D&D 5E (2024) Rate D&D 2024

[EzekielRaiden]

I looked at the numbers. Around 20 odd 1-4 votes. That's enough to drag the score down.

yes, because the one and only way for someone to vote 1-4 is if they're a hater trying to ruin everyone else's day. It's simply not possible for anyone to just personally be of the opinion that 5e wasn't very good. Only people who are diehard haters think that, everyone else thinks it was amazing.

Zard, your biases are showing again, blatantly. Dismissing everyone who voted 1-4 as being obviously a hater actively trying to drag down the average is that bias in active mode.

For the record, I voted 4. I don't think 5e is the worst thing ever printed. I don't even think it's a horrible system. I just think that it is vastly, vastly overrated, that it actively chooses bad design in more than one place and fobs the responsibility of fixing it onto already-overworked GMs, that it produced one of the worst DMGs ever written (that I would 110% vote 1 with "I wish I could vote negative"), and that it had enormous potential utterly wasted because of its slavish adherence to the shrieking cries of a tiny minority of old-school activists, which held it back from doing several genuinely great things that plenty of current-day fans agree probably would've been better.

 

[pukunui]

For the record, I voted 4. I don't think 5e is the worst thing ever printed. I don't even think it's a horrible system. I just think that it is vastly, vastly overrated, that it actively chooses bad design in more than one place and fobs the responsibility of fixing it onto already-overworked GMs, that it produced one of the worst DMGs ever written (that I would 110% vote 1 with "I wish I could vote negative"), and that it had enormous potential utterly wasted because of its slavish adherence to the shrieking cries of a tiny minority of old-school activists, which held it back from doing several genuinely great things that plenty of current-day fans agree probably would've been better.

See also @Reynard's 22,500+ post thread, D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

 

[Horwath]

I mean I'd wager there are Paladin players who don't like the nerf to Smite.

OK, smite change is a definition of overcorrection.

Smite by itself was not probably a big problem.

Problem was frankenstein multiclassing.

Assassin/fighter/gloomstaleker with 2 levels of paladin was the problem.

Simple solution would be:
ONCE on YOUR turn you can use Smite after you hit with a melee weapon.

Smite spells should all have been Action cast this give you ability to take Attack action with added spell benefits.
If you miss the attack, spell slot is not wasted.


IE:
Wrathful smite
1st level Necromancy.
Action cast.
After you cast this spell you take Attack action. Next attack that hits during this Attack action deals extra d6 Necrotic damage and target must make Wisdom saving throw or be frightened for 1 minute.
If no attack hits during this Attack action, spell slot is not wasted.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I posted negative things 2015.

The 5 power feats, over powered spells etc. Also hit point bloat, encounter rules being junk.

You posted things that weren't glowingly positive.

They aren't the same thing.

 

[BenjaminPey]

OK, have to ask... You're a simple guy with many kids? How many is many??

I completely agree about liking the streamlining and simplifying. (I also have kids...just not many.)

I have four boys, three of which eager players.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Problem was frankenstein multiclassing.

Alternatively, the problem is à la carte multiclassing, rather than Frankenstein.

Because the only other edition which permitted à la carte multiclassing had this problem, just worse because it had much more serious flaws than 5e has.

It's emblematic of a lot of ideas from 3e. That is, à la carte MC is a beautiful idea, compelling, intuitive, fun. It near-instantly created several memes in an era before "meme" was even a thing--the TVTropes page for "Took a level in Badass", for example, literally is a 3rd edition mechanical concept having completely outgrown its roots.

It just has one small problem: It's terrible at being a game mechanic. 5e has had to pretzel itself over and over again to try to make à la carte MC not cause serious problems.

If it weren't for that one little issue, it would be wonderful. It is, as I previously argued in a now-ancient thread, a beautiful example of meta-aesthetics being prioritized over actual game design. It's a rule that looks good, that sounds good. A rule that feels right, it has truthiness galore. It feels so obvious and natural--a bridge between the chunky artificiality of classes with levels, and the overcomplicated, difficult-to-understand morass that most pure point-buy systems become! But beneath that superficial, meta-aesthetic beauty, it is a bloody nightmare to actually design and implement, and as we are seeing quite clearly, even concerted efforts to fix it have resulted in (at the very least) disappointing results.

To have one à la carte muticlassing system break down may be regarded as a misfortune, Mr. Worthing. To have two looks like carelessness.

 

[TheSword]

yes, because the one and only way for someone to vote 1-4 is if they're a hater trying to ruin everyone else's day. It's simply not possible for anyone to just personally be of the opinion that 5e wasn't very good. Only people who are diehard haters think that, everyone else thinks it was amazing.

Zard, your biases are showing again, blatantly. Dismissing everyone who voted 1-4 as being obviously a hater actively trying to drag down the average is that bias in active mode.

For the record, I voted 4. I don't think 5e is the worst thing ever printed. I don't even think it's a horrible system. I just think that it is vastly, vastly overrated, that it actively chooses bad design in more than one place and fobs the responsibility of fixing it onto already-overworked GMs, that it produced one of the worst DMGs ever written (that I would 110% vote 1 with "I wish I could vote negative"), and that it had enormous potential utterly wasted because of its slavish adherence to the shrieking cries of a tiny minority of old-school activists, which held it back from doing several genuinely great things that plenty of current-day fans agree probably would've been better.

I think the technical term is detractor. Rather than hater.

It’s ok to be a detractor. It must really suck to be surrounded by D&D chat all the time if you detract it so much. For the things you’re really interested in get so little traction.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the technical term is detractor. Rather than hater.

Yes, and if that were what Zardnaar meant, then I would certainly grant that--and most likely would not have made that post.

But remember, his point was that he claimed these people weren't just expressing their negative opinions, which is what a detractor naturally will do. His point was that they--we, I suppose, since as I said I voted 4--were doing it solely to drag the stats down. Meaning, we were disingenuously inflating our negative opinions, in order to make the game seem worse than it actually is.

That's not a detractor. That's a hater.

 

[Horwath]

Alternatively, the problem is à la carte multiclassing, rather than Frankenstein.

Because the only other edition which permitted à la carte multiclassing had this problem, just worse because it had much more serious flaws than 5e has.

It's emblematic of a lot of ideas from 3e. That is, à la carte MC is a beautiful idea, compelling, intuitive, fun. It near-instantly created several memes in an era before "meme" was even a thing--the TVTropes page for "Took a level in Badass", for example, literally is a 3rd edition mechanical concept having completely outgrown its roots.

It just has one small problem: It's terrible at being a game mechanic. 5e has had to pretzel itself over and over again to try to make à la carte MC not cause serious problems.

If it weren't for that one little issue, it would be wonderful. It is, as I previously argued in a now-ancient thread, a beautiful example of meta-aesthetics being prioritized over actual game design. It's a rule that looks good, that sounds good. A rule that feels right, it has truthiness galore. It feels so obvious and natural--a bridge between the chunky artificiality of classes with levels, and the overcomplicated, difficult-to-understand morass that most pure point-buy systems become! But beneath that superficial, meta-aesthetic beauty, it is a bloody nightmare to actually design and implement, and as we are seeing quite clearly, even concerted efforts to fix it have resulted in (at the very least) disappointing results.

To have one à la carte muticlassing system break down may be regarded as a misfortune, Mr. Worthing. To have two looks like carelessness.

yes, al carte multiclassing is a problem, yet I would not play a game without it.

One solution is simple. Only 2 classes per character.
that cuts down on 90% of the cheese.

other solution is forced even split between two classes. But that in general makes mechanically bad characters.

you need to really make an effort where 6/6 character will be better than 12 level single class.

3rd solution is even split between two classes but buffed with extra levels(no extra HP or proficiency bonus for those levels):

at levels 5,8,11,14,17 and 20, you get class features of both classes, but HP, HD and prof bonus as single class.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

yes, al carte multiclassing is a problem, yet I would not play a game without it.

One solution is simple. Only 2 classes per character.
that cuts down on 90% of the cheese.

other solution is forced even split between two classes. But that in general makes mechanically bad characters.

you need to really make an effort where 6/6 character will be better than 12 level single class.

3rd solution is even split between two classes but buffed with extra levels(no extra HP or proficiency bonus for those levels):
View attachment 416171

at levels 5,8,11,14,17 and 20, you get class features of both classes, but HP, HD and prof bonus as single class.

Er...that isn't à la carte MC? Because you've limited it to only two classes, and you've made it either a fundamental thing, or something you rebuild your character to use.

À la carte MC specifically means how MC works in 5e and 3e: you can advance in any available class at each level up, however you like. If 5e had 20 classes, you could be level 1 in 20 different classes if you really wanted to. Certainly in 3e you could do that. Both of your proposals--limited to only two, or perfectly spreading out levels between any given set of classes--mean that you cannot just pick up any dish as you like. It's the difference between table d'hôte, "host's table" (aka prix fixe, "fixed price"), where you choose from a small number of specific course sequences for a universal fixed price; and actually dining à la carte ("at the card"), where each course can be chosen freely from any item on the menu: you decide what you eat at each stage, just as this form of multiclassing lets you choose what you develop at each level.

The systems you've proposed are functionally either what 2e or 4e did. They don't let you pick whatever class you like at each level. They lock you into something, or they restrict what you're allowed to choose at each point.