Heh. One of my favorite seasonal Christmas decorations is a delightful wooden painted sign that says "Jingle all the way! Nobody likes a half-assed jingler!"
To make it clear, I don't mind the idea of alignment mattering in D&D. Spells like Prot G&E, Magic Circle, and the like should work on alignment. What I object to is the implementation, and how it's not thought out well at all nor integrated into the game properly. If, as the Standard Cosmology says, a soul is scooped up by its respective Outer Plane upon death, why does resurrection magic work at all? If alignment is a tangible law of metaphysical reality, why is there no way to manipulate it? I mean, I know why - a player's agency and their decisions for their character should always take precedence over the DM's meddling, but if alignment is a system that everybody wants to use in the game, then the player should be open to being told that the Rules of the Cosmos have altered their character's worldview and they should play accordingly. And if a DM is not willing to so dictate to her players for any number of perfectly valid reasons, then alignment shouldn't even be a thing. It's just mouth-words, and extraplanar beings aren't reincarnated souls of aligned mortals but are instead just creatures that exist differently than us.
A decision needs to be made one way or another. As is the case with a great many things in 5e, methinks.
Wizards needs to either commit to alignment or discard it completely. This half-and-half nonsense doesn't satisfy anyone, and is in the game specifically because for some people, removing alignment means the game "just isn't D&D anymore". Either it's part of the game or it's not. 5e's flimsy, tacked-on afterthought of an alignment system is nonsense.
That goes for far more than just alignment. WotC is too half-‘n-half about too many things.
100x yes on this one...
If they would just commit to something it would produce a better product. They instead try to catch everyone and it shows in the design. They end up with "Meh" instead of interesting.
That's why WoTC's original design where they were promising a 'modular' design for 5E was so important and intriguing for me. Others may not understand or remember this. But if you were following the development of 5E from the beginning you would remember the significance of their promise of 'modularity' in order for each DM or group to decide which kinds of mechanics would work best for them and then they could slide those 'modules' in seamlessly. Unfortunately it got left on the cutting floor.
Wizards needs to either commit to alignment or discard it completely. This half-and-half nonsense doesn't satisfy anyone, and is in the game specifically because for some people, removing alignment means the game "just isn't D&D anymore". Either it's part of the game or it's not. 5e's flimsy, tacked-on afterthought of an alignment system is nonsense.
That goes for far more than just alignment. WotC is too half-‘n-half about too many things.
100x yes on this one...
If they would just commit to something it would produce a better product. They instead try to catch everyone and it shows in the design. They end up with "Meh" instead of interesting.
That's why WoTC's original design where they were promising a 'modular' design for 5E was so important and intriguing for me. Others may not understand or remember this. But if you were following the development of 5E from the beginning you would remember the significance of their promise of 'modularity' in order for each DM or group to decide which kinds of mechanics would work best for them and then they could slide those 'modules' in seamlessly. Unfortunately it got left on the cutting floor.
Lyxen. Before I'm banned for speaking again, please allow me to respectfully remind you of Davedamon's request that people stop poo-pooing and dismissing other people's ideas for changes or improvements to 5e in a thread which is about suggesting and discussing improvements to 5e. We all understand your hatred of the idea. I would suggest simply abandoning the thread, rather than continuing to harass users over their desires and suggestions for altering 5e.
Lyxen, that's a whataboutism and strawman. I don't give a shit about how previous editions had a bad alignment system, I have never played them and never owned a single book from any previous edition. I don't care if WotC's current alignment system is about the same as the previous status quo. Is that relevant at all? No, it's not. It's besides the point entirely. Also, I do not "think it was much better before," because a) I never said that and b) it doesn't matter whether or not it was! [REDACTED]
My real point is that the current alignment system has been unsatisfying for a great number of D&D 5e players. Go on Youtube and search for D&D 5e "alignment sucks/should be dropped" videos. If you do so, you will find dozens of videos of D&D Youtubers saying that 5e's alignment system is underwhelming and bad, and hundreds, if not thousands, of comments from fellow D&D 5e players with the same opinion.
That's why WoTC's original design where they were promising a 'modular' design for 5E was so important and intriguing for me. Others may not understand this. But if you were following the development of 5E from the beginning you would remember the significance of their promise of 'modularity' in order for each DM or group to decide which kinds of mechanics would work best for them and then they could slide those 'modules' in seamlessly. Unfortunately it got left on the cutting floor.
