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

[Older Beholder]

Calling corporate interference is fair enough, but if the game isn't growing and innovating, I don't see the point of any new edition. I've outgrown 5E as a player and DM. Anyone can quote subtle differences between editions from 3E to 5E, but at the end of the day it's still using the d20 chassis, which to me, 23 years later is boring.

I always thought advantage/disadvantage was pretty innovative.

 

[Gammadoodler]

And then a bar brawl breaks out and suddenly those mechanically irrelevant barstools and utensils ain't so irrelevant any more....

And every character I ever play lists "cup-plate-utensils" among its field pospossession

Sure, I'm not suggesting that these things shouldn't exist. There just isn't a need to have them in the phb except as examples in a "this list is not exhaustive.." bit of flavor text maybe with a "other objects you may encounter can be used as a weapon in a pinch. Use ?d? for damage rolls with such improvised weapons"

 

[R_J_K75]

To be fair, it was  never the intention of WotC to innovate with 5e. That part of their design philosophy hasn't changed.

That was my point when I said I've outgrown it, I want something new not just a slight twist on what's already there. 10 years on into 5E and they're just doing a revision seems lazy to me.

 

[R_J_K75]

I always thought advantage/disadvantage was pretty innovative.

Yes a step in the right direction to minimizing the +1, minus that from previous editions but not as innovating in the way that reworking how character creation is done or combat resolution works would. Don't get me wrong Im not saying 5E didnt make strides but I'm looking for a drastic change like what happened from 2E to 3E.

 

[Parmandur]

Calling corporate interference is fair enough, but if the game isn't growing and innovating, I don't see the point of any new edition. I've outgrown 5E as a player and DM. Anyone can quote subtle differences between editions from 3E to 5E, but at the end of the day it's still using the d20 chassis, which to me, 23 years later is boring.

The main audience is 12-24 year olds: and people turn 12 all the time. Endlessly changing the rules without a clear purpose isn't necessarily helpful for anybody.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes a step in the right direction to minimizing the +1, minus that from previous editions but not as innovating in the way that reworking how character creation is done or combat resolution works would. Don't get me wrong Im not saying 5E didnt make strides but I'm looking for a drastic change like what happened from 2E to 3E.

I eould say the hobby and customers are much better served by a stable Evergreen set of rules thst van be counted on. Hopefully we never see thst level of change again, it didn't work.

 

[R_J_K75]

The main audience is 12-24 year olds: and people turn 12 all the time. Endlessly changing the rules without a clear purpose isn't necessarily helpful for anybody.

And yet they're doing it by revising D&D2014 to D&D2024.

 

[R_J_K75]

Hopefully we never see thst level of change again, it didn't work.

You're saying the change from 2E to 3E didn't work?

 

[Older Beholder]

You're saying the change from 2E to 3E didn't work?

Well, I left the game within a year of 3.5 coming out and didn't come back to the game until 5E.
So, it didn't work for me.

 

[Parmandur]

And yet they're doing it by revising D&D2014 to D&D2024.

Qualitatively different: that's a rules revision that doesn't invalidate anything from the past ten years, and builds the game rather than wrecking anything. They can keep thst up for decades.

You're saying the change from 2E to 3E didn't work?

It did not, as Ben Riggs went into the numbers at Gen Con recently. That's why 3E led into mass layoffs and 3.5 nearly immediately.