So those who invented the game saw it as a game with which we could do so much more ... but it's just a combat engine?
The mechanics of D&D are almost entirely a combat engine. This doesn't mean you can't use it for other purposes, people have been using it for other purposes for as long as the hobby existed, but you're largely not using the rules when you do so. 5th edition is not more that way than prior editions.
The mechanics of the game do almost entirely concern combat. But that was never my point. That's twice now you have completely ignored what I spelled out in my original post about how traditionally non-combat classes now have become more about combat and how this shows the game has increasingly become about combat. For all classes. Which was inevitable as soon as we began to see more and more influence from the MMORPG generation on the game.
You cannot tell me that a thief or a magic-user in 1st. Edition provided their particular skill sets and lack of combat ability relative to that of a fighter's were designed for combat. They obviously weren't. The same can't be said about a rogue who can hit as easily as any fighter. And do as much damage. Or about a wizard who can just spam damage round after round. This power creep within the classes and homogenization of the classes has pushed them all towards being combat classes. As if the game is more about combat than anything else. Because for many it is.
How has the game not become more about combat when every class has now become a combat class? Is it really of such importance? That each and every character be as useful as the fighter is in combat? Why? Should the fighter be given a patron that grants it spells and be highly proficient in CHA-based skills so it can be as useful as the party's warlock and bard are in moments their respective skill sets serve the party? Or is that different? Because? Because combat is just so important? Each and every other class now must be as capable as the fighter of hitting and doing damage every round? But the game hasn't become more about combat? I think you know very well the game has become more about combat. And that you like it that way. But you are only willing to admit one of these things. You like that the rogue can use what is traditionally its primary ability score to allow it to hit something as easily as the fighter. And to do as much damage. That wizards can just spam damage. Like this. Just don't want to admit these changes were obviously made to appeal to those for whom combat is such an essential and central part of the game. It has always been a 'combat engine'? Not really. Because a wealth of utility spells available for wizards and the skills available to thieves made the game one of exploration more than one of just fighting things. One of the tenets of old-school play is that the game even at its simplest and without all the possibilities of domain management et cetera is a game of exploration. Making every class a combat class because some people feel their character has to be capable in the one area of the game once the fighter's domain now makes it feel as if it is little more than combat engine.
What I dislike about DnD 2024 [REDACTED], is the sheer incompetence in distribution.
I have now been informed by my local game store that the Dungeon Master’s Guide I preordered months ago which, we were told, was due to be delivered this week is now being delayed to 24 December with no real explanation given other than they are powerless to do anything. Abysmal service. Whatever upgrades we have seen to the rules, it hasn’t been worth it for me. I wish I could have my money back.
So those who invented the game saw it as a game with which we could do so much more ... but it's just a combat engine?
The mechanics of D&D are almost entirely a combat engine. This doesn't mean you can't use it for other purposes, people have been using it for other purposes for as long as the hobby existed, but you're largely not using the rules when you do so. 5th edition is not more that way than prior editions.
The mechanics of the game do almost entirely concern combat. But that was never my point. That's twice now you have completely ignored what I spelled out in my original post about how traditionally non-combat classes now have become more about combat and how this shows the game has increasingly become about combat. For all classes. Which was inevitable as soon as we began to see more and more influence from the MMORPG generation on the game.
You cannot tell me that a thief or a magic-user in 1st. Edition provided their particular skill sets and lack of combat ability relative to that of a fighter's were designed for combat. They obviously weren't. The same can't be said about a rogue who can hit as easily as any fighter. And do as much damage. Or about a wizard who can just spam damage round after round. This power creep within the classes and homogenization of the classes has pushed them all towards being combat classes. As if the game is more about combat than anything else. Because for many it is.
How has the game not become more about combat when every class has now become a combat class? Is it really of such importance? That each and every character be as useful as the fighter is in combat? Why? Should the fighter be given a patron that grants it spells and be highly proficient in CHA-based skills so it can be as useful as the party's warlock and bard are in moments their respective skill sets serve the party? Or is that different? Because? Because combat is just so important? Each and every other class now must be as capable as the fighter of hitting and doing damage every round? But the game hasn't become more about combat? I think you know very well the game has become more about combat. And that you like it that way. But you are only willing to admit one of these things. You like that the rogue can use what is traditionally its primary ability score to allow it to hit something as easily as the fighter. And to do as much damage. That wizards can just spam damage. Like this. Just don't want to admit these changes were obviously made to appeal to those for whom combat is such an essential and central part of the game. It has always been a 'combat engine'? Not really. Because a wealth of utility spells available for wizards and the skills available to thieves made the game one of exploration more than one of just fighting things. One of the tenets of old-school play is that the game even at its simplest and without all the possibilities of domain management et cetera is a game of exploration. Making every class a combat class because some people feel their character has to be capable in the one area of the game once the fighter's domain now makes it feel as if it is little more than combat engine.
I’d say the game isn’t more about combat but it is more inclusive than it was in the past. Instead of the thief and magic user standing back to allow the fighter to handle the combat, they can participate. Instead of the fighter and magic user standing back while the thief goes off on their own to sneakily explore and find traps, they can participate. Instead of the magic user waving their ultimate cosmic power around to circumvent a ton of situations that the fighter and thief have no tools to deal with, they can participate. When the lines are softened between the class identities and abilities, no one has to stand around twiddling their thumbs when what needs to be done at any given moment is not in their wheelhouse. Nor do you have situations where people feel forced into playing certain classes to ensure all the roles are covered.
Regardless of edition, the game is only about combat as much as you make it about combat. There are plenty of weeks where there is no combat at all in my home game because we favour intrigue and diplomacy—there’s almost always a solution that doesn’t involve direct violence. Taking it even further, there are plenty of tables where combat is a rarity because roleplaying and in character conversations take up the vast majority of game time. If you choose to, you can have a game like that, where it doesn’t matter that a wizard can spam a cantrip for damage every combat round. The best part is that in 5e and unlike the previous rulesets you seem to pine for, no one else’s hands are tied if they want to play a game where it does matter that a wizard can spam a cantrip for damage every combat round.
To be fair, I can see the complaint that this "blurring of classes" means each class loses at least some of its identity. I don't think it's as stark as being portrayed by the loudest detractors in this thread (a sorcerer and a warlock have VERY different role-play opportunities, even if they are both CHA-based casters), but I don't see it as a problem that takes away from what made DnD, DnD. If you'll notice, they are also adding ways for the traditionally combat classes to participate in non-combat encounters. One could argue using that data that they are making the game LESS about combat.
The mechanics of the game do almost entirely concern combat. But that was never my point. That's twice now you have completely ignored what I spelled out in my original post about how traditionally non-combat classes now have become more about combat and how this shows the game has increasingly become about combat. For all classes. Which was inevitable as soon as we began to see more and more influence from the MMORPG generation on the game.
You cannot tell me that a thief or a magic-user in 1st. Edition provided their particular skill sets and lack of combat ability relative to that of a fighter's were designed for combat. They obviously weren't. The same can't be said about a rogue who can hit as easily as any fighter. And do as much damage. Or about a wizard who can just spam damage round after round. This power creep within the classes and homogenization of the classes has pushed them all towards being combat classes. As if the game is more about combat than anything else. Because for many it is.
How has the game not become more about combat when every class has now become a combat class? Is it really of such importance? That each and every character be as useful as the fighter is in combat? Why? Should the fighter be given a patron that grants it spells and be highly proficient in CHA-based skills so it can be as useful as the party's warlock and bard are in moments their respective skill sets serve the party? Or is that different? Because? Because combat is just so important? Each and every other class now must be as capable as the fighter of hitting and doing damage every round? But the game hasn't become more about combat? I think you know very well the game has become more about combat. And that you like it that way. But you are only willing to admit one of these things. You like that the rogue can use what is traditionally its primary ability score to allow it to hit something as easily as the fighter. And to do as much damage. That wizards can just spam damage. Like this. Just don't want to admit these changes were obviously made to appeal to those for whom combat is such an essential and central part of the game. It has always been a 'combat engine'? Not really. Because a wealth of utility spells available for wizards and the skills available to thieves made the game one of exploration more than one of just fighting things. One of the tenets of old-school play is that the game even at its simplest and without all the possibilities of domain management et cetera is a game of exploration. Making every class a combat class because some people feel their character has to be capable in the one area of the game once the fighter's domain now makes it feel as if it is little more than combat engine.
Let's say you're right, and the "MMORPG generation" have somehow shoved the game away from its enlightened combat-lite roots.
Why is that bad? Combat is fun. If I wanted to play a low-combat RPG, there are WAY better (and cheaper) options than D&D out there like FATE. Why is it bad that rogues can actually kill monsters now instead of Bilbo-cowering in the corner?
"Why should every class be useful in combat?" Because being the dead weight in your friend group is boring. Because every combat taking longer due to effectively being down a party member is tedious. Because the combat pillar is this game's focus (you're not going into dungeons / up to dragons just to talk most of the time.) And most of WotC's customer base like it that way, which is why this is and continues to be the #1 selling RPG. You're allowed to not like combat as much, but that is a modification you need to make at your table, not advocate to be forced on everyone else's.
Yeah I'm firmly of the belief that every class should be able to contribute meaningfully to every Pillar of D&D. They should do so in their own way, but they shouldn't be locked out of any of them. This is the ideal, of course, and the execution still needs some work, but I think overall the new rules are an improvement on closing gaps between classes in many regards. Combat capability has generally been evened out some, and utility options were added to classes that didn't have much before. Again, it's obviously not perfect, but it's better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I would note that "your PC is useless in this scene, feel free to go play video games" is not a good gaming experience, and many of the 'blurring' issues are intended to resolve that.