And for me, it's the case. You don't like alignment ? Drop it. You want more gritty rules ? You have suggestions. You seem to have so many brilliant ideas for game design, why don't you implement them ? Do you absolutely need someone to write every single option for you, to the infinitesimal detail to be able to play them ? Seeing the reactions around here, the only thing that they would get would be more criticism. So yes, although I freely admit that 5e is not perfect, I can clearly see their position. As long as they know that they will be criticised no matter what they do, they might as well not do too much work that they would not get any credit or money for...
Normally I don't NEED it. However, technology has changed things. Almost everyone uses DNDBEYOND to manage their characters these days, even at the table. The homebrew options on this website are difficult to utilize, very time consuming, and in many cases impossible to implement. Back in the day, it was easy. I've never played a single edition RAW and I've been playing/running games since the original Basic/Expert editions. We've always had house rules and homebrew content. But like I said, things have changed. Throw in a pandemic that has forced most groups to online only, even more house rules and home brew gets thrown out the window because of the logistics of implementation are extremely difficult.
I will say that while my One Thing remains "Wizards actually delivering on its Modular Design promises", another one I'd love to see is a martial combat overhaul. I've been working off and on again on a 5e Martial Combat Overhaul, but the fact that it's effectively impossible to implement in DDB has honestly soured me on it. Nevertheless. Martial combat is very boring, with every turn being little more than "I swing my whatever-I'm-using at the baddie however many times my class/level allows me to." Spellcasters get all kinds of interesting decisions to make; martial characters get the decision of what to hit and that's about it.
I maintain that anyone trained enough in martial combat to have a signature Fighting Style (fighters, rangers, paladins, blood hunters) should also be trained enough to have maneuvers. All martial characters should have a Maneuver pool, including class-specific maneuvers. Fighters can have a larger pool, and the Battlemaster class - should it still exist in a system where everybody is outfitted with Maneuver dice - could double down on that pool and grant otherwise unprecedented maneuver expertise. The prone condition would be much more important and impactful; I like the idea someone else suggested in another thread of a character provoking an attack of opportunity if it tries to get up from prone within reach of a martial character. Melee characters would have the ability to screw with ranged attacks or spells made by foes they're threatening, while martial snipers/archers would have their own subset of maneuvers specific to missile combat that enabled their gameplay to be more variable than "I shoot some more" every single heckin' turn.
Martial subclasses could tie into this, providing additional maneuvers or ways of amplifying them as part of the subclass's theme. Classes that are not martially oriented could gain limited access to maneuvers via a subclass, a'la College of Swords bards or perhaps a 'Vanguard'-styled militaristic rogue. One could even use the system to differentiate weapons more easily, with each type of (martial) weapon having its own associated maneuver that can only be performed by a character wielding that weapon. Building a martial character's maneuver pool should be every bit as deep and fun as building a spellcaster's spell list, and it would go a huge way towards redressing the imbalance many people still feel between martial characters and spellcasters.
One thing that would help on here would be implementing some of the options and variant rules from the DMG onto DND beyond. Things like the spell point system for example.
Once again, I would like to remind people that in a thread discussing what changes you'd make to this edition of D&D, attacking people for suggesting changes to D&D is not appropriate nor constructive.
Constructive criticism is a valid response. As is not responding at all. If this thread continues to devolve into dismissals and attacks, it will be locked.
I will say that while my One Thing remains "Wizards actually delivering on its Modular Design promises", another one I'd love to see is a martial combat overhaul. I've been working off and on again on a 5e Martial Combat Overhaul, but the fact that it's effectively impossible to implement in DDB has honestly soured me on it. Nevertheless. Martial combat is very boring, with every turn being little more than "I swing my whatever-I'm-using at the baddie however many times my class/level allows me to." Spellcasters get all kinds of interesting decisions to make; martial characters get the decision of what to hit and that's about it.
