• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E WotC to increase releases per year?

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
"Mocking" is your word, not mine. Granted, I did use the word "terrible", but I didn't mean deliberately so, just accents of low quality that wouldn't fool anyone and are likely based on stereotypes rather than actual speech patterns.

It's a power thing and a connection thing. Non-whites in the US have been, and continue to be, marginalized, discriminated against, and culturally appropriated for quite some time. I'm white myself, and have little personal connection to other cultures outside of Europe. Like many Americans, my heritage is European . . . and it's hard to get more specific than that. I feel as equally connected to England as I do France and Germany. So . . . I'm okay giving accents of cultural groups I feel connected to a try, and that aren't currently discriminated against strongly in the US.

It's like sports team mascots. Is it okay for a team to be named the Redskins? Is that different from the Notre Dame "Fighting Irish"? The Irish used to be discriminated against in the US, but aren't really anymore. Native Americans, very much still a marginalized group.

I'm not as far from @doctorbadwolf's view on this as it might seem. I think using accents at the table is okay, even if you aren't trained in language and dialect! But I think you have to be careful, even if it's just with your local group of friends in your living room. It's easy to perpetuate racist tropes without even realizing you are doing so. Where exactly should the line be drawn between "okay" and "not okay"? Eeesh, that's tough, and somewhat subjective.
redskins & Notre Dame "fighting irish" are different ends of the spectrum with one being an empowering maybe even respectful tie to history & the other a caricaturized collection of belittling stereotypes. fsu's seminoles name & chief osecola might be closer to the notre dame's fighting irish than redskins
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dire Bare

Legend
redskins & Notre Dame "fighting irish" are different ends of the spectrum with one being an empowering maybe even respectful tie to history & the other a caricaturized collection of belittling stereotypes. fsu's seminoles name & chief osecola might be closer to the notre dame's fighting irish than redskins
Yeah, that's kinda my point. :)

Although, I'm not sure I'd describe the "Fighting Irish" as empowering or respectful knowing the cultural stereotype it springs from . . . but I've certainly known Americans of Irish descent who LOVE the team and mascot . . . context and audience are important, but don't give us cut-and-dry easy answers.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I really liked the 4e monster progression (not really level), but I don't recall it being easier to balance. I just like the option of a lateral option (minion, standard, elite, solo) as opposed to only be able to go up and down in lvl or CR. Of course, 5e as reintroduced this idea with the new mythic monsters, which I like a lot.
I don't know if it was easier for everyone, but it was easier for me. I prefer the way that the creatures were listed with their equivalency based on a per character model, rather than compared to a party. (I mean, what IS a party? For me, it's rarely 4 to 5 PCs of equal level. It could be anything.)

4e had it so that if you had 5 level 3 characters, they would do fine against 5 level 3 monsters (and win, while using a reasonable portion of their resources). In 5e, I honestly still can't off the top of my head tell you what the equivalent would be. I mean, I understand that a CR3 monster is supposed to take on a 3rd level party (and lose) right? That's what CR is supposed to loosely stand for, right?

I understand that the lateral options were seen as not-as-necessary with bounded accuracy, but it still feels missing to me. Though, Mythic Monsters are awesome, you are right!
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
I don't know if it was easier for everyone, but it was easier for me. I prefer the way that the creatures were listed with their equivalency based on a per character model, rather than compared to a party. (I mean, what IS a party? For me, it's rarely 4 to 5 PCs of equal level. It could be anything.)

4e had it so that if you had 5 level 3 characters, they would do fine against 5 level 3 monsters (and win, while using a reasonable portion of their resources). In 5e, I honestly still can't off the top of my head tell you what the equivalent would be. I mean, I understand that a CR3 monster is supposed to take on a 3rd level party (and lose) right? That's what CR is supposed to loosely stand for, right?

I understand that the lateral options were seen as not-as-necessary with bounded accuracy, but it still feels missing to me. Though, Mythic Monsters are awesome, you are right!
xge90 has a shorthand set of tables
1615423577630.png
but as you allude it doesn't take long before players reach the point of fights going from pointless speedbump to being either instant tpk/death spiral or "loldeadly"
 



FitzTheRuke

Legend
xge90 has a shorthand set of tables but as you allude it doesn't take long before players reach the point of fights going from pointless speedbump to being either instant tpk/death spiral or "loldeadly"
Thanks! That's a useful chart.

In my earlier example, in 4e, four 3rd level characters could take on 4x level 3 monsters (or 2x level 3 elite monsters, or 1x level 3 solo monster) and almost-always win (while using a reasonable amount of resources). This chart says that in 5e, they can take on 1x CR2 (or 2x CR1's; 4x CR 1/2s; 8x CR 1/4s, etc) Both of these examples are simplified, easy encounters.

I guess it's about the same, but it requires a chart. Maybe that's my problem! Back in 4e days I could do it in my head. I'd now have to use that chart for the same effect. (I mean, usually I just wing it without really knowing what I'm doing.)

I don't mean to edition-war at all. (I love 5e, generally better than I liked 4e; there's just a few things that I miss...)
 




Remove ads

Top