Search results

You know what they say about you assume. The design of 2014 and 2024 is very different. So in some part their data was wrong or incomplete.

I did. However you will get warped responses if Your example are poor

I wrote my comment specifically not to belittle or discount the ability of the designers. My core point was that 5e was designed before 50%of the current 5e audience got into D&D. So unless they are mind readers or did extensive play testing with teens and young adults, there is no way they...

Because those feats sucked. That's kinda a big issue is that the section of the designer base have little ideas what is appropriate between level 10-19.

They Never playtedted level 8 feats. Only levels 1, 4, and 20.

And let's be honest A lot of the feats are either class features stripped out for dabbling or specializations striped out the fighter to make the core fighter simple as dirt. We don't really need half the feats.

Yes? Again. Less is More only works if your audience agrees on the Less and you design that Less.

Mechanical differentiation is not essential... ...unless you are trying to sell a lot of books of the same game to the same groups of people for a decade.

Well it depends. Feats explain "Is my character different?". Feats often "make up for" the simplicity of the base Ability Score and class system of most editions. And the simplistic races as well. There was always a drive to this. Before it was weapon specialization and spell school...

We learned in 3e that scaling in D&D is more than numbers going up. A level 12 feat would not be a level 4 feat with bigger numbers.

Aaaw. lol What about having various Commanding Presences. Bravura Presence: When a creature within 30 feet of you uses the Attack action, you can use your reaction to let them make one weapon attack or unarmed strike as a bonus action Cost: X Brainpower Channeling Presence: When a creature...

The lack of level 8 and above feats alone show that there aren't enough feats

It's part of conversation about D&D that isn't discussion because younger fans don't want to sound against and older fans don't want to ponder whether their preferences are truly timeless. So mechanical and narrative design around making a D&D that truly doesn't need many additions is danced...

You'd think WOTC would put a setting with all the core races species, classes,and monsters in the PHB inthe DMG. But milk nostalgia and IP names. "I want to be a Goliath Warlock" "Well Goliaths and Warlocks don't match nor have info any of the primers I read about the setting in the the book"

Back to Warlords. Since D&D characters don't get tired in combat, a Warlord class could have be a way to introduce a "Mana" system to core d&D without getting into Psionics. The Warlord could have Mind Points or MP and use them to devise Strategies (buffs), Schemes (debuffs), and.... Scans...

The cynic in me makes me believe that the ability scores are messed up, unclear, or imbalance due to the groups of people who were first came into the the hobby and the mindset loyalty of early war game units.

D&D separates Noticing and Displaying. Wisdom is insight.

Charisma is "display" Charisma lets you display empathy. Whether you have it or not. That's why Deception is CHA. CHA is your ability to make others see you in the way you want them to see you.

Charisma is the OPPOSITE of empathy. Think of it this way Info in= Wisdom Info Processing and Recovery = Intelligence Info Out= Charisma

It's not that they have to not hold back It's that frankly the main lead designers of D&D dont relate to their much younger audience. And they didn't provide enough space to attempt it without creating a new subsystem.