D&D 5E What, if anything, bothers you about certain casters/spells at your table?

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
You can call design demanded from corporate that lacks rigor " lazy", but you're right, that's hardly the designer's fault.
Sure... but I wouldn't trust a single one of us to actually be able to identify design "demanded from corporate" versus design that was made by the D&D team. So using the term "lazy" in a post is just lazy in itself.

If any of us are intelligent players and would-be designers, then take the time to actually explain both what we know the designers were trying to do based upon the design motifs they were aiming for... and why we think they did not succeed in what they were trying to do, or why there were better choices to be made instead and why our idea would have worked better.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Sure... but I wouldn't trust a single one of us to actually be able to identify design "demanded from corporate" versus design that was made by the D&D team. So using the term "lazy" in a post is just lazy in itself.

If any of us are intelligent players and would-be designers, then take the time to actually explain both what we know the designers were trying to do based upon the design motifs they were aiming for... and why we think they did not succeed in what they were trying to do, or why there were better choices to be made instead and why our idea would have worked better.
But WotC refuses to tell us what their design goals for 5e were or are, beyond, "make a lot of money", apparently because they're afraid taking any kind of stand will negatively affect sales. All we can do is speculate.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
But WotC refuses to tell us what their design goals for 5e were or are, beyond, "make a lot of money", apparently because they're afraid taking any kind of stand will negatively affect sales. All we can do is speculate.
We're all intelligent gamers. I'm pretty sure we can see 5E for what it is and come up with at least the barest minimum of the intent behind the game. Especially considering we have been given 10 years worth of website articles, videos and podcasts from the designers themselves going into detail about what their design intent has been this entire time.

So for someone to suggest they are completely in the dark about the goals of 5E? In my opinion they are either stretching the truth there in order to try and inspire the design folks to go even further with their details (for whatever reason they think that's important)... or they have absolutely no idea about anything that's been going on. And if that's the case... then they should perhaps start doing a little reading first... rather than waiting for WotC to hold their hands to sit them down to explain it to them.
 

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
So your players say "I attack the ORC with my sword" and then wait for you to call for a roll during combat?
Probably not a full call-and-response, but it's always "announce intention"->"slight pause to allow DM to clarify if needed"->"roll".

Rolling without announcing your intention first is honestly a bit of a faux pas at pretty much every table I've played at.
 

But WotC refuses to tell us what their design goals for 5e were or are, beyond, "make a lot of money", apparently because they're afraid taking any kind of stand will negatively affect sales. All we can do is speculate.


-and-

(see third paragraph)

That's just with a quick search...
 


Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
We're all intelligent gamers. I'm pretty sure we can see 5E for what it is and come up with at least the barest minimum of the intent behind the game. Especially considering we have been given 10 years worth of website articles, videos and podcasts from the designers themselves going into detail about what their design intent has been this entire time.

So for someone to suggest they are completely in the dark about the goals of 5E? In my opinion they are either stretching the truth there in order to try and inspire the design folks to go even further with their details (for whatever reason they think that's important)... or they have absolutely no idea about anything that's been going on. And if that's the case... then they should perhaps start doing a little reading first... rather than waiting for WotC to hold their hands to sit them down to explain it to them.
I'm not really a big fan of advertising videos and press junkets from anybody, let alone WotC, but if that's how they choose to show their design intent, sandwiched in-between calls to buy their cereal; (rather than making it clear what the game they designed is all about in the game they designed, or at least write it down, as would be my preference), then so be it. I withdraw my complaint on the grounds of being happily out of touch with modern corporate marketing practices.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

-and-

(see third paragraph)

That's just with a quick search...
Is that it? The design intent of WotC 5e is to encourage diversity and to show contrition for past and present branded products that didn't do so to current standards? There's a lot more to D&D than it's stance on diversity (as if any company would take a different public stance on this issue in our present era). Or is this the only thing that matters to game design enough to talk about it?
 

This doesn’t tell me anything.

Sure. I guess, assuming you know that somehow.

None of this tells me why people think it is a problem or game breaking.
It is not a problem. Hell, Shield could very well make you fully invincible for a round tha it would still be okay for the cost a lvl 1 spell slot.

People should really start accepting the simple fact tha the game is balanced around multiple fights between long rests.

Most tables should be running Gritty Realism.
 

Remove ads

Top