D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Remathilis]

Artificers were added for Eberron. Settings typically have new spells, equipment, kits (subclasses), ancestries, feats, etc. to enhance things. I allow splatbooks and third party products as long as they seem reasonable, both mechanically and thematically.

And Eberrron was created by WotC in third edition, when the design paradigm had changed from "beating PCs into submission" to "lets offer cool alternatives that are tied to the world."

As far as "why don't you create settings by adding new super-powerful options," well... because if there are new super-powerful options, no one's gonna take the standard stuff. I'm going to have to create an entirely new game's worth of super-powerful classes, ancestries, spells, monsters, etc. I'm creating a new system at that point.

No, what I'm suggesting is things that are universal systems that improve characters, not reduce them. Stuff like action points in Eberron or extra feats in Dragonlance. 3e onwards has more-or-less added to PCs in different ways while 2e was primarily focused on reducing stuff. The sole exception I can think of was Dark Sun's free Wild Talent.

 

[jasper]

Honestly I kind of expected a more.... thoughtful take from a storied blog like this rather than knee jerk gloom and doom about how PCs are invincible and the game is all about superheroes now. It just feels like such an edition change cliche at this point.

27 sessions of princes of Apocalypse
PC Killed 1 Monsters Killed 639 Villains Captured 33 Villains Escaped 184 and why I was not gunning for the pcs, some of the monsters did try to double tap.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Don't you have a tenth or eleventh level 1-20 2024 game to prep your PC for?

No?

Heh heh... not exactly sure where you were trying to go with that dig, but it doesn't make no sense to me!

 

[Chaltab]

27 sessions of princes of Apocalypse
PC Killed 1 Monsters Killed 639 Villains Captured 33 Villains Escaped 184 and why I was not gunning for the pcs, some of the monsters did try to double tap.

Sounds basically the same as the average 2014 5E campaign to me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

not sure why that is a problem to admit, do you expect everyone to either love 2024 or mindlessly defend 2014 as the ‘perfect edition’? That monsters do not hit hard enough, esp at higher levels has been pointed out for years, that ranged attacks and mobility actions should be available for higher CRs is also not exactly new.

Yes. Yes I do expect that.

Because I saw it. For years. People straight up telling me that I was a fool to argue that PHB dragonborn were weak and underpowered compared to essentially all other PC races. People telling me I clearly had an agenda because I argued that Sorcerer was half-baked and weak compared to other full casters. People telling me I was "white room"ing to argue that Warlocks were getting shortchanged while long-rest casters were getting favored because the whole "six to eight combats a day" thing simply doesn't happen on the reg at most tables. People literally dismissing comments *from Mearls himself" talking about his regrets from designing 5.0. etc.

So...yeah. I've seen several points I made for years get shouted down by people claiming I was just a hater, only to be vindicated years later. People pretending that real and demonstrable issues were nothing at all or even intentional design features. People telling me it wasn't possible for anyone to dislike 5e because it had stuff to offer everyone. Etc.

I have absolutely seen people who think 5e is a perfect edition that can do no wrong.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's how I always looked at it, that restrictions helped to create favor, because when every setting puts every choice on the table, then those settings become that much more interchangeable. It was the same principle behind prerequisites for various classes, races, etc., because when you think about what can't be done you start engaging with why it can't be done and the effects that such restrictions create in the setting, making it more vivid to the imagination.

There's always a critical word missing in this sort of thing.

Good limitations create flavor. Good limitations breed creativity. Good prerequisites enhance immersion and naturally guide players in productive ways.

But many restrictions are not actually good restrictions. They don't actually create much, if any, flavor; they may even reduce it by rejecting creative alternatives in order to enforce conformity (usually, conformity to tradition). They don't actually inspire creativity, they just inspire frustration. They pull players out of immersion because they call attention to patterns that wouldn't be part of experiencing the world, especially when the limitations are rooted in nothing more than GM taste excluding others' tastes, rather than because the GM is consciously reshaping the experience to achieve a clear end.

Point being: "less is more" is only true when you actually do do more with less. Otherwise, less is, in fact, less, exactly as it says on the tin.

 

[Alzrius]

There's always a critical word missing in this sort of thing.

Good limitations create flavor. Good limitations breed creativity. Good prerequisites enhance immersion and naturally guide players in productive ways.

That's not a critical word, it's a weasel word, since what constitutes "good" is going to vary—sometimes wildly—from one person to the next. Whether something creates "much" flavor, or creativity, or if what they create "wouldn't" be part of experiencing the world, are all open to interpretation, though you'd never know that from people who think that their subjective preferences are objective truths, and so bludgeon others by stating their opinions as if they were facts.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's not a critical word, it's a weasel word, since what constitutes "good" is going to vary—sometimes wildly—from one person to the next. Whether something creates "much" flavor, or creativity, or if what they create "wouldn't" be part of experiencing the world, are all open to interpretation, though you'd never know that from people who think that their subjective preferences are objective truths, and so bludgeon others by stating their opinions as if they were facts.

So every limitation always breeds creativity?

It's not possible for a limitation to just suck, to be genuinely unproductive or even harmful?

 

[Alzrius]

So every limitation always breeds creativity?

It's not possible for a limitation to just suck, to be genuinely unproductive or even harmful?

You seem to be asking if there's nothing which can be objectively defined as "bad." Given that the context for that question is with regards to personal enjoyment in recreational games of imagination, where the only metric is à chacun son goût, the answer should be obvious.

 

[mamba]

Yes. Yes I do expect that.

oh well, I tell it how I see it, no need to defend or condemn everything 2014 or 2024, both are far from perfect

I have absolutely seen people who think 5e is a perfect edition that can do no wrong.

some might, you still should not expect this from everyone though