Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8550885" data-attributes="member: 6790260">On the one hand, I felt the playtest failed at testing; it was more a public preview. On the other, the game obviously sold well. On the gripping hand, "failure" or "success" is less relevant than the resulting rules...which have a lot of holes. Underlying math (don't forget the Ghoul Surprise), most feats, class mixing, pacing/structure, and advice? Oof. I'd also add the nigh-useless CR system to the list.Part of it is just, 5e is a child of 3e (despite many statements about it being "AD&D3," e.g. an alternate successor upholding the Advanced line.) But multiclassing, underlying math, caster power, CR little better than intuition, flawed (both poor and OP) feats, and adventure/encounter pacing issues? That's most of the problems of 3e too. 5e is a toned-down version of 3e, for good and for ill. That ramps up the argument intensity, because we're still litigating the issues we've been hitting for 20 years or more.This may be an issue then. I don't see it as "the dungeon-crawl game." I see it as "big tent," which includes crawling and a lot else besides. (Kinda surprised that you advocate so much for 5e-as-it-is though since, IMO, 4e being so well-balanced in combat makes it better for dungeon crawls. No DM hand-holding, especially if they follow the DMG's advice and don't make every encounter perfectly balanced.)Many come to D&D, for many reasons. 4e tried to optimize for one focus and let groups decide for themselves how to handle the things that couldn't be designed for, and it was hotly controversial to say the least. 5e, meanwhile, was specifically (IIRC explicitly) sold as a "big tent." Hell, they even had to play damage control when some of their early statements to that effect became pretty clearly impossible or unrealistic.A big tent game--by the devs' own words, a fair standard IMO--can't afford classes that emphatically refuse to engage with the pillars. That just frustrates many players. Addressing this does not require that we never ever provide classes that support abnegation (the formal term for "I just want to zone out and play"-type player preferences). But it does require that every class get, in and of itself, something meaningful to contribute to each of the three pillars.Never saw anything like this myself in dungeon crawls. Concentration was no limit at all in 3e and is only a slight limit in 5e.Even apart from that, I'm skeptical. Damage and defense spells are still great. Many others (e.g. misty step, invisibility; borrowed knowledge or enhance ability; rituals like augury and locate object;, etc.) are still good, perhaps better in confined underground spaces (and those are all 1st or 2nd level too!) If the Wizard can be confident that normal staples like fly aren't worth it, that just means they can focus better on the spells that remain and are worthwhile--which doesn't really reduce their power.I strongly contest the teleport claim. Many exploration puzzles can be trivialized if someone can teleport across a 30' gap, or get through unbreakable metal bars. Or for more potent ones, going straight from the dungeon back to town without traversing the land between can be extremely valuable. Few dungeons are just positioned right next to inns and shops, after all!Fighter reliability is only an asset if they're given the opportunity, and 5e as designed fails to support this. I've run the numbers. Even a Battle Master (to say nothing of the Champion) requires 7-8 encounters and 2 (preferably 3) short rests a day to keep up with the likes of a Paladin. These design assumptions are just...wrong for most groups. Six encounters is a very long day to most. Two short rests is on the high end. Etc. The Paladin can thus either outclass the Fighter in damage output, or match him and have several utility spells on the side.Were these ever absent? Wandering monsters and reaction tables suggest otherwise. Old-school players often refer to Cha (perhaps in not so many words) as a god stat for how it can prevent fights from happening or even turn potential enemies into hirelings. So I'm not even sure this was true in the past, and it's certainly not any more true today.My objection isn't from the player's side. It's from the DM's side. The DM has to either rule that your reflavored spells aren't actually subject to issues that would prevent magic from working, thus giving a straight power buff for fluff reasons, or that they are despite not actually being magic, which shatters my already-damaged ability to believe that they're really not spells.Yes, but I used the analogy I did for a reason. Spellcasters are not just sandwich+soup+salad. You are getting less food for the same money. That's why I used the analogy structured as I did. Obviously you can rip it apart into something else that looks like your position. That's how analogies work. But the whole point was "(1) the game tells us, implicitly and explicitly, that these things are peers; (2) these things are not peers; (3) games shouldn't do that, so something has to change." A game should not mislead its players, period.Why does giving the Fighter something they CAN do outside of combat take that away? You keep saying this and it's completely baffling to me. Having the option to contribute something meaningful, even if it isn't dramatic or flashy or awesome, does not have to make it complicated. I've said that SEVERAL times. You can keep it simple, while expanding the areas where it has something to contribute, unless a "more lax game style" specifically and only means "I literally never want to be bothered when we're not fighting, if you bother me while we're not fighting I will lose all interest in playing."As I said, what I actually want is ALL non-casters to have (what you consider) "fantastical" contributions without magic. Failing that, I want ALL non-casters--explicitly including Fighters--to have meaningful contributions. I cannot go any lower than that, because anything less than that isn't actually changing anything. Something has to actually change. No "well you can just use X thing that exists, but Think Different™ about it" will ever actually give me what I--and a lot of people--are looking for.And no, this isn't some insane wahoo way out there request. It's literally, exclusively, "Give the Fighter some meaningful contributions outside of combat." That's it. That's all. I just want the Fighter to be included in the stuff the game says is vitally important to play.Again, you present this as me snatching away something from you, and I just do not get it. The only meanings I can see for the things you've said are:1. "I don't ever want to be bothered by things outside of combat, so if I even have one feature that interacts with that, I'll be bothered by it. Thus, we have a zero-sum game: you getting what you want guarantees I can't have what I want, so you're not allowed to ask for what you want."2. "I cannot see how it is possible to have non-combat features that aren't simple and straightforward, so anything you change will necessarily create dramatic complexity, ruining my experience, so you're not allowed to ask for what you want."That's why I've replied as I have. The first is people not wanting to be bothered, which they can quite easily do by...continuing to ignore any rules irrelevant to their interests. It is pointless to design the game around what people refuse to interact with. The second is....simply a disagreement about the implementation of rules that do not exist, which is hella premature and comes across as arguing in bad faith. Presuming that the things someone wants cannot possibly be compatible with your interests, and thus they must be the ones to always compromise without question, is not kosher. If you want to hear why people pursue what they do, granting the possibility that their desires can be fulfilled without destroying the things you like is kinda step 1 on that road.Because D&D needs to be big-tent; the designers said it was big-tent; the players demanded that it be big-tent; the rules present themselves as big-tent. Because, if D&D is to survive, it cannot afford to pigeonhole archetypes. And yes, a Fighter that is not equipped to do things outside of combat, other than things literally everyone can do, is pigeonholed. Either they should admit that, or address it, but something has to change.I am philosophically opposed to class design that does not say, but in practice provides, "you, Myrmidon, you don't get anything for participating in key parts of the game." I disagree with design that openly goes that direction for tabletop gaming meant to be long-term (e.g. not a Pandemic game, where you're meant to start and finish in a single sitting, but stuff like D&D, where playing a dozen sessions would be on the low end of intended play experience), but if the game is at least honest about doing that, I can accept that that's just a game not interested in providing what I'm looking for. And yes, this is an extremely deep philosophical commitment on my part; I genuinely believe that it makes games worse to provide archetypes that are simply not furnished with meaningful tools to interact with core, fundamental gameplay loops.And since I know this will invite this criticism because it always does, no, "things everyone gets" are not enough, not in the game of 5e as designed. They could have been, in theory, but in practice the things everyone gets are such piddly-nothing stuff compared to what actual dedicated class features look like that I cannot accept them. It would require a FAR more radical re-design of 5e to get the common features up to the level that I'd be happy with them, and because I'm aware that's a non-starter for most folks, I don't even bother pursuing that avenue.Because D&D, as a game, is something I care about, and would like to feel included in, and have been told I'm supposed to feel included in. Because D&D, as a historical entity, has struggled with this specific issue for literally decades and it still remains an issue, even though multiple systems (DW, 4e, and 13A, to name a few) have solved it quite nicely. Because D&D, as a product, is marketed as a band of adventurers, peers joining together for mutual benefit, not Casters & Caddies.Like...there's literally not much more to it. My beliefs regarding how cooperative multiplayer game design should work inform this. My emotional investment in this specific subculture, and the explicit statements of the people creating the game associated with that subculture, inform it. My understanding of what D&D is "supposed" to be, as stated by the creators themselves, inform it.How is that difficult to grasp? I care about it for the same reason I care about the design of classes in FFXIV--I play the game, I spend a lot of my time interacting with the community, I read and understand the statements made by the developers, and I advocate for the things I like and criticize the things I don't. What more do I need? Why do I need to justify to you why I want this?Honestly this is kind of hilarious given the way things worked out with 4e. Because y'know what one of the biggest criticisms of 4e was? "I can't play a Fighter who does damage" (prior to the Slayer subclass anyway). "Okay but...you can? Fighters are one of the highest-damage classes that aren't straight-up Strikers, and you can easily build to do even more damage.""Yes but I can't choose not to be a Defender." "Oh, well then what you actually want is a Ranger, they're a really good Martial Striker." "NO, that's NOT what I want, I want a FIGHTER, I want it to SAY 'Fighter' on my character sheet and be a kick-ass attacker." "Oh...okay...but like...you'll actually, truly get everything you want if you just accept that 'Ranger' is the name for the thing you want to play, a person who kicks huge ass with mighty thews and pure skill with weapons, no supernatural power required.""No, it MUST be an ACTUAL Fighter or it's not acceptable." "Alright, well, guess you got what you wanted with Slayer."So now when I say, "Okay, well, if there's no roles, I want Fighters to be able to meaningfully contribute to non-combat, just like others balked at Fighters that had innate Defender features before," I'm told that I'm the wrong and bad one for wanting to piss in casual players' cheerios.Maybe, if such casual play is so goddamn important, we should have more than one class to carry that weight?I have done my best to avoid any such arguments, hence why I focus on the actual statements made by the developers (e.g. referring to D&D Next/5e as a "big tent" edition, the books explicitly treating the classes as peers) or on abstract principles of game design (e.g. "how should a cooperative game be designed?") That way, I literally cannot be putting anyone down.Because this is an issue that's been simmering for twenty years. 4e addressed it. 5e reverted most of that. People are sick and tired of feeling like saying "I prefer playing Fighters" makes you a second-class citizen of D&D-land. Feeling marginalized and forced to either play along or put up with just straight less than others get sucks. It turns what should be a delightful funtime experience into a constant reminder that the things you like are "supposed" to suck compared to Magic, because Magic Is Awesome And Always Will Be.Well, that's gonna happen even if you're making homebrew in a relatively uncontroversial portion of the game. The problem there is that pursuit of change invites anyone who's interested in change to comment--and thus the internet, with its characteristic heedlessness, will summon the entire spectrum of people who have feelings about change. Both the extreme "all change is bad, do nothing" and "nothing is good, change everything" and everything in between. When there's already such hardened lines, the battlefield breaks out anywhere someone brings up the possibility of changes.My response to you specifically got way overlong, so I'm posting this now, and will reply to the other quotes I'd collected after. And...yeah I'm not even going to bother trying to catch up to the posts made in between. If it matters, I'll check them out later, but for now the thread is moving too fast for me to 100% keep up.</blockquote>

Verification