this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
21 points (92.0% liked)

Dungeons and Dragons

11013 readers
1 users here now

A community for discussion of all things Dungeons and Dragons! This is the catch all community for anything relating to Dungeons and Dragons, though we encourage you to see out our Networked Communities listed below!

/c/DnD Network Communities

Other DnD and related Communities to follow*

DnD/RPG Podcasts

*Please Follow the rules of these individual communities, not all of them are strictly DnD related, but may be of interest to DnD Fans

Rules (Subject to Change)

Format: [Source Name] Article Title

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world
owenfromcanada@lemmy.world
21
[Wargamer] Bard and Druid get new DnD subclasses in latest 5e playtest (www.wargamer.com)
submitted 1 year ago by Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world to c/dnd@lemmy.world
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Anomander@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s like the custom stat benefits rule from Tasha’s. On its face, seems like a good idea. But now you just have every race being a reskin of each other. Kill the subclass. Embrace class differences. Let players make their characters unique based on the stories we make together, not trying to fit them into a predefined cookie cutter box.

This is so bizarrely self-contradictory.

Force players to only play the nine classes with no subclasses or features, force species into hard-locked stat differences ... to avoid them being cookie-cutter? Like forcing anyone who wants to play a reasonably-optimized STR character to play a species with inherent STR bonus increases creativity somehow? As if using Tasha's rule to play an unconventional species as a STR class means that player somehow cannot possibly also give their character a unique and interesting story as well as a slightly unconventional class/species combo? Make it make sense.

If you think that having more tools to customize and differentiate species and classes reduces creativity, that's a you problem and not a rules problem.

[–] Protegee9850@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Eh agree to disagree. You’re falling into the trap that 5e sets of assuming what is on the character sheet it’s all that’s available to the characters. By forcing players into subclasses that are all just cookie cutter perfectly balanced slight variations of each others, you’re encouraging players to stay entirely in their sheet and everyone basically does the same thing with different flavor, to fulfill ONLY the specific fantasies pre ordained by WOTC. To approach every problem by first looking to their sheet and trying to find the right number instead of creatively looking at the narrative we’re building together and finding a unique solution. It’s not a “me” problem to acknowledge that 5e subclasses and races are incredibly samey mechanically, and if you can’te see that I suggest you try to look past the matrix and pretty illustrations WOTC uses to distract from the fact, and look to the actual fundamentals of how the game works. Prof. Dungeonmaster I think has a great take on the subject: https://youtu.be/UwPnhr2b8VU**___**

[–] Anomander@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Please, tell me what I think some more. It went so well here.

You’re falling into the trap that 5e sets of assuming what is on the character sheet it’s all that’s available to the characters. By forcing players into subclasses that are all just cookie cutter variations of each others, you’re encouraging players to stay entirely in their sheet. To approach every problem by first looking to their sheet and trying to find the right number instead of creatively looking at the narrative we’re building together and finding a unique solution.

None of this is true. It's a weird strawman that you've made up, that would make absolutely no sense to any real person's opinion - if you weren't trying to create a fictional scenario where having more diversity of choice and options was somehow bad.

It’s not a “me” problem to acknowledge that 5e subclasses and races are incredibly samey mechanically,

It's absolutely a 'you' problem to see a wide variety of options with very few mechanical constraints, and go "yeah, that limits creativity" - if you feel your creativity is somehow enhanced by having hard mechanical limits on which races and classes can do what tasks in a TTRPG ... you can still create that experience for yourself in 5E. Like, having more options doesn't prevent you from playing however confined and restricted you want - so making all of these points about me, about other people is just projecting your own limitations on the rest of the world and then criticizing them for a problem only you seem to have.

and if you can’te see past the matrix and pretty illustrations WOTC uses to distract from that, that’s a you problem, for not really getting how this game works at the fundamentals.

Like that. That's not my opinion, "pictures" aren't why I have my opinion or why I might have the opinion I don't, and I definitely understand the mechanics more than fine. You just made up an opinion for me, made up an explanation why I might have that fictional opinion, and then got snide with me about an entirely fictional scenario you put on me.

You can just not use Tashas if you want. Imagining that other people need hard-coded stat penalties just to "be creative" and that's somehow impossible in a system where you, or they, can still choose to have hard-coded stat penalties is just the wildest thing to pretend is 'wrong' with D&D.

[–] Protegee9850@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I aint got time for that. I’m happy for you, or I’m sorry you’re going through that.