D&D 5E The Annotated PHB

[Oofta]

What is this? I did NOT "belittle" any one's opinion.

Spare me your misplaced moralism.

Whatever unstated implications you read into my posts are purely your responsibility.

I said that WotC could not tell if people played the class options, not that no one did. If you're going to go aroud berating people make sure you have actually read what was said.

Your implication was perfectly clear: people couldn't have honestly tested or they would have rejected the playtest because you don't like some of the decisions.

If that wasn't what you meant, explain and I'll apologize. Or just let it drop.

 

[Undrave]

Aaaaand the thread becomes edition wars hahaha

Oops, my bad

 

[Faolyn]

I suppose it was too much to ask just to have a thread that was focused on 5E without any acrimony or infighting.

Probably.

But other than explaining how various mechanics or whatever were chosen, what would you like to see in an annotated PH? The commentary by the various writers on what led to such decisions or what went on behind the scenes?

 

[Undrave]

Overall, the design has shifted back to a more simple approach to character building and combat options, which goes against what we had in 3rd and 4th editions.

Agreed. As much as I love customizing a character, there can be such a thing as too many options at a single decision point. Class-based games SHOULD be tighter and less free form than point build games by their very nature. What I really like is differentiation and synergy between options, I don't need THAT many of them, I just need them to feel like they impact my playstyle. I want to be able to play multiple characters of the same class and have them feel like different characters ya know?

Removing most of the niggling little abilities given by feats (like avoiding AoO while shoving someone, or allowing someone to split their move by making an attack)

I think you mean making them unecessary by integrating their benefits right into the base game (there's no AoO to shove someone and all characters can break up their move and attack).

We don't need a special annotated rule book. This is just what the regular rule book should do.

That was after all the intention wasn't it behind 5e, to put power back in the hands of the GM. So inform them about what the designers were thinking so they can make informed decisions. Explain the rationale behind how sneak attack is designed, rather than have people go to twitter for technical rulings by Jeremy Crawford.

13th Age manages to do this.

There isn't much point empowering the DM if they then make dumb decisions like playing hardball on the rogue getting sneak attack because they don't understand how the game is supposed to work and you didn't bother to tell them.

Agreed! The Rogue is pretty much balanced against other damage dealer on being able to get Sneak Attack every turn! The conditions aren't there to make it hard to get, they're there to enforce a specific 'sneaky' playstyle! If the Rogue could get the same damage just wailing on a dude while standing still (putting aside that he'd just be a Fighter), there would be no reason to use underhanded tactics (like ganging up) or using stealth.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The word “agree” there will cause problems. And agreeing on what the annotation actually is will be problematic as well.

The upvote/downvote thread types seems like a good way to do it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Agreed. As much as I love customizing a character, there can be such a thing as too many options at a single decision point. Class-based games SHOULD be tighter and less free form than point build games by their very nature. What I really like is differentiation and synergy between options, I don't need THAT many of them, I just need them to feel like they impact my playstyle. I want to be able to play multiple characters of the same class and have them feel like different characters ya know?

Yeah, with some distance from 4e, I think that if they have started with maybe 2 options per decision point, and added more only when they supported a new build or whatever, and in small numbers, it would have helped. Well, that and just letting people use the same power multiple times with “power slots” like 5e Spellcasting.

 

[Undrave]

Yeah, with some distance from 4e, I think that if they have started with maybe 2 options per decision point, and added more only when they supported a new build or whatever, and in small numbers, it would have helped. Well, that and just letting people use the same power multiple times with “power slots” like 5e Spellcasting.

Considering how typically games don't reach that high level, I think having 4 options per decision point for the first two levels (so 4 At-Will, 4 Encoutner, 4 Daily and 4 Utilities) would have been good enough to help differientate characters early on and with the other decison points being relegated to 2 per level. And you should have been able to just pick up more uses of lower level powers instead of picking up a new ones.

Also no stacking of power choice with a feat choice on a single level, that way you can cut down on decision points.

 

[Oofta]

Probably.

But other than explaining how various mechanics or whatever were chosen, what would you like to see in an annotated PH? The commentary by the various writers on what led to such decisions or what went on behind the scenes?

The problem is that when developing something complex, sometimes it's just "it's the best compromise we could think of at the time". Yes, the authors of the rules can justify what they did and why, but it's often after-the-fact and altered over time. That's not saying that they would be dishonest, it's just how memory and justification of things we've done works.

I'm also not sure why it makes much difference. People can fully explain the logic and reason behind why they did something, I can still disagree with their choice.

I could see a document that discusses in a reasonably concise format different rulings and popular house rule variations that people have made. There is no "correct" way to play D&D, there are merely what works at your game table.

 

[Reynard]

The problem is that when developing something complex, sometimes it's just "it's the best compromise we could think of at the time". Yes, the authors of the rules can justify what they did and why, but it's often after-the-fact and altered over time. That's not saying that they would be dishonest, it's just how memory and justification of things we've done works.

I'm also not sure why it makes much difference. People can fully explain the logic and reason behind why they did something, I can still disagree with their choice.

I could see a document that discusses in a reasonably concise format different rulings and popular house rule variations that people have made. There is no "correct" way to play D&D, there are merely what works at your game table.

Maybe "annotated" is throwing people off in that im not talking about the opinions of the designers. I am talking about collective wisdom over years of playing.

So sneak attack, for example: the rules for sneak attack are fine, but many people might benefit from everything from a DPR analysis to a discussion on how the different ways to get it impact play and tone.

I think it would have to be a digital project, like a wiki. I have to read municipal regulations for work a lot and the best ones have rollover links for terminology and such.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Considering how typically games don't reach that high level, I think having 4 options per decision point for the first two levels (so 4 At-Will, 4 Encoutner, 4 Daily and 4 Utilities) would have been good enough to help differientate characters early on and with the other decison points being relegated to 2 per level. And you should have been able to just pick up more uses of lower level powers instead of picking up a new ones.

Also no stacking of power choice with a feat choice on a single level, that way you can cut down on decision points.

Yeah that would work. And just fewer feats for the love of fluff!