tneva82 wrote:

leopard wrote:
isn't the whole point behind a RPG that the rules are just a guide and you use/ignore at the GMs whim when it shifts the story?

That's what it used to be. Then it became rollplaying. More detailed wargame.

 alextroy wrote:

Toofast wrote:
Actually 9th edition, but with the stratagems from 10th, would be infinitely better than what we have right now. The charge/pile in rules are made to punish CC armies even more, flight movement is dumb because now a flying model can't even get on top of a tall building so they aren't actually flying any more, cover rules are a head scratcher where a unit out in a wide open field gets cover from an enemy inside a house if 1 guy in the shooting unit has a window frame in his view, psychic models don't actually do anything different except it says "psychic" next to their guns, tweaking a list is impossible because you can't just drop 1 guy or 1 special weapon from a squad... I have no idea what they were thinking on most of the changes from 9th to 10th. Less stratagems/CP is the only change I actually like.

Wow. I read this and all I can see is a list of power gamer complaints:

I can't game charge and pile-in moves to gain extra movement, minimize contact, and control when I destroy a unit instead of actually fighting enemy units.

Flying units no longer have the ability to fly infinitely high and must actually interact with terrain.

The Cover rules are too liberal rather than too restrictive.

Psychic weapons are weapons rather than an easy source of Mortal Wounds.

I can't tweak my list down to the individual model level for maximum optimization.

Yeah. I'll have to disagree with you on almost every point.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Karol wrote:
yes right now you don't need multiple books. You just have one book, and it tells you what roll you get. Mods and re-rolls are just a bonus to the mechanic.

Yes, exactly. The focus of the game is on roleplaying not character optimization.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
5th is bad because it makes even veteran DMs have a nightmare time trying to balance a game without outright lying, fudging rolls, or just basically bringing in miracles like a special NPC that helps the team out.

I'm not sure why you think this is a problem with 5th? The imbalance between min-maxers and "story" players is far less than it was in previous editions. In 3.5e the "story based" fighter at level 1 is swinging a sword with +1 to hit and one attack per round, the min-maxer at level 1 has literally ascended to godhood and gained infinite stats on everything. And even if the DM bans infinite loops the min-maxer is rapidly going to have a +10 or more advantage on everything compared to the "normal" player. How do you set the DC for a strength check when the "story based" fighter has +3 and the min-maxer has +30? How do you create an engaging combat encounter when anything the "normal" player is capable of contributing against can be soloed by the min-maxer in one round?

Also, as always, Hasbro still has a massive problem with Odd Numbers. Somehow, 17 is not better than 16. but 18 is better than 19. Get rid of the dumb mechanic where you only get a boost on evens, and just make it higher number = better.

So 5th is bad because it keeps a mechanic that exists for the sole purpose of maintaining compatibility with the obsolete 3D6 attribute generation of old editions?

Finally, 5th introduced the concept of glossing over lore to better suit the political times. Twenty years of lore about orcs being evil, is now not a thing. Negative Stats are no longer a thing. That Dwarf can be the ARCH WIZARD. ADnD used to have racial restrictions. You couldn't play certain classes without being certain races. Paladin for instance, was locked to humans.

That's a pretty odd complaint given the fact that D&D does not depend on a single setting and most DMs are building worlds with their own lore, or at least customized variants of official material. Does anyone really care what the lore in the official worlds is? Would anyone even know what the official lore is without certain ideologically-motivated critics making a controversy out of it?

And TBH the changes you describe are good ones. Orcs always being evil makes them boring. There's never any moral conflict in slaughtering them by the thousands to farm loot and XP, they can never interact with the world in any meaningful way, they can never be player characters, etc. And racial restrictions and stat modifiers just reduce character diversity. Do you really think it's a more enjoyable game when your choice of race is de facto limited to the one that gives you a +2 primary stat bonus? Why even have choices for character creation if there's always a single correct answer and you're sabotaging yourself if you pick anything else?

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Toofast wrote:
Actually 9th edition, but with the stratagems from 10th, would be infinitely better than what we have right now. The charge/pile in rules are made to punish CC armies even more, flight movement is dumb because now a flying model can't even get on top of a tall building so they aren't actually flying any more, cover rules are a head scratcher where a unit out in a wide open field gets cover from an enemy inside a house if 1 guy in the shooting unit has a window frame in his view, psychic models don't actually do anything different except it says "psychic" next to their guns, tweaking a list is impossible because you can't just drop 1 guy or 1 special weapon from a squad... I have no idea what they were thinking on most of the changes from 9th to 10th. Less stratagems/CP is the only change I actually like.

Wow. I read this and all I can see is a list of power gamer complaints:

I can't game charge and pile-in moves to gain extra movement, minimize contact, and control when I destroy a unit instead of actually fighting enemy units.

Flying units no longer have the ability to fly infinitely high and must actually interact with terrain.

The Cover rules are too liberal rather than too restrictive.

Psychic weapons are weapons rather than an easy source of Mortal Wounds.

I can't tweak my list down to the individual model level for maximum optimization.

Yeah. I'll have to disagree with you on almost every point.

This is such a disgenuous list. Do you have an axe to grind?

I can't game charge and pile-in moves to gain extra movement, minimize contact, and control when I destroy a unit instead of actually fighting enemy units.

This change without consideration for melee armies more or less reduced their damage output by half. Note how Orks are dogwater

Flying units no longer have the ability to fly infinitely high and must actually interact with terrain.

I'm confused, I don't see anyone complaining about this. Toofast doesn't want his minis to fly "Infinitely high".

The Cover rules are too liberal rather than too restrictive.

wat

Psychic weapons are weapons rather than an easy source of Mortal Wounds.

You prefer their current concept of Psychic Weapons that are just extremely bland pistols? I rue the loss of interesting abilities on units that weren't just "shoot overwatch again" or "shoot overwatch again, but again too" or "ignore cover".

I can't tweak my list down to the individual model level for maximum optimization.

Oooh spooky WAAC zeitgeists that steal your minis

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I mean, I've played every edition from the literal white box to this one in 5th. I have to say, I've never seen min maxing shenanigans or as many Warlock, Sorcerer/paladins as I have in this current edition. I blame Matt Mercer. He took my nerd hobby and made it cool to all the norms. Now I have to cater to the power fantasy of some idiot literally creating Johnny Silverhand as a Archer/Monk. And yes, he wants his arm to function as a magic weapon that can block and deflect any melee attack. Or the new person who wants to play the.....vomit....Echoknight, that gets Misty Step as a free action.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I mean, I've played every edition from the literal white box to this one in 5th. I have to say, I've never seen min maxing shenanigans or as many Warlock, Sorcerer/paladins as I have in this current edition. I blame Matt Mercer. He took my nerd hobby and made it cool to all the norms. Now I have to cater to the power fantasy of some idiot literally creating Johnny Silverhand as a Archer/Monk. And yes, he wants his arm to function as a magic weapon that can block and deflect any melee attack. Or the new person who wants to play the.....vomit....Echoknight, that gets Misty Step as a free action.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
D&D was around long before Hasbro purchased the rights to it. 5e is still using most of the mechanics that came from 3.5 (a pre-hasbro era edition). So, I'm really not sure what the basis of your complaint is regarding the playability of 5e.

Hasbro has been a long time game making company and as far as I can tell neither a legal company (assuming you don't mean a fully incorporated entity) nor a gaming accessory manufacturer (again excepting accessory for the games that it owns). You may want to check U.S. history. I can't speak about Hasbro's Australian history.

Sorta kinda, it's an extremely watered down version of 3.5e with no flavour. New players and GMs would be far better served playing another system.

To clarify I'm not talking about the legal entity definition of Hasbro or GW, but the business plan and ethics of the companies in question. Specifically in the earlier comparison of 5e and 10th being similar.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I have to say, I've never seen min maxing shenanigans or as many Warlock, Sorcerer/paladins as I have in this current edition.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
A good example is the Barbarian, you could play as Conan the Barbarian, using your raw power of muscles. Or... Conan the Barbarian, using your raw power of muscles.

The level 3 archetypes are extremely bland too, and there are several levels of zero options for players to become invested with. Paladin's whole class feature for several levels is "+1 to AC".

Rule gak aside, 5e only really supports one overall genre of game - power fantasy.

bored1 wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
D&D was around long before Hasbro purchased the rights to it. 5e is still using most of the mechanics that came from 3.5 (a pre-hasbro era edition). So, I'm really not sure what the basis of your complaint is regarding the playability of 5e.

Hasbro has been a long time game making company and as far as I can tell neither a legal company (assuming you don't mean a fully incorporated entity) nor a gaming accessory manufacturer (again excepting accessory for the games that it owns). You may want to check U.S. history. I can't speak about Hasbro's Australian history.

Sorta kinda, it's an extremely watered down version of 3.5e with no flavour. New players and GMs would be far better served playing another system.

To clarify I'm not talking about the legal entity definition of Hasbro or GW, but the business plan and ethics of the companies in question. Specifically in the earlier comparison of 5e and 10th being similar.

The business plan and ethics of the company? i cant speak on GW too well...but what exactly do you mean with regard to Hasbro?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I have to say, I've never seen min maxing shenanigans or as many Warlock, Sorcerer/paladins as I have in this current edition.

Then you've had some exceptional luck with the people you've played older editions with and bad luck with your 5e players. 3.5 and Pathfinder had way more min-maxing possibilities than 5th, to the point where character optimization was less about "my character literally becomes God at level 1" and more about optimizing exactly how many minutes of time it takes in session 1 for your character to become God so you could get there before the rest of the party. 3.5 was only a game if everyone agreed not to exploit any of the worst min-maxing stuff, while 5e doesn't have anything even remotely like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
A good example is the Barbarian, you could play as Conan the Barbarian, using your raw power of muscles. Or... Conan the Barbarian, using your raw power of muscles.

The level 3 archetypes are extremely bland too, and there are several levels of zero options for players to become invested with. Paladin's whole class feature for several levels is "+1 to AC".

Rule gak aside, 5e only really supports one overall genre of game - power fantasy.

Call it bland if you like but that makes it easier to balance, not harder as FezzikDaBullgryn was claiming. When all versions of a class are very similar and defined by roleplaying choices, not by mechanics, it makes things very predictable for the DM. You know what to expect from each class and you aren't going to have huge variations in power between different characters. That's far, far easier than 3.5/Pathfinder where you might have a level 10 wizard and a level 10 fighter but the fighter is effectively level 3 and the min-maxed wizard is effectively level 20. It's very difficult to design an encounter when anything that challenges the wizard instantly kills the fighter with splash damage and anything that the fighter can meaningfully engage with is instantly killed by the wizard before the fighter is even aware that combat is happening.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
change without consideration for melee armies more or less reduced their damage output by half. Note how Orks are dogwater.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

That still exists, there's obvious examples like Hypnotic Circle, Wish, Sleep, Teleport, Plane Shift, etc.
I'm not sure if you're a GM or not, but GMing 5e is awful. Every other system handles player engagement on the same level as 5e, but with more detail.
Your job as a GM in 5e is to write story, rules, magic items, item prices (lmao), ensure gold has a reason and use, etc.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Other systems simplify that further, by handing premade options for items, rules etc.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
That still exists, there's obvious examples like Hypnotic Circle, Wish, Sleep, Teleport, Plane Shift, etc.

Your job as a GM in 5e is to write story, rules, magic items, item prices (lmao), ensure gold has a reason and use, etc.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
That still exists, there's obvious examples like Hypnotic Circle, Wish, Sleep, Teleport, Plane Shift, etc.

That isn't min-maxing, that's just using basic core rulebook spells as intended. Min-maxing in 3.5e is literally "at level 1 my character becomes God with infinite stats". Or "since you banned infinite loops here's my character whose attacks literally require more D6s than have ever been manufactured in all of human history to resolve". There is nothing in 5e that is even remotely on that level.

Your job as a GM in 5e is to write story, rules, magic items, item prices (lmao), ensure gold has a reason and use, etc.

And to balance encounters. Tell me, how do you create a stealth-focused encounter for a party where the normal character has +3 to stealth and the min-maxed rogue has +60 to stealth? If the enemies can even attempt to roll dice against the rogue they will see the normal character even on a natural 1 and the party is caught, if the enemies are capable of failing to spot the normal character then the rogue can solo the entire encounter with no chance of failure. Or how do you create strength-based obstacles when the normal character has +2 strength modifier and the min-maxed character has +20? How do you set the AC of enemies when the normal character has +5 to hit with a single attack and the min-maxed character (after adding up a tedious list of modifiers) has +15 to hit with multiple attacks?

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Not minmaxing, but Wizard powers that just shut down encounters, or worlds.

Min maxing would be the boring sentinel build gak, or booming blade hexblade.

In any case, me saying 5e bad is because other systems exist that do what it does better. Pf2e has far tighter maths while also offering a plethora of options, that are bland in comparison to its pf1e options, while actually "balanced" in the grand scheme of things.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Not minmaxing, but Wizard powers that just shut down encounters, or worlds.

And they did far worse in previous editions. The original claim was that 5e is harder for the DM to balance, the fact that it isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't better than previous editions.

Min maxing would be the boring sentinel build gak, or booming blade hexblade.

Which are far less game-breaking than the min-maxing you could do in 3.5/Pathfinder.

In any case, me saying 5e bad is because other systems exist that do what it does better. Pf2e has far tighter maths while also offering a plethora of options, that are bland in comparison to its pf1e options, while actually "balanced" in the grand scheme of things.

Which is great, I'm glad you love those other games. But the original conversation you jumped into was about 5e vs. previous D&D editions. How other entirely different games handle things is irrelevant.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
That still exists, there's obvious examples like Hypnotic Circle, Wish, Sleep, Teleport, Plane Shift, etc.

That isn't min-maxing, that's just using basic core rulebook spells as intended. Min-maxing in 3.5e is literally "at level 1 my character becomes God with infinite stats". Or "since you banned infinite loops here's my character whose attacks literally require more D6s than have ever been manufactured in all of human history to resolve". There is nothing in 5e that is even remotely on that level.

Your job as a GM in 5e is to write story, rules, magic items, item prices (lmao), ensure gold has a reason and use, etc.

And to balance encounters. Tell me, how do you create a stealth-focused encounter for a party where the normal character has +3 to stealth and the min-maxed rogue has +60 to stealth? If the enemies can even attempt to roll dice against the rogue they will see the normal character even on a natural 1 and the party is caught, if the enemies are capable of failing to spot the normal character then the rogue can solo the entire encounter with no chance of failure.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Or how do you create strength-based obstacles when the normal character has +2 strength modifier and the min-maxed character has +20?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
How do you set the AC of enemies when the normal character has +5 to hit with a single attack and the min-maxed character (after adding up a tedious list of modifiers) has +15 to hit with multiple attacks?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Have you tried not playing DnD?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Karol wrote:
yes right now you don't need multiple books. You just have one book, and it tells you what roll you get. Mods and re-rolls are just a bonus to the mechanic.

Yes, exactly. The focus of the game is on roleplaying not character optimization.

Well 1st as the DM you make sure that you aren't providing enough loot to allow a character to achieve such a modifier.
Next? Let's assume Mr. Stealthy does have a very good chance to evade detection. You simply don't write an encounter/adventure where that characters abilities are all that's needed for success.

Karol wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Well 1st as the DM you make sure that you aren't providing enough loot to allow a character to achieve such a modifier.
Next? Let's assume Mr. Stealthy does have a very good chance to evade detection. You simply don't write an encounter/adventure where that characters abilities are all that's needed for success.

I actualy seen this done at my old store. People were playing some not japan/not china RPG with samurai etc. One dude made some sort of sneaky spy/courter/ninja character and then the GM, made it so they fought goblins and demons all the time. The dudes with fighting samurai had ton of fun, while the courtier dude couldn't even run away, because he bought a ton of courtier stuff, which then he had to leave at the base, instead of a horse. So for 2 weeks I heard him being down or running away, and the third week he didn't turn up, and the player was replaced by one of the players sister. I only remember this because she was huge, a gigant of a woman and remember I went to a sports school, so big women weren't something I never saw in my life. Later found out she was part of the local hooligan clan, just like her brother.

Siegfriedfr wrote:


QFT

Special rules breaking core rules is one of the main gameplay problem with 40K.

 alextroy wrote:
Wow. I read this and all I can see is a list of power gamer complaints:

I can't game charge and pile-in moves to gain extra movement, minimize contact, and control when I destroy a unit instead of actually fighting enemy units.

Flying units no longer have the ability to fly infinitely high and must actually interact with terrain.

The Cover rules are too liberal rather than too restrictive.

Psychic weapons are weapons rather than an easy source of Mortal Wounds.

I can't tweak my list down to the individual model level for maximum optimization.

Yeah. I'll have to disagree with you on almost every point.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Siegfriedfr wrote:


QFT

Special rules breaking core rules is one of the main gameplay problem with 40K.

while i agree with Karol on that specific comment, isn't every special rule "breaking core rules"?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Cover is fethed IMO, GW just cannot do proper terrain rules since 8th (never played older editions so i cannot judge)

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I mean, I've played every edition from the literal white box to this one in 5th. I have to say, I've never seen min maxing shenanigans or as many Warlock, Sorcerer/paladins as I have in this current edition. I blame Matt Mercer. He took my nerd hobby and made it cool to all the norms. Now I have to cater to the power fantasy of some idiot literally creating Johnny Silverhand as a Archer/Monk. And yes, he wants his arm to function as a magic weapon that can block and deflect any melee attack. Or the new person who wants to play the.....vomit....Echoknight, that gets Misty Step as a free action.

tneva82 wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
change without consideration for melee armies more or less reduced their damage output by half. Note how Orks are dogwater.

Change stops silly kongo lines OUT of combat. Kongo lined models not fighting in 9e so being forced to combat increases combat.

Karol wrote:

Must be nice to "roleplay" when your army was given stats and rules on regular characters better then other armies special characters. Now imagine doing role play with a space marine chapter master hiting on +4, with fewer attacks then a regular chapter master and an entire melee army having fewer weapon options then an eldar autarch.

 CaulynDarr wrote:


I generally don't think that the miniature production side controls the game design as much as some other people do, however....

I think the reason there are no rules for hills and forest terrain is that GW currently sells no hill and forest terrain kits.

Sim-Life wrote:Have you tried not playing DnD?

 alextroy wrote:

Toofast wrote:
Actually 9th edition, but with the stratagems from 10th, would be infinitely better than what we have right now. The charge/pile in rules are made to punish CC armies even more, flight movement is dumb because now a flying model can't even get on top of a tall building so they aren't actually flying any more, cover rules are a head scratcher where a unit out in a wide open field gets cover from an enemy inside a house if 1 guy in the shooting unit has a window frame in his view, psychic models don't actually do anything different except it says "psychic" next to their guns, tweaking a list is impossible because you can't just drop 1 guy or 1 special weapon from a squad... I have no idea what they were thinking on most of the changes from 9th to 10th. Less stratagems/CP is the only change I actually like.

Wow. I read this and all I can see is a list of power gamer complaints:

I can't game charge and pile-in moves to gain extra movement, minimize contact, and control when I destroy a unit instead of actually fighting enemy units.

Flying units no longer have the ability to fly infinitely high and must actually interact with terrain.

The Cover rules are too liberal rather than too restrictive.

Psychic weapons are weapons rather than an easy source of Mortal Wounds.

I can't tweak my list down to the individual model level for maximum optimization.

Yeah. I'll have to disagree with you on almost every point.