What 5e got wrong

[Einlanzer0]

I can only go by what you say. And when you use phrases like "suboptimal", that infers a powergaming aspect. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's hardly unusual for people to come to those sorts of conclusions.

You never answered my question. How many award winning/popular games have you designed, since you seem to profess how a game should ideally be designed?

Actually I have worked on a couple of kickstarters and have spent loads of times writing revised rulesets for many games over the years. It's a hobby, though, not a profession. The question is hardly relevant to this discussion.

 

[OldSkoolRPG]

Sorry, I just think this is flat-out wrong. What's the point of having rules at all if it's all completely subject to the whims of a DM? DMs are empowered to make adjustments so things work for their games, they are not empowered to just casually rewrite the combat mechanics. While they can certainly do that, it is not the assumption of 5e that they will or that they should. The combat rules in particular are intended to create a set of rails for the gameplay, otherwise mechanics like Hero Points, Inspiration, and Advantage/Disadvantage wouldn't exist.

Yes you THINK that is flat out wrong. It is just your opinion.

So, the idea that it's okay for Wizards of the Coast to publish imbalanced rules just because they provide the caveat that a "DM can change it" (which has always been the case) is laughable in its absurdity. It is every bit as much now as it was during 3.5 and 4e. The Oberoni fallacy still carries plenty of weight. WotC carries a responsibility to strive for a well-balanced ruleset. And they have done a relatively decent job with it a lot of the changes they made from previous editions.

You continue to argue as if game balance were the only design factor to consider. Yes it would be absurd if balance was the end all be all of design considerations to then create an imbalanced game just because individual groups could fix it for themselves. However, it is not absurd to prioritize other design factors over balance because that is what most people want and those that prefer prioritizing balance can then do so at their own tables. What you are, and have been, arguing is that your priorities are the only correct ones, the way you play at your table is the only correct way, and that no one can convince otherwise even going so far as to outright state that is the case.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Actually I have worked on a couple of kickstarters and have spent loads of times writing revised rulesets for many games over the years. It's a hobby, though, not a profession. The question is hardly relevant to this discussion.

When you are arguing what the "ideal way" an rpg should be designed is, then yes, your experience designing RPGs is important. And it sounds like the answer to my question is "zero". Which means you're pretty much the same as 99% of everyone as far as your expertise goes. Which is to say, just your opinion man and hardly objective.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Yes you THINK that is flat out wrong. It is just your opinion.



You continue to argue as if game balance were the only design factor to consider. Yes it would be absurd if balance was the end all be all of design considerations to then create an imbalanced game just because individual groups could fix it for themselves. However, it is not absurd to prioritize other design factors over balance because that is what most people want and those that prefer prioritizing balance can then do so at their own tables. What you are, and have been, arguing is that your priorities are the only correct ones, the way you play at your table is the only correct way, and that no one can convince otherwise even going so far as to outright state that is the case.

Did I say it wasn't an opinion? So is what you're saying. I simply disagree.

Regarding the second paragraph, I don't see how you're extrapolating that I'm arguing as if game balance was the only design factor. But, regardless, we need to take a step back and redefine "balance". What I'm actually talking about in this thread is my dissatisfaction with inter-stat "balance", which is a different beast and more of a conceptual issue than something like class balance, which is how people often interpret "balance" discussions.

In other words, my complaint is that the stats not only aren't as balanced as they could and should be, they also just aren't as interesting as they could and should be. If you disagree, that's fine, but stop arguing with me as if I'm wrong.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If you disagree, that's fine, but stop arguing with me as if I'm wrong.

Oh, the irony

 

[Dit464]

NVM

 

[Einlanzer0]

Oh, the irony

Would you just leave this thread already? The majority of your posts have failed to contribute anything whatsoever to the conversation.

 

[Einlanzer0]

I believe I've seen intelligence used as initiative in games before as a means of quickly sizing up the situation and reacting accordingly so I could see initiative being based of it. I really couldn't see it being based of strength, though. I agree that constitution and charisma wouldn't suit, but could possibly see wisdom.

The problem is really that nothing fits right, because the game lacks an "awareness" stat. It's half-way incorporated into wisdom along with completely unrelated things like willpower and piety. All 3 of the mental stats are poorly appropriate, IMO. This is a lot of why I think PoE's 6 stats are better. They just make more sense.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Would you just leave this thread already? The majority of your posts have failed to contribute anything whatsoever to the conversation.

You're the one who came here into a public discussion, saying something very opinionated and literally said you'd refuse to hear any sort of contrary conversation. Sorry, but if you don't want people disagreeing with you, you shouldn't come to a public forum.

 

[OldSkoolRPG]

Did I say it wasn't an opinion? So is what you're saying. I simply disagree.

Regarding the second paragraph, I don't see how you're extrapolating that I'm arguing as if game balance was the only design factor. But, regardless, we need to take a step back and redefine "balance". What I'm actually talking about in this thread is my dissatisfaction with inter-stat "balance", which is a different beast and more of a conceptual issue than something like class balance, which is how people often interpret "balance" discussions.

In other words, my complaint is that the stats not only aren't as balanced as they could and should be, they also just aren't as interesting as they could and should be. If you disagree, that's fine, but stop arguing with me as if I'm wrong.

I am really impressed with how you take a post in which I point out that you have consistently argued that everyone else is wrong and you are right and then claim that I am the one arguing as if you are objectively wrong. You are the one that has repeatedly lectured others on what is ideal, optimal and what should be. You are the one that said no one would ever convince you. You are the one that has constantly said everyone else is just missing the point or that it is going over their poor little heads. I'll give you this you truly have one gigantic brass pair. Bravo.