Q20 years of playing and DMing ttrpgs I can tell you nothing in 5E matches probably the hardest thing to manage, a cyberpunk game with a Netrunner who litterely requires hours of game time on there own to do their thing while the other players watch at the table, and who can die to a single bullet in combat.
I've only done a rules read through, so really don't know, but doesn't the new Red edition sort of solve that with the localized nets and what not? But yeah in 2013 and 2020 the parallel netrunner game was a life drainer from the table. if I had time and resourced back then I'd just do the Netrunner as a 1:1 game and let the rest of the party know how it went as their meatspace time plays out.
As to the topic, I'll say again I have a mixes of PHB and XGtE and Tasha's in my parties, and just don't have the problems often bemoaned on this hill. I'm curious what the survey is going to show, but figure we won't ever actually see the data. It's just going to become a set that can be spun by the studio to justify whatever course they want to take.
It may well do, is on my list of games I want to play or run, I played the intro edition of it but the netrunner rules where very light and still needed the netrunner to do things independant of the party, but they did flow a little quicker.
But it might be experiance of systems such as this make me far more relaxed about the perceived "inbalance" between dnd classes.
my issue is with the lineage part, not anything else. I personally treat lineages as races, so if you play a dhampir, your walking speed is 30 feet and you are medium. once, someone played a hexblood with arrackockra race(I know I botched the spelling) and it was op. because fly speed is already sometimes an issue. but with so many other things that the hexblade gives, it inbalances the game(in my opinion). I dont have a huge issue with tashas, and let people use floating asi's. but not custom lineages, because that is a more op variant human. if using standard array, it allows you to start with an 18 in your top score. so I just let people reflavor variant humans. thats my 2 cents
EDIT: also, yurei, thanks for sharing. mods, dont give them infraction points please, they are calmly summarizing peoples opinions in an effort to prevent a giant fight.thank you.
I find it confusing that people get so upset over custom lineages. What exactly is the problem that DMs are experiencing? It feels on this forum like a few people really hate it, and I am just not sure why it's such a problem. What's the argument against it?
I think we are more likely to see more Optional Rules books, with updated versions of the original classes than a complete overhaul. We've already seen some of that with Steady Aim and other optional class features. The difficulty with doing that is that the only option is to raise the power level of the 'weak' subclasses, and then there'll just be more balance whine anyway.
I have no idea wither, people seem married to the idea that a half orc must have certain ASI's and a Gnome must have others, instead of accepting the idea that a half orc might be slim and lithe, or really intelligent, or a great public speaker and naturally charismatic.
I find it confusing that people get so upset over custom lineages. What exactly is the problem that DMs are experiencing? It feels on this forum like a few people really hate it, and I am just not sure why it's such a problem. What's the argument against it?
I think we are more likely to see more Optional Rules books, with updated versions of the original classes than a complete overhaul. We've already seen some of that with Steady Aim and other optional class features. The difficulty with doing that is that the only option is to raise the power level of the 'weak' subclasses, and then there'll just be more balance whine anyway.
I have no idea wither, people seem married to the idea that a half orc must have certain ASI's and a Gnome must have others, instead of accepting the idea that a half orc might be slim and lithe, or really intelligent, or a great public speaker and naturally charismatic.
I don't really get it either when it comes to customizable origins swapping asis/proficiencies around a bit. It doesn't change the cultural norms of orcs or halflings etc. Only allows more flexibility for individuals that happen to be outside of that norm. And D&D PCs tend to be exceptional individuals, going out on important adventures, I don't see a problem really with having some of them be atypical to their race's archeytpes. Racial ASIs are good, especially with this flexibility, but honestly in terms of RP flavor the other racial traits are a lot more fun anyway. The elf only needing four hours of meditation in a long rest and resistance to charm can't be copied from a half orc putting their asi into dex. A gnome going strength won't give them the half orc's relentless endurance or savage attacks. So the more fun parts of the racial abilities/flavor are still in tact.
On the other hand, I can more readily get people not liking the full blown custom lineage thing that's basically 'variant human, but better for any race.' I don't have a problem with it myself, but I can kind of get the issue with it because it's not just tweaking a couple details about a character away from the racial norm, but basically removing everything about a race in favor of a feat and optional darkvision.
Gameplay wise I don't think it's broken either. It doesn't make characters OP, it just say puts the orc sorcerer on an even playing field with the half elf paladin or elven rogue etc where their asis also compliment the class. It's not some game breaking thing, just an extra bit of customization to fit individual characters.
Well, it’ll be just as banned at my table as it is now, and if they change the races on DDB and I have to Homebrew each and every one of them to put back the standard ASI’s I will be severely pissed off at having wasted this much money on this ****ing website.
This is the sort of thing that could very well end my Roman campaign, which is on hiatus but slated to come back in another couple of months, permanently. No matter what there is in a new edition, either 5.5, or 6, or whatever they call it, I am not changing rulesets in the middle of a campaign. Period. On top of that, I detest the direction in which WOTC is going with 5e, so odds are, I would not enjoy their 5.5e changes and wouldn't want to use them. If I can ignore them and keep playing 5, that's fine. But if it becomes difficult or impossible to ignore them, or if I have to spend hours homebrewing them away, I'm not going to do that. I have better things I can do with my time as a GM.
If this site made these changes as you describe, my first step would be to stop using DDB. I use it in my campaign only as a character sheet storage tool anyway, as we do everything else in Foundry. So my first cut at this, which would allow the existing Roman campaign to continue to its ultimate conclusion, would be to just switch to 100% Foundry. Slightly annoying, but doable. If, however, the Foundry D&D module then swapped over to 5.5e without leaving a 5.0e version behind to use (even if it no longer gets updated), which probably wouldn't happen but theoretically could (depends on what the modders want to do with it), and I couldn't do it in Foundry either, then that'd be it. I'm done. I'm not changing editions.
Not because I love 5e so much or any of that, but just because (a) I don't like switching game editions or systems mid-campaign, and (b) however much I like or don't like things in 5e, I detest the new direction so I am not going with them in that direction.
I mean, is Foundry's 5e support supported by Wizards or the Community? I know Foundry has a 3.5 module, and it looks like there's no prohibitions from legacy systems, I've even seen some legacy rules for systems made under IPs that "technically" shouldn't exist (Foundry supports Wizard's Star Wars Saga Edition, even though its no longer a produced or licensed system). It seems Foundry is more interested in supporting players of games than alliances with particularly publishers (leave that pandering to Talespire's FAQs). I don't have the level of Foundry experience you got, but if the 5e support is in fact community driven I don't see the module going away.
Here, I imagine such a book as speculated in this thread, if it were to appear, would likely get more notice than other books, maybe a year out. Would be interesting if there'd be an overarching "classic" v. "new school" toggle. I mean we're presuming everything else (feats? races and lineages as written? monsters? weapons tables? spell effects?) would remain the same? Or is this survey just one component of a comprehensive review of 5e that may or may not lead to a revision/consolidation/repackaging of D&D?
I mean, is Foundry's 5e support supported by Wizards or the Community?
No. I wouldn't be shocked if WOTC put out a C&D order on them, even though they are only using the open license stuff. WOTC absolutely does not support it.
I know Foundry has a 3.5 module, and it looks like there's no prohibitions from legacy systems, I've even seen some legacy rules for systems made under IPs that "technically" shouldn't exist (Foundry supports Wizard's Star Wars Saga Edition, even though its no longer a produced or licensed system).
Yeah. Those things are there till someone issues a C&D against them, I presume.
It seems Foundry is more interested in supporting players of games than alliances with particularly publishers (leave that pandering to Talespire's FAQs).
Yes, that is true.
I don't have the level of Foundry experience you got, but if the 5e support is in fact community driven I don't see the module going away.
Foundry's D&D 5e implementation is maintained by Atropos, the lead dev of Foundry (or it was the last I checked). If he wants to keep maintaining the 5e implementation, Atropos can certainly do that. However, if a 5.5e comes out, Foundry will need a 5.5e module as well. Does Atropos have time to maintain both packages? Maybe, maybe not. I would suspect not, since one is probably more than enough in addition to Foundry itself. Let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that Atropos does not have time to maintain both. Let's further imagine, this is simply logical, that he forks the code, leaving a 5e mod behind for those who want to keep using it, and making a new 5.5e one for the new system. Now, that system will keep changing and being updated, so Atropos will keep updating the 5.5e mod. But the 5e mod will probably not be updated, unless someone else takes it over. When Foundry updates, the 5e module will be listed as "incompatible." At first this will not be a problem -- it's close enough. But as Foundry keeps growing/changing, the old 5e mod will become more and more incompatible and eventually, it'll just break. At that point, you can't update Foundry without breaking 5e. And if you don't update Foundry, eventually the other mods, which are being updated, will not be compatible with your Foundry version.
So... I suspect this would take a while, maybe long enough for my campaign to finish. But one never knows. My point simply was, if both Foundry and DDB were to stop supporting 5e in a way that was useful to me, I would probably just end the campaign, rather than try to deal with it. I'm about ready to move on from D&D entirely at this point, anyway, at least as a GM (I'm perfectly happy to play it, since I don't have to deal with most of the crap as a player).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Please don't modify my posts to try and start a fight, BioWizard. I tried my best to go out of my way to be neutral and fair to both parties.
It is simply not true that D&D was traditionally thought of how you are saying. Older editions are thought of that way now. It may have been thought of that way by people who didn't play it. But the people who actually played D&D in any serious way back in the old days to which "tradition" is referring did not think of D&D in the way that you described.
D&D in general has traditionally been regarded (by people who didn't play D&D, and didn't know anything about it) as being exceptionally poor at handling diversity, racism/sexism/creedism
Fixed.
I dont want to start a fight, but I play dnd. I have played for a while. I know people who have played since it was created. I agree with yureis original post. please dont start a fight, I will not respond to any quotes of this because I dont like fights. but I personally think what you said is false. that is an opinion, I respect yours, and thats the end of it
D&D in general has traditionally been regarded (by people who didn't play D&D, and didn't know anything about it) as being exceptionally poor at handling diversity, racism/sexism/creedism
Fixed.
I dont want to start a fight, but I play dnd. I have played for a while. I know people who have played since it was created. I agree with yureis original post. please dont start a fight, I will not respond to any quotes of this because I dont like fights. but I personally think what you said is false. that is an opinion, I respect yours, and thats the end of it
Yuriel's point is also "opinion". You side with yuriel. Many do not.
that is true.is this an issue? and you seem to agree with biowizard. that is fine, but my "opinion" as you say, is equally valid. thats it, nothing more to say
Please don't modify my posts to try and start a fight, BioWizard. I tried my best to go out of my way to be neutral and fair to both parties.
It is simply not true that D&D was traditionally thought of how you are saying. Older editions are thought of that way now. It may have been thought of that way by people who didn't play it. But the people who actually played D&D in any serious way back in the old days to which "tradition" is referring did not think of D&D in the way that you described.
You may not have thought that there was racist or sexist content, but you can't speak for an entire generation of gamers.
I have played for 39 years and I can assure you that there are some of us old players that could see the issues and did our best to write them out of our games.
Please don't modify my posts to try and start a fight, BioWizard. I tried my best to go out of my way to be neutral and fair to both parties.
It is simply not true that D&D was traditionally thought of how you are saying. Older editions are thought of that way now. It may have been thought of that way by people who didn't play it. But the people who actually played D&D in any serious way back in the old days to which "tradition" is referring did not think of D&D in the way that you described.
You may not have thought that there was racist or sexist content, but you can't speak for an entire generation of gamers.
I have played for 39 years and I can assure you that there are some of us old players that could see the issues and did our best to write them out of our games.
I have played for 40 years, and the only "sexist or racist" issues with D&D I have ever heard have only cropped up in past few years. When all the right-wing mothers were trying to ban D&D in the 70's and 80's, they focused on its "satanic nature", not any racism nor misogyny.
Yeah, I was there too. Your experiences are not the same as mine or others. You don't represent anyone but yourself.
Please don't modify my posts to try and start a fight, BioWizard. I tried my best to go out of my way to be neutral and fair to both parties.
It is simply not true that D&D was traditionally thought of how you are saying. Older editions are thought of that way now. It may have been thought of that way by people who didn't play it. But the people who actually played D&D in any serious way back in the old days to which "tradition" is referring did not think of D&D in the way that you described.
You may not have thought that there was racist or sexist content, but you can't speak for an entire generation of gamers.
I have played for 39 years and I can assure you that there are some of us old players that could see the issues and did our best to write them out of our games.
I have played for 40 years, and the only "sexist or racist" issues with D&D I have ever heard have only cropped up in past few years. When all the right-wing mothers were trying to ban D&D in the 70's and 80's, they focused on its "satanic nature", not any racism nor misogyny.
thats valid.but you are not the only person to play dnd. you may have not come across such things, and thats great. but others have had different experiences
Please don't modify my posts to try and start a fight, BioWizard. I tried my best to go out of my way to be neutral and fair to both parties.
It is simply not true that D&D was traditionally thought of how you are saying. Older editions are thought of that way now. It may have been thought of that way by people who didn't play it. But the people who actually played D&D in any serious way back in the old days to which "tradition" is referring did not think of D&D in the way that you described.
You may not have thought that there was racist or sexist content, but you can't speak for an entire generation of gamers.
I have played for 39 years and I can assure you that there are some of us old players that could see the issues and did our best to write them out of our games.
I have played for 40 years, and the only "sexist or racist" issues with D&D I have ever heard have only cropped up in past few years. When all the right-wing mothers were trying to ban D&D in the 70's and 80's, they focused on its "satanic nature", not any racism nor misogyny.
Yeah, I was there too. Your experiences are not the same as mine or others. You don't represent anyone but yourself.
As do yours.
So you acknowledge that there are people that have played as long as you that felt that there were racist and sexist content in D&D and that your own personal experiences do not define an entire generation of gaming.
I also acknowledge that there are people that didn't see it.
D&D in general has traditionally been regarded (by people who didn't play D&D, and didn't know anything about it) as being exceptionally poor at handling diversity, racism/sexism/creedism
Fixed.
I dont want to start a fight, but I play dnd. I have played for a while. I know people who have played since it was created. I agree with yureis original post. please dont start a fight, I will not respond to any quotes of this because I dont like fights. but I personally think what you said is false. that is an opinion, I respect yours, and thats the end of it
Yuriel's point is also "opinion". You side with yuriel. Many do not.
Except that current writers of DnD have stated they agree there is a historic problem. When the organization holds its hands up and says we need to change something there is a problem here, then the argument by those insisting there isn’t is kind of lost.
With the survey it does seem they are looking at PHB subclasses.
I hope they look at Berserker Barb, 4 Elements Monk, and Champion specifically.
I hope the sorcerer origins get origin spell lists and they take a look at a "Sorcerous Recovery" or something similar for sorcerer to get some sorcery points back on a short rest once per day.
I am a little disappointed they didn't address any other concerns with the base game (Exploration/Crafting in particular) but I am hoping they look into it more.
With the survey it does seem they are looking at PHB subclasses.
I hope they look at Berserker Barb, 4 Elements Monk, and Champion specifically.
I hope the sorcerer origins get origin spell lists and they take a look at a "Sorcerous Recovery" or something similar for sorcerer to get some sorcery points back on a short rest once per day.
I am a little disappointed they didn't address any other concerns with the base game (Exploration/Crafting in particular) but I am hoping they look into it more.
why does everyone dislike berserker? its not great, but I would rather they make a better fall damage system, or fix paladins power curve. currently, they are op at level one and sorta bad at higher levels
Origin spell lists would be great. I get sorcs not getting to pick as many spells as wizards, but it feels a little TOO restrictive IMO and getting one or two spells for the first five spell levels for free themed around the subclass could alleviate that a bit without giving total freedom to the additional spell selections across the board.
EDIT: I don't play barbarian so maybe there's more to it and berserker is underwhelming compared to other options, but at a glance I assume it's that their main subclass feature causes a stack of exhaustion when you stop raging. And you can under normal circumstances, only get rid of one of those per long rest, with food and water.
So you either only use it once a day, suffering disadvantage on ability checks afterwards, or you use it more than once a day and rack up more and more debilitating exhaustion effects which will take a day per stack of exhaustion to remove.
IMO this should function more like the haste spell. When the rage ends you're lethargic for one turn, potentially leaving you vulnerable for a moment but not having such long lasting consequences.
With the survey it does seem they are looking at PHB subclasses.
I hope they look at Berserker Barb, 4 Elements Monk, and Champion specifically.
I hope the sorcerer origins get origin spell lists and they take a look at a "Sorcerous Recovery" or something similar for sorcerer to get some sorcery points back on a short rest once per day.
I am a little disappointed they didn't address any other concerns with the base game (Exploration/Crafting in particular) but I am hoping they look into it more.
why does everyone dislike berserker? its not great, but I would rather they make a better fall damage system, or fix paladins power curve. currently, they are op at level one and sorta bad at higher levels
Paladins are pretty good throughout their life cycle and are one of the better designed classes IMO. You get something at every level that is meaningful to your progression with no "dead" levels.
I wish more classes had this in mind as I feel some dead levels for other classes.
For me Berzerker is bad because the exhaustion cannot be mitigated in any way at the level they get the ability and after two uses makes the barbarian struggle a lot in combat all for damage that can be 90% replicated with a feat (Polearm master). It is more damage than PAM but it also doesn't have the other riders of PAM.
You would need a 5th level spell to remove the effects. Now is this a fix they could make? Yes they could allow you to remove levels of exhaustion via another modality or even allow the berserker to ignore exhaustion while raging (my personal favorite solution)
Also now there are subclasses that offer the same idea but better implemented (Beast Barbarian) and have an overall more interesting subclass mechanics IMO.
I think they are OK in a featless game with low amount of encounters. (However, my personal opinion is featless games are incredibly boring but YMMV.)
Except that current writers of DnD have stated they agree there is a historic problem. When the organization holds its hands up and says we need to change something there is a problem here, then the argument by those insisting there isn’t is kind of lost.
Yes. They agree now, many agree now, that some things that were printed/written/done in the past were problematic. I actually even agree with a few of the points made in this regard. I didn't take issue with any of that nor with most of Y's post.
What I took issue with was the assertion that, traditionally, D&D has been viewed as problematic in the areas of racism, sexism, etc. A traditional view is one that has been this way for a long time, and was that way in the past. For example, "traditionally, only humans could be bards, and you had to switch classes 3 or 4 times to become one." That's how bards were done in AD&D. It's not how they are done now. So that way of doing bards is traditional.
Traditionally, as in, back when things started, there were not a lot of objections among the players at conventions (Gen Con, etc.) to the way races were portrayed in D&D, since they mostly aligned with Tolkien and some like halflings were outright stolen from him. And frankly even among those who did not play D&D at the time, the primary accusation leveled against D&D was "Satanism," not "sexism" or "racism." Far more people were worried about that back in the 1970s and 80s, than about racism. How do I know? Because the Satanism thing made it into the news and many who played D&D had to deal with it back then -- we had to fend off worried parents, school principals, etc. We did not have to fend off worried parents about whether our game was racist.
Looking back on it now, you could point to some things, and maybe you could say, "By the view I currently taken, this thing is not acceptable and is kind of racist/sexist/whatever." Today, looking back, many do say it. This view is not traditional, but it is common now. It is, shall we say, the popular view or the modern view of D&D.
Maybe that view's right, maybe it's wrong. I'm not going to speculate. But the view is definitely not traditional. Otherwise, the company of today would not have put a "trigger warning" on their old school materials up on DTRPG (AD&D books, etc). The company of 1980 would have already put those warnings on.
BUT, I can refer to dozens of articles talking about the histories of the various controversies that D&D has been embroiled since its inception, and the vast vast majority that refer to any racism and misogyny in the game are very very recent. I lived through that era. It is a simple fact, it is actual history, that in the 70's,80's, and 90's, D&D was beset with attacks over it being a murder/suicide cult, or one that promotes satanism, or anti-Christianity. But sexism and racism was hardly ever brought up. Your "lived experience" might be different, but it was in the minority 50, 40, 30, 20, or 10 years ago.
The fact that it was hardly ever brought up is the exact problem. People weren't cognizant of the racist and/or sexist undertones (or in some groups overtones), they are now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It may well do, is on my list of games I want to play or run, I played the intro edition of it but the netrunner rules where very light and still needed the netrunner to do things independant of the party, but they did flow a little quicker.
But it might be experiance of systems such as this make me far more relaxed about the perceived "inbalance" between dnd classes.
my issue is with the lineage part, not anything else. I personally treat lineages as races, so if you play a dhampir, your walking speed is 30 feet and you are medium. once, someone played a hexblood with arrackockra race(I know I botched the spelling) and it was op. because fly speed is already sometimes an issue. but with so many other things that the hexblade gives, it inbalances the game(in my opinion). I dont have a huge issue with tashas, and let people use floating asi's. but not custom lineages, because that is a more op variant human. if using standard array, it allows you to start with an 18 in your top score. so I just let people reflavor variant humans. thats my 2 cents
EDIT: also, yurei, thanks for sharing. mods, dont give them infraction points please, they are calmly summarizing peoples opinions in an effort to prevent a giant fight.thank you.
N/A
I have no idea wither, people seem married to the idea that a half orc must have certain ASI's and a Gnome must have others, instead of accepting the idea that a half orc might be slim and lithe, or really intelligent, or a great public speaker and naturally charismatic.
I don't really get it either when it comes to customizable origins swapping asis/proficiencies around a bit. It doesn't change the cultural norms of orcs or halflings etc. Only allows more flexibility for individuals that happen to be outside of that norm. And D&D PCs tend to be exceptional individuals, going out on important adventures, I don't see a problem really with having some of them be atypical to their race's archeytpes. Racial ASIs are good, especially with this flexibility, but honestly in terms of RP flavor the other racial traits are a lot more fun anyway. The elf only needing four hours of meditation in a long rest and resistance to charm can't be copied from a half orc putting their asi into dex. A gnome going strength won't give them the half orc's relentless endurance or savage attacks. So the more fun parts of the racial abilities/flavor are still in tact.
On the other hand, I can more readily get people not liking the full blown custom lineage thing that's basically 'variant human, but better for any race.' I don't have a problem with it myself, but I can kind of get the issue with it because it's not just tweaking a couple details about a character away from the racial norm, but basically removing everything about a race in favor of a feat and optional darkvision.
Gameplay wise I don't think it's broken either. It doesn't make characters OP, it just say puts the orc sorcerer on an even playing field with the half elf paladin or elven rogue etc where their asis also compliment the class. It's not some game breaking thing, just an extra bit of customization to fit individual characters.
I mean, is Foundry's 5e support supported by Wizards or the Community? I know Foundry has a 3.5 module, and it looks like there's no prohibitions from legacy systems, I've even seen some legacy rules for systems made under IPs that "technically" shouldn't exist (Foundry supports Wizard's Star Wars Saga Edition, even though its no longer a produced or licensed system). It seems Foundry is more interested in supporting players of games than alliances with particularly publishers (leave that pandering to Talespire's FAQs). I don't have the level of Foundry experience you got, but if the 5e support is in fact community driven I don't see the module going away.
