SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

A rant on Tasha, 5e, and we are not in OSR-land anymore

Started by Eric Diaz, November 28, 2020, 02:03:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Renegade_Productions

Quote from: Omega on April 16, 2021, 02:06:22 PM
The rules in question are just a small part of an otherwise more or less not bad book. Its got a little of everything in it and more DM and player tools for those who need or those who do not, but might need a quick idea when the well is dry.

Obviously someone at WOTC is either gullible and got talked into adding those "safety" notes. Or someone there has an agenda. Maybe both at this point.

Has to be both, because Hasbro has embraced wokeness for a while now. They won't curtail anything WOTC does unless it severely hurts their bottom line, and Magic dwarfs D&D these days.

Quote from: mightybrain on April 16, 2021, 03:00:57 PM
Looking at the Amazon reviews, most of the complaints appear to be about the binding. Usually along the lines of "typically poor WoTC product." Is their printing that bad now? I haven't bought a physical book from them for several years.

I've only seen their books at Barnes and Noble and flipped through them on occasion, so can't say for sure. Wouldn't doubt it, though; DriveThruRPG has had the same issue for years now with their 'Premium' POD books.

Omega

Quote from: Renegade_Productions on April 16, 2021, 03:20:27 PMHas to be both, because Hasbro has embraced wokeness for a while now. They won't curtail anything WOTC does unless it severely hurts their bottom line, and Magic dwarfs D&D these days.


Hasbro has not much yet. Theres been a few possible things. But they might also be parodies. Its hard to tell sometimes. But they seem to not pay any attention to WOTCs screw ups till late. Then they tighten the dogs leash... again.

Reallt depends on how deep marketing has its claws into Hasbro. So far seems not much. But they seem hell bent on co-opting them too. Wether this will happen is anyones guess. WOTC on the other hand is weird in that they talk big, but their product tends to be practically devoid of big displays. And what is in a book tends to be either small, or small to the point of being a single meaningless sentence.

Their staff on the other hand cant shut their damn mouths virtue signalling and marketing slapped "warning" disclaimers on every Drive Thru page for any older game they sell as being "problematic".

Eirikrautha

Quote from: KingCheops on April 16, 2021, 02:29:27 PM
Quote from: Omega on April 16, 2021, 02:06:22 PM
The rules in question are just a small part of an otherwise more or less not bad book. Its got a little of everything in it and more DM and player tools for those who need or those who do not, but might need a quick idea when the well is dry.

Obviously someone at WOTC is either gullible and got talked into adding those "safety" notes. Or someone there has an agenda. Maybe both at this point.

I was a little disappointed with the book but then that's because I buy in the wider publishing sphere.  DM's Guild and 3rd party/kickstarter.  The stuff in Tasha's was interesting but more on par with the better produced stuff on DM's Guild.
Yeah, that's a good description.  Recent WotC D&D products have been on the level of (or worse than) fan-made quality.  The WotC employees in charge of the supplements and adventures seem to be lacking the skills of actual "designers," regardless of their titles....
"Testosterone levels vary widely among women, just like other secondary sex characteristics like breast size or body hair. If you eliminate anyone with elevated testosterone, it's like eliminating athletes because their boobs aren't big enough or because they're too hairy." -- jhkim

Arnwolf666

I love Tasha's cauldron. I love optional rules and I love the improvements to the ranger class. I can finally play a single class ranger with expertise stealth.

I am definitely not woke or Sjw at all (orcs are evil). But I love being able to place ability score modifier to race where ever I like them (optional rule) because I hate the pigeonholing of races to certain classes. I can play an effective tiefling fighter now or build a badass orc cleric of grumsh. Okay I still hate dwarf wizards. But that's another story.

I see how many don't want a book of options. That's cool, sit this one out. But I love options to customize settings by themes that are important for the types of stories I want to see unfold.

Renegade_Productions

Quote from: Arnwolf666 on April 17, 2021, 06:52:20 PM
I love Tasha's cauldron. I love optional rules and I love the improvements to the ranger class. I can finally play a single class ranger with expertise stealth.

