D&D 5E Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

[Cap'n Kobold]

I mean, fi the DM doesn't think about the module, and none of the players do..."banning" isn't the right word.

Well, no. "Available but not chosen" would fit for that situation.
But I was asking about where WotC stated they were not allowed, for which "banning" is the right word.

 

[Parmandur]

Spoiler: this

View attachment 137840

no doubt has a significant impact on that "most" too. Teir1 is levels 1-4. Out of the 62.8% of characters n the ddb character database when they did that, only variant human characters were even capable to taking a feat. A hypothetical 100% of the 26.9% of tier2 characters could immediately take a feat as soon as they hit level 5 and even with tier 3/4 added "most" characters would still not be using feats. There are simply not enough variant humans to change that given race percentage breakdowns we know.

In that light, the statement "most games/players don't use feats" falls squarely under Mark Twain's statistics quote for being technically accurate but almost meaningless. Now if Crawford had said that most players/games level 9 or 12 & up don't use feats it would be relevant & interesting given the ease of hitting 20 in a prime stat by then. The fact that it's impossible for most characters in the dataset to even have a feat overrides the value in stating if most of them use feats

Most characters never get that high in Level, either. You can dislike the data, but it is what it is. The point is, Feats are an optional module used by a minority of players, that WotC gives some level of support for. So that is something they are willing to do, for a variant that a third of players are interested in using.

 

[Parmandur]

Well, no. "Available but not chosen" would fit for that situation.
But I was asking about where WotC stated they were not allowed, for which "banning" is the right word.

If the option isn't chosen by the DM, it's not really there. It's a DM side optional module.

 

[ph0rk]

If the option isn't chosen by the DM, it's not really there. It's a DM side optional module.

And WotC published representative data on what DMs do when, exactly?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

And that wouldn’t be bad, but a clearly defined design goal ought to be that you can just use whatever and not be mired in material-type resistance hell.

That was indeed one of 5e's design goals: to cut down on the "golf bag" meme. That and skill lay more with the individual than with their tools. Hence the much broader weapon categories.

That doesn't mean that someone can't homebrew an optional module that puts all the reliance on the old golf bag back into the game.

If the option isn't chosen by the DM, it's not really there. It's a DM side optional module.

I mean if the word "banned" is what you're objecting to, feel free to use the phrase "not allowed". I think that that was the phrasing on the original claim. Semantics aside however, I'd like to read the article where WotC said that, because it is very much in contradiction with my own experiences in the games that I have played in and read the briefs for.

 

[Parmandur]

That was indeed one of 5e's design goals: to cut down on the "golf bag" meme. That and skill lay more with the individual than with their tools. Hence the much broader weapon categories.

That doesn't mean that someone can't homebrew an optional module that puts all the reliance on the old golf bag back into the game.



I mean if the word "banned" is what you're objecting to, feel free to use the phrase "not allowed". I think that that was the phrasing on the original claim. Semantics aside however, I'd like to read the article where WotC said that, because it is very much in contradiction with my own experiences in the games that I have played in and read the briefs for.

I apologize, you might be reading too much into a word choice of mine. Most players and most tables don't use that optional module. WotC didn't state this in an "article," but Crawford has stated it in talks and Twitter a number of times, and the aforementioned D&D Beyond data backs him up pretty solidly. Many players use Feats, but most do not.

 

[Parmandur]

And WotC published representative data on what DMs do when, exactly?

This isn't a peer-reviewed study, but they have broadcast the results of their market and play research a number of times. I understand that you do not like that most people don't use Feats, but that's what it is. WotC still throws the minority a bone, which shows us how they treat options that have significant minority demand. If a possible option gets less support than Feats, it is because it is even more niche than Feats.

 

[Minigiant]

Are we still talking about just weapons? If we're bringing feats, subclasses, maneuvers etc into the mix, that changes things significantly.

Just weapons.

Yes, and did that table and the bonuses thereof significantly improve the flow of combat or the game as a whole at the majority of tables?

The table wasn't great. However it did make the list of weapons have reasons for chosing then.

Currently the 5e weapon list is not great. It is full of duplicates and virtual duplicates. And only some of the weapons are supposed in magic items or the official options (feats).

There is practically no reason to buy a Warhammer or flail. And who thought up the trident.

The 5e weapon table isn't beloved. It's tolerated. You don't see praises of it.

OK. How many of these can only be performed by a specific weapon, and how would you represent them as mechanical rules in the 5e system.

Well you can't grab another weapon with a sword.

But you could do it with special attacks just like the ones in the DMG. And give bonuses and penalties based on the weapon or weapon. A zero damage didn't to add bonus damage to the next attack. A bonus action attack attack after hitting with a combo started. A slashing attack to break a wooden shield. A trip then overhead smash with a bonus for having welding an axe or hammer. Repelling with a spear or pike to attack while defending. A shieldwall. A spearwall.

 

[Yaarel]

Just weapons.



The table wasn't great. However it did make the list of weapons have reasons for chosing then.

Currently the 5e weapon list is not great. It is full of duplicates and virtual duplicates. And only some of the weapons are supposed in magic items or the official options (feats).

There is practically no reason to buy a Warhammer or flail. And who thought up the trident.

The 5e weapon table isn't beloved. It's tolerated. You don't see praises of it.




Well you can't grab another weapon with a sword.

But you could do it with special attacks just like the ones in the DMG. And give bonuses and penalties based on the weapon or weapon. A zero damage didn't to add bonus damage to the next attack. A bonus action attack attack after hitting with a combo started. A slashing attack to break a wooden shield. A trip then overhead smash with a bonus for having welding an axe or hammer. Repelling with a spear or pike to attack while defending. A shieldwall. A spearwall.

Why not start a thread putting together your own weapons table, while getting multiple perspectives from the communities feedback?

 

[Yaarel]

If I had a wishlist, I would like to distinguish between a "short sword" (1-2 foot blade), a "normal sword" (2-3 foot blade), and a "long sword" (3-4 foot blade).