I'm surprised no one watched the video or commented. It's a very good interview and gives an idea of the inside working of WotC. If you read between the lines, this is my take:
-D&D doesn't like its current customers and wants new customers
-D&D believes its lore is problematic so they jettisoned lore and only going off mechanics for updates
-You don't jettison your existing customers and then get new customers, it doesn't work
-D&D is not culturally relevant. In the past, when D&D was up the market was up and when D&D was down the market is down. Now, D&D is down but the market is up showing a decoupling to D&D.
I watched the video. Along with a few other of his recent appearances. It's hard to shake the feeling that Mearls is on some sort of half apology tour half shill-my-game tour, as if he was never on board with the direction of 5e all along.
Also, "I find your lack of avatar disturbing" (Vader voice).
When I flipped through the 2024 PHB recently, curious to see if 5.5E really was as backwards-compatible as WotC claims, reading about "Weapon Masteries" was the moment I said, "No thank you." If I ever DM 5E again, it will be the 2014 rulebooks only -- no bloated crunch for me! Hearing Mearls criticize that element of 5.5E and singling it out as a design mistake (though he never actually uses that word) was great.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 26, 2025, 10:49:27 AMI'm surprised no one watched the video or commented. It's a very good interview and gives an idea of the inside working of WotC. If you read between the lines, this is my take:
-D&D doesn't like its current customers and wants new customers
-D&D believes its lore is problematic so they jettisoned lore and only going off mechanics for updates
-You don't jettison your existing customers and then get new customers, it doesn't work
-D&D is not culturally relevant. In the past, when D&D was up the market was up and when D&D was down the market is down. Now, D&D is down but the market is up showing a decoupling to D&D.
I watched it. Hell, I lived the early part of the story. I like that Mike is now (mostly) free to talk about this stuff without Mr. Potato Head involved.
Quote from: Zalman on February 26, 2025, 11:44:41 AMI watched the video. Along with a few other of his recent appearances. It's hard to shake the feeling that Mearls is on some sort of half apology tour half shill-my-game tour, as if he was never on board with the direction of 5e all along.
Also, "I find your lack of avatar disturbing" (Vader voice).
He hasn't worked on D&D for 5 years. The game has strayed very far from what was designed between 2011 - 2014. I'm sure Mike hasn't been pleased with the direction of the brand, but wasn't allowed to speak about publicly if he wanted to continue being employed.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 26, 2025, 10:49:27 AMI'm surprised no one watched the video or commented. It's a very good interview and gives an idea of the inside working of WotC. If you read between the lines, this is my take:
-D&D doesn't like its current customers and wants new customers
-D&D believes its lore is problematic so they jettisoned lore and only going off mechanics for updates
-You don't jettison your existing customers and then get new customers, it doesn't work
-D&D is not culturally relevant. In the past, when D&D was up the market was up and when D&D was down the market is down. Now, D&D is down but the market is up showing a decoupling to D&D.
Old news. We've been bitching about these topics for years.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 26, 2025, 10:49:27 AMI'm surprised no one watched the video or commented. It's a very good interview and gives an idea of the inside working of WotC. If you read between the lines, this is my take:
-D&D doesn't like its current customers and wants new customers
-D&D believes its lore is problematic so they jettisoned lore and only going off mechanics for updates
-You don't jettison your existing customers and then get new customers, it doesn't work
-D&D is not culturally relevant. In the past, when D&D was up the market was up and when D&D was down the market is down. Now, D&D is down but the market is up showing a decoupling to D&D.
Yeah I have to get my Honey Dipper Dan image of Will Saso from Mad TV, it was and is the funniest thing Will Saso will ever put out in his life. Don't watch the skit on an upset stomach, you'll shit yourself laughing.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 26, 2025, 01:56:21 PMQuote from: honeydipperdavid on February 26, 2025, 10:49:27 AMI'm surprised no one watched the video or commented. It's a very good interview and gives an idea of the inside working of WotC. If you read between the lines, this is my take:
-D&D doesn't like its current customers and wants new customers
-D&D believes its lore is problematic so they jettisoned lore and only going off mechanics for updates
-You don't jettison your existing customers and then get new customers, it doesn't work
-D&D is not culturally relevant. In the past, when D&D was up the market was up and when D&D was down the market is down. Now, D&D is down but the market is up showing a decoupling to D&D.
Old news. We've been bitching about these topics for years.
Yeah but this is the first time you get to hear from the last of WotC's sane designers speak out.
I disagree on Mike saying they are trying to keep the 3.5E and add new users for 5E. When I look at 5E, all I see is 2E + 3.5E monster stats & saves. Its a mix of those two systems + advantage to simplify everything.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 26, 2025, 01:57:35 PMQuote from: honeydipperdavid on February 26, 2025, 10:49:27 AMI'm surprised no one watched the video or commented. It's a very good interview and gives an idea of the inside working of WotC. If you read between the lines, this is my take:
-D&D doesn't like its current customers and wants new customers
-D&D believes its lore is problematic so they jettisoned lore and only going off mechanics for updates
-You don't jettison your existing customers and then get new customers, it doesn't work
-D&D is not culturally relevant. In the past, when D&D was up the market was up and when D&D was down the market is down. Now, D&D is down but the market is up showing a decoupling to D&D.
Yeah I have to get my Honey Dipper Dan image of Will Saso from Mad TV, it was and is the funniest thing Will Saso will ever put out in his life. Don't watch the skit on an upset stomach, you'll shit yourself laughing.
The first half of 5E included lore and decent books, the modules were generally weak. He also allowed 3rd party licensing of older content. The reason why 5E was successful was Mearls fighting to keep the content relevant to everyone and not making a game that only appealed to Seattle and Sodomites (S&S). Mearls made sure to keep it D&D.
It was during the 2020 race riots that Mearls was fired over Zak S, it gave the race marxists carte blanche to destroy D&D as a franchise.
However you feel about Mearls or 5e, it is a good interview that gives insights into everyone at WotC's thought processes.
Quote from: Zalman on February 26, 2025, 11:44:41 AMI watched the video. Along with a few other of his recent appearances. It's hard to shake the feeling that Mearls is on some sort of half apology tour half shill-my-game tour, as if he was never on board with the direction of 5e all along.
Also, "I find your lack of avatar disturbing" (Vader voice).
That's unfair to him. He's not apologizing for anything and he has no reason to. He's not the one running the game now and he was obviously on board with the direction when he was the lead designer a decade ago. It was his direction.
Also everyone and their grandma is making a 5e clone/5e spinoff/D&D alternative. If anyone has a right to iterate on it, he does, given he led the creation of the edition in the first place. He made his own version of 3rd edition (Iron Heroes) back in the 2000s while he was still working on 3e/d20 system for WotC back then. Who cares?
QuoteD&D doesn't like its current customers and wants new customers
I mean, it's been years now since "white people can't leave soon enough", right?
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 26, 2025, 01:56:21 PMOld news. We've been bitching about these topics for years.
No kidding. There is literally nothing new he revealed we didn't already know. Hell we knew it when it was happening. Confirmation bias is no replacement for what you see with your own eyes... but for so many people it's become some kind of dopamine hit that's transcended the hobby itself.
I'm not one of them. But I get it. For many D&D is that pet mammoth that decided to wallow into the tar-pit. Then the the WotC Sabretooth tiger jumped on its back looking for a free meal and now they're both stuck and sinking into the inevitable.
We're all standing at the shore watching them go down. Some feel helpless to save it. Others know she had a bunch of calves that need tending to - time to let her go and take care of her babies. And fuck that sabretooth tiger. He gets what he deserves.
5.5E doesn't seem to be selling well, based on Mearls's interpretation of the latest Hasbro earnings report. That wouldn't surprise me. Not many people want to learn new rules that are not different enough from the old ones to be interesting, but just different enough to be annoying.
IMO, 5.5E was a mistake that should have never happened. A re-organized PHB with an improved layout would have been fine. But changing just enough rules to break backward compatibility was a bad idea that will end up biting WotC in the behind.
If 5.5E isn't selling well they can plan to make a 6E in a few years and claim 5.5E was just a compatible bump. I know if I took over Wizards that's what I'd do. I certainly wouldn't wait out the normal 10ish year life of a new edition.
Quote from: D-ko on February 26, 2025, 03:12:58 PMQuoteD&D doesn't like its current customers and wants new customers
I mean, it's been years now since "white people can't leave soon enough", right?
Hasbro did fire Kyle Brink about 6 months later but they never apologized nor clarified Brink's stance. It's ok, America is going back to the norm and all these fucked up gender faithers are being looked at as if they have shit for brains and syphilis for eyes. Hasbro will have to adjust D&D or they will have a Disney Star Wars situation on their hands very soon.
Quote from: Horace on February 26, 2025, 05:07:05 PM5.5E doesn't seem to be selling well, based on Mearls's interpretation of the latest Hasbro earnings report. That wouldn't surprise me. Not many people want to learn new rules that are not different enough from the old ones to be interesting, but just different enough to be annoying.
IMO, 5.5E was a mistake that should have never happened. A re-organized PHB with an improved layout would have been fine. But changing just enough rules to break backward compatibility was a bad idea that will end up biting WotC in the behind.
We were already at 5.5E when WotC fired Mearls using the race riots of 2020 to justify firing him, putting up racist warnings on all pre 5E content, removing books that had racial or extended lore present (volo's and mords). This is just the gender neuter faith element of WotC showing their ass begging to be fucked by corporate.
I enjoyed his Prof DM and Questing Beast interviews. He definitely emphasised mechanics and gameifying of 5.5e as a reason for its failure, only referring obliquely to Woke as a reason. I think he's right that 5e was successful in 2014 because it was very welcoming to new players compared to 3e and 4e, he and Pundit etc did a good job. And the lack of any design ability from Crawford and co is evident. Still I think Woke plus general Evil (OGL scandal) is the main reason people really hate WoTC now.
Quote from: S'mon on February 27, 2025, 04:47:09 AMI enjoyed his Prof DM and Questing Beast interviews. He definitely emphasised mechanics and gameifying of 5.5e as a reason for its failure, only referring obliquely to Woke as a reason. I think he's right that 5e was successful in 2014 because it was very welcoming to new players compared to 3e and 4e, he and Pundit etc did a good job. And the lack of any design ability from Crawford and co is evident. Still I think Woke plus general Evil (OGL scandal) is the main reason people really hate WoTC now.
This is how bad Crawford is at knowing the 5E ruleset. Crawford ruled you can summon familiars through walls. The exact same ruling if a DM used it would allow players to summon elementals through floors of the dungeon. Crawford should only be allowed to edit and create 5 room dungeons, that's what he's competent at. I had to deal with a rules lawyer jack ass who used this ruling and when I told him no he flamed out. Pain In the Ass, but hey that's what Crawford is all about.
I watched the video and enjoyed it. I didn't know most of the guys who run 5E but found Mearls to sound rational and have an interesting viewpoint on how 5E was designed. While I'm a big fan of the really old D&D versions, my family enjoys 5E so that is most of what we play now.
Quote from: finarvyn on February 27, 2025, 08:50:06 AMI watched the video and enjoyed it. I didn't know most of the guys who run 5E but found Mearls to sound rational and have an interesting viewpoint on how 5E was designed. While I'm a big fan of the really old D&D versions, my family enjoys 5E so that is most of what we play now.
Mearl's appears to have input up to but excluding Tasha's. 5E content excluding Tasha's was fairly based mechanically and generally worked well together without breaking character options.
Quote from: S'mon on February 27, 2025, 04:47:09 AMI think he's right that 5e was successful in 2014 because it was very welcoming to new players compared to 3e and 4e, he and Pundit etc did a good job.
Agreed. Mearls gets it. The simplicity is what made 2014 5E great. Every class and subclass was roughly equal in power, so a new player could make a character without fear of being a gimp. They didn't have to research "builds" in order to be useful. Since then, though, 5E has only added more feats, spells, classes, and subclasses -- way more than was ever needed -- to the point that the options are overwhelming once again. System mastery is almost as much of a thing as it was in 3E, thanks to power-creep and broken multiclass combinations. It's enough to ruin the game, in my opinion.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 26, 2025, 10:49:27 AMI'm surprised no one watched the video or commented.
I already know it's a multi-car pileup with police, fire, and paramedics on the scene. No need to slow down to a crawl to gawk. :)
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 27, 2025, 04:31:59 PMQuote from: honeydipperdavid on February 26, 2025, 10:49:27 AMI'm surprised no one watched the video or commented.
I already know it's a multi-car pileup with police, fire, and paramedics on the scene. No need to slow down to a crawl to gawk. :)
Naw, Mearls put out a good take on things from someone at the inside of WotC.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 27, 2025, 07:04:19 PMQuote from: Steven Mitchell on February 27, 2025, 04:31:59 PMQuote from: honeydipperdavid on February 26, 2025, 10:49:27 AMI'm surprised no one watched the video or commented.
I already know it's a multi-car pileup with police, fire, and paramedics on the scene. No need to slow down to a crawl to gawk. :)
Naw, Mearls put out a good take on things from someone at the inside of WotC.
Sorry, bad antecedent. By "it's" I meant WotC.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 26, 2025, 09:53:17 PMDisney Star Wars situation
I suppose you're aware of fitting recent news? https://www.starwarsnewsnet.com/2025/02/kathleen-kennedy-to-exit-as-lucasfilm-president-at-the-end-of-the-year.html
And yes... it will be interesting. Hasbro is quickly turning D&D 6E into another 4E mess.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on February 27, 2025, 10:13:11 AMQuote from: finarvyn on February 27, 2025, 08:50:06 AMI watched the video and enjoyed it. I didn't know most of the guys who run 5E but found Mearls to sound rational and have an interesting viewpoint on how 5E was designed. While I'm a big fan of the really old D&D versions, my family enjoys 5E so that is most of what we play now.
Mearl's appears to have input up to but excluding Tasha's. 5E content excluding Tasha's was fairly based mechanically and generally worked well together without breaking character options.
Tasha's was definitely 5e's Jump the Shark moment in terms of mechanics, with stuff like the Twilight Cleric handing out tons of temp hp to the entire party every round.
Quote from: S'mon on February 28, 2025, 04:05:25 AMQuote from: honeydipperdavid on February 27, 2025, 10:13:11 AMQuote from: finarvyn on February 27, 2025, 08:50:06 AMI watched the video and enjoyed it. I didn't know most of the guys who run 5E but found Mearls to sound rational and have an interesting viewpoint on how 5E was designed. While I'm a big fan of the really old D&D versions, my family enjoys 5E so that is most of what we play now.
Mearl's appears to have input up to but excluding Tasha's. 5E content excluding Tasha's was fairly based mechanically and generally worked well together without breaking character options.
Tasha's was definitely 5e's Jump the Shark moment in terms of mechanics, with stuff like the Twilight Cleric handing out tons of temp hp to the entire party every round.
That was the book that got me to drop 5e. I have picked up the 2024 set of core books and would use them in isolation (not with the earlier stuff), but Tasha's I couldn't bring myself to want to use with the old stuff either.
Quote from: S'mon on February 28, 2025, 04:05:25 AMQuote from: honeydipperdavid on February 27, 2025, 10:13:11 AMQuote from: finarvyn on February 27, 2025, 08:50:06 AMI watched the video and enjoyed it. I didn't know most of the guys who run 5E but found Mearls to sound rational and have an interesting viewpoint on how 5E was designed. While I'm a big fan of the really old D&D versions, my family enjoys 5E so that is most of what we play now.
Mearl's appears to have input up to but excluding Tasha's. 5E content excluding Tasha's was fairly based mechanically and generally worked well together without breaking character options.
Tasha's was definitely 5e's Jump the Shark moment in terms of mechanics, with stuff like the Twilight Cleric handing out tons of temp hp to the entire party every round.
Yup, Twilight clerics will use their temp hitpoints over turning undead. It's also why when they do that, undead swarm the Twilight cleric who now just used their domain ability and no longer have Turn Undead ability up and they die. I have a twilight cleric doing that now rather using turn undead in an undead heavy campaign. She'll learn very quickly how that mistake will cost her dearly. Especially when she gets turned into undead and uses that exact same ability against the party.
Base 5e had a number of problems that doomed it from the start, IMO. The biggest is that the whole game becomes unwieldy at about level 12. There was always going to be a point where GMs and players realized that there were a number of things that needed deep level repairs.
I love 5e for some of what it did. I got to run games for younglings that got a chance because of the combo of Stranger Things and 5e. It's very easy to house rule and make homebrew content for. When it's not saddled with a bunch of extra crap, it works well. At it's core, it's an excellent game.
Quote from: BadApple on February 28, 2025, 07:36:42 AMBase 5e had a number of problems that doomed it from the start, IMO. The biggest is that the whole game becomes unwieldy at about level 12.
Out of curiosity, what do you think is broken about higher-level play? For me, it's the glacial speed of combat. By level 11, the players have so many actions, reactions, and hit points that large battles can take hours to resolve. Compared to the speediness of low-level play, it's a real drag.
Watched it. Good information. I don't like Mearls (I won't deny he can design games) so it was good to hear the confirmation of what I've long suspected. What was more fun to read was the comment section and the WotC fanboys defending it.
Quote from: Horace on February 28, 2025, 09:43:15 AMQuote from: BadApple on February 28, 2025, 07:36:42 AMBase 5e had a number of problems that doomed it from the start, IMO. The biggest is that the whole game becomes unwieldy at about level 12.
Out of curiosity, what do you think is broken about higher-level play? For me, it's the glacial speed of combat. By level 11, the players have so many actions, reactions, and hit points that large battles can take hours to resolve. Compared to the speediness of low-level play, it's a real drag.
For similar reasons, non-combat play gets to be an issue too. Between spells and money, players will either just blow through everything or get stuck and give up. Finding ways to challenge players gets to the point of absurdity of hours concocting interesting encounters that the players will just solve with spells, money, or stabbing.
Fuck goodberry too. Survival D&D? Wilderness adventure? Nope, goodberry and Mordenkinen's mansion and it's just over.
Quote from: BadApple on February 28, 2025, 10:57:38 AMFuck goodberry too. Survival D&D? Wilderness adventure? Nope, goodberry and Mordenkinen's mansion and it's just over.
Ah yes. I tried running a dungeon crawl with all the ration, water, encumbrance, and resource management rules once, but the players just showed up with characters that trivialized all those things. The rules never came up after the first few minutes, because there was no point.
I could spend time modifying the game to make classic dungeon crawls possible, but I start to feel really silly when my list of house rules stretches beyond half a page.
Quote from: Horace on February 27, 2025, 11:22:03 AMThe simplicity is what made 2014 5E great. Every class and subclass was roughly equal in power, so a new player could make a character without fear of being a gimp. They didn't have to research "builds" in order to be useful. Since then, though, 5E has only added more feats, spells, classes, and subclasses -- way more than was ever needed -- to the point that the options are overwhelming once again. System mastery is almost as much of a thing as it was in 3E, thanks to power-creep and broken multiclass combinations. It's enough to ruin the game, in my opinion.
Even with only the core rules, 5E isn't simplicity IMO. It's still complicated, so I found it a little off-putting to hear Mearls praise himself about how streamlined the 2014 rules he worked on were. If one wants a simple D&D-like game, BECMI or one of its many offshoots is a better bet.
I agree that the 5E option books made it worse, and I didn't like them - but every edition of D&D has added more options that eventually became overwhelming if you allow them all. In the 1E days, I avoided _Unearthed Arcana_ options like Cavalier and Barbarian because they showed clear power-creep. 2E had a huge number of kits in all the "Complete <X>" books along with Skills & Powers. 3E and 3.5E likewise added tons of options.
I've enjoyed 5E - but I generally only allowed options from the core books, and I never ran above level 9.
Quote from: jhkim on February 28, 2025, 01:47:40 PMEven with only the core rules, 5E isn't simplicity IMO. It's still complicated [...] If one wants a simple D&D-like game, BECMI or one of its many offshoots is a better bet.
That is true. I cut my teeth on AD&D, so 5E seems simple to me by comparison. But you're right, there are simpler games out there and even simpler versions of D&D, so 5E isn't exactly simple in absolute terms. But it was a huge shift after the complexity of 3E and 4E, and I think it got more right than it got wrong.
And yes, every edition of D&D accumulates bloat and power-creep over time. I've accepted this as a fact of life at this point, but it's saddening all the same.
Quote from: BadApple on February 28, 2025, 07:36:42 AMBase 5e had a number of problems that doomed it from the start, IMO. The biggest is that the whole game becomes unwieldy at about level 12. There was always going to be a point where GMs and players realized that there were a number of things that needed deep level repairs.
I love 5e for some of what it did. I got to run games for younglings that got a chance because of the combo of Stranger Things and 5e. It's very easy to house rule and make homebrew content for. When it's not saddled with a bunch of extra crap, it works well. At it's core, it's an excellent game.
Outside of AD&D, and BD&D. The game generally falls apart at "name" level, because all WotC versions don't change the style of play at this level like TSR did.
Quote from: jhkim on February 28, 2025, 01:47:40 PMQuote from: Horace on February 27, 2025, 11:22:03 AMThe simplicity is what made 2014 5E great. Every class and subclass was roughly equal in power, so a new player could make a character without fear of being a gimp. They didn't have to research "builds" in order to be useful. Since then, though, 5E has only added more feats, spells, classes, and subclasses -- way more than was ever needed -- to the point that the options are overwhelming once again. System mastery is almost as much of a thing as it was in 3E, thanks to power-creep and broken multiclass combinations. It's enough to ruin the game, in my opinion.
Even with only the core rules, 5E isn't simplicity IMO. It's still complicated, so I found it a little off-putting to hear Mearls praise himself about how streamlined the 2014 rules he worked on were. If one wants a simple D&D-like game, BECMI or one of its many offshoots is a better bet.
I agree that the 5E option books made it worse, and I didn't like them - but every edition of D&D has added more options that eventually became overwhelming if you allow them all. In the 1E days, I avoided _Unearthed Arcana_ options like Cavalier and Barbarian because they showed clear power-creep. 2E had a huge number of kits in all the "Complete <X>" books along with Skills & Powers. 3E and 3.5E likewise added tons of options.
I've enjoyed 5E - but I generally only allowed options from the core books, and I never ran above level 9.
It was simplicity in context. He was comparing designing 3.X & 4E specifically.
At the very beginning of internal playtest the game was essentially D20 AD&D.
Quote from: BadApple on February 28, 2025, 10:57:38 AMQuote from: Horace on February 28, 2025, 09:43:15 AMQuote from: BadApple on February 28, 2025, 07:36:42 AMBase 5e had a number of problems that doomed it from the start, IMO. The biggest is that the whole game becomes unwieldy at about level 12.
Out of curiosity, what do you think is broken about higher-level play? For me, it's the glacial speed of combat. By level 11, the players have so many actions, reactions, and hit points that large battles can take hours to resolve. Compared to the speediness of low-level play, it's a real drag.
For similar reasons, non-combat play gets to be an issue too. Between spells and money, players will either just blow through everything or get stuck and give up. Finding ways to challenge players gets to the point of absurdity of hours concocting interesting encounters that the players will just solve with spells, money, or stabbing.
Fuck goodberry too. Survival D&D? Wilderness adventure? Nope, goodberry and Mordenkinen's mansion and it's just over.
This happens because WOTC D&D (all versions) NEVER challenges the players. All "challenges" are for various numbers on the character sheet. The player merely needs to push the correct button, or make a high enough roll. There are no challenges that require the players to actually think of something not represented by a button or lever on the character sheet which is the primary reason the games are much less engaging for players. There is little actual playing to do, thus everyone zones out when it is not their turn to push a button or pull a lever.
Quote from: Horace on February 28, 2025, 09:43:15 AMOut of curiosity, what do you think is broken about higher-level play? For me, it's the glacial speed of combat. By level 11, the players have so many actions, reactions, and hit points that large battles can take hours to resolve. Compared to the speediness of low-level play, it's a real drag.
For me it was both the length of combat and the difficulty trying to challenge the PCs. They cakewalked a number of serious enemies I laid out for them. And it took forever. I imagine there are ways of creating good challenges, but it's much harder than it was just a level or two prior. The Challenge Chasm.
Quote from: Horace on February 28, 2025, 09:43:15 AMQuote from: BadApple on February 28, 2025, 07:36:42 AMBase 5e had a number of problems that doomed it from the start, IMO. The biggest is that the whole game becomes unwieldy at about level 12.
Out of curiosity, what do you think is broken about higher-level play? For me, it's the glacial speed of combat. By level 11, the players have so many actions, reactions, and hit points that large battles can take hours to resolve. Compared to the speediness of low-level play, it's a real drag.
Years back, I remember getting deep into
Horde Of The Dragon Queen and while it was fun and a great group, nearing the end of it the GM was often scratching his head as everyone was crunching numbers and bonus actions and it felt very little like role-playing and a lot like wargaming.
Quote from: D-ko on February 28, 2025, 04:47:02 PMQuote from: Horace on February 28, 2025, 09:43:15 AMQuote from: BadApple on February 28, 2025, 07:36:42 AMBase 5e had a number of problems that doomed it from the start, IMO. The biggest is that the whole game becomes unwieldy at about level 12.
Out of curiosity, what do you think is broken about higher-level play? For me, it's the glacial speed of combat. By level 11, the players have so many actions, reactions, and hit points that large battles can take hours to resolve. Compared to the speediness of low-level play, it's a real drag.
Years back, I remember getting deep into Horde Of The Dragon Queen and while it was fun and a great group, nearing the end of it the GM was often scratching his head as everyone was crunching numbers and bonus actions and it felt very little like role-playing and a lot like wargaming.
For a few years I tinkered with the idea of doing a 5e that was 25 levels but level 25 was equivalent to level five in official 5e. It would have made a lot more sense to me. In the end, it just seemed like a lot of work to fight with potential players. "why not just play normal 5e?"
Greetings!
Yes, original 5E was a strong game. A fun game, and worthy of praise. However, even the original 5E game embraced some powerful flaws that are not readily apparent, and only emerge strongly over the passage of time and game play. I always liked 5E, and initially liked and enjoyed it for years. Again, though, with more time and game play, the deeper problems emerge. Adding to these problems were the various supplements that ratcheted the problems up even more. The whole "Superhero" dynamic being the chief sin here. Magic spells increasing in power, scope, and utility, distorting any kind of mundane challenge or difficulty. These deep problems, and more, increase and multiply, bringing cascading effects and dynamics that impact an entire campaign.
These increasing negative effects and dynamics also put more strain and work on the DM, which becomes a serious burden. Eventually--combined with WOTC's increasing Woke politics and Woke insanity--for myself, it just is too much work to fight against the inherent system to do what I want it to do. Modern 5E is medieval superheroes, with uber-powerful High Magic, combined with a huge serving of modernism as frosting that soaks through to every level of the game.
So, WOTC can get fucked. 5E is just done and gone, really. I have for the most part moved on entirely to Shadowdark.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on February 28, 2025, 06:29:56 PMYes, original 5E was a strong game. A fun game, and worthy of praise. However, even the original 5E game embraced some powerful flaws that are not readily apparent, and only emerge strongly over the passage of time and game play. I always liked 5E, and initially liked and enjoyed it for years. Again, though, with more time and game play, the deeper problems emerge. Adding to these problems were the various supplements that ratcheted the problems up even more. The whole "Superhero" dynamic being the chief sin here. Magic spells increasing in power, scope, and utility, distorting any kind of mundane challenge or difficulty.
I'm curious which supplements you used in your games, SHARK.
I generally avoided any new classes or spells, with rare and limited exceptions, so I don't have a strong opinion on supplements like Xanathar's or Tasha's. I wasn't much impressed from reading them, especially with the latter, but I didn't use them in play so it's hard to say.
I feel most of what people talk about are built into the core game, and people just were less impressed with 5E as they got more experience playing it.
AS so
Quote from: jhkim on February 28, 2025, 01:47:40 PMQuote from: Horace on February 27, 2025, 11:22:03 AMThe simplicity is what made 2014 5E great. Every class and subclass was roughly equal in power, so a new player could make a character without fear of being a gimp. They didn't have to research "builds" in order to be useful. Since then, though, 5E has only added more feats, spells, classes, and subclasses -- way more than was ever needed -- to the point that the options are overwhelming once again. System mastery is almost as much of a thing as it was in 3E, thanks to power-creep and broken multiclass combinations. It's enough to ruin the game, in my opinion.
Even with only the core rules, 5E isn't simplicity IMO. It's still complicated, so I found it a little off-putting to hear Mearls praise himself about how streamlined the 2014 rules he worked on were. If one wants a simple D&D-like game, BECMI or one of its many offshoots is a better bet.
I agree that the 5E option books made it worse, and I didn't like them - but every edition of D&D has added more options that eventually became overwhelming if you allow them all. In the 1E days, I avoided _Unearthed Arcana_ options like Cavalier and Barbarian because they showed clear power-creep. 2E had a huge number of kits in all the "Complete <X>" books along with Skills & Powers. 3E and 3.5E likewise added tons of options.
I've enjoyed 5E - but I generally only allowed options from the core books, and I never ran above level 9.
As someone else said, it's very streamlined compared to 3e and 4e. There are much fewer numbers to keep track of, the combat and environmental rules are simpler, feats are much chunkier and there are much fewer of them, and so on.
Quote from: Spobo on March 01, 2025, 09:41:28 AMAs someone else said, it's very streamlined compared to 3e and 4e. There are much fewer numbers to keep track of, the combat and environmental rules are simpler, feats are much chunkier and there are much fewer of them, and so on.
Strangely enough, I think 5e 2014 went too far in some ways (feats bloat needed to reigned in... but not removed completely as the baseline with no starting feat at all even if you are using them) whereas other things were only half-simplified (adding a global proficiency bonus instead of individual skill ranks was nice but do we really need 18 different skills so badly skewed to some attributes?).
Quote from: RNGm on March 01, 2025, 09:47:01 AMQuote from: Spobo on March 01, 2025, 09:41:28 AMAs someone else said, it's very streamlined compared to 3e and 4e. There are much fewer numbers to keep track of, the combat and environmental rules are simpler, feats are much chunkier and there are much fewer of them, and so on.
Strangely enough, I think 5e 2014 went too far in some ways (feats bloat needed to reigned in... but not removed completely as the baseline with no starting feat at all even if you are using them) whereas other things were only half-simplified (adding a global proficiency bonus instead of individual skill ranks was nice but do we really need 18 different skills so badly skewed to some attributes?).
The biggest loss for me was that, barring multiclassing (which not everyone allows), just about every meaningful choice for your progression was locked in by level 3.
If you're a monk you will pick up Stunning Fist at level 5. You will get the feature determined by the subclass you picked at level three when you reach level 6, etc. If your table is doing array or point buy, you're probably not even getting a feat choice until level 12 unless you're happy with AC 15 and falling behind on to-hit and damage bonuses.
Maybe it's that I've played a lot more M&M, Champions, WoD, and 4E, but that locked-in progression in 5e is so uninspiring. You're just waiting out levels until the traits you want come online and everyone else with the same class/subclass and level gets the exact same thing.
By your third 5e campaign you can see the underlying samey-ness of everything. It's why I'm going to be taking over the 5e slot for the local group as soon as the current campaign wraps to run M&M and try to slowly break them of their 5e habit (M&M is close enough mechanically that it shouldn't be too jarring for the ones whose only gaming reference is 5e and comic book heroes are a familiar enough genre to not require extensive explanations of its tropes). That would be samey too if we continued it, but hopefully I can push for WEG or Savage Worlds Star Wars (Old Republic era) after that.
Quote from: Zalman on February 26, 2025, 11:44:41 AMI watched the video. Along with a few other of his recent appearances. It's hard to shake the feeling that Mearls is on some sort of half apology tour half shill-my-game tour, as if he was never on board with the direction of 5e all along.
Also, "I find your lack of avatar disturbing" (Vader voice).
Exactly. He is trying to curry favor with the playerbase he rejected by backpedalling and chirping new buzzwords.
Remember kids. It is only wrong when someone else does it.
Quote from: Omega on March 01, 2025, 12:39:03 PMQuote from: Zalman on February 26, 2025, 11:44:41 AMI watched the video. Along with a few other of his recent appearances. It's hard to shake the feeling that Mearls is on some sort of half apology tour half shill-my-game tour, as if he was never on board with the direction of 5e all along.
Also, "I find your lack of avatar disturbing" (Vader voice).
Exactly. He is trying to curry favor with the playerbase he rejected by backpedalling and chirping new buzzwords.
Remember kids. It is only wrong when someone else does it.
What "playerbase he rejected"? That doesn't make any sense.
Quote from: Spobo on March 01, 2025, 03:18:13 PMWhat "playerbase he rejected"? That doesn't make any sense.
Early into 5e he was chirping woke buzzwords left and right. I cant find it but he was on the bandwagon declaring all the old D&D material "racist".
Quote from: Spobo on March 01, 2025, 09:41:28 AMAs someone else said, it's very streamlined compared to 3e and 4e. There are much fewer numbers to keep track of, the combat and environmental rules are simpler, feats are much chunkier and there are much fewer of them, and so on.
If the bar is having less system bloat than 3e, then the bar is in hell.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 01, 2025, 09:43:06 PMQuote from: Spobo on March 01, 2025, 09:41:28 AMAs someone else said, it's very streamlined compared to 3e and 4e. There are much fewer numbers to keep track of, the combat and environmental rules are simpler, feats are much chunkier and there are much fewer of them, and so on.
If the bar is having less system bloat than 3e, then the bar is in hell.
Crunch tolerance is relative.
I don't like how few options 5e actually gives you, but then I'd switched from AD&D to Palladium (starting with Robotech) before I was old enough to drive, was doing mostly Rifts and Champions in high school, tried GURPS and got into World of Darkness in college, tried just enough 3e to hate how hard it was to build any type of hero that didn't feature in a D&D novel, got into M&M for my superhero games, Spycraft while their Living campaign was running strong, and didn't really come back to D&D proper until 4E, which had its problems (including becoming nearly unplayable past level 16), but was definitely my favorite of the D&D editions (for one thing I could finally make a wizard who played more like one from non-D&D fiction and a warrior who didn't require a Christmas tree of magic items to remain competitive with the wizard and cleric right out of the box).
One thing about my crunch tolerance is that I have a super high tolerance for at the character creation and progression stages, while in play my tolerance is considerably lower (one of 4E's sins was a very unintuitive character sheet and a desire to record powers as playing cards rather than, say, how they laid out the monster stat blocks and their powers... the game got extremely easier and faster to play when I started making PC sheets for myself and my fe!!ow players based on the monster statblock layout; nearly all were less than a page even up to about level 20).
I also know people who love Exalted 3e and designing even more subsystems for it. That's beyond even my preferred complexity (I can play it, but it does nothing for me), but there's two tables worth I'm aware of.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 01, 2025, 10:34:14 PMCrunch tolerance is relative.
Saying that it has less system bloat than 3e just isn't saying very much.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 01, 2025, 09:43:06 PMQuote from: Spobo on March 01, 2025, 09:41:28 AMAs someone else said, it's very streamlined compared to 3e and 4e. There are much fewer numbers to keep track of, the combat and environmental rules are simpler, feats are much chunkier and there are much fewer of them, and so on.
If the bar is having less system bloat than 3e, then the bar is in hell.
It's not the amount of bloat (in this case) but how the complexity budget is used. Base 5E has a little bloat but not to a terrible degree, and at least some of that bloat is options that many people want. Whereas the expansions of 5E take that base bloat and expand it.
The promise of 5E when it came out would be that it would be modular, such that they would develop a domain system, a good ship combat system, etc. Instead, what we got was poorly developed systems built on the same mechanics, when we got them at all, more widgets as reflavored versions of the existing widgets, and power creep--all wrapped in a chunk of poorly written fan fiction. It's literally the work of no-talent hacks that can only imitate others, and as time went on it got worse, because they were further and further from the starting point. Of course, when you've got Jeremy Crawford as your leader, that's about all you are capable of producing anyway.
My group invested in 5E. I tried to like it. Ran a couple adventures for the group, seemed to go pretty smooth the first few sessions. Then around level 4-5 it seemed to get a little out of control. They party was DESTROYING things that were supposed to be balanced encounters (hey I was trying to follow the CR) in published adventures. They seemed extremely hard to kill/threaten in a meaningful way (where they had to use a bit of strategy or caution in a fight) that would create a bit of tension. It just was not the game for me and I gave up on it (WOTC still got a good chunk of change for our investment). It certainly did not help when I watched a you tube video with crawford and heard WAY more than I needed to about him and his husband. I do not care to hear about ANYONE's significant other in a video about game rules and certainly do not need to hear about lifestyles I merely tolerate, not accept. Truth is I would have been just as put off if he were hetero and droned on and on like that about his wife and their interactions when I am there to hear about Game rules. I guess he was attempting to be "relatable"...I just have no idea who he was trying to be relatable to. Lack of ability to design games and out of touch...sort of summed up the direction the game took.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 01, 2025, 12:00:36 PMYou're just waiting out levels until the traits you want come online and everyone else with the same class/subclass and level gets the exact same thing.
That's a common complaint of (strict) class & level advancement. It's a fair point, but the appeal of it to casual gamers (that may never get to their third campaign) is that it makes learning the game less complex. For those that like added complexity, spellcasters offer considerably more flexibility with easy-to-change (the degree depending on class) spell choices.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 01, 2025, 12:00:36 PMThe biggest loss for me was that, barring multiclassing (which not everyone allows), just about every meaningful choice for your progression was locked in by level 3.
(snip)
By your third 5e campaign you can see the underlying samey-ness of everything.
QFT.
I don't hate 5ed, to the point that it's a strong contender for my favorite version of the game. But you hit the nail on the single biggest problem with the game, in that it locks builds in and starts feeling very samey fairly quickly. If you start reading up on ideal builds, the "one true way" showcases how mechanically stagnant it is. Compare with a DIY points-based/effects-based system like M&M or (better yet) Fantasy HERO, and you can see just how confining and restrictive a game it is.
I know some might want to argue that this is where "role-playing over roll-playing" comes in, but that's a deflection on the issue of mechanical constraints. Like saying even if a restaurant's food is bad, as long as the people you're there with are fun, then the food is retroactively good. It's not.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 01, 2025, 10:42:02 PMQuote from: Chris24601 on March 01, 2025, 10:34:14 PMCrunch tolerance is relative.
Saying that it has less system bloat than 3e just isn't saying very much.
5e is worlds easier and has far far less system bloat than 3e.
Over the course of its run they introduced very few expansion books and of those most were new class paths. Some skill expansion, etc.
There were only 2 rules expansion books. Xanithar and Tasha.
And 3 that were setting books but also had a bunch of new class stuff. Sword Coast, Spelljammer and Planescape are the only ones.
Thats pretty much it.
Quote from: Habitual Gamer on March 04, 2025, 08:26:47 AMI don't hate 5ed, to the point that it's a strong contender for my favorite version of the game. But you hit the nail on the single biggest problem with the game, in that it locks builds in and starts feeling very samey fairly quickly. If you start reading up on ideal builds, the "one true way" showcases how mechanically stagnant it is. Compare with a DIY points-based/effects-based system like M&M or (better yet) Fantasy HERO, and you can see just how confining and restrictive a game it is.
Whatever those systems are, there's a one true build in them too. Maybe there's not enough players to have published a thorough guide, or maybe the games aren't predictable enough so that there's a small milieu of builds depending on the type of campaign, but overall the fact that there's fewer choices in 5e actually makes it better in this regard.
The few choices you have in D&D (all versions) compared to a skill-based game (or one where you mix and match a variety of things) has actually made it easier to balance and more understandable. If you nerf
Wish and
Polymorph and Wild Shape, you know that isn't nerfing the rogue, or the fighter. There's not a huge number of moving pieces unless you start modifying base pieces of the rules shared by everyone.
It's a perfectly valid 5e criticism to point to the fact that you don't get that many meaningful choices. In 5.0, the background feature gives you a bunch of choices that don't matter too much (including tho opportunity to select whatever your proficiencies are, for skills, tools, languages, and a special feature that can be one of the sample ones or a custom one). Then the race pick is very impactful, and of course the main thing is the class pick. Later you get a few feats or ASIs, and a subclass. If you are one of the few pure martials in the game that may be all of your picks (ex: Champion Fighter), but most D&D characters aren't martials and have to pick spells, and those aren't always just optimal-path picks at least.
Anyway in 5e, like every other version, you as the DM can go through and nerf and buff as you like. Unlike versions with a zillion different options, like 3.X's default-on multiclassing (3.X doesn't have default-on
prestige classes though, a common point forgotten to forumites in the early 2000s), you don't have to spend too much time on this, nor is the system so large as to be outrageous.
But a skill system that seems like you can go through the garden of mechanics and pick the ones that smell nice- you'll find people saying that about every system that is new, but an earnest min-maxxer analyzing the system will deliver you the
Golden Correct Path, every time. Some systems are so small as to not have warranted the effort, but don't confuse that with anything else.
My biggest problem with 5E came with feats. Unbalanced and ill thought out in 3e and 5e.
Quote from: Omega on March 04, 2025, 12:11:01 PMQuote from: yosemitemike on March 01, 2025, 10:42:02 PMSaying that it has less system bloat than 3e just isn't saying very much.
5e is worlds easier and has far far less system bloat than 3e.
Over the course of its run they introduced very few expansion books and of those most were new class paths. Some skill expansion, etc.
There were only 2 rules expansion books. Xanithar and Tasha.
And 3 that were setting books but also had a bunch of new class stuff. Sword Coast, Spelljammer and Planescape are the only ones.
Thats pretty much it.
There's definitely more supplement books than that. Some of the supplement books were mostly about monsters or lore, and had few new rules - but even Fizban's Treasury of Dragons had 3 new races, 2 new subclasses, 3 new feats, and 6 new spells. Here's the complete list, I think:
SupplementsVolo's Guide to Monsters
Xanathar's Guide to Everything
Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
Fizban's Treasury of Dragons
Monsters of the Multiverse
Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants
The Book of Many Things
Campaign SettingsSword Coast Adventurer's Guide
Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica
Acquisitions Incorporated
Eberron: Rising from the Last War
Explorer's Guide to Wildemount
Mythic Odysseys of Theros
Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft
Strixhaven: A Curriculum of Chaos
Spelljammer: Adventures in Space
Planescape: Adventures in the Multiverse
(source) (https://dungeonsanddragonsfan.com/dnd-5e-books-list/)
There's an awful lot of pages for the amount of meaningful choices. That's what happens when you write a lot of filler to sell books. A 5E distilled down into the useful bits still wouldn't have very many meaningful choices but it would be a simple system to understand and run.
And in fact, anyone spending any time running for very long does do that, if only unconsciously. You ignore large chunks of it as irrelevant.
Quote from: jhkim on March 04, 2025, 01:06:04 PMThere's definitely more supplement books than that. Some of the supplement books were mostly about monsters or lore, and had few new rules - but even Fizban's Treasury of Dragons had 3 new races, 2 new subclasses, 3 new feats, and 6 new spells. Here's the complete list, I think:
Supplements
Volo's Guide to Monsters
Xanathar's Guide to Everything
Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
Fizban's Treasury of Dragons
Monsters of the Multiverse
Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants
The Book of Many Things
Campaign Settings
Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide
Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica
Acquisitions Incorporated
Eberron: Rising from the Last War
Explorer's Guide to Wildemount
Mythic Odysseys of Theros
Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft
Strixhaven: A Curriculum of Chaos
Spelljammer: Adventures in Space
Planescape: Adventures in the Multiverse
(source) (https://dungeonsanddragonsfan.com/dnd-5e-books-list/)
You're correct of course, but he was comparing it to 3.X, which has a truly incredible amount of stuff.
Note that each of these, beyond the ones he brought up (XGtE, TCoE), have very few additional spells, subclasses, and feats- the one you picked out, Fizban's, is maybe a bit above average in player-choice content added, but even those few things are very small compared to others. 5.0 only added one class ever- the artificer- in Eberron (the current 5.0 version is printed in Tasha's).
Here's a by-class list of subclass options, with the first number being the count in the PHB, and the second being by the end of 5.0.
Artificer:0:4
Barbarian:2:9
Bard:2:8
Cleric:7:14
Druid:2:7
Fighter:3:10
Monk:3:10
Paladin:3:9
Ranger:2:8
Rogue:3:9
Sorcerer:2:8
Warlock:3:9
Wizard:8:13
Basically, the number of options to track tripled over the decade of 5.0 books. An equivalent amount of time in 3.5 was way bigger; 4e as well.
So while he definitely undershot with his estimation of 5.X books, the magnitude of comparison with older editions was correct.
Quote from: Venka on March 04, 2025, 01:23:49 PMQuote from: jhkim on March 04, 2025, 01:06:04 PMThere's definitely more supplement books than that. Some of the supplement books were mostly about monsters or lore, and had few new rules - but even Fizban's Treasury of Dragons had 3 new races, 2 new subclasses, 3 new feats, and 6 new spells.
Basically, the number of options to track tripled over the decade of 5.0 books. An equivalent amount of time in 3.5 was way bigger; 4e as well.
So while he definitely undershot with his estimation of 5.X books, the magnitude of comparison with older editions was correct.
Thanks, Venka. That sounds easily believable from what I know. I never played 3.5 at all and only briefly played 4e with my nephews, that using only core books. Do you have any idea how much more than tripled the options were in 3.5e and 4e?
Quote from: Venka on March 04, 2025, 12:54:33 PMWhatever those systems are, there's a one true build in them too. Maybe there's not enough players to have published a thorough guide, or maybe the games aren't predictable enough so that there's a small milieu of builds depending on the type of campaign, but overall the fact that there's fewer choices in 5e actually makes it better in this regard.
Disagree, because the presumption there's "one true build" in those systems presumes everyone is building towards the exact same goal versus everyone having their own idea for what's best and what they want to be good at.
In the M&M campaign I'm setting up one of the group came to me with a concept (a teleporter akin the guy in the Jumper novels) because he was worried it'd be overpowered (because it absolutely would be in a D&D game, whereas for a superhero game that was so mundane I just needed to find the Teleport power and apply the proper extras and limits to it).
He didn't want to max out his combat ability or toughness or anything like that. His ideal build was something that would let him play as a teleporter who could go anyplace he's ever seen.
Your argument amounts to "well, everyone's favorite hero should be Superman" even if it's Batman or Green Latern or Beast Boy or Daredevil.
There's no one perfect build to be found in that... at best "this is the perfect build to emulate [insert character here] as I understand the character (because every other fan has their own interpretation of their capabilities and limitations... ex. my writeup for Superboy would look nothing like the one in DCAdventures because I find use of his TTK to be far more capable than the afterthought it was in the guide... because I read all hundred issues of his original series, Superboy and the Ravers, and the whole of Young Justice, not just Geoff Johns' Teen Titans).
Quote from: jhkim on March 04, 2025, 02:16:38 PMThanks, Venka. That sounds easily believable from what I know. I never played 3.5 at all and only briefly played 4e with my nephews, that using only core books. Do you have any idea how much more than tripled the options were in 3.5e and 4e?
For 3.5, the number of base classes increased from 11 in the PHB to around 60, but that really underestimates the sheer craziness of 3.5 classes. The favored way to add splatbook content was the
prestige class, which gave you a bunch of flavorful powers over a few levels. Most prestige classes were just strictly better than their non-prestiged versions, and many stacked in ludicrous fashion.
https://wikiproject-dungeons-dragons.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_prestige_classes
There's hundreds listed here. And then there's the feats- I'd be shocked if there were less than a thousand official feats.
So to answer your question, for 3.5 it's not some mere factor of 3, it's at least 50x and probably closer to 100x.
For 4e it's pretty big too, much bigger than 5e. In 4e, feats played a much smaller role (though there were still more than 5e ended up with), and there were no "prestige classes" to allow for moderately sized rule additions. 4e you could add a class (and they did, going from 8 in the PHB to 26, roughly triple like in 5e), but this doesn't count the various subclasses that were added throughout (counting those it's more like 60 options). But this is still a poor counting- if you were a fighter leveling up you had to pick some options every level, like "this is the level I pick a new encounter power", for instance. If the game was new you cracked open the PHB and checked out your three or so options and looked ahead to see if there was any big synergy coming up, etc. But that same fighter by the end of the edition was checking a small pile of books, opening them, turning to fighter, looking up the level you were gaining, and seeing if any of those few options per book were better. Or really, you'd do this all with a computer program to list them out for you.
4ed is harder to get an exact number for this reason, but there's also the fact that it is both (a) less popular than the other versions and (b) very well handled if you go and grab all the 4e tools, which are still available as binaries that you can go and find some way to run in an old browser or something. So there's less online resources for those two reasons. Trust me it's a lot bigger than 5e though, even if it isn't as wildly overpowering as 3.5.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 04, 2025, 04:31:15 PMDisagree, because the presumption there's "one true build" in those systems presumes everyone is building towards the exact same goal versus everyone having their own idea for what's best and what they want to be good at.
There's an optimized version for each of those too!
QuoteYour argument amounts to "well, everyone's favorite hero should be Superman" even if it's Batman or Green Latern or Beast Boy or Daredevil.
If your system prices Superman the same as Batman, it has failed at balance. For a given cost, there's an optimal guy for combat, and almost assuredly an optimal guy for a concept.
If your system is all about choices and doesn't care matching up power levels of superheroes then sure, that sounds great, but it's clear that's not what a class system (or a bunch of modular choices that is somewhere between classes and skills) is about, and you wouldn't bring that up as an example of something you'd expect D&D to do, or want it to do. If I'm choosing "do I get +2 to damage with a one handed weapon or a smaller bonus with a two-handed weapon" it's clear that the numbers on my choices were put there with game balance in mind. If I'm choosing between a teleportation power and bullets bouncing off my skin, that's another thing completely, and the guy making them cost some number of build points is simply gonna do way worse at pricing them than the first case is.
Quote from: Ruprecht on March 04, 2025, 01:05:28 PMMy biggest problem with 5E came with feats. Unbalanced and ill thought out in 3e and 5e.
5e feats are not 3e feats. They tend to get bit more done. And are not as all pervasive.
Quote from: jhkim on March 04, 2025, 01:06:04 PMQuote from: Omega on March 04, 2025, 12:11:01 PMQuote from: yosemitemike on March 01, 2025, 10:42:02 PMSaying that it has less system bloat than 3e just isn't saying very much.
5e is worlds easier and has far far less system bloat than 3e.
Over the course of its run they introduced very few expansion books and of those most were new class paths. Some skill expansion, etc.
There were only 2 rules expansion books. Xanithar and Tasha.
And 3 that were setting books but also had a bunch of new class stuff. Sword Coast, Spelljammer and Planescape are the only ones.
Thats pretty much it.
There's definitely more supplement books than that. Some of the supplement books were mostly about monsters or lore, and had few new rules - but even Fizban's Treasury of Dragons had 3 new races, 2 new subclasses, 3 new feats, and 6 new spells. Here's the complete list, I think:
Supplements
Volo's Guide to Monsters
Xanathar's Guide to Everything
Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
Fizban's Treasury of Dragons
Monsters of the Multiverse
Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants
The Book of Many Things
Campaign Settings
Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide
Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica
Acquisitions Incorporated
Eberron: Rising from the Last War
Explorer's Guide to Wildemount
Mythic Odysseys of Theros
Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft
Strixhaven: A Curriculum of Chaos
Spelljammer: Adventures in Space
Planescape: Adventures in the Multiverse
(source) (https://dungeonsanddragonsfan.com/dnd-5e-books-list/)
Nice try. But more monsters and settings is not rules bloat.
Nir is material that exists only on DMs Guild PDF store of dubious quality and veracity.
Try again please.
Quote from: Venka on March 04, 2025, 06:08:19 PMQuote from: Chris24601 on March 04, 2025, 04:31:15 PMDisagree, because the presumption there's "one true build" in those systems presumes everyone is building towards the exact same goal versus everyone having their own idea for what's best and what they want to be good at.
There's an optimized version for each of those too!
You're making lots of assumptions about multiple systems you earlier admitted to not being familiar with. Systems that have literal decades of history more than 5ed, along with entirely different design goals.
Quote from: Venka on March 04, 2025, 06:08:19 PMIf your system prices Superman the same as Batman, it has failed at balance.
The key difference (going by memory) in DCA/M&M3 is Superman is built around his powers (flight, super-strength, etc.) and Batman is built around his skills, equipment, advantages, etc. Batman actually has more points in his build than Superman, IIRC.
Quote from: Venka on March 04, 2025, 06:08:19 PMFor a given cost, there's an optimal guy for combat, and almost assuredly an optimal guy for a concept.
You're right, and you're wrong.
If I want to make a character who generates portals that cover vast distances, that'll look different than a teleporter who blinks things away. But even if two people make "blinkers", then you get into secondary things like one's a martial artist and the other is a super inventor. But then I make two martial artist blinkers, and one's a human and the other's a spirit, and so on and so forth. Optimization is possible for each step, but there's so many steps that the end characters don't have to work the identically on a mechanical level.
"Well that sounds a lot like picking a race, class, and background in 5ed!"
It's similar to a point. The key difference is what you think is an optimal build for a, say, a dwarf in HERO/M&M may be different from my optimal build. And then we disagree on the optimal build for a close-quarters, dual-warhammer-wielding, lightly armored, berserk fighter. And -then- we come up with different ways to define his ale-brewing skills.
Compared to 5ed, the level of mechanical granularity in M&M (and even moreso in HERO) means that finding the "optimum" build is contingent on minmaxing so many pieces, it becomes a moving goalpost and eventually you settle on a build that's really really good.
Quote from: Venka on March 04, 2025, 06:08:19 PMIf your system is all about choices and doesn't care matching up power levels of superheroes then sure, that sounds great, but it's clear that's not what a class system (or a bunch of modular choices that is somewhere between classes and skills) is about, and you wouldn't bring that up as an example of something you'd expect D&D to do, or want it to do
.
I thought the topic was "I've played three campaigns of 3ed and seen all it has to offer mechanically"?
Quote from: Venka on March 04, 2025, 06:08:19 PMIf I'm choosing "do I get +2 to damage with a one handed weapon or a smaller bonus with a two-handed weapon" it's clear that the numbers on my choices were put there with game balance in mind. If I'm choosing between a teleportation power and bullets bouncing off my skin, that's another thing completely, and the guy making them cost some number of build points is simply gonna do way worse at pricing them than the first case is.
You're right and wrong, again.
Effects based systems generally presume that GMs will provide oversight and consideration into what players want to bring to the table. They usually have callouts to game-breaking effects like postcognition, or showcase how players can make effects that literally destroy the world, as examples. Balance is expected to come from the GM and the needs of their specific game. Exception based systems meanwhile present the idea that players can pick and choose from pregenerated options and come to the table equally balanced against one another. My Dwarven Champion Fighter Outsider is equal to play with your Dragonborn Druid Circle of Moon Soldier (or whatever) without the GM having ever seen either character before.
But balance in TTRPGs is a pipe dream, and eventually you realize that feeling like your build is "good enough" is far more important than them being mathematically equal to another.
Quote from: Habitual Gamer on March 05, 2025, 12:33:41 PMThe key difference (going by memory) in DCA/M&M3 is Superman is built around his powers (flight, super-strength, etc.) and Batman is built around his skills, equipment, advantages, etc. Batman actually has more points in his build than Superman, IIRC.
...
But balance in TTRPGs is a pipe dream, and eventually you realize that feeling like your build is "good enough" is far more important than them being mathematically equal to another.
Correct on both counts. Superman is PL15 and built on about 300 points. Batman is ONLY PL12, but is built on around 500 points.
By comparison, Superboy and Supergirl are also only PL12 and closer to 200 points.
All of them have more points than a starter PC of their Power Level typically does, but the write-ups aren't for the inexperienced versions of them either.
I'd agree too that perfect balance, like the perfect build in a system like M&M, is a myth; you can do a few things to make things close enough for everyone to have fun though.
That's why most M&M GMs I've come across typically enforce around a +/-5 limit to the trait trade-offs... because that keeps the numbers in a range where it can be fun with a d20-based resolution mechanic (no one wants the Toughness 20, Dodge 0 guy in a PL10 campaign*... Toughness 5, Dodge 15 and Toughness 15, Dodge 5 are about the limits in both directions for PL10 where it won't break).
But while there are some white room theorists claiming certain options are optimal in M&M, some of those options aren't actually much fun to play and a few (unsurprisingly) only work in said white room.
That latter bit is what I've mostly found to be across the board for RPGs. Most of the "one-true build" crap is white room theory crafting that might eke out a couple points more damage at max level than if you'd just picked something that sounded cool. Everything else is just thought experiments like PunPun that no GM will ever let you run except perhaps as a joke.
Congrats, your hours of scouring the Internet and designing the "ultimate build" let's you maybe drop something in the late game one round faster in a fight or two.
Meanwhile, the guy who just took whatever sounded fun at the time has been having a blast the whole campaign and that unexpected nat20 just eclipsed all that extra damage from your perfect build in the climactic final fight anyway.
That's what persuing the "perfect build" has taught me.
Another way that "optimal build" fails is that it has to be optimal for a particular situation. In a well designed RPG every ability is situational because every encounter is idiosyncratic. In broad strokes, sometimes you need to fight, sometimes you need to get up the cliff, sometimes you need to run away, sometimes you need to hide, sometimes you need to hack the enemy's computer, and so on and so on. A character who is optimal for any of these situations will not be optimal for the others.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 05, 2025, 02:59:37 PMSuperman is PL15 and built on about 300 points. Batman is ONLY PL12, but is built on around 500 points.
One of the things I keep wanting to do with M&M3 is convert Exalted to it. I figure give each player 150 points to build a character with, but Terrestial Exalts are PL 8 with a cap of PL10, Celestials are PL 9 with a cap of PL 11, and Solars are PL 10 with no PL cap. So a Fire Aspect Dragon Blooded and a Dawn Solar can both be sword-masters, but the Solar is (most likely) going to be better at swordsmanship than the DB. But the DB -has- to diversify his abilities more, and in that diversity can maybe find some edge in swordplay or (more likely) find an edge in things the Solar never developed to begin with (e.g. social skills!).
Meanwhile, defining what "sword mastery" looks like can be very different depending on what the players want their characters to be able to do. Perfect hits? Take ranks of STR-based Damage with a Perception modifier (a house rule for close combat) and then put various flaws to limit it (if you -want- it limited!). Able to keep any weapon you wield no matter what? Create a Variable effect limited to negating Removable penalties on a single weapon you're connected to; now you can summon your daiklaive from Elsewhere (or a thief for that matter) and no one can knock it out of your hands in battle no matter how hard they try. Want to kill an army with a single sword swing? Area attack modifier on your sword. Want to dispel sorceries on your friends with a swing of your blade? Put a dispelling effect within an Array on your attack (it's dirt cheap for what it does this way, and you don't want to damage your friends anyway, so an Array is the perfect choice).
"Well, 5ed allows for all sort of options and different builds too!"
Not in the same book it doesn't. And even once you start buying supplements you're still stuck with a much much much smaller pool of toys to play with than any good effects based system will offer. And that's the point.
Quote from: Habitual Gamer on March 06, 2025, 08:43:35 AMQuote from: Chris24601 on March 05, 2025, 02:59:37 PMSuperman is PL15 and built on about 300 points. Batman is ONLY PL12, but is built on around 500 points.
One of the things I keep wanting to do with M&M3 is convert Exalted to it. I figure give each player 150 points to build a character with, but Terrestial Exalts are PL 8 with a cap of PL10, Celestials are PL 9 with a cap of PL 11, and Solars are PL 10 with no PL cap.
I'd go tighter myself... remember that a 2PL difference means a four point difference on the tradeoffs.
i.e. PL 8 could do +8 to hit and 8 effect ranks for an attack, while PL 10 with the same +8 to hit could have 12 effect ranks (50% more).
Ballpark from most encounter building guides is that someone at +2PL is a good challenge for an entire party.
There's a reason PC terrestrials typically start at Essence 2 and a decade of experience versus newly minted solars and lunars... and even that makes them barely at the low end of playable in a mixed game.
If you are going to enforce different PL caps on the players I'd suggest the lower PLs don't just get equal points to the solars, but more points as it takes quite a bit of extra bredty to match the increased power level limits.
I'd actually suggest instead going with an approach more akin to Exalted Essence where it's basically the same PL for everyone, but the sorts of powers each Exalt has are more thematically enforced (solars as the exemplars of all things related to human excellence, lunars as avatars of nature and change, sidereals masters of fate and destiny, dragonbloods masters of the elemental forces, abyssals undeath, infernals corruption, alchemicals community and mecha zaniness, liminals body horror, etc.).
There's still plenty of room within a PL10 range to create meaningful differences without the "you just suck and need to spend twice as much to be half as good" that terrestrials feel in a typical Ex3 game.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 06, 2025, 12:05:46 PMI'd go tighter myself... remember that a 2PL difference means a four point difference on the tradeoffs.
i.e. PL 8 could do +8 to hit and 8 effect ranks for an attack, while PL 10 with the same +8 to hit could have 12 effect ranks (50% more).
Ballpark from most encounter building guides is that someone at +2PL is a good challenge for an entire party.
I dunno'. A Wyld Hunt is composed of multiple, well-equipped and supported, DBs to take on one Solar. So maybe my different caps between types idea is valid. :-)
As for giving non-Solars more points than Solars, I figure they'll max out whatever they want to be good at at their lower PL, but with 150 points they'll -have- to develop more breadth than a Solar will. That's where they have to figure out what they're bringing that the Solars don't. To some extent, Exalted (in any system) shouldn't have niche protection beyond costume design and power level, IMO.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 06, 2025, 12:05:46 PMThere's still plenty of room within a PL10 range to create meaningful differences without the "you just suck and need to spend twice as much to be half as good" that terrestrials feel in a typical Ex3 game.
In all honesty, I'm very much a "keep the peas out of the mashed potatoes" kind of GM when it comes to players wanting cross-splats in games. "I want to play a cyborg starpilot in a D&D game" is only slightly more aggravating than wanting to play a Werewolf in a Vampire game or a non-Solar in a Solar-focused game of Exalted (or a non-DB in a DB-focused game).
If non-Solars can't reach the pinnacles of power Solars can, that doesn't bother me any more than Heroic Mortals being unequal with Terrestials.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 06, 2025, 12:05:46 PMI'd actually suggest instead going with an approach more akin to Exalted Essence where it's basically the same PL for everyone, but the sorts of powers each Exalt has are more thematically enforced (solars as the exemplars of all things related to human excellence, lunars as avatars of nature and change, sidereals masters of fate and destiny, dragonbloods masters of the elemental forces, abyssals undeath, infernals corruption, alchemicals community and mecha zaniness, liminals body horror, etc.).
This would be my recommendation too, especially in any mixed games. It gives each type of Exalt their own niche to fill.
Quote from: Habitual Gamer on March 07, 2025, 10:12:15 AMI dunno'. A Wyld Hunt is composed of multiple, well-equipped and supported, DBs to take on one Solar. So maybe my different caps between types idea is valid. :-)
And those hunts are not meant to be sporting, they are meant to overwhelm and annihilate the Anathema with near-certainty.