So, today’s session gave us some insight when our level 7 Druid turned into an owlbear and scared the holy hell out of a group of tunnel goblins.
The new set up allows for chimeric creatures such as owl ears, but also the “Avatar” (cartoon) style critters and was a good 40 minute interruption to play testing. Because we are using a dungeon, there is some disagreement about allowing wildshape to take theory of a mimic disguised as a door. RAW, it would be possible but no stickiness.RAI, probably not.
we did get into a thing around a Paladin action, but that had more to do with a recurring issue around terminology for conditions.
we do not like the die at 10 points exhausted. We prefer unconscious, with penalties that stack. Death seems too much, but easily killed is another thing. I confess that might be a holdover from our own In house set up for the new campaign, which divides it, because of a deal around using magic points.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
my biggest fear/gripe with I have seen from one dnd so far is the tendency to remove permanent choices and customization within classes/subclasses. There is a real effort to streamline the game further, which I can get behind to a certain extent... It is a good thing to try and make the game more easily understood and played.
Things like removing choices from the hunter subclass or letting more classes freely change their spells around just does not excite me. Id like see more permanent choices when leveling up, Id like to see characters be like a branching tree instead of one linear road and it appears that the DnD design team does not agree with me ^^.
So, today’s session gave us some insight when our level 7 Druid turned into an owlbear and scared the holy hell out of a group of tunnel goblins.
The new set up allows for chimeric creatures such as owl ears, but also the “Avatar” (cartoon) style critters and was a good 40 minute interruption to play testing. Because we are using a dungeon, there is some disagreement about allowing wildshape to take theory of a mimic disguised as a door. RAW, it would be possible but no stickiness.RAI, probably not.
I don't think wildshape would let you look like a mimic. While yes it says you can choose its appearance, all reference to the appearance choice is a animal and all the examples are of a beast in 5e terms, it allows hybrid animals but not just anything. I don't think RAW would allow it, and I'm certain RAI would not.
my biggest fear/gripe with I have seen from one dnd so far is the tendency to remove permanent choices and customization within classes/subclasses. There is a real effort to streamline the game further, which I can get behind to a certain extent... It is a good thing to try and make the game more easily understood and played.
Things like removing choices from the hunter subclass or letting more classes freely change their spells around just does not excite me. Id like see more permanent choices when leveling up, Id like to see characters be like a branching tree instead of one linear road and it appears that the DnD design team does not agree with me ^^.
I remember the "permanent decision" debate from Diablo 2 over a decade ago. The short version is: Most people don't want to remake a entire character over one game mechanic choice that they regret one play session later.
It would be even worse in a TTRPG, because at least with D2 you can look online to see how the option performs. With D&D, it's a roll of the dice from table to table...
Player 1: I just leveled up and now I can cast Spell of Awesomeness & do crazy things!
<1st session with SoA>
Player 1: I cast SoA & it is GLORIOUS!!!
GM: Sorry, I don't allow SoA to work like that in my games.
Player 1: Oh, then I'll choose Spell of Coolness instead.
GM: Sorry again, but you already chose SoA.
Player 1: D&D sucks, I'm going back to doom-scrolling on Reddit.
my biggest fear/gripe with I have seen from one dnd so far is the tendency to remove permanent choices and customization within classes/subclasses. There is a real effort to streamline the game further, which I can get behind to a certain extent... It is a good thing to try and make the game more easily understood and played.
Things like removing choices from the hunter subclass or letting more classes freely change their spells around just does not excite me. Id like see more permanent choices when leveling up, Id like to see characters be like a branching tree instead of one linear road and it appears that the DnD design team does not agree with me ^^.
I remember the "permanent decision" debate from Diablo 2 over a decade ago. The short version is: Most people don't want to remake a entire character over one game mechanic choice that they regret one play session later.
It would be even worse in a TTRPG, because at least with D2 you can look online to see how the option performs. With D&D, it's a roll of the dice from table to table...
Player 1: I just leveled up and now I can cast Spell of Awesomeness & do crazy things!
<1st session with SoA>
Player 1: I cast SoA & it is GLORIOUS!!!
GM: Sorry, I don't allow SoA to work like that in my games.
Player 1: Oh, then I'll choose Spell of Coolness instead.
GM: Sorry again, but you already chose SoA.
Player 1: D&D sucks, I'm going back to doom-scrolling on Reddit.
I mean a jerk DM will wreck any game anyways. But its pretty easy to have a baked in rule about swapping features at level up or something.
I'm just answering the question of the thread, other people are welcome to have other preferences. Personally I like that my choice of spells is part of theming my character. Spellcasters with the ability to easily reselect their spells from a generic list makes it so that you can't really meaningfully theme your caster within the class.. every bard is essentially a long rest away from being the same.. I just don't find that very appealing at all. Ive certainly made spell choices that I later came to regret with my wizard, but they are part of what makes that character interesting to play.
wanting them to be permanent is perhaps a bit too extreme a way to put it.. A better wording would be to say that I want choices that can't easily be undone. The old sorc ability to change one of your spells out on a level up is a fine balance for me for example.
The hunter being able to customize their abilties as their leveled up was easily the most interesting part of the subclass for me, removing that aspect just kills any interest i might have had.
my biggest fear/gripe with I have seen from one dnd so far is the tendency to remove permanent choices and customization within classes/subclasses. There is a real effort to streamline the game further, which I can get behind to a certain extent... It is a good thing to try and make the game more easily understood and played.
Things like removing choices from the hunter subclass or letting more classes freely change their spells around just does not excite me. Id like see more permanent choices when leveling up, Id like to see characters be like a branching tree instead of one linear road and it appears that the DnD design team does not agree with me ^^.
I remember the "permanent decision" debate from Diablo 2 over a decade ago. The short version is: Most people don't want to remake a entire character over one game mechanic choice that they regret one play session later.
It would be even worse in a TTRPG, because at least with D2 you can look online to see how the option performs. With D&D, it's a roll of the dice from table to table...
Player 1: I just leveled up and now I can cast Spell of Awesomeness & do crazy things!
<1st session with SoA>
Player 1: I cast SoA & it is GLORIOUS!!!
GM: Sorry, I don't allow SoA to work like that in my games.
Player 1: Oh, then I'll choose Spell of Coolness instead.
GM: Sorry again, but you already chose SoA.
Player 1: D&D sucks, I'm going back to doom-scrolling on Reddit.
Honestly, that's a jerk DM and a bad DM rolled into one...they're probably better off leaving. The changes to SoA should have been advertised in session 0. Even if they weren't, then the DM should have let it fly OR allowed them to change that option because they didn't realise they couldn't get what they wanted from that build. Heck, at my table, I'd probably give them the option change even if they'd simply misunderstood what the RAW was.
With a DM like that, if it wasn't a problem with SoA, it'd be something else instead. I'm not ever really convinced that we should be compromising the game as a whole based on what some bad* & jerk DMs do, because they'll just find something else to cause drama with, and now we've made the game worse...simply to change the topic of what a few arguments centre on.
* By bad DMs, I mean the ones that can never be bothered to learn. We should adapt the game for those still learning and trying to learn, which is why I support the two tier model like how they do the prepared spell lists in 1D&D - a standard list that is reasonably good and beginners can rely on, while allowing choicez flexibility and complexity for those who are more comfortable with the rules. In that manner, we get the best of both worlds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
my biggest fear/gripe with I have seen from one dnd so far is the tendency to remove permanent choices and customization within classes/subclasses. There is a real effort to streamline the game further, which I can get behind to a certain extent... It is a good thing to try and make the game more easily understood and played.
Things like removing choices from the hunter subclass or letting more classes freely change their spells around just does not excite me. Id like see more permanent choices when leveling up, Id like to see characters be like a branching tree instead of one linear road and it appears that the DnD design team does not agree with me ^^.
That is part of what was killing World of Warcraft. And if we are to take into account the number of players Dungeons & Dragons has than it doesn't have even 1% of the leeway that World of Warcraft had when Activison-Blizzard started down this same self-destructive path.
I don't think wildshape would let you look like a mimic. While yes it says you can choose its appearance, all reference to the appearance choice is a animal and all the examples are of a beast in 5e terms, it allows hybrid animals but not just anything. I don't think RAW would allow it, and I'm certain RAI would not.
Maybe you can argue that by RAI you can't become a mimic, but something you can mechanically do is become a horse who happens to have a climb speed or a shark with a mandatory land speed.
You could argue a player shouldn't use their land speed when in the form of a fish, but there's no mechanical restriction and it's a feature in their fishy form's stat block, so...
my biggest fear/gripe with I have seen from one dnd so far is the tendency to remove permanent choices and customization within classes/subclasses. There is a real effort to streamline the game further, which I can get behind to a certain extent... It is a good thing to try and make the game more easily understood and played.
Things like removing choices from the hunter subclass or letting more classes freely change their spells around just does not excite me. Id like see more permanent choices when leveling up, Id like to see characters be like a branching tree instead of one linear road and it appears that the DnD design team does not agree with me ^^.
I remember the "permanent decision" debate from Diablo 2 over a decade ago. The short version is: Most people don't want to remake a entire character over one game mechanic choice that they regret one play session later.
It would be even worse in a TTRPG, because at least with D2 you can look online to see how the option performs. With D&D, it's a roll of the dice from table to table...
Player 1: I just leveled up and now I can cast Spell of Awesomeness & do crazy things!
<1st session with SoA>
Player 1: I cast SoA & it is GLORIOUS!!!
GM: Sorry, I don't allow SoA to work like that in my games.
Player 1: Oh, then I'll choose Spell of Coolness instead.
GM: Sorry again, but you already chose SoA.
Player 1: D&D sucks, I'm going back to doom-scrolling on Reddit.
I mean a jerk DM will wreck any game anyways. But its pretty easy to have a baked in rule about swapping features at level up or something.
Agree about jerk GMs, but the GM in this case is following (potential) RAW if players don't get to change thier minds after trying out a new spell / class ability / feat. If people wanted thier choices to have a serious impact, they'd be playing Real Life™.
my biggest fear/gripe with I have seen from one dnd so far is the tendency to remove permanent choices and customization within classes/subclasses. There is a real effort to streamline the game further, which I can get behind to a certain extent... It is a good thing to try and make the game more easily understood and played.
Things like removing choices from the hunter subclass or letting more classes freely change their spells around just does not excite me. Id like see more permanent choices when leveling up, Id like to see characters be like a branching tree instead of one linear road and it appears that the DnD design team does not agree with me ^^.
I remember the "permanent decision" debate from Diablo 2 over a decade ago. The short version is: Most people don't want to remake a entire character over one game mechanic choice that they regret one play session later.
It would be even worse in a TTRPG, because at least with D2 you can look online to see how the option performs. With D&D, it's a roll of the dice from table to table...
Player 1: I just leveled up and now I can cast Spell of Awesomeness & do crazy things!
<1st session with SoA>
Player 1: I cast SoA & it is GLORIOUS!!!
GM: Sorry, I don't allow SoA to work like that in my games.
Player 1: Oh, then I'll choose Spell of Coolness instead.
GM: Sorry again, but you already chose SoA.
Player 1: D&D sucks, I'm going back to doom-scrolling on Reddit.
Honestly, that's a jerk DM and a bad DM rolled into one...they're probably better off leaving. The changes to SoA should have been advertised in session 0. Even if they weren't, then the DM should have let it fly OR allowed them to change that option because they didn't realize they couldn't get what they wanted from that build. Heck, at my table, I'd probably give them the option change even if they'd simply misunderstood what the RAW was.
With a DM like that, if it wasn't a problem with SoA, it'd be something else instead. I'm not ever really convinced that we should be compromising the game as a whole based on what some bad* & jerk DMs do, because they'll just find something else to cause drama with, and now we've made the game worse...simply to change the topic of what a few arguments centre on.
* By bad DMs, I mean the ones that can never be bothered to learn. We should adapt the game for those still learning and trying to learn, which is why I support the two tier model like how they do the prepared spell lists in 1D&D - a standard list that is reasonably good and beginners can rely on, while allowing choice & flexibility and complexity for those who are more comfortable with the rules. In that manner, we get the best of both worlds.
My example was probably too simple, but pick any one of the "Is this RAW?" rules discussions on this board, like "Can a sorcerer Twincast Dragon's Breath?" where it can go either way, but the player & GM are on opposite sides. And I agree, if it's a known issue it should be covered at Session 0. Ideally, following the rules as written & being a jerk GM should mean the same thing as rarely as possible. RAW locking down initial choices is not a good design choice for exactly that reason. It requires GMs to intercede in order to prevent buyer's remorse.
If people wanted thier choices to have a serious impact, they'd be playing Real Life™.
I'm sorry but that is a pretty wild thing to say. Asking for meaningful lasting choices in game design is not some novel concept. All games have must have some degree binding choices... otherwise there is no weight to the ruleset at all. I'm sure you too would think that having the ability to switch from being a paladin to a wizards mid-combat would be fairly lame.
Again, you are a free to have different preferences, but lets keep the discussion in good faith.
my biggest fear/gripe with I have seen from one dnd so far is the tendency to remove permanent choices and customization within classes/subclasses. There is a real effort to streamline the game further, which I can get behind to a certain extent... It is a good thing to try and make the game more easily understood and played.
Things like removing choices from the hunter subclass or letting more classes freely change their spells around just does not excite me. Id like see more permanent choices when leveling up, Id like to see characters be like a branching tree instead of one linear road and it appears that the DnD design team does not agree with me ^^.
I remember the "permanent decision" debate from Diablo 2 over a decade ago. The short version is: Most people don't want to remake a entire character over one game mechanic choice that they regret one play session later.
It would be even worse in a TTRPG, because at least with D2 you can look online to see how the option performs. With D&D, it's a roll of the dice from table to table...
Player 1: I just leveled up and now I can cast Spell of Awesomeness & do crazy things!
<1st session with SoA>
Player 1: I cast SoA & it is GLORIOUS!!!
GM: Sorry, I don't allow SoA to work like that in my games.
Player 1: Oh, then I'll choose Spell of Coolness instead.
GM: Sorry again, but you already chose SoA.
Player 1: D&D sucks, I'm going back to doom-scrolling on Reddit.
I mean a jerk DM will wreck any game anyways. But its pretty easy to have a baked in rule about swapping features at level up or something.
Agree about jerk GMs, but the GM in this case is following (potential) RAW if players don't get to change thier minds after trying out a new spell / class ability / feat. If people wanted thier choices to have a serious impact, they'd be playing Real Life™.
Real Life is so hard though! All those rules and systems and it's horribly tilted towards long-time players.
If people wanted thier choices to have a serious impact, they'd be playing Real Life™.
I'm sorry but that is a pretty wild thing to say. Asking for meaningful lasting choices in game design is not some novel concept. All games have must have some degree binding choices... otherwise there is no weight to the ruleset at all. I'm sure you too would think that having the ability to switch from being a paladin to a wizards mid-combat would be fairly lame.
Again, you are a free to have different preferences, but lets keep the discussion in good faith.
It's not novel, but it has been widely rejected by most every player base. Just look at the changes in D&D since 1st Ed. You used to assign a spell to a specific slot every morning if memory serves. Look at the other posters who state that not letting a player change the choice means you're a jerk or bad GM. Or WotC's advice on how do deal with players wanting to change to a newly introduced subclass. Most games started with locked-in choices, but as they moved forward, the players asked for more & more flexibility. Being able to change means being able to play what the player feels will be the most fun right now, rather than what they thought (incorrectly for them) would be fun a session or two or twelve ago. And because of that, it will always win over being locked into previous decisions. And to respond to your example, I wouldn't let them swap classes mid-fight, but if they said a dozen sessions in that paladin wasn't fun for them, and they wanted to try a wizard, I'd work with them before the next session to have a leveled-up wizard ready to go. This is a game. Fun > *.
