Changing Opinions

[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.

[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".