Since we semi-regularly take in new players who never tried dnd as some members move or don't have time (usually due to studies or work), I do have to backseat game a bit while they learn. Helping them build the character they want to play, remember class features and what they can do in the game etc. And when people try to use a feature I am unfamiliar with or remember working differently, I make sure to read the feature to try to avoid misunderstandings. I also like to set a few rules at the beginning of an adventure, usually along the lines of "no pvp" and "if your character leaves the party, you need to roll a new character that is with the party". I might also ask why they have let a party member lie there and roll death saves for 5 rounds straight when I know they have both Cure Wounds and Healing Word with spellslots to spare, but that's more about that player not getting to do anything. Things I consider normal tasks for a DM in any game.
"...Since you didn't comment on it, I assume that you are also strongly in favour of them releasing a dedicated forgotten realms source book and campaign setting book, at the same time that they erase all of the lore and flavour from the base handbook/monster manual etc., in order to restore and update what they're erasing? I'm guessing you're looking forward to purchasing those books separately too?..."It's been a little while since I read the PHB and DMG outside of looking up rules, but I don't remember there being much useful world information about the Forgotten Realms there, beyond that the races are flavored for that setting. I've always felt a need to go to outside sources before using FR, so I think a sourcebook for the setting is useful. Like the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide. I don't remember if SCAG was a good sourcebook, but was is a sourcebook for FR.
"...The best and most effective barbarian's I've ever played with, have both been halflings. They make fantastic Barbs..."And I would need to see some justification for that. Since we're clearly looking at the basic mechanics very differently, I wouldn't trust anecdotes. Things like average DPR, saves, HP numbers and whatever else you can think of that is relevant mechanically. And this would of course have to be directly contrasted to a more optimal race (like half-orc, shield dwarf, variant human etc.) with a similar build.
"...What lore, exactly, should I be using for Fairy..."I don't remember all the nuances of the Feywild off the top of my head, but assuming Forgotten Realms, it sounds like you would look to the seelie or unseelie courts. But for One D&D, they have included the "X of many worlds" section, giving some pointers on how they might be in different settings.
"...You don't put the 18 you rolled into your Intelligence "because you spent your early life raised in candlekeep and have been a dedicated scholar all these years", and then also put your +2 into intelligence "because you spent your early life raised in candlekeep and have been a dedicated scholar all these years". That's just... no. That's not legitimate, and it encourages a lack of depth in characters. I don't accept that as fair reasoning..."Given how ability scores work in dnd, yes, you do. You might give a different reasoning, like "Clarence always found that he took naturally to the study of the arcane" or whatever you please, but fundamentally the problem remains that as long as WotC keeps their ability scores functioning like they have in dnd, limiting them based on race is going to push players to play race/class combinations or be worse off. It used to be even worse for some classes, since the primary casting stat also affect how many spellslots you got or if you were allowed to cast a spell of those levels at all. Add on that you often had to roll through spell resistance using those stats and you really do have a lot of trouble if you go with an unconventional caster. It's not quite as bad now, but still bad enough.
Nothing suggests WotC are even considering giving us a better ability score system, so locking races to specific bonuses is not a good thing if you want to free up players to play what they want.
"...I'll read whatever last word you'd like to have, but I'm stepping out of this conversation at this point..."Have a good weekend then.
"...On save DC: Save Dc is much harder to raise than attack bonus..."Keep in mind that effects that target saving throws are often balanced around either "save for half" or "save or suck". Things typically don't have that much HP in 5e (even if scaled up) compared to what player characters are capable of, so constantly taking damage even on successful saves will wear a lot of enemies down quickly. "Save or suck" spells often take away the creature's turn (possibly more than one), which can completely shift the course of the combat. Some spells leave difficult terrain even if the save is successful, limiting movement. Or there is no save at all, like Spike Growth.
A fun example is the spell Dissonant Whispers. 1st lvl, 3d6 psychic damage / save for half. Frightened on a failed save. This thing is insanely good and the safe for half on the dmg makes it almost risk-free to cast it.
Effects that target AC rarely have anything that even comes close to this sort of impact. Warlocks can build their Blast to push or pull for some soft CC, but most everything else uses a saving throw. Battlemasters and Monks requires both a saving throw and an attack roll for some of their abilities. Getting a -5 on your save DC sucks, but casters typically have much better ways to deal with that than a -5 on attack rolls that doesn't come with a bonus. GWM and Sharpshooter is rarely worth using unless you can reliably generate advantage, which is why GWM is a natural fit for Barbarians, for example. Even with advantage, the average return for a GWM Barbarian isn't that huge at lvl 5.
Greatsword +1, 18 str. Extra Attack. Reckless Attack. (ca. 87.75% hit rate due to advantage)
21.06
vs
Greatsword +1, 16 str. Extra Attack. Reckless Attack. GWM (instead of +2 Str at lvl 4). (ca. 57.75%% hit rate due to advantage)
24.255
Same as above, but without advantage:
15.6
vs
14.7
Targetting AC is more reliable in the sense that a "full success" is a bit more common, but it is generally less reliable than "save for half" damage effects and rarely have the game changing impact of a "save or suck" effect. And casters usually have access to both types of spells, in addition to better utility and support. This is one of the things that makes martial characters (especially ones without any magic or spell-like abilities at all) less useful as the game goes into higher levels (another being martial subclasses for actual casters).
It might be harder to stack a save DC to a higher number than an attack roll, but spells that target saving throws are usually better than attacks or spells targetting AC. So if we want similar "success rates" for AC and saving throws, effects that target AC need to be buffed considerably. Or spells that target saving throws nerfed substantially.
