Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I both started and ended D&D on 5e. It was initially sad to lose the want to play it. But, honestly, it opened the rest of the world of tabletop games to me. I got to try Savage Worlds, GURPS, Cyberpunk, FATE, GURPS, Delta Green, some weird self made rpg, Dark Heresy, and The Fantasy Trip.

It really is an eye opener to all the games out there.

To paraphrase Sarte:

Hell is other TT RPGers

"5th Edition was the greatest edition of DnD ever, if you don't count literally any other version of DnD." - Reddit user DrowSux6969xxx

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
"5th Edition was the greatest edition of DnD ever, if you don't count literally any other version of DnD." - Reddit user DrowSux6969xxx

I get that you're looking for reasons to be mad at WOTC over your local community being toxic but 5th has been the greatest edition of D&D for at least the past 25 years. If not 5th then what else would be?

3rd/3.5/Pathfinder was a bloated mess that makes 40k look straightforward, with characters constrained to a very narrow subset of the available content if you ever wanted to keep up and reliant on careful planning to make sure you got all of your feat chains and class prerequisites lined up correctly. Don't like digging through countless pages of material spread across multiple books to find the one broken thing that makes your class work, buried among option after option after option after option that is completely dysfunctional and should never be taken? Don't want to play a full caster in every game that gets beyond about 5th level? Too bad. And that's not even getting into the actual character optimization stuff where you could completely break the game and literally become a god at 1st level.

4th was tabletop WoW with stripped-down and homogenized classes built around rigid WoW-style parties of healer/DPS/tank, cooldown abilities, etc, and designed to be little more than a rule set for the D&D miniatures line. Oh, and everything was paywalled behind the subscription system, including former core classes being removed from the PHB so WOTC could sell them back to you as day one DLC. Good job WOTC, you made people nostalgic enough for the 3.5e degeneracy that you spawned an entire competing company dedicated to supporting the previous edition and nearly killed off the official game.

5th was the game that finally fixed things and made it playable out of the box. Enough class diversity that it isn't pandering to the WoW players, but with a short enough list of content and strictly bounded dice math that it didn't turn into degenerate 3.5e style character optimization nonsense. It was the first edition in at least 20 years where you could come up with a character concept, select the appropriate rules, and jump right into playing with a reasonable expectation that you'd have a good time. And who cares if WOTC did some silly things with the setting, any decent GM is making up their own world anyway so none of that stuff matters.

So I don't know, maybe 2nd edition was the platonic ideal of a good RPG. I wasn't around for that era so I admit that I could be missing something. But given the lack of people still playing it I'd be surprised. Even Pathfinder, a completely broken and barely playable game, has more of a presence than 2nd edition and earlier D&D.

And with that post we now have double the amount of hyperbole in the thread. Congrats, I guess? The sad thing is that you actually made some good points in between the vastly exaggerated ones.

Pathfinder is broken and unplayable? Since when? Have you ever played it? Also, 4th was just Babies first DnD, where everyone is Either Goku or Majin Buu, and everything else is Yamcha. As Corville put it:

"4th edition was specifically designed to appeal to the VTT community, who wanted more of a video game than a TTRPG."

3rd was a super complicated mess that required a law degree to get past character creation.

3.5 was literally Paizo saying lets just make this but with more Role Play.

5th was Hasbro and WoTC saying lets remake 2nd, but with the same goals as 4th.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Pathfinder is broken and unplayable? Since when? Have you ever played it?

Yes, I've played it. I actively play it now even. My main RPG group is using Pathfinder and the game succeeds despite the broken system, not because of it. The rules bloat is insane, unbounded modifier stacking makes encounter balance and balance between PCs a nightmare, and you pretty much have to have a rule that you can rebuild your character each time you level up because otherwise people get screwed over by not realizing they needed to take a specific feat four levels ago to make their chain of prerequisites work. Paizo took all the problems 3.5e had with sheer volume of rule content and made all of it even worse. And that's on top of the inherent balance issues where full casters make every other class obsolete. Need a tank? Summon monster or play a druid. Need a rogue? There's a spell to give you trapfinding and a variety of scouting spells. Need DPS? Got plenty of that at every spell level. Need a healer? Probably not, but just in case you do the cleric has a full load of normal spells and can convert them to healing at will. Need a face for the party? Good thing sorcerers have CHA as their primary spellcasting stat, wizards can use INT for diplomacy and bluff, and there's a variety of buff spells for social situations. There's a reason the best known wizard guide has a whole section on how to not win the encounter outright and use debuff spells to let the fighter pretend to be useful with his 1d6+5 damage per round.