I am definitely not woke or Sjw at all (orcs are evil). But I love being able to place ability score modifier to race where ever I like them (optional rule) because I hate the pigeonholing of races to certain classes. I can play an effective tiefling fighter now or build a badass orc cleric of grumsh. Okay I still hate dwarf wizards. But that's another story.

I see how many don't want a book of options. That's cool, sit this one out. But I love options to customize settings by themes that are important for the types of stories I want to see unfold.

Sure you're not.

And even if you're not, you could've saved yourself 40 bucks by remembering that those things you mentioned can be homebrewed into 5E without WOTC putting it into a splatbook, thereby making it official and telling the Twatter crowd 'Okay, here's more ground for you. What else do you want?'

Ghostmaker

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 17, 2021, 02:19:52 PM
Quote from: KingCheops on April 16, 2021, 02:29:27 PM
Quote from: Omega on April 16, 2021, 02:06:22 PM
The rules in question are just a small part of an otherwise more or less not bad book. Its got a little of everything in it and more DM and player tools for those who need or those who do not, but might need a quick idea when the well is dry.

Obviously someone at WOTC is either gullible and got talked into adding those "safety" notes. Or someone there has an agenda. Maybe both at this point.

I was a little disappointed with the book but then that's because I buy in the wider publishing sphere.  DM's Guild and 3rd party/kickstarter.  The stuff in Tasha's was interesting but more on par with the better produced stuff on DM's Guild.
Yeah, that's a good description.  Recent WotC D&D products have been on the level of (or worse than) fan-made quality.  The WotC employees in charge of the supplements and adventures seem to be lacking the skills of actual "designers," regardless of their titles....
The problem goes back further than 5E. I remember being absolutely floored that Monte Cook wanted to nerf martial types further in 3E and that they were too powerful compared to casters.

I cannot for the life of me understand that line of thought. I liked 3E, even with its flaws, but holy shit, did they beat fighters with the nerf stick.

RandyB

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 08:44:52 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 17, 2021, 02:19:52 PM
Quote from: KingCheops on April 16, 2021, 02:29:27 PM
Quote from: Omega on April 16, 2021, 02:06:22 PM
The rules in question are just a small part of an otherwise more or less not bad book. Its got a little of everything in it and more DM and player tools for those who need or those who do not, but might need a quick idea when the well is dry.

Obviously someone at WOTC is either gullible and got talked into adding those "safety" notes. Or someone there has an agenda. Maybe both at this point.

I was a little disappointed with the book but then that's because I buy in the wider publishing sphere.  DM's Guild and 3rd party/kickstarter.  The stuff in Tasha's was interesting but more on par with the better produced stuff on DM's Guild.
Yeah, that's a good description.  Recent WotC D&D products have been on the level of (or worse than) fan-made quality.  The WotC employees in charge of the supplements and adventures seem to be lacking the skills of actual "designers," regardless of their titles....
The problem goes back further than 5E. I remember being absolutely floored that Monte Cook wanted to nerf martial types further in 3E and that they were too powerful compared to casters.

I cannot for the life of me understand that line of thought. I liked 3E, even with its flaws, but holy shit, did they beat fighters with the nerf stick.

Oh, that's easy.

Fighters = jocks, mages = nerds.

Revenge of the latter upon the former.

Slambo

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 08:44:52 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 17, 2021, 02:19:52 PM
Quote from: KingCheops on April 16, 2021, 02:29:27 PM
Quote from: Omega on April 16, 2021, 02:06:22 PM
The rules in question are just a small part of an otherwise more or less not bad book. Its got a little of everything in it and more DM and player tools for those who need or those who do not, but might need a quick idea when the well is dry.

Obviously someone at WOTC is either gullible and got talked into adding those "safety" notes. Or someone there has an agenda. Maybe both at this point.