I’ll add that rigid distinctions end up forcing specific party compositions. I much prefer the current version where there’s lots of characters who can be the healer, or the lockpicker, etc. As opposed to when I used to play 1 and 2 e, and there was always this idea of, “well, who’s going to be the cleric this time” even if no one wanted to play one, the game basically required it.
All the talk of Pillars made me revisit my group's notes about it recently, and we have 5 (or 4, depending on how you count them) Pillars.
When we decided to abandoning the upgrade (much like many here are claiming to do today) from 2e to 3.x, we sat down and figured out what we liked and what we didn't. What came out was that we realized that we have a different expectations of the game, often based on what our collective experiences are of fantasy.
Based on those things, we ended up with pillars of PC Growth, Exploration, Roleplay, Discovery, and Combat. Of them, the hardest for most folks to achieve is the "discovery" part -- hard to discover new things about monsters and worlds when you use the same stuff over and over again, or everyone has access to the same books, etc). The one that we found we enjoyed the most was Character Growth -- that whole process of growing a character up over time, and making a story about them within the game -- earning your abilities, doing the things that feel like you achieved something and gained something out of ti, and then continuing to do so.
Combat is, generally speaking, only about 20% of our game -- and has been for over 20 years, and it isn't the game that makes it a big part of things, that's all on the players. The rules for combat and even the special abilities relating to combat are there because combat is complicated, not because it is a greater part of the whole game. Saying that because the rules are all about combat is like saying that chess is a game about moving pieces: however true it may be, it ignores that the game is about far, far more than that, and the rules exist to enable it as well as all the other stuff.
The different things that fed into this are the ways we all see and come to the game: Novels (where the hero has to overcome a personal issue in order to grow and learn), Films (where the challenges are always there), older video games & MMOs (where it is about the strong PC kicking ass and taking names), newer video games and anime (where it is about growing a PC into someone who kicks ass and takes names).
THe oldest players in my group often only had Novels and Films growing up, and they had a different vibe -- they weren't even the spectacles of special effects so many are today. Compare Krull or Beastmaster to stuff today, lol. Our imaginations are fueled by what we use, by what we draw from, by what we encounter -- and that impacts how we use our imaginations, as well.
My personal setting is literally premised on the idea of "what would D&D look like if none of the influences and inspirations for AD&D were ever used". Back in the 80's, among my peers then, that would have been akin to a crime (No Tolkien, no Moorcock, no Zelazny? Heathen!). But drawing from newer sources (and, again, ones not included in other editions) changes how one sees the game, without actually changing it in any meaningful way; it is just a different way of seeing Fantasy, as a whole.
Which is why I can have ships in space with air and pirates and dungeons on the planet and in an asteroid and more. All of it fantasy -- just a more wild version than people whose experience with and of fantasy is more narrow will know.
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
Also, every class having something to contribute to every pillar of the game isn't a new post 2024 thing, either. I'm pretty sure that's how it was supposed to be in 2014 5E as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Playing small groups, I'm all for not having completely walled classes. I don't think it would be playable if things were so rigid.
However, I do think they've blurred the line too much in some cases. Like we're at L12 and the Rogue can out out as much damage as a Fighter and can do a whole bunch of other stuff to boot. Sure, the Rogue has to have Advantage to keep pace, but there are so many ways for him to get it that he very rarely makes an attack that isn't with Advantage. Sure, his armour is weaker, but with all the tools that allows him to hide, he's rarely actually attacked or even can be attacked. If we had a Fighter, I wouldn't blame them for being frustrated because the Rogue has him beat outside of combat and competes with him in combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Playing small groups, I'm all for not having completely walled classes. I don't think it would be playable if things were so rigid.
However, I do think they've blurred the line too much in some cases. Like we're at L12 and the Rogue can out out as much damage as a Fighter and can do a whole bunch of other stuff to boot. Sure, the Rogue has to have Advantage to keep pace, but there are so many ways for him to get it that he very rarely makes an attack that isn't with Advantage. Sure, his armour is weaker, but with all the tools that allows him to hide, he's rarely actually attacked or even can be attacked. If we had a Fighter, I wouldn't blame them for being frustrated because the Rogue has him beat outside of combat and competes with him in combat.
It won't come up every time, but Fighters also make magic weapons scale much better than pretty much anyone else, particularly once they get their 3rd attack roll per action. Plus Fighters tend to have stronger subclass features, so comparing only the base classes doesn't tell the whole story of comparative performance. I was a Rogue who pretty much always got Sneak Attack in the same party as a dual wielding Rune Knight, and I feel confident in saying he was putting out more damage than me.
Playing small groups, I'm all for not having completely walled classes. I don't think it would be playable if things were so rigid.
However, I do think they've blurred the line too much in some cases. Like we're at L12 and the Rogue can out out as much damage as a Fighter and can do a whole bunch of other stuff to boot. Sure, the Rogue has to have Advantage to keep pace, but there are so many ways for him to get it that he very rarely makes an attack that isn't with Advantage. Sure, his armour is weaker, but with all the tools that allows him to hide, he's rarely actually attacked or even can be attacked. If we had a Fighter, I wouldn't blame them for being frustrated because the Rogue has him beat outside of combat and competes with him in combat.
This is kind of where I'm at. I would not suggesting or even expect the game to go back to a rigid archetype structure, but at this stage in many cases you can create better versions of a traditional role using a different class than the one intended for that role. For example, Sorcerers are much better Wizards, than Wizards are. Barbarians are without question the best Fighter. Rangers suck at survival, tracking and being the "pathfinder" compared to the Rogue. There are all sorts of weird archetype roles buried in the design space that essentially result in certain classes that traditionally represent a certain specialty and kind of sucking at it compared to classes you wouldn't expect to be the primary choice.
Like if a Cleric is not the best healing class, if a fighter is not the best melee class and the Wizard is not the best Magic class.. then something is off with the design. I'm not saying you shouldn't have cross-over either but when you have for example a Sorcerer and a Wizard and you compare them, there should be some clear distinction between them and some logical reason why they could coexist in the same adventure party without stepping all over each others toes and one-upping the other in the role that is assumed for them.
From a player perspective I can understand that if you create a Wizard because you are going to be the groups "magic guy" and someone makes a Sorcerer and ends up being way better at it than you, that this is going to be super boring for that player. It would certainly be boring for me..
In my group the way we get around this problem is to sort of define roles during character creation and just make sure that everyone has one even if they are picking non-traditional class. So if someone says "I'm going to be the melee guy" and picks fighter... its assumed that someone isn't going to pick Barbarian and make a better one. Like that becomes there stick and its sort of respected. Than it can work and the fact that "its possible" to create a better version doesn't matter because people just pick a different role.
So we end up with groups where you have a Rogue guy, A Magic Guy, A support guy, a melee guy, Social Charsima guy etc... and we sort of have the archetypes in spirit in the confines of the group and what is possible outside of it, doesn't really matter that much.
It works fine to do it this way, just requires some cooperation between the group and sort of a respect for archetypes and roles in the group.
Playing small groups, I'm all for not having completely walled classes. I don't think it would be playable if things were so rigid.
However, I do think they've blurred the line too much in some cases. Like we're at L12 and the Rogue can out out as much damage as a Fighter and can do a whole bunch of other stuff to boot. Sure, the Rogue has to have Advantage to keep pace, but there are so many ways for him to get it that he very rarely makes an attack that isn't with Advantage. Sure, his armour is weaker, but with all the tools that allows him to hide, he's rarely actually attacked or even can be attacked. If we had a Fighter, I wouldn't blame them for being frustrated because the Rogue has him beat outside of combat and competes with him in combat.
This is kind of where I'm at. I would not suggesting or even expect the game to go back to a rigid archetype structure, but at this stage in many cases you can create better versions of a traditional role using a different class than the one intended for that role. For example, Sorcerers are much better Wizards, than Wizards are. Barbarians are without question the best Fighter. Rangers suck at survival, tracking and being the "pathfinder" compared to the Rogue. There are all sorts of weird archetype roles buried in the design space that essentially result in certain classes that traditionally represent a certain specialty and kind of sucking at it compared to classes you wouldn't expect to be the primary choice.
Like if a Cleric is not the best healing class, if a fighter is not the best melee class and the Wizard is not the best Magic class.. then something is off with the design. I'm not saying you shouldn't have cross-over either but when you have for example a Sorcerer and a Wizard and you compare them, there should be some clear distinction between them and some logical reason why they could coexist in the same adventure party without stepping all over each others toes and one-upping the other in the role that is assumed for them.
From a player perspective I can understand that if you create a Wizard because you are going to be the groups "magic guy" and someone makes a Sorcerer and ends up being way better at it than you, that this is going to be super boring for that player. It would certainly be boring for me..
In my group the way we get around this problem is to sort of define roles during character creation and just make sure that everyone has one even if they are picking non-traditional class. So if someone says "I'm going to be the melee guy" and picks fighter... its assumed that someone isn't going to pick Barbarian and make a better one. Like that becomes there stick and its sort of respected. Than it can work and the fact that "its possible" to create a better version doesn't matter because people just pick a different role.
So we end up with groups where you have a Rogue guy, A Magic Guy, A support guy, a melee guy, Social Charsima guy etc... and we sort of have the archetypes in spirit in the confines of the group and what is possible outside of it, doesn't really matter that much.
It works fine to do it this way, just requires some cooperation between the group and sort of a respect for archetypes and roles in the group.
I get it, but at the same time, I don't think this is exactly panning out the way you portray it. A sorcerer is certainly a different magic user than a wizard, but there are trade-offs.
Wizards get: - a huge advantage on known spells - a better modifier, generally speaking, for INT-based skill checks - the use of MM-lite options for free depending on subclass
Sorcerers get: - better use out of the spells they do know (for a limited time and a limited number of times per LR) - to be the face of the party - to use their MM options for any spell they have
The fact that you have a group of people saying wizards are the superior MU and another group saying sorcerers are the superior MU suggests that it's really a wash and depends mostly on how you weight the differences. Sorcerers are "wizards, but different". And it's much the same with barbarians and fighters. Sure, they are both martial classes, but there are trade-offs. Trade-offs that the designers thought were large enough to make them a separate class, rather than just making "barbarian" a subclass of fighter. "Fighter, but different." Saying one is "objectively better" than another at a role ignores the other aspects of the class that actually differentiate it. If Barbarian was just a fighter with +2 damage to all attacks... that would be "objectively better" than a fighter.
I think it's actually much like you described at the end. There are roles in a party and several classes can fill each role. Some roles overlap and you can either build to focus on one role or build to fill multiple less effectively. I guess the biggest point, however, is - again - something you brought up. The fantasy of the barbarian is different than that of a fighter. The fantasy of the wizard is different than that of the sorcerer. This is why everyone should always make characters together with their group in session 0. So that they do exactly as you've prescribed. I mean, if you don't, you'd run into the same problem even with very limited classes because you'd have 3 people bring fighters, one bring a wizard, and no one would bring the cleric (sorry clerics)!
[Redacted] Anyway, to stay on topic, the things I dislike about 5ER are mostly what I feel are missed opportunities from the UA. Two in particular come to mind:
1) They could have kept the fully custom Backgrounds that were in the UA and it would have been better than the Pick Three stats style they have in the PHB. I know they re-introduced custom BG in the DMG, but it's still a little irksome.
2) I like that they do not have Half Elf and Half Orc as separate species, but I really do wish they had kept the characters with different humanoid parents sidebar. I think without that, people feel the lack of HE and HO and aren't given recourse except for playing using legacy material.
Besides that I rather like 5ER. I think a lot of the changes are good. I'm especially pleased about Grapple and Shove being linked to any unarmed strike rather than just ones on the Attack Action.
Why are we talking about how things were done in 1E if everyone is playing 5E? The differences between 5E and 5ER are almost nonexistent compared to the differences from 1E to 5E.
Last I checked, this platform is called D&D Beyond. I am fairly certain that D&D includes its origins.
This thread has already had a mod in it to course correct and keep everything on topic, now would you liked to show how it is relevant to the topic of the post or would you like to drop the matter?
Funnily enough, I was not the one to introduce the comparison of AD&D1e into the conversation. And I will point that out to the mod that will inevitably come after me when you complain about my post.
So this comment neither stays on topic or drops anything so is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Anyway, to stay on topic, the things I dislike about 5ER are mostly what I feel are missed opportunities from the UA. Two in particular come to mind:
1) They could have kept the fully custom Backgrounds that were in the UA and it would have been better than the Pick Three stats style they have in the PHB. I know they re-introduced custom BG in the DMG, but it's still a little irksome.
2) I like that they do not have Half Elf and Half Orc as separate species, but I really do wish they had kept the characters with different humanoid parents sidebar. I think without that, people feel the lack of HE and HO and aren't given recourse except for playing using legacy material.
Besides that I rather like 5ER. I think a lot of the changes are good. I'm especially pleased about Grapple and Shove being linked to any unarmed strike rather than just ones on the Attack Action.
1) Conversely, I would have removed all Backgrounds, and that disappoints me that this newest iteration did not do that.
2 ) Half-elves and Half-Orcs should have remained as unique playable races in this iteration, as they have for 50 years.
3 ) Grappling and Shoving lends themselves to OP maneuvers by the players, that if the DM use against the PC's, the players lose their minds. This iteration of the game missed the perfect opportunity to remove them.
2) I like that they do not have Half Elf and Half Orc as separate species, but I really do wish they had kept the characters with different humanoid parents sidebar. I think without that, people feel the lack of HE and HO and aren't given recourse except for playing using legacy material.
The sidebar was bad. They should have just had something like
Characters of Mixed Parentage
If appropriate to the setting, characters might have ancestors of two or more species. Talk to your DM about creating a custom species template, representing such a mixture.
2) I like that they do not have Half Elf and Half Orc as separate species, but I really do wish they had kept the characters with different humanoid parents sidebar. I think without that, people feel the lack of HE and HO and aren't given recourse except for playing using legacy material.
The sidebar was bad. They should have just had something like
Characters of Mixed Parentage
If appropriate to the setting, characters might have ancestors of two or more species. Talk to your DM about creating a custom species template, representing such a mixture.
Eh, that seems like more hassle than they’d want to codify as a player-facing option. There’s no practical way to make combining various race features balanced, so just picking one block for the hard mechanics is a very effective and balanced character creation option. And no, it doesn’t actually have bad representation of irl mixed ethnicities, because the last time I checked there are no powers associated with the various irl human ethnicities by any credible source to begin with, ergo that’s an apples to oranges comparison.
Eh, that seems like more hassle than they’d want to codify as a player-facing option.
There's nothing codified there. It's just "talk to your DM" and the DM using the species creation rules (assuming they're in the 2024 DMG, I don't have that yet). There's no way way to create a balanced player-facing method of making a mixed species... but DM tools don't have that restriction, because it's up to the DM to balance them (or decide they don't care if it's imbalanced).
The mechanics of the game do almost entirely concern combat. But that was never my point. That's twice now you have completely ignored what I spelled out in my original post about how traditionally non-combat classes now have become more about combat and how this shows the game has increasingly become about combat. For all classes. Which was inevitable as soon as we began to see more and more influence from the MMORPG generation on the game.
You cannot tell me that a thief or a magic-user in 1st. Edition provided their particular skill sets and lack of combat ability relative to that of a fighter's were designed for combat. They obviously weren't. The same can't be said about a rogue who can hit as easily as any fighter. And do as much damage. Or about a wizard who can just spam damage round after round. This power creep within the classes and homogenization of the classes has pushed them all towards being combat classes. As if the game is more about combat than anything else. Because for many it is.
How has the game not become more about combat when every class has now become a combat class? Is it really of such importance? That each and every character be as useful as the fighter is in combat? Why? Should the fighter be given a patron that grants it spells and be highly proficient in CHA-based skills so it can be as useful as the party's warlock and bard are in moments their respective skill sets serve the party? Or is that different? Because? Because combat is just so important? Each and every other class now must be as capable as the fighter of hitting and doing damage every round? But the game hasn't become more about combat? I think you know very well the game has become more about combat. And that you like it that way. But you are only willing to admit one of these things. You like that the rogue can use what is traditionally its primary ability score to allow it to hit something as easily as the fighter. And to do as much damage. That wizards can just spam damage. Like this. Just don't want to admit these changes were obviously made to appeal to those for whom combat is such an essential and central part of the game. It has always been a 'combat engine'? Not really. Because a wealth of utility spells available for wizards and the skills available to thieves made the game one of exploration more than one of just fighting things. One of the tenets of old-school play is that the game even at its simplest and without all the possibilities of domain management et cetera is a game of exploration. Making every class a combat class because some people feel their character has to be capable in the one area of the game once the fighter's domain now makes it feel as if it is little more than combat engine.
What I dislike about DnD 2024 [REDACTED], is the sheer incompetence in distribution.
I have now been informed by my local game store that the Dungeon Master’s Guide I preordered months ago which, we were told, was due to be delivered this week is now being delayed to 24 December with no real explanation given other than they are powerless to do anything. Abysmal service. Whatever upgrades we have seen to the rules, it hasn’t been worth it for me. I wish I could have my money back.
I’d say the game isn’t more about combat but it is more inclusive than it was in the past. Instead of the thief and magic user standing back to allow the fighter to handle the combat, they can participate. Instead of the fighter and magic user standing back while the thief goes off on their own to sneakily explore and find traps, they can participate. Instead of the magic user waving their ultimate cosmic power around to circumvent a ton of situations that the fighter and thief have no tools to deal with, they can participate. When the lines are softened between the class identities and abilities, no one has to stand around twiddling their thumbs when what needs to be done at any given moment is not in their wheelhouse. Nor do you have situations where people feel forced into playing certain classes to ensure all the roles are covered.
Regardless of edition, the game is only about combat as much as you make it about combat. There are plenty of weeks where there is no combat at all in my home game because we favour intrigue and diplomacy—there’s almost always a solution that doesn’t involve direct violence. Taking it even further, there are plenty of tables where combat is a rarity because roleplaying and in character conversations take up the vast majority of game time. If you choose to, you can have a game like that, where it doesn’t matter that a wizard can spam a cantrip for damage every combat round. The best part is that in 5e and unlike the previous rulesets you seem to pine for, no one else’s hands are tied if they want to play a game where it does matter that a wizard can spam a cantrip for damage every combat round.
To be fair, I can see the complaint that this "blurring of classes" means each class loses at least some of its identity. I don't think it's as stark as being portrayed by the loudest detractors in this thread (a sorcerer and a warlock have VERY different role-play opportunities, even if they are both CHA-based casters), but I don't see it as a problem that takes away from what made DnD, DnD. If you'll notice, they are also adding ways for the traditionally combat classes to participate in non-combat encounters. One could argue using that data that they are making the game LESS about combat.
Let's say you're right, and the "MMORPG generation" have somehow shoved the game away from its enlightened combat-lite roots.
Why is that bad? Combat is fun. If I wanted to play a low-combat RPG, there are WAY better (and cheaper) options than D&D out there like FATE. Why is it bad that rogues can actually kill monsters now instead of Bilbo-cowering in the corner?
"Why should every class be useful in combat?" Because being the dead weight in your friend group is boring. Because every combat taking longer due to effectively being down a party member is tedious. Because the combat pillar is this game's focus (you're not going into dungeons / up to dragons just to talk most of the time.) And most of WotC's customer base like it that way, which is why this is and continues to be the #1 selling RPG. You're allowed to not like combat as much, but that is a modification you need to make at your table, not advocate to be forced on everyone else's.
Yeah I'm firmly of the belief that every class should be able to contribute meaningfully to every Pillar of D&D. They should do so in their own way, but they shouldn't be locked out of any of them. This is the ideal, of course, and the execution still needs some work, but I think overall the new rules are an improvement on closing gaps between classes in many regards. Combat capability has generally been evened out some, and utility options were added to classes that didn't have much before. Again, it's obviously not perfect, but it's better.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I would note that "your PC is useless in this scene, feel free to go play video games" is not a good gaming experience, and many of the 'blurring' issues are intended to resolve that.
I’ll add that rigid distinctions end up forcing specific party compositions. I much prefer the current version where there’s lots of characters who can be the healer, or the lockpicker, etc. As opposed to when I used to play 1 and 2 e, and there was always this idea of, “well, who’s going to be the cleric this time” even if no one wanted to play one, the game basically required it.
All the talk of Pillars made me revisit my group's notes about it recently, and we have 5 (or 4, depending on how you count them) Pillars.
When we decided to abandoning the upgrade (much like many here are claiming to do today) from 2e to 3.x, we sat down and figured out what we liked and what we didn't. What came out was that we realized that we have a different expectations of the game, often based on what our collective experiences are of fantasy.
Based on those things, we ended up with pillars of PC Growth, Exploration, Roleplay, Discovery, and Combat. Of them, the hardest for most folks to achieve is the "discovery" part -- hard to discover new things about monsters and worlds when you use the same stuff over and over again, or everyone has access to the same books, etc). The one that we found we enjoyed the most was Character Growth -- that whole process of growing a character up over time, and making a story about them within the game -- earning your abilities, doing the things that feel like you achieved something and gained something out of ti, and then continuing to do so.
Combat is, generally speaking, only about 20% of our game -- and has been for over 20 years, and it isn't the game that makes it a big part of things, that's all on the players. The rules for combat and even the special abilities relating to combat are there because combat is complicated, not because it is a greater part of the whole game. Saying that because the rules are all about combat is like saying that chess is a game about moving pieces: however true it may be, it ignores that the game is about far, far more than that, and the rules exist to enable it as well as all the other stuff.
The different things that fed into this are the ways we all see and come to the game: Novels (where the hero has to overcome a personal issue in order to grow and learn), Films (where the challenges are always there), older video games & MMOs (where it is about the strong PC kicking ass and taking names), newer video games and anime (where it is about growing a PC into someone who kicks ass and takes names).
THe oldest players in my group often only had Novels and Films growing up, and they had a different vibe -- they weren't even the spectacles of special effects so many are today. Compare Krull or Beastmaster to stuff today, lol. Our imaginations are fueled by what we use, by what we draw from, by what we encounter -- and that impacts how we use our imaginations, as well.
My personal setting is literally premised on the idea of "what would D&D look like if none of the influences and inspirations for AD&D were ever used". Back in the 80's, among my peers then, that would have been akin to a crime (No Tolkien, no Moorcock, no Zelazny? Heathen!). But drawing from newer sources (and, again, ones not included in other editions) changes how one sees the game, without actually changing it in any meaningful way; it is just a different way of seeing Fantasy, as a whole.
Which is why I can have ships in space with air and pirates and dungeons on the planet and in an asteroid and more. All of it fantasy -- just a more wild version than people whose experience with and of fantasy is more narrow will know.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde.com | Wyrlde YT
.-=] Lore Book | Ruleset | PC Creation [=-.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Also, every class having something to contribute to every pillar of the game isn't a new post 2024 thing, either. I'm pretty sure that's how it was supposed to be in 2014 5E as well.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Some people are luckier than others. I wish I was able to play more myself.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Playing small groups, I'm all for not having completely walled classes. I don't think it would be playable if things were so rigid.
However, I do think they've blurred the line too much in some cases. Like we're at L12 and the Rogue can out out as much damage as a Fighter and can do a whole bunch of other stuff to boot. Sure, the Rogue has to have Advantage to keep pace, but there are so many ways for him to get it that he very rarely makes an attack that isn't with Advantage. Sure, his armour is weaker, but with all the tools that allows him to hide, he's rarely actually attacked or even can be attacked. If we had a Fighter, I wouldn't blame them for being frustrated because the Rogue has him beat outside of combat and competes with him in combat.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It won't come up every time, but Fighters also make magic weapons scale much better than pretty much anyone else, particularly once they get their 3rd attack roll per action. Plus Fighters tend to have stronger subclass features, so comparing only the base classes doesn't tell the whole story of comparative performance. I was a Rogue who pretty much always got Sneak Attack in the same party as a dual wielding Rune Knight, and I feel confident in saying he was putting out more damage than me.
This is kind of where I'm at. I would not suggesting or even expect the game to go back to a rigid archetype structure, but at this stage in many cases you can create better versions of a traditional role using a different class than the one intended for that role. For example, Sorcerers are much better Wizards, than Wizards are. Barbarians are without question the best Fighter. Rangers suck at survival, tracking and being the "pathfinder" compared to the Rogue. There are all sorts of weird archetype roles buried in the design space that essentially result in certain classes that traditionally represent a certain specialty and kind of sucking at it compared to classes you wouldn't expect to be the primary choice.
Like if a Cleric is not the best healing class, if a fighter is not the best melee class and the Wizard is not the best Magic class.. then something is off with the design. I'm not saying you shouldn't have cross-over either but when you have for example a Sorcerer and a Wizard and you compare them, there should be some clear distinction between them and some logical reason why they could coexist in the same adventure party without stepping all over each others toes and one-upping the other in the role that is assumed for them.
From a player perspective I can understand that if you create a Wizard because you are going to be the groups "magic guy" and someone makes a Sorcerer and ends up being way better at it than you, that this is going to be super boring for that player. It would certainly be boring for me..
In my group the way we get around this problem is to sort of define roles during character creation and just make sure that everyone has one even if they are picking non-traditional class. So if someone says "I'm going to be the melee guy" and picks fighter... its assumed that someone isn't going to pick Barbarian and make a better one. Like that becomes there stick and its sort of respected. Than it can work and the fact that "its possible" to create a better version doesn't matter because people just pick a different role.
So we end up with groups where you have a Rogue guy, A Magic Guy, A support guy, a melee guy, Social Charsima guy etc... and we sort of have the archetypes in spirit in the confines of the group and what is possible outside of it, doesn't really matter that much.
It works fine to do it this way, just requires some cooperation between the group and sort of a respect for archetypes and roles in the group.
I get it, but at the same time, I don't think this is exactly panning out the way you portray it. A sorcerer is certainly a different magic user than a wizard, but there are trade-offs.
Wizards get:
- a huge advantage on known spells
- a better modifier, generally speaking, for INT-based skill checks
- the use of MM-lite options for free depending on subclass
Sorcerers get:
- better use out of the spells they do know (for a limited time and a limited number of times per LR)
- to be the face of the party
- to use their MM options for any spell they have
The fact that you have a group of people saying wizards are the superior MU and another group saying sorcerers are the superior MU suggests that it's really a wash and depends mostly on how you weight the differences. Sorcerers are "wizards, but different". And it's much the same with barbarians and fighters. Sure, they are both martial classes, but there are trade-offs. Trade-offs that the designers thought were large enough to make them a separate class, rather than just making "barbarian" a subclass of fighter. "Fighter, but different." Saying one is "objectively better" than another at a role ignores the other aspects of the class that actually differentiate it. If Barbarian was just a fighter with +2 damage to all attacks... that would be "objectively better" than a fighter.
I think it's actually much like you described at the end. There are roles in a party and several classes can fill each role. Some roles overlap and you can either build to focus on one role or build to fill multiple less effectively. I guess the biggest point, however, is - again - something you brought up. The fantasy of the barbarian is different than that of a fighter. The fantasy of the wizard is different than that of the sorcerer. This is why everyone should always make characters together with their group in session 0. So that they do exactly as you've prescribed. I mean, if you don't, you'd run into the same problem even with very limited classes because you'd have 3 people bring fighters, one bring a wizard, and no one would bring the cleric (sorry clerics)!
Anyway, to stay on topic, the things I dislike about 5ER are mostly what I feel are missed opportunities from the UA. Two in particular come to mind:
1) They could have kept the fully custom Backgrounds that were in the UA and it would have been better than the Pick Three stats style they have in the PHB. I know they re-introduced custom BG in the DMG, but it's still a little irksome.
2) I like that they do not have Half Elf and Half Orc as separate species, but I really do wish they had kept the characters with different humanoid parents sidebar. I think without that, people feel the lack of HE and HO and aren't given recourse except for playing using legacy material.
Besides that I rather like 5ER. I think a lot of the changes are good. I'm especially pleased about Grapple and Shove being linked to any unarmed strike rather than just ones on the Attack Action.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
1) Conversely, I would have removed all Backgrounds, and that disappoints me that this newest iteration did not do that.
2 ) Half-elves and Half-Orcs should have remained as unique playable races in this iteration, as they have for 50 years.
3 ) Grappling and Shoving lends themselves to OP maneuvers by the players, that if the DM use against the PC's, the players lose their minds. This iteration of the game missed the perfect opportunity to remove them.
The sidebar was bad. They should have just had something like
Eh, that seems like more hassle than they’d want to codify as a player-facing option. There’s no practical way to make combining various race features balanced, so just picking one block for the hard mechanics is a very effective and balanced character creation option. And no, it doesn’t actually have bad representation of irl mixed ethnicities, because the last time I checked there are no powers associated with the various irl human ethnicities by any credible source to begin with, ergo that’s an apples to oranges comparison.
There's nothing codified there. It's just "talk to your DM" and the DM using the species creation rules (assuming they're in the 2024 DMG, I don't have that yet). There's no way way to create a balanced player-facing method of making a mixed species... but DM tools don't have that restriction, because it's up to the DM to balance them (or decide they don't care if it's imbalanced).