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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thunder Brother" data-source="post: 8283523" data-attributes="member: 6984475">Not to stray off-topic, but the current weapon system represents to me this awkward balance that 5e has of offering essentially meaningless choice for a PC, being simultaneously simple but with meaningless complications. A glaive and halberd have separate listings, but are actually completely identical in price and stats, the only difference between a battleaxe and a longsword is the price (largely meaningless as well). The book says that you can always reflavor a longsword as a katana, but also decides that a trident has some mystical difference to a spear (again despite identical stats). In addition, outside of a handful of monsters, there's little difference between bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. Really you could consolidate the weapon list into a handful of options without losing any functional complexity.Spells as well have a similar issue. Theater of mind is the officially-stated standard form of play, but spells really feel designed around playing on a grid, with precise distances and areas that a DM either needs to take into consideration or handwave.Are these examples problematic enough to warrant a 5.5 or 6e? Obviously not, as we're six years in and the game is more popular than ever. But these issues and the changing design philosophies that we're seeing from Tasha's reads to me as designers who can't decide exactly what their own game is supposed to be. This isn't even getting into the highly visible trend of a game designed for small-scale tactical combat being used more and more for story and character-driven roleplaying.Anyway, that's my 2 cents.</blockquote>

Verification