5e

>Hm, due to the way feats work x class has dead levels at 6 and 13. I propose y feature to make those level more interesting.
>THEY AREN"T DEAD LEVELS YOU GAIN HP

I saw variants on that one many times.

What?

wut?

i don't like any D&D edition, i don't like any gamist RPGs.

There are people, still railing against 2nd edition AD&D Edition Wars have always existed in the hobby.

Damage on miss for martials was in at one point. Cue the REEEEEEEEEing hordes and it got removed.

Doesn't matter, 90% of them still play it anyway.

>railing against 2nd edition AD&D
And they're right to do so. Chainmail was far better.

They don't . It's the abortion that was 4e they hate.

Because there's nothing I want to use D&D for that I couldn't do better in some other edition, plus I don't have to deal with its fuckawful vision of what D&D is supposed to be.

doggy!!!

Stick of pain Lamont! STICK OF PAIN!!!

Same reason some people who liked Daggerfall/Morrowind dislike Skyrim. Far too "streamlined" in comparison to it's earlier versions, classes are fucking white bread with branches that no one would play outside being a joke character, once you've played said class once you've pretty much no reason to ever go back because of nearly no diversity for said class, useless martials, overpowered casters, lack of 'out-of-the-box' scenario rules lead to many combat encounters needing to be rule zeroed and played by ear, no god damn crafting, only like 5 buildings have fucking prices/build time, equipment lists are a single page which is unacceptable, and the list goes on and on and fucking on.

Funny, because I get the idea of Elder Scrolls comparison (Skyrim is better then Oblivion by the way, say what you want for the story if you want story you play morrowind, which is best in the series, but skyrim is not too far out), but I will say having now tried 2e for the first time (As I started with 3.5 for few games) I will say that 5 is just updated 2e and that is a good thing.

Then you didn't understand 2E at all.

Well I had experience of playing 5e and once I sat down I could not understand 3.5 right away, once I was 2e, yeah I understood most concepts right away because I saw how they looked nowdays.

Oh fuck my brain

I have felt that 5E is a bit bland, things like dead levels as you say , linear progression and lack of class abultiies but I put it down to a purposeful design decision in terms of simplicity. But this seems to imply they thought gaining hp was an exciting thing during level up.

Best thing I can say about ,5E is its relative simplicity makes it really easy to house rule without messing shit up so these issues are fixable to a degree as much as I loathe doing the designers job for them.

>its relative simplicity makes it really easy to house rule

this is why I like it. If you think there is dead levels then just put your own shit in. Be creative.

It's far too normie friendly and has gained some popularity through shows like Critical Role

Burn in hell!
Oblivion, even if only marginally, was Skyrim's superior in everything but graphics!

Enworld had (has?) a hundreds of pages long containment thread for the topic. Good times.

The world is boring, you can't explore anything interesting, the combat is crap in both but Oblivions is silghtly worse, leveling system in Oblivion is horrid and classes don't make it any better.

You might argue about story but hey, skyrim is not about that, it for you to go out in one random direction and have fun.
And if you want story then play morrowind (As I do right now)

Also Oblivion was first elder scrolls game I played so this is not even nostalgia talking. Other two are just better - one is better for story and other is better for roleplay.

"damage on a miss" would have been a lot better tool to balance "lots of low level enemies vs high level players" than bounded accuracy imo.

its popular, appeals to casual fans, and embodies your typical fantasy land instead of some grimdark human-only setting

honestly that's one of the many reasons I've doubled down on being an OSR advocate, at least some interesting things are happening there

well that and my hatred for Forgotten Realms could power a small city(honestly that's like 99% of the reason I decided not to try and run an Adventurer's League game even though it seemed like a tempting idea at first, since it'd require running official adventures, and there's only been like maybe 2 official ones made not set in the Realms)

hopefully if we get a 6th edition we'll get something more interesting, both in system and setting

Because it's a self limiting, tryhard, sadly lacking effort to try and catch up to where PF already is.

They are going to stretch 5e for like 10 years.

With Mearls's shitty optional rules as UAs instead of anything worthwhile.

>Hey guys! We heard you wanted SIMPLER COMBAT! Here's a system I made up for it!
>Please ignore the fact that 90% of the books' content is actions you take in combat, simplifying it further will just make those parts even more pointless
>Also, I hope you like playing Fighters, they are fun! :)

>This is what pathfaggots actually believe

I hate PF with a passion.

But that was a joke.

Not that user, but I think there's the expectation that you're going to buy into a system it shouldn't require basic fixing like this out of the gate. You shouldn't have to finish the game (out side of dm prep) for the writers, and it puts a fly in the soup for anyone who isn't in the position to house rule.

Valid point. I use the dnd system as a convenient way to frame my fantasy adventure stories, homebrew is the rule for me.

Prove them wrong, bright boy.

The point is that a fat ugly game dev isn't a superhuman marksman.

It's extra funny because they released a feat that lets you do that ANYWAY almost immediately.

Where I am they just became more zealot like about pathfinder.

what's the argument for damage on a miss for martials? It derives from game logic for things like fireball, why add it to a sword (outside of maybe special abilities for very specific fighters)?

bounded accuracy is the best thing they introduced in 5E though?

Because just because you blocked or narrowly avoided a strike doesn't mean it didn't take a toll on you. Even if only a little bit, you are closer to defeating the guy you have attacked, which is primarily what HP represents.

Simple maths, low number of modifiers are good.

Bounded accuracy, when bound so low on a d20 means characters have a hard time excelling.

Similar numbers on a d10, or double numbers on a d20 (which is essentially the 4e/SW SAGA formula) would have been good.

Of course, if you don't mind your character's skills being either replacable by henchmen or unreliable, or you play Rogue's I guess this may not matter to you.

It's too dull for a close or comfortable shave.

you're literally complaining about the intended power level of the game. Do you complain that you can't OHK Nyarlathotep on a Critical Hit in CoC?

Also, I don't think you understand statistics, because you sound like those retards that think having just +4 more over someone untrained at level 1 means trained people are useless.

You're just arguing your interpretation of hp vs their interpretation of hp, when many more people hold to the second interpretation. you made it sound as if there was some integral mechanical reason why damage on a miss was a great addition.

>You're just arguing your interpretation of hp vs their interpretation of hp, when many more people hold to the second interpretation. you made it sound as if there was some integral mechanical reason why damage on a miss was a great addition.

I thought you were asking for a narrative explanation, because the mechanical one is very obvious. Damage on a miss is a great addition, because it makes the game move forward. It eliminates the feeling of "whelp, I guess I just did nothing, then" on a bad roll, and it ensures that fights don't become a stand-still due to both sides being unlucky. It also means that even if you don't do bounded accuracy to the degree 5e does it (i.e. becoming "unhittable" by a lvl1 NPC is actually possible) low level NPCs who never hit remain a threat, and you ccan also simplify fighting hordes of them with just "no need to roll, they all do their miss damage", but this is more of a side benefit.

>you're literally complaining about the intended power level of the game.

Ayupp. The game is schizophrenic about it to a degree that bothers my immersion. I can have a fighter who at level 1 can fight 1 orc goes to fighting 200 orcs at 20... but he can only jump like 5 feet farther. What the fuck?

>Do you complain that you can't OHK Nyarlathotep on a Critical Hit in CoC?

Do you construct a strawman every time you make an argument?

>Also, I don't think you understand statistics, because you sound like those retards that think having just +4 more over someone untrained at level 1 means trained people are useless.

A +4 isn't useless, but... it's still just a +4. It means that having 2 un-trained dudes do a job instead of having 1 "maximum-trained" dude do a job is often better, which I feel is kinda silly. Again, you may not mind that, but having both meh scaling and meh start on skills bothers me.

>Complaining a fighter gets better at fighting when he levels up rather than better at jumping.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing.

Your fighter becomes supernaturally powerful, but only when killing something. While this isn't an invalid concept for a character, it's hard to internally justify why he can kill X times as good, but not do some other (mostly physical) activities ~X times as good, unless he's been blessed by some sort of kill god or something.

I'd rather my fighter becomes supernaturally powerful in a more even way, and gradually turns into a figure akin to Roland/Beowulf/Hercules than be some sort of overspecialized autist who can only lift things well when that thing is a sword.

Oh, alternatively, I'd be totally fine with his abilities only expanding horizontally, instead of so steeply vertically (so like, being able to kill... 5 or so orcs at 20 instead of some silly large number), but I'm not sure WotC D&D is prepared to flatten the power curve that much.

This 100%. Remember, some of the awesome things we lost from the playtest include:

- Superiority dice as a default for the fighter. I think there was talk that every martial character would get Superiority Dice, with maneuvers that fit their class' theme and with Fighters having the largest selection of maneuvers and greatest number of dice and ways to recover dice.

- Sorcerers having spell points and gaining supernatural abilities when they had spend X or more points, with Draconic Sorcerers becoming more dragon-like with AC bonuses, claws, and breath weapons, so playing a caster with no spell left was still FUN and INTERESTING

- Warlocks physically changing to show signs of their Patron on their body, which also gave them cool powers, and Invocactions having roleplaying consequences for learning them like speaking carefully for Baleful Utterance or finding sunlight uncomfortable for Breath of Night.

So yeah, 5E could have made martials more interesting and flexible, it could have given casters an incentive to keep adventuring with low spells remaining, and it could have made magic much more flavourful and with minor drawbacks for learning it. Instead we got boring martials, casters that want a Long Rest every other encounter, and flat uninteresting supernatural abilities.

Yes. a feat for something that a human can do naturally, unlike mentally tearing the universe apart with your mind or memorizing whole spell books, which do not require feats yet are impossible.

D&D was perfected in 2e. There's just no reason for anything else. The campaign settings always mattered more than the rules, and they were better in 2e.

>casters that want a Long Rest every other encounter
I'm in a campaign that's gone levels 1-5 at this point, playing a druid with a friend playing a wizard. Neither of us have been the one to ask for a long rest, except for when everyone else is nearly dead.

This might be a sign of another problem hello caster supremacy, my old friend, but they should only be asking for long rests that often if they're brain dead.