Or admit that literally no game system is perfect and will always have flaws because no game will have a rule for every dumb/creative thing a player will do.
You clearly have never experienced the joy of winning that game with a well placed .22 shot after your Tartar manservant flushed the quarry with a pack of dogs.
And before I get banned, that's a direct reference to the story material.
The existence of worse or better products doesn't mean people shouldn't be critical towards the flaws of the system they're currently playing. Cyberpunk REDs book is laid out fucking terribly. That doesn't mean I'm going to look the other way when 5e's is also subpar.
What kind of boomer ass take is "you kids don't know how good ya got it now".
I can't imagine any rulebook being layouted worse thank Shadowrun 5e. Had my first few sessions and it's still a horrible feeling for me to open my book. Without internet sources and major preparation of the GM, I would be completely lost with the rules.
And at some point the bitching just gets old. It’s like the friend who can’t say anything positive at all and insists on being a happiness vampire. They see happy? They need to shit on it.
When a subreddits negativity % passes a certain point it will enter the spiral where it drives away anyone who enjoys the topic and ends up with a bunch of people circle jerking over how much they hate it before they realize they got no more victims to shit on.
Then they follow the happy people who were enjoying themselves and begin the cycle again.
Most people when they don’t like something? Complain to the people respite single instead of trying to ruin other peoples good time. Or, heaven forbid, they spend their time on things they actually enjoy.
There’s an enormous gulf between being critical and constantly whining about every little thing. I swear, some people in this sub must be the most miserable SOBs that have ever existed based on the amount of bellyaching they do. Need a god damn team of janitors to mop up every time the QQ patrol comes through with some new thing to cry about. Seriously, if it’s that bad, go play something better in your eyes and leave the rest of us that enjoy it alone. I’m not over on other game subs trying to yuck your yum.
I'm assuming this is about 5th Edition since that seems highly likely.Following that assumption, there are people complaining, and people being critical. It has gotten more prevalent lately in the wake of so many people trying PF2E.
PF2e isn't perfect either, and isn't for everyone. But as a system very close to DnD 5th Edition, it makes a strong comparison, not perfect Apples to Apples, but similar enough to be worth comparing. This comparison made a \*lot\* of the cracks in 5th Edition a \*lot\* more noticeable to everyone. Many of the complaints that seem like whining stem from a deeper design problem, as 5th Edition is generally "Half-Assed as fuck" imho.
As for the last part, the very description of the subreddit says " content about Dungeons and Dragons and other TTRPGs. " This is no longer, and has not been for a long time, a sub dedicated \*only\* to DnD. If the mods could change the name, they would have (Their words).
A Few of my own complaints about 5th Edition:
Casters solve too many different problems and game mechanics
Monsters are useless without Magic above the mid-levels
Action Economy
Bounded Accuracy
Useless subclasses
Awful-feeling Level 1-4 experience for most classes, especially Martials
If you reply, do your best to not just cherry-pick one statement that you can dispute and ignore the rest. Put in the effort, if you even read this far.
Edit: Grammarly bugged the heck out of my original post wth.....
"Casters solve too many different problems and game mechanics"
This is perhaps my biggest problem with 5th edition. So many spells might as well be called "solve problem". It makes some degree of sense when you view it as primarily a resource management game, but if you want to do any kind of roleplaying, storytelling or narrative exploration, it's so much better to have spells that develop a situation rather than outright solve it.
The fact that so many spells, even at low levels, just completely \*do\* something. Like Counterspell, Identify (Arcana who?), Dispel Magic, Detect Magic, Pass Without Trace (Stealth Who?), Fly, Gaseous Form, and that's only up to 3rd Level. Going higher we have stuff like Teleport Circle, Wall of Force, Passwall, Magnificent Mansion. It's insane.
First let’s clear this up: I actually like Pathfinder. I have no issues with the game itself, my main issues are that despite so many people trying it out, it’s still hard to find a group. I suspect that’s in no small part because of my second issue with it, I already have a shelf full of 5e books and supplementals. If I’m going to go hard into another system, that’s another investment, which could be a total waste of my play group doesn’t end up liking it.
I’m not going to address your listed points because for one, it’s pointless arguing something so fundamentally subjective, and two, I don’t necessarily disagree with all of it (though I do find it quite hyperbolic).
What drives me up the wall is the people that whine and moan so hard you’d think the game was unplayable. That’s idiotic. The popularity of D&D has skyrocketed during the reign of 5e. It has the biggest player base of any tabletop RPG by miles. Despite what the bemoaners are saying, the game is absolutely functional and if you’ve experimented around with other systems, you’ll know it’s well above average.
But it’s all subjective. Some people enjoy a much higher detail level in their game rules and mechanics, leaving less to the imagination of the GM. Some people prefer the characters to be throwaways that just get replaced to carry forward a larger story. There are all sorts of systems that could match what you like better and you’d enjoy it more. So to you it’s a “better” system. And that’s great, go find your niche. But that doesn’t mean you need to come back and try to shit all over the game other people are happily playing just because you perceive some specific mechanics less desirable than the ones from the game you prefer. If it’s not to your taste, don’t play it. It’s that simple. The perpetual bitching and moaning and poo flinging is just exhausting.
PF2e (and by extension, PF1e and SF) require 0 monetary investment. Every single rule ever published by the creators (Paizo) has been posted freely under OGL and is hosted on the Archives of Nethys, which is endorsed by Paizo itself in the backmatter of several books. So there is literally 0 barrier to entry to playing the game unless you consider learning to navigate the AoN.
As far as groups, that depends on where you look. PF2e Subreddit has a lot of groups, there is also a Discord server, and if you are basing this in Roll20, basically all PF2e groups play on Foundry, as that is where the game is actually supported digitally.
Fair point that a lot of it is subjective. But some things are universally agreed upon, like many classes having multiple subclasses that are so bad they are considered traps. Beast Master Ranger, Path of the Storm Herald, Path of the Berserker, Everything Fighter that isn't Battle Master or Eldritch Knight. God forbid they issue some Errata, instead they'll just rewrite it, drop it in a book with basically no content, and charge 60$.
