I'm not sure this is going to be popular. A lot of people like 5E's simplicity.
A year ago or so, I tried to suggest an alternative to the initiative system being floated around the internet, and one of my fellow players had a complete shit fit meltdown about it.
Apparently, he had a really bad experience with 4E.
So, if those who like simplicity get that upset over a single change, I imagine multiple changes via 5.5E wouldn't be welcomed either.
Okay... this is clearly a Warblade, and it's a clear increase in power level. It introduces a bunch of new mechanics for no particular reason ('minor advantage'? If you're going to get some complicated than 5e advantage, just give someone +1/+2/etc), adds general abilities that don't really belong as universals (e.g. 'Steely mien' is not per se a bad ability, but it doesn't belong as a base class ability), and adds quite a bit of complexity.
Would there be people who'd like something similar? Probably, though the actual maneuver list doesn't inspire me, if I was going to do a more advanced manuever-based fighter I'd just steal from 4e (hm. Now I'm curious how viable porting 4e classes to 5e would be).
I think it sounds really interesting. Several abilities that are not focused exclusively on combat (Steely Mien, Exploration Knacks, Martial Lore, Reputation) and instead allow to transfer some personality traits into mechanics. The maneuvers also sound interesting and you can actually feel the different playstyles they try to focus.
I'm not so sure about the minor advantage / disadvantage. Imho a simple +/-2 or similar would be easier and faster. But I also know that a lot of players absolutely hate static bonuses. Nevertheless, adding / subtracting an extra D4 and writing that into the maneuver / ability in question would probably be more in line with the normal rules.
The mess of bonuses is one of the reasons I'm put off converting to pathfinder, along with similar clunky rules. I want to play a game, not attend a maths exam.
I hope this 5.5 attempt doesn't plan to push back towards the 3.5/pathfinder rules type.
The mess of bonuses is one of the reasons I'm put off converting to pathfinder, along with similar clunky rules. I want to play a game, not attend a maths exam.
I hope this 5.5 attempt doesn't plan to push back towards the 3.5/pathfinder rules type.
I think while it may not be explicit, it's initial announcement and subsequent chatter indicates that it's staying "based" in 5e, but building onto that system a level of crunch more representative of 3.5/PF. I mean it's in the DNA of ENWorld as I understand it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Maneuvers being in the core class: Maneuvers are a cool feature, and having a couple as any fighter makes things more interesting.
Steely Mein Ability: This is an excellent feature. It shows a lot about your character without being mechanically powerful.
The choice based abilities in general: Letting you choose between three not super overpowered abilities is a great mechanic for customization. It also doesn't increase complexity a lot.
The exploration knacks are fine, but seem there to will a quota.
What I don't like
I don't like minor advantage. Just use flat modifiers, instead of rerolling which slows down the game.
Maneuvers selection- so you pick a Combat Tradition, that limits your maneuvers? And you spend stamina points on them? Or exertion points? Three different degrees of maneuvers?
From the snapshots we got so far, this is going to be a complex system. While I liked the origin system, this fist class seems needlessly complex. I enjoy class features that give you three choices, and hope that those features continue to go into other classes. However, with both the origin system providing a ton of buffs and much more powerful classes, I expect that you will have to buff monsters in some way. All of the changes are trending towards more power.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
The mess of bonuses is one of the reasons I'm put off converting to pathfinder, along with similar clunky rules. I want to play a game, not attend a maths exam.
I hope this 5.5 attempt doesn't plan to push back towards the 3.5/pathfinder rules type.
I think while it may not be explicit, it's initial announcement and subsequent chatter indicates that it's staying "based" in 5e, but building onto that system a level of crunch more representative of 3.5/PF. I mean it's in the DNA of ENWorld as I understand it.
Damn sounds like it could get overcomplex knowing that crowd.
If there is a 6e, I'd hope for the rules to still be based in 5e with similar levels of complexity (maybe with the pathfinder 2 three action system), and just the class/character/feat/multiclass stuff redone from scratch.
I want to play Dungeons and Dragons, not Audits and Accountants.
Keep it simple. You're doing exceptionally well. Don't screw it up.
Don't try to be all things to all people.
And some players don't want to play Champion Fighters and Thief Rogues. Some players want a more complex system because it creates better mechanical variation and depth. 5e is great and easy to teach, but after playing it for five years the mechanics haven't really changed or developed that much. We have only gotten one new class, and it is still based on the same spellcasting mechanic that 92.3% of classes use. You don't have to play a 5.5e version, even if it is released and supported. But if it never exists, people who want more mechanical depth can never have that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Sorry, I missed something, the one thing that I liked was the principel of backwards compatibility. As long as the power level is unchanged and the player does not take hours to take his actions, why not...
That is the problem with EN Worlds 5.5e; it is balanced against its self. A character using 5.5e rules and one using 5th edition would be different in power level. This isn't an easy problem to fix, because more complexity often results in more power. If Wizards ever hypothetically made a 5.5e, they stated that it would be backward compatible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Maneuvers being in the core class: Maneuvers are a cool feature, and having a couple as any fighter makes things more interesting.
Steely Mein Ability: This is an excellent feature. It shows a lot about your character without being mechanically powerful.
The choice based abilities in general: Letting you choose between three not super overpowered abilities is a great mechanic for customization. It also doesn't increase complexity a lot.
The exploration knacks are fine, but seem there to will a quota.
What I don't like
I don't like minor advantage. Just use flat modifiers, instead of rerolling which slows down the game.
Maneuvers selection- so you pick a Combat Tradition, that limits your maneuvers? And you spend stamina points on them? Or exertion points? Three different degrees of maneuvers?
From the snapshots we got so far, this is going to be a complex system. While I liked the origin system, this fist class seems needlessly complex. I enjoy class features that give you three choices, and hope that those features continue to go into other classes. However, with both the origin system providing a ton of buffs and much more powerful classes, I expect that you will have to buff monsters in some way. All of the changes are trending towards more power.
My thoughts mirror these...I especially think the Minor ADV/DIS is a terrible idea....just give a static bonus even if its small (Proficiency/3 Minimum of 1 or something...that means it would max at +3)
The maneuvers are cool but the point system is janky and hard to discern. Overall I would do it more on a number of abilities per short rest and better define what you can do with the points.
The wording on some of the stuff is also weird. Missile is used a lot...what the hell does that mean? Ranged attack with a weapon would be easier to decern...unless they want to include magical effects?
Overall I really really really like the idea of Steely Mein and that all fighters get maneuvers. The maneuvers themselves are pretty good too and give you a better variety of things to do.
Some of the maneuvers are just strictly worse than the BM comparison but maybe thats intended...
I want to play Dungeons and Dragons, not Audits and Accountants.
Keep it simple. You're doing exceptionally well. Don't screw it up.
Don't try to be all things to all people.
And some players don't want to play Champion Fighters and Thief Rogues. Some players want a more complex system because it creates better mechanical variation and depth. 5e is great and easy to teach, but after playing it for five years the mechanics haven't really changed or developed that much. We have only gotten one new class, and it is still based on the same spellcasting mechanic that 92.3% of classes use. You don't have to play a 5.5e version, even if it is released and supported. But if it never exists, people who want more mechanical depth can never have that.
Exactly what part of the Rogue class requires a rogue to be a thief? The only real thing I can see is Thieves' Cant. They are proficient in something called 'Thieves' Tools' but so is every locksmith. They are not even required to be proficient in stealth or slight of hand. And Thieves' Cant can be any other similarly profession specific language. It has been a rather long time since the game required a rogue to have any pick pockets skill at all.
Fighters are trained in the use of heavy armour but cannot afford it out of the gate. They can be archers or swashbucklers (not especially 'Champion' themes). Cliches have always existed, but one need not play cliches. Nothing in the rules at all insists that one must.
I was using those examples as the "default" of each of those classes. I was using it to contrast Wren_the_Munificient's post, in which they said that 5e would be Audits and Accountants. This was intended to show that 5.5e would be extremely math oriented and complex. My response was intended to show that simplicity can be just as bad as complexity sometimes. I was also trying to respond to the insinuations in Wren_the_Munificient's post that people who wanted a complex game were wrong and that it would ruin the game. I think that if 5e stays at this level of complexity, eventually more established players would become bored of it. I'm not saying that normal 5e should get more complex; it's great for teaching new players and playing light games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I want to play Dungeons and Dragons, not Audits and Accountants.
Keep it simple. You're doing exceptionally well. Don't screw it up.
Don't try to be all things to all people.
And some players don't want to play Champion Fighters and Thief Rogues. Some players want a more complex system because it creates better mechanical variation and depth. 5e is great and easy to teach, but after playing it for five years the mechanics haven't really changed or developed that much. We have only gotten one new class, and it is still based on the same spellcasting mechanic that 92.3% of classes use. You don't have to play a 5.5e version, even if it is released and supported. But if it never exists, people who want more mechanical depth can never have that.
Exactly what part of the Rogue class requires a rogue to be a thief? The only real thing I can see is Thieves' Cant. They are proficient in something called 'Thieves' Tools' but so is every locksmith. They are not even required to be proficient in stealth or slight of hand. And Thieves' Cant can be any other similarly profession specific language. It has been a rather long time since the game required a rogue to have any pick pockets skill at all.
Fighters are trained in the use of heavy armour but cannot afford it out of the gate. They can be archers or swashbucklers (not especially 'Champion' themes). Cliches have always existed, but one need not play cliches. Nothing in the rules at all insists that one must.
I was using those examples as the "default" of each of those classes. I was using it to contrast Wren_the_Munificient's post, in which they said that 5e would be Audits and Accountants. This was intended to show that 5.5e would be extremely math oriented and complex. My response was intended to show that simplicity can be just as bad as complexity sometimes. I was also trying to respond to the insinuations in Wren_the_Munificient's post that people who wanted a complex game were wrong and that it would ruin the game. I think that if 5e stays at this level of complexity, eventually more established players would become bored of it. I'm not saying that normal 5e should get more complex; it's great for teaching new players and playing light games.
Well yes, taking simplicity to extremes would be bad. Thankfully there is a lot of room between 'too complex' and taking things to such extremes. Even more thankfully, 5e as it currently stands is situated nicely between those two extremes, as I have just pointed out.
For 'more complex' to be worth the effort, you have to show that. And this proposal does not seem to give sufficient gains for the additional complexity.
I think its a bit early to make that determination as this is literally playtest and only the first 10 levels of a class lol....
That is the problem with EN Worlds 5.5e; it is balanced against its self. A character using 5.5e rules and one using 5th edition would be different in power level. This isn't an easy problem to fix, because more complexity often results in more power. If Wizards ever hypothetically made a 5.5e, they stated that it would be backward compatible.
It's not that hard to fix, it just means your new class can't only add, it has to subtract as well.
The problem with making an actually balanced document, however, is that it's much easier to get people to want new rules if the rules seem to give them a power boost.
That is the problem with EN Worlds 5.5e; it is balanced against its self. A character using 5.5e rules and one using 5th edition would be different in power level. This isn't an easy problem to fix, because more complexity often results in more power. If Wizards ever hypothetically made a 5.5e, they stated that it would be backward compatible.
It's not that hard to fix, it just means your new class can't only add, it has to subtract as well.
The problem with making an actually balanced document, however, is that it's much easier to get people to want new rules if the rules seem to give them a power boost.
Do we know EN Worlds 5.5 project will result in different power levels? I don't hawk their forums, but my impression was they were still very much in a research phase of what exactly the "more" is that 5e discontents want that's still D&D. They speak a lot of that level of "crunch." I don't really have any experience with 3.5, which I understand is the edition EN World got it's claim to fame through supporting. So those anticipating some sort of nod to 3.5 may know more than I.
With that said, I don't know why additional rules layering immediately leads to the presumption of "more power" that will disadvantage on an apples to apples comparison between 5.5 and 5e characters. To me "crunch" is giving an additional layer for players and DMs to think through in aspects of their game. So it's not amplification in play, it's greater consideration being offered. I think the best analogy I can think of would be something like the AD&D Wilderness and Dungeoneers survival guides. You could play D&D and the rules gave you some basic guidelines which would allow the DM to host their party through the wilderness or under dark, but for those who wanted to run a game where the environment was more the adventure than just the setting, you had those rules. It didn't so much make PCs more powerful, it provided more hazards to a game, and a different sort of hazards than could be contended with through reading a new Monster Manual. Climbing, spelunking, athletic feats, unarmed combat, piercing/slashing/bludgeoning/etc. damage have advantages and disadvantages to particular types of armor or natural defense, stuff like that makes the game crunchier to me. Not I want to swing my sword accompanied by a half dozen spell effects (that said, beyond level 20 play would be another direction those layers of crunch can go into). So sure, there could be stuff and maneuvers to put on your sheet, but I'm thinking or I'd hope more for an expansion of "ok, when we do X, instead of adhering to PHB page 3, we use the 5.5 rules pages 7-13."
From the studio talk at Celebration where the return to "classic worlds" (and MtG worlds, and "new worlds") was discussed, I was more interested in what Wizards might be concept boarding when they' also mention products produced by WotC that would "push" aspects of the game to places where the game doesn't normally go.
At least in intent EN World doesn't seem to me to want to take a "hard break" with 5e. I think they want a system where WotC adventures would be compatible and not something 5.5 characters would waltz through on 'overkill" mode.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
We have our next playtest document! This time it's the fighter. I'll post my analysis later.
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/09/dd-check-out-the-advanced-5th-edition-fighter-playtest.html
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I'm not sure this is going to be popular. A lot of people like 5E's simplicity.
A year ago or so, I tried to suggest an alternative to the initiative system being floated around the internet, and one of my fellow players had a complete shit fit meltdown about it.
Apparently, he had a really bad experience with 4E.
So, if those who like simplicity get that upset over a single change, I imagine multiple changes via 5.5E wouldn't be welcomed either.
Okay... this is clearly a Warblade, and it's a clear increase in power level. It introduces a bunch of new mechanics for no particular reason ('minor advantage'? If you're going to get some complicated than 5e advantage, just give someone +1/+2/etc), adds general abilities that don't really belong as universals (e.g. 'Steely mien' is not per se a bad ability, but it doesn't belong as a base class ability), and adds quite a bit of complexity.
Would there be people who'd like something similar? Probably, though the actual maneuver list doesn't inspire me, if I was going to do a more advanced manuever-based fighter I'd just steal from 4e (hm. Now I'm curious how viable porting 4e classes to 5e would be).
I think it sounds really interesting. Several abilities that are not focused exclusively on combat (Steely Mien, Exploration Knacks, Martial Lore, Reputation) and instead allow to transfer some personality traits into mechanics. The maneuvers also sound interesting and you can actually feel the different playstyles they try to focus.
I'm not so sure about the minor advantage / disadvantage. Imho a simple +/-2 or similar would be easier and faster. But I also know that a lot of players absolutely hate static bonuses. Nevertheless, adding / subtracting an extra D4 and writing that into the maneuver / ability in question would probably be more in line with the normal rules.
The mess of bonuses is one of the reasons I'm put off converting to pathfinder, along with similar clunky rules. I want to play a game, not attend a maths exam.
I hope this 5.5 attempt doesn't plan to push back towards the 3.5/pathfinder rules type.
I think while it may not be explicit, it's initial announcement and subsequent chatter indicates that it's staying "based" in 5e, but building onto that system a level of crunch more representative of 3.5/PF. I mean it's in the DNA of ENWorld as I understand it.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
What I like:
What I don't like
From the snapshots we got so far, this is going to be a complex system. While I liked the origin system, this fist class seems needlessly complex. I enjoy class features that give you three choices, and hope that those features continue to go into other classes. However, with both the origin system providing a ton of buffs and much more powerful classes, I expect that you will have to buff monsters in some way. All of the changes are trending towards more power.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Damn sounds like it could get overcomplex knowing that crowd.
If there is a 6e, I'd hope for the rules to still be based in 5e with similar levels of complexity (maybe with the pathfinder 2 three action system), and just the class/character/feat/multiclass stuff redone from scratch.
I want to play Dungeons and Dragons, not Audits and Accountants.
Keep it simple. You're doing exceptionally well. Don't screw it up.
Don't try to be all things to all people.
And some players don't want to play Champion Fighters and Thief Rogues. Some players want a more complex system because it creates better mechanical variation and depth. 5e is great and easy to teach, but after playing it for five years the mechanics haven't really changed or developed that much. We have only gotten one new class, and it is still based on the same spellcasting mechanic that 92.3% of classes use. You don't have to play a 5.5e version, even if it is released and supported. But if it never exists, people who want more mechanical depth can never have that.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Even if people dislike new content, surely they can just stick to the player handbook? Or player handbook+1 rule?
That is the problem with EN Worlds 5.5e; it is balanced against its self. A character using 5.5e rules and one using 5th edition would be different in power level. This isn't an easy problem to fix, because more complexity often results in more power. If Wizards ever hypothetically made a 5.5e, they stated that it would be backward compatible.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
My thoughts mirror these...I especially think the Minor ADV/DIS is a terrible idea....just give a static bonus even if its small (Proficiency/3 Minimum of 1 or something...that means it would max at +3)
The maneuvers are cool but the point system is janky and hard to discern. Overall I would do it more on a number of abilities per short rest and better define what you can do with the points.
The wording on some of the stuff is also weird. Missile is used a lot...what the hell does that mean? Ranged attack with a weapon would be easier to decern...unless they want to include magical effects?
Overall I really really really like the idea of Steely Mein and that all fighters get maneuvers. The maneuvers themselves are pretty good too and give you a better variety of things to do.
Some of the maneuvers are just strictly worse than the BM comparison but maybe thats intended...
I was using those examples as the "default" of each of those classes. I was using it to contrast Wren_the_Munificient's post, in which they said that 5e would be Audits and Accountants. This was intended to show that 5.5e would be extremely math oriented and complex. My response was intended to show that simplicity can be just as bad as complexity sometimes. I was also trying to respond to the insinuations in Wren_the_Munificient's post that people who wanted a complex game were wrong and that it would ruin the game. I think that if 5e stays at this level of complexity, eventually more established players would become bored of it. I'm not saying that normal 5e should get more complex; it's great for teaching new players and playing light games.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I think its a bit early to make that determination as this is literally playtest and only the first 10 levels of a class lol....
It's not that hard to fix, it just means your new class can't only add, it has to subtract as well.
The problem with making an actually balanced document, however, is that it's much easier to get people to want new rules if the rules seem to give them a power boost.
There's a huge database of new classes on this website.
There's nothing stopping you from finding one you like and asking your GM to let you play it.
That has nothing to do with this conversation, Wren. This thread is about a 3rd party product that's undergoing playtest.
Do we know EN Worlds 5.5 project will result in different power levels? I don't hawk their forums, but my impression was they were still very much in a research phase of what exactly the "more" is that 5e discontents want that's still D&D. They speak a lot of that level of "crunch." I don't really have any experience with 3.5, which I understand is the edition EN World got it's claim to fame through supporting. So those anticipating some sort of nod to 3.5 may know more than I.
With that said, I don't know why additional rules layering immediately leads to the presumption of "more power" that will disadvantage on an apples to apples comparison between 5.5 and 5e characters. To me "crunch" is giving an additional layer for players and DMs to think through in aspects of their game. So it's not amplification in play, it's greater consideration being offered. I think the best analogy I can think of would be something like the AD&D Wilderness and Dungeoneers survival guides. You could play D&D and the rules gave you some basic guidelines which would allow the DM to host their party through the wilderness or under dark, but for those who wanted to run a game where the environment was more the adventure than just the setting, you had those rules. It didn't so much make PCs more powerful, it provided more hazards to a game, and a different sort of hazards than could be contended with through reading a new Monster Manual. Climbing, spelunking, athletic feats, unarmed combat, piercing/slashing/bludgeoning/etc. damage have advantages and disadvantages to particular types of armor or natural defense, stuff like that makes the game crunchier to me. Not I want to swing my sword accompanied by a half dozen spell effects (that said, beyond level 20 play would be another direction those layers of crunch can go into). So sure, there could be stuff and maneuvers to put on your sheet, but I'm thinking or I'd hope more for an expansion of "ok, when we do X, instead of adhering to PHB page 3, we use the 5.5 rules pages 7-13."
From the studio talk at Celebration where the return to "classic worlds" (and MtG worlds, and "new worlds") was discussed, I was more interested in what Wizards might be concept boarding when they' also mention products produced by WotC that would "push" aspects of the game to places where the game doesn't normally go.
At least in intent EN World doesn't seem to me to want to take a "hard break" with 5e. I think they want a system where WotC adventures would be compatible and not something 5.5 characters would waltz through on 'overkill" mode.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Based on what they've released so far, yes.