I love making new things. Even in DDB's jank-ass, godawful homebrew editor.
An enjoyment of making new things does not necessarily translate into a desire to rewrite all three core rulebooks to suck less.
Furthermore, most players homebrew new things with the expectation their DM will not give them those things (or at least they should). I make them because I enjoy making them, not because I expect the DM to show me special favors and give me personalized toys. And as a DM, I hand out stuff I've cooked up myself only when it fits the overall tale being told. The only time I get to homebrew specifically for myself, as a player, is when the DM explicitly awards that opportunity as a reward boon or keystone feat. Which is more or less as it should be.
So if 3.5 was a lot crunchier and those who like that are happier with that edition, what’s wrong with playing that edition instead of 5e? If you walk into a restaurant and there’s a plain cheeseburger or a double quarter pounder with lettuce onions and tomato, why would you order the cheeseburger and ask to add lettuce onions and tomato? Just play the one ya like and don’t change the menu for the majority of us who don’t want all that extra stuff. 5e isn’t crunchy and is the most popular version of D&D in history, I highly doubt they will change that aspect of the game that made it so successful. Then again, Coke did come out with New Coke so never say never lol
I can not speak for anyone other than myself, but I don't want 3.5 nor do I want 5e to be like 3.5 and I really don't believe anyone else here does either. I just want more options for this edition.
The Class Feature Variants are a really good example of the Crunch (read Rules) and Options I want.
A more extensive set Crafting Rules that also introduce other Materials with actual effects.
More Feats to allow more customization as characters level up.
Functional Psionics would be a nice addition.
A larger list of Spells for ALL casters.
This is only a short list of ideas and all of these things can be done within the existing framework of this edition without impacting how people currently play the game.
And one more time because people keeps making this assumption. I don't want 3.5 nor do I want 5e to be like 3.5. I just want more options for THIS edition.
I would not hold my breath on any better crafting anything from WoTC. They have made 3 attempts so far: The original entries in the DMG, the elabouration/expansion in Xanathar's, and the Artificer class in Eberon. Something better would not take any .5 version or anything of the sort. It would require them being willing to try to come up with something more concrete. From those three attempts, the only serious effort seems to be the Artificer and that is rather limited.
More feats and more spells: Again, why is homebrewing deemed so horrible an option? Or are you expressing a player's wish rather than a DM's wish and your DM is just too conservative to add? If so, new rules are not going to mean your DM would adopt them.
Psionics: There is some evidence apparently that they are working on this. How good? Who knows....
Why is have more Official Spells and Feats deemed such a horrible option? Would having these options adversely affect your games? New rules are not going to mean your DM would adopt them.
Why is have more Official Spells and Feats deemed such a horrible option? Would having these options adversely affect your games? New rules are not going to mean your DM would adopt them.
BTW, I am both a DM and a Player.
To be more clear... more is fine, but a +0.5 version would be more than just 'more' but re-writing a lot of what already exists. Last time this happened was 3.5e and it was massively controversial. A lot of people felt they had been tricked into buying 3.0 and it was all a cash grab.
As I stated in the post you originally quoted, everything listed could be done within the current framework of this edition.
I don't need a 5.5 to get the options that I want for this game.
Also I remember quite well the backlash of 3.5 but in the end it was a necessary move as 3 was poorly done. 5e is fine, just want more.
So if 3.5 was a lot crunchier and those who like that are happier with that edition, what’s wrong with playing that edition instead of 5e? If you walk into a restaurant and there’s a plain cheeseburger or a double quarter pounder with lettuce onions and tomato, why would you order the cheeseburger and ask to add lettuce onions and tomato? Just play the one ya like and don’t change the menu for the majority of us who don’t want all that extra stuff. 5e isn’t crunchy and is the most popular version of D&D in history, I highly doubt they will change that aspect of the game that made it so successful. Then again, Coke did come out with New Coke so never say never lol
I can not speak for anyone other than myself, but I don't want 3.5 nor do I want 5e to be like 3.5 and I really don't believe anyone else here does either. I just want more options for this edition.
The Class Feature Variants are a really good example of the Crunch (read Rules) and Options I want.
A more extensive set Crafting Rules that also introduce other Materials with actual effects.
More Feats to allow more customization as characters level up.
Functional Psionics would be a nice addition.
A larger list of Spells for ALL casters.
This is only a short list of ideas and all of these things can be done within the existing framework of this edition without impacting how people currently play the game.
And one more time because people keeps making this assumption. I don't want 3.5 nor do I want 5e to be like 3.5. I just want more options for THIS edition.
I would not hold my breath on any better crafting anything from WoTC. They have made 3 attempts so far: The original entries in the DMG, the elabouration/expansion in Xanathar's, and the Artificer class in Eberon. Something better would not take any .5 version or anything of the sort. It would require them being willing to try to come up with something more concrete. From those three attempts, the only serious effort seems to be the Artificer and that is rather limited.
More feats and more spells: Again, why is homebrewing deemed so horrible an option? Or are you expressing a player's wish rather than a DM's wish and your DM is just too conservative to add? If so, new rules are not going to mean your DM would adopt them.
Psionics: There is some evidence apparently that they are working on this. How good? Who knows....
Why is have more Official Spells and Feats deemed such a horrible option? Would having these options adversely affect your games? New rules are not going to mean your DM would adopt them.
BTW, I am both a DM and a Player.
Isn’t that what the sourcebooks should be doing. I know there have been spells and feats introduced in some of them. If they would introduce more into the adventure/source books, I would love that.
In fact, Icewind Dale is going to finally allow my druid to use some of the arctic/snow beasts in wildshapes and polymorph that have been missing. Hopefully there is some more cold spells as well.
There's a LOT of great discussion going on here and I think the OP questions are entirely valid. Rather than get into the nitty-gritty points of whys and why nots, I'll just list my wishes for an Advanced 5e supplement, should it ever materialize.
1 Robust and detailed ruleset for crafting, both mundane and magical
2 Deeper unique class choices beyond the typical level 3 subclass. The key words being "unique" and "choices". Things that are specific to each class that other classes can't exactly mimic through feats. Variety is the spice of RP!
3 New health system to replace Hit Points. Hit Points are just purely immersion-breaking. "An assassin deftly sneaks up on the rival guildmaster as he slumbers in his overly lavish bed and, in a swift flash of steel, plunges his razor-sharp dagger into the side of the guildmaster's neck... buuuut since the guildmaster has 134HP, it's literally impossible to assassinate him. Sorry, chum. All you manage to do is wake him up angry. Roll for initiative."
4 Reworking of a few combat mechanics. For example, prone/stand up and disarm so that knocking a target prone or disarming an opponent during a harried and chaotic battle actually means something.
I might think of other wishes but this is a start.
3 New health system to replace Hit Points. Hit Points are just purely immersion-breaking. "An assassin deftly sneaks up on the rival guildmaster as he slumbers in his overly lavish bed and, in a swift flash of steel, plunges his razor-sharp dagger into the side of the guildmaster's neck... buuuut since the guildmaster has 134HP, it's literally impossible to assassinate him. Sorry, chum. All you manage to do is wake him up angry. Roll for initiative."
Any DM that plays it out that way is a moron. Sorry, just gonna say it. Hitpoints are for combat and dungeon crawls. Any other scenario and they don't make sense.
3 New health system to replace Hit Points. Hit Points are just purely immersion-breaking. "An assassin deftly sneaks up on the rival guildmaster as he slumbers in his overly lavish bed and, in a swift flash of steel, plunges his razor-sharp dagger into the side of the guildmaster's neck... buuuut since the guildmaster has 134HP, it's literally impossible to assassinate him. Sorry, chum. All you manage to do is wake him up angry. Roll for initiative."
If the guildmaster has 134 hp he's got at least high teens hit dice, so an epic level assassin is appropriate. A 17th level assassin would do a base of something like 10d6+5, auto-crit cuz surprise (75), and the target needs to save (Con DC 19) or take double damage. After the surprise round, he probably wins initiative, so he can attack again (no save this time, but still auto-crit).
Or, you know, since no human - no matter how beefy and strong - survives with their throat cut in their sleep without warning, the guild master is just dead.
This is the kind of problem that arises when you assume the rules are defining the fictional game world you're playing in, rather than trying to imperfectly model a particular style of fictional world: you don't know when to throw out the errant nonsense.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Or, you know, since no human - no matter how beefy and strong - survives with their throat cut in their sleep without warning, the guild master is just dead.
Epic level characters have magic or unfair luck on their side. He can survive for exactly the same reason he can reliably survive a 200' fall.
Or, you know, since no human - no matter how beefy and strong - survives with their throat cut in their sleep without warning, the guild master is just dead.
Epic level characters have magic or unfair luck on their side. He can survive for exactly the same reason he can reliably survive a 200' fall.
You're not wrong - but I don't think I'm wrong either :) It's just two ways of looking at the problem.
I judge whether a rule needs to be bent according the internal logic of the game world - you appear to be finding ways of justifying the rule by finding ways to tweak the game world so that they do make sense.
It's just what facets of the game you prioritize over others - in this case, integrity of rules-as-written vs. integrity of the dramatic vision you have for the campaign world.
Neither camp is wrong, any more than you would be wrong to like strawberry ice cream over chocolate, when I'm the other way ( or vice versa - I have no idea if you even like ice cream :D ).
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I judge whether a rule needs to be bent according the internal logic of the game world - you appear to be finding ways of justifying the rule by finding ways to tweak the game world so that they do make sense.
If an assassin comes after Conan in the middle of the night, Conan is unlikely to get taken out...
I judge whether a rule needs to be bent according the internal logic of the game world - you appear to be finding ways of justifying the rule by finding ways to tweak the game world so that they do make sense.
If an assassin comes after Conan in the middle of the night, Conan is unlikely to get taken out...
That's subtly different. It's pretty clear that the rules are not symmetrical between Players and non-Players: Death Saves for Players, Lair actions for Monsters, etc. We expect that, since the Characters are heroic in stature - or at least that's not an uncommon assumption in many games.
For me it comes down to predictability for the Players. Players need to make choices in order to realize their goals. They can't make meaningful choices unless they can predict how the world works ( although they can make mistakes by drawing incorrect conclusions from incomplete information, but that's whole other kettle of fish ).
Either you adhere as close as you can to RAW ( or whatever collection of RAW & Homebrew you've hit upon ), and that defines the pseudo-reality you're playing in, and you accept the odd side effects like being able to slash someone's throat in the night and have them survive - or - you align the behavior of the fictional world to more closely align with our own reality. In the former case, the Players can predict how the world works by reading and internalizing all the rules ( and they're readily available to the Players ). In the latter, you allow the Players to use their everyday common sense and intuition.
Given that no set of rules is both complete or consistent ( it's almost like that's a law ), I find the latter strategy more appealing to me - but that's personal choice. I find it makes ruling on mechanics, or making new mechanics, easier by just asking "what makes sense in this fictional world?".
Not everyone would do it that way; different preferences.
One of the tenants of "what makes sense" for the fictional world might be the Characters are heroic and therefore have a privileged position in the world- so Death Saves might make sense.
That said, I have little problem allowing Characters to be one shot assassinated in their sleep, either. It makes sense, and I think the odds of a villain to be able to defeat all the Characters' Perceptions, wards, beast companions, familiars, Alarm spells, etc. and pull it off to be negligible, and many Parties have access to resuscitation spells anyways.
In my game Conan might get taken out - but I feel that if the world is that cut-throat ( if you'll pardon the expression ), it's only fair that I spell that out to the Players in Session Zero.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
There's a LOT of great discussion going on here and I think the OP questions are entirely valid. Rather than get into the nitty-gritty points of whys and why nots, I'll just list my wishes for an Advanced 5e supplement, should it ever materialize.
1 Robust and detailed ruleset for crafting, both mundane and magical
2 Deeper unique class choices beyond the typical level 3 subclass. The key words being "unique" and "choices". Things that are specific to each class that other classes can't exactly mimic through feats. Variety is the spice of RP!
3 New health system to replace Hit Points. Hit Points are just purely immersion-breaking. "An assassin deftly sneaks up on the rival guildmaster as he slumbers in his overly lavish bed and, in a swift flash of steel, plunges his razor-sharp dagger into the side of the guildmaster's neck... buuuut since the guildmaster has 134HP, it's literally impossible to assassinate him. Sorry, chum. All you manage to do is wake him up angry. Roll for initiative."
4 Reworking of a few combat mechanics. For example, prone/stand up and disarm so that knocking a target prone or disarming an opponent during a harried and chaotic battle actually means something.
I might think of other wishes but this is a start.
Exactly the sort of more-advanced overlays the current ruleset really needs. These are not niche asks - people dig for better rules for these things all the time. Just like how half the Feats UA was simply Wizards codifying homebrew so popular and widespread it was basically unofficial canon anyways. And especially in the case of crafting, any good system requires a tremendous amount of design overhead. Hell, AngryGM's been working on fixing 5e's piss-miserable crafting system for TWO YEARS. I do not have the wherewithal to put that much time into my homebrew, and I imagine most other folks don't either.
It just sucks tremendous donkey that nobody ever seems to be behind getting these additions into the game. Ugh.
In this thread at least, honestly think it's just a terminology thing. Having never played any of the older editions, my own brain thinks of "5.5e" as just exactly that sort of rules-overlay Advanced Patch for the players who're sick of starving to death with the subpar, barebones systems in this game. Other people see "5.5e" and go "NO THEY'RE GONNA REWRITE THE BOOKS AND INVALIDATE MY PURCHASES I DON'T WANT RULES GKHKLEKLWKJERKH!!1!"
I remember, thirdhand and distant, that 3.5e was in hindsight celebrated as a fantastic move in the overall history of D&D. People who were there hated the hell out of it because books are expensive. So maybe that's my bad. Still. The sheer ferocity, the churning hatred, wrapped up in people's resistance to any sort of growth or advancement for this game is confusing and depressing both...
In this thread at least, honestly think it's just a terminology thing. Having never played any of the older editions, my own brain thinks of "5.5e" as just exactly that sort of rules-overlay Advanced Patch for the players who're sick of starving to death with the subpar, barebones systems in this game. Other people see "5.5e" and go "NO THEY'RE GONNA REWRITE THE BOOKS AND INVALIDATE MY PURCHASES I DON'T WANT RULES GKHKLEKLWKJERKH!!1!"
I remember, thirdhand and distant, that 3.5e was in hindsight celebrated as a fantastic move in the overall history of D&D. People who were there hated the hell out of it because books are expensive. So maybe that's my bad. Still. The sheer ferocity, the churning hatred, wrapped up in people's resistance to any sort of growth or advancement for this game is confusing and depressing both...
It was how it was handled and how soon after 3.0. It felt more like heavy errata and corrections than any actual new version, with us as players having to pick up the tab. If a restaurant botches your order, do you celebrate and happily pay double simply because they got it right the second time?
That's an apples to oranges comparison. You can't draw parallels like that between product and service industries.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I love making new things. Even in DDB's jank-ass, godawful homebrew editor.
An enjoyment of making new things does not necessarily translate into a desire to rewrite all three core rulebooks to suck less.
Furthermore, most players homebrew new things with the expectation their DM will not give them those things (or at least they should). I make them because I enjoy making them, not because I expect the DM to show me special favors and give me personalized toys. And as a DM, I hand out stuff I've cooked up myself only when it fits the overall tale being told. The only time I get to homebrew specifically for myself, as a player, is when the DM explicitly awards that opportunity as a reward boon or keystone feat. Which is more or less as it should be.
Please do not contact or message me.
Why is have more Official Spells and Feats deemed such a horrible option? Would having these options adversely affect your games? New rules are not going to mean your DM would adopt them.
BTW, I am both a DM and a Player.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Hell, I don't even have a full time job, and homebrew takes up an enormous chunk of my time...
As I stated in the post you originally quoted, everything listed could be done within the current framework of this edition.
I don't need a 5.5 to get the options that I want for this game.
Also I remember quite well the backlash of 3.5 but in the end it was a necessary move as 3 was poorly done. 5e is fine, just want more.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Well... 5e is mostly fine. I would like to see Str and Int brought up a bit and Dex and Cha knocked down a bit.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well yeah, but it is fine enough lol.
I can wait till the next edition for things of that nature.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Isn’t that what the sourcebooks should be doing. I know there have been spells and feats introduced in some of them. If they would introduce more into the adventure/source books, I would love that.
In fact, Icewind Dale is going to finally allow my druid to use some of the arctic/snow beasts in wildshapes and polymorph that have been missing. Hopefully there is some more cold spells as well.
Speaking of Surveys
unearthed-arcana/survey-subclasses-part-4
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
There's a LOT of great discussion going on here and I think the OP questions are entirely valid. Rather than get into the nitty-gritty points of whys and why nots, I'll just list my wishes for an Advanced 5e supplement, should it ever materialize.
1 Robust and detailed ruleset for crafting, both mundane and magical
2 Deeper unique class choices beyond the typical level 3 subclass. The key words being "unique" and "choices". Things that are specific to each class that other classes can't exactly mimic through feats. Variety is the spice of RP!
3 New health system to replace Hit Points. Hit Points are just purely immersion-breaking. "An assassin deftly sneaks up on the rival guildmaster as he slumbers in his overly lavish bed and, in a swift flash of steel, plunges his razor-sharp dagger into the side of the guildmaster's neck... buuuut since the guildmaster has 134HP, it's literally impossible to assassinate him. Sorry, chum. All you manage to do is wake him up angry. Roll for initiative."
4 Reworking of a few combat mechanics. For example, prone/stand up and disarm so that knocking a target prone or disarming an opponent during a harried and chaotic battle actually means something.
I might think of other wishes but this is a start.
Any DM that plays it out that way is a moron. Sorry, just gonna say it. Hitpoints are for combat and dungeon crawls. Any other scenario and they don't make sense.
If the guildmaster has 134 hp he's got at least high teens hit dice, so an epic level assassin is appropriate. A 17th level assassin would do a base of something like 10d6+5, auto-crit cuz surprise (75), and the target needs to save (Con DC 19) or take double damage. After the surprise round, he probably wins initiative, so he can attack again (no save this time, but still auto-crit).
Or, you know, since no human - no matter how beefy and strong - survives with their throat cut in their sleep without warning, the guild master is just dead.
This is the kind of problem that arises when you assume the rules are defining the fictional game world you're playing in, rather than trying to imperfectly model a particular style of fictional world: you don't know when to throw out the errant nonsense.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Epic level characters have magic or unfair luck on their side. He can survive for exactly the same reason he can reliably survive a 200' fall.
You're not wrong - but I don't think I'm wrong either :) It's just two ways of looking at the problem.
I judge whether a rule needs to be bent according the internal logic of the game world - you appear to be finding ways of justifying the rule by finding ways to tweak the game world so that they do make sense.
It's just what facets of the game you prioritize over others - in this case, integrity of rules-as-written vs. integrity of the dramatic vision you have for the campaign world.
Neither camp is wrong, any more than you would be wrong to like strawberry ice cream over chocolate, when I'm the other way ( or vice versa - I have no idea if you even like ice cream :D ).
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
If an assassin comes after Conan in the middle of the night, Conan is unlikely to get taken out...
That's subtly different. It's pretty clear that the rules are not symmetrical between Players and non-Players: Death Saves for Players, Lair actions for Monsters, etc. We expect that, since the Characters are heroic in stature - or at least that's not an uncommon assumption in many games.
For me it comes down to predictability for the Players. Players need to make choices in order to realize their goals. They can't make meaningful choices unless they can predict how the world works ( although they can make mistakes by drawing incorrect conclusions from incomplete information, but that's whole other kettle of fish ).
Either you adhere as close as you can to RAW ( or whatever collection of RAW & Homebrew you've hit upon ), and that defines the pseudo-reality you're playing in, and you accept the odd side effects like being able to slash someone's throat in the night and have them survive - or - you align the behavior of the fictional world to more closely align with our own reality. In the former case, the Players can predict how the world works by reading and internalizing all the rules ( and they're readily available to the Players ). In the latter, you allow the Players to use their everyday common sense and intuition.
Given that no set of rules is both complete or consistent ( it's almost like that's a law ), I find the latter strategy more appealing to me - but that's personal choice. I find it makes ruling on mechanics, or making new mechanics, easier by just asking "what makes sense in this fictional world?".
Not everyone would do it that way; different preferences.
One of the tenants of "what makes sense" for the fictional world might be the Characters are heroic and therefore have a privileged position in the world - so Death Saves might make sense.
That said, I have little problem allowing Characters to be one shot assassinated in their sleep, either. It makes sense, and I think the odds of a villain to be able to defeat all the Characters' Perceptions, wards, beast companions, familiars, Alarm spells, etc. and pull it off to be negligible, and many Parties have access to resuscitation spells anyways.
In my game Conan might get taken out - but I feel that if the world is that cut-throat ( if you'll pardon the expression ), it's only fair that I spell that out to the Players in Session Zero.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Exactly the sort of more-advanced overlays the current ruleset really needs. These are not niche asks - people dig for better rules for these things all the time. Just like how half the Feats UA was simply Wizards codifying homebrew so popular and widespread it was basically unofficial canon anyways. And especially in the case of crafting, any good system requires a tremendous amount of design overhead. Hell, AngryGM's been working on fixing 5e's piss-miserable crafting system for TWO YEARS. I do not have the wherewithal to put that much time into my homebrew, and I imagine most other folks don't either.
It just sucks tremendous donkey that nobody ever seems to be behind getting these additions into the game. Ugh.
Please do not contact or message me.
Until it happens and then everybody loves them.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
In this thread at least, honestly think it's just a terminology thing. Having never played any of the older editions, my own brain thinks of "5.5e" as just exactly that sort of rules-overlay Advanced Patch for the players who're sick of starving to death with the subpar, barebones systems in this game. Other people see "5.5e" and go "NO THEY'RE GONNA REWRITE THE BOOKS AND INVALIDATE MY PURCHASES I DON'T WANT RULES GKHKLEKLWKJERKH!!1!"
I remember, thirdhand and distant, that 3.5e was in hindsight celebrated as a fantastic move in the overall history of D&D. People who were there hated the hell out of it because books are expensive. So maybe that's my bad. Still. The sheer ferocity, the churning hatred, wrapped up in people's resistance to any sort of growth or advancement for this game is confusing and depressing both...
Please do not contact or message me.
That's an apples to oranges comparison. You can't draw parallels like that between product and service industries.