Pathfinder 3 absolutely NAILED character creation, but most of the other stuff sucked. Just the fact that you could make over fourty types of dwarf ranger at level one ONLY with race and class features is absolutely insane.
That sounds horrific.
This perfectly encapsulates the problem with changing things: there simply isn't uniformity on what people want (not that 40 is very many, or most likely anywhere close to accurate; in 5e there's many thousand possible combinations of dwarf subraces, ranger skills, favored enemy, and favored terrain, and I doubt PF has fewer).
I like the philosophy of 'a choice every level', though that doesn't have to mean 'multiple choices every level', nor do all choices have to be active abilities (static ability bonuses don't increase complexity).
Pathfinder 3 absolutely NAILED character creation, but most of the other stuff sucked. Just the fact that you could make over fourty types of dwarf ranger at level one ONLY with race and class features is absolutely insane.
That sounds horrific.
This perfectly encapsulates the problem with changing things: there simply isn't uniformity on what people want (not that 40 is very many, or most likely anywhere close to accurate; in 5e there's many thousand possible combinations of dwarf subraces, ranger skills, favored enemy, and favored terrain, and I doubt PF has fewer).
That’s only if you do something stupid like use any book from Tasha’s forward.(5e’s version of the bloat books).
I saw Matt's video for the 'Flee, Mortals!' Kickstarter. Looks awesome!
[snip]
It's no secret that the community and 3rd party designers are always many steps ahead of WotC designers, but I hope they are paying attention because If they want to matter in 2024 when 6e comes out, they need to stay in touch with how some of these modern designers are redefining what D&D can be behind their back. I think MCDM is hinting at putting out their own system at some point in the future and if WotC screws up with 6e, Matt has the audience and talent to give D&D a run for its money.
I think Matt stated in his Twitch stream that they had a lot of ideas but they wouldn't put out their own thing until "there was nothing left in 5e to talk about" or something to that effect. Guess it is safe to say nothing is coming from MCDM in that capacity until sometime after 5.5e, maybe?
That’s only if you do something stupid like use any book from Tasha’s forward.(5e’s version of the bloat books).
Using just the PHB, there are 2 choices for subrace, 35 possible choices for selecting 3 skills, 13+ choices for favored enemy, and 8 choices for favored terrain, for a total of 7280 combination. Admittedly most of those choices are fairly dull, but the fact remains that even a small number of decision points explodes into an enormous number of choices.
Pathfinder 3 absolutely NAILED character creation, but most of the other stuff sucked. Just the fact that you could make over fourty types of dwarf ranger at level one ONLY with race and class features is absolutely insane.
That sounds horrific.
Just gonna point out more proof of Pantagruel's point, as that does not sound 'horrific' at all. It sounds fantastic, and infinitely better than the 5e Thing wherein every last single first-level dwarven ranger is completely, utterly, and absolutely identical to every other first-level dwarven ranger down to the beard hair count, with absolutely no room whatsoever for any sort of variance, specialization, or differentiation. One could pick up a first-level dwarven ranger from an Eberron game and substitute it for a first-level dwarven ranger in Greyhawk and nobody except the dwarven rangers themselves would ever know. It's bullshit and I absolutely hate it.
Nevertheless. Here's a wild idea - get rid of 'level twenty'.
Wizards keeps screeching about how nobody ever plays past twelve, right? They never sell material for games past 12, anyways, and cite the self-fulfilling "nobody plays past 12" thing. Okay. Get rid of all levels past 12. Condense the classes down into twelve levels instead of twenty, combine and consolidate abilities, eliminate unnecessary crap bloat nobody uses (I'M LOOKING AT YOU, 'COUNTERCHARM') and align the game with its actual design intent. Allow players to experience the full breadth of their character instead of always blueballing them eight to ten levels shy of getting to play with The Cool Stuff.
That’s only if you do something stupid like use any book from Tasha’s forward.(5e’s version of the bloat books).
Using just the PHB, there are 2 choices for subrace, 35 possible choices for selecting 3 skills, 13+ choices for favored enemy, and 8 choices for favored terrain, for a total of 7280 combination. Admittedly most of those choices are fairly dull, but the fact remains that even a small number of decision points explodes into an enormous number of choices.
Now explain how in 5e there's many thousand possible combinations of dwarf subraces,
Allow players to experience the full breadth of their character instead of always blueballing them eight to ten levels shy of getting to play with The Cool Stuff.
The reason the game stalls out before reaching The Cool Stuff is that it's also The Broken Stuff; abilities that PCs don't actually get don't need to be balanced.
