Well the crappy release schedule and lack of support is starting to take a toll on our group it seems. IN last nights session I was talking about running a 5E game of Darksun for the next game and other options were mentioned as well such as Star Wars D6. I big surprise was the biggest fan of 5E in our group who refuses to play anyhtihg else said he would be willing to play Pathfinder.
Note I have not run Pathfinder since 2012 or played it at all since about July last year.
His main reason was the digital support Pathfinder has. The same player has also refused to play Star Wars (SWSE or D6), AD&D/clones or any other RPG we would actually run or want to try out such as Numenera.
Part of this is people seem to have figured out 5E and we are starting to see the same stuff turn up again and again. No one wants to play fighters, Paladins seem to be the new in thing (due to charisma to saves) and we have tried out almost every feat in the book and the same ones keep getting picked again and again (resilient, healer, warcaster). Wizards are rarely picked (crappy saves, concentration mechanics, squishy, lack of spells). Part of that is because of how bad intelligence is as a stat compared with the other stats with major saves being tied to wisdom and good wisdom and charisma based skills compounded by Sorcerers being proficient in con saves. Damage spells more or less sucking has not helped either and blowing a daily spell slot to deal damage comparable to a fighter has not gone down to well either.
Even 2E had the option of getitng extra proficiencies/languages tied to the intelligence score. Worst save in the game tied to few skills and only one class needing it more or less = dump stat if the default arrary is used. Something has to be the dump stat may as well be intelligence.
Still have not seen a Barbarian or Monk in action. PCs won't play them it seems. Even the gamers who are not the best at char op or whatever will not touch the beastmaster ranger either.
Right now there is only 2 APs available. HoTDQ has resulted in 2 TPKs at level 1 so the players do not want to touch that adventure again so it is being mined for content as the maps in it are actually quite good, pity the adventuire is so meh. The OGL adventures I have seen do not tend to be very good with the exception of Quests of Doom which we have mostly played out at least the lower level adventures. No one wants to spend money on Princes of the Apocalypse due to mixed reviews and HotDQ. 5E needs a great AP along the lines of Rise of the Runelords, Age of Worms or Savage Tide APs. Or more stand alones like LMoP would be even better. Mega adventures and average AP type adventures not so much.
The lack of support is also feeding back into the DM which is me. I do not have a lot of time these days to design D&D stuff. Long gone are the 3.5 days where I would spend Saturday prepping the material for the Sunday session. Prep time these days is half an hour to maybe a couple of hours. I have the time I just enjoy other things more such as playing Crusader Kings 2 or Europa Unversalis IV, spending time with the family etc. Design D&D or throw the Turks/French/Germans out of Europe or try and breed up mutant Dwarves. A quick game of EUIV kills around 20 hours a long one about 100 hours (lots of micomanagement).
Our 2-5 games of 5E a week has shrunk to whenever and right now its about 3 sessions a month. I did tell my players if they want a weekly game of D&D pick an older edition or a clone/Pathfinder. This is due to copious amounts of support those editions have. Tweaking stuff to 5E is easy in a way but not as easy as just running the adventures for the systems they were designed for. The main complaint about AD&D seems to be THACO and that is easy enough to convert to BAB or use a clone which doesn't use THAC0 anyway. A houseruled game of 2E or even 1E using BAB and no level limits or racial restrictions seems to be gaining support.
The other 5E groups I was aware of have already collapsed or gone back to Pathfinder due to internal problems some of which are related to 5E others due to other factors. Our problems seem to be half the group also likes Star Wars/older editions when D&D burnout is happening the other half only wants to play 5E and thats it. That does seem to be changing as that half of the group like digital support and the player has seen the online support Pathfinder has and he has seen the PFRPG on the bookshelf as they seem to be good at collecting dust and propping up my SWSE books.
5th Edition thrives in my neck of the woods. Gaming stores are spawning gaming groups, those groups are spawning other groups... D&D lives!
Since you have been compaining about 5E since 20 seconds after it came out, this should be great news for you. Maybe you will find a game you like and can stop obsessing over how bad you think 5E is.
But somehow I doubt that....
I'm sorry, but I haven't the slightest clue what in the Nine Hells the OP is talking about.
Gnollbane wrote:
Its this time of year again? Neat. Its likeclockwork. So, what is it now... planting season or harvesting season? Someone needs to run and check the almanac.
MechaPilot wrote:
1. my group is relatively large. 8-13 people most days.
2. our group has played lots of spell casters, although I've only seen like 1-2 wizards
3. barbarian has been played with twice I think. Warlock is frequently popular
So despite all that people have said, about specific classes like wizard & barbarian, or whether people play it. OP is right on the money on many issues. #1. The Release schedule is horrible. Prices are adjusting for college tuition inflation rather than book inflation. What is book inflation right now? Almost negligible by comparison. I buy books all the time and 5e costs too much per book. I used to buy D&D books for $18. Then $20, then $25. The leap to $50 isn't a good move.
Second, the issue of books released per X # of months is pitiful. They have the rights to thousands of products and an army of artists and a massive online community willing to tell them exactly what products people want to pay for. How many times do you see things like Dark Sun pop up? The community is telling them what they want. It has told them the classes and options they want. It's practically copy paste and send to the editor for balance.
I'm not asking them to duplicate the schedule of 3e with the walls of books, but seriously? there should be at least 6 more books and a campaign setting out by now. Instead they have these giant adventure books. My gawd man, i miss getting experience points and sandboxing. At the current rate of release, we should see a Fiend Folio about the same time they start working on 6th edition.
#3 dude is totally right about the Ranger Beastmaster class. its a total joke. So is druid shapechange. Familiars have pretty much always sucked, but no one complains because ... you know.. fireball... meteor swarm... wish. But Ranger Beast Masters? they get gutted hard core. One hill giant rock later and your beast master is just a crap fighter.
look, if a rule is controversial but some people want it, put it in an option box and send it to the editors for print. Complaining about options you don't like is like complaining about Wasabi icecream. No one is forcing you to eat it.
The group sounds too focused on combat. For example, the OP states INT isn't a good stat but it has practical application in nature, arcana, and investigation for dealing with hazards. My thought would be to diversify challenges a bit more and expand on social / intrigue more if everyone is taking combat feats over and over. A person might be surprised how often a player migh take linguist, comprehend languages, tongues, or favored enemy bonus languages when it becomes relevant, for example.
Nevvur wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
shintashi wrote:
shintashi wrote:
I'm pretty sure the lack of product support is going to mean there won't be that many 5E groups come September when school is back in and the RPG club starts up again. I could see some Force and Destiny groups this time around. Adventurer's League is puttering along with no real enthusiasm.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
shintashi wrote:
There cannot be Monks in a campaign where - IIRC - the DM says ahead of time he won't allow them.
Which is too bad, because I enjoy my AL Monk and want to find an AL group to play him in some more.
Roleplaying Books experienced a price surge about the same time oil prices started to hike ($4-5/gallon in US). Oddly enough, I noticed their price surges were explained away on principles of publishing costs in the modern era. Thiings like glossy pages. The same glossy pages and number of glossy pages that are in books selling for half the price. Publishers decided on a price, and then publish at that price. That it magically costs $50 for roleplaying books, but not others, that's just not true. That's like a cartel. Call of Cthulhu sells for 21 bucks on amazon. Maid the anime RPG sells for 22. DiTerlizzi's art book which has as many pages as a roleplaying game costs $28 and is full of cool pictures.
Do you really think actual gamers are more obsessed over glossy pages that fall out rendering it crap than actual rules? We aren't. Black and white and a table on rough paper is just fine. Gas prices are now $2.79. I expect a roleplaying book to cost $28, round up to $30. I'd rather have 200 black and white pages of rules i like, vs. 300 pages of glossy pics and rules I don't.
shintashi wrote:
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Not every game is for everyone. I'm enjoying the game and my only problem is that I don't have enough time to play.
I'm sorry if this version or this business model isn't working for you, but what's the point of posting other than to troll?
You don't need to play D&D forever. You seem to be taking it as a flaw your group enjoyed it for awhile and then moved on.
Best to finishing playing after finishing a campaign. Did you finish a campaign, or try one of those 'the game lasts forever' things - those are really vulnerable to 'familiarity breeds contempt' issues.
tl;dr:
- Try D&D Expeditions
- Make your combats shorter or try a game without them
- Make your challenges more diverse
- Focus on story and character
- Watch Buffy
Zardnaar, have you tried D&D Expeditions? They're all free if you play in a store or online, and they are all standalone four-hour adventures, just like you asked for. It's by far the best content being written for 5E atm, IMO.
Also, when I see stuff like this:
Zardnaar wrote:
shintashi wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
shintashi wrote:
Well, I'd like to tell you off, Zard, but I have to admit, I've pulled back a bit on 5e. I simply don't have the time to run 5e encounters and my ongoing 4e campaign. I used to run 4e for 2 hrs before Encountes, then run 5e for 2 or 3, but RL is keeping me from consistently getting the FLGS early enough to do both. So I've moved 4e back-to-back with Encounters, and stopped running 5e. There are other folks who can do that, and I do like running a campaign with some continuity instead of re-starting at 1st ever few months (especially with 1st being a tad problematic in 5e).
Similarly, I just went to Free RPG day, and, while we had two tables of Pathfinder, one of 13th Age, and several indie games going, I go no one at all interested in 5e. Even a player who passed on Pathfinder for being too complicated, and was recomended to try 5e by the Pathfinder folks wasn't up for it.
Zardnaar wrote:
Breathe Cyber-Dave, Breathe.
well said though!
i believe publishing has taken a major hit due to electronic media.
something needs be released soon, hopefully an unearthed arcana book with various crunchy bits. a few options for different campaign worlds. perhaps some long awaited realms lore.
a few minor adventures in the old style where they had little bits at the end, a monster or two, a few spells, some magic items, etc.
honestly i think it would be the best format for rule modules as well. i have grown tired for all these years [since 80's] getting variant rules with no support! madness! feature them in adventures to showcase its use.
however, i understand Wizards of the Coast is owned by Hasbro, and they are intrested in selling toys, fine. i would rather wait it out than to repeat the sins of the past with sub standard product crammed with filler material and a pile of books i can't use in this lifetime.
we have almost lost the game a few times, be patient while it recovers.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Mazzy wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I can understand your group's fading interest. I too like to see "shiny new" game material and options, but greatly appreciate WotC's desire to keep game bloat to a minimum. I'd love to see some new feats and spells, and of course, Dark Sun. Or even just a psion class independant of setting, though I know that's opening a can of worms.
My group of 40-somethings are only capable of getting together 1-3 times a month for our sessions and so far, I'm the only 5e DM. We love the system. Definitely our favorite edition to date. We also play Pathfinder, but I don't run that for exactly the reson you and your group are leaning towards it - too bloated with options. That, and I've just grown to dislike the over-mechanised system. I will say that PF's new Unchained rules offer a more streamline system, but man I absolutely love the 5e spell system. The only class that comes close to it in PF is the Arcanist, which I am enjoying greatly in a game run by a friend. BUT we only get to play that once every other month or so.
That said, since the advent of 5e, I have not run a single Adventure or path put out by the folks at WotC. I have long disliked the extremely formulaic patterns they adhere to; goblins at first level, dragons somewhere in the middle and the BBG at the end who has dragons and undead coming out the wazu. And I have never been a big fan of Forgotten Realms. Just too etched in stone and cliche' for me. Overdone, so to speak.
SO, since 5e rolled out, I have been modifying an old Adventure Path - Savage Tide. After this, I intend to run Age of Worms. These alone offer enough gaming pleasure to wait out the new stuff that WotC is slowly injecting. I love the Sage Advice and Unearthed Arcana articles. And to be fair, they have delivered some new material therein.
The only encouragement I would offer to you and your group is that 5e is not about constantly pumping new content. It's about longevity so as not to end up in need of a new system (6e) in a few short years.
Hopefully, they'll allow third-party material to be thrown into the mix. That will open up a lot. Until then, just keep up interest by offering to work together on new house material.
Here's one of our House Classes. It's an alternate paladin class with three subclasses all based around being a fantasy Jedi. We call it: The K'en-unai (keen' oo ny), Warriors of the Flowing Way. I hope you enjoy.
edit: There a couple typos and formating errors in this pdf. If anyone is so inclined to point out anything they see, so I can fine tune the class, it would be greaty appreciated. The highlighted spell in the spell list is one in progress. I would like to generate a couple 4th and 5th level k'en spells. Ideas welcome.
One thing i have noticed with optimisers is that they bitch about how rubbish the other stats are but then when I ask them to make an intelligence roll, they keep saying, "You mean perception, right?" Using the variant 6 save mechanic also makes optimisers sweat. Wisdom is by no means the be all and end all if charms target charisma saves instead.
We have not played 5e much yet but I am just starting up my proper campaign, playing about 3 times a month. I'd like a few more character options, and I'd love some Greyhawk specific backgrounds, feats, and prestige classes but we're big boys; I think we can manage for now.
Our monk had a ball and our multiclass ranger/barbarian/fighter seems more than functional. If anything, our Paladin feels less effective since in our second fight he was caught without his armour on and without dex he is being slaughtered by some medusae.
I haven't read this entire thread yet (but will), but wanted to post my thoughts on at least one part thing he mentioned... digital support.
We are just getting started with 5e. A few months ago, I started looking for a tool to help me organize and run our sessions. Our sessions will be table top (all of our players are local... being my family), but I wanted something to speed up the sessions and minizmize the time lost flipping through pages of the PHB, module and other sources. This was prior to WoTC partnering with Fantasy Grounds.
Anyway, I found Realm Works. It is very nice and works perfectly for what I want. I began entering LMoP into Realm Works. It is a lot of work, mainly due to the fact that Wizards doesn't make their content available as PDF. If LMoP had been available as PDF, then moving the content into Realm Works would have been much simpler.
I really like the way that Realm Works works. I like how it links and navigates through content. The auto-linking features is a real time saver when you are creating content.
I was part way into entering LMoP into Realm Works when the partnership with FG was announced. I held off on buying it for a while, but finally gave in and bought it with the PHB and LMoP (when the sale started).
I find FG a real chore to use. It has some nice features, but I really don't like the way that content is navigated. You end up with 20 windows open very quickly and navigating between them is cumbersome. Also, their character creator is pretty lacking. Having to look up content and then drag and drop it to the character is not ideal. I have found Excel spreadsheets that make the character creation process nicer than FG.
In support of one aspect of the OP, I find the lack of digital support (other tools such as Realm Works and content available as PDF), a problem already!
I am still excited to get started with 5e (our first gaming session should be today) and I am looking forward to Out of the Abyss being released. I just wish the WoTC would form more partnerships to allow other tools to integrate their IP.
EDIT: I just wanted to mention one more thing... I am not rich, but do have more money than time... when content is available as PDF and physical copy, I generally buy both! I prefer hard copy when doing original read through and prep work. I prefer electronic version when actually running the content.
pauln6 wrote:
But 5th now has been out for a while, and it might be the time to look at things that diden't turn out as cool as you thought they would.
for me one of those things is magic item atunement.
When ot was first brought up in the laytest along with the idea of more flaverfull magic items i thought atunement would become a realy cool part of the game.
Digging into the lore of items to find out what you most done to atune them and release their full potential.
So you could have gotten your famely sword at level 5 but it might take you till level 15 to figure out how to atune, and maybe even need to do quests to do so.
instead it is just a simple action during a rest, fealing like something purly put in for balance reasons to limit you to 3 powerfull items.
Sorry you're not enjoying yourself with 5e as much as you used to Zard.
I disagree with one thing you said more than the others, and that's this, "Princes of the Apocalypse due to mixed reviews... "
It's not getting mixed reviews. On-balanced, it's getting amazingly good reviews. Almost 5 stars on Amazon (40 reviews for the sample pool). On EnWorld it's listed as a critical hit at about 92% approval (31 reviews) and that later one is a harsh crowd. That's not mixed reviews - you actually have to hunt down and look for negative reviews on this one as they are such outliers. And you will ALWAYS find someone to say something negative about anything that comes out, particularly anything from WOTC. But that many positive reviews should be a good indication it's worth picking up.
Bottom line, you should be tryng Princes. It's the latest from WOTC, it has a LOT of good content, it's getting great reviews, and I am surprised you didn't dive in. I thought you'd be a month into it at this point with many sessions. I am actually shocked you passed on it.
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
I have dozens of older edition rule books. I have hundreds of older edition pdfs. 5e is closest to the old systems I first ran and ran most in the past. I feel I have nearly unlimited content to draw from and it takes a whopping 5 or so minutes to convert to the new system when you understand all systems.
To those who play 5e strictly from what is published for 5e ... I feel sorry for you. You do not grasp the concept of an RPG. Story and content is placed entirely within your own control. This is not a video game.
People who play differently than you understand the concept of RPGs. They just don't enjoy them in the same way as you.
My main group has pretty much moved away from 5e in order to try things that are new to us and/or have more content. It's really a combination of there being no new books exacerbated by the fact that the core is based on the same generic DnD flavor options we've seen for decades. The DM currently running explicitly said "maybe i'll be interested in 5e again once they start releasing (mechanical option) books".
shintashi wrote:
I feel like this old AD&D player is missing something. 5e is fun to me. We don't get to play enough is our only issue. That and I wish canteips were limited a bit but no major issue. I believe 5e is very freeing...
CCS wrote:
shintashi wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because Trolling/Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
2-5 games a week is a lot. 1/2 an hour of preperation time per session is not. Those two will on the one side burn you through the material out for 5th fast, while on the other side not giving you enough time to adapt the plentiful material from previous editions or make your own adventures. And if on top of that you don't want to play some 5th adventures because of bad reviews/price...well, then reaching a saturation point very quickly is inevitable.
The solution is simple, play something else for a while till new content for 5th becomes available, until you have more time to prepare stuff.
And if it turns out it's not just burnout, but you actually feel more at home with another system..well, so be it. For me it's obvious 5th isn't intended to be a better version of D&D. Just another version, with another focus. If you prefer another edition (or another game entirely), nobody is going to stop you from playing that.
Now, I've never played PF, but from what I understand the cracks started to show on day 1 in that game. So at least WotC has Paizio beat on this one.
OoftaMeg wrote:
To the OP;
Wizards are weak? - they dominate any play as soon as level 4 wpells roll around. Even getting level 3 spells, they start showing up everyone.
And monks? - I've seen the best front line tanks being monks.
I think OP may need to try gaming with new people just for new ideas. I can see where 2-5 sessions of playing the exact same thing would get borning.
The OP has just run out of content for the new version given the party restrictions.
And if the same feats keep getting picked over and over, then judge is making those far too dominate...
Since I write my own adventures, all I'm missing at this point are the campaign setting rules. I expected that by now we would see several more campaign setting packages. We got the eberron update but nothing else.
I'm also not interested in any of the modules published to date. If WotC thinks that I'm willing to be spoon-fed FR campaign updates via modules they are mistaken. I won't buy them.
With that said, I'd like to see smaller fan created modules published in a new version of dungeon magazine.
Omnilicious wrote:
Auticus wrote:
Buy a pad of graph paper and a notebook make your own adventures
or if you must look back on the 30+ years of modules and magazines find a few adventures you like and convert them.
content problem solved...
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I'm still looking for a new group to play with in Manhattan, but when I went to the one FLGS on the island, one of the largest in the country, mind you – their ENTIRE BASEMENT (playroom) was cram-filled. 3 5e AL Games, 1 Pathfinder game, 2 MtG games, and 2 other games (I think one was a Star Wars game and another was a Warhammer game, but I can't remember). I didn't join because there honestly isn't enough room to move down there, and I prefer games in the apartment of the DM or one of the players, but it was interesting to see how hardcore the gaming was going. Most folks down there were 30-60some years old, for the record, though they told me they regularly have groups of all sorts of ages. I went on a weekday, too. Apparently the room is almost always crowded in the mid-afternoon (after early work ends or after school ends for kids) and inthe summers, throughout the day, because otherwise people can't book their group there.
My point is, we can throw anecdotal evidence everywhere. That 5e is still on the NYT Best Seller list for hobby games, that should be evidence enough that 5e is doing well the way it's going. And according to WotC's survey results, most people haven't made it through a single adventure path yet, and are still hovering around level 5, even though they claim they want to play to level 20. So there's that, too.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
When we first started playing 5E the cleric did not take warcaster or resilient and he kept getting his spells interupted such as Spiritual Guardians. With the decreased number of spell slots available the spell casters were runniing out of spells in around 2-3 encounters.
The TPKs happened IMHO in the 1st case inefficient use of spells in the 1st case for example wasting sleep spells on fights already one and the PCs got ground down and then died in an encounter where there were 2 NPCs per party member I think it was the saw mill.
The 2nd one happened probably due to crappy dice rolls vs DM roilling like a fiend and they lacked an aracne caster or much in the way of AoE effects. INdividually some of them are very good at chap op, some of the others though just play what they want and you end up with aprties wth no healers which is fine I suppose if the DM can account for that but I told them specifically we were doing a prepublished adventure. Also some of them end up with things like a 12 or 14 in a primary attack stat and a couple of them like hanging way back in combat so the 2-3 at the front tend to get beaten down. The Rogue for example took the sharpshooter feat so the land Druid is on the front line taking the hits instead.
I find you may not need a cleric but you still generally need a healer unless the DM has designed the campaign around the lack of one (Thieves guild in urban game for example). I have toned the encounters down a lot from say 6 months ago using more RP, exploration and traps and puzzles but 7 Kobolds and some traps toook a heavy toll last session.
ModusPonens wrote:
My group of about 5-6 (7 sometimes) really digs 5E. We are playing the following: Elf Monk, Halforc Barb, Halfdragon(basicaly a dragonborn) Pally, Dragonborn Fighter, Half-Elf Warlock, Human Warlock, Drow Ranger. Each of us really dig the new system and haven't really found any problems yet. Here is my take on each of them: (we are about level 10-11 right now)
Barbarian. This guy is a freaking savage. When Hal rages up, he can obliterate suckers with 90+ damage crits. And when he kills something, he just rages out smashing things in the face with his hunk of wood. On the downside, he is kind of a glass-cannon in that he tends to take as much damage as he gives out. Brutal Critical while Enraged = another notch in the belt for Hal. Wolf Totem Spirit is bad ass for the Advantage on melee attacks.
Monk. Well, what to say about Riven Moonfury? The guy is fast as lightning, punches suckers with his flaming snake fists, bashes a guy over the head with his staff, and disengages with a punch to the throat of the closest enemy. The Ki points are pretty cool and let him hammer out some good damage. At 6th level his meleestrikes become magical damage so that gets around some defence. He can hold his own against ranged attacks with Deflect Missles. Stunning Strike helps CC foes to allow other heavy hitters (the Barb or the Fighter) to lay some beat down on enemies. Oh, and Slowfall. love that.
Paladin. When my cousin first rolled Balroth Vrakris, Paladin of Bahamut and Bringer of Justice, we played a few encounters and it seemed like the pally was a bust. However, it might be the way Balroth was rolled. He can dish out damage but at the same time help his allies BIG TIME. He keeps his allies buffed with Aura of Courage and Protection, Aid ( I know its a spell but it works really well ) and can help out people who are stuck in a bind with Relentless Avenger. When you got a Barb, Monk, Fighter, and a Pally close together, they feed off each other's buffs.
Fighter. Rhandolf the Red is the kind of guy who gets up close to enemies, draws their attention, and chops wildly at his enemy. He has an extra attack now, and then at level 11, he will be able to lay down THREE attacks in a turn. His AC helps him avoid serious damage (I think its like.. 18 with a shield. not too sure ATM as I don't have the page handy) because he gets up into combat and is able to hold off enemies with added Buffs from the Barb and Pally. When enemies see him charging they figure its an easy kill. WRONG! Also, it's always fun to have him blast a line of suckers with a gyser of acid.
Warlocks. Both Rossco and Dragomir can deal some serious damage from far away. Hunger of Hadar, Eldritch Blast for good damage from Rossco (fey pact) and then Charm, Dominate, Ray of Frost and other annoyances from Dragomir keeps the enemies honest. The fey pact is pretty cool with misty step because it lets Rossco escape from sneak attacks and such. Dragomir uses a lot of CC and illusions ( he is kind of an 'Astromancer' I guess ) to keep enemies thinking some attacks are bigger/smaller than they really are. Anything to keep enemies off balance and on their feet so the heavy duty melee classes can hack them down.
Ranger. Fantaz Hakar is probably one of my fave incarnations of a ranger. The guy keeps just out of range and is constantly sneaking around to better vantage points. While he really doesn't bring much to the table for Buffs, he is a constant damage dealer. Hunters Mark lets him widdle enemies down quickly, or finish them off if the melee is slacking. Fantaz also does a ton of foraging for mushrooms, moss, flowers, roots, plants, etc and I let him brew up potions and poisons and such to share with his friends. Nothing super OP or antyhing that will break the game of course. He has made a few healing potions, and has made some poison which can blind enemies until a save ends the effect. The biggest thing he brings though is being able to lead his friends through nature with ease. He almost always knows the correct path through places. Natural Explorer is awesome once he started getting more Favored Terrain.
The Arm of The Sword Coast is easily one of my fave groups to be Kryptkeeper for. We play once a week on Friday/Saturday with the odd weekend off so I can't really say we have tried each class and combo yet, but from what we have done so far it is a ton of fun, and was really easy to get adjusted to.
Vahnyu wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Also, even Basketball has its variations, for when you feel vanilla basketball isn't doing it for you anymore, but you'd also rather not learn an entirely new sport.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variations_of_basketball
Just saying.
Vahnyu wrote:
Cascade.rpga wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Wow, some seriously harsh criticism of Zard in this thread. He doesn't need me defending him, but I feel like some of this is over the top. Sure, I don't play D&D exactly like Zard does, and I've never gamed with him. But damn people, Zard plays this game more than anyone I know of on these forums. He posts his experiences, he analyzes the game based on his actual experiences, he posts build guides and is open to challenges to his opinions, he engages in both hypotheticals and real world examples, in sum this is a guy who has a heaping ton of experience with 5e.
So if he says it's not working great for his players, or if he says his players have preferences for classes or for abilities which differ from yours - cut the guy some slack! I have never gotten the impression from Zard (or at least not recently) that he's trying to convince others that 5e sucks or that you should not play 5e or that you should play some other game (look at the hours and mileage he has on this game, and that should tell you he's been all-in on it for a while now) - he's just doing what he always does, which is reporting to the world what's going on in his games and getting feedback on those reports he posts here.
Now for me, 5e works fantastic. My favorite RPG. But, I don't expect it to wear well on everyone no matter who they are, what their preferences might be, and how much they play. Some people will like it more, some will like it less, and it's OK if Zard says it's starting to wear thin for him. Him saying that is not a criticism of your game or your preferences.
Zardnaar wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
CCS wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
D&D is about dungeons (a place), dragons (people), and treasure (things).
the mechanics are intended to govern how we roleplay our characters
how we are awarded for playing our characters
what powers and statistics we have
what powers and statistics other nouns have
the mechanics that govern those powers & statistics interacting
and how we are awarded or penalized during those interactions
D&D can definitely be tactical
it can also be pure story based...
or pure roleplaying based.
there are many things that can make D&D a game;
the dice rolls, the puzzle solving or maze running,
the good and bad choices we make, the innovated ideas to overcome problems,
and achieving the goals of our DMs and Players alike.
Seek happiness.
if the game you paid 10-20 movies for isn't allowing you to mechanically do something,
and it seems like a house rule, then house rule it. But if it seems like something everyone
entering that situation can likely have trouble with, then it is the writers' fault, and the
issue has to be addressed, complained about, poked at, and trouble shot. The horse isn't
dead from the beating until the published solution is released... or at least someone from
the game design company posts an official 'yeah, that's broke, we need to fix that'.
Come to think of it, we need more communication from the design staff on heavily contested
issues. The best approach for 5e is when everyone is complaining about something, change it,
when several people are complaining, but others are happy with it, and the firestorm of complaints
just wont go away, then produce an optional way to fix it.
You can't just make an inferior set of rules and tell people 'yeah, just houserule everything'.
If a system is so messed up we spend more time house ruling and debating it that playing it,
the system needs fixing. 4e happened. If it was as stable a system as 3e or 2e, 5e wouldn't
be out until 2019. We shouldn't lie to ourselves and depend on a half million DMs to all
house rule stuff that should never have been so busted in the first place.
House rules are supposed to be road repairs, like for pot holes. They aren't supposed to
be Rome's army with axes in forest followed by a caravan of fresh bricks.
Man, this forum can get...well, you know. (Let's just keep calling this out every time.) But you know I'm addicted to it.
Aside from that, lots of nice points, +1's all around. The forum ate my first try at this post so forgive any hastiness or poor organization.
"Homebrew" is not a viable response for everyone. It takes time and energy that we don't all have. Aside from this (which isn't even a disagreement, really), I'm with Blood.
5e has a very solid mechanical core, which is designed not to get in the way of RP. I'll compare to 4e, which is what I've been playing recently. You can roleplay in 4e as much as you can in 5e or in chess. Our last session was several hours long, with exactly 3 dice rolled. But combat is a different beast. The mechanics are rigidly defined and balanced, as are those for skill challenges. 5e, in contrast, uses vague rules, light characters, and a fast-and-loose "eyeball it" philosophy of encounter design. A 4e damage feat: +2 damage using axes against prone enemies. Extra attacks are gold. 5e feat? +10 damage on every attack, and an extra attack whenever you kill or crit! Why not, it's only damage! You don't carefully craft characters to synergize on a bunch of niche bonuses; you take that feat to reflect a powerhouse character that kills stuff fast. Comparing the two on mechanics alone, 5e has much less to offer. What it does offer is what forms of roleplaying are allowed or encouraged, and how roleplay intersects with the rules. Want to grab someone by the neck? Possible in 4e or 5e; very different experiences. 5e encourages this and other improvised actions much more readily, while keeping mechanical identity; without reducing itself to, for example, a single "damage thing" roll that is common to all characters and attacks.
It's a feature of the system that the rules are enslaved to the characters and story they represent. Abilities are generalized and choices are few, because they offer mechanical differentiation while remaining open as to what concepts can be mapped onto those mechanics. I don't know if another system does that better. But it's absolutely not a failing of 5e if someone focuses more on mechanics than character and story, and finds it lacking. The way the mechanics interact with the roleplay is a huge part of the game.
This isn't a criticism of Zard, necessarily. Don't know how his group works exactly, and I don't want to imply that they don't roleplay. But the comment about having "figured out 5e" seems problematic. 5e is not a game to be figured out. Some RPGs are model trains. Model trains are fragile; they don't like customization. They want to be used in certain ways and not in others. 5e is Legos. (Ironic, considering the millions if Lego kits). Simple pieces; solid vehicle to make (sloppier) trains, customize those trains, add new stuff to those trains, or make something that isn't trains. Lack of official Lego train kits isn't a failing of Legos, it's a failure to use them for what they're meant for.
There can be lots of reasons for the failure (as Zard has pointed out, so I'not criticizing him for having fun wrong), but don't look at the system.
Macv12 wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Personality, character's past, family and friends, goals, etc are all directly linked to rewarding inspiration points, which are a pretty nifty part of the game.
Core-Earth-Stormer wrote:
Core-Earth-Stormer wrote:
Chakrum wrote:
CCS wrote:
Further furthermore, I can pick up, say, Sailor as my background from the book, and still have my player's background involve them having been NOWHERE NEAR SEA OR SHIPS IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFETIME.
This is no different than having your character's class being a, say, Sorcerer, and treating them as a fighting Gladiator or a Watchman, or have the Fighter be referred to as a Priest.
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
YES! The linking of definitions of logical arguments has begun. Look at what you have wrought Zard!
Vahnyu wrote:
CCS wrote:
Synjin wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Chakrum wrote:
CCS wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
CCS wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I've played 5e (Next) from the very beginning. I started with BECMI, which I played a lot. Then a little bit of 2E and 3E, and then 4E more. Now I play 5e more than ever before, and I can say it is my most favourite edition. I play with three groups. With one face to face, with one via Roll20, and with one via Fantasy Grounds. BTW, Fantasy Grounds is a superb piece of software.
FrogReaver wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
There was an article over on enworld that collected some tweets from a conversation sort of related to this topic http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2701-Mike-Mearls-Talks-(er-Tweets)-About-the-Industry#.VYs9QPlVhBc
To cut to the chase: margins in the RPG industry are very slim and figuring out how to keep D&D profitable is difficult. Which goes back to the OP in that as much as some people would like a ton of supplementary rules it's hard to provide it while still retaining your identity and developing quality product that will still make a profit.
ShadoWWW wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
CCS wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
That's one of the most disingenuous thing I've seen around here in a while. That's not what you said. At all. And you know it. You didn't say you could "build a custom backgroud." You specifically said you could act in bad faith by taking Sailor despite your character having never been around ships or water.
I've seen far better bait-and-switch around here. And from better. Weak.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Read about it.
Had a mentor.
Was born with a natural, or even supernatural propensity/affinity towards sailing.
You may want to actually read the Ship's Passage feature before you continue down this rabbit hole...
Mistwell wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Because I'm not? It's called roleplaying, and I'm playing whatever role I like, without being a slave to the mechanics involved, which, as I've continuously proven, are entirely divorced from the RP aspect of them.
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
It may be true that the RP part of the game is not specific to D&D, that many/most RP games have this same aspect. And it may be true that the unique parts of D&D are the mechanics/resolution-rules etc, as compared to other RPGs. However, attempting to derive pleasure out of conquering mechanics in an RPG is a suckers game. Sure, its interesting and challenging at first, but leads to a sorry place of resentment when you lose sight of the RP part and start to wonder if this convoluted spectacle of moving pieces around a board in a farcical attempt to win against the DM is really all there is. When you've reached this point and are looking for new dose of mechanics to stoke your interest, you've seriously lost your way. The RP part is the lasting fun, not the quest to beat the system. The stories you make and the laughs you have doing it as what its all about. This you have an infinite supply of.
The mechanics themselves, what are they good for? They are good for modeling the story you want to tell. The difference between D&D and another RPG is how well the rules model the kind of story you want to tell. You don't need more character options or prebuilt campaign modules/guides to continue telling the kinds of stories you want to tell.
Roleplaying doesn't require mechanics that enforce specific behaviours to be considered roleplaying. Completely freeform roleplaying is still roleplaying. Easy to change fluff if a benefit that can completely alter perception of a concept for the better. All you've done created an oddball background with an oddball concept and used it but that didn't stop it's validity; you did that in your preconception of an invalid background by trying to create an invalid background. That's a self-imposed flaw. As it is class, subclass, race, alignment, flaws, traits, bonds, and inspiration points all contribute to the role played as well as background. What stops roleplay is a choice not to play the role, which would be a player issue, not a mechanical issue.
Vahnyu wrote:
CCS wrote:
I'm not the first to say so on this thread, but it seems the cracks are showing in the interpersonal dynamics of various example play groups, rather than the 5e ruleset.
Then again, when I run a character, I choose the acolyte backround, but rename it pariah, just to mess with whoever's DM-ing, and when I DM a game, it's much less DM has final approval of PCs than Play this pregen or get banned from my table; last time I asked if anyone wanted to play, no one would meet my eyes, and then they said they were all "bored with 5e right now," so don't ask me. 
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Hrmmm. I suppose. Although I didn't see him ever say the player would be singled out or the epicenter of their abuse. But if my group was upfront about expecations in play at our table and a player insisted on running contrary to our preferred playstyle I'd image they would see themselves as being abused. But really they are not getting out of the game what we are choosing to put into it so they would get frustrated. And I think some people would see differently your opinion that what you are doing is RAI.
To me, the skills and proficiencies afforded by a background come from actual experience, not just academic knowledge. Reading about sailing isn't anywhere near actually having sailed enough to become proficient in it. There's far too many variables to it that books or discussions just won't make up for.
Yeah, the text you quote does not support the argument you're making. Yes, you can make your OWN background. But it's not encouraging you to DISREGARD your background.
It's not encouraging you to take Sailor and then have your character not be a sailor. That's your rather twisted spin, not anything in the text you quoted. So for instance what it's saying is if you want to make an AIRSHIP SAILOR, as opposed to simply a [Water-based] SAILOR, you can take the SAILOR background to start with, but tweak it by removing (for instance): Tool Proficiency: vehicles (water)" and replace it with "Tool Proficiency: vehicles (air)". Or maybe you think airships involve more acorbatics than athletics to sail, so replace "Athletics" with "Acrobatics". But you would still have a character who is following their airship sailor background (the new background you created - that's what "customize" means).
None of that has anything to do with what you're claiming - that you disregard the background. It's explaining how to make your own backgrounds, which is entirely different from disregarding them. You would not be, in your example, picking "Sailor" as your background and have them be from nowehere near the sea or in ships their entire lifetime. You would instead be making a new background using Sailor as your INITIAL template, but then adapting it to a NEW background which you would in fact be related to your characters actual background.
So yeah, you totally failed to support your claim. Maybe you didn't mean your argument the way you initially wrote it, but right now you have zero support for what you wrote.
You are not making one lick of sense here. How is this not making my own background? How is this disregarding it?
I take a rapier, as my initial weapon, and name it a Spatha. I take a knife, and name it a Sai. I take a Quarterstaff, and name it a Tri-Sectioned Staff. I take a Greataxe and name it a Scythe. I take Sailor as my background, and name it an Aristocrat. I give it ideals, flaws, etc, that fit the theme, but the core mechanics of the background remain 100% unchanged.
Synjin wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Synjin wrote:
There seems to be a lot of talking past each other.
Here is what nobody in this thread is saying: You must take only the backgrounds listed in the PHB and you must select those personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws. Zero people have said that. If you appear to be arguing against such a position, you're arguing against a strawman.
Here is what some people (Orethalion and myself, for instance) are saying: You must have a background - it can be one of the listed ones in the PHB or you can create your own background, but you must have a background. You must also have personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws, and these things all play into the inspiration rules. They can be the ones listed in the PHB, or you can create your own. Regardless, your background, personality traints, ideals, bonds, and flaws are intended to create a narrative for your character. The intent is not for you to toss any old thing together, but to use these story elements to compose a narrative for your character - to relate these things to each other in some cohesive fashion. The intent is for you to pay attention to that narrative, not ignore it. You CAN ignore it, you can refuse to relate these things to each other, but it's not acting in good faith with what the rules describe and intend for these elements of your character.
Here are the pertinent rules in the PHB:
1. Backgrounds (PHB 125). "Every story has a beginning. Your character’s background reveals where you cam e from, how you became an adventurer, and your place in the world."
2. Personality Traits (PHB 123). "Give your character personality traits. Personality traits are small, simple ways to help you set your character apart from every other character. Your personality traits should tell you som ething interesting and fun about your character. They should be self descriptions that are specific about what makes your character stand out."
3. Ideals (PHB 124). "Describe one ideal that drives your character. Your ideals are the things that you believe in most strongly, the fundamental moral and ethical principles that compel you to act as you do. Ideals encompass everything from your life goals to your core belief system."
4. Bonds (PHB 124). "Create one bond for your character. Bonds represent a character’s connections to people, places, and events in the world. They tie you to things from your background."
5. Flaws (PHB 124). "Finally, choose a flaw for your character. Your character’s flaw represents some vice, compulsion, fear, or weakness".
6. Inspiration (PHB 125). "Inspiration is a rule the Dungeon Master can use to reward you for playing your character in a way that’s true to his or her personality traits, ideal, bond, and flaw."
Here is the statement that first caused all this confusion, from Vahnyu, "I can pick up, say, Sailor as my background from the book, and still have my player's background involve them having been NOWHERE NEAR SEA OR SHIPS IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFETIME. The rules of D&D 5E not only explicitly allow this, they outright encourage it."
Now, and here is the important part where everyone is talking past each other...Vahnyu THINKS he implied with subtext, "I achieve this by re-naming the background as something else like Aristocrat, and customizing it using different descriptive details, which might have different personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws which have nothing to do with being a sailor. I would just be using the Sailor background as a starting point and then naming it somerthing else, changing the background ideas, and adding new personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws which match these new background details."
Except...that wasn't implied at all by what he wrote. What I read, and what I think Orethalion read, is the literal meaning of what he wrote. That Vahnyu would pick up Sailor as written in the book, write that on his character sheet, change nothing about the background at all, and then when he THE PLAYER (note his quote says his "player's background", which I took to mean what the player says at the table as opposed to Vahnyu's own personal background as a dude who plays D&D and posts on internet message boards about it), describes his character to the other players and DM and plays it - he just completely ignores the background he put on his sheet and says his character has nothing to do with being a sailor.
That's what I was saying would be not playing in good faith with the intent of the rules (and what I think Orethalion was saying as well). The intent is that you create a background for your character and play to/using that background (though it need not be a background listed in the PHB). It only came out later in the thread that what Vahnyu seems to mean is he would in fact change the background, as opposed to simply writing one background on his sheet and then completely ignoring it when he describes it to people. It was only later that he describes using "Sailor" as simply a template to initially start from and then altering it on the character sheet to form a new background with appropriate traits (which nobody here is disputing as a valid thing to do).
Which is why I say there is a lot of talking past each other. What Vahnyu means isn't what he said initially, or at least now how I read it at the time he wrote it. We're actually (I think) all saying the same thing now.
Mistwell wrote:
As a matter of fact, among the first things I said about backgrounds was this
Seems to me that it is YOU who hasn't read the chapter. No, you couldn't ignore/house rule them away, because the chapter EXPLICITLY STATES THAT THEY ARE JUST EXAMPLES OF BACKGROUNDS.
Hell, it outright encourages you to customize them to your needs, switching around stuff like skills and benefits. So, yeah, they are miles away different from houseruling.
Vahnyu wrote:
Ive removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Core-Earth-Stormer wrote:
Core-Earth-Stormer wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Sure they can. It's quite simple, really.
As you know. If the Player wants to stay in the group, he has to do as the DM says, or be kicked out of the group.
By the same account, if the DM wants to stay in the group, he has to do as the group says, or be kicked out of the group. Any power that the DM has in any given game, is derrived directly from the given social contract of the group, and breaching that contract would result in the DM losing any and all privileges they might have enjoyed.
A DM cannot force the group to do anything that the group as a whole or a majority doesn't want, if he wants to keep playing with said group, just as the Player cannot do anything he wants that the DM explicitly forbids on account of the group as a whole, unless he wants to keep playing with said group.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion i think we will have to agree to disagree on the subject of what players are allowed to do as neither of us will budge from our positions
I just want to suggest one thing about the "sample backgrounds" issue.
If a player came to a game with a character whose background was "a French veteran of World War II," and the DM's campaign is in your typical parallel-universe medieval fantasy world, and they don't want to be bothered with time travel or dimension hopping or any of that, then that background doesn't get to be used. DM has full authority over that.
Hence, the DM does have veto power over backgrounds. That they shouldn't be a jerk when exercising it goes without saying. As does the fact that the group can override them by terminating the social contract. The DM can't stop a player from inventing any background they want, but they can forbid its actual use in their game.
You want to be an Elven resistance fighter? Only if there's a "resistance" in this world. You want to take the "Charlatan" background and call it "Pirate?" I can't stop you from writing whatever you want on your sheet, but the "golden age of piracy" genre doesn't exist in this world. You want to take the "ship's passage" feature without ever having seen a ship? You're not picking features, you're picking a cohesive background that logically implies features, so unless you can explain how that works, you don't have magical powers of persuasion with sailors.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
I was playing 5e at my local gaming store on Thursdays. Our group of 3-4 grew to 7-8, then it spawned a second table. Then I moved away and don't have time to play, but I've stayed on the email list and my old group just seems to grow and grow and grow. I can't even tell how many campaigns they're running concurrently now.
Neonflux wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Neonflux wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Or, put another way, the needs of the many FAAAAAAAAAAAAR outweight the needs of the few.
The authority of the many FAAAAAAAAAAR outweights the authority of the few.
Vahnyu wrote:
I'm with Orethalion I think on this one...
While a group can share authority, the game is designed to have one player, and one player alone, holding authority over the other players, and that player is the DM. And you can't claim that if all the other players gang up to veto the DM, that the veto works. If the "veto works" then the other players aren't providing the DM authority, and the players are not accepting the social contract that is D&D.
It's like saying that if all the players on a football team decide a referee's call isn't what they want, they can veto it. That's simply not true.
Really the key to D&D is to keep in mind that it is collaborative storytelling. It's not DM versus players. It's DM + players telling a story. As long as the DM is working with the players to tell a good story, the players shouldn't be objecting to rulings the DM makes. Sometimes a good story ends in defeat. Typically, a good story will have loss and tragedy. Generally, the randomness of dice rolls causes loss and tragedy... the DM shouldn't need to make rulings that screw over the players. The game is perfectly capable of doing that as designed without the DM's help. More importantly, the DM should never be inclined to make rulings that screw over the players. Unlike my football team analogy, the players and the referee are on the same team.
This entire argument as I see it is a confusion of terms.
There's no boss at the D&D table. Everyone is signed on to a social contract about how to play make believe for a few hours a week, and part of that contract says one person gets the veto and the rest don't. The rest follows naturally. However, if any single piece fails the rest of the game usually goes with it. One player can quit and be replaced maybe, but a DM without a group isn't a DM, and success within the game is meaningless without getting your ideas past the veto.
The D&D table isn't some stuffy bureaucratic top-down or a bottom-up power dynamic. It's a back-and-forth dance of ideas.
ModusPonens wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Steve: We as the group thnk Bob should run the game. This is the type of game we all argeed to play.
Bob: Yes, but I am DM now. We are going to play this way. HHAHAHA.
Steve: No we aren't.
Bob: I am the DM you have tyo do what I say!
Steve: Well, we talked about it, and you're not DM anymore. Sarah is.
Bob: *blink*
Where's your crown King Nothing?
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
randl wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
randl wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
randl wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
I don't think anyone's real life experiences are irrelevant. I sort of feel like they're the only hard data we have in world of internet hyperbole.
Vahnyu wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Honestly the beginning of this thread, in which various commentators reflect on Zardnaar's ennui, was far more interesting than the pissing match it became.
I have purchased all three core books for $25 a piece on Amazon. The highest price paid his far was $35 for Princes of Apocalypse.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
The fact that the players can disempower a DM by leaving is no more to the point than the fact that citizens of a country can disempower their government by rebelling. You can't say that a government is working as intended because it's vulnerable to citizen rebellion.
Dnd is a benevolent dictatorship, not a democracy. The rules give the DM total power over the game. It would be different if the rules said the DM ruled on things only when a 60% or larger majority consensus could not be reached among the other players; then it would be a democracy. But it's not.
If the "benevolent" part of the dictatorship is no longer true, then the government is not working properly, and the citizens are justified in overthrowing it. That's a huge stumbling point in these discussions. It's true both that the DM can't be a tyrant without repercussion, and that the DM is nevertheless given the authority required to be that tyrant.
But the benevolence of the dictatorship is usually assured by the fact that the DM and the other players are friends trying to have a good time. Most of these theoretical arguments about how far a DM's authority technically goes will be cut short by reality.
Please check this link for my further thoughts on this discussion: http://youtu.be/LOZuxwVk7TU
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Neonflux wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Neonflux wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Neonflux wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
randl wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Oh well looks like I will be playing my 1st online game with a new group of players meet while playing Europa Unversalis IV. They are experienced PF players and some of them like 5E but the lack oof online support/PDFs kileld that plan. Looks like I will be seeing a Barbarian/Monk, Knight and Cleric/Rogue being played so far.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I see alot of people don't like the $50 they have to dish out for the books, luckily on , Barnesandnoble.com the books are always $28.00 and free shipping! But only the online price, not in the stores. That's how I get most of my books and save $20, which I then blow on minis , haha.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
A group without one of the players eventually becomes a DM, a DM without a players is just a guy sitting behind a screen
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I'm still of the opinion that cracks are showing in people's social skills, not the 5e rules system; I actually think the majority of posts in this thread prove me right on that one. 
I just won $20 betting this thread would degenerate into a semantics argument about what qualifies as semantics. Thanks guys!
Quasadu wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Ghost_Gallus wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Wel what might be considered a crack ?
One thing might be rules that seem not to work as in tended as writter, or just don't work smoothly in game.
For me one of thse is inspiration we never hand it out in our games and when I DM tracking all the personality traits of each platyer character can be a real hassle.
Even in the Official DnD stream games Mike mearls changed to a alternative system for handing out inspiration, becouse he would just forget to hand it out, or forget what personality trait each character has.
Vahnyu wrote: