Countless, but also among the fewest, lol, given the video. Druids and Monks are the least played?

A lot of folks will try to say that it is because the class sucks, but there's no evidence of that, so its just whining.

Honestly, I am shocked about Druids. I can't think of a game where I haven't had a druid in the party except for the early years, where it was kinda 50/50 I would have one or not, and that was 1e days. when there wasn't wildshape.

Favorite themes are a funny thing.  Lots of us will play classes that suck just because we like that flavor.  That said, most of us would prefer that some of these classes improve a bit.

Quote from LilithFairen >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Countless, but also among the fewest, lol, given the video. Druids and Monks are the least played?

A lot of folks will try to say that it is because the class sucks, but there's no evidence of that, so its just whining.

Honestly, I am shocked about Druids. I can't think of a game where I haven't had a druid in the party except for the early years, where it was kinda 50/50 I would have one or not, and that was 1e days. when there wasn't wildshape.

It's because 99.9% of the game's average players didn't take the survey. The kind of person who listens to YouTubers who tell them how any given class is OP or Totes Bad are more likely to be respondents to the survey.

Especially when said YouTubers actively rally their followers and call on them to abuse said survey to spam and harass the creators over their "[x] Bad" opinions...

I fear that if I express my opinions on youtube personalities who happen to play D&D and have strong opinions about such, I would  no longer have access to DDB as a whole, not merely the forums, as the ferocity and depth would likely require such a response.

I can say that of the 250 or so that I have been forced in some way to watch a few episodes of, not one knows what the hell they are talking about. And it is even worse for the most popular ones that I often see referenced here, lol.

Of course, it me, so I have to acknowledge that they would likely say the same thing about me.

All of which is irrelevant -- those are the numbers that are had by WotC, and that's what we have to work with. The underlying basis from their side is of course supportive of that -- they are among those fans, and they have a strong, marked, identifiable penchant for doing the same kind of stuff.

Many will be glad once I finish my house rules and rest in December!

Quote from TraxTheTricky >>

Favorite themes are a funny thing.  Lots of us will play classes that suck just because we like that flavor.  That said, most of us would prefer that some of these classes improve a bit.

Shockingly, that isn't supported by the data that Lilith and I just excoriated, lol.

Which is also the only data we have. So, apparently, most of us do not want some improvement. But that, in turn, just means that we need to pay more attention to the surveys.

Is the survey data available somewhere?

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Countless, but also among the fewest, lol, given the video. Druids and Monks are the least played?

A lot of folks will try to say that it is because the class sucks, but there's no evidence of that, so its just whining.

Honestly, I am shocked about Druids. I can't think of a game where I haven't had a druid in the party except for the early years, where it was kinda 50/50 I would have one or not, and that was 1e days. when there wasn't wildshape.

 I suspect it's more about them being unusual archetypes in the worlds of western fantasy media

Quote from kamchatmonk >>

Monk, on the other hand, must be SAD. It only has one aspect, the martial aspect. Making it require two ability scores to function on a basic level for no other reason than fluff is incompetent design. What if we made barbarian rage damage bonus depend on Wis because primal something something? What if battlemaster maneuvers DC was determined by Int? Why, monk save DC is determined by Wis, so why not? Sorry, I'm ranting, but monk is my sore spot. The class is crippled by design for no good reason.\

 And yet, if it were SAD, it wouldn't be much improved. It'd still be resource-constrained, kind of damage-light at mid-high levels, and sort of crunchy for a melee character. It wouldn't be any more able to maneuver in and out of combat than it is now. It'd still be a generalist in an environment that values specialists. Getting +1 stat bonus at 8th level just isn't that big a deal.

MADness isn't the problem. Some combination of:

• more ki
• lower ki costs on some of their powers
• d10 hit die
• bigger martial arts dice or more attacks

And they'd be fine. (Those aren't the only options, but they're the fast fixes to the current monk.)

And they're still functional and fun now.

Quote from TraxTheTricky >>

Is the survey data available somewhere?

 

 NO.

We are going off the assorted statements in the videos they make.

The data is proprietary.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Quote from Irrelevant_guy >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Generally speaking, I favor requiring 3 ability scores as "main needs" for each class, but not having any specific requirement for those scores.

That is, no "minimum score" for someone to be a member of a given class, but have each class rely heavily on three different scores mechanically.

That's pretty much how we've been doing it for at least 20 years, and it creates some more interesting stuff -- but, in fairness, the bulk of us have zero interest in "optimizing" characters or creating the "best" build. The few that do are the younger members, and they are even drifting away from that kind of thinking.

I wouldn't ask WotC to do that -- they have to appeal to, and are members of, that group of folks who think that everything has to be the most powerful and most potent, so it wouldn't be a proper set of rules if they did. 

 

The game's math assumes that you'll have your primary stat at +3 at low levels, +4 at level 4, and +5 at level 8 (Fighter is a special case).

Nobody forces you, of course. But the game is designed for that. Then saying that there is no "minimum score" to belong to a class, being true in the strict semantics of the phrase, is not true in the real game. You can play with magic items, or with features that give you advange, and so on, such as workarround to continue having around 70% success in what you are supposed to be good at. But as a general rule, to stay at that 70%, you need those modifiers in your primary stat.

That doesn't mean that a specific table can't play ignoring that. But the game design assumes that most players will build their character with that goal.

 
That also presumes structurally using a foundation that matches existing core setting systems, and that they game retains the concept of bounded accuracy.  But this also drives hm my point about the game being based in the core efforts around optimization. Which undermines campaign structures and requires a limited set of creative options.

So to say "nobody forces you" is incorrect -- indeed, if the math is functionally structured for that, then it *does* force you.

When you set the structure at three abilities for each class, then suddenly the primary stat can vary within each class according tot he player's goals and build (expanding the build options and possibilities), while still enabling one to gain those increases if not meeting the math, even if you choose to play a wizard with a low intelligence or a cleric with low wisdom.

You note that the default is a 70% chance of success, mechanically, which is unpleasant in a game here growth is a major component, because it means there is no growth to reach that point. I tend to favor a 50% success rate base myself -- so from the start, I am going to look to ways to reduce that, and all of it is because that's how my player group likes it.

But we are headed by a bunch of crotchety old folks (the OG players), so we have strange ideas from the old days... 

I don't want to be that guy but, seriously, you don't want to play DnD. What you are suggesting sounds more like TTRPG like Forbidden lands (or other game systems) to me. I will never understand this effort to turn 5e into what it is not, when there are so many game systems out there.

That said, I quite agree with your analysis.

What I don't agree with is linking those ideas to "old folks." I mean, I'm an "old folk" myself. And I enjoy playing OSR or crunchy or purely narrative games, and so on. On the other hand, I play ith a lot of different people. Some old role players, some quite young. And I couldn't draw a pattern like "old people like this, young people like this." I know young players who enjoy old ideas, veteran players who enjoy modern playing styles and, above all, many people who enjoy different styles regardless of whether they started playing in the 70s or a year ago.

Quote from LilithFairen >>

It's so crippled that countless players play and enjoy the class. But oh noes, you can't have +5 in everything and treat everything else as a dump stat! Completely useless!

 I bet the 11% that were satified with Way of the Elements are the countless players you speak about.

Quote from jl8e >>

 And yet, if it were SAD, it wouldn't be much improved. It'd still be resource-constrained, kind of damage-light at mid-high levels, and sort of crunchy for a melee character. It wouldn't be any more able to maneuver in and out of combat than it is now. It'd still be a generalist in an environment that values specialists. Getting +1 stat bonus at 8th level just isn't that big a deal.

MADness isn't the problem. Some combination of:

• more ki
• lower ki costs on some of their powers
• d10 hit die
• bigger martial arts dice or more attacks

And they'd be fine. (Those aren't the only options, but they're the fast fixes to the current monk.)

And they're still functional and fun now.

 Well I never said that being MAD was the monk's only problem. And yes, I'm with you on every other change. Though I don't think it'll happen. Because tradition. We have one pass left at monk and I have no faith in WotC.

Quote from Irrelevant_guy >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Quote from Irrelevant_guy >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Generally speaking, I favor requiring 3 ability scores as "main needs" for each class, but not having any specific requirement for those scores.

That is, no "minimum score" for someone to be a member of a given class, but have each class rely heavily on three different scores mechanically.

That's pretty much how we've been doing it for at least 20 years, and it creates some more interesting stuff -- but, in fairness, the bulk of us have zero interest in "optimizing" characters or creating the "best" build. The few that do are the younger members, and they are even drifting away from that kind of thinking.

I wouldn't ask WotC to do that -- they have to appeal to, and are members of, that group of folks who think that everything has to be the most powerful and most potent, so it wouldn't be a proper set of rules if they did. 

 

The game's math assumes that you'll have your primary stat at +3 at low levels, +4 at level 4, and +5 at level 8 (Fighter is a special case).

Nobody forces you, of course. But the game is designed for that. Then saying that there is no "minimum score" to belong to a class, being true in the strict semantics of the phrase, is not true in the real game. You can play with magic items, or with features that give you advange, and so on, such as workarround to continue having around 70% success in what you are supposed to be good at. But as a general rule, to stay at that 70%, you need those modifiers in your primary stat.

That doesn't mean that a specific table can't play ignoring that. But the game design assumes that most players will build their character with that goal.

 
That also presumes structurally using a foundation that matches existing core setting systems, and that they game retains the concept of bounded accuracy.  But this also drives hm my point about the game being based in the core efforts around optimization. Which undermines campaign structures and requires a limited set of creative options.

So to say "nobody forces you" is incorrect -- indeed, if the math is functionally structured for that, then it *does* force you.

When you set the structure at three abilities for each class, then suddenly the primary stat can vary within each class according tot he player's goals and build (expanding the build options and possibilities), while still enabling one to gain those increases if not meeting the math, even if you choose to play a wizard with a low intelligence or a cleric with low wisdom.

You note that the default is a 70% chance of success, mechanically, which is unpleasant in a game here growth is a major component, because it means there is no growth to reach that point. I tend to favor a 50% success rate base myself -- so from the start, I am going to look to ways to reduce that, and all of it is because that's how my player group likes it.

But we are headed by a bunch of crotchety old folks (the OG players), so we have strange ideas from the old days... 

 

I don't want to be that guy but, seriously, you don't want to play DnD. What you are suggesting sounds more like TTRPG like Forbidden lands (or other game systems) to me. I will never understand this effort to turn 5e into what it is not, when there are so many game systems out there.

That said, I quite agree with your analysis.

What I don't agree with is linking those ideas to "old folks." I mean, I'm an "old folk" myself. And I enjoy playing OSR or crunchy or purely narrative games, and so on. On the other hand, I play ith a lot of different people. Some old role players, some quite young. And I couldn't draw a pattern like "old people like this, young people like this." I know young players who enjoy old ideas, veteran players who enjoy modern playing styles and, above all, many people who enjoy different styles regardless of whether they started playing in the 70s or a year ago.

 
No, we want to play D&D. The stuff we have changed (classes, how magic works) is ultimately based in the rules themselves -- we adapt the whole to the setting (which, as much as I rail against them, is hilariously a pseudo-medieval fantasy kitchen sink world) - and then we add a little more crunch, and only where it works for what we like to do (open world, player directed and driven). Forbidden lands got a resounding "this totally sucks", and pretty much every OSR basis has been shot down entirely. We like D&D, we dislike everything else. We did not like 4e, and the collective opinion on Pathfinder is not printable in mixed company. For us, making 5e work for us is our best option -- and part of a traditional approach to D&D that goes back to 1e, when OA was published in part as a guide to how to make the game work with custom worlds that didn't rely on the same core influences.

The core of our group is 7 people who have been playing since 80-82, ranging from 57 to 60. Spouses and SO's for five of them, mostly the same age range, then a group of friends who are younger (late 40's to early 50's), then kids, then grandkids. Youngest player is 11, but the regulars are 15 to 60. Out of everyone, I have been playing the longest, and have been the DM the longest. So true, it is not just "old folks". Hell, none of us are even eligible for retirement yet.

I use it as a joke more than anything, so I apologize for that. There is a perception about those of us who enjoy some of the older models and more crunch as being older, and I sometimes play to that, recognizing that anyone over 30 is old (tip o the hat to Logan's Run as a film).

While there may have been some new, poorly advertised rule set that has come out in the last two years, we've pretty much played at least one session of everything else. Slowed down a lot around 2019, because we fell into a set of campaigns that were very popular. So, when I say we want to play D&D, I mean that we want to play D&D.

But we don't see D&D as being a game where you have to play in Greyhawk or Mystara or Athos or Toril or Eberron. We craft settings of our own and then we adapt the classes to that setting -- because it isn't Earth, so we can't pull from Earth's history. Well, correction, most of the time it isn't Earth, but when it is it is usually not a D&D kind of earth, lol. The system is that one uses classes -- the classes themselves are not what defines D&D. If they were, we'd still have just a few and Bards would still require hopping through three different classes. If they did then the 5e classes and subclasses wouldn't exist. We still have a Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue. THey aren't the same, but they are still there. We still use the six core scores -- and we use optional ones as well (such as Sanity and Honor).

The spells do. We discovered that one in the 80's. The Spells really do define the game. But not the way spells work in theory. HP., AC, the basic combat system (and we really like 5e). THe economics don't define it. We used to think that magic items defined it, and then 5e came out and killed our faves. 

From our perspective, when folks say we should try a different game, we laugh, because *we are*. We ran 1e/2e games as recently as 2017. 5e is a completely different game. And because it is much more simplified, it gives us the ability to add more crunch to it that we want, when we need it, while still being able to take cool ideas and new stuff from what comes out. And if we wanted to play 1e/2e, we would. If we wanted to play 3/3.5e, we would -- we aren't. We are playing 5e, and we are doing the same thing that Cook did when he took Gygax's notes and Marie's notes and wrote Oriental Adventures. Which was still D&D -- even though it didn't look like it, lol, and that's the first time Proficiencies were used in the game.

D&D is, at this point, almost immune to the Theseus' Ship problem. And because 5e is basically "rules light", rules stripped down to the bare minimum for it, it makes a perfect platform for shaping it to fit a world of any sort.

We add on to 5e. We do it for a world that does not use Tolkien, Vance, Zelazny, Norton, and the rest. Nothing from between 1920 and 1980. So we have to take everything related to Earthly stuff (like Druids) and everything related to FR or Eberron, and take it out. A Paladin has to have a basis in the world for why they exist -- not an Earth archetype, but an archetype from that world. Aaand it also needs to meet the needs of the players, so there is always a way to come close. I mean, I have robot maids, magical girls, and Rangers with wild shape who can turn a stick into a sword or a bow with a sweep of their hand. I have vorpal bunnies, bridge trolls, and dragons planning an invasion. I have kemonomimi, gunslingers, airships, and jedi.

None of that exists in 5e the way we see it. but 5e can be made to work for it. Just like every version of D&D could.

I do get tired of hearing "you don't want to play 5e" as well.  I believe it is possible to like something AND have a desire for it to be improved.

Quote from kamchatmonk>>

Quote from jl8e>>

 And yet, if it were SAD, it wouldn't be much improved. It'd still be resource-constrained, kind of damage-light at mid-high levels, and sort of crunchy for a melee character. It wouldn't be any more able to maneuver in and out of combat than it is now. It'd still be a generalist in an environment that values specialists. Getting +1 stat bonus at 8th level just isn't that big a deal.

MADness isn't the problem. Some combination of:

• more ki
• lower ki costs on some of their powers
• d10 hit die
• bigger martial arts dice or more attacks

And they'd be fine. (Those aren't the only options, but they're the fast fixes to the current monk.)

And they're still functional and fun now.

 Well I never said that being MAD was the monk's only problem.

And yes, I'm with you on every other change. Though I don't think it'll happen. Because tradition. We have one pass left at monk and I have no faith in WotC.

 As far as I'm concerned, the revised monk is much improved, with cheaper, better, powers, bigger damage dice, and functionally more points to spend. But it's still MAD, so I guess you'll remain SAD.

Quote from TraxTheTricky >>

I do get tired of hearing "you don't want to play 5e" as well.  I believe it is possible to like something AND have a desire for it to be improved.

 

Yes, but one thing is improve the game or change the rules, and another to convert the game into something else.

For example, if you want a narrativist game, you have thousands of systems out there that are going to do that better than any edition of D&D. D&D might incorporate some narrativist mechanics here and there, but the weight of the system is always going to be in combat (and the combat weight is going to be mechanical, not narrative).. Basically, because that is the soul of the game, and its reason for being. D&D is never going to incorporate shared storytelling mechanics, in any way. That's not the experience the game proposes, nor is it what a D&D player should be looking for. There are other systems for that.

On the other side of the scale, D&D will never be a simulationist game. If you ask that to a D&D edition, you're simply getting the wrong game.
Ultimately, D&D is what it is. And at its core, despite the editing changes, it has always been that.

This, by the way, is something I only see in D&D players. For some reason, tradition I suppose, or lack of knowledge of other systems, I see many veteran D&D players who are reluctant to change game systems when they would really be much more comfortable in another. Okay, do whatever you want at your table. But as a person who has played hundreds, if not thousands, of TTRPGs, my advice is that what you are looking for is probably on another system. If you find it, you will save yourself hundreds of headaches and tantrums.

Quote from Irrelevant_guy >>

Quote from TraxTheTricky >>

I do get tired of hearing "you don't want to play 5e" as well.  I believe it is possible to like something AND have a desire for it to be improved.

 

Yes, but one thing is improve the game or change the rules, and another to convert the game into something else.

For example, if you want a narrativist game, you have thousands of systems out there that are going to do that better than any edition of D&D. D&D might incorporate some narrativist mechanics here and there, but the weight of the system is always going to be in combat (and the combat weight is going to be mechanical, not narrative).. Basically, because that is the soul of the game, and its reason for being. D&D is never going to incorporate shared storytelling mechanics, in any way. That's not the experience the game proposes, nor is it what a D&D player should be looking for. There are other systems for that.

On the other side of the scale, D&D will never be a simulationist game. If you ask that to a D&D edition, you're simply getting the wrong game.
Ultimately, D&D is what it is. And at its core, despite the editing changes, it has always been that.

This, by the way, is something I only see in D&D players. For some reason, tradition I suppose, or lack of knowledge of other systems, I see many veteran D&D players who are reluctant to change game systems when they would really be much more comfortable in another. Okay, do whatever you want at your table. But as a person who has played hundreds, if not thousands, of TTRPGs, my advice is that what you are looking for is probably on another system. If you find it, you will save yourself hundreds of headaches and tantrums.

 
As a veteran player, reading this has me arching an eyebrow.

Being told "what you want is a different game" is only the second most ignorantly insulting thing that can be said. The first is "you aren't playing D&D". Both demonstrate not only a huge level of presumption, assumption, and limited grasp, they also seek to limit a game to a narrow conceptual band of operations and possibilities that history and the game itself has demonstrated time and time again are not true. You are right that not every system works for every table. Every system is, however, if untethered from its setting and genre, able to be used for just about anything else.

I've played, used, developed, tested, and reviewed a lot of game systems. I am a game system mechanics nerd in a a lot of ways. I can usually look over a mechanical system in a game and track its development back to the 80's through assorted iterations, if not back to the 50's and the earliest wargaming stuff.

In all that time, there are only two systems that have appealed to me. D&D and MSHAS. Even with D&D, 3/3.5/4 had absolutely no value for me from a playing standpoint. I accept that I am odd, lol, but those editions were the worst possible versions to me. They had some great ideas for systems, but they were way overboard. I did a complete rewrite and blending of the Mechwarrior and Battletech rules at one point and we had a lot of fun for several years using those. 

Which is preface to say this: There is no other game system out there that would work better for our table(s). That isn't tradition, it isn't even familiarity, it is simply that for what we want to play and how we want to play it, 5e is the best choice for a base for our games. If it wasn't, we wouldn't use it -- as is readily noted by the 3/3.5/4 absence, lol.

What's fascinating to me is the reference to GNS theory. Because within D&D's history itself, of the three "mutually exclusive" models, there have always been folks who have employed and developed the game for at least two of them. Indeed, D&D was originally created to embrace all three of them, and under the core GNS model, should never have succeed (despite being the single most popular ttrpg of all time).

D&D is inherently Narrativist and Simulationist simultaneously -- and while one can argue it does neither well, it does each of them well enough to achieve the popularity it has (and that's before getting into the critical analysis of the whole concept through an informed sociocultural basis, which would be my AoE). But let's presume you are correct in your initial estimation:

Here's what we are looking for in a GNS basis.

We are not Gamists; "winning" is defined for us through the narrative climax of the story. In my last campaign, I had 27 tier 4 characters enter into a war with a Demon Lord *knowing ahead of time* they would be sacrificing themselves and likely not surviving the whole battle.

We value character growth development, and personal change -- our primary references for campaign development are a series of heroic cycles. Paladins will be tested, we use renown and Sanity and we are keen on the process of a character growing more powerful -- and role playing those bits of growth and development through things like ceremonies and conversations with teachers and in world events.

We value internal consistency of rules, of settings, and everything has to fit into the world as a whole -- if there are none of the kinds of beings in a world that could be a Patron, how can you have a warlock? If none of the Gods of the world are "gods of this thing", how can you have domains? If there are no savage tribal peoples, how can you have barbarians? We value Role Playing and traditional D&D combat, and we want to do more of it while we roleplay, and we value and encourage being in character.

Several of us work in fields where developing simulations is a part of our jobs. So we will have a campaign and through the different adventures in that campaign we may have 10 different genres of story, and as I mentioned previously, we use open worlds, so players may choose to do things like set up a farm or a bastion, or become merchants and explore trade routes, or hie off to explore the areas of the map unexplored or pick up on some bit of throw away lore in the lorebook. We recognize that D&D is a Fantasy simulation, and so we have fantasy gangsters (mafia), fantasy rustlers (westerns) fantasy heists, fantasy noir, fantasy romance (on occasion, by request), urban fantasy, gothic fantasy, pirate fantasy, robin hood fantasy, isekai fantasy, comedy, drama, sword and sandal, sword and sorcery, and we keep going.

The DMs typically work 6 months to a year on a setting. Then three to six months on rules. Setting is primary for the DMs.

Lastly we use d4 through d30, in 2's. We like math rocks, number runes, the fickle fortunes of fate and the heresy of chance in destiny. Fumbles break weapons, crits cause extra damage, and we don't stress the details (so we use Hit Points and don't try to do the boring, ugly, problematic attempts to mimic damage in combat). We have environmental effects and so put import on conditions -- but we don't play gritty realism because these custom worlds are not subject to the same laws of physics and reality as, well, reality.

If you use an alternate approach, we embrace thinking, storytelling, character acting, strategy, story, and combat. Light Crunch -- we want rules for encumbrance, but only really apply them when it comes to figuring out how to haul a dragon's hoard away. We want crafting, but a formula shouldn't be more than five lines, and should have a story based purpose. Spells should be found, not instantly learned or carefully picked, and there should be rewards for being both committed to a story and not committed to a storyline.

The games that have more than 3% market share available today? None of them work for us. We've tried them all. D&D? 5e D&D? It hits every point we enjoy. We are what WotC internally calls "centrist" gamers. For us, the core values are:

• Strong Characters and Exciting Story
• Role Playing
• Complexity Increases over Time
• Requires Strategic Thinking
• Add on sets/New versions available
• Uses imagination
• Mentally challenging

As you are familiar with GNS, I presume you are familiar with other approaches, and if so you will note that the value missing is the competitive one -- we do compete, but it is more in character and it is less about "winning". To that, you can add one more that we all view as equally important:

• Sense of Wonder within a familiar space.

This is one that no published world can offer, because it is tied to the particular knowledge of the people, and the sources and inspirations drawn from. And published worlds all draw from the same wells, and we are bored with those wells.

So, it appears that some folks think that D&D cannot do all of that -- even though it has been doing it for 40 years for us (over 40, even). If we want to play superheroes, we break out the old MSHAS stuff and modify the hell out of it. If we want to do giant robot war machines a la Saberhagen, we break out the BT/MW stuff. If we want to do pretty much any other genre but not in the modern or future eras, we use D&D. Well, no, we've used D&D in modern era, too. We don't do sci-fi rpg.  If we did, we'd probably do it like a season of Star Trek and use D&D rules, with the classes as different jobs, change the weapons, and develop out our existing vehicle variants to incorporate starships.

Then throw in Jedi because we are weird, and one of us always wants to play a Jedi, lol.

TL;DR: Folks keep telling me I don't want to play D&D, and everything they suggest is something that crashed and burned. I might suspect that what they are really saying is that they don't want me to play D&D, because it doesn't fit with their vision of how it should be played. Which is fine, as long as they recognize that Imma think the same in return.

This poll is leaving out the option of "every class should be MAD".

With first level feats...... and the new True strike design or shillelagh .......  every class that has spellcasting can build around being Sad. It sounds like wotc is leaning towards giving everyone an option with a slight amount of reducing its dependency. 

I think having a build option to be Sad is a decent enough place. It provides options for people that want it but also allows other playstyles to shine as well.    A primary example is how satisfied people were when Ranger got the cantrip Fighting style. Not everyone needed it but those that felt it better suited their play could have it. ranger was in a good place when both styles could 

Choosing to be Sad should be A choice that removes other potential options. one build for easy play and  one build for people that desire complexity (optimizers, Complex characters etc) 

Quote from AEDorsay >>

TL;DR: Folks keep telling me I don't want to play D&D, and everything they suggest is something that crashed and burned. I might suspect that what they are really saying is that they don't want me to play D&D, because it doesn't fit with their vision of how it should be played. Which is fine, as long as they recognize that Imma think the same in return.

Wow, wow, no. You can play whatever you want.

I was just giving you some advice that was going to save you a lot of problems. But it's up to you.

Quote from Irrelevant_guy >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

TL;DR: Folks keep telling me I don't want to play D&D, and everything they suggest is something that crashed and burned. I might suspect that what they are really saying is that they don't want me to play D&D, because it doesn't fit with their vision of how it should be played. Which is fine, as long as they recognize that Imma think the same in return.

 

Wow, wow, no. You can play whatever you want.

I was just giving you some advice that was going to save you a lot of problems. But it's up to you.

 
What problems, though? I'm a mechanics nerd, not a rules nerd, lol. Creating new systems that blend with existing ones isn't a problem, it is a challenge. One thing veteran players never forget is that in D&D, *all rules* are merely suggestions.

But note that you are saying there is a game out there that will work for me -- guessing that I hadn't tried "all the games out there", while likely meaning most of the big ones. That I never looked, and that it is a problem to solve. Why is it a problem?

Is it  a lot of work? Well, yeah. And since I have to make a living and I am really finicky, I've spent five years on this next campaign. But I only spent 6 months on the one before it. Which was developed and played and completed during the development of this next one.

Do you mean I have a problem with not being able to use the DDB tools? Well, yeah -- that's a problem. Even if we didn't use house rules, we use options for spell points and Sanity and honor -- book stuff, and the DDB doesn't support them. So that's not *my* problem, or even a problem for me, it is one for someone else.

Do you mean it is a problem because other players won't want to join? Well, not really. Even ignoring the existing group, I have the interest of a lot of folks who have seen the development stuff, since I post that openly. Not thousands, not even hundreds, but meh -- I don't do it to sell game things. This isn't stuff that will go up on rpg store.

its a problem because I don't use the published worlds? Again, that's a challenge, however annoying it is, but that would exist anyway -- I have always hated the published worlds. Problems because the system won't let me do a custom class? Since when? I know the class system likely as well or better than the current designers, and we have different goals and priorities. Creating a class is easy. Same for races, or feats or backgrounds or magic items and I would do that even if I was working within the existing rules only.

The problem of rewriting 200 spells because we use a spell point system and a unified damage structure that simplifies the game more and speeds up things? Ok, I will give you this one. I hate rewriting spells.  Especially since I am keeping them as close to the same as they are -- and really, I hate it because I keep creating new spells.

THe problem of creating a new psionics systems, or a new ritual system, or adding in vehicle combat so we can have chases, or new conditions so we can deal with the effects of natural hazards and expand the elemental spells? Building a crafting system that isn't better, but works better for us? Shifting the DC and CR systems to create more powerful foes and monsters?

Those aren't my problems. Those are things that folks have been asking wotc for since 5e came out. Not high priorities, maybe, but still there. Will other games do them like 5e does them?

 So what problems were you hoping save me from?

unfair push, maybe, but you said I didn't want to play D&D.

If all the classes were SAD that would make me sad. I like the variety.