D&D 5E Discussion

[Hagashager]

We can all see that D&D is committing suicide. The real question is if anyone can identify today what will supplant it tomorrow.

video games
what do I win?

You think tabletop will be completely supplanted by videogames the way TV replaced radio drama?

It will , Dming is far too much work preparation and dedication , it is completely incompatible with the modern crowd, it's already hard to get dedicated players able to follow a schedule, so a good DM dont count on it. The 5E books themselves are not meant to be played but read. That's why their adventure are so sketchy are unconvenient to play compare to pathfinder AP or really any third parties now. It will be slow but am 100% sure tabletop rpgs will almost completely vanish , only the niche products will stay. It's all for the best really , back to its nerd niche.

So what happened after the moral panic of the '80s.

DnD basically died for all practical purposes in the late '90s and through the entire '00s.

A chunk of the revival was in part because a lot of these self-ascribed Neo-Liberal Progressive kids were going into college and looking for anything and everything that alienated their considerably more Christian/religiously oriented parents.

DnD was the perfect maverick for them.

Now the charm is gone, mom and dad could give less than a shit about their adult children playing that make believe game, and to make matters worse, the game was developed by a Fundamentalist Christian!

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!

Coupled with the new target audiences' insatiable consumption habits and general salt-the-earth cultural mores (which are derived from the religions they hate so much) and you've got the slow death of DnD.

 

[SunKing]

DnD died in the 90s due to poor business decisions by TSR remember battledice? Also book buy backs sunk TSR financially.

 

[JamesDixon]

DnD died in the 90s due to poor business decisions by TSR remember battledice? Also book buy backs sunk TSR financially.

Hence why Wizards of the Woke's D&D is DANDINO i.e. D&D In Name Only.

 

[SunKing]

DnD died in the 90s due to poor business decisions by TSR remember battledice? Also book buy backs sunk TSR financially.

Hence why Wizards of the Woke's D&D is DANDINO i.e. D&D In Name Only.

I disagree its still based on the original rule sets with tweaks. d&d in name only is silly. What about all the OSR stuff out there is that also fake d&d?

 

[JamesDixon]

DnD died in the 90s due to poor business decisions by TSR remember battledice? Also book buy backs sunk TSR financially.

Hence why Wizards of the Woke's D&D is DANDINO i.e. D&D In Name Only.

I disagree its still based on the original rule sets with tweaks. d&d in name only is silly. What about all the OSR stuff out there is that also fake d&d?

Incorrect, Wizards of the Woke D&D has nothing of what Gary and company made. Monte Cook removed it when he did DANDINO 3.x and he even wrote that he did remove all links from the original. They've continued that practice in 4E and 5E. Thus, my statement is true.

The OSR stuff isn't making a claim that it is True D&D™.

Do you make invalid comparisons all the time or is this a one time thing?

 

[SunKing]

DnD died in the 90s due to poor business decisions by TSR remember battledice? Also book buy backs sunk TSR financially.

Hence why Wizards of the Woke's D&D is DANDINO i.e. D&D In Name Only.

I disagree its still based on the original rule sets with tweaks. d&d in name only is silly. What about all the OSR stuff out there is that also fake d&d?

Incorrect, Wizards of the Woke D&D has nothing of what Gary and company made. Monte Cook removed it when he did DANDINO 3.x and he even wrote that he did remove all links from the original. They've continued that practice in 4E and 5E. Thus, my statement is true.

The OSR stuff isn't making a claim that it is True D&D™.

Do you make invalid comparisons all the time or is this a one time thing?

So if you hate 5th edition so much why post in the 5th edition thread?

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

I see very little difference between Wizards and Paizo at this point. Both are gay, both create bad products that barely resemble D&D. Paizo is just gayer and puts more spreadsheet faggotry in theirs.

So if you hate 5th edition so much why post in the 5th edition thread?

I can't answer for James, but I mainly come here to remind me why I don't play it and to yell at people who do.

 

[JamesDixon]

So if you hate 5th edition so much why post in the 5th edition thread?

Because I can. If you don't like it then put me on ignore.

I've been playing D&D longer than you've been alive I bet. I started with AD&D 1E and stay with AD&D 2E. I play REAL D&D™ not DANDINO like you. Wizards of the Woke turned D&D from a rules system to a Brand Name that doesn't follow the original rules. Hence I call it DANDINO.

 

[HeroMarine]

There has been a ton of analysis of why TSR was bankrupt in early-mid 90s. I blame the management, who was composed of a *spit* woman and her flunkies. The other shareholders being greedy kikes sure didn't help. As for 5e, it started out ok for a simple set of D&D rules but they abandoned the RPG project to cater to trannies, faggots and other degenerates of varying degrees of retardation.

 

[SunKing]

 

[JamesDixon]

I'm not really that smart and have to steal from others to attempt to make an unfunny meme.

You can tell when someone lacks intellect is when they have to rip off The Simpsons one of the most intellectually bankrupt shows in existence.

 

[SunKing]

So basically there is no discussion of 5th edition allowed in this thread?

 

[JamesDixon]

So basically there is no discussion of 5th edition allowed in this thread?

Who said that? I didn't. You did go out of your way to attack me though.

Why don't you post DANDINO 5E shit and we can all make fun of it?

 

[SunKing]

So basically there is no discussion of 5th edition allowed in this thread?

Who said that? I didn't. You did go out of your way to attack me though.

Why don't you post DANDINO 5E shit and we can all make fun of it?

Message received no discussion of 5th edition allowed here got it.

 

[JamesDixon]

Message received no discussion of 5th edition allowed here got it.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Yes.

5th Edition is a pile of steaming dogshit. It gets worse and worse, but people keep shoveling into their mouths because it says "D&D" on the tin.

Sure, it's not Pathfinder. The entire lore isn't rewritten to insert a bunch of feminism and trannies. But in a way, it's worse. Because where Paizo is at least passionate about their faggot politics and being semi-creative, Wizards are just neutering someone else's work and watering down more and more for a mass market.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

I'm not really that smart and have to steal from others to attempt to make an unfunny meme.

You can tell when someone lacks intellect is when they have to rip off The Simpsons one of the most intellectually bankrupt shows in existence.

Don't be too insulted. JamesDixon ignored me ages ago, so he doesn't understand why you posted that.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I like 5E, but I think it's gimped by not going far enough.

Advantage/Disadvantage is the correct direction, but they need more dice. I also think they're at a disservice by sticking to the D20 for everything. I would have preferred to see proficiency bonus as a dice pool, rather than a constant. A squire might roll D20+1d4 proficiency bonus. An experienced knight might roll D20+3d10, taking the highest. The same applies to attributes. It's not as fast I guess, but it's mechanically superior--especially for a combat focused game. I think there is also room to reduce some redundancy in the classes. Rather than have some of them be their own class, they should have been an archetype. I think it suffers a wee bit in the same way PoE suffered from trying to create too many niches.

Most of my other complaints are with spellcasting. The alternate rule for spellpoints is superior than the spellslot system, which is basically a tiered spellpoint system anyway. Ultra-cantrips as a crutch for quasi-Vancian system isn't a good solution. Lots of potential mechanics for Concentration, but it's ultimately used as a nerf. The HP is too damn high. No good ways to improve DC. Spells should scale off of proficiency bonus.

Even still, I think it's a mostly good system that is very easily homebrewed. D&D is hard to quit simply because it has such a wealth of cool monsters, items, and feats. It's unfortunate that it has gravitated towards being a platform for LARPing, rather than dungeon combat.

 

[J1M]

I actually think just adding the dice on the table would be faster than rolling, referencing, and adding.

Power gains and circumstantial bonuses would modify the dice rolled.

Simple, fun, great idea.

 

[Lhynn]

No good ways to improve DC. Spells should scale off of proficiency bonus.

Agree on everything else, hard disagree on this. DC is already astronomically high, can be improved easily by investing on your main attribute, and anyone that doesnt have proficiency and has invested heavily on the countering attribute is completely fucked.

Characters should always have a better chance of shaking off spells the stronger they get, thats just how it is in literature, experience works against magic, not for it. What magic should be at high levels should be the spell caster setting up ways to land his spells, controlling the field to improve the conditions for a spell to land on someone that by every measure is exceptional (Another high level character), that would make a lot more narrative sense.

 

[deuxhero]

Spellcasting is already busted in 5E because save bonuses don't scale at all for non-proficient. Spells can consistently hit if you find the weak save, which can be really easy if you find a spell with an intelligence or charisma based save since WotC really half assed the new saves: Going from fort+reflex+will in relatively even quantity to str+dex+con+int+wis+cha while only actually using half those six 90% of the time makes the remaining 10% hyper-lethal since prof in them is so rare.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Lhynn deuxhero While I will agree that non-proficient attributes can be a sore point, it's very easy to to become proficient in them, especially if you're a fighter or if you've multiclassed. There are some reliable weak points, like how very few classes utilize intelligence, but many (if not most) spells let you save every round. That's huge. It's not a matter of if you're saving, but when. As a caster you get very few spells, and it's really important for them to work. Beyond the spread in DC and continuous saves, 5E gives classes and monsters lots of abilities to shake off status effects. I'd be less sore about it if they gave more casts per day.

My solution would be to switch to spellpoints, then have the spellpoint cost reduced by the proficiency bonus. This way cantrips could be cantrips, and you'd get more use of your repertoire. Costs would have to be tweaked for sure, but that's easily done. The point is, lower level spells would become at will gradually and organically without having a class feature way at the end. It would also work out those dumb Arcane Recovery, rituals, and short rest rules. It solves a lot of features meant to "patch" the weaknesses of the quasi-vancian system. Concentration would be changed to allow the caster to concentrate on the number of spell levels equal to their Proficiency Bonus + Casting Stat. This is way more interesting and reasonable. I would also have damage scale in a similar way. Dice of a spell would be (SL + Stat + Proficiency Bonus)d6. So, A level 5 mage with 17 INT would cast a Fireball for 9d6. That's pretty close to the existing 8d6. A level 9 spell from a 20 INT wizard would be 20d6, which is right on the money.

While it may not be suited for everyone, I like magic to have risk. I would like casters to have a make a spellcraft check against the DC of the spell to avoid some kind of backlash/reaction. I have it in my own homebrew RPG and it's great. It makes magic more thrilling while causing players to exercise judgement and restraint. Magic now because of a question of if you should, rather than if you can.

 

[Lhynn]

Lhynn deuxhero While I will agree that non-proficient attributes can be a sore point, it's very easy to to become proficient in them, especially if you're a fighter or if you've multiclassed. There are some reliable weak points, like how very few classes utilize intelligence, but many (if not most) spells let you save every round. That's huge. It's not a matter of if you're saving, but when. As a caster you get very few spells, and it's really important for them to work. Beyond the spread in DC and continuous saves, 5E gives classes and monsters lots of abilities to shake off status effects. I'd be less sore about it if they gave more casts per day.

Casters get a stupid high amount of spell slots, they can cast every round for a long time. And then they have a ranged unlimited cast cantrip that does a respectable amount of damage and that can target both AC or saving throws, just to make extra sure its guaranteed damage.

The spells are also very powerful, which im fine with, but they shouldnt just land so easily on high level characters. Makes having someone with 6 levels of paladin really important to any party. It doesnt matter if you get a save every turn if you have an intelligence of 10 and no proficiency with intelligence, you are getting fucked regardless. Getting proficiency in saving throws is extremely costly, can only happen 2-3 times in the life of an adventurer, and comes at an exorbitant opportunity cost, fighters need feats for their style and they absolutely need to max out their primary attack stat and constitution, that already leaves out any possibility of getting proficiency in a saving throw. And you need to spend a feat to be able to (Not very reliably) counter a spell, but you have to worry about 3 more saving throws, so its 3 more feats.

Its insane, saving throws were incredibly poorly planned and casters are still the strongest classes in the game, from level 1 to 20.

 

[JamesDixon]

Spellcasting is already busted in 5E because save bonuses don't scale at all for non-proficient. Spells can consistently hit if you find the weak save, which can be really easy if you find a spell with an intelligence or charisma based save since WotC really half assed the new saves: Going from fort+reflex+will in relatively even quantity to str+dex+con+int+wis+cha while only actually using half those six 90% of the time makes the remaining 10% hyper-lethal since prof in them is so rare.

That's royally retarded. Give me the original 5 that were Save vs. Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic, Save vs Rod, Staff, or Wand, Save vs. Petrification or Polymorph, Save vs. Breath Weapon, Save vs. Spell. It's almost like Wizards of the Woke don't know how to do shit since you only needed one save for spells. Two is you were saving against death magic which was highly rare.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Lhynn Consider a Level 1 match up. Wizard with 16 INT casting a L1 spell vs a non-proficient stat with +0 bonus. Effectively (8+2+1)=13 vs 1d20. The defender has a 40% chance to succeed. Round 2 65% chance. Round 3 >78% chance. Stated differently, a typical wizard using their best stat as a 40% of failure round 1 against a something baseline (no bonus, no proficiency). They can do that twice a day. Round 2, there is a 2/3 chance that spell will be shaken off. Unless the wizard has awesome initiative, there is a good chance an effect may never even get to be capitalized on. While a down the road maxed mage vs baseline might be 19 vs 1d20, characters have lots of ways to shake off or avoid effects. Even without items.

Changes to spell casting in 5E kind of took the worst from 2E, 3E, and 4E and mashed them up. It's not irredeemable, but there's so many tweaks to be done that a totally fixed system would be considered wholly different.