TL,DR: You're gonna have to house-rule in binding decisions.
my biggest fear/gripe with I have seen from one dnd so far is the tendency to remove permanent choices and customization within classes/subclasses. There is a real effort to streamline the game further, which I can get behind to a certain extent... It is a good thing to try and make the game more easily understood and played.
Things like removing choices from the hunter subclass or letting more classes freely change their spells around just does not excite me. Id like see more permanent choices when leveling up, Id like to see characters be like a branching tree instead of one linear road and it appears that the DnD design team does not agree with me ^^.
I remember the "permanent decision" debate from Diablo 2 over a decade ago. The short version is: Most people don't want to remake a entire character over one game mechanic choice that they regret one play session later.
It would be even worse in a TTRPG, because at least with D2 you can look online to see how the option performs. With D&D, it's a roll of the dice from table to table...
Player 1: I just leveled up and now I can cast Spell of Awesomeness & do crazy things!
<1st session with SoA>
Player 1: I cast SoA & it is GLORIOUS!!!
GM: Sorry, I don't allow SoA to work like that in my games.
Player 1: Oh, then I'll choose Spell of Coolness instead.
GM: Sorry again, but you already chose SoA.
Player 1: D&D sucks, I'm going back to doom-scrolling on Reddit.
I mean a jerk DM will wreck any game anyways. But its pretty easy to have a baked in rule about swapping features at level up or something.
Agree about jerk GMs, but the GM in this case is following (potential) RAW if players don't get to change thier minds after trying out a new spell / class ability / feat. If people wanted thier choices to have a serious impact, they'd be playing Real Life™.
I don't think a DM making a call is being a jerk, but if a player misunderstands a rule and made a level up choice based on that misunderstanding it would be pretty jerky not to let them change it.
I don't think the fix to something like that is removing all lasting choices but to give some kind of ability to change those choices maybe not on a whim but once a level or something, with some GM advice about recent level ups if a player really is dissatisfied for whatever reason.
my biggest fear/gripe with I have seen from one dnd so far is the tendency to remove permanent choices and customization within classes/subclasses. There is a real effort to streamline the game further, which I can get behind to a certain extent... It is a good thing to try and make the game more easily understood and played.
Things like removing choices from the hunter subclass or letting more classes freely change their spells around just does not excite me. Id like see more permanent choices when leveling up, Id like to see characters be like a branching tree instead of one linear road and it appears that the DnD design team does not agree with me ^^.
I remember the "permanent decision" debate from Diablo 2 over a decade ago. The short version is: Most people don't want to remake a entire character over one game mechanic choice that they regret one play session later.
It would be even worse in a TTRPG, because at least with D2 you can look online to see how the option performs. With D&D, it's a roll of the dice from table to table...
Player 1: I just leveled up and now I can cast Spell of Awesomeness & do crazy things!
<1st session with SoA>
Player 1: I cast SoA & it is GLORIOUS!!!
GM: Sorry, I don't allow SoA to work like that in my games.
Player 1: Oh, then I'll choose Spell of Coolness instead.
GM: Sorry again, but you already chose SoA.
Player 1: D&D sucks, I'm going back to doom-scrolling on Reddit.
Honestly, that's a jerk DM and a bad DM rolled into one...they're probably better off leaving. The changes to SoA should have been advertised in session 0. Even if they weren't, then the DM should have let it fly OR allowed them to change that option because they didn't realize they couldn't get what they wanted from that build. Heck, at my table, I'd probably give them the option change even if they'd simply misunderstood what the RAW was.
With a DM like that, if it wasn't a problem with SoA, it'd be something else instead. I'm not ever really convinced that we should be compromising the game as a whole based on what some bad* & jerk DMs do, because they'll just find something else to cause drama with, and now we've made the game worse...simply to change the topic of what a few arguments centre on.
* By bad DMs, I mean the ones that can never be bothered to learn. We should adapt the game for those still learning and trying to learn, which is why I support the two tier model like how they do the prepared spell lists in 1D&D - a standard list that is reasonably good and beginners can rely on, while allowing choice & flexibility and complexity for those who are more comfortable with the rules. In that manner, we get the best of both worlds.
My example was probably too simple, but pick any one of the "Is this RAW?" rules discussions on this board, like "Can a sorcerer Twincast Dragon's Breath?" where it can go either way, but the player & GM are on opposite sides. And I agree, if it's a known issue it should be covered at Session 0. Ideally, following the rules as written & being a jerk GM should mean the same thing as rarely as possible. RAW locking down initial choices is not a good design choice for exactly that reason. It requires GMs to intercede in order to prevent buyer's remorse.
On the other hand, you don't get buyer's joy either. when I'm levelling up as a Wizard, it's an exciting time because I get to add two more spells to my spellbook. It's exciting as I go shopping for new goodies and make decisions about my character. My Cleric on the other hand...half the levels are meaningless (with respect to spells, at least), and the other half are "oh, cool, I get more spells, I'll do a rejig", despite getting quite a few more spells than I would as a Wizard. That's because as a Wizard, I'm making meaningful choices for my character; my Cleric is just putting clothes on for the day.
Which leads me back to the first part...if the question is meaningful, then a DM worth playing with will work with you to make sure that you don't get screwed. If they won't...then it's not going to be a problem of edge case RAW rulings. Even fairly solid RAW rules will be prone to modification, and you'll find the rule is not safe. The DM that, when approached by a Wizard player and is told "look, this spell isn't working the way I expected, it's just not fun and it's dragging down my enjoyment of the game, would you mind if I swapped it out for this one?", responds with a flat "no", isn't respecting the cardinal rule of D&D and is prone to not respecting RAW either (whether they recognise that fact or not). They're the kind of DM that tells the Druid he doesn't think it makes sense that they can select any spell in the list, and so he has to follow the same rules as the Wizard, except the Druid doesn't get to learn spells via spellbooks and scrolls, etc.
Conversely, if the controversial ruling isn't meaningful...then it's not worth fighting over and we've just taken away a singificant part of the fun to...resolve something that doesn't really cause issues. If a DM rules that my Fireball itself creates a loud noise...ok, that's annoying, but hardly worth taking away that joy I get from going shopping for new spells when I level up.
Not everything has to be permanent. Flexibility has its role in fun too - you mention the idea that you had to pick specific spells for specific slots each day, which I would have absolutely hated. I love the Wizard for it's flexibility. However, flexibility has to be tempered with permanence in order to have meaning. If we went the other way and allowed you to change your class every turn, the game would become boring because it means nothing to be a Wizard or a Fighter or whatever. The Wizard is fun because you're flexible (a large range of spells and solutions) while giving you meaningful choice in what you're flexible in. You can go full blaster and have mostly attack spells with varying qualities allowing you to be effective against every enemy. Or you can go shallow but wide where you have a solution to most problems, but not necessarily the most optimised one. That dilemma and therefore choice is meaningless if I can swap out my spells known on a whim. My choices have to have permanency to be meaningful. They have to be meaningful to be fun.
DMs have to intercede at times. However, to minimise that doesn't require locking away the fun or issuing rulings on the minutiae, it means players and DMs developing good habits. Players, when in doubt, ask DMs how they'd handle a situation before it arises. DMs learn RAW and inform players ahead of time how that'll change their rulings. When things fall through the cracks and the table requires hot spot rulings, the DM rules in favour of fun. It's driving home these teachings that produces a fun game, not by confiscating the toys when there's a disagreement.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If people wanted thier choices to have a serious impact, they'd be playing Real Life™.
I'm sorry but that is a pretty wild thing to say. Asking for meaningful lasting choices in game design is not some novel concept. All games have must have some degree binding choices... otherwise there is no weight to the ruleset at all. I'm sure you too would think that having the ability to switch from being a paladin to a wizards mid-combat would be fairly lame.
Again, you are a free to have different preferences, but lets keep the discussion in good faith.
It's not novel, but it has been widely rejected by most every player base. Just look at the changes in D&D since 1st Ed. You used to assign a spell to a specific slot every morning if memory serves. Look at the other posters who state that not letting a player change the choice means you're a jerk or bad GM. Or WotC's advice on how do deal with players wanting to change to a newly introduced subclass. Most games started with locked-in choices, but as they moved forward, the players asked for more & more flexibility. Being able to change means being able to play what the player feels will be the most fun right now, rather than what they thought (incorrectly for them) would be fun a session or two or twelve ago. And because of that, it will always win over being locked into previous decisions. And to respond to your example, I wouldn't let them swap classes mid-fight, but if they said a dozen sessions in that paladin wasn't fun for them, and they wanted to try a wizard, I'd work with them before the next session to have a leveled-up wizard ready to go. This is a game. Fun > *.
TL,DR: You're gonna have to house-rule in binding decisions.
That isnt true at all. Most of the most popular games do not freely let you change such fundamental parts of your character for free and with extreme frequency.
Its get to work with your players if they feel unsatisfied with something, but when it is built into the rules that choices dont hold any weight, that takes away a lot of impact and satisfaction from actually making those choices to begin with.
What we are talking about here would be the player unsatisfied with them being a paladin picking a wizard after the next long rest, then picking a rogue the next.. Obviously that isnt fun.
I have to agree that more choice and flexibility are not inherently better that less choice and flexibility. My favourite character I've ever made was a RoguexWarlock - 2 spell slots, with 4-6 known spells, a bow, a sword, and Green Flame Blade cantrip. Just enough variety to keep it interesting without having to agonize while searching through a mountain of options. Lots of "problems" people come up with are not actual problems in the game design, but rather problems in the social interaction within a D&D group. The point of the game is to have fun with the people you are with, if someone is unhappy with their character b/c of X, Y, or Z they should just talk to the DM about changing it. We don't need every caster to be a preparation caster, and every class choice to be changable.
I keep getting hung up on Fireball *not* making noise. I mean, it is an explosion. It gonna go boom.
I agree with MamasToast in general.
it is the nature of the game (in general, not to any specific edition) that the goal is to create a character you want to play. However, it is the nature of rules to ultimately limit that possibility, and at a certain point people will see less "distinction" and so won't feel that their character is special or unique.
Other times, a series of adventures might make a player wish they could have a different class or some extra abilities -- and how that is handled is up to the table (the whole, not just the DM). I could probably come up with 20 distinct classes -- not subclasses, classes -- that all have a very unique flavor. In the US, with an underlying cultural norm of "your job is what you are", people will often confuse their class for their personality, or they might decide that they feel weak and perhaps a different class is going to do them better.
This is especially true when there is no strong, firm distinction between them, and is endemic to the idea of a class system itself: this is your job. This is what you do. There are other jobs, but they are not yours.
The goal in a lot of D&D 5e is to have distinct subclasses, but only within the vertical breakout of a given single class -- not across all of them -- in order to make *this fighter* different from other fighters. Or better at that thing than others. Or able to do this other stuff.
There are diminishing returns on that, and the fact that they are going to have nearly half a gross of subclasses is a sign they may have crossed that line (hence why they are making them fewer, lol).
Subclasses are a mechanic that isn't terrible, but does ultimately erase the deeper and broader flavor of all the classes when they are not set up in comparison and kept distinct from those in and of other classes, because the goal is to have those limits on your character, in terms of game design. Truly, the homebrews already show the general effect of this "pick a feature from anyone and give it to this subclass" because that is being subtly encouraged by the game designers in practice, if not intent.
Which makes it less of a class based system and more of a feature system.
Now, D&D has always been kinda sorta heading in that direction in one way or another, but especially following 3.5 (and the fork that followed) as a direct fallout of the expansions for 2e. Players love this. They can become anything, they can do anything, and if a Dm says no, well, the DM is a bad DM or a jerk DM.
Superhero Syndrome is not a bad thing in and of itself -- who doesn't want to be superman, and this is fantasy, pretend, make-believe.
Even make believe follows rules. Jack Sprat may not have been able to eat fat, but he climbed a beanstalk and look I just blended two distinct tales to make a superhero fairy tale character and why can't I play that, DM? I wanna be a pumpkin living giant slayer! Who cares there are no pumpkins big as houses and no giants and no magical beanstalks to a dimensional space in the sky! You are the DM! make it up, make it happen, make it real!
Well...
“So many people think that if you’re writing fantasy, it means you can just make everything up as you go.
Want to add a dragon? Add a dragon!
Want some magic? Throw it in.
But the thing is, regardless of whether you’re dealing with realism or fantasy, every world has rules.
Make sure to establish a natural order.”
– V. E. Schwab
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
“So many people think that if you’re writing fantasy, it means you can just make everything up as you go.
Want to add a dragon? Add a dragon!
Want some magic? Throw it in.
But the thing is, regardless of whether you’re dealing with realism or fantasy, every world has rules.
Make sure to establish a natural order.”
– V. E. Schwab
Either that, or be Terry Pratchett. Preferably the latter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, today’s session gave us some insight when our level 7 Druid turned into an owlbear and scared the holy hell out of a group of tunnel goblins.
The new set up allows for chimeric creatures such as owl ears, but also the “Avatar” (cartoon) style critters and was a good 40 minute interruption to play testing. Because we are using a dungeon, there is some disagreement about allowing wildshape to take theory of a mimic disguised as a door. RAW, it would be possible but no stickiness.RAI, probably not.
we did get into a thing around a Paladin action, but that had more to do with a recurring issue around terminology for conditions.
we do not like the die at 10 points exhausted. We prefer unconscious, with penalties that stack. Death seems too much, but easily killed is another thing. I confess that might be a holdover from our own In house set up for the new campaign, which divides it, because of a deal around using magic points.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
my biggest fear/gripe with I have seen from one dnd so far is the tendency to remove permanent choices and customization within classes/subclasses. There is a real effort to streamline the game further, which I can get behind to a certain extent... It is a good thing to try and make the game more easily understood and played.
Things like removing choices from the hunter subclass or letting more classes freely change their spells around just does not excite me. Id like see more permanent choices when leveling up, Id like to see characters be like a branching tree instead of one linear road and it appears that the DnD design team does not agree with me ^^.
I don't think wildshape would let you look like a mimic. While yes it says you can choose its appearance, all reference to the appearance choice is a animal and all the examples are of a beast in 5e terms, it allows hybrid animals but not just anything. I don't think RAW would allow it, and I'm certain RAI would not.
I remember the "permanent decision" debate from Diablo 2 over a decade ago. The short version is: Most people don't want to remake a entire character over one game mechanic choice that they regret one play session later.
It would be even worse in a TTRPG, because at least with D2 you can look online to see how the option performs. With D&D, it's a roll of the dice from table to table...
Player 1: I just leveled up and now I can cast Spell of Awesomeness & do crazy things!
<1st session with SoA>
Player 1: I cast SoA & it is GLORIOUS!!!
GM: Sorry, I don't allow SoA to work like that in my games.
Player 1: Oh, then I'll choose Spell of Coolness instead.
GM: Sorry again, but you already chose SoA.
Player 1: D&D sucks, I'm going back to doom-scrolling on Reddit.
I mean a jerk DM will wreck any game anyways. But its pretty easy to have a baked in rule about swapping features at level up or something.
I'm just answering the question of the thread, other people are welcome to have other preferences. Personally I like that my choice of spells is part of theming my character. Spellcasters with the ability to easily reselect their spells from a generic list makes it so that you can't really meaningfully theme your caster within the class.. every bard is essentially a long rest away from being the same.. I just don't find that very appealing at all.
