Page 13 of 21 FirstFirst ...
3
11
12
13
14
15
... LastLast
  1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    The thing is, if you are designing a system to be light weight, you shouldn't constantly bloat it with new subclasses and feats. But apparently rules make more money than anything else. They started with a good idea but then nixed it. Imo 5E should stay lightweight and encourage people to reskin. I enjoy Keith Baker's work for Eberron and he advises not adding more but reskinning what already exists into what you want to play. If you want a system that plays good at Char Op, 5E will never make you happy.

    - - - Updated - - -



    It was inevitable! We even have some light edition wars!
    IDK, as someone who played AD&D and lots of pathfinder, 5e felt way too lightweight and restrictive on the core ruleset. And that was largely the point - to make it accessible.

  2. #242
    Scarab Lord Nymrohd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    4,031
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    IDK, as someone who played AD&D and lots of pathfinder, 5e felt way too lightweight and restrictive on the core ruleset. And that was largely the point - to make it accessible.
    Yup that's my point. They should keep it lightweight but they cannot help themselves and keep adding bloat. The more things you define making small special rules for subclasses, the less space there is for GMs and players to creatively interpret rules. A system like 5E lives on creative ambiguity.

  3. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    That is a problem on then, by joining a setting with pre-dated races, if you have a reason, people will not get "mad", i Joined a Dragonlance group once with a guy baning almost all possible races, you could only be the lord of the rings troop, but it made sense with the scenario, if you play FR, the biggest skinhole of D&D, there is no reason to ban something when you can find literally anything.

    You must be playing in a totally different game, or with some curious people, but there is not a single group that i play/dm that at least one person is not playing one kind of elf or half-elf and a human.

    If people want to paly something unusual, i personally don't see how it will affect other enjoyment. My only problem would be a party entire of one race, i love the diversity in a today party.

    A tomb of annihilation game i play - kobold, lizardfolk, dragonborn, half-orc, and elf, great interactions



    you don't need to find a way to top, im just saying there is the "right" ways to tame it, and even if you manage to do so, still will be ridiculous weaker and lame compared to a beastmaster ranger can do.

    Like all of those things you said, you can do, you don't need to be that subclass, but the subclass will be much stronger in that department, you being an alchemist still will be miles inferior to an actual artificer alchemist, the pet that you tamed would be miles inferior to the beastmaster options and, they can bring back, you can't, i think that makes perfectly sense as a balance scenario.
    Like you just said again, I have to arbitrarily limit what the PCs can do in order to avoid stepping on another class or subclass. That’s not fun, and it hurts the verisimilitude of the game.

    In the case of the tamed pets, it is really bad because the ranger has all these limitations that the other PCs don’t. The other PC can just cast Speak With Animals and take a free action to ask the pet to do things, while the ranger has to deal with rules for what his pet is allowed to do. Does he also get some benefits? Sure, but this is the fundamental problem with having hundreds of unique mechanics. They screw up the ability to simply DM on the fly, because everyone has all kinds of arbitrary mechanics that can conflict, which has become a bigger and bigger problem with newer subclasses that become more and more niche.

    What advantage is this giving over a simple system with a handful of classes and open ended mechanics? Nothing. It just generates verisimilitude-breaking arbitrary rules situations where I have to work against my players to keep them from painting outside the lines that the game is forcing them into.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    Yup that's my point. They should keep it lightweight but they cannot help themselves and keep adding bloat. The more things you define making small special rules for subclasses, the less space there is for GMs and players to creatively interpret rules. A system like 5E lives on creative ambiguity.
    This.

    Simpler is better. The DM is there to arbitrate and facilitate. I don’t need 300 subclasses to give my players variety. If a player wants to learn necromancy maybe they can… go find necromancy spells. If a player wants to have a pet maybe they can… go find a pet. If a player wants to learn alchemy maybe they can… go find some herbs. Reducing all these potentially rich roleplaying scenarios to subclasses is lame.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  4. #244
    Scarab Lord Nymrohd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    4,031
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    This.

    Simpler is better. The DM is there to arbitrate and facilitate. I don’t need 300 subclasses to give my players variety. If a player wants to learn necromancy maybe they can… go find necromancy spells. If a player wants to have a pet maybe they can… go find a pet. If a player wants to learn alchemy maybe they can… go find some herbs. Reducing all these potentially rich roleplaying scenarios to subclasses is lame.
    I'd say simpler is better for some groups. my groups has been together for ages and they are all optimizers so they need a robust system to have fun; oh we roleplay a decent amount but the battles are the focus. But your average group and GM does not have the time and the investment in the rule system to play with a robust system and for them, the lighter the better.

  5. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post

    This.

    Simpler is better. The DM is there to arbitrate and facilitate. I don’t need 300 subclasses to give my players variety. If a player wants to learn necromancy maybe they can… go find necromancy spells. If a player wants to have a pet maybe they can… go find a pet. If a player wants to learn alchemy maybe they can… go find some herbs. Reducing all these potentially rich roleplaying scenarios to subclasses is lame.
    Well, as has been stated multiple times already in this thread...any of those bloated rules are entirely optional. If you don't want subclasses in your game...don't use them.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    I'd say simpler is better for some groups. my groups has been together for ages and they are all optimizers so they need a robust system to have fun; oh we roleplay a decent amount but the battles are the focus. But your average group and GM does not have the time and the investment in the rule system to play with a robust system and for them, the lighter the better.
    That may be overgeneralizing a bit.
    Isms bore me. I think they are only brought by people who seek to marginalize the potential of each ism to provide something meaningful. Name it, Capitalism, Socialism, even Communism-- all contain something of merit towards structuring a society. The biggest flaw in human history has been the need to take the worst of a system along with the best. It doesn't have to be all of one and none of another.

  6. #246
    The Insane Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    16,402
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Like you just said again, I have to arbitrarily limit what the PCs can do in order to avoid stepping on another class or subclass. That’s not fun, and it hurts the verisimilitude of the game.
    But... thats the thing, you don't have to arbitrary limit that, the game does have rules for it

    In the case of the tamed pets, it is really bad because the ranger has all these limitations that the other PCs don’t. The other PC can just cast Speak With Animals and take a free action to ask the pet to do things, while the ranger has to deal with rules for what his pet is allowed to do.
    And why the pets would do that? if you complete ignore the rules and what spells and abilities do, i guess . Like, the spell precisely say "The knowledge and awareness of many beasts is limited by their intelligence", so, you can do much here, even the part of asking to do something is a "small favour". you can ask to fight and die for you, but its nonsense to believe it will actually do it, spells only do what they say they do, is not a mind control, it does not say it follows or obeys you. That is another spell, Dominate beast, and consume the caster resources, so, seems fine to me.

    Does he also get some benefits? Sure, but this is the fundamental problem with having hundreds of unique mechanics. They screw up the ability to simply DM on the fly, because everyone has all kinds of arbitrary mechanics that can conflict, which has become a bigger and bigger problem with newer subclasses that become more and more niche.
    Then you want a system with the bare minimum so you don't have to bother with many rules and mechanics, thats fine, for each his own, but i find no problem whatsoever in "many options", in the game i play or dm, the mechanics oof someone wanting to tame a pet and an actual beastmaster, "don't conflict"

    Simpler is better. The DM is there to arbitrate and facilitate. I don’t need 300 subclasses to give my players variety. If a player wants to learn necromancy maybe they can… go find necromancy spells. If a player wants to have a pet maybe they can… go find a pet. If a player wants to learn alchemy maybe they can… go find some herbs. Reducing all these potentially rich roleplaying scenarios to subclasses is lame.
    Even fi you have 300 subclasses, you still have 3-6 players at beast, this is a non issue. Simple is better for some, sure, but some people just get tired or bored of the same 2 picks, especially if you played much and for longer.

    What you are saying, its literally possible already, non necromancers can cast and learn necromancy spells, the necromancer subclass have more support for his own subclass, but other wizards can be necromancers and even combine with other subs options. Same for wanting a pet or being an alchemy, Nothing is reduced.
    Last edited by Syegfryed; 2022-07-31 at 09:35 PM.

  7. #247
    As much as people gripe about rulesets, I always wondered why people even really bothered with the actual rules of D&D and didn't just play their own thing just using the base as inspiration.

  8. #248
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    But... thats the thing, you don't have to arbitrary limit that, the game does have rules for it

    And why the pets would do that? if you complete ignore the rules and what spells and abilities do, i guess . Like, the spell precisely say "The knowledge and awareness of many beasts is limited by their intelligence", so, you can do much here, even the part of asking to do something is a "small favour". you can ask to fight and die for you, but its nonsense to believe it will actually do it, spells only do what they say they do, is not a mind control, it does not say it follows or obeys you. That is another spell, Dominate beast, and consume the caster resources, so, seems fine to me.
    A summary of what you just said is "No matter what the player does or what the player rolls, just throttle it and arbitrarily limit it." That's the PROBLEM, not the SOLUTION.

    Then you want a system with the bare minimum so you don't have to bother with many rules and mechanics, thats fine, for each his own, but i find no problem whatsoever in "many options", in the game i play or dm, the mechanics oof someone wanting to tame a pet and an actual beastmaster, "don't conflict"
    There are less options with this many subclasses. That's the entire point. If I am serving sandwiches and I say "Just pick what you want" then I am providing MAXIMUM options. You are arguing that providing a constantly increasing list of specific sandwiches, but not allowing any customization of those sandwiches, is somehow going to result in more options than "just make the sandwich you want".

    Even fi you have 300 subclasses, you still have 3-6 players at beast, this is a non issue. Simple is better for some, sure, but some people just get tired or bored of the same 2 picks, especially if you played much and for longer.
    The whole point here is that if the class pool is smaller, the classes have to be significantly broader and deeper, which means two people playing the same one can be radically different.

    What you are saying, its literally possible already, non necromancers can cast and learn necromancy spells, the necromancer subclass have more support for his own subclass, but other wizards can be necromancers and even combine with other subs options. Same for wanting a pet or being an alchemy, Nothing is reduced.
    Wizard is the only caster that has that kind of freedom, and it makes Wizard a much more complex and interesting class that relies more on DM adjudication than other casters who are given fixed spell lists. This is because Wizard is the spiritual successor to the original magic-user class so it has to retain that kind of autonomy and freedom.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Well, as has been stated multiple times already in this thread...any of those bloated rules are entirely optional. If you don't want subclasses in your game...don't use them.
    Subclasses are required to play 5e and I already described the problem whereby it feels bad for players for the DM to say "No, you can't play the thing you want".

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    I'd say simpler is better for some groups. my groups has been together for ages and they are all optimizers so they need a robust system to have fun; oh we roleplay a decent amount but the battles are the focus. But your average group and GM does not have the time and the investment in the rule system to play with a robust system and for them, the lighter the better.
    5e has a very weak battle system as a result of its bloat though. It strongly encourages constant maximum damage output rather than anything approaching strategy or coordination or creativity. I was just talking to my wife about this earlier. She love barbarians. That is always her go-to in any game, ttrpg or otherwise. But she is really bored with how 5e combat basically makes her have to constantly attack and do nothing else because its just not worth doing other things.

    A simpler system can give her the freedom to be creative in battle. The complexity is ultimately stifling.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  9. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post

    Subclasses are required to play 5e and I already described the problem whereby it feels bad for players for the DM to say "No, you can't play the thing you want".
    WotC is not going to stop publishing 5e supplements just because you have a hard time telling your players no. If you don't want certain material to be in your games... that's cool... nobody's forcing you to buy every single book... but it is on you to inform your players which materials you allow in your games.

    A simpler system can give her the freedom to be creative in battle. The complexity is ultimately stifling.
    Well, there are plenty of other systems out there for you both to try.
    Isms bore me. I think they are only brought by people who seek to marginalize the potential of each ism to provide something meaningful. Name it, Capitalism, Socialism, even Communism-- all contain something of merit towards structuring a society. The biggest flaw in human history has been the need to take the worst of a system along with the best. It doesn't have to be all of one and none of another.

  10. #250
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost of Cow View Post
    As much as people gripe about rulesets, I always wondered why people even really bothered with the actual rules of D&D and didn't just play their own thing just using the base as inspiration.
    My guess would be it's so, so, so, SO much more work.

  11. #251
    I really, really dislike this recent (relatively speaking) trend for "minimalistic" RPGs.

    For me, it's just as much about the G as it is the RP. Give me something meaty to play with any day of the week. It's why I still prefer playing D&D 3.e/Pathfinder over 5e. The only thing they're good for is getting new people into the hobby, and that's pretty much it.

    That said, I'm in total agreement about there being too many races in D&D. But this is a problem Wizards of the Coast introduced with D&D 3e (and don't get me started on LA and templates), so it's hardly something 5e is responsible for. Subclasses though? Bring them on. Though I'd much prefer them to be interesting in their own right, as opposed to just being slight variations of other options. If anything, I'd complain about subclasses not having enough meat to them compared to the base classes, and having to wait entirely too long for most of them to become interesting. Especially since 5e is ill-designed for higher level play to begin with (not that other editions were much better, with most being far worse; but a turd is a turd is a turd).

    As for the people acting like house rules are some obscure, eldritch concept never before seen in D&D, just... what? Limiting what races players can pick is probably one of the oldest, most well-established and common house rules in the game's history, followed closely by class limitations. I've also never--not once--been in a D&D game that didn't use house rules to one degree or another. Even when me and my friends first started playing in the 80s, we were like "well that's a dumb rule" and came up with our own version that fit our playstyle better.

    And if everyone is fighting at the table over something silly like a house rule, then there's way more problems with the people at the table than there is with the game.

  12. #252
    Scarab Lord Nymrohd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    4,031
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    5e has a very weak battle system as a result of its bloat though. It strongly encourages constant maximum damage output rather than anything approaching strategy or coordination or creativity. I was just talking to my wife about this earlier. She love barbarians. That is always her go-to in any game, ttrpg or otherwise. But she is really bored with how 5e combat basically makes her have to constantly attack and do nothing else because its just not worth doing other things.

    A simpler system can give her the freedom to be creative in battle. The complexity is ultimately stifling.
    I mean 4E had a robust system supposedly made for miniature warfare in small scale and the answer always was max damage. 3.5, answer always was max damage. The action economy makes it clear that the only thing that matters in combat is to end it ASAP.

    - - - Updated - - -

    So looking at more interviews it seems they are going for some earnest storytelling. No fourth wall breaking, just an actual story set in a fantasy world with some light comedy. I fully expect Rodriguez and Pine to carry the movie though I am most looking forward to Grant's villain. Forgotten Realms is probably the WotC IP with the least character; not that it is a problem, it makes it easier to insert campaigns there. I would hope they have a story that makes some sense within the insanely vast and detailed lore of FR though. Imo it was not a good pick. Part of the charm of fantasy is the setting itself and FR can be very non-descript.

    They are also going for a more kid friendly movie? by keeping it low on the sex. That's always an interesting conversation. I have a group that's been around for years so we let ourselves have fun on the table with whose character is the biggest slut but I think the consensus is to be careful with handling sex oin TTRPGs (and even more so with LARPs) because it can get very uncomfortable very quickly for some players. And with the leader being a bard (a bard played by Chris Pine!) they will definitely have to deal with the stereotypes.
    Last edited by Nymrohd; 2022-08-01 at 05:15 AM.

  13. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost of Cow View Post
    As much as people gripe about rulesets, I always wondered why people even really bothered with the actual rules of D&D and didn't just play their own thing just using the base as inspiration.
    Manuals from 3.5 and previous editions incentivized creating rules, spells, classes, creatures, and worlds (in fact that's how some settings and other games were born). During the 3rd and 3.5 editions, the forums were full of worldbuilding and homebrew topics.

    I didn't play the 4th edition, so I don't know how the forums worked out. Recently, I joined the RPG Reddit, and well...I am surprised how players don't like the idea of new ideas, creations, or rules by the DMs. There is a wave of people qualifying DnD as another wargame, not actually an RPG, because there aren't core role mechanics or rewards. However, the DM "cant create role-playing rewards" unless they adapt them from other RPGs.

    I received the comment that "creating your own world and adventures is dumb because it is waste of time, considering there are official adventures". Then I found how topics where they hate RPG with metaplots, because that's so antiquated.
    Last edited by KainneAbsolute; 2022-08-01 at 05:25 AM.

  14. #254
    Over 9000! Kyphael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    9,612
    Hopefully this makes Blizzard introduce a Bard class. They are saps for pop culture, and if the movie is a hit, players might want it.

  15. #255
    Scarab Lord Nymrohd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    4,031
    Quote Originally Posted by KainneAbsolute View Post
    Manuals from 3.5 and previous editions incentivized creating rules, spells, classes, creatures, and worlds (in fact that's how some settings and other games were born). During the 3rd and 3.5 editions, the forums were full of worldbuilding and homebrew topics.

    I didn't play the 4th edition, so I don't know how the forums worked out. Recently, I joined the RPG Reddit, and well...I am surprised how players don't like the idea of new ideas, creations, or rules by the DMs. There is a wave of people qualifying DnD as another wargame, not actually an RPG, because there aren't core role mechanics or rewards. However, the DM "cant create role-playing rewards" unless they adapt them from other RPGs.

    I received the comment that "creating your own world and adventures is dumb because it is waste of time, considering there are official adventures". Then I found how topics where they hate RPG with metaplots, because that's so antiquated.
    Simulationists loved 3e. 3e felt custom made (it really wasn't) to get people to build entire worlds by making NPC and monster building very formulaic (though the methodology was abysmal). It was far less effective in actual play; it would start slowing down at about lvl 6 and slow to a crawl above lvl 12. But for people who did not actually PLAY the game but liked to talk about it, 3E was the best edition?

  16. #256
    The Insane Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    16,402
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    A summary of what you just said is "No matter what the player does or what the player rolls, just throttle it and arbitrarily limit it." That's the PROBLEM, not the SOLUTION.
    You mean, the rules to do things are just "abritrary limits" and are problems?
    There are less options with this many subclasses. That's the entire point. If I am serving sandwiches and I say "Just pick what you want" then I am providing MAXIMUM options. You are arguing that providing a constantly increasing list of specific sandwiches, but not allowing any customization of those sandwiches, is somehow going to result in more options than "just make the sandwich you want".
    I see no problem in you going to a restaurant and ordering from the Menu all the dishes, its going to be hard to ask then to change their recipes to fit your taste.

