Yeah if you get rid of concentration, prepare to only have casters in your party going forward. It would basically elevate them to god-tier power level while rendering martials obsolete.
I think one of the reasons for concentration is that in 5E everyone is spellcasting... almost all the characters in both groups I play in have access to oodles of spells (except the Barbarian and I have my suspicions he's learning). With the improved Cantrips it's a blizzard of spells out there.
Attunement is there for the DM's who have a problem controlling their gift giving.
You do know DMs let people buy magic items too, right? And attunement helps keep things balanced enough that they can usually offer a broad selection without having to worry about players stacking up some insane combo.
Just tell ask your DM to not use attunement or if your the DM just don't use it.
There are some 956 items out of 2644 that require attunement. It would be awesome to be able to wear or wield 10 or 11 items.
lol, I immediately was reminded of the guy who walked into my game boasting of the ten rings he wore. One for each stat, one for damage boost, one for accuracy, one for a shield spell and one for anti-magic (counterspell didn’t exist then).
I was not a nice DM that day. I mean, it wasn’t my fault that anti-magic rings stopped all others from working intermittently…
honest!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Attunement is there for the DM's who have a problem controlling their gift giving.
You do know DMs let people buy magic items too, right? And attunement helps keep things balanced enough that they can usually offer a broad selection without having to worry about players stacking up some insane combo.
Still on the DM
Right, and you'd probably be pretty steamed if you turned in your shopping list after you'd cashed in a dragon's hoard and your DM nixed half of it for balance reasons. This way they don't need to worry so much about each player putting together some crazy five item chain they read about online.
I think players — that is, “mostly player” types — may not fully understand the kinds of things they do to us DM’s.
I mean, yeah, we have to deal with weird rules and challenges to the whole game, and of course they are going to say screw it to the adventure we just spent six months on, but I mean in terms of how they torture us with things like “imma buy me magic items cause I saw this online”.
we don’t want to say no. We want to say “are you insane?” Ah well.
players, can’t kill ‘em, but you can make them wish you had..,
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
it feels like WotC telling people how they should play, and though I appreciate WotC for many things, I do find this mildly offensive. In my opinion, the game should be based upon the freedom to run it however we want.
Sorry to double post, but this has thrown me off. Of course WoTC tells you how you have to play. They are the ones who design the game, and their job is literally that: Tell you how to play the game they design. The design work is exactly that, telling you how you have to play to get the specific experience that the designers propose. That happens with all games, role-playing, tabletop, wargames, etc... It's something so obvious that it surprises me that someone makes this kind of comment. And giving you more or less freedom is also telling you how you have to play.
Originally I wasn't going to respond to this post, b/c I didn't feel like it warranted one, but now that I see it has 4 likes I will make a few counter points.
1. D&D was not created by WotC. They bought it, and yes they are responsible for game design now, but everything they do represents a change to a game that already existed. Most of the changes I like, but this thread is about some of the changes that some players don't like and why.
2. D&D is an imagination based game. The rules are created to facilitate the gameplay so that it flows easily, and to minimize the interruptions to roleplaying. Further, the rules are created because it gives us sources to use to help with game creation, character creation, etc... Lastly, rules are created to help guide things in one direction or another, and this is what I believe you are talking about. However, their design work is not to tell us how we have to play the game. It is, instead, how they recommend playing it based on what they have in mind, but they themselves tell us it is up to the DM to decide. This is why homebrew exists, because they don't literally tell us how we have to play, they let us make the final call.
3. Honestly, I shouldn't have to say this one, but giving people more freedom of choice, is not the same as telling people how they have to do something, and would in fact suggest the opposite intent.
it feels like WotC telling people how they should play, and though I appreciate WotC for many things, I do find this mildly offensive. In my opinion, the game should be based upon the freedom to run it however we want.
Sorry to double post, but this has thrown me off. Of course WoTC tells you how you have to play. They are the ones who design the game, and their job is literally that: Tell you how to play the game they design. The design work is exactly that, telling you how you have to play to get the specific experience that the designers propose. That happens with all games, role-playing, tabletop, wargames, etc... It's something so obvious that it surprises me that someone makes this kind of comment. And giving you more or less freedom is also telling you how you have to play.
Originally I wasn't going to respond to this post, b/c I didn't feel like it warranted one, but now that I see it has 4 likes I will make a few counter points.
1. D&D was not created by WotC. They bought it, and yes they are responsible for game design now, but everything they do represents a change to a game that already existed. Most of the changes I like, but this thread is about some of the changes that some players don't like and why.
