TheGreatDarkness @ TheGreatDarkness @ttrpg.network

Posts

66

Comments

154

Joined

2 yr. ago

Being less complex than 3.5 isn't indicator of being simple, that bar is on the floor.

Okay, explain to me why do you need rules for holding your breath in 5e. Because that's a good example of too many rules, in OSR you would use something already existing.

And you do you, but really the OSR tend to teach players to find ways to avoid rolling altogether by stacking deck in their favor before attempting something.

Played in few one-shots, wish I could get into a longer game but I'm busy between running 5e, playing Vampire and trying to get second campaign in fate or BitD going.

Also because if they made a simple system, they wouldn';t be able to sell more books.

On the other hand, if you had basic rules be flexible and understandable enough, you could by common sense apply them to most of situations and devs could focus on polishing the edges where you would need a specific rules, which should be few and far in-between.

But at this point why even have rules? A “good GM” can just entirely improvise a system. On the other hand,. if you're the slave to rules, are you even still the GM or just a refferee? It's a sliding scale people fall on, honestly. 5e tried to have it cake and eat it too, insert itself in the middle. You could argue it succeeded, but that makes people naturally drift away from it in either direction. I just think we tend to forget the scale goes both ways and there are more options than Pathfinder with rules for everything.

You see, OSR fans would argue both 5e and Pathfinder have broken core rules engine because if it was well designed, you could apply it to all situations and wouldn't need separate rules for every minutia. By these standards 5e is crunch heavy with unnecessary things like "how to hold your breath"

I once again recommend the video, as it adresses both your points.

For the love of god, try games that aren't 5e or Pathfinder

That's why I've said "as written". I'm sure this was designed by people who hold the mindsets that doesn't do reflavoring (the recent feat allowing you use deck of cards as spellcasting focus from Book of Many Things is another good example) and also thinks Fighter and Barbarian and Monk are just "guys at the gym". Sadly same sentiments were in WotC since 3rd edition, hence why options martial should get were all given cringy anime names and relegated to new classes and explicit called magic by the text.

Back in reddit days this community made it very clear that Rangers are casters to them, up to having memes about it.

Nah, a lot of the anime are having their own magic systems - chakra, nen, stands, pacts. It's common to sometimes make mundane look like supernatural (Demon Slayer), but generally if someone teleports most anime would qualify that as a magic use.

While I agree with the Steel Wind Strike being an insult to put on a wizard and none of the martial classes, this is a bad argument because pretty much every anime swordsman who would pull out a shit like Steel Wind Strike as it is written, is explicit supernatural. I get your sentiment but this is a very flawed, easy to dismantle argument.

And that level 6 feature alone is a slap in the face to Monk players.

My last session the party spent 3 out of 4 hours of the session sitting down to discuss their various issues that accumullated over the course of the campaign. It was nice, I had very little to do and enjoyed their roleplay.

Again, you ignored all of my points, like GETTING ONE OF MONK'S BEST FEATURES LEVEL EARLY AND IMPROVED. And if you try to play this class as simply Monk it will struggle because Monk is poorly designed and struggles. But again, you have better version of every corresponding Monk ability, on top of other abilities and spelsl that can replace every Monk ability you don't get. In every situation you're more versitile, more pwoerful by simply being a caster AND then you get to outperform the Monk with better versions of its core features.

The issue is that usually Casters can do their own thing, even when they go to meele we get something like Bladesinger or Swords Bard, who do thier own things, while Dance Bard literally just gets Monk's features, making it clear it exists to overshadow Monk in particular. If College of Swords Bard was getting Maneuvers I would be saying it overshadows Fighter. And again, this Bard literally gets better version of one of Monk's best features a level early, how can you not take it as spitting in Monk player's face?

1. They can outdamage the Monk with spells, take Unarmed Fighting, replicate everything Monk can with Spells usually being better (eg. Stunning Strike is outdone by Hold person), then also have spells allowing to do something else on top of outdoing the Monk and they STILL get improved version of one of Monk's better features a level early.
2. So is the Monk's, they literally got Monk's class feature as a subclass feature. It doesn't matter it is underpowered compared to wearing armor, it is stil lbetter on them than on a Monk, thus invaqlidating the Monk.

hope it's good, need better monsters in 5e since WotC's design philosophy is to make everything just big sack of hit points with two claw and one bite attacks and no cool abilities.

Here is the core problem with Dance Bard: It invalidates the Monk. For me the whole purpose of this subclass is to bully Monk players by the fact it can do everything Monk can do but better AND gets far more versitality Monk ever had on top of it.. Hell, even some of good Monk features are rendered pathetic and underpowered by this subclass - Evasion went from a consistently good Monk feature to "Bard can get a better version of this a level earlier).I flat out told my players and wrote in survey that if anyone on the table wants to play the Monk, this subclass is instantly banned.