility. Likewise, when the choice is "obviously useful and active" vs "situational and passive", no prizes for guessing which one people will choose consistently.

And that is precisely why balance is important as a design consideration. When you have unbalanced systems, by definition, you have either "obviously useful" features, or, much MUCH worse, you have "not-obviously harmful" features. Both warp player choice. Both punish unfairly solely because of aesthetic preference. Etc. Balance isn't just some airy-fairy ideal of instantiated perfection. It's literally how we avoid making games that crush player choice beneath the weight of "well it was obviously stronger so I did it" (or, again, MUCH worse, "well I kept being screwed by choosing the cool stuff so I chose the safe, boring options instead").

 

[Horwath]

I would call that a pretty minimal conclusion. We can get a much more useful conclusion from it.

If you give people the choice between something more fiddly than they care about right at this moment, and something obviously useful and completely passive, they'll choose the latter 9 times out of 10.

That doesn't mean they'll be happier 9 out of 10 times. And that's precisely the problem that I feel has affected so much of 5e's design. It treats ALL complexity as ALWAYS the enemy unless it's magic (which almost always specifically means neo-Vancian spellcasting), in which case, the sky's the limit, be as complex as you want. That's...kind of a problem, because it's a totalizing and polarizing perspective on something that should be far more distributed.

Because I've seen the exact same trade happen in reverse. People trading away a couple of stat points for some obviously useful active effects. I mean, isn't that very literally why you had so many people hating on the poor +N sword back in the "D&D Next" days? (God, why are D&D playtests so stupidly named...) How "boring" and "basic" such options are, and how they crowd out all the cool and interesting things because they're so boring and basic while still being useful? How people wanted "magic to feel magical again" and all that...less-than-nuanced argumentation, to be as polite as humanly possible.

There are people in my Monday 5.5e group that would not trade away their weapon masteries even for two +2s to their stats. And there are quite a few people who found the 5.0 feats irritating specifically because they did not offer any stats, you always had to choose between doing something cool and new and interesting, and...actually getting better at your core functions.

When the choice is "obviously useful and passive" vs "fiddly, finicky and active" then people are going to choose the former, not because it's passive, but because of its obvious utility. Likewise, when the choice is "obviously useful and active" vs "situational and passive", no prizes for guessing which one people will choose consistently.

And that is precisely why balance is important as a design consideration. When you have unbalanced systems, by definition, you have either "obviously useful" features, or, much MUCH worse, you have "not-obviously harmful" features. Both warp player choice. Both punish unfairly solely because of aesthetic preference. Etc. Balance isn't just some airy-fairy ideal of instantiated perfection. It's literally how we avoid making games that crush player choice beneath the weight of "well it was obviously stronger so I did it" (or, again, MUCH worse, "well I kept being screwed by choosing the cool stuff so I chose the safe, boring options instead").

agree 100%,

that is why Telekinetic is still THE best feat for me in 5E(or 24).

It gives +1 to you main stat if you are any kind of caster, and honestly you can house rule to any +1, would not matter much

it gives very cool cantrip with extra elements for great roleplay/exploration.
how you can always scout ahead, moving your lanters 60ft infront of you, baiting ambushes, etc...

and it give Bonus action minor combat utility that you can do over and over again

 

[EzekielRaiden]

agree 100%,

that is why Telekinetic is still THE best feat for me in 5E(or 24).

It gives +1 to you main stat if you are any kind of caster, and honestly you can house rule to any +1, would not matter much

it gives very cool cantrip with extra elements for great roleplay/exploration.
how you can always scout ahead, moving your lanters 60ft infront of you, baiting ambushes, etc...

and it give Bonus action minor combat utility that you can do over and over again

This would, in fact, be the only proper (non-Origin) feat my 5.5e character has. Had I known I would go in this direction, I might've considered playing Aberrant instead of Dragon Sorcerer, or going whole-hog for Wizard and flavoring it as magic via mentalism (which wouldn't be psionics, but would be loosely similar).

 

[OB1]

I would call that a pretty minimal conclusion. We can get a much more useful conclusion from it.

If you give people the choice between something more fiddly than they care about right at this moment, and something obviously useful and completely passive, they'll choose the latter 9 times out of 10.

That doesn't mean they'll be happier 9 out of 10 times. And that's precisely the problem that I feel has affected so much of 5e's design. It treats ALL complexity as ALWAYS the enemy unless it's magic (which almost always specifically means neo-Vancian spellcasting), in which case, the sky's the limit, be as complex as you want. That's...kind of a problem, because it's a totalizing and polarizing perspective on something that should be far more distributed.

Because I've seen the exact same trade happen in reverse. People trading away a couple of stat points for some obviously useful active effects. I mean, isn't that very literally why you had so many people hating on the poor +N sword back in the "D&D Next" days? (God, why are D&D playtests so stupidly named...) How "boring" and "basic" such options are, and how they crowd out all the cool and interesting things because they're so boring and basic while still being useful? How people wanted "magic to feel magical again" and all that...less-than-nuanced argumentation, to be as polite as humanly possible.

There are people in my Monday 5.5e group that would not trade away their weapon masteries even for two +2s to their stats. And there are quite a few people who found the 5.0 feats irritating specifically because they did not offer any stats, you always had to choose between doing something cool and new and interesting, and...actually getting better at your core functions.

When the choice is "obviously useful and passive" vs "fiddly, finicky and active" then people are going to choose the former, not because it's passive, but because of its obvious utility. Likewise, when the choice is "obviously useful and active" vs "situational and passive", no prizes for guessing which one people will choose consistently.

And that is precisely why balance is important as a design consideration. When you have unbalanced systems, by definition, you have either "obviously useful" features, or, much MUCH worse, you have "not-obviously harmful" features. Both warp player choice. Both punish unfairly solely because of aesthetic preference. Etc. Balance isn't just some airy-fairy ideal of instantiated perfection. It's literally how we avoid making games that crush player choice beneath the weight of "well it was obviously stronger so I did it" (or, again, MUCH worse, "well I kept being screwed by choosing the cool stuff so I chose the safe, boring options instead").

This is exactly why I wouldn't give players a choice of taking a +2 instead of using weapon masteries. If I found that players were having difficult remembering to apply them, I'd do the same thing I do with any rule players forget, give gentle reminders during play and also highlight when they are used.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

I tried it exactly 2 times once as a DM, and once as a player, never again for me.

 

[Clint_L]

This is exactly why I wouldn't give players a choice of taking a +2 instead of using weapon masteries. If I found that players were having difficult remembering to apply them, I'd do the same thing I do with any rule players forget, give gentle reminders during play and also highlight when they are used.

If I was reminding players about mastery options every time they forgot our combats would take twice as long.

I’m going to suggest that if players are consistently forgetting them or ignoring them, which they are, then there is something wrong with the system.

 

[TwoSix]

This is exactly why I wouldn't give players a choice of taking a +2 instead of using weapon masteries. If I found that players were having difficult remembering to apply them, I'd do the same thing I do with any rule players forget, give gentle reminders during play and also highlight when they are used.

The players in question have decades of D&D experience and have both GMed 5e campaigns.

We’re not forgetting because it’s hard, we’re forgetting because they don’t feel intuitive to apply.

 

[Tigris]

The players in question have decades of D&D experience and have both GMed 5e campaigns.

So they are really old, and old people are more prone to forgetting things, makes sense.

We’re not forgetting because it’s hard, we’re forgetting because they don’t feel intuitive to apply.

Things become intuitive when you use it. The more you are used to things which are different the harder it is to learn new things.

I would say its really intuitive that weapon attacks with different weapons have different properties. And its literally just exactly the same as cantrips. You just have a rider to your damage.


But of course its intuitive for me because I am familiar with actual martial arts, and many many modern games and specifically because I have a good understanding of game design which allows me to make connections (oh its just like cantrips / 4e at will attacks). If I am would only be familiar with old, from a game design aspect outdated, versions of D&D this would be also not intuitive for me.

 

[TwoSix]

But of course its intuitive for me because I am familiar with actual martial arts, and many many modern games and specifically because I have a good understanding of game design which allows me to make connections (oh its just like cantrips / 4e at will attacks). If I am would only be familiar with old, from a game design aspect outdated, versions of D&D this would be also not intuitive for me.

Ah yes, the “my karate skills make me better at RPGs” defense. Always an internet classic.

 

[Voadam]

I would say its really intuitive that weapon attacks with different weapons have different properties.

Sure that there would be different properties seems intuitive but the specific properties with different weapons do not always seem so intuitive.

Greataxe having cleave seems intuitive.

The fact that an arrow hit will always give you advantage on your next immediate attack against them if shot from a shortbow but will instead always slow the target if shot from a longbow is not really intuitive. Or that the blade slashing longsword's special property is called sap or that the sap property has nothing necessarily to do with blunt impact.