Pathfinder 3 absolutely NAILED character creation, but most of the other stuff sucked. Just the fact that you could make over fourty types of dwarf ranger at level one ONLY with race and class features is absolutely insane.
That sounds horrific.
Just gonna point out more proof of Pantagruel's point, as that does not sound 'horrific' at all. It sounds fantastic, and infinitely better than the 5e Thing wherein every last single first-level dwarven ranger is completely, utterly, and absolutely identical to every other first-level dwarven ranger down to the beard hair count, with absolutely no room whatsoever for any sort of variance, specialization, or differentiation. One could pick up a first-level dwarven ranger from an Eberron game and substitute it for a first-level dwarven ranger in Greyhawk and nobody except the dwarven rangers themselves would ever know. It's bullshit and I absolutely hate it.
Nevertheless. Here's a wild idea - get rid of 'level twenty'.
Wizards keeps screeching about how nobody ever plays past twelve, right? They never sell material for games past 12, anyways, and cite the self-fulfilling "nobody plays past 12" thing. Okay. Get rid of all levels past 12. Condense the classes down into twelve levels instead of twenty, combine and consolidate abilities, eliminate unnecessary crap bloat nobody uses (I'M LOOKING AT YOU, 'COUNTERCHARM') and align the game with its actual design intent. Allow players to experience the full breadth of their character instead of always blueballing them eight to ten levels shy of getting to play with The Cool
Pathfinder 3 absolutely NAILED character creation, but most of the other stuff sucked. Just the fact that you could make over fourty types of dwarf ranger at level one ONLY with race and class features is absolutely insane.
That sounds horrific.
Just gonna point out more proof of Pantagruel's point, as that does not sound 'horrific' at all. It sounds fantastic, and infinitely better than the 5e Thing wherein every last single first-level dwarven ranger is completely, utterly, and absolutely identical to every other first-level dwarven ranger down to the beard hair count, with absolutely no room whatsoever for any sort of variance, specialization, or differentiation. One could pick up a first-level dwarven ranger from an Eberron game and substitute it for a first-level dwarven ranger in Greyhawk and nobody except the dwarven rangers themselves would ever know. It's bullshit and I absolutely hate it.
Nevertheless. Here's a wild idea - get rid of 'level twenty'.
Wizards keeps screeching about how nobody ever plays past twelve, right? They never sell material for games past 12, anyways, and cite the self-fulfilling "nobody plays past 12" thing. Okay. Get rid of all levels past 12. Condense the classes down into twelve levels instead of twenty, combine and consolidate abilities, eliminate unnecessary crap bloat nobody uses (I'M LOOKING AT YOU, 'COUNTERCHARM') and align the game with its actual design intent. Allow players to experience the full breadth of their character instead of always blueballing them eight to ten levels shy of getting to play with The Cool Stuff.
Question: Do you spend more time in learning to optimize characters or in actually playing the game? Be honest.
I currently play five games of D&D - two games alternating every other Thursday with each other, a new one booting up on Tuesdays, a game on Sunday, and an ongoing play-by-post. I'm currently a third-level foxkin warlock in Exandria, a third-level Umbragen paladin in Eberron, a ninth-level furling rogue/cleric in Urth, an eleventh-level tiefling artificer-wizard in Tursk, and a thirteenth-level tabaxi wizard in Faerun-and-FR-adjacent. The artificer started at fifth level and has been seeing more-or-less continuous play for close to two years. All of my games tend to average between two and a half to three and a half hours per session, so on the shorter side, but still. I've also DM'd a game for 'bout eight months, from third to eighth level, and both run and participated in a series of one-shots.
So no. Despite the scornful dismissal inherent in the question, I am not an armchair sideliner who talks the talk without ever walking the walk. I'm playing so much D&D I had to turn down a couple newer games offered to me recently, as well as a request to DM, because I've hit my comfortable limit with the number of games I can participate in. My Thursday and Tuesday group is also remarkably regular - we missed maybe half a dozen sessions last year, and before that we only missed a session once every three or four months. The Sunday game is flakier, but honestly it has a better than 50% record so far so I'll take it.
None of which should really be remotely necessary for anybody to fish for. My credentials don't matter to my discussion points, ne? If someone can't answer another's words, attacking their validity as a player seems a very poor second indeed, hm? Something to remember, perhaps
I currently play five games of D&D - two games alternating every other Thursday with each other, a new one booting up on Tuesdays, a game on Sunday, and an ongoing play-by-post. I'm currently a third-level foxkin warlock in Exandria, a third-level Umbragen paladin in Eberron, a ninth-level furling rogue/cleric in Urth, an eleventh-level tiefling artificer-wizard in Tursk, and a thirteenth-level tabaxi wizard in Faerun-and-FR-adjacent. The artificer started at fifth level and has been seeing more-or-less continuous play for close to two years. All of my games tend to average between two and a half to three and a half hours per session, so on the shorter side, but still. I've also DM'd a game for 'bout eight months, from third to eighth level, and both run and participated in a series of one-shots.
So no. Despite the scornful dismissal inherent in the question, I am not an armchair sideliner who talks the talk without ever walking the walk. I'm playing so much D&D I had to turn down a couple newer games offered to me recently, as well as a request to DM, because I've hit my comfortable limit with the number of games I can participate in. My Thursday and Tuesday group is also remarkably regular - we missed maybe half a dozen sessions last year, and before that we only missed a session once every three or four months. The Sunday game is flakier, but honestly it has a better than 50% record so far so I'll take it.
None of which should really be remotely necessary for anybody to fish for. My credentials don't matter to my discussion points, ne? If someone can't answer another's words, attacking their validity as a player seems a very poor second indeed, hm? Something to remember, perhaps
I did not ask if you ever played the game. I asked if you spend more time learning to optimize than you spend playing the game. You didn’t answer that question.
As for why it matters, I believe DND is two games in one. One is an optimization game and one is a roleplaying game. There is no BADWRONGFUN. Both are good. Play what you enjoy. But, I think DND suffers by trying to be both. It is like a car-boat. They exist. Some people even like them. But, there are more people who own a car and a boat then there are people who own a car-boat.
Everybody associates Warlock with Eldritch Blast. But, Warlock has three pacts, not one. All three should be supported. Blade, Chain, and Tome. Hexblade kinda upgrades Blade and makes it functional. We need something for Chain that upgrades it like Hexblade did for Blade.
Standardize language. Here's exactly what I'm referring to: I can make rolls, throws, and checks. Why? Why???
Just delete saving throws. Those are ability checks now. Delete attack rolls -- those are also ability checks. Fighters are proficient in ability checks using weapons. Wizards aren't. Rogues are proficient in Dexterity checks using weapons.
Bless adds a d4 to every ability check made to attack or resist enemy creatures. Diamond Soul makes you proficient in all ability checks made to protect yourself.
Or call them ability rolls, even.
You can probably also clean up AC and DC and Spell Save DC, but I'm short on time right now.
I would like to see a more formal tool or guidance for 5e convert to to a OSR / hardcore style of play. Mainly to limit the HP/dmg etc, Maybe also limit the set of spells / items to a set of "core" spells /items. I think there is still a desire for OSR style and I know a party can do this on their own (or use another system) but maybe taking the legwork out of limiting the 5e system might be desirable for those who prefer the OSR style of play?
Could probably just be a section with tables for classes / items / spells / monsters allowable for 5e OSR play. Maybe folks can think of it akin to how adventuring league play is controlled but with more limitations.
I wouldn't expect a ton from the first pass at this, but maybe its something that can grow through play testing.
I currently play five games of D&D - two games alternating every other Thursday with each other, a new one booting up on Tuesdays, a game on Sunday, and an ongoing play-by-post. I'm currently a third-level foxkin warlock in Exandria, a third-level Umbragen paladin in Eberron, a ninth-level furling rogue/cleric in Urth, an eleventh-level tiefling artificer-wizard in Tursk, and a thirteenth-level tabaxi wizard in Faerun-and-FR-adjacent. The artificer started at fifth level and has been seeing more-or-less continuous play for close to two years. All of my games tend to average between two and a half to three and a half hours per session, so on the shorter side, but still. I've also DM'd a game for 'bout eight months, from third to eighth level, and both run and participated in a series of one-shots.
So no. Despite the scornful dismissal inherent in the question, I am not an armchair sideliner who talks the talk without ever walking the walk. I'm playing so much D&D I had to turn down a couple newer games offered to me recently, as well as a request to DM, because I've hit my comfortable limit with the number of games I can participate in. My Thursday and Tuesday group is also remarkably regular - we missed maybe half a dozen sessions last year, and before that we only missed a session once every three or four months. The Sunday game is flakier, but honestly it has a better than 50% record so far so I'll take it.
None of which should really be remotely necessary for anybody to fish for. My credentials don't matter to my discussion points, ne? If someone can't answer another's words, attacking their validity as a player seems a very poor second indeed, hm? Something to remember, perhaps
I did not ask if you ever played the game. I asked if you spend more time learning to optimize than you spend playing the game. You didn’t answer that question.
As for why it matters, I believe DND is two games in one. One is an optimization game and one is a roleplaying game. There is no BADWRONGFUN. Both are good. Play what you enjoy. But, I think DND suffers by trying to be both. It is like a car-boat. They exist. Some people even like them. But, there are more people who own a car and a boat then there are people who own a car-boat.
This proverbial “car-boat” we call 5e is currently the most popular Table Top game on the planet. How does that jive with your theory?
Honestly, most of my players don’t optimize all that much, they play the character. If they want to play a pre-Fizban’s Black Dragonborn Assassin Rogue, that’s what they play. The fact that Pre-Fizban’s Dragonborn are meh (especially the chromatics) and that the Assassin is the worst Rogue subclass in the game has no bearing on their decision making. One of them is currently playing a Berserker who uses a Greatsword instead of any other Barbarian using an Axe because that’s the character. Another player actually chose the Grappler feat because it fit her character. 🤷♂️ Every table is different.
Oh, I thought of another one. Excise all the spells that replace class features and skills. I'm sure my opinions of which spells fall into this category won't be universal, but here are some examples: Create Water. Pass Without Trace. Charm Person. Booming Blade. Knock.
You could keep the fun ones in by making them class features. I think a sneaky Rogue or Ranger ought to be able to give their party a Stealth bonus similar to PWT. Maybe not +10 because that's insane, but even if it had to be +10, you could cost it similarly to a spell slot. Maybe there's a Rogue Die that a Rogue can use on his special features such as Group Sneak or Having Extra Money, and he gets three per rest. I feel as though I've heard this one before...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This perfectly encapsulates the problem with changing things: there simply isn't uniformity on what people want (not that 40 is very many, or most likely anywhere close to accurate; in 5e there's many thousand possible combinations of dwarf subraces, ranger skills, favored enemy, and favored terrain, and I doubt PF has fewer).
I like the philosophy of 'a choice every level', though that doesn't have to mean 'multiple choices every level', nor do all choices have to be active abilities (static ability bonuses don't increase complexity).
There is also The Paradox of Choice
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice
That’s only if you do something stupid like use any book from Tasha’s forward.(5e’s version of the bloat books).
I think Matt stated in his Twitch stream that they had a lot of ideas but they wouldn't put out their own thing until "there was nothing left in 5e to talk about" or something to that effect. Guess it is safe to say nothing is coming from MCDM in that capacity until sometime after 5.5e, maybe?
A good book and a cup of tea.
Homebrew| Bard: College of Composition
Feedback Appreciated!
Using just the PHB, there are 2 choices for subrace, 35 possible choices for selecting 3 skills, 13+ choices for favored enemy, and 8 choices for favored terrain, for a total of 7280 combination. Admittedly most of those choices are fairly dull, but the fact remains that even a small number of decision points explodes into an enormous number of choices.
Just gonna point out more proof of Pantagruel's point, as that does not sound 'horrific' at all. It sounds fantastic, and infinitely better than the 5e Thing wherein every last single first-level dwarven ranger is completely, utterly, and absolutely identical to every other first-level dwarven ranger down to the beard hair count, with absolutely no room whatsoever for any sort of variance, specialization, or differentiation. One could pick up a first-level dwarven ranger from an Eberron game and substitute it for a first-level dwarven ranger in Greyhawk and nobody except the dwarven rangers themselves would ever know. It's bullshit and I absolutely hate it.
Nevertheless. Here's a wild idea - get rid of 'level twenty'.
Wizards keeps screeching about how nobody ever plays past twelve, right? They never sell material for games past 12, anyways, and cite the self-fulfilling "nobody plays past 12" thing. Okay. Get rid of all levels past 12. Condense the classes down into twelve levels instead of twenty, combine and consolidate abilities, eliminate unnecessary crap bloat nobody uses (I'M LOOKING AT YOU, 'COUNTERCHARM') and align the game with its actual design intent. Allow players to experience the full breadth of their character instead of always blueballing them eight to ten levels shy of getting to play with The Cool Stuff.
Please do not contact or message me.
Now explain how in 5e there's many thousand possible combinations of dwarf subraces,
The reason the game stalls out before reaching The Cool Stuff is that it's also The Broken Stuff; abilities that PCs don't actually get don't need to be balanced.
Question: Do you spend more time in learning to optimize characters or in actually playing the game? Be honest.
"Be honest", you say? Okay.
I currently play five games of D&D - two games alternating every other Thursday with each other, a new one booting up on Tuesdays, a game on Sunday, and an ongoing play-by-post. I'm currently a third-level foxkin warlock in Exandria, a third-level Umbragen paladin in Eberron, a ninth-level furling rogue/cleric in Urth, an eleventh-level tiefling artificer-wizard in Tursk, and a thirteenth-level tabaxi wizard in Faerun-and-FR-adjacent. The artificer started at fifth level and has been seeing more-or-less continuous play for close to two years. All of my games tend to average between two and a half to three and a half hours per session, so on the shorter side, but still. I've also DM'd a game for 'bout eight months, from third to eighth level, and both run and participated in a series of one-shots.
So no. Despite the scornful dismissal inherent in the question, I am not an armchair sideliner who talks the talk without ever walking the walk. I'm playing so much D&D I had to turn down a couple newer games offered to me recently, as well as a request to DM, because I've hit my comfortable limit with the number of games I can participate in. My Thursday and Tuesday group is also remarkably regular - we missed maybe half a dozen sessions last year, and before that we only missed a session once every three or four months. The Sunday game is flakier, but honestly it has a better than 50% record so far so I'll take it.
None of which should really be remotely necessary for anybody to fish for. My credentials don't matter to my discussion points, ne? If someone can't answer another's words, attacking their validity as a player seems a very poor second indeed, hm? Something to remember, perhaps
Please do not contact or message me.
I did not ask if you ever played the game. I asked if you spend more time learning to optimize than you spend playing the game. You didn’t answer that question.
As for why it matters, I believe DND is two games in one. One is an optimization game and one is a roleplaying game. There is no BADWRONGFUN. Both are good. Play what you enjoy. But, I think DND suffers by trying to be both. It is like a car-boat. They exist. Some people even like them. But, there are more people who own a car and a boat then there are people who own a car-boat.
Make Eldritch Blast a warlock class feature, not a cantrip.
Yeah would be a better fit.
Or go to route of letting agonizing blast add to any cantrip and then do invocations that affect other cantrips.
Make warlock the one who tweaks cantrips to do cool things
Everybody associates Warlock with Eldritch Blast. But, Warlock has three pacts, not one. All three should be supported. Blade, Chain, and Tome. Hexblade kinda upgrades Blade and makes it functional. We need something for Chain that upgrades it like Hexblade did for Blade.
One thing, huh. Hm.
Standardize language. Here's exactly what I'm referring to: I can make rolls, throws, and checks. Why? Why???
Just delete saving throws. Those are ability checks now. Delete attack rolls -- those are also ability checks. Fighters are proficient in ability checks using weapons. Wizards aren't. Rogues are proficient in Dexterity checks using weapons.
Bless adds a d4 to every ability check made to attack or resist enemy creatures. Diamond Soul makes you proficient in all ability checks made to protect yourself.
Or call them ability rolls, even.
You can probably also clean up AC and DC and Spell Save DC, but I'm short on time right now.
I would like to see a more formal tool or guidance for 5e convert to to a OSR / hardcore style of play. Mainly to limit the HP/dmg etc, Maybe also limit the set of spells / items to a set of "core" spells /items. I think there is still a desire for OSR style and I know a party can do this on their own (or use another system) but maybe taking the legwork out of limiting the 5e system might be desirable for those who prefer the OSR style of play?
Could probably just be a section with tables for classes / items / spells / monsters allowable for 5e OSR play. Maybe folks can think of it akin to how adventuring league play is controlled but with more limitations.
I wouldn't expect a ton from the first pass at this, but maybe its something that can grow through play testing.
This proverbial “car-boat” we call 5e is currently the most popular Table Top game on the planet. How does that jive with your theory?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Honestly, most of my players don’t optimize all that much, they play the character. If they want to play a pre-Fizban’s Black Dragonborn Assassin Rogue, that’s what they play. The fact that Pre-Fizban’s Dragonborn are meh (especially the chromatics) and that the Assassin is the worst Rogue subclass in the game has no bearing on their decision making. One of them is currently playing a Berserker who uses a Greatsword instead of any other Barbarian using an Axe because that’s the character. Another player actually chose the Grappler feat because it fit her character. 🤷♂️ Every table is different.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Oh, I thought of another one. Excise all the spells that replace class features and skills. I'm sure my opinions of which spells fall into this category won't be universal, but here are some examples: Create Water. Pass Without Trace. Charm Person. Booming Blade. Knock.
You could keep the fun ones in by making them class features. I think a sneaky Rogue or Ranger ought to be able to give their party a Stealth bonus similar to PWT. Maybe not +10 because that's insane, but even if it had to be +10, you could cost it similarly to a spell slot. Maybe there's a Rogue Die that a Rogue can use on his special features such as Group Sneak or Having Extra Money, and he gets three per rest. I feel as though I've heard this one before...