OP: I would like to do a thing. Can you recommend a way for me to do the thing?
Replies: You should not do the thing.
I like to give my opinion as much as the next guy, but I'd prefer to get some replies that tell me how to do the thing. At least if you tell me not to do the thing, tell me how to do the next best thing that won't run afoul of your misgivings about the thing.
I mean, if you cannot recommend a way to do the thing because you've had experience with that thing before that the OP doesn't seem to have, then yeah, it's reasonable to think the OP might want to hear your perspective.
9/10 times I see this happening, it's a newish DM asking how to do something that compromises player agency (usually without realizing it), or how to solve issues at the table in-game (which you really should not do; issues between players should be resolved between players through conversation like adults).
Surely the whole point of asking for advice is to see what others think.
I mean, if you cannot recommend a way to do the thing because you've had experience with that thing before that the OP doesn't seem to have, then yeah, it's reasonable to think the OP might want to hear your perspective.
9/10 times I see this happening, it's a newish DM asking how to do something that compromises player agency (usually without realizing it), or how to solve issues at the table in-game (which you really should not do; issues between players should be resolved between players through conversation like adults).
Surely the whole point of asking for advice is to see what others think.
That’s fine. At least that person suggested a helpful alternative (talk to your players out of character).
Most of the time I see those replies, it's "how do I get DDB's character sheet to show/calculate/implement [X]?"
The response is "There's currently no way to get [X] to work properly on DDB. Use plaintext and the honor system" because that's the plain and unvarnished truth.
If you're talking about something else, gonna need specifics.
Most of the time I see those replies, it's "how do I get DDB's character sheet to show/calculate/implement [X]?"
The response is "There's currently no way to get [X] to work properly on DDB. Use plaintext and the honor system" because that's the plain and unvarnished truth.
If you're talking about something else, gonna need specifics.
Sure, if there is objectively no solution, that’s the appropriate response. I’m not talking about someone saying you can’t do that. I’m talking about someone saying you shouldn’t.
Here is one I saw in the Barbarian thread which I think is along the lines of what Pavilionaire means
OP: So I am just wondering if a [Wizard/Barbarian Multiclass] would be a possibility. Like what levels of each would start making things more viable for each other. Which would be the start class and possibly what race would work best.
Responder:
Wizarian really starts to shine at Barb 3/Wizard 0 and fully comes into its own at Barb 20/Wizard 0
But seriously, there's no apparent synergy here. Barbarians are almost entirely built around Rage, and Rage shuts down all spellcasting and concentration. They were designed to be incompatible. You can look at spells that you can cast ahead of time that don't require concentration and see if any of those would help a barbarian do barbarian things. Certainly nothing from barbarian helps a wizard do wizard things, aside from I guess CON save proficiency and Danger Sense.
If you want to mix with a caster, there may be better fits. Warlock's Armor of Agathys stands out, and they have some handy invocations. Bard's college of swords might not be terrible. Moon Druid is a classic MC with barbarian for Rage + Wild Shape, and you can cast spells outside of combat if that's what you're looking for.
The responder offers some useful insights for sure, but ultimatley just tells the OP that they shouldnt follow through with their idea.
Give an example of what you mean. The question is so broad it's difficult to speak to your concerns without really knowing what they are.
I don’t want to point fingers or name names, but the general idea is regarding asking for a magic item, spell, race, class, subclass, monster, etc. with particular attributes or for a particular kind of encounter. It could be homebrew, official, or unofficial. With homebrew on the table, “It can’t be done,” is certainly never the answer. “It shouldn’t be done,” could be, but is less helpful.
Here is one I saw in the Barbarian thread which I think is along the lines of what Pavilionaire means
OP: So I am just wondering if a [Wizard/Barbarian Multiclass] would be a possibility. Like what levels of each would start making things more viable for each other. Which would be the start class and possibly what race would work best.
Responder:
Wizarian really starts to shine at Barb 3/Wizard 0 and fully comes into its own at Barb 20/Wizard 0
But seriously, there's no apparent synergy here. Barbarians are almost entirely built around Rage, and Rage shuts down all spellcasting and concentration. They were designed to be incompatible. You can look at spells that you can cast ahead of time that don't require concentration and see if any of those would help a barbarian do barbarian things. Certainly nothing from barbarian helps a wizard do wizard things, aside from I guess CON save proficiency and Danger Sense.
If you want to mix with a caster, there may be better fits. Warlock's Armor of Agathys stands out, and they have some handy invocations. Bard's college of swords might not be terrible. Moon Druid is a classic MC with barbarian for Rage + Wild Shape, and you can cast spells outside of combat if that's what you're looking for.
The responder offers some useful insights for sure, but ultimatley just tells the OP that they shouldnt follow through with their idea.
While the "don't do this, you won't like it" response can come off as harsh, it's often still the correct answer. My first question would be "why do you want to do this?", trying to figure out what ideal the player is chasing. What their character fantasy is. If the answer is something like "I wanna be a super-powerful melee combatant but also be able to cast cool spells, even if it's just outside of combat", then I would guide the player towards other options because in this case and many like it, the situation is "this player has not fully considered what their idea is going to work like at the table, and if they bull through and do it anyways they're almost certain to be disappointed because what they will end up with is not what they actually want."
I am, however, a wordy *****. And I understand that simply saying "You don't want to do that" without explaining why is likely to get someone to dig in their heels and do it anyways. For your barbarian example (and you can take this back to that thread if you like), someone who wants to be a powerful melee warrior with some utility spellcasting to give them more options outside of battle is much better served by A.) being a paladin, or B.) obtaining the Ritual Caster feat if they're married to barbarian. Paladins do naturally what someone is trying to force with Wizarian, their magic fuels their martial abilities rather than fights against them. Ritual Caster, meanwhile, is actually a very nice thematic fit for a number of barbarians and provides that air of a mystical warrior with abilities beyond the norm in a way that scales with the character's barbarian levels (technically just their character level, but still) and doesn't clash with their abilities.
Speaking to Pavillionaire's example: Saying "Can I get/do [X] with [Y] for [Z]" will often provoke mixed reactions. Depending on which [Y] is involved, and what the purpose of [Z] is, other people may advise someone that there's a reason it's normally not done. One example I can recall is "would it be broken to just give players a second bonus action?" I don't recall the specifics, but the overall (and very strong response) was "yes, it would absolutely be broken, and here's why." A new player may not know how important fundamental 5e things like bounded accuracy or action economy are, and being told "sure! ANything is possible, do what you like!" would actively damage their game because they're mucking with core game engine assumptions.
A similar common issue is "how do I run sci-fi/urban noir/gritty modern/some-other-genre-here in 5e?" Again - the "you shouldn't" answers are trying to be helpful, if often too short and snarky. Fantasy is ingrained in D&D's bones, it's bad at running games outside its genre. D&D 5e is not genre agnostic, no matter how often people try to make it such. The system is set up on the core assumption that it will be used to run a fantasy game, and generally an Epic Fantasy at that. You can run science fantasy with 5e, though it takes some doing. You can run fantasy noir (see: Eberron). But the further you get from 'Epic Fantasy', the worse a fit 5e is. The further you get from Epic Fantasy, the more you should investigate whether a different system would fit your table's needs better.
If the question is simply "How do I make pony people in 5e?" or "how can I make an Anime Katana of +5 Shounen Power?", then yes - 'you can't', or 'you shouldn't' aren't necessarily super helpful. It's a public forum. For every informative, well-reasoned post that tries to address the meat of an issue, you're going to get fifty Dumb Reddit Replies consisting of some guy basically tweeting at you. If you're not willing to sift through the chaff to get at some wheat, deal with people having opinions on your ideas and requests, forums ain't for you.
For the extra bonus action question, I might suggest they grant an extra bonus action usable only for one particular weak ability. Or that has a resource cost. A bonus bonus action spell with a consumed material component, for example, or a whole sorcerer subclass that uses sorcery points to get bonus bonus actions that can only be used for that subclass’s features.
