I guess as a college professor I am too used to the text book publishers, who purposely put out new editions much faster than necessary to destroy the used book market and stop supporting old editions with electronic resources the second new editions come out. So I just assumed WOTC would do something similar but that is probably unfair.
you are describing when they went from 3 to 3.5 to 4e in very short order, so if the past is anything to go by, it is not unfair at all.
Two weapon fighting tied to bonus action is broken
Ranger needs a rewrite
Some spells need an errata, like every teleportation spell
Wizards and sorcerers do not have a good balance
But these aren't an edition problem, but rather the classes need reworks
If you consider the system classlessly, it's actually pretty good
In general I agree with you about the system. If I sat down and tried to write the most streamlined system I could, it would probably look very similar to 5e. There are a few specific wordings that could stand some attention, but 5e is still better about that than any previous edition.
Some of the classes are a bit unbalanced. You speak (type I suppose) truth. However I disagree with you about two-weapon fighting. For classes with 1 attack, giving them an option to use their bonus action for attacking is nice, and for a character with a lot of attacks like the fighter it doesn’t really make much of a difference.
Two weapon fighting is clunky for a lot of reasons, the action economy being only one of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I agree, a few things need fixing, but mostly class abilities and features. It is sad the only way for a rogue to get an additional chance each round to attempt sneak attack is Two Weapon Fighting, and in order to be good at that as the class that basically depends on it you have to multiclass and take a feat.
Ranger needs a fix. Wizards v. Sorcerers is a problem, sorcerers get cooler abilities, wizards are better in almost every way. Monk needs a bit of a fix, so does Warlock. Otherwise, 5e is good, and there isn't much to complain about.
Wizards, if you're reading this, no need to make 6e any time soon (though I'm pretty sure they know that).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Two weapon fighting tied to bonus action is broken
Ranger needs a rewrite
Some spells need an errata, like every teleportation spell
Wizards and sorcerers do not have a good balance
But these aren't an edition problem, but rather the classes need reworks
If you consider the system classlessly, it's actually pretty good
In general I agree with you about the system. If I sat down and tried to write the most streamlined system I could, it would probably look very similar to 5e. There are a few specific wordings that could stand some attention, but 5e is still better about that than any previous edition.
Some of the classes are a bit unbalanced. You speak (type I suppose) truth. However I disagree with you about two-weapon fighting. For classes with 1 attack, giving them an option to use their bonus action for attacking is nice, and for a character with a lot of attacks like the fighter it doesn’t really make much of a difference.
I'd rather just TWF not use bonus action at all. Just be able to use it as part of an attack action
Hey, I use a greatsword for 2d6+3 damage, or I use 2 short swords, for 2 attacks, 1d6+3, and 1d6 The TWF fighting style giving attribute bonus to the second weapon screws with things
No real reason to need to make it require bonus action at all
Two weapon fighting tied to bonus action is broken
Ranger needs a rewrite
Some spells need an errata, like every teleportation spell
Wizards and sorcerers do not have a good balance
But these aren't an edition problem, but rather the classes need reworks
If you consider the system classlessly, it's actually pretty good
In general I agree with you about the system. If I sat down and tried to write the most streamlined system I could, it would probably look very similar to 5e. There are a few specific wordings that could stand some attention, but 5e is still better about that than any previous edition.
Some of the classes are a bit unbalanced. You speak (type I suppose) truth. However I disagree with you about two-weapon fighting. For classes with 1 attack, giving them an option to use their bonus action for attacking is nice, and for a character with a lot of attacks like the fighter it doesn’t really make much of a difference.
I'd rather just TWF not use bonus action at all. Just be able to use it as part of an attack action
Hey, I use a greatsword for 2d6+3 damage, or I use 2 short swords, for 2 attacks, 1d6+3, and 1d6 The TWF fighting style giving attribute bonus to the second weapon screws with things
No real reason to need to make it require bonus action at all
What would be the reason to ever just use one weapon in this case? It also ensures if you're using TWF you're getting a free extra attack every turn. How is that NOT broken?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lightning Strike - A rebranded Fire Bolt for Wizards & Sorcerers.
Spirit Bomb - A holy fireball for Clerics, Paladins, & Divine Soul Sorcerers!
Sword Dancer - A Cleric subclass specifically for the Drow goddess Eilistraee.
The reason is using the free-hand as a helping hand to either avoid damage/dashing, and also using it for throwing sand ( i.e. ) to the chasing enemies.... or who knows... throwing daggers ???
Personally I don’t think 6e will be out any time soon. I think there might be a 5.5e with Revised Ranger, Spell points system, errata added into the basic rules, and other stuff before 6e comes out. This is just me thinking out loud though.
Personally I don’t think 6e will be out any time soon. I think there might be a 5.5e with Revised Ranger, Spell points system, errata added into the basic rules, and other stuff before 6e comes out. This is just me thinking out loud though.
What's wrong with the Ranger spell system?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"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?"
Personally I don’t think 6e will be out any time soon. I think there might be a 5.5e with Revised Ranger, Spell points system, errata added into the basic rules, and other stuff before 6e comes out. This is just me thinking out loud though.
The Revised Ranger is a no-go as per Jeremy Crawford in a tweet, there is a spell point system in the DMG, there is errata in the basic rules, and other stuff is being released through UA's and then finally books.
"revised Ranger" and "Spell Points" are two different things. Spell Points is a poorly thought out, barely-mentioned afterthought in the DMG for players who hate spell slots, and people have been humping the leg of the (overpowered and poorly designed) Revised Ranger for four years now.
Personally I like the spell point system better but I like spell slots too. It makes it easier for new players to play spellcaster. As for the revised Ranger, It was cancelled from Jeremy Crawford but he also mentioned that they might make a new ranger version in the future. Personally I’d love to see it added because it is slightly overpowered as all play test material are, but with some modifications could replace the new ranger.
I like the idea of spell points better. The spell point system in the DMG, like eighty percent of the DMG, is a barely designed slapdash ass patch suggested with almost no forethought and no real meat behind it. As I recall it's barely two paragraphs of "you have [X] points, you can use them to make spell slots, but you can only make one of each level of Greater Arcana a day because we didn't really design an alternative to spell slots, just built half-assed Font of Magic as an option in the DMG to pad word count. Have at it."
As for Revised Ranger? Nah. Thing can rot in its grave. It's a bad idea executed poorly, the Ranger as Revised by Munchkins Who Hate Plot.
THen tell me why a wizard have to carry a set of cards or dices if this class only uses them ( for fun ?? )
When I was a soldier, I often carried playing cards in my ruck when we went to the field. Sitting out there can be boring. I'd imagine adventuring would be the same and even if we don't RP it out, the wizard and his fighter buddies might get a game of spades going to pass the time until they turn in for the evening.
So tell me why a Wizard couldn't have a set of Spell cards instead of a spell book? I mean yes tradition says a spell book, but why couldn't they just be cards instead? same with using Rune magic (see my published homebrew for reference). Instead of tattoo the magic on themselves (much like Death Gate Cycle), they could use playing card sized to do it.
But yeah, I could see a rogue having these things more using slight of hand for 3 card monty, or dice and swapping them out for trick dice, etc.
Heck, if you use Eberron material, you can have a spellshard, which is basically a Kindle for your spells.
It would be hilarious watching a wizard implementing tattoes on his/her own skin as the S ( somatic component ) for each spell...... hahahahaha.
Why? You tap a spell to select it and then say a word or phrase to activate it? Much like in 3.3.5 when you used to be able to ready a spell, however, you don't lose it if you don't use it. maybe more akin to a bead of spell storing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I just want to tell everyone "happy gaming" and actually mean it. Whatever your game is, just have fun with it, it is after all, just a game.
I guess as a college professor I am too used to the text book publishers, who purposely put out new editions much faster than necessary to destroy the used book market and stop supporting old editions with electronic resources the second new editions come out. So I just assumed WOTC would do something similar but that is probably unfair.
you are describing when they went from 3 to 3.5 to 4e in very short order, so if the past is anything to go by, it is not unfair at all.
3.5 to 4e was actually 5 years
That's way slower than textbooks
Maybe, some high school text books get used 10+ years.
and while 5 years seems long, by the time you get everything out and rolling for things like RPGA, it seems like you just got everything bought and they change it over making it useless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I just want to tell everyone "happy gaming" and actually mean it. Whatever your game is, just have fun with it, it is after all, just a game.
I guess as a college professor I am too used to the text book publishers, who purposely put out new editions much faster than necessary to destroy the used book market and stop supporting old editions with electronic resources the second new editions come out. So I just assumed WOTC would do something similar but that is probably unfair.
you are describing when they went from 3 to 3.5 to 4e in very short order, so if the past is anything to go by, it is not unfair at all.
3.5 to 4e was actually 5 years
That's way slower than textbooks
Maybe, some high school text books get used 10+ years.
and while 5 years seems long, by the time you get everything out and rolling for things like RPGA, it seems like you just got everything bought and they change it over making it useless.
But its not useless
They're the same books they were previously. They don't suddenly stop working because a new edition came out.
Maybe not useless, but technically obsolete. Yes, I know people that still regularly play 3.5, but it is NOT commonly played or what is currently being pushed in the overall scheme of things.
I guess as a college professor I am too used to the text book publishers, who purposely put out new editions much faster than necessary to destroy the used book market and stop supporting old editions with electronic resources the second new editions come out. So I just assumed WOTC would do something similar but that is probably unfair.
you are describing when they went from 3 to 3.5 to 4e in very short order, so if the past is anything to go by, it is not unfair at all.
3.5 to 4e was actually 5 years
That's way slower than textbooks
Maybe, some high school text books get used 10+ years.
and while 5 years seems long, by the time you get everything out and rolling for things like RPGA, it seems like you just got everything bought and they change it over making it useless.
But its not useless
They're the same books they were previously. They don't suddenly stop working because a new edition came out.
True, but when your group is RPGA/Organized Play, then you kinda have to use what they say. I lived a good 75-80 miles away so making a game day was about the only time I got to play. living in a town of under 200 doesn't leave you much options either. My options were very limited. also why i quit when 4e came out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I just want to tell everyone "happy gaming" and actually mean it. Whatever your game is, just have fun with it, it is after all, just a game.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What do you mean?
3.5 to 4e was actually 5 years
That's way slower than textbooks
In general I agree with you about the system. If I sat down and tried to write the most streamlined system I could, it would probably look very similar to 5e. There are a few specific wordings that could stand some attention, but 5e is still better about that than any previous edition.
Some of the classes are a bit unbalanced. You speak (type I suppose) truth. However I disagree with you about two-weapon fighting. For classes with 1 attack, giving them an option to use their bonus action for attacking is nice, and for a character with a lot of attacks like the fighter it doesn’t really make much of a difference.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Two weapon fighting is clunky for a lot of reasons, the action economy being only one of them.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I agree, a few things need fixing, but mostly class abilities and features. It is sad the only way for a rogue to get an additional chance each round to attempt sneak attack is Two Weapon Fighting, and in order to be good at that as the class that basically depends on it you have to multiclass and take a feat.
Ranger needs a fix. Wizards v. Sorcerers is a problem, sorcerers get cooler abilities, wizards are better in almost every way. Monk needs a bit of a fix, so does Warlock. Otherwise, 5e is good, and there isn't much to complain about.
Wizards, if you're reading this, no need to make 6e any time soon (though I'm pretty sure they know that).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
6e? Maybe not?
5.5e? Good gods yes.
Oh my GAWD we could use such a spring gorram cleanup at this point...
Please do not contact or message me.
I'd rather just TWF not use bonus action at all. Just be able to use it as part of an attack action
Hey, I use a greatsword for 2d6+3 damage, or I use 2 short swords, for 2 attacks, 1d6+3, and 1d6
The TWF fighting style giving attribute bonus to the second weapon screws with things
No real reason to need to make it require bonus action at all
What would be the reason to ever just use one weapon in this case? It also ensures if you're using TWF you're getting a free extra attack every turn. How is that NOT broken?
Lightning Strike - A rebranded Fire Bolt for Wizards & Sorcerers.
Spirit Bomb - A holy fireball for Clerics, Paladins, & Divine Soul Sorcerers!
Sword Dancer - A Cleric subclass specifically for the Drow goddess Eilistraee.
Quicksilver & The Scarlet Witch - A pair of magical firearms for your Gunslinger or Artificer.
The reason is using the free-hand as a helping hand to either avoid damage/dashing, and also using it for throwing sand ( i.e. ) to the chasing enemies.... or who knows... throwing daggers ???
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
Personally I don’t think 6e will be out any time soon. I think there might be a 5.5e with Revised Ranger, Spell points system, errata added into the basic rules, and other stuff before 6e comes out. This is just me thinking out loud though.
What's wrong with the Ranger spell system?
"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
The Revised Ranger is a no-go as per Jeremy Crawford in a tweet, there is a spell point system in the DMG, there is errata in the basic rules, and other stuff is being released through UA's and then finally books.
"revised Ranger" and "Spell Points" are two different things. Spell Points is a poorly thought out, barely-mentioned afterthought in the DMG for players who hate spell slots, and people have been humping the leg of the (overpowered and poorly designed) Revised Ranger for four years now.
Please do not contact or message me.
Personally I like the spell point system better but I like spell slots too. It makes it easier for new players to play spellcaster. As for the revised Ranger, It was cancelled from Jeremy Crawford but he also mentioned that they might make a new ranger version in the future. Personally I’d love to see it added because it is slightly overpowered as all play test material are, but with some modifications could replace the new ranger.
I like the idea of spell points better. The spell point system in the DMG, like eighty percent of the DMG, is a barely designed slapdash ass patch suggested with almost no forethought and no real meat behind it. As I recall it's barely two paragraphs of "you have [X] points, you can use them to make spell slots, but you can only make one of each level of Greater Arcana a day because we didn't really design an alternative to spell slots, just built half-assed Font of Magic as an option in the DMG to pad word count. Have at it."
As for Revised Ranger? Nah. Thing can rot in its grave. It's a bad idea executed poorly, the Ranger as Revised by Munchkins Who Hate Plot.
Please do not contact or message me.
Why? You tap a spell to select it and then say a word or phrase to activate it? Much like in 3.3.5 when you used to be able to ready a spell, however, you don't lose it if you don't use it. maybe more akin to a bead of spell storing.
I just want to tell everyone "happy gaming" and actually mean it. Whatever your game is, just have fun with it, it is after all, just a game.
Maybe, some high school text books get used 10+ years.
and while 5 years seems long, by the time you get everything out and rolling for things like RPGA, it seems like you just got everything bought and they change it over making it useless.
I just want to tell everyone "happy gaming" and actually mean it. Whatever your game is, just have fun with it, it is after all, just a game.
But its not useless
They're the same books they were previously. They don't suddenly stop working because a new edition came out.
Maybe not useless, but technically obsolete. Yes, I know people that still regularly play 3.5, but it is NOT commonly played or what is currently being pushed in the overall scheme of things.
True, but when your group is RPGA/Organized Play, then you kinda have to use what they say. I lived a good 75-80 miles away so making a game day was about the only time I got to play. living in a town of under 200 doesn't leave you much options either. My options were very limited. also why i quit when 4e came out.
I just want to tell everyone "happy gaming" and actually mean it. Whatever your game is, just have fun with it, it is after all, just a game.