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

[Hussar]

I wonder how much of that thinking carries over from people who started (or are still in) AL or other organized play where only official first-party content is allowed?

That's a point that I hadn't actually considered. I imagine that that might have some impact as well. Although, that being said, every single AL adventure is 3rd party. WotC doesn't actually make any AL adventures anymore, I don't think. But, on the player's side, you are absolutely right.

Not sure how big of an impact it has though. The whole "if it's not WotC, it doesn't exist" is something that has been around since the very first days of the OGL. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that people go out of their way to buy WotC books. Whether it was back in the 3e and 4e days with the "book of the month" club, or even now in 5e where the release schedule is so slow that a given player can pretty easily own most of the WotC books. You go out of the way to buy the book - either through an FLGS or whatever - and you want to use that book. And you know, 99 times out of 100, that the DM will allow you to use stuff from a WotC book, no questions asked.

For a 3pp book, the player can't be sure that the DM will be groovy with using it, so, they don't buy it. And because they don't buy them, they don't bother looking at them.

 

[Minigiant]

And you know, 99 times out of 100, that the DM will allow you to use stuff from a WotC book, no questions asked.

For a 3pp book, the player can't be sure that the DM will be groovy with using it, so, they don't buy it. And because they don't buy them, they don't bother looking at them.

Everyone praises the slow release schedule.
But there are pros and cons to everything.
And this is one of the cons.

If WOTC releases 3 books in a year, those are the only 3 books a player has high confidences their DM will allow.
You have to hope your DMs finds good 3pp content that has good design notes.

And after the mess of variant rules in the official books (for example Epic Boons), design notes should be mandatory for any official or 3PP product. Product which lacks explanation of how and why it works just errodes confidence in widespread acceptance of product.

 

[James Gasik]

I wonder how much of that thinking carries over from people who started (or are still in) AL or other organized play where only official first-party content is allowed?

Not sure, but there could be some crossover, as that's how I got into 5e, and so did a few other people I play with. I do recall the very first point of contention; we were playing Curse of Strahd in a home game, and one guy we only knew from AL had joined us. He begged and pleaded with the DM to let him play a Bloodhunter. Halfway through the campaign, we started to realize that the Bloodhunter isn't balanced* the same way as other classes, and their abilities began to stick out like a sore thumb more and more.

This being Ravenloft, of course, powerful abilities are less useful than playing smart, and he got himself murdered. When he asked the DM if he could make a new Bloodhunter, the DM was like "yeah, I don't think so".

It's not like there's a total dearth of 3PP going on- we've played Primeval Thule, and currently Kobold Press stuff is allowed (mostly because the current DM wants to transition into Tales of the Valiant).

*I know this is a dirty word for some; a lot of people don't think D&D is balanced at all, or that it shouldn't be. When I talk about imbalance, I simply mean when one person's play experience is dramatically better simply because of the character they chose to play. Sure, not every character is going to shine, like if you decide you want to play a Cleric with Int 18 because you think Cadderly was an amazing character or something...but I'm of the opinion that if you select a class and subclass, and you put your high stats in places the game nudges you towards doing, your play experience should overall be the same as everyone else's.

When another character outshines you for no other reason than their class/subclass/race combo annoys me, especially as a DM, since there's nothing I hate more than having to warp the game and it's rules around a party with a power level imbalance.

 

[James Gasik]

so you disagree with the premise that it should be based on biology. Nothing wrong with that.

As I said, they asked for a biological reason, that was not my idea, so you can take it up with them…

Also, humans cannot interbreed with dragons to create dragonborn

“Shaped by draconic gods or the dragons themselves, dragonborn originally hatched from dragon eggs as a unique race”

“The blood of a particular type of dragon runs very strong through some dragonborn clans. These dragonborn often boast scales that more closely match those of their dragon ancestor”

Dragonborn, no, but half-Dragons do exist.

 

[mamba]

Dragonborn, no, but half-Dragons do exist.

sure, but this started out as ‘give me a biological justification for why playable species should have similar capabilities’, that is also why I jumped to Dragonborn. When I gave my rationale, biology never even came up, only game rules did.

This is not me trying to explain every living being in D&D through biology Half-dragons did not enter the picture.

There is no biological reason for half-dragons to exist at all. If you want to explain everything in D&D through science, you will fail, as there are things for which science has no answer yet, and likely never will either, because they do not exist in a world that would prompt science to look into them (ignoring the fact that chances are that science will say that some are flat out impossible).

 

[jgsugden]

...5e lacks an assumption of magic items crafting and purchasing....[/qoute]Except that it has two books with sections on it - DMG and Tasha's.

...It's not "5e has an issue that not edition has." It is "5e has a issue 3e has but makes it ten times worse."...

Except I demonstrated it was equivalent, if not worse, in 3E....

Rituals. Exactly.

... which, as I pointed out, had prerequisites and not everyone met them - and getting a slew of them was not a significant percentage of recommended treasure levels...

...4e has an encounter system that was built on PCs having all or most of their power every encounter.

The attrition was on Healing surges. If you rest-nova, the next fight is still the same difficulty even if you have all your HP and dailies.

So - it was built for you to nova every encounter, and you only get back the dailies on a long rest ... so you don't think rest nova was a thing in 4E because ... why? Nobody valued their most powerful abilities or something?

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

You screwed up your post. It's not possible to quote it. Does this work like a ping? jgsugden.

 

[Minigiant]

@jgsugden

Except that it has two books with sections on it - DMG and Tasha's

It still assumes no magical requirements and and the DMG info and advice reflects this.

And Tasha doesn't add more until 6 years later.

Except I demonstrated it was equivalent, if not worse, in 3E...

Having the same problem of 3e is still having a problem.

A baseball player who hits like another baseball player who can't hit is still a bad player.

which, as I pointed out, had prerequisites and not everyone met them - and getting a slew of them was not a significant percentage of recommended treasure levels

But it was part of the game.

Does 5e tell you how much finding and hiring a 5th level arcanist is? Or how much it costs to find and buy a 4th level spell scroll.

So - it was built for you to nova every encounter, and you only get back the dailies on a long rest ... so you don't think rest nova was a thing in 4E because ... why? Nobody valued their most powerful abilities or something?

That was the point. 4e devalued novaing.

It's a design choice. It's not for everyone. But it's contained and has a logic to it.

5e follows 3e where its lore and mechanics don't match up and does nothing to advise fans how to make them mesh. So you have to know already how to do it or ask someone who does.

This is because as the 5e designers explicitly stated, they ran out of time to design the DMG and figured old experienced DMs would fill the gaps.

 

[Lanefan]

That's a point that I hadn't actually considered. I imagine that that might have some impact as well. Although, that being said, every single AL adventure is 3rd party. WotC doesn't actually make any AL adventures anymore, I don't think. But, on the player's side, you are absolutely right.

Not sure how big of an impact it has though. The whole "if it's not WotC, it doesn't exist" is something that has been around since the very first days of the OGL.

Another thing occurs to me: old-timers like me might tend to shy away from 3rd-party stuff after having bad experiences with some of the awful Judges Guild material - particularly adventures - back in the day; 'cause while some JG output was absolutely the best, the rest of it ranged between bad and terrible. The middle ground was not a place they occupied.

And in the 2e days even the official splats and expansions became suspect due to TSR sometimes re-using the same material in multiple books.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that people go out of their way to buy WotC books. Whether it was back in the 3e and 4e days with the "book of the month" club, or even now in 5e where the release schedule is so slow that a given player can pretty easily own most of the WotC books. You go out of the way to buy the book - either through an FLGS or whatever - and you want to use that book. And you know, 99 times out of 100, that the DM will allow you to use stuff from a WotC book, no questions asked.

For a 3pp book, the player can't be sure that the DM will be groovy with using it, so, they don't buy it. And because they don't buy them, they don't bother looking at them.

Depends what it is, too. As a DM I'll buy an adventure module from anyone as long as it looks worthwhile on a quick read in the store, but not necessarily a whole book unless it really gives me something - or greatly expands on something - I didn't have before and-or can't be arsed to do myself (or have tried and failed to do myself).

 

[Lanefan]

You screwed up your post. It's not possible to quote it. Does this work like a ping? jgsugden.

You can still quote it the hard way, by typing in (without the spaces!) [ q u o t e ] and [ / q u o t e ] tags and then cutting the material you want to quote and pasting it between those tags.

And to work as a ping you need to put an '@' before the username, as in @MuhVerisimilitude .