Was it really worth it? We already saw them revise the ranger, was it really necessary to rewrite the whole game instead of just releasing a set of nerfed/buffed classes?

>>96054273 (OP)
Anyone still paying for dnd deserves to get fleeced so whatever.

>>96054273 (OP)
Idk if it was necessary but I'm just happy they removed the "world's greatest role-playing game" lie from the cover.

>>96054290
I get all my rulebooks from the local library for free.

OP, wtf

>>96054273 (OP)
Payed-for Just Better substitutes and errata disempowering prior content have a well-established history of backlash, so yes.

>>96054292
The new version is ait. I just wish they kept the "world's greatest role-playing game" bit, but in massive fucking letters above the title.

>>96054273 (OP)
It didn't go anywhere near far enough in addressing the shortcomings of 5e's character options and made bizarre and nonsensical changes to several rules. Their commitment to retaining every spell from 5e's PHB led to a few weird cases where they clearly knew a spell was broken and so made it into an entirely different spell with the same name.

There are definitely some improvements, but at the level that I'd expect from an amateur DM's homebrew document, with all the attendant "didn't think this through" moments. Definitely not worth the fanfare, though an update and revision WAS merited--they just didn't deliver on it.

>>96054273 (OP)
Are people too retarded to use GIMP now?
inb4 >people

>>96054539
Slop of slop. Slopcest.

>>96054273 (OP)
Overall it was good. 50$ good? Maybe not but like I’ve not bought a book from them for like a decade and the classes did need a new look at instead of more bullshit through “Tasha’s” style reworks

>>96054273 (OP)
Same meta of the same 3 casters dominating, but they nerfed fun builds and made the meta into a DPR snore with the removal of surprise rounds.
Pure brand now, no designers left only contractors

'Rules lite' but combat takes 5-10 rounds of 'mother may I?'

>>96054273 (OP)
Reselling core books is the primary way RPGs make money. Splat sales fall off a cliff with each subsequent one.

>>96054772
>5-10 rounds of combat
Stop wasting your turns talking with enemies and jerking them off, start hitting them. I’ve been tracking combat for my campaign and the longest they’ve been is 4 rounds of combat.

>>96054273 (OP)
The layout is fucking worse, which is impressive because the first one was very fucking good either.

>>96054772
How dogshit is your group that fights are taking 7 rounds? Is your DM throwing hp blobs or hordes of enemies that take forever to clear at you?

>>96054273 (OP)
Ah yes, LOOD: Players Handbook

>>96054273 (OP)
The point was to push their new lisence and capitalize on fan-works and homebrew. Redditors killed that plan, so now we have this instead
The ethical thing to do here is put hasbro out of their misery. Slowly wasting away on mediocre book sales isnt life, just let them collapse with dignity

>>96054292
It is technically true since greatest can also mean biggest

>>96054273 (OP)
It’s well known that they did it to try and screw over roll20 and D&D beyond. It was part of market dominance with their terrible OGL plan. When the OGL plan failed they’d already announced it so shat out what we now have. This clip starts out slow but if you watch the whole section it makes sense https://youtu.be/x0S3sqKTjPo?si=UOLWZQMs9ucrL6as

>>96056827
It’s also known that 5e and 5.5e are both in the commons and usable for anyone who wants. Why should I care what a pf2e shill has to say about wotc when their ORC license is dogshit and worse than just having it in the commons?

>>96054772
>'Rules lite' but combat takes 5-10 rounds of 'mother may I?'
5E sucks ass but your GM (or your party) is doing it wrong if you have this problem
>'mother may I?'
in literally what fucking way? 5E's combat rules are plain and unambiguous. I think you're just an idiot

>>96056756
So does "grossest", but I don't think the suits would be particularly happy about calling it that

>>96055793
At least they have divider lines between spells now.

>>96057388
>The world's GREATEST, GRANDEST, GROSSEST tabletop roleplaying game!
I'd play it.

>>96057388
Considering that they use that word all the time for financhu stuff I seriously doubt they care

>>96054273 (OP)
It's just 3.5 again. Keep buying products.

