Changing Opinions

[Jon talks a lot]

In my relatively short time on this forum, I have found many of my opinions regarding D&D to be far from what they were before.

For example,

I used to believe Oath of the Watchers was the worst Paladin subclass. Now I believe they are one of the best.

Once, I thought that the champion archetype was better than the battlemaster.

At first, I hated the Tasha's variant ability score rules, now I wouldn't play in a game without them!

What are your D&D opinions that are very different from what they were?

[borg286]

Initial reading of the players handbook made me try and optimize two weapon fighting. I then realized fighter's extra greatsword attacks were superior, and now I see sorlock outpacing fighters at level 6.

[MrStabby]

So a few things.

Maybe more to add to the list later.

When I first started I thought blindness was a poor spell. Now... well campaign dependent but potentially awesome.

I used to hate abilities like the cleric's divine inspiration that were very DM dependant. This has been a complete turnaround for me and I love these type of abilities. Putting the cause to break the rules in your DMs hands and to see their take on how you portrayed your deity is awesome and done right adds an immense amount of flavor to the game. I would add.to this things like druids and what wildshapes they know. Putting more in the hands of the DM rather than the PHB is actually a good thing.

I used to think heavy armour was important... now I think it is really about magic item frequency and party composition and ensuring that the party can get the best use of anything it finds.

I used to think DPR is important (and still do), but I had spreadsheets and calculations and so on. Since I realise that most differences are less important than the things that are too difficult to quantify - like an extra 5ft of movement (better choice of which enemy to attack or not needing to dash to close in combat).

I used to think fire was the best element for a draconic sorcerer (now its almost irrelevant from an optimisation perspective) but now lean towards cold - you are still better casting control spells than damage spells almost always and so the value is really on things like twinned cantrips and the better options there outweigh the paucity of good cold levelled spells.

I used to think the moon druid was the best druid. Even from the PHB I now rate the land druid higher (at most levels, there are clearly some exceptions).

Likewise, I used to think that Lore bard was the better PHB bard. Now I rate Valor higher - the ability to have decent AC, to contribute to damage (without investing in damage spells) and a great support ability really shines. I miss cutting words though.

Cleric domains have had some serious reordering. I used to have tempest high, nature low. Light and trickery have also moved up a lot in my estimation.

I use to really like support focussed spells, now I am a bit more independent. So many unforseen posabilities and points of failure with enabling others. A failed save on either of two characters or some terrian changing spell or vision blocker just becomes too likely. Simple is often better.

[Pex]

I used to hate Point Buy and only wanted dice rolling. However, after having to use Point Buy for so long I got used it. When for a game the DM said we were dice rolling I found myself disappointed. Now I like Point Buy. However, I like it as a concept. I can still hate how it's implemented, such as 5E. Pathfinder 1E Point Buy I like, D&D 3E and 4E were fine, and Pathfinder 2E I find intriguing even if it's not technically Point Buy.

I hated that monsters and NPCs used different rules than PCs. I found it grossly unfair in 2E when monsters got multiplate attacks (claw/claw/bite) while everyone else, except for fighters specializing in a weapon, only got 1 attack forever. Spellcasting was no better, There would always be a blurb how a monster could cast spells at will without worry about spell slots or spell components, especially expensive spell components. If it was psionics they never had to spend any power points. NPCs had ability scores no PC could ever get. When 3E was specifically designed for monsters and NPC to be built following the same rules as PCs I was thrilled. It's not like I expected a PC to play the same as a dragon or a beholder, but the monsters in their own way followed the rules. They were subjected to feats. There were universal rules for spell-like abilities such that they couldn't do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted.

Then I decided to DM a campaign. Creating my own NPC bad guys did become a chore. I was basically constantly making new characters. It was fun, but it also got annoying. However, it was after a particular fun adventure when I went over everything afterwards that I noticed I made a mistake. It was very important for the theme of the encounter for the bad guys to have particular feats. However, I noticed I gave them one too many. I goofed on their qualifications based on level and BAB. It was still a great game. The players won as expected after a tough battle. The game was not unplayable. That I broke the rules didn't mean anything except for my own sense of purity. The players didn't notice or care. I forgave myself. When 5E came out with the premise monsters and NPCs wouldn't follow the same rules as PCs I had trepidations. However, unlike 2E the monsters of 5E do no beat up the rules, take their lunch money, and toss them out the window. It doesn't matter how monsters acquired their abilities. What matters is they are fair for the appropriate time PCs face them, and they are. DMing a 5E game I can appreciate how easy it is to make an NPC foe. I can give them what I need them to have without worry about following rules, and they still provide the appropriate challenge for the players. Now I'm ok with monsters and NPCs not following the same rules as PCs, but I still wouldn't want the horrors of 2E where the DM figuratively cheats.

I like 3E. I like Pathfinder 1E. I knew playing them I couldn't go back to 2E. No regrets. Today having played 5E so long, which I do enjoy playing despite my gripes about it, I find I can't quite get excited about playing 3E again. I could if I was allowed Tome of Battle or Psionics. I enjoyed them very much in 3E. A Pathfinder 1E game I can still play and enjoy, but I will miss particular 5E rules such as Cantrips and freedom to move more than 5 ft to do whatever you want.

[DwarfFighter]

I used to think multi-classing was interesting, now I disallow them. There are plenty of sub-classes to select from.

I used to think advantage for flanking was a sweet rule, but it makes it too easy to gain advantage or negate disadvantage. You are already in a position to put more attacks on the target, and if you really want to create advantage you have the Help action available.

I used to think points-buy and the standard array was great, and I now do so again. I was away from it for a while but I came back. Starting out at max 15 base stats is lackluster, but entirely appropriate for a level 1 character. Also, the party having the approximately the same "bulk" in ability scores has long-term positive effects on in-party balance.

I used to think the Champion was as good a character sub-class as the rest. It is not. But I still play it.

I used to think I knew how to explain Hit Dice and short rests/long rests to new players. Time has robbed me of that illusion. There is no way to explain it to new players, I am sure of it!

-DF

[DwarfFighter]

Creating my own NPC bad guys did become a chore.

I agree so much with this I caught myself starting a rant and deleted a paragraph of pure ire.

I've spent so much time assigning skill ranks to NPCs that never got to use them!

-DF

[SpawnOfMorbo]

In my relatively short time on this forum, I have found many of my opinions regarding D&D to be far from what they were before.

For example,

I used to believe Oath of the Watchers was the worst Paladin subclass. Now I believe they are one of the best.

Once, I thought that the champion archetype was better than the battlemaster.

At first, I hated the Tasha's variant ability score rules, now I wouldn't play in a game without them!

What are your D&D opinions that are very different from what they were?

First couple weeks I thought the Trickery Cleric was a stealth based class and that its features were mediocre.

The Trickery Cleric is about misdirection and isn't actually a stealth based class.

Trickery Cleric is one of the strongest party members you will ever see.

Trickery Cleric also is one of the best multiclass options for Barbarians, Fighters, and even Rogues.

[Segev]

First couple weeks I thought the Trickery Cleric was a stealth based class and that its features were mediocre.

The Trickery Cleric is about misdirection and isn't actually a stealth based class.

Trickery Cleric is one of the strongest party members you will ever see.

Trickery Cleric also is one of the best multiclass options for Barbarians, Fighters, and even Rogues.

I'd be interested in seeing this elaborated on.

[MrStabby]

I'd be interested in seeing this elaborated on.

Well the spell list is awesome and includes a lot of arcane staples. If you think of the class like like sorcerer but with extra healing, decent armour and more HP and some other cleric goodies instead of metamagic. With Tashas ability to trade CD for spells this is even more versatile.

Honestly, I still wouldn't rate it as one of the best clerics but the gap between top and bottom is pretty tight and it is a lot better than it looks. I guess if things like GGtR backgrounds or Eberron races are on the table so you can easily poach great spells from elsewhere easily it is a bit less attractive... but it's a really solid subclass.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'd be interested in seeing this elaborated on.


Well, The Trickery Cleric is more like Street Magician. As a Trickery Cleric you want the focus on YOU so that your allies can do their thing. You do this by making yourself a target, or at least, seem like a threat in order to be a target.

Trickery Cleric gets medium armor and shield, that's a good AC. You can start with 18 AC easily.

Bunshin No Jutsu allows your to confuse targets about where you are or to have enemies spring their traps early, its a perfect illusion, so if an enemy is waiting for you to walk by in order to attack you... They're going to attack the illusion. Even if they attack the illusion, there are tactics that allow you to make it where the enemies won't know which is which, like having your Duplicity and your Character run through the same area and then split off. Which one is the real Cleric?

Cloak of Shadows is basically a *smoke bomb* sort of trick that lets you get away easier.


Charm Person and Disguise Self works wonders for all this as you can use Charm Person to keep their attention on you or use Disguise Self to look like someone they're interested in in some fashion. Walk around the corner looking like Jessica Rabbit and the guards are gonna be distracted while the Rogue walks behind them. Speaking of the Rogue walking by, the level 1 Blessing of the Trickster feature? That's a 9th level Rogue feature but works better. Slap that on the non-stealth character and they can go with the Rogue at lot easier. Disguise yourself as one of your enemies and lead your allies right into the heart of the enemies because you helped ""capture them"". I've skipped so many encounters (which count as winning them) by hiding in plain sight (literally, not the Ranger feature). Throw Actor on this sort of Cleric and it gets even more fun.

Fun Fact: Charm Person, Disguise Self, Mirror Image, and Blink are not concentration spells. Mix Charm Persona and Disguise Self together.

Say you don't want to do all that. You want a simple build?

In battle, you have an armored Cleric that can split itself in multiple copies. A wizard would hang back and wait for the enemy to come to them, but you? You're going to charge in with the charger feat and smack someone (you wouldn't have actor if you built your Cleric this way). So, now you look like a huge threat! You have a mace, armor, you're running around hitting things, and you have copies of yourself. Charger really only works completely on the cleric. Dash + Bonus Action Attack (mace) + 5 (charger bonus damage) + divine strike d8 + Str mod (d6 + 5 + d8 + 3 str) = ~ 16 damage with just a mace and a shield (this is why it helps to multiclass ~2 levels with Fighter or Barbarian btw, boost that damage up a bit).

Now, are you doing the most damage? Nope. Do you look like a threat? Yup. Misdirection.


You also get Polymorph on the Cleric. Lol, polymorph is just stupid fun.

Say you know you're being watched by an enemy while walking through a city. Use duplicity, weave in and out with your duplicity, then use cloak of shadows and release the duplicity. From a distance they're going to be scratching their heads. Yeah, used this one a couple times.

[Daracaex]

When I first read about 5e, I didn't like the advantage/disadvantage system at all. To me, it seemed way too simple and inflexible. No matter what, you can only get the same bonus or penalty with no difference in magnitude between having advantage because someone is prone and vulnerable surrounded by the party or having it because they're just fighting 2-on-1 with all their faculties.

Turns out, not having to do math is great. There's still a few things like Pass Without Trace that give numerical bonuses, but having those be rare exceptions means I can mostly just tell people to make a check and they'll know exactly what to do if it's at advantage or disadvantage. Sure, missing out on some details does less for having things make sense, but it smooths out gameplay so much it's worth it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I used to care strongly about exact wording and "RAW". Now discussions on that matter bore me. I've realized that the more time I spend playing the rules instead of the game, the less fun I (and my players) have at the table. And I've found that even perfectly-written rules can't stop a bad group of people from causing troubles, and a good group of people can have fun despite poorly-worded rules.

I used to care about history and tradition. Now appeals to tradition, real-world historicity, and what Gygax and Tolkien thought and wrote are meaningless to me. I mean, they may be facts, but they're only weakly relevant, if at all. Gygax has been out of D&D for almost as long as I've been alive. Tolkien never was in D&D, and the links are mostly in name and a few broad-brush themes. Etc. To the degree that I care, it's about learning from the mistakes of the past.

I used to care about mechanics. I still do, but much less so. Now my focus is on thematics and world, with the mechanics being UI only. And this trend is continuing. A lot of that was brought on by playing with new players a lot--their wide-eyed wonder came not at "look at the combos I can do" but at the sights, sounds, and workings of the world that drew them in. At the narratives they wove through their characters. I ran a "convention" game with people who had never read any of the rules--they had pregens but just told me what they wanted to do and I handled all the mechanics. Slightly exhausting, but tons of fun. They got into the spirit of things real fast, taking clues from the paragraph of backstory and backgrounds and the few introductory paragraphs of worldbuilding text I spoke at the beginning. The rules could have been almost anything, and it still would have worked.

I used to calculate CR and encounter difficulty. Now I'll assign a CR to get the right proficiency bonus, but don't bother really calculating things at all. And encounters just happen based on what should be there.

I used to exhaustively plan, including branching paths, DCs for things (based on how they're attempting things, etc.). Now I write and think about the part of the world they're in and the relevant characters and make maps, with a few "triggers" (ie "at X health, the boss will do X and initiate a change in the fight.") The rest is just ad-lib. I find that lets me roll with the punches more and pay more attention to what the characters are really doing and saying and how the NPCs would react.

[Jon talks a lot]

When I first read about 5e, I didn't like the advantage/disadvantage system at all. To me, it seemed way too simple and inflexible. No matter what, you can only get the same bonus or penalty with no difference in magnitude between having advantage because someone is prone and vulnerable surrounded by the party or having it because they're just fighting 2-on-1 with all their faculties.

Turns out, not having to do math is great. There's still a few things like Pass Without Trace that give numerical bonuses, but having those be rare exceptions means I can mostly just tell people to make a check and they'll know exactly what to do if it's at advantage or disadvantage. Sure, missing out on some details does less for having things make sense, but it smooths out gameplay so much it's worth it.

This is one I wholeheartedly understand.

[LudicSavant]

Cleric domains have had some serious reordering. I used to have tempest high, nature low. Light and trickery have also moved up a lot in my estimation.

You know, I've noticed a lot of new players rate Tempest higher than Light, then flip that opinion as they gain more experience.

[Jon talks a lot]

You know, I've noticed a lot of new players rate Tempest higher than Light, then flip that opinion as they gain more experience.

I think its because they don't take into spell lists. When I was new to D&D, I didn't really understand what classes had what spells or what the spells did. Now I can remember what most spells do fairly easily. Tempest looks much better when you don't look at what lightning / thunder spells there actually are.

[MrStabby]

You know, I've noticed a lot of new players rate Tempest higher than Light, then flip that opinion as they gain more experience.

I think for me it was the reevaluation of heavy armour. That slipping down in my estimation was a mark against tempest.

I think that I wasn't so much the spell list for the domains that was the rest of it. I kind of felt that a lot of cleric power in combat hinged on spirit Guardians and I somewhat underestimated bless and banishment as uses of concentration. Fireball being a solid use of a level 3 spellslot coupled with realising just how good the other uses of concentration were whilst also not requiring me to be right on the front lines. Add in access to other spells like Faerie Fire (when you need it, it is vital) and other ways of keeping concentration and its pretty good.

On the other hand I fell in love with Nature for exactly the opposite reason. Spirit Guardians, heavy armour and Thorn Whip does rock. Spike growth enhanced area of effect interactions and elemental resistance at will is (in some campaigns) one of the best support abilities out there. It took me a while to realise in this case the value of some of the support spells like speak with animals, though that was DM dependant and I already loved the subclass.

[Jon talks a lot]

Reading this thread has changed another of my opinions. I'm starting to realize that nature clerics are a lot better than I used to rate them.

[Eldariel]

Nature Clerics are IMHO the weakest Clerics but that doesn't make them bad. Cleric is a solid class, and they get few of the Druid's best toys (Plant Growth is insane, Spike Growth is good & Druidtrips are nice on frontliners - Thorn Whip in particular as mentioned, especially when you have so many zone control tools). Them being the weakest just speaks for the strength of the other domains.

[Theodoxus]

I used to think that having limited magic items, fewer metamagic types, limited weapon attributes and a tiny pool of feats was refreshing. Now I crave to expand on what the game has.

I want my keen longsword; my Maximize Spell, my Critical Hit multiplier, my Combat Reflexes...

I hear these things were sacrificed on the alter of Bounded Accuracy, but they don't really affect the numbers, do they. 5E is a simpler game. That's really all there is to it. And I'm now bored of the simplicity of it all. But I can't go back to 3E; can't find anyone to even try 4E. So, I'm stuck with 5E and its oversimplified rules. Which I once loved. And now I loathe.

[Tanarii]

I used to think Mile Mearls was the worst thing that ever happened to D&D.

Then he spearheaded 5e. Then he stepped back and the new team took over, and we got Tasha's.

Now I see he was exactly the designer D&D needed, and he's already missed.

[arnin77]

I used to enjoy multiclassing my characters but now I don’t like it anymore.

[Kane0]

TheUser changed my mind on Spell Points

Grod changed my mind on Psionics

Bjarkmundur changed my mind on a lot of ‘new player experience’ stuff

Many over time have refined my opinions on Rangers and TWF

That said i’ve been hanging around since before 5e was released so I imagine i’ve contributed to the consensus as much as it has affected my own views.

[Tanarii]

That said i’ve been hanging around since before 5e was released so I imagine i’ve contributed to the consensus as much as it has affected my own views.
The biggest one I know I've changed some viewpoints on, but not always totally changed minds, are:
- Alignment as motivational, not descriptive or proscriptive.
- Passive in "Passive Check" means the player doesn't roll a die, not that the PC isn't doing anything

[Kane0]

- Passive in "Passive Check" means the player doesn't roll a die, not that the PC isn't doing anything

Like breathing until someone points it out :P

[Asisreo1]

I've changed opinions on Champions being great. I still think they're needed in terms of simplicity's sake but a few boosts in power could be used.

I dislike the bard more than I ever had, even though I've always disliked bards. At first, it was just fundamentally not liking the characters they were in fiction but I also dislike their mechanics in 5e.

I changed my minds about clerics early on. I thought they were roughly average but now I think they're the best class bar none.

I've also changed my mind about the underlying math and what's important in the game. To give an idea, what's better? Spending $10 with a 50% chance to get $20 or getting $10 upfront. Now imagine that with DPR, does that change?

[Morty]

I'm not sure how much it's a change, as such, but I've come to realize that paladins and bards are probably the best-designed classes in the game and other classes should be more like than them than they currently are.

[stoutstien]

-Well balanced encounters are rarely the most memorable ones.

-removing rules and mechanics can lead to a better and more engaging gameplay.

-never block a party's plan B.

[Jon talks a lot]

-Well balanced encounters are rarely the most memorable ones.

I don't balance my encounters at all. I do what is beneficial to the narrative. If you want to start shooting arrows at that dragon at level 2, be my guest. Don't expect me to just say "rocks fall, dragon dies, looks like you got lucky"

[nickl_2000]

1/3 casters, when I looked at 5e to begin with I thought that Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights were pretty much useless. Their casting never got high enough to make a significant difference in the campaign.

Now I adore them, I love the versatility of the classes giving them the ability to shine in many different places.

[Warder]

I used to think that having limited magic items, fewer metamagic types, limited weapon attributes and a tiny pool of feats was refreshing. Now I crave to expand on what the game has.

I want my keen longsword; my Maximize Spell, my Critical Hit multiplier, my Combat Reflexes...

I hear these things were sacrificed on the alter of Bounded Accuracy, but they don't really affect the numbers, do they. 5E is a simpler game. That's really all there is to it. And I'm now bored of the simplicity of it all. But I can't go back to 3E; can't find anyone to even try 4E. So, I'm stuck with 5E and its oversimplified rules. Which I once loved. And now I loathe.

I'm with you here on all these things, except loathing 5e - I don't, I think it's probably the best edition yet. But I think its greatness is squandered by WotC's complete reluctance to do anything that remotely resembles "complex" gameplay. I use quotation marks since I reject the notion that just because something isn't simple, it's complex - that's just not true. There are many shades of gray in between, and only designing for the simplest end of the spectrum is 5e's biggest issue, I feel.

But to the topic at hand, I used to believe that balance was a key part of TTRPGs, but I don't anymore. Class design, race design, encounter design - it doesn't matter if things aren't well balanced. All that matters is that players don't continually overshadow each other, that everyone feels good at their own niche, and that the story moves along. People (or at least those in the groups I've played with) will have fun as long as they feel like their characters line up with what they had envisioned for them. In fact, imbalances can often create a lot of fun and memorable moments. I remember the times I almost died or the times we absolutely crushed an encounter far more than I do the ones that presented a proper but not overwhelming challenge.

[Morty]

But to the topic at hand, I used to believe that balance was a key part of TTRPGs, but I don't anymore. Class design, race design, encounter design - it doesn't matter if things aren't well balanced. All that matters is that players don't continually overshadow each other, that everyone feels good at their own niche, and that the story moves along. People (or at least those in the groups I've played with) will have fun as long as they feel like their characters line up with what they had envisioned for them. In fact, imbalances can often create a lot of fun and memorable moments. I remember the times I almost died or the times we absolutely crushed an encounter far more than I do the ones that presented a proper but not overwhelming challenge.

"Everyone feels good at their own niche and players don't overshadow each other" is what balance means. The idea that it has to mean perfect balance always is only really used by people who oppose it, as a strawman argument.

[EggKookoo]

I have different viewpoints now (compared to starting with 5e around 2016) based on a better understanding of the mechanics and the intent behind them. I wouldn't say it necessarily meant a shift in opinion, but...

I understand what CR means, and more importantly what it doesn't mean.

I get what action economy means, and how easy it is to unbalance an encounter just by messing with that even if I don't change the nominal threat or challenge of an encounter otherwise.

I've learned that PCs are generally designed to be as complex as they can be without (hopefully) overwhelming the player. Adding new features or magic items with complex features often tips the scales too far. Better to replace or modify features, or ideally simplify something that by RAW is a bit complicated.

I've learned my players care mostly about decisions, not dice. Dice are often part of resolving decisions, and players like rolling dice in that context (which includes combat). But otherwise, dice get in the way. This has manifested in me leaning more on passives, and using passives to generate DCs. I let my players use their passive initiative score, for example, rather than rolling. I also will avoid opposed checks if possible, and instead determine who is more the active side and use a passive on the other side to get a DC.

My opinion on some things have changed, only to come around to the original position...

I liked D&D's simple linear HP system at first. Then I thought it doesn't really fit with the d20 check/save mechanism of the rest of the game. So I toyed with a "fortitude check" system where the creature made a check to see if it took an "injury." Then I realized a gradual diminishment of HP gave the player a good barometer for PC survivability and now I like the existing HP mechanic for what it does.

I started my 5e campaign using conventional XP, awarding players for defeating or overcoming challenges and encounters (and traps). Then I switched to milestone leveling under the assumption that it provided a smoother, more story-driven leveling experience. I realized I'm not good at determining when the PCs should level and I ended up just calculating XP under the hood. Eventually I dropped the pretense and just resumed with conventional XP.

Some of my opinions have actually changed, at least to some degree...

I used to be pretty firmly in the camp that says HP are not meat-points. I didn't like the implication that PCs were all Wolverine, healing up near-death injuries in an hour or overnight. My justification for HP loss and recovery was that it simply wasn't physical to any significant degree. I understood complaints that that removed something essential from the concept of combat and injury, but I didn't see an alternative. Until it occurred to me that HP loss and HP recovery don't necessarily need to be the same thing. I can twist my ankle (physical injury) but be more or less "fine" in a couple days, even if my ankle still hurts and is technically still injured. So now I view HP loss as at least half-physical, but HP recovery doesn't necessarily mean the injury has healed up. It just means the injury is no longer a danger. That dagger wound is still there, but it's no longer bleeding out (as long as it doesn't get hit again) and you can pretty much fight fine even if it still hurts.

Some opinions haven't budged, or have only gotten stronger over time...

I like classes and levels. They make running (and playing IMO) the game easier. I don't buy into the idea that classless or level-less games are automatically better.

I resist any suggestion or implication that the game rules represent something perceptible to the creatures in the game. The rules are UI, not physics. This attitude helps me deal with mechanical inconsistency and ambiguity (like the HP thing).

While I will steal from published adventures, in my heart a "true" D&D setting is one created by the players, usually the DM although the rest often have input. Worldbuilding is one of the primary joys I have as a DM.

The DM should design encounters to hurt the party, but also root for the party. If you beat my encounter but it's a tough fight, I "win" too.

Cats have darkvision. Fight me.

[Warder]

"Everyone feels good at their own niche and players don't overshadow each other" is what balance means. The idea that it has to mean perfect balance always is only really used by people who oppose it, as a strawman argument.

I don't really think so. Or, well, at least not when it comes to the way the community talks about it, whenever a new UA is released, or when reviewing homebrew, etc. The community has a view of balance that WotC themselves rarely has - the demand for a "perfect" balance comes up over and over. I think as long as the fighter gets to feel tough and tanky and the wizard gets to feel like they're above the laws of physics it's good enough, and that's rarely a matter of exact numbers.

[Segev]

I don't really think so. Or, well, at least not when it comes to the way the community talks about it, whenever a new UA is released, or when reviewing homebrew, etc. The community has a view of balance that WotC themselves rarely has - the demand for a "perfect" balance comes up over and over. I think as long as the fighter gets to feel tough and tanky and the wizard gets to feel like they're above the laws of physics it's good enough, and that's rarely a matter of exact numbers.

I dunno, the only time I see people really call things "unbalanced," they're talking in terms of reasons why the thing either doesn't fill its own niche as well as other options, or how it becomes THE option to play a particular niche. Maybe some will use "balance" when they really mean "doesn't do what the fiction seems to indicate it should," but I think that use is rare; other terms tend to get used for those complaints, in my experience.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I dunno, the only time I see people really call things "unbalanced," they're talking in terms of reasons why the thing either doesn't fill its own niche as well as other options, or how it becomes THE option to play a particular niche. Maybe some will use "balance" when they really mean "doesn't do what the fiction seems to indicate it should," but I think that use is rare; other terms tend to get used for those complaints, in my experience.

I've never cared about balance between the classes, since like 3e, but balance between the classes and the rest of the game is where balance matters.

Wizards are gonna wreck Fighters in terms of... Everything. Just a fact with how strong magic is. But if you make the Fighter balanced versus the game then it won't matter if Wizards are better.

If the classes were designed better, both Fighters and Wizards, this wouldn't be such a problem. Wizards being just spells is a design issue just as much as Fighters being just weapon attacks.

+++++

Another things I've changed my opinion about is the idea that we need purely martial classes.

5e has 3 non-magical classes and one of those classes only has a single subclass that keeps them non-magical. So it's like, 2.1 classes that are non-magical.

If D&D wants to go away from martial as a power source, I'm fine with it, as long as they replace it with something that isn't specifically Arcane or Divine Magic... Enter the Monk and Psionics.

The Psionic Fist in 3e and Monk in 4e were Psionic characters. In 5e the Monk isn't Arcane and isn't Divine, but is "magic"... Which is pretty much a way of saying Psionic w/o saying Psionic (not the only way, but a way).

So, explain the martials as low grade psionic, Psions can be their own thing and don't have to be core. The triangle then becomes Arcane (external magic taken), Divine (external magic given) , Psionic (internal magic). If this is what it takes to make Martials stay relevant past ~8th level, then I can be down with it.

[Segev]

In 5e the Monk isn't Arcane and isn't Divine, but is "magic"... Which is pretty much a way of saying Psionic w/o saying Psionic (not the only way, but a way).

I strongly disagree with this statement. "Not arcane nor divine, but magic," doesn't mean "psionic," necessarily. "Psionics" is a magic that is neither arcane nor divine, but it isn't the only magic that is neither arcane nor divine.

Monks feel very not-psionic to me. I won't argue with 4e making them such for its system, but I will argue with trying to shoe-horn 5e monks into being "psionic" or to shoe-horn "psionics" into fitting "5e monk."

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I strongly disagree with this statement. "Not arcane nor divine, but magic," doesn't mean "psionic," necessarily. "Psionics" is a magic that is neither arcane nor divine, but it isn't the only magic that is neither arcane nor divine.

Monks feel very not-psionic to me. I won't argue with 4e making them such for its system, but I will argue with trying to shoe-horn 5e monks into being "psionic" or to shoe-horn "psionics" into fitting "5e monk."

Which is exactly what I said with the NOT THE ONLY WAY, BUT A WAY line.

Monks are very much psionic as their magic is specifically detailed just like Psionics are... As an internal energy source that living creatures have.

Ki = Psionic except that people just don't like Monks being psionic so it's totally not Psionics and yet is totally the same thing in all but name.


Edit: on mobile, originally hit the B (bold) button and not the I (italics) button

[Morty]

I don't really think so. Or, well, at least not when it comes to the way the community talks about it, whenever a new UA is released, or when reviewing homebrew, etc. The community has a view of balance that WotC themselves rarely has - the demand for a "perfect" balance comes up over and over. I think as long as the fighter gets to feel tough and tanky and the wizard gets to feel like they're above the laws of physics it's good enough, and that's rarely a matter of exact numbers.

Then maybe the current state of the game simply doesn't match up to those people's expectation of giving everyone their niche and preventing overshadowing. Which isn't the same thing as demanding "perfect balance", whatever that is.

[Unoriginal]

"Everyone feels good at their own niche and players don't overshadow each other" is what balance means. The idea that it has to mean perfect balance always is only really used by people who oppose it, as a strawman argument.

Or by those who made D&D 4e.

[carnomancy]

I think 5e in particular has been a particularly rough edition for me. I've always liked the weirder aspects of DnD like the more monstrous player races or the Psionics systems. The monster races seem to have it better now then when I cut my teeth (3.5), but Psionics has it so much worse with play test material being teased since 2015 and little to show for it even now. The community just feels more hostile towards psionics stuff nowadays. Used to be we'd at least get our own book, but now it seems more important to appease the people who don't like that part of dnd.

I kinda wanted to elaborate a little more, but I find myself struggling to write about it. Dnd is just feeling smaller and more hostile to me.

[Asisreo1]

1/3 casters, when I looked at 5e to begin with I thought that Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights were pretty much useless. Their casting never got high enough to make a significant difference in the campaign.

Now I adore them, I love the versatility of the classes giving them the ability to shine in many different places.
Right. Although they still derive their abilities from spells, they are exactly the class people that are adamant about the Martial v Casters debate are wanting. They're complex with a good amount of utility outside of combat but has the abilities of either the rogue or fighter's base chassis.

The existence of these classes makes me wonder if the issue is about actual balance or just pure semantics.

[Warder]

Then maybe the current state of the game simply doesn't match up to those people's expectation of giving everyone their niche and preventing overshadowing. Which isn't the same thing as demanding "perfect balance", whatever that is.

Maybe? I don't know, but that's not really important to me either. But I used to spend a lot of time in one of the most prominent homebrewing communities for 5e, and it was clear to me that any deviance from established balance norms was considered pariah by large parts of the community, no matter what. That's in fact what made me change my mind when it came to balance in TTRPGs, the strict adherence to mechanical norms which favored the ever-nebulous balance in favor of creativity. Your mileage may vary, of course.

[Unoriginal]

Which is exactly what I said with the NOT THE ONLY WAY, BUT A WAY line.

Monks are very much psionic as their magic is specifically detailed just like Psionics are... As an internal energy source that living creatures have.

Ki = Psionic except that people just don't like Monks being psionic so it's totally not Psionics and yet is totally the same thing in all but name.


It's not at all It's not just a "but they're the same thing except the name" like you're saying, the lore of psionics and the lore of ki is different, and how they work is different as well.

Even at its most basic, "you can manipulate the energy all living beings have in this setting" is not the same as "you have psychic powers".

So no, Monks are not psionics.

And they have no reason to be unless you're trying to reduce the numbers of ways for people to make fantastical things.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I think 5e in particular has been a particularly rough edition for me. I've always liked the weirder aspects of DnD like the more monstrous player races or the Psionics systems. The monster races seem to have it better now then when I cut my teeth (3.5), but Psionics has it so much worse with play test material being teased since 2015 and little to show for it even now. The community just feels more hostile towards psionics stuff nowadays. Used to be we'd at least get our own book, but now it seems more important to appease the people who don't like that part of dnd.

I kinda wanted to elaborate a little more, but I find myself struggling to write about it. Dnd is just feeling smaller and more hostile to me.

One thing I've noticed about 5e... Uh... Fans... Is that you aren't allowed to like things that aren't specifically how 5e does things.

I like parts of 3e and love 4e, and I love the parts of 5e that come directly from 4e, but if you say stuff like "subclasses should have been more modular" you get stuff like "go back to 3e/4e" when that option doesn't actually fix anything.

I don't think the Wizard is a well designed class because it gets very little class features that take advantage of it's fluff. It would be ok if every class did this, see 4e, but not when some do and some don't.

But people flip their collective tables when you say "the wizard needs wizard class features".



It's not at all It's not just a "but they're the same thing except the name" like you're saying, the lore of psionics and the lore of ki is different, and how they work is different as well.

Even at its most basic, "you can manipulate the energy all living beings have in this setting" is not the same as "you have psychic powers".

So no, Monks are not psionics.

And they have no reason to be unless you're trying to reduce the numbers of ways for people to make fantastical things.

Except they are the same.

It's like if I wanted to start arguing that Wizards and Sorcerers don't both use arcane magic just because their lore says one uses intelligence to bend magic around them and the other IS magic and naturally just bends magic.


Psionics is not just psychic powers. I hate how people seem to just go that direction and ignore all the other psionic stuff. Look at Psychic Warriors, Soul Knifes, Psionic Fists, and tell me the difference between them and a Monk. There is none. They take the psi/ki energy within them and manipulate it in order to manipulate themselves or others.

Monks are psionic in all but name, if you can't get past that then that's on you. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

[MrStabby]

Monks are psionic in all but name, if you can't get past that then that's on you. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

Well yes, for a certain given definition of Psionic. Admittedly not a definition that one would call common, but I guess if you can create your own definition then sure.

For me one example test would be what would happenwith something "psionic" under the effectof feeblemind and is that the same thing that happens to monks? Well something Psionic wouldin my mind not really work so well following a failed save vs feeblemind - monk's Ki based abilities remain unaltered (though they might be less likely to chose to use them).

[EggKookoo]

One thing I've noticed about 5e... Uh... Fans... Is that you aren't allowed to like things that aren't specifically how 5e does things.

I like 5e a lot and I think it's the best edition so far, but it has tons of room for improvement and I think 3e did more than a few things better.

[Segev]

Psionics is not just psychic powers. I hate how people seem to just go that direction and ignore all the other psionic stuff. Look at Psychic Warriors, Soul Knifes, Psionic Fists, and tell me the difference between them and a Monk. There is none. They take the psi/ki energy within them and manipulate it in order to manipulate themselves or others.

Monks are psionic in all but name, if you can't get past that then that's on you. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

...nothing about the psychic warrior is "just like the monk." Even less so the soul knife. I don't even care if you mean 5e or 3.PF, here, despite PsyWarriors and Soulknives being VERY different between those editions.

The psychic warrior can take a feat to get one tangential power that monks get mid-to-high-level ("running on walls"). But if a psychic warrior in 3.PF wants to fight unarmed, he does it via Claws of the Beast, which is an entirely different style and theme than a monk's unarmed strikes. In 5e, the psychic warrior subclass of fighter gets telekinetic features. The soul knife rogue gets telepathy and bolstered skills. You've got some room to argue that the level 9 soul knife feature and the TCE optional monk feature both let them spend a resource to improve accuracy after the fact, but that's like saying that wizards and battle masters are the same because battle masters can parry and wizards can cast shield.

And that's not even getting into the fact that the 5e soul knife's one thing that actually feels really "psionic" is the telepathy feature. The other stuff they get wouldn't say "psionic" if it weren't for the names given to them. They could have taken that "death themed" rogue subclass's flavor and used the 5e soul knife's mechanics: the "psychic blades" become "deadly touch" and maybe keep psychic damage or maybe get necrotic damage. The "psi-bolstered knack" becomes "spirit-channelling" where the boost to skill checks comes from the guidance of the dead souls you host. Heck, if they'd wanted to, the psychic whispers could be spirit messengers!

So, no, I don't see how the monk is "the same" as the psychic warrior or the soul knife in either 5e or 3.PF. To the contrary, they're very clearly distinct.

[Lokishade]

I've been longing for the latter levels for so long I had forgotten how awesome the first levels are.

Sure, epic level shenanigans are fun. Who doesn't like to bully a kingdom into submission through repeated use of Earthquake? Or to control the will of 12 individuals undetected for 8 hours, every day, undetected? Or to attempt to bind a Solar to your will for 6 months just for kicks?

But there is tension and meaning in every choice you make when you only have one hit die. At the start of a campaign, any innocuous object can turn the tide if used creatively. Solutions are shockingly simple, yet they still make you feel clever.

Enemies are as vulnerable as you are. At higher levels, you need walls of force to separate the enemy, but at early levels, you just need a door, a piton and a hammer. Dousing an enemy in oil and then lighting it up is actually devastating at level 1. And ball bearings have so many uses.

That sort of down to earth satisfaction.

Which is why I'll never change my mind about Tasha's. Too many options ruin a game where most of the fun lies in overcoming challenges by finding clever solutions.

[Theodoxus]

For me one example test would be what would happenwith something "psionic" under the effectof feeblemind and is that the same thing that happens to monks? Well something Psionic wouldin my mind not really work so well following a failed save vs feeblemind - monk's Ki based abilities remain unaltered (though they might be less likely to chose to use them).

Why? Looks at the UA Psion. Does it "cast spells, activate magic items, understand language, or communicate in any intelligible way" when using psionic powers? As written, both a psion and a monk would be able to manifest psionic and ki powered abilities while feebleminded. Unless the spell was specifically updated to include psionics sans ki, you'd have a point - and if psionics actually become core in 5E, we'll have to see.


...nothing about the psychic warrior is "just like the monk." Even less so the soul knife. I don't even care if you mean 5e or 3.PF, here, despite PsyWarriors and Soulknives being VERY different between those editions.

The psychic warrior can take a feat to get one tangential power that monks get mid-to-high-level ("running on walls"). But if a psychic warrior in 3.PF wants to fight unarmed, he does it via Claws of the Beast, which is an entirely different style and theme than a monk's unarmed strikes. In 5e, the psychic warrior subclass of fighter gets telekinetic features. The soul knife rogue gets telepathy and bolstered skills. You've got some room to argue that the level 9 soul knife feature and the TCE optional monk feature both let them spend a resource to improve accuracy after the fact, but that's like saying that wizards and battle masters are the same because battle masters can parry and wizards can cast shield.

And that's not even getting into the fact that the 5e soul knife's one thing that actually feels really "psionic" is the telepathy feature. The other stuff they get wouldn't say "psionic" if it weren't for the names given to them. They could have taken that "death themed" rogue subclass's flavor and used the 5e soul knife's mechanics: the "psychic blades" become "deadly touch" and maybe keep psychic damage or maybe get necrotic damage. The "psi-bolstered knack" becomes "spirit-channelling" where the boost to skill checks comes from the guidance of the dead souls you host. Heck, if they'd wanted to, the psychic whispers could be spirit messengers!

So, no, I don't see how the monk is "the same" as the psychic warrior or the soul knife in either 5e or 3.PF. To the contrary, they're very clearly distinct.

I think SoMs point is that they're themed on the same wavelength, not that they replicate the same things. And I agree, especially when looking historically through the ways psionics have been portrayed. Take 2nd Edition, where Psionics finally moved out of a fun table everyone got to roll on, and became a tangible thing you can build with. A 5E monk would fit seamlessly into 2E Dark Sun for instance. And while the 5E Monk entry speaks of 'magic of the universe', the internal power source they tap into matches far better with the Will and the Way than connecting to the Weave.

Apparently, the idea of psionic powered Monks is anathema to some. And that's fine. The gamespace is large enough to hold both concepts. But I find it odd that one can't at least conceptualize Ki as Psionic power...

[Jon talks a lot]

Monk Psionics and balancing classes are derailing this thread.

[Eldariel]

But more to the point, I've mostly learnt how little things have changed. When I came to the edition, I started with the idea that the balance issues of 3e would be greatly diminished and every character would be an equal contributor (I treat 3e as the precursor rather than 4e for obvious reasons). This was reinforced by what I saw in my first 5e game (one-shot on level 3), where every class had all sorts of cool abilities. I thought that every class had been given cool stuff, which looks to be the case for the first 3 levels, and that everyone would shine at their given specialty while also being okay elsewhere.

Reality struck me in the face pretty hard when I looked at Lore Bard and Arcane Trickster Rogue side by side, and then played them on levels other than level 3. Forum discussions only served to confirm what I already suspected based on my initial readthrough: this edition is the most caster-facing yet (since all the advantages non-casters had over casters have pretty much been given to everyone [attack bonus scaling, HP scaling, armor/AC, skills, etc.] while a small portion of caster-only stuff is very sparingly available at great cost in Ritual Caster, Magic Initiate and 1/3 caster subclasses). Not because casters are stronger than ever (they aren't) but because everyone else has the least in terms of unique stuff they can do. Indeed, I've learnt that it's very hard to come up with anything casters can't shine at on any given level: mundane niches have been written out of the game. I've also learnt that I'm not in target demographic so I'll never get to play a complex martial as long as WotC is using their current design paradigm.


In other words, I've changed my mind on the system as a whole; I was initially really impressed but now I'm largely "meh" but play it because it's the only game I have groups for, and don't have the time nor the resources to switch at this juncture.

[Waterdeep Merch]

As a player, defense and healing was my priority for a while. Having been a DM long enough now to see the big picture, it's switched to pure offense and control.

Caution in general has given way to risky behavior. I'm actually a little disappointed when my stakes or penalties aren't more impactful. I lowkey hate being given too much power for that reason, or fighting weak enemies. I also don't always finish off my foes, as it limits roleplay later in the name of paranoia and silly bloodlust. I much prefer villains swearing vengeance. Come at me, bro.

I've come to love open world games over linear ones. I'm a lot more comfy modifying published adventures, too. Third party went from something I never really touched to 90% of my library. I've also gotten a lot faster at talking to players when they become a problem and booting them when they refuse to change.

Rogue went from my second favorite class to one I just don't play. I still love them conceptually, but I can make a skill monkey out of pretty much any class with some effort and I think the core rogue class is otherwise kinda boring (note my preference for control and offense in the first point).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Got a new one.

I was always on board with the magic damage and non-magic damage divide.

I'm no longer for that. For now on, in my games, damage is damage (Mr. Incredible).

Now, I'm all for specific materials bypassing damage reduction for a roleplay purpose... But fire and magic fire are the same thing.

Being punched in the face and getting a boot thrown at you by a spell, bludgeoning.

[EggKookoo]

But fire and magic fire are the same thing.

I've found that most things that resist X damage only specify "nonmagical" for bludgeoning/slashing/piercing, so in the end it doesn't usually matter if it's magical or mundane fire. I'm sure there are exceptions somewhere.

[Man_Over_Game]

Bjarkmundur changed my mind on a lot of ‘new player experience’ stuff

Miss that guy.

I learned that just because something sucks mathematically doesn't mean that it sucks for everyone. Some folks like "too simple". Having a bunch of options sets an expectation for yourself that you must learn and use those options. And while I don't agree with folks with that mindset, I can understand that I don't have to. People have different priorities, so it's not like every Fighter/Wizard/Ranger/ETC. needs to be perfect to be enjoyed.

[Morty]

Rogue went from my second favorite class to one I just don't play. I still love them conceptually, but I can make a skill monkey out of pretty much any class with some effort and I think the core rogue class is otherwise kinda boring (note my preference for control and offense in the first point).

That mirrors my experience. Rogue was the first class I played in 5E and I was initially happy with it - I could actually play a ranged rogue without the system screwing me over at every opportunity! But as we neared level 6, my disappointment grew. The class turned out boring and one-note. I wouldn't play a rogue in 5E again. Or any non-caster, really.

[Pex]

5E specifically

I used to hate Concentration. I definitely missed multiple buffs. However I have come to appreciate the simplicity of play. It is a nerf of magic power, but it's not "punishment" as I like to say. I notice the difference between 3E magic and 5E magic. The lower power still makes for good play, and 5E spellcasters are by no means weak. Spellcaster characters still do great things. I still believe particular spells should not be Concentration, mainly buff spells meant to be used in melee, but Concentration in general I'm fine with. Related, I'm also ok with the lower number of spell slots and especially only having one spell slot for levels above 5. What helps is lower level spells remain relevant at the mid to high level play. Cast the big boom 7th level spell when you need it, but 1st and 2nd level spells still matter.

I used to hate the gritty rest rules. It read total DM tyranny to me to deny players their stuff. However, I joined a game that had a modified version of it, a long rest was three days. I was able to discuss my concerns about it with the DM at Session 0. He helped me discover that my issue isn't how long it takes to long rest in game world time. What matters is the ratio of long rests per game session. Players are supposed to use their stuff and get it back, but using it only really matters during the game session. A long rest can take a game world week, but when you end the game session and the next game session takes place one game world week later I'm not missing out on anything. There is an immediate affect on short rest resources, but good pacing accounts for fun in efficient use of resources. Today I'm still not fond of gritty rest, but I now have a better perspective in discussing the matter with the DM in session 0. I can ask better questions to understand how pacing will work.

Sorry, but I still want example Skill DC tables. :smallyuk:

[Ionathus]

I used to think that starting the party in a tavern was a worn-out cliche and there were a million, more creative ways to get the action started.

Guess where my latest campaign began? Taverns are awesome. They're simple, and rowdy, and cozy, and have a wealth of people ready to gripe about their daily problems (read: quest hooks), and the PCs get a nice moment to introduce themselves in a social setting and bond before they have to go back-to-back against bandits or lizardfolk or whatever when they inevitably attack the tavern and threaten the funny bartender that everybody now wants to protect with their lives.

[Tanarii]

I came into 5e reading stealth (and many other rules) like 3e and 4e, parsing rules carefully trying to figure out how the interactions and edge cases worked.

Still kinda relapse from time to time, but now I understand the 5e ability check system in general, and vagueness of several other parts of the rules like stealth, are supposed to be there to enable the DM use the rules as a flexible tool, not to have to be a rules lawyer.

[micahaphone]

TheUser changed my mind on Spell Points

Grod changed my mind on Psionics

Bjarkmundur changed my mind on a lot of ‘new player experience’ stuff

Many over time have refined my opinions on Rangers and TWF

That said i’ve been hanging around since before 5e was released so I imagine i’ve contributed to the consensus as much as it has affected my own views.

Can you link to Grod's arguments for psionics? I've personally never been a fan of it in fantasy settings, probably because I associate it as "when you want magic in a sci fi setting".

[Kane0]

Can you link to Grod's arguments for psionics? I've personally never been a fan of it in fantasy settings, probably because I associate it as "when you want magic in a sci fi setting".

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?593739-Psionics-Reloaded-the-Psion-and-Psychic-Warrior-ALL-DISCIPLINES-NOW-COMPLETE-(PEACH)

There was a discussion thread for basically every psionics UA released as well, those gradually altered my opinions. This one was the collation of those talks into a homebrew that basically turned me around on psionics. I thought it was basically a dead end that is either too similar to magic to have a place or too different and disconnected a subsystem to be taken up by the wider playerbase. Turns out a happy medium does exist, even if it is slightly different for each individual.

[Dark.Revenant]

I used to hate the gritty rest rules. It read total DM tyranny to me to deny players their stuff. However, I joined a game that had a modified version of it, a long rest was three days. I was able to discuss my concerns about it with the DM at Session 0. He helped me discover that my issue isn't how long it takes to long rest in game world time. What matters is the ratio of long rests per game session. Players are supposed to use their stuff and get it back, but using it only really matters during the game session. A long rest can take a game world week, but when you end the game session and the next game session takes place one game world week later I'm not missing out on anything. There is an immediate affect on short rest resources, but good pacing accounts for fun in efficient use of resources. Today I'm still not fond of gritty rest, but I now have a better perspective in discussing the matter with the DM in session 0. I can ask better questions to understand how pacing will work.

Experience firsthand with a rule always trumps theoretics. My own experience with gritty rest was a campaign I played almost two years ago, for about three months, playing weekly as a Paladin. We had one long rest.

[Ir0ns0ul]

I used to think that Treatmonk was the maximum authority about optimization before I finally met LudicSavant here. It’s not only about his mathmagic skills or his brilliant builds who are flavorful, simple and highly effective. It’s about a super nice person who genuinely shares all his amazing work with the community without expecting nothing in return so far — but everyone is anxious to see his YouTube channel. :-)

[Jon talks a lot]

I used to think that Treatmonk was the maximum authority about optimization before I finally met LudicSavant here. It’s not only about his mathmagic skills or his brilliant builds who are flavorful, simple and highly effective. It’s about a super nice person who genuinely shares all his amazing work with the community without expecting nothing in return so far — but everyone is anxious to see his YouTube channel. :-)

This is probably the most correct opinion on here. LudicSavant is bar none the greatest asset of this community, and I'm truly happy that they are here to stay.

[MaxWilson]

I agree so much with this I caught myself starting a rant and deleted a paragraph of pure ire.

I've spent so much time assigning skill ranks to NPCs that never got to use them!

-DF

Huh. You do? Why?

I don't even always give NPCs all six ability scores up front. There's a major NPC Necromancer helping a party in a dungeon crawl right now and I haven't even had to decide yet what his Intelligence score is (although that's probably going to happen in the next couple of days), let alone his Wisdom or Charisma (both seem moderately high based on RP so far) or his Constitution (no clue, so I guess maybe 8-12, rolled randomly? he is pretty old but seems hearty enough to make 10-12 plausible, like an aging one-eyed greyhound) or even his HP (I'll figure out how close he is to dying once he starts taking damage; for now it doesn't matter, wouldn't change any of his decisions).

I encourage PCs to take the same approach, especially if chargen time would delay starting the game. Leave your languages as wildcards if you want--at the point where knowing Elvish runes or eavesdropping on Giant byplay would be relevant, at that point I'll ask if you know Elvish or Norse and you can decide then.

[Theodoxus]

I guess I've also changed my opinion on generating stats. When 5E first came out, I was all for point buy, because I'd been using it solely for 3.P for a decade. Then a table I was DMing asked to roll stats in Session Zero and I allowed them to roll sets, and everyone had to use the same set (arranged however they'd like). I used that method for most of my non-AL DMing tables. But just before Covid hit and all my gaming stopped, I decided to just let players pick their stats. It's a great way to weed out the munchkins (not to toss out of the group, unless they were horrible people, but to know how to build encounters that would engage them). 8/10 players in my stable were actually totally fine with picking stats. They'd gravitate towards something along a 18/16/14/12/10 array (sometimes swapping the 18 and 16 for a pair of 17s. One guy wanted slightly better than average in all stats and went with straight 14s, and the true munchkin in group ended up playing a monk with 5 18s and and strength of 8 (was decidedly NOT a grappler).

During Covid though, I've been doing a LOT of restructuring of my primary campaign homeworld and am dropping attributes scores completely. Haven't decided how I'll generate mods - currently thinking of using the AGE table, but might just stick to letting players pick. It works.

[EggKookoo]

One thing I'm softening on is my stance on multiclassing. I never loved it, but I'm starting to come around.

[MaxWilson]

Psionics is not just psychic powers. I hate how people seem to just go that direction and ignore all the other psionic stuff. Look at Psychic Warriors, Soul Knifes, Psionic Fists, and tell me the difference between them and a Monk. There is none. They take the psi/ki energy within them and manipulate it in order to manipulate themselves or others.

Monks are psionic in all but name, if you can't get past that then that's on you. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

[thinks about this argument, then rejects it]

No. Despite some superficial similarities, what monks do and what psionicists and wild talents do (using the Complete Psionics Handbook as a reference point) are quite different.

(1) Many monk abilities like wall running and evasion are always on. Psionic powers, like spells, require activation and a power check. Activation is usually an action and only in rare cases (like Energy Absorbtion) a reaction.

(2) Psionic powers draw upon body, mind, and spirit (PSPs calculated via Con, Int, Wis). They have access to a limited and individualized palette of abilities fueled by PSPs. They can research new psionic powers over time through meditation.

Monks draw upon ki (calculated by level) and spend it primarily in physical ways (missile deflection, stunning strike), but many of their abilities don't even require ki. The suite of abilities is generally fixed for monks of a particular type (elemonks as a rare and limited exception). They cannot research new monk powers thorough meditation.

(3) Psionicists can interact directly with the psionic powers of other creatures via Synaptic Static and Psionic Inflation. Monks, like wizards and priests, are unaffected by these powers.

(4) Many psionic effects such as awakening and empowering objects, long range telepathy, psychic surgery, mental domination, shapechanging/metamorphosis, planar summoning, and disintegration are totally outside the scope of normal monk abilities and would be unprecedented if done by a monk. Even teleportation is quite foreign to monks, with Shadow Step (thematically quite different) and astral travel via empty body as its closest and not-entirely-convincing analogues.

There are some similarities between ki and psionics but only at a thematic level. I can buy the idea of psionic powers that can affect ki, and I can even buy the idea of monks with minor psionic powers a la Eldritch Knights with minor magical powers, but psionics and ki are clearly not the same thing.

==================


Take 2nd Edition, where Psionics finally moved out of a fun table everyone got to roll on, and became a tangible thing you can build with. A 5E monk would fit seamlessly into 2E Dark Sun for instance. And while the 5E Monk entry speaks of 'magic of the universe', the internal power source they tap into matches far better with the Will and the Way than connecting to the Weave.

Apparently, the idea of psionic powered Monks is anathema to some. And that's fine. The gamespace is large enough to hold both concepts. But I find it odd that one can't at least conceptualize Ki as Psionic power...

For reasons given above, a 5E monk would stick out like a sore thumb among Dark Sun psionicists. The monk would be more plausible as the subject of psionic or biological experimentation than as an actual psionicist.

Monk : Psionicist :: Frankenstein's Monster : Mad Scientist.

===================


I've also changed my mind about the underlying math and what's important in the game. To give an idea, what's better? Spending $10 with a 50% chance to get $20 or getting $10 upfront. Now imagine that with DPR, does that change?

I'm curious what you're expecting people to say. My immediate thought is, "It doesn't really matter unless there are transaction costs to claiming the $20, then why bother," and then "yes, it does change a little because of discretization concerns, like overkill damage, but it still usually doesn't matter much (e.g. Magic Missile isn't better than it looks)." Is that what you were trying to get people to think with that analogy, or the opposite?

[Justin Sane]

I used to think Power Sources (Arcane, Divine, Psionics, Primal, etc) were important. Now, they're just a fluff descriptor.

[Tanarii]

I used to think Power Sources (Arcane, Divine, Psionics, Primal, etc) were important. Now, they're just a fluff descriptor.
I used to think fluff vs mechanics was something inherent to TTRPGs.

Now I understand it's just a model, and one that doesn't even apply to 5e (per the Devs).

[HappyDaze]

Thanks to this forum, I've changed my mind on 5e. For several years it was the system that, while I didn't particularly like it, I could make it work well enough to enjoy playing it with friends. I've since determined that I can't stand its combat system (including balancing combat) and that, beyond the combat system, it doesn't have much at all too it that other games don't do far better. So I dumped the group that pretty much exclusively plays 5e and have sought out other games.

[MaxWilson]

I've learned some tricks from this forum, but sometimes it's hard to keep track of what I learned where. One that I definitely learned on this forum is that any creature with legendary action attacks is stronger against groups of human tool-users than it appears, even if it doesn't have immunity to normal weapons, due to Dodge + legendary attack synergy.

For example, using this trick a beholder really can take on a whole platoon of hobgoblins and subjugate them. I'm not still sure that Astral Dreadnoughts deserve their reputation, because WOULD they Dodge? but it is at least theoretically possible for them to beat small armies escorting important convoys using this trick, which combined with killing the occasional powerful wizard caught by surprise is probably enough to justify their reputation. So this forum persuaded me that Astral Dreadnoughts are not totally lame.

[Eldariel]

I've learned some tricks from this forum, but sometimes it's hard to keep track of what I learned where. One that I definitely learned on this forum is that any creature with legendary action attacks is stronger against groups of human tool-users than it appears, even if it doesn't have immunity to normal weapons, due to Dodge + legendary attack synergy.

For example, using this trick a beholder really can take on a whole platoon of hobgoblins and subjugate them. I'm not still sure that Astral Dreadnoughts deserve their reputation, because WOULD they Dodge? but it is at least theoretically possible for them to beat small armies escorting important convoys using this trick, which combined with killing the occasional powerful wizard caught by surprise is probably enough to justify their reputation. So this forum persuaded me that Astral Dreadnoughts are not totally lame.

Oh yeah, I'll second this: I've come to appreciate Dodge a lot more over my stay in the forum (and this has lowered my estimation of Elven Accuracy a bit [though I still think it's great] since there's a number of enemies against which it's likely to be impossible to proc most of the time). Legendary creatures are one thing but spellcasters another: after Concentration spell has been dropped, the value of casting cantrips isn't actually that high so when it comes down to it, Dodging to maintain your Concentration is actually a pretty key move. This didn't really register as an option to me when I first learnt the system, but it's since become a mainstay of my caster play.

I also learnt to appreciate going prone as a caster a lot more when I started in these forums (along when I first started 5e) since I came to realise going prone is actually a free action and getting up doesn't cost you an action nor provoke or any such. This was actually something I think I first read some years ago in your post, Max.

[MrStabby]

I've learned some tricks from this forum, but sometimes it's hard to keep track of what I learned where. One that I definitely learned on this forum is that any creature with legendary action attacks is stronger against groups of human tool-users than it appears, even if it doesn't have immunity to normal weapons, due to Dodge + legendary attack synergy.

For example, using this trick a beholder really can take on a whole platoon of hobgoblins and subjugate them. I'm not still sure that Astral Dreadnoughts deserve their reputation, because WOULD they Dodge? but it is at least theoretically possible for them to beat small armies escorting important convoys using this trick, which combined with killing the occasional powerful wizard caught by surprise is probably enough to justify their reputation. So this forum persuaded me that Astral Dreadnoughts are not totally lame.

Although this itself leads into the power of reducing a creature's movement speed to zero and how important that can be sometimes.

[Demonslayer666]

My stances on things have been supported much more than my mind changed.

It has fixed/clarified a lot of rules for me, like Passive Checks, so I guess that counts, sort of.

I'm still in disagreement with many others here on how hiding and noticing things works, as well as illusions of mirrors, and magical darkness. :)

[BoutsofInsanity]

Some easy ones first.

I've come to the mindset that this is the most flexible system of D&D yet. You can run just about any kind of game, from hardcore survival/horror to heroic fantasy. Just scale up or down the power of the players and encounters. Want a more narrative game, use gritty realism. Want a dungeon crawl, use regular resting.

The rules are so flexible you can really do anything.

I've confirmed my opinion that short rest characters are fine, it's the gm who is gming wrong.

BUT I've also come to agree with majority forum opinion that the resting mechanic and player abilities could be tuned a lot better. And a hypothetical 6e making deliberate choices upon the alter of short/long rest mechanics for marital and caster characters would go a long way in making a new edition better. 5e feels like they accidentally fell into this dynamic. And I would like to see a system where it's a deliberate choice.


Man, What I've really learned is to not take the internet's opinion on things super seriously. In PF days I would scour these forums and just consume builds, advice, and all sorts of other stuff. Now, I check in to see if there are some interesting discussions, and perhaps ask some questions or check on what rulings there might be. But I no longer hold it to gospel anymore like I used too.

I just flat disagree with some of the opinions on here and elsewhere. Which is such a mental switch from several years ago. And that is ok.

[Xervous]

One thing I’ve come to understand and appreciate more fully is that there are countless different ways to play the game (a game even) and derive enjoyment from it. This, however, does not stop things like statistically flawed rules from being objectively bad. People enjoy Applebee’s, but that doesn’t change the fact it’s Applebee’s.

[KorvinStarmast]

I used to think Mile Mearls was the worst thing that ever happened to D&D. Then he spearheaded 5e. Then he stepped back and the new team took over, and we got Tasha's. Now I see he was exactly the designer D&D needed, and he's already missed. But he's only a part of the needed combo platter. Needs a wingman who can get crunchy when needed.
- Alignment as motivational, not descriptive or proscriptive.
- Passive in "Passive Check" means the player doesn't roll a die, not that the PC isn't doing anything Yes.

1/3 casters, when I looked at 5e to begin with I thought that Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights were pretty much useless. Took me a while to like them, now I love them.

but now I understand the 5e ability check system in general, and vagueness of several other parts of the rules like stealth, are supposed to be there to enable the DM use the rules as a flexible tool, not to have to be a rules lawyer. That took me a while to grasp.


This is probably the most correct opinion on here. LudicSavant is bar none the greatest asset of this community, and I'm truly happy that they are here to stay. yeah.

I used to think fluff vs mechanics was something inherent to TTRPGs.

Now I understand it's just a model, and one that doesn't even apply to 5e (per the Devs). I never thought it was anything other than rubbish. :smallcool:

What I didn't get at first:
Hit dice as a healing tool. Now I embrace it.

What I didn't like: action economy
Then I finally got it, and I like it.

What I hated: need a DC check to cast a scroll of your class of a higher level
Still hate it.

What I wasn't sure about: adv/Disad
Now that I've Dm'd for a bit, really like it.

What I still dislike: heavy armor is still underpowered.

What I really, really didn't like.
Your Saving throws not getting better as you go up in level. (Old D&D table style)
I have come to peace with that, but it still annoys me.

[EggKookoo]

What I hated: need a DC check to cast a scroll of your class of a higher level
Still hate it.

I dislike that you can't cast a spell from a scroll if it's not on your spell list. Seems to undermine the point of scrolls. It hasn't come up as an issue in my current campaign but if it does I'm likely to houserule that anyone can make the attempt, spellcaster or no. Maybe with a wild magic surge or something if it's not "your" spell, but still.

[Eldariel]

I'm curious what you're expecting people to say. My immediate thought is, "It doesn't really matter unless there are transaction costs to claiming the $20, then why bother," and then "yes, it does change a little because of discretization concerns, like overkill damage, but it still usually doesn't matter much (e.g. Magic Missile isn't better than it looks)." Is that what you were trying to get people to think with that analogy, or the opposite?

I've come to the same conclusion: while people theorycrafting the game are often very familiar with EV and averages, distribution and deviation are less considered even though they are very important on their own right. Even I mostly speak of variance. The thing that makes it matter is generally especially on the PC side the number of encounters. If you have a high variance ability (20 damage 50% of the time for instance), any given streak ("miss thrice in a row", "miss six consecutive times", "land six consecutive hits") is more likely to occur, which can have disastrous results on the PC side who might not be able to afford losing even once, if it occurs in a high stakes fight (of course, the reverse is also true but generally it's less impactful since it's still just one fight among the many while PCs dying is always just one total defeat away). Which is why, all else being equal, you definitely want to minimise variance. This is the reason 2d6 weapons are so much better than 1d12 (they would be even if the averages didn't favour 2d6), why Sleep is such a great spell (5d8 and no checks is just incredibly reliable with fairly low variance meaning the spell slot is just very rarely wasted). Variance is always important.

[Segev]

Increasing variance can be beneficial when dealing with DCs and other thresholds. The greater the variance, the higher you can theoretically succeed at. It also makes repeated efforts better.

[MaxWilson]

I've come to the same conclusion: while people theorycrafting the game are often very familiar with EV and averages, distribution and deviation are less considered even though they are very important on their own right. Even I mostly speak of variance. The thing that makes it matter is generally especially on the PC side the number of encounters. If you have a high variance ability (20 damage 50% of the time for instance), any given streak ("miss thrice in a row", "miss six consecutive times", "land six consecutive hits") is more likely to occur, which can have disastrous results on the PC side who might not be able to afford losing even once, if it occurs in a high stakes fight (of course, the reverse is also true but generally it's less impactful since it's still just one fight among the many while PCs dying is always just one total defeat away). Which is why, all else being equal, you definitely want to minimise variance. This is the reason 2d6 weapons are so much better than 1d12 (they would be even if the averages didn't favour 2d6), why Sleep is such a great spell (5d8 and no checks is just incredibly reliable with fairly low variance meaning the spell slot is just very rarely wasted). Variance is always important.

I disagree that variance is always important (2d6 vs 1d12+1, you should prefer the 1d12+1 except maybe in Tier 1), but the question I'm more curious about is: was the money analogy expected to teach that lesson ("variance is always important"), or the opposite, or a lesson about transaction costs?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I dislike that you can't cast a spell from a scroll if it's not on your spell list. Seems to undermine the point of scrolls. It hasn't come up as an issue in my current campaign but if it does I'm likely to houserule that anyone can make the attempt, spellcaster or no. Maybe with a wild magic surge or something if it's not "your" spell, but still.

I actually created a magic item category in my setting to avoid this: Spell Stones. Like a scroll, you can "scribe" it from spells you know (assuming Arcana proficiency). Same cost, same time.

Differences:

1) anyone can use them. Yes, even if you're not a caster/don't have a spell list at all. If you need a DC/attack bonus, you use the relevant ability modifier from the class whose list they're on (or your choice if they're on multiple with different abilities) plus proficiency.
2) you can't scribe them into a spellbook.

[1] this is purely a convenience thing--that way I don't have to figure out anything else. You cast as if it was on your list.

[Luccan]

I got really into the array of options in 3.5 at one point, but now regardless of edition I'm playing I find I'm less enthused by the prospect of "use whatever you want". Like, if you came to me and said "only use the basic rules for this game" I'd be much more interested than a game where I could pick whatever options I wanted from every book, at least as the initial selling points.

[Eldariel]

I disagree that variance is always important (2d6 vs 1d12+1, you should prefer the 1d12+1 except maybe in Tier 1), but the question I'm more curious about is: was the money analogy expected to teach that lesson ("variance is always important"), or the opposite, or a lesson about transaction costs?

I'm curious about the analogy-part too: I'm not certain what they mean. As for variance, between 2d6 and 1d12+1 I might agree since flat increases are really strong and "variance-immune", but I would probably prefer 3d6 to 1d20 as a damage die (as a resolution die that might not be the case but that's only because of Advantage system and bounded accuracy leading to cases where you are rolling 2d20 and fishing for ~14-20 range rolls which is much harder with 3d6). They have the same EV but 3d6 has much, much more stability meaning my hits are more likely to kill a given target reliably: there's less risk of rolling low and thus leaving stragglers to take another action.

I've actually noticed this while mathing encounters: especially when enemy HP is low or middling, the important point is whether your damage roll is high enough to kill the Goblin or Kobold or Orc or whatever. This does carry over to higher HP things too: allow me to illustrate.

For the sake of simplicity I'll ignore hit rolls and crits here but they mostly affect the numbers equally. Let's say there's a 30 HP Meatbag. Three attacks from a 3d6 weapon kill meatbag much more reliably than three hits from a 1d20 weapon even though the 1d20 weapon has much higher probability of two-shotting said Meatbag. Overall, the chances for the Meatbag being alive after two rounds with 3d6 dice is about 98% while the same number for 1d20 dice is 83,5%. However, after three rounds, 3d6 is already 65% to kill while 1d20 is only 57,4% and with fourth hit, 3d6 is already 98% to kill while 1d20 is 85%. 5 hits is 95% for 1d20 and 6 hits is 99%.

This leads to distribution where the 1d20 user is:
16,5% to only let the M take two hits.
57,5% to only let the M take three hits.
85% to only let the M take four hits.
95% to only let the M take five hits.

Meanwhile 3d6 user is:
2% to only let the M take two hits.
65% to only let the M take three hits.
98% to only let the M take four hits.

Let's assume the M is doing 10 damage a turn. Thus:

Expected damage taken by 1d20 user's party:
10 + 10 * ,835 + 10 * ,425 + 10 * ,15 + 10 * ,05 = 24,6

Expected damage taken by 3d6 user's party:
10 + 10 * ,98 + 10 * ,35 + 10 * ,02 = 23,5

Now, the difference in damage taken isn't massive (but it's there - 3d6 user's party will take less damage on average because they kill M more reliably in 3 turns) but again, especially on a bad day the 1d20 weapon user is going to take way more damage than the 3d6 weapon user. And bad days are how PCs die. And given how many encounters an average campaign is going to contain and how many damage rolls each fight is going to have for a weapon user, there's going to be a fairly high chance of getting some low and high streaks on weapon with the lower number of dice: which means existential party failure risk (of this occurring against in some extremely dangerous encounter) is much higher for the higher variance weapon than the lower variance one.

Variance goes both ways, but generally the risk of actual death only occurs in the bad half: the good half only conserves resources on a random day but the bad half can push you over the breaking point at an inopportune moment (since the expectation is that the party won't be taking many fights they literally can't win without getting lucky and thus the good half of variance happening during a fight that's unlikely exist in the first place is unlikely).


In short: If goal is set at the party and the PCs surviving or winning, I find it prudent to minimise variance since it's generally against the party.

[Mercurias]

I used to think that D&D was essentially an MMO played with pencils, paper, imagination, and more MMO references than actual MMOs actually have in them. The freedom that D&D gives you, and the importance of general problem solving over pure combat specialization, is entirely different.

My stance on it having more MMO references than actual MMOs remains the same, but now my FFXIV Free Company's house is named "The Long Rest", so that's a door which swings two ways now.

I also thought that character classes had to cling to a standard aesthetic, but since getting into Tabletop I've found that to be entirely false. While Paladins, for example, CAN be a white shiny knight of justice, you can just as easily have a Paladin who clings to his/her/their/xir Oaths with the bitter doggedness of someone who las lost everything else for a cause they feel has betrayed them. A Bard can be a roving performer or just as easily use that powerful, compelling presence to become a cult leader. The sassy, nerdy wizard could invert and be a prodigy with almost no social awareness outside of their lab, but a natural talent for history and arcane theory. Instead of being hot forest hermits, Druids can be hot urban gardeners or country farmers whose affinity with the land has taught them its power.

I used to think Monks were weak, without considering their versatile action economy and huge ability to travel the map. Monks are STRONG, and certain enchantments (like Holy Weapon) are especially strong when used on a Monk due to their early acquisition of a multiple attacks. Monks may not kill an enemy as quickly as a Fighter right off the back, but they can stun-lock an enemy caster and prevent them from zapping the party for 30 damage per round.

I used to think Clerics were the weakest, worst class in D&D. They are now probably my overall favorite class to play.

[Morty]

One thing I've changed my mind on are finesse weapons. I used to dislike how difficult D&D made them to use and thought it should be easier. Now I see the risk of making strength obsolete, but instead I consider the entire split between "strength-based" and "dexterity-based" martial characters to be absurd and constraining. Which is much more difficult to fix, at least without treading on some D&D tradition or other.