    Even so, still is possible, you can customize your subclass with many feats, magic weapons spells, the customization exist, just not the way you would like to.

    The whole point here is that if the class pool is smaller, the classes have to be significantly broader and deeper, which means two people playing the same one can be radically different.
    And if you have many options there is no reason to play the same option? with many options you can play different subclasses? thats just trading six for half a dozen


    Wizard is the only caster that has that kind of freedom, and it makes Wizard a much more complex and interesting class that relies more on DM adjudication than other casters who are given fixed spell lists. This is because Wizard is the spiritual successor to the original magic-user class so it has to retain that kind of autonomy and freedom.
    Humm not rly, all the classes can do that, if its in the logic limits

    a warlock or a cleric can play the resident necromancer, hell even a druid can with the spores subclass.
    Subclasses are required to play 5e and I already described the problem whereby it feels bad for players for the DM to say "No, you can't play the thing you want".
    Thats because it will be shite to be said you ahve to play only the 4 options the dm chose because he just want it that way though, might as well just change the system.

    5e has a very weak battle system as a result of its bloat though. It strongly encourages constant maximum damage output rather than anything approaching strategy or coordination or creativity. I was just talking to my wife about this earlier. She love barbarians. That is always her go-to in any game, ttrpg or otherwise. But she is really bored with how 5e combat basically makes her have to constantly attack and do nothing else because its just not worth doing other things.

    A simpler system can give her the freedom to be creative in battle. The complexity is ultimately stifling.
    We might be playing different games then, barbarian can knock people prone, shove, push use thei features, you can use the terrain, lots of stuff to do, thing is, barbarians in general are just too straight foward anyway., i hardly see how cutting off barb subclasses would improve that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocksteady 87 View Post

    That said, I'm in total agreement about there being too many races in D&D. But this is a problem Wizards of the Coast introduced with D&D 3e (and don't get me started on LA and templates), so it's hardly something 5e is responsible for. Subclasses though? Bring them on.
    i don't get it, why the races is somehow different? i see then as another tool to make a character, especially when they come with some fancy racials to add into the strategy.

    The spelljammer races as example, looking neat as fuck, the ooze race would fit some rly nice builds

  17. #257
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    You mean, the rules to do things are just "abritrary limits" and are problems?


    I see no problem in you going to a restaurant and ordering from the Menu all the dishes, its going to be hard to ask then to change their recipes to fit your taste.

    Even so, still is possible, you can customize your subclass with many feats, magic weapons spells, the customization exist, just not the way you would like to.



    And if you have many options there is no reason to play the same option? with many options you can play different subclasses? thats just trading six for half a dozen



    Humm not rly, all the classes can do that, if its in the logic limits

    a warlock or a cleric can play the resident necromancer, hell even a druid can with the spores subclass.

    Thats because it will be shite to be said you ahve to play only the 4 options the dm chose because he just want it that way though, might as well just change the system.



    We might be playing different games then, barbarian can knock people prone, shove, push use thei features, you can use the terrain, lots of stuff to do, thing is, barbarians in general are just too straight foward anyway., i hardly see how cutting off barb subclasses would improve that.

    - - - Updated - - -



    i don't get it, why the races is somehow different? i see then as another tool to make a character, especially when they come with some fancy racials to add into the strategy.

    The spelljammer races as example, looking neat as fuck, the ooze race would fit some rly nice builds
    It’s pretty clear at this point that you are just not getting it and won’t. If I say subclass puts you in narrow lanes and your response is that the player can pick a different subclass, you just don’t want to engage with what I am saying at all.

    The restaurant comparison is the best example of this. You completely sidestepped by metaphor by talking about ordering off menu, rather than engaging with the point I made.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  18. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyphael View Post

    Says every closeted racist ever before saying something racist. The most hilarious thing is, you're racist against the dragon.
    Wait, I thought he was being sarcastic, taking the piss out of the over woke crazies - you mean he was being serious?

  19. #259
    So much Geekism. I just want to see an Acid spewing dragon...

  20. #260
    The Lightbringer Hansworst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Schiedam, the Netherlands
    Posts
    3,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Mace View Post
    Wait, I thought he was being sarcastic, taking the piss out of the over woke crazies - you mean he was being serious?
    He was being sarcastic. Kyphael's sarcasm radar is in maintenance I guess.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •