Have not read the whole thing yet because it's a hefty document, but I did check out a couple-odd each of the three options presented.
Overall: 'heritage' (i.e. species) can produce some very powerful traits, but it's also divorced completely from ASIs and many of the traits presented are both ferociously powerful and wildly exotic compared to "traditional" abilities of the given species. No doubt many people will hate it. 'Culture' is an interesting wrinkle, determining the backdrop for your character independently of background. One can be an Entertainer of any species, like usual, but one can also be an Entertainer from the Big City, an Entertainer from a remote village, an Entertainer from a shire, or even an Entertainer from a dragon or demon cult. It's a fascinating notion.
One can expect their character to start with a much higher number of abilities and proficiencies in this system. It is extremely reminiscent of what I've seen of PF2e's character generation, which scans. EN World's stance seems to very clearly be that PF2e has D&D5e inarguably, unquestionably, uncontestably, ovwrwhelmingly beat when it comes to creation of characters (which it does), but the overall 5e system of bounded accuracy, limited number bloat, and condensed rules has the catastrophic mountain of floating variables that is PF2e's gameplay engine beat (which, for the most part, it does). So smash the two together to get a better game than either.
Have not read the whole thing yet because it's a hefty document, but I did check out a couple-odd each of the three options presented.
Overall: 'heritage' (i.e. species) can produce some very powerful traits, but it's also divorced completely from ASIs and many of the traits presented are both ferociously powerful and wildly exotic compared to "traditional" abilities of the given species. No doubt many people will hate it. 'Culture' is an interesting wrinkle, determining the backdrop for your character independently of background. One can be an Entertainer of any species, like usual, but one can also be an Entertainer from the Big City, an Entertainer from a remote village, an Entertainer from a shire, or even an Entertainer from a dragon or demon cult. It's a fascinating notion.
One can expect their character to start with a much higher number of abilities and proficiencies in this system. It is extremely reminiscent of what I've seen of PF2e's character generation, which scans. EN World's stance seems to very clearly be that PF2e has D&D5e inarguably, unquestionably, uncontestably, ovwrwhelmingly beat when it comes to creation of characters (which it does), but the overall 5e system of bounded accuracy, limited number bloat, and condensed rules has the catastrophic mountain of floating variables that is PF2e's gameplay engine beat (which, for the most part, it does). So smash the two together to get a better game than either.
Quite curious to see where it goes.
The important comparison (for 5e anyway) will be between this and what is presented in TCoE. Comparing it to the current PHB rule set is kind of irrelevant in my opinion.
What I like about this system of generation is that the different species feel very distinct, even with ability scores divorced from them. No one sane can say that these species are just a skin, yet it also avoids the problems of D&D's normal species generation. My favorite part, however, is the culture. It is really well done, and I think allows for very customizable and interesting characters.
I think that this system could be utilized in basic D&D, as well. It would be much more simple, but here's how I think it should work. First you would choose your species. This would provide biological traits, such as size, darkvision, wings ect. Then, you would choose your Culture. This would provide language, proficiences, and half of your Asi. Finally, you would choose background which would be the other half of your Asi and a feature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Flat-out guarantee the Tasha's rules will be much simpler and less fluid than the system presented in this playtest document. 5e's psychotic terror of any sort of mechanical complexity will sabotage the rulset once again. It'll be better than base PHB generation, but it likely won't allow for nearly as much fine-tuning and customization as people are looking for.
I don't know if I found the origin rules to be overly mechanically complex.
I did find them elegantly flexible - perhaps at the cost of some thematic "niche protection". Although that doesn't matter to a lot of people ( me included ), I'm sure some people won't like that.
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.
Some of these background-gifted ability scores still have the same shoehorned feel to me that these options are trying to get rid of. Criminals don't necessarily need to be dextrous. Most nobles I've played weren't really focused on strength. It makes me feel a bit like backgrounds are a bit too class-aligned in a tropey way: Nobles are Paladins, Criminals are Rogues, Hermits are Druids, Sages are Wizards, etc.
I think you could keep the flavor reinforcement but expand things quite a bit by just expanding the options a bit wider like: "Noble: +1 to strength or charisma, +1 to one other ability score."
All that being said, it does have simple rules to make your own background. I'd probably go this way anyway.
i didn't read all the comments but, i for one would love a 5.1 edition. while i like the simpleness of the 5e engine i noticed that certain... styles... were emphasized more then others. a few things i would love to see changed in the 5e system whether its through a secondary writer or wizards. lets me know what you all think.
Multi-classing
how they made multi classing. with a few notable exceptions (sorcerer-warlock, druid-barbarian) multi-classing is universally weaker. they get less ASI's, their features come on line later. they lack capstones (i don't see this as a loss in most cases as most capstones are rubbish). there are definitely some cool and powerful combinations (which to my experience only seems to last for a few levels) but i have only seen two that were boarder line game breaking. coffeelocks, and barbdruid. coffeelock get unlimited sorc points and barbdruid is un-kill able. but a small errata for each of those could easily fix. i would like to see multi-classing made more acceptable, both mechanically and by wizards. i'm not exaggerating when i say i have seen a lot of players and dm's who are hostile to MCing and people who MC. everyone has a different concept of what kind of character they will play and MCing is one way to achieve this. one thing i would like to see mechanically to fixing mcing is ASI's as set point for total character level as opposed to class level.
revamping older stuff to stay relevant with new releases
a lot of older sub-classes, spells, and features don't really stack up to the new stuff. so i would love to see all the old content reworked to bring them online with all the new content. a few spells that come to mind are blade ward, and true strike. after a game like this gets to a certain size the creators should re balance everything and i think 5e is close to this point.
classes that need to be fixed, reworked, buffed, nerfed
-il start by saying with a handful of exceptions most classes need a better capstone. wizards and sorcerers need to be redone (i know both of these classes are both playable and powerful in the right hands). wizards are close to being the super versatile caster but its not quite there, the sorcerer however could use a rework (im not disputing that it can be powerful) a lot of things about the theme and mechanics of the character don't work or make sense. one example is casting components, why would a person with innate magic need spell components? i'm super fine with the smaller spells known but a set of domain spells for their sub-classes would really help them. some of the sub class abilities need reworks and balancing.
-ranger recently got some buff so hopefully its now super playable.fighters do need a buff. just one idea of a buff is make battle maneuvers part of the basic class (similar to bardic inspiration)
-paladins and monks could use a small buff to make them less MAD, this would reduce the multi-classing a lot. characters are really not equal and you can really see the difference when one of the better made characters (ex hexblade) are played next to (for lack of a better word) lesser characters (rogue inquisitive, warlock undying).
cr system
new cr system, all the Dms i have met have agreed that the cr system is to easy, one of the main reasons i believe is cause its based on PC's with not items, no MCing, and no optimizing. levels 1-5 seem OK but after that everything is to easy. while i cant speak for most games, every single one i have been in had MCing, feats, magic items and at least a few mechanically minded characters. so making that the norm seems like it would be a better way to go. after all its easier to nurf a creature in battle if its to strong then it is to buff it (yes i know about wave tactics, but sometimes they don't make sense).
casting
just a thought for casters is for their spell-casting modifier to be its own stat that levels as the player does (kind of like proficiency bonus). this would ad some actual versatility to casters. strange thing to say right? i have found that many casters are kind of shoe horn into certain rolls. if you take the spell casting modifier and make it separate (for every class/sub class that uses magic) then those pc's could make say a muscle wizard or smart sorcerers and not make a weaker character. (i personally would keep class, and sub class features that run on what is currently the primary casting stat remain using that stat, so they still have a reason to put some points in say int)
feats
i would like to see an official optional rules for giving feats to players, one idea would be every PC can take a feat at x level for a total of 3 or whatever. re-balancing. i rarely see anything i would truly call broken but sentinel PAM combinations have definitely forced dms to hard counter players. and you have other feats that are straight up useless, a lot of the new feats i saw in the UA look like they are meant to reduce MCing (again there is this big bias for whatever reason) though they really don't provide enough to be worth an ASI. just an example (dont remember the name) one feat will give the player a fighting style. how the heck is that worth an ASI ? dueling is a fighting style that give +2 to damage on a one handed weapon. 2 dex/str will give +1 to hit and +1 to damage on top of everything else from the stat. i really don't understand how they balance things
snobbery
honestly i don't know how a book could fix this but man i have seen so many people who play/dm who are straight up snobs. if you play a different style then them, then you are wrong. if you make mechanically useful characters your a munchkin (i have recently been seeing this. so for myself i make mechanically strong characters. to be clear i don't min-max or munchkin (use combinations that knowingly break the game like PAM sentinel) but when i level up i max the relevant stats first and take feats that compliment the character) and your a bad player... i would really like to know where all this hate comes from. Rpings is a big part of the game but so are mechanics, IMHO they should both be encouraged. not that this is relevant to a new book.
You bring up some good points, not completely on-topic but sure I'll expand on what I think of these.
Multi-classing
More can be done to make multi-classing viable. ASIs, intentional power spikes at certain levels, etc. Of course, that'll require a whole rework, especially balance it with non-multi-classing. I admit, if i had to choose between having to multi-class or having to stay to a single class, I'll probably pick the latter. Doesn't mean making multi-classing more viable is bad, because more options would be great, just it might be too much of a rework.
Revamping Older Stuff
Most older stuff are completely viable. Some of the PHB classes are actually the most overpowered like Way of the Open Hand & Divination Wizard. True strike was just as bad as it was first released as it is right now, WoTC have done a great job of balancing. They aren't prefect though, so I do agree with your next point. Most of the issues have nothing to do with them being older though. The only new thing that's unbalanced is EGtW, but that's not technically made by WoTC. Matt Mercer is 1 person who probably doesn't have many play-testers.
Classes can be Improved
Alternative Class Features which seem to be in Tasha's book had additional spells for Wizards like Divination (too lazy to tooltip), that should be enough. Sorcerer is lacking, but a easy fix would be more metamagic (total metamagics and metamagic choices) and domain spells. Fighters got a "battle maneuvers part of the basic class" buff in where rangers got buffed, it's in the form of a fighter only fighting style, and it's okay I guess. Fighters just need more non-attacking related things to do.
CR System
I think the most problematic thing with the CR system is that there aren't enough high level creatures to challenge third-tier players. Fourth-tier players are out of the question, even ten dragons can't do much against spells like invulnerability, you need a insanely buffed magic user to deal with fourth-tier. CR as a whole is decent, if players have above-average gear, just give them above-average enemies from a CR higher. Far from prefect though, CR calculations are meant as a basic guideline, and it shows.
Casting
Honestly I think the current system works. Making spellcasting stat based off level makes eh narrative sense, and muscle wizards are already possible, most spell-castors only need the spellcasting modifier and the stats almost all classes need, CON (arguable past 12)/DEX (only for ac which is also arguable). So spellcastors already have a lot of wiggle-room in stats. Also, wizards get so many unique spells that negative INT builds exist and are actually useful.
Feats
Feats can a lot of work. Some feats are too overpowered, and some are too focused on roleplay to make effective builds. Giving everyone free feats doesn't solve the problem, people will pick overpowered feats, and those who don't will be worse off. Most people suggest ranking or completely redoing feats which I guess works. I honestly don't know what to think about the feats to reduce multiclassing.
Snobbery
Games like pathfinder have fought this with entire chapters devoted to being a good DM. It's worth looking at, and D&D should try to do something similar. It really did help me when I was first introduced to D&D, as most of the advice about being a good DM applies to all tabletop games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
I can't speak to the early levels of Way of the Open Hand, but that capstone is *utterly* insane; I'm not sure if there's any other class/subclass feature that even comes close...
I can't speak to the early levels of Way of the Open Hand, but that capstone is *utterly* insane; I'm not sure if there's any other class/subclass feature that even comes close...
By the standards of 9th level spells it's pretty tame.
Besides which, 9th level spells are usable only once per day and can sometimes have some not insignificant costs. Quivering Palm costs only 3 Ki points, which for a high level monk is a pretty small cost, and for a save-or-die mechanic, that's insane.
EDIT: It's not even save or suck either, succeeding the save still deals a fairly hefty 10d10, and you control whenever it happens. Any one of those is impressive on their own, and bundled together...oof.
I absolutely believe that more content would ruin 5e. It would just lead to minmaxing taking over and that would suck ass. 5e needs to be simple. It is roleplaying and creativity that we need more of, not rules. Again and again, in the history of DnD, we see the same destructive cycle. More content ruins the game and leads to a new edition being needed. If you want more content, then search DnDBeyond's database then talk your GM into letting you playing whatever you find.
That being said, EN 5.5e is something different. Just as there are Pathfinder players and 5e players, there will be 5.5 players and 5e players. 5.5 will just split the market. Whether that's good from a business perspective or not, I cannot say.
I'm curious to see where they go with this, but I'm more than happy with 5e. I see no reason to want anything else.
I absolutely believe that more content would ruin 5e. It would just lead to minmaxing taking over and that would suck ass. 5e needs to be simple. It is roleplaying and creativity that we need more of, not rules.
That being said, EN 5.5e is something different. Just as there are Pathfinder players and 5e players, there will be 5.5 players and 5e players. 5.5 will just split the market. Whether that's good from a business perspective or not, I cannot say.
I'm curious to see where they go with this, but I'm more than happy with 5e. I see no reason to want anything else.
So do you think more feats and subclasses would ruin 5e? (Since it is difficult to convey tone while writing in an online forum, I am legitimately curious.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Once per long rest, once per day...let's be honest, there's only so many hours in a day so the difference is fairly trivial. Pus, all the spells you listed are "If they fail, we win, if they succeed, I've wasted my resources"; Quivering Palm is "if they fail, we win, if they succeed, I still deal massive damage to them, all for a low cost". And if a target is out of reach, Monks have probably the highest mobility out of any class, in most circumstances they'll be able to cross that gap pretty quickly, and if they have access to flight then that covers pretty much all circumstances.
Quivering palm requires you to hit and then takes an additional action to actually apply, so it generally requires two rounds. That slowness significantly limits its effectiveness, and a lot of high level monsters have really high Constitution saves. Honestly, Stunning Fist is probably more significant in most fights, spammable hard cc is pretty nasty.
That's still massive damage for two turns, the possibility for a failed CON save still exists, and with the amount of attacks a Monk can make in a single turn the chances of landing that hit are pretty good. Besides which, Stunning Fist also requires the hit to land and also requires a CON save, and it's save or suck, unlike Quivering Palm. Additionally, stunning Strike only requires that you make an attack, using it doesn't preclude you from using Quivering Palm as well.
I absolutely believe that more content would ruin 5e. It would just lead to minmaxing taking over and that would suck ass. 5e needs to be simple. It is roleplaying and creativity that we need more of, not rules.
That being said, EN 5.5e is something different. Just as there are Pathfinder players and 5e players, there will be 5.5 players and 5e players. 5.5 will just split the market. Whether that's good from a business perspective or not, I cannot say.
I'm curious to see where they go with this, but I'm more than happy with 5e. I see no reason to want anything else.
So do you think more feats and subclasses would ruin 5e? (Since it is difficult to convey tone while writing in an online forum, I am legitimately curious.)
A non-fighter character is likely to have, at most, one or two feats. One is more likely. As such, the potential for ridiculous levels of min-maxing is low. The GM is likely to know all the really cheesy ways in the core book. I'm not as worried about feats as I am spells for which nearly every new splat book is going to add a handful. As for subclasses, it is difficult for me to find the words to express just how unimpressed I've been by any of the non-core subclasses.
You bring up some good points, not completely on-topic but sure I'll expand on what I think of these.
Revamping Older Stuff
Most older stuff are completely viable. Some of the PHB classes are actually the most overpowered like Way of the Open Hand & Divination Wizard. True strike was just as bad as it was first released as it is right now, WoTC have done a great job of balancing. They aren't prefect though, so I do agree with your next point. Most of the issues have nothing to do with them being older though. The only new thing that's unbalanced is EGtW, but that's not technically made by WoTC. Matt Mercer is 1 person who probably doesn't have many play-testers.
Classes can be Improved
Alternative Class Features which seem to be in Tasha's book had additional spells for Wizards like Divination (too lazy to tooltip), that should be enough. Sorcerer is lacking, but a easy fix would be more metamagic (total metamagics and metamagic choices) and domain spells. Fighters got a "battle maneuvers part of the basic class" buff in where rangers got buffed, it's in the form of a fighter only fighting style, and it's okay I guess. Fighters just need more non-attacking related things to do.
CR System
I think the most problematic thing with the CR system is that there aren't enough high level creatures to challenge third-tier players. Fourth-tier players are out of the question, even ten dragons can't do much against spells like invulnerability, you need a insanely buffed magic user to deal with fourth-tier. CR as a whole is decent, if players have above-average gear, just give them above-average enemies from a CR higher. Far from prefect though, CR calculations are meant as a basic guideline, and it shows.
Casting
Honestly I think the current system works. Making spellcasting stat based off level makes eh narrative sense, and muscle wizards are already possible, most spell-castors only need the spellcasting modifier and the stats almost all classes need, CON (arguable past 12)/DEX (only for ac which is also arguable). So spellcastors already have a lot of wiggle-room in stats. Also, wizards get so many unique spells that negative INT builds exist and are actually useful.
Feats
Feats can a lot of work. Some feats are too overpowered, and some are too focused on roleplay to make effective builds. Giving everyone free feats doesn't solve the problem, people will pick overpowered feats, and those who don't will be worse off. Most people suggest ranking or completely redoing feats which I guess works. I honestly don't know what to think about the feats to reduce multiclassing.
Snobbery
Games like pathfinder have fought this with entire chapters devoted to being a good DM. It's worth looking at, and D&D should try to do something similar. It really did help me when I was first introduced to D&D, as most of the advice about being a good DM applies to all tabletop games.
thanks for the reply
Multi-classing: you made some great points. the re balancing would definitely be a lot of work.a few ideas that might make it simpler ASI as character level for one, and maybe a small reward by meeting certain MCing level requirements (i hope that made sense).just an idea, but maybe the reward could be a higher level class skill that you might not otherwise have gotten because of the multi-class. an example would be sorc 15 bard 5 cause you met the requirement [say a min 5 lvl MC] you gain the bards 6 lvl feature. that would definitely be a lot of work but i personally think it would be worth it. i haven't played pathfinder but i have heard the classes are much more versatile in regards to MCing and would love to wizards to make it more robust. and one other thing they could implement is on their website, they can make a MC page with erratas for any combos that show up that are op (coffeelock) then when ever they make the next official printing they can add it? so to summarize i would love them to make MCing more robust and playable (attitude wise), but i agree this would be a lot of work and balance might not always be there.
revamp: Older was perhaps not the right word, so i will just say weaker (general usability ) and more niche features/spells/classes/sub-classes...
classes to improve: il be a little more specific. i have glanced at the alternatives most of what it adds to spell casters is cantrip changing and the fighter gets more maneuvers. there is a few other things but way off topic.
wizard: so for the wizards just the way i have seen the average person play them, i think they need a small change. not a buff but a change, i cant quite put my finger on it but il share what i have seen and perhaps you can shed some insight. most wizards i have played with have more or less a standard spell arrangement that doesn't really change. they might switch out the odd spell when a better one comes up(kind of similar to sorc/bard how once a level up,1 spell can be switched) but other wise stays the same. this and a strong reliance on the ritual spells. i have only seen a few people (Liam O'Brian from CR) really use the spell switching regularly or to any effect, as this is the main draw of the wizard i feel its not being used to its greatest effect in the hands of your average player.
sorcerer: i can honestly probably write a book on sorcerers so il keep it as brief as possible. mechanically the sorcs are to similar to wizards across the board. sorcerers have innate magic, so they do not have to go to school, they can figure it out on the road or while they work in a blacksmiths... for this reason they should have a minimum of a d8 HP dice. for the same reason at a minimum sorcs should be proficient with light armor (i think i can make a good argument for medium as well, but IL stick to light). i would drop the spell casting components (and you can remove certain spells form the list they can learn that have high component costs to reflect this). i agree a small boost in meta-magic know/points would really help them and a small domain list.
fighter: i was just using maneuvers as an idea, but i will expand on it cause after looking it makes a lot of sense.so to my knowledge there is 1 feat, 1 fighting style (alternate stuff), and 1 subclass that revolves around using maneuvers. of the new maneuvers in the alternate most of these are out of combat maneuvers. but the thing is with all the focus on maneuvers its kind of a mistake to no play a battle master. while you could take the fighting style and feat its still vastly inferior to the battle-master. so a small rework of the fighter to incorporate it into the base class, and then the sub classes dictate the way you want to fight (cavalier if you want cavalry, champion if you just want to hit things...) i think would really boost the class as a whole in positive way.
Cr: an idea that might work for the t3 and t4 is adding new mechanics to the monsters that are hard to counter. just an idea that i heard from Matt Colville is a body switch, (aka force the players to change sheets with someone, and remove the proficiency bonus will in the new body). using difficult and challenging mechanics like this i think really speaks to that level of play. as it is wizards just adds more HP, and stats hoping they will keep up. but one thing i believe is also missing from their formula is action economy.
Feats: ranking might work. my reasoning for some kind of alternate feat system is cause some build concepts really require feats. and unless you want to play a vhuman every time, you have to wait till lvl4 before you can even start your concept, and in a lot of module cases that is half the game. about the multi-classing feats, which are currently only UA, one gives a fighting style, one gives meta-magic, one gives an invocation. these are features that cause a lot of people to multi class. so by giving the option as a feat the goal is to reduce multi-classing. the thing is though you still usually get more out of a multi-class dip. on the other hand these feats are amazing for the base class they are taken from. but you might be right a rework might be in order. so i guess that is another point for a 5.5
snobbery: i didn't know that. good on pathfinder. though i have seen just as many players who are also snobs.
thanks for your comments
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hm.
Have not read the whole thing yet because it's a hefty document, but I did check out a couple-odd each of the three options presented.
Overall: 'heritage' (i.e. species) can produce some very powerful traits, but it's also divorced completely from ASIs and many of the traits presented are both ferociously powerful and wildly exotic compared to "traditional" abilities of the given species. No doubt many people will hate it. 'Culture' is an interesting wrinkle, determining the backdrop for your character independently of background. One can be an Entertainer of any species, like usual, but one can also be an Entertainer from the Big City, an Entertainer from a remote village, an Entertainer from a shire, or even an Entertainer from a dragon or demon cult. It's a fascinating notion.
One can expect their character to start with a much higher number of abilities and proficiencies in this system. It is extremely reminiscent of what I've seen of PF2e's character generation, which scans. EN World's stance seems to very clearly be that PF2e has D&D5e inarguably, unquestionably, uncontestably, ovwrwhelmingly beat when it comes to creation of characters (which it does), but the overall 5e system of bounded accuracy, limited number bloat, and condensed rules has the catastrophic mountain of floating variables that is PF2e's gameplay engine beat (which, for the most part, it does). So smash the two together to get a better game than either.
Quite curious to see where it goes.
Please do not contact or message me.
The important comparison (for 5e anyway) will be between this and what is presented in TCoE. Comparing it to the current PHB rule set is kind of irrelevant in my opinion.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
What I like about this system of generation is that the different species feel very distinct, even with ability scores divorced from them. No one sane can say that these species are just a skin, yet it also avoids the problems of D&D's normal species generation. My favorite part, however, is the culture. It is really well done, and I think allows for very customizable and interesting characters.
I think that this system could be utilized in basic D&D, as well. It would be much more simple, but here's how I think it should work. First you would choose your species. This would provide biological traits, such as size, darkvision, wings ect. Then, you would choose your Culture. This would provide language, proficiences, and half of your Asi. Finally, you would choose background which would be the other half of your Asi and a feature.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Flat-out guarantee the Tasha's rules will be much simpler and less fluid than the system presented in this playtest document. 5e's psychotic terror of any sort of mechanical complexity will sabotage the rulset once again. It'll be better than base PHB generation, but it likely won't allow for nearly as much fine-tuning and customization as people are looking for.
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't know if I found the origin rules to be overly mechanically complex.
I did find them elegantly flexible - perhaps at the cost of some thematic "niche protection". Although that doesn't matter to a lot of people ( me included ), I'm sure some people won't like that.
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.
Some of these background-gifted ability scores still have the same shoehorned feel to me that these options are trying to get rid of. Criminals don't necessarily need to be dextrous. Most nobles I've played weren't really focused on strength. It makes me feel a bit like backgrounds are a bit too class-aligned in a tropey way: Nobles are Paladins, Criminals are Rogues, Hermits are Druids, Sages are Wizards, etc.
I think you could keep the flavor reinforcement but expand things quite a bit by just expanding the options a bit wider like: "Noble: +1 to strength or charisma, +1 to one other ability score."
All that being said, it does have simple rules to make your own background. I'd probably go this way anyway.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
i didn't read all the comments but, i for one would love a 5.1 edition. while i like the simpleness of the 5e engine i noticed that certain... styles... were emphasized more then others. a few things i would love to see changed in the 5e system whether its through a secondary writer or wizards. lets me know what you all think.
Multi-classing
how they made multi classing. with a few notable exceptions (sorcerer-warlock, druid-barbarian) multi-classing is universally weaker. they get less ASI's, their features come on line later. they lack capstones (i don't see this as a loss in most cases as most capstones are rubbish). there are definitely some cool and powerful combinations (which to my experience only seems to last for a few levels) but i have only seen two that were boarder line game breaking. coffeelocks, and barbdruid. coffeelock get unlimited sorc points and barbdruid is un-kill able. but a small errata for each of those could easily fix. i would like to see multi-classing made more acceptable, both mechanically and by wizards. i'm not exaggerating when i say i have seen a lot of players and dm's who are hostile to MCing and people who MC. everyone has a different concept of what kind of character they will play and MCing is one way to achieve this. one thing i would like to see mechanically to fixing mcing is ASI's as set point for total character level as opposed to class level.
revamping older stuff to stay relevant with new releases
a lot of older sub-classes, spells, and features don't really stack up to the new stuff. so i would love to see all the old content reworked to bring them online with all the new content. a few spells that come to mind are blade ward, and true strike. after a game like this gets to a certain size the creators should re balance everything and i think 5e is close to this point.
classes that need to be fixed, reworked, buffed, nerfed
-il start by saying with a handful of exceptions most classes need a better capstone. wizards and sorcerers need to be redone (i know both of these classes are both playable and powerful in the right hands). wizards are close to being the super versatile caster but its not quite there, the sorcerer however could use a rework (im not disputing that it can be powerful) a lot of things about the theme and mechanics of the character don't work or make sense. one example is casting components, why would a person with innate magic need spell components? i'm super fine with the smaller spells known but a set of domain spells for their sub-classes would really help them. some of the sub class abilities need reworks and balancing.
-ranger recently got some buff so hopefully its now super playable.fighters do need a buff. just one idea of a buff is make battle maneuvers part of the basic class (similar to bardic inspiration)
-paladins and monks could use a small buff to make them less MAD, this would reduce the multi-classing a lot. characters are really not equal and you can really see the difference when one of the better made characters (ex hexblade) are played next to (for lack of a better word) lesser characters (rogue inquisitive, warlock undying).
cr system
new cr system, all the Dms i have met have agreed that the cr system is to easy, one of the main reasons i believe is cause its based on PC's with not items, no MCing, and no optimizing. levels 1-5 seem OK but after that everything is to easy. while i cant speak for most games, every single one i have been in had MCing, feats, magic items and at least a few mechanically minded characters. so making that the norm seems like it would be a better way to go. after all its easier to nurf a creature in battle if its to strong then it is to buff it (yes i know about wave tactics, but sometimes they don't make sense).
casting
just a thought for casters is for their spell-casting modifier to be its own stat that levels as the player does (kind of like proficiency bonus). this would ad some actual versatility to casters. strange thing to say right? i have found that many casters are kind of shoe horn into certain rolls. if you take the spell casting modifier and make it separate (for every class/sub class that uses magic) then those pc's could make say a muscle wizard or smart sorcerers and not make a weaker character. (i personally would keep class, and sub class features that run on what is currently the primary casting stat remain using that stat, so they still have a reason to put some points in say int)
feats
i would like to see an official optional rules for giving feats to players, one idea would be every PC can take a feat at x level for a total of 3 or whatever. re-balancing. i rarely see anything i would truly call broken but sentinel PAM combinations have definitely forced dms to hard counter players. and you have other feats that are straight up useless, a lot of the new feats i saw in the UA look like they are meant to reduce MCing (again there is this big bias for whatever reason) though they really don't provide enough to be worth an ASI. just an example (dont remember the name) one feat will give the player a fighting style. how the heck is that worth an ASI ? dueling is a fighting style that give +2 to damage on a one handed weapon. 2 dex/str will give +1 to hit and +1 to damage on top of everything else from the stat. i really don't understand how they balance things
snobbery
honestly i don't know how a book could fix this but man i have seen so many people who play/dm who are straight up snobs. if you play a different style then them, then you are wrong. if you make mechanically useful characters your a munchkin (i have recently been seeing this. so for myself i make mechanically strong characters. to be clear i don't min-max or munchkin (use combinations that knowingly break the game like PAM sentinel) but when i level up i max the relevant stats first and take feats that compliment the character) and your a bad player... i would really like to know where all this hate comes from. Rpings is a big part of the game but so are mechanics, IMHO they should both be encouraged. not that this is relevant to a new book.
You bring up some good points, not completely on-topic but sure I'll expand on what I think of these.
Multi-classing
More can be done to make multi-classing viable. ASIs, intentional power spikes at certain levels, etc. Of course, that'll require a whole rework, especially balance it with non-multi-classing. I admit, if i had to choose between having to multi-class or having to stay to a single class, I'll probably pick the latter. Doesn't mean making multi-classing more viable is bad, because more options would be great, just it might be too much of a rework.
Revamping Older Stuff
Most older stuff are completely viable. Some of the PHB classes are actually the most overpowered like Way of the Open Hand & Divination Wizard. True strike was just as bad as it was first released as it is right now, WoTC have done a great job of balancing. They aren't prefect though, so I do agree with your next point. Most of the issues have nothing to do with them being older though. The only new thing that's unbalanced is EGtW, but that's not technically made by WoTC. Matt Mercer is 1 person who probably doesn't have many play-testers.
Classes can be Improved
Alternative Class Features which seem to be in Tasha's book had additional spells for Wizards like Divination (too lazy to tooltip), that should be enough. Sorcerer is lacking, but a easy fix would be more metamagic (total metamagics and metamagic choices) and domain spells. Fighters got a "battle maneuvers part of the basic class" buff in where rangers got buffed, it's in the form of a fighter only fighting style, and it's okay I guess. Fighters just need more non-attacking related things to do.
CR System
I think the most problematic thing with the CR system is that there aren't enough high level creatures to challenge third-tier players. Fourth-tier players are out of the question, even ten dragons can't do much against spells like invulnerability, you need a insanely buffed magic user to deal with fourth-tier. CR as a whole is decent, if players have above-average gear, just give them above-average enemies from a CR higher. Far from prefect though, CR calculations are meant as a basic guideline, and it shows.
Casting
Honestly I think the current system works. Making spellcasting stat based off level makes eh narrative sense, and muscle wizards are already possible, most spell-castors only need the spellcasting modifier and the stats almost all classes need, CON (arguable past 12)/DEX (only for ac which is also arguable). So spellcastors already have a lot of wiggle-room in stats. Also, wizards get so many unique spells that negative INT builds exist and are actually useful.
Feats
Feats can a lot of work. Some feats are too overpowered, and some are too focused on roleplay to make effective builds. Giving everyone free feats doesn't solve the problem, people will pick overpowered feats, and those who don't will be worse off. Most people suggest ranking or completely redoing feats which I guess works. I honestly don't know what to think about the feats to reduce multiclassing.
Snobbery
Games like pathfinder have fought this with entire chapters devoted to being a good DM. It's worth looking at, and D&D should try to do something similar. It really did help me when I was first introduced to D&D, as most of the advice about being a good DM applies to all tabletop games.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
I can't speak to the early levels of Way of the Open Hand, but that capstone is *utterly* insane; I'm not sure if there's any other class/subclass feature that even comes close...
By the standards of 9th level spells it's pretty tame.
Spells aren't capstones.
Besides which, 9th level spells are usable only once per day and can sometimes have some not insignificant costs. Quivering Palm costs only 3 Ki points, which for a high level monk is a pretty small cost, and for a save-or-die mechanic, that's insane.
EDIT: It's not even save or suck either, succeeding the save still deals a fairly hefty 10d10, and you control whenever it happens. Any one of those is impressive on their own, and bundled together...oof.
Being able to cast 9th level spells is certainly a capstone ability of a class.
I absolutely believe that more content would ruin 5e. It would just lead to minmaxing taking over and that would suck ass. 5e needs to be simple. It is roleplaying and creativity that we need more of, not rules. Again and again, in the history of DnD, we see the same destructive cycle. More content ruins the game and leads to a new edition being needed. If you want more content, then search DnDBeyond's database then talk your GM into letting you playing whatever you find.
That being said, EN 5.5e is something different. Just as there are Pathfinder players and 5e players, there will be 5.5 players and 5e players. 5.5 will just split the market. Whether that's good from a business perspective or not, I cannot say.
I'm curious to see where they go with this, but I'm more than happy with 5e. I see no reason to want anything else.
So do you think more feats and subclasses would ruin 5e? (Since it is difficult to convey tone while writing in an online forum, I am legitimately curious.)
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Once per long rest, once per day...let's be honest, there's only so many hours in a day so the difference is fairly trivial. Pus, all the spells you listed are "If they fail, we win, if they succeed, I've wasted my resources"; Quivering Palm is "if they fail, we win, if they succeed, I still deal massive damage to them, all for a low cost". And if a target is out of reach, Monks have probably the highest mobility out of any class, in most circumstances they'll be able to cross that gap pretty quickly, and if they have access to flight then that covers pretty much all circumstances.
Quivering palm requires you to hit and then takes an additional action to actually apply, so it generally requires two rounds. That slowness significantly limits its effectiveness, and a lot of high level monsters have really high Constitution saves. Honestly, Stunning Fist is probably more significant in most fights, spammable hard cc is pretty nasty.
That's still massive damage for two turns, the possibility for a failed CON save still exists, and with the amount of attacks a Monk can make in a single turn the chances of landing that hit are pretty good. Besides which, Stunning Fist also requires the hit to land and also requires a CON save, and it's save or suck, unlike Quivering Palm. Additionally, stunning Strike only requires that you make an attack, using it doesn't preclude you from using Quivering Palm as well.
A non-fighter character is likely to have, at most, one or two feats. One is more likely. As such, the potential for ridiculous levels of min-maxing is low. The GM is likely to know all the really cheesy ways in the core book. I'm not as worried about feats as I am spells for which nearly every new splat book is going to add a handful. As for subclasses, it is difficult for me to find the words to express just how unimpressed I've been by any of the non-core subclasses.
thanks for the reply
Multi-classing: you made some great points. the re balancing would definitely be a lot of work.a few ideas that might make it simpler ASI as character level for one, and maybe a small reward by meeting certain MCing level requirements (i hope that made sense).just an idea, but maybe the reward could be a higher level class skill that you might not otherwise have gotten because of the multi-class. an example would be sorc 15 bard 5 cause you met the requirement [say a min 5 lvl MC] you gain the bards 6 lvl feature. that would definitely be a lot of work but i personally think it would be worth it. i haven't played pathfinder but i have heard the classes are much more versatile in regards to MCing and would love to wizards to make it more robust. and one other thing they could implement is on their website, they can make a MC page with erratas for any combos that show up that are op (coffeelock) then when ever they make the next official printing they can add it? so to summarize i would love them to make MCing more robust and playable (attitude wise), but i agree this would be a lot of work and balance might not always be there.
revamp: Older was perhaps not the right word, so i will just say weaker (general usability ) and more niche features/spells/classes/sub-classes...
classes to improve: il be a little more specific. i have glanced at the alternatives most of what it adds to spell casters is cantrip changing and the fighter gets more maneuvers. there is a few other things but way off topic.
wizard: so for the wizards just the way i have seen the average person play them, i think they need a small change. not a buff but a change, i cant quite put my finger on it but il share what i have seen and perhaps you can shed some insight. most wizards i have played with have more or less a standard spell arrangement that doesn't really change. they might switch out the odd spell when a better one comes up(kind of similar to sorc/bard how once a level up,1 spell can be switched) but other wise stays the same. this and a strong reliance on the ritual spells. i have only seen a few people (Liam O'Brian from CR) really use the spell switching regularly or to any effect, as this is the main draw of the wizard i feel its not being used to its greatest effect in the hands of your average player.
sorcerer: i can honestly probably write a book on sorcerers so il keep it as brief as possible. mechanically the sorcs are to similar to wizards across the board. sorcerers have innate magic, so they do not have to go to school, they can figure it out on the road or while they work in a blacksmiths... for this reason they should have a minimum of a d8 HP dice. for the same reason at a minimum sorcs should be proficient with light armor (i think i can make a good argument for medium as well, but IL stick to light). i would drop the spell casting components (and you can remove certain spells form the list they can learn that have high component costs to reflect this). i agree a small boost in meta-magic know/points would really help them and a small domain list.
fighter: i was just using maneuvers as an idea, but i will expand on it cause after looking it makes a lot of sense.so to my knowledge there is 1 feat, 1 fighting style (alternate stuff), and 1 subclass that revolves around using maneuvers. of the new maneuvers in the alternate most of these are out of combat maneuvers. but the thing is with all the focus on maneuvers its kind of a mistake to no play a battle master. while you could take the fighting style and feat its still vastly inferior to the battle-master. so a small rework of the fighter to incorporate it into the base class, and then the sub classes dictate the way you want to fight (cavalier if you want cavalry, champion if you just want to hit things...) i think would really boost the class as a whole in positive way.
Cr: an idea that might work for the t3 and t4 is adding new mechanics to the monsters that are hard to counter. just an idea that i heard from Matt Colville is a body switch, (aka force the players to change sheets with someone, and remove the proficiency bonus will in the new body). using difficult and challenging mechanics like this i think really speaks to that level of play. as it is wizards just adds more HP, and stats hoping they will keep up. but one thing i believe is also missing from their formula is action economy.
Feats: ranking might work. my reasoning for some kind of alternate feat system is cause some build concepts really require feats. and unless you want to play a vhuman every time, you have to wait till lvl4 before you can even start your concept, and in a lot of module cases that is half the game. about the multi-classing feats, which are currently only UA, one gives a fighting style, one gives meta-magic, one gives an invocation. these are features that cause a lot of people to multi class. so by giving the option as a feat the goal is to reduce multi-classing. the thing is though you still usually get more out of a multi-class dip. on the other hand these feats are amazing for the base class they are taken from. but you might be right a rework might be in order. so i guess that is another point for a 5.5
snobbery: i didn't know that. good on pathfinder. though i have seen just as many players who are also snobs.
thanks for your comments