FYI, the Combat chapter of the PHB does explain bonus actions under the "Your Turn" heading that sums up what you can do on your turn.
Bonus Actions
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don’t have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
And the Combat chapter does have a list of basic actions as well. So honestly, it's a solid case of "actually read the rules" because the PHB does sum up bonus actions well.
I DID finally find what you're talking about, but it's NOT under combat, it's on the section BEFORE combat, called "your turn".
My point is, it's in no way or shape a quick reference nor a clear one, and definitely not a reader friendly manual. (nor really has it ever been to be honest...)
Just for you Kotath. I did use DDB. Two different ways. And a book search.
FYI, the Combat chapter of the PHB does explain bonus actions under the "Your Turn" heading that sums up what you can do on your turn.
Bonus Actions
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don’t have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
And the Combat chapter does have a list of basic actions as well. So honestly, it's a solid case of "actually read the rules" because the PHB does sum up bonus actions well.
I DID finally find what you're talking about, but it's NOT under combat, it's on the section BEFORE combat, called "your turn".
My point is, it's in no way or shape a quick reference nor a clear one, and definitely not a reader friendly manual. (nor really has it ever been to be honest...)
Just for you Kotath. I did use DDB. Two different ways. And a book search.
And my table uses pen and paper
At least you are using a hard copy. I truly wonder how many players and DM's have actually read the entire PHB and/or DMG (DM's only). If they did, the gameplay at that table would be infinitely enriched. Imagine for every hour people spent watching mercer et al butcher the rules, the same people spent 30 minutes reading the PHB.
FYI, the Combat chapter of the PHB does explain bonus actions under the "Your Turn" heading that sums up what you can do on your turn.
Bonus Actions
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don’t have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
And the Combat chapter does have a list of basic actions as well. So honestly, it's a solid case of "actually read the rules" because the PHB does sum up bonus actions well.
I DID finally find what you're talking about, but it's NOT under combat, it's on the section BEFORE combat, called "your turn".
My point is, it's in no way or shape a quick reference nor a clear one, and definitely not a reader friendly manual. (nor really has it ever been to be honest...)
Just for you Kotath. I did use DDB. Two different ways. And a book search.
And my table uses pen and paper
Your question was over what a bonus action is, which I agree could be better presented, but it is nevertheless there. Again, a presentation failure, not a rule mechanics failure.
The followup related criticism was a claim that there are a lot of rules to remember, including what uses a bonus action vs using an action. And my counter argument to that is that that is and always has been true of every edition, but that particular issue is pretty much eliminated by noting such things on character sheets.
And to both, that there are a lot of rules to remember in every edition (as well as most game systems, D&D or not.... ).
It was a presentation error at first, along with a problem on clarification. I suggested that it be given a better heading and, rather than being presented as to what constitutes one (spelling it out explicitly "this is a bonus action" per each instance that something is a bonus action, having at least one or two things that are simply given as bonus actions so that people are familiar with them and not asking "oh, what are my bonus actions? do I have any?"
Which has been a constant question that I have to ask my players as they forget. Then they get them confused because the rogue gets the disengage and dash and hide as bonus actions so my cleric tries to do them as well, because they don't get that it's class specific. My fighter tries to do an unarmed attack as a onus action because they aren't clear on it and they feel like they have jack shit to do and the try using an unarmed attack as a bonus action, and after searching for it, I just give up and tell him he can do so, mostly because I'm tired at that point and I want to have the game progress, the dude wants to do more than swing a sword once and be done, and I really have no argument as to why he can't punch or head butt a guy with a second action.
And it's not the first instance of having something that requires searching because it's just something they didn't think to come up with. Like unarmed fighting to begin with. And does an unarmed strike count as a simple weapon, which would allow two weapon fighting? Oh yeah, they changed the type to LIGHT and not SIMPLE. When that change happened? IDK...
Here's my search results from "unarmed combat" (if it shows)
Is it formatting? yes. Completely, but it doesn't change that this is 50 years into a game and they haven't fixed the basics yet, whether it's the basics of formatting or otherwise.
google "cheat sheet" and start looking for ones that will help your players.
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
google "cheat sheet" and start looking for ones that will help your players.
Yeah, I know there's plenty of them, but that's not the point, or perhaps it is if we need 3rd party crib sheets.
They often talk of getting info from youtube channels and being familiar with play, and they have other games and other tables.
Which compounds it when you consider each DM is going to have their own style and way of deciding rules.
Which is also why crib sheets suck because all the people involved here don't get the basics of the rules down right and "fudge it". Just trying to get a comprehensive list of items or spells off the net will often result in already "pruned" lists with spells others don't like taken out. You have to take 3 or 4 of them to compare and find the "extras" and then cross reference with DDB, so you can get a generally complete list then fill in the blanks. (all of this is work to get the OG list so I can curate it on my own while also keeping a master)
Which goes back to OSR's point about modularity. A basic version, then an advanced, then an expert.
Well, flat out, if D&D ever did that again, I would be out.
never been an edition that didn’t have crib sheets. Never will be: the mechanics have too many variables. The only way o get rid of them is to go to an even simpler system, that erases the variables and as all the games out there that do that have shown, not everyone likes that.
I will grant the better organized bit, but to say they don’t have the rules down right is kinda iffy. I mean, WotC did t create DDB, they have t even really had it that long, and the programmers they got for it almost certainly still haven’t learned all the code behind it. So holding them responsible for bad design of the site is unrealistic and bad form.
The books were written for new players to learn the game in a very basic style and approach — they are meant to give 12 year olds a way to grasp the game, flat out. Language is a bit more than common for that group, but the structure and layout aren’t.
that isn’t a problem for the majority of players, only for a minority of them. And they can’t please both.
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
Well, flat out, if D&D ever did that again, I would be out.
never been an edition that didn’t have crib sheets. Never will be: the mechanics have too many variables. The only way o get rid of them is to go to an even simpler system, that erases the variables and as all the games out there that do that have shown, not everyone likes that.
I will grant the better organized bit, but to say they don’t have the rules down right is kinda iffy. I mean, WotC did t create DDB, they have t even really had it that long, and the programmers they got for it almost certainly still haven’t learned all the code behind it. So holding them responsible for bad design of the site is unrealistic and bad form.
The books were written for new players to learn the game in a very basic style and approach — they are meant to give 12 year olds a way to grasp the game, flat out. Language is a bit more than common for that group, but the structure and layout aren’t.
that isn’t a problem for the majority of players, only for a minority of them. And they can’t please both.
How long has it been since you picked up the basic set? Or the AD&D PHB?
I can't remember which, but it starts of with, (paraphrasing)
"Hi! Welcome to this game. Do you like to imagine fighting dragons or being a powerful wizard?
Here's a character. He's called a fighter. Don't worry about anything else yet. Here's a setting. Here's a monster. Let's walk through how this combat thing goes and while we do this, we'll mention briefly these stat things and through combat how they work.
Did you survive combat? if so, awesome! if not, well feel free to try again or move on with this book.
Did you like that bit of combat? Well here's more of that adventure designed for a single person set up like a choose your own adventure. DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. We'll get into more rules soon enough.
Ok. Still here? Let's get into more about those stats and what the mean. Here's what character options do...."
I'm pretty sure it was Basic.
The thing is, it gave time to learn and progress into harder rulesets. It was designed that way, and you weren't sitting around at the lowest levels forever either. (xp progression being exponential IIRC, although I may be confusing basic with AD&D at this point, you had to double your XP per level you gained).
There's a care and consideration in knowing your players are new and that there's a LOT of rules back then that's lacking.
But then maybe that part IS a DM issue and a community issue and because it starts with the PHB and DMG, a formatting issue as well.
I'm in a bit of a strange situation. I play mainly because of family (though I don't play WITH family). I started 5e because the younger generation has interest in it, and because of a death in the family, I am set to inherit one of the older generation's copies of the AD&D books. I'm not going to deny there's nostalgia to it as well, but.. well pick up those old copies again (if you have them), dust them off and look at them and see what's different. Not so much in rules or specific spells or what have you, just the ethos and presentation. It's worth the look back.
Well, flat out, if D&D ever did that again, I would be out.
never been an edition that didn’t have crib sheets. Never will be: the mechanics have too many variables. The only way o get rid of them is to go to an even simpler system, that erases the variables and as all the games out there that do that have shown, not everyone likes that.
I will grant the better organized bit, but to say they don’t have the rules down right is kinda iffy. I mean, WotC did t create DDB, they have t even really had it that long, and the programmers they got for it almost certainly still haven’t learned all the code behind it. So holding them responsible for bad design of the site is unrealistic and bad form.
The books were written for new players to learn the game in a very basic style and approach — they are meant to give 12 year olds a way to grasp the game, flat out. Language is a bit more than common for that group, but the structure and layout aren’t.
that isn’t a problem for the majority of players, only for a minority of them. And they can’t please both.
How long has it been since you picked up the basic set? Or the AD&D PHB?
I can't remember which, but it starts of with, (paraphrasing)
"Hi! Welcome to this game. Do you like to imagine fighting dragons or being a powerful wizard?
Here's a character. He's called a fighter. Don't worry about anything else yet. Here's a setting. Here's a monster. Let's walk through how this combat thing goes and while we do this, we'll mention briefly these stat things and through combat how they work.
Did you survive combat? if so, awesome! if not, well feel free to try again or move on with this book.
Did you like that bit of combat? Well here's more of that adventure designed for a single person set up like a choose your own adventure. DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. We'll get into more rules soon enough.
Ok. Still here? Let's get into more about those stats and what the mean. Here's what character options do...."
I'm pretty sure it was Basic.
The thing is, it gave time to learn and progress into harder rulesets. It was designed that way, and you weren't sitting around at the lowest levels forever either. (xp progression being exponential IIRC, although I may be confusing basic with AD&D at this point, you had to double your XP per level you gained).
There's a care and consideration in knowing your players are new and that there's a LOT of rules back then that's lacking.
But then maybe that part IS a DM issue and a community issue and because it starts with the PHB and DMG, a formatting issue as well.
I'm in a bit of a strange situation. I play mainly because of family (though I don't play WITH family). I started 5e because the younger generation has interest in it, and because of a death in the family, I am set to inherit one of the older generation's copies of the AD&D books. I'm not going to deny there's nostalgia to it as well, but.. well pick up those old copies again (if you have them), dust them off and look at them and see what's different. Not so much in rules or specific spells or what have you, just the ethos and presentation. It's worth the look back.
I play/DM 5e, DM 1e AD&D, and play Pathfinder 2e, all in the same week, every week. 1e is WAY WAY WAY easier to learn than 5e. That being said, the 1e DMG is a work of genius, albeit one that desperately needs an editor, for ease of access to information. Pathfinder 2e, I know maybe 10% of the rules, but it is STILL easier to play a char in that, and teach someone the basics, than 5e D&D. 5e mechanics are far too complicated for a new player to grasp easily.
I have actually read the 5e DMG. It can be a truly rich game, if DM's actually implemented much that was in there. But wotc made different choices long ago. Instead of focusing on encouraging people to read the DMG and PHB, and understanding what was actually in the texts, instead it was decided to to constantly pump out new classes and sub-classes, ignoring how this increases complexity and all the "synergies" that were not seen at the time that end up breaking games.
Well, flat out, if D&D ever did that again, I would be out.
never been an edition that didn’t have crib sheets. Never will be: the mechanics have too many variables. The only way o get rid of them is to go to an even simpler system, that erases the variables and as all the games out there that do that have shown, not everyone likes that.
I will grant the better organized bit, but to say they don’t have the rules down right is kinda iffy. I mean, WotC did t create DDB, they have t even really had it that long, and the programmers they got for it almost certainly still haven’t learned all the code behind it. So holding them responsible for bad design of the site is unrealistic and bad form.
The books were written for new players to learn the game in a very basic style and approach — they are meant to give 12 year olds a way to grasp the game, flat out. Language is a bit more than common for that group, but the structure and layout aren’t.
that isn’t a problem for the majority of players, only for a minority of them. And they can’t please both.
How long has it been since you picked up the basic set? Or the AD&D PHB?
I can't remember which, but it starts of with, (paraphrasing)
"Hi! Welcome to this game. Do you like to imagine fighting dragons or being a powerful wizard?
Here's a character. He's called a fighter. Don't worry about anything else yet. Here's a setting. Here's a monster. Let's walk through how this combat thing goes and while we do this, we'll mention briefly these stat things and through combat how they work.
Did you survive combat? if so, awesome! if not, well feel free to try again or move on with this book.
Did you like that bit of combat? Well here's more of that adventure designed for a single person set up like a choose your own adventure. DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. We'll get into more rules soon enough.
Ok. Still here? Let's get into more about those stats and what the mean. Here's what character options do...."
I'm pretty sure it was Basic.
The thing is, it gave time to learn and progress into harder rulesets. It was designed that way, and you weren't sitting around at the lowest levels forever either. (xp progression being exponential IIRC, although I may be confusing basic with AD&D at this point, you had to double your XP per level you gained).
There's a care and consideration in knowing your players are new and that there's a LOT of rules back then that's lacking.
But then maybe that part IS a DM issue and a community issue and because it starts with the PHB and DMG, a formatting issue as well.
I'm in a bit of a strange situation. I play mainly because of family (though I don't play WITH family). I started 5e because the younger generation has interest in it, and because of a death in the family, I am set to inherit one of the older generation's copies of the AD&D books. I'm not going to deny there's nostalgia to it as well, but.. well pick up those old copies again (if you have them), dust them off and look at them and see what's different. Not so much in rules or specific spells or what have you, just the ethos and presentation. It's worth the look back.
I play/DM 5e, DM 1e AD&D, and play Pathfinder 2e, all in the same week, every week. 1e is WAY WAY WAY easier to learn than 5e. That being said, the 1e DMG is a work of genius, albeit one that desperately needs an editor, for ease of access to information. Pathfinder 2e, I know maybe 10% of the rules, but it is STILL easier to play a char in that, and teach someone the basics, than 5e D&D. 5e mechanics are far too complicated for a new player to grasp easily.
I have actually read the 5e DMG. It can be a truly rich game, if DM's actually implemented much that was in there. But wotc made different choices long ago. Instead of focusing on encouraging people to read the DMG and PHB, and understanding what was actually in the texts, instead it was decided to to constantly pump out new classes and sub-classes, ignoring how this increases complexity and all the "synergies" that were not seen at the time that end up breaking games.
Within reach, I have the 1e DMG. My original, in fact. Within five steps, I have my original PHB, and then a bunch of other odds and ends. wtf is the manual of the planes doing here?
I haven't' picked up the old PHB, but I should note that I never did the B/X sets. The reason that I have this all in reach is that I am converting stuff -- so I have been staring at the style.
That is absolutely the old B/X. 5e is not descended from B/X. It is descended from AD&D. To those that came after the end of BECMI during the 3/3.5 era, and later folks, that distinction is pretty meaningless.
Tom Moldvay did the stuff you are thinking of for Basic (the 76/77 era issue). Schick did the mechanical stuff. Cook's Expert set took that and moved forward. Dave Cook is the one that handles the really complicated stuff fairly well, because he created really complicated stuff.
BECMI was Mentzer. He was really good about that kind of thing as well.
Gygax was... ...not.
Now, this matters to us long term players (which sounds way better than old farts) because during that era, it was two completely different games that claimed familial similarity and led to a lot of infighting (especially over space to play) and crap like my own lingering bias. It really is two very different ways of looking at the games.
Moldvay and Schick were the Mystara folks, and it was a much, much simpler version of the ideas around AD&D, and slanted for Mystara, a world influenced by ERB, Howard, and Verne.
AD&D was the (then) more recent stuff inspired, Greyhawk setting. Flavor, profile, even the understanding of what fantasy was different. Cook's work on Oriental Adventures is pretty close, but that's because it was essentially a brand new Player's Handbook, for what was really a different world entirely at the time.
All of which is in my head because some of the folks I have talked to, and I have been using the old 1e/2e era books for a point of reference. That DMG? I have bookmarks for certain materials for a crafting system marked. (1e did not have a real crafting system, either).
indeed, if anything 5e took some of that style of conversational writing and mixed it with the "here's the facts and figures" style of AD&D (3.5, really, because that was their baby and they don't give a rat's ass about what came before them) and they are all very different people.
As JustaFarmer points out, the DMG is a mess. The PHB is a little better, but also a mess (some of the important rules have no heading, and are merely an aside, casually mentioned). I have a deep and abiding dislike for PF, so won't comment there.
I have never had a hard time teaching any version of D&D, because I don't bother with rulebooks. I just explain it to them as they create a character and go through a simple dungeon trip (town to dungeon and back again). In full, if everyone were to show up in a single session, my group would have 37 members ranging in age from 10 to 60. And I am the one who teaches the new folks to play. in that simple, very basic experience, I end up showing them the basics. Then they can go and read and start down that boring path to min-maxers, lol.
I think one thing a lot of long player-type folks agree on is that the subclass model is out of hand. The playing of higher level characters is just as boring for many as it was in 5e (because designing higher level play is hard once you step outside the dungeon crawl paradigm). The current combat system was designed 20 years ago, and has just been added on to piecemeal ever since (it is all a form of the old d20 system).
So strong is my group's feelings about that they told me to find a way around the subclass model. Still keep it 5e, but no subclasses. We have been testing that out for a year, updating it, testing it, and last night I listened in while these new classes did some of the published adventures (I don't DM my playtesting sessions).
It does simplify play, so the subclasses make the game harder. For us.
5e is a "soft" game. On purpose. We like "crunch" -- but not a ton of it. A bit more resource monitoring, a bit more risk/reward stuff that gives us a feel of actually being in a story. I said this elsewhere, but I had to really work hard to find ways to do things because I wasn't allowed to use anything written between 1920 and 1980 as a basis for anything in my world -- and D&D is built on stuff that came about in that era.
So I have a likely 1200 plus page book for it. I will never expect my players to read all of it. And I do have to organize it properly, lol. Even breaking it down into the chunks isn't going to help all that much, lol. But it won't need to.
Because the best way to learn to play, imo, is still to sit down, even one on one, and run a town to single level dungeon and back again adventure. Learn the character sheet, learn the rolls, all of it, you learn as you go. Long session, but super worth it.
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
Well, flat out, if D&D ever did that again, I would be out.
never been an edition that didn’t have crib sheets. Never will be: the mechanics have too many variables. The only way o get rid of them is to go to an even simpler system, that erases the variables and as all the games out there that do that have shown, not everyone likes that.
I will grant the better organized bit, but to say they don’t have the rules down right is kinda iffy. I mean, WotC did t create DDB, they have t even really had it that long, and the programmers they got for it almost certainly still haven’t learned all the code behind it. So holding them responsible for bad design of the site is unrealistic and bad form.
The books were written for new players to learn the game in a very basic style and approach — they are meant to give 12 year olds a way to grasp the game, flat out. Language is a bit more than common for that group, but the structure and layout aren’t.
that isn’t a problem for the majority of players, only for a minority of them. And they can’t please both.
How long has it been since you picked up the basic set? Or the AD&D PHB?
I can't remember which, but it starts of with, (paraphrasing)
"Hi! Welcome to this game. Do you like to imagine fighting dragons or being a powerful wizard?
Here's a character. He's called a fighter. Don't worry about anything else yet. Here's a setting. Here's a monster. Let's walk through how this combat thing goes and while we do this, we'll mention briefly these stat things and through combat how they work.
Did you survive combat? if so, awesome! if not, well feel free to try again or move on with this book.
Did you like that bit of combat? Well here's more of that adventure designed for a single person set up like a choose your own adventure. DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. We'll get into more rules soon enough.
Ok. Still here? Let's get into more about those stats and what the mean. Here's what character options do...."
I'm pretty sure it was Basic.
The thing is, it gave time to learn and progress into harder rulesets. It was designed that way, and you weren't sitting around at the lowest levels forever either. (xp progression being exponential IIRC, although I may be confusing basic with AD&D at this point, you had to double your XP per level you gained).
There's a care and consideration in knowing your players are new and that there's a LOT of rules back then that's lacking.
But then maybe that part IS a DM issue and a community issue and because it starts with the PHB and DMG, a formatting issue as well.
I'm in a bit of a strange situation. I play mainly because of family (though I don't play WITH family). I started 5e because the younger generation has interest in it, and because of a death in the family, I am set to inherit one of the older generation's copies of the AD&D books. I'm not going to deny there's nostalgia to it as well, but.. well pick up those old copies again (if you have them), dust them off and look at them and see what's different. Not so much in rules or specific spells or what have you, just the ethos and presentation. It's worth the look back.
I play/DM 5e, DM 1e AD&D, and play Pathfinder 2e, all in the same week, every week. 1e is WAY WAY WAY easier to learn than 5e. That being said, the 1e DMG is a work of genius, albeit one that desperately needs an editor, for ease of access to information. Pathfinder 2e, I know maybe 10% of the rules, but it is STILL easier to play a char in that, and teach someone the basics, than 5e D&D. 5e mechanics are far too complicated for a new player to grasp easily.
I have actually read the 5e DMG. It can be a truly rich game, if DM's actually implemented much that was in there. But wotc made different choices long ago. Instead of focusing on encouraging people to read the DMG and PHB, and understanding what was actually in the texts, instead it was decided to to constantly pump out new classes and sub-classes, ignoring how this increases complexity and all the "synergies" that were not seen at the time that end up breaking games.
In a world where games like Rolemaster, Palladium/Rifts, 3.0/3.5 and Pathfinder 1e exist, the idea that 5e is so very complex is ludicrous. And WoTC constantly pumps out new classes and sub-classes? Compared to what games? That’s not even true of 5e versus older D&D editions.
I’ve gotta stop looking at this dog’s breakfast. Peoples’ complaints do not reflect reality. They are also often internally contradictory. How can combat in older editions be simultaneously more fun by adding powerful magic items and unaffected by adding powerful magic items? Most of the complaints about 5e are nonsensical and the answers I get when I question them boil down to “That’s how it is. Trust me, I’ve been playing for a long time, I know” from people who do not have more experience than me and who clearly do not know. Like what game are you guys even playing??
I think one thing a lot of long player-type folks agree on is that the subclass model is out of hand. The playing of higher level characters is just as boring for many as it was in 5e (because designing higher level play is hard once you step outside the dungeon crawl paradigm). The current combat system was designed 20 years ago, and has just been added on to piecemeal ever since (it is all a form of the old d20 system).
So strong is my group's feelings about that they told me to find a way around the subclass model. Still keep it 5e, but no subclasses. We have been testing that out for a year, updating it, testing it, and last night I listened in while these new classes did some of the published adventures (I don't DM my playtesting sessions).
It does simplify play, so the subclasses make the game harder. For us.
5e is a "soft" game. On purpose. We like "crunch" -- but not a ton of it. A bit more resource monitoring, a bit more risk/reward stuff that gives us a feel of actually being in a story. I said this elsewhere, but I had to really work hard to find ways to do things because I wasn't allowed to use anything written between 1920 and 1980 as a basis for anything in my world -- and D&D is built on stuff that came about in that era.
So I have a likely 1200 plus page book for it. I will never expect my players to read all of it. And I do have to organize it properly, lol. Even breaking it down into the chunks isn't going to help all that much, lol. But it won't need to.
Because the best way to learn to play, imo, is still to sit down, even one on one, and run a town to single level dungeon and back again adventure. Learn the character sheet, learn the rolls, all of it, you learn as you go. Long session, but super worth it.
I have done the same. I have not actually play-tested it, but I am pulling elements from 1e, Pathfinder, Scarlet Heroes, and Call of Cthulhu into a 5e framework. Re: Subclasses, and classes, there are far less classes and now no more than 4 subclasses per class. All subclasses chosen at 3rd level. Many players would be VERY upset about that.
Fighter: Battlemaster, Paladin, Ranger
Cleric: Life, War, Druid
Sorcerer: one each for the 4 elements
Wizard: One, since everything is basically Evocation
Rogue: Scout, Thief, and Bard
So many classes are put back where they belong, as subclasses, and some are just gone. For Warlocks, upon DM discretion, and if a PC has encountered something or someone along the way, starting at 4th level, Warlock based ASI's are available.
But the brutal fact is that most players have no interested in playing chars with lesser abilities than exist today. 6e is doubling down on creating more powerful chars, because that is where the money is. DM's may hate it, but wotc has no interest anymore in keeping DM's happy.
I’ve gotta stop looking at this dog’s breakfast. Peoples’ complaints do not reflect reality. They are also often internally contradictory. How can combat in older editions be simultaneously more fun by adding powerful magic items and unaffected by adding powerful magic items? Most of the complaints about 5e are nonsensical and the answers I get when I question them boil down to “That’s how it is. Trust me, I’ve been playing for a long time, I know” from people who do not have more experience than me and who clearly do not know. Like what game are you guys even playing??
That in itself is the summation of this game.
Absolutely everyone is playing their own variation based off their interpretation of rules as written as well as rules as intended and every single table varies from every other one.
My DM's choose differently than I do on interpretations even though we pull from the same rules.
I just respect my DM rather than telling them I'm right and they're just nso terribly terribly wrong.... ;)
I answered what games I play in my 1st sentence. You can tack on Scarlet Heroes as well. As for your hatred of older and superior versions of D&D and other games, unless someone plays them, that person won't understand.
But anyway, no doubt Pathfinder 2e (I heard bad things about 1e with broken mechanics) WILL lead to far more complex mechanics, and crazy powerful chars. BUT....to START playing the game does not require anywhere the depth of knowledge that 5e does. The 3 action rule is dead simple. The char selection is probably on par with 5e, and will ramp up. But the other joy in Pathfinder is that the monsters and encounters are brutally tough and PC death is almost on par with 1e D&D. That cannot be said for 5e.
I think one thing a lot of long player-type folks agree on is that the subclass model is out of hand. The playing of higher level characters is just as boring for many as it was in 5e (because designing higher level play is hard once you step outside the dungeon crawl paradigm). The current combat system was designed 20 years ago, and has just been added on to piecemeal ever since (it is all a form of the old d20 system).
So strong is my group's feelings about that they told me to find a way around the subclass model. Still keep it 5e, but no subclasses. We have been testing that out for a year, updating it, testing it, and last night I listened in while these new classes did some of the published adventures (I don't DM my playtesting sessions).
It does simplify play, so the subclasses make the game harder. For us.
5e is a "soft" game. On purpose. We like "crunch" -- but not a ton of it. A bit more resource monitoring, a bit more risk/reward stuff that gives us a feel of actually being in a story. I said this elsewhere, but I had to really work hard to find ways to do things because I wasn't allowed to use anything written between 1920 and 1980 as a basis for anything in my world -- and D&D is built on stuff that came about in that era.
So I have a likely 1200 plus page book for it. I will never expect my players to read all of it. And I do have to organize it properly, lol. Even breaking it down into the chunks isn't going to help all that much, lol. But it won't need to.
Because the best way to learn to play, imo, is still to sit down, even one on one, and run a town to single level dungeon and back again adventure. Learn the character sheet, learn the rolls, all of it, you learn as you go. Long session, but super worth it.
I have done the same. I have not actually play-tested it, but I am pulling elements from 1e, Pathfinder, Scarlet Heroes, and Call of Cthulhu into a 5e framework. Re: Subclasses, and classes, there are far less classes and now no more than 4 subclasses per class. All subclasses chosen at 3rd level. Many players would be VERY upset about that.
Fighter: Battlemaster, Paladin, Ranger
Cleric: Life, War, Druid
Sorcerer: one each for the 4 elements
Wizard: One, since everything is basically Evocation
Rogue: Scout, Thief, and Bard
So many classes are put back where they belong, as subclasses, and some are just gone. For Warlocks, upon DM discretion, and if a PC has encountered something or someone along the way, starting at 4th level, Warlock based ASI's are available.
But the brutal fact is that most players have no interested in playing chars with lesser abilities than exist today. 6e is doubling down on creating more powerful chars, because that is where the money is. DM's may hate it, but wotc has no interest anymore in keeping DM's happy.
That last line is a bit of an exaggeration (DM's are where the money comes from, for the most part, and make up never more than a fifth of total players), and additionally they haven't done any "first looks" at the changes in the DMG or MM, so also premature.
Note: it is officially not 6e. It is officially One D&D, and the goal is backwards compatibility, and they are not overtly changing core mechanics. At best, it is a 5.5e, lol.
I have 17 classes, no subclasses, and took all the special abilities from all the classes and subclasses and made them what is roughly (very) analogous to Feats -- except for a very central set for each class that defines that class. I don't have traditional sorcerers or warlocks and no blood knights and no barbarians or druids -- but players of them can still find a home if they look, lol.
I also have expanded possible types of damage, types of actions (including martial arts and brawling), types of conditions (and use them extensively), proficiencies and skills, and: added in a vehicle system, added to mounted (for earth, air and sea), added to flying and swimming and burrowing, added a crafting system, shifted entirely to a spell points system, reset Advancement, CR, Encounter Design, assembled a Psionics counterpart that separates entirely from magic (no telepathy spells), and tied everything down to the world itself so that it has a place and a reason to exist in the world. And playtested the hell out of all of it except the crafting and mounted systems, lol.
All of that, and if you sit down to play, it is still very much recognizable as 5e, lol. Worked very hard not to mess with the core mechanics, merely build on and deepen them. Deadline for completion is Nov 30. After which I get a month rest before we start the new campaign that uses all of it.
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 answered what games I play in my 1st sentence. You can tack on Scarlet Heroes as well. As for your hatred of older and superior versions of D&D and other games, unless someone plays them, that person won't understand.
But anyway, no doubt Pathfinder 2e (I heard bad things about 1e with broken mechanics) WILL lead to far more complex mechanics, and crazy powerful chars. BUT....to START playing the game does not require anywhere the depth of knowledge that 5e does. The 3 action rule is dead simple. The char selection is probably on par with 5e, and will ramp up. But the other joy in Pathfinder is that the monsters and encounters are brutally tough and PC death is almost on par with 1e D&D. That cannot be said for 5e.
"But the other joy in Pathfinder is that the monsters and encounters are brutally tough and PC death is almost on par with 1e D&D. That cannot be said for 5e unless you have a competent DM who wants to make an encounter as deadly as 1e D&D, because it is pretty easy to do so."
Fixed that for you.
Anyone who says you cannot make 5e brutal and tough is really just admitting they are not capable DMs or that they are players who have not been able to find a DM who they vibe with. 5e gives plenty of tools to make it brutal--from monsters that can deal huge chunks of damage in single blows, to plenty of attacks that can deal massive amounts of damage even if the player saves, to adding smaller monsters with multi-attack who can finish off a PC in two hits once that player goes down. It is REALLY easy to make an encounter that has all the speed and brutality of 5e--you just need to know how to make it.
Where you place a burden is an important part of any rule system--and someone always bears the burden of having to adjust the rules to work for them. For decades, the burden fell on those who wanted a more easy, lower-risk, story-driven game to adjust the system. Sometimes they complained about it, but they still played D&D, and they managed to adjust the game to suit what they wanted to play.
The burden has now shifted to those who want a harder game to adjust the game. Most of them are capable of doing it. Unfortunately, as with any situation where someone once had the easy path and now have to put in an (extremely minimum) amount of effort, there are a lot of folks who come out of the woodworks to complain. Rather than adjust their own game--as everyone else has had to do for decades--they just bemoan the fact they might have to actually think before designing encounters. Sometimes that is for innocent reasons--folks who have been set in their ways for years and might have a hard time adjusting. Sometimes it is less stellar ones--people who are too lazy to change and too selfish to realize the majority of players want something else and they, as the minority group, should bear the burden of adjusting the system.
In any case, 5e is not really the problem--someone choosing not to use 5e for the type of game they want to play is the problem.
I’ve gotta stop looking at this dog’s breakfast. Peoples’ complaints do not reflect reality. They are also often internally contradictory. How can combat in older editions be simultaneously more fun by adding powerful magic items and unaffected by adding powerful magic items? Most of the complaints about 5e are nonsensical and the answers I get when I question them boil down to “That’s how it is. Trust me, I’ve been playing for a long time, I know” from people who do not have more experience than me and who clearly do not know. Like what game are you guys even playing??
That in itself is the summation of this game.
Absolutely everyone is playing their own variation based off their interpretation of rules as written as well as rules as intended and every single table varies from every other one.
My DM's choose differently than I do on interpretations even though we pull from the same rules.
I just respect my DM rather than telling them I'm right and they're just nso terribly terribly wrong.... ;)
And yet...
That is the intent of the design and one of the deepest principles of the game, lol.
It has been that way since 1979 when I started, and was that way even among the in-house games (Cook's, Shick's, Gygax's, and that other one I cannot remember her name) long before then. None of them used RAI or RAW as DMs.
And it is one of the reasons why so many folks come here and post about an idea or a thing that happened and get other people's thoughts on it -- they want to win an argument in a game.
Make it your ownis the foundational precept for all DMs.
There is no wrong way to DM or rule on the rules as a DM in your own game.
That's why it gets me in trouble when I hop into the rules and mechanics forum here, lol. I apply that rule even there. They don't like it, because they are "only talking about the 'written rules'" and that's all that matters to them.
I keep telling people that the only things you can't screw with are spells and monsters, lol. I should probably add central core combat (roll to hit, roll damage) to that, but I tend to think folks already know that.
Earlier I spoke about how B/X were very different games from AD&D. So different. They were still D&D. 2e was a bit different from them. 3e/3.5e was different yet again -- so different I still remember the complaints from 1e players, lol. 4e threw it all out the window and was even more different again. 5e is now so different from 1e it might as well be a completely different game.
All of them are still D&D, and just like all those tables, they all have different rules.
Because D&D is a framework for us to develop our own games. Always has been -- going back to the night Gygax sat in Arneson's house and experienced the whole idea of imaginative role play for the first time.
to paraphrase a dead guy: "That's how my Mentor did it, that's how I do it, and its worked out pretty well so far..."
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 answered what games I play in my 1st sentence. You can tack on Scarlet Heroes as well. As for your hatred of older and superior versions of D&D and other games, unless someone plays them, that person won't understand.
But anyway, no doubt Pathfinder 2e (I heard bad things about 1e with broken mechanics) WILL lead to far more complex mechanics, and crazy powerful chars. BUT....to START playing the game does not require anywhere the depth of knowledge that 5e does. The 3 action rule is dead simple. The char selection is probably on par with 5e, and will ramp up. But the other joy in Pathfinder is that the monsters and encounters are brutally tough and PC death is almost on par with 1e D&D. That cannot be said for 5e.
"But the other joy in Pathfinder is that the monsters and encounters are brutally tough and PC death is almost on par with 1e D&D. That cannot be said for 5e unless you have a competent DM who wants to make an encounter as deadly as 1e D&D, because it is pretty easy to do so."
Fixed that for you.
Anyone who says you cannot make 5e brutal and tough is really just admitting they are not capable DMs or that they are players who have not been able to find a DM who they vibe with. 5e gives plenty of tools to make it brutal--from monsters that can deal huge chunks of damage in single blows, to plenty of attacks that can deal massive amounts of damage even if the player saves, to adding smaller monsters with multi-attack who can finish off a PC in two hits once that player goes down. It is REALLY easy to make an encounter that has all the speed and brutality of 5e--you just need to know how to make it.
Where you place a burden is an important part of any rule system--and someone always bears the burden of having to adjust the rules to work for them. For decades, the burden fell on those who wanted a more easy, lower-risk, story-driven game to adjust the system. Sometimes they complained about it, but they still played D&D, and they managed to adjust the game to suit what they wanted to play.
The burden has now shifted to those who want a harder game to adjust the game. Most of them are capable of doing it. Unfortunately, as with any situation where someone once had the easy path and now have to put in an (extremely minimum) amount of effort, there are a lot of folks who come out of the woodworks to complain. Rather than adjust their own game--as everyone else has had to do for decades--they just bemoan the fact they might have to actually think before designing encounters. Sometimes that is for innocent reasons--folks who have been set in their ways for years and might have a hard time adjusting. Sometimes it is less stellar ones--people who are too lazy to change and too selfish to realize the majority of players want something else and they, as the minority group, should bear the burden of adjusting the system.
In any case, 5e is not really the problem--someone choosing not to use 5e for the type of game they want to play is the problem.
"There are two types of 5e DMs: Rot Grubbers and Whiffle Ballers."
Anyone who thinks that 20th level PCs are hard to take down has likely never sat down and thought about the (insert Palpatine voice) power of a rot grub.
I will step up and say that if you are going to say minority group, please add in this context. Because the same argument is used in a much broader way in other contexts. Also, it is license to use a rhetorical set of tools ideally situated for this environment.
I can think of a few people who played 1e very much like how 5e is played today that I knew. And, as i mentioned elsewhere again, the vast majority of players (meaning, in this case, over 75% of them) want something as easy as 5e from D&D.
It is a sour grapes thread, and I am participating, but it is key to remember that about us: these are our sour grapes.
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
How can combat in older editions be simultaneously more fun by adding powerful magic items and unaffected by adding powerful magic items? Most of the complaints about 5e are nonsensical and the answers I get when I question them boil down to “That’s how it is. Trust me, I’ve been playing for a long time, I know” from people who do not have more experience than me and who clearly do not know. Like what game are you guys even playing??
Depends on the critters and the circumstances, lol.
You could freely hand out a +5 magical sword to characters if they were up against a creature immune to magical weapons. Or that rusted them. Or that sucked the magic from them.
You could be up a creek without a paddle if you wanted to use the red dragon against the same folks, though.
Simultaneously no effect and huge effect.
But also, the whole "advancement" thing. In earlier editions you needed magical items to compete, and you don't today (on purpose and by design). imo, it only changes the role playing experience. But at the same time, Imma give out magical items in 5e and it will not break the game because I am no longer bound by the comical idea that there is either a current bounding system or any degree of balance, lol.
Monsters are my PCs. I will grow them.
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
That would be extremely early years of D&D like an original box set early. D&D adventures by the time 1st edition was middle-aged varied wildly from classic dungeon crawls, hex crawls, campaign adventures, dominion management adventures, even crazy stuff like linear railroads stuff where you would literally play through the Dragonlance novels using the Dragonlance novel characters and essentially following alone a pre-determined story. I don't think I could think of anything that wasn't tried during the 1e era, they did everything twice over.
The first of the Dragonlance novels was published in 2007. That is well beyond `Extremely Early` but rather in the late 3.5 era, just before 4e was published.
Say what?
1987 is closer, and I'm pretty sure it was a few years before that. Still not 'extremely early', but he didn't say they were.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just for you Kotath. I did use DDB. Two different ways. And a book search.
And my table uses pen and paper
At least you are using a hard copy. I truly wonder how many players and DM's have actually read the entire PHB and/or DMG (DM's only). If they did, the gameplay at that table would be infinitely enriched. Imagine for every hour people spent watching mercer et al butcher the rules, the same people spent 30 minutes reading the PHB.
It was a presentation error at first, along with a problem on clarification. I suggested that it be given a better heading and, rather than being presented as to what constitutes one (spelling it out explicitly "this is a bonus action" per each instance that something is a bonus action, having at least one or two things that are simply given as bonus actions so that people are familiar with them and not asking "oh, what are my bonus actions? do I have any?"
Which has been a constant question that I have to ask my players as they forget. Then they get them confused because the rogue gets the disengage and dash and hide as bonus actions so my cleric tries to do them as well, because they don't get that it's class specific. My fighter tries to do an unarmed attack as a onus action because they aren't clear on it and they feel like they have jack shit to do and the try using an unarmed attack as a bonus action, and after searching for it, I just give up and tell him he can do so, mostly because I'm tired at that point and I want to have the game progress, the dude wants to do more than swing a sword once and be done, and I really have no argument as to why he can't punch or head butt a guy with a second action.
And it's not the first instance of having something that requires searching because it's just something they didn't think to come up with. Like unarmed fighting to begin with. And does an unarmed strike count as a simple weapon, which would allow two weapon fighting? Oh yeah, they changed the type to LIGHT and not SIMPLE. When that change happened? IDK...
Here's my search results from "unarmed combat" (if it shows)
It's complete garbage.
Is it formatting? yes. Completely, but it doesn't change that this is 50 years into a game and they haven't fixed the basics yet, whether it's the basics of formatting or otherwise.
https://www.kassoon.com/dnd/5e/crib-sheet/
google "cheat sheet" and start looking for ones that will help your players.
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
Yeah, I know there's plenty of them, but that's not the point, or perhaps it is if we need 3rd party crib sheets.
They often talk of getting info from youtube channels and being familiar with play, and they have other games and other tables.
Which compounds it when you consider each DM is going to have their own style and way of deciding rules.
Which is also why crib sheets suck because all the people involved here don't get the basics of the rules down right and "fudge it". Just trying to get a comprehensive list of items or spells off the net will often result in already "pruned" lists with spells others don't like taken out. You have to take 3 or 4 of them to compare and find the "extras" and then cross reference with DDB, so you can get a generally complete list then fill in the blanks. (all of this is work to get the OG list so I can curate it on my own while also keeping a master)
Which goes back to OSR's point about modularity. A basic version, then an advanced, then an expert.
Well, flat out, if D&D ever did that again, I would be out.
never been an edition that didn’t have crib sheets. Never will be: the mechanics have too many variables. The only way o get rid of them is to go to an even simpler system, that erases the variables and as all the games out there that do that have shown, not everyone likes that.
I will grant the better organized bit, but to say they don’t have the rules down right is kinda iffy. I mean, WotC did t create DDB, they have t even really had it that long, and the programmers they got for it almost certainly still haven’t learned all the code behind it. So holding them responsible for bad design of the site is unrealistic and bad form.
The books were written for new players to learn the game in a very basic style and approach — they are meant to give 12 year olds a way to grasp the game, flat out. Language is a bit more than common for that group, but the structure and layout aren’t.
that isn’t a problem for the majority of players, only for a minority of them. And they can’t please both.
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
How long has it been since you picked up the basic set? Or the AD&D PHB?
I can't remember which, but it starts of with, (paraphrasing)
"Hi! Welcome to this game. Do you like to imagine fighting dragons or being a powerful wizard?
Here's a character. He's called a fighter. Don't worry about anything else yet. Here's a setting. Here's a monster. Let's walk through how this combat thing goes and while we do this, we'll mention briefly these stat things and through combat how they work.
Did you survive combat? if so, awesome! if not, well feel free to try again or move on with this book.
Did you like that bit of combat? Well here's more of that adventure designed for a single person set up like a choose your own adventure. DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
We'll get into more rules soon enough.
Ok. Still here? Let's get into more about those stats and what the mean. Here's what character options do...."
I'm pretty sure it was Basic.
The thing is, it gave time to learn and progress into harder rulesets. It was designed that way, and you weren't sitting around at the lowest levels forever either. (xp progression being exponential IIRC, although I may be confusing basic with AD&D at this point, you had to double your XP per level you gained).
There's a care and consideration in knowing your players are new and that there's a LOT of rules back then that's lacking.
But then maybe that part IS a DM issue and a community issue and because it starts with the PHB and DMG, a formatting issue as well.
I'm in a bit of a strange situation. I play mainly because of family (though I don't play WITH family). I started 5e because the younger generation has interest in it, and because of a death in the family, I am set to inherit one of the older generation's copies of the AD&D books. I'm not going to deny there's nostalgia to it as well, but.. well pick up those old copies again (if you have them), dust them off and look at them and see what's different. Not so much in rules or specific spells or what have you, just the ethos and presentation. It's worth the look back.
I play/DM 5e, DM 1e AD&D, and play Pathfinder 2e, all in the same week, every week. 1e is WAY WAY WAY easier to learn than 5e. That being said, the 1e DMG is a work of genius, albeit one that desperately needs an editor, for ease of access to information. Pathfinder 2e, I know maybe 10% of the rules, but it is STILL easier to play a char in that, and teach someone the basics, than 5e D&D. 5e mechanics are far too complicated for a new player to grasp easily.
I have actually read the 5e DMG. It can be a truly rich game, if DM's actually implemented much that was in there. But wotc made different choices long ago. Instead of focusing on encouraging people to read the DMG and PHB, and understanding what was actually in the texts, instead it was decided to to constantly pump out new classes and sub-classes, ignoring how this increases complexity and all the "synergies" that were not seen at the time that end up breaking games.
100%.
Within reach, I have the 1e DMG. My original, in fact. Within five steps, I have my original PHB, and then a bunch of other odds and ends. wtf is the manual of the planes doing here?
I haven't' picked up the old PHB, but I should note that I never did the B/X sets. The reason that I have this all in reach is that I am converting stuff -- so I have been staring at the style.
That is absolutely the old B/X. 5e is not descended from B/X. It is descended from AD&D. To those that came after the end of BECMI during the 3/3.5 era, and later folks, that distinction is pretty meaningless.
Tom Moldvay did the stuff you are thinking of for Basic (the 76/77 era issue). Schick did the mechanical stuff. Cook's Expert set took that and moved forward. Dave Cook is the one that handles the really complicated stuff fairly well, because he created really complicated stuff.
BECMI was Mentzer. He was really good about that kind of thing as well.
Gygax was... ...not.
Now, this matters to us long term players (which sounds way better than old farts) because during that era, it was two completely different games that claimed familial similarity and led to a lot of infighting (especially over space to play) and crap like my own lingering bias. It really is two very different ways of looking at the games.
Moldvay and Schick were the Mystara folks, and it was a much, much simpler version of the ideas around AD&D, and slanted for Mystara, a world influenced by ERB, Howard, and Verne.
AD&D was the (then) more recent stuff inspired, Greyhawk setting. Flavor, profile, even the understanding of what fantasy was different. Cook's work on Oriental Adventures is pretty close, but that's because it was essentially a brand new Player's Handbook, for what was really a different world entirely at the time.
All of which is in my head because some of the folks I have talked to, and I have been using the old 1e/2e era books for a point of reference. That DMG? I have bookmarks for certain materials for a crafting system marked. (1e did not have a real crafting system, either).
indeed, if anything 5e took some of that style of conversational writing and mixed it with the "here's the facts and figures" style of AD&D (3.5, really, because that was their baby and they don't give a rat's ass about what came before them) and they are all very different people.
As JustaFarmer points out, the DMG is a mess. The PHB is a little better, but also a mess (some of the important rules have no heading, and are merely an aside, casually mentioned). I have a deep and abiding dislike for PF, so won't comment there.
I have never had a hard time teaching any version of D&D, because I don't bother with rulebooks. I just explain it to them as they create a character and go through a simple dungeon trip (town to dungeon and back again). In full, if everyone were to show up in a single session, my group would have 37 members ranging in age from 10 to 60. And I am the one who teaches the new folks to play. in that simple, very basic experience, I end up showing them the basics. Then they can go and read and start down that boring path to min-maxers, lol.
I think one thing a lot of long player-type folks agree on is that the subclass model is out of hand. The playing of higher level characters is just as boring for many as it was in 5e (because designing higher level play is hard once you step outside the dungeon crawl paradigm). The current combat system was designed 20 years ago, and has just been added on to piecemeal ever since (it is all a form of the old d20 system).
So strong is my group's feelings about that they told me to find a way around the subclass model. Still keep it 5e, but no subclasses. We have been testing that out for a year, updating it, testing it, and last night I listened in while these new classes did some of the published adventures (I don't DM my playtesting sessions).
It does simplify play, so the subclasses make the game harder. For us.
5e is a "soft" game. On purpose. We like "crunch" -- but not a ton of it. A bit more resource monitoring, a bit more risk/reward stuff that gives us a feel of actually being in a story. I said this elsewhere, but I had to really work hard to find ways to do things because I wasn't allowed to use anything written between 1920 and 1980 as a basis for anything in my world -- and D&D is built on stuff that came about in that era.
So I have a likely 1200 plus page book for it. I will never expect my players to read all of it. And I do have to organize it properly, lol. Even breaking it down into the chunks isn't going to help all that much, lol. But it won't need to.
Because the best way to learn to play, imo, is still to sit down, even one on one, and run a town to single level dungeon and back again adventure. Learn the character sheet, learn the rolls, all of it, you learn as you go. Long session, but super worth it.
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
In a world where games like Rolemaster, Palladium/Rifts, 3.0/3.5 and Pathfinder 1e exist, the idea that 5e is so very complex is ludicrous. And WoTC constantly pumps out new classes and sub-classes? Compared to what games? That’s not even true of 5e versus older D&D editions.
I’ve gotta stop looking at this dog’s breakfast. Peoples’ complaints do not reflect reality. They are also often internally contradictory. How can combat in older editions be simultaneously more fun by adding powerful magic items and unaffected by adding powerful magic items? Most of the complaints about 5e are nonsensical and the answers I get when I question them boil down to “That’s how it is. Trust me, I’ve been playing for a long time, I know” from people who do not have more experience than me and who clearly do not know. Like what game are you guys even playing??
I have done the same. I have not actually play-tested it, but I am pulling elements from 1e, Pathfinder, Scarlet Heroes, and Call of Cthulhu into a 5e framework. Re: Subclasses, and classes, there are far less classes and now no more than 4 subclasses per class. All subclasses chosen at 3rd level. Many players would be VERY upset about that.
Fighter: Battlemaster, Paladin, Ranger
Cleric: Life, War, Druid
Sorcerer: one each for the 4 elements
Wizard: One, since everything is basically Evocation
Rogue: Scout, Thief, and Bard
So many classes are put back where they belong, as subclasses, and some are just gone. For Warlocks, upon DM discretion, and if a PC has encountered something or someone along the way, starting at 4th level, Warlock based ASI's are available.
But the brutal fact is that most players have no interested in playing chars with lesser abilities than exist today. 6e is doubling down on creating more powerful chars, because that is where the money is. DM's may hate it, but wotc has no interest anymore in keeping DM's happy.
That in itself is the summation of this game.
Absolutely everyone is playing their own variation based off their interpretation of rules as written as well as rules as intended and every single table varies from every other one.
My DM's choose differently than I do on interpretations even though we pull from the same rules.
I just respect my DM rather than telling them I'm right and they're just nso terribly terribly wrong.... ;)
I answered what games I play in my 1st sentence. You can tack on Scarlet Heroes as well. As for your hatred of older and superior versions of D&D and other games, unless someone plays them, that person won't understand.
But anyway, no doubt Pathfinder 2e (I heard bad things about 1e with broken mechanics) WILL lead to far more complex mechanics, and crazy powerful chars. BUT....to START playing the game does not require anywhere the depth of knowledge that 5e does. The 3 action rule is dead simple. The char selection is probably on par with 5e, and will ramp up. But the other joy in Pathfinder is that the monsters and encounters are brutally tough and PC death is almost on par with 1e D&D. That cannot be said for 5e.
That last line is a bit of an exaggeration (DM's are where the money comes from, for the most part, and make up never more than a fifth of total players), and additionally they haven't done any "first looks" at the changes in the DMG or MM, so also premature.
Note: it is officially not 6e. It is officially One D&D, and the goal is backwards compatibility, and they are not overtly changing core mechanics. At best, it is a 5.5e, lol.
I have 17 classes, no subclasses, and took all the special abilities from all the classes and subclasses and made them what is roughly (very) analogous to Feats -- except for a very central set for each class that defines that class. I don't have traditional sorcerers or warlocks and no blood knights and no barbarians or druids -- but players of them can still find a home if they look, lol.
I also have expanded possible types of damage, types of actions (including martial arts and brawling), types of conditions (and use them extensively), proficiencies and skills, and: added in a vehicle system, added to mounted (for earth, air and sea), added to flying and swimming and burrowing, added a crafting system, shifted entirely to a spell points system, reset Advancement, CR, Encounter Design, assembled a Psionics counterpart that separates entirely from magic (no telepathy spells), and tied everything down to the world itself so that it has a place and a reason to exist in the world. And playtested the hell out of all of it except the crafting and mounted systems, lol.
All of that, and if you sit down to play, it is still very much recognizable as 5e, lol. Worked very hard not to mess with the core mechanics, merely build on and deepen them. Deadline for completion is Nov 30. After which I get a month rest before we start the new campaign that uses all of it.
(edited to clean up typing)
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
"But the other joy in Pathfinder is that the monsters and encounters are brutally tough and PC death is almost on par with 1e D&D. That cannot be said for 5e unless you have a competent DM who wants to make an encounter as deadly as 1e D&D, because it is pretty easy to do so."
Fixed that for you.
Anyone who says you cannot make 5e brutal and tough is really just admitting they are not capable DMs or that they are players who have not been able to find a DM who they vibe with. 5e gives plenty of tools to make it brutal--from monsters that can deal huge chunks of damage in single blows, to plenty of attacks that can deal massive amounts of damage even if the player saves, to adding smaller monsters with multi-attack who can finish off a PC in two hits once that player goes down. It is REALLY easy to make an encounter that has all the speed and brutality of 5e--you just need to know how to make it.
Where you place a burden is an important part of any rule system--and someone always bears the burden of having to adjust the rules to work for them. For decades, the burden fell on those who wanted a more easy, lower-risk, story-driven game to adjust the system. Sometimes they complained about it, but they still played D&D, and they managed to adjust the game to suit what they wanted to play.
The burden has now shifted to those who want a harder game to adjust the game. Most of them are capable of doing it. Unfortunately, as with any situation where someone once had the easy path and now have to put in an (extremely minimum) amount of effort, there are a lot of folks who come out of the woodworks to complain. Rather than adjust their own game--as everyone else has had to do for decades--they just bemoan the fact they might have to actually think before designing encounters. Sometimes that is for innocent reasons--folks who have been set in their ways for years and might have a hard time adjusting. Sometimes it is less stellar ones--people who are too lazy to change and too selfish to realize the majority of players want something else and they, as the minority group, should bear the burden of adjusting the system.
In any case, 5e is not really the problem--someone choosing not to use 5e for the type of game they want to play is the problem.
And yet...
That is the intent of the design and one of the deepest principles of the game, lol.
It has been that way since 1979 when I started, and was that way even among the in-house games (Cook's, Shick's, Gygax's, and that other one I cannot remember her name) long before then. None of them used RAI or RAW as DMs.
And it is one of the reasons why so many folks come here and post about an idea or a thing that happened and get other people's thoughts on it -- they want to win an argument in a game.
Make it your own is the foundational precept for all DMs.
There is no wrong way to DM or rule on the rules as a DM in your own game.
That's why it gets me in trouble when I hop into the rules and mechanics forum here, lol. I apply that rule even there. They don't like it, because they are "only talking about the 'written rules'" and that's all that matters to them.
I keep telling people that the only things you can't screw with are spells and monsters, lol. I should probably add central core combat (roll to hit, roll damage) to that, but I tend to think folks already know that.
Earlier I spoke about how B/X were very different games from AD&D. So different. They were still D&D. 2e was a bit different from them. 3e/3.5e was different yet again -- so different I still remember the complaints from 1e players, lol. 4e threw it all out the window and was even more different again. 5e is now so different from 1e it might as well be a completely different game.
All of them are still D&D, and just like all those tables, they all have different rules.
Because D&D is a framework for us to develop our own games. Always has been -- going back to the night Gygax sat in Arneson's house and experienced the whole idea of imaginative role play for the first time.
to paraphrase a dead guy: "That's how my Mentor did it, that's how I do it, and its worked out pretty well so far..."
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 are two types of 5e DMs: Rot Grubbers and Whiffle Ballers."
Anyone who thinks that 20th level PCs are hard to take down has likely never sat down and thought about the (insert Palpatine voice) power of a rot grub.
I will step up and say that if you are going to say minority group, please add in this context. Because the same argument is used in a much broader way in other contexts. Also, it is license to use a rhetorical set of tools ideally situated for this environment.
I can think of a few people who played 1e very much like how 5e is played today that I knew. And, as i mentioned elsewhere again, the vast majority of players (meaning, in this case, over 75% of them) want something as easy as 5e from D&D.
It is a sour grapes thread, and I am participating, but it is key to remember that about us: these are our sour grapes.
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
Depends on the critters and the circumstances, lol.
You could freely hand out a +5 magical sword to characters if they were up against a creature immune to magical weapons. Or that rusted them. Or that sucked the magic from them.
You could be up a creek without a paddle if you wanted to use the red dragon against the same folks, though.
Simultaneously no effect and huge effect.
But also, the whole "advancement" thing. In earlier editions you needed magical items to compete, and you don't today (on purpose and by design). imo, it only changes the role playing experience. But at the same time, Imma give out magical items in 5e and it will not break the game because I am no longer bound by the comical idea that there is either a current bounding system or any degree of balance, lol.
Monsters are my PCs. I will grow them.
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
Say what?
1987 is closer, and I'm pretty sure it was a few years before that. Still not 'extremely early', but he didn't say they were.