I was speaking of AD&D2e where every race and class had its own book, and then there were three Players’ Option books and then there were....
But yes, we digress. I think a certain amount of intrinsic balance is important, but a GM can adjust for relative imbalances between subclasses at the table.
My personal feeling is that they have streamlined 5e to the point where many characters have started to feel too similar. I would like a way to differentiate MY Champion from every other (or at least feel like mine is unique) instead of having to choose a different subclass entirely.
I guess that’s one of the main reasons I like the Warlock so much. There are 3 core patrons to choose from, plus 3 more from other books. Combine those with 3 core Pacts (plus the new Pact of the Talisman) and a strong variety of Invocations to choose from I could play nothing but Warlocks for the rest of my life and never build the same character twice. Add to that the fact that they are the only spellcasters that don’t use the same leveled spell slots that everyone else uses makes them feel unique. Champion Fighters and Open Hand Monks have (had?) no options until now.
I was speaking of AD&D2e where every race and class had its own book, and then there were three Players’ Option books and then there were....
But yes, we digress. I think a certain amount of intrinsic balance is important, but a GM can adjust for relative imbalances between subclasses at the table.
My personal feeling is that they have streamlined 5e to the point where many characters have started to feel too similar. I would like a way to differentiate MY Champion from every other (or at least feel like mine is unique) instead of having to choose a different subclass entirely.
I totally agree, but does the ability to change spells whenever help differentiate, or does it end up with most spellcasters using the same spells? I think it leads to the latter since characters with int/wis 8+ then pick the best spells for a given situation.
My personal feeling is that they have streamlined 5e to the point where many characters have started to feel too similar. I would like a way to differentiate MY Champion from every other (or at least feel like mine is unique) instead of having to choose a different subclass entirely.
Do you not feel like a Champion who is a Soldier with the Defense fighting style feels different from one who is a Gladiator with the Dueling fighting style and also from the one who is an Outlander with the Archery fighting style?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I played way back in the ‘90s when players could combine stuff from literally DOZENS of books all written by different people that would give their characters ridiculously unbalanced options when combined. I can’t help but feel that a little thing like a flying speed can be managed.
yeah, I played way back in the 80s and 90s too, and that stuff was broken. I'm glad 5e does a better job of managing that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Do you not feel like a Champion who is a Soldier with the Defense fighting style feels different from one who is a Gladiator with the Dueling fighting style and also from the one who is an Outlander with the Archery fighting style?
I was not including Backgrounds as part of the discussion. And with only 6 Fighting Styles in the core book to choose from then there were only limited variations. With the new options it’s more diverse.
(Backgrounds should not be counted when it comes to customizability, they are a constant, and they do not provide much other than a DM fiat flavor ability, and a couple proficiencies and starting equipment)
I really find this UA to be a massive breath of fresh air, as I too felt like I kept making, and seeing, roughly the same characters over and over again as well.
(Backgrounds should not be counted when it comes to customizability, they are a constant, and they do not provide much other than a DM fiat flavor ability, and a couple proficiencies and starting equipment)
I disagree. I think Backgrounds play a big part in customizing one's character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
My personal feeling is that they have streamlined 5e to the point where many characters have started to feel too similar. I would like a way to differentiate MY Champion from every other (or at least feel like mine is unique) instead of having to choose a different subclass entirely.
Do you not feel like a Champion who is a Soldier with the Defense fighting style feels different from one who is a Gladiator with the Dueling fighting style and also from the one who is an Outlander with the Archery fighting style?
Honestly?
No.
Champions are Champions are Champions. Changing background and fighting style is not sufficient to differentiate Alice's Champion from Bob's Champion from Carol's Champion. In my own personal case at least, the very strong trend in my playgroup is that a given class/subclass combination, once selected and played by a player, is out of rotation for not only that game but several games to follow, as that combination becomes intrinsic to the given character's identity. Grimm Phendangow the Champion fighter becomes the definition of that subclass, and no amount of variation in background will help that because background is such a minor and superfluous part of character generation.
The only class with enough internal differentiation to combat this to any real extent is the warlock, and as much as I love warlocks it doesn't feel great when you're forced to play warlocks to try and feel like you're playing your own character, not one of Jeremy Crawford's characters with your preferred name and face on it.
5e was wildly successful in simplifying and streamlining Dungeons and Dragons to appeal to a wider, more diverse playerbase. Like all such efforts, this came at the cost of variation, depth, and player choice, which feels smothering and deeply unfun to Expressive-type players or to experienced roleplayers who've already done all the tropes and are looking for some subtlety. The answer to this was supposed to be homebrew - the original books frequently tell the DM to do what works for her table, the rules are a guideline and not a capital R Rule, and tables should feel free to experiment and do what's most fun for them.
But then Adventurer's League became a thing and any variation from the rules whatsoever became a foul sin against D&D, a perfectly valid and justified reason for character permadeath, and just the worst thing you could do, because 'It's Not Legal Unless It's AL Legal(C)'. Which...mostly left the Expressives and other players who enjoyed tinkering, customization, and uniqueness out in the cold.
Frankly, if not for the swanky digital tool that makes the online games which are all I can play possible being exclusively a 5e thing, I would've abandoned this ruleset long since. It is oversimplified, hyper-restrictive, and sharply punitive to anyone who doesn't fall in line and play along the classic fantasy tropes. I'm very fortunate in that my play group is a bunch of old hat writers and freeform roleplayers who can find ways around most of that and who universally share my scorn for "AL Legal", but if AL Legal and strict adherence to the character build rules was the only option available to me, Ophidian?
I wouldn't be here. Because you could pick a thousand Champions randomly from this website's character stock, and I guarantee that over ninety percent of them would be functionally identical. That is horrible, and a deep failure in the game's design that I continue to hope and pray for a 5.5e to address.
My personal feeling is that they have streamlined 5e to the point where many characters have started to feel too similar. I would like a way to differentiate MY Champion from every other (or at least feel like mine is unique) instead of having to choose a different subclass entirely.
Do you not feel like a Champion who is a Soldier with the Defense fighting style feels different from one who is a Gladiator with the Dueling fighting style and also from the one who is an Outlander with the Archery fighting style?
Honestly?
No.
Champions are Champions are Champions. Changing background and fighting style is not sufficient to differentiate Alice's Champion from Bob's Champion from Carol's Champion. In my own personal case at least, the very strong trend in my playgroup is that a given class/subclass combination, once selected and played by a player, is out of rotation for not only that game but several games to follow, as that combination becomes intrinsic to the given character's identity. Grimm Phendangow the Champion fighter becomes the definition of that subclass, and no amount of variation in background will help that because background is such a minor and superfluous part of character generation.
The only class with enough internal differentiation to combat this to any real extent is the warlock, and as much as I love warlocks it doesn't feel great when you're forced to play warlocks to try and feel like you're playing your own character, not one of Jeremy Crawford's characters with your preferred name and face on it.
5e was wildly successful in simplifying and streamlining Dungeons and Dragons to appeal to a wider, more diverse playerbase. Like all such efforts, this came at the cost of variation, depth, and player choice, which feels smothering and deeply unfun to Expressive-type players or to experienced roleplayers who've already done all the tropes and are looking for some subtlety. The answer to this was supposed to be homebrew - the original books frequently tell the DM to do what works for her table, the rules are a guideline and not a capital R Rule, and tables should feel free to experiment and do what's most fun for them.
But then Adventurer's League became a thing and any variation from the rules whatsoever became a foul sin against D&D, a perfectly valid and justified reason for character permadeath, and just the worst thing you could do, because 'It's Not Legal Unless It's AL Legal(C)'. Which...mostly left the Expressives and other players who enjoyed tinkering, customization, and uniqueness out in the cold.
Frankly, if not for the swanky digital tool that makes the online games which are all I can play possible being exclusively a 5e thing, I would've abandoned this ruleset long since. It is oversimplified, hyper-restrictive, and sharply punitive to anyone who doesn't fall in line and play along the classic fantasy tropes. I'm very fortunate in that my play group is a bunch of old hat writers and freeform roleplayers who can find ways around most of that and who universally share my scorn for "AL Legal", but if AL Legal and strict adherence to the character build rules was the only option available to me, Ophidian?
