NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9163626" data-attributes="member: 6790260">My problem is, this "5e is a quality product" argument is then used to shut down every possible criticism. Fighters have problems? Sure as hell don't, otherwise people wouldn't play them! 5e's a quality product, it wouldn't do that wrong. Encounter math is messed up? Nah, can't be, 5e is a good product with good content.The one and only concession I've ever been able to wrangle out of anyone on that front is the DMG. People used to defend it. Eventually, however, they recognized that yeah, okay, the 5e DMG is pretty bad. Of course, this then gets appended with "but everyone knows that" (or worse, "everyone always knew that"), which is incredibly frustrating considering no, actually, lots and lots of people defended it for years, even though nothing about it has changed!Are there quality things in 5e? Yes. I thought that was a sufficient truism to never actually need to be spelled out, but here we are.Does that mean 5e made no mistakes?Because I'm getting quite sick of being told that things can't have mistakes while being widely used, or frequently purchased, or whatever else. And that's exactly what people have told me, for years and years, on this very subject.I want to fix what I see as mistakes. Some of them can't be fixed--there's nothing you can do to fix 5e's CR system, you'd have to nuke things to the ground and start over and that's far too dramatic a change for anything short of a new edition, which would be a very bad idea right now. Some of them, however, can. Mearls recognized that the Fighter has no identity years ago. Crawford recognizes that Warlocks and Fighters were designed with mechanical expectations that simply don't work with the way actual people usually play 5e. 5.5e is, in part, the result of those and other recognized mistakes in 5e's design.For another example, one rather more personal for me, dragonborn. You don't rewrite a race three times if it was well-made the first time. It's been known since the first year or so of 5e that dragonborn were massively under-powered compared to most other races, and yet dragonborn are quite popular (IIRC, topping out at 4th most popular non-human race, behind half-elf, elf, and tiefling). But trying to get anyone to recognize that there could maybe, possibly, be an issue with the design of the 5e dragonborn race was like pulling teeth.</blockquote>

Verification