Here, I imagine such a book as speculated in this thread, if it were to appear, would likely get more notice than other books, maybe a year out. Would be interesting if there'd be an overarching "classic" v. "new school" toggle. I mean we're presuming everything else (feats? races and lineages as written? monsters? weapons tables? spell effects?) would remain the same? Or is this survey just one component of a comprehensive review of 5e that may or may not lead to a revision/consolidation/repackaging of D&D?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
No. I wouldn't be shocked if WOTC put out a C&D order on them, even though they are only using the open license stuff. WOTC absolutely does not support it.
Yeah. Those things are there till someone issues a C&D against them, I presume.
Yes, that is true.
Foundry's D&D 5e implementation is maintained by Atropos, the lead dev of Foundry (or it was the last I checked). If he wants to keep maintaining the 5e implementation, Atropos can certainly do that. However, if a 5.5e comes out, Foundry will need a 5.5e module as well. Does Atropos have time to maintain both packages? Maybe, maybe not. I would suspect not, since one is probably more than enough in addition to Foundry itself. Let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that Atropos does not have time to maintain both. Let's further imagine, this is simply logical, that he forks the code, leaving a 5e mod behind for those who want to keep using it, and making a new 5.5e one for the new system. Now, that system will keep changing and being updated, so Atropos will keep updating the 5.5e mod. But the 5e mod will probably not be updated, unless someone else takes it over. When Foundry updates, the 5e module will be listed as "incompatible." At first this will not be a problem -- it's close enough. But as Foundry keeps growing/changing, the old 5e mod will become more and more incompatible and eventually, it'll just break. At that point, you can't update Foundry without breaking 5e. And if you don't update Foundry, eventually the other mods, which are being updated, will not be compatible with your Foundry version.
So... I suspect this would take a while, maybe long enough for my campaign to finish. But one never knows. My point simply was, if both Foundry and DDB were to stop supporting 5e in a way that was useful to me, I would probably just end the campaign, rather than try to deal with it. I'm about ready to move on from D&D entirely at this point, anyway, at least as a GM (I'm perfectly happy to play it, since I don't have to deal with most of the crap as a player).
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It is simply not true that D&D was traditionally thought of how you are saying. Older editions are thought of that way now. It may have been thought of that way by people who didn't play it. But the people who actually played D&D in any serious way back in the old days to which "tradition" is referring did not think of D&D in the way that you described.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I dont want to start a fight, but I play dnd. I have played for a while. I know people who have played since it was created. I agree with yureis original post. please dont start a fight, I will not respond to any quotes of this because I dont like fights. but I personally think what you said is false. that is an opinion, I respect yours, and thats the end of it
N/A
that is true.is this an issue? and you seem to agree with biowizard. that is fine, but my "opinion" as you say, is equally valid. thats it, nothing more to say
N/A
You may not have thought that there was racist or sexist content, but you can't speak for an entire generation of gamers.
I have played for 39 years and I can assure you that there are some of us old players that could see the issues and did our best to write them out of our games.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yeah, I was there too. Your experiences are not the same as mine or others. You don't represent anyone but yourself.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
thats valid.but you are not the only person to play dnd. you may have not come across such things, and thats great. but others have had different experiences
N/A
So you acknowledge that there are people that have played as long as you that felt that there were racist and sexist content in D&D and that your own personal experiences do not define an entire generation of gaming.
I also acknowledge that there are people that didn't see it.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Except that current writers of DnD have stated they agree there is a historic problem. When the organization holds its hands up and says we need to change something there is a problem here, then the argument by those insisting there isn’t is kind of lost.
With the survey it does seem they are looking at PHB subclasses.
I hope they look at Berserker Barb, 4 Elements Monk, and Champion specifically.
I hope the sorcerer origins get origin spell lists and they take a look at a "Sorcerous Recovery" or something similar for sorcerer to get some sorcery points back on a short rest once per day.
I am a little disappointed they didn't address any other concerns with the base game (Exploration/Crafting in particular) but I am hoping they look into it more.
why does everyone dislike berserker? its not great, but I would rather they make a better fall damage system, or fix paladins power curve. currently, they are op at level one and sorta bad at higher levels
N/A
Origin spell lists would be great. I get sorcs not getting to pick as many spells as wizards, but it feels a little TOO restrictive IMO and getting one or two spells for the first five spell levels for free themed around the subclass could alleviate that a bit without giving total freedom to the additional spell selections across the board.
EDIT: I don't play barbarian so maybe there's more to it and berserker is underwhelming compared to other options, but at a glance I assume it's that their main subclass feature causes a stack of exhaustion when you stop raging. And you can under normal circumstances, only get rid of one of those per long rest, with food and water.
So you either only use it once a day, suffering disadvantage on ability checks afterwards, or you use it more than once a day and rack up more and more debilitating exhaustion effects which will take a day per stack of exhaustion to remove.
IMO this should function more like the haste spell. When the rage ends you're lethargic for one turn, potentially leaving you vulnerable for a moment but not having such long lasting consequences.
Paladins are pretty good throughout their life cycle and are one of the better designed classes IMO. You get something at every level that is meaningful to your progression with no "dead" levels.
I wish more classes had this in mind as I feel some dead levels for other classes.
For me Berzerker is bad because the exhaustion cannot be mitigated in any way at the level they get the ability and after two uses makes the barbarian struggle a lot in combat all for damage that can be 90% replicated with a feat (Polearm master). It is more damage than PAM but it also doesn't have the other riders of PAM.
You would need a 5th level spell to remove the effects. Now is this a fix they could make? Yes they could allow you to remove levels of exhaustion via another modality or even allow the berserker to ignore exhaustion while raging (my personal favorite solution)
Also now there are subclasses that offer the same idea but better implemented (Beast Barbarian) and have an overall more interesting subclass mechanics IMO.
I think they are OK in a featless game with low amount of encounters. (However, my personal opinion is featless games are incredibly boring but YMMV.)
Yes. They agree now, many agree now, that some things that were printed/written/done in the past were problematic. I actually even agree with a few of the points made in this regard. I didn't take issue with any of that nor with most of Y's post.
What I took issue with was the assertion that, traditionally, D&D has been viewed as problematic in the areas of racism, sexism, etc. A traditional view is one that has been this way for a long time, and was that way in the past. For example, "traditionally, only humans could be bards, and you had to switch classes 3 or 4 times to become one." That's how bards were done in AD&D. It's not how they are done now. So that way of doing bards is traditional.
Traditionally, as in, back when things started, there were not a lot of objections among the players at conventions (Gen Con, etc.) to the way races were portrayed in D&D, since they mostly aligned with Tolkien and some like halflings were outright stolen from him. And frankly even among those who did not play D&D at the time, the primary accusation leveled against D&D was "Satanism," not "sexism" or "racism." Far more people were worried about that back in the 1970s and 80s, than about racism. How do I know? Because the Satanism thing made it into the news and many who played D&D had to deal with it back then -- we had to fend off worried parents, school principals, etc. We did not have to fend off worried parents about whether our game was racist.
Looking back on it now, you could point to some things, and maybe you could say, "By the view I currently taken, this thing is not acceptable and is kind of racist/sexist/whatever." Today, looking back, many do say it. This view is not traditional, but it is common now. It is, shall we say, the popular view or the modern view of D&D.
Maybe that view's right, maybe it's wrong. I'm not going to speculate. But the view is definitely not traditional. Otherwise, the company of today would not have put a "trigger warning" on their old school materials up on DTRPG (AD&D books, etc). The company of 1980 would have already put those warnings on.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The fact that it was hardly ever brought up is the exact problem. People weren't cognizant of the racist and/or sexist undertones (or in some groups overtones), they are now.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].