The weapon special abilities are retarded
Like pikes shoving people... with no save

>>96054539
>>96054556
You're missing the joke. This is funny because Hasbro themselves have already been using AI since 2024 and have revoked their previous anti-AI stance, according to the CEO.

https://gamerant.com/hasbro-ceo-ai-use-confirmation-dungeons-and-dragons-magic-the-gathering/

>>96059373
> Cocks said during a Goldman Sachs Communacopia tech conference in response to questions about cutting costs with AI

Huh, strange that they would say that to those people then constantly push non-ai stuff for their products

>>96059577
Yeah, very "strange," It's almost like lying to investors about securities is a federal crime, while lying to your customers is just business.

>>96057040
>unambiguous

5E keeps many things ambiguous explicitly

>>96055819
That's pretty normal for 5E with a normal sized group mid level, not unheard of high level 5E taking 10+ rounds verses complex bosses

And yes, 5E is a slog because of HP bloat outpacing damage scaling and all advantages getting cancelled out by a single disadvantage

>>96059946
>“I play [D&D] with probably 30 or 40 people regularly. There's not a single person who doesn't use AI somehow for either campaign development or character development or story ideas. That's a clear signal that we need to be embracing it." He proposed ideas like using AI to create stories, to let users generate content, and to streamline the new player experience not only in Dungeons and Dragons, but “also multiple of our brands.”
Sounds like people in his games use Stable-Diffusion for PC art and he wants to somehow get WotC in on it.

Starting a thread with "Now that the dust has settled" should be an automatic permaban from all boards.

>>96059946
>CEOs never lie

get a load of this guy

>>96057817
The execs wouldn't care, but the marketers would.

>>96060128
No, let's see the full quote:
>“Inside of development, we’ve already been using AI. It’s mostly machine-learning-based AI or proprietary AI as opposed to a ChatGPT approach. We will deploy it significantly and liberally internally as both a knowledge worker aid and as a development aid.”
>"I think you’re going to see that not just our hardcore brands like D&D but also multiple of our brands.”

>>96060128
You think that I'm implying that Hasbro is trustworthy? I am simply demonstrating that they have publicly stated "AI Bad" in 2023, then reversed their policy internally and to investors from 2024 forward.

>>96060217
>corpo garbage speak about how cool ai is

>>96054273 (OP)
>hey guys we clarified a few rules and tweaked some of the classes
>also you know how we kinda neglected to actually explain how to play the fucking game in any detail? We wrote some stuff about that this time around.
>That'll be 180USD, give or take
No it's not worth it. It wasn't worth it when 5e was new. It's definitely not worth shit now.

>>96060042
>corpo suit regularly plays high-investment nerd shif with 30-40 other people
It sounds like he's gurgling diarrhea.

>>96054273 (OP)
The new rule for surprise is better.

>>96060042
There's a lot of strange phrases happening here.
>campaign development
>character development
>create stories
>generate content
It not only sounds like he doesn't know how D&D works, but also like he's not actually sure what AI can do or how it can be used, but that he believes investors are dumb enough to be impressed with the idea that AI will also somehow supercharge their business model and create record profits like they think it has for Microsoft and Google.

>>96054273 (OP)
No, it wasn’t worth it. Not for fans and not for them. It’s one of the stupidest ideas they ever followed through on regardless if you like some of the changes.

>>96060409
>>corpo suit regularly plays high-investment nerd shif with 30-40 other people
>It sounds like he's gurgling diarrhea.
It's literally their jobs.

>>96056891
I hate pathfinder but his point about 5.5e still stands. It wasn't made to fix anything, just for negotiations with D&D beyond etc

>>96060581
dude, that entire video is just drama bait hitting all the meme shit that's been said over the last year attempting to show that 5,5 failed.

>>96060563
What, playing d&d, or gurgling turds?

>>96060697
Playing D&D.

>>96060703
Lmao
And I suppose you think musk is an actual wrench monkey, too.

>>96060459
to be fair, investors are dumb enough to be impressed with AI

>>96060151
the yjsssssssssssssssss din use the wrds nigss

>>96060648
I mean, it did fail by every measure. It's 4EE all over again

>>96056891
>It’s also known that 5e and 5.5e are both in the commons and usable for anyone who wants.

Only what's in SRD, which a lot is missing. Everything else HAS to go through DM's guild to be published

>>96060217
>mostly machine-learning-based AI
>as opposed to a ChatGPT
Isn't ChatGPT machine-learning-based?

>>96060001
I think over-reliance on (Dis)Advantage in general was one of my biggest gripes with 5e. Honestly it's a handy mechanic to give a small bonus without tracking more math, but the problem is damn near everything gave advantage but it didn't stack in any meaningful way, and as you said a single disadvantage cancelled the entire thing out.

>>96061373
did it?

>>96060459
>It not only sounds like he doesn't know how D&D works, but also like he's not actually sure what AI can do or how it can be used
This is how most corporate higher ups are when it comes to AI. My mom works in a pretty high position for a big company and her higher ups have recently started to embrace AI and have been cutting down on their workforce because “AI is automating it away”, except that’s not what’s happened at all. Instead my mom and her coworkers have been working harder to micromanage what little staff they have left to meet their quotas and they can hardly keep up and the higher ups haven’t listened to their complaints so now my mom and her coworkers are quitting and the higher ups are in panic mode because they’re the employees they actually need. According to my mom AI is actually useful for her work but it doesn’t automate positions away, it helps make some aspects of their job easier so they can focus on other parts and get more shit done. Firing a bunch of staff because they think AI will automatically do everything perfectly backfired hard.

>>96060459
I am fucking allergic to this corpo-speak. I have the misfortune of occasionally being roped-in to C-level meetings and it's excruciating how much air those people waste trying to say simple things

it's never:
>are we spending too much time on this?
it's always:
>the amount of human capital we've invested in this drive represents a significant risk to our current goals

>>96054273 (OP)

No, but WOTC are too cowardly and too cucked to design their own game, they'd rather basically offer suggestions instead of rules and let players figure out the rest like they're already doing anyway

>>96061520
Heavily depends on what you think failure looks like. By the metric of RPGs? It sold really well. By the metric of 5e, pre-covid boom? Still pretty good. By the unrealistic standards of both Hasbro stockholders and dipshits who have made their entire personality hating d&d on the internet? It's obviously the worst failure ever to happen, in the history of ttrpg.

>>96060459
>There's a lot of strange phrases happening here.
What's strange about them? They've just suffered the standard lobotomy and coat of not-legally-lies that language acquires when money gets involved.

>campaign development
>character development
>create stories
>generate content

All of this is vague to the point of being meaningless in the first place; if you google search "how do I run a good D&D campaign" and read the results from the AI overview tool before scrolling down the page then that those few seconds can cover that entire fucking list.

>>96061697
Corpo-speak uses a similar rhetorical gimmick as legalese. They write and speak that way because it is obtuse and confusing, which allows them to feel smarter and more important because it's like they are reciting a kind of magic spell. The dense, pointless verbiage is just like a weird way to fake confidence and expertise, because normal people don't and can't easily talk like that, so it makes them feel like they are speaking from a position of power and authority, giving them greater confidence when addressing the plebs and drones.

>>96054273 (OP)
5.5 has absolutely abysmal artstyle compared to 5e. Which is saying something, given that 5e artstyle wasn't anything special to begin with.

>>96062012
All the 5.5e artwork I've seen seems to have been commissioned for the purpose of nostalgia baiting and/or virtue signalling.

>>96062012
I like certain artworks in the monster manual, like Aboleth or the Death Knight. Some are abhorrent though, like the sphinxes or harpies.

>>96054273 (OP)
>Aclcke teo B ta(Dlalce
More coherent than anything wotc's put out in years lmao

>>96059373
Because they'll soon be able to push out DM GPTs. You'll pay a monthly subscription and the model trained on tabletops will either make virtual players or a dungeon master for you. This will turn out to be the best financial decision they've ever made.

>>96054273 (OP)
5e needed to be fixed but D&D ONE didn't fix much and has mostly the same problems as before as well as making new problems. To be fair, I have dropped 5e since they went full woke. Preferring games like ACKS, Worlds Without Number, and DC20 over the new slob they been trying to push. PF2 has been kind of meh, though I will admit I did love how the change the Magus in PF2. I bought the book and was hoping on trying to play it out but couldn't find a group and gave up.

>>96054310
they're not small pictures
they're just fucked up by some AI bullshit filter.

>>96054310
>>96062499
Looks like a thumbnail that got upscaled with AI.

>>96062389
Kill anyone who keeps playing 5e, then. It's the only thing that will work since "voting with your wallet" never does

>>96061999
At least legalese is overly specific because minute differences matter—the difference between recklessness and negligence can determine whether a person is found innocent or guilty, for example. Corporate jargon never seems to be that precise, just verbose.

>>96062389
It won't work, though. I've played in a game where we basically have a ChatGPDM, and it ruins the entire game. The DM can barely respond to changing situations and improv, and whenever I read text (we also do some play by post), it results in some utterly bizarre lines.
AI is incapable of making inferences, and that's one of the most important skills a good DM needs.

>>96062814
Have you tried not using ChatGPT?

>>96062814
Forget about inference, it even fails at basic addition and multiplication. Normalfags don't know how transformer architectures and related models work and what limitations they come with.

>>96062823
I don't use it whatsoever. My DM used it like crazy to the point that he basically was just ChatGPT.

>>96062012
5e core books always had the worst art style of any editions, but the style is now AI slop style. It's mind blowing how bad it looks now, some of them look like incomplete compositions

>>96054273 (OP)
despite everything the new cover is way better, why the fuck is some random giant the center of the old one

>>96062829
It only fails because they don't let it execute its own code yet. That's like if you removed the entire right side of a human brain and expected it to be able to solve for X.

>>96060795
It's honestly hard to really believe at this point. AI has enormous negative coding now. It's been shown it makes people less likely to buy products. https://www.techradar.com/computing/artificial-intelligence/survey-says-ai-is-more-buzzkill-than-buzzword-for-marketing

I have heard of some actual business use cases for AI where I go, "okay, I see how that could be useful." I think NLRB Research uses it to quickly summarize huge numbers of cases to make them more searchable.

But overwhelmingly, it seems like people think there's gold here that just... isn't. Learning that Alpha School advertises about its "AI-powered" learning and it's not fucking generative AI, it's just maybe (??; literally from a parent of a kid there, has no idea what the AI part is) that the device you do classes on tracks your eyes to see if you're paying attention was insane. Reading how it actually worked made me go, "Huh, that sounds like it might actually significantly improve scores," but they advertised it as AI powered so I thought it was just trend-chasing dogshit.

>>96062942
Whenever I asked an LLM deal with code that did more than some refactoring, it made calls no non-existent library functions to do the actual logic. It also has no concept of data structures. Well, it doesn't have any concepts at all. Just some strings of sweet nothings it whispers into your ear.
Doesn't stop my superiors from telling me to just ask ChatGPT when I'm supposed to implement something novel.

>>96060459
>he believes investors are dumb enough
Very few people lose money believing the truth

>>96061999
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-ii-posturetalk-powertalk-babytalk-and-gametalk/

>>96054273 (OP)
4th was the last edition they really tried.

5th was just a shallow cash grab. how many new classes did they add in its 10 year runtime? and 5.5 or 6 or next or whatever the fuck they're calling it now looks like an even cheaper scam edition.

as someone who grew up with AD&D, then 3.5, then 4th, it was so sad seeing the lack of effort in 5th and this whole new generation. barely any splatbooks, no new classes, hardly any magic items. obsessing over "balance" as an excuse to just never print new material.

>>96054273 (OP)
>was it really necessary to rewrite the whole game
Yes. A thousand times, yes.
>Was it really worth it?
No, because they ignored all player feedback and just made everything even worse than we could have ever possibly imagined.

>>96063603
How is it a cash grab but they also refused to dump you with dozens of core books and player supplements?

>>96054273 (OP)
There’s zero reason to play 5.5 over 3.5. Total failure of an edition.