3.5 was literally Paizo saying lets just make this but with more Role Play.

Um, no? 3.5 was WOTC. Paizo published Pathfinder and didn't do so until WOTC released the 4th edition disaster.

5th was Hasbro and WoTC saying lets remake 2nd, but with the same goals as 4th.

Not really. The goal of 4th was to make a skirmish-scale miniatures game with familiar WoW archetypes and rigid role definitions for each character. The goal of 5th was to make a more elegant game than 3/3.5/Pathfinder but with a reasonable level of depth and character customization. They're superficially similar in that both avoided the absurd rules bloat of 3/3.5/Pathfinder but they had very different goals beyond that.

Every edition of DnD is a skirmish scale miniatures game. That was the entire point of them making it.

And every idea they bought to the table with 4th is present in 5th. They just hid it behind some RP fluff in 5th and didn't bother to do it in 4th. Do you like spending hit dice during a rest? Those were called healing charges and were introduced in 4th. Do you like having At Will abilities? I mean Cantrips with no limits on casting them. 4th.

5th introduced one key thing and that was Inspiration, where DMs made and lost close friends based entirely on who was decided to have RP'd the best, causing people to showboat or take over entire interactions for a chance at a sweet extra dice to roll at will. It was mentioned by Gygax in an interview back in 76, but they made it an official game mechanic in 5th, and now it's a key aspect of DNDne.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
5th introduced one key thing and that was Inspiration, where DMs made and lost close friends based entirely on who was decided to have RP'd the best, causing people to showboat or take over entire interactions for a chance at a sweet extra dice to roll at will. It was mentioned by Gygax in an interview back in 76, but they made it an official game mechanic in 5th, and now it's a key aspect of DNDne.

Yeah, it sounds very much like your problem is not the rules published by WOTC in any particular edition, it's that you're playing with an incredibly toxic group of people that will ruin the game no matter which rule system you use. Do you happen to live in Poland?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
5th introduced one key thing and that was Inspiration, where DMs made and lost close friends based entirely on who was decided to have RP'd the best, causing people to showboat or take over entire interactions for a chance at a sweet extra dice to roll at will. It was mentioned by Gygax in an interview back in 76, but they made it an official game mechanic in 5th, and now it's a key aspect of DNDne.

Yeah, it sounds very much like your problem is not the rules published by WOTC in any particular edition, it's that you're playing with an incredibly toxic group of people that will ruin the game no matter which rule system you use. Do you happen to live in Poland?

Agreed with that. All the usual hyperbole and incoherence (its new but also introduced in 1976...?) And besides was an official mechanic (under a different name- hero points) in 4e as well, and an optional rule in 3rd and lots of third party games.

'Problematic' showboating for in-game bonuses is very late 1990s/early 2000s game design- see Exalted and a lot of related games.
In fact, I think the old TSR Marvel Superheroes RPG (1986 or so) is one of the earliest games for 'stunting for bonuses'

Also there is zero need to use inspiration as a DM if you don't want to. I use it very sparingly myself, I give it out if I'm particularly proud of something my players do.

Hell it even says in the DM guide that it's optional. Definitely sounds like an issue with your group.

 Olthannon wrote:
Also there is zero need to use inspiration as a DM if you don't want to. I use it very sparingly myself, I give it out if I'm particularly proud of something my players do.

That's true, too. I've seen a lot of groups simply not use it at all.

Inspiration is a meta currency, and I tend not to like them, but it's just advantage. I don't think you'll lose nay friends based on something you can get for many, many, many other reasons.

 Lance845 wrote:
Every edition of DnD is a skirmish scale miniatures game. That was the entire point of them making it.

I'll grant that this is a subjective thing but there's a difference between "roleplaying game where you can use miniatures to track things if you want" and "rules support for this specific line of miniatures we just introduced".

And every idea they bought to the table with 4th is present in 5th. They just hid it behind some RP fluff in 5th and didn't bother to do it in 4th. Do you like spending hit dice during a rest? Those were called healing charges and were introduced in 4th. Do you like having At Will abilities? I mean Cantrips with no limits on casting them. 4th.

Not true at all. The two things I hated most about 4th were not at all present in 5th: the stripped-down classes with rigid party roles out of a WoW raid, and the day one DLC.

4th strongly pushed you to play a stock character archetype based on conventional WoW roles. Fighters take damage, rogues deal damage, clerics heal the fighter, wizards debuff or add DPS. Don't go outside that because it isn't well supported, and don't even think about multiclassing. 5th went back to a more balanced middle ground where yes, it has fewer options than the absurd bloat of the 3rd edition era, but each class has multiple archetypes built in and it's rare that I can think of a character concept that won't be supported by the rules. And on a party level there's much less expectation that every party follow the conventional WoW raid duties of DPS/tank/healer/debuff, you can choose your character based on the story and things are way more likely to work out.

4th also stripped out content from the core books so WOTC could sell it back to you as day one DLC. Want to play a druid (IIRC), a class that has been in the game for decades and is a traditional part of the core books? Too bad, buy the subscription service if you want access to those rules. 4th on launch day felt very much like an incomplete game where the expensive paper books were just a preview for the subscription service you were expected to buy if you wanted to actually play the game. 5th, on the other hand, is a more complete game out of the box and paid rule supplements are rare. You have options for buying pre-built campaign settings if you want to play in those worlds, a thing D&D has always had, but if you're playing in your own world you don't need to buy anything beyond the core three books.

And I don't think I'm alone in this. 4th was so unpopular it created Pathfinder and allowed Paizo to steal most of WOTC's customer base with a game built on the incredibly flawed 3.5e system. 5th has swung that back entirely. So clearly there's something about 5th that works for people in a way that 4th didn't.

The class roles (Called the trinity btw) are present in 5th edition as well. You just have more options for each class to be built to fulfill different roles. And sometimes, those options are just different fluff flavors of fulfilling the same role. There is no version of the sorcerer in the PHB that isn't a DPS for instance.

BTW selection of your Bard College or Druid Circle or all those different options available for every class. In 4th when that was introduced for every class it was called "Paragon Paths". And the PHB came with 4 for every class (with the exception of the warlock who had 3). In 4th you picked this paragon path at level 10, and then an epic destiny at level 20. In 5th you pick you "archetype" or whatever at level 3.

You don't think you have DLC in 5th? Go crack open the PHB and play with ONLY those options. Look at the actual abilities and see what roles in the trinity it places the player into. One of the first books released within the first year was Xanathars Guide to Everything which effectively doubled the options of the PHB. Yes. 4th had less classes in the book. But those classes had the rules for playing to level 30 instead of just 20 right in the core PHB. So while yes. It had less classes in the core book (8 instead of 3rd eds 11) Each class had 150% the content of 3rd (Effectively 12 classes worth). So while you may be here calling it a "more complete" game it's not really true. Just because an option you liked wasn't there in the page count day 1, doesn't mean the book you had lacked for content and wasn't just as playable.


Again, they are just hiding it better in 5th and as a result you have been sucked in by it.



People did hate 4th. That had as much to do with their PR as anything else. Including during the run up to 4th some messages often quoted from the design team saying things like "DnD isn't about fairy rings. It's about kicking down the doors in a dungeon, killing monsters, and getting loot!" and people saying stuff like "I literally was in a fairy ring last week..." in response.

4th ed is no worse than any other edition of dnd. It has ALL the same failings. It just did a worse job of hiding it.

Another aspect might well be that its not that 5th is "hiding" things better but that things established in 4th are simply being reinforced and the "shock of change" is less of an impact.

Rather like how when a game goes from £30 to £40 for the sequel its a huge increase everyone hates but when the 3rd game comes out at £40 its much more accepted. Even though its still £10 more than the first game was.

 Lance845 wrote:
One of the first books released within the first year was Xanathars Guide to Everything

Xanathar's came out 3 years after the release of 5e... You're probably thinking of the Sword Coast Adventurer's guide which came out a year later and... generally is considered one of the worst of the supplemental 5e content

I wonder if the 4e mechanics would be better received nowadays. I only played it about 6 months before we gave up so my memory of it is foggy at best. My biggest remembered complaint was how grindy the combat was even at low levels. We played an official adventure and we came across either goblins or kobolds with a big pool of HP each for the non-minions and I remember the straw that broke the camel's back for me was realizing there was no way for us realistically to lose the fight but there was also no way of winning it without slogging on in combat for another hour. It was the tabletop equivalent of bullet sponges. Did that ever change later on in the edition?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
5th introduced one key thing and that was Inspiration, where DMs made and lost close friends based entirely on who was decided to have RP'd the best, causing people to showboat or take over entire interactions for a chance at a sweet extra dice to roll at will. It was mentioned by Gygax in an interview back in 76, but they made it an official game mechanic in 5th, and now it's a key aspect of DNDne.

Ummmm...There was a similar mechanic introduced in 2nd edition for Planescape. You could earn a reroll by playing your character.

In my game, I don't use Inspiration. Inspiration sucks as a mechanic...You have to choose to use it before you roll and you can only have one at a time. What I do is each player gets one re-roll to use each session.

 warboss wrote:
I wonder if the 4e mechanics would be better received nowadays. I only played it about 6 months before we gave up so my memory of it is foggy at best. My biggest remembered complaint was how grindy the combat was even at low levels. We played an official adventure and we came across either goblins or kobolds with a big pool of HP each for the non-minions and I remember the straw that broke the camel's back for me was realizing there was no way for us realistically to lose the fight but there was also no way of winning it without slogging on in combat for another hour. It was the tabletop equivalent of bullet sponges. Did that ever change later on in the edition?

Yeah, they released another Monster Manual that addressed a lot of the monster design issues in the initial one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
One of the first books released within the first year was Xanathars Guide to Everything

Xanathar's came out 3 years after the release of 5e... You're probably thinking of the Sword Coast Adventurer's guide which came out a year later and... generally is considered one of the worst of the supplemental 5e content

You probably know better than me on this. The point being that the PHB doesn't offer the flexibility in classes people claim 5e has. The "DLC" is responsible for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Every edition of DnD is a skirmish scale miniatures game. That was the entire point of them making it.

I'll grant that this is a subjective thing but there's a difference between "roleplaying game where you can use miniatures to track things if you want" and "rules support for this specific line of miniatures we just introduced".

I forgot to respond to this bit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons

The wargames from which Dungeons & Dragons evolved used miniature figures to represent combatants. D&D initially continued the use of miniatures in a fashion similar to its direct precursors. The original D&D set of 1974 required the use of the Chainmail miniatures game for combat resolution.[60] By the publication of the 1977 game editions, combat was mostly resolved verbally. Thus miniatures were no longer required for game play, although some players continued to use them as a visual reference.[61]

In the 1970s, numerous companies began to sell miniature figures specifically for Dungeons & Dragons and similar games. Licensed miniature manufacturers who produced official figures include Grenadier Miniatures (1980–1983),[62] Citadel Miniatures (1984–1986),[63] Ral Partha,[64] and TSR itself.[65] Most of these miniatures used the 25 mm scale.

Periodically, Dungeons & Dragons has returned to its wargaming roots with supplementary rules systems for miniatures-based wargaming. Supplements such as Battlesystem (1985 and 1989) and a new edition of Chainmail (2001)[66] provided rule systems to handle battles between armies by using miniatures.

You are being upset because 4th ed, an edition marketed as getting back to dnds roots, got back to it's roots.

 Lance845 wrote:


Yeah, they released another Monster Manual that addressed a lot of the monster design issues in the initial one.

Thanks. By that do you mean a reprint of the original MM or a subsequent one like the MM3 with completely different creatures?

After posting the initial question, I've gone down the 4e rabbit hole a bit to see what I missed. I remember seeing the "Essentials" line in stores but I really did quit dnd cold turkey and wasn't familiar with it. Was it a 3.5 style revamp of the 4e rules or just a cheaper entry point with streamlined content for new players?

 warboss wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:


Yeah, they released another Monster Manual that addressed a lot of the monster design issues in the initial one.

Thanks. By that do you mean a reprint of the original MM or a subsequent one like the MM3 with completely different creatures?

After posting the initial question, I've gone down the 4e rabbit hole a bit to see what I missed. I remember seeing the "Essentials" line in stores but I really did quit dnd cold turkey and wasn't familiar with it. Was it a 3.5 style revamp of the 4e rules or just a cheaper entry point with streamlined content for new players?

I BELIEVE it was a MM 2 with new monsters. The edition didn't last long enough for them to really redress old content. But many people took the templates from MM2 and used it to adjust the content from MM1. I don't have first hand experience with this btw. I played a little bit of 4th and ran a very brief Eberron bit in 4th. But I kept tabs on the general vibe of releases and the design aspects of the edition.

 Lance845 wrote:
There is no version of the sorcerer in the PHB that isn't a DPS for instance.

Unless you read the spell list and pick spells that do something other than DPS. That has always been where arcane casters get most of their diversity, your class rules merely give a buff in a particular direction.

And I admit that WOTC continues to struggle with how to make the sorcerer not just a wizard with a different primary attribute but that says more about the weird "legacy code" issue of having them be two separate classes than about the game system itself. Look at other classes and things are much better. Want to play a fighter? You can do damage, you can buff/debuff, or you can even play a hybrid fighter/mage without multiclassing. Want to play a cleric? Yeah, you can still heal but you can also choose damage spells, sneaky spells, or even just grab a weapon and start smashing people. Want to play a rogue? Assassin, thief, or half-mage. Add in the background choices and it's very rare that I've seen a story concept for a character that can't be represented in the rules.

Also, don't underestimate the importance of 5th edition's much stricter bounding on dice math. Adding +2 from your proficiency bonus or rolling twice and picking the better result, both of which are easier to get on things outside your core class role than in 4th, is way less of an advantage than adding +30 to your best things like you could stack up in previous editions without even trying very hard. This means that even if the rules don't quite work perfectly for the character you're trying to play it's not a crippling disadvantage, and you have to worry much less about taking sub-optimal choices for story reasons and making your character unable to compete.

In 4th when that was introduced for every class it was called "Paragon Paths".

Highlighted the important part. Maybe 4e added some stuff later on, but only after the initial release had nearly killed the game and driven everyone to Pathfinder. I'll admit that I stopped keeping up with it after that point though, so if you want to argue that late edition 4th was finally a better product I can't really dispute that claim.

You don't think you have DLC in 5th? Go crack open the PHB and play with ONLY those options.

Done it, it works fine.

And yeah, XGtE exists. As was pointed out it was released years later, not held back to be day one DLC. And outside of setting books 5E has had what, two books that add to the core rules? Three? Over the entire life of the edition that's nowhere near a "buy a monthly subscription to have the full game" business model.

But those classes had the rules for playing to level 30 instead of just 20 right in the core PHB. So while yes. It had less classes in the core book (8 instead of 3rd eds 11) Each class had 150% the content of 3rd (Effectively 12 classes worth). So while you may be here calling it a "more complete" game it's not really true.

That's not comparable and you know it. Extended levels don't count as "effective classes" because not all levels are the same. Most campaigns exist purely in the lower end of the level range and D&D (of any edition) has major scaling issues beyond 10th level or so. Who cares if you have 10 extra levels beyond the point where the game has degenerated into "kill the monster of the week" combat with massive stat inflation when most people are playing the game at level 1-5 and occasionally getting to 5-10. Having a wider range of options at lower levels is worth far more to the majority of players.

Just because an option you liked wasn't there in the page count day 1, doesn't mean the book you had lacked for content and wasn't just as playable.

It does when the option in question is a traditional PHB class that has been in that role for decades and it's removed to be sold as day one DLC.

People did hate 4th. That had as much to do with their PR as anything else. Including during the run up to 4th some messages often quoted from the design team saying things like "DnD isn't about fairy rings. It's about kicking down the doors in a dungeon, killing monsters, and getting loot!" and people saying stuff like "I literally was in a fairy ring last week..." in response.

It's almost like their messaging aligns very neatly with my complaints about the system. Marginalize non-combat aspects of the game, push everyone into stock WoW archetypes with abilities that will be safe and familiar to WoW players, and push the idea that your games should be defined by which miniatures you buy.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
There is no version of the sorcerer in the PHB that isn't a DPS for instance.

Unless you read the spell list and pick spells that do something other than DPS. That has always been where arcane casters get most of their diversity, your class rules merely give a buff in a particular direction.

And I admit that WOTC continues to struggle with how to make the sorcerer not just a wizard with a different primary attribute but that says more about the weird "legacy code" issue of having them be two separate classes than about the game system itself. Look at other classes and things are much better. Want to play a fighter? You can do damage, you can buff/debuff, or you can even play a hybrid fighter/mage without multiclassing. Want to play a cleric? Yeah, you can still heal but you can also choose damage spells, sneaky spells, or even just grab a weapon and start smashing people. Want to play a rogue? Assassin, thief, or half-mage. Add in the background choices and it's very rare that I've seen a story concept for a character that can't be represented in the rules.

Also, don't underestimate the importance of 5th edition's much stricter bounding on dice math. Adding +2 from your proficiency bonus or rolling twice and picking the better result, both of which are easier to get on things outside your core class role than in 4th, is way less of an advantage than adding +30 to your best things like you could stack up in previous editions without even trying very hard. This means that even if the rules don't quite work perfectly for the character you're trying to play it's not a crippling disadvantage, and you have to worry much less about taking sub-optimal choices for story reasons and making your character unable to compete.

In 4th when that was introduced for every class it was called "Paragon Paths".

Highlighted the important part. Maybe 4e added some stuff later on, but only after the initial release had nearly killed the game and driven everyone to Pathfinder. I'll admit that I stopped keeping up with it after that point though, so if you want to argue that late edition 4th was finally a better product I can't really dispute that claim.

Highlighted the important part. Maybe you should read the entire post before responding and not cherry pick out a sentence without reading it's context. Paragon Paths and Epic Destinys were in the first printing of the first players handbook. This gak was the core mechanics of the game on day 1 of the editions launch. Now apply that to your answer above. Mix in a repeat of me saying they hid the mechanic better behind a layer of fluff. And let me add in that one of DnDs main problems is the fact that spells can solve every damn problem in the world. Which is why yes, picking your spells allows for such a wide variety of builds and when you start giving options for fighters and rogues to get spells that their roles in the party start expanding greatly. DnDs magic is, and basically always has been, so versatile that it's broken. That should be viewed as a problem. A bug. But you are singing it's praises as a feature.

You don't think you have DLC in 5th? Go crack open the PHB and play with ONLY those options.

Done it, it works fine.

And yeah, XGtE exists. As was pointed out it was released years later, not held back to be day one DLC. And outside of setting books 5E has had what, two books that add to the core rules? Three? Over the entire life of the edition that's nowhere near a "buy a monthly subscription to have the full game" business model.

But those classes had the rules for playing to level 30 instead of just 20 right in the core PHB. So while yes. It had less classes in the core book (8 instead of 3rd eds 11) Each class had 150% the content of 3rd (Effectively 12 classes worth). So while you may be here calling it a "more complete" game it's not really true.

That's not comparable and you know it. Extended levels don't count as "effective classes" because not all levels are the same. Most campaigns exist purely in the lower end of the level range and D&D (of any edition) has major scaling issues beyond 10th level or so. Who cares if you have 10 extra levels beyond the point where the game has degenerated into "kill the monster of the week" combat with massive stat inflation when most people are playing the game at level 1-5 and occasionally getting to 5-10. Having a wider range of options at lower levels is worth far more to the majority of players.

It's completely comparable.

As to your other points. 1) You're right. DnD is a garbage game that completely falls apart the moment players start to make any progress. 2) There is no point where the game hasn't always been "kill the monster of the week".Thats DnD. Thats the entire game.

Just because an option you liked wasn't there in the page count day 1, doesn't mean the book you had lacked for content and wasn't just as playable.

It does when the option in question is a traditional PHB class that has been in that role for decades and it's removed to be sold as day one DLC.

No. It doesn't. It only takes a quick google search and you too can find out that Druids in 2nd Ed were a "sub class" or specialization of clerics. They didn't become their own class until 3rd edition. These "decades" you are talking about were 8 years.

People did hate 4th. That had as much to do with their PR as anything else. Including during the run up to 4th some messages often quoted from the design team saying things like "DnD isn't about fairy rings. It's about kicking down the doors in a dungeon, killing monsters, and getting loot!" and people saying stuff like "I literally was in a fairy ring last week..." in response.

It's almost like their messaging aligns very neatly with my complaints about the system. Marginalize non-combat aspects of the game, push everyone into stock WoW archetypes with abilities that will be safe and familiar to WoW players, and push the idea that your games should be defined by which miniatures you buy.

All of which is just as true in Basic. And ADnD. And 3rd. And 5th.

Name a class built around non-combat aspects of the game? It's dnd. It's about combat.

 Lance845 wrote:
1) You're right. DnD is a garbage game that completely falls apart the moment players start to make any progress.

Then why are you even here if you hate all editions of D&D? Do you enjoy arguing about which version you hate in slightly different ways? Or are you here purely to argue for the sake of arguing?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
1) You're right. DnD is a garbage game that completely falls apart the moment players start to make any progress.

Then why are you even here if you hate all editions of D&D? Do you enjoy arguing about which version you hate in slightly different ways? Or are you here purely to argue for the sake of arguing?

Ah right, the classic "Why are you discussing something if you have criticisms of it". As though the only valid reason to be involved in a discussion is to sing it's praises.

Here is my answer, because I want to. The only reason anyone needs to do anything. Any answer beyond that is none of your business. Maybe you should answer the points being made or concede instead of some straw man bs.

 Lance845 wrote:
Maybe you should answer the points being made or concede instead of some straw man bs.

You mean like this?

Ah right, the classic "Why are you discussing something if you have criticisms of it". As though the only valid reason to be involved in a discussion is to sing it's praises.

Do you not see the difference between criticism of parts of something you also like ("4th edition is bad, I like 5th edition instead") and a blanket rejection of the entire thing as garbage ("D&D is a garbage game")? I get why someone who likes 2nd but hates 5th would argue that 5th sucks and promote 2nd instead, I don't understand why someone who calls all of D&D a garbage game would continue to argue about which edition of D&D is better, or at least less bad.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Maybe you should answer the points being made or concede instead of some straw man bs.

Do you not see the difference between criticism of parts of something you also like ("4th edition is bad, I like 5th edition instead") and a blanket rejection of the entire thing as garbage ("D&D is a garbage game")? I get why someone who likes 2nd but hates 5th would argue that 5th sucks and promote 2nd instead, I don't understand why someone who calls all of D&D a garbage game would continue to argue about which edition of D&D is better, or at least less bad.

You are misunderstanding my arguments then. I never said 4th was "less bad". 5th IS better. (But better than what? The shiniest turd still goes in the toilet.) I said all of 4ths ideas are in 5th. 5th is just 4th but they refined everything 4th introduced and hid it behind a layer a fluff to make it more palatable. That was the thing I said right from the beginning.

Further, you don't NEED to understand why I am doing what I am doing. But here it goes. My degree is in game design. I am a game designer. I study systems and mechanics for fun. Understanding what works and what doesn't and why is important to me and a passion for me. That fact is entirely irrelevant to the points being made in the discussion. And again, you don't need to understand it to have the discussion.

You mean like this?

Ah right, the classic "Why are you discussing something if you have criticisms of it". As though the only valid reason to be involved in a discussion is to sing it's praises.

So no. Not like this at all. This was me responding to the dumb straw man thing you said for the sake of pointing out what a dumb straw man thing it was. Feel free to get back on topic at any time.

 Lance845 wrote:

No. It doesn't. It only takes a quick google search and you too can find out that Druids in 2nd Ed were a "sub class" or specialization of clerics. They didn't become their own class until 3rd edition. These "decades" you are talking about were 8 years.

In 1st Edition, they were their own class.