2. D&D is an imagination based game. The rules are created to facilitate the gameplay so that it flows easily, and to minimize the interruptions to roleplaying. Further, the rules are created because it gives us sources to use to help with game creation, character creation, etc... Lastly, rules are created to help guide things in one direction or another, and this is what I believe you are talking about. However, their design work is not to tell us how we have to play the game. It is, instead, how they recommend playing it based on what they have in mind, but they themselves tell us it is up to the DM to decide. This is why homebrew exists, because they don't literally tell us how we have to play, they let us make the final call.
3. Honestly, I shouldn't have to say this one, but giving people more freedom of choice, is not the same as telling people how they have to do something, and would in fact suggest the opposite intent.
I feel like we're diverting the discussion, and I don't like doing it. But there are several things here that need to be corrected.
In your point 1 you say that WoTC did not create the game, which is false. WoTC bought TSR, thus disposing of the D&D intellectual property. But WoTC designed 3rd, 4th and 5th edition, which are different games within IP D&D. What I mean by this is that WoTC is the creator of D&D 5e, which is the game we are talking about. AD&D 1 and 2, and the different editions of Basic (Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, etc...) are other games within the IP. And the way to play them was different. That comes from the game design, whose philosophy was very different from the current edition. And there we can link to what the OP said, since he has another game philosophy in mind. And that's very good. I love the old editions of D&D, but they are designed to play a different style than what 5e proposes. Why do you want to use the 5e rulebook, if you want to play A&D 2e (for example)? It's like using a screwdriver to drive a nail.
And this is when we return to what you were saying. Does WoTC have to tell you how to play? Of course they have to, otherwise there would be no need to publish a rulebook. And it is that the rulebook is just that, the way to explain how you have to play the 5th edition of D&D. And that is true for any game you can think of. Does monopoly tell you how you have to play? Sure, it's obvious. Imagine that you buy the game and you get the bills, the houses, the board, etc... But it doesn't come with instructions that explain how to play. It would be a scam.
But let's put another role-playing game. I don't know, one more free. I love storytelling, so I'll mention Follow. In Follow there are no dice rolls, and the resolution of scenes is done by extracting colored balls. Everything else is pure narration within one of the proposed themes (the founding of a new city, the search for a cure for a disease, the hunt for a dragon, etc...). It is a game in which the players have absolute freedom to narrate what they want, but there are still some rules. And those rules are what tell you how you have to play. How could it be otherwise? There would be no game otherwise.
Now, all that being said. And with the hope that you have understood. It goes without saying that each gaming table can play as it pleases. But WoTC has to design the game in such a way that it embodies the experience it is offering you. And in that regard, why is there an Attunement restriction? Well, because in the experience that 5e proposes, the powers of the players come mainly from their class and subclass. And yes, with that WoTC is telling you "5e is played like this". Then if you follow it or not, it's up to you. But they have to tell you how you have to play. Of course they have to.
it feels like WotC telling people how they should play, and though I appreciate WotC for many things, I do find this mildly offensive. In my opinion, the game should be based upon the freedom to run it however we want.
Sorry to double post, but this has thrown me off. Of course WoTC tells you how you have to play. They are the ones who design the game, and their job is literally that: Tell you how to play the game they design. The design work is exactly that, telling you how you have to play to get the specific experience that the designers propose. That happens with all games, role-playing, tabletop, wargames, etc... It's something so obvious that it surprises me that someone makes this kind of comment. And giving you more or less freedom is also telling you how you have to play.
Originally I wasn't going to respond to this post, b/c I didn't feel like it warranted one, but now that I see it has 4 likes I will make a few counter points.
1. D&D was not created by WotC. They bought it, and yes they are responsible for game design now, but everything they do represents a change to a game that already existed. Most of the changes I like, but this thread is about some of the changes that some players don't like and why.
2. D&D is an imagination based game. The rules are created to facilitate the gameplay so that it flows easily, and to minimize the interruptions to roleplaying. Further, the rules are created because it gives us sources to use to help with game creation, character creation, etc... Lastly, rules are created to help guide things in one direction or another, and this is what I believe you are talking about. However, their design work is not to tell us how we have to play the game. It is, instead, how they recommend playing it based on what they have in mind, but they themselves tell us it is up to the DM to decide. This is why homebrew exists, because they don't literally tell us how we have to play, they let us make the final call.
3. Honestly, I shouldn't have to say this one, but giving people more freedom of choice, is not the same as telling people how they have to do something, and would in fact suggest the opposite intent.
I feel like we're diverting the discussion, and I don't like doing it. But there are several things here that need to be corrected.
In your point 1 you say that WoTC did not create the game, which is false. WoTC bought TSR, thus disposing of the D&D intellectual property. But WoTC designed 3rd, 4th and 5th edition, which are different games within IP D&D. What I mean by this is that WoTC is the creator of D&D 5e, which is the game we are talking about. AD&D 1 and 2, and the different editions of Basic (Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, etc...) are other games within the IP. And the way to play them was different. That comes from the game design, whose philosophy was very different from the current edition. And there we can link to what the OP said, since he has another game philosophy in mind. And that's very good. I love the old editions of D&D, but they are designed to play a different style than what 5e proposes. Why do you want to use the 5e rulebook, if you want to play A&D 2e (for example)? It's like using a screwdriver to drive a nail.
And this is when we return to what you were saying. Does WoTC have to tell you how to play? Of course they have to, otherwise there would be no need to publish a rulebook. And it is that the rulebook is just that, the way to explain how you have to play the 5th edition of D&D. And that is true for any game you can think of. Does monopoly tell you how you have to play? Sure, it's obvious. Imagine that you buy the game and you get the bills, the houses, the board, etc... But it doesn't come with instructions that explain how to play. It would be a scam.
But let's put another role-playing game. I don't know, one more free. I love storytelling, so I'll mention Follow. In Follow there are no dice rolls, and the resolution of scenes is done by extracting colored balls. Everything else is pure narration within one of the proposed themes (the founding of a new city, the search for a cure for a disease, the hunt for a dragon, etc...). It is a game in which the players have absolute freedom to narrate what they want, but there are still some rules. And those rules are what tell you how you have to play. How could it be otherwise? There would be no game otherwise.
Now, all that being said. And with the hope that you have understood. It goes without saying that each gaming table can play as it pleases. But WoTC has to design the game in such a way that it embodies the experience it is offering you. And in that regard, why is there an Attunement restriction? Well, because in the experience that 5e proposes, the powers of the players come mainly from their class and subclass. And yes, with that WoTC is telling you "5e is played like this". Then if you follow it or not, it's up to you. But they have to tell you how you have to play. Of course they have to.
In my opinion, you are splitting hairs here, so rather than continuing our back and forth, I think it is best that we agree to disagree and let the thread move on. At the end of the day we are both D&D fans, so it seems reasonable to say that under different circumstances we could someday be allies. Good day sir.
I feel like the thread is starting to fall into the same whole the one where I “met” DNGlenntendo…
Being old, cranky, and without a lawn, I will simply shake a stick and say this:
D&D does not have rules. It has structures and guidelines. Fairly sure folks will get angry about that, so let me point out that is not a colloquial statement, but a factual high level one. Argue otherwise all ya want, ain’t gonna change it.
WotC did not create D&D, they iterated a version it the same way millions of others have since 1976. To argue they created it is like saying someone who types up a book in the public domain is the “new author” and is foolish and sad to argue. Deal.
Why do you want to use the 5e rulebook, if you want to play A&D 2e (for example)?
be more specific — there are several rulebooks. And, in the sense that was used to argue a different point, the point is that they offer a baseline. Six to eight baselines, actually, that give all those playing a common framework, a structure around which to establish guidelines for play, in much the same way as any other social activity is partaken (including work and posting in forums). Colloquially called “rules”, they are only as inflexible as those playing.
I don’t recall anyone saying they wanted to play 2e. I recall folks noting what they didn’t like about 5e. And, as I noted, 1e and 2e offer some better, more useful mechanics, even within the philosophy espoused. They happen to often slide right in, and if there was a major complaint about 5e from long term, hard core developers and designers, it would be that 5e is way too soft, needs more crunch, to use the parlance.
yes, that softness is what brought more folks to the game. That is not the point here — here the point is we often find that it is too soft in some ways (narrow set, not broad) for us. And in terms of what WotC is saying about that, their position (their statement of how to play the game) is “cool! Do it!”.
I have 20 classes in my D&D, 5e basis Wyrlde, and no subclasses. Although I have elves and dwarves, they are not the elves and dwarves of any of the current materials. I use magic points in a system that is far different from the one in the game and the rules for magic are different as a result of that. I have not one drop of setting, and do not even use the core planes of any published materials. There will be no spelljammers dropping in on my game world.
and, per WotC, I am playing the game as intended. Everything you note about philosophy and approach and even the majority of the supporting mechanics is gone. I have a core group of 27 players who not only suggested these changes, but play tested them.
It is still D&D, though it is as different from 5e as 5e is from 1e. There is no ship of Theseus here, be it the Argo or another.
I use the systems for D&D because I like D&D. I dislike most others, and among those I like least are some of the most successful ones that are, in turn, also derived from 1e and 2e. I have done rpg game design for years, so my displeasures are in that area of philosophy.
5e is used because it is the current foundation. It is familiar, it is broad, and one can still easily drift from my system with 9 ability scores to forgotten realms sword coast to Eberron and while there are differences, all of them are still D&D, and that framework — despite the rules, which are always local to a table — and structure are why.
5e, to me, is built for players, not DMs. 1e and 2e were built more for DMs. Us Elders of gaming are seeking a middle ground, and if we want to curse the rancid foolishness of attunement and sing the praises of encumbrance, then we have every right to do so, and still call whatever we are doing 5e.
tl;dr “get off the gravel!”
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I don't understand what's not to like about concentration to maintain a spell...?
Magic-users in the past few editions have been waaaaay overpowered; this is one of the few features in the game that actually represents them having a weakness and not completely lording it over the martial/melee classes.
I cut my teeth on 1e (and before!), and love spell concentration in this game.
I don't understand what's not to like about concentration to maintain a spell...?
Magic-users in the past few editions have been waaaaay overpowered; this is one of the few features in the game that actually represents them having a weakness and not completely lording it over the martial/melee classes.
I cut my teeth on 1e (and before!), and love spell concentration in this game.
it seems to be how it became a major element, but it could also be because if your point of reference is 1e wizards, most folks already knew to bump them, lol, but it wasn’t a “big thing”.
with these newer format, highly powered wizards, it makes much more sense — and add in things like sorcerers and warlocks and it gets even more of a challenge. Especially since it often looks these days like everyone just wants a magic using subclass because pure fighters are boring.
now, imagine my joy, since I reset casting times, removed material components, and made the casting of all spells by anyone visible. For me, Concentration is a really key tool.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I don't understand what's not to like about concentration to maintain a spell...?
Magic-users in the past few editions have been waaaaay overpowered; this is one of the few features in the game that actually represents them having a weakness and not completely lording it over the martial/melee classes.
I cut my teeth on 1e (and before!), and love spell concentration in this game.
Two issues:
Concentration stops you from combining spells into cool combos because they both require concentration.
The one that bugs me is concentration saves. Especially when you've just gained a spell slot level, the fact that not only do you have about 35% chance of the spell having little or no effect, but every time you take damage, you have a reasonable chance of losing the effect... that's pretty harsh and annoying, especially for the really cool effects.
I think concentration is required for balance and to give martials more meaning (stopping enemies from imposing concentration saves), but it's not hard to see why some people don't like them.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't understand what's not to like about concentration to maintain a spell...?
Magic-users in the past few editions have been waaaaay overpowered; this is one of the few features in the game that actually represents them having a weakness and not completely lording it over the martial/melee classes.
I cut my teeth on 1e (and before!), and love spell concentration in this game.
Two issues:
[Tooltip Not Found] stops you from combining spells into cool combos because they both require concentration.
The one that bugs me is concentration saves. Especially when you've just gained a spell slot level, the fact that not only do you have about 35% chance of the spell having little or no effect, but every time you take damage, you have a reasonable chance of losing the effect... that's pretty harsh and annoying, especially for the really cool effects.
I think concentration is required for balance and to give martials more meaning (stopping enemies from imposing concentration saves), but it's not hard to see why some people don't like them.
Well, that's where the tactics part of D&D comes in. Don't toss up a major Concentration spell if you're gonna be wide open for attacks afterwards. Move around, use cover, know your ranges, have Shield prepped. I run a Warlock, so trust me I know how much of a pain it is to blow the save early, but a lot of it comes down to judging the timing of your cast.
I don't understand what's not to like about concentration to maintain a spell...?
Magic-users in the past few editions have been waaaaay overpowered; this is one of the few features in the game that actually represents them having a weakness and not completely lording it over the martial/melee classes.
I cut my teeth on 1e (and before!), and love spell concentration in this game.
Two issues:
[Tooltip Not Found] stops you from combining spells into cool combos because they both require concentration.
The one that bugs me is concentration saves. Especially when you've just gained a spell slot level, the fact that not only do you have about 35% chance of the spell having little or no effect, but every time you take damage, you have a reasonable chance of losing the effect... that's pretty harsh and annoying, especially for the really cool effects.
I think concentration is required for balance and to give martials more meaning (stopping enemies from imposing concentration saves), but it's not hard to see why some people don't like them.
Well, that's where the tactics part of D&D comes in. Don't toss up a major Concentration spell if you're gonna be wide open for attacks afterwards. Move around, use cover, know your ranges, have Shield prepped. I run a Warlock, so trust me I know how much of a pain it is to blow the save early, but a lot of it comes down to judging the timing of your cast.
There is a reason those darn goblins always have that one guy who is really good at throwing knives hanging back...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I don't understand what's not to like about concentration to maintain a spell...?
Magic-users in the past few editions have been waaaaay overpowered; this is one of the few features in the game that actually represents them having a weakness and not completely lording it over the martial/melee classes.
I cut my teeth on 1e (and before!), and love spell concentration in this game.
Two issues:
[Tooltip Not Found] stops you from combining spells into cool combos because they both require concentration.
The one that bugs me is concentration saves. Especially when you've just gained a spell slot level, the fact that not only do you have about 35% chance of the spell having little or no effect, but every time you take damage, you have a reasonable chance of losing the effect... that's pretty harsh and annoying, especially for the really cool effects.
I think concentration is required for balance and to give martials more meaning (stopping enemies from imposing concentration saves), but it's not hard to see why some people don't like them.
Well, that's where the tactics part of D&D comes in. Don't toss up a major Concentration spell if you're gonna be wide open for attacks afterwards. Move around, use cover, know your ranges, have Shield prepped. I run a Warlock, so trust me I know how much of a pain it is to blow the save early, but a lot of it comes down to judging the timing of your cast.
There is a reason those darn goblins always have that one guy who is really good at throwing knives hanging back...
Exactly. That's what makes combat engaging, when it's more than just everyone standing in place making rolls.
I guess we can all agree that D&D 5e is a different game than AD&D 2e, right? If not, I think we have a serious concept problem.
From there we can understand that the game experience between AD&D 2e and D&D 5e is different. They look for different things. This is why playing AD&D 2e with the D&D 5e rulebook is counterproductive. AD&D 2e is designed with a different philosophy than D&D 5e. It is neither better nor worse, just different.
AD&D 1e and 2e, were different editions of the same game. 2e was, in fact, a refinement of 1e. 5e and 6e (One D&D) will be different editions of the same game as well. But AD&D1e and 2e are different games than 3e, which in turn is a different game than 4e and, in turn, is a different game than 5e and One D&D. Even Basic D&D is a different game from AD&D. Is this understood?
And here we come to concentration and attunement. They are not two capricious rules. They exist because 5e needs them to get the gaming experience it wants to get. Specifically, a game experience with less inventory management, less buffs, less need for calculations, and fewer bonuses. And that's to make the game experience lighter, and not as crunchy as in other D&D games (I don't want to say editions, although they are, because I think some people get confused by that term). Could those restrictions not exist in 5e? Sure, but they are design decisions that pursue a specific purpose. And the same can be said of hit dice, short rest (or rest in general), class design, equipment and, in general, the entire D&D 5e rulebook.
I guess we can all agree that D&D 5e is a different game than AD&D 2e, right? If not, I think we have a serious concept problem.
From there we can understand that the game experience between AD&D 2e and D&D 5e is different. They look for different things. This is why playing AD&D 2e with the D&D 5e rulebook is counterproductive. AD&D 2e is designed with a different philosophy than D&D 5e. It is neither better nor worse, just different.
AD&D 1e and 2e, were different editions of the same game. 2e was, in fact, a refinement of 1e. 5e and 6e (One D&D) will be different editions of the same game as well. But AD&D1e and 2e are different games than 3e, which in turn is a different game than 4e and, in turn, is a different game than 5e and One D&D. Even Basic D&D is a different game from AD&D. Is this understood?
And here we come to concentration and attunement. They are not two capricious rules. They exist because 5e needs them to get the gaming experience it wants to get. Specifically, a game experience with less inventory management, less buffs, less need for calculations, and fewer bonuses. And that's to make the game experience lighter, and not as crunchy as in other D&D games (I don't want to say editions, although they are, because I think some people get confused by that term). Could those restrictions not exist in 5e? Sure, but they are design decisions that pursue a specific purpose. And the same can be said of hit dice, short rest (or rest in general), class design, equipment and, in general, the entire D&D 5e rulebook.
So... now instead of just managing inventory, we also have to manage inventory with the extra complication of deciding what to attune to that day. With buffs, there were always practical spell slot and duration limitations on how many you could keep up. Now a lot of spells still in the game are somewhere between lot less useful and completely useless simply because there are better things to concentrate on.
Still not convinced that this is better.
No one says it's better or worse. Not me at least. What I'm saying is that those rules exist for that, and that's what they're trying to achieve. In addition, they also try to make the player's powers come from their classes and subclasses mainly, not from magic items.
And if you don't like it, like anything else, you can ignore it and/or modify it. That's up to you. But 5e is played by those rules, and that's the reason. The police will not come to your house if you change things in the game, or the game entirely as someone said pages back. It's not about that. I even know people who solve combat by playing rock-paper-scissors. Is that D&D 5e? Of course not. It's another game that they designed. And that's really cool, especially if they're having fun.
I do not like a little of just about everything in 5e. But I can play inside the new rules no problem. The same thing with every game I play.
I am not so much a fan of the amount of classes and subclasses. Just too many and not really separate and defined for most of them. I would change a lot of the spells. Move a few around level wise, change a few for effect and power, and drop concentration on almost all that do not have a changing spell effect during its duration. Like Web. Once cast it never changes.
Not a fan of ASI's and feats. I view your stats as something your born with and thus not changeable. Except by the gods or extreme high magic.
I am not a fan of that 20th level limit. I am more of the idea that after a certain level you gain nothing more than hit points. I also like the idea of aging characters. This could be the only way your stats change during a lifetime. This also fits with my idea of training time for level advancement. All done during down time. There shouldn't be a 15th level 18 year old.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think one of the reasons for concentration is that in 5E everyone is spellcasting... almost all the characters in both groups I play in have access to oodles of spells (except the Barbarian and I have my suspicions he's learning). With the improved Cantrips it's a blizzard of spells out there.
Still on the DM
Just tell ask your DM to not use attunement or if your the DM just don't use it.
There are some 956 items out of 2644 that require attunement. It would be awesome to be able to wear or wield 10 or 11 items.
lol, I immediately was reminded of the guy who walked into my game boasting of the ten rings he wore. One for each stat, one for damage boost, one for accuracy, one for a shield spell and one for anti-magic (counterspell didn’t exist then).
I was not a nice DM that day. I mean, it wasn’t my fault that anti-magic rings stopped all others from working intermittently…
honest!
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Right, and you'd probably be pretty steamed if you turned in your shopping list after you'd cashed in a dragon's hoard and your DM nixed half of it for balance reasons. This way they don't need to worry so much about each player putting together some crazy five item chain they read about online.
I think players — that is, “mostly player” types — may not fully understand the kinds of things they do to us DM’s.
I mean, yeah, we have to deal with weird rules and challenges to the whole game, and of course they are going to say screw it to the adventure we just spent six months on, but I mean in terms of how they torture us with things like “imma buy me magic items cause I saw this online”.
we don’t want to say no. We want to say “are you insane?” Ah well.
players, can’t kill ‘em, but you can make them wish you had..,
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Originally I wasn't going to respond to this post, b/c I didn't feel like it warranted one, but now that I see it has 4 likes I will make a few counter points.
1. D&D was not created by WotC. They bought it, and yes they are responsible for game design now, but everything they do represents a change to a game that already existed. Most of the changes I like, but this thread is about some of the changes that some players don't like and why.
2. D&D is an imagination based game. The rules are created to facilitate the gameplay so that it flows easily, and to minimize the interruptions to roleplaying. Further, the rules are created because it gives us sources to use to help with game creation, character creation, etc... Lastly, rules are created to help guide things in one direction or another, and this is what I believe you are talking about. However, their design work is not to tell us how we have to play the game. It is, instead, how they recommend playing it based on what they have in mind, but they themselves tell us it is up to the DM to decide. This is why homebrew exists, because they don't literally tell us how we have to play, they let us make the final call.
3. Honestly, I shouldn't have to say this one, but giving people more freedom of choice, is not the same as telling people how they have to do something, and would in fact suggest the opposite intent.
I feel like we're diverting the discussion, and I don't like doing it. But there are several things here that need to be corrected.
In your point 1 you say that WoTC did not create the game, which is false. WoTC bought TSR, thus disposing of the D&D intellectual property. But WoTC designed 3rd, 4th and 5th edition, which are different games within IP D&D. What I mean by this is that WoTC is the creator of D&D 5e, which is the game we are talking about. AD&D 1 and 2, and the different editions of Basic (Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, etc...) are other games within the IP. And the way to play them was different. That comes from the game design, whose philosophy was very different from the current edition. And there we can link to what the OP said, since he has another game philosophy in mind. And that's very good. I love the old editions of D&D, but they are designed to play a different style than what 5e proposes. Why do you want to use the 5e rulebook, if you want to play A&D 2e (for example)? It's like using a screwdriver to drive a nail.
And this is when we return to what you were saying. Does WoTC have to tell you how to play? Of course they have to, otherwise there would be no need to publish a rulebook. And it is that the rulebook is just that, the way to explain how you have to play the 5th edition of D&D. And that is true for any game you can think of. Does monopoly tell you how you have to play? Sure, it's obvious. Imagine that you buy the game and you get the bills, the houses, the board, etc... But it doesn't come with instructions that explain how to play. It would be a scam.
But let's put another role-playing game. I don't know, one more free. I love storytelling, so I'll mention Follow. In Follow there are no dice rolls, and the resolution of scenes is done by extracting colored balls. Everything else is pure narration within one of the proposed themes (the founding of a new city, the search for a cure for a disease, the hunt for a dragon, etc...). It is a game in which the players have absolute freedom to narrate what they want, but there are still some rules. And those rules are what tell you how you have to play. How could it be otherwise? There would be no game otherwise.
Now, all that being said. And with the hope that you have understood. It goes without saying that each gaming table can play as it pleases. But WoTC has to design the game in such a way that it embodies the experience it is offering you. And in that regard, why is there an Attunement restriction? Well, because in the experience that 5e proposes, the powers of the players come mainly from their class and subclass. And yes, with that WoTC is telling you "5e is played like this". Then if you follow it or not, it's up to you. But they have to tell you how you have to play. Of course they have to.
In my opinion, you are splitting hairs here, so rather than continuing our back and forth, I think it is best that we agree to disagree and let the thread move on. At the end of the day we are both D&D fans, so it seems reasonable to say that under different circumstances we could someday be allies. Good day sir.
I feel like the thread is starting to fall into the same whole the one where I “met” DNGlenntendo…
Being old, cranky, and without a lawn, I will simply shake a stick and say this:
D&D does not have rules. It has structures and guidelines. Fairly sure folks will get angry about that, so let me point out that is not a colloquial statement, but a factual high level one. Argue otherwise all ya want, ain’t gonna change it.
WotC did not create D&D, they iterated a version it the same way millions of others have since 1976. To argue they created it is like saying someone who types up a book in the public domain is the “new author” and is foolish and sad to argue. Deal.
be more specific — there are several rulebooks. And, in the sense that was used to argue a different point, the point is that they offer a baseline. Six to eight baselines, actually, that give all those playing a common framework, a structure around which to establish guidelines for play, in much the same way as any other social activity is partaken (including work and posting in forums). Colloquially called “rules”, they are only as inflexible as those playing.
I don’t recall anyone saying they wanted to play 2e. I recall folks noting what they didn’t like about 5e. And, as I noted, 1e and 2e offer some better, more useful mechanics, even within the philosophy espoused. They happen to often slide right in, and if there was a major complaint about 5e from long term, hard core developers and designers, it would be that 5e is way too soft, needs more crunch, to use the parlance.
yes, that softness is what brought more folks to the game. That is not the point here — here the point is we often find that it is too soft in some ways (narrow set, not broad) for us. And in terms of what WotC is saying about that, their position (their statement of how to play the game) is “cool! Do it!”.
I have 20 classes in my D&D, 5e basis Wyrlde, and no subclasses. Although I have elves and dwarves, they are not the elves and dwarves of any of the current materials. I use magic points in a system that is far different from the one in the game and the rules for magic are different as a result of that. I have not one drop of setting, and do not even use the core planes of any published materials. There will be no spelljammers dropping in on my game world.
and, per WotC, I am playing the game as intended. Everything you note about philosophy and approach and even the majority of the supporting mechanics is gone. I have a core group of 27 players who not only suggested these changes, but play tested them.
It is still D&D, though it is as different from 5e as 5e is from 1e. There is no ship of Theseus here, be it the Argo or another.
I use the systems for D&D because I like D&D. I dislike most others, and among those I like least are some of the most successful ones that are, in turn, also derived from 1e and 2e. I have done rpg game design for years, so my displeasures are in that area of philosophy.
5e is used because it is the current foundation. It is familiar, it is broad, and one can still easily drift from my system with 9 ability scores to forgotten realms sword coast to Eberron and while there are differences, all of them are still D&D, and that framework — despite the rules, which are always local to a table — and structure are why.
5e, to me, is built for players, not DMs. 1e and 2e were built more for DMs. Us Elders of gaming are seeking a middle ground, and if we want to curse the rancid foolishness of attunement and sing the praises of encumbrance, then we have every right to do so, and still call whatever we are doing 5e.
tl;dr “get off the gravel!”
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I don't understand what's not to like about concentration to maintain a spell...?
Magic-users in the past few editions have been waaaaay overpowered; this is one of the few features in the game that actually represents them having a weakness and not completely lording it over the martial/melee classes.
I cut my teeth on 1e (and before!), and love spell concentration in this game.
it seems to be how it became a major element, but it could also be because if your point of reference is 1e wizards, most folks already knew to bump them, lol, but it wasn’t a “big thing”.
with these newer format, highly powered wizards, it makes much more sense — and add in things like sorcerers and warlocks and it gets even more of a challenge. Especially since it often looks these days like everyone just wants a magic using subclass because pure fighters are boring.
now, imagine my joy, since I reset casting times, removed material components, and made the casting of all spells by anyone visible. For me, Concentration is a really key tool.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I would humbly suggest that if you DM'd that you should DM a game you do enjoy.
Not everyone has to play 5e. Or even D&D. Run a game you enjoy and run it how you enjoy running it.
Two issues:
I think concentration is required for balance and to give martials more meaning (stopping enemies from imposing concentration saves), but it's not hard to see why some people don't like them.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Well, that's where the tactics part of D&D comes in. Don't toss up a major Concentration spell if you're gonna be wide open for attacks afterwards. Move around, use cover, know your ranges, have Shield prepped. I run a Warlock, so trust me I know how much of a pain it is to blow the save early, but a lot of it comes down to judging the timing of your cast.
There is a reason those darn goblins always have that one guy who is really good at throwing knives hanging back...
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Exactly. That's what makes combat engaging, when it's more than just everyone standing in place making rolls.
I guess we can all agree that D&D 5e is a different game than AD&D 2e, right? If not, I think we have a serious concept problem.
From there we can understand that the game experience between AD&D 2e and D&D 5e is different. They look for different things. This is why playing AD&D 2e with the D&D 5e rulebook is counterproductive. AD&D 2e is designed with a different philosophy than D&D 5e. It is neither better nor worse, just different.
AD&D 1e and 2e, were different editions of the same game. 2e was, in fact, a refinement of 1e. 5e and 6e (One D&D) will be different editions of the same game as well. But AD&D1e and 2e are different games than 3e, which in turn is a different game than 4e and, in turn, is a different game than 5e and One D&D. Even Basic D&D is a different game from AD&D. Is this understood?
And here we come to concentration and attunement. They are not two capricious rules. They exist because 5e needs them to get the gaming experience it wants to get. Specifically, a game experience with less inventory management, less buffs, less need for calculations, and fewer bonuses. And that's to make the game experience lighter, and not as crunchy as in other D&D games (I don't want to say editions, although they are, because I think some people get confused by that term). Could those restrictions not exist in 5e? Sure, but they are design decisions that pursue a specific purpose. And the same can be said of hit dice, short rest (or rest in general), class design, equipment and, in general, the entire D&D 5e rulebook.
No one says it's better or worse. Not me at least. What I'm saying is that those rules exist for that, and that's what they're trying to achieve.
In addition, they also try to make the player's powers come from their classes and subclasses mainly, not from magic items.
And if you don't like it, like anything else, you can ignore it and/or modify it. That's up to you. But 5e is played by those rules, and that's the reason. The police will not come to your house if you change things in the game, or the game entirely as someone said pages back. It's not about that. I even know people who solve combat by playing rock-paper-scissors. Is that D&D 5e? Of course not. It's another game that they designed. And that's really cool, especially if they're having fun.
I do not like a little of just about everything in 5e. But I can play inside the new rules no problem. The same thing with every game I play.
I am not so much a fan of the amount of classes and subclasses. Just too many and not really separate and defined for most of them.
I would change a lot of the spells. Move a few around level wise, change a few for effect and power, and drop concentration on almost all that do not have a changing spell effect during its duration. Like Web. Once cast it never changes.
Not a fan of ASI's and feats. I view your stats as something your born with and thus not changeable. Except by the gods or extreme high magic.
I am not a fan of that 20th level limit. I am more of the idea that after a certain level you gain nothing more than hit points.
I also like the idea of aging characters. This could be the only way your stats change during a lifetime. This also fits with my idea of training time for level advancement. All done during down time. There shouldn't be a 15th level 18 year old.