Gotta agree, those scenarios are ludicrous and not possible within the 5e framework. The biggest reason 5e is so popular is lack of crunch, it would be commercial suicide to ruin what most of us love about the game, its simplicity for an RPG. Not that crunch is bad, it's just not 5e nor should it. Want crunch, play Eve, want ease, play WoW. Make whatcha like within the framework and if the framework doesn't allow it, find a system that does or try a different character concept.
>Vast majority of feats are traps; feat system requires a character to sacrifice advancement to gain the ability to actually make decisions about their character's growth.
One of the reasons I like the feat system is that it allows you to make choices about the growth of your character. Most of the time, you have to decide whether getting a special ability is better than increasing ability scores. I dont see this as a problem, just another layer of complexity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
A general issue with this type of discussion is that, well, not everyone has the same complaints about the game system, and in fact people often have directly contradictory wants about the system.
It is a system that could be improved upon. A common complaint that I have seen is that selecting a Feat over an ASI isn't viable unless you start with better stats than the Standard Array or Point Buy gives you.
I personally would argue that there are also not enough Feats, which is why I was excited for the latest Feat UA.
Yeah, but I could make Grung the Gentile, the Half-Ogre Monk with a “Composite” Longbow in 3/3.5
Shalom, Grung! Allow me to introduce my Gnomish Cleric, Perth Melbourne the Mohel!
In seriousness, while the simplicity of 5e has been a bit of a godsend for me as a new DM, I would like to see some more depth in my game as I get more experience under my belt.
One of the things I loved about the Class Feature Variants UA (and similarly, the fairly recent Feats UA) was how it added a little more customization and modularity to some of the base classes, which I hope will be expanded further in official publication.
Similarly, I'd like to see more variety in equipment. I was disappointed there were only two weapons with the Special property (three since the Eberron book was released), and astoundingly little on different materials for weapons/armor/other equipment.
Yeah, but I could make Grung the Gentile, the Half-Ogre Monk with a “Composite” Longbow in 3/3.5
2/3 of those options are unavailable in 5e without homebrewing them.
The general philosophy of 5e is to focus on the things that are most commonly of interest to players. Frankly, the rules for LA and ECL in 3.5e were a nightmare anyway, so I don't miss their lack, and it's not like I can't just create a Goliath Monk and flavor it as a Half-Ogre.
Yeah, but I could make Grung the Gentile, the Half-Ogre Monk with a “Composite” Longbow in 3/3.5
2/3 of those options are unavailable in 5e without homebrewing them.
The general philosophy of 5e is to focus on the things that are most commonly of interest to players. Frankly, the rules for LA and ECL in 3.5e were a nightmare anyway, so I don't miss their lack, and it's not like I can't just create a Goliath Monk and flavor it as a Half-Ogre.
Well sure, but a Half-Ogre Monk was actually good in that edition.
If they took 3/3.5e and shuffled it together with 5e we would all have a better D&D.
Yeah, but I could make Grung the Gentile, the Half-Ogre Monk with a “Composite” Longbow in 3/3.5
2/3 of those options are unavailable in 5e without homebrewing them.
The general philosophy of 5e is to focus on the things that are most commonly of interest to players. Frankly, the rules for LA and ECL in 3.5e were a nightmare anyway, so I don't miss their lack, and it's not like I can't just create a Goliath Monk and flavor it as a Half-Ogre.
Well sure, but a Half-Ogre Monk was actually good in that edition.
If they took 3/3.5e and shuffled it together with 5e we would all have a better D&D.
Halfway between 3.5 and 5th? I don't think 4.25e would go too well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Well sure, but a Half-Ogre Monk was actually good in that edition.
That's because LAs were a mess and it happened to be net beneficial in the case of half-ogres. In any case, my sympathy immediately drops to zero when the complaint is "overpowered build I used to like no longer works".
Then...change it so it isn't overpowered? I don't think folks here are asking to make OP characters, they're asking to have some additional, *optional* tools to play with.
I already said how to do that: take a goliath and call it a half-ogre. The lack of a particularly viable strength-based unarmed combat build in 5e is a flaw, but doesn't have a lot to do with half-ogres per se.
A general issue with this type of discussion is that, well, not everyone has the same complaints about the game system, and in fact people often have directly contradictory wants about the system.
True, but it is exacerbated by those (on either side) who see it as "my way or the highway!" I've been seeing this crop up with regards to FFG's Star Wars RPG, with a small (yet extremely vocal contingent) declaring the game is long overdue for a new edition that radically changes a lot of things, while most folks are general are pretty happy with the current version apart from a couple tweaks being needed (vehicle rules mainly).
Generally speaking, it seems the mass consensus from the various facets of the internet is that while D&D 5e isn't a perfect RPG system (frankly, no RPG system is well and truly "perfect"), it does enough things right that sweeping changes (such as a new edition) aren't seen as really necessary. And that for those elements that really stick out, 9 times out of 10 it's easy to fix with a house rule (such as allowing potions to be consumed as a bonus action).
I'll admit to being perplexed at folks saying "well, I CAN'T do XYZ in 5e like I could in 3.X!" Though much of that does seem to boil down to a DM that's not willing to work with the player or the player looking for the most mechanically optimized build as opposed to making an actual character that's not just a collection of numbers and bonuses.
I know that Critical Role isn't everyone's cup of tea, but one thing I enjoy about the show is that you've got players using character builds that aren't fully optimized but are still perfectly viable, such as Jester (Tiefling is mechanically a subpar choice for a Cleric, even if the character concept was originally meant to be a Warlock), Fjord (Half-Orcs by nature are not the best for Warlocks, though being a Hexblade kinda helps), and especially Mollymauk (who literally died for being sub-optimal but is still fondly remembered by much of the fan community, though much of that was Talesin's playing the character). On top of Matt as the DM being unafraid to alter bits of the rules to suit his personal style and/or preferences as necessary, something he freely admits to doing to make the game more fun/interesting/challenging for him and his players.
Not everyone has the time, desire or enough understanding of the system, to homebrew everything a player may want to try. There is still lots of potential content for WotC to create for and within the frame work of 5e and I dare say that content IS desired by the community at large. If not, why are there SOOOO many Homebrew Races, Classes, Subclasses, Feats, Spells, Monsters and the like?
Do we NEED a 5.5? No, not really. Are there some out there that want it, probably. BUT what a lot of people want is more content that allows them to build the things that, for what ever reason, they can't make themselves.
I already said how to do that: take a goliath and call it a half-ogre. The lack of a particularly viable strength-based unarmed combat build in 5e is a flaw, but doesn't have a lot to do with half-ogres per se.
I...wasn't arguing in favor of half-ogres specifically. In fact, I've never played with half-ogres in prior editions so I don't necessarily have a horse in that particular race; however, It wouldn't surprise me if the Goliath's mechanics don't mesh particularly well with Half-Ogres either. That's actually the reason 5e's lead designer/boy adventurer Jeremy Crawford gave for making Leonin their own race rather than reskinning Tabaxi in the Theros book; the mechanics didn't reflect the fantasy for the race, even though they share many similarities.
In any event, I'm not convinced by this argument that you can just reskin everything to suit your needs. Certainly you can, but reskinning only goes so far, and frankly it sounds like an excuse to not make any new content, which is exactly the last thing WotC wants/needs. Besides, if the community didn't want any new content for 5e, then WotC might as well just give up on expanding 5e entirely and start making 6e.
I...wasn't arguing in favor of half-ogres specifically. In fact, I've never played with half-ogres in prior editions so I don't necessarily have a horse in that particular race; however, It wouldn't surprise me if the Goliath's mechanics don't mesh particularly well with Half-Ogres either.
Essence of half-ogre: big, strong, slow, stupid, ugly, tough. Goliath checks off big, strong, tough, and you can achieve slow, stupid, and ugly by putting low scores in dex, int, and wis. There are races that are hard to represent by reflavoring existing options, but a half-ogre really isn't one of them.
I still don't understand why you're so against it. It does literally nothing to hurt your game. If you don't like it, don't allow it. It's...just that simple.
I still don't understand why you're so against it. It does literally nothing to hurt your game. If you don't like it, don't allow it. It's...just that simple.
I...wasn't arguing in favor of half-ogres specifically. In fact, I've never played with half-ogres in prior editions so I don't necessarily have a horse in that particular race; however, It wouldn't surprise me if the Goliath's mechanics don't mesh particularly well with Half-Ogres either.
Essence of half-ogre: big, strong, slow, stupid, ugly, tough. Goliath checks off big, strong, tough, and you can achieve slow, stupid, and ugly by putting low scores in dex, int, and wis. There are races that are hard to represent by reflavoring existing options, but a half-ogre really isn't one of them.
Instead of getting stuck in a repeating loop about half-ogres (which was simply an example to prove the actual point) why don’t we move past that and get back to the actual point?
That point being that many folks (such as myself) would really like at least a few options that aren’t streamlined to cater to the lowest common denominator. Some of us wish there was a bit more crunch to character generation and progression, and we’re tired of having to re-skin and twist the same old crapola and still have to squint and look at it sideways to see the vaguest approximation of what it is we actually want to play. We want a little more meat on the bones and some nice crunch for texture. Like good ribs. Why is that such a horrible idea?
Emphasis, as always, on "options". No one's suggesting everyone be forced to add crunch if they don't want it, same as no one's forcing everyone to use the Piety system from Theros.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, but I could make Grung the Gentile, the Half-Ogre Monk with a “Composite” Longbow in 3/3.5
2/3 of those options are unavailable in 5e without homebrewing them.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Gotta agree, those scenarios are ludicrous and not possible within the 5e framework. The biggest reason 5e is so popular is lack of crunch, it would be commercial suicide to ruin what most of us love about the game, its simplicity for an RPG. Not that crunch is bad, it's just not 5e nor should it. Want crunch, play Eve, want ease, play WoW. Make whatcha like within the framework and if the framework doesn't allow it, find a system that does or try a different character concept.
I am writing on a phone, so I pre-apologize for spelling and formatting errors.
One of the reasons I like the feat system is that it allows you to make choices about the growth of your character. Most of the time, you have to decide whether getting a special ability is better than increasing ability scores. I dont see this as a problem, just another layer of complexity.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
A general issue with this type of discussion is that, well, not everyone has the same complaints about the game system, and in fact people often have directly contradictory wants about the system.
It is a system that could be improved upon. A common complaint that I have seen is that selecting a Feat over an ASI isn't viable unless you start with better stats than the Standard Array or Point Buy gives you.
I personally would argue that there are also not enough Feats, which is why I was excited for the latest Feat UA.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Shalom, Grung! Allow me to introduce my Gnomish Cleric, Perth Melbourne the Mohel!
In seriousness, while the simplicity of 5e has been a bit of a godsend for me as a new DM, I would like to see some more depth in my game as I get more experience under my belt.
One of the things I loved about the Class Feature Variants UA (and similarly, the fairly recent Feats UA) was how it added a little more customization and modularity to some of the base classes, which I hope will be expanded further in official publication.
Similarly, I'd like to see more variety in equipment. I was disappointed there were only two weapons with the Special property (three since the Eberron book was released), and astoundingly little on different materials for weapons/armor/other equipment.
The general philosophy of 5e is to focus on the things that are most commonly of interest to players. Frankly, the rules for LA and ECL in 3.5e were a nightmare anyway, so I don't miss their lack, and it's not like I can't just create a Goliath Monk and flavor it as a Half-Ogre.
Well sure, but a Half-Ogre Monk was actually good in that edition.
If they took 3/3.5e and shuffled it together with 5e we would all have a better D&D.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Halfway between 3.5 and 5th? I don't think 4.25e would go too well.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
That's because LAs were a mess and it happened to be net beneficial in the case of half-ogres. In any case, my sympathy immediately drops to zero when the complaint is "overpowered build I used to like no longer works".
Then...change it so it isn't overpowered? I don't think folks here are asking to make OP characters, they're asking to have some additional, *optional* tools to play with.
I already said how to do that: take a goliath and call it a half-ogre. The lack of a particularly viable strength-based unarmed combat build in 5e is a flaw, but doesn't have a lot to do with half-ogres per se.
True, but it is exacerbated by those (on either side) who see it as "my way or the highway!" I've been seeing this crop up with regards to FFG's Star Wars RPG, with a small (yet extremely vocal contingent) declaring the game is long overdue for a new edition that radically changes a lot of things, while most folks are general are pretty happy with the current version apart from a couple tweaks being needed (vehicle rules mainly).
Generally speaking, it seems the mass consensus from the various facets of the internet is that while D&D 5e isn't a perfect RPG system (frankly, no RPG system is well and truly "perfect"), it does enough things right that sweeping changes (such as a new edition) aren't seen as really necessary. And that for those elements that really stick out, 9 times out of 10 it's easy to fix with a house rule (such as allowing potions to be consumed as a bonus action).
I'll admit to being perplexed at folks saying "well, I CAN'T do XYZ in 5e like I could in 3.X!" Though much of that does seem to boil down to a DM that's not willing to work with the player or the player looking for the most mechanically optimized build as opposed to making an actual character that's not just a collection of numbers and bonuses.
I know that Critical Role isn't everyone's cup of tea, but one thing I enjoy about the show is that you've got players using character builds that aren't fully optimized but are still perfectly viable, such as Jester (Tiefling is mechanically a subpar choice for a Cleric, even if the character concept was originally meant to be a Warlock), Fjord (Half-Orcs by nature are not the best for Warlocks, though being a Hexblade kinda helps), and especially Mollymauk (who literally died for being sub-optimal but is still fondly remembered by much of the fan community, though much of that was Talesin's playing the character). On top of Matt as the DM being unafraid to alter bits of the rules to suit his personal style and/or preferences as necessary, something he freely admits to doing to make the game more fun/interesting/challenging for him and his players.
Not everyone has the time, desire or enough understanding of the system, to homebrew everything a player may want to try. There is still lots of potential content for WotC to create for and within the frame work of 5e and I dare say that content IS desired by the community at large. If not, why are there SOOOO many Homebrew Races, Classes, Subclasses, Feats, Spells, Monsters and the like?
Do we NEED a 5.5? No, not really. Are there some out there that want it, probably. BUT what a lot of people want is more content that allows them to build the things that, for what ever reason, they can't make themselves.
WotC are professional game designers, we are not.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I...wasn't arguing in favor of half-ogres specifically. In fact, I've never played with half-ogres in prior editions so I don't necessarily have a horse in that particular race; however, It wouldn't surprise me if the Goliath's mechanics don't mesh particularly well with Half-Ogres either. That's actually the reason 5e's lead designer
/boy adventurerJeremy Crawford gave for making Leonin their own race rather than reskinning Tabaxi in the Theros book; the mechanics didn't reflect the fantasy for the race, even though they share many similarities.In any event, I'm not convinced by this argument that you can just reskin everything to suit your needs. Certainly you can, but reskinning only goes so far, and frankly it sounds like an excuse to not make any new content, which is exactly the last thing WotC wants/needs. Besides, if the community didn't want any new content for 5e, then WotC might as well just give up on expanding 5e entirely and start making 6e.
Essence of half-ogre: big, strong, slow, stupid, ugly, tough. Goliath checks off big, strong, tough, and you can achieve slow, stupid, and ugly by putting low scores in dex, int, and wis. There are races that are hard to represent by reflavoring existing options, but a half-ogre really isn't one of them.
I still don't understand why you're so against it. It does literally nothing to hurt your game. If you don't like it, don't allow it. It's...just that simple.
Agreed.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Instead of getting stuck in a repeating loop about half-ogres (which was simply an example to prove the actual point) why don’t we move past that and get back to the actual point?
That point being that many folks (such as myself) would really like at least a few options that aren’t streamlined to cater to the lowest common denominator. Some of us wish there was a bit more crunch to character generation and progression, and we’re tired of having to re-skin and twist the same old crapola and still have to squint and look at it sideways to see the vaguest approximation of what it is we actually want to play. We want a little more meat on the bones and some nice crunch for texture. Like good ribs. Why is that such a horrible idea?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Emphasis, as always, on "options". No one's suggesting everyone be forced to add crunch if they don't want it, same as no one's forcing everyone to use the Piety system from Theros.