just to have an actual ranged weapon (not just a thrown melee weapon) that uses Strength?!? Why? They couldn’t give us a single official option for that?!? C’mon?!?
i am not per se opposed to more options. I'm opposed to trying to implement them in a way resembling 3.5e.
That’s fine. That wouldn’t work anyway because this is 5e. We want them to do it in a way that complements 5e. But AD&D was invented to satisfy that desire. Even AD&D had optional advanced rules coming out of its ears. Pretty much every edition of the game has had some semblance of advanced optional rules. The most advanced option we have is Xanathar’s which is older than DDB (I think?) and the core game is so starved for options that almost everyone just considers that part of “the core four now.” That’s how starved the game is for options at this point. It says something that the only new class we’ve ever gotten for 5e is one of the two most interesting and nuanced classes in all of 5e. And it’s still less than it should have been before it got watered down worse than a $15 drink at the airport.
It doesn’t have to be like 3/3.5, but it has to be.
i am not per se opposed to more options. I'm opposed to trying to implement them in a way resembling 3.5e.
Precisely. The same thing here. If they want to play 3.5 they absolutely nothing stopping them playing 3.5. I play it from time to time myself and it is my favorite edition. I don’t understand the need to turn 5e into 3.5.
i am not per se opposed to more options. I'm opposed to trying to implement them in a way resembling 3.5e.
That’s fine. That wouldn’t work anyway because this is 5e. We want them to do it in a way that complements 5e. But AD&D was invented to satisfy that desire. Even AD&D had optional advanced rules coming out of its ears. Pretty much every edition of the game has had some semblance of advanced optional rules. The most advanced option we have is Xanathar’s which is older than DDB (I think?) and the core game is so starved for options that almost everyone just considers that part of “the core four now.” That’s how starved the game is for options at this point. It says something that the only new class we’ve ever gotten for 5e is one of the two most interesting and nuanced classes in all of 5e. And it’s still less than it should have been before it got watered down worse than a $15 drink at the airport.
It doesn’t have to be like 3/3.5, but it has to be.
There is still plenty of options left. There are tons of play combinations even in the core book. I don’t understand this argument. I mean yes you can’t play your 3.5 character but neither can I(I love Swordsage but I can’t play it in 5e).
I don't think anyone is looking to make 5e into 3.5 I don't think that there is anything wrong with adding a small amount of optional crunch to the mix though. Feats and other optional rules can do this without a system overhaul. I also don't believe that the burden of creating these options should fall on the DM who already has enough work to do.
i am not per se opposed to more options. I'm opposed to trying to implement them in a way resembling 3.5e.
That’s fine. That wouldn’t work anyway because this is 5e. We want them to do it in a way that complements 5e. But AD&D was invented to satisfy that desire. Even AD&D had optional advanced rules coming out of its ears. Pretty much every edition of the game has had some semblance of advanced optional rules. The most advanced option we have is Xanathar’s which is older than DDB (I think?) and the core game is so starved for options that almost everyone just considers that part of “the core four now.” That’s how starved the game is for options at this point. It says something that the only new class we’ve ever gotten for 5e is one of the two most interesting and nuanced classes in all of 5e. And it’s still less than it should have been before it got watered down worse than a $15 drink at the airport.
It doesn’t have to be like 3/3.5, but it has to be.
There is still plenty of options left. There are tons of play combinations even in the core book. I don’t understand this argument. I mean yes you can’t play your 3.5 character but neither can I(I love Swordsage but I can’t play it in 5e).
How hard is it to understand that while YOU may be satisfied, OTHERS are not?
It is like saying "I like plain hamburgers. I don't understand why you want cheese and bacon."
i am not per se opposed to more options. I'm opposed to trying to implement them in a way resembling 3.5e.
That’s fine. That wouldn’t work anyway because this is 5e. We want them to do it in a way that complements 5e. But AD&D was invented to satisfy that desire. Even AD&D had optional advanced rules coming out of its ears. Pretty much every edition of the game has had some semblance of advanced optional rules.
Most of which were, frankly, terrible. Game release by splatbook results in an unwieldy game with lots of poorly thought out mechanics that don't mix together well. I've played games with lots of options that worked well, but they didn't create those options with splatbooks, they did it through the core game mechanics that existed in the basic rules (and, well, they were all point-based. Level-based and flexible doesn't really fit together).
I think people are citing 3.5e because it's the closest analogy to what they're asking for. They don't want a new edition. They don't want a new system. They want more options that can be added to the core rules of 5e.
Let's say I'm in a game where I want to play a cleric. Let's also say that my DM has stated they have zero intention to use any undead enemies in their campaign. That unfortunately invalidates one of my core class abilities, so I would then either want to pester my DM to make changes, or I would want to have a series of alternate features to wave and say, "Hey, can I take any of these to replace Turn/Destroy Undead?" Having an official list of alternate features would help solve that dilemma without having to rewrite the whole of 5e.
Let's also say I want to be a master swordsman. As has already been pointed out, there's relatively little to differentiate most of 5e's weapons; however, if we added a section of new weapons with the Special property to differentiate them, that could help to alleviate that problem, without having to rewrite the whole of 5e.
Let's say that as a DM, I want the materials my players' equipment is made from to have more meaning. There could be an expanded list of different materials a weapon could be made from aside from Silver, Mithral, and Adamantine (which let's be honest, don't really do much as it is), and give them different ways in which they could affect the stats of a given item. That could be added without having to rewrite the whole of 5e.
Obviously these are only my ideas, other people are free to agree or disagree with them, but my point that I'm trying to make is that there's more we could do to add (optional) depth to 5e, without having to rewrite or invalidate any of the system.
i am not per se opposed to more options. I'm opposed to trying to implement them in a way resembling 3.5e.
That’s fine. That wouldn’t work anyway because this is 5e. We want them to do it in a way that complements 5e. But AD&D was invented to satisfy that desire. Even AD&D had optional advanced rules coming out of its ears. Pretty much every edition of the game has had some semblance of advanced optional rules. The most advanced option we have is Xanathar’s which is older than DDB (I think?) and the core game is so starved for options that almost everyone just considers that part of “the core four now.” That’s how starved the game is for options at this point. It says something that the only new class we’ve ever gotten for 5e is one of the two most interesting and nuanced classes in all of 5e. And it’s still less than it should have been before it got watered down worse than a $15 drink at the airport.
It doesn’t have to be like 3/3.5, but it has to be.
There is still plenty of options left. There are tons of play combinations even in the core book. I don’t understand this argument. I mean yes you can’t play your 3.5 character but neither can I(I love Swordsage but I can’t play it in 5e).
How hard is it to understand that while YOU may be satisfied, OTHERS are not?
It is like saying "I like plain hamburgers. I don't understand why you want cheese and bacon."
Because the original post was about the need for a 5.5 edition, which is less like comparing plain hamburgers to bacon cheeseburgers and more like saying that the restaurant needs to be completely remodeled in order to add a couple of extra condiment choices.
i am not per se opposed to more options. I'm opposed to trying to implement them in a way resembling 3.5e.
That’s fine. That wouldn’t work anyway because this is 5e. We want them to do it in a way that complements 5e. But AD&D was invented to satisfy that desire. Even AD&D had optional advanced rules coming out of its ears. Pretty much every edition of the game has had some semblance of advanced optional rules. The most advanced option we have is Xanathar’s which is older than DDB (I think?) and the core game is so starved for options that almost everyone just considers that part of “the core four now.” That’s how starved the game is for options at this point. It says something that the only new class we’ve ever gotten for 5e is one of the two most interesting and nuanced classes in all of 5e. And it’s still less than it should have been before it got watered down worse than a $15 drink at the airport.
It doesn’t have to be like 3/3.5, but it has to be.
There is still plenty of options left. There are tons of play combinations even in the core book. I don’t understand this argument. I mean yes you can’t play your 3.5 character but neither can I(I love Swordsage but I can’t play it in 5e).
How hard is it to understand that while YOU may be satisfied, OTHERS are not?
It is like saying "I like plain hamburgers. I don't understand why you want cheese and bacon."
Because the original post was about the need for a 5.5 edition, which is less like comparing plain hamburgers to bacon cheeseburgers and more like saying that the restaurant needs to be completely remodeled in order to add a couple of extra condiment choices.
No where in this chain of quotes did it refer to the original post.
With all due respect, the original post is about how a company other than WotC is making what is effectively a 5.5e ruleset, and how Yurei hopes that either this or a different supplement/rulebook could add some additional choices and crunch that she (and others) have wanted for some time.
With all due respect, the original post is about how a company other than WotC is making what is effectively a 5.5e ruleset, and how Yurei hopes that either this or a different supplement/rulebook could add some additional choices and crunch that she (and others) have wanted for some time.
And you know what? Since it's actually on the original topic, I do hope to see a list of weapons with the Special property, that aren't just the same thing but with different numbers, and with more variation. I want to see more materials that equipment can be made from; hell, I want more added to the existing weapons as it is. Make silver weaponry mandatory for killing werewolves and ghosts, even with magic items, and make silver armor effective against attacks from those enemies! Make mithral weapons lighter than their steel counterparts! Make adamantine...actually, adamantine does have uses for armor and weapons in both the DMG and Xanathars, so I'll give it a pass. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, GIVE ME MORE!!!
And you know what? Since it's actually on the original topic, I do hope to see a list of weapons with the Special property, that aren't just the same thing but with different numbers, and with more variation. I want to see more materials that equipment can be made from; hell, I want more added to the existing weapons as it is. Make silver weaponry mandatory for killing werewolves and ghosts, even with magic items, and make silver armor effective against attacks from those enemies! Make mithral weapons lighter than their steel counterparts! Make adamantine...actually, adamantine does have uses for armor and weapons in both the DMG and Xanathars, so I'll give it a pass. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, GIVE ME MORE!!!
And all the clamor is for the upcoming books to contain what? Class Feature Variants, Racial Variant rules, new Feats, new Spells....
People want more different combinations of stuff to dig into because we already dug into everything available and already built the most interesting (to each individual) stuff we could come up with.
Here we are begging WotC to take our money for this stuff. This should be a no-brainer.
Didn't Wizards try to do this themselves with the UA Alternate Class Features? I guess it's pretty old by now, but it's still out there. You could always just use that as a base to homebrew your own Alternate Class Features. I know homebrewing is a lot of work, but WOTC can't be expected to constantly pump out stuff else we get a mess of poorly designed features (see 3.5E).
Am I missing something? I've just read 6 pages of confusing arguments so I'm not entirely here right now. Do remember if someone has bad ideas, doesn't mean their feelings are wrong. Reminder that it's better to focus on what's wrong, rather than ways to fix it. Cause if we discuss solutions while everyone has a different idea of what is wrong, we aren't going anywhere.
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.
There was the alternate class features and the recent feats UA that synergized *remarkably* well with it, which makes me think we will get a book containing both of those eventually. However, it looks like someone else has beat them to the punch, which again is the reason why this thread exists.
Didn't Wizards try to do this themselves with the UA Alternate Class Features? I guess it's pretty old by now, but it's still out there. You could always just use that as a base to homebrew your own Alternate Class Features. I know homebrewing is a lot of work, but WOTC can't be expected to constantly pump out stuff else we get a mess of poorly designed features (see 3.5E).
Am I missing something? I've just read 6 pages of confusing arguments so I'm not entirely here right now. Do remember if someone has bad ideas, doesn't mean their feelings are wrong. Reminder that it's better to focus on what's wrong, rather than ways to fix it. Cause if we discuss solutions while everyone has a different idea of what is wrong, we aren't going anywhere.
Three things:
Yes, if you haven’t read it I just made direct reference to the Class Feature Variants UA in my last post as one of the things people are hoping get rolled out soon officially.
As a DM, I have enough to do without having to Homebrew dozens of options for my players.
You wanna talk about the problem? Okay. 5e has gotten staler than week old popcorn. Some think it needs to be dumped out and a fresh batch made. Others think that if they just mix the old batch into the new batch it will wake it up enough to continue to be palatable. Some people are so happy with it that they don’t find it stale at all. And some folks have just never had better popcorn than this so they don’t even realize it’s gone stale.
Like, why did I have to homebrew this:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/1243170-heavy-longbow
just to have an actual ranged weapon (not just a thrown melee weapon) that uses Strength?!? Why? They couldn’t give us a single official option for that?!? C’mon?!?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
i am not per se opposed to more options. I'm opposed to trying to implement them in a way resembling 3.5e.
That’s fine. That wouldn’t work anyway because this is 5e. We want them to do it in a way that complements 5e. But AD&D was invented to satisfy that desire. Even AD&D had optional advanced rules coming out of its ears. Pretty much every edition of the game has had some semblance of advanced optional rules. The most advanced option we have is Xanathar’s which is older than DDB (I think?) and the core game is so starved for options that almost everyone just considers that part of “the core four now.” That’s how starved the game is for options at this point. It says something that the only new class we’ve ever gotten for 5e is one of the two most interesting and nuanced classes in all of 5e. And it’s still less than it should have been before it got watered down worse than a $15 drink at the airport.
It doesn’t have to be like 3/3.5, but it has to be.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Precisely. The same thing here. If they want to play 3.5 they absolutely nothing stopping them playing 3.5. I play it from time to time myself and it is my favorite edition. I don’t understand the need to turn 5e into 3.5.
There is still plenty of options left. There are tons of play combinations even in the core book. I don’t understand this argument. I mean yes you can’t play your 3.5 character but neither can I(I love Swordsage but I can’t play it in 5e).
I don't think anyone is looking to make 5e into 3.5 I don't think that there is anything wrong with adding a small amount of optional crunch to the mix though. Feats and other optional rules can do this without a system overhaul. I also don't believe that the burden of creating these options should fall on the DM who already has enough work to do.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
How hard is it to understand that while YOU may be satisfied, OTHERS are not?
It is like saying "I like plain hamburgers. I don't understand why you want cheese and bacon."
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Most of which were, frankly, terrible. Game release by splatbook results in an unwieldy game with lots of poorly thought out mechanics that don't mix together well. I've played games with lots of options that worked well, but they didn't create those options with splatbooks, they did it through the core game mechanics that existed in the basic rules (and, well, they were all point-based. Level-based and flexible doesn't really fit together).
I think people are citing 3.5e because it's the closest analogy to what they're asking for. They don't want a new edition. They don't want a new system. They want more options that can be added to the core rules of 5e.
Let's say I'm in a game where I want to play a cleric. Let's also say that my DM has stated they have zero intention to use any undead enemies in their campaign. That unfortunately invalidates one of my core class abilities, so I would then either want to pester my DM to make changes, or I would want to have a series of alternate features to wave and say, "Hey, can I take any of these to replace Turn/Destroy Undead?" Having an official list of alternate features would help solve that dilemma without having to rewrite the whole of 5e.
Let's also say I want to be a master swordsman. As has already been pointed out, there's relatively little to differentiate most of 5e's weapons; however, if we added a section of new weapons with the Special property to differentiate them, that could help to alleviate that problem, without having to rewrite the whole of 5e.
Let's say that as a DM, I want the materials my players' equipment is made from to have more meaning. There could be an expanded list of different materials a weapon could be made from aside from Silver, Mithral, and Adamantine (which let's be honest, don't really do much as it is), and give them different ways in which they could affect the stats of a given item. That could be added without having to rewrite the whole of 5e.
Obviously these are only my ideas, other people are free to agree or disagree with them, but my point that I'm trying to make is that there's more we could do to add (optional) depth to 5e, without having to rewrite or invalidate any of the system.
Because the original post was about the need for a 5.5 edition, which is less like comparing plain hamburgers to bacon cheeseburgers and more like saying that the restaurant needs to be completely remodeled in order to add a couple of extra condiment choices.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No where in this chain of quotes did it refer to the original post.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
With all due respect, the original post is about how a company other than WotC is making what is effectively a 5.5e ruleset, and how Yurei hopes that either this or a different supplement/rulebook could add some additional choices and crunch that she (and others) have wanted for some time.
Exactly.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
And you know what? Since it's actually on the original topic, I do hope to see a list of weapons with the Special property, that aren't just the same thing but with different numbers, and with more variation. I want to see more materials that equipment can be made from; hell, I want more added to the existing weapons as it is. Make silver weaponry mandatory for killing werewolves and ghosts, even with magic items, and make silver armor effective against attacks from those enemies! Make mithral weapons lighter than their steel counterparts! Make adamantine...actually, adamantine does have uses for armor and weapons in both the DMG and Xanathars, so I'll give it a pass. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, GIVE ME MORE!!!
Huzzah!!!
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
And all the clamor is for the upcoming books to contain what? Class Feature Variants, Racial Variant rules, new Feats, new Spells....
People want more different combinations of stuff to dig into because we already dug into everything available and already built the most interesting (to each individual) stuff we could come up with.
Here we are begging WotC to take our money for this stuff. This should be a no-brainer.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Exactly!
Didn't Wizards try to do this themselves with the UA Alternate Class Features? I guess it's pretty old by now, but it's still out there. You could always just use that as a base to homebrew your own Alternate Class Features. I know homebrewing is a lot of work, but WOTC can't be expected to constantly pump out stuff else we get a mess of poorly designed features (see 3.5E).
Am I missing something? I've just read 6 pages of confusing arguments so I'm not entirely here right now. Do remember if someone has bad ideas, doesn't mean their feelings are wrong. Reminder that it's better to focus on what's wrong, rather than ways to fix it. Cause if we discuss solutions while everyone has a different idea of what is wrong, we aren't going anywhere.
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.
There was the alternate class features and the recent feats UA that synergized *remarkably* well with it, which makes me think we will get a book containing both of those eventually. However, it looks like someone else has beat them to the punch, which again is the reason why this thread exists.
Three things:
Yes, if you haven’t read it I just made direct reference to the Class Feature Variants UA in my last post as one of the things people are hoping get rolled out soon officially.
As a DM, I have enough to do without having to Homebrew dozens of options for my players.
You wanna talk about the problem? Okay. 5e has gotten staler than week old popcorn. Some think it needs to be dumped out and a fresh batch made. Others think that if they just mix the old batch into the new batch it will wake it up enough to continue to be palatable. Some people are so happy with it that they don’t find it stale at all. And some folks have just never had better popcorn than this so they don’t even realize it’s gone stale.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting