>i grabbed [thing i liked about 3.5/PF] and made it for 5e!
Do people still not get the design philosophy behind 5e? It's been 3 years.
This isn't a D&D issue either, I've seen people from many games trying to convert older edition content that was specifically avoided for newer editions. What's stopping them from just playing the older editions?
Lack of players. Most people just want to play the newest thing, even sometimes if they liked the old thing just fine. That means if you want players you gotta play the newest thing as well.
Because clearly what the designers make is exactly what all players want to the fucking T bar none, and modifying things to our desire is something we should avoid in one of the easiest to modify mediums.
Fucking genius.
>Do people still not get the design philosophy behind 5e? It's been 3 years.
Its tough to say, WotC has proven themselves to be fallible over this last decade. Rules and design are no longer taken as gospel like it used to be.
It's also fun to make the game fit your players, rather than the other way around.
>entire point of the edition is to make dnd less of a numbers game and more of a roleplaying game again
>port things that give minor numerical advantages between each other
epik
it's okay if you want to port classes or whatever concept that isn't covered by the books, but trying to add, for example, "shield variety" by adding a bunch of shields that vary in 1 or 2 AC each is terrible design and it's exactly the thing to avoid in 5e
Because old content can be made better or simply played in a new way using the new ruleset, sometimes it isn't even avoided specifically, it's just forgotten or unused due to fear of not selling well.
Planescape and Spelljammer are two settings that didn't have that much presence in later editions as full blown settings, but people want to try new things in them so they convert it to a new setting.
And maybe they really liked shield mechanics or whatever they're specifically porting in?
You can like the general approach of a newer edition without to give every single change they do your stamp of approval, and one of the key factors behind tabletop games is that it's super easy to then customize the game so pretty clearly if you wanna do a minor tweak, you're gonna do a minor tweak.
The issue with porting classes, that I normally see, is they're not actually tuned to 5e because "then it just wouldn't be x class!" That's the only real gripe I have with porting old stuff, instead of starting from the ground up try refluffing or using an existing class as a guide.
For Honor sucks
The biggest problem with 5E is that it lacks depth and content, I see nothing wrong with fixing this
>TFW "you're having fun the wrong way" thread
Dude, there's this old 3rd party setting I *love* for D&D. It's a tastefully 40k inspired mash-up of Sci fi and fantasy with players operating inside a galaxy conquered and controlled completely by Dragons, which has known thousands of years of peace and prosperity, only now to be torn apart from within at the behest of a psychotic ancient colossal red dragon emperor. Now his drow generals are leading armies of orcs to purposefully destabilize broad swaths of the galaxy, incite rebellion, and bring ruin to the galaxy on a scale never before seen.
Thing is: it was written for 3e.
So, I ran it once, in 3.5. Running it involved a handful of house rules, adaptations, etc. Having AC act as a standard progression system was fine, but really the weapons needed their lethality toned down, and defensive options needed to be increased... The campaign was short, but i enjoyed it immensely.
Then, a few years later, pathfinder came out. So, I went and started reading the core supplement in earnest, and cross-referencing Pathfinder core book.
I wound up writing a 30 page outline of *just* the crunchy bits. Changes that needed to be made to the races, classes, skills, equipment... Everything from little shit like "Halflings have +2 to piloting checks" to shit like "Devices like micro bugs enable people to eavesdrop remotely, but still require perception rolls, made with a penalty relative to the distance due to signal loss and distortion."
I never got to my point in the earlier post... point is: never got to use the 30 pages of Pathfinder crunch. But now, 5e is out, and everything is *massively* different. And i'm looking at all this conversion work i did and thinking... "Could i do it again?" and "Should i reach out to the company that published the supplement in the first place, and see if they are interested in this IP? They are far more successful now than they were when they wrote this setting initially...
Sweetie, old content was more than just minor bonuses.
Porting some theme reinforcing mechanics is entirely kosher, as long as they fit, or are made to fit 5e's (admittedly more constrained) design space.
What the fuck are you even going on about? Why does this matter so much to you? Are you legitimately retarded?
>as long as they fit, or are made to fit 5e's (admittedly more constrained) design space
this is specifically what i'm complaining about, most of these ports don't fit at all into the idea behind 5e
it's okay to modify, create and port stuff and 5e offers a great deal of freedom when doing so, but they port things with 3.5's design philosophy in mind and completely miss the point of 5e
there's a lot of ways to bring shield variety to 5e, to continue the example
you can add heavy, light and medium shields that follow their armor counterparts without really going into specifics, you can add a spiked shield that you can use as a weapon, but if the initial idea is to have vague shields in order to dress them up as you want and you require some variety, you can't start adding buckler, tower shield, etc and expect them to be accepted when you share them around, when it defeats the entire purpose of keeping it vague among limited choices to minimize number crunching
>What's stopping them from just playing the older editions?
You might as well ask why people make houserules instead of just playing an entirely different game. Very rarely is a system perfect, let alone perfect for your group. If there's something you like about the old edition and different things you like about the new edition, why would you NOT attempt to combine the two?
Houserules that don't fit the overall game is an inevitable issue in any game that isn't laser focused for a single purpose. Just because the stuff came from 3.5 doesn't make it any more specially bad than completely original bad new content, it's just part of the variety in how people play tabletop games.
>"The biggest problem with 5E is that it lacks depth and content"
>adds trivial busywork and clutter
There isn't much philosophy behind it, the design is a product of corporate process and designers that got their start mimicing others. The Japanese animation industry has a similar problem. Veteran animators often lament that old anime had a lot of cultural reference and real world basis. They complain that new anime is mimicry without context, and eventually mimicry based on mimicry based on mimicry.
I believe this would happen in any kind of creative pursuit and in game design you find products from D&D 5e to Heartstone. You can't quite blame amateurs for following the example of official 5e products. Most of it is reductive copycat design where potential 3.5 feats are now class features in a particular class path.
Unless you're not at all familiar with the older systems you can't quite look at things like class paths and not roll your eyes, knowing what they copied or converted.
I don't believe there is anything stopping people from playing older games or even converting or modifying older games. Except maybe some social inertia that some people tend to experience against older or homebrewed games.
Design philosophy isn't incompatible with being a corporate product, it's not really a statement of artistic worth as much as internal consistency.
>want to play 5e
>remember "6-8 encounters per day"
>fuck
>I believe this would happen in any kind of creative pursuit and in game design you find products from D&D 5e to Heartstone. You can't quite blame amateurs for following the example of official 5e products. Most of it is reductive copycat design where potential 3.5 feats are now class features in a particular class path.
We love 2ed. Best edition really. However we also love feats from 3.5.
I'd like to see a mix of some features from each.
2ed:
>Weapon profs
>Non weapon profs
>Psions rules
>Limitations on magic
>No sorcerer class
>Racial level limits
>Stricter allingment restrictions
>Many of the class "kits"
>Saving throws
>Magic item creation
3.5:
>Feats
>Improved (volume) spells
>To hit vs thac0
>Various classes (dragon disciples, warlocks etc)
>Many combat tactics (trip, bull rush etc)
>Reach weapon rules
Mixing the two....will not work so well.
That would depend on whether you hire designers that philosophize or create remixes of existing product.
Even Mike Mearls criticizes his baby, and explains in recent interviews that he's only just starting to understand things about D&D. He doesn't like bonus actions, his solution? Compound actions with snazzy names that are reminiscent to 4e encounter powers.
He figured out 5e combat is repetitive and predictable, his solution? Bring back old initiative but instead of per weapon/action flat bonus roll various extra dice of different denominations.
It's just as shit as anything a fan can come up with, reductive and needlessly complex, but no doubt people will guzzle it down in a product update if it has the official stamp on it.
Then play the old edition. Don't try to force a square peg in a round hole.
>HOUSERULING IS BADWRONGFUN
Yeah, no. How about you fuck off.
>entire point of the edition is to make dnd less of a numbers game and more of a roleplaying game again
These aren't exclusive, and if anything I had to worry more about my numbers in 5E because of how low everything is relative to the d20.
This is not necessarily too hard. At first glance 5e and ad&d 2e seem similar, but this is superficial. For example numbers in the same rough ballpark, but the weighting on the numbers is entirely different.
3.5 actually has more portable features for an 2e game. Some feats are like proficiencies, some almost direct copy/paste, and some are like high level features using the high level rule book.
Maybe don't market the game as modular if you're going to bitch about houserules.
5e's design philosophy is shit. I literally do not give one fuck about what WotC thinks, I'm going to write what I want.
>newer system has rules and mechanics that are more intuitive and everyone seems to like more
>however one mechanic just isn't gelling well with the players and is kind of a pain in the ass for them and the DM to use
>decide to replace that mechanic with one from the previous edition
>everyone agrees that this works better for the group is more intuitive
>NOT SO FAST!
>in burst the Fun Police
>you're only allowed to use a system in toto, stop playing your way
Except they actually increase relative to it, instead of the DC/AC treadmill.
No? Both of those are still part of the game just because you're dealing with more difficult tasks and more dangerous threats later in the game. Monster AC is far higher at CR 20 than it is at 1.
I'm not interesting in playing along with a design philosophy that gets me a pile of shit like the Battlemaster instead of what I actually want.
The automatic stifled progression is part of the main problem. It's the most constrained version of D&D in that regard. You need to make sure you pick the right thing to maintain an edge. No real choice, same formula every time.
>5e's design philosophy is shit
What is its design philosophy then?
user I don't really like 5e much either but it's very easy to see that the Battlemaster is meant to be a barebones path designed for new players so they can just whack stuff without worrying too much, and rejoicing in just a bit of extra crit chance, and not an 'experienced player' path.
I'm talking about Battlemaster, not Champion. Champion is bad for different reasons.
It's only a "round hole" because you keep insisting that 5E is totally about cutting down on the numbers bro despite tons of evidence to the contrary and screeching when people disagree with you.
>the average purist brainlet is too dumb for multiple shield types
what design philosophy are you speaking of exactly?
>the average Veeky Forums browser uses his knowledge gleaned from Wikipedia to try and make an abstracted combat system a historical dueling simulator
>this is specifically what i'm complaining about, most of these ports don't fit at all into the idea behind 5e
WOTC isn't really any better there. I mean, look at the Artificer. Ebberon is really not a good 5e fit.
>the average brainlet thinks making an absurd extrapolation from the very straightforward thing somebody actually said constitutes a real argument
>newest thing
Most of the games I play are from like the 80s
>Sweetie
You fucking peice of tumblr shit
Sorry, but in 5e setting shields teleport to shield hand to another plane effectively removing it unless you're a divine caster. It's in the setting.
>what are math & stats, and how do they work?
These threads are cancer to this board