Ive certainly made spell choices that I later came to regret with my wizard, but they are part of what makes that character interesting to play.
wanting them to be permanent is perhaps a bit too extreme a way to put it.. A better wording would be to say that I want choices that can't easily be undone. The old sorc ability to change one of your spells out on a level up is a fine balance for me for example.
The hunter being able to customize their abilties as their leveled up was easily the most interesting part of the subclass for me, removing that aspect just kills any interest i might have had.
Honestly, that's a jerk DM and a bad DM rolled into one...they're probably better off leaving. The changes to SoA should have been advertised in session 0. Even if they weren't, then the DM should have let it fly OR allowed them to change that option because they didn't realise they couldn't get what they wanted from that build. Heck, at my table, I'd probably give them the option change even if they'd simply misunderstood what the RAW was.
With a DM like that, if it wasn't a problem with SoA, it'd be something else instead. I'm not ever really convinced that we should be compromising the game as a whole based on what some bad* & jerk DMs do, because they'll just find something else to cause drama with, and now we've made the game worse...simply to change the topic of what a few arguments centre on.
* By bad DMs, I mean the ones that can never be bothered to learn. We should adapt the game for those still learning and trying to learn, which is why I support the two tier model like how they do the prepared spell lists in 1D&D - a standard list that is reasonably good and beginners can rely on, while allowing choicez flexibility and complexity for those who are more comfortable with the rules. In that manner, we get the best of both worlds.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
That is part of what was killing World of Warcraft. And if we are to take into account the number of players Dungeons & Dragons has than it doesn't have even 1% of the leeway that World of Warcraft had when Activison-Blizzard started down this same self-destructive path.
Maybe you can argue that by RAI you can't become a mimic, but something you can mechanically do is become a horse who happens to have a climb speed or a shark with a mandatory land speed.
You could argue a player shouldn't use their land speed when in the form of a fish, but there's no mechanical restriction and it's a feature in their fishy form's stat block, so...
Agree about jerk GMs, but the GM in this case is following (potential) RAW if players don't get to change thier minds after trying out a new spell / class ability / feat. If people wanted thier choices to have a serious impact, they'd be playing Real Life™.
My example was probably too simple, but pick any one of the "Is this RAW?" rules discussions on this board, like "Can a sorcerer Twincast Dragon's Breath?" where it can go either way, but the player & GM are on opposite sides. And I agree, if it's a known issue it should be covered at Session 0. Ideally, following the rules as written & being a jerk GM should mean the same thing as rarely as possible. RAW locking down initial choices is not a good design choice for exactly that reason. It requires GMs to intercede in order to prevent buyer's remorse.
I'm sorry but that is a pretty wild thing to say. Asking for meaningful lasting choices in game design is not some novel concept. All games have must have some degree binding choices... otherwise there is no weight to the ruleset at all. I'm sure you too would think that having the ability to switch from being a paladin to a wizards mid-combat would be fairly lame.
Again, you are a free to have different preferences, but lets keep the discussion in good faith.
Real Life is so hard though! All those rules and systems and it's horribly tilted towards long-time players.
It's not novel, but it has been widely rejected by most every player base. Just look at the changes in D&D since 1st Ed. You used to assign a spell to a specific slot every morning if memory serves. Look at the other posters who state that not letting a player change the choice means you're a jerk or bad GM. Or WotC's advice on how do deal with players wanting to change to a newly introduced subclass. Most games started with locked-in choices, but as they moved forward, the players asked for more & more flexibility. Being able to change means being able to play what the player feels will be the most fun right now, rather than what they thought (incorrectly for them) would be fun a session or two or twelve ago. And because of that, it will always win over being locked into previous decisions. And to respond to your example, I wouldn't let them swap classes mid-fight, but if they said a dozen sessions in that paladin wasn't fun for them, and they wanted to try a wizard, I'd work with them before the next session to have a leveled-up wizard ready to go. This is a game. Fun > *.
TL,DR: You're gonna have to house-rule in binding decisions.
I don't think a DM making a call is being a jerk, but if a player misunderstands a rule and made a level up choice based on that misunderstanding it would be pretty jerky not to let them change it.
I don't think the fix to something like that is removing all lasting choices but to give some kind of ability to change those choices maybe not on a whim but once a level or something, with some GM advice about recent level ups if a player really is dissatisfied for whatever reason.
On the other hand, you don't get buyer's joy either. when I'm levelling up as a Wizard, it's an exciting time because I get to add two more spells to my spellbook. It's exciting as I go shopping for new goodies and make decisions about my character. My Cleric on the other hand...half the levels are meaningless (with respect to spells, at least), and the other half are "oh, cool, I get more spells, I'll do a rejig", despite getting quite a few more spells than I would as a Wizard. That's because as a Wizard, I'm making meaningful choices for my character; my Cleric is just putting clothes on for the day.
Which leads me back to the first part...if the question is meaningful, then a DM worth playing with will work with you to make sure that you don't get screwed. If they won't...then it's not going to be a problem of edge case RAW rulings. Even fairly solid RAW rules will be prone to modification, and you'll find the rule is not safe. The DM that, when approached by a Wizard player and is told "look, this spell isn't working the way I expected, it's just not fun and it's dragging down my enjoyment of the game, would you mind if I swapped it out for this one?", responds with a flat "no", isn't respecting the cardinal rule of D&D and is prone to not respecting RAW either (whether they recognise that fact or not). They're the kind of DM that tells the Druid he doesn't think it makes sense that they can select any spell in the list, and so he has to follow the same rules as the Wizard, except the Druid doesn't get to learn spells via spellbooks and scrolls, etc.
Conversely, if the controversial ruling isn't meaningful...then it's not worth fighting over and we've just taken away a singificant part of the fun to...resolve something that doesn't really cause issues. If a DM rules that my Fireball itself creates a loud noise...ok, that's annoying, but hardly worth taking away that joy I get from going shopping for new spells when I level up.
Not everything has to be permanent. Flexibility has its role in fun too - you mention the idea that you had to pick specific spells for specific slots each day, which I would have absolutely hated. I love the Wizard for it's flexibility. However, flexibility has to be tempered with permanence in order to have meaning. If we went the other way and allowed you to change your class every turn, the game would become boring because it means nothing to be a Wizard or a Fighter or whatever. The Wizard is fun because you're flexible (a large range of spells and solutions) while giving you meaningful choice in what you're flexible in. You can go full blaster and have mostly attack spells with varying qualities allowing you to be effective against every enemy. Or you can go shallow but wide where you have a solution to most problems, but not necessarily the most optimised one. That dilemma and therefore choice is meaningless if I can swap out my spells known on a whim. My choices have to have permanency to be meaningful. They have to be meaningful to be fun.
DMs have to intercede at times. However, to minimise that doesn't require locking away the fun or issuing rulings on the minutiae, it means players and DMs developing good habits. Players, when in doubt, ask DMs how they'd handle a situation before it arises. DMs learn RAW and inform players ahead of time how that'll change their rulings. When things fall through the cracks and the table requires hot spot rulings, the DM rules in favour of fun. It's driving home these teachings that produces a fun game, not by confiscating the toys when there's a disagreement.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
That isnt true at all. Most of the most popular games do not freely let you change such fundamental parts of your character for free and with extreme frequency.
Its get to work with your players if they feel unsatisfied with something, but when it is built into the rules that choices dont hold any weight, that takes away a lot of impact and satisfaction from actually making those choices to begin with.
What we are talking about here would be the player unsatisfied with them being a paladin picking a wizard after the next long rest, then picking a rogue the next.. Obviously that isnt fun.
I have to agree that more choice and flexibility are not inherently better that less choice and flexibility. My favourite character I've ever made was a RoguexWarlock - 2 spell slots, with 4-6 known spells, a bow, a sword, and Green Flame Blade cantrip. Just enough variety to keep it interesting without having to agonize while searching through a mountain of options. Lots of "problems" people come up with are not actual problems in the game design, but rather problems in the social interaction within a D&D group. The point of the game is to have fun with the people you are with, if someone is unhappy with their character b/c of X, Y, or Z they should just talk to the DM about changing it. We don't need every caster to be a preparation caster, and every class choice to be changable.
I keep getting hung up on Fireball *not* making noise. I mean, it is an explosion. It gonna go boom.
I agree with MamasToast in general.
it is the nature of the game (in general, not to any specific edition) that the goal is to create a character you want to play. However, it is the nature of rules to ultimately limit that possibility, and at a certain point people will see less "distinction" and so won't feel that their character is special or unique.
Other times, a series of adventures might make a player wish they could have a different class or some extra abilities -- and how that is handled is up to the table (the whole, not just the DM). I could probably come up with 20 distinct classes -- not subclasses, classes -- that all have a very unique flavor. In the US, with an underlying cultural norm of "your job is what you are", people will often confuse their class for their personality, or they might decide that they feel weak and perhaps a different class is going to do them better.
This is especially true when there is no strong, firm distinction between them, and is endemic to the idea of a class system itself: this is your job. This is what you do. There are other jobs, but they are not yours.
The goal in a lot of D&D 5e is to have distinct subclasses, but only within the vertical breakout of a given single class -- not across all of them -- in order to make *this fighter* different from other fighters. Or better at that thing than others. Or able to do this other stuff.
There are diminishing returns on that, and the fact that they are going to have nearly half a gross of subclasses is a sign they may have crossed that line (hence why they are making them fewer, lol).
Subclasses are a mechanic that isn't terrible, but does ultimately erase the deeper and broader flavor of all the classes when they are not set up in comparison and kept distinct from those in and of other classes, because the goal is to have those limits on your character, in terms of game design. Truly, the homebrews already show the general effect of this "pick a feature from anyone and give it to this subclass" because that is being subtly encouraged by the game designers in practice, if not intent.
Which makes it less of a class based system and more of a feature system.
Now, D&D has always been kinda sorta heading in that direction in one way or another, but especially following 3.5 (and the fork that followed) as a direct fallout of the expansions for 2e. Players love this. They can become anything, they can do anything, and if a Dm says no, well, the DM is a bad DM or a jerk DM.
Superhero Syndrome is not a bad thing in and of itself -- who doesn't want to be superman, and this is fantasy, pretend, make-believe.
Even make believe follows rules. Jack Sprat may not have been able to eat fat, but he climbed a beanstalk and look I just blended two distinct tales to make a superhero fairy tale character and why can't I play that, DM? I wanna be a pumpkin living giant slayer! Who cares there are no pumpkins big as houses and no giants and no magical beanstalks to a dimensional space in the sky! You are the DM! make it up, make it happen, make it real!
Well...
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Either that, or be Terry Pratchett. Preferably the latter.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)