Have you noticed a dramatic change in the "character power curve" during your playtest sessions?
Yes, the free feat granted by every background in 1DD alone causes a not insignificant power creep over standard 5e PCs. Floating ASIs also causes a degree of power creep over the original fixed racial ASIs that 5e started with. Yes, I have noticed an increase in PC power in 1DD over traditional 5e PCs.
Have you noticed a dramatic change in the "character power curve" during your playtest sessions?
Yes, the free feat granted by every background in 1DD alone causes a not insignificant power creep over standard 5e PCs. Floating ASIs also causes a degree of power creep over the original fixed racial ASIs that 5e started with. Yes, I have noticed an increase in PC power in 1DD over traditional 5e PCs.
If anything, a bump at level 1 is more than welcome, that's when PCs are at their squishiest. And those +1s to ability scores in feats? They smooth out the race to 20 in main stat, making the curve smoother.
Yes, the free feat granted by every background in 1DD alone causes a not insignificant power creep over standard 5e PCs. Floating ASIs also causes a degree of power creep over the original fixed racial ASIs that 5e started with. Yes, I have noticed an increase in PC power in 1DD over traditional 5e PCs.
Floating ASIs don't cause any power creep because they don't provide anything people couldn't already get just by aligning their class and species. Y'know, like literaly anyone who wanted to not suck donkey rocks had to do.
And I've been playing in games with multitudes of bonus feats for years now. Here's the thing - the only feat that increases a character's HP is Tough (exempting Constitution half-feats for now), and the number of feats that increase damage can almost be counted on the fingers of one hand. CR takes into account literally nothing but a character's HP and its damage. Most feats don't make fights easier. Most feats, instead, provide new and interesting tools a PC can use to do new and interesting noncombat or side-combat things, aiding in indirect ways.
One of my characters, Taiko, is a tenth-level character in a homebrew campaign that should, by the rules, have two feats. She instead currently has five - Battlewise, Healer, Gunner, Sharpshooter, and Skill Expert. Battlewise was her equivalent of a level 1 feat for the campaign, Gunner was a campaign-wide Free Boon due to the nature of the campaign, Healer is a feat we give anyone with Medicine proficiency for free because Healer is how Medicine proficiency should ******* work and everyone knows it, and whenever we gain an ASI level in our games we give characters both the ASI and a choice of feat. Sharpshooter is the latest feat Taiko took, and this is the first time in years I've taken a combat-y Supahfeat.
Here's the thing - all those 'bonus' feats haven't slowed the DM down one bit. Fights are still fraught, and noncombat issues are still Issues. Is Taiko markedly more powerful than a 'basic' 5e character due to how statgen worked in her game and our feat rules? Yes. Does that power help her? Not really. Does her wider array of options make her more fun to play and allow her to feel more like the hard-bitten wasteland survivalist she is? Also yes.
Greater access to the feat system is a positive, not a negative. Power creep is a thing, yes, but DMs are in a unique situation to compensate for it as they go where many video games cannot. It's not an issue, especially for rolled-stat people who're already prepared to deal with Real Superhero stat rolls in their gasme to start with. If your game/DMing can toplerate someone with a 95-point base stat array, it can tolerate someone with a few extra feats.
Have you noticed a dramatic change in the "character power curve" during your playtest sessions?
Yes, the free feat granted by every background in 1DD alone causes a not insignificant power creep over standard 5e PCs. Floating ASIs also causes a degree of power creep over the original fixed racial ASIs that 5e started with. Yes, I have noticed an increase in PC power in 1DD over traditional 5e PCs.
Okay, that's at least getting us somewhere.
I think you need to define power, first. Or, at least, the kind of power you're seeking. Some─like Alert, Tough, and Savage Attacks─lend themselves directly to combat prowess. But their actual contribution is variable. Others, like Skilled and Crafter, are about skills and tools. They give you mundane means of solving problems, so that can be interpreted as a sort of power. It just isn't combat power, though, and spells can potentially overtake them later on. And speaking of spells, Magic Initiate is just more options. How much power that actually grants is subjective.
The ones that seem the most powerful are the ones with the most direct combat application. That is, after all, where we collectively seem to look the most. Given that, I think Alert, Magic Initiate, and the Fighting Style feats added in the Expert Group playtest are among the strongest for 1st-level. Lucky seems powerful, at first glance, but I've also had players forget they even had it.
The 4th-level feats are a game changer, and not in the way you might think. Because they almost all come with a +1 to an ability, they encourage starting with odd scores. And with the Standard Array, a character could start with as many as five. Which means a fighter, with its seven feats, could take five such +1 feats─thus evening out all those odd scores─and still max out their primary ability by 19th level. Or, if you know your game won't last that long, you might start with one to three odd scores and just take the requisite number of +1 feats to even out. And that encouragement can lead to lower initial ability scores. So while you might have more broad capability, your initial peaks aren't as high.
And I don't think decoupling race from ability score improvements is the game-changer people make it out to be. Years ago, I made a half-orc hexblade warlock with an initial ability spread of 12 14 14 12 8 15. I wanted him strong enough to wear any medium armor and still carry a heavy pack, in addition to his weapons and shield, and 12 Strength seemed about right to me at the time. The optional rule in Tasha's for customizing ability scores would let me start with 12 14 14 12 8 16, instead. Forgive me for not thinking that's a big deal. Especially when the quick build recommendations would yield scores of 10 13 15 12 10 15. Talk about walking down the middle of the road.
Yes, the free feat granted by every background in 1DD alone causes a not insignificant power creep over standard 5e PCs. Floating ASIs also causes a degree of power creep over the original fixed racial ASIs that 5e started with. Yes, I have noticed an increase in PC power in 1DD over traditional 5e PCs.
Floating ASIs don't cause any power creep because they don't provide anything people couldn't already get just by aligning their class and species. Y'know, like literaly anyone who wanted to not suck donkey rocks had to do.
And I've been playing in games with multitudes of bonus feats for years now. Here's the thing - the only feat that increases a character's HP is Tough (exempting Constitution half-feats for now), and the number of feats that increase damage can almost be counted on the fingers of one hand. CR takes into account literally nothing but a character's HP and its damage. Most feats don't make fights easier. Most feats, instead, provide new and interesting tools a PC can use to do new and interesting noncombat or side-combat things, aiding in indirect ways.3
One of my characters, Taiko, is a tenth-level character in a homebrew campaign that should, by the rules, have two feats. She instead currently has five - Battlewise, Healer, Gunner, Sharpshooter, and Skill Expert. Battlewise was her equivalent of a level 1 feat for the campaign, Gunner was a campaign-wide Free Boon due to the nature of the campaign, Healer is a feat we give anyone with Medicine proficiency for free because Healer is how Medicine proficiency should ******* work and everyone knows it, and whenever we gain an ASI level in our games we give characters both the ASI and a choice of feat. Sharpshooter is the latest feat Taiko took, and this is the first time in years I've taken a combat-y Supahfeat.
Here's the thing - all those 'bonus' feats haven't slowed the DM down one bit.1 Fights are still fraught, and noncombat issues are still Issues. Is Taiko markedly more powerful than a 'basic' 5e character due to how statgen worked in her game and our feat rules? Yes. Does that power help her? Not really. Does her wider array of options make her more fun to play and allow her to feel more like the hard-bitten wasteland survivalist she is? Also yes.
Greater access to the feat system is a positive, not a negative.2 Power creep is a thing, yes, but DMs are in a unique situation to compensate for it as they go where many video games cannot. It's not an issue, especially for rolled-stat people who're already prepared to deal with Real Superhero stat rolls in their gasme to start with. If your game/DMing can toplerate someone with a 95-point base stat array, it can tolerate someone with a few extra feats.
That’s because the DM raised the difficulty by a commensurate degree to compensate for the buffs. Not all DMs, especially new DMs are good at that. After all, how many posts are there in these forums alone made by DMs who are at a loss for what to do about the party waffle stomping their encounters? Namean?
I never commented on whether or not it was a good or bad thing, simply that it is more powerful than what was.
Have you noticed a dramatic change in the "character power curve" during your playtest sessions?
Yes, the free feat granted by every background in 1DD alone causes a not insignificant power creep over standard 5e PCs. Floating ASIs also causes a degree of power creep over the original fixed racial ASIs that 5e started with. Yes, I have noticed an increase in PC power in 1DD over traditional 5e PCs.
Okay, that's at least getting us somewhere.
I think you need to define power, first. Or, at least, the kind of power you're seeking.1 Some─like Alert, Tough, and Savage Attacks─lend themselves directly to combat prowess. But their actual contribution is variable. Others, like Skilled and Crafter, are about skills and tools. They give you mundane means of solving problems, so that can be interpreted as a sort of power. It just isn't combat power, though, and spells can potentially overtake them later on. And speaking of spells, Magic Initiate is just more options. How much power that actually grants is subjective.
The ones that seem the most powerful are the ones with the most direct combat application. That is, after all, where we collectively seem to look the most. Given that, I think Alert, Magic Initiate, and the Fighting Style feats added in the Expert Group playtest are among the strongest for 1st-level. Lucky seems powerful, at first glance, but I've also had players forget they even had it.
The 4th-level feats are a game changer, and not in the way you might think. Because they almost all come with a +1 to an ability, they encourage starting with odd scores. And with the Standard Array, a character could start with as many as five. Which means a fighter, with its seven feats, could take five such +1 feats─thus evening out all those odd scores─and still max out their primary ability by 19th level. Or, if you know your game won't last that long, you might start with one to three odd scores and just take the requisite number of +1 feats to even out. And that encouragement can lead to lower initial ability scores. So while you might have more broad capability, your initial peaks aren't as high.
And I don't think decoupling race from ability score improvements is the game-changer people make it out to be.2 Years ago, I made a half-orc hexblade warlock with an initial ability spread of 12 14 14 12 8 15. I wanted him strong enough to wear any medium armor and still carry a heavy pack, in addition to his weapons and shield, and 12 Strength seemed about right to me at the time. The optional rule in Tasha's for customizing ability scores would let me start with 12 14 14 12 8 16, instead. Forgive me for not thinking that's a big deal. Especially when the quick build recommendations would yield scores of 10 13 15 12 10 15. Talk about walking down the middle of the road.
I’m not “seeking” a power increase, I simply noticed one. And as I see the game, the PCs’ objective has never been to “kill the monsters,” but instead to “overcome the challenges.” Anything that makes overcoming challenges in D&D in any capacity is power.
My biggest concern is there wont be substantive enough changes to martials and they will just nerf spells many of which don't need it, sure remove exploits like I'm sure there are broken combos with glyph of warding but the changes to things like banishment were just bad. If the balance is going to be make control spells so bad you just go with damage I don't think its a good change.
And I don't think decoupling race from ability score improvements is the game-changer people make it out to be. Years ago, I made a half-orc hexblade warlock with an initial ability spread of 12 14 14 12 8 15. I wanted him strong enough to wear any medium armor and still carry a heavy pack, in addition to his weapons and shield, and 12 Strength seemed about right to me at the time. The optional rule in Tasha's for customizing ability scores would let me start with 12 14 14 12 8 16, instead. Forgive me for not thinking that's a big deal. Especially when the quick build recommendations would yield scores of 10 13 15 12 10 15. Talk about walking down the middle of the road.
The decoupling isn't a "game changer" in the sense that it weakens or improves the races -- and that isn't the rationale behind why races shouldn't have stat modifiers.
It is being done as part of the effort to decouple racism from the game, which is, indeed, a game changer.
Just of a different sort.
The improvement of ability scores is a mechanic that works in a game that is set to make players want to have "the biggest, baddest character" because the structure favors players, not DMs. Some DMs don't like that -- just as some DMs don't want to decouple racism from the game and want even more added in, and will defend it by arguing against taking away rac scores.
Ultimately, the decoupling gives players more options, and lifts restrictions that caused harm -- a win win.
A lot of the stuff comes from ASI being used as a kind of "single acronym" for all things that improve scores -- and a lot of the older folks tend to allow score increases anyway (girdle of giant strength, 24 strength!)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I’m not “seeking” a power increase, I simply noticed one. And as I see the game, the PCs’ objective has never been to “kill the monsters,” but instead to “overcome the challenges.” Anything that makes overcoming challenges in D&D in any capacity is power.
Options=Power
Actually, you have a point. Versatility is a kind of power, after all.
Yes, the free feat granted by every background in 1DD alone causes a not insignificant power creep over standard 5e PCs. Floating ASIs also causes a degree of power creep over the original fixed racial ASIs that 5e started with. Yes, I have noticed an increase in PC power in 1DD over traditional 5e PCs.
Floating ASIs don't cause any power creep because they don't provide anything people couldn't already get just by aligning their class and species. Y'know, like literally anyone who wanted to not suck donkey rocks had to do.
It inherently causes power creep, because floating ASIs take the consideration, however big or small it may be in a particular case, out of the overall equation. It's now solely a question of wanting a extra cantrip / hit points / reroll / claws / speed / etc. So we have optimal ability scores AND optimal species traits. Which may have been true before with some characters, but now it's true for every character.
And I don't think decoupling race from ability score improvements is the game-changer people make it out to be. Years ago, I made a half-orc hexblade warlock with an initial ability spread of 12 14 14 12 8 15. I wanted him strong enough to wear any medium armor and still carry a heavy pack, in addition to his weapons and shield, and 12 Strength seemed about right to me at the time. The optional rule in Tasha's for customizing ability scores would let me start with 12 14 14 12 8 16, instead. Forgive me for not thinking that's a big deal. Especially when the quick build recommendations would yield scores of 10 13 15 12 10 15. Talk about walking down the middle of the road.
The decoupling isn't a "game changer" in the sense that it weakens or improves the races -- and that isn't the rationale behind why races shouldn't have stat modifiers.
It is being done as part of the effort to decouple racism from the game, which is, indeed, a game changer.
Just of a different sort.
The improvement of ability scores is a mechanic that works in a game that is set to make players want to have "the biggest, baddest character" because the structure favors players, not DMs. Some DMs don't like that -- just as some DMs don't want to decouple racism from the game and want even more added in, and will defend it by arguing against taking away rac scores.
Ultimately, the decoupling gives players more options, and lifts restrictions that caused harm -- a win win.
A lot of the stuff comes from ASI being used as a kind of "single acronym" for all things that improve scores -- and a lot of the older folks tend to allow score increases anyway (girdle of giant strength, 24 strength!)
Ok, first off, we all agree that racism is a horrible thing.
With that in mind, I have some questions for you, in particular since I am new to 5e. My understanding is that the term race either has or is being changed to species, which sounds to me like an effort to decouple it that way.
So if humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, orcs, half orcs, half elves, etc... are all different species then is there still a problem with them having species modifiers?
In 3.x there are actually different types of elves and different types of dwarves, which seems like actual races to me, and I would expect that they would not want racial attribute adjustments here.
Also, as the game is often about good vs evil, are people wanting to remove racism from the game entirely?
It makes sense to me that some of the trials the PC's may encounter at times are racism based, which is to say an evil that exists in the world that they must overcome.
Not trying to ruffle any feathers, I would just like to understand.
And I don't think decoupling race from ability score improvements is the game-changer people make it out to be. Years ago, I made a half-orc hexblade warlock with an initial ability spread of 12 14 14 12 8 15. I wanted him strong enough to wear any medium armor and still carry a heavy pack, in addition to his weapons and shield, and 12 Strength seemed about right to me at the time. The optional rule in Tasha's for customizing ability scores would let me start with 12 14 14 12 8 16, instead. Forgive me for not thinking that's a big deal. Especially when the quick build recommendations would yield scores of 10 13 15 12 10 15. Talk about walking down the middle of the road.
The decoupling isn't a "game changer" in the sense that it weakens or improves the races -- and that isn't the rationale behind why races shouldn't have stat modifiers.
It is being done as part of the effort to decouple racism from the game, which is, indeed, a game changer.
Just of a different sort.
The improvement of ability scores is a mechanic that works in a game that is set to make players want to have "the biggest, baddest character" because the structure favors players, not DMs. Some DMs don't like that -- just as some DMs don't want to decouple racism from the game and want even more added in, and will defend it by arguing against taking away rac scores.
Ultimately, the decoupling gives players more options, and lifts restrictions that caused harm -- a win win.
A lot of the stuff comes from ASI being used as a kind of "single acronym" for all things that improve scores -- and a lot of the older folks tend to allow score increases anyway (girdle of giant strength, 24 strength!)
Ok, first off, we all agree that racism is a horrible thing.
With that in mind, I have some questions for you, in particular since I am new to 5e. My understanding is that the term race either has or is being changed to species, which sounds to me like an effort to decouple it that way.
So if humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, orcs, half orcs, half elves, etc... are all different species then is there still a problem with them having species modifiers?
In 3.x there are actually different types of elves and different types of dwarves, which seems like actual races to me, and I would expect that racial attribute adjustments here would not be a thing.
Also, as the game is often about good vs evil, are people wanting to remove racism from the game entirely?
It makes sense to me that some of the trials the PC's may encounter at times are racism based, which is to say an evil that exists in the world that they must overcome.
Not trying to ruffle any feathers, I would just like to understand.
Thank you
Surprisingly, while many people will say that they think that racism is terrible, not a lot of folks actually understand what it is -- often reducing it to something like the color of someone's skin, for example. So agreeing it is terrible and actually recognizing it can sometimes be a challenge. Racism is a system, but people don't understand what that means, by and large.
Which is not a knock on you or others here at all -- I have the folks that I have seen doing it bluntly on block lists here.
So, Species has the same problem that race does, and for the reasons in real world history (note that it was only within the last 100 years that Black people stopped being a different species of humans to many), though for many it may be a baby step that is all that they can stand, and folks will do what they have done since the game started anyway and toss it out the window.
Like racial traits, species traits continue the subtle system of racism that assigns a value to a person and ultimately drives the same kind of thinking that developed into and that still affects people when they sit down to try and play the game that is supposed to be in a fantasy world -- where, often, the fantasy world is shaped to be just like this one, only now they get to pretend they aren't the people being talked about that way.
Which is cynical, and I apologize, but it was a bad day at work. Keep in mind, all women had penalties to not just strength, but intelligence when the game started, using the kind of thinking that was employed (exactly the same kind) to say that Orcs were less intelligent but much stronger (a direct trope of how Black folks were seen by a few of the early players).
I have Ogres as a playable race. They would be classified as half Orcs, and they are *generally* taller than any of the other peoples. By the thinking of many they should be stronger, as they equate "strength with size" -- but there is not actual real correlation there. That is simply a prejudice and bias they bring with them, drawing from a stigma against "weak" people.
I am *way* oversimplifying things here, but that is the gist of it. Now, there are ways to make them work within the 5e system that folks have talked about that are not directly linked to the standard ability scores. "powerful Build" offers certain features as a mechanics. Cultural benefits may make them more capable with certain weapons because they were trained better how to use it, and so forth -- things that make a people stand out and yet don't say that there cannot be weak ones or strong ones, smart ones or those who have a problem (which raises ableism issues as well), Wise ones and foolish ones, Charismatic ones and those who are not, dextrous and clumsy, and hardy and not so hardy ones among all the assorted peoples.
All of it is part of the decoupling of race from the game, and is why it is so important to do so -- racism is built deeply into the fabric and history of the game and requires a great deal of effort to yank it out. And that includes, for example, the fact that these other beings need to be seen as people -- orcs and goblins and kobolds and whatnot.
None of which means that in a person's personal game they couldn't simply say screw it, Ors get a penalty and a bonus to these scores. But the *game* as produced wouldn't have that linkage to racism, and that's the end goal -- not to dictate to others how they should be getting rid of or including racism, but to ensure that the game persists and can expand among people who have experienced racism so that it can continue to grow and ultimately dominate all the world in the reign of the DMs.
The ideas of "well it makes sense for this half giants to be stronger than everyone else" are also the kind of eugenics based ideas that we really don't want to go diving into because then I will actually get upset, lol. *who says they would be stronger?* Genetics? That would be a woefully poor grasp of genetics if that was the case. A lot of this is couched in terms of "but in the real world" -- except that the real world is the players and the DM and while it does get into the game space, why do we have to carry the same sad ugliness into that fantasy space?
And why can't we get more creative than relying on a crutch that was promoted by folks that were once considered the ultimate bad guys.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
And I don't think decoupling race from ability score improvements is the game-changer people make it out to be. Years ago, I made a half-orc hexblade warlock with an initial ability spread of 12 14 14 12 8 15. I wanted him strong enough to wear any medium armor and still carry a heavy pack, in addition to his weapons and shield, and 12 Strength seemed about right to me at the time. The optional rule in Tasha's for customizing ability scores would let me start with 12 14 14 12 8 16, instead. Forgive me for not thinking that's a big deal. Especially when the quick build recommendations would yield scores of 10 13 15 12 10 15. Talk about walking down the middle of the road.
The decoupling isn't a "game changer" in the sense that it weakens or improves the races -- and that isn't the rationale behind why races shouldn't have stat modifiers.
It is being done as part of the effort to decouple racism from the game, which is, indeed, a game changer.
Just of a different sort.
The improvement of ability scores is a mechanic that works in a game that is set to make players want to have "the biggest, baddest character" because the structure favors players, not DMs. Some DMs don't like that -- just as some DMs don't want to decouple racism from the game and want even more added in, and will defend it by arguing against taking away rac scores.
Ultimately, the decoupling gives players more options, and lifts restrictions that caused harm -- a win win.
A lot of the stuff comes from ASI being used as a kind of "single acronym" for all things that improve scores -- and a lot of the older folks tend to allow score increases anyway (girdle of giant strength, 24 strength!)
Ok, first off, we all agree that racism is a horrible thing.
With that in mind, I have some questions for you, in particular since I am new to 5e. My understanding is that the term race either has or is being changed to species, which sounds to me like an effort to decouple it that way.
So if humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, orcs, half orcs, half elves, etc... are all different species then is there still a problem with them having species modifiers?
In 3.x there are actually different types of elves and different types of dwarves, which seems like actual races to me, and I would expect that racial attribute adjustments here would not be a thing.
Also, as the game is often about good vs evil, are people wanting to remove racism from the game entirely?
It makes sense to me that some of the trials the PC's may encounter at times are racism based, which is to say an evil that exists in the world that they must overcome.
Not trying to ruffle any feathers, I would just like to understand.
Thank you
Surprisingly, while many people will say that they think that racism is terrible, not a lot of folks actually understand what it is -- often reducing it to something like the color of someone's skin, for example. So agreeing it is terrible and actually recognizing it can sometimes be a challenge. Racism is a system, but people don't understand what that means, by and large.
Which is not a knock on you or others here at all -- I have the folks that I have seen doing it bluntly on block lists here.
So, Species has the same problem that race does, and for the reasons in real world history (note that it was only within the last 100 years that Black people stopped being a different species of humans to many), though for many it may be a baby step that is all that they can stand, and folks will do what they have done since the game started anyway and toss it out the window.
Like racial traits, species traits continue the subtle system of racism that assigns a value to a person and ultimately drives the same kind of thinking that developed into and that still affects people when they sit down to try and play the game that is supposed to be in a fantasy world -- where, often, the fantasy world is shaped to be just like this one, only now they get to pretend they aren't the people being talked about that way.
Which is cynical, and I apologize, but it was a bad day at work. Keep in mind, all women had penalties to not just strength, but intelligence when the game started, using the kind of thinking that was employed (exactly the same kind) to say that Orcs were less intelligent but much stronger (a direct trope of how Black folks were seen by a few of the early players).
I have Ogres as a playable race. They would be classified as half Orcs, and they are *generally* taller than any of the other peoples. By the thinking of many they should be stronger, as they equate "strength with size" -- but there is not actual real correlation there. That is simply a prejudice and bias they bring with them, drawing from a stigma against "weak" people.
I am *way* oversimplifying things here, but that is the gist of it. Now, there are ways to make them work within the 5e system that folks have talked about that are not directly linked to the standard ability scores. "powerful Build" offers certain features as a mechanics. Cultural benefits may make them more capable with certain weapons because they were trained better how to use it, and so forth -- things that make a people stand out and yet don't say that there cannot be weak ones or strong ones, smart ones or those who have a problem (which raises ableism issues as well), Wise ones and foolish ones, Charismatic ones and those who are not, dextrous and clumsy, and hardy and not so hardy ones among all the assorted peoples.
All of it is part of the decoupling of race from the game, and is why it is so important to do so -- racism is built deeply into the fabric and history of the game and requires a great deal of effort to yank it out. And that includes, for example, the fact that these other beings need to be seen as people -- orcs and goblins and kobolds and whatnot.
None of which means that in a person's personal game they couldn't simply say screw it, Ors get a penalty and a bonus to these scores. But the *game* as produced wouldn't have that linkage to racism, and that's the end goal -- not to dictate to others how they should be getting rid of or including racism, but to ensure that the game persists and can expand among people who have experienced racism so that it can continue to grow and ultimately dominate all the world in the reign of the DMs.
The ideas of "well it makes sense for this half giants to be stronger than everyone else" are also the kind of eugenics based ideas that we really don't want to go diving into because then I will actually get upset, lol. *who says they would be stronger?* Genetics? That would be a woefully poor grasp of genetics if that was the case. A lot of this is couched in terms of "but in the real world" -- except that the real world is the players and the DM and while it does get into the game space, why do we have to carry the same sad ugliness into that fantasy space?
And why can't we get more creative than relying on a crutch that was promoted by folks that were once considered the ultimate bad guys.
Thank you,
I appreciate your thoughtful response, it gives me a lot to think about.
Ok, first off, we all agree that racism is a horrible thing.
With that in mind, I have some questions for you, in particular since I am new to 5e. My understanding is that the term race either has or is being changed to species, which sounds to me like an effort to decouple it that way.
So if humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, orcs, half orcs, half elves, etc... are all different species then is there still a problem with them having species modifiers?
In 3.x there are actually different types of elves and different types of dwarves, which seems like actual races to me, and I would expect that they would not want racial attribute adjustments here.
Also, as the game is often about good vs evil, are people wanting to remove racism from the game entirely?
It makes sense to me that some of the trials the PC's may encounter at times are racism based, which is to say an evil that exists in the world that they must overcome.
Not trying to ruffle any feathers, I would just like to understand.
Thank you
It's just satanic panic all over again basically. It's that simple. Back in 80s a group of loud-mouthed activists saw that DnD is a book that has descriptions of demons and devils in it and therefore it teaches kids satanism and has to be banned for the sake of moral values. The company that owned DnD back then responded with an act so dumb and blunt that it was genius - they just renamed demons into "baatezu" and devils into "tanar'ri". Kids stopped speaking the word "demon" in their basements, overly pious parents no longer got triggered, the situation was fixed. Not we've got the same story - a group of activists learned that DnD is a book that has races in it, and therefore it threatens moral values. WotC does exactly the same thing TSR did 40 years ago - it decided to substitute the trigger-word "race" with a safe word "species" so that activists stop getting triggered.
As for the game, while it makes sense that some species are on average stronger that others, and some species are more nimble than others, it is now mostly expressed through features like orcs' powerful build or halflings' halfling nimbleness. Mechanically, it's a more efficient solution, because it decouples species from classes, or at least tries to. Back when orc had +2 to strength and no bonus to intelligence, it wouldn't make much sense to make an orc wizard or druid, as stats dictated its inclination to become a martial melee character. It is no longer a thing, and species' features have been reworked to mostly be defensive or utility, so that they'd be equally useful to any class. And it is a really good thing, as it allows more flexibility, more unorthodox combinations fitting all kinds of settings.
No, it's not. The Satanic Panic was fueled by hate and anger against the D&D community, and the people perpetrating this narrative didn't even play themselves. The retirement of the term "Race" is about listening to the voices of those who do play the game, and being loving, compassionate and respectful. If you want to understand why this change was made, then I would recommend reading a bit of the 32 page thread on the change that's going on in General Discussion. However, it appears that you aren't trying to get the details right: By talking about a group of "loud mouthed activists" stumbling upon D&D, you ignore the fact that many people who voiced concerns such as this are long time community members, Dungeon Masters, or Players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Nah, comparing the current situation to the satanic panic is a bad comparison. More to the point, the people who engaged in the satanic panic are (some of) the same ones complaining about "woke" now. "Being aware of social problems and trying to bring justice" is kinda the new satan.
Anyway, decoupling ASIs from species makes the game better (less optimization to do in choosing species/class pairs), makes it more honest about the biological differences between species (evolution and biological diversity tell us that trends are not absolutes), and makes the game less racist (regardless of the intents of the original authors or even the intents of the players and DMs). It's a win/win/win, even if it's not perfect.
Nah, comparing the current situation to the satanic panic is a bad comparison. More to the point, the people who engaged in the satanic panic are (some of) the same ones complaining about "woke" now. "Being aware of social problems and trying to bring justice" is kinda the new satan.
Those same anti-wokers are starting to make rumblings about the evils of D&D again….
Nah, comparing the current situation to the satanic panic is a bad comparison. More to the point, the people who engaged in the satanic panic are (some of) the same ones complaining about "woke" now. "Being aware of social problems and trying to bring justice" is kinda the new satan.
Those same anti-wokers are starting to make rumblings about the evils of D&D again…
That's makes me sad.
Anyway...in the hopes of avoiding a real political discussion (against the forum rules), uh...my biggest concern with OneD&D (which is not in the poll) is that they'll change the inspiration mechanic too much.
Ok, first off, we all agree that racism is a horrible thing.
With that in mind, I have some questions for you, in particular since I am new to 5e. My understanding is that the term race either has or is being changed to species, which sounds to me like an effort to decouple it that way.
So if humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, orcs, half orcs, half elves, etc... are all different species then is there still a problem with them having species modifiers?
In 3.x there are actually different types of elves and different types of dwarves, which seems like actual races to me, and I would expect that they would not want racial attribute adjustments here.
Also, as the game is often about good vs evil, are people wanting to remove racism from the game entirely?
It makes sense to me that some of the trials the PC's may encounter at times are racism based, which is to say an evil that exists in the world that they must overcome.
Not trying to ruffle any feathers, I would just like to understand.
Thank you
It's just satanic panic all over again basically. It's that simple. Back in 80s a group of loud-mouthed activists saw that DnD is a book that has descriptions of demons and devils in it and therefore it teaches kids satanism and has to be banned for the sake of moral values. The company that owned DnD back then responded with an act so dumb and blunt that it was genius - they just renamed demons into "baatezu" and devils into "tanar'ri". Kids stopped speaking the word "demon" in their basements, overly pious parents no longer got triggered, the situation was fixed.
Not we've got the same story - a group of activists learned that DnD is a book that has races in it, and therefore it threatens moral values. WotC does exactly the same thing TSR did 40 years ago - it decided to substitute the trigger-word "race" with a safe word "species" so that activists stop getting triggered.
This is so far away from truth and reality I am looking for the dice one would roll in this.
I mean, it wasn't about demons and devils in the way you frame it (we were conjuring and cavorting and using magic) and that wasn't even the way that it worked when it went away.
And the second is not, well, no, that is not what is going on at all. That is quite possibly one of the most wrong ways of writing both of those things I have seen, lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Nah, comparing the current situation to the satanic panic is a bad comparison. More to the point, the people who engaged in the satanic panic are (some of) the same ones complaining about "woke" now. "Being aware of social problems and trying to bring justice" is kinda the new satan.
Those same anti-wokers are starting to make rumblings about the evils of D&D again…
That's makes me sad.
Anyway...in the hopes of avoiding a real political discussion (against the forum rules), uh...my biggest concern with OneD&D (which is not in the poll) is that they'll change the inspiration mechanic too much.
Valid concern in my mind -- inspiration ia potent tool. And the kind of mechanic that has big time impact since I have to try and plan for it to some extent at least.
I like both Inspiration and Hero points and that is funny to write down and read, but given I am not going to have superheroes running around, I wanted to give them a chance to still get that feeling.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I like both Inspiration and Hero points and that is funny to write down and read, but given I am not going to have superheroes running around, I wanted to give them a chance to still get that feeling.
They're meta-tools, so it makes sense to me.
Lots of games have things like them --- some even do "convert XP into successes" and whatnot. To me, 5e's take on Inspiration was particularly clever.
you get a point of Inspiration when you roleplay well. Or, at DM discretion, like when you come up with some great idea or clever plan, or make everyone laugh with a good joke, or otherwise bring joy to the table.
once you have a point of Inspiration, you have to spend it before you can get another.
Combined, that is a nice, clean, less-abusable meta-tool. I think it would be a shame to change either of those points.
"They" have stated that, apparently, lots of players forget to use the mechanic. I would fix this by making it a bit more powerful:
when you spend a point of Inspiration, you get a full reroll of your choice, retroactively, after finding the results of the roll. A single "do over." Not just "gain Advantage" but a whole reroll of however many dice were there. Reroll the single d20, two d20s for Advantage, 2 d20s for Disadvantage, a whole pile of damage dice...and take the "better" result.
Peope wouldn't forget that mechanic. And it keeps the reward just as "meta" as the things being rewarded.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, the free feat granted by every background in 1DD alone causes a not insignificant power creep over standard 5e PCs. Floating ASIs also causes a degree of power creep over the original fixed racial ASIs that 5e started with. Yes, I have noticed an increase in PC power in 1DD over traditional 5e PCs.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If anything, a bump at level 1 is more than welcome, that's when PCs are at their squishiest. And those +1s to ability scores in feats? They smooth out the race to 20 in main stat, making the curve smoother.
Floating ASIs don't cause any power creep because they don't provide anything people couldn't already get just by aligning their class and species. Y'know, like literaly anyone who wanted to not suck donkey rocks had to do.
And I've been playing in games with multitudes of bonus feats for years now. Here's the thing - the only feat that increases a character's HP is Tough (exempting Constitution half-feats for now), and the number of feats that increase damage can almost be counted on the fingers of one hand. CR takes into account literally nothing but a character's HP and its damage. Most feats don't make fights easier. Most feats, instead, provide new and interesting tools a PC can use to do new and interesting noncombat or side-combat things, aiding in indirect ways.
One of my characters, Taiko, is a tenth-level character in a homebrew campaign that should, by the rules, have two feats. She instead currently has five - Battlewise, Healer, Gunner, Sharpshooter, and Skill Expert. Battlewise was her equivalent of a level 1 feat for the campaign, Gunner was a campaign-wide Free Boon due to the nature of the campaign, Healer is a feat we give anyone with Medicine proficiency for free because Healer is how Medicine proficiency should ******* work and everyone knows it, and whenever we gain an ASI level in our games we give characters both the ASI and a choice of feat. Sharpshooter is the latest feat Taiko took, and this is the first time in years I've taken a combat-y Supahfeat.
Here's the thing - all those 'bonus' feats haven't slowed the DM down one bit. Fights are still fraught, and noncombat issues are still Issues. Is Taiko markedly more powerful than a 'basic' 5e character due to how statgen worked in her game and our feat rules? Yes. Does that power help her? Not really. Does her wider array of options make her more fun to play and allow her to feel more like the hard-bitten wasteland survivalist she is? Also yes.
Greater access to the feat system is a positive, not a negative. Power creep is a thing, yes, but DMs are in a unique situation to compensate for it as they go where many video games cannot. It's not an issue, especially for rolled-stat people who're already prepared to deal with Real Superhero stat rolls in their gasme to start with. If your game/DMing can toplerate someone with a 95-point base stat array, it can tolerate someone with a few extra feats.
Please do not contact or message me.
Okay, that's at least getting us somewhere.
I think you need to define power, first. Or, at least, the kind of power you're seeking. Some─like Alert, Tough, and Savage Attacks─lend themselves directly to combat prowess. But their actual contribution is variable. Others, like Skilled and Crafter, are about skills and tools. They give you mundane means of solving problems, so that can be interpreted as a sort of power. It just isn't combat power, though, and spells can potentially overtake them later on. And speaking of spells, Magic Initiate is just more options. How much power that actually grants is subjective.
The ones that seem the most powerful are the ones with the most direct combat application. That is, after all, where we collectively seem to look the most. Given that, I think Alert, Magic Initiate, and the Fighting Style feats added in the Expert Group playtest are among the strongest for 1st-level. Lucky seems powerful, at first glance, but I've also had players forget they even had it.
The 4th-level feats are a game changer, and not in the way you might think. Because they almost all come with a +1 to an ability, they encourage starting with odd scores. And with the Standard Array, a character could start with as many as five. Which means a fighter, with its seven feats, could take five such +1 feats─thus evening out all those odd scores─and still max out their primary ability by 19th level. Or, if you know your game won't last that long, you might start with one to three odd scores and just take the requisite number of +1 feats to even out. And that encouragement can lead to lower initial ability scores. So while you might have more broad capability, your initial peaks aren't as high.
And I don't think decoupling race from ability score improvements is the game-changer people make it out to be. Years ago, I made a half-orc hexblade warlock with an initial ability spread of 12 14 14 12 8 15. I wanted him strong enough to wear any medium armor and still carry a heavy pack, in addition to his weapons and shield, and 12 Strength seemed about right to me at the time. The optional rule in Tasha's for customizing ability scores would let me start with 12 14 14 12 8 16, instead. Forgive me for not thinking that's a big deal. Especially when the quick build recommendations would yield scores of 10 13 15 12 10 15. Talk about walking down the middle of the road.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My biggest concern is there wont be substantive enough changes to martials and they will just nerf spells many of which don't need it, sure remove exploits like I'm sure there are broken combos with glyph of warding but the changes to things like banishment were just bad. If the balance is going to be make control spells so bad you just go with damage I don't think its a good change.
The decoupling isn't a "game changer" in the sense that it weakens or improves the races -- and that isn't the rationale behind why races shouldn't have stat modifiers.
It is being done as part of the effort to decouple racism from the game, which is, indeed, a game changer.
Just of a different sort.
The improvement of ability scores is a mechanic that works in a game that is set to make players want to have "the biggest, baddest character" because the structure favors players, not DMs. Some DMs don't like that -- just as some DMs don't want to decouple racism from the game and want even more added in, and will defend it by arguing against taking away rac scores.
Ultimately, the decoupling gives players more options, and lifts restrictions that caused harm -- a win win.
A lot of the stuff comes from ASI being used as a kind of "single acronym" for all things that improve scores -- and a lot of the older folks tend to allow score increases anyway (girdle of giant strength, 24 strength!)
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Actually, you have a point. Versatility is a kind of power, after all.
It inherently causes power creep, because floating ASIs take the consideration, however big or small it may be in a particular case, out of the overall equation. It's now solely a question of wanting a extra cantrip / hit points / reroll / claws / speed / etc. So we have optimal ability scores AND optimal species traits. Which may have been true before with some characters, but now it's true for every character.
Ok, first off, we all agree that racism is a horrible thing.
With that in mind, I have some questions for you, in particular since I am new to 5e. My understanding is that the term race either has or is being changed to species, which sounds to me like an effort to decouple it that way.
So if humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, orcs, half orcs, half elves, etc... are all different species then is there still a problem with them having species modifiers?
In 3.x there are actually different types of elves and different types of dwarves, which seems like actual races to me, and I would expect that they would not want racial attribute adjustments here.
Also, as the game is often about good vs evil, are people wanting to remove racism from the game entirely?
It makes sense to me that some of the trials the PC's may encounter at times are racism based, which is to say an evil that exists in the world that they must overcome.
Not trying to ruffle any feathers, I would just like to understand.
Thank you
Surprisingly, while many people will say that they think that racism is terrible, not a lot of folks actually understand what it is -- often reducing it to something like the color of someone's skin, for example. So agreeing it is terrible and actually recognizing it can sometimes be a challenge. Racism is a system, but people don't understand what that means, by and large.
Which is not a knock on you or others here at all -- I have the folks that I have seen doing it bluntly on block lists here.
So, Species has the same problem that race does, and for the reasons in real world history (note that it was only within the last 100 years that Black people stopped being a different species of humans to many), though for many it may be a baby step that is all that they can stand, and folks will do what they have done since the game started anyway and toss it out the window.
Like racial traits, species traits continue the subtle system of racism that assigns a value to a person and ultimately drives the same kind of thinking that developed into and that still affects people when they sit down to try and play the game that is supposed to be in a fantasy world -- where, often, the fantasy world is shaped to be just like this one, only now they get to pretend they aren't the people being talked about that way.
Which is cynical, and I apologize, but it was a bad day at work. Keep in mind, all women had penalties to not just strength, but intelligence when the game started, using the kind of thinking that was employed (exactly the same kind) to say that Orcs were less intelligent but much stronger (a direct trope of how Black folks were seen by a few of the early players).
I have Ogres as a playable race. They would be classified as half Orcs, and they are *generally* taller than any of the other peoples. By the thinking of many they should be stronger, as they equate "strength with size" -- but there is not actual real correlation there. That is simply a prejudice and bias they bring with them, drawing from a stigma against "weak" people.
I am *way* oversimplifying things here, but that is the gist of it. Now, there are ways to make them work within the 5e system that folks have talked about that are not directly linked to the standard ability scores. "powerful Build" offers certain features as a mechanics. Cultural benefits may make them more capable with certain weapons because they were trained better how to use it, and so forth -- things that make a people stand out and yet don't say that there cannot be weak ones or strong ones, smart ones or those who have a problem (which raises ableism issues as well), Wise ones and foolish ones, Charismatic ones and those who are not, dextrous and clumsy, and hardy and not so hardy ones among all the assorted peoples.
All of it is part of the decoupling of race from the game, and is why it is so important to do so -- racism is built deeply into the fabric and history of the game and requires a great deal of effort to yank it out. And that includes, for example, the fact that these other beings need to be seen as people -- orcs and goblins and kobolds and whatnot.
None of which means that in a person's personal game they couldn't simply say screw it, Ors get a penalty and a bonus to these scores. But the *game* as produced wouldn't have that linkage to racism, and that's the end goal -- not to dictate to others how they should be getting rid of or including racism, but to ensure that the game persists and can expand among people who have experienced racism so that it can continue to grow and ultimately dominate all the world in the reign of the DMs.
The ideas of "well it makes sense for this half giants to be stronger than everyone else" are also the kind of eugenics based ideas that we really don't want to go diving into because then I will actually get upset, lol. *who says they would be stronger?* Genetics? That would be a woefully poor grasp of genetics if that was the case. A lot of this is couched in terms of "but in the real world" -- except that the real world is the players and the DM and while it does get into the game space, why do we have to carry the same sad ugliness into that fantasy space?
And why can't we get more creative than relying on a crutch that was promoted by folks that were once considered the ultimate bad guys.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Thank you,
I appreciate your thoughtful response, it gives me a lot to think about.
It's just satanic panic all over again basically. It's that simple. Back in 80s a group of loud-mouthed activists saw that DnD is a book that has descriptions of demons and devils in it and therefore it teaches kids satanism and has to be banned for the sake of moral values. The company that owned DnD back then responded with an act so dumb and blunt that it was genius - they just renamed demons into "baatezu" and devils into "tanar'ri". Kids stopped speaking the word "demon" in their basements, overly pious parents no longer got triggered, the situation was fixed. Not we've got the same story - a group of activists learned that DnD is a book that has races in it, and therefore it threatens moral values. WotC does exactly the same thing TSR did 40 years ago - it decided to substitute the trigger-word "race" with a safe word "species" so that activists stop getting triggered.
As for the game, while it makes sense that some species are on average stronger that others, and some species are more nimble than others, it is now mostly expressed through features like orcs' powerful build or halflings' halfling nimbleness. Mechanically, it's a more efficient solution, because it decouples species from classes, or at least tries to. Back when orc had +2 to strength and no bonus to intelligence, it wouldn't make much sense to make an orc wizard or druid, as stats dictated its inclination to become a martial melee character. It is no longer a thing, and species' features have been reworked to mostly be defensive or utility, so that they'd be equally useful to any class. And it is a really good thing, as it allows more flexibility, more unorthodox combinations fitting all kinds of settings.
No, it's not. The Satanic Panic was fueled by hate and anger against the D&D community, and the people perpetrating this narrative didn't even play themselves. The retirement of the term "Race" is about listening to the voices of those who do play the game, and being loving, compassionate and respectful. If you want to understand why this change was made, then I would recommend reading a bit of the 32 page thread on the change that's going on in General Discussion. However, it appears that you aren't trying to get the details right: By talking about a group of "loud mouthed activists" stumbling upon D&D, you ignore the fact that many people who voiced concerns such as this are long time community members, Dungeon Masters, or Players.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Nah, comparing the current situation to the satanic panic is a bad comparison. More to the point, the people who engaged in the satanic panic are (some of) the same ones complaining about "woke" now. "Being aware of social problems and trying to bring justice" is kinda the new satan.
Anyway, decoupling ASIs from species makes the game better (less optimization to do in choosing species/class pairs), makes it more honest about the biological differences between species (evolution and biological diversity tell us that trends are not absolutes), and makes the game less racist (regardless of the intents of the original authors or even the intents of the players and DMs). It's a win/win/win, even if it's not perfect.
Those same anti-wokers are starting to make rumblings about the evils of D&D again….
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That's makes me sad.
Anyway...in the hopes of avoiding a real political discussion (against the forum rules), uh...my biggest concern with OneD&D (which is not in the poll) is that they'll change the inspiration mechanic too much.
This is so far away from truth and reality I am looking for the dice one would roll in this.
I mean, it wasn't about demons and devils in the way you frame it (we were conjuring and cavorting and using magic) and that wasn't even the way that it worked when it went away.
And the second is not, well, no, that is not what is going on at all. That is quite possibly one of the most wrong ways of writing both of those things I have seen, lol.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Valid concern in my mind -- inspiration ia potent tool. And the kind of mechanic that has big time impact since I have to try and plan for it to some extent at least.
I like both Inspiration and Hero points and that is funny to write down and read, but given I am not going to have superheroes running around, I wanted to give them a chance to still get that feeling.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
They're meta-tools, so it makes sense to me.
Lots of games have things like them --- some even do "convert XP into successes" and whatnot. To me, 5e's take on Inspiration was particularly clever.
Combined, that is a nice, clean, less-abusable meta-tool. I think it would be a shame to change either of those points.
"They" have stated that, apparently, lots of players forget to use the mechanic. I would fix this by making it a bit more powerful:
Peope wouldn't forget that mechanic. And it keeps the reward just as "meta" as the things being rewarded.