Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Million Dollar TTRPG Crowdfunders
Most Anticipated Tabletop RPGs Of The Year
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
This Feels Like 4E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9865507" data-attributes="member: 93670"><p>Id say that it's obviously intended. Pretty sure that Crawford even talked about them not locking down the hand slot and leaving it open so players can something or other.</p><p></p><p>This whole thing is the consequence of a second deliberate design choice to ensure that an important system is largely irrelivant be design. Because 5.24 chose not to tighten encumbrance and carry capacity so "do I really want to be carrying <em>this</em>" would matter enough for players to ask (or even my normally completing container rules that are merely implied as mearls did recently in his Moldvey adaptation).</p><p></p><p> Players don't "<em>need</em>" to carry 6 weapons & don't <em>need</em> juggle them for maximum effectiveness, that's the wrong way of looking at it given the mechanics involved. It's the wrong way because players have so much capacity and so few hurdles in the way of doing those things that there is no reason to even consider "do I <em>need</em> to" or "<em>could</em> this hurt me". Choosing not to complete rules subsystems and choosing to deliberately leave existing subsystems irrelevant by design has consequences in totally separate areas of play. This entire thread exists because those choices resulted in the exact consequences predicted during the marketing play test.</p><p></p><p>Don't believe me, look at wotc's own choice of image to hype weapon masteries.</p><p>[MEDIA=twitter]1806009535456301287[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p>While being told why the golf bag would cause problems wotc chose to openly embrace it with sarcasm as part of it's announcement </p><p></p><p>[USER=710]@Mustrum_Ridcully[/USER] at least the 3.x golf bag had benefits like encouraging players to choose between using more optimal but less magical∆ weapons less hindered by Dr/x and vice versa or allowing the spotlight to more organically shift when PC optimization is disparate enough for the need. There's an endless list of reasons the old golf bags could selectively be used for good at the table by a wise gm leaning on them with monster choice, but the 5e golf bag lacks any hooks for the gm to lean on.</p><p></p><p></p><p>∆ maybe it's unexpectedly too good or whatever and you don't want to take it away but don't want to turn the other PCs into sidekicks. That unexpectedly too magical weapon can still be amazing other times without being amazing <em><em>always</em></em>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 9865507, member: 93670"] Id say that it's obviously intended. Pretty sure that Crawford even talked about them not locking down the hand slot and leaving it open so players can something or other. This whole thing is the consequence of a second deliberate design choice to ensure that an important system is largely irrelivant be design. Because 5.24 chose not to tighten encumbrance and carry capacity so "do I really want to be carrying [I]this[/I]" would matter enough for players to ask (or even my normally completing container rules that are merely implied as mearls did recently in his Moldvey adaptation). Players don't "[I]need[/I]" to carry 6 weapons & don't [I]need[/I] juggle them for maximum effectiveness, that's the wrong way of looking at it given the mechanics involved. It's the wrong way because players have so much capacity and so few hurdles in the way of doing those things that there is no reason to even consider "do I [I]need[/I] to" or "[I]could[/I] this hurt me". Choosing not to complete rules subsystems and choosing to deliberately leave existing subsystems irrelevant by design has consequences in totally separate areas of play. This entire thread exists because those choices resulted in the exact consequences predicted during the marketing play test. Don't believe me, look at wotc's own choice of image to hype weapon masteries. [MEDIA=twitter]1806009535456301287[/MEDIA] While being told why the golf bag would cause problems wotc chose to openly embrace it with sarcasm as part of it's announcement [USER=710]@Mustrum_Ridcully[/USER] at least the 3.x golf bag had benefits like encouraging players to choose between using more optimal but less magical∆ weapons less hindered by Dr/x and vice versa or allowing the spotlight to more organically shift when PC optimization is disparate enough for the need. There's an endless list of reasons the old golf bags could selectively be used for good at the table by a wise gm leaning on them with monster choice, but the 5e golf bag lacks any hooks for the gm to lean on. ∆ maybe it's unexpectedly too good or whatever and you don't want to take it away but don't want to turn the other PCs into sidekicks. That unexpectedly too magical weapon can still be amazing other times without being amazing [I][I]always[/I][/I]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
This Feels Like 4E
Top