D&D 5E Sage Advice is back!

[doctorbadwolf]

Your last sentence is exactly what every player who insists on playing a tabaxi regardless of the campaign says.

There’s no campaign that a tabaxi doesn’t belong in, so…

 

[Mordhau]

There’s no campaign that a tabaxi doesn’t belong in, so…

I beg to differ.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I beg to differ.

View attachment 154698

Exactly the campaign to play a tabaxi Ranger from the deep woods, and basically play it like an elf in a game full of dwarves and halflings.

 

[Minigiant]

=

Warlock is my favorite class, and its spell list is the least notable feature for me. I much prefer the flavor, the subclasses, and the invocations, all of which make me feel more like a warlock then any spell list.

You can grab invocations as a feat too. And half the mechanic of warlock subclasses is expamsion of the spell list.

I disagree on all 4. Spells are not what I think of for any of those classes when people ask me about them.

Not once has someone asked me about a ranger and been told, yeah they have ranger spells. I describe the tracker and woodsman(all terrain really). I tell them about their ability to fight certain foes that they choose. And so on. Same with the rest. I describe the actual class, not the spells that don't have anything to do with defining the class itself.

The PHB ranger was all about its spells and subclasses. The ranger class features were niche and few DMs/players knew how to use them right. Having profiecincy in Stealth and Nature and hunter's mark was half of being a ranger untilthe new subclasses and class features came out. Luckily it wasn't easy to get that combination so rangers still felt unique.

Crawford said they see feats a "class features not tied to class" and "classless class features". However they just added featsthat given class features as feats: invocations, metamagic, manuevers, fighting styles. Again it isn't a problem when you only got a feat at level 4 and 8. By level 12, most campaigns have ended. And you still have to contended with ASI.

But now its combined with a feat at level one and stronger feats in a feat chain.

• An "extra" feat
• Earlier feats
• Stronger feats in a chain
• Feats that give you spells from other classes
• Feats that give you class features of other classes
• An overgenerous multiclassing system
• WOTC's "feats and mulitclassing are totally optional wink wink" attitude
• WOTC's "5e is a toolkit even though we opted not to design nor present it as one" attitude
• WOTC's promotion of MTG setting where PCs are even stronger and get more stuff as normal and not the exception to the rule like Dark Sun

It's natural to see all of this and worry just a bit.

From day one, none of the 5e classes felt the same to me.

I didn't say this. I said the classes are bleeding and blobbing together now. And without care, it could be worse. However no one is openly convoying any calls for caution. "Don't worry. It's fun. It'll be fine"

 

[Mordhau]

=


You can grab invocations as a feat too. And half the mechanic of warlock subclasses is expamsion of the spell list.


The PHB ranger was all about its spells and subclasses. The ranger class features were niche and few DMs/players knew how to use them right. Having profiecincy in Stealth and Nature and hunter's mark was half of being a ranger untilthe new subclasses and class features came out. Luckily it wasn't easy to get that combination so rangers still felt unique.

Crawford said they see feats a "class features not tied to class" and "classless class features". However they just added featsthat given class features as feats: invocations, metamagic, manuevers, fighting styles. Again it isn't a problem when you only got a feat at level 4 and 8. By level 12, most campaigns have ended. And you still have to contended with ASI.

But now its combined with a feat at level one and stronger feats in a feat chain.

• An "extra" feat
• Earlier feats
• Stronger feats in a chain
• Feats that give you spells from other classes
• Feats that give you class features of other classes
• An overgenerous multiclassing system
• WOTC's "feats and mulitclassing are totally optional wink wink" attitude
• WOTC's "5e is a toolkit even though we opted not to design nor present it as one" attitude
• WOTC's promotion of MTG setting where PCs are even stronger and get more stuff as normal and not the exception to the rule like Dark Sun

It's natural to see all of this and worry just a bit.


I didn't say this. I said the classes are bleeding and blobbing together now. And without care, it could be worse. However no one is openly convoying any calls for caution. "Don't worry. It's fun. It'll be fine"

One of the things that's stood out to me is the tendency of subclasses to increasingly give out the same spells. Disguise Self and Misty Step being the two biggest offenders that have lept out to me. I think there are now two different Ranger subclasses that give out Disguise Self.

 

[jasper]

I think you and I are talking about different things?

Like, I’m talking about noticing supposed contradictions between 2014 and 2024 rules. Things that don’t work together. I’m not sure what you’re talking about?

Taking about the same thing. Just gave an examples of the contradictions.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Your last sentence is exactly what every player who insists on playing a tabaxi regardless of the campaign says.

And if (general) you as the DM let them play a tabaxi even though you don't want it... that's not WotC's responsibility. That's (general) you're own fault.

No one should ever expect WotC to publish in the books things to keep (general) you from having to make your own decisions. And if (general) you do expect WotC to save you from yourself... well... then (general) you probably should just stop playing because you're never going to be happy.

 

[Cruentus]

And if (general) you as the DM let them play a tabaxi even though you don't want it... that's not WotC's responsibility. That's (general) you're own fault.

No one should ever expect WotC to publish in the books things to keep (general) you from having to make your own decisions. And if (general) you do expect WotC to save you from yourself... well... then (general) you probably should just stop playing because you're never going to be happy.

I might buy this if I every time a DM (new or old) comes onto these boards, or other boards I’ve frequented, asks about curating races for a campaign, or limiting the options of PC races, and then been jumped on for “limiting choice”, “being a bad DM”, or “removing player agency.”

Overall, its easier for WOTC to actually describe, in writing, what a DM can do as far as using the game as a toolbox, and support that, rather than “leave it up to someone.” People use Internet forums to get feedback, ideas, suggestions, and yes, even “permission” to play games certain ways for all kinds of reasons. To leave it all on the DM, with little guidance about how to use the tools, is a little problematic. Cause you know the players will bring these discussions and threads to their DM, and say they’re being “unreasonable” or a “bad DM” or whatever.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And if (general) you as the DM let them play a tabaxi even though you don't want it... that's not WotC's responsibility. That's (general) you're own fault.

No one should ever expect WotC to publish in the books things to keep (general) you from having to make your own decisions. And if (general) you do expect WotC to save you from yourself... well... then (general) you probably should just stop playing because you're never going to be happy.

Based on those comments and my and others experiences, many players have drawn a conclusion (that everything in officially published rules, or at least the core, should be available to the players regardless of campaign) that WotC doesn't want them to have. Is that not a problem? If they consider the game to be a toolkit, shouldn't they say that in the books, rather than in an interview only a fraction of a fraction of their player base will ever know about?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Having run games normally and with everyone having a bonus feat at level 1...you may be overselling how big a deal it is.

Well…considering a free GWM at level one means you can get a single “power swing” at -4 when your proficiency bonus is +2, I will have to agree.

if gwm at level one doesn’t break things, not sure what will.

I guess variant human with GWM and polearm master at level one is good but not that much better than polearm master alone, before two attacks.

this is all assuming too that everyone is out for MOAR power all the time; I would just like to take magic initiate and sage background out of the gate!