I honestly don't think a crafting system framework would need to be intrusive on the existing ruleset. General guidelines can be established without any need for hyper-specific rules about "this" item or "that" item. Mundane crafting rules are something everyone can relate to by simply referencing human history (before the industrial age). Mundane crafting requires materials, facilities, skill sets, funding, and time. That's pretty much it. It's really up to the DM to decide what's available. A mundane crafting system is very much within reach as a supplement to the existing rules. It's truly sitting there waiting to be written.
As for magical crafting, I think a similar framework can work just as well. If I were to take a stab at it, here's how I would start. First, an item would need to be crafted with the express purpose of hosting a reflection of the Weave. The crafting of this item would follow the standard guidelines for mundane crafting but, additionally, include the infusion of some magical catalyst. Let's call that catalyst Weave Dust. Weave Dust could be created via a mid-level (transmutation) spell at some cost that makes the casting meaningful. I would say that infusion of the Weave Dust into the mundane item has some chance of failure based on the level of the spell slot expended to create the Weave Dust and, of course, would require an artisan with the appropriate skill set to do so. With me so far? Once successful, a magical effect could be introduced into the item by way of one of many infusion spells. Each school of magic would have one (or more) infusion spell(s) that are used to introduce magical effects or properties into an appropriate host item, again, with some chance of failure. These infusion spells would be mid-level to allow higher level spell slots to be expended in exchange for a higher chance of success and the casting of such spells would come at some cost that makes its use meaningful. The effects or properties of the magic introduced into the host item would directly reflect the school of magic from which the infusion spell derived. For example, a pair of boots that granted advantage on stealth checks would use illusion magic. Still with me? A list of popular effects and properties could be written up as a guide from which to extrapolate and customize for your campaign.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for missing a step in this hypothetical process, let me just remind everyone that I'm just spit-balling here from the top of my head. I'm not a writer or a game developer. Cut me some slack. As I said, this is how I would start developing such a system. Literally, none of it needs to be precise and exacting recipes for making item A or item B. It's truly a general guideline for crafting.
Each DM gets to decide what's available in his/her campaign. Maybe magic is extremely rare in your world so this crafting might come at a devastating cost, and that's only IF you can find everything you need. Or perhaps magic is common but the local baron, struggling to maintain control of his territory, has ordered all magic items to be confiscated and your players need to figure out a way to get what they need by making it themselves in secret. My point being, the system truly does not need to impose on existing rule sets but rather be supplementary.
I actually love the 5e system but that doesn't mean I think it's perfect. There's plenty of room for improvement. And isn't that what this thread is about? Making an excellent system even more excellent-er? :)
D&D has always been successful relying on DM creativity to fill in all the details. Again, there has never been any official in depth system and the game has done just fine. Even real life law does not try to hard codify all behavior. There are limits to what can reasonably be done.
Again - giving my cynicism free reign - DM creativity is a much rarer commodity than you give it credit for. DM ability to create meta-rules which allow them to consistently create balanced and consistent sub-systems is even rarer. As evidence I would draw your attention to the level of balance and consideration found in the vast majority of homebrew ... anything.
There are some good designers and DMs who do really good jobs on this, but they aren't the majority.
Again, I'm not talking about codifying everything - we're talking about meta-systems, or meta-guidelines that allow the DM to develop their own systems and mechanics while at least being able to detect most of the errant nonsense or blunders.
We don't have that today. I don't actually think WoTC has one. Could such a thing be developed? I think it's possible to develop, because I've seen the beginnings of such systems developed by some author/DMs ( I would refer you to AngryDM's proto-system for creating balanced homebrew monsters ). Is it something that could be "reasonably done"? I don't know - but if people are willing to try, I'd love to see what they come up with.
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.
The monster creation rules in the DMG are equally sparse and ****y. We all know critters are more or less dangerous than their HP and expected damage entails, but there's absolutely no guidance whatsoever on what that means. A creature that has scant few HP and objectively terrible attacks, but which can easily charm, confuse, or otherwise screw with the PCs would yield a CR drastically below its actual threat level. To say nothing of critters with unusual mobility or exceptional range - a flying critter with a longbow could theoretically assail a grounded party with total impunity if no one on the ground had longbows themselves or a means to pursue the thing. A flock of such critters would be a horrific threat to low-level parties even if they only had fifteen-odd HP and a basic 1d8+2 critter attack, no matter what their sub-one by-the-book CR says.
Having actually played games with solid power design systems that let you produce just about any character you want -- they don't work for balancing either. For well designed systems, the more flexible the design system, the less useful it is for balancing (poorly designed systems are just straight up worse at one or both of those constraints).
Having actually played games with solid power design systems that let you produce just about any character you want -- they don't work for balancing either. For well designed systems, the more flexible the design system, the less useful it is for balancing (poorly designed systems are just straight up worse at one or both of those constraints).
I don't doubt that's your experience, and I don't doubt that's a danger.
I wonder, however - and I don't know - is that a result of the meta-system, or is that a result of the GM failing to exercise balance and control over the setting and the game?
Dumping all possibilities, at all times, onto the table, creates a mess. Agreed. Some level of editorial control, and game balancing, needs to occur. I won't argue against that one iota.
But does that need to occur at the Designer/Publisher level, or can that occur at the GM level?
Just because a system can "produce just about any character you want", doesn't mean the GM is obligated to allow all possibilities into the game. The design, balance, and editorial control can occur at the Campaign level.
The game system might allow for cyborg rabbits, wizards, and space marines within it's framework. I'd be an idiot to allow them all into my Campaign at once. But if I did, it's not the fault of the system; that's on me.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I wonder, however - and I don't know - is that a result of the meta-system, or is that a result of the GM failing to exercise balance and control over the setting and the game?
Same difference. The meta-system fails to balance things, so it's up to the GM to balance it.
I wonder, however - and I don't know - is that a result of the meta-system, or is that a result of the GM failing to exercise balance and control over the setting and the game?
Same difference. The meta-system fails to balance things, so it's up to the GM to balance it.
But that meta-system first has to exist for a DM to build from to make their own and balance it as they see fit. If that framework doesn't exist, the DM has to create it first. Not everyone has the time, let alone the patience and experience, to do that. Which is why it's not unreasonable to ask the people who actually produce the game materials to make that framework.
But that meta-system first has to exist for a DM to build from to make their own and balance it as they see fit.
Sure. I have nothing against power design systems, I wouldn't have played games that included them if I did. It's just worth understanding their weaknesses.
Spoilers, Kotath: D&D doesn't handle "High Fantasy" well
How many campaigns have you seen where people get into double-digit character levels naturally? How many have you seen that stayed there for any reasonable length of time? How often does Wizards actually bother to produce content for levels above twelve (i.e. a maximum of 6th-level magic)? The answers are "Rarely", "even more rarely", and "basically never".
Higher-level D&D, the "HIGH FANTASY" of the rulebooks, is a filthy lie Wizards uses to sell books. They like to point to all this crazy stuff you can get at higher levels and go "Man, isn't this the coolest?! Come play and you can enjoy all these awesome powers and abilities!" without ever mentioning the fact that fewer that one campaign in ten ever breaks past level 10, and virtually every DM in Creation will staunchly complain on the forums about going above level five. How often have we seen that? "Tier 2+ play sucks!" "I can't challenge my party once they get out of Tier 1!" "Nothing matters anymore after Tier 1!" So on and so forth. Even the devs have admitted that they believe the game works best at levels 3 to 11, with higher-level content increasingly unsupported. Ever wonder why the experience curve has you spending over fifty percent of a character's existence in that level range, and why every single goddamned module ever takes you from 1 to 12 before telling the DM "Retire this game now"? That's why. Every level above 12 you go to, the game breaks down a bit more and the devs cringe a little harder because they know you're going to find out the truth of 'high level D&D'.
That is, high-level D&D is a fib. A fabrication. A hoodwink. It is a damn dirty lie Wizards uses as marketing material whilst quietly handwaving the fact that they do not and never really intend to support it, putting in only the absolute minimum effort required to maintain the illusion and hope people don't notice that their game's actual level cap is basically 12 and they don't ever want you going beyond that. And at 12th level, with just one sixth-level spell a day and only Minor Arcana otherwise?
Well. GURPS and other point-buy systems can hack that level of power/complexity fine.
Spoilers, Kotath: D&D doesn't handle "High Fantasy" well
How many campaigns have you seen where people get into double-digit character levels naturally? How many have you seen that stayed there for any reasonable length of time? How often does Wizards actually bother to produce content for levels above twelve (i.e. a maximum of 6th-level magic)? The answers are "Rarely", "even more rarely", and "basically never".
Higher-level D&D, the "HIGH FANTASY" of the rulebooks, is a filthy lie Wizards uses to sell books. They like to point to all this crazy stuff you can get at higher levels and go "Man, isn't this the coolest?! Come play and you can enjoy all these awesome powers and abilities!" without ever mentioning the fact that fewer that one campaign in ten ever breaks past level 10, and virtually every DM in Creation will staunchly complain on the forums about going above level five. How often have we seen that? "Tier 2+ play sucks!" "I can't challenge my party once they get out of Tier 1!" "Nothing matters anymore after Tier 1!" So on and so forth. Even the devs have admitted that they believe the game works best at levels 3 to 11, with higher-level content increasingly unsupported. Ever wonder why the experience curve has you spending over fifty percent of a character's existence in that level range, and why every single goddamned module ever takes you from 1 to 12 before telling the DM "Retire this game now"? That's why. Every level above 12 you go to, the game breaks down a bit more and the devs cringe a little harder because they know you're going to find out the truth of 'high level D&D'.
That is, high-level D&D is a fib. A fabrication. A hoodwink. It is a damn dirty lie Wizards uses as marketing material whilst quietly handwaving the fact that they do not and never really intend to support it, putting in only the absolute minimum effort required to maintain the illusion and hope people don't notice that their game's actual level cap is basically 12 and they don't ever want you going beyond that. And at 12th level, with just one sixth-level spell a day and only Minor Arcana otherwise?
Well. GURPS and other point-buy systems can hack that level of power/complexity fine.
Yeah data from DnD Beyond does support this as well. They stated that 90% of campaigns end by 10th level based on created character data.
Honestly the game is best balanced 12th level and under....after that its a crap shoot.
Sweet more subclasses more options. Is this what you all were arguing for? Because Wizards seems to have kind of delivered here. It looks very interesting. I can’t wait for the new spells and the expanded options for racial traits. Hopefully it has stuff for Aasimars in there and my dm will be kind to let us adopt some of it when the book comes out(we are in middle of a campaign).
Sweet more subclasses more options. Is this what you all were arguing for? Because Wizards seems to have kind of delivered here. It looks very interesting. I can’t wait for the new spells and the expanded options for racial traits. Hopefully it has stuff for Aasimars in there and my dm will be kind to let us adopt some of it when the book comes out(we are in middle of a campaign).
It will have a couple of things that I want (Feats and Spells) but until we see the book we won't really know.
Sweet more subclasses more options. Is this what you all were arguing for? Because Wizards seems to have kind of delivered here. It looks very interesting. I can’t wait for the new spells and the expanded options for racial traits. Hopefully it has stuff for Aasimars in there and my dm will be kind to let us adopt some of it when the book comes out(we are in middle of a campaign).
It will have a couple of things that I want (Feats and Spells) but until we see the book we won't really know.
Sweet more subclasses more options. Is this what you all were arguing for? Because Wizards seems to have kind of delivered here. It looks very interesting. I can’t wait for the new spells and the expanded options for racial traits. Hopefully it has stuff for Aasimars in there and my dm will be kind to let us adopt some of it when the book comes out(we are in middle of a campaign).
It will have a couple of things that I want (Feats and Spells) but until we see the book we won't really know.
Hopefully it isn’t just the UA material.
It will be, likely altered in some way, but it will be what we’ve already seen plus the racial stuff.
From what information is available in the TCE thread, it's some of what people wanted. No fixes for core rules issues because of course not, but all the various expanded character options will be quite nice indeed. Provided DDB actually implements them.
Variant Race and Class options along with Feats will help to be sure. There will still be a LOT of things I would like, but this could be a good step in the right direction at least.
I'll take progress over no progress, no doubt. The book looks like a useful expansion, more so than Xanathar's Guide was. Here's hoping it holds up. And that DDB takes the ~three months it has left to figure out how the hell it's going to get its shit together enough for us to actually use the book.
Honestly, I dont understand why everyone isnt applauding Enworld on this. After all, this is basically the perfect experiment for 5e:
1 - Either this fails, and WOTC avoided making a failed investment, plus potentially gets some really useful market data.
2 - Or this succeeds enough to inspire WOTC into something similar, with an idea of where to go.
3- Or this succeeds spectacularly, and WOTC could maybe get this officially integrated into 5e, gaining a major new book without all the investment, plus getting a lot of data on direction.
Worst case scenario in this is that this succeeds enough to branch off into a new game, and WOTC loses another (potentially massive) chunk of marketshare; but users still win in the long run, and WOTC has a chance to recover. Of course, such a result could also prove that 'reskin or homebrew' is not a successful system, and such a result would prove a number of naysayers here wrong, so maybe there is an underlying concern of being in error, or in losing a playerbase for 5e as it is now.
The first playtest document for 5.5e is here. It provides a complex way of choosing racial traits, based on Heritage, Culture and Background. A link to the article describing it and downloading it is provided below.
After skimming the document, here is a synopsis of it.
The section of character creation where you would normally just choose your species has been expanded upon greatly. Instead, you get to choose both a Heritage and Culture. Heritage is the physical traits of your character, and you get to choose from another slew of benefits. For example, Dragonborn can choose between heavy armour or wings, and Tieflings can choose to be descended from Archdevils or from a curse. You also get another buff from heritage at tenth level. Next, you choose a culture. There are species specific cultures and universal ones. These grant you things like skills and weapons proficiencies, stuff that you would have learned from growing up. Finally, you choose a background. Backgrounds grant ability score increases, and provide extra features.
This system is interesting for the sheer amount of customization if provides. You get to around six major choices when you build your character, and only for the species portion. I don't know how much classes will be changed, but if this trend continues, I expect to see huge adaptability from each class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I honestly don't think a crafting system framework would need to be intrusive on the existing ruleset. General guidelines can be established without any need for hyper-specific rules about "this" item or "that" item. Mundane crafting rules are something everyone can relate to by simply referencing human history (before the industrial age). Mundane crafting requires materials, facilities, skill sets, funding, and time. That's pretty much it. It's really up to the DM to decide what's available. A mundane crafting system is very much within reach as a supplement to the existing rules. It's truly sitting there waiting to be written.
As for magical crafting, I think a similar framework can work just as well. If I were to take a stab at it, here's how I would start. First, an item would need to be crafted with the express purpose of hosting a reflection of the Weave. The crafting of this item would follow the standard guidelines for mundane crafting but, additionally, include the infusion of some magical catalyst. Let's call that catalyst Weave Dust. Weave Dust could be created via a mid-level (transmutation) spell at some cost that makes the casting meaningful. I would say that infusion of the Weave Dust into the mundane item has some chance of failure based on the level of the spell slot expended to create the Weave Dust and, of course, would require an artisan with the appropriate skill set to do so. With me so far? Once successful, a magical effect could be introduced into the item by way of one of many infusion spells. Each school of magic would have one (or more) infusion spell(s) that are used to introduce magical effects or properties into an appropriate host item, again, with some chance of failure. These infusion spells would be mid-level to allow higher level spell slots to be expended in exchange for a higher chance of success and the casting of such spells would come at some cost that makes its use meaningful. The effects or properties of the magic introduced into the host item would directly reflect the school of magic from which the infusion spell derived. For example, a pair of boots that granted advantage on stealth checks would use illusion magic. Still with me? A list of popular effects and properties could be written up as a guide from which to extrapolate and customize for your campaign.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for missing a step in this hypothetical process, let me just remind everyone that I'm just spit-balling here from the top of my head. I'm not a writer or a game developer. Cut me some slack. As I said, this is how I would start developing such a system. Literally, none of it needs to be precise and exacting recipes for making item A or item B. It's truly a general guideline for crafting.
Each DM gets to decide what's available in his/her campaign. Maybe magic is extremely rare in your world so this crafting might come at a devastating cost, and that's only IF you can find everything you need. Or perhaps magic is common but the local baron, struggling to maintain control of his territory, has ordered all magic items to be confiscated and your players need to figure out a way to get what they need by making it themselves in secret. My point being, the system truly does not need to impose on existing rule sets but rather be supplementary.
I actually love the 5e system but that doesn't mean I think it's perfect. There's plenty of room for improvement. And isn't that what this thread is about? Making an excellent system even more excellent-er? :)
Again - giving my cynicism free reign - DM creativity is a much rarer commodity than you give it credit for. DM ability to create meta-rules which allow them to consistently create balanced and consistent sub-systems is even rarer. As evidence I would draw your attention to the level of balance and consideration found in the vast majority of homebrew ... anything.
There are some good designers and DMs who do really good jobs on this, but they aren't the majority.
Again, I'm not talking about codifying everything - we're talking about meta-systems, or meta-guidelines that allow the DM to develop their own systems and mechanics while at least being able to detect most of the errant nonsense or blunders.
We don't have that today. I don't actually think WoTC has one. Could such a thing be developed? I think it's possible to develop, because I've seen the beginnings of such systems developed by some author/DMs ( I would refer you to AngryDM's proto-system for creating balanced homebrew monsters ). Is it something that could be "reasonably done"? I don't know - but if people are willing to try, I'd love to see what they come up with.
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.
Having actually played games with solid power design systems that let you produce just about any character you want -- they don't work for balancing either. For well designed systems, the more flexible the design system, the less useful it is for balancing (poorly designed systems are just straight up worse at one or both of those constraints).
I don't doubt that's your experience, and I don't doubt that's a danger.
I wonder, however - and I don't know - is that a result of the meta-system, or is that a result of the GM failing to exercise balance and control over the setting and the game?
Dumping all possibilities, at all times, onto the table, creates a mess. Agreed. Some level of editorial control, and game balancing, needs to occur. I won't argue against that one iota.
But does that need to occur at the Designer/Publisher level, or can that occur at the GM level?
Just because a system can "produce just about any character you want", doesn't mean the GM is obligated to allow all possibilities into the game. The design, balance, and editorial control can occur at the Campaign level.
The game system might allow for cyborg rabbits, wizards, and space marines within it's framework. I'd be an idiot to allow them all into my Campaign at once. But if I did, it's not the fault of the system; that's on me.
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.
Same difference. The meta-system fails to balance things, so it's up to the GM to balance it.
But that meta-system first has to exist for a DM to build from to make their own and balance it as they see fit. If that framework doesn't exist, the DM has to create it first. Not everyone has the time, let alone the patience and experience, to do that. Which is why it's not unreasonable to ask the people who actually produce the game materials to make that framework.
Sure. I have nothing against power design systems, I wouldn't have played games that included them if I did. It's just worth understanding their weaknesses.
Spoilers, Kotath: D&D doesn't handle "High Fantasy" well
How many campaigns have you seen where people get into double-digit character levels naturally? How many have you seen that stayed there for any reasonable length of time? How often does Wizards actually bother to produce content for levels above twelve (i.e. a maximum of 6th-level magic)? The answers are "Rarely", "even more rarely", and "basically never".
Higher-level D&D, the "HIGH FANTASY" of the rulebooks, is a filthy lie Wizards uses to sell books. They like to point to all this crazy stuff you can get at higher levels and go "Man, isn't this the coolest?! Come play and you can enjoy all these awesome powers and abilities!" without ever mentioning the fact that fewer that one campaign in ten ever breaks past level 10, and virtually every DM in Creation will staunchly complain on the forums about going above level five. How often have we seen that? "Tier 2+ play sucks!" "I can't challenge my party once they get out of Tier 1!" "Nothing matters anymore after Tier 1!" So on and so forth. Even the devs have admitted that they believe the game works best at levels 3 to 11, with higher-level content increasingly unsupported. Ever wonder why the experience curve has you spending over fifty percent of a character's existence in that level range, and why every single goddamned module ever takes you from 1 to 12 before telling the DM "Retire this game now"? That's why. Every level above 12 you go to, the game breaks down a bit more and the devs cringe a little harder because they know you're going to find out the truth of 'high level D&D'.
That is, high-level D&D is a fib. A fabrication. A hoodwink. It is a damn dirty lie Wizards uses as marketing material whilst quietly handwaving the fact that they do not and never really intend to support it, putting in only the absolute minimum effort required to maintain the illusion and hope people don't notice that their game's actual level cap is basically 12 and they don't ever want you going beyond that. And at 12th level, with just one sixth-level spell a day and only Minor Arcana otherwise?
Well. GURPS and other point-buy systems can hack that level of power/complexity fine.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah data from DnD Beyond does support this as well. They stated that 90% of campaigns end by 10th level based on created character data.
Honestly the game is best balanced 12th level and under....after that its a crap shoot.
https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/tashas-cauldron-everything
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sweet more subclasses more options. Is this what you all were arguing for? Because Wizards seems to have kind of delivered here. It looks very interesting. I can’t wait for the new spells and the expanded options for racial traits. Hopefully it has stuff for Aasimars in there and my dm will be kind to let us adopt some of it when the book comes out(we are in middle of a campaign).
It will have a couple of things that I want (Feats and Spells) but until we see the book we won't really know.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Hopefully it isn’t just the UA material.
It will be, likely altered in some way, but it will be what we’ve already seen plus the racial stuff.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
From what information is available in the TCE thread, it's some of what people wanted. No fixes for core rules issues because of course not, but all the various expanded character options will be quite nice indeed. Provided DDB actually implements them.
Please do not contact or message me.
Variant Race and Class options along with Feats will help to be sure. There will still be a LOT of things I would like, but this could be a good step in the right direction at least.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'll take progress over no progress, no doubt. The book looks like a useful expansion, more so than Xanathar's Guide was. Here's hoping it holds up. And that DDB takes the ~three months it has left to figure out how the hell it's going to get its shit together enough for us to actually use the book.
Please do not contact or message me.
Honestly, I dont understand why everyone isnt applauding Enworld on this. After all, this is basically the perfect experiment for 5e:
1 - Either this fails, and WOTC avoided making a failed investment, plus potentially gets some really useful market data.
2 - Or this succeeds enough to inspire WOTC into something similar, with an idea of where to go.
3- Or this succeeds spectacularly, and WOTC could maybe get this officially integrated into 5e, gaining a major new book without all the investment, plus getting a lot of data on direction.
Worst case scenario in this is that this succeeds enough to branch off into a new game, and WOTC loses another (potentially massive) chunk of marketshare; but users still win in the long run, and WOTC has a chance to recover. Of course, such a result could also prove that 'reskin or homebrew' is not a successful system, and such a result would prove a number of naysayers here wrong, so maybe there is an underlying concern of being in error, or in losing a playerbase for 5e as it is now.
The first playtest document for 5.5e is here. It provides a complex way of choosing racial traits, based on Heritage, Culture and Background. A link to the article describing it and downloading it is provided below.
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/09/dd-check-out-the-first-playtest-document-for-advanced-5th-edition.html
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
After skimming the document, here is a synopsis of it.
The section of character creation where you would normally just choose your species has been expanded upon greatly. Instead, you get to choose both a Heritage and Culture. Heritage is the physical traits of your character, and you get to choose from another slew of benefits. For example, Dragonborn can choose between heavy armour or wings, and Tieflings can choose to be descended from Archdevils or from a curse. You also get another buff from heritage at tenth level. Next, you choose a culture. There are species specific cultures and universal ones. These grant you things like skills and weapons proficiencies, stuff that you would have learned from growing up. Finally, you choose a background. Backgrounds grant ability score increases, and provide extra features.
This system is interesting for the sheer amount of customization if provides. You get to around six major choices when you build your character, and only for the species portion. I don't know how much classes will be changed, but if this trend continues, I expect to see huge adaptability from each class.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System