I was a little disappointed with the book but then that's because I buy in the wider publishing sphere.  DM's Guild and 3rd party/kickstarter.  The stuff in Tasha's was interesting but more on par with the better produced stuff on DM's Guild.
Yeah, that's a good description.  Recent WotC D&D products have been on the level of (or worse than) fan-made quality.  The WotC employees in charge of the supplements and adventures seem to be lacking the skills of actual "designers," regardless of their titles....
The problem goes back further than 5E. I remember being absolutely floored that Monte Cook wanted to nerf martial types further in 3E and that they were too powerful compared to casters.

I cannot for the life of me understand that line of thought. I liked 3E, even with its flaws, but holy shit, did they beat fighters with the nerf stick.

Wait really? Did he mean in refrence to earlier editions or in refrence to early 3e.

Ghostmaker

I would need to dig it out, but yeah, Monte Cook wanted to nerf archery options and felt martial classes were too powerful as is when developing 3E.


Pat

Quote from: Slambo on April 19, 2021, 09:15:27 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 08:44:52 AM
The problem goes back further than 5E. I remember being absolutely floored that Monte Cook wanted to nerf martial types further in 3E and that they were too powerful compared to casters.

I cannot for the life of me understand that line of thought. I liked 3E, even with its flaws, but holy shit, did they beat fighters with the nerf stick.

Wait really? Did he mean in refrence to earlier editions or in refrence to early 3e.
Both. Monte Cook was one of the leads on 3e, and apparently strongly pushed wizards. And for after 3e released, see his variant Player's Handbook, Arcana Unearthed.

Though I think it's less that he thought fighters were overpowered and more that he just really, really liked spellcasters.

Ghostmaker

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:23:40 AM
Quote from: Slambo on April 19, 2021, 09:15:27 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 08:44:52 AM
The problem goes back further than 5E. I remember being absolutely floored that Monte Cook wanted to nerf martial types further in 3E and that they were too powerful compared to casters.

I cannot for the life of me understand that line of thought. I liked 3E, even with its flaws, but holy shit, did they beat fighters with the nerf stick.

Wait really? Did he mean in refrence to earlier editions or in refrence to early 3e.
Both. Monte Cook was one of the leads on 3e, and apparently strongly pushed wizards. And for after 3e released, see his variant Player's Handbook, Arcana Unearthed.

Though I think it's less that he thought fighters were overpowered and more that he just really, really liked spellcasters.
I'm not sure the distinction matters. I understand spellcasters are cool and all (I mean, I've got no room to talk as I love to play 'em), but the more I look at 3E, the more I wonder what the hell they were thinking.

The whole problem with feat taxes persisted all the way through freaking Pathfinder -- I like PF, but holy fuck, it was like they couldn't see some of the bigger problems with martial classes (especially fighters and monks) and just repeated the same mistakes.

Hence things like the World is Square/Elephant in the Room house rule pack, which threw a lot of that crap out the window.

Steven Mitchell

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 10:37:51 AM
I'm not sure the distinction matters. I understand spellcasters are cool and all (I mean, I've got no room to talk as I love to play 'em), but the more I look at 3E, the more I wonder what the hell they were thinking.

The whole problem with feat taxes persisted all the way through freaking Pathfinder -- I like PF, but holy fuck, it was like they couldn't see some of the bigger problems with martial classes (especially fighters and monks) and just repeated the same mistakes.

Hence things like the World is Square/Elephant in the Room house rule pack, which threw a lot of that crap out the window.

WotC has always had multiple personality disorder when it comes to coherent design and development.  It's not merely "design by committee", though that is certainly an issue.  It's more like a design committee that knows that design by committee knocks the vision and life out of a product.  So they decided to compensate by designing and developing 3 or 4 different visions all at once and hoping it would work out.  Even 4E, as narrow as it is, still has at least 2 competing visions of what it wants to be, and I'd say more like 3 competing visions and fragments from a few others.

It's almost impossible to grade their development efforts, because who could really shine in that environment?  Not sucking is a real achievement!  Adding, "Oh, and it has to be Woke, too," to that mix is only going to fragment the coherence further.

Omega

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 19, 2021, 11:06:00 AM
WotC has always had multiple personality disorder when it comes to coherent design and development.  It's not merely "design by committee", though that is certainly an issue.  It's more like a design committee that knows that design by committee knocks the vision and life out of a product.  So they decided to compensate by designing and developing 3 or 4 different visions all at once and hoping it would work out.  Even 4E, as narrow as it is, still has at least 2 competing visions of what it wants to be, and I'd say more like 3 competing visions and fragments from a few others.

It's almost impossible to grade their development efforts, because who could really shine in that environment?  Not sucking is a real achievement!  Adding, "Oh, and it has to be Woke, too," to that mix is only going to fragment the coherence further.

This was even apparent in 4e D&D Gamma World where you have the developers going on about how slapstick it all will be.
Then the book and setting itself is fairly standard with only a few oddities.
Meanwhile the monster art is for some horror freak show.
And none of it is funny.
Even less so as they tried to glue a CCG onto it.

Its still though the most D&D in feel of the 4e efforts.

Spinachcat

I greatly enjoy 4e Gamma World...but I skip entire chunks and hacked out the slapstick (and the CCG idiocy). It's definitely the best ruleset of the 4e era. 

Pat

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 10:37:51 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:23:40 AM
Quote from: Slambo on April 19, 2021, 09:15:27 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 08:44:52 AM
The problem goes back further than 5E. I remember being absolutely floored that Monte Cook wanted to nerf martial types further in 3E and that they were too powerful compared to casters.

I cannot for the life of me understand that line of thought. I liked 3E, even with its flaws, but holy shit, did they beat fighters with the nerf stick.

Wait really? Did he mean in refrence to earlier editions or in refrence to early 3e.
Both. Monte Cook was one of the leads on 3e, and apparently strongly pushed wizards. And for after 3e released, see his variant Player's Handbook, Arcana Unearthed.

Though I think it's less that he thought fighters were overpowered and more that he just really, really liked spellcasters.
I'm not sure the distinction matters. I understand spellcasters are cool and all (I mean, I've got no room to talk as I love to play 'em), but the more I look at 3E, the more I wonder what the hell they were thinking.
I think the psychology behind it matters, because it can help explain why it happened and how to avoid that kind of problem in the future.

Wizard supremacy has a couple of roots. One, is the players most inclined to become rules geeks and thus designers seem to overwhelmingly prefer wizards. It tickles that geek power fantasy itch, by giving them a physically weak character who can acquire REAL ULTIMATE POWER (cf. Raistlin's popularity). It also tickles the rules geek itch, because it gives them more moving parts to play with.

As a result, there's a strong inherent bias in favor of wizards. That's complicated by a couple of additional factors, one of which is the reality or lack there of of magical powers. If a designer is the type of geek who is always picking nits, what does that do to fighters? It limits them. Because they start looking at fatigue, encumbrance, whether it's realistic for Fighter Bob to walk away from a 60 foot fall, and so on. The result is a progressive nerfing of the fighter class. And since we're talking about geeks who go over every last detail again and again, this becomes multiple waves of nerfing as everything is overthought and every "realistic" restriction imaginable is put in place. And especially if fighters are defined as the anti-magic-user class or mundane class, you end up with things like 3e's feat list, where there's not a truly heroic or legendary feat to be found (until epic levels, at which point they're pretty pathetic).

On the converse side, magic is explicitly not realistic. It can't be tested against reality, and how it works varies from source to source. So instead of tending toward harsh limits a la the fighter, the tendency with wizards it to remove limits. Because you can always find an example where it doesn't work like that, so out damn restriction, out! And when it comes to powers, it's even worse, because all those different myths and legends are pillaged for the best and most powerful powers. Some of which are insanely powerful, because magic in stories tends to have plot-based limits, not some kind of internal limits. The reason wizards don't dominate the stories in every way is because they're written that way, not because Merlin is balanced against King Arthur. So you end up with a steady erosion of the natural limits built into the game system, and an endless procession of new powers that are all added on top of each other.

Any good redesign of fighters or mages needs to recognize these tendencies, and counter them.