D&D 5E The Annotated PHB

[Reynard]

You might not get what I'm saying.

It's not about liking or enjoying the class. It's about designing a class to match a genre and designing a class to match how fans want them to look.

AKA designing classes purely for heroic fantasy, slghtly higher than normal, dungeon crawling would look like (is shot with a sleep dart)

I feel like you actively avoided explaining what you mean there. Please go on. What is the disparity that you see?

 

[Oofta]

You might not get what I'm saying.

It's not about liking or enjoying the class. It's about designing a class to match a genre and designing a class to match how fans want them to look.

AKA designing classes purely for heroic fantasy, slghtly higher than normal, dungeon crawling would look like (is shot with a sleep dart)

D&D 5E works just fine for the style of games I want to tell. No game can be everything for everyone; then again like Reynard I don't know what you want.

 

[Minigiant]

I feel like you actively avoided explaining what you mean there. Please go on. What is the disparity that you see?

I avoided it because it is hard to explain.

Basically how some fans describe there preferences for D&D don't match up with how the game would have to be built for those desires.

Like people wanting a nonmagical ranger but not realizing that the class would have to be loaded up to the ear in features to replace them.
That ultimately caster classes must have relatively minor subclass features because of the overall power and lack of restraint in spells from the second tier on.
That warrior classes should really have more attacks to really display they prowess but don't in order to speed up play.
It would display that the HP bloat is due to fans both wanting higher base survival in adventurers AND a simple HP growth system.

Annotations would expose these conflicts in the minds of many fans and expose compromises and errors in WOTC's designs. It would bust some of the illusions 5e runs on.

 

[Faolyn]

Like people wanting a nonmagical ranger but not realizing that the class would have to be loaded up to the ear in features to replace them.

I'm pretty sure that most people who want a nonmagical ranger are aware that the spells would have to replaced with abilities. We do not see that as a problem.

 

[robus]

How would we do this? It's a cool idea.

A wiki page would be best, and it can have a comment thread.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This should be enlightening. Please explain.

Neat, canned examples are not easy to find, but I can give you two, but be forewarned that both are arguments often levied in edition warring (which is often the result of people doing this):
1. "If we get rid of THAC0, then anyone could learn to play D&D!"
Read: "I've staked part of my identity on D&D being an exclusive club that only an elite few can join, due to artificial difficulty. If you remove that artificial difficulty, I will no longer be special solely because I play D&D." And yes; before you ask, I have actually seen people argue this in forum posts (and other documentation of the 2e/3e edition wars).

2. "4e isn't D&D because <insert reason here>" (e.g. "it's an MMO on paper")
Read: "D&D is a game made to appeal to me and my interests. I don't see the appeal of 4e. Therefore, 4e cannot actually be D&D, it has to be some other thing."

Most other examples are more subtle or require more analysis. E.g. several arguments for why dragonborn shouldn't exist or shouldn't have breasts (the latter mostly stated by male players rather than female ones...), or how anything that isn't a pure ideal sandbox is a horrific railroad. Or for a more narrow one, that multiclassing HAS to be 3e-style à la carte MC or else it's just bad. Setting details have a tendency to do the same, e.g. if a product bungles some fluff element you may get dramatic pronouncements of abandoning an edition entirely purely for that one error.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm pretty sure that most people who want a nonmagical ranger are aware that the spells would have to replaced with abilities. We do not see that as a problem.

Many people don't. That why WOTC hasn't made it. Because when people take the spells out and put other stuff in it place, people whine about it for one reason or another.

And this is why WOTC basically nudges them to play a outlander fighter/rogue multiclass with a bunch of feats and if you don't like it "Tough Noogies".

Neat, canned examples are not easy to find, but I can give you two, but be forewarned that both are arguments often levied in edition warring (which is often the result of people doing this):
1. "If we get rid of THAC0, then anyone could learn to play D&D!"
Read: "I've staked part of my identity on D&D being an exclusive club that only an elite few can join, due to artificial difficulty. If you remove that artificial difficulty, I will no longer be special solely because I play D&D." And yes; before you ask, I have actually seen people argue this in forum posts (and other documentation of the 2e/3e edition wars).

2. "4e isn't D&D because <insert reason here>" (e.g. "it's an MMO on paper")
Read: "D&D is a game made to appeal to me and my interests. I don't see the appeal of 4e. Therefore, 4e cannot actually be D&D, it has to be some other thing."

Most other examples are more subtle or require more analysis. E.g. several arguments for why dragonborn shouldn't exist or shouldn't have breasts (the latter mostly stated by male players rather than female ones...), or how anything that isn't a pure ideal sandbox is a horrific railroad. Or for a more narrow one, that multiclassing HAS to be 3e-style à la carte MC or else it's just bad. Setting details have a tendency to do the same, e.g. if a product bungles some fluff element you may get dramatic pronouncements of abandoning an edition entirely purely for that one error.

Indeed it is tough to talk about this tough without at least addressing edition warring.

Another example is the adventuring day. You can a simple and natural rest and encounter system for an adventuring day that works for in a dungeon and outside of a "dungeon". That premise has hinted hints to it all over the DMG.

But if you said it openly, some people would get mad.

 

[Faolyn]

Many people don't. That why WOTC hasn't made it. Because when people take the spells out and put other stuff in it place, people whine about it for one reason or another.

And this is why WOTC basically nudges them to play a outlander fighter/rogue multiclass with a bunch of feats and if you don't like it "Tough Noogies".

I'd guess it's more that the ranger has had spells since 1st edition and has nothing to do with whether or not people like it.

 

[Maxperson]

nevermind

 

[Minigiant]

I'd guess it's more that the ranger has had spells since 1st edition and has nothing to do with whether or not people like it.

That... uhhh.. proves my point.

What people want class to look:
The 1e ranger doesn't have spells are level 7! Why does the 5e one get magic at level 2! BOOOO!

What people want class to play:
The 1e ranger gets spells at level 8 because players want rangers to be self sufficient trackers and thus need healing, divination, and nature magic to do so in a simple package.