I wouldn't be here. Because you could pick a thousand Champions randomly from this website's character stock, and I guarantee that over ninety percent of them would be functionally identical. That is horrible, and a deep failure in the game's design that I continue to hope and pray for a 5.5e to address.
*shrug* I don't have feelings about D&D as strong as all that. I don't even particularly like rpg's with class systems. I'm a Fate player, so I'm used to making my own customization and making narrative count over mechanics.
I do know that my Noble Bard plays very differently from the Soldier Bard we also have in our campaign, everything from being able to borrow against my family's wealth to being able to throw my family name around to get things done. Background matters in my game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
*shrug* I don't have feelings about D&D as strong as all that. I don't even particularly like rpg's with class systems. I'm a Fate player, so I'm used to making my own customization and making narrative count over mechanics.
I do know that my Noble Bard plays very differently from the Soldier Bard we also have in our campaign, everything from being able to borrow against my family's wealth to being able to throw my family name around to get things done. Background matters in my game.
Background does matter, but when one compares mechanical differences between characters within a class including background into the conversation muddies things a bit. My 1/2 Elf plays different than my Aasimar plays different than my Hobgoblin, but no so different that if they were all the same subclass they would still start to feel the same once the RP takes a backseat to the dice (combat for example)
Do groups really hold to the AL legal mindset? None of the groups that I play with have even suggested that should be a thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Ask virtually anyone in this board - AL is held up by the vast majority of them as The Golden Standard of D&D, and the best way to play the game. Many players scoff at any sort of homebrew or deviation from the rulebooks, considering it to be little different than cheat code mods in an Elder Scrolls game or the like and decrying any attempt at breaking beyond the books to be broken, poorly designed and unfun nonsense - generally before they've even read it.
My group, lucky for me, is different. I don't know how anybody here has any actual fun tho x_x
Ask virtually anyone in this board - AL is held up by the vast majority of them as The Golden Standard of D&D, and the best way to play the game. Many players scoff at any sort of homebrew or deviation from the rulebooks, considering it to be little different than cheat code mods in an Elder Scrolls game or the like and decrying any attempt at breaking beyond the books to be broken, poorly designed and unfun nonsense - generally before they've even read it.
My group, lucky for me, is different. I don't know how anybody here has any actual fun tho x_x
Plenty of homebrewing goes on at my table, and at the tables my friends run, but I wanted to point out that as a standard (and often as the entry point for many who don't have established groups available to them) Adventurer's League is still important. It's the whole point of us giving feedback on UA, isn't it? So that the UA content can be refined and eventually printed in a source book so that it can be AL-legal? If AL didn't matter, then why even bother with UA playtesting and additional sourcebooks? Just homebrew whatever you want and call it a day.
AL is stupidly restrictive. If I had a player who wanted to run an Archaeologist background Aarakocra Storm Sorcerer with Booming Blade and spells from Xanathar's Guide, I have zero problems with that.
At my table currently, I have a druid running a homebrew subclass that I designed around what that player wanted for his character, and a modified Assassin that drops the disguise/impersonation features in favor of ones that buff her movement/initiative, as well as giving her firearms proficiency. I'm also encouraging them to come up with ideas for homebrew spells/equipment, which said Druid and Assassin have pitched to me and I'm loving every moment of it.
In 30+ years of playing and DM'ing all versions of D&D (except the original small white books) I have never met a DM who didn't homebrew at some point or another. Running any OFFICIAL AL related campaign means absolutely no homebrewing. I know players who have played AL at conventions, but have been unable to find a descent AL campaign outside of that.
I've had players who have wanted to join more than one of my campaigns over the years. Most of the other players said know, but a few wanted to give it a try. I simply said NO! I suggested if they wanted to play an AL legal campaign, one of them run it. Of them all, one took me up on it. That campaign, from what I have been told by one of my regular players who joined that campaign, didn't last 2 sessions. of the 4 players, 2 walked out on the 2nd session (one was the brother of the DM), another got into a rules arguement with the DM and was kicked out of the group.
In my opinion, AL is for Rules Lawyers who lack in imagination, creativity, and cause more issues for the DM than the players are worth to all others at the tale. (In MY Opinion)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was speaking of AD&D2e where every race and class had its own book, and then there were three Players’ Option books and then there were....
But yes, we digress. I think a certain amount of intrinsic balance is important, but a GM can adjust for relative imbalances between subclasses at the table.
My personal feeling is that they have streamlined 5e to the point where many characters have started to feel too similar. I would like a way to differentiate MY Champion from every other (or at least feel like mine is unique) instead of having to choose a different subclass entirely.
I guess that’s one of the main reasons I like the Warlock so much. There are 3 core patrons to choose from, plus 3 more from other books. Combine those with 3 core Pacts (plus the new Pact of the Talisman) and a strong variety of Invocations to choose from I could play nothing but Warlocks for the rest of my life and never build the same character twice. Add to that the fact that they are the only spellcasters that don’t use the same leveled spell slots that everyone else uses makes them feel unique. Champion Fighters and Open Hand Monks have (had?) no options until now.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I totally agree, but does the ability to change spells whenever help differentiate, or does it end up with most spellcasters using the same spells? I think it leads to the latter since characters with int/wis 8+ then pick the best spells for a given situation.
Clerics and Druids chiuse the Spell of the Day specials; so what’s changed?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Do you not feel like a Champion who is a Soldier with the Defense fighting style feels different from one who is a Gladiator with the Dueling fighting style and also from the one who is an Outlander with the Archery fighting style?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
yeah, I played way back in the 80s and 90s too, and that stuff was broken. I'm glad 5e does a better job of managing that.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I was not including Backgrounds as part of the discussion. And with only 6 Fighting Styles in the core book to choose from then there were only limited variations. With the new options it’s more diverse.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
(Backgrounds should not be counted when it comes to customizability, they are a constant, and they do not provide much other than a DM fiat flavor ability, and a couple proficiencies and starting equipment)
I really find this UA to be a massive breath of fresh air, as I too felt like I kept making, and seeing, roughly the same characters over and over again as well.
I disagree. I think Backgrounds play a big part in customizing one's character.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Honestly?
No.
Champions are Champions are Champions. Changing background and fighting style is not sufficient to differentiate Alice's Champion from Bob's Champion from Carol's Champion. In my own personal case at least, the very strong trend in my playgroup is that a given class/subclass combination, once selected and played by a player, is out of rotation for not only that game but several games to follow, as that combination becomes intrinsic to the given character's identity. Grimm Phendangow the Champion fighter becomes the definition of that subclass, and no amount of variation in background will help that because background is such a minor and superfluous part of character generation.
The only class with enough internal differentiation to combat this to any real extent is the warlock, and as much as I love warlocks it doesn't feel great when you're forced to play warlocks to try and feel like you're playing your own character, not one of Jeremy Crawford's characters with your preferred name and face on it.
5e was wildly successful in simplifying and streamlining Dungeons and Dragons to appeal to a wider, more diverse playerbase. Like all such efforts, this came at the cost of variation, depth, and player choice, which feels smothering and deeply unfun to Expressive-type players or to experienced roleplayers who've already done all the tropes and are looking for some subtlety. The answer to this was supposed to be homebrew - the original books frequently tell the DM to do what works for her table, the rules are a guideline and not a capital R Rule, and tables should feel free to experiment and do what's most fun for them.
But then Adventurer's League became a thing and any variation from the rules whatsoever became a foul sin against D&D, a perfectly valid and justified reason for character permadeath, and just the worst thing you could do, because 'It's Not Legal Unless It's AL Legal(C)'. Which...mostly left the Expressives and other players who enjoyed tinkering, customization, and uniqueness out in the cold.
Frankly, if not for the swanky digital tool that makes the online games which are all I can play possible being exclusively a 5e thing, I would've abandoned this ruleset long since. It is oversimplified, hyper-restrictive, and sharply punitive to anyone who doesn't fall in line and play along the classic fantasy tropes. I'm very fortunate in that my play group is a bunch of old hat writers and freeform roleplayers who can find ways around most of that and who universally share my scorn for "AL Legal", but if AL Legal and strict adherence to the character build rules was the only option available to me, Ophidian?
I wouldn't be here. Because you could pick a thousand Champions randomly from this website's character stock, and I guarantee that over ninety percent of them would be functionally identical. That is horrible, and a deep failure in the game's design that I continue to hope and pray for a 5.5e to address.
Please do not contact or message me.
there are options for other rulesets available.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137390-weretouched-beasthide
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137424-weretouched-longtooth
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137431-weretouched-razorclaw
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137461-weretouched-swiftstride
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subraces/137646-weretouched-wildhunt
*shrug* I don't have feelings about D&D as strong as all that. I don't even particularly like rpg's with class systems. I'm a Fate player, so I'm used to making my own customization and making narrative count over mechanics.
I do know that my Noble Bard plays very differently from the Soldier Bard we also have in our campaign, everything from being able to borrow against my family's wealth to being able to throw my family name around to get things done. Background matters in my game.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yurei hit the nail on the head
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Background does matter, but when one compares mechanical differences between characters within a class including background into the conversation muddies things a bit. My 1/2 Elf plays different than my Aasimar plays different than my Hobgoblin, but no so different that if they were all the same subclass they would still start to feel the same once the RP takes a backseat to the dice (combat for example)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Do groups really hold to the AL legal mindset? None of the groups that I play with have even suggested that should be a thing.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Ask virtually anyone in this board - AL is held up by the vast majority of them as The Golden Standard of D&D, and the best way to play the game. Many players scoff at any sort of homebrew or deviation from the rulebooks, considering it to be little different than cheat code mods in an Elder Scrolls game or the like and decrying any attempt at breaking beyond the books to be broken, poorly designed and unfun nonsense - generally before they've even read it.
My group, lucky for me, is different. I don't know how anybody here has any actual fun tho x_x
Please do not contact or message me.
Plenty of homebrewing goes on at my table, and at the tables my friends run, but I wanted to point out that as a standard (and often as the entry point for many who don't have established groups available to them) Adventurer's League is still important. It's the whole point of us giving feedback on UA, isn't it? So that the UA content can be refined and eventually printed in a source book so that it can be AL-legal? If AL didn't matter, then why even bother with UA playtesting and additional sourcebooks? Just homebrew whatever you want and call it a day.
AL is stupidly restrictive. If I had a player who wanted to run an Archaeologist background Aarakocra Storm Sorcerer with Booming Blade and spells from Xanathar's Guide, I have zero problems with that.
At my table currently, I have a druid running a homebrew subclass that I designed around what that player wanted for his character, and a modified Assassin that drops the disguise/impersonation features in favor of ones that buff her movement/initiative, as well as giving her firearms proficiency. I'm also encouraging them to come up with ideas for homebrew spells/equipment, which said Druid and Assassin have pitched to me and I'm loving every moment of it.
This. I agree wholeheartedly.
Partway through the quest for absolute truth.
In 30+ years of playing and DM'ing all versions of D&D (except the original small white books) I have never met a DM who didn't homebrew at some point or another. Running any OFFICIAL AL related campaign means absolutely no homebrewing. I know players who have played AL at conventions, but have been unable to find a descent AL campaign outside of that.
I've had players who have wanted to join more than one of my campaigns over the years. Most of the other players said know, but a few wanted to give it a try. I simply said NO! I suggested if they wanted to play an AL legal campaign, one of them run it. Of them all, one took me up on it. That campaign, from what I have been told by one of my regular players who joined that campaign, didn't last 2 sessions. of the 4 players, 2 walked out on the 2nd session (one was the brother of the DM), another got into a rules arguement with the DM and was kicked out of the group.
In my opinion, AL is for Rules Lawyers who lack in imagination, creativity, and cause more issues for the DM than the players are worth to all others at the tale. (In MY Opinion)
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!