I maintain that anyone trained enough in martial combat to have a signature Fighting Style (fighters, rangers, paladins, blood hunters) should also be trained enough to have maneuvers. All martial characters should have a Maneuver pool, including class-specific maneuvers. Fighters can have a larger pool, and the Battlemaster class - should it still exist in a system where everybody is outfitted with Maneuver dice - could double down on that pool and grant otherwise unprecedented maneuver expertise. The prone condition would be much more important and impactful; I like the idea someone else suggested in another thread of a character provoking an attack of opportunity if it tries to get up from prone within reach of a martial character. Melee characters would have the ability to screw with ranged attacks or spells made by foes they're threatening, while martial snipers/archers would have their own subset of maneuvers specific to missile combat that enabled their gameplay to be more variable than "I shoot some more" every single heckin' turn.
Martial subclasses could tie into this, providing additional maneuvers or ways of amplifying them as part of the subclass's theme. Classes that are not martially oriented could gain limited access to maneuvers via a subclass, a'la College of Swords bards or perhaps a 'Vanguard'-styled militaristic rogue. One could even use the system to differentiate weapons more easily, with each type of (martial) weapon having its own associated maneuver that can only be performed by a character wielding that weapon. Building a martial character's maneuver pool should be every bit as deep and fun as building a spellcaster's spell list, and it would go a huge way towards redressing the imbalance many people still feel between martial characters and spellcasters.
I did this as well. I thought it was ridiculous that you had to be a battlemaster in order to perform basic combat maneuvers. I pulled those out and allow anyone trained in martial combat to use them provided they were trained to use a weapon that is capable of performing such maneuvers (ie trip or trap a weapon). Also included common ones like parry, disarm, dodge (modified).
@Yurei I understand the appeal of a martial overhaul to some of us nerds, but I still enjoy playing fighters nonetheless. The real reason they don’t is that two out of four of my players tend to default to basic fighters, one because he prefers role playing to tactics and one because she’s newer and more casual. Some people prefer simpler classes so they can enjoy the game the way they want. I’m glad they’ve kept the martial classes as is, because it makes the game more accessible for these people, who happen to be some of my best friends who I love to have at the table.
Plus, if you’re just saying “I attack” and think it’s boring, you can always spice up your descriptions a bit: “Shugrug roars and hacks at the kobold.”
If they would just commit to something it would produce a better product. They instead try to catch everyone and it shows in the design. They end up with "Meh" instead of interesting.
How typical this is... *sigh* Can't you just realise that if they went full commitment in some areas, the game would be so horrendous to you in most of these that you would not even be discussing it here ? Everything in life is a compromise because if the discussions in here show something, it's that if you go extreme, there will be a very, very small portion of the people agreeing with you. So going extreme in all directions is a sure recipe for no-one liking your game. Whereas taking the right compromise gives you what we have now, a compromise that works way better than any previous edition. And on top of this, it makes it far easier for players to customise starting from a compromise. But because people are greedy, they want only their pet peeves in, everyone else's out, and of course all the tools to support their own personal view. How about a little humility in all these criticisms ?
No I do not agree actually. They compromise but its not consistent. They somehow think giving concentration less Hunters Mark is a bad thing but giving Wizard sublasses and the class in general another boost is perfectly fine?
The problem is they don't compromise...they act like it is but the actual truth is they listen to demand and go with it regardless of how it affects the system.
"Full commitment in some areas, the game would be so horrendous to you in most of these that you would not even be discussing it here?"
The fact is they do a half-assed "compromise" and we end up wit horrendous decisions anyway...
Its more and more apparent in their decisions they have little clue about how they balance the game and take feedback. They consistently produce mediocre results because they consistently fail to recognize core issues behind their design choices and instead go with some half-assed solution that makes it worse.
@Yurei I understand the appeal of a martial overhaul to some of us nerds, but I still enjoy playing fighters nonetheless. The real reason they don’t is that two out of four of my players tend to default to basic fighters, one because he prefers role playing to tactics and one because she’s newer and more casual. Some people prefer simpler classes so they can enjoy the game the way they want. I’m glad they’ve kept the martial classes as is, because it makes the game more accessible for these people, who happen to be some of my best friends who I love to have at the table.
Hence Yurei’s desire for a more modular set of advanced rules as promised so everyone can have what they want.