>>96064446
You can make a Dex-based fighter in 5.5e and actually be somewhat effective.

>>96062389
That would actually be a good feature for D&D Beyond compared to what they offer. It's worse than DDI ever was

>>96062849
Sorry to hear that. I wouldn't want to play with a DM like that.
However, ChatGPT has some merit. You can test your builds with it and can give you decent advice on what gear to buy.
>>96064723
I've been playing with AI as a DM. It's pretty good for playing through published adventures, but sucks in the writing department.

>>96064446
3.5/pf1e would make the average no-book 5e drone head explode

>>96062814
As someone who has fucked around with all the various LLMs for lewd reasons, I can safely tell you that unless you give detailed, specific instructions with every prompt, to the point of telling it exactly what you want, with explicit notes on tone, structure, and story beats, every LLM will simply shit out the most generic, safe, bland prose it can, or worse, it will output something that loops in on itself and write a bunch of patronizing bullshit, overfill it's memory with its own writing, and forget it's original instructions

>>96064763
Mostly because it’s if you took 2e, removed the charm, and added in a bunch of unnecessary bullshit

>>96064446
Actually getting to play the game instead of losing yourself in situational bonuses would be a reason.

>>96064306
>How is it a cash grab but they also refused to dump you with dozens of core books and player supplements?
damned if you do, damned if you don't. in terms of market strategy the drip feed is arguable better than a flood of splatbooks, but there is something to be said about the relative lack of 1st party materials that aren't huge adventures/setting books.

one of the strengths of d&d, though, is that it's quite easy to port stuff from earlier editions.

>>96064763
>3.5/pf1e would make the average no-book 5e drone head explode
from feature bloat and trap options, maybe.

>>96066241
Porting over the trap options into 5e I see

>>96066241
Trap options are 200% gay anyway

>>96066241
Whenever I hear someone say 'trap options' it makes them sound dumb, like they were confused by it and can't imagine using it any possible way

>>96066959
Not that kinda trap

>>96067269
Give me one good use for blade ward, that justifies spending an entire cantrip slot on it

>>96067296
eldritch knight

>>96063603
4e Hasbro actually spent millions on development on to attract WoW players, as 3.5 sales were down as comic book/wotc stores started closing and had to move to big box retailers. They wanted to make a VTT back in 07-08 but that fell through(now Sigil also was axed for 5.5e).
Interesting fact about 4e is the designers wanted to use mana instead of 'Daily' and 'Encounter' but apparently there was interdepartmental politics over having a shared single setting for both MtG and D&D

5th was Mike Mearls' OSR baby to bring back BX box sets using stripped down 4EE rules he had demo'd to the C-levels, apparently that was the first time they ever played D&D
Every meeting for the last ten years was all about 'on-brand'-- a term that actually triggers all the old designers.

5.5e is pure corporate on-brand sloppo, there are no game designers just managers and directors left trying to direct sales max through D&DB

>>96067269
>Whenever I hear someone say 'trap options' it makes them sound dumb, like they were confused by it and can't imagine using it any possible way
i like a lot of 3.5e's stuff. in my 5e game i ported over the skill system, occasionally add spells from 3e, and changed feats to work more like 3e. please tell me how something like the feats that give various flavors of '+2 bonus on X and Y checks' are anything more than noob-bait. there are a ton of feats where it seems their only real purpose ends up being to make more experienced/astute players feel smart after realizing these options are outclassed by anything else.

>>96067334
... Elaborate (I haven't played dnd for years)

>>96067269
>Whenever I hear someone say 'trap options' it makes them sound dumb, like they were confused by it and can't imagine using it any possible way

It should be the opposite. Trap options look and sound good and/or useful at first glance but end up giving insufficient benefit when actually used. There is a reason why the original 3e Toughness feat is used as the primary example of a "Trap option." +3 hp look useful to new players at low levels but quickly becomes mostly meaningless as characters level up.

Y'all are just reminding me I wish the trap-building rules from 3e, including giving them XP values, were ported to older editions, too. Dunno if later editions have that.

>>96067698
i feel like 5e was more of a Crawford work (which is why 5,5 stayed close to the same because it was also mostly Crawford), and some of the ideas / creation was assisted through Mearls but it was mostly focused on Crawford, considering that Mearls had been on the 4ee leadership

>>96067868
>in my 5e game i ported over the skill system
That's unironically the worst part of 3.x

>>96069170
>That's unironically the worst part of 3.x
not a 1:1 port, but i just like having skills players can buy points in rather than only tying it to proficiency.

>>96054273 (OP)
If you make your own lore/setting (like any respectable GM should) then 202.5e is an upgrade in every possible way I have seen.

>>96060001
>HP bloat
The single biggest "no games, but I parrot shit I heard online," self own I have ever seen surrounding this game. My lvl.11 Cleric deals around 40-50dmg per round simply maintaining a concentration spell and following up with cantrips. Just randomly rolled a basic round of combat with my lvl.11 Ranger/Rogue and dealt 59dmg in a single turn of combat with the potential to churn out more. This isn't even taking into account party wide buffs that usually come into play. Combat takes fucking forever, but it has nothing to do with enemy HP and everything to do with there being multiple effects stacked on top of each other to disclose and roll the results for where the 2-3 rounds of combat needed end up taking an hour to complete (which every WotC edition of D&D has the same problem with).

>>96054273 (OP)
It was necessary for them to get money, so I guess? For the consumer? No.

>>96054273 (OP)
What dust? Why did you use AI instead of posting an image of the books?

>>96059373
The OP obviously wasn't making a joke, he's just a retard.

>>96074968
>combat takes fucking forever
>but HP bloat isn't real!
You think having increased HP on top of having to micromanage all that bullshit has anything to do with it? Or how much worse it is for people who don't optimize the fuck out of their entire party?

>optimization in 5e
>not even for anything worthwhile, just damage
lol

>>96075318
No, I don't. Because 2-3 rounds of combat means players get to make essentially 2-3 choices per combat encounter, which is laughably low, and is basically the antithesis to the HP bloat argument. You could reduce that 40-50damage against a 300HP enemy to 4-5dmg against a 30HP enemy and the result would be the exact fucking same (unless you're a brainlet that cN't do double digit math, that is). The problem is the multiple stacking effects and abilities layering on top of each other, which amounts to ability bloat, NOT HP. But none of you retards ever frame it that way, because you don't actually play games.

>>96075415
Okay, now imagine people aren't playing like you do and aren't doing max damage every single round. I'm sure you can work out, with your big brain, that it would take even longer.

>>96075496
>combat takes longer when you do less damage
This is not the revelation you think it is.

>>96075505
It is when you realize that the majority of people are not powergamers, and the average experience will not be reflected by your 40-50 damage per player per round, every round.

>>96075517
counterpoint, if you're an average table the combat still takes like 3-4 rounds.

>>96075548
So it's an even longer experience with even more time spent micromanaging stacking effects and you're still expected to do multiple combats per session, assuming no one ever misses and no one ever needs healing, and everything more or less goes perfectly.

>>96075579
ngl i think you just may be too stupid for D&D.

>>96075496
I'm not doing max damage, I literally rolled those results while making the post. Again, you come off as no games as fuck if you believe that isn't fairly standard for a lvl.11 character to dole out 40+ damage in a single combat round. That's the fucking game, dude. Trying to argue otherwise simply proves you do not play the game.

>>96075684
Screaming nogames whenever conflicting opinions come your way makes you seem desperate, not intelligent. An average encounter is not a team of characters against a single enemy, freely pounding on it until it dies. On paper, you can have everyone doing their average damage every turn to one enemy and it drops in a couple rounds. In reality, you often multiply that across several enemies. Now consider failed rolls, failed saves, monster abilities, flanking, healing and so on. God forbid, but consider legendary actions if you're fighting something challenging. Now your party members are going down because they got surrounded by 8 low CR enemies and each of them did 2 attacks a piece with advantage.

Doesn't fucking matter how high your damage is when the enemy, by design, has enough HP to last a few rounds from average, level appropriate hits, because Mearls thought combat needed to last a little longer so everyone felt like they were working together.

>>96074767
Quality of writing is worse. Advice on making your own setting is worse. Optional rules in the DMG to tune the game to your setting are worse. Most rule changes are fine, but especially some spells like Command are complete missteps.

>>96075415
you are the retard who can't do math.
There's a huge difference in the variance of doing 4-12 damage because the bulk of your damage is coming from the variance of a single die roll vs doing 40-50 damage.
And that's exactly what the image in >>96075318 is talking about. Players would rather to 40-50 damage with a ~10% chance to miss to turn and kill the enemy in 3 rounds than to do 3-10 damage with a ~40% chance to miss and on average kill the enemy in 3 rounds but also have a chance to kill it in 1 round as the cost of having a chance to it taking 4+ rounds to kill.

>>96074968
I DM'd 5e for over half a decade, it's a problem since Adventuring Day model is how the entire game is balanced from encounters to classes. The default expects 5-6 encounters a day before a long rest, i.e rooms in a dungeon
5e like 4e is an attrition meta, dump dailies/resources to overcome encounters, so you need to throw trash at players to drain resources; a lot of DMs just ignore it but it turns prep casters S tier and makes efficient characters redundant

With bound accuracy, trash for the adventuring day becomes a huge grind if you don't spend spells or you have to throw 2-3 fuckhuge encounters at them

>>96075791
All 5e encounters are party vs single monster, anything else is utterly dreadful to run

Man, my group aren't great at rules by any means (we've been playing for like 2 or 3 years on and off and one player still doesn't really understand the game) and we still never have fights that last more than 4 or 5 rounds at the most. I think we had one fight in our last campaign that was maybe 5 or 6, and it was a huge fight with, if I recall correctly, double the amount of enemies vs. PCs. It took maybe, *maybe* 45 minutes.

>>96075986
One of the supposed design goals of bounded accuracy was to make the monster manual have more life to it by keeping lower CR monsters relevant. DMs were just supposed to bring in more and more of them, since the damage and HP and so on all roughly math out to still being balanced in WotC's opinion. They never stopped to think how fucking awful that would be to run with how badly the action economy favors larger numbers.

Fortunately you can choose how many monsters show up. So if a certain number is too strong, just use fewer, until you find the right amount.

a big issue not mentioned about combat length is that the DM has to not only run the monsters and play them smart, but they also have to keep track of who gets hit and how much damage is being applied, which conditions are in play, and what spell aoes are being used. (This can take a lot of the time during the encounter)

thankfully, this is something you can learn to get better at and combat should get easier with practice even with multiple monsters.

Thankfully, this is something you can solve by using better, more elegant rule sets.

>>96076238
>play different game
no thanks

Can't refuse.

>>96075879
Why aren't you spending spells? Why do you think Fireball exists...?

>>96077598
Probably because fireball is one of the worst spells in the worst school of magic in the game.

>>96077602
They fucked up THIS badly in 5e?

I don't own any D&D rulebooks and I'm planning on buying these.

Why shouldn't I?

>>96054317
that is the most flowery phrasing rebalancing, and you fucked up the past tense of pay to boot. stop trying to sound

>>96062814
>It won't work
Hahahahahaha, oh anon, you have no idea, do you?
If you go looking for online games (especially West Marches) you'll find that nearly half of them, at this point, use AI for most of their stuff, with at best a light curating from the GM.
I have seen a few where there were bots that used Chat GPT to roleplay as certain characters for side sessions and scenes. And yes, they were terrible. But this was solved by the bots being hard coded to give the players a reward for time spent roleplaying (Usually a random magic item tailored to their level).

It won't work, you say? It already is, you just haven't seen it yet.

>>96075318
God Mearls is such a shit designer.
Boiling it down to one roll isn't just more efficient, but you also never feel screwed over by rolling a solid attack and utter garbage on the damage.
>B-but people get bored if they just roll once
You might be suffering from fundamental design flaws if the clinching part of your game being tolerable is rolling the random damage die.

>>96077848
To save some money. I own a lot of D&D books and just use the pdfs 90% of the time. To me it's about coomlecting. If you want a coomlection go for it but they're impractical.

>>96078106
>impractical
Really? The reason I want to buy them is because there is something practical about having a physical product that you can flip through.

>>96078152
Maybe it's just how I DM but I find having a pdf with tabs for what I want easier. I make multiple copies of the book easily and leave it on the page I need. I also often customise all my monsters and just print them out or have a word document with them for quick reference. Sometimes a physical book is nice but it has no search function (obviously) so sometimes finding things is harder.

>>96078156
Fair enough. As someone who hasn't memorised all the rules I like having a book that I can pick up and read from time to time. If you're only using them as reference then I can see how having PDFs are more convenient.

>>96077776
no, fireball is quite strong, anon is just an idiot

>>96062793
Lawyers are wizards, corpos are sorcerers obviously.

>>96077848
Because it's 180 US burgerbux, plus tax, for a game that promises you a ruleset for grand heroic adventures, but really just gives you a lot of bullshit rules for combat and pretty much only combat. It's a skirmish game pretending to be an adventure game that knows you know the name more than you know the game, so you will buy it anyways, commit to the sunk cost fallacy because that's a lot of fucking non-refundable money spent on something that will take you months, or maybe even years to fully understand why you're not having fun, if you ever actually play at all.

>>96079748
>180 US burgerbux, plus tax
i spent 110usd on all 3 books

>>96079992
Still too much.

>>96080013
>110usd to too much for the average Eurocuck

>>96077848
They sell them in Barns and Nobel, which means that they're just straight up free.

>>96080156
110 for a bad game is a bad deal. Stop being a fucking paypig.

>>96079748
>It's a skirmish game pretending to be an adventure game
People know what D&D is and isn't. Assuming you want to play D&D and not another system then I don't see why the books are a bad investment.

>>96080490
>110 for a bad game is a bad deal
5e good though, world's greatest roleplaying game remember

also you're working poor

>>96080533
You’re about to trigger a lot of people with that sort of talk.

>>96080603
i mean, sure? i dont see any issues with spending money on my hobbies and 110$ isn't that much all things considered (also there are free rules for this game and an SRD w/ the rules and lots of places to find the complete rules for free)

>part of the accessibility issue is a skill issue and not knowing how to use the internet to find stuff

>>96080508
>Assuming you want to play D&D and not another system then I don't see why the books are a bad investment.
you can get the rules for free on the tools!!

>>96080508
>People know what D&D is and isn't.
No they fucking don't, which is a considerable problem. People think they need to start with D&D because everyone starts with D&D because they only vaguely know D&D due to pop culture keeping them somewhat aware of its existence.

>>96054296
>I paid my taxes and library fees, so the library can afford having DnD in stock
Grim

>>96079558
That would imply that corpos are highly charismatic, when in reality corpos are so devoid of charisma that they hire other people to be charismatic for them and even that usually fails.

>>96080801
they should start with d&d, because people actually play that game instead of being looped into niche micro communities online that play once every decade

>>96081085
They can stay in the containment dumpster with faggots like you.

>>96081725
i thought you wanted people to get into notDND games, but i concur they should play dnd

>>96080801
>No they fucking don't, which is a considerable problem.
what is d&d, then?

>>96081085
>they should start with d&d, because people actually play that game instead of being looped into niche micro communities online that play once every decade
wtf i thought everybody played femceldark and cairne??!! all the top ttrpg youtubers love those games!

>>96081972
>what is d&d, then?
It's a combat skirmish game pretending to be a rigidly balanced wargame pretending to be a roleplaying game.

>>96077776
>>96079450
That has been the case in every edition, retards.

>>96083327
Guess we're just not Divinationchads

scrubs always guess the wrong thing instead of just trying to learn which options are good lol

>>96080740
No not the poor talk. We're all enslaved and know it. The only solution is to live off autism bux. This part is triggering to /tg/ even though they ignored you
>5e good though

>>96080533
No it isn't.

>>96054273 (OP)
It's objectively better than 5e which was a steaming pile of shit, but it's still only a moderately smaller steaming pile of shit.