[Movie] Dungeon & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves

[NineSpine]

downhill? from what i saw 5e is going uphigh, from the top of my head ravenloft and Fizban were amazing books, Tasha, while not quite xanathar quality, was great, and motm also was heavily necessary, most of the changes were saw as positive and high acclaimed, despite some people in reddit.

On Settings, Eberron, Exandria and even the MTG ones were good, Eberron is by far, my favorite, and Theroes was a damn useful book for DMs.

With the recent UA we might as well get planescape after spelljammer, so i don't think we are going downhill...

What you are describing is what a lot of us see as needless bloat. For the first couple of years, every 5e game I DMed was great. Since then, every game is a clown show of ridiculous characters because players are encouraged to pick from the absurdly long list of out there races and class options. I haven't had a player choose human, elf, or dwarf in years. When the players all want to be the most out-there races possible, it forces you as a DM to put them in an appropriate world for that where those races are common or else everything is just very off and the verisimilitude fails.

On top of that, the number of class options has made it very difficult for players to move outside the lines of their class without causing problems.. For example, I had a player that wanted to be a beast master ranger, but then a little bit into the campaign the sorcerer wanted to tame an animal and keep it as a companion. Now what do I do? This clearly steps on the toes of the ranger who has to abide by a whole bunch of rules that limit his ability to use his pet. If the sorcerer rolls well enough there is no reason for me to arbitrarily cut him off, and as a sorcerer he actually has high charisma and therefore high animal handling. There is no logical reason he shouldn't be allowed to do this, and ultimately he has fewer rules to abide by than the ranger because he is painting outside the lines of his class. It's a big mess, and there is stuff like this all throughout the game. Virtually everything a PC might want to do that is outside their strict class role is going to step on the toes of an actual class or subclass that exists in the rules.

This is why I have shifted more toward OSR games. 5e started off very strong and has become a complete mess. The only solution is to cut off options for players, and they really don't take kindly to that. I recently asked a group if we could play a campaign just using the players handbook options and it was like I tried to murder their pets.

[Rocksteady 87]

I'm curious about new Spelljammer, due in 2 weeks or thereabouts, but hard to say if they'll capture that moment in time.

You mean the setting that's now all about traveling the Astral Sea so you can travel to other planes, rather than Wild Space and the Phlogiston so that you can travel to other campaign worlds?

They've already shown that they're going to butcher Spelljammer as badly as they did Planescape. I have zero faith in it. The art may be pretty, and they may share some names with races and whatnot, but that'll be about as close as they get to Spelljammer with it.

[Svifnymr]

downhill? from what i saw 5e is going uphigh, from the top of my head ravenloft and Fizban were amazing books, Tasha, while not quite xanathar quality, was great, and motm also was heavily necessary, most of the changes were saw as positive and high acclaimed, despite some people in reddit.

On Settings, Eberron, Exandria and even the MTG ones were good, Eberron is by far, my favorite, and Theroes was a damn useful book for DMs.

With the recent UA we might as well get planescape after spelljammer, so i don't think we are going downhill...

I liked Eberron and Ravenloft, Xanathar's was great, Tasha's sucked, the adventures have always been hit or miss, but now they're cranking out more books and the crap is more obvious. Wild Beyond Witchlight felt like someone wanted to write a child's book, but couldn't do it, so they made a crappy adventure instead. Strixhaven was a huge let down. Theros was a good read, mostly useless to me like the older MtG setting book. Anyway, not worth going over every product, it just seems like they're throwing stuff out there without a real path. The "huge great news" of no ability score adjustments or whatever is just silly to me, so I don't care about that one way or the other in regard to buying a book. It's been a point-buy world for a long time and the justification is stupid, especially in a game with a DM.

I didn't even notice this Radiant Citadel adventure book came out, guess I'll see what it looks like at the gamestore.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean the setting that's now all about traveling the Astral Sea so you can travel to other planes, rather than Wild Space and the Phlogiston so that you can travel to other campaign worlds?

They've already shown that they're going to butcher Spelljammer as badly as they did Planescape. I have zero faith in it. The art may be pretty, and they may share some names with races and whatnot, but that'll be about as close as they get to Spelljammer with it.

Yeah, but hope springs eternal, I suppose. I'll give it a shot and see how close it gets.

[VMSmith]

What you are describing is what a lot of us see as needless bloat. For the first couple of years, every 5e game I DMed was great. Since then, every game is a clown show of ridiculous characters because players are encouraged to pick from the absurdly long list of out there races and class options. I haven't had a player choose human, elf, or dwarf in years.

My game was AD&D (and the Basic/Expert/Companion box sets), before editions, and everything that's come out since then has seemed like needless bloat to me

That said, I find 5e to be pretty good if you just use the basic stuff.

[Syegfryed]

What you are describing is what a lot of us see as needless bloat. For the first couple of years, every 5e game I DMed was great. Since then, every game is a clown show of ridiculous characters because players are encouraged to pick from the absurdly long list of out there races and class options. I haven't had a player choose human, elf, or dwarf in years. When the players all want to be the most out-there races possible, it forces you as a DM to put them in an appropriate world for that where those races are common or else everything is just very off and the verisimilitude fails.

This trully mean how wide and different the community is, and the players you play.

You say its a "clown show" of ridiculous things, just because people don't go for the most outdated and boring options? like, the game is going for years, you would think people would get bored of playing the cliche lord of the ring troop right?

To me is the exact the opposite, the game is being great with so many options and wotc actually not fucking you over by picking up something different as an orc or a kobold wizard.

the dm still have the final say to what races exist in their world, so this is a non issue.

On top of that, the number of class options has made it very difficult for players to move outside the lines of their class without causing problems.. For example, I had a player that wanted to be a beast master ranger, but then a little bit into the campaign the sorcerer wanted to tame an animal and keep it as a companion. Now what do I do? This clearly steps on the toes of the ranger who has to abide by a whole bunch of rules that limit his ability to use his pet. If the sorcerer rolls well enough there is no reason for me to arbitrarily cut him off, and as a sorcerer he actually has high charisma and therefore high animal handling. There is no logical reason he shouldn't be allowed to do this, and ultimately he has fewer rules to abide by than the ranger because he is painting outside the lines of his class. It's a big mess, and there is stuff like this all throughout the game. Virtually everything a PC might want to do that is outside their strict class role is going to step on the toes of an actual class or subclass that exists in the rules.

Hummm, what? like, rly what? this is a thing that could happen since day one of 5e, beastmaster and sorcerer are core things, how the new options change any of that?

By the rules, animal handling is a wisdom ability, not charisma, and you don't just make a check and gain a pet this is preposterous, there is a big process of taming, the pet does not hear you mentality yada yada.

This is why I have shifted more toward OSR games. 5e started off very strong and has become a complete mess. The only solution is to cut off options for players, and they really don't take kindly to that. I recently asked a group if we could play a campaign just using the players handbook options and it was like I tried to murder their pets.

Like i said, to me is literally the opposite, game is getting better and better with more options that fill different niches that didn't had before, and, there still room for me, as a example, we still don't have a warlock with a pact of the great wyrm.

Cutting off options is never a good thing in games like this imo

- - - Updated - - -

I liked Eberron and Ravenloft, Xanathar's was great, Tasha's sucked,

How Tasha sucked? it was more or less a xanathar.

the adventures have always been hit or miss, but now they're cranking out more books and the crap is more obvious. Wild Beyond Witchlight felt like someone wanted to write a child's book, but couldn't do it, so they made a crappy adventure instead.

i think the passing is rather ok, adventurers are always a complicate, some of then need more work from the DMs, Wild was at least the communities i checked, pretty liked, but i agree it was a different approach with being less combat focused. im playing Call of the netherdeep now, and its being a blast.

Strixhaven was a huge let down. Theros was a good read, mostly useless to me like the older MtG setting book. Anyway, not worth going over every product, it just seems like they're throwing stuff out there without a real path. The "huge great news" of no ability score adjustments or whatever is just silly to me, so I don't care about that one way or the other in regard to buying a book. It's been a point-buy world for a long time and the justification is stupid, especially in a game with a DM.

I didn't get what you said in the last part, being in a point buy world? changing the "racial scores" to background scores was a much better change, since the original was bad overall

I didn't even notice this Radiant Citadel adventure book came out, guess I'll see what it looks like at the gamestore.

People are saying its quite good...

- - - Updated - - -

You mean the setting that's now all about traveling the Astral Sea so you can travel to other planes, rather than Wild Space and the Phlogiston so that you can travel to other campaign worlds?

They've already shown that they're going to butcher Spelljammer as badly as they did Planescape. I have zero faith in it. The art may be pretty, and they may share some names with races and whatnot, but that'll be about as close as they get to Spelljammer with it.

From what i read, from a few interviews, they retconed the Phlogiston to be the astral sea, you would still go to other worlds, but also to other planes

Grant it, didn't checked the late one shots featuring the book.

[Svifnymr]

How Tasha sucked? it was more or less a xanathar.

It tried to be a Xanathars, but the classes were odd, the little quotes were dumb, and overall the rules just felt like original Unearthed Arcana, a bunch of stuff tossed in to sell a book rather than a themed collection. The different may be a fine line, granted, but that's how it felt for me.

i think the passing is rather ok, adventurers are always a complicate, some of then need more work from the DMs, Wild was at least the communities i checked, pretty liked, but i agree it was a different approach with being less combat focused. im playing Call of the netherdeep now, and its being a blast.

The problems aren't just less combat, because they tossed random combat in anyway. The problem is the adventure is written in a railroady way, where you must act a certain way and draw certain conclusions and follow the story or it just doesn't WORK. Like the Waterdeep adventure that seemed to want to make the kids important game archetype characters and if you don't buy into the premise with all your heart, the game just doesn't work. Descent into Avernus is similar to older adventures where there are linear set pieces, but varied methods for arriving at them. If things go wrong, it is possible to still play the adventure.

If they're video games, Witchlight is a walking simulator where you're just walking along as things happen and if you try to stray from the path it just doesn't exist.

I didn't get what you said in the last part, being in a point buy world? changing the "racial scores" to background scores was a much better change, since the original was bad overall

If you want a strong elf, using point buy at char gen your elf can be strong. The fact it is "too restrictive" to say elves are more dextrous than dwarfs, or dwarfs are stronger than elves is just pointless to me. If your players can't handle any restrictions, the DM can alter what they want. To write it into the core rules of the book is a bit sigh-worthy to me. Hell, they already removed penalties since I guess having elves be frailer of build was detrimental to the game.

People are saying its quite good...

Yeah, but people suck.
Going to the shop later for some Sigmar anyway, so I'll browse it to see if it's interesting for me.

[Syegfryed]

It tried to be a Xanathars, but the classes were odd, the little quotes were dumb, and overall the rules just felt like original Unearthed Arcana, a bunch of stuff tossed in to sell a book rather than a themed collection. The different may be a fine line, granted, but that's how it felt for me.

The little quotes look like someone from twitter or tumblr, thats true, but xanathars also had quotes.

On the classes, they were amazing, i myself played a few and they were both useful and fun, having a subclass that can do stuff in and out of combat is a bliss, comparing things to the like of assassin rogue and champion fighter that are pathetic and boring, the difference in design philosophy is big, of course there is the powercreep problem, but isn't as big as other games, there still phb subs that are even better in today meta.

The optional rules were a much needed to a bunch of classes, especially ranger, that were fucked over when the final release of phb came out, those are buffs, basically a correction patch, some were minimal, but even the minimum was a big help, ergo, many of the optional rules were already homebrew rules dms did, they basically made it official to give people some official support

The problems aren't just less combat, because they tossed random combat in anyway. The problem is the adventure is written in a railroady way, where you must act a certain way and draw certain conclusions and follow the story or it just doesn't WORK. Like the Waterdeep adventure that seemed to want to make the kids important game archetype characters and if you don't buy into the premise with all your heart, the game just doesn't work. Descent into Avernus is similar to older adventures where there are linear set pieces, but varied methods for arriving at them. If things go wrong, it is possible to still play the adventure.

That i can understand, but to me, that is a problem in all published adventurers in general, the ones who don't are the few, like saltmarsh and stormking thunder, even stradh is a bit more railroading.

When i remember the time i played dragonlance, i think it was 2e or AD&D(this in the 4e era) the books were so railroad that you HAD to do what the book said, and dm was even worse on that note, if we did something different than what the book said, he had tot ake a 20m pause to figure out how to continue with the adventure.

If you want a strong elf, using point buy at char gen your elf can be strong. The fact it is "too restrictive" to say elves are more dextrous than dwarfs, or dwarfs are stronger than elves is just pointless to me. If your players can't handle any restrictions, the DM can alter what they want. To write it into the core rules of the book is a bit sigh-worthy to me. Hell, they already removed penalties since I guess having elves be frailer of build was detrimental to the game.

The problem always lied how those "restrictions" were an illusion, the racial scores were dumb, arbitrary and did not reflect the races well(it also did not reflect differences within the race and raise a lot of problems regarding mental stats and saying what race is more intelligent or wise than others), they make new players and old shoehorn one preconception of the race with little room to do something different or go astray, so, they decided to change in prol of something that could be build from your backstory, that actually made sense, similar with what pathfinder does. Its not that before you could not make different combinations, now you just don't get a unnecessary nerf(that rly does not change a thing with all the stats going to 20 anyway), before, people unnintentionaly would go for races that increase dex into dex classes and str races into str classes, even if subconciously, is something new and old players do, theorycraft and min-max is also a form of play


I for one, would love a complete redesign, with like, halflings and gnomes getting -4 to str, elves getting -2, they str cap going to 16 and 17, goliaths and orcs getting +4 and their maximum going to 24,(cause i find baffling how people think a 8ft half-giant person would be only +2 stronger than a 2ft halfling) but 5e is build different and in general people don't like their races nerfed worsed like that.

Yeah, but people suck.
Going to the shop later for some Sigmar anyway, so I'll browse it to see if it's interesting for me.

Maybe, i didn't had time to check it either, the last one im playing is call fo the entherdeep, and im enjoying very much

[Nymrohd]

My game was AD&D (and the Basic/Expert/Companion box sets), before editions, and everything that's come out since then has seemed like needless bloat to me

That said, I find 5e to be pretty good if you just use the basic stuff.

I think the game plays well either when it is designed to be expansive right from the start (no version of D&D really did that properly but some related systems like Arcane Unearthed by Monte Cook in 3E or Level Up in 5E do it succesfully) or with the basic versions released at some point during each xpac. Like, the Basic version of 4E was excellent.

As for the movie, I wonder if they will leave hooks for a sequel.

[NineSpine]

This trully mean how wide and different the community is, and the players you play.

You say its a "clown show" of ridiculous things, just because people don't go for the most outdated and boring options? like, the game is going for years, you would think people would get bored of playing the cliche lord of the ring troop right?

To me is the exact the opposite, the game is being great with so many options and wotc actually not fucking you over by picking up something different as an orc or a kobold wizard.

the dm still have the final say to what races exist in their world, so this is a non issue.

The DM having a say doesn't matter very much if saying no just makes the players feel like they are being cheated out of being fun.

I think it is fun to run lots of different types of games. Constantly running the same game of completely out-there over the top ridiculous characters playing supposedly rare races doesn't feel great. That's a fun game to play sometimes, not every single time I sit down for D&D.

The problem isn't that people won't have fun playing more vanilla races. The problem is that a lot of players feel lame playing an Elf, even if they would otherwise enjoy it, when they can instead of play weird mystical Elf from the Shadowfel or something even more rare and unique and over the top.

Hummm, what? like, rly what? this is a thing that could happen since day one of 5e, beastmaster and sorcerer are core things, how the new options change any of that?

By the rules, animal handling is a wisdom ability, not charisma, and you don't just make a check and gain a pet this is preposterous, there is a big process of taming, the pet does not hear you mentality yada yada.

It's trivial for most casters to get Speak With Animals and it lasts for 10 minutes. The animal companion example is just an example and it is an easy to explain one. There are countless others.

Like i said, to me is literally the opposite, game is getting better and better with more options that fill different niches that didn't had before, and, there still room for me, as a example, we still don't have a warlock with a pact of the great wyrm.

Cutting off options is never a good thing in games like this imo

The options are cut off by the subclass bloat. That's the point. You already admitted it when you explained that if someone wants to tame a pet I need to find a way to stop them rather than embrace what they want their character to do, even if what they want their character to do is perfectly reasonable in-world. If characters want to step even one inch outside their class/subclass it almost invariably means they are stepping on the toes of another class/subclass. Want to learn alchemy? Well that's a different class, so no. Want to be good with tinkering? Well that's a different class, so no. Want to have a tamed pet? Well that's a different class, so no. Want to make a pact with a demon for power? Well, that's a different class, so no.

In an OSR game with three or four classes (or none), there is nothing stopping the player from doing any of those things. They can play the character the way they want, rather than being artificially restricted by subclass choice. When you have too many lanes, the lanes become narrower and narrower and narrower.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Ok, so now this is just a thread about playing D&D instead of the movie.

[NineSpine]

My game was AD&D (and the Basic/Expert/Companion box sets), before editions, and everything that's come out since then has seemed like needless bloat to me

That said, I find 5e to be pretty good if you just use the basic stuff.

I think the core of 5e is great. The basic ruleset (roll a d20 to hit a target number, roll twice for advantage/disadvantage) is stellar. I used that core for my home-brew system. The problems with 5e are a lot more minor when using just the basic rules. They get exacerbated as you add the supplementary material until we get where we are now.

Mostly I just run OSR games now. Faster combat, way more open for role-play options, higher stakes because players don't become so absurdly powerful. That's another thing I haven't touched on, but the power level of characters gets so out of control after level 10, and even a little before it, that it becomes nearly impossible for characters to die unless you intentionally try to kill them through cheesy bullshit.

[eschatological]

It tried to be a Xanathars, but the classes were odd, the little quotes were dumb, and overall the rules just felt like original Unearthed Arcana, a bunch of stuff tossed in to sell a book rather than a themed collection. The different may be a fine line, granted, but that's how it felt for me.

.

I like Tasha's just for the optional rulesets/class features that fixed a lot of the deficiencies of the core 5e classes. The biggest thing that comes to mind are non-standard or uncommonly chosen subclasses, like College of Swords bards, etc. Haven't really cared about it outside of that.

[Syegfryed]

The DM having a say doesn't matter very much if saying no just makes the players feel like they are being cheated out of being fun.

I think it is fun to run lots of different types of games. Constantly running the same game of completely out-there over the top ridiculous characters playing supposedly rare races doesn't feel great. That's a fun game to play sometimes, not every single time I sit down for D&D.

The problem isn't that people won't have fun playing more vanilla races. The problem is that a lot of players feel lame playing an Elf, even if they would otherwise enjoy it, when they can instead of play weird mystical Elf from the Shadowfel or something even more rare and unique and over the top.

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

The options are cut off by the subclass bloat. That's the point. You already admitted it when you explained that if someone wants to tame a pet I need to find a way to stop them rather than embrace what they want their character to do, even if what they want their character to do is perfectly reasonable in-world. If characters want to step even one inch outside their class/subclass it almost invariably means they are stepping on the toes of another class/subclass. Want to learn alchemy? Well that's a different class, so no. Want to be good with tinkering? Well that's a different class, so no. Want to have a tamed pet? Well that's a different class, so no. Want to make a pact with a demon for power? Well, that's a different class, so no.

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.

[Nymrohd]

I like Tasha's just for the optional rulesets/class features that fixed a lot of the deficiencies of the core 5e classes. The biggest thing that comes to mind are non-standard or uncommonly chosen subclasses, like College of Swords bards, etc. Haven't really cared about it outside of that.

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 - - -

Ok, so now this is just a thread about playing D&D instead of the movie.

It was inevitable! We even have some light edition wars!

[eschatological]

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.

[Nymrohd]

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.

[NineSpine]

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 - - -

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.

[Nymrohd]

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.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

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 - - -

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.

[Syegfryed]

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.