What went wrong?
>>47308293
It wasn't 3.5.
>>47308293
Just started nigga, that saying not a whole lot has gone wrong. I'm sure they'll fuck it up down the road, somehow.
>>47308293
it can't cure autism
>>47308327
This is the bait you deserved.
>>47308293
It was too 3.5.
Not all that much, really.
>>47308293
They played too safe
It's like asking a weeb to speak Japanese. It might sound real to someone who doesn't speak the language, but really it's just gibberish made from a mishmash of common phrases.
That was a bad analogy, sorry.
It's like watching a crab try to climb stairs.
>>47308585
How real is that? In my home town and surroundings only 2 groups are playing 5e
Asked a friend who lives 2 hours from here and in there and its surroundings almost nobody is playing 5e either
People are still playing what they were playing 1 year ago
>>47308717
>It's like asking a weeb to speak Japanese
I have a weeb friend who is actually working as Japanese/Spanish teacher in Japan so I think he handles himself ok with Japanese
>>47308293
It tried too hard not to be 3.5, and ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
>>47308724
It's from data collection from 47,000 user profiles (from the listings people make of what games they prefer) and 46,000 individual games (from what game it is set as playing) on Roll20.
So, very real, but extrapolating that out to the general populace or smaller locales (such as your own town or your friend's town) is unwise.
Its growth on Roll20 alone is still quite impressive despite not being out even 2 years yet.
>>47308740
I mean like one who isn't fluent. They'll say something like "Arigoto nani sore itadakimasu gozeimas" and you'll be like "Wow! Real Japanese!" even though it ain't.
>>47308724
Everyone I know plays pathfinder and 5e because we only have a handful of competent GMs and that's what they run
Such is life in a college game club
>>47308336
It's been out for 3 years. Don't give me that, they're just starting horse shit. The fuckers working on 5e are lazy.
>>47308809
*meant to say 2 years not 3.
>>47308585
I never quite understood what exactly the difference between "other games" and "other listed games". Which games do those catagories focus on?
>>47308875
Other Games is just someone putting "Other" in the "what game do you want to play" or "what game are you playing" bit. Other Listed Games are other ones specifically spelled out by Roll20's system.
>>47308724
What you have is a small collection of anecdotes. What >>47308585 has is a statistically significant data set. So... yeah.
Mind you, you have to be careful when extrapolating from one data set. Trends present in one section of the population may not be reflective of the whole. So, in order of decreasing certainty:
>People are playing 5e
>5e is very popular on Roll20
>5e is very popular for online play
>5e is the most popular iteration of D&D in current play
>5e is the most popular P&P in current play
I had bad experiences with this system, not because the system per se, which is simple and unimaginative as fuck, but with GMs, which are still DnD GMs therefore conditionated to be That GMs. It was selled as a good and balanced 3.5, which kinda is, but holy shit the fandom is still fucking cancer.
>>47308941
>What you have is a small collection of anecdotes.
Not that guy but so do you, in my country almost nobody is playing 5e, most played is 3.5 though.
>>47308985
What country is that, Laos?
Several things:
> stat increases were retarded: if they wanted to encourage spreading out stats, why not limit it to +1 to two different stats every 4 levels, instead of allowing +2 to one? They probably wouldn't have even needed the hard cap at 20.
> bounded accuracy is good but the accuracy was *too* bounded; your numbers only went up every 5 levels or so. If 20th level proficiency was +10 instead of +6, it'd be a better game
> tried to pander to grognards but inherent failed at that by having the class features framework and skills and feats.
> barely any feats
> lack luster choices
Proficiency was a really good idea, and the tightening up of the system as a whole was a good idea. Size-based hit dice for monsters is cool and the monster stat block is great.
The rest is kinda shit, but overall 5e is decent. Not good, but decent. That's my honest opinion.
What went wrong for me?
It was designed for people who don't care about the rules or options and entirely for the "lol who cares its fun" crowd. Is it easy to run? Well, yeah because you only have one mechanic everyone fights over, and that's Advantage/Disadvantage.
It feels like at some point, they decided to start designing a rules-lite game after they'd designed half of a D&D system, and then said "Fuck it, the book's done just print it."
>>47308830
*meant to say 1.5 not 2
>>47309569
I ONLY CONSIDER D&D PAST 2000 CANON.
>>47309569
I agree, advantage / disadvantage was a nice idea but was overused. The bonus-phobia from earlier editions was easily solved by not being retarded, but they went overboard and made everything boring as fuck. The bellcurve deal is nice but it's not really what D&D is about.
The rules-light wasn't the issue, it was the autism that was basically a mix of 4e and AD&D (and not even AD&D, because all it really had similar to AD&D was attribute-based saves and rules-light)
>>47308293
Not much, in my opinion. It's the best D&D I've played. I enjoy it, but my biggest criticism is that it's still D&D.
>>47309980
What systems do you prefer?
>>47310428
I should clarify that I don't /hate/ D&D. I run a 5e game myself, and play in a 4e one. Both are games I enjoy a lot, even if it's often in spite of the system, instead of because of it.
It'd be hard to pick a favorite, but if I had to, it'd probably be Fate Core, and the various versions of it. Secrets of Cats is a fun one. I also really enjoy some PbtA games, mostly Apocalypse World itself, Dungeon World, and Sagas of the Icelanders. In general, I've played a lot of GURPS, Savage Worlds, some Torchbearer (want to try Burning Wheel itself, badly), familiar with Don't Rest Your Head and GUMSHOE, and both have some really neat ideas.
Overall, again, I don't hate D&D. I just wish it had less of a stranglehold on the industry, because one company happened to practically monopolize a niche industry early on.
>>47308985
>A sample size of 46,000 is a small collection of anecdotes
>>47308985
Thank you for that information Mr. Ambassador, i won't dare question your source or statistics.
>>47308293
thb senpai it is dope as fug desu
Problem for me is it just felt really boring.
All the numbers are really small compared to the previous WotC editions, though HP scaling is still about the same, so fights end up taking fucking hours if you aren't cheesing it with instant death spells.
Plus it's back to the "Wizards excel at everything except damage, Fighters get to do damage" when damage is usually the least efficient way to win a fight crap 3.5 had.
>>47309565
So you want a 5.5e?
>>47310699
I feel your pain. Only difference is my system of choice is Silhouette (Heavy Gear/Tribe 8/Jovian Chronicles).
I like 5e.
Is my fun wrong, /tg/?
