D&D (2024) My wishes for 6e: less dark vision and spellcasting classes

[TwoSix]

And the players should know it's not that much effort and they should take over if the DM thinks their choice of taking up the role make them the most important person at the table.

If the job is so onerous that the only reason one would do it is UNLIMITED POWER, then please don't do it.

Of course. To my mind, the ideal table is one where everyone takes turns DMing.

 

[tetrasodium]

The DM has to run the game. Even novices to the game are aware that DMing takes more effort than playing, and the DM absolutely should walk away if they don't feel the players are respecting the time they put in.

Edit: To be clear, this isn't a 5e issue, as 5e makes no instruction that the DM has to accommodate the players no matter what their request. This is just a general TTRPG issue when it comes to establishing a group that understands and respects the social contract at the table.

That's kind of missing the point though. Look at common 3.x things GM's let players start with and how %e treats them

• A free feat at level 1 | Feats are optional & the system's crunch/math assumes they are not used so ignore that some are wildly imbalanced
• A free magic item | "Optional" & the system's math assumes they are not in use. Plus with the removal of body slots & simplification of almost all subjective equipment choices out these are pretty much always going to be an objectively more powerful thing in every way or trash to be sold

It doesn't stop there though

• Familiar loss really hurts | spend an hour & nothing of value
• carrying capacity light medium & heavy loads with penalties for medium & heavy | There is a variant rule that drops it from no penalty as long as under strength*15 pounds to strength*5 & quite a few races can double the already extremely generous capacity
• etc

 

[TwoSix]

That's kind of missing the point though. Look at common 3.x things GM's let players start with and how %e treats them

• A free feat at level 1 | Feats are optional & the system's crunch/math assumes they are not used so ignore that some are wildly imbalanced
• A free magic item | "Optional" & the system's math assumes they are not in use. Plus with the removal of body slots & simplification of almost all subjective equipment choices out these are pretty much always going to be an objectively more powerful thing in every way or trash to be sold

It doesn't stop there though

• Familiar loss really hurts | spend an hour & nothing of value
• carrying capacity light medium & heavy loads with penalties for medium & heavy | There is a variant rule that drops it from no penalty as long as under strength*15 pounds to strength*5 & quite a few races can double the already extremely generous capacity
• etc

I'm unclear as to what would indicate as to the social contract of various tables.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm unclear as to what would indicate as to the social contract of various tables.

I'm not sure why you'd jump from discussion about being flexible in a discussion between players & /GM's where the system leaves the GM with nothing to give other than "I'm the cruise ship guide" to players who have everything they need already granted by the system so I'm not sure how to clarify your uncertainty. The GM needs to either walk, be a cruise ship guide, or engage in nerfs to claw back things given by the system in too many ways.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then don't run it if you can't compromise.

Again, if you can't compromise with the DM, the same thing applies.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Again, if you can't compromise with the DM, the same thing applies.

Except we keep running into DMs who feel like 'compromise' means 'do what I say because I volunteered to do work'.

 

[James Gasik]

I think, pun intended, that Darkvision has a perception problem. It's not Darkvision, for one. Darkvision would imply you can see in the dark. That's not what Darkvision does. It would be more accurately be called "Dimvision", because it lets you see in Dim light. Then it goes on to allow you to treat darkness as dim light.

This really is a penalty, and I'm not sure why so many people go "yeah, but, it's too useful and people don't need light" despite the very serious issues of running around dangerous areas squinting because you can't see good. It doesn't need to be nerfed or changed or anything. Disadvantage is a huge penalty for a game with bounded accuracy. Lowering passive Perception by 5 is a huge penalty. You don't need to do anything more- you need to make Perception matter more while traveling.

Now, to address player pushback on this- probably, when they pick a race and it says it has the special ability of "Darkvision", they fail to realize what that means, and assume it does what it says it does. Then are annoyed when their "special thing" doesn't work as they thought it did. It's like the guy who tried to sue Hawaiian bread because it wasn't made in Hawaii, or the other guy who tried to sue Pop Tarts because Strawberry Pop Tarts don't contain much, if any, real strawberries. They fell for the advertising and didn't read the ingredients.

You need to explain to them the reason WotC throws Darkvision around on so many races- it's a "ribbon" ability. It's not the big cool reason to play race X or Y. Darkvision is not the answer to lighting problems. Light is the answer to lighting problems.

But DM's need to make sure this goes both ways- if you have some Bugbears creeping up on the party, they need to miss things too for not using light. I have seen DM's pretend that monsters have "super darkvision", and it's annoying.

Now is lighting annoying? Hell yes it is. Does keeping track of who can see what become irksome for DM's and players alike? Absolutely it does. If you want to throw lighting rules out the window, it will probably make your game better.

But Darkvision as written is not, nor ever has been, some godlike ability in 5e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except we keep running into DMs who feel like 'compromise' means 'do what I say because I volunteered to do work'.

Who's "we"? I think most people here are accepting of compromise. You just have to remember that means both sides bend, not just the DM.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Who's "we"? I think most people here are accepting of compromise. You just have to remember that means both sides bend, not just the DM.

It's DMs on this board that keep complaining about having to compromise because they don't want to bend at all.

 

[Cadence]

It's DMs on this board that keep complaining about having to compromise because they don't want to bend at all.

And the other side continually sounds like if the DM ends up saying no to anything at all for any reason that they aren't compromising...