I would still rather have Athletics be your Pushing/Lifting Skill, then have a Climbing Skill and Swimming Skill. Should also move Jumping under Acrobatics.
Acrobatics is just as applicable as Athletics in many situations. And they could all key off of Str, Dex, or Con depending on the situation and the DM. And both of those skills include a certain amount of “knowledge” about one’s own body, and how it interacts with the environment; to properly breath; how/when to pace oneself for energy consumption; how/when to give explosive power when necessary or prudent; body positioning and angles.... While yes, there is a huge difference between the knowledge one accrues when preparing as a mountain climber as compared to a swimmer, or even a sprinter compared to a marathon runner, but just having one skill about “General Athleticism” seems okay considering that most PCs are rarely on their local swim teams.
You are correct with the knowledge aspect of the skills, I should have been more clear. It does require some amount of "knowledge" of acrobatics/athletics, just like every skill requires some amount of knowledge/training to be proficient with them.
If there is more than just one skill for "sneakiness" (Stealth and Sleight of Hand), I don't see why you could split Athletics into a few different skills.
For as often as Athletics comes up in D&D compared to average party size and composition, if the only player out of five who ever actually makes a Str build had to actually take proficiency in multiple skills for athletic purposes, it would suck. It isn’t about balancing Physical with Mental Skills, it’s about balancing the number of skills for a subject compared to the number of PCs/party looking to potentially compete for space in those fields. If “The Strong Person” had to invest in different skills individually then they would never have enough skill slots to learn anything else. Having Arcana, Religion, History, and Nature be separated like that means no one PC in the party dominates every field. A “General Knowledge” or “Lore” check in 5e is just straight Intelligence.
Why should characters that focus on mental stats have to give up all their skills to mental skills, but ones that focus on Strength (or Con if they balance it as I suggested earlier) shouldn't have to give up their skills to be good at the physical skills? I could see Religion and Arcana being grouped into the same skill, as "Occult Lore" or something along those lines, and leaving History (Nature, Survival, and Animal Handling have too much overlap, IMO. I would keep at least two of them, not all three).
There’s really only one Skill for “noticing stuff,” Perception. If you meant Investigation then that’s really less “notice stuff” and more “study stuff” which isn’t quite the same thing. One is general observation, the other is focused thought. Perception might let one physically see the key on the table, but the important part is recognizing it as a clue. If you meant Insight as the other, reading people is less to do with “noticing” things about people, and more about a “hunches,” when our subconscious applies knowledge and perception and jumps to a conclusion we cannot necessarily rationalize. (And if one can rationally explain those things, usually it’s because of specific training/education, and often it comes down to focused pattern recognition and physical “symptoms” and how they inform applied psychology.)
Yes, I agree with that. There is a bit of overlap between them, though. If there's a different skill for noticing people hiding and noticing people's facial expressions, I would argue that having just one skill for "Fitness/Athleticism" is too wide of a concept for a skill.
Survival isn’t a subset or alternate for Nature skill either. The Nature skill is all basically academic information about one gimungus subject. Survival is more practical application. Nature is more “book smarts” and Survival is more “street smarts” without streets. Come to think of it, Survival doesn’t have to be restricted to “natural settings” either.... Which is good or else there would need to be a “City Wise” or “Urban Survival” skill.
Yes, you're correct there. Nature is knowledge, Survival is the application of it. Survival is a weird skill, though, as it's kind of a combination of Nature, Perception, and a few other loose concepts. They have overlap, which is my point. Some skills can have overlap without being combined into just one general skill, like Athletics.
Animal Handling is a tricky one because that’s really like Insight, Perception, Performance, Persuasion, Intimidation, and “Animal Lore” thrown in too.
Yes, Animal Handling is niche and kind of strange. One of my characters has made quite a few Charisma (Animal Handling) checks in a campaign where I was bonding with a Pegasus. It's a strange skill, and I don't know if it needs to really exist in D&D, with Survival and the other skills you mentioned above existing in the game.
I wish that there was a separate “Engineering” skill, like Arcana for Science instead off Magic.
That would be cool, but I could see that being covered by having each Artisan's Tools having its own ability score check tied to it, like how Thieves' Tools are Dexterity based. That could largely fill the role of an "Engineering" skill. Investigation could be used to figure out how a machine works, possibly through reverse engineering, and Intelligence checks with Smiths' or Tinkers' Tools could help with making it work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I would still rather have Athletics be your Pushing/Lifting Skill, then have a Climbing Skill and Swimming Skill. Should also move Jumping under Acrobatics.
That's fine. We can agree to disagree, then. Jumping could fall under Acrobatics, or be a Strength or Dexterity (Mobility) check of the player's choice. Since there are Climbing and Swimming speeds in the game, I don't really see the point of making skills for each of them, as it would be a bit redundant. I just proposed Mobility as a broad umbrella for those to fall under, along with walking/hiking. IMO, one "movement" skill would simplify that a bit, making just one skill that a character needs in order to proficiently use their physical fitness for movement.
A Concentration skill? I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'll think it over. It's probably a better idea than Health and would allow any caster to take proficiency in it without a feat or being a Sorcerer/Artificer, so that might help them a bit with concentration. Thanks for the suggestion!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I would like proper rules and/or options to play a disabled character (ie: Blind character or an amputee) and I would like options for a character that uses only thrown weapons like the Umbaka warrior in the Prince of Persia movie
I would like proper rules and/or options to play a disabled character (ie: Blind character or an amputee)
Yes, this 100%. D&D 5e has not really done a great job at empowering characters with disabilities, mental or physical. With the "Madness" tables, optional Sanity score, and other examples in this edition, it makes it seem like characters who are insane are either useless, hilarious, or villainous.
Additionally, with the new Blind Fighting Style, the prosthetic limb and ersatz eye magic items, mentioning of disabled characters being ashamed of their disabilities in CoS, and so on, there are definitely problematic elements of how D&D 5e treats disabilities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
If there is more than just one skill for "sneakiness" (Stealth and Sleight of Hand), I don't see why you could split Athletics into a few different skills.
Why should characters that focus on mental stats have to give up all their skills to mental skills, but ones that focus on Strength (or Con if they balance it as I suggested earlier) shouldn't have to give up their skills to be good at the physical skills? I could see Religion and Arcana being grouped into the same skill, as "Occult Lore" or something along those lines, and leaving History (Nature, Survival, and Animal Handling have too much overlap, IMO. I would keep at least two of them, not all three).
Yes, I agree with that. There is a bit of overlap between them, though. If there's a different skill for noticing people hiding and noticing people's facial expressions, I would argue that having just one skill for "Fitness/Athleticism" is too wide of a concept for a skill.
(Don’t forget Deception.) They did split physical skills into 2, Athletics and Acrobatics. Those two skills mix-‘n-matched with Str, Dex, Con cover pretty much anything likely to come up under the 5e ruleset. It’s not very robust after all. Endurance would be Con Athletics, and Mightiness is Str Athletics. I just think they could have made that the official rule however.
Wizards need Arcana, Clerics need Religion, and Druids need Nature. Everyone shares History as a general “everything that ever happened” category. (Just like Bards need Performance. All the “True Full Casters” get a special skill. Half casters and the “Full Caster Equivalent” Warlocks gotta sheet them.)
Ahh, but the flaw in your argument is that all of those use one Ability, Wisdom. Whereas Athletics & Acrobatics can really each use all three Physical stats.
If there is more than just one skill for "sneakiness" (Stealth and Sleight of Hand), I don't see why you could split Athletics into a few different skills.
Why should characters that focus on mental stats have to give up all their skills to mental skills, but ones that focus on Strength (or Con if they balance it as I suggested earlier) shouldn't have to give up their skills to be good at the physical skills? I could see Religion and Arcana being grouped into the same skill, as "Occult Lore" or something along those lines, and leaving History (Nature, Survival, and Animal Handling have too much overlap, IMO. I would keep at least two of them, not all three).
Yes, I agree with that. There is a bit of overlap between them, though. If there's a different skill for noticing people hiding and noticing people's facial expressions, I would argue that having just one skill for "Fitness/Athleticism" is too wide of a concept for a skill.
(Don’t forget Deception.) They did split physical skills into 2, Athletics and Acrobatics. Those two skills mix-‘n-matched with Str, Dex, Con cover pretty much anything likely to come up under the 5e ruleset. It’s not very robust after all. Endurance would be Con Athletics, and Mightiness is Str Athletics. I just think they could have made that the official rule however.
Wizards need Arcana, Clerics need Religion, and Druids need Nature. Everyone shares History as a general “everything that ever happened” category.
Ahh, but the flaw in your argument is that all of those use one Ability, Wisdom. Whereas Athletics & Acrobatics can really each use all three Physical stats.
(fixed that for you)
Ah, yes. Deception. That makes 3 skills for "sneakiness." Acrobatics is the "flippity-dodging and balancing on top of a slanted tight-rope while doing a somersault all the way down" skill while Athletics is the "climbing/swimming/jumping, physical strength, and judo-kicking that 10-ton boulder onto an ogre tribe" skill. Acrobatics is indeed an "athletic" skill, but it's not really a "physical fitness" skill. Being able to run a long time has little to do with running fast. Endurance would be long-distance running, while Athletics/Mobility would be high-speed running. There's a reason why Usain Bolt isn't a long-distance runner, even if he has beaten several world records for how fast he can run.
And Barbarians need Athletics, Fighters need Athletics, and Paladins need Athletics, and everyone else who likes Strength needs Athletics. On the other hand, Monks need Acrobatics, Rogues need Sleight of Hand/Thieves' Tools, and everyone wants or has stealth. See a problem there?
I don't see Strength or Constitution being used for Acrobatics. I've never seen someone do a backflip using their biceps, have you? Sure, acrobats are pretty fit, but it's Dex based more than Strength. Also, I am aware that Insight and Perception both use Wisdom. Doesn't that help my argument more than yours? If there are different skills for actions as similar as "Noticing a sneaky person" and "Noticing a person is lying," why shouldn't there be different skills for actions like "Running quickly," "Running/holding weights a long time," and "Lifting a portcullis/breaking down a door/shoving a heavy object?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Once more, NO, it does not. I'm sorry but after having off-forums discussion with a number of people in addition to the discussions here, it's not because something works on another system that it would rational to borrow it. Chivalry and Sorcery had a fantastic background creation system. Runequest is fantastic at managing combat. Ars Magica had by far the best system that I've ever seen for magic. PF may have good ideas for Pathfinder. But they are all complex things, with many choices that require more thinking only along specific lines, and that will slow the game down ? And if you start combining them, it's going to get even more complex, geometrically.
Uh, no. Most people I have spoken to that have played Pathfinder 2e love the Three Action System. It would only be wise for a D&D 6e to play it smart and "borrow" that great idea from a system that was based off of D&D in the first place and behaves similarly in many ways. Those games you mentioned are very different from D&D, but Pathfinder is really not all that different. There are major differences, but it is not irrational or stupid to take inspiration from things that the game does well to improve this game. It will not make this game more complex to simplify it, for the love of God!
When will people start to understand that simplicity has its own benefits ? And that the reason 5e is doing so well in large part due to its simplicity and streamlining ? When will you stop only promoting ideas that complexify and slow down the game ? If you want to complexify and slow down yours, that's fine, but it's getting really tiring to hear that people who want simplicity in their game systems are idiots for not wanting more options.
Did I ever say that simplicity doesn't have its benefits? I know that 5e is as popular as it is because of its simplicity. But frankly, a 3 Action System, and more character options will not ruin D&D's simplicity. If you think D&D 5e's character creation system is simple, try creating a new character from scratch with someone who has never played the game. They will be overwhelmed by the boxes and numbers at first, and taking inspiration from Pathfinder's new character creation system or action system will not complexify or slow down the game.
That is a strawman. You claimed that I want to over-complicate and ruin the game. It is just the opposite. I want D&D 5.5e/6e to be simple, while also empowering intelligent play. It will not ruin the game to take good elements from a similar game.
Why do you think that the online channels sell the game so well ? Because the story moves along and the DMs and their players are not spending hours micromanaging characters and combat. This is what you can do with a system like 5e and not with Pathfinder, people would get so bored watching this. But the streamlining of 5e makes even combat really exciting, on top of nice stories and characters, and this is what most people want.
*facepalm
I never said that D&D was bad, or that Pathfinder was good. I like most of the simplicity of D&D 5e, I like how combat is quicker in 5e than PF 2e, and I like how popular this edition is! Stop claiming that I don't like this edition and should go somewhere else! That is gatekeeping and you are talking down on me as if your wishes in the game are greater/more important than mine, while simultaneously not understanding what I actually want!
Why don't you turn your imagination towards creating complex settings and stories, complex personalities for your characters ? I can guarantee that there is more future in that, not only for you but for the community.
And here is you assuming that I don't do those! You don't even know me! How can you claim that I don't create complex settings, personalities, or stories in my games without knowing a single thing about me. Anyone who has played D&D with me would testify about how much energy and thought I put into my campaigns and games, or how many characters I create that I will never play with complex backstories and character traits, or how many settings with unique homebrewed races/subclasses/feats/backgrounds I have made! You don't freaking know me, so don't claim that I don't have what it takes to be a good D&D DM/player/designer! I know this system like the back of my hand, way better than the general community does, so don't get it in your head for one second that I should not be in this hobby or edition.
And a final point, from two off-forums discussions: you might want official support for your ideas, and you might want the clout of a company to support digital tooling of your complex ideas, but this failed in the past. Miserably. 3e and Pathfinder don't have the tooling because they are too complex (you would not believe the time I spent on PCGen trying to make it work only for my campaign and the options chosen bu the admitedly very large number of players in it). And even on the simple 5e, DDB is failing to provide all the timely support for this.
First, I want the game to support the options for more character types than it currently supports (psions, swordmage, occultist, etc). 5e does not mechanically support these character concepts, and for me that is an issue.
Second, I don't want the game to become unnecessarily and detrimentally complex, like you claim I do. I want it to have satisfying options to play a diverse amount of characters, which will increase the complexity of character creation a bit, but not the overall game.
Once more, there are complex games out there if you want to play them. If PF is so wonderful, why don't you play it instead of D&D ? And if it's too complex in some areas, why don't you streamline it instead of complexifying D&D ? Just try it and you will see how difficult it is to go that way, and how good the designers were to manage that on 5e, without losing the spirit of it (something that failed dismally with 4e, by the way). And it was a very delicate balance, simplifying too much and you lose the spirit and the support of the community, just see how some people complain about some obscure classes not being available, not simplifying enough means people not getting into the game because it's just too complex and too tiresome to bother with.
I never said that Pathfinder was wonderful, that's a strawman and is making shit up. Again, for like the bazillionth time, you telling me to go to a different game is gatekeeping. Also, I already have all of the D&D 5e books, and I do mean all of them, so it's much easier for me to hope for a 5.5e/backwards compatible 6e than to go and turn PF 2e into a completely different game. I don't want D&D to be Pathfinder, because I don't like Pathfinder. I don't even have to play it to know that I wouldn't like it, the same way I know that I wouldn't like califlour and spinach in my ice cream.
There is a balance, and making character creation more meaningful is not crossing the line of making the game too complex.
You might find it tiring to hear the sentence above, but what I find even more tiring is people complaining about something that is actually working really well for so many people and that was so hard to create. And for people who are incapable of doing the same to treat both the designers and people who like their work like idiots who can't see the worth of alternate ideas, possibly from other systems.
I never claimed that "Pathfinder 2e is amazeballs and perfect." Stop putting your own stupid misinterpretations into my goddamn mouth, please. I would appreciate it if you actually read my posts and quoted them instead of making shit up that I never said. It is not unreasonable, nay, it is intelligent for WotC to take inspiration from a brilliant part of a competitor's system if they want 5.5e/6e to be as popular or more than 5e is/was. I have never called you or WotC an idiot for not seeing alternate ideas, but frankly, you making multiple logical fallacies and false claims about what I said and want for the hobby is pretty infuriating.
Once more, you can homebrew all you want. And if you think it's that superior to the original, then you should have no trouble convincing people to go your way. Publish it. Run it the Pathfinder way or like what people at ENWorld are doing today. At least they are doing something instead of just criticising and making vague suggestions.
Except I can't homebrew it and use it as a player. For me, that feels cheap and wrong. If I design something that I use in a campaign, it is for my players as a DM or fellow player.
Also, that remark about me being lazy at the end and doing nothing was uncalled for and also false. I work hard on homebrew, my campaigns, my characters, and to have fun in this hobby. What doesn't help my fun in this hobby is when I create a thread brainstorming ideas for the next edition, and immediately having someone telling me that I'm unimaginative, stupid, lazy, and don't belong in this hobby.
A few days ago, someone wanted some ideas about a gish. I racked my brain to fuel that because, why not. I was maybe hoping to see something come out of it. I'm still waiting. If the people here spending their time complaining about the lack of something had spent the same effort actually creating something, I'm pretty sure that we would have a brand new system out today... :p
Did you not search any of the homebrew forums for anything I created? Instead of telling me to get off my ass and stop complaining, get off yours and search the website a bit:
I would still rather have Athletics be your Pushing/Lifting Skill, then have a Climbing Skill and Swimming Skill. Should also move Jumping under Acrobatics.
That's fine. We can agree to disagree, then. Jumping could fall under Acrobatics, or be a Strength or Dexterity (Mobility) check of the player's choice. Since there are Climbing and Swimming speeds in the game, I don't really see the point of making skills for each of them, as it would be a bit redundant. I just proposed Mobility as a broad umbrella for those to fall under, along with walking/hiking. IMO, one "movement" skill would simplify that a bit, making just one skill that a character needs in order to proficiently use their physical fitness for movement.
A Concentration skill? I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'll think it over. It's probably a better idea than Health and would allow any caster to take proficiency in it without a feat or being a Sorcerer/Artificer, so that might help them a bit with concentration. Thanks for the suggestion!
I don't care for it because being a strong swimmer does not make a person a strong climber, so a blanket mobility skill is no different than Athletic to me. I don't really feel that strongly (lol) about it though.
Concentration was a Skill in 3/3.5 that did the same thing as Concentration saves do now. I think it worked better as a skill since most casters don't get Constitution as a saving throw.
Actually thinking about it, I think Mages for the next edition need to break from the Zeb Cook model of Schools and instead go with the TYPE of damage they inflict: Fire, Frost, Acid, Venom and Lightning. Also, go BACK to the Subclass definition from 1E where there are 4 Basic Classes (though I would add Druids to the base class as the magic they wield isn't channeled from the Divine per se, but more like tapping into the natural world's Ley Lines). This way Warlocks and Sorcerers (as well as Illusionists and Necromancers) fall under the Mage class as Subclasses in their own right instead of just being different flavors of the same thing.
Actually thinking about it, I think Mages for the next edition need to break from the Zeb Cook model of Schools and instead go with the TYPE of damage they inflict: Fire, Frost, Acid, Venom and Lightning. Also, go BACK to the Subclass definition from 1E where there are 4 Basic Classes (though I would add Druids to the base class as the magic they wield isn't channeled from the Divine per se, but more like tapping into the natural world's Ley Lines). This way Warlocks and Sorcerers (as well as Illusionists and Necromancers) fall under the Mage class as Subclasses in their own right instead of just being different flavors of the same thing.
I would only enjoy that if subclasses had a massive impact on the character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Since magic was brought up, that would be my biggest change, I think.
Only "studious" spellcaster classes (namely wizard and cleric, and any subclass that uses wizard and cleric spells) would use prepared spells. These classes would still use spell slots much like they work in 5e.
A wizard's spell book would function differently. More like an item of spell storing -- the wizard can pre-cast spells into it, which last until cast out of it. The wizard's number of known spells and spell slots would be adjusted to compensate. The wizard can still also store ritual spells in it.
All other spellcaster classes would go with a "spells known" mechanism. But these would function more like innate spellcasting for monsters. Meaning the class gets certain spells of certain levels, which it can cast X times per long rest. No spell slots.
Some capacity to recover some small number of castings (or slots for wizards and clerics) after a short rest, perhaps at some kind of resource cost.
Spells themselves would get a makeover. Fewer redundant spells, and that functionality gets wrapped into upcasting. By that I mean, for example, rather than burning hands, flaming sphere, fireball, etc. all being separate spells, the wizard has a single "produce flame" spell that mimics them when upcast. At 1st level, it works like burning hands. If the wizard casts it at 2nd, the spell can optionally work like flaming sphere. This would condense a lot of spells, so more variety of spells could be introduce.
Sorcerers probably would keep sorcery points.
Warlocks would function the same way as they do now, just with castings per short rest instead of long.
Anyway, that's my ridiculous and probably broken mindset around it.
I wonder what Lyxen, BigLizard, and all the others arguing that 5e is a mechanically perfect system and any deficiency one finds in that perfect, flawless system is a deficiency of the player in their ability to create interesting characters would think were they to learn that were I (and, I suspect, no few others in this thread) were to be driven by whatever contrived circumstance the mind desires to play in a game they were running, they would find themselves DMing for Sam Miller.
"Sam Miller" is a character (for a given definition of 'character') that I have carefully engineered over my time playing to be as absolutely boring, vanilla, and completely devoid of story hooks and engagement points as possible. A regular, non-variant human fighter, Champion subclass, Soldier background, typical Strength-based build, no feats. Sam Miller comes from whichever modest town or large village is least relevant to the game's plot, having served in the army of whichever nation that village is in for five or ten years before mustering out. Sam Miller has no wife (or husband, if for whatever reason it's Samantha rather than Samuel) nor children, and he's neither especially close nor unusually estranged from his family back home. Sam Miller's military time was spent primarily in second-line garrison work, where he suffered no particularly scarring losses or triumphant victories. No tragedies mar Sam Miller's past, and no supernatural events have impacted it. He served with invisibly modest competence and has neither close friends nor rivals in the military - nor any rivals or close friends in his home village or anywhere else. Neither exceptional villainy nor inspiring heroism has ever touched Sam Miller's life, and at no point has he ever made enough of an impact to be remembered or to form a strong connection to another person.
In play, Sam Miller has no personality to speak of save a mandate for his player to be as quiet as the player can stomach. Sam Miller opts out of any discussion of one's past or home life he can easily avoid, but is not so reticent to speak of his past that it draws curiosity. He offers input on tactical or strategic issues the party faces when appropriate, but always mildly and humbly goes along with whatever the party decides. Sam Miller is, in all practical terms, an NPC whose job is to carry things and hit stuff whilst contributing absolutely nothing to the game's ongoing story beyond his presence in combat to bolster the party's numbers. Sam Miller is specifically designed as both a universal fallback character and as a protest against certain styles of game mastery, but he's also useful as a barometer for DMs and D&D games. Sam Miller is the means by which one tests the saying 'no D&D is better than bad D&D'.
I wonder what Lyxen, BigLizard, and all the others arguing that 5e is a mechanically perfect system and any deficiency one finds in that perfect, flawless system is a deficiency of the player in their ability to create interesting characters would think were they to learn that were I (and, I suspect, no few others in this thread) were to be driven by whatever contrived circumstance the mind desires to play in a game they were running, they would find themselves DMing for Sam Miller.
"Sam Miller" is a character (for a given definition of 'character') that I have carefully engineered over my time playing to be as absolutely boring, vanilla, and completely devoid of story hooks and engagement points as possible. A regular, non-variant human fighter, Champion subclass, Soldier background, typical Strength-based build, no feats. Sam Miller comes from whichever modest town or large village is least relevant to the game's plot, having served in the army of whichever nation that village is in for five or ten years before mustering out. Sam Miller has no wife (or husband, if for whatever reason it's Samantha rather than Samuel) nor children, and he's neither especially close nor unusually estranged from his family back home. Sam Miller's military time was spent primarily in second-line garrison work, where he suffered no particularly scarring losses or triumphant victories. No tragedies mar Sam Miller's past, and no supernatural events have impacted it. He served with invisibly modest competence and has neither close friends nor rivals in the military - nor any rivals or close friends in his home village or anywhere else. Neither exceptional villainy nor inspiring heroism has ever touched Sam Miller's life, and at no point has he ever made enough of an impact to be remembered or to form a strong connection to another person.
In play, Sam Miller has no personality to speak of save a mandate for his player to be as quiet as the player can stomach. Sam Miller opts out of any discussion of one's past or home life he can easily avoid, but is not so reticent to speak of his past that it draws curiosity. He offers input on tactical or strategic issues the party faces when appropriate, but always mildly and humbly goes along with whatever the party decides. Sam Miller is, in all practical terms, an NPC whose job is to carry things and hit stuff whilst contributing absolutely nothing to the game's ongoing story beyond his presence in combat to bolster the party's numbers. Sam Miller is specifically designed as both a universal fallback character and as a protest against certain styles of game mastery, but he's also useful as a barometer for DMs and D&D games. Sam Miller is the means by which one tests the saying 'no D&D is better than bad D&D'.
Huh? Can you put that into simple english? Man, you need an editor. From what I get from that one very long sentence is that you are conflating the mechanics with the game and role-playing. One is an absolute core of the game, one gives the game real flavour. You can play D&D without any RP'ing, albeit it is pretty boring. But it is no longer D&D when you scrap the rules for the sake of "this is a cool char".
Fair enough. That could have been written more cleanly.
Lyxen, BigLizard, and a few notable others have made the claim that 5e is effectively flawless from a mechanical standpoint. That any attempt to improve the game, in any meaningful way, is in reality no such thing. Anyone who seeks to so attempt, for the commonly given reason of "this edition does not allow me to play what I want to play", is not running into deficiencies in the system, but is instead themselves deficient as a player. The common theme seems to be that if one cannot create whatever Rich Chocolatey Ovaltine Character Concept they desire to play in 5e, they are simply not trying hard enough or are otherwise incapable of properly creating a character to Role Play. I found myself curious what their opinion would be, should they learn that if cosmic circumstance were to contrive us all having to sit at the same table and play some 5e, they would be GMing for the aforedescribed Mr. Miller.
Fair enough. That could have been written more cleanly.
Lyxen, BigLizard, and a few notable others have made the claim that 5e is effectively flawless from a mechanical standpoint.
What are you talking about, BL shits on 5e every chance he gets :D Half his posts are about how 5e is flawed and how his mix of old and new D&D is superior :D
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would still rather have Athletics be your Pushing/Lifting Skill, then have a Climbing Skill and Swimming Skill. Should also move Jumping under Acrobatics.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
For Constitution have Endurance and Concentration
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You are correct with the knowledge aspect of the skills, I should have been more clear. It does require some amount of "knowledge" of acrobatics/athletics, just like every skill requires some amount of knowledge/training to be proficient with them.
If there is more than just one skill for "sneakiness" (Stealth and Sleight of Hand), I don't see why you could split Athletics into a few different skills.
Why should characters that focus on mental stats have to give up all their skills to mental skills, but ones that focus on Strength (or Con if they balance it as I suggested earlier) shouldn't have to give up their skills to be good at the physical skills? I could see Religion and Arcana being grouped into the same skill, as "Occult Lore" or something along those lines, and leaving History (Nature, Survival, and Animal Handling have too much overlap, IMO. I would keep at least two of them, not all three).
Yes, I agree with that. There is a bit of overlap between them, though. If there's a different skill for noticing people hiding and noticing people's facial expressions, I would argue that having just one skill for "Fitness/Athleticism" is too wide of a concept for a skill.
Yes, you're correct there. Nature is knowledge, Survival is the application of it. Survival is a weird skill, though, as it's kind of a combination of Nature, Perception, and a few other loose concepts. They have overlap, which is my point. Some skills can have overlap without being combined into just one general skill, like Athletics.
Yes, Animal Handling is niche and kind of strange. One of my characters has made quite a few Charisma (Animal Handling) checks in a campaign where I was bonding with a Pegasus. It's a strange skill, and I don't know if it needs to really exist in D&D, with Survival and the other skills you mentioned above existing in the game.
That would be cool, but I could see that being covered by having each Artisan's Tools having its own ability score check tied to it, like how Thieves' Tools are Dexterity based. That could largely fill the role of an "Engineering" skill. Investigation could be used to figure out how a machine works, possibly through reverse engineering, and Intelligence checks with Smiths' or Tinkers' Tools could help with making it work.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That's fine. We can agree to disagree, then. Jumping could fall under Acrobatics, or be a Strength or Dexterity (Mobility) check of the player's choice. Since there are Climbing and Swimming speeds in the game, I don't really see the point of making skills for each of them, as it would be a bit redundant. I just proposed Mobility as a broad umbrella for those to fall under, along with walking/hiking. IMO, one "movement" skill would simplify that a bit, making just one skill that a character needs in order to proficiently use their physical fitness for movement.
A Concentration skill? I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'll think it over. It's probably a better idea than Health and would allow any caster to take proficiency in it without a feat or being a Sorcerer/Artificer, so that might help them a bit with concentration. Thanks for the suggestion!
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I would like proper rules and/or options to play a disabled character (ie: Blind character or an amputee) and I would like options for a character that uses only thrown weapons like the Umbaka warrior in the Prince of Persia movie
Yes, this 100%. D&D 5e has not really done a great job at empowering characters with disabilities, mental or physical. With the "Madness" tables, optional Sanity score, and other examples in this edition, it makes it seem like characters who are insane are either useless, hilarious, or villainous.
Additionally, with the new Blind Fighting Style, the prosthetic limb and ersatz eye magic items, mentioning of disabled characters being ashamed of their disabilities in CoS, and so on, there are definitely problematic elements of how D&D 5e treats disabilities.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
(fixed that for you)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Uh, no. Most people I have spoken to that have played Pathfinder 2e love the Three Action System. It would only be wise for a D&D 6e to play it smart and "borrow" that great idea from a system that was based off of D&D in the first place and behaves similarly in many ways. Those games you mentioned are very different from D&D, but Pathfinder is really not all that different. There are major differences, but it is not irrational or stupid to take inspiration from things that the game does well to improve this game. It will not make this game more complex to simplify it, for the love of God!
Did I ever say that simplicity doesn't have its benefits? I know that 5e is as popular as it is because of its simplicity. But frankly, a 3 Action System, and more character options will not ruin D&D's simplicity. If you think D&D 5e's character creation system is simple, try creating a new character from scratch with someone who has never played the game. They will be overwhelmed by the boxes and numbers at first, and taking inspiration from Pathfinder's new character creation system or action system will not complexify or slow down the game.
That is a strawman. You claimed that I want to over-complicate and ruin the game. It is just the opposite. I want D&D 5.5e/6e to be simple, while also empowering intelligent play. It will not ruin the game to take good elements from a similar game.
*facepalm
I never said that D&D was bad, or that Pathfinder was good. I like most of the simplicity of D&D 5e, I like how combat is quicker in 5e than PF 2e, and I like how popular this edition is! Stop claiming that I don't like this edition and should go somewhere else! That is gatekeeping and you are talking down on me as if your wishes in the game are greater/more important than mine, while simultaneously not understanding what I actually want!
And here is you assuming that I don't do those! You don't even know me! How can you claim that I don't create complex settings, personalities, or stories in my games without knowing a single thing about me. Anyone who has played D&D with me would testify about how much energy and thought I put into my campaigns and games, or how many characters I create that I will never play with complex backstories and character traits, or how many settings with unique homebrewed races/subclasses/feats/backgrounds I have made! You don't freaking know me, so don't claim that I don't have what it takes to be a good D&D DM/player/designer! I know this system like the back of my hand, way better than the general community does, so don't get it in your head for one second that I should not be in this hobby or edition.
First, I want the game to support the options for more character types than it currently supports (psions, swordmage, occultist, etc). 5e does not mechanically support these character concepts, and for me that is an issue.
Second, I don't want the game to become unnecessarily and detrimentally complex, like you claim I do. I want it to have satisfying options to play a diverse amount of characters, which will increase the complexity of character creation a bit, but not the overall game.
I never said that Pathfinder was wonderful, that's a strawman and is making shit up. Again, for like the bazillionth time, you telling me to go to a different game is gatekeeping. Also, I already have all of the D&D 5e books, and I do mean all of them, so it's much easier for me to hope for a 5.5e/backwards compatible 6e than to go and turn PF 2e into a completely different game. I don't want D&D to be Pathfinder, because I don't like Pathfinder. I don't even have to play it to know that I wouldn't like it, the same way I know that I wouldn't like califlour and spinach in my ice cream.
There is a balance, and making character creation more meaningful is not crossing the line of making the game too complex.
I never claimed that "Pathfinder 2e is amazeballs and perfect." Stop putting your own stupid misinterpretations into my goddamn mouth, please. I would appreciate it if you actually read my posts and quoted them instead of making shit up that I never said. It is not unreasonable, nay, it is intelligent for WotC to take inspiration from a brilliant part of a competitor's system if they want 5.5e/6e to be as popular or more than 5e is/was. I have never called you or WotC an idiot for not seeing alternate ideas, but frankly, you making multiple logical fallacies and false claims about what I said and want for the hobby is pretty infuriating.
Except I can't homebrew it and use it as a player. For me, that feels cheap and wrong. If I design something that I use in a campaign, it is for my players as a DM or fellow player.
Also, that remark about me being lazy at the end and doing nothing was uncalled for and also false. I work hard on homebrew, my campaigns, my characters, and to have fun in this hobby. What doesn't help my fun in this hobby is when I create a thread brainstorming ideas for the next edition, and immediately having someone telling me that I'm unimaginative, stupid, lazy, and don't belong in this hobby.
Did you not search any of the homebrew forums for anything I created? Instead of telling me to get off my ass and stop complaining, get off yours and search the website a bit:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/homebrew-house-rules/81077-gish-class-feedback-would-be-nice
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't care for it because being a strong swimmer does not make a person a strong climber, so a blanket mobility skill is no different than Athletic to me. I don't really feel that strongly (lol) about it though.
Concentration was a Skill in 3/3.5 that did the same thing as Concentration saves do now. I think it worked better as a skill since most casters don't get Constitution as a saving throw.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
There was nothing to fix.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
uh...
there is...
i dont want a 6e, but there really is.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
That comment was meant for someone specific and about a specific comment of theirs.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Actually thinking about it, I think Mages for the next edition need to break from the Zeb Cook model of Schools and instead go with the TYPE of damage they inflict: Fire, Frost, Acid, Venom and Lightning. Also, go BACK to the Subclass definition from 1E where there are 4 Basic Classes (though I would add Druids to the base class as the magic they wield isn't channeled from the Divine per se, but more like tapping into the natural world's Ley Lines). This way Warlocks and Sorcerers (as well as Illusionists and Necromancers) fall under the Mage class as Subclasses in their own right instead of just being different flavors of the same thing.
I would only enjoy that if subclasses had a massive impact on the character.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Since magic was brought up, that would be my biggest change, I think.
Anyway, that's my ridiculous and probably broken mindset around it.
I wonder what Lyxen, BigLizard, and all the others arguing that 5e is a mechanically perfect system and any deficiency one finds in that perfect, flawless system is a deficiency of the player in their ability to create interesting characters would think were they to learn that were I (and, I suspect, no few others in this thread) were to be driven by whatever contrived circumstance the mind desires to play in a game they were running, they would find themselves DMing for Sam Miller.
"Sam Miller" is a character (for a given definition of 'character') that I have carefully engineered over my time playing to be as absolutely boring, vanilla, and completely devoid of story hooks and engagement points as possible. A regular, non-variant human fighter, Champion subclass, Soldier background, typical Strength-based build, no feats. Sam Miller comes from whichever modest town or large village is least relevant to the game's plot, having served in the army of whichever nation that village is in for five or ten years before mustering out. Sam Miller has no wife (or husband, if for whatever reason it's Samantha rather than Samuel) nor children, and he's neither especially close nor unusually estranged from his family back home. Sam Miller's military time was spent primarily in second-line garrison work, where he suffered no particularly scarring losses or triumphant victories. No tragedies mar Sam Miller's past, and no supernatural events have impacted it. He served with invisibly modest competence and has neither close friends nor rivals in the military - nor any rivals or close friends in his home village or anywhere else. Neither exceptional villainy nor inspiring heroism has ever touched Sam Miller's life, and at no point has he ever made enough of an impact to be remembered or to form a strong connection to another person.
In play, Sam Miller has no personality to speak of save a mandate for his player to be as quiet as the player can stomach. Sam Miller opts out of any discussion of one's past or home life he can easily avoid, but is not so reticent to speak of his past that it draws curiosity. He offers input on tactical or strategic issues the party faces when appropriate, but always mildly and humbly goes along with whatever the party decides. Sam Miller is, in all practical terms, an NPC whose job is to carry things and hit stuff whilst contributing absolutely nothing to the game's ongoing story beyond his presence in combat to bolster the party's numbers. Sam Miller is specifically designed as both a universal fallback character and as a protest against certain styles of game mastery, but he's also useful as a barometer for DMs and D&D games. Sam Miller is the means by which one tests the saying 'no D&D is better than bad D&D'.
Please do not contact or message me.
Huh? Can you put that into simple english? Man, you need an editor. From what I get from that one very long sentence is that you are conflating the mechanics with the game and role-playing. One is an absolute core of the game, one gives the game real flavour. You can play D&D without any RP'ing, albeit it is pretty boring. But it is no longer D&D when you scrap the rules for the sake of "this is a cool char".
Fair enough. That could have been written more cleanly.
Lyxen, BigLizard, and a few notable others have made the claim that 5e is effectively flawless from a mechanical standpoint. That any attempt to improve the game, in any meaningful way, is in reality no such thing. Anyone who seeks to so attempt, for the commonly given reason of "this edition does not allow me to play what I want to play", is not running into deficiencies in the system, but is instead themselves deficient as a player. The common theme seems to be that if one cannot create whatever Rich
Chocolatey OvaltineCharacter Concept they desire to play in 5e, they are simply not trying hard enough or are otherwise incapable of properly creating a character to Role Play. I found myself curious what their opinion would be, should they learn that if cosmic circumstance were to contrive us all having to sit at the same table and play some 5e, they would be GMing for the aforedescribed Mr. Miller.Please do not contact or message me.
What are you talking about, BL shits on 5e every chance he gets :D Half his posts are about how 5e is flawed and how his mix of old and new D&D is superior :D