>>47308293
Your dad's condom had a hole.
The one thing I wish for is more feats. Is there any good list of non-setting specific feats for 5e, or a reworking of old feats for it?
>>47308344
>it can't cure brain damage
ftfy
>>47308293
Grognards
Oversimplified things to the point where it's difficult to make an interesting or unique character.
I enjoyed the edition but there just ain't much to it. It's just a very simple and streamlined RPG with a decent amount of balance - no class is outright garbage and everyone has something to offer to a party and to combat. It's okay.
It'll be interesting if they release more supplement content.
I really like the system. I think it could use more character options and published material but overall I think it keeps all the best parts of old editions while making it easy enough to get into. Class balance is good (except for poor shitty ranger), archetypes are a great idea.
It should have included more rules explicitly designed around 'theater of the mind' tho. Saying 'oh you don't need a grid for this one' then having a bunch of rules involving definite distances is kinda cheap
It just needs more books. Like, REAL books. Maybe a few more feats to allow a little more variety. It's more rules light, which is nice, especially after the clusterfuck that was the past two editions. I don't see why everyone says it's too much like 3.x when it's almost nothing like it. It's a comfy system; not overly complex, but nice and streamlined. And 3.x players will never switch over.
>>47311841
>I think it could use more character options and published material
This
5e is like a dull 3.5e.
3.5e had at least some crazy stuff to it when the splats hit. There are no splats to 5e, no crazy classes. It's been 2 years and we don't have anything new to explore.
I'm kinda 'stuck' in a 5e game because my brother overseas wants to play it. And he just doesn't have the time to learn something new. It's still D&D, it's alright, I'm just.. bored by it all. I'm playing a wizard and I'm bored to hell!
There's no content. Half of the rules are 3.5 phb optional rules, the other half are 3.5 ua rules, and a bunch of that is copy-pasted. They cancelled dragon and there's nothing coming out. They barely put effort into it and it shows.
tieflings and dragon borns are hella gay
Bounded accuracy is stupid.
>>47310699
>I just wish it had less of a stranglehold on the industry, because one company happened to practically monopolize a niche industry early on.
It was kind of inevitable, I think. It's like with WoW: When a game depends on having people to play with and most of those people are only going to play one game of its type, you're eventually going get a monopoly since most new players are going to choose the one with the most people. Until and unless they seriously fuck up and drive that massive playerbase away, whoever gets popular first can stay the most popular simply by already having been the most popular.
Really, it could have been far worse than D&D. Anyone who gets that big is going to be held back by institutional inertia and the lowest common denominator's demand for the same experience over and over again. WotC are pretty benign (when it comes to D&D) compared to what we could have gotten. They don't abuse their power like they easily could (for example, treating splats like DLC, where they leave out important chunks of the rules so they can charge you extra for them), and they've shown a willingness to try to adapt based on the wishes of the players, even if they don't always have the best grasp of what that is.
>>47310845
The thing is: in 5e, damage is the best way to win a fight, and the best caster spells in combat are the ones that let the damage-dealers get in and deal it even better (Hold Person for auto-crits, restrain spells like Web, and so on)
I think it's a good system, advantage/disadvantage is simple and easy to hand out, and nothing stops you from tacking on benefits or penalties after it. The classes feel more balanced, no longer is the wizard making personal planes while the fighter is just getting more attacks. The only thing I don't like is that there aren't more splats/adventure paths. I've heard there's only like 8-10 people working on it though, so I can't blame them, that's a tiny ass team.
>>47312597
>Really, it could have been far worse than D&D. Anyone who gets that big is going to be held back by institutional inertia and the lowest common denominator's demand for the same experience over and over again. WotC are pretty benign (when it comes to D&D) compared to what we could have gotten. They don't abuse their power like they easily could (for example, treating splats like DLC, where they leave out important chunks of the rules so they can charge you extra for them), and they've shown a willingness to try to adapt based on the wishes of the players, even if they don't always have the best grasp of what that is.
It's clear that WOTC has wanted to do new stuff with D&D for a while. Its peoples' unfamiliarity with the new stuff and a desire to stick with "classic D&D" that keeps them from going as far as they could.
>>47308724
5e is the best edition by a landslide. Smart people choose the best.
>>47312895
That's not how you spell 4e.
>>47312904
nobody can think 4E is best, don't be ridiculous.
>>47312637
That's a weird way of saying that the best spell is heat metal, hands down.
>>47312904
That's not how you spell
>I have shit taste.
>>47308293
It's a poorly designed herd of sacred cows.
The DMG illustrates well the opaque and slapdash philosophy behind implementation.
The significant number of good ideas brought to the table were buried under an endless appeal to lapsed or defector players rather than used as a framework to build a coherent game with.
In short, they tried to make 3rd edition again with more nods to AD&D. It has some appeal, more than just nostalgia... but the overt pandering prevented a decent D&D game from being a Good Game overall.
ITT: a ton of people butthurt their favorite fantasy heartbreaker will never have more than three players.
>>47308293
Nothing "went wrong". Every edition of DnD is about the same level of mediocre. Every edition is lauded and beloved by half of its fanbase, while being vilified and abhorred by the other half. Both sides are equally ridiculous, because the games are not good enough to be praised, or bad enough to be despised, and never vary from previous versions in any meaningful way.
That is to be expected. It is the way of things.
>>47313348
>Every edition of DnD is about the same level of mediocre.
That's simply not true. The editions are vastly different levels of mediocre.
>>47308585
>Nearly 70% of all games are Dungeons and Dragons.
That's so sad, really. It's like if you learned that 70% of all food consumed last year was tofu, or 70% of all songs sold on itunes were christian rock, or 70% of all college students were communication majors. It fills me with depression at the state of the human race.
>>47311061
>Is my fun wrong
No.
Unless you're hurting someone, fun is never wrong.
>>47313390
yes anon i'm sure whatever shit, obtuse system you run is truly the choice of true patricians and has such depth that us plebian D&D players can't even begin to wrap our poor unenlightened minds around
>>47308760
I don't speak Japanese but I can haiku...
Stench of rancid shit
Wafts from your analogies
Please stop doing that
>>47313439
Thanks for taking the time to insult me, though.
It needs
>more feats. Way way way WAY more feats
>Dark Sun
>>47313390
> Everyone likes what I don't like
> There must be something wrong...
> ...with them.
>>47313552
>>47313439
He maybe shouldn't have used examples that are commonly disparaged, but there is a broader point in there, I think. If two thirds of all things being played confined are confined to a single line of games, that shows a distinct lack of diversity. It's one thing for a particular system to be big; it's another for it to have such a stranglehold on the market that it's twice as big as all other games put together.
>>47313627
It's only a lack of diversity in mechanics. Stories, settings, characters are all immensely varied between groups and dms.
Your complaint seems more like being upset that 70% of vehicles use an internal combustion engine and there just isn't enough diversity.
It's actually pretty solid as a ruleset, very easy to grasp yet it allows a lot.
>>47313718
>It's only a lack of diversity in mechanics
And you'd be suprised mechanics do actually help in terms of not only playing with certain stories in mind but also setting up stories in mind.
D&D covers really just a very broad generalization of fantasy that it ultimately created. It can do other things sure, to the extent I could run a lovecraftian horror game by having a bunch of friends say they do something and flip a coin to see if they succeed but that don't make a Call of Cthuluh campaign ya hear?
>>47313718
>Your complaint seems more like being upset that 70% of vehicles use an internal combustion engine and there just isn't enough diversity.
Well, considering that most internal combustion engines are incredibly inefficient and contribute a great deal to pollution and greenhouse gases, I definitely would say that that's a problem.
>It's only a lack of diversity in mechanics. Stories, settings, characters are all immensely varied between groups and dms.
D&D isn't a particularly flexible system. Sure, you can play any setting with any system, but you can also hammer in nails with a screwdriver (sure, it's possible, but there are better ways to go about things). D&D is good at a particular niche, and there's nothing wrong with that. Honestly, I appreciate a good, specialized tool. But when the market is overwhelmingly dominated with a dungeon crawler, that's problematic. Hell, it'd be problematic for the market to be overwhelmingly dominated by a single generic, setting-agnostic system, but at least that would be a step up. The mechanics of a game do influence what is played and how it's played.
>>47313902
>D&D covers really just a very broad generalization of fantasy that it ultimately created
And that fantasy FYI is Dungeon Fantasy. Literally a genre it was named after.
Characterized by a normalcy of intermingling of races and classes (the thought of an Elf, a Dwarf, a buncha humans, an angelic wizard and some hobbits travelling together on a journey would be considered ludicrious in Tolkien it's why a fucking evil god on the rise threatening the world had to cause that shit to happen), an emphasis on action, exploring corridors and attaining power through the exploits of said action.
Every single major mechanic in practically all D&D games relates to combat or at least how things function in combat and every side mechanic relates more or less to examining ones surroundings for traps, ambushes or the attainment of gold and experience to ping your character as stronger.
These mechanics when ignored leave gaping holes in the system that're only really filled by... basically freeforming or ad-hocing random numbers.
>>47309565
>but overall 5e is decent. Not good, but decent. That's my honest opinion.
I think a lot of people fall into that category.
It's a serviceable game but it doesn't intrigue me the way that a game with a complex system or well done fluff and rules integration does these days.
10 years ago, it would have been excellent. These days it feels decent.
>>47313410
>Unless you're hurting someone who doesn't want to be hurt, fun is never wrong.
Fixed.
>>47313524
>It needs
>Dark Sun
/thread
>>47313971
>Every single major mechanic in practically all D&D games relates to combat or at least how things function in combat and every side mechanic relates more or less to examining ones surroundings for traps, ambushes or the attainment of gold and experience to ping your character as stronger.
This does need to be restated because if you actually examine these very core very simple principles you realize just how much a non-combat focused campaign of D&D in practically any edition just kinda falls apart.
I mean even if you give out level ups or XP arbitrarily based on shit like "How well did we convince the duke to give our army gold so that we could go to war with the opposing nation?" it still raises the unusual scenerio of our rogue who primarily is just bluffing or bribing people into our pockets suddenly dealing THAT much more damage when he attacks a flat footed target because he accomplished this feat of diplomacy.
You could maybe argue a wizard would benefit most from a series of non-combat sessions since they attain power through study BUT HEY as we all know the classes that need the most help in D&D are the spellcasters.
>>47308293
3-to-5 man production team for anything other than farmed out adventures, too-conservative content schedule.
>>47314088
>I mean even if you give out level ups or XP arbitrarily based on shit like "How well did we convince the duke to give our army gold so that we could go to war with the opposing nation?"
You realize nothing stops you from doing that right? Hell CoS encourages you to give out XP based on the party accomplishing story goals and not just combat?
>>47314210
>even if
Stop reading with your ass
>>47314246
You should reprocess that guy's comment. It's not "how well did we convince a duke", it's story goals. Not 'correct story progress', but any story progress.
And regardless I don't see how your criticism doesn't apply full-stop to the concept of XP in general. It's literally all made up and all arbitrary by any measure.
>>47314246
>I have no response the post
ok
No quality control on new books, hard to find any information about new content coming out, ignoring their own rules when they add class options. A level 5 wizard can currently have like 30 AC, thanks to Bladesinger adding 5 on top of the options they already had (mage armor, shield spell)
>>47313473
Discussion is dead
All that's left: edition warsIt's snowing on Mt. Fuji
>>47314410
Shield is a reaction that lasts a turn, and a level 5 wizard shouldn't have 20 int and dex
>>47308293
It's simple, fast and fun enough if you just wanna hang out with your friends and kill some monsters. :3
If you want muh realism and accurate simulation then look for another system, spergo
>>47313627
Or... people are playing what they enjoy.
I'll give that, without any evidence one way or the other, we're speculating and neither possibility can be proven.
>>47314511
Rolling for stats, racial attribute bonuses and getting ASI at level 4 mean that they can.
I agree that they probably SHOULDN'T, but that's more a matter of opinion rather than a fact. You have a 0,34% chance of rolling two 18s with 6*4k3d6.
That's twice as likely as being able to play as a Paladin in 2E, by the by.
So if you roll two eighteens, just take a High Elf (+2 Dex, +1 Int) and grab the elf-exclusive Bladesinger and you're good to go.
In fact, High Elf giving +2 Dex +1 Int means that you're alright with just getting an 18 and a 17 - much likelier, although I can't be arsed to do the exact math.
I'd generally recommend that edge cases are taken into account when making random tables and such, since they CAN happen. Hell, I remember reading something about some guy in OD&D whose 1st-level Elf managed to get a Staff of the Magi in randomly rolled treasure. That shit's why 5E has so many subdivisions of the treasure tables by level and such, since a truly random game is extremely difficult to balance if you have "critical hits" in the reward tables.
Such as, say, getting a character with all 18s. Statistically possible, and I'm pretty sure that there's been a few over the years. Especially since 5E is so much less strict than OD&D/BD&D/2E's 3d6-down-the-line. How do you balance an encounter where one character can be so much inherently stronger than another? OD&D solved it by having stats not really matter, AD&D solved it by making the random generation more generous, and both also had static things that stats didn't affect and even more randomness in numbers of monsters and treasure.
Perhaps introducing more randomness makes the existing randomness more balanced? I don't really know, to be honest.
>>47308293
Since I feel like being contrarian, I'll just say that they went wrong the moment they published Greyhawk and have just be building on that flawed foundation since.
Seriously, though, I'd point towards their lackluster release schedule.
>>47316384
This kinda shit is why I use point buy desu famdesu.
>>47316409
Too bad the 5E pointbuy is horribly gimped and leaves you statistically worse than praying to RNGesus and rolling the dice!
>>47316446
It's not a bad thing if you're looking for a more low powered campaign. I like to have a more 2e feel when I do 5e so lower stats and rolling for hp at level 1 helps give it a lower power feel.
>>47316446
I decided to start using the rolling 3 stats, and generate the other 3 based on those table thing.
Gives everyone the same base before racial bonuses, allows for randomness, but not bullshit like one player having horrible stats and other guy rolling above 15 for everything.
I've done this for two campaigns so far, and everyone has seemed to enjoy it.
>>47310845
>All the numbers are really small compared to the previous WotC editions, though HP scaling is still about the same, so fights end up taking fucking hours if you aren't cheesing it with instant death spells.
Confrimed for never playing high level 5e?
Seriously, out of the past three editions, only 5e maintains a consistent average pace for fights. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
>Plus it's back to the "Wizards excel at everything except damage, Fighters get to do damage" when damage is usually the least efficient way to win a fight
Accurate until the last part.
Party's champion fighter excels in combat by leaps and bounds above the casters, and fights are usually impossible without him. Granted, that's just my personal experience, but that's probably more relevant than your theorycrafting.
Anyway, the only issue I have is the lack of content. This is a good and bad thing, cause the core content is pretty superb so there's always a chance they'll fuck it up (which is made extremely evident by Unearted Arcanas).
However, there's really no excuse for the lack of monsters. No templates, one MM, a couple of APs and that's it. I've pretty much exhausted the MM at this point.
>>47308293
>What went wrong?
Nothing. It's the best edition of D&D so far and I'm slowly converting all my 2e material over.
D&D has always been the gateway ttrpg, so in that respect it doesn't excel in any one area. Knowing that, it's just about everything you could want from a ttrpg.
>>47308293
In a chronological sense, 3e went wrong, then 3.5 went wrong, then 4e went wrong and Paizo swooped in, then the 5e playtest went wrong.
>>47316936
Don't forget Player's Options going wrong, 2E going wrong, Unearthed Arcana going wrong, AD&D going wrong, Greyhawk going wrong, and OD&D going wrong.(Seriously, it's kind of baffling that OD&D didn't have some of the stuff that's in the playtest documents. The combat system, for one.)
In reverse chronological order, of course. Dungeons & Dragons has a long and elaborate history of going wrong.
Also I double-checked and 5E still doesn't have GP=XP and that makes me sad because it really helps drive home how when they say AD&D they mean 2E.
>>47308293
WotC.
They went wrong.
>>47308293
It's good but they haven't released enough content
It needs more classes, more feats, more subclasses, etc.
Also they need to stop releasing newbie campaigns. I want some level 15+ content damnit
Relying on binary hit/miss rolls instead of allowing some form of damage reduction.
High AC + Dodge giving disadvantage to unlimited attacks is broken in this game
>>47318157
Hey, they're standing on the shoulders of giants. There's very long and complicated reasons for why they fucked up in the ways they did.
Some of them can be traced back to T$R, but I think it's mostly just external pressure from consumers and ideas cribbed from other developers.
If left to their own devices I think WotC could have made a better game, but external pressure and stuff like Hasbro's profit expectations and 4E's backlash meant that they needed to play it relatively safe and pander to the audience they felt they lost.
Or that's the impression I got, anyway.
>>47318240
Amen to that.
Although, really, I wouldn't hold my breath on high-level stuff. WotC is somewhat famously bad at supporting that - just look at 4E's Epic Tier or, god forbid, 3E's.
They have market data indicating that a lot of people never play past level 10, so that's probably where they're going to aim.
>>47318240
Considerign the linear scale of 5e, you just have to add +10 to everything in a level 5 adventure and you'll have a 15th level adventure all ready. just swap out the spells for spells that are 7th level instead of 3rd level, and you're good to go.
>>47318263
Having a ton of fun in my current campaign playing a Bard and giving temporary hit points to our Barbarian that has damage reduction.
It works so much better than just avoiding attacks, for both the players and the DM.
Dodge is cancer.
>>47318279
>Or that's the impression I got, anyway.
Not only you.
>>47314464
>that spoiler
Mah nigga
>>47308949
Tell me more about That GM.
>>47313718
>Your complaint seems more like being upset that 70% of vehicles use an internal combustion engine and there just isn't enough diversity.
"Internal combustion engine" isn't a brand. Now, if 70% of all combustion engines on the road were made by a single company, we'd probably have an issue.
>>47313390
Fuck off back to your true patricician RPG
>>47314314
>>47314210
XP itself isn't the issue but when you see the default assumption is that you get it by killing monsters you start to see why that is.
Because I reiterate: your rogue convinced the duke to give your fledgling nation money for the war effort. And now he knows how to backstab more effectively.
It's not just the XP system it's how it works with the leveling up system and the class system and how all of those ultimately focus on one thing and one thing only: accomplishing things through action/violence.
I mean unless you're a wizard but that's a whole other can of worms.
>>47318813
It's not some "DAE le D&D sucks" meme. A monopoly (or oligarchy if we want to be more realistic), isn't as good for the market or the consumers as actual competition.
>>47308293
Nothing
>>47318906
The opposite is also true though. Your ranger kills a bunch of monsters and is now better at tracking. Your rogue kills a bunch of monsters and is now better at climbing.
This is why I like systems with points, or even better, ones that advance skills/stats through use.
>>47312920
4E is best. Best class balance, best combat, best rules for non-combat.
Dont use essentials classes. Then 4E is best.
>>47318906
It's worth noting that back in the Before Times - that is to say, before 2E - monster XP was generally only a quarter or so of your total experience gained. The other two fourths were from treasure.
This encouraged a playstyle where you don't necessarily want to fight monsters, but you do want to loot their hoards and rob them blind.
A pure kill-based system encourages fighting monsters to the exception of everything else - the only way to get stronger is to fight, so avoiding a fight is nonsensical. This then directly leads into the now-essential fights needing to become more interesting, hence the combat focus of 3E and 4E.
Giving experience for solving puzzles encourages solving them, experience for achieving goals encourages staying on track to achieve them, and experience for roleplaying encourages roleplaying.
I don't really like how 5E does it, but like >>47319076 said experience is kind of nonsensical in how it works anyhow. It's an abstraction for the benefit of the player. (Some would argue that it's lost its worth by this point, and that you should just skip experience entirely and level the party up when appropriate. I think that's been the case since 4E, to some degree. I don't think experience even has any weird interactions with anything else at this point.)
You can certainly have a system where using a subsystem means getting progression in that specific subsystem, of course, but that's not going to be something in D&D since it's far too risky.
>>47308293
Too many hitpoints not enough damage.
This was fixed. Now the problem is feat taxes, but this can be houseruled away with ease.
>>47319076
Your GURPS guy loses an arm and now has stronger laser beams.
>>47319137
As long as you're in the lower tiers I'll agree with you on that, although I really think that they could have streamlined things a bit by removing the scaling.
Also, you need to homebrew up some quick math fixes if you don't want players to inevitably fall behind the monsters at higher levels. And probably do something to decouple the magic item economy from the regular economy and rituals and whatnot.
Also also, fuck the Ranger.
>>47319211
>This was fixed.
Oh? When did that happen?
>>47319137
>Best class balance
True, no doubt.
>best combat
Well most tactical combat, granted, "best" is more subjective...
>best rules for non-combat
Haha, okay. You mean Skill Challenges? AKA "Let's reduce all noncombat adventuring to a quick skill-rolling minigame so we can skip back to combat faster."
>>47319211
>Your GURPS guy loses an arm and now has stronger laser beams.
Well that's not true, if you mean it happens in play. You don't gain CP from disadvantages your character gains after character creation. Losing an arm just means you lost an arm.
And yeah, having you gain CP from sessions that can be spent on anything potentially causes the same issue. Because you can spend a whole adventure fighting and then dump your points into random skills you never used, without the GM asking for some narrative justification. My point was that you have the option to only improve things your character is directly using, whereas in D&D the options are often chosen for you.
But that's why I said "even better" advancement-through-use, a la Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard/Torchbearer.
>>47319239
>Haha, okay. You mean Skill Challenges? AKA "Let's reduce all noncombat adventuring to a quick skill-rolling minigame so we can skip back to combat faster."
As opposed to...what? No guidelines at all?
>>47319076
>Your ranger kills a bunch of monsters and is now better at tracking.
Yes because it's assumed he's tracking the monsters he's killing.
>Your rogue kills a bunch of monsters and is now better at climbing
If you spend the right skill points sure. Those are small customizable options but they don't say "rogue is the climbey guy". No matter what though he will always be backstabby mc backstabber.
>>47319179
> monster XP was generally only a quarter or so of your total experience gained. The other two fourths were from treasure.
That just further enforces my point. D&D only emulates the kind of fantasy that D&D created. One where getting sweet loots to ping yourself stronger and exploring dungeons and fighting monsters are the main course and the mechanics for the majority of the games all existed to enforce that.
>Giving experience for solving puzzles encourages solving them, experience for achieving goals encourages staying on track to achieve them, and experience for roleplaying encourages roleplaying.
I think you're missing the point. You're narrowing in on one element of my argument (The XP) and are missing how every single system around that progression mechanic still emphasizes a very specific kind of playstyle. Dungeon Crawling.
That's literally the kind of 'genre' D&D invented and arguably the best D&D games excel at it.
>>47318240
What other classes are there to make? Of all the things I see, everytime 'someone' tries to make something it's 'oh, that can easily be an archetype'.
It seems like the current system stifles any sort of creativity that WotC could bring to the table.
>>47319386
>If you spend the right skill points sure. Those are small customizable options but they don't say "rogue is the climbey guy". No matter what though he will always be backstabby mc backstabber.
I'm pretty sure we're talking about different editions. The thread is about 5e, and I meant that in 5e, a their gets Second Story Work at 3rd level, no matter what.
>>47319360
As opposed to actually playing out those situations without the framework of a small series of semi-connected rolls In anoher edition, making your way through a foreboding forest would be part of an adventure, where the DM describes the atmosphere, threats and challenges to be overcome might come up, etc.
In 4e, it's a Complexity X skill challenge, where the party rolls some dice and the DM says what happened. So we can get back to the dungeon, and forget all that boring not-dungeon stuff.
In fairness, I actually like the idea of skill challenges for specific tasks that should be more than one roll. It is mechanically more interesting, and I've seen them used well. But the book recommends they be used, and I've seen them more often used, as a way of skipping past anything that doesn't fit on a gridded map.
>>47319529
>What other classes are there to make? Of all the things I see, everytime 'someone' tries to make something it's 'oh, that can easily be an archetype'.
To be fair, D&D doesn't really need more than a Fighting Guy, a mobile skills guy, and a spellcasting guy. Every other class just takes those basics and mixes/adds a couple features to it.
But if we're going with the idea that "Holy Warrior" and "Savage Warrior" really need an a class to distinguish them from "Warrior", or "Magic Comes from within" class compared to "Magic comes from Faith" class and "Magic comes from Study" class, then other core classes that D&D really needs are...
1) A craftsman/alchemist/artificer. Somebody who makes things, fixes things, improvises things, and works with all kinds of tools and gadgets.
2) An arcane warrior/ magus/spellblade/runeknight/whatever: Just mixes arcane magic with martial abilities.
3) A "pet" class. A class whose whole sthick is having other creatures (summons, slaves, bodyguards, etc) fight for it. Not necessarily magical.
4) A trickster/manipulator/courtesan/scholar class: someone who doesn't kill people and contributes the group without casting spells and hacking thing with weapons.
5) A "simple mage/priest/spellcaster". No Vancian slots, spell levels, or anything like that required required. Just knows a handful of abilities that can be used more or less at will and applied creatively to solve problems.
>>47319666
>where the DM describes the atmosphere, threats and challenges to be overcome might come up, etc.
So literally make shit up.
>In 4e, it's a Complexity X skill challenge, where the party rolls some dice and the DM says what happened. So we can get back to the dungeon, and forget all that boring not-dungeon stuff.
Hate to break it to you man.
But in 3.x I've never seen a GM do the former.
Seen plenty of "Uhh... roll survival to see if you make it through the forest" though!
Because guess what. Unless you explicitly have an actual encounter in mind? Nobody cares how dark and dangerous this forest is. They just wanna get through it until there's an actual setpiece. Maybe not a dungeon like you described but something more than "there are trees and the roots make it hard to walk and it is spooky"
>>47319666
>In 4e, it's a Complexity X skill challenge
You don't HAVE to use skill challenges. Like, 4e can do all that shit, and on top of that, when you need it, you have skill challenges as an option.
And when you DO use them, you are not supposed to tell players, unless you want to intentionally make it gamey for some reason.
>>47319782
>And when you DO use them, you are not supposed to tell players
>tfw I explicitly told players skill challenges were happening the one time I DMed 4e.
Man I'm shit at GMing.
>>47319666
You know Satan, I think a lot of skill challenges would be improved if they were treated like combats. If it's a bad idea to have combats in [a room] fighting against [enemies], it's probably a bad idea to have skill challenges taking place in [an area] making [skill checks].
>>47319951
When I've played 4e, the DM always explicitly announced skill challenges. This is what the DMG says.
>>47319984
I literally said that I thought the idea had merits, I'd just seen it used very poorly, and the advice the DMG gives encourages that. In general, 4th edition seems to care about combat and nothing else, so that colors my opinion of the role skill challenges play.
In another system, it would be an interesting way to resolve complex challenges that gives it some mechanical heft and lets everyone contribute.
In 4e, it feels like one more way of demephasizing everything that isn't a number on a battlemap.
>>47319751
>Unless you explicitly have an actual encounter in mind? Nobody cares how dark and dangerous this forest is.
So unless there's dice rolling, probably in the form of combat, no one cares. Well thanks, that proves my point about what playstyle 4e encourages.
>>47320080
I didn't mean to argue either. I just think that 4e's methods of making interesting combat can and should be applied to skill challenges.
wish i had somebody to play 5e
literally nobody wants to play that in my shithole town
>>47320171
What DO they want to play?
It is steadily becoming the go-to D&D here.
>>47313390
To be fair, tofu can be pretty fucking good. Sure, it's no meat replacement, but you shouldn't fucking use it like one. Get some damn mapo tofu some time, friend, andREJOICE
>>47319725
>5) A "simple mage/priest/spellcaster". No Vancian slots, spell levels, or anything like that required required. Just knows a handful of abilities that can be used more or less at will and applied creatively to solve problems.
Any examples of this?
>>47320203
3.5, 3.5 and sometimes 3.5 if i'm lucky
>>47313935
>Well, considering that most internal combustion engines are incredibly inefficient and contribute a great deal to pollution and greenhouse gases, I definitely would say that that's a problem.
Yes, it's a problem, but not because of a lack of diversity. It's a drawback inherent to the particular technology, not due to its market share. This sort of failure to think about why something is a problem, and instead just assume every criticism is valid once one is shown to be, is what created Tumblr.
>>47319238
Monster Vault, it greatly mitigated it but HP really needs different growth rates at different tiers.
>>47308293
The price. This is the first edition where the price point has prevented me from buying it.
>>47320223
Warlock comes close in both 3.5 and 5e, though 5e muddied it up a bit.
>>47320080
Never played 4e, and my group is the same.
>>47308293
Nothing in particular; It's an excellent game. It's more robust and less fussy to play than 3.5e/PF, and has much less need for constant rules lookups and RAI/RAW discussions over confusingly worded but overly pedantic rules...
And even if we ignore that comparison i feel that 5e was, perhaps more than anything, the right response to the main lesson learned; that 4e was an entirely different kind of game and a large departure from "D&D so far" and lots of people wanted something that 4e had largely left behind in terms of philosophy, design, and more.
That said, I'd love to also see a separate branch of "D&D Tactics" with that sort of boardgamey 4e style design - but that's neither here nor there.
Regarding 5e, the spells could perhaps stand to have less messy writing, and the terminology for things like origin points, targets, etc. is needlessly confusing and backwards in lots of edge cases.
The only other criticism I can level at it is, that i feel it didn't go quite far enough when it came to rules for more freeform-ey martial maneuver "stunts."
Sometime during the playtest, I seem to remember people talking about rules where the player could come up with a special attack's effects, and the DM would set a DC, the player would make a skill check, and if it was successful then the special attack would be successful.
The heavy emphasis on giving specific class kits or builds access to seemingly doable techniques makes certain martial classes/kits without them oddly boring and limited.
These types of actions shouldn't be given to particular kits and then left to DM fiat if anyone else wants to do them - that's a very difficult thing to deal with during play, and this frustrates me.
Compared to everything else on the market, though, those things are minor. It's a very strong product, especially because more than most recent games, it's designed in a way that makes it easy to tweak, easy to make rulings for during play, and easy to homebrew for.
>>47315836
In order to justify its market share solely on the basis of how enjoyable it is, D&D would have to be so incredibly much better than any other game out there that it's hard to fathom. Strange how the first mass marketed RPG, and the first one to establish itself is also the super-dooper best, don't you think? I find it much more likely that D&D has simply established itself as a recognizable brand and retains popularity on that basis. Now, I'm not trying to disparage D&D, and there's obviously something it's doing that appeals to people (I'm quite confident that there are things it could do to turn people off), but come on.
>>47315836
>Or... people are playing what they enjoy.
Or beggars can't be chosers. RPGs are social games, you know.
>>47320258
You might have missed that the OP was talking about 5E.
I was wondering when they fixed 5E's math problems, but I guess it was just mutual confusion.
I recently starting a 5e campaign in a homebrew, and I'm enjoying it so far.
>>47319386
>I think you're missing the point. You're narrowing in on one element of my argument (The XP) and are missing how every single system around that progression mechanic still emphasizes a very specific kind of playstyle. Dungeon Crawling.
Oh, I'm not missing that. D&D is definitely a game that felt that dungeoncrawling was too limiting and has tried to awkwardly grow out of that. I find it kind of baffling when people try to use it to run Sci-Fi games and such, for instance, since the mechanics encourage a very particular feel. Part of that is how you're rewarded for killing monsters - you'll have a bad time if you're trying to hack any edition of D&D into a more social-focused game, for instance, since stripping the combat from the system doesn't leave much else. (What's a Fighter without a fight?)
I just wanted to point out that the focus of the Dungeons & Dragons Experience has changed a bit over the years - mostly in that modern dungeon crawling is a much more violent and contained affair, rather than being the sneaky dungeon robber thing in a vast megadungeon. It's also become much more of a "heroic fantasy" thing in later editions, with the idea that you play as Heroes and can't just die for no reason and thus need more and more safety nets. Imagine if 5E had come out and had instant death at 0 HP! That would have caused some outcry, I feel. Save-or-die effects from enemies are considered inappropriate at low levels, not to mention save-and-die (hello, example dragon fight from OD&D!).
It's kind of fascinating how things have changed, really. While D&D is recognizably "D&D", and the implied/encouraged setting is hard to confuse for anything else that isn't based on it in some fashion, there's not just one such setting. The ways that OD&D encourages you to play are extremely different from the ways that 4E or 5E encourage you to play. And they're all even more different from the rest of the fantasy genre, of course. So many races working together.
>>47320988
>That said, I'd love to also see a separate branch of "D&D Tactics" with that sort of boardgamey 4e style design - but that's neither here nor there.
Just call it "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons". It's certainly more complicated, so it'd fit the bill, and the name has more brand recognition than "D&D Tactics".
However, then you might run into the issue that Basic had where it's seen as the "inferior" version due to the name. Do you want the rules, or do you want the "advanced" rules?
It would also lead to WotC competing with themselves, which may or may not be a bad thing.
Haven't played 5e yet, but looking it over it seems like it's way better than 4e. I fucking hated 4e.
>>47319751
>>where the DM describes the atmosphere, threats and challenges to be overcome might come up, etc.
>So literally make shit up.
I'm not certain you understand what you objected to here.
Are you seriously saying the DM's role should literally *only* be running monsters and setting variables to roll against? And that the DM should not actually make any narrative?
>>47321520
But I think the ticket is to be very particular about selling it as a different kind of game - not a more or less advanced game.
The did something similar already, but it was a highly simplified, stripped-down game, genuinely only focused on combat; they didn't include a full-fledged tabletop RPG with it.
I think they'd have great success if they actually sold two different versions of D&D; one designed around theatre of the mind (5e) and one designed around board game like play on a grid (a 4e style game.)
The grid-based game would need an identity: like "tactics" (indeed not "advanced"), and it'd have to be packaged and sold more like a board game; sell the core rulebook bundled with a set of dungeon tiles and real cards for basic powers like Basic Attack and Grapple, some simple plastic tokens to indicate positioning without including miniatures in the pack (too expensive.)
A 4e style game plays extremely well with peripherals, so giving people a bit of it is a great gateway drug to selling miniatures, more dungeon tiles, more power cards, on the side.
For groups playing "normal" D&D, all of these things are less important, but nice to have available.
I've always been unsatisfied with the grid rules in older versions of D&D, because i felt they lacked depth and clarity of design; it was a messy re-implementation of rules that felt like they were designed for theatre of the mind.
I quite liked the way 4e managed to really focus on making combat tactics fun, by building the game for it from the ground up.
Lots of things about how you design mechanics/rules behave differently in those two environments.
In grid-based combat, for example, the difference between a 3x3 and a 5x5 sized area is meaningful. A theatre of the mind game doesn't track things in as much detail, so often areas of spells, etc. are either very small or very big; that plays well in that style.
I think a surprising amount of people would buy and enjoy both games.
>>47321570
4e is essentially a spinoff at this point. It plays by different rules and is sort of its own thing.
5e is design-wise just like older editions of D&D, with its own quirks and innovations - but it belongs to the same "branch" as AD&D and 3.5e/PF, whereas 4e does not.
>>47321914
>5e is design-wise just like older editions of D&D
The experience section doesn't so much as MENTION GP=XP.
Not to mention encounter building, a la carte multiclassing, and all the fucking abilities that players get as they level up.
It's way too focused on the narrative, IMHO.
>>47321859
>one designed around theatre of the mind (5e)
5E is roughly as designed around TotM as 3E is, though, and it shows.
The spells section is all about specifying ranges and areas of effect down to the foot, for instance. There's plenty of games out there that do "proper" TotM, and dispense with that entirely - perhaps they simply have melee/short/long ranges, with AoEs affecting abstract "groups", or perhaps they have random numbers of critters affected by a Fireball, or at least do SOMETHING beyond just saying that everyone within 20ft takes 8d6 damage. How many of them are within 20ft of eachother? Hell if I know. It requires the DM to keep a fairly complex mental map and the players to grill him extensively on that. Better that you just toss all that trash and go for true Theater of the Mind, I say.
>I've always been unsatisfied with the grid rules in older versions of D&D, because i felt they lacked depth and clarity of design; it was a messy re-implementation of rules that felt like they were designed for theatre of the mind.
Have you tried out AD&D some time? 1E, that is. The one where everything is measured in inches.
No grids there, I don't think, but that's because it's loosely based on a gridless wargame.
>>47320080
>and the advice the DMG gives encourages that. In general, 4th edition seems to care about combat and nothing else, so that colors my opinion of the role skill challenges play.
4e has more pages on non-combat stuff in it's DMG than basicly any prior or later edition.
>>47322339
>5E is roughly as designed around TotM as 3E is, though, and it shows.
Not entirely true. Flanking being an optional rule, and AoOs only triggering on trying to disengage (except feats, but, again, optional) mean that positioning is a lot less reliant on knowing where everything is, and you can wing it more.
Not saying it's an improvement, but there you have it.
If my experience of 5e is anything to go by, it's a group of people who all passively hate each other and the only thing that unites them is going full murderhobo.
>>47322339
3.5e is an older edition of D&D, and it didn't have gold based XP either.
>>47308293
Well a lot of them have an issue where the binding isn't holding up. That's about it, though.
>>47322677
And here I thought my book was just being abused
>>47322339
The way D&D does theatre of the mind is to just give the GM specific numbers and then let them try their best at making sense of it.
That doesn't in any way require that they make sure their estimates stand up to scientific rigor or some shit like that.
If the GM reckons based on it being 20 ft in radius that you can get 4 kobolds inside the fireball without hitting any allies, by placing it behind them or whatever, then that's the ruling and the game moves on. If the player isn't satisfied then, just as with any other TotM game, the player and GM will need to discuss things in more detail, but that's the same no matter whether you use abstract words or specific ranges to describe areas of effect.
The only real issue is when you've got a bunch of spells with radiuses that aren't hugely different (say, 15, 20 and 25ft radii) because there's no real way to help the GM properly attempt to represent a 15ft radius any differently from a 20ft radius whenever it comes up.
However, if the only ranges you ever use are specifically 100ft, 25ft, 10ft, and "touch" then there's basically no problem, because those things are so very different from each other that representing their differences happens naturally and with no major "rounding errors"
It's not terribly important that the GM is actually modelling the battlefield well, but if small variances in distance or radius are actually weighed against increased/decreased power/usefulness then representing the differences between those IS somewhat important.
So is anyone here hoping they'll release an updated PHB1 with errata and other minor tweaks after a few years?
Or would that make you guys angry?
>>47323007
>Or would that make you guys angry?
That'd imply we are investedand probably dumb, since who'd be upset by getting better rules? But mostly invested.
I know NOBODY who is actually invested in 5e.
>>47323007
Aside from a spell that's referenced, but not in the book and the tavern brawler feat is there much that would really need to be changed?
>>47323381
Y'know just tweaks, errata
https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/Errata_PH.pdf
Also, there are some things that they've needed to clarify on social media and FAQ style stuff that they could clarify by slightly tweaking the wording of the actual rules.
There are a lot of spells that have sort of unfortunate wording, as well.
Maybe they could do a few balance tweaks as well, now they were at it? There are a few things that have become pretty clear.
They could probably bump paladin smite down a dice size or so, at least when you first get it.
Maybe make the sorcerer just a teensy bit better so it's actually interesting on its own compared to the wizard; right now it's really just a cheesy multiclass option to mix with a warlock.
There's some stuff about the eldritch knight that's not very clearly stated, about how they need a hand free for spell components, and how to get around that, etc. (I feel like you shouldn't need to go on stack exchange to figure out how something works in normal play.)
Why play 5e when I can just play 0e and get a better experience with the same rules light system?
>>47322617
And neither did 2E, and it was worse for it.
Generally when people say "older editions" they means the pre-WotC stuff - AD&D and whatnot. 3E is still the second-most played RPG on Roll20, for instance, and Pathfinder means that while it may be an older game it never really went away.
>>47322970
>However, if the only ranges you ever use are specifically 100ft, 25ft, 10ft, and "touch" then there's basically no problem, because those things are so very different from each other that representing their differences happens naturally and with no major "rounding errors"
And that's why I say that you should use numbers that actually fit a TotM format.
For example, here's a bit from 13th Age's Fireball - I don't actually play the game myself, but I prefer this approach.
>Target: 1d3 nearby enemies in a group. If you cast recklessly, you can target 1d3 additional enemies, but then your allies engaged with the target may also take damage (see below).
That's a hell of a lot easier for me as a DM, and it's a hell of a lot easier to grasp as a player as well! You don't even need to know that enemy A is Xft away while enemies B and C are Yft/Zft from A - you just need to know that there's a group of enemies there, and how many of them you can hit.
Or, hell, let's talk Double Cross. It's a Japanese superhero RPG that makes 4E look simple in its power interaction, but it's not exactly grid-based.
There's two factors for targeting: range, and actual targets. Range is close, meaning anyone in the same general group as the user, weapon, meaning the range of your weapon, view, meaning anywhere you can see, and very rarely specific distances in meters.
Targets are Self, Single, (N) (meaning that many people), Area (meaning everyone in a group), Area(Select) (as before but you choose who), and Scene/Scene(Select) (everyone in, well, the current scene).
That might look somewhat complicated, but it's still better than the wargaming rules D&D uses. Also, it's actually TotM.
>>47324090
It's not the same rules-light system, though.
Mostly because OD&D is a better system, but it's also very different in other ways.
Also, I hope to God that you aren't using Greyhawk.
>>47319137
>For the first time, read Essentials classes today
I felt the urge to vomit. I mean the only thing that isn't pre-picked are the fucking feats.
>>47324384
Pretty much. Essential are junk classes as a whole.
>>47308293
EVERYTHING! EVERYTHING WENT WRONG! IT ALL WENT WRONG FROM THE WORD GO!!!!
(Am I doing it right?)
>>47319239
4e was amazing in combat (after enemy HP adjustments). That's the one thing it does very well, and a lot more care went into it than 5e.
Problem is the complete and utter lack of things out of combat pretty much.
>>47324467
>Problem is the complete and utter lack of things out of combat pretty much.
As opposed to what in other editions? 4e doesn't really have less there. D&D in general has never been huge on having a heap of non-combat stuff.
Rituals, Skill Challenges and a lot of very good GM advice was more than most.
>>47314464
That's six syllables.
>>47324621
His is 5, 7, 7. None of hie lines are six syllables.
>>47322677
>>47322878
And the smell? Is it WEIRD?
>>47326034
Stop trying to force your retarded meme.
>>47326372
Don't you see? The forced aspect IS the meme.
>>47308293
It wasn't enough like [previous edition].
It was too much like [previous edition].
I honestly really like it.
All it really needs is a proper class for a more reluctant/less focused adventurer
>>47320222
Go to sleep Kotomine.
>>47308293
Turds, polish and glitter.
>>47308293
People, as always. When 4e came out, people accused it to be literally satan on earth and sworn undying loyalty to 3.5/PF. Now that 5e is out, there is an increase of posts pointing out how good 4e was and how inferior 5e is in every aspect. Give it time and when 6e is out, you'll see 5e glorified as the best D&D ever; it is like pokèmon nostalgics that went from "gen 1 only" to "first 3 gens only".
Honestly, not much went wrong. It is a simpler adaptation of the D&D high fantasy, plays a bit faster, easier to learn,a bit more balanced than previous editions but misses out on content, for now. If you like a simple d20 system for handling fantasy setting, play 5e. If not, don't play it, it is full of other games out there; it is like those people who complain that no D&D edition handle political intrigue well: of course it doesn't, it wasn't built with that in mind. Do you complain that cars can't fly, too?
I hardly see the issue, really.
>>47319328
Pretty sure the book says you are supposed to spend points on skills you actually used or had time to study.
>>47320321
Could use a psion?
