D&D 5E Sage Advice is back!

[TwoSix]

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.

That's fair, but I do wish the classes had a bit more niche protection in terms of their spell list access.

 

[TwoSix]

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?

To be fair, that's because the player that wants the game to be open to "X race" isn't wrong in their preference either. The game is a toolkit for both the player and the DM, and if they don't agree, they need to figure out a compromise without looking for WotC to be the adjudicator.

 

[Minigiant]

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.”

I think the difference is the group curatimg their houserules and settings and one person doing it. Because if it's one person then it is likely said person will need experience or guidance. And WOTC hasn't treated nor presented 5e as a toolkit It's just all thrown at you and hinging on that 5e isn't terribly unbalanced and that groups would hopefully figure it out. Until they dont,

 

[Remathilis]

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.”

I mean, both are true at the same time. If you invite your friends over for cocktails and the only spirits you have available is vodka and gin, you have probably curated a perfectly good martini bar and at the same time removed the option for whiskey, rum and tequila cocktails. If you and your friends like martinis, this is no problem. But if you go around talking about how great your bar is, don't be surprised if cuba libre drinkers aren't impressed.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Look, if someone doesn't want to take personal responsibility for their own happiness and instead wants to rely on some game company in Seattle to do it for them... okay... best of luck to them. If (general) you want to just sit here miserable because you either have to be a "bad DM" by telling your players "No, Theros is an Ancient Greek style game and thus I'm not allowing Tabaxi in the setting" or else miserable because you LET the player play a Tabaxi in this Ancient Greek setting... then so be it. Be miserable.

But hey... maybe you will luck out and eventually WotC WILL print something in a book someday that says "As a DM you can make this game your own and can pick and choose what to include" and you can use that as your "proof" as to why you aren't allowing Tabaxi. It's not YOU telling them they can't play it, it's Wizards of the Coast! It's THEIR fault! You're just the messenger! You're not the bad guy, it's all WotC! If you really want to wait for that to happen, go right ahead. But just expect to be miserable in the meantime.

Personally though? I'm always perfectly happy being "unreasonable". And I tell the players all the time and straight away without malice or dishonesty "When you run your own game, you can allow or disallow whatever you want. But this is MY game I'm running and I'm going to do the same. If you don't want to go along with it, then you can choose not to play." And I don't feel any personal problem or issue with that whatsoever. And you know what? Neither do my players, because they are actually reasonable people themselves and are able to accept whatever rules or restrictions I put in. And they choose to play or not play as the case may be.

 

[Cruentus]

I mean, both are true at the same time. If you invite your friends over for cocktails and the only spirits you have available is vodka and gin, you have probably curated a perfectly good martini bar and at the same time removed the option for whiskey, rum and tequila cocktails. If you and your friends like martinis, this is no problem. But if you go around talking about how great your bar is, don't be surprised if cuba libre drinkers aren't impressed.

"Hey folks, come on over to my Martini Bar"
"You're limiting my choices!"
"You're removing my agency as a drinker"
"You're a terrible bartender!"

Overall, I agree with @Remathilis and @Minigiant, and what others have said in the thread is that there is no "DnD", per se. We all use the rules, but what those rules, and splatbooks, and 3PP materials all mean is going to be person and group dependent. I would never say to a group, "Hey, let's play DnD". I'd say (from my last campaign) "Hey, let's play a Moonshaes game in FR, set in the year 900 DR, with a Dark Age setting and technology level, low magic, using the PHB." Then session zero I can hash out more of the specifics. (Unfortunately, the game quickly turned into regular old FR DnD using 5e, as everyone selected spellcasting classes or MC'd into them. And I'm not a "new" player/DM.)

@DEFCON 1 , agreed. As mentioned, I've been playing since Basic/1e. It all comes down to what you and your group want out of the experience. But I also feel like it comes down to the dichotomy of the "In game store pickup game/AL" versus a long standing regular group of players playing at home. The expectations (based on forum discussion, their own understanding of the game, movies, whatever) are going to be easier to manage for the latter compared to the former. I stopped my 5e game because I wasn't enjoying running it, didn't enjoy wrestling with the rules/houserules, and my players clearly wanted a different DnD experience. We're now playing Basic and folks report they are enjoying having less on their character sheets, thinking through problems more, and not finding answers in abilities/powers/spells...

 

[DEFCON 1]

If they want players to think of the game as a toolkit, they should present it as one, and tell players not to expect everything in the books to be in every campaign.

And what if they don't? Then it falls to you, the DM to do it.

So do it. And be happier because you did.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Okay, then I'm not sure what contradiction you're referencing.

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?

You mean like how they explicitly tell you in the PHB that the DM decides what races are available and how common they are? Or how the DMG talks about creating the world and how it's up to you as the DM what is in the world?

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.

And that's the thing, almost nothing officially published will. The game is robust. (and because some people don't know what that word means beyond one of it's several definitions, that means sturdy and capable of withstanding strain)

A character doing more damage (the equivelent of a divine smite with a +1 bonus to damage from an item or ally buff) with greatly reduced accuracy will not break the game. Having advantage won't mitigate the attack penalty so much that the character isn't hitting less than a similar character without GWM, and that other character will simply have other benefits. It's fine.

People spend too much time staring at DPR spreadsheets and tracking the exact damage numbers of every attack when they actually play, and it distorts their perception.

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.

Even after two attacks, it's about on par with polearm master and some other feat.

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!

Right. And pretty much everyone with vastly more data than you or I that has spoken on the subject agrees that most people don't worry about optimization.

 

[Remathilis]

"Hey folks, come on over to my Martini Bar"
"You're limiting my choices!"
"You're removing my agency as a drinker"
"You're a terrible bartender!"

Overall, I agree with @Remathilis and @Minigiant, and what others have said in the thread is that there is no "DnD", per se. We all use the rules, but what those rules, and splatbooks, and 3PP materials all mean is going to be person and group dependent. I would never say to a group, "Hey, let's play DnD". I'd say (from my last campaign) "Hey, let's play a Moonshaes game in FR, set in the year 900 DR, with a Dark Age setting and technology level, low magic, using the PHB." Then session zero I can hash out more of the specifics. (Unfortunately, the game quickly turned into regular old FR DnD using 5e, as everyone selected spellcasting classes or MC'd into them. And I'm not a "new" player/DM.)

Which was kinda my point. We talk about D&D in a collective sense: everything WotC makes is D&D, so when I hear "I'm playing D&D", I assume it's all on the table the way someone says "let's go to the bar" assumes a normal fully stocked bar vs some niche specialty one. And as long as that is spelled out beforehand and gives the player the knowledge before joining (as you did) you're probably in the good.

Too often though, players come in expecting the fully stocked bar and find out the owner only has the stuff for martinis. Or that they have a full bar, but they refuse to make tequila drinks because they personally dislike tequila. Or the customer asked for some new fancy drink and is given an old fashioned because the bartender doesn't make fu-fu drinks. The customer does have the right to say this isn't what they wanted to do on their Saturday night and not return to the establishment either.

I've always advocated that unless your players are fine with a focused experience, the open bar is the safest bet. And even if you are opting for that tailored experience, it isn't always bad to let George bring a pint of Kahlua to try the Kahluatini he heard about.

And after this metaphor, I need a drink!

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The spells were not what ranger was about. Favored enemies, terrain bonuses, two weapon or bow style, later Ranger abilities, and the subclasses features were what Rangers were about. The magic is geared towards the Ranger flavor, but isn't what defines the class. The class and subclass abilities are what defines the Ranger.

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 think you're more worried about this than is necessary. First, the "extra" and "earlier" feats are background feats, so presumable you aren't going to get a fighter with the strixhaven college background. You're going to get a spellcaster who gets a very few minor spells from another class, which is trivial and doesn't negatively affect any class identity at all. same with feats that give you spells or even class features from other classes. What you get is so trivially small that nothing is watered down as far as class identity goes.

You seem to be assuming that the feat chains are going to be this big monstrous thing that totally waters down class identity, when nothing and no one said or implied that would be the case. A bit better than trivial isn't going to be a massive breach of class identity.

I'm also not sure why you're even bringing up multiclassing. That quite literally cannot water down the classes, as you are becoming that second class. Whatever class you were and whatever class you pick up are still those classes, so nothing is watered down as far as class identity goes.

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"

They aren't bleeding together, though. A class feature at the expense of a feat doesn't bleed anything together. Let me give an example.

Let's say I'm playing Dabram, Priest of Silvanus(Nature Cleric) and I want to be a protector of the life that nature provides. To that end I take some feat that doesn't exist yet and may never exist that gives me a single Favored Enemy, which I decide is undead since they are anti-life. Taking that feat doesn't make me part ranger, nor does it bleed the cleric and ranger classes together.

The Ranger is far more than just that one ability. Nothing says that ability shouldn't be like expertise, channel divinity, or extra attack and be the province of only Rangers. It's okay for a small measure of abilities and spells from other classes to be taken at the expense of a feat.