5.0 Just Works at this Point. 5.5 is too Broken.

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Quote from sabin76 >>

I'm sorry, but if you think the only difference between the different races species were the ability modifiers, then you need to look again. 

 
The interesting part about not quoting people, though this happens even when people do quote, is that they simply ignore everything I actually said and make assumptions about what I was "probably" thinking or "mean".  I was quite clear and precise with my words, and I never said anything about ability modifiers, though it seems now the conversation is revolving around that assumption like a typical strawman exercise, which is weird because there were plenty of actual points and context to base a discussion.  Not sure why we are just arbitrarily adding assumptions and then basing the entire response on that assumption.

As Davyd pointed out in his post, every race has unique powers that are kind of meant to represent cultural traits, but they mostly become executable powers no different than those of a class or spell, they are mechanics, masquerading as depictions of a culture.  Which would be fine, if they said something about how a culture works, but they are mostly designed to be used in combat in some form or another.  They are less cultural traits and more of an extension of class powers masquerading as such.

Take Dwarven Stonecunning as an example.  This is a derivative of the old Dwarven ability to know their way around the interiors of a mountain.  It was, in effect, a knowledge skill in every previous edition, the natural cultural identity that Dwarves come from and live in the mountains so they know about mountains. 

Why was Stonecunning changed to be effectively a bonus action in combat?  Why did Dwarves suddenly pick up a new ability called "Tremorsense"?  Where does that come from?  In what D&D setting, Ethos or imagery has that ever been part of D&D.  Where in the description of dwarves is this explained in any cultural context?  Until 5.5e, it has never existed in any way, shape or form,  neither described, assumed, or explained; it was an arbitrary addition that had nothing to do with Dwarves or D&D as anyone knows it.

More to the point the description of Dwarves in the 5.5 book is completely devoid of any detail.  We went from a 3-page layout about Dwarves in 5th edition with every element of that description aligned with the traits about abilities of a Dwarf to a one-page write-up in which 50 percent of the page is art and the other 50%  are Dwarf Traits, with some arbitrary additions like Tremorsense and only a couple of paragraphs reserved to describe what a Dwarf actually is, using the absolute most vague terms possible.

The Players Handbook doesn't really tell you anything useful about Dwarves, the base assumption about Dwarves is that "they are fantasy people that live in the mountains"... and that is pretty much it.  

My point is that.. this is so vague that, if you left the description out entiretly, you would not be any more or less informed about what a Dwarf is or isn't, you could just go on popular culture and other fantasies to define what a Dwarf is and you would be no more or less accurate.

There is no such thing as a D&D Dwarf in 5.5, there is just a kind of vague impression of people with beards that live in the mountains.  There is no commitment to the D&D ethos, no recognition of the different types of dwarves, no alterations for different dwarves or anything else guiding players about what it means to role-play a dwarf.  

To a player reading this book, there is only one reason to pick dwarf as a species, because you like the powers that come with that choice.  The existence of dwarves as part of the game is pretty meaningless in the context of setting, story, narrative or anything else that would guide the player about role-playing.  Its just a list of powers.

As someone accurately pointed out "it's up to the player to decide,".. as it has nothing to do with D&D and everything to do with whatever the player thinks it is.  It's a rather undefined "blob".. an undescribed and undefined fantasy "person", written in the most uninspired and vague way possible as to not say anything that might contradict or suggest anything.

It's not a subtle change, it's a focused de-classification of the D&Dsim of the game.

But it isn't just that because the removal of D&D ethos is combined with a lot of other "vague" elements left unattended.  Who is your character is based on an assumption that people are going to write "backgrounds", which, I know on the DNDBeyond Echo Chamber is a presumed first step to character creation, but the reality is that its rarely done in the audience at large.  People make characters by following the steps of character creation which used to include detailed descriptions of species (race), backgrounds and class as well as additional elements like the personality system, alignment had deeper meaning, sub-species mattered and feats ... all of these things were depictions.  You could create a character, without writing a single word about them, and just through the character creation process, have a person with a meaningful depiction.  In 5.5, all of that is gone.

In a sense, with 5.5e, D&D became truly a generic fantasy system, the logo at this point doesn't actually represent anything.  When you say D&D in the context of 5.5, you're not actually describing something tangible, a specific game or fantasy.  The D&D culture and ethos has been washed out and neutralized and I understand that people think this gives them "flexibility".  It really actually does, but flexibility, aka infinite options with no barriers or meaningful connection to the material on which the game is based, has made the game feel mundane.  There is no part in the book you read and go.. wow that is a cool depiction, I think I will be a Dwarf Paladin... You choose those things because you like the way its going to work when you get in a fight.

I know people don't see it right now, especially in this echo chamber and I get it, we went through this exact thing with 4e.  4e was also exceedingly washed out and generic.  It eventually killed the game.

 If I may paraphrase this w/a quote from the antagonist of the MST3k-mocked movie Teenage Caveman:

"The word is the law, & the law is the word!"

Said law & word in said movie had to change upon receiving evidence that they were unjust & outdated. New symbols of storytelling were drawn.

A **Roger Corman** caveman movie on a shoestring budget got why traditionalism is reductive & culturally stagnant.

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

 If I may paraphrase this w/a quote from the antagonist of the MST3k-mocked movie Teenage Caveman:

"The word is the law, & the law is the word!"

Said law & word in said movie had to change upon receiving evidence that they were unjust & outdated. New symbols of storytelling were drawn.

A **Roger Corman** caveman movie on a shoestring budget got why traditionalism is reductive & culturally stagnant.

 
I don't think we are talking about the same thing.  I don't have an issue with the evolution of the game, but 5.5e is a de-evolution.  It's not "traditionalism" to produce useful and relevant material that guides players, nor is it evolution to simply do and say less and then call that a "feature" because it "free's you" to use your imagination.

What is the next reduction.. just a picture of a Dwarf with a caption "just use your imagination"?

The new Players Handbook is effectively page upon page of text that could be generated by any AI, it is the equivalent of AI slop and not even particularly good AI slop.  It lacks any personality or commitment to anything specific; it's as generic and as vague as humanly possible in the pursuit of.. what I assume is an attempt to not suggest or constrain the game and perhaps most importantly to avoid saying anything that someone might find offensive or constrained.  It's soulless and perhaps more relevantly useless to read as it says nothing of value.

It's not an evolution of the game to have awful, mundane, and uncreative writing. It's really just.. slop masquerading as creativity.

In terms of a guide for a role-playing game, and more specifically as a D&D role-playing game, its completetly useless.

And all that happens before you even discuss how 5.5 rules themselves have broken so many key themes of a D&D game.  Like class selections is kind of irrelevant and mundane ... Boiling down to mostly I do X damage with Y power, using Z poorly described ability.  It's not unlike the sort of generic and lifeless feeling mechanics we got in 4e that made for some of the most forgettable gameplay in D&D's history.

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

The interesting part about not quoting people, though this happens even when people do quote, is that they simply ignore everything I actually said and make assumptions about what I was "probably" thinking or "mean".  I was quite clear and precise with my words, and I never said anything about ability modifiers, though it seems now the conversation is revolving around that assumption like a typical strawman exercise, which is weird because there were plenty of actual points and context to base a discussion.  Not sure why we are just arbitrarily adding assumptions and then basing the entire response on that assumption.

Why are people assuming you're talking about ability modifiers? Probably because CunningSmile said "In 5e if you wanted to play a melee character you were heavily incentivised to choose an orc or a dwarf because of the racial bonuses, similarly elves leant themselves to Dex based range builds and gnomes to being wizards. "

And your response, about that incentive which comes from racial ability modifiers was:

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

EXACTLY!  That is D&D.. Dwarves and Orcs made better fighters... Gnomes were crappy ones, it's an element of D&D ethos.  Its how you know your playing D&D and not some other fantasy game.  

 

You were affirming that you were talking about racial ability modifiers, and saying about those modifiers, "That is D&D."

 EDIT: If you were trying to say that you meant the entire species package of abilities, well, the rest of the mechanical stuff is pretty similar in most cases (if not unchanged) from 5.0 to 5.5. The biggest difference is the removal of ASI's from species, so it still seems like that's the part you have issue with.

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

 If I may paraphrase this w/a quote from the antagonist of the MST3k-mocked movie Teenage Caveman:

"The word is the law, & the law is the word!"

Said law & word in said movie had to change upon receiving evidence that they were unjust & outdated. New symbols of storytelling were drawn.

A **Roger Corman** caveman movie on a shoestring budget got why traditionalism is reductive & culturally stagnant.

 
I don't think we are talking about the same thing.  I don't have an issue with the evolution of the game, but 5.5e is a de-evolution.  It's not "traditionalism" to produce useful and relevant material that guides players, nor is it evolution to simply do and say less and then call that a "feature" because it "free's you" to use your imagination.

What is the next reduction.. just a picture of a Dwarf with a caption "just use your imagination"?

The new Players Handbook is effectively page upon page of text that could be generated by any AI, it is the equivalent of AI slop and not even particularly good AI slop.  It lacks any personality or commitment to anything specific; it's as generic and as vague as humanly possible in the pursuit of.. what I assume is an attempt to not suggest or constrain the game and perhaps most importantly to avoid saying anything that someone might find offensive or constrained.  It's soulless and perhaps more relevantly useless to read as it says nothing of value.

It's not an evolution of the game to have awful, mundane, and uncreative writing. It's really just.. slop masquerading as creativity.

In terms of a guide for a role-playing game, and more specifically as a D&D role-playing game, its completetly useless.

And all that happens before you even discuss how 5.5 rules themselves have broken so many key themes of a D&D game.  Like class selections is kind of irrelevant and mundane ... Boiling down to mostly I do X damage with Y power, using Z poorly described ability.  It's not unlike the sort of generic and lifeless feeling mechanics we got in 4e that made for some of the most forgettable gameplay in D&D's history.

 A) That is… quite the insult to WotC! B) So, what do you want to have happen? And that goes for everyone here. What do you want to actually happen? What point do you want to make real?

Quote from LinkArcher >>

 

 A) That is… quite the insult to WotC! B) So, what do you want to have happen? And that goes for everyone here. What do you want to actually happen? What point do you want to make real?

 
I'm not worried about insulting WotC, but I do think it's a fair question.  I don't think the 5.5 version is fixable in the sense that the book is released; it's kind of a done deal. I think its going to be a bit like 4e Essentials, the only way to fix it is to abandon it and try again, so we are really talking about 6th edition and I think given the state of things that may be in the works as early as 2027 if they aren't already working on it.  We do have new management and I'm sure by now they are feeling it in the spreadsheets.

For me however its fairly simple, since I think 5e was already more or less a model for success.

1. Free the writers.
It's painfully obvious that 5th edition writing went through a political and management lens that the original 5th edition didn't, and that lens was so extreme that all creativity was drained out of it. 5.5 books, especially the Player's Handbook, are just outright boring, and a boring book makes for a boring game.  We need to go back to a focus on bringing D&D back into alignment, the way they did post-4e with 5e.  Do the 3-4 page spreads, let yourself get wordy and creative, allow yourself to be specific and don't be afraid to commit the game into a specific direction.  Generic fantasy doesn't work... period.  I don't know how many times D&D has to learn that lesson.

2. Dramatic Improvement of Art
The art in 5.5e is, without question, the most uninspiring, ugliest, and most un-D&D fantasy art to ever house the D&D logo.  It is just .. cringy and completely uncoordinated.  They need to get back to making good art.

3. Lower the Power Levels
The game was already a power fantasy in 5e, which was already way too much, but 5.5e is just mechanically broken.  I despise DMing, it's a literal nightmare.  It's just mechanical junk with I-win buttons and levers.  It's not just boring, but utterly without value or purpose.   The game needs a serious power down so that we can actually have some fun and challenging games where a failure at something isn't a statistical anomaly. 

4. The game needs to be sped up a lot
When even a small combat eats up an hour plus of combat, and a big combat can't even be finished in a 4-hour session, the game has reached an impasse. It would be tolerable if combat was even mildly interesting but its just a lot of fancy powers that amount to "I bash this bag of hit points for X damage".. round after round after round.

5. Fix monsters
5e monsters were pretty terrible, but 5.5 are intolerable.  There is basically 1 monster in the entire game... "The Peverbial Bag of Hit Points".  Hardly any monster does anything interesting and there are virtually no consequences to anything.  It's so boring that the only way to fix it is to buy a monster book from someone other than Wizards of the Coast.  It's tragic.

6. Simplify The Game
We are back to the gotcha days of BS mechanics that pull the rug from under the story.  There is nothing that can't be fixed with magic and everyone has magic, yet there is all this unnecessary complexity in the game design to give the illusion of challenge, but the only challenging part is trying to remember and plan for all the BS as a DM.  By 6th level, the game is unplayable.

I would start with that I guess.

Quote from Stabbey_TC >>

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

The interesting part about not quoting people, though this happens even when people do quote, is that they simply ignore everything I actually said and make assumptions about what I was "probably" thinking or "mean".  I was quite clear and precise with my words, and I never said anything about ability modifiers, though it seems now the conversation is revolving around that assumption like a typical strawman exercise, which is weird because there were plenty of actual points and context to base a discussion.  Not sure why we are just arbitrarily adding assumptions and then basing the entire response on that assumption.

 

Why are people assuming you're talking about ability modifiers? Probably because CunningSmile said "In 5e if you wanted to play a melee character you were heavily incentivised to choose an orc or a dwarf because of the racial bonuses, similarly elves leant themselves to Dex based range builds and gnomes to being wizards. "

And your response, about that incentive which comes from racial ability modifiers was:

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

EXACTLY!  That is D&D.. Dwarves and Orcs made better fighters... Gnomes were crappy ones, it's an element of D&D ethos.  Its how you know your playing D&D and not some other fantasy game.  

 

 

You were affirming that you were talking about racial ability modifiers, and saying about those modifiers, "That is D&D."

 EDIT: If you were trying to say that you meant the entire species package of abilities, well, the rest of the mechanical stuff is pretty similar in most cases (if not unchanged) from 5.0 to 5.5. The biggest difference is the removal of ASI's from species, so it still seems like that's the part you have issue with.

 
Well, I was referring to the Ethos, not the specifics, but I get your point. I don't care how you do it, it doesn't have to be with ability scores but when a Halfling is as good if not better at fighting than a Half-Orc Barbarian, you've lost me.  

There need to be benefits and drawbacks to picking X species or Y Background.  When you pick a Halfling, it should mean something more than a list of advantages that basically apply to any class or persona you can dream up.  I know you see it as freedom, I see it as a generic fantasy.  At that point, you might as well just have a "create your own species" point buy system like GURPS.  If you're not going to bother making the personalities of your selections distinct, why force people to choose.  

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Well, I was referring to the Ethos, not the specifics, but I get your point. I don't care how you do it, it doesn't have to be with ability scores but when a Halfling is as good if not better at fighting than a Half-Orc Barbarian, you've lost me.  

There need to be benefits and drawbacks to picking X species or Y Background.  When you pick a Halfling, it should mean something more than a list of advantages that basically apply to any class or persona you can dream up.  I know you see it as freedom, I see it as a generic fantasy.  At that point, you might as well just have a "create your own species" point buy system like GURPS.  If you're not going to bother making the personalities of your selections distinct, why force people to choose.  

It seems like your main grievance is "those really short species should be worse at fighting than big species," which I can understand. But that argument only works for melee fighters. A Halfling is mechanically disincentivized from becoming a Wizard. An Gnome is mechanically disincentivized from becoming a Bard. Those aren't big strong muscle-y  classes, but the "ethos" says those species are not suited for those spellcasting classes, no matter what that character's specific origin is. That's bio-essentialism.

Here is why it ultimately comes down to. For 50 years, we have learned a few things from D&D.

1. That players who their species go feel unique and like they are better at some things than others. 5e does that. Each species has their own little abilities that seem flavourful for the specie, with some specie, like Orcs, having abilities that make them better frontline fighters, others, like gnomes, lending themselves to roguish builds, and others, like Tieflings, benefiting from being Spellcasters.

Stating that all species feel the same and all can equally play any class is a fiction.

2. That players choosing to play suboptimal species for their class do not want to be doubly punished for doing so.  They are already punished with suboptimal abilities that do not work as well for their build as other species.  Adding strict ASI on top of that is just additional punishment on top.  There is a difference between saying “you will never be the best build” and “you will perpetually be 5% behind due to a purely mechanical punishment.”

In addition to being bad game design, this mechanics was literally born of racism.  So, you know. No legitimate reason to keep it, particularly since other species abilities differentiate species better and more flavorfully than ASI.

3. There has never been “true D&D lore” that must be adhered to. The most common world to play in is “homebrew” followed by “official world I have homebrewed my own stuff into” followed then by the smattering of official worlds. 

Lore purists have been a problem since day one, trying to force “official” lore onto players and DMs (or even official content - lure purists get upset over things like Eberron, where there are different takes on species.”  

Wizards is finally acknowledging they were creating more problems than they solved with default lore.  It limited creativity and pushed homogenization.  How ironic it is that this has become a doublespeak argument that Wizards is pushing homogenization though the actual effect is reducing it.

The skeletal framework, mechanics, art (which was specifically designed to show groups for culture), basic level of fantasy knowledge, numerous world specific resources, and working with the DM on the world they are using’s lore are all sufficient to create a character.  If you need more than that to come up with a character, that’s on you, not the system.

The current system reflects the reality of how players actually play the game, while combining the importance of mechanical choice and racial differences.  

I have yet to see any arguments against the current system that are compelling - they all seem internally inconsistent (“pushing one default set of homogenous lore will stop homogeny!”), based in fiction (“species are all the same now! Please ignore that they have mechanical differences!”), or utterly baffling (“however will folks who have self-selected to imagine themselves in a fantasy world be able to use their imagination to come up with a personality?”). 

Fortunately, Wizards is giving players what they want - a rule system that promotes creativity and limits actual elements (punishing ASI, lore police) that pushed homogeny.

Quote from OSR4Ever>>

It doesn't reflect how people actually play.  5e was the most successful version of D&D of all time, more people played it than any other edition, and the ethos of D&D was there the entire time, and no one ever complained.  These changes were not done by consulting players, research or some sort of consensus by the community.  They were a political statement that has nothing to do with D&D.

That's nonsense. Many people complained. Many people in their growing market complained, and WotC did quite a lot of research to determine how to better grow their market. This was neither secret nor hidden, and they published articles explaining it.

I want to point out that the whole Species/Race determined ASI thing started to become a thing around the time Monsters of the Multiverse came out and that book just said “put these points wherever you want” so saying that is strictly 5.5 thing is a bit disingenuous.  Also, and this is just my opinion, having your ASI tied to your background, aka training/education makes more sense than saying x species/race is genetically predisposed to being strong, smart, sneaky, etc

I would like to point out, the older Realms stories from Salvatore and Greenwood did expressly ask, challenge and subvert the very concept of evil races before the first Warcraft game was ever released.  I know there are those among you who despise these authors and those that like them, but one of the reasons we like them, is that that they started laying the groundwork for nuance and the rethinking of evil races well before the game's creators ever considered it.

The Lore and stories as far back as the 90's have been challenging this, so lets not act like it is a new idea, or that the old-guard were as set in their ways as people like to pretend they were.  The Bio-essentialism in Alignment was already being dethroned back then, and so was intellect and attitude soon after. Let's not act like they are changes that came from nowhere and that they were only made to appeal to the modern sensibilities  of the market. This is something that people have been wanting for longer than i have been alive if the 1st edition homebrewers I had drinks at a con with are to be believed. They had been tweaking this out since the very begining.
Yes there are 1st Edition homebrewers still alive today.

It doesn't reflect how people actually play.

5e was the most successful version of D&D of all time, more people played it than any other edition, and the ethos of D&D was there the entire time, and no one ever complained.

5e characters tend too be too powerful for the core mechanic and lower stats actually make things like CR rating math and equipment (magical and mundane) work.

5e has basically been ripping off old school D&D content for the last decade

my personal experience has been that no one wants to run 5e

• Disappointed in the Sorcerers lack of Necromancy spells (and total Spells Known)
• The lack of new classes in 5E...
• Silvery Barbs: Really All That Bad?
• For all those that say the 4d6 method of char creation is totally legit
• 5E's removal of Magic Shops
• Alignment: Reasons For It & Reasons Against It
• Tasha's is a bit meh.

See, lot's of complaining. In fact, I found those threads just by sorting by the threads with the most number of replies—people love to complain.

 These changes were not done by consulting players, research or some sort of consensus by the community.

• Character Origins - August 2022
• Expert Classes - September 2022
• Cleric and Revised Species - December 2022
• Druid & Paladin - February 2023
• Player’s Handbook Playtest 5 - April 2023
• Player’s Handbook Playtest 6 - June 2023
• Player’s Handbook Playtest 7 - September 2023
• Bastions and Cantrips - October 2023
• Player’s Handbook Playtest 8 - November 2023

They were a political statement that has nothing to do with D&D.

I find it amusing that some would say a +1 STR is boring, and even mechanically insignificant. These same people say they don't want to be "punished" by such a bonus inclusion and the consequence of not picking it. Please understand that if it is not a significant inclusion to a character, it is also not a significant or punishing omission. I won't bother to quote people because I'm sure someone will recognize their own words in the example above.

Ask a bodybuilder if being 5% stronger is insignificant. Meaningful decisions can contain consequences, and this is what I think people don't like.

There’s enough loss to nonconforming builds to stick out in character design, but the “payoff” for bowing to the trends it indicates is minimal. Thus it’s largely a failure on both the aesthetic and mechanical end of things- it’s enough of a nuisance to builds that don’t want one or both stats that it feels like a handicap at point allocation, and once play commences the margin of the gain it creates is so slender that you’ll rarely notice it if it’s a primary stat and almost never if it’s not one your build prioritizes.

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

I know people don't see it right now, especially in this echo chamber and I get it, we went through this exact thing with 4e.  4e was also exceedingly washed out and generic.  It eventually killed the game.

Huh. Pretty lively around here for a game that died nearly 20 years ago