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

[Minigiant]

well I will say my thread last a lot more pages than I expected before it went completely off the rails.

It's still on the rails.

Almost no one is arguing that Magic Item Dependence was replaced with anything.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I did not let the Wizard pass either…

Good. Then we can safely delete them and replace them with something better and actually fantastic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To be honest I think real world comparisons are less interesting than in fiction comparisons, where I find it ridiculous that a level 20 fighter is not really any better at any athletic things than a level 1 fighter. Where's the increased movement speed? Where's the massively improved jump distance? Etc. etc.

Yes this is something I've been considering. It would be trivial to give all Fighters, or all martials, increased capabilities here. Why limit it just to Barbarians and Monks? Obviously they could go even further.

At the absolute bare minimum, why not give all Fighters Athletics, and increased movement and jump distance at various levels, the ability to ignore heavy armour at say, level 6, and so on. Why limit that to subclasses? Wizards don't get prevented from casting certain spells unless they're certain subclasses.

well, you proved the premise… any improvement for one is detrimental for someone else

No. He proved that any improvement for one will be disliked by some others. That doesn't mean it's actually detrimental to them. It's basically Home Owner's Association-type nonsense here. People are aesthetically offended by the idea that a Fighter might jump 30 feet or whatever, so want to issue us with a $200 fine like we painted our house the wrong shade of pink lol.

 

[mamba]

Good. Then we can safely delete them and replace them with something better and actually fantastic.

in theory yes, in practice what you want and what I want have nothing in common…

 

[mamba]

No. He proved that any improvement for one will be disliked by some others

how is that not just a slight rewording of what I wrote? Are you assuming we are too stupid to understand what we should like?

That doesn't mean it's actually detrimental to them

yes, yes you are… great

 

[Ruin Explorer]

how is that not just a slight rewording of what I wrote?

Because detrimental suggests there is a real detriment, not just a different aesthetic preference that is being misleadingly expressed as if it were a real detriment.

 

[mamba]

Because detrimental suggests there is a real detriment, not just a different aesthetic preference that is being misleadingly expressed as if it were a real detriment.

nah, we are done. When you tell me that I am too stupid to understand ‘what is good for me’, then the discussion is over

All of these are just preferences, yours has no more merit than mine

 

[Ruin Explorer]

nah, we are done. When you tell me that I am too stupid to understand ‘what is good for me’, then the discussion is over

??????? lol for once I definitely didn't do that. Mislabelling isn't stupidity.

I express aesthetic preferences all the time myself, but I usually separate them from real issues. Usually.

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

Rolling one d20 is very swingy. Bounded accuracy makes this much worse by reducing modifiers. It is ludicrous that an L1 INT 8 Barbarian who is untrained in Arcana (-1 modifier) will know things about magic [DC 15 Arcana check] that a L20 INT 20 Archmage trained in Arcana (+11 modifier) does not, just because the Barbarian rolled an 18 and the Wizard rolled a 2.

 

[mamba]

Because detrimental suggests there is a real detriment, not just a different aesthetic preference that is being misleadingly expressed as if it were a real detriment.

I’d argue they both are just aesthetic preferences.

You can say that given the Wizard as it is, it makes sense to buff the Fighter, and I’d argue it makes more sense to nerf the Wizard instead.

Both are solutions, the difference is aesthetics / the kind of story we want to tell