Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6635114" data-attributes="member: 6790260">"Hate" is too a strong word for my feelings, as is "suck" (though I would call the latter less hyperbolic than the former...) @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=58401" target="_blank">doctorhook</a> covered a goodly number of the things I'd have said. Here are a few more, starting with one of my few disagreements with the good doctor:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fighters: Fighters really...*aren't* solid gold, IMO. They have good damage and good combat abilities...and that's just about the extent of their *class* mechanics. Champions can jump further! And make a few (almost exclusively *combat*) checks with half-proficiency. Battlemasters can check the...*combat*...stats of things, and get a tool proficiency or something. Only the Fighter *that casts spells* has even moderate potential for class-based, rather than "stuff everyone gets"-based, non-combat investment and contribution. Apart from (finally) fixing the Fighters-don't-do-skills <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />, 5e is no better (and in certain ways worse) than prior editions in this regard. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Terrible organization: Seems the only lesson 5e picked up from cool other games published in the past few years (cough13Acough) is "organize everything really poorly." Important rules buried in the middle of long semi-related or even unrelated passages. Confusing mentions of terms pages--even *chapters*--before they're defined. Etc. Far from being "new-player friendly," you practically have to have been a vet just to know what's going on much of the time. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"You're the DM, you decide!": It's all well and good to say that the game has been made to be amenable to, or even improved by, DMs making calls. Unfortunately, 99.9% of the time when I see someone making a calm, perfectly legitimate request for advice or assistance, they get met with "JUST DO IT YOURSELF DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. GOD, WHY DOES EVERYONE NEED RULES SO BAD??" It's incredibly annoying simply by proxy; I can't imagine how frustrating it is for someone actually trying to run the game. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Dragonborn: Oh, people regularly talk up the resistance, but when you compare the *long* list of stuff Elves or Dwarves get to the *literally two things* a Dragonborn gets (a resist and a breath weapon that *quickly* degrades in utility), it really irks me. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Saves: Oh, boy, saves. Six stats for saves makes the "some good saves, some bad" problem worse. Because now there are twice as many "not very good" saves for you to be hit with. And any of your off-stat, non-proficient saves? Pretty much guaranteed to fail 'em past level 11 or so. If it happens to be one of your dump stats, all the worse; you may only succeed 20% of the time. Since people are LUCKY if they get one great save (prime stat + proficiency) and two moderate saves (prime stat ~or~ proficiency), you've now got three potentially-lethal/"situation-ending" (since I know I'll get *reamed* if I call it an "encounter" when I mean any kind of engagement, whether combat, exploration, or social) saves, one of which is practically guaranteed to be among the Big Three (Con, Dex, Wis). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"Bounded Accuracy": As I've said in a different thread, "Bounded Accuracy" seems to be about...neither of those things. Accuracy still goes up, has to go up, and low-level threats really do become nearly auto-hit (not TRULY auto-hit, sure, but between Advantage being handed out like candy and gaining around +1 every other level, after ability scores, magic items, etc. are factored in, it gets to very nearly the same point anyway). And the thing that's *really* Bounded is supposed to be AC...which still goes up to the mid-to-high 20s anyway. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"Natural" Language: It's often unnatural, or at least I've had to go through some mental gymnastics more than once to understand what the authors actually meant. There are numerous places--mostly spells, but a few fundamental rules too, such as the Paladin's smite damage cap--where just an extra phrase, maybe an extra sentence, would have cleared up an enormous amount of confusion. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Since we've mentioned some meta-game/edition-comparison "hates," here's one of my biggest... "You must love it or hate it!": Since I have criticisms of the mechanical structures (like saves), certain class design..."choices" (Fighters and Warlocks), etc. I am a HUGE AWFUL HORRIBLE HATER who cannot have a reasoned opinion and simply hate the game. I *obviously* am a huge irrational 4e fanboy who would willingly sacrifice every possible form of D&D Fun upon the wicked and profane altar of balance. But it's perfectly fine for dozens upon dozens of threads to simply squee with joy. Yeah, I'm saying I think it's <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> that 99.99999% of threads are "OMG THIS IS SO WONDERFUL!!" and that whenever anyone voices a complaint, they seem to get drowned with either "you're a hater" or "JUST CHANGE IT THEN," neither of which are useful responses. </li> </ul>With all of that said? While D&D 5e isn't my cup of tea, it's not an awful game by any means. It reminds me far too much of 3e to (ever?) want to play it, but it's got some good ideas. Had 5e been the game we got back in 2000, or even 2003, I'd probably consider it a triumph of game design; as it is, it feels too much like "one step forward, 1d6 steps back" in too many areas that are of major importance to me.</blockquote>

Verification