D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[Maxperson]

Yeah, it's a real problem. I don't even know how to visualize it.

I don't worry about it. It would break the game to go with any sort of realism here. Just like combat doesn't work turn based and you have to hold your nose and go with it, this is the same.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't worry about it. It would break the game to go with any sort of realism here. Just like combat doesn't work turn based and you have to hold your nose and go with it, this is the same.

Those are different lines for me. I can construct an emergent narrative after the fact to account for the way combat turns work. I have a very hard time doing that for a dude with a long metal stick facing a dragon the size of a city bus without any strategy or tactics.

 

[MichaelSomething]

But that's not encouraging it, it's allowing for it if you mangle the game's expectations.

I thought people were saying that D&D wanted to be all things for all people.

DM empowerment!!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

a commoner pretty much is identical

This is exactly what is at issue. This is an assumption on your part not actually supported by either the text or the world-building of most games. It may or may not be correct for any specific world, but you should not assume it for most worlds.

 

[Vaalingrade]

We needed something besides the r-word.

'Rest, Long'?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

DM empowerment!!

Couldn't agree more. The difference between "the rules encourage X," " the rules permit but don't really support X," and "the rules can be wrangled, mangled, or embrangled to achieve it" seems to have disappeared. All due to the fantastic, runaway success of "empowering" DMs by doing jack-all to actually support their efforts.

 

[mamba]

This is exactly what is at issue. This is an assumption on your part not actually supported by either the text or the world-building of most games. It may or may not be correct for any specific world, but you should not assume it for most worlds.

there is nothing that contradicts it as far as I can tell, and the assumption that a D&D human is what we know as a human (Homo Sapiens) seems pretty reasonable too

 

[Micah Sweet]

DM empowerment!!

Is this exclamation supposed to.mean something? What's your context?

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is exactly what is at issue. This is an assumption on your part not actually supported by either the text or the world-building of most games. It may or may not be correct for any specific world, but you should not assume it for most worlds.

What supports the idea that commoners are different?

 

[Gammadoodler]

never needed that for anything, so no. Let me know how often that helps in your games or how that relates to how far the computer can jump, etc


I don’t even do that without suction… as to the rest, see above

I am not saying there is nothing they do that I cannot, it just is stuff that does not help in D&D, that is where ability scores etc. come in an theirs are not particularly high. The Warforged has comparable ones again, so they too are comparable to humans in their abilities


not similar biology, similar capabilities

This is what I asked..

What possible biological justification for these other species' selectively absolute mundanity?

This was how you responded.

They have similar ability scores to humans, so cannot be all that different in game

And at the end of the day..what you are coming back to is game statistics..not even actual mechanics..just... statistics.

To justify mundanity..

Hell..I'm not a scholar of the monster manual, but I'd venture a guess that it wouldn't take that long to find a creature in the MM with roughly approximate ability scores and wildly superior capabilities.

It's just..a really dumb argument..which didn't even address the question I asked.