Heh. I mean, there's a whole lot of grouchiness and rumble-grumbling and people very upset this rule is an Official Thing in an official Book come November, rather than a piece of homebrew they can shut down. Is it any surprise that a lot of that sort of grouchiness comes off as "stop playing D&D wrong, you whippersnappers!"?
I know this concept is utterly foreign to you, but maybe, just maybe, people who have played D&D for longer than you, through multiple editions, might have more experience than you, and might have more wisdom and insight on what is good for the game, than you.
Yeah, no. Experience is helpful, but "what is good for the game" is your own opinion. Move out of the way, the next generation is coming to take your D&D! This is gatekeeping, and not constructive to the community, discussion, or literally anything.
I have never heard this term "gate-keeping" until the last year or so. I have no clue what it means.
Horse poopy. The only reason AL exists is so that people can whip out their builds and measure. It’s the type 2 of D&D.
I was under the impression that a significant amount of people play AL because they don't have a consistent group they can play with, and want to be able to play D&D in a consistent way, at times that suit them.
Is AL actually that purely competitive?
If people live close enough to each other to go to the same AL, and they can manage to schedule themselves to all be available at the same place and time for AL, then why would they actually need AL to pull it off...? Obviously they all live locally, and can already manage to all get to get her and play. We know that because they do get together and play. Why don’t they just get together and play at a time that’s convent to them? That’s all a consistent group is, people who know each other, live locally, and get together and play.
So... why do they really need AL for that...?
They don't need AL. I've joined two groups from showing up to an AL event and connecting with the people there.
Personally, I find AL not to my taste, but that's a discussion for another thread.
Heh. I mean, there's a whole lot of grouchiness and rumble-grumbling and people very upset this rule is an Official Thing in an official Book come November, rather than a piece of homebrew they can shut down. Is it any surprise that a lot of that sort of grouchiness comes off as "stop playing D&D wrong, you whippersnappers!"?
I know this concept is utterly foreign to you, but maybe, just maybe, people who have played D&D for longer than you, through multiple editions, might have more experience than you, and might have more wisdom and insight on what is good for the game, than you.
Yeah, no. Experience is helpful, but "what is good for the game" is your own opinion. Move out of the way, the next generation is coming to take your D&D! This is gatekeeping, and not constructive to the community, discussion, or literally anything.
I have never heard this term "gate-keeping" until the last year or so. I have no clue what it means.
Basically gatekeeping is when someone or some group takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or fandom. "You aren't a true fan because x reasons and you shouldn't be here/don't belong" and all that.
Actually it does and still makes it seem you are saying “only my changes is important.” I am sure that isn’t how you meant it. So you’re position is “add new thing to give us more variety?” Because it would seem that you are arguing for the opposite here. I mean it makes for better variety when there are two Orcs at the table and one has a STR bonus and the other has an INT bonus. You seem to locked into the mentality that the majority of players will abuse rather to use them for more creative opportunities.
Also saying that you prefer Psionics a certain like they were in the past actually does sound like you want WoTC to change them to something from another game which has already been made and you can play. Yes you can your opinion but when you say that “WotC shouldn’t have to change D&D to suit people who would prefer a different game, that’s why there are different games,” It does apply to you as well and I am allowed to call it out. If WoTC want Psionics to use spellcasting then that is the way WoTC wants them to be played in 5e. You are welcomed to ban them from your table if you wish but it is the same as these rules.
As to your first point, I have been around long enough to know that any game with “builds” has a meta, and that people will build to the meta. I cannot speak to the current edition of 40k, but last edition was Imperial soup and Slam Captains for days. look at WoW. D&d is no different, the only reason we have the variety of “builds” we have now is because of those restrictions that make playing anything but an Aarakocra or a Yaun-Ti look more attractive for certain builds.
One thing Yurei and I both vehemently agree on is the lack of meaningful Player agency in character building. If Race becomes less meaningful, that gives us even fewer meaningful character choices.
As to your second point, I do not want Psionics to be “like they were before.” My only criteria is that they be “Different than Spellcasting, like they were different from Spellcasting before.” What shape that difference takes is less relevant to me. I LOVED the Psi Die, that never existed in Psionics before. Why did I love it? Because it was different than anything else we currently have in D&D. Again, my only criteria was that it be different than something we already have, Spellcasting.
However you also take away player agency that you claim you want. I see Yurei actually arguing against you on this one and I agree with them. This actually adds to meaningful player agency without taking anything away(which you have stated is what you want correct, more options less streamline). It adds variety to the game. I think that you might want to actually start to look around and see that there are tons of creative people who won’t abuse the system. Will there be some? Yea. However this isn’t 3.5e where only a few builds ruled even though there was plenty of options. The playerbase is different and there are tons that are very creative.
However I can see that despite saying otherwise, you don’t actually believe in more meaning player agency as you have already decided to keep it limited. Maybe that is the difference between us, I see the possibilities and can already see people building different versions of stuff they want to play. Or even more meaningful choices than that. Again you can always ban the stuff from your game.
Or like many of us, we don't see the need for a Half-orc wizard to NEED a +2 in INT to make that character. Sposta has never said he prevents players from playing races that don't give bonuses to their prime stat. So that's a very projecting argument you are making.
I can make a Goliath Wizard with out without this new ASI system. Player agency is not being added by this system because that agency already exists. The only thing this new system will do is make my goliath wizard better if I so choose. It's the "win more" feature.
A “win more” feature in a game that is more cooperative than competitive?
The only thing this new system will do is make my goliath wizard better if I so choose. It's the "win more" feature.
A “win more” feature in a game that is more cooperative than competitive?
Yes. Because anyone who only ever pick a race because of the +2, and need that +2 or else they don’t feel like they’re “allowed” to take that race with that class are playing D&D to “win.” If you play for “story,” or for “fun,” you don’t need that +2.
Or like many of us, we don't see the need for a Half-orc wizard to NEED a +2 in INT to make that character. Sposta has never said he prevents players from playing races that don't give bonuses to their prime stat. So that's a very projecting argument you are making.
I can make a Goliath Wizard with out without this new ASI system. Player agency is not being added by this system because that agency already exists. The only thing this new system will do is make my goliath wizard better if I so choose. It's the "win more" feature.
A “win more” feature in a game that is more cooperative than competitive?
That's your take away from that entire post. Call it what you want but my Goliath wizard will still be good weather I have a +2 from my race or not. If a card is only good when you already have a lead in a competitive card game it is called a "win more" card. That plus to is the difference between a 15 and a 17 on my Wizard so a +2 or a +3 in my prime stat. I will still be effective with my +2 mod so I don't need that bonus having it just makes me "better" at what I'm already good at - hence me calling it a "win-more" feature.
But if you really feel like getting hung up on minutia instead of having a constructive conversation fine by me.
Because no one is the same or thinks the same. I don’t see adding more options to the game is bad for it. After all “Add new things to give us more variety. Don’t take away variety for the sake of streamlining.”
Actually, there comes a point where too much variety simply crushes the game. The major complaints you get from games in Pathfinder 2, GURPS, and Rolemaster is that you (and your DM) drown in the number of options and variety - to a point where the added variety can create crushing complexity. And I say that as a fan of Dnd 3.5 (which is very much like Pathfinder 2) as well as Rolemaster.
DMs have always had options. Rule 0 and all that. But, official optional rules have a decent history of becoming the de facto rules.
It works well when you don't want to commit to a specific day and time every week - or if you want to play a lot more than on a specific day and time. I just finished AL Epic game (great fun if you have never done it - I think 12 tables involved), and I have two tomorrow and one more on Sunday (online convention).
Or like many of us, we don't see the need for a Half-orc wizard to NEED a +2 in INT to make that character. Sposta has never said he prevents players from playing races that don't give bonuses to their prime stat. So that's a very projecting argument you are making.
I can make a Goliath Wizard with out without this new ASI system. Player agency is not being added by this system because that agency already exists. The only thing this new system will do is make my goliath wizard better if I so choose. It's the "win more" feature.
A “win more” feature in a game that is more cooperative than competitive?
That's your take away from that entire post. Call it what you want but my Goliath wizard will still be good weather I have a +2 from my race or not. If a card is only good when you already have a lead in a competitive card game it is called a "win more" card. That plus to is the difference between a 15 and a 17 on my Wizard so a +2 or a +3 in my prime stat. I will still be effective with my +2 mod so I don't need that bonus having it just makes me "better" at what I'm already good at - hence me calling it a "win-more" feature.
But if you really feel like getting hung up on minutia instead of having a constructive conversation fine by me.
Do I really need to comment about the entire post to be able to comment on the only thing that I wanted to ask about? I am allowed to do that to have a constructive conversation. It is getting to know to what the other person is thinking and seeing where they stand. I don’t remember personally attacking you at all so I don’t know why you would do that.
As for the rest of it. I am beyond familiar with the concept of a “win-more” card or feature. If you are looking as a competitive game than yes it is a “win-more” feature. However unless you are “that guy” most people consider it a cooperative story between the GM and the players. Maybe this is why I don’t see why this is a big deal for you all. This does nothing and adds more meaningful character options.
I have already seen articles and posts on various forums about what race is best for what class. What this does now is allows more races to be considered for each class as without the need of the +2 and +1(or assigning at will), You can get a lot better combinations and allows people to then tailor which race abilities is better for you then. Though I am guessing more people will still choose human and fighter.
Also, if you don’t want to use them then don’t use them. No one is forcing you what is allowed at your table(if you are a DM) and no one if forcing you to use these rules at all. let people have their fun if they want to.
It's just disingenuous. All this "your wizard with a 15 Intelligence and a +2 modifier is perfectly fine, nobody ever needed a +3."
Next up: "Your wizard with a 13 Intelligence and a +1 is perfectly fine. Nobody ever needed a +2."
Right on down to "Your wizard with the 9/6/4/5/3/7 ability spread is just fine. A real D&D player plays for the story, not the numbers, and failing is a more interesting story than succeeding."
First of all, the whole "failure makes a better story than success" thing is absolute garbage and I refuse to tolerate it. I like engaging with a powerful collaborative story with my friends. I also like succeeding. A person is allowed to like both of those things at the same time. Furthermore, a person is allowed to attempt to do both of those things at the same time. This notion that one should feel privileged and special when their character works because the base assumption is that a character should not work is intensely aggravating.
Intensely.
Aggravating.
"Winning" is not a dirty word. Success is not inherently evil. The story of D&D and the game of D&D are not mutually exclusive things. Sometimes, part of one's character concept is being good at their job. Competence is fun to roleplay. If someone wishes to be competent as a member of a species that is not normally competent in a given class, why not allow them that privilege? Especially because this ridiculous idea that allowing a goliath to go 1 STR / 1 CON / 1 INT is going to open the door to flying fire-breathing halflings with drow darkvision and satyr magic resistance. Because that's a logical step to take, rather than saying "Decouple ability scores and cultural training from species while leaving the biological traits intrinsic to that species - which do not include ability scores and never should have - to join the lore and history of the species as what differentiates it from every other species."
It's just disingenuous. All this "your wizard with a 15 Intelligence and a +2 modifier is perfectly fine, nobody ever needed a +3."
Next up: "Your wizard with a 13 Intelligence and a +1 is perfectly fine. Nobody ever needed a +2."
Right on down to "Your wizard with the 9/6/4/5/3/7 ability spread is just fine. A real D&D player plays for the story, not the numbers, and failing is a more interesting story than succeeding."
First of all, the whole "failure makes a better story than success" thing is absolute garbage and I refuse to tolerate it. I like engaging with a powerful collaborative story with my friends. I also like succeeding. A person is allowed to like both of those things at the same time. Furthermore, a person is allowed to attempt to do both of those things at the same time. This notion that one should feel privileged and special when their character works because the base assumption is that a character should not work is intensely aggravating.
Intensely.
Aggravating.
"Winning" is not a dirty word. Success is not inherently evil. The story of D&D and the game of D&D are not mutually exclusive things. Sometimes, part of one's character concept is being good at their job. Competence is fun to roleplay. If someone wishes to be competent as a member of a species that is not normally competent in a given class, why not allow them that privilege? Especially because this ridiculous idea that allowing a goliath to go 1 STR / 1 CON / 1 INT is going to open the door to flying fire-breathing halflings with drow darkvision and satyr magic resistance. Because that's a logical step to take, rather than saying "Decouple ability scores and cultural training from species while leaving the biological traits intrinsic to that species - which do not include ability scores and never should have - to join the lore and history of the species as what differentiates it from every other species."
Again, you are conflating “competence” with “exceptionalism.” One does not have to be “the bestestest ever possible of all time ever” to be competent.
If you stand at the pinnacle, everything else looks lower by comparison. Absolute MAX bonuses do not represent “competence,” it represents particularly exceptional excellence. “Average” is 10s across the board in 5e. Anything above that is already “above average” and therefore beyond “competence.” If you only feel “competent” if you are the very best possible, that’s not D&D’s fault my friend, and it’s not mine either.
I’m sorry that being told that you don’t have to be the absolute best possible at something makes you so angry.
The solution, had 5e been designed by game designers looking forward rather than the nebulous all-consuming blob monster known as The Playerbase whose sole concern was that D&D never feel like it's advanced beyond 1985, would be for class, species, and background to each contribute one point of attribute bonus., with optional rules for reconfiguring these bonuses to better fit edge-case storylines. They way you're born impacts your character. The way you're raised impacts your character. And the way you're trained impacts your character. Not "the way you're born is the only thing that ever matters, period and forever, and if you ever go against your species norms you're bad at D&D and should quit the game now, please".
i know this is a joke or whatever, and i cannot speak for the playerbase, but i will say that the game has defenetly changed since 1985 in its core focus, from what i have read in the 2e books a lot of class features did not have clear parameters (do i need to stab to backstab?), a lot of things was just dm fiat, you needed to go on an DM made quest to get certain class features and every five sentences of the DMG talks about how to best squash min maxers and people who just generally try to optimize, punishments for roleplaying badly was more roleplaying in the case of rangers and clerics, every class had insufferable weaknesses and they were very groundeed in real-world history and mythology. The vibes really have changed like a lot since then
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Sort of like all of you telling us who have played the game for eons the existing game itself is awful, and we are awful for liking and defending it. And yeah, that does happen. I remember, what, 24 hours ago the "bigot" word being thrown around. When the aggressor plays the victim card.
Look, your campaign was successful. You has won. WOTC is introducing a system that opens the door that completely changes how a char is built, and what that char is. The canard about how this is "optional" will shown for what it is when systems like AL start introducing it, and unless DM's are hyper-vigilant, people will try to sneak chars into games built on it, no matter what the DM wants, then those people will scream blue murder if a DM does put a stop to it. Then your group moves onto species specific Feats, and ultimately, species specific abilities.
So congrats. Well played. Brilliant use of social media to convince WOTC. Sorry that old folks like myself who have played the game for 40 years are slowing the process of wiping out anything that reminds people of the history of this game. But yeah, I will hold the line, for as long as I can, against the Visogoths coming over the last set of hills.
Sort of like all of you telling us who have played the game for eons the existing game itself is awful, and we are awful for liking and defending it. And yeah, that does happen. I remember, what, 24 hours ago the "bigot" word being thrown around. When the aggressor plays the victim card.
Look, your campaign was successful. You has won. WOTC is introducing a system that opens the door that completely changes how a char is built, and what that char is. The canard about how this is "optional" will shown for what it is when systems like AL start introducing it, and unless DM's are hyper-vigilant, people will try to sneak chars into games built on it, no matter what the DM wants, then those people will scream blue murder if a DM does put a stop to it. Then your group moves onto species specific Feats, and ultimately, species specific abilities.
So congrats. Well played. Brilliant use of social media to convince WOTC. Sorry that old folks like myself who have played the game for 40 years are slowing the process of wiping out anything that reminds people of the history of this game. But yeah, I will hold the line, for as long as I can, against the Visogoths coming over the last set of hills.
You're not defending anything. Dungeons and Dragons isn't yours to defend. It doesn't belong to you and being old and having played it for longer than anyone around you doesn't grant you some special privilege. You're on the same level as someone who picked up the game when 5E was first released. Claiming you're upholding some imagined tradition over a game that isn't yours like it's some noble onus is...well, for lack of a better word, it's silly. Moving some numbers around won't destroy the game and if a DM doesn't want these rules they can ignore them because no amount of player whining will change the fact that there is a very clear disparity between the number of people wanting to be a PC and the number of people willing to DM. If a DM doesn't want these new rules they're still highly likely to find a group of players willing to accept that. It's really not that hard to be upfront about it.
that 1 point is only a big deal for the primary attribute of your class, it's usually about twice as important as secondary stats (such as Con) and probably four times as important as your dump stat, whatever that is (most often Str, Int, or Cha).
So this seems to be the essential point here. Assuming point buy or standard array, some folks think that it simply must be the case that one has at least a 17 in the prime stat at level 1, or else the character is simply "not competent". Is that the case?
If so, you should be asking WOTC to use the "better stat array" of the dungeon dudes as a standard, rather than worrying about racial bonuses. My group already started with 17s, and didn't need racial bonuses to do it. (Their array is 17, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8.)
The intent of this better array, as they explained, and the reason why I used it, was to get rid of this apparent need to put your +2 into your prime stat and thus be hampered by your racial choices. Your 17 comes in automatically now, so if you want to play a half-orc Warlock, you can slide that 17 straight into Cha and you're good.
I suspect though, somehow, that the same people arguing that a 17 is "required" at level 1 for the starting prime stat, would tell me now that if my character didn't start with a 19 in that prime stat it would be "broken."
Honestly, I love it that WOtC is giving us options. I think a few people are buying the race card too much tho. I would like the rules just to allow me to play some wacky characters ( fire Draconic f bloodline loccanath anyone?) and make them good (Not 'workable' but good, notice my language there. I am totally aware that a 15, hell even a 10, could work, but unfortunately the optimizer in me is rejecting that statement). big thumbs up to the DnD team for giving us options. If some people see them as a racial equality thing, Great! If some people see them as a crap change not to be used, Great! They are there if you ever change your mind! if some people use them to powergame.......less great....moving on. The big point is they are THERE and they are optional. If you as a DM cannot stop your players from using them, you dont deserve the screen you sit behind. Same as third sundering not allowing rolls! He probably manages his group just fine!
My final point is that 5e is the best selling DnD edition ever. There is no way they would change up the game completely, just cause people on the internet said so. 90% just play and like it, and are not bothered about splatbooks and variant rules. The change is more likely to be a floating ability point, And I know plenty of DMs who use that, and plenty who dont. Whatever the case, If you want it its there, if you dont, shelve the book, and forget about it. Now can we move on to more interesting subjects like the price of dog-food during Covid, and wether or not you think that WOtC will nerf the undead before putting it into tasha's
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Sort of like all of you telling us who have played the game for eons the existing game itself is awful, and we are awful for liking and defending it. And yeah, that does happen. I remember, what, 24 hours ago the "bigot" word being thrown around. When the aggressor plays the victim card.
Look, your campaign was successful. You has won. WOTC is introducing a system that opens the door that completely changes how a char is built, and what that char is. The canard about how this is "optional" will shown for what it is when systems like AL start introducing it, and unless DM's are hyper-vigilant, people will try to sneak chars into games built on it, no matter what the DM wants, then those people will scream blue murder if a DM does put a stop to it. Then your group moves onto species specific Feats, and ultimately, species specific abilities.
So congrats. Well played. Brilliant use of social media to convince WOTC. Sorry that old folks like myself who have played the game for 40 years are slowing the process of wiping out anything that reminds people of the history of this game. But yeah, I will hold the line, for as long as I can, against the Visogoths coming over the last set of hills.
And there are plenty of old players that are loving these changes. I have been playing since AD&D and I believe that these changes are welcomed. what campaign was successful? The one in which WoTC has stated that the mission was 5e was to be diverse and they are trying to be better? yes you don’t like the changes but there are plenty of us old-timers that are like yea makes sense.
Sort of like all of you telling us who have played the game for eons the existing game itself is awful, and we are awful for liking and defending it. And yeah, that does happen. I remember, what, 24 hours ago the "bigot" word being thrown around. When the aggressor plays the victim card.
Look, your campaign was successful. You has won. WOTC is introducing a system that opens the door that completely changes how a char is built, and what that char is. The canard about how this is "optional" will shown for what it is when systems like AL start introducing it, and unless DM's are hyper-vigilant, people will try to sneak chars into games built on it, no matter what the DM wants, then those people will scream blue murder if a DM does put a stop to it. Then your group moves onto species specific Feats, and ultimately, species specific abilities.
So congrats. Well played. Brilliant use of social media to convince WOTC. Sorry that old folks like myself who have played the game for 40 years are slowing the process of wiping out anything that reminds people of the history of this game. But yeah, I will hold the line, for as long as I can, against the Visogoths coming over the last set of hills.
And there are plenty of old players that are loving these changes. I have been playing since AD&D and I believe that these changes are welcomed. what campaign was successful? The one in which WoTC has stated that the mission was 5e was to be diverse and they are trying to be better? yes you don’t like the changes but there are plenty of us old-timers that are like yea makes sense.
That would be an interesting survey. I've been playing since Dec 1979, I don't care for the changes.
Sort of like all of you telling us who have played the game for eons the existing game itself is awful, and we are awful for liking and defending it. And yeah, that does happen. I remember, what, 24 hours ago the "bigot" word being thrown around. When the aggressor plays the victim card.
Look, your campaign was successful. You has won. WOTC is introducing a system that opens the door that completely changes how a char is built, and what that char is. The canard about how this is "optional" will shown for what it is when systems like AL start introducing it, and unless DM's are hyper-vigilant, people will try to sneak chars into games built on it, no matter what the DM wants, then those people will scream blue murder if a DM does put a stop to it. Then your group moves onto species specific Feats, and ultimately, species specific abilities.
So congrats. Well played. Brilliant use of social media to convince WOTC. Sorry that old folks like myself who have played the game for 40 years are slowing the process of wiping out anything that reminds people of the history of this game. But yeah, I will hold the line, for as long as I can, against the Visogoths coming over the last set of hills.
And there are plenty of old players that are loving these changes. I have been playing since AD&D and I believe that these changes are welcomed. what campaign was successful? The one in which WoTC has stated that the mission was 5e was to be diverse and they are trying to be better? yes you don’t like the changes but there are plenty of us old-timers that are like yea makes sense.
That would be an interesting survey. I've been playing since Dec 1979, I don't care for the changes.
Cool. You do you. You are also aware that there is only a minority of people that actual post here so we can’t get a good measure of what percent of older players would prefer the changes or not. I don’t see what is so bad with letting group play with the changes or without the changes as they seem fit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Gatekeeping
Basically, you deciding who is allowed to play in the game or be a member of the community, which is what you were doing earlier.
Next time, if you don't know what a word means, get a dictionary, or Google it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
They don't need AL. I've joined two groups from showing up to an AL event and connecting with the people there.
Personally, I find AL not to my taste, but that's a discussion for another thread.
Basically gatekeeping is when someone or some group takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or fandom. "You aren't a true fan because x reasons and you shouldn't be here/don't belong" and all that.
Edit: Got sniped XD
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
A “win more” feature in a game that is more cooperative than competitive?
Yes. Because anyone who only ever pick a race because of the +2, and need that +2 or else they don’t feel like they’re “allowed” to take that race with that class are playing D&D to “win.” If you play for “story,” or for “fun,” you don’t need that +2.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That's your take away from that entire post. Call it what you want but my Goliath wizard will still be good weather I have a +2 from my race or not. If a card is only good when you already have a lead in a competitive card game it is called a "win more" card. That plus to is the difference between a 15 and a 17 on my Wizard so a +2 or a +3 in my prime stat. I will still be effective with my +2 mod so I don't need that bonus having it just makes me "better" at what I'm already good at - hence me calling it a "win-more" feature.
But if you really feel like getting hung up on minutia instead of having a constructive conversation fine by me.
Actually, there comes a point where too much variety simply crushes the game. The major complaints you get from games in Pathfinder 2, GURPS, and Rolemaster is that you (and your DM) drown in the number of options and variety - to a point where the added variety can create crushing complexity. And I say that as a fan of Dnd 3.5 (which is very much like Pathfinder 2) as well as Rolemaster.
DMs have always had options. Rule 0 and all that. But, official optional rules have a decent history of becoming the de facto rules.
It works well when you don't want to commit to a specific day and time every week - or if you want to play a lot more than on a specific day and time. I just finished AL Epic game (great fun if you have never done it - I think 12 tables involved), and I have two tomorrow and one more on Sunday (online convention).
Do I really need to comment about the entire post to be able to comment on the only thing that I wanted to ask about? I am allowed to do that to have a constructive conversation. It is getting to know to what the other person is thinking and seeing where they stand. I don’t remember personally attacking you at all so I don’t know why you would do that.
As for the rest of it. I am beyond familiar with the concept of a “win-more” card or feature. If you are looking as a competitive game than yes it is a “win-more” feature. However unless you are “that guy” most people consider it a cooperative story between the GM and the players. Maybe this is why I don’t see why this is a big deal for you all. This does nothing and adds more meaningful character options.
I have already seen articles and posts on various forums about what race is best for what class. What this does now is allows more races to be considered for each class as without the need of the +2 and +1(or assigning at will), You can get a lot better combinations and allows people to then tailor which race abilities is better for you then. Though I am guessing more people will still choose human and fighter.
Also, if you don’t want to use them then don’t use them. No one is forcing you what is allowed at your table(if you are a DM) and no one if forcing you to use these rules at all. let people have their fun if they want to.
It's just disingenuous. All this "your wizard with a 15 Intelligence and a +2 modifier is perfectly fine, nobody ever needed a +3."
Next up: "Your wizard with a 13 Intelligence and a +1 is perfectly fine. Nobody ever needed a +2."
Right on down to "Your wizard with the 9/6/4/5/3/7 ability spread is just fine. A real D&D player plays for the story, not the numbers, and failing is a more interesting story than succeeding."
First of all, the whole "failure makes a better story than success" thing is absolute garbage and I refuse to tolerate it. I like engaging with a powerful collaborative story with my friends. I also like succeeding. A person is allowed to like both of those things at the same time. Furthermore, a person is allowed to attempt to do both of those things at the same time. This notion that one should feel privileged and special when their character works because the base assumption is that a character should not work is intensely aggravating.
Intensely.
Aggravating.
"Winning" is not a dirty word. Success is not inherently evil. The story of D&D and the game of D&D are not mutually exclusive things. Sometimes, part of one's character concept is being good at their job. Competence is fun to roleplay. If someone wishes to be competent as a member of a species that is not normally competent in a given class, why not allow them that privilege? Especially because this ridiculous idea that allowing a goliath to go 1 STR / 1 CON / 1 INT is going to open the door to flying fire-breathing halflings with drow darkvision and satyr magic resistance. Because that's a logical step to take, rather than saying "Decouple ability scores and cultural training from species while leaving the biological traits intrinsic to that species - which do not include ability scores and never should have - to join the lore and history of the species as what differentiates it from every other species."
Please do not contact or message me.
Again, you are conflating “competence” with “exceptionalism.” One does not have to be “the bestestest ever possible of all time ever” to be competent.
If you stand at the pinnacle, everything else looks lower by comparison. Absolute MAX bonuses do not represent “competence,” it represents particularly exceptional excellence. “Average” is 10s across the board in 5e. Anything above that is already “above average” and therefore beyond “competence.” If you only feel “competent” if you are the very best possible, that’s not D&D’s fault my friend, and it’s not mine either.
I’m sorry that being told that you don’t have to be the absolute best possible at something makes you so angry.
It’s okay to not be perfect.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Saying that this PC is not even “competent” at their job because he doesn’t have a +3 Cha modifier is rather insulting to both me, and Kord’ak.
https://ddb.ac/characters/34692640/6kvrmb
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
i know this is a joke or whatever, and i cannot speak for the playerbase, but i will say that the game has defenetly changed since 1985 in its core focus, from what i have read in the 2e books a lot of class features did not have clear parameters (do i need to stab to backstab?), a lot of things was just dm fiat, you needed to go on an DM made quest to get certain class features and every five sentences of the DMG talks about how to best squash min maxers and people who just generally try to optimize, punishments for roleplaying badly was more roleplaying in the case of rangers and clerics, every class had insufferable weaknesses and they were very groundeed in real-world history and mythology. The vibes really have changed like a lot since then
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Re: Gatekeeping, understood now.
Sort of like all of you telling us who have played the game for eons the existing game itself is awful, and we are awful for liking and defending it. And yeah, that does happen. I remember, what, 24 hours ago the "bigot" word being thrown around. When the aggressor plays the victim card.
Look, your campaign was successful. You has won. WOTC is introducing a system that opens the door that completely changes how a char is built, and what that char is. The canard about how this is "optional" will shown for what it is when systems like AL start introducing it, and unless DM's are hyper-vigilant, people will try to sneak chars into games built on it, no matter what the DM wants, then those people will scream blue murder if a DM does put a stop to it. Then your group moves onto species specific Feats, and ultimately, species specific abilities.
So congrats. Well played. Brilliant use of social media to convince WOTC. Sorry that old folks like myself who have played the game for 40 years are slowing the process of wiping out anything that reminds people of the history of this game. But yeah, I will hold the line, for as long as I can, against the Visogoths coming over the last set of hills.
You're not defending anything. Dungeons and Dragons isn't yours to defend. It doesn't belong to you and being old and having played it for longer than anyone around you doesn't grant you some special privilege. You're on the same level as someone who picked up the game when 5E was first released. Claiming you're upholding some imagined tradition over a game that isn't yours like it's some noble onus is...well, for lack of a better word, it's silly. Moving some numbers around won't destroy the game and if a DM doesn't want these rules they can ignore them because no amount of player whining will change the fact that there is a very clear disparity between the number of people wanting to be a PC and the number of people willing to DM. If a DM doesn't want these new rules they're still highly likely to find a group of players willing to accept that. It's really not that hard to be upfront about it.
So this seems to be the essential point here. Assuming point buy or standard array, some folks think that it simply must be the case that one has at least a 17 in the prime stat at level 1, or else the character is simply "not competent". Is that the case?
If so, you should be asking WOTC to use the "better stat array" of the dungeon dudes as a standard, rather than worrying about racial bonuses. My group already started with 17s, and didn't need racial bonuses to do it. (Their array is 17, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8.)
The intent of this better array, as they explained, and the reason why I used it, was to get rid of this apparent need to put your +2 into your prime stat and thus be hampered by your racial choices. Your 17 comes in automatically now, so if you want to play a half-orc Warlock, you can slide that 17 straight into Cha and you're good.
I suspect though, somehow, that the same people arguing that a 17 is "required" at level 1 for the starting prime stat, would tell me now that if my character didn't start with a 19 in that prime stat it would be "broken."
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Honestly, I love it that WOtC is giving us options. I think a few people are buying the race card too much tho. I would like the rules just to allow me to play some wacky characters ( fire Draconic f bloodline loccanath anyone?) and make them good (Not 'workable' but good, notice my language there. I am totally aware that a 15, hell even a 10, could work, but unfortunately the optimizer in me is rejecting that statement). big thumbs up to the DnD team for giving us options. If some people see them as a racial equality thing, Great! If some people see them as a crap change not to be used, Great! They are there if you ever change your mind! if some people use them to powergame.......less great....moving on. The big point is they are THERE and they are optional. If you as a DM cannot stop your players from using them, you dont deserve the screen you sit behind. Same as third sundering not allowing rolls! He probably manages his group just fine!
My final point is that 5e is the best selling DnD edition ever. There is no way they would change up the game completely, just cause people on the internet said so. 90% just play and like it, and are not bothered about splatbooks and variant rules. The change is more likely to be a floating ability point, And I know plenty of DMs who use that, and plenty who dont. Whatever the case, If you want it its there, if you dont, shelve the book, and forget about it. Now can we move on to more interesting subjects like the price of dog-food during Covid, and wether or not you think that WOtC will nerf the undead before putting it into tasha's
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
And there are plenty of old players that are loving these changes. I have been playing since AD&D and I believe that these changes are welcomed.
what campaign was successful? The one in which WoTC has stated that the mission was 5e was to be diverse and they are trying to be better?
yes you don’t like the changes but there are plenty of us old-timers that are like yea makes sense.
That would be an interesting survey. I've been playing since Dec 1979, I don't care for the changes.
Cool. You do you. You are also aware that there is only a minority of people that actual post here so we can’t get a good measure of what percent of older players would prefer the changes or not. I don’t see what is so bad with letting group play with the changes or without the changes as they seem fit.