Normally I don't NEED it. However, technology has changed things. Almost everyone uses DNDBEYOND to manage their characters these days, even at the table. The homebrew options on this website are difficult to utilize, very time consuming, and in many cases impossible to implement. Back in the day, it was easy. I've never played a single edition RAW and I've been playing/running games since the original Basic/Expert editions. We've always had house rules and homebrew content. But like I said, things have changed. Throw in a pandemic that has forced most groups to online only, even more house rules and home brew gets thrown out the window because of the logistics of implementation are extremely difficult.
While I can understand this, do you realise that you should be directing the criticism at DDB, not at WotC ? And that the problems are not with changing 5e but about the facility to implement your homebrew on a digital tool ?
Again, I was part of the PCGen team of Monkeys who tried to implement the extremely complicated rules of 3(.5)e, and it was an absolute nightmare despite the sophistication of the tool. The number of options contradicting each other was such that there was no way it could be done and maintained with the rhythm of publications, especially when everyone wanted their favorite publisher's homebrew to be available. It just can't be done with the right level of quality, especially with paying customers being so unforgiving with bugs...
I'm just pointing this so that we can maybe concentrate on real changes on 5e that would get wide support, rather than the tool not supporting homebrew well enough.
For example, I understand that alignment is a compromise in this edition, but honestly, the tool's support is extremely minimal in this...
My point of the post was not about implementing 'homebrew' in dndbeyond, it was about WOTC formally incorporating these modules into their rules to the point that dndbeyond would be compelled to include it in their platform.
@Yurei I understand the appeal of a martial overhaul to some of us nerds, but I still enjoy playing fighters nonetheless. The real reason they don’t is that two out of four of my players tend to default to basic fighters, one because he prefers role playing to tactics and one because she’s newer and more casual. Some people prefer simpler classes so they can enjoy the game the way they want. I’m glad they’ve kept the martial classes as is, because it makes the game more accessible for these people, who happen to be some of my best friends who I love to have at the table.
Plus, if you’re just saying “I attack” and think it’s boring, you can always spice up your descriptions a bit: “Shugrug roars and hacks at the kobold.”
However, I don't think it would force someone to play differently if they didn't want to. It would just be additional options for martial tactics if someone wanted to utilize them and be a little more involved. Beginners could simply play a standard fighter (champion) and be just fine using their actions to make normal attacks.
A good compromise for that sort of thing, Naivara, would be to introduce a 'Forceful Blow' maneuver that does nothing save add the superiority die to the damage of an attack. Give players who don't want to engage with the system some way of using that resource in as simple and mindless a way as possible so they don't have to feel like they're wasting it, or direct those players to the barbarian class if dealing with maneuvers really is just too much. If keeping track of rage and non-rage bonuses is an issue, simply houserule that the barbarian is always considered raging when initiative kicks in.
And if even that's too much? Well, I don't know what to say, really. Some degree of accepting-new-rules is required to improve the game. Perhaps a specific fighter subclass can be built to replace the maneuver system with something else, but right now it feels thoroughly awful to be required to be a Battlemaster fighter in order to actually be good at fighting. That sort of thing may just work better as opt-out via the Basic Dood Subclass, rather than opt-in via picking the one UND PRECISELY VUN subclass in the entirety of D&D 5e that can actually claim to be adept at martial combat, no matter how tired you are of always being the exact same thing.
I know my own group, to match anecdote to anecdote, is absolutely starved for that sort of depth. One of our players refuses to play any fighter that isn't a battlemaster simply because he feels so strongly that all the stuff a battlemaster - and ONLY a battlemaster, in 5e - can do are things that anyone with years of martial training should be able to do, and most of our functional-in-DDB houserule tweaks are things designed to add nuance and depth back into combat. I've legit beenm considering a sort-of 'Lite' version of my original MCO ruleset that can be implemented on DDB specifically to try and fix this shit somewhere close to properly.
EDIT: I do not, and never have, believed in using narration to fix mechanical problems in any RPG. Especially during combat. Waxing soliloquent during a combat encounter is not okay - as a DM I encourage my players to keep their action declarations in a combat short, snappy, and to the point. Tell me what you're hitting, what you're hitting it with, and if you're doing something that requires me to do more than compare an attack roll to an AC value, i.e. maneuvers or Smites or what-have-you. A player taking three minutes to poetically narrabate the glittering arc of their enchanted blade as it whistles through the howling air, slicing deep into the repugnant hide of the...NO. Knock that shit off.
Combat is supposed to be fast, frenetic and punchy, and I refuse to allow flowery narration to get in the way of that. I am absolutely that DM who will say "what've you got Alice? Time's slipping." And if Alice prevaricates and gets locked up for much longer than a minute? "The fury of combat momentarily overwhelms you, nerves warring with your training. All you can do is defend yourself; you lose your action and spend this turn Dodging. Bob, you see Alice locking up, unable to press her attack. What do you do?"
That’s not a bad idea, having there be a “simple subclass” (like the UA brute except not overpowered) and a lot of complex ones instead of the other way around. (The Champion is very underpowered on its own, though it’s fun for critifishing builds). My players could definitely handle that. And I agree big time on the punchiness of combat: while I do like to use descriptive words, as a wise person once said, if it’s more than 10 words it might as well be turds.
Lyxen, that's a whataboutism and strawman. I don't give a shit about how previous editions had a bad alignment system, I have never played them and never owned a single book from any previous edition. I don't care if WotC's current alignment system is about the same as the previous status quo. Is that relevant at all? No, it's not. It's besides the point entirely. Also, I do not think it was much better before, because it doesn't matter if it was or wasn't! That has nothing to do with this discussion.
I do happen to believe that it's all about the point, since the conversation drifted to what is D&D, because there was at least a small consensus about the fact that if a design drifted too much from the collective's view of the game, it would fail as happened in the past, so that is a fair yardstick about what could be reasonable changes.
And despite what you express, I'm not against all the changes, just the ones that I believe change the spirit of the game to suit very personal wants.
Please listen to Davedamon and stop arguing against and talking down on people you disagree with. And, please stop assuming so much about my beliefs that I have never said. For me, the concept has not drifted to "what is D&D," because that is a "gotcha/loaded" question that will derail the thread and is unimportant to the discussion. Also, even if the topic were "what is D&D," I don't think any "true D&D players" would object to making a more in depth alignment system. Heck, if I were in charge 5.5e/6e would have an in depth alignment system with tables, examples, descriptions, and all that jazz, but there would be 2 options, the in-depth, satisfying alignment system, as well as rules for playing with no alignment.
I never said that you are against all of these changes, but you have been disobeying instructions of the moderator, and I would rather not have another thread closed due to a spiraling, derailed discussion with multiple bouts of personal attacks and straight up dismissing arguments. Please respect that.
My real point is that the current alignment system has been unsatisfying for a great number of D&D 5e players. Go on Youtube and search for D&D 5e "alignment sucks/should be dropped" videos. If you do so, you will find dozens of videos of D&D Youtubers saying that 5e's alignment system is underwhelming and bad, and hundreds, if not thousands, of comments from fellow D&D 5e players with the same opinion.
Of course you will find these because once more critic is easy whereas art is difficult, and I see 5e being a really great success despite all these thousand of comments. And if you read them you will see that (exactly like what is happening here), some of them want a stronger, or a weaker, or in any case a different take on alignement and you will certainly find no consensus.
So, in the end, there is only one way to measure what is better, isn't it, it's the success of what is being created, and the fact that despite potential flaws, it gathers many more gamers than previous failed attempts.
I never said that 5e is less successful due to the alignment system, I would honestly be surprised if anyone has not started/stopped playing 5e due to the underwhelming alignment system. I honestly would not be disappointed by any version of the alignment system besides the current one, whether its no alignment or in-depth alignment. It doesn't matter if there is no consensus if people have decided that there is a problem. If a house is on fire, the first step is to call 911 and tell them about the fire, not to try and immediately solve the issue without the resources to do so.
Again, that's dodging the point and diverting the discussion. Touting 5e's success as a counterpoint to an issue with the system is as valid an argument as a doctor telling you not to sue for malpractice because they do the job correctly 90% of the time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I would love for there to be different types of shields in 5e. Not a ton. Just two other types. The current 5e shield would be a "medium shield," a "small shield" would be called a buckler and not take up a hand, and a "large shield" would be a tower shield.
The buckler would give a +1 to AC, and anyone could use it, the tower shield would require a certain Strength score to use (16, maybe), and would grant a +3 to AC.
Ideally, there would also be rules for blocking attacks as a reaction with shields, and stuff like that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Heh. One of my favorite seasonal Christmas decorations is a delightful wooden painted sign that says "Jingle all the way! Nobody likes a half-assed jingler!"
To make it clear, I don't mind the idea of alignment mattering in D&D. Spells like Prot G&E, Magic Circle, and the like should work on alignment. What I object to is the implementation, and how it's not thought out well at all nor integrated into the game properly. If, as the Standard Cosmology says, a soul is scooped up by its respective Outer Plane upon death, why does resurrection magic work at all? If alignment is a tangible law of metaphysical reality, why is there no way to manipulate it? I mean, I know why - a player's agency and their decisions for their character should always take precedence over the DM's meddling, but if alignment is a system that everybody wants to use in the game, then the player should be open to being told that the Rules of the Cosmos have altered their character's worldview and they should play accordingly. And if a DM is not willing to so dictate to her players for any number of perfectly valid reasons, then alignment shouldn't even be a thing. It's just mouth-words, and extraplanar beings aren't reincarnated souls of aligned mortals but are instead just creatures that exist differently than us.
A decision needs to be made one way or another. As is the case with a great many things in 5e, methinks.
Please do not contact or message me.
That's why WoTC's original design where they were promising a 'modular' design for 5E was so important and intriguing for me. Others may not understand or remember this. But if you were following the development of 5E from the beginning you would remember the significance of their promise of 'modularity' in order for each DM or group to decide which kinds of mechanics would work best for them and then they could slide those 'modules' in seamlessly. Unfortunately it got left on the cutting floor.
Very unfortunately.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Lyxen. Before I'm banned for speaking again, please allow me to respectfully remind you of Davedamon's request that people stop poo-pooing and dismissing other people's ideas for changes or improvements to 5e in a thread which is about suggesting and discussing improvements to 5e. We all understand your hatred of the idea. I would suggest simply abandoning the thread, rather than continuing to harass users over their desires and suggestions for altering 5e.
Please do not contact or message me.
Lyxen, that's a whataboutism and strawman. I don't give a shit about how previous editions had a bad alignment system, I have never played them and never owned a single book from any previous edition. I don't care if WotC's current alignment system is about the same as the previous status quo. Is that relevant at all? No, it's not. It's besides the point entirely. Also, I do not "think it was much better before," because a) I never said that and b) it doesn't matter whether or not it was! [REDACTED]
My real point is that the current alignment system has been unsatisfying for a great number of D&D 5e players. Go on Youtube and search for D&D 5e "alignment sucks/should be dropped" videos. If you do so, you will find dozens of videos of D&D Youtubers saying that 5e's alignment system is underwhelming and bad, and hundreds, if not thousands, of comments from fellow D&D 5e players with the same opinion.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I hope this very interesting thread does not become locked for any reason.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Normally I don't NEED it. However, technology has changed things. Almost everyone uses DNDBEYOND to manage their characters these days, even at the table. The homebrew options on this website are difficult to utilize, very time consuming, and in many cases impossible to implement. Back in the day, it was easy. I've never played a single edition RAW and I've been playing/running games since the original Basic/Expert editions. We've always had house rules and homebrew content. But like I said, things have changed. Throw in a pandemic that has forced most groups to online only, even more house rules and home brew gets thrown out the window because of the logistics of implementation are extremely difficult.
I will say that while my One Thing remains "Wizards actually delivering on its Modular Design promises", another one I'd love to see is a martial combat overhaul. I've been working off and on again on a 5e Martial Combat Overhaul, but the fact that it's effectively impossible to implement in DDB has honestly soured me on it. Nevertheless. Martial combat is very boring, with every turn being little more than "I swing my whatever-I'm-using at the baddie however many times my class/level allows me to." Spellcasters get all kinds of interesting decisions to make; martial characters get the decision of what to hit and that's about it.
I maintain that anyone trained enough in martial combat to have a signature Fighting Style (fighters, rangers, paladins, blood hunters) should also be trained enough to have maneuvers. All martial characters should have a Maneuver pool, including class-specific maneuvers. Fighters can have a larger pool, and the Battlemaster class - should it still exist in a system where everybody is outfitted with Maneuver dice - could double down on that pool and grant otherwise unprecedented maneuver expertise. The prone condition would be much more important and impactful; I like the idea someone else suggested in another thread of a character provoking an attack of opportunity if it tries to get up from prone within reach of a martial character. Melee characters would have the ability to screw with ranged attacks or spells made by foes they're threatening, while martial snipers/archers would have their own subset of maneuvers specific to missile combat that enabled their gameplay to be more variable than "I shoot some more" every single heckin' turn.
Martial subclasses could tie into this, providing additional maneuvers or ways of amplifying them as part of the subclass's theme. Classes that are not martially oriented could gain limited access to maneuvers via a subclass, a'la College of Swords bards or perhaps a 'Vanguard'-styled militaristic rogue. One could even use the system to differentiate weapons more easily, with each type of (martial) weapon having its own associated maneuver that can only be performed by a character wielding that weapon. Building a martial character's maneuver pool should be every bit as deep and fun as building a spellcaster's spell list, and it would go a huge way towards redressing the imbalance many people still feel between martial characters and spellcasters.
Please do not contact or message me.
One thing that would help on here would be implementing some of the options and variant rules from the DMG onto DND beyond. Things like the spell point system for example.
Once again, I would like to remind people that in a thread discussing what changes you'd make to this edition of D&D, attacking people for suggesting changes to D&D is not appropriate nor constructive.
Constructive criticism is a valid response. As is not responding at all. If this thread continues to devolve into dismissals and attacks, it will be locked.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I did this as well. I thought it was ridiculous that you had to be a battlemaster in order to perform basic combat maneuvers. I pulled those out and allow anyone trained in martial combat to use them provided they were trained to use a weapon that is capable of performing such maneuvers (ie trip or trap a weapon). Also included common ones like parry, disarm, dodge (modified).
@Yurei I understand the appeal of a martial overhaul to some of us nerds, but I still enjoy playing fighters nonetheless. The real reason they don’t is that two out of four of my players tend to default to basic fighters, one because he prefers role playing to tactics and one because she’s newer and more casual. Some people prefer simpler classes so they can enjoy the game the way they want. I’m glad they’ve kept the martial classes as is, because it makes the game more accessible for these people, who happen to be some of my best friends who I love to have at the table.
Plus, if you’re just saying “I attack” and think it’s boring, you can always spice up your descriptions a bit: “Shugrug roars and hacks at the kobold.”
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
No I do not agree actually. They compromise but its not consistent. They somehow think giving concentration less Hunters Mark is a bad thing but giving Wizard sublasses and the class in general another boost is perfectly fine?
The problem is they don't compromise...they act like it is but the actual truth is they listen to demand and go with it regardless of how it affects the system.
"Full commitment in some areas, the game would be so horrendous to you in most of these that you would not even be discussing it here?"
The fact is they do a half-assed "compromise" and we end up wit horrendous decisions anyway...
Its more and more apparent in their decisions they have little clue about how they balance the game and take feedback. They consistently produce mediocre results because they consistently fail to recognize core issues behind their design choices and instead go with some half-assed solution that makes it worse.
Humility? I would LOVE for them to display an ounce of it...instead we have Jeremy Crawford calling out people for wanting ranger to change.
They display 0 humility when its obvious something is stupidly broken and they have to sheepishly fix it like healing spirit.
Hence Yurei’s desire for a more modular set of advanced rules as promised so everyone can have what they want.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My point of the post was not about implementing 'homebrew' in dndbeyond, it was about WOTC formally incorporating these modules into their rules to the point that dndbeyond would be compelled to include it in their platform.
However, I don't think it would force someone to play differently if they didn't want to. It would just be additional options for martial tactics if someone wanted to utilize them and be a little more involved. Beginners could simply play a standard fighter (champion) and be just fine using their actions to make normal attacks.
A good compromise for that sort of thing, Naivara, would be to introduce a 'Forceful Blow' maneuver that does nothing save add the superiority die to the damage of an attack. Give players who don't want to engage with the system some way of using that resource in as simple and mindless a way as possible so they don't have to feel like they're wasting it, or direct those players to the barbarian class if dealing with maneuvers really is just too much. If keeping track of rage and non-rage bonuses is an issue, simply houserule that the barbarian is always considered raging when initiative kicks in.
And if even that's too much? Well, I don't know what to say, really. Some degree of accepting-new-rules is required to improve the game. Perhaps a specific fighter subclass can be built to replace the maneuver system with something else, but right now it feels thoroughly awful to be required to be a Battlemaster fighter in order to actually be good at fighting. That sort of thing may just work better as opt-out via the Basic Dood Subclass, rather than opt-in via picking the one UND PRECISELY VUN subclass in the entirety of D&D 5e that can actually claim to be adept at martial combat, no matter how tired you are of always being the exact same thing.
I know my own group, to match anecdote to anecdote, is absolutely starved for that sort of depth. One of our players refuses to play any fighter that isn't a battlemaster simply because he feels so strongly that all the stuff a battlemaster - and ONLY a battlemaster, in 5e - can do are things that anyone with years of martial training should be able to do, and most of our functional-in-DDB houserule tweaks are things designed to add nuance and depth back into combat. I've legit beenm considering a sort-of 'Lite' version of my original MCO ruleset that can be implemented on DDB specifically to try and fix this shit somewhere close to properly.
EDIT: I do not, and never have, believed in using narration to fix mechanical problems in any RPG. Especially during combat. Waxing soliloquent during a combat encounter is not okay - as a DM I encourage my players to keep their action declarations in a combat short, snappy, and to the point. Tell me what you're hitting, what you're hitting it with, and if you're doing something that requires me to do more than compare an attack roll to an AC value, i.e. maneuvers or Smites or what-have-you. A player taking three minutes to poetically narrabate the glittering arc of their enchanted blade as it whistles through the howling air, slicing deep into the repugnant hide of the...NO. Knock that shit off.
Combat is supposed to be fast, frenetic and punchy, and I refuse to allow flowery narration to get in the way of that. I am absolutely that DM who will say "what've you got Alice? Time's slipping." And if Alice prevaricates and gets locked up for much longer than a minute? "The fury of combat momentarily overwhelms you, nerves warring with your training. All you can do is defend yourself; you lose your action and spend this turn Dodging. Bob, you see Alice locking up, unable to press her attack. What do you do?"
Please do not contact or message me.
That’s not a bad idea, having there be a “simple subclass” (like the UA brute except not overpowered) and a lot of complex ones instead of the other way around. (The Champion is very underpowered on its own, though it’s fun for critifishing builds). My players could definitely handle that. And I agree big time on the punchiness of combat: while I do like to use descriptive words, as a wise person once said, if it’s more than 10 words it might as well be turds.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Please listen to Davedamon and stop arguing against and talking down on people you disagree with. And, please stop assuming so much about my beliefs that I have never said. For me, the concept has not drifted to "what is D&D," because that is a "gotcha/loaded" question that will derail the thread and is unimportant to the discussion. Also, even if the topic were "what is D&D," I don't think any "true D&D players" would object to making a more in depth alignment system. Heck, if I were in charge 5.5e/6e would have an in depth alignment system with tables, examples, descriptions, and all that jazz, but there would be 2 options, the in-depth, satisfying alignment system, as well as rules for playing with no alignment.
I never said that you are against all of these changes, but you have been disobeying instructions of the moderator, and I would rather not have another thread closed due to a spiraling, derailed discussion with multiple bouts of personal attacks and straight up dismissing arguments. Please respect that.
I never said that 5e is less successful due to the alignment system, I would honestly be surprised if anyone has not started/stopped playing 5e due to the underwhelming alignment system. I honestly would not be disappointed by any version of the alignment system besides the current one, whether its no alignment or in-depth alignment. It doesn't matter if there is no consensus if people have decided that there is a problem. If a house is on fire, the first step is to call 911 and tell them about the fire, not to try and immediately solve the issue without the resources to do so.
Again, that's dodging the point and diverting the discussion. Touting 5e's success as a counterpoint to an issue with the system is as valid an argument as a doctor telling you not to sue for malpractice because they do the job correctly 90% of the time.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I would love for there to be different types of shields in 5e. Not a ton. Just two other types. The current 5e shield would be a "medium shield," a "small shield" would be called a buckler and not take up a hand, and a "large shield" would be a tower shield.
The buckler would give a +1 to AC, and anyone could use it, the tower shield would require a certain Strength score to use (16, maybe), and would grant a +3 to AC.
Ideally, there would also be rules for blocking attacks as a reaction with shields, and stuff like that.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms