You missed what OSR's point is, which is that you shouldn't have to homebrew the shit out of everything.
I didn't miss that point, I just don't agree with it. You don't need to homebrew any rules to make 5e work, just the adventures. And the entire fun of being a DM (at least to me) is homebrewing the adventures, so I don't see the problem
I have said twice now that I completely agree the prepackaged adventure modules that WotC sells nowadays are ridiculously easy. Don't conflate them publishing stupidly easy adventures with the 5e system itself being easy. You can very easily write impossibly difficult adventures in 5e, and you can very easily write stupidly easy adventures in 2e. If the DM wants someone else to write the adventures and then play them as-written straight from the box, I definitely do agree that 2e would be superior for that type of DM. But that's a complaint about WotC adventures, not the 5e system
Homebrewing setting is one thing, so is just creating an overpowered weapon for your cousin to play with.
Meanwhile the tweaks here and there to make a system that works typically means another adjustment elsewhere, which means "more here and here, and, of I didn't realize THAT was a problem too, so...."
And even if homebrew and tweaking the system has been part of it since forever, it's 50 years since then... and a overall simplified system. Why are we still needed to tweak so much?
I also don't know why everyone says ,you're complaining about home brew, but creating adventures is just part of the game!"
It's an INCREDIBLY disingenuous response. We all know and assume that you will be creating your own adventures and using monsters in the book and classes in the book. The homebrew that is in question is the stuff that fills up the help and "fixes" portion of the forums. And yeah, those HAVE been part of it since the beginning but people were pissed off about them then just as much as they are now, and again... 50 years of this...
They just put out a proposed brawler class, with absolutely no support on what sort of improvised weapon works as what type. The old rule was buried and it was "oh yeah. Improv weapons are just a flat 1d4"
F***, two nights ago I had a fighter trying to use an unarmed strike as his bonus action, and really there's no rules for it or against it, nor much about a grapple as a bonus, and then there's the use of a shield in question and If headbutting is ok, and you know what? Half of that is just bullshit, and I let him do it for 1d4 and we moved on, but it's still just this... great mawing gap that's now going to be a cluster for the new UA fighter. Plus weapons mastery which they are REALLY pushing, which instead of just being a property for each weapon, now requires additional spreadsheet space to track and is once again more of a headache that it's worse, BUT THAT'S NOT ALL... it gets to be used to further complicate the growing black hole on ruling instances related to improvised weapons and unarmed strikes...
Vehicles - Dorsay, you yourself, although I'm sure you want make it your own, have seen the chasm of rules or support on vehicles. Simple mechanics for sea travel, which, you know, for a coastal f***ing main setting is a pretty glaring f***ing oversight.....
That's the homebrew I'm talking about.
Or redesigning the spell list because some things are just broken so badly that either the spell is useless or is entirely too dm dependent or makes the player think they can play god. Leading to player-dm fights.
It's fine that they want to sell more books, but honestly the "extra" books would be far better if they ce out like 2e in chunks in supplements like "weapons" and "vehicles" and maybe "subclasses of ________" and so on rather than chunks of, not addendums or even rules revisions, but "here's a little bit for everyone! Let's devote a third of this book to new player options, give about 20 new magic items, 10 new monsters and 5 optional rules which actually aren't optional and are intentionally vague to force more homebrew" (yes, I'm staring at f***ing you Tasha, you b**** queen ...)
It seems the differences between B/X and 1e are greater than I realized.
I mean, if combat in B/X lasted 4 - 6 rounds at most, then either the DM was boring or they were secretly playing 5e long before it came out.
The description of monsters having no tactical abilities is absolutely hilarious to me, after I highlighted how I used a bulette to take out a whole party. Especially since the things I did were basically the stuff that was described in the entry.
One thing 1e was better about than 5e was the presumption of the use of common knowledge (which is hilarious, given that the knowledge is more common now than it was in the time of 1e).
OSR, your last post demonstrates you have not played anything but perhaps a low level (Tier 1) session of 5e. Because both players and monsters have a lot of multiple attacks in this game. And the central mechanic hasn't changed: you roll to see if you hit, you roll damage, they roll to hit, they roll damage.
I will grant that choice paralysis creates challenges for players in making decisions about what to use and how to hit as they assess tactical stuff, and I will grant that by and large, 5e critters have more HP. But combat taking longer is a function of experience and trust, it seems to me. And the same goes for this whole "boring tactics" argument on your part, which becomes even more laughable when you realize that 5e really leaned heavily into the lair functions which is wholly about tactical and strategic movement and actions.
In short, all of that is made up whole cloth. Likely using some personal experience, some reported experience, but it isn't reflective of design (which actually gives more capability) but execution.
Another opinion is the "can't use 5e as written" poppycock. Literally millions of folks use the rules as written. Most players don't want to understand the mechanics. They don't care. THey don't like the idea of figuring out how to do something not explicit in the rules (which is why there is pretty much an entire forum of that) -- so also a laughably bad bit of thinking and poor rhetorical choices.
if DMs are 20% of the whole, then perhaps a fifth of that even care about the mechanics. Opinion, yes, but hey, we gave up anything but opinion a while ago, didn't we?
Next, there is a whole complaint about "over complex combat", when the entire basis of game design since 1985 was, um, let me check here...
.... oh, yeah, more complex combat.
The action economy stuff was already there in B/X -- it just wasn't an explicit rule. The designers -- who are a bunch of minmaxing players of D&D themselves -- wanted to make the stuff ore narrative, and so they added in the kind of thing that happens in books and movies all the time. It is, overall, way more fun, and while you may have problems with figuring out how to run it, I surely haven't.
it is way more interesting, and for monsters it ups the whole tactical play situation immensely even when you don't feel like being creative.
Sorry, but you are reaching. Stretching your opinions out to the point of breaking to keep the overall gist of 5e is bad, you are making arguments that it is actually good because you are making people pay attention to things they normally take for granted.
If you are representative of OSR, this explains to me why it is seen as a squeaky wheels movement, and pretty much not a thing many care about, and the whole apparent thrust of it is "modern ttrpg is bad, so play it like we used to when we were your age" is only going to draw disgruntled folks into it who agreed in the first place and don't appear to have the capacity to say "oh, well, that's really not so bad."
I won't mention the folks who are literally asking for overt racism to be put back into the game and then run off to OSR when they get called out on it. Oh, wait, ooops.
I note that in B/X and 1e era, the game creators were kinda upset by the number of DMs who let players roll their own dice. That was a large disconnect between design and consumers.
You're quite extraordinary at taking things just a little out of context, exaggerating just enough and making up just enough stuff for it to go unnoticed. I will give you an A+ for clever writing and conversation combat, but you're a PHD so I think you already know what you did there and I will take a guess that it's not by accident. It's an interesting experiment you are running though, is it for a paper or some sort of study your working on?
It seems the differences between B/X and 1e are greater than I realized.
I mean, if combat in B/X lasted 4 - 6 rounds at most, then either the DM was boring or they were secretly playing 5e long before it came out.
The description of monsters having no tactical abilities is absolutely hilarious to me, after I highlighted how I used a bulette to take out a whole party. Especially since the things I did were basically the stuff that was described in the entry.
One thing 1e was better about than 5e was the presumption of the use of common knowledge (which is hilarious, given that the knowledge is more common now than it was in the time of 1e).
OSR, your last post demonstrates you have not played anything but perhaps a low level (Tier 1) session of 5e. Because both players and monsters have a lot of multiple attacks in this game. And the central mechanic hasn't changed: you roll to see if you hit, you roll damage, they roll to hit, they roll damage.
I will grant that choice paralysis creates challenges for players in making decisions about what to use and how to hit as they assess tactical stuff, and I will grant that by and large, 5e critters have more HP. But combat taking longer is a function of experience and trust, it seems to me. And the same goes for this whole "boring tactics" argument on your part, which becomes even more laughable when you realize that 5e really leaned heavily into the lair functions which is wholly about tactical and strategic movement and actions.
In short, all of that is made up whole cloth. Likely using some personal experience, some reported experience, but it isn't reflective of design (which actually gives more capability) but execution.
Another opinion is the "can't use 5e as written" poppycock. Literally millions of folks use the rules as written. Most players don't want to understand the mechanics. They don't care. THey don't like the idea of figuring out how to do something not explicit in the rules (which is why there is pretty much an entire forum of that) -- so also a laughably bad bit of thinking and poor rhetorical choices.
if DMs are 20% of the whole, then perhaps a fifth of that even care about the mechanics. Opinion, yes, but hey, we gave up anything but opinion a while ago, didn't we?
Next, there is a whole complaint about "over complex combat", when the entire basis of game design since 1985 was, um, let me check here...
.... oh, yeah, more complex combat.
The action economy stuff was already there in B/X -- it just wasn't an explicit rule. The designers -- who are a bunch of minmaxing players of D&D themselves -- wanted to make the stuff ore narrative, and so they added in the kind of thing that happens in books and movies all the time. It is, overall, way more fun, and while you may have problems with figuring out how to run it, I surely haven't.
it is way more interesting, and for monsters it ups the whole tactical play situation immensely even when you don't feel like being creative.
Sorry, but you are reaching. Stretching your opinions out to the point of breaking to keep the overall gist of 5e is bad, you are making arguments that it is actually good because you are making people pay attention to things they normally take for granted.
If you are representative of OSR, this explains to me why it is seen as a squeaky wheels movement, and pretty much not a thing many care about, and the whole apparent thrust of it is "modern ttrpg is bad, so play it like we used to when we were your age" is only going to draw disgruntled folks into it who agreed in the first place and don't appear to have the capacity to say "oh, well, that's really not so bad."
I won't mention the folks who are literally asking for overt racism to be put back into the game and then run off to OSR when they get called out on it. Oh, wait, ooops.
I note that in B/X and 1e era, the game creators were kinda upset by the number of DMs who let players roll their own dice. That was a large disconnect between design and consumers.
You're quite extraordinary at taking things just a little out of context, exaggerating just enough and making up just enough stuff for it to go unnoticed. I will give you an A+ for clever writing and conversation combat, but you're a PHD so I think you already know what you did there and I will take a guess that it's not by accident. It's an interesting experiment you are running though, is it for a paper or some sort of study your working on?
No paper, just a bit of startled bemusement ;)
Come on, though, really, the attacks thing? You opened yourself wide with that one. You gotta know that.
And the OSR movement *is* seen broadly as a bunch of old folks yelling get off my lawn, lol. And in a lot of ways, its true! But it does push people away from the willingness to even look.
and folks do use 5e as written, pretty normatively.
We don't really know each other, but we do share a love of a lot of the old stuff and a similar general play style philosophy (likely because we've been at it so long), so it can be enjoyable to dance with you like this around what we don't agree on.
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 mean even within 5e, it's been 10 YEARS and there's still confusion about what is an action and a bonus action and who gets what. In addition to the unarmed strike I have to clarify that some things like disengage are an action, but for some classes it's a bonus action. And usually I just let it happen, but the bonus action thing is about as clear as mud for some.
You missed what OSR's point is, which is that you shouldn't have to homebrew the shit out of everything.
I didn't miss that point, I just don't agree with it. You don't need to homebrew any rules to make 5e work, just the adventures. And the entire fun of being a DM (at least to me) is homebrewing the adventures, so I don't see the problem
I have said twice now that I completely agree the prepackaged adventure modules that WotC sells nowadays are ridiculously easy. Don't conflate them publishing stupidly easy adventures with the 5e system itself being easy. You can very easily write impossibly difficult adventures in 5e, and you can very easily write stupidly easy adventures in 2e. If the DM wants someone else to write the adventures and then play them as-written straight from the box, I definitely do agree that 2e would be superior for that type of DM. But that's a complaint about WotC adventures, not the 5e system
Homebrewing setting is one thing, so is just creating an overpowered weapon for your cousin to play with.
Meanwhile the tweaks here and there to make a system that works typically means another adjustment elsewhere, which means "more here and here, and, of I didn't realize THAT was a problem too, so...."
And even if homebrew and tweaking the system has been part of it since forever, it's 50 years since then... and a overall simplified system. Why are we still needed to tweak so much?
I also don't know why everyone says ,you're complaining about home brew, but creating adventures is just part of the game!"
It's an INCREDIBLY disingenuous response. We all know and assume that you will be creating your own adventures and using monsters in the book and classes in the book. The homebrew that is in question is the stuff that fills up the help and "fixes" portion of the forums. And yeah, those HAVE been part of it since the beginning but people were pissed off about them then just as much as they are now, and again... 50 years of this...
They just put out a proposed brawler class, with absolutely no support on what sort of improvised weapon works as what type. The old rule was buried and it was "oh yeah. Improv weapons are just a flat 1d4"
F***, two nights ago I had a fighter trying to use an unarmed strike as his bonus action, and really there's no rules for it or against it, nor much about a grapple as a bonus, and then there's the use of a shield in question and If headbutting is ok, and you know what? Half of that is just bullshit, and I let him do it for 1d4 and we moved on, but it's still just this... great mawing gap that's now going to be a cluster for the new UA fighter. Plus weapons mastery which they are REALLY pushing, which instead of just being a property for each weapon, now requires additional spreadsheet space to track and is once again more of a headache that it's worse, BUT THAT'S NOT ALL... it gets to be used to further complicate the growing black hole on ruling instances related to improvised weapons and unarmed strikes...
Vehicles - Dorsay, you yourself, although I'm sure you want make it your own, have seen the chasm of rules or support on vehicles. Simple mechanics for sea travel, which, you know, for a coastal f***ing main setting is a pretty glaring f***ing oversight.....
That's the homebrew I'm talking about.
Or redesigning the spell list because some things are just broken so badly that either the spell is useless or is entirely too dm dependent or makes the player think they can play god. Leading to player-dm fights.
It's fine that they want to sell more books, but honestly the "extra" books would be far better if they ce out like 2e in chunks in supplements like "weapons" and "vehicles" and maybe "subclasses of ________" and so on rather than chunks of, not addendums or even rules revisions, but "here's a little bit for everyone! Let's devote a third of this book to new player options, give about 20 new magic items, 10 new monsters and 5 optional rules which actually aren't optional and are intentionally vague to force more homebrew" (yes, I'm staring at f***ing you Tasha, you b**** queen ...)
*Sigh*
Do you get it yet?
LOL -- I do see the chasm. Worse, it is a chasm that it stretched out over multiple books with sometimes contradictory rules for everything published over a three year span of time -- so to get the stuff, you have to either spend almost as much for a single book on the bits and pieces or spend the money to get all the books, just to get the rules.
I also immediately get the "well, if I change this here, then it impacts there, and it does this here, and the whole ripple effect of nightmare city that means you are bouncing back and forth to deal with a system *that already exists* in a disjointed form to find the middle ground and make something that they damn well better put in the new DMG, lol.
I think they are afraid to go back to the chapbook phase -- but may be forced to given the cost of publishing has skyrocketed (honestly, I am amazed they don't have 80 dollar core books yet).
Unarmed fighting has been a problem since the gap between the 1e PHB and the 1e DMG came out. The first real rules in the game for it came in the DMG -- and that was mostly because of complaints that there weren't any rules. Which iis how we know about the challenge of a game that is based on armed combat trying to adjust for something that is never supposed to equal armed combat (because a sword does more than a fist, and that's been the basis ever since).
i have been tweaking my own house rules, and I do see the rationales behind why they did things, they are just clumsy imo, and so trying hard to make them more a part of the main line.
But...
Did I have to?
In a super simplified system, you have to make some basic presumptions. They did, and gave minimal thought to anything outside that system.
An example of why that matters though: Where's the Shukenja? It isn't a wizard or Warlock or sorcerer. It isn't a Cleric or bard or ranger. It won't fit into any of the subclass types.
Where's the Dogon? Where's the Yoruba basis spiritual worlds?
The game as currently set up -- even in its simplified form, does not allow those to exist. Which means it isn't as simplified as people think -- it is still limited by certain non-mechanics, certain presumptions and biases that undermine the usefulness of the systems.
lastly, don't you pick on Tasha. it will ruin my date...
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
And the OSR movement *is* seen broadly as a bunch of old folks yelling get off my lawn, lol.
I mean, just the thread title is a BadWrongFun argument. "People are having fun for the wrong reason" is... not a useful place to start from.
It isn't and now that my own rant is over, I can agree with you.
I think the current edition is starting to really show cracks, and there's now some nostalgia for past editions.
I'd rather not classify the OSR as a bunch of racists as it's not constructive and quite frankly, there are people who just enjoy the older games.
There's also a good deal of valid criticisms about the current system that wasn't present in other games or previous versions, and looking back at past successes and past failures is good.
I also feel that a lot of the times when people hear criticisms of this version and hear that they are solved elsewhere, they get defensive of this version.
Personally, I am happy with 5e, but there are things past editions did that fixed 5e issues, and just in general things that they should have learned by now not to do.
I'm the type of person who would rather always look forward. I'd be excited if they said they were doing a sixth edition, provided it wasn't being made for the wrong reasons (as digital only ransomware, or a scheme to sell more books) and they were earnestly trying to make it better and with new ideas and systems, while learning from the past.
I do think that the gaps in the rules and the need to just accept that after 50 years we're still....look. we still need to be critical of the company and the game. We all have probably spent hundreds of dollars on their books (the core 3 would run at least $100 new). We should hold whomever we give that money to to provide a product that just works.
Anything less is being a corporate apologist, and these days, that's kinda a despicable thing to be.
You missed what OSR's point is, which is that you shouldn't have to homebrew the shit out of everything.
I didn't miss that point, I just don't agree with it. You don't need to homebrew any rules to make 5e work, just the adventures. And the entire fun of being a DM (at least to me) is homebrewing the adventures, so I don't see the problem
I have said twice now that I completely agree the prepackaged adventure modules that WotC sells nowadays are ridiculously easy. Don't conflate them publishing stupidly easy adventures with the 5e system itself being easy. You can very easily write impossibly difficult adventures in 5e, and you can very easily write stupidly easy adventures in 2e. If the DM wants someone else to write the adventures and then play them as-written straight from the box, I definitely do agree that 2e would be superior for that type of DM. But that's a complaint about WotC adventures, not the 5e system
Homebrewing setting is one thing, so is just creating an overpowered weapon for your cousin to play with.
Meanwhile the tweaks here and there to make a system that works typically means another adjustment elsewhere, which means "more here and here, and, of I didn't realize THAT was a problem too, so...."
And even if homebrew and tweaking the system has been part of it since forever, it's 50 years since then... and a overall simplified system. Why are we still needed to tweak so much?
I also don't know why everyone says ,you're complaining about home brew, but creating adventures is just part of the game!"
It's an INCREDIBLY disingenuous response. We all know and assume that you will be creating your own adventures and using monsters in the book and classes in the book. The homebrew that is in question is the stuff that fills up the help and "fixes" portion of the forums. And yeah, those HAVE been part of it since the beginning but people were pissed off about them then just as much as they are now, and again... 50 years of this...
They just put out a proposed brawler class, with absolutely no support on what sort of improvised weapon works as what type. The old rule was buried and it was "oh yeah. Improv weapons are just a flat 1d4"
F***, two nights ago I had a fighter trying to use an unarmed strike as his bonus action, and really there's no rules for it or against it, nor much about a grapple as a bonus, and then there's the use of a shield in question and If headbutting is ok, and you know what? Half of that is just bullshit, and I let him do it for 1d4 and we moved on, but it's still just this... great mawing gap that's now going to be a cluster for the new UA fighter. Plus weapons mastery which they are REALLY pushing, which instead of just being a property for each weapon, now requires additional spreadsheet space to track and is once again more of a headache that it's worse, BUT THAT'S NOT ALL... it gets to be used to further complicate the growing black hole on ruling instances related to improvised weapons and unarmed strikes...
Vehicles - Dorsay, you yourself, although I'm sure you want make it your own, have seen the chasm of rules or support on vehicles. Simple mechanics for sea travel, which, you know, for a coastal f***ing main setting is a pretty glaring f***ing oversight.....
That's the homebrew I'm talking about.
Or redesigning the spell list because some things are just broken so badly that either the spell is useless or is entirely too dm dependent or makes the player think they can play god. Leading to player-dm fights.
It's fine that they want to sell more books, but honestly the "extra" books would be far better if they ce out like 2e in chunks in supplements like "weapons" and "vehicles" and maybe "subclasses of ________" and so on rather than chunks of, not addendums or even rules revisions, but "here's a little bit for everyone! Let's devote a third of this book to new player options, give about 20 new magic items, 10 new monsters and 5 optional rules which actually aren't optional and are intentionally vague to force more homebrew" (yes, I'm staring at f***ing you Tasha, you b**** queen ...)
*Sigh*
Do you get it yet?
LOL -- I do see the chasm. Worse, it is a chasm that it stretched out over multiple books with sometimes contradictory rules for everything published over a three year span of time -- so to get the stuff, you have to either spend almost as much for a single book on the bits and pieces or spend the money to get all the books, just to get the rules.
I also immediately get the "well, if I change this here, then it impacts there, and it does this here, and the whole ripple effect of nightmare city that means you are bouncing back and forth to deal with a system *that already exists* in a disjointed form to find the middle ground and make something that they damn well better put in the new DMG, lol.
I think they are afraid to go back to the chapbook phase -- but may be forced to given the cost of publishing has skyrocketed (honestly, I am amazed they don't have 80 dollar core books yet).
Unarmed fighting has been a problem since the gap between the 1e PHB and the 1e DMG came out. The first real rules in the game for it came in the DMG -- and that was mostly because of complaints that there weren't any rules. Which iis how we know about the challenge of a game that is based on armed combat trying to adjust for something that is never supposed to equal armed combat (because a sword does more than a fist, and that's been the basis ever since).
i have been tweaking my own house rules, and I do see the rationales behind why they did things, they are just clumsy imo, and so trying hard to make them more a part of the main line.
But...
Did I have to?
In a super simplified system, you have to make some basic presumptions. They did, and gave minimal thought to anything outside that system.
An example of why that matters though: Where's the Shukenja? It isn't a wizard or Warlock or sorcerer. It isn't a Cleric or bard or ranger. It won't fit into any of the subclass types.
Where's the Dogon? Where's the Yoruba basis spiritual worlds?
The game as currently set up -- even in its simplified form, does not allow those to exist. Which means it isn't as simplified as people think -- it is still limited by certain non-mechanics, certain presumptions and biases that undermine the usefulness of the systems.
lastly, don't you pick on Tasha. it will ruin my date...
Oh Tasha's quite charming herself, and I wouldn't mind a chance to woo her myself but when she penned her book, she created a can of worms in many ways that made the paranoid beholder and the old dragon god look quite organized and well put together...
Come on, though, really, the attacks thing? You opened yourself wide with that one. You gotta know that.
And the OSR movement *is* seen broadly as a bunch of old folks yelling get off my lawn, lol. And in a lot of ways, its true! But it does push people away from the willingness to even look.
and folks do use 5e as written, pretty normatively.
We don't really know each other, but we do share a love of a lot of the old stuff and a similar general play style philosophy (likely because we've been at it so long), so it can be enjoyable to dance with you like this around what we don't agree on.
Well for what it's worth, I have enjoyed our banter immensely, you're clever and quite brilliant.
There's also a good deal of valid criticisms about the current system that wasn't present in other games or previous versions, and looking back at past successes and past failures is good.
To be fair, every edition has had complaints that were specific to that edition, and a lot of the problems with 5e are not actually new to 5e.
I should note that they are not doing a 6th Edition at present.
THey are doing a “rules update” edition — a 5.5 if you will — and suggesting that they will do future updates on a more regular schedule.
So your “showing cracks” analogy is accurate, imo, and I think that’s something that led to the approach for this approach despite the 50th anniversary.
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
There's also a good deal of valid criticisms about the current system that wasn't present in other games or previous versions, and looking back at past successes and past failures is good.
To be fair, every edition has had complaints that were specific to that edition, and a lot of the problems with 5e are not actually new to 5e.
Don't paint me as having rose tinted glasses. These babies are crystal clear.
Whati meant was each edition had different complaints, and just as 5e seeks to solve some of them, there's things solved in previous editions that 5 has forgotten and is seemingly ignoring.
I should note that they are not doing a 6th Edition at present.
THey are doing a “rules update” edition — a 5.5 if you will — and suggesting that they will do future updates on a more regular schedule.
So your “showing cracks” analogy is accurate, imo, and I think that’s something that led to the approach for this approach despite the 50th anniversary.
Except what frustrates me is they don't seem to be fixing with the UA's. They're just exposing more or widening them like (I'm sorry about before) the "witch goddess" Tasha's book did, and the criticisms of it being a Tasha 2.0 are valid.
I mean even within 5e, it's been 10 YEARS and there's still confusion about what is an action and a bonus action and who gets what. In addition to the unarmed strike I have to clarify that some things like disengage are an action, but for some classes it's a bonus action. And usually I just let it happen, but the bonus action thing is about as clear as mud for some.
There's always going to be a subset of players who just aren't mechanically oriented, and a larger set who learn the rule over time, through play, but don't really play enough to get a solid grasp of it. That's an issue for all RPGs, save perhaps the most free-form. (And Paranoia, where knowing the rules is treason.)
D&D is worse for them just because it's built around large sets of options. 5E is better for those players than what came before* because, while it's still got lots of options, it has coherent base mechanics, so they're up to speed on the basics pretty quickly, and only confused on the stuff you don't do often.
But stuff like:
two nights ago I had a fighter trying to use an unarmed strike as his bonus action, and really there's no rules for it or against it, nor much about a grapple as a bonus, and then there's the use of a shield in question and If headbutting is ok,
Isn't due to rules unclarity; this is all stuff that's been codified since the game came out. (The rule for "Can I do X as a bonus action?" is just "Not unless you have something that says you can.")
* This is off-topic, but I really wonder how much of 4e's long-term problems were less "upsetting some percentage of the established base" and more "you aren't going to have fun if you don't want to engage with the tactical combat system". I'm well aware that's not the common wisdom, but I'm not gonna argue about it here.
It really is “only if something explicitly says you get one, and then you can only do exactly these things with it”.
Reactions are less bound, but only somewhat.
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 mean even within 5e, it's been 10 YEARS and there's still confusion about what is an action and a bonus action and who gets what. In addition to the unarmed strike I have to clarify that some things like disengage are an action, but for some classes it's a bonus action. And usually I just let it happen, but the bonus action thing is about as clear as mud for some.
There's always going to be a subset of players who just aren't mechanically oriented, and a larger set who learn the rule over time, through play, but don't really play enough to get a solid grasp of it. That's an issue for all RPGs, save perhaps the most free-form. (And Paranoia, where knowing the rules is treason.)
D&D is worse for them just because it's built around large sets of options. 5E is better for those players than what came before* because, while it's still got lots of options, it has coherent base mechanics, so they're up to speed on the basics pretty quickly, and only confused on the stuff you don't do often.
But stuff like:
two nights ago I had a fighter trying to use an unarmed strike as his bonus action, and really there's no rules for it or against it, nor much about a grapple as a bonus, and then there's the use of a shield in question and If headbutting is ok,
Isn't due to rules unclarity; this is all stuff that's been codified since the game came out. (The rule for "Can I do X as a bonus action?" is just "Not unless you have something that says you can.")
* This is off-topic, but I really wonder how much of 4e's long-term problems were less "upsetting some percentage of the established base" and more "you aren't going to have fun if you don't want to engage with the tactical combat system". I'm well aware that's not the common wisdom, but I'm not gonna argue about it here.
I know that, but bonus action doesn't even have a heading. Like you know "action" does.
As for what constitutes it, yeah, I know, but then you have all sorts of rules to sort through to do this, and... again. It's all about trying to rationalize some very blatant and very reasonable.revisons or things that should have been done 10 years ago with "it's the DM's responsibility/fault" but "the game is perfect the DM can just run it out of the box"
Neither is true. It's apologetics and in particular really bad ones for something is just the basics. Basic f***ing steps through combat aren't clear.
I know that, but bonus action doesn't even have a heading. Like you know "action" does.
As for what constitutes it, yeah, I know, but then you have all sorts of rules to sort through to do this, and... again. It's all about trying to rationalize some very blatant and very reasonable.revisons or things that should have been done 10 years ago with "it's the DM's responsibility/fault" but "the game is perfect the DM can just run it out of the box"
Neither is true. It's apologetics and in particular really bad ones for something is just the basics. Basic f***ing steps through combat aren't clear.
I wonder why they don't just scrap the various "types" of actions and simply go to a 3 action system like Pathfinder 2e. I mean, say what you want about PF2e, but you can't get any simpler than a rule that says, everything is an action, you have 3.. good luck!
Bonus action is just a terrible name. It's basically the same thing as a 3.5e swift action or a 4e minor action, but because they use the word "bonus" people think it's an extra action. 4e also had a useful distinction between "immediate interrupt" (triggered, is resolved before the triggering event is resolved) and "immediate reaction" (triggered, is resolved after the triggering event is resolved), both of which 5e calls a reaction and you have to guess from context which is which.
It really is “only if something explicitly says you get one, and then you can only do exactly these things with it”.
Reactions are less bound, but only somewhat.
The point stands. And how do you know you just can't soft through the multiple books the documentation online or anything else to FIND that rule. It's just as important as action in the steps of your combat turn but....
Or the games I have played, it took 3 players and a DM thumbing through various books we had to try and figure out tool proficiencies, which you know, you get that at character creation, so you'd think it'd be pretty specific, but.....
Apparently it just means proficiency bonus on something.yiu attempt, which with thieves tools means you shouldn't bother with sleight of hand because picking a lock is a straight dex roll and thieves tools proficiency let's you get a PB to it, but honestly, anyone has equal chance at just picking a lock with even a full spoon if they want and have only 1-2 points less of a chance of success.
But then again, if you thumb through Xanathar's, it's been changed so that tool proficiencies give advantage, and you can do that sleight of hand check if you want ,(which is how we ruled it but still).
And yes there are other setups that are just as clunky, but again.... after so many years we haven't learned from those editions? We're STILL making the same mistakes as we had in 3.5 or earlier?
And again... how the hell do you know you didn't just miss the rule when it's a damned part of your combat steps????
It really is “only if something explicitly says you get one, and then you can only do exactly these things with it”.
Reactions are less bound, but only somewhat.
The point stands. And how do you know you just can't soft through the multiple books the documentation online or anything else to FIND that rule. It's just as important as action in the steps of your combat turn but....
Or the games I have played, it took 3 players and a DM thumbing through various books we had to try and figure out tool proficiencies, which you know, you get that at character creation, so you'd think it'd be pretty specific, but.....
Apparently it just means proficiency bonus on something.yiu attempt, which with thieves tools means you shouldn't bother with sleight of hand because picking a lock is a straight dex roll and thieves tools proficiency let's you get a PB to it, but honestly, anyone has equal chance at just picking a lock with even a full spoon if they want and have only 1-2 points less of a chance of success.
But then again, if you thumb through Xanathar's, it's been changed so that tool proficiencies give advantage, and you can do that sleight of hand check if you want ,(which is how we ruled it but still).
And yes there are other setups that are just as clunky, but again.... after so many years we haven't learned from those editions? We're STILL making the same mistakes as we had in 3.5 or earlier?
And again... how the hell do you know you didn't just miss the rule when it's a damned part of your combat steps????
Yes, that is the way proficiency in 5e works. And it specifically does mean a lot of stuff I disagree with personally (knowledge and learning of a skill should count for more) but they apply that Proficiency bonus based on level instead.
And yes — it does gut the old rogue stuff, but they moved away from that being the basis for rogue last edition, so that’s nigh on 20 years that hasn’t been a thing (incorrectly, imo, but I didn’t make that call).
Note as well that you get tool proficiency by *buying the tools*. Which Rogues do get automatically (I think, I need to check to be sure… one sec… Yes, they get them automatically.) So, all Rogues have advantage as well as their proficiency bonus, and all that means is roll 2d20 and take the higher number, add your proficiency bonus to it, and then see if that beats the DC of the task.
I admit I loved the 2e proficiency set (adapted from the original game introduction of them in Oriental Adventures), but it was “more complicated” and had individual modifiers instead of the simplified “one modifier for all of them”. It became a “record keeping” issue and they leaned to making life easier for players (also, the number of proficiencies was way out of hand in 3/3.5, so they just overcorrected).
Your point though, is that it is hard at this point to find all those bits, and if you don’t have everything you can’t find it — which I acknowledge in my comment about picking up bits and pieces to make a whole.
The One D&D initiative, however, is taking all those scattered rules and putting them into the new PHB — so all that Xanathar and Tasha stuff is going into he PHB, and they are making it work with the other changes. SO yeah, they are acknowledging that spread of base rules.
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Homebrewing setting is one thing, so is just creating an overpowered weapon for your cousin to play with.
Meanwhile the tweaks here and there to make a system that works typically means another adjustment elsewhere, which means "more here and here, and, of I didn't realize THAT was a problem too, so...."
And even if homebrew and tweaking the system has been part of it since forever, it's 50 years since then... and a overall simplified system. Why are we still needed to tweak so much?
I also don't know why everyone says ,you're complaining about home brew, but creating adventures is just part of the game!"
It's an INCREDIBLY disingenuous response. We all know and assume that you will be creating your own adventures and using monsters in the book and classes in the book. The homebrew that is in question is the stuff that fills up the help and "fixes" portion of the forums. And yeah, those HAVE been part of it since the beginning but people were pissed off about them then just as much as they are now, and again... 50 years of this...
They just put out a proposed brawler class, with absolutely no support on what sort of improvised weapon works as what type. The old rule was buried and it was "oh yeah. Improv weapons are just a flat 1d4"
F***, two nights ago I had a fighter trying to use an unarmed strike as his bonus action, and really there's no rules for it or against it, nor much about a grapple as a bonus, and then there's the use of a shield in question and If headbutting is ok, and you know what? Half of that is just bullshit, and I let him do it for 1d4 and we moved on, but it's still just this... great mawing gap that's now going to be a cluster for the new UA fighter. Plus weapons mastery which they are REALLY pushing, which instead of just being a property for each weapon, now requires additional spreadsheet space to track and is once again more of a headache that it's worse, BUT THAT'S NOT ALL... it gets to be used to further complicate the growing black hole on ruling instances related to improvised weapons and unarmed strikes...
Vehicles - Dorsay, you yourself, although I'm sure you want make it your own, have seen the chasm of rules or support on vehicles. Simple mechanics for sea travel, which, you know, for a coastal f***ing main setting is a pretty glaring f***ing oversight.....
That's the homebrew I'm talking about.
Or redesigning the spell list because some things are just broken so badly that either the spell is useless or is entirely too dm dependent or makes the player think they can play god. Leading to player-dm fights.
It's fine that they want to sell more books, but honestly the "extra" books would be far better if they ce out like 2e in chunks in supplements like "weapons" and "vehicles" and maybe "subclasses of ________" and so on rather than chunks of, not addendums or even rules revisions, but "here's a little bit for everyone! Let's devote a third of this book to new player options, give about 20 new magic items, 10 new monsters and 5 optional rules which actually aren't optional and are intentionally vague to force more homebrew" (yes, I'm staring at f***ing you Tasha, you b**** queen ...)
*Sigh*
Do you get it yet?
You're quite extraordinary at taking things just a little out of context, exaggerating just enough and making up just enough stuff for it to go unnoticed. I will give you an A+ for clever writing and conversation combat, but you're a PHD so I think you already know what you did there and I will take a guess that it's not by accident. It's an interesting experiment you are running though, is it for a paper or some sort of study your working on?
No paper, just a bit of startled bemusement ;)
Come on, though, really, the attacks thing? You opened yourself wide with that one. You gotta know that.
And the OSR movement *is* seen broadly as a bunch of old folks yelling get off my lawn, lol. And in a lot of ways, its true! But it does push people away from the willingness to even look.
and folks do use 5e as written, pretty normatively.
We don't really know each other, but we do share a love of a lot of the old stuff and a similar general play style philosophy (likely because we've been at it so long), so it can be enjoyable to dance with you like this around what we don't agree on.
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 mean even within 5e, it's been 10 YEARS and there's still confusion about what is an action and a bonus action and who gets what. In addition to the unarmed strike I have to clarify that some things like disengage are an action, but for some classes it's a bonus action. And usually I just let it happen, but the bonus action thing is about as clear as mud for some.
I mean, just the thread title is a BadWrongFun argument. "People are having fun for the wrong reason" is... not a useful place to start from.
LOL -- I do see the chasm. Worse, it is a chasm that it stretched out over multiple books with sometimes contradictory rules for everything published over a three year span of time -- so to get the stuff, you have to either spend almost as much for a single book on the bits and pieces or spend the money to get all the books, just to get the rules.
I also immediately get the "well, if I change this here, then it impacts there, and it does this here, and the whole ripple effect of nightmare city that means you are bouncing back and forth to deal with a system *that already exists* in a disjointed form to find the middle ground and make something that they damn well better put in the new DMG, lol.
I think they are afraid to go back to the chapbook phase -- but may be forced to given the cost of publishing has skyrocketed (honestly, I am amazed they don't have 80 dollar core books yet).
Unarmed fighting has been a problem since the gap between the 1e PHB and the 1e DMG came out. The first real rules in the game for it came in the DMG -- and that was mostly because of complaints that there weren't any rules. Which iis how we know about the challenge of a game that is based on armed combat trying to adjust for something that is never supposed to equal armed combat (because a sword does more than a fist, and that's been the basis ever since).
i have been tweaking my own house rules, and I do see the rationales behind why they did things, they are just clumsy imo, and so trying hard to make them more a part of the main line.
But...
Did I have to?
In a super simplified system, you have to make some basic presumptions. They did, and gave minimal thought to anything outside that system.
An example of why that matters though: Where's the Shukenja? It isn't a wizard or Warlock or sorcerer. It isn't a Cleric or bard or ranger. It won't fit into any of the subclass types.
Where's the Dogon? Where's the Yoruba basis spiritual worlds?
The game as currently set up -- even in its simplified form, does not allow those to exist. Which means it isn't as simplified as people think -- it is still limited by certain non-mechanics, certain presumptions and biases that undermine the usefulness of the systems.
lastly, don't you pick on Tasha. it will ruin my date...
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 isn't and now that my own rant is over, I can agree with you.
I think the current edition is starting to really show cracks, and there's now some nostalgia for past editions.
I'd rather not classify the OSR as a bunch of racists as it's not constructive and quite frankly, there are people who just enjoy the older games.
There's also a good deal of valid criticisms about the current system that wasn't present in other games or previous versions, and looking back at past successes and past failures is good.
I also feel that a lot of the times when people hear criticisms of this version and hear that they are solved elsewhere, they get defensive of this version.
Personally, I am happy with 5e, but there are things past editions did that fixed 5e issues, and just in general things that they should have learned by now not to do.
I'm the type of person who would rather always look forward. I'd be excited if they said they were doing a sixth edition, provided it wasn't being made for the wrong reasons (as digital only ransomware, or a scheme to sell more books) and they were earnestly trying to make it better and with new ideas and systems, while learning from the past.
I do think that the gaps in the rules and the need to just accept that after 50 years we're still....look. we still need to be critical of the company and the game. We all have probably spent hundreds of dollars on their books (the core 3 would run at least $100 new). We should hold whomever we give that money to to provide a product that just works.
Anything less is being a corporate apologist, and these days, that's kinda a despicable thing to be.
Oh Tasha's quite charming herself, and I wouldn't mind a chance to woo her myself but when she penned her book, she created a can of worms in many ways that made the paranoid beholder and the old dragon god look quite organized and well put together...
Well for what it's worth, I have enjoyed our banter immensely, you're clever and quite brilliant.
I wave the white flag!
To be fair, every edition has had complaints that were specific to that edition, and a lot of the problems with 5e are not actually new to 5e.
I should note that they are not doing a 6th Edition at present.
THey are doing a “rules update” edition — a 5.5 if you will — and suggesting that they will do future updates on a more regular schedule.
So your “showing cracks” analogy is accurate, imo, and I think that’s something that led to the approach for this approach despite the 50th anniversary.
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
Don't paint me as having rose tinted glasses. These babies are crystal clear.
Whati meant was each edition had different complaints, and just as 5e seeks to solve some of them, there's things solved in previous editions that 5 has forgotten and is seemingly ignoring.
Except what frustrates me is they don't seem to be fixing with the UA's. They're just exposing more or widening them like (I'm sorry about before) the "witch goddess" Tasha's book did, and the criticisms of it being a Tasha 2.0 are valid.
There's always going to be a subset of players who just aren't mechanically oriented, and a larger set who learn the rule over time, through play, but don't really play enough to get a solid grasp of it. That's an issue for all RPGs, save perhaps the most free-form. (And Paranoia, where knowing the rules is treason.)
D&D is worse for them just because it's built around large sets of options. 5E is better for those players than what came before* because, while it's still got lots of options, it has coherent base mechanics, so they're up to speed on the basics pretty quickly, and only confused on the stuff you don't do often.
But stuff like:
Isn't due to rules unclarity; this is all stuff that's been codified since the game came out. (The rule for "Can I do X as a bonus action?" is just "Not unless you have something that says you can.")
* This is off-topic, but I really wonder how much of 4e's long-term problems were less "upsetting some percentage of the established base" and more "you aren't going to have fun if you don't want to engage with the tactical combat system". I'm well aware that's not the common wisdom, but I'm not gonna argue about it here.
Jl8e is dead on about the Bonus action rule.
It really is “only if something explicitly says you get one, and then you can only do exactly these things with it”.
Reactions are less bound, but only somewhat.
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 know that, but bonus action doesn't even have a heading. Like you know "action" does.
As for what constitutes it, yeah, I know, but then you have all sorts of rules to sort through to do this, and... again. It's all about trying to rationalize some very blatant and very reasonable.revisons or things that should have been done 10 years ago with "it's the DM's responsibility/fault" but "the game is perfect the DM can just run it out of the box"
Neither is true. It's apologetics and in particular really bad ones for something is just the basics. Basic f***ing steps through combat aren't clear.
I wonder why they don't just scrap the various "types" of actions and simply go to a 3 action system like Pathfinder 2e. I mean, say what you want about PF2e, but you can't get any simpler than a rule that says, everything is an action, you have 3.. good luck!
Bonus action is just a terrible name. It's basically the same thing as a 3.5e swift action or a 4e minor action, but because they use the word "bonus" people think it's an extra action. 4e also had a useful distinction between "immediate interrupt" (triggered, is resolved before the triggering event is resolved) and "immediate reaction" (triggered, is resolved after the triggering event is resolved), both of which 5e calls a reaction and you have to guess from context which is which.
The point stands. And how do you know you just can't soft through the multiple books the documentation online or anything else to FIND that rule. It's just as important as action in the steps of your combat turn but....
Or the games I have played, it took 3 players and a DM thumbing through various books we had to try and figure out tool proficiencies, which you know, you get that at character creation, so you'd think it'd be pretty specific, but.....
Apparently it just means proficiency bonus on something.yiu attempt, which with thieves tools means you shouldn't bother with sleight of hand because picking a lock is a straight dex roll and thieves tools proficiency let's you get a PB to it, but honestly, anyone has equal chance at just picking a lock with even a full spoon if they want and have only 1-2 points less of a chance of success.
But then again, if you thumb through Xanathar's, it's been changed so that tool proficiencies give advantage, and you can do that sleight of hand check if you want ,(which is how we ruled it but still).
And yes there are other setups that are just as clunky, but again.... after so many years we haven't learned from those editions? We're STILL making the same mistakes as we had in 3.5 or earlier?
And again... how the hell do you know you didn't just miss the rule when it's a damned part of your combat steps????
Yes, that is the way proficiency in 5e works. And it specifically does mean a lot of stuff I disagree with personally (knowledge and learning of a skill should count for more) but they apply that Proficiency bonus based on level instead.
And yes — it does gut the old rogue stuff, but they moved away from that being the basis for rogue last edition, so that’s nigh on 20 years that hasn’t been a thing (incorrectly, imo, but I didn’t make that call).
Note as well that you get tool proficiency by *buying the tools*. Which Rogues do get automatically (I think, I need to check to be sure… one sec… Yes, they get them automatically.) So, all Rogues have advantage as well as their proficiency bonus, and all that means is roll 2d20 and take the higher number, add your proficiency bonus to it, and then see if that beats the DC of the task.
I admit I loved the 2e proficiency set (adapted from the original game introduction of them in Oriental Adventures), but it was “more complicated” and had individual modifiers instead of the simplified “one modifier for all of them”. It became a “record keeping” issue and they leaned to making life easier for players (also, the number of proficiencies was way out of hand in 3/3.5, so they just overcorrected).
Your point though, is that it is hard at this point to find all those bits, and if you don’t have everything you can’t find it — which I acknowledge in my comment about picking up bits and pieces to make a whole.
The One D&D initiative, however, is taking all those scattered rules and putting them into the new PHB — so all that Xanathar and Tasha stuff is going into he PHB, and they are making it work with the other changes. SO yeah, they are acknowledging that spread of base rules.
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