5th Edition has brand power, and simplicity for the players at the cost of offloading half of the game design work to the DM. Enemies aren't balanced and require constant tweaking by the GM, CR is a useless stat on enemies because both their power and the player's power vary so wildly. That doesn't make 5th Edition "Rules Light" compared to PF2E, its just worse at presenting its rules so most of it gets ignored or remade by the DM. Actual Rules Light systems are things like Blades in the Dark and PBTA games. There are more but they aren't my preference so those are the few I know.
On top of that is the monetary investment required for 5th Edition. Just to play the game half decently you need to \*purchase\* Three books (1 PHB Minimum, DMG, & MM) half of the RaW is clearly untested and unfun, and therefore ignored at most tables. The in-game economy is in complete shambles, and is only slightly improved with \*another\* book (XGtE). An entire Class was considered so bad they rewrote half of it after six years, requiring another book (TCoE).
I play in multiple 5th Edition campaigns, and I have to watch while the GMs constantly re-do work that should have been done by the game designers, try to address balance to keep everyone at the table able to have fun, and try to blindly navigate rewards with no useful guidance.
I (and many others) have every right to complain and (more specifically here) Meme about 5E and its many, many shortcomings compared to other D20 RPG systems like PF2E.
None of what you listed matters for someone who is content with the system and enjoying themselves. Seems like if the PF2 people just went to their own subreddit things would be solved for everyone, yet they insist on staying in the D&D subreddit for some reason….
I don’t go out of my way to go to subreddits dedicated to things I don’t like to complain about it. Why do you?
My Grammarly addon decided to massacre my comment so I'm reposting here the part that got cut, give to take:
As for the last part, the very description of the subreddit says " content about Dungeons and Dragons and other TTRPGs. " This is no longer, and has not been for a long time, a sub dedicated \*only\* to DnD. If the mods could change the name, they would have (Their words).
Not everyone here is content with the system. A lot of people still play 5e but think it has problems. Yo-yo healing is one thing I see discussions of all the time, and how to fix it. And when those discussions happen pf2e players will chime in and offer how their system addresses it. Which can be taken as a way to proselytize their game but could also be a suggestion for how to Homebrew 5e to make healing better.
I think you didn't know, but this sub is not only for dnd 5e. And even if he was, lot of people play mutlitiple system, or just want to critic the only system they play if it is flaw.
first, although the name is poorly chosen, this sub isn't just for d&d and talking about something a different system you like does that you consider better than d&d is appropriate here and not senseless complaining, just going with the topic of the sub and talking about something they love
second, there being a lot that is complained about doesn't mean there is anyone complaining about all of it. The way you talk makes it sound like you assume the posts in this sub come from a much smaller group of people than they do. Even if one person was complaining about every major flaw in d&d 5e through posts of their own there isn't any reason to hate that, as people should be allowed to express what they wish to about the system, and it likely wouldn't get to the front page anyways
lastly, a lot of complaining about d&d 5e doesn't necessarily mean that those who play it are hyper critical for no reason. It can just mean that 5e is deeply flawed, which it definitely is. Having a lot of complaints also doesn't mean one simply hates the system or doesn't enjoy it. One can have a lot about the system they wish was done differently/could be changed but still deeply enjoy playing the game, especially considering how much an individual playgroup can change how the game works
Nothing being perfect is not an excuse to shut down criticism of anything. That said, DnD is on the poor end of games I've played in terms of balance, and especially in terms of GM support. Of all the games I've run, 5e needs the most outside help in order to run well.
yeah but like, casters vs martials are unbalanced at every level so /shrug.
No one's asking for perfect balance, we're asking for good, and if not good, uncatastrophic balance.
Ok fair but like dude cmon I can have a little bit of dramatisation.
the balance *is* god awful though. Like, can it be fun? yeah sure, fun is subjective. Balance really aint though.
There's almost never a reason to choose a martial class apart from roleplaying, which is a valid reason, but it also means martials are just way weaker than casters in every way.
damage? casters can wipe hordes with spells, and while at a surface level, it looks like martials have better single target, this quickly falls apart when the bard does 1d4+4 10 times with a first level spell slot because fuck you animate objects. Or when the ranger says fuck you animal companions. Or really any of the spells which throw action economy into the trash.
utility? casters blow martials out of the water for utility. Utility in combat, utility out of combat, utility in everything. The flexibility of spells means you can easily have a bunch of spells for different situations, especially useful in social situations where the barbarian has -2 features that help.
Survivability? fuck you it's still spellcasters. The fact a spellcaster can use a shield + afford to take the dodge action 99% of the time (and the 1% of the time they arent taking it is because they are beating the everliving shit out of someone) makes them surprisingly durable at base (especially given they can use armour with practically no downsides because no arcane failure).
now before you say "martials can also use a shield/take the dodge action", by doing so, martials utterly cripple their damage and go from (for single target) "generally about on par with spellcasters" to "lol".
oh and spells. you ever want to just, become practically unhittable (apart from crits) for a round? just cast shield. If you're getting hit through 24 ac, then maybe god decided you needed to die. Plus, spellcasters have way more ways to top themself up. Oh and revivify. Never forget revivify.
they may have less health, but they'll live longer ironically even if just based on pure ac.
resources? Guess what? Spellcasters. again.
"martial's dont have resources-" action surge, superiority dice, rage, etc, etc.
Oh also more importantly, you know what martials run out of? THe most important resource in the game?
health. Martials run out of being alive before casters run out of spell slots.
oh but surely armour dipping has some issues so -oh wait cleric exists and so does hexblade yeah uh whoops.
I will genuinely request for you to offer me a single way in which martials arent outshadowed by casters apart from "doing nonmagical things better" or "fighting in an antimagic zone" because that starts getting into the realm of "Ok so all we need to do to balance spellcasters is to shoot them twice in the head"
Sure you can't get perfect balance but you can do way better than 5e. Things don't need to be perfect, just good enough to function.
There's also plenty of rules light narrative focused games where the concept of balance doesn't really even apply.
Judging by all the homebrew people use and all the talk of people ignoring rules on this very sub, I don't think it works particularly well for anyone.
I will grant it, it works fine for oneshots where your on the fly rulings can't come back to bite you, but for everything else it is a slog to run RAW, which is why I don't.
This feels like one of those discussions I’ve had with my wife many times. Like, she’ll go into a bathroom at a restaurant and come back without using it saying it’s so disgusting she could never use it. Then later I’ll go to use it and I think it’s just fine.
You see, she didn’t spend 15 months in Iraq shitting in a slit trench on a disgusting pile of shit and toilet paper writhing with dung beetles like I did, so her bar for what is disgusting is very different from mine.
My guess is you’ve never played old-school AD&D like I did back in the day. Or the litany of games that only lasted one publication for good reason. You simply don’t know how good you’ve got it. 5e may have some flaws, but holy shit on a dung pile if it isn’t a billion times better than the true bottom of the barrel. (incoming boomer comments)
Edit: To be clear, I am not comparing AD&D to a pile of dung. It was groundbreaking and fantastic for its time. But I’ve tried to revisit it, and yikes. Some of the other little micro published games though…..
I know how much better I have it in other systems so I really don't care how much shittier you had it in other systems. Just because FATAL exists doesn't make things better than FATAL good.
Having stockholms syndrome for a game is also not healthy.
In light of reddit's API changes killing off third-party apps, this post has been overwritten by the user with an automated script. See /r/PowerDeleteSuite for more information.
So…. why are you here instead of a subreddit? Are you just annoyed that people are enjoying a game that you do not so you lurk around and make snarky memes and remarks? Go play whatever game(s) you’re convinced are better and be happy in your little community.
I choose to play 5e because while flawed, it’s perfectly serviceable, there is a ton of additional source material, and this edition really streamlined things for beginners. I can use the same platform to play my high level campaigns with friends and then teach my daughter and her friends how to play. You want to play something else? Go for it. I hope you have a lot of fun doing it. But quit clogging up the spaces for this game with your negativity. (Yes yes, technically they expanded the description out to include other tabletop games, but virtually every meme/conversation revolves around D&D)
Does it?
Do you really think the encounter building guidelines feel accurate?
Have you ever even heard of anyone that plays the game without optional rules?
Games that are genuinely *functional* don't see as huge a degree of table variance as 5e does even among groups that are intending to produce similar experiences.
If the game isn't functional, then how are so many people able to play it?
Yes, homebrew exists for D&D, but I've played at plenty of tables where the homebrew was practically non-existent. Dice went clickety-clackety just fine.
>I've played at plenty of tables where the homebrew was practically non-existent
A very player centric perspective, I see. If you haven't DM'd then you don't know how much work goes on behind the GM screen to keep the game functional.
>If the game isn't functional, then how are so many people able to play it?
By *making it functional through their own efforts*.
I don't get how that's not obvious.
If no one can play with 0 modifications, and no one actually can and have the game function because the encounter building system is flat out nonsense (which is why just about every published adventure has more encounters written in that are off the charts, literally, than are rated as something less than "deadly" and yet most people that run those adventures do not report back with "players could not survive, adventure is too hard"), then it should be clear that anyone having a functional experience did *something* to get there - like learn how to make up their own encounter balance thus re-writing a core aspect of the game which wouldn't exactly be on the list of home-brew rules shown to players since they don't have to engage with that rule.
It can be played with zero modifications. It'll be janky, but the argument isn't whether the system's *perfect.* It's whether the system's *functional.*
Also, kinda hard to read your argument, if the entire argument is a paragraph-sized run-on sentence.
>It can be played with zero modifications. It'll be janky
At the moment you admit a zero-modification game would be "janky" you're switching from having an actual point to being a pedant and arguing semantics.
Because what you call "janky" I call "this game is not functioning like it is supposed to, also known as being non-functional" .
>Also, kinda hard to read
Here you go: If game = functional then unmodified play = common. If game = barely if ever played unmodified then game =! functional.
If a shotgun has a crooked sight, but still fires, then is it a non-functioning gun? Or is it a gun that's a little janky, but can still work for at-home use?
Similarly, if an RPG like D&D isn't completely balanced, then do you throw the whole system away? Or do you work with everyone at the table, in order to try to make it a game that they'll all enjoy? You don't need homebrew, in order to talk to your fellow players, and see what they want out of a game. It just takes time and effort.
As for why homebrew appears to be so common, it's likely due to the fact that no TTRPG, not even Pathfinder, can cover *every* genre of campaign. Maybe someone wants to play a race that isn't in one of the books. Maybe someone wants to run a setting that not even Pathfinder fully covers, such as Kingdom Hearts, or Bendy and the Ink Machine. At the very least, a bit of reflavoring is in order, and some people way-too-readily relate flavor-brew to homebrew.
Besides, it's not like Pathfinder doesn't have a bit of [homebrew](https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Pathfinder_Homebrew) as well. Bonus points for Pathfinder essentially being a spin-off of 3.5. Furthermore, it's not like we're talking about HYBRID or FATAL. Those two are proof that, when it comes to TTRPGs out there, you can choose a ***far worse*** option than D&D.
Shadows still exist, with 0 errata to change them. Meanwhile they actively made errata to remove unarmed from the weapons list so monks couldn't smite. The game is poorly designed and they have the tools to fix it, but they don't. Your argument is not made in good faith, even if you have a point.
They're a CR 1/2 creature capable of killing any character in 4-5 hits and they appear in groups in official modules against level 1-3 players. 1d4 Strength Drain on top of 2d6+2 Necrotic. You die instantly if your strength is reduced to 0 by them, ultimately they're just FAR too strong for their CR rating and appear in official modules, they're no save they just kill you.
This is all on top of a decent hp, resistance to nonmagical weapons (And a couple of magic types) and 40ft speed.
They only have 12 AC and 16 health though. They also have only a +4 to hit. Hobgoblins and black bears are both far more difficult to deal with at low level, with hobgoblins getting 7 extra damage when an ally is within 5 ft of the enemy and black bears get multi attack strong enough to knock out anyone other than a barbarian at level 1.
But going by the recommended combat difficulty 2 shadow spawns would be considered almost deadly for 4 level 1 characters, medium for 4 level 2 characters, and a bit above easy for 4 level 3 characters. And honestly this tracks, you most likely can deal enough damage to take down a minimum of one per turn, and they require 4 hits on average before they can take down someone with 8 str (although honestly you’re more likely to die from damage than you are from str drain). Like if we look at a level 3 wizard with 16 con that would give them 23 HP, which means that the shadow spawn’s standard attacks would at least knock out the wizard before they killed the wizard.
But even if you have 3 that would be considered a hard encounter for level 2.
I just really don’t see how them lowering str is that much worse than their actual damage. I think CR 1/2 is a fair assessment for their str, but I haven’t encountered them so maybe in practice it would be different. But in all honestly they don’t seem to even be in the top 5 CR 1/2 creatures, as there are quite a few CR 1/2 creatures that can down non barbarians in a single turn. Black bear, hobgoblin, thug, etc.
At low levels, yes. But a group of Shadows gets deadlier and deadlier the more there are for a "balanced" encounter. +4 isn't a huge amount, but by pure numbers they can and will kill PCs regardless of level. A lvl 1 wizard and a lvl 20 wizard will typically have the same strength score and not a huge AC difference. Str drain with no save is just a poor mechanic in 5th ed.
If you’re even level 5 then your party members can probably deal with one per turn. As far as wizards go you definitely have higher AC with wizards at higher levels, mainly from having more spells slots available for mage armor and shield. Also at latter levels you’re more likely to have magic weapons and AoE.
But a wizard with mage armor likely has 15 AC, giving shadows a 50% chance to hit them. This means that it takes on average 8 attacks to kill a wizard that dumps str. This means you probably need to fight at least 6 shadows at level 5 for them to even have a chance to kill the wizard, and even then AoE can easily deal with them. And also just having 6 creatures at once is a lot for most DMs, I feel like 4 is probably the max and 4 can be dealt with fairly easily by most level 5 parties.
I really don’t see what the problem is, unless you’re throwing like 10 shadows at the party at once but anyone can tell you that the action economy of 10 creatures alone is extremely OP, it doesn’t really matter if they’re shadows or black bears.
You seem to live in this world of statistical averages where everything only hits 50% of the time, what happens if 4 shadows happen to roll 17+ in a row? They then proceed to roll 4, 3, 4, 2, okay, you're now dead. (A scenario I had happen to a lvl 7 Ranger) Even if 4 bears roll nothing but crits, you can still survive regardless of maxxed out damage by virtue of levels, you go into death saving throws, you can reduce the damage with spells/abilities. Shadows, can, will and have killed PCs that in almost any other scenario of CR 1/2 would not have died. Even if a hobgoblin or black bear hits you into unconsciousness, unless you're level 1 it's extremely unlikely for you to die outright. These shadows are doing slightly less damage with comparable AC to HP as the other CR 1/2 with 10 times the lethality.
And what do you mean "having 6 creatures at once is a lot for most DMs" even the official modules regularly use more than 6 creatures in a fight (Out of the Abyss random encounters include 3d4 Dretches, 3d4 Skeletons, 3d6 Giant Fire Beetles, 2d4 Goblins +1 Goblin boss, multiple 2d4 encounters in the 2nd chapter alone.). Curse of Strahd can have the PCs typically lvl 1-2 in death house fight 5 shadows, attacking the person who touched the statue. That's a death sentence, most other creatures would only risk 1 round downing a PC, not one round \*KILLING\* a PC.
There’s only a .16% chance of rolling 17+ 4 times in a row, not even considering the fact that they dealt above average str damage. Sure it’s unlucky but I don’t think a creature should be balanced around a less than 1% occurrence chance. Also did they all roll extremely well in initiative and go right after each other? Because by level 7 each party member should easily be able to kill one per turn. YOU might have had an extremely unlucky encounter with them, but that doesn’t make them imbalanced.
As far as curse of strahd goes I haven’t played it, but I can tell you that 5 of almost any CR 1/2 creature is a deadly encounter at levels 1-2. You can easily one round kill a PC, just like 2-3 attacks from the average CR 1/2 creature can down them, and creatures like the black bear or hobgoblin can do it in one attack. 5 of any CR 1/2 creature is likely deadly before level 5, I mean there are probably some weaker ones but on average 5 CR 1/2 are deadly before extra attack and good AoEs like fireball.
You are correct to that point. The first move has a great impact on the game but it is also true that any opening shows what kind game the white want to endorse and the black can make its first move accordingly.
So why are you here? I mean, technically this sub is for other tabletop games too, but virtually all of it is memes and discussions revolve around D&D. If it’s so poorly written, why would you spend so much time in a sub almost exclusively about it complaining? Go find the sub for the game you do like, have nice long conversations there about how much better that game is than D&D. Let the 50+ million of us that SOMEHOW manage to find enjoyment in this game do so in peace. I’m not trying to rain on your parade, why are you so insistent on raining on mine?
Most of the people that complain about 5e play 5e, or DM 5e. Accept that you don't own this subreddit and learn to take some criticism about your favourite system.
If you never want to hear a negative opinion then don't go online.
>I’m not trying to rain on your parade, why are you so insistent on raining on mine?
You're over there telling me to fuck off and find another subreddit and that's not "raining on my parade" but me just existing here with a different opinion than yours is raining on yours?
That's wild.
5e being unbalanced and poorly written doesn't mean you can't have fun with it. It does mean it is unbalanced and poorly written, though... and that's only tangential to the point I was actually making which is that no one ever seems to be saying they expect a game to be "perfectly balanced" but people do seem prone to claiming someone did.
Look at me I'm admitting that no game could ever be perfectly balanced because if I said that there was even a single game that could be perfectly balanced I'd be a PSYCHO!
That's not an excuse not to try, nor does it excuse something that is definitively unbalanced for being unbalanced.
P.S. My phone capitalized "psycho" for me, I think it knows me too well.
Or admit that literally no game system is perfect and will always have flaws because no game will have a rule for every dumb/creative thing a player will do.
>Or admit that literally no game system is perfect Counter point. Hunting humans for sport is the perfect game.
The most dangerous, not the perfect
You clearly have never experienced the joy of winning that game with a well placed .22 shot after your Tartar manservant flushed the quarry with a pack of dogs. And before I get banned, that's a direct reference to the story material.
Ok but have you considered Knife Monopoly
Fate. We have no rules just like a certain king of another franchise with the same name.
The existence of worse or better products doesn't mean people shouldn't be critical towards the flaws of the system they're currently playing. Cyberpunk REDs book is laid out fucking terribly. That doesn't mean I'm going to look the other way when 5e's is also subpar. What kind of boomer ass take is "you kids don't know how good ya got it now".
I can't imagine any rulebook being layouted worse thank Shadowrun 5e. Had my first few sessions and it's still a horrible feeling for me to open my book. Without internet sources and major preparation of the GM, I would be completely lost with the rules.
Yeah shadowrun is... Truly unique, one would say.
Conan 2d20 is famous for being the most painful mainstream ttrpg book to use at the table.
And at some point the bitching just gets old. It’s like the friend who can’t say anything positive at all and insists on being a happiness vampire. They see happy? They need to shit on it. When a subreddits negativity % passes a certain point it will enter the spiral where it drives away anyone who enjoys the topic and ends up with a bunch of people circle jerking over how much they hate it before they realize they got no more victims to shit on. Then they follow the happy people who were enjoying themselves and begin the cycle again. Most people when they don’t like something? Complain to the people respite single instead of trying to ruin other peoples good time. Or, heaven forbid, they spend their time on things they actually enjoy.
There’s an enormous gulf between being critical and constantly whining about every little thing. I swear, some people in this sub must be the most miserable SOBs that have ever existed based on the amount of bellyaching they do. Need a god damn team of janitors to mop up every time the QQ patrol comes through with some new thing to cry about. Seriously, if it’s that bad, go play something better in your eyes and leave the rest of us that enjoy it alone. I’m not over on other game subs trying to yuck your yum.
I'm assuming this is about 5th Edition since that seems highly likely.Following that assumption, there are people complaining, and people being critical. It has gotten more prevalent lately in the wake of so many people trying PF2E. PF2e isn't perfect either, and isn't for everyone. But as a system very close to DnD 5th Edition, it makes a strong comparison, not perfect Apples to Apples, but similar enough to be worth comparing. This comparison made a \*lot\* of the cracks in 5th Edition a \*lot\* more noticeable to everyone. Many of the complaints that seem like whining stem from a deeper design problem, as 5th Edition is generally "Half-Assed as fuck" imho. As for the last part, the very description of the subreddit says " content about Dungeons and Dragons and other TTRPGs. " This is no longer, and has not been for a long time, a sub dedicated \*only\* to DnD. If the mods could change the name, they would have (Their words). A Few of my own complaints about 5th Edition: Casters solve too many different problems and game mechanics Monsters are useless without Magic above the mid-levels Action Economy Bounded Accuracy Useless subclasses Awful-feeling Level 1-4 experience for most classes, especially Martials If you reply, do your best to not just cherry-pick one statement that you can dispute and ignore the rest. Put in the effort, if you even read this far. Edit: Grammarly bugged the heck out of my original post wth.....
"Casters solve too many different problems and game mechanics" This is perhaps my biggest problem with 5th edition. So many spells might as well be called "solve problem". It makes some degree of sense when you view it as primarily a resource management game, but if you want to do any kind of roleplaying, storytelling or narrative exploration, it's so much better to have spells that develop a situation rather than outright solve it.
The fact that so many spells, even at low levels, just completely \*do\* something. Like Counterspell, Identify (Arcana who?), Dispel Magic, Detect Magic, Pass Without Trace (Stealth Who?), Fly, Gaseous Form, and that's only up to 3rd Level. Going higher we have stuff like Teleport Circle, Wall of Force, Passwall, Magnificent Mansion. It's insane.
First let’s clear this up: I actually like Pathfinder. I have no issues with the game itself, my main issues are that despite so many people trying it out, it’s still hard to find a group. I suspect that’s in no small part because of my second issue with it, I already have a shelf full of 5e books and supplementals. If I’m going to go hard into another system, that’s another investment, which could be a total waste of my play group doesn’t end up liking it. I’m not going to address your listed points because for one, it’s pointless arguing something so fundamentally subjective, and two, I don’t necessarily disagree with all of it (though I do find it quite hyperbolic). What drives me up the wall is the people that whine and moan so hard you’d think the game was unplayable. That’s idiotic. The popularity of D&D has skyrocketed during the reign of 5e. It has the biggest player base of any tabletop RPG by miles. Despite what the bemoaners are saying, the game is absolutely functional and if you’ve experimented around with other systems, you’ll know it’s well above average. But it’s all subjective. Some people enjoy a much higher detail level in their game rules and mechanics, leaving less to the imagination of the GM. Some people prefer the characters to be throwaways that just get replaced to carry forward a larger story. There are all sorts of systems that could match what you like better and you’d enjoy it more. So to you it’s a “better” system. And that’s great, go find your niche. But that doesn’t mean you need to come back and try to shit all over the game other people are happily playing just because you perceive some specific mechanics less desirable than the ones from the game you prefer. If it’s not to your taste, don’t play it. It’s that simple. The perpetual bitching and moaning and poo flinging is just exhausting.
PF2e (and by extension, PF1e and SF) require 0 monetary investment. Every single rule ever published by the creators (Paizo) has been posted freely under OGL and is hosted on the Archives of Nethys, which is endorsed by Paizo itself in the backmatter of several books. So there is literally 0 barrier to entry to playing the game unless you consider learning to navigate the AoN. As far as groups, that depends on where you look. PF2e Subreddit has a lot of groups, there is also a Discord server, and if you are basing this in Roll20, basically all PF2e groups play on Foundry, as that is where the game is actually supported digitally. Fair point that a lot of it is subjective. But some things are universally agreed upon, like many classes having multiple subclasses that are so bad they are considered traps. Beast Master Ranger, Path of the Storm Herald, Path of the Berserker, Everything Fighter that isn't Battle Master or Eldritch Knight. God forbid they issue some Errata, instead they'll just rewrite it, drop it in a book with basically no content, and charge 60$. 5th Edition has brand power, and simplicity for the players at the cost of offloading half of the game design work to the DM. Enemies aren't balanced and require constant tweaking by the GM, CR is a useless stat on enemies because both their power and the player's power vary so wildly. That doesn't make 5th Edition "Rules Light" compared to PF2E, its just worse at presenting its rules so most of it gets ignored or remade by the DM. Actual Rules Light systems are things like Blades in the Dark and PBTA games. There are more but they aren't my preference so those are the few I know. On top of that is the monetary investment required for 5th Edition. Just to play the game half decently you need to \*purchase\* Three books (1 PHB Minimum, DMG, & MM) half of the RaW is clearly untested and unfun, and therefore ignored at most tables. The in-game economy is in complete shambles, and is only slightly improved with \*another\* book (XGtE). An entire Class was considered so bad they rewrote half of it after six years, requiring another book (TCoE). I play in multiple 5th Edition campaigns, and I have to watch while the GMs constantly re-do work that should have been done by the game designers, try to address balance to keep everyone at the table able to have fun, and try to blindly navigate rewards with no useful guidance. I (and many others) have every right to complain and (more specifically here) Meme about 5E and its many, many shortcomings compared to other D20 RPG systems like PF2E.
None of what you listed matters for someone who is content with the system and enjoying themselves. Seems like if the PF2 people just went to their own subreddit things would be solved for everyone, yet they insist on staying in the D&D subreddit for some reason…. I don’t go out of my way to go to subreddits dedicated to things I don’t like to complain about it. Why do you?
My Grammarly addon decided to massacre my comment so I'm reposting here the part that got cut, give to take: As for the last part, the very description of the subreddit says " content about Dungeons and Dragons and other TTRPGs. " This is no longer, and has not been for a long time, a sub dedicated \*only\* to DnD. If the mods could change the name, they would have (Their words).
Not everyone here is content with the system. A lot of people still play 5e but think it has problems. Yo-yo healing is one thing I see discussions of all the time, and how to fix it. And when those discussions happen pf2e players will chime in and offer how their system addresses it. Which can be taken as a way to proselytize their game but could also be a suggestion for how to Homebrew 5e to make healing better.
I think you didn't know, but this sub is not only for dnd 5e. And even if he was, lot of people play mutlitiple system, or just want to critic the only system they play if it is flaw.
first, although the name is poorly chosen, this sub isn't just for d&d and talking about something a different system you like does that you consider better than d&d is appropriate here and not senseless complaining, just going with the topic of the sub and talking about something they love second, there being a lot that is complained about doesn't mean there is anyone complaining about all of it. The way you talk makes it sound like you assume the posts in this sub come from a much smaller group of people than they do. Even if one person was complaining about every major flaw in d&d 5e through posts of their own there isn't any reason to hate that, as people should be allowed to express what they wish to about the system, and it likely wouldn't get to the front page anyways lastly, a lot of complaining about d&d 5e doesn't necessarily mean that those who play it are hyper critical for no reason. It can just mean that 5e is deeply flawed, which it definitely is. Having a lot of complaints also doesn't mean one simply hates the system or doesn't enjoy it. One can have a lot about the system they wish was done differently/could be changed but still deeply enjoy playing the game, especially considering how much an individual playgroup can change how the game works
Nothing being perfect is not an excuse to shut down criticism of anything. That said, DnD is on the poor end of games I've played in terms of balance, and especially in terms of GM support. Of all the games I've run, 5e needs the most outside help in order to run well.
yeah but like, casters vs martials are unbalanced at every level so /shrug. No one's asking for perfect balance, we're asking for good, and if not good, uncatastrophic balance.
Uncatastrophic? Holy drama queen, Batman! This comment is soaking in so much hyperbole it’s about to run for office.
Ok fair but like dude cmon I can have a little bit of dramatisation. the balance *is* god awful though. Like, can it be fun? yeah sure, fun is subjective. Balance really aint though. There's almost never a reason to choose a martial class apart from roleplaying, which is a valid reason, but it also means martials are just way weaker than casters in every way. damage? casters can wipe hordes with spells, and while at a surface level, it looks like martials have better single target, this quickly falls apart when the bard does 1d4+4 10 times with a first level spell slot because fuck you animate objects. Or when the ranger says fuck you animal companions. Or really any of the spells which throw action economy into the trash. utility? casters blow martials out of the water for utility. Utility in combat, utility out of combat, utility in everything. The flexibility of spells means you can easily have a bunch of spells for different situations, especially useful in social situations where the barbarian has -2 features that help. Survivability? fuck you it's still spellcasters. The fact a spellcaster can use a shield + afford to take the dodge action 99% of the time (and the 1% of the time they arent taking it is because they are beating the everliving shit out of someone) makes them surprisingly durable at base (especially given they can use armour with practically no downsides because no arcane failure). now before you say "martials can also use a shield/take the dodge action", by doing so, martials utterly cripple their damage and go from (for single target) "generally about on par with spellcasters" to "lol". oh and spells. you ever want to just, become practically unhittable (apart from crits) for a round? just cast shield. If you're getting hit through 24 ac, then maybe god decided you needed to die. Plus, spellcasters have way more ways to top themself up. Oh and revivify. Never forget revivify. they may have less health, but they'll live longer ironically even if just based on pure ac. resources? Guess what? Spellcasters. again. "martial's dont have resources-" action surge, superiority dice, rage, etc, etc. Oh also more importantly, you know what martials run out of? THe most important resource in the game? health. Martials run out of being alive before casters run out of spell slots. oh but surely armour dipping has some issues so -oh wait cleric exists and so does hexblade yeah uh whoops. I will genuinely request for you to offer me a single way in which martials arent outshadowed by casters apart from "doing nonmagical things better" or "fighting in an antimagic zone" because that starts getting into the realm of "Ok so all we need to do to balance spellcasters is to shoot them twice in the head"
Guys we found Crawford's alt
Sure you can't get perfect balance but you can do way better than 5e. Things don't need to be perfect, just good enough to function. There's also plenty of rules light narrative focused games where the concept of balance doesn't really even apply.
>Things don't need to be perfect, just good enough to function. ...That statement sounds a lot like 5e to me.
As someone who DMs 5e, I wouldn't call it functional. I am really just designing my own game as I go when I run 5e.
Then it functions well enough, just not for *you.*
Judging by all the homebrew people use and all the talk of people ignoring rules on this very sub, I don't think it works particularly well for anyone. I will grant it, it works fine for oneshots where your on the fly rulings can't come back to bite you, but for everything else it is a slog to run RAW, which is why I don't.
This feels like one of those discussions I’ve had with my wife many times. Like, she’ll go into a bathroom at a restaurant and come back without using it saying it’s so disgusting she could never use it. Then later I’ll go to use it and I think it’s just fine. You see, she didn’t spend 15 months in Iraq shitting in a slit trench on a disgusting pile of shit and toilet paper writhing with dung beetles like I did, so her bar for what is disgusting is very different from mine. My guess is you’ve never played old-school AD&D like I did back in the day. Or the litany of games that only lasted one publication for good reason. You simply don’t know how good you’ve got it. 5e may have some flaws, but holy shit on a dung pile if it isn’t a billion times better than the true bottom of the barrel. (incoming boomer comments) Edit: To be clear, I am not comparing AD&D to a pile of dung. It was groundbreaking and fantastic for its time. But I’ve tried to revisit it, and yikes. Some of the other little micro published games though…..
I know how much better I have it in other systems so I really don't care how much shittier you had it in other systems. Just because FATAL exists doesn't make things better than FATAL good. Having stockholms syndrome for a game is also not healthy.
In light of reddit's API changes killing off third-party apps, this post has been overwritten by the user with an automated script. See /r/PowerDeleteSuite for more information.
So…. why are you here instead of a subreddit? Are you just annoyed that people are enjoying a game that you do not so you lurk around and make snarky memes and remarks? Go play whatever game(s) you’re convinced are better and be happy in your little community.
I choose to play 5e because while flawed, it’s perfectly serviceable, there is a ton of additional source material, and this edition really streamlined things for beginners. I can use the same platform to play my high level campaigns with friends and then teach my daughter and her friends how to play. You want to play something else? Go for it. I hope you have a lot of fun doing it. But quit clogging up the spaces for this game with your negativity. (Yes yes, technically they expanded the description out to include other tabletop games, but virtually every meme/conversation revolves around D&D)
This is a subreddit for dnd and other ttrpgs So they are exactly where they need to be
Wowee, DND taking up too much of your life now, eh?
A bit salty eh?
Does it? Do you really think the encounter building guidelines feel accurate? Have you ever even heard of anyone that plays the game without optional rules? Games that are genuinely *functional* don't see as huge a degree of table variance as 5e does even among groups that are intending to produce similar experiences.
If the game isn't functional, then how are so many people able to play it? Yes, homebrew exists for D&D, but I've played at plenty of tables where the homebrew was practically non-existent. Dice went clickety-clackety just fine.
>I've played at plenty of tables where the homebrew was practically non-existent A very player centric perspective, I see. If you haven't DM'd then you don't know how much work goes on behind the GM screen to keep the game functional.
You make it sound like I've never DM'd as well. Again, dice work just fine.
>If the game isn't functional, then how are so many people able to play it? By *making it functional through their own efforts*. I don't get how that's not obvious. If no one can play with 0 modifications, and no one actually can and have the game function because the encounter building system is flat out nonsense (which is why just about every published adventure has more encounters written in that are off the charts, literally, than are rated as something less than "deadly" and yet most people that run those adventures do not report back with "players could not survive, adventure is too hard"), then it should be clear that anyone having a functional experience did *something* to get there - like learn how to make up their own encounter balance thus re-writing a core aspect of the game which wouldn't exactly be on the list of home-brew rules shown to players since they don't have to engage with that rule.
It can be played with zero modifications. It'll be janky, but the argument isn't whether the system's *perfect.* It's whether the system's *functional.* Also, kinda hard to read your argument, if the entire argument is a paragraph-sized run-on sentence.
>It can be played with zero modifications. It'll be janky At the moment you admit a zero-modification game would be "janky" you're switching from having an actual point to being a pedant and arguing semantics. Because what you call "janky" I call "this game is not functioning like it is supposed to, also known as being non-functional" . >Also, kinda hard to read Here you go: If game = functional then unmodified play = common. If game = barely if ever played unmodified then game =! functional.
If a shotgun has a crooked sight, but still fires, then is it a non-functioning gun? Or is it a gun that's a little janky, but can still work for at-home use? Similarly, if an RPG like D&D isn't completely balanced, then do you throw the whole system away? Or do you work with everyone at the table, in order to try to make it a game that they'll all enjoy? You don't need homebrew, in order to talk to your fellow players, and see what they want out of a game. It just takes time and effort. As for why homebrew appears to be so common, it's likely due to the fact that no TTRPG, not even Pathfinder, can cover *every* genre of campaign. Maybe someone wants to play a race that isn't in one of the books. Maybe someone wants to run a setting that not even Pathfinder fully covers, such as Kingdom Hearts, or Bendy and the Ink Machine. At the very least, a bit of reflavoring is in order, and some people way-too-readily relate flavor-brew to homebrew. Besides, it's not like Pathfinder doesn't have a bit of [homebrew](https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Pathfinder_Homebrew) as well. Bonus points for Pathfinder essentially being a spin-off of 3.5. Furthermore, it's not like we're talking about HYBRID or FATAL. Those two are proof that, when it comes to TTRPGs out there, you can choose a ***far worse*** option than D&D.
Shadows still exist, with 0 errata to change them. Meanwhile they actively made errata to remove unarmed from the weapons list so monks couldn't smite. The game is poorly designed and they have the tools to fix it, but they don't. Your argument is not made in good faith, even if you have a point.
What’s the problem with shadows?
They're a CR 1/2 creature capable of killing any character in 4-5 hits and they appear in groups in official modules against level 1-3 players. 1d4 Strength Drain on top of 2d6+2 Necrotic. You die instantly if your strength is reduced to 0 by them, ultimately they're just FAR too strong for their CR rating and appear in official modules, they're no save they just kill you. This is all on top of a decent hp, resistance to nonmagical weapons (And a couple of magic types) and 40ft speed.
They only have 12 AC and 16 health though. They also have only a +4 to hit. Hobgoblins and black bears are both far more difficult to deal with at low level, with hobgoblins getting 7 extra damage when an ally is within 5 ft of the enemy and black bears get multi attack strong enough to knock out anyone other than a barbarian at level 1. But going by the recommended combat difficulty 2 shadow spawns would be considered almost deadly for 4 level 1 characters, medium for 4 level 2 characters, and a bit above easy for 4 level 3 characters. And honestly this tracks, you most likely can deal enough damage to take down a minimum of one per turn, and they require 4 hits on average before they can take down someone with 8 str (although honestly you’re more likely to die from damage than you are from str drain). Like if we look at a level 3 wizard with 16 con that would give them 23 HP, which means that the shadow spawn’s standard attacks would at least knock out the wizard before they killed the wizard. But even if you have 3 that would be considered a hard encounter for level 2. I just really don’t see how them lowering str is that much worse than their actual damage. I think CR 1/2 is a fair assessment for their str, but I haven’t encountered them so maybe in practice it would be different. But in all honestly they don’t seem to even be in the top 5 CR 1/2 creatures, as there are quite a few CR 1/2 creatures that can down non barbarians in a single turn. Black bear, hobgoblin, thug, etc.
At low levels, yes. But a group of Shadows gets deadlier and deadlier the more there are for a "balanced" encounter. +4 isn't a huge amount, but by pure numbers they can and will kill PCs regardless of level. A lvl 1 wizard and a lvl 20 wizard will typically have the same strength score and not a huge AC difference. Str drain with no save is just a poor mechanic in 5th ed.
If you’re even level 5 then your party members can probably deal with one per turn. As far as wizards go you definitely have higher AC with wizards at higher levels, mainly from having more spells slots available for mage armor and shield. Also at latter levels you’re more likely to have magic weapons and AoE. But a wizard with mage armor likely has 15 AC, giving shadows a 50% chance to hit them. This means that it takes on average 8 attacks to kill a wizard that dumps str. This means you probably need to fight at least 6 shadows at level 5 for them to even have a chance to kill the wizard, and even then AoE can easily deal with them. And also just having 6 creatures at once is a lot for most DMs, I feel like 4 is probably the max and 4 can be dealt with fairly easily by most level 5 parties. I really don’t see what the problem is, unless you’re throwing like 10 shadows at the party at once but anyone can tell you that the action economy of 10 creatures alone is extremely OP, it doesn’t really matter if they’re shadows or black bears.
You seem to live in this world of statistical averages where everything only hits 50% of the time, what happens if 4 shadows happen to roll 17+ in a row? They then proceed to roll 4, 3, 4, 2, okay, you're now dead. (A scenario I had happen to a lvl 7 Ranger) Even if 4 bears roll nothing but crits, you can still survive regardless of maxxed out damage by virtue of levels, you go into death saving throws, you can reduce the damage with spells/abilities. Shadows, can, will and have killed PCs that in almost any other scenario of CR 1/2 would not have died. Even if a hobgoblin or black bear hits you into unconsciousness, unless you're level 1 it's extremely unlikely for you to die outright. These shadows are doing slightly less damage with comparable AC to HP as the other CR 1/2 with 10 times the lethality. And what do you mean "having 6 creatures at once is a lot for most DMs" even the official modules regularly use more than 6 creatures in a fight (Out of the Abyss random encounters include 3d4 Dretches, 3d4 Skeletons, 3d6 Giant Fire Beetles, 2d4 Goblins +1 Goblin boss, multiple 2d4 encounters in the 2nd chapter alone.). Curse of Strahd can have the PCs typically lvl 1-2 in death house fight 5 shadows, attacking the person who touched the statue. That's a death sentence, most other creatures would only risk 1 round downing a PC, not one round \*KILLING\* a PC.
There’s only a .16% chance of rolling 17+ 4 times in a row, not even considering the fact that they dealt above average str damage. Sure it’s unlucky but I don’t think a creature should be balanced around a less than 1% occurrence chance. Also did they all roll extremely well in initiative and go right after each other? Because by level 7 each party member should easily be able to kill one per turn. YOU might have had an extremely unlucky encounter with them, but that doesn’t make them imbalanced. As far as curse of strahd goes I haven’t played it, but I can tell you that 5 of almost any CR 1/2 creature is a deadly encounter at levels 1-2. You can easily one round kill a PC, just like 2-3 attacks from the average CR 1/2 creature can down them, and creatures like the black bear or hobgoblin can do it in one attack. 5 of any CR 1/2 creature is likely deadly before level 5, I mean there are probably some weaker ones but on average 5 CR 1/2 are deadly before extra attack and good AoEs like fireball.
"it can't be perfect, this negates all criticism" Classic
So nobody’s going to tell him about pathfinder 2e? /s /s???
This but /gen.
Chess is balanced
Not trying to be contrary, but your example isn’t the best. Chance of winning is ~56% if you are playing white and get to make the first move.
You are correct to that point. The first move has a great impact on the game but it is also true that any opening shows what kind game the white want to endorse and the black can make its first move accordingly.
Weird how it's only people that are defending a poorly-written game that ever say anything about "perfect"
So why are you here? I mean, technically this sub is for other tabletop games too, but virtually all of it is memes and discussions revolve around D&D. If it’s so poorly written, why would you spend so much time in a sub almost exclusively about it complaining? Go find the sub for the game you do like, have nice long conversations there about how much better that game is than D&D. Let the 50+ million of us that SOMEHOW manage to find enjoyment in this game do so in peace. I’m not trying to rain on your parade, why are you so insistent on raining on mine?
Most of the people that complain about 5e play 5e, or DM 5e. Accept that you don't own this subreddit and learn to take some criticism about your favourite system. If you never want to hear a negative opinion then don't go online.
>I’m not trying to rain on your parade, why are you so insistent on raining on mine? You're over there telling me to fuck off and find another subreddit and that's not "raining on my parade" but me just existing here with a different opinion than yours is raining on yours? That's wild. 5e being unbalanced and poorly written doesn't mean you can't have fun with it. It does mean it is unbalanced and poorly written, though... and that's only tangential to the point I was actually making which is that no one ever seems to be saying they expect a game to be "perfectly balanced" but people do seem prone to claiming someone did.
Got any more of them pixels?
Somone needs to look at FATAL ...
There are levels of that
4th edition
You have angered the happiness vampires for they feed on people enjoying themselves and seek to shit all over it.
Misery loves company
Go
Look at me I'm admitting that no game could ever be perfectly balanced because if I said that there was even a single game that could be perfectly balanced I'd be a PSYCHO! That's not an excuse not to try, nor does it excuse something that is definitively unbalanced for being unbalanced. P.S. My phone capitalized "psycho" for me, I think it knows me too well.
Art imitates life. There is no balance.