Of course, if they phrase it as, “Would it be broken,” it’s welcome to be a nay-sayer.
If the question is simply "How do I make pony people in 5e?" or "how can I make an Anime Katana of +5 Shounen Power?", then yes - 'you can't', or 'you shouldn't' aren't necessarily super helpful. It's a public forum. For every informative, well-reasoned post that tries to address the meat of an issue, you're going to get fifty Dumb Reddit Replies consisting of some guy basically tweeting at you. If you're not willing to sift through the chaff to get at some wheat, deal with people having opinions on your ideas and requests, forums ain't for you.
You are right, of course, but you can’t fault me for evangelizing. I’m sure I’ve given some unsolicited opinions or at least fed the trolls by responding to a hijacked thread. But it would be nice if threads don’t become completely useless for their original purpose by being spammed with edition wars or something. If you want to post your unsolicited opinion, you can start your own thread and link the post you’re forking.
If the question is simply "How do I make pony people in 5e?" or "how can I make an Anime Katana of +5 Shounen Power?", then yes - 'you can't', or 'you shouldn't' aren't necessarily super helpful. It's a public forum. For every informative, well-reasoned post that tries to address the meat of an issue, you're going to get fifty Dumb Reddit Replies consisting of some guy basically tweeting at you. If you're not willing to sift through the chaff to get at some wheat, deal with people having opinions on your ideas and requests, forums ain't for you.
You are right, of course, but you can’t fault me for evangelizing. I’m sure I’ve given some unsolicited opinions or at least fed the trolls by responding to a hijacked thread. But it would be nice if threads don’t become completely useless for their original purpose by being spammed with edition wars or something. If you want to post your unsolicited opinion, you can start your own thread and link the post you’re forking.
Eh, most threads get conclusively resolved in the first few posts, as far as the OP is concerned, and I actually enjoy the resulting splinter-discussions going into the minutae of the factors at play in the question and branching off into different aspects of the game. I think that's a feature of the forum format, rather than a bug. You can pick up so much more advice and cool takes than just what you were looking for the sure, you might not have a use for *right now*, but I definitely consider valuable insight in the long run.
If every thread ceased as soon as the OP was answered then the forum would be a pretty un-lively place and the community would be next to dead.
Is this a subtweet? Lol. I'm reminded of the recent discussion:
"How do I make my backstory interesting and avoid common pitfalls?"
"Back in my day, we never imagined our characters as people, just game avatars. You're a snowflake if you do otherwise. Backstory is lame and everyone hates it."
I guess if it depends if you see the forums as a place where someone asks a specific question and you see only exactly responsive answers as suitable, or you think that there's more room for discussion and the sharing of advice - which is what you'd do in a conversation with someone in a pub. I tend to view it as the latter, and sometimes the most helpful response is to politely suggest that what is being asked isn't going to work/be fun.
Example:
OP: What is the best way to change all the rules around to run a pure science fiction campaign?
Potentially most helpful answer: It requires so much work to do this, and the game system isn't designed for it, that you'd be better off playing a different RPG.
You might disagree with that - and that's fine, forums are about discussion! - but it's a valid viewpoint to share if it's what you think.
One thing to consider about "unhelpful replies" is that sometimes the intention may be to share some experience or (what you think of as) wisdom that's intended to save the OP time and energy if they're going down a rabbit hole that you feel is very unlikely to provide enjoyment to a table of gamers. When it's a DM asking, sometimes it's something fun for them, and you think it's dubious whether it will be fun for their players.
I am sure many of us have experienced dubious homebrew and strange forum-discovered ideas that DMs have introduced, which have made our game experiences less enjoyable. If someone asks on a forum "How do I introduce complex ability checks for going to bed" my answer will usually be "This doesn't sound fun to me, I've had a poor experience with it, I advise against it." To me, that's a helpful response.
OP: What is the best way to change all the rules around to run a pure science fiction campaign?
Potentially most helpful answer: It requires so much work to do this, and the game system isn't designed for it, that you'd be better off playing a different RPG.
Just since I'm weighing in on various examples by saying, "That was a little bit helpful, that should fly," this is the first example of something that I don't think is really helpful.
The OP may already know that there are other game systems targeted toward sci-fi. But they know that they still want to play D&D 5e, because that's the system they and their players know, and they know none of their players want to learn a whole new system, or they just like the design decisions made in 5e and not in other systems.
The most helpful answer is: "Here is the list of house rules I'd use to make it more suitable for sci-fi. However, I wouldn't actually recommend doing that as it will be clumsy. Here are some other systems you might consider."
If all you do is say it's a bad idea without even giving a suggested system to use, then I guess that response still has value, since it serves as a warning sign, but we don't need a long back-and-forth discussion where someone says D&D is no good for sci-fi and someone else argues to the mat that they have run 11 campaigns to level 20 in various sci-fi universes and everybody had a great time.
If all you do is say it's a bad idea without even giving a suggested system to use, then I guess that response still has value, since it serves as a warning sign, but we don't need a long back-and-forth discussion where someone says D&D is no good for sci-fi and someone else argues to the mat that they have run 11 campaigns to level 20 in various sci-fi universes and everybody had a great time.
That actually sounds like it would have generated a potentially useful response for the OP in this situation. But honestly I didn't put too much thought into the example, I wasn't exactly going to write a long imaginary response to a long imaginary post to posit an example. But yes, the more detailed post is going to be more useful - but also in this example, there's only so much time it's worth putting into that response, and nobody who replies should be obligated to type out or try to invent balanced house rules for someone who hasn't made any themselves. The alternative is to not respond at all I suppose, which I again don't feel is as helpful.
I have an example of what I think the OP is getting at. This happened on another discussion server (the Discord D&D server)
This occurred in the DM section (where DMs would ask for other DM's opinions and suggestions): OP: "My player has asked to make a new spell, because what they want isn't in the spell list, how can it be done?"
Responder: "It can't and you never could do that. There are no rules for it"
Me: "Well, there are older versions of the game where you could, and as a DM you can do what you want. You need to have the Player... [I go to briefly explain the how's on what to do]. It requires the Dm and the player coming to an answer."
Multiple responders: "You are so wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. You can't and never could."
Multiple responders: "You are so wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. You can't and never could."
Well, considering there's a paragraph titled 'Creating a New Spell" in the DMG on p. 273 this is objectively and provably incorrect. And it goes well beyond "you shouldn't do this in my opinion".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Here is one I saw in the Barbarian thread which I think is along the lines of what Pavilionaire means
OP: So I am just wondering if a [Wizard/Barbarian Multiclass] would be a possibility. Like what levels of each would start making things more viable for each other. Which would be the start class and possibly what race would work best.
Responder:
Wizarian really starts to shine at Barb 3/Wizard 0 and fully comes into its own at Barb 20/Wizard 0
But seriously, there's no apparent synergy here. Barbarians are almost entirely built around Rage, and Rage shuts down all spellcasting and concentration. They were designed to be incompatible. You can look at spells that you can cast ahead of time that don't require concentration and see if any of those would help a barbarian do barbarian things. Certainly nothing from barbarian helps a wizard do wizard things, aside from I guess CON save proficiency and Danger Sense.
If you want to mix with a caster, there may be better fits. Warlock's Armor of Agathys stands out, and they have some handy invocations. Bard's college of swords might not be terrible. Moon Druid is a classic MC with barbarian for Rage + Wild Shape, and you can cast spells outside of combat if that's what you're looking for.
The responder offers some useful insights for sure, but ultimatley just tells the OP that they shouldnt follow through with their idea.
Yeesh, if that's considered an unproductive post then I should probably pack up my stuff and leave. That example might even be me, I didn't click through to see but it sounds like feedback I'd give. For what it's worth, here's why I would have (or did) write a response like that:
OP is asking if it is a good combo. Looking for synergy and direction. 5e's MC system produces a very wide range of effectiveness, and "no, that's not a great MC" is a valid answer to the question posed
The synergy that could be squeezed out was stated in case they were going for it anyway
There is ample reasoning and explanation as to why it's not a great combo
Several alternatives were offered
I'm baffled that anyone would see this as unhelpful. You know what's unhelpful? Just cheering OP on with no thought and reason, telling them their idea is awesome and then when they get to the table they realize their character doesn't work at all. They can't cast because they're raging. They can't tank because they have wizard hp. As the rest of the party makes a quantum leap at level 5, they're left behind feeling more like a sidekick.
I have seen this happen. The disappointment and frustration in the player's eyes and voice. When I say "don't do this," that's why.
Of course point-blank or condescending responses like, "No that's dumb" are not helpful. But if every "does this character work" thread was only limited to affirmative responses, the value of this board would go down massively IMO. I assume part of the reason people ask is to avoid potential traps. Pointing those traps out is helpful. It's what I'd want if I were asking.
What's your opinion on thresds that go like this?
OP: I would like to do a thing. Can you recommend a way for me to do the thing?
Replies: You should not do the thing.
I like to give my opinion as much as the next guy, but I'd prefer to get some replies that tell me how to do the thing. At least if you tell me not to do the thing, tell me how to do the next best thing that won't run afoul of your misgivings about the thing.
I mean, if you cannot recommend a way to do the thing because you've had experience with that thing before that the OP doesn't seem to have, then yeah, it's reasonable to think the OP might want to hear your perspective.
9/10 times I see this happening, it's a newish DM asking how to do something that compromises player agency (usually without realizing it), or how to solve issues at the table in-game (which you really should not do; issues between players should be resolved between players through conversation like adults).
Surely the whole point of asking for advice is to see what others think.
That’s fine. At least that person suggested a helpful alternative (talk to your players out of character).
Most of the time I see those replies, it's "how do I get DDB's character sheet to show/calculate/implement [X]?"
The response is "There's currently no way to get [X] to work properly on DDB. Use plaintext and the honor system" because that's the plain and unvarnished truth.
If you're talking about something else, gonna need specifics.
Please do not contact or message me.
Sure, if there is objectively no solution, that’s the appropriate response. I’m not talking about someone saying you can’t do that. I’m talking about someone saying you shouldn’t.
Give an example of what you mean. The question is so broad it's difficult to speak to your concerns without really knowing what they are.
Please do not contact or message me.
Here is one I saw in the Barbarian thread which I think is along the lines of what Pavilionaire means
The responder offers some useful insights for sure, but ultimatley just tells the OP that they shouldnt follow through with their idea.
Full thread for anyone interested: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/barbarian/89080-barbarian-wizard-multiclass
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I don’t want to point fingers or name names, but the general idea is regarding asking for a magic item, spell, race, class, subclass, monster, etc. with particular attributes or for a particular kind of encounter. It could be homebrew, official, or unofficial. With homebrew on the table, “It can’t be done,” is certainly never the answer. “It shouldn’t be done,” could be, but is less helpful.
Yeah, that’s the kind of thing. But at least the suggested an alternative caster class for the multiclass.
Speaking to the Wizarian example:
While the "don't do this, you won't like it" response can come off as harsh, it's often still the correct answer. My first question would be "why do you want to do this?", trying to figure out what ideal the player is chasing. What their character fantasy is. If the answer is something like "I wanna be a super-powerful melee combatant but also be able to cast cool spells, even if it's just outside of combat", then I would guide the player towards other options because in this case and many like it, the situation is "this player has not fully considered what their idea is going to work like at the table, and if they bull through and do it anyways they're almost certain to be disappointed because what they will end up with is not what they actually want."
I am, however, a wordy *****. And I understand that simply saying "You don't want to do that" without explaining why is likely to get someone to dig in their heels and do it anyways. For your barbarian example (and you can take this back to that thread if you like), someone who wants to be a powerful melee warrior with some utility spellcasting to give them more options outside of battle is much better served by A.) being a paladin, or B.) obtaining the Ritual Caster feat if they're married to barbarian. Paladins do naturally what someone is trying to force with Wizarian, their magic fuels their martial abilities rather than fights against them. Ritual Caster, meanwhile, is actually a very nice thematic fit for a number of barbarians and provides that air of a mystical warrior with abilities beyond the norm in a way that scales with the character's barbarian levels (technically just their character level, but still) and doesn't clash with their abilities.
Speaking to Pavillionaire's example:
Saying "Can I get/do [X] with [Y] for [Z]" will often provoke mixed reactions. Depending on which [Y] is involved, and what the purpose of [Z] is, other people may advise someone that there's a reason it's normally not done. One example I can recall is "would it be broken to just give players a second bonus action?" I don't recall the specifics, but the overall (and very strong response) was "yes, it would absolutely be broken, and here's why." A new player may not know how important fundamental 5e things like bounded accuracy or action economy are, and being told "sure! ANything is possible, do what you like!" would actively damage their game because they're mucking with core game engine assumptions.
A similar common issue is "how do I run sci-fi/urban noir/gritty modern/some-other-genre-here in 5e?" Again - the "you shouldn't" answers are trying to be helpful, if often too short and snarky. Fantasy is ingrained in D&D's bones, it's bad at running games outside its genre. D&D 5e is not genre agnostic, no matter how often people try to make it such. The system is set up on the core assumption that it will be used to run a fantasy game, and generally an Epic Fantasy at that. You can run science fantasy with 5e, though it takes some doing. You can run fantasy noir (see: Eberron). But the further you get from 'Epic Fantasy', the worse a fit 5e is. The further you get from Epic Fantasy, the more you should investigate whether a different system would fit your table's needs better.
If the question is simply "How do I make pony people in 5e?" or "how can I make an Anime Katana of +5 Shounen Power?", then yes - 'you can't', or 'you shouldn't' aren't necessarily super helpful. It's a public forum. For every informative, well-reasoned post that tries to address the meat of an issue, you're going to get fifty Dumb Reddit Replies consisting of some guy basically tweeting at you. If you're not willing to sift through the chaff to get at some wheat, deal with people having opinions on your ideas and requests, forums ain't for you.
Please do not contact or message me.
For the extra bonus action question, I might suggest they grant an extra bonus action usable only for one particular weak ability. Or that has a resource cost. A bonus bonus action spell with a consumed material component, for example, or a whole sorcerer subclass that uses sorcery points to get bonus bonus actions that can only be used for that subclass’s features.
Of course, if they phrase it as, “Would it be broken,” it’s welcome to be a nay-sayer.
You are right, of course, but you can’t fault me for evangelizing. I’m sure I’ve given some unsolicited opinions or at least fed the trolls by responding to a hijacked thread. But it would be nice if threads don’t become completely useless for their original purpose by being spammed with edition wars or something. If you want to post your unsolicited opinion, you can start your own thread and link the post you’re forking.
Eh, most threads get conclusively resolved in the first few posts, as far as the OP is concerned, and I actually enjoy the resulting splinter-discussions going into the minutae of the factors at play in the question and branching off into different aspects of the game. I think that's a feature of the forum format, rather than a bug. You can pick up so much more advice and cool takes than just what you were looking for the sure, you might not have a use for *right now*, but I definitely consider valuable insight in the long run.
If every thread ceased as soon as the OP was answered then the forum would be a pretty un-lively place and the community would be next to dead.
Is this a subtweet? Lol. I'm reminded of the recent discussion:
"How do I make my backstory interesting and avoid common pitfalls?"
"Back in my day, we never imagined our characters as people, just game avatars. You're a snowflake if you do otherwise. Backstory is lame and everyone hates it."
I guess if it depends if you see the forums as a place where someone asks a specific question and you see only exactly responsive answers as suitable, or you think that there's more room for discussion and the sharing of advice - which is what you'd do in a conversation with someone in a pub. I tend to view it as the latter, and sometimes the most helpful response is to politely suggest that what is being asked isn't going to work/be fun.
Example:
OP: What is the best way to change all the rules around to run a pure science fiction campaign?
Potentially most helpful answer: It requires so much work to do this, and the game system isn't designed for it, that you'd be better off playing a different RPG.
You might disagree with that - and that's fine, forums are about discussion! - but it's a valid viewpoint to share if it's what you think.
One thing to consider about "unhelpful replies" is that sometimes the intention may be to share some experience or (what you think of as) wisdom that's intended to save the OP time and energy if they're going down a rabbit hole that you feel is very unlikely to provide enjoyment to a table of gamers. When it's a DM asking, sometimes it's something fun for them, and you think it's dubious whether it will be fun for their players.
I am sure many of us have experienced dubious homebrew and strange forum-discovered ideas that DMs have introduced, which have made our game experiences less enjoyable. If someone asks on a forum "How do I introduce complex ability checks for going to bed" my answer will usually be "This doesn't sound fun to me, I've had a poor experience with it, I advise against it." To me, that's a helpful response.
Just since I'm weighing in on various examples by saying, "That was a little bit helpful, that should fly," this is the first example of something that I don't think is really helpful.
The OP may already know that there are other game systems targeted toward sci-fi. But they know that they still want to play D&D 5e, because that's the system they and their players know, and they know none of their players want to learn a whole new system, or they just like the design decisions made in 5e and not in other systems.
The most helpful answer is: "Here is the list of house rules I'd use to make it more suitable for sci-fi. However, I wouldn't actually recommend doing that as it will be clumsy. Here are some other systems you might consider."
If all you do is say it's a bad idea without even giving a suggested system to use, then I guess that response still has value, since it serves as a warning sign, but we don't need a long back-and-forth discussion where someone says D&D is no good for sci-fi and someone else argues to the mat that they have run 11 campaigns to level 20 in various sci-fi universes and everybody had a great time.
That actually sounds like it would have generated a potentially useful response for the OP in this situation. But honestly I didn't put too much thought into the example, I wasn't exactly going to write a long imaginary response to a long imaginary post to posit an example. But yes, the more detailed post is going to be more useful - but also in this example, there's only so much time it's worth putting into that response, and nobody who replies should be obligated to type out or try to invent balanced house rules for someone who hasn't made any themselves. The alternative is to not respond at all I suppose, which I again don't feel is as helpful.
I have an example of what I think the OP is getting at. This happened on another discussion server (the Discord D&D server)
This occurred in the DM section (where DMs would ask for other DM's opinions and suggestions):
OP: "My player has asked to make a new spell, because what they want isn't in the spell list, how can it be done?"
Responder: "It can't and you never could do that. There are no rules for it"
Me: "Well, there are older versions of the game where you could, and as a DM you can do what you want. You need to have the Player... [I go to briefly explain the how's on what to do]. It requires the Dm and the player coming to an answer."
Multiple responders: "You are so wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. You can't and never could."
Etc...
Not an isolated case by the way.
Well, considering there's a paragraph titled 'Creating a New Spell" in the DMG on p. 273 this is objectively and provably incorrect. And it goes well beyond "you shouldn't do this in my opinion".
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeesh, if that's considered an unproductive post then I should probably pack up my stuff and leave. That example might even be me, I didn't click through to see but it sounds like feedback I'd give. For what it's worth, here's why I would have (or did) write a response like that:
I'm baffled that anyone would see this as unhelpful. You know what's unhelpful? Just cheering OP on with no thought and reason, telling them their idea is awesome and then when they get to the table they realize their character doesn't work at all. They can't cast because they're raging. They can't tank because they have wizard hp. As the rest of the party makes a quantum leap at level 5, they're left behind feeling more like a sidekick.
I have seen this happen. The disappointment and frustration in the player's eyes and voice. When I say "don't do this," that's why.
Of course point-blank or condescending responses like, "No that's dumb" are not helpful. But if every "does this character work" thread was only limited to affirmative responses, the value of this board would go down massively IMO. I assume part of the reason people ask is to avoid potential traps. Pointing those traps out is helpful. It's what I'd want if I were asking.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm