What is in your opinion the worst thing about D&D 5e (please

It is bland.

Don't get me wrong, I DM'ed Mines of Phandelver as it was excellent, used "theather-of-the-mind" in one dungeon, minis and squares in another, zones (each room, cutout as a puzzle piece) in the other, as it was great.

But the rule system is bland. It looks like WotC feared the same backlash they had with 4e, so they returned to 3.x, added successful 4e mechanics to it (encounter disguised as short rest, hit dice), obfuscated the cogs that made the system work and kept into the safe space of the know.

It lacks the "humpf" of trying, of innovating. If someone released it on /tg/ as 3.75 or "what PF could have been", no one would bat an eye.

What is a shame. As I recall, the playtest Fighter and Sorcerer were awesome.

>>54392781
Basically this.

>>54392305
Low bonuses compared to the dice range. Bound accuracy isn't a bad idea, but it doesn't work in execution, especially when also applied to skills.

Advantage is not a bad mechanic, but it doesn't scale at all (and exacerbates the issue with dice randomness+small modifiers). I massively prefer SotDL's boon/bane system.

>>54392305
>and not the game itself
Pre-2e D&D had almost no problems besides those intrinsic to all RPGs.
The flak WotC D&D gets is all well deserved.

>>54392305
Lack of options, it is very bland, like >>54392781
said.

The bounded accuracy is very real too. The bonus you get is very, very fucking low. The dice is more important than your bonus.

>>54392305
The dev team consisting of four or five people, one of whom is Mike Mearls. This results in one splatbook being made per year. I'm not asking for monthly releases, but I fear that it's the slow pace of content that will be death of the game.

>>54393091
>Pre-2e D&D had almost no problems besides those intrinsic to all RPGs.

It had a lot, you just didn't have anything to compare it to, and it was mitigated by everything being random/expected to be houseruled/handled by the DM anyway.

>>54392305
I think my biggest gripe is the lack of options as a player and a DM.

As a player you get some decent options, but it is hurting on background variety. On a metagame level, there isn't enough variety in how to mix and match races and classes. A lot of my favorite characters have come up from being able to deviate from standard tropes in terms of build.

As a DM I am not a fan of the Forgotten Realms setting. It seems too generic for my tastes. Granted, as a DM I am more than capable of coming up with my own settings and shit, but having some supplemental material for new settings (as well as a published adventure to help get a feel for how the adventures should play out in said settings) would be nice. Ignoring the setting, I think having a more in-depth toolbox for creating races, classes, backgrounds, monsters, adventure ideas, encounters, and alternate rules would be cool.

>>54393112
>The dice is more important than your bonus.
This wouldn't be a problem IMHO if it wasn't the linearity of the d20. My homebrew is using 3d6 would keep the bounded accuracy inside what it meant to be (threats being threats from 1 to 20 level, even if transitioning from solo -> minion, using 4e jargon) without the swinginess of the d20.

>>54393392
>mitigated by everything being random/expected to be houseruled/handled by the DM anyway
List 5 that doesnt solve.

>>54392781

This, with an emphasis on how much was lost in the playtests. They had the essence of something really awesome, and then they diluted it all down and got rid of basically all traces of new ideas.

I don't hate it, but I don't think I'd ever intentionally choose it as a system. There's just nothing about it that does anything distinctive or interesting. It's just so incredibly inoffensive.

>>54393134
>>54393575

Blame Hasbro for this one. After their unsuccessful (and impossible) attempt to make D&D a MtG level earner, they've basically abandoned it, giving a small team a pittance of a budget, mostly to occupy the trademark. They're making more money of licensed games and the possibility of movies and merchandise than D&D itself.

>>54393612
You can't, by definition rule zero can solve everything.

But I always found it funny that quadratic wizard had been such a problem even back then that Gygax tried to put an end to all the mails complaining about it with "why do your wizards survive above level 5?".

>>54393668
I'm not surprised.

If anything, it is getting me more involved in fixing up mechanics and features on my own.

>>54392305
Bounded accuracy.
I seriously want scaling saves, AC, and at least slightly higher proficiencies
(If AC increased every 1/3rd level for martial classes and like ever 1/4th or 1/5th for casters I feel as though that would be perfect)

As it stands it really feels like your character doesn't make any progress beyond level 5.

>>54392781
I'm surprised they haven't released the play test versions of some classes in the unearthed arcana articles

>>54393584
How is 3d6 working out at your table? does it cause too many hits or how does that work? im curious about using it.

>>54392305
It's a tossup between bounded accuracy and the infuriatingly shitty Fighter class.

>>54394740
...I'm not the only one who thinks Fighter is lackluster?

The only great thing they get are the extra attacks.

>>54394706
Sadly, it is in my homebrew, not a houserule I use at the table, but the math behind it is solid. So no field reports of this mechanic (yet).

>>54394767
Why would I think Fighter isn't lackluster when their best kit is nothing but a shit version of a class I actually enjoyed and the others are outright shit on their own?

>>54393672
>rule zero can solve everything.
Are you suggesting that 3e+ don't have Rule 0?

I see a lot of people calling 5E bland, but what is a good system that isn't bland? I guess my question is, how do you differentiate a bland system from a bland GM?

>>54395141
>how do you differentiate a bland system from a bland GM?
Simple. It's a system that doesn't give you a lot of options for customization, and doesn't give you a lot to do with your abilities.
D&D5 is bland, because most of the characters in one class end up being the same. And fight will often feel the same too.

You can say all you want that a good GM will make every fight different and improvise options for you, but he could do that with a better system too.

A good system that isn't bland? Well, FFG SW Edge of the Empire is a good system that isn't bland. The bonus you get in your carrer are a bit weak, often, but that's a small flaw. You can make vastly different characters with a good variety of options. Point buy is also helping a lot.

The game is balanced around having five or six fights and a couple of short rests between long rests. It's extremely hard to justify that throughout a campaign; players will often want to take a long rest after 2 or 3 encounters and you can't give them a good reason why they shouldn't. You can mitigate this with certain circumstances (time pressure or moving through hostile territory where resting is risky) but you can't do that for six months straight.

>>54395141
FFG Star Wars has funky dice, GURPS has a "build anything" ethos, etc. Most games have some kind of distinguishing feature.

Forced diversity.

>>54395321
Where?

>>54395141
Bland mechanics and bland campaigns are different things. The issue is not with FR and generic fantasy fluff, or dull dungeon delving or something like that. It's that there are very few interesting mechanics. The selling point of the game becomes "a less broken and more streamlined 3.5" and that's fine for a go-to simple game to get up and running when you just want some D&D-like thing, but there's nothing interesting or compelling beyond that to make me want to go out of my way to play it. I have issues with the game, caster supremacy, bad high level stuff, and boring martials mostly, and they do contribute, but the core system just doesn't have a lot interesting going on, neither in the rules (advantage is very elegant but not enough) nor in how they play out (like how combat is quite dragged out and ends up feeling same-y after a while of playing).

>>54395141
Bland is fine. You can paint over bland.

5e is dry. Unpalatable. You come away hungry.

>>54395380
Making everything a "she" and "her" instead of "him" or "he", random sub-saharan africans that look like they came straight out of the bush and don't fit in with anything else, a word about transgenders.

>>54392781
>added successful 4e mechanics to it (encounter disguised as short rest, hit dice)

The funniest thing about Hit Fice is that WotC turned it into what 3aboos said Healing Surges (Free non-magical healing, which they considered unrealistic) were instead of what Surges actually are (mostly hard limits on the amount of healing a character can receive).

>>54392305

I'm happy with most of the mechanics in 5e. The 'bland' thing doesn't hold much water for me... my players can make the sorts of characters they want, and the rules are consistent and simple enough that I can dictate things on the fly without feeling jarring. The rules are just there to set the odds, not flavor my campaign. If anything I feel that games like pathfinder, where you have a gorillion options, is doing it wrong - drowning in choices isn't flavor, it's just a mess.

5e isn't perfect though. There's two mechanics I don't like. The first is the skill system really paints a thin line between skilled and unskilled users. Someone with a skill should be significantly better than someone untrained, not slightly, so I've had to houserule that to broaden the gap. The other is HP inflation. Health scaling upwards forever at a linear rate feels strange given all the other bounds they put into place in hopes of keeping the numbers sane.

>>54394945
No, he's saying that unironically using the Oberoni fallacy is silly.

>>54395261
>>54395395
What about games that aren't about character builds or tactical combat?

>>54395919
Then they should be brimming with fluff

>>54392305
>shit for setting support.
>shortage of player options.
>shit for online tool support.
>bounded accuracy makes for a garbage skill system until endgame.
>still way too much hit point bloat.

>>54392781
You go through 2-3 encounters per short rest. It takes an hour.

They got rid of the best thing 4e had going for it, the monster design.

I'm really happy with it because I can finally get my players to play something other than 3.5/pf.
It has some in common with 3.5 but all of the things I hate about 3.5 are gone or changed beyond recognition.
I hated skill points and feats. Leveling up was always a chore, assigning skill points and poring through a fuckton of pages for feats just pissed me off, especially when most of the feats were terrible. I know that some of the later books in 3.5 pointed out which feats were good and better in some scenarios but be honest, how many times have you heard "3.5/pathfinder core only,"? Feats in 5e are optional and now, few in number, and are all about the same power level.

>>54396387
>Feats in 5e are optional and now, few in number, and are all about the same power level.
That's where you're mistaken.

>>54392305
It's missing huge chunks of mechanics leaving DM's to arbitrarily decide how to resolve even simple actions in game of just homebrew the system.

But it still attempts to run things like AL which steer heavily away from house ruling in favour of RAW.

I imagine this is due to them spunking their load on 4E and having nothing left to playtest 5E.

>>54392305
Variety/customization. I love the system to death, but after a while you've played basically every combination possible, something that the otherwise dreadful PF avoids.

>>54396387
>Feats in 5e are optional and now, few in number, and are all about the same power level.
>he thinks the skilled feat is on the same tier as sentinel
>he thinks fighter weapon type balance isn't critically dependent on heavy weapon master
Optional and equal if you understand nothing about the game maybe

>>54393042
Just roll 2d10 instead. Extreme results become unlikely, and you lose almost nothing in exchange (can't roll 1 anymore, of course, although that's hardly noticeable in practice)

>>54395141
Pathfinder

>>54396427
He's 1/3 right.

They're "optional". Goodluck finding players who will play a campaign without them.

There's a limited selection, that's true.

Theyre not even close to all the same power level.

Because they compete with your stats and your combat style "feat", you only get one before level 16 if you're variant human.

>>54395713
4e did that "she" and "her" thing as well, you'd think they'd figure out who their market is...

>>54392305
They make you "choose" between having interesting options (feats) and being effective (ASI)/GWM/PAM/SS

Can someone describe what Sorcerer and Fighter were like in playtests?

>>54392305
it believes that you have played the other editions of D&D, esp 3.5
also
very wordy, could be made better with flow chrts and tables.

>>54396584
>>54395713
>>54395321
Changing the normal pronouns to the female ones bothers the shit out of me. It's not written normally. He and him and his are both male and neutral. When you're writing about someone in and you don't know what their sex is you say he, that's how it works in English. Doing this she thing, that's what those bleeding heart publishers like White Wolf do. No wonder everyone plays women in Exalted, the pronouns are always female and lesbianism is encouraged. Maybe it's some kind of attempt to make women "feel more welcome" to play D&D? If it is I'd like to see the research on that. They must be basing it on something, they wouldn't print millions of the damn books on someone's hunch that it'll have a net positive effect.

>>54396584
They want their market to expand to casuals with lots of money.

Is that not obvious to you?

Their goal is to grow their business.

>>54396640
All fighters had superiority dice. Iirc they all had maneuvers. Additionally, you did a small amount of damage, even on a miss.

>>54396670
>All fighters had superiority dice. Iirc they all had maneuvers. Additionally, you did a small amount of damage, even on a miss.
This makes me think of 13th Age. Weird.

File: Sorcerer.pdf (268KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1x1px

>>54396640
Sorcerer had transformations for one thing, and I would assume they weren't just discount wizards as they turned out to be in final.

>>54396670
That sounds way better for fighters. Considering how many attack rolls you're making, there should be something that mitigates how often you miss.

File: Angry Dwarf.jpg (384KB, 2276x2110px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 2276x2110px

>>54392305
The fact that it didn't fix the problems of 3e; it just put a bandaid on them

>INB4 "OP said not things intrinsic to the game itself

If you try to argue that something being intrinsic to 3e makes it intrinsic to the game I will flip this table and run us on an AD&D 2e Revised adventure to show you how wrong you are.

>>54396669
>Make women feel welcome.
Yes, that's why.

Personally if males me feel deliberately snubbed.

You want to argue "he" isn't neutral enough, fine. I can believe that.

'She' is no more inclusive than 'He', and it has *no* history of neutral use. It's deliberately exclusionary towards men.

And since we're peimarily the ones buying their products, they shouldn't be spitting in our faces.

>>54396627
Easy to houserule, no? Everyone gets ASIs at the regular levels, and 1 feat every 6/8/whatever levels.

>>54396735
The more attack rolls you make, the more consistent your damage is.

>>54396669
They is the English neutral and has been since the 19th century

>>54392305
>What is in your opinion the worst thing about D&D 5e
The way casters work.

>>54396760
Still feels bad to roll a miss desu. I personally think player enjoyment is an important part of game design, but you do you.

>>54395917
I took the argument the way it was going.
If you'd like to step back the discussion and take >>54393392's place without resorting to a pivot, you're welcome to.

>>54396579
Some feats are way better, but they are much more obvious about it this time around.

3.5 had many people complaining that toughness was shit.
Feats like Lucky and Sentinel are obviously more useful than Skilled but i think the point still stands

I guess I mispoke earlier in my post, very few feats are trap options like they were in 3.5, most are pretty good now.

>>54396751
Sure. But it sucks if you aren't the dm/aren't in a position to implement such a houserule.

5e is my favorite edition mechanically, and I would hesitate to play it unless the dm has a couple of very specific houserules.

Thats a big deal.

(it means I will probably only ever dm the game, unless another player in my standard group is going to dm it with the same houserules I use when I dm, which, good luck).

File: 1424546467151.jpg (48KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 768x768px

>>54392305
Short rests taking an hour. The narrow band of situations where it is safe to fuck off and do nothing productive (including travel) for a whole hour, and situations where it is safe to fuck off and do nothing productive (including travel) for 8 hours is very narrow by my reckoning, and yet the classes are built and balanced under the assumption that you get 1-3 short rests per adventuring day. The end result of this is either classes that rely on short rest abilities get fucked by an unrealistic expectation during balancing, or the DM has to constantly bend over backwards to shoehorn in yet another reason why despite the situation being peaceful enough that relaxing a whole hour in a single location is perfectly safe, there's yet another mcguffin making you unable to do it for 8 hours (which, after the third or fourth time, REEEEALY stretches the suspension of disbelief.)

>>54392305
The worst thing about 5E is how it handles resting and resource management. Every dungeon crawler should be like Gamma World 7E; everything's usable once per encounter and you get back all your hit points every fight. 'Daily' abilities come in the form of one-time-use magic items (or ones that have charges I suppose).

The best thing about 5E is advantage/disadvantage. It's about as useful as a +4 modifier on average and it's fun as heck to go "Oh man, I would have crit failed without that extra roll!". Showing people what might have been, if they didn't have the bonus / penalty, is more useful than a flat modifier.

>>54396761
'they' is always plural, officially (people do misuse it for singular though) . We don't have one standard pronoun for singular gender neutral. There's a dozen of them that have been tried, none of which ever caught on, and so now we're being told everyone gets to dictate their damn pronouns.

>>54396841
There is no "officially" in language. Itf people use a word a way long enough, it becomes that. They has been used in the singular for centuries. Actual, " proper" gender neutrals have failed because everyone is fine using they. If this new age the bullshit catches on, that'll be right too. Language is a shitshow and always has been

>>54396841
>'they' is always plural, officially (people do misuse it for singular though)
Except, unlike French and German, we don't have an official language beauro deciding what is official. We have the Oxford English Dictionary, but they do not DECIDE, they REPORT (though in practice, they do a tid of deciding, because it's impossible to be unbiased). If enough people misuse something, it ceases to be a misuse.

Of all the many "mistakes" that are going to work their way into the official language, assuming the OED remains even remotely impartial and accurate in their reporting, the use of "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun should be official very soon.

>>54392305
>There's no stacking of dis/adv.

>>54396387
>"core only"
"Oh nevermind. No thanks. Have fun with that".
But I game in meatspace, where players don't outnumber DMs 500:1.

>>54396768
Abilities are still keyed to fucking class levels rather than character levels, making multiclassing shittier than single classing. Spellcasting and "extra attack" in particular, stack like shit.

If I'm a 6th level fighter and I take a level of barbarian, I should get abilities reasonable for a 7th level character, not stuff reasonable for a 1st level character.

>>54395917
Rule.

Zero.

Fallacy.

That stupid fuck didn't come up with it, he doesn't get to claim ownership of it. Fuck you for propagating that.

>>54392305
IT HAS A RESURRECTION SPELL ON THE FUCKING CORE BOOK

A fucking resurrection spell my god. Way to destroy the immersion.

>>54397063
>d&d
>expecting immersion
This was your first mistake

>>54397063
>someone didn't read the op.

Resurrection being possible is core to the game.

Cheap and easy no, but possible.

>>54397120
Ever considered maybe the core game is shit?

>>54397138
That's not the question being asked, dumbass. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, whatever. But that's not the question being asked, as anyone over 40 IQ could understand.

>>54397201
Have you ever considered maybe the cost change of resurrection done in 5e is also shit?

>>54397036
>If I'm a 6th level fighter and I take a level of barbarian, I should get abilities reasonable for a 7th level character, not stuff reasonable for a 1st level character.

Multiclassing is variant rule for reason. Why would you multiclass if what you get is shit, anyway?

>>54397255
You wouldn't.

Thats why multiclassing is almost never used in 5e beyond a small dip.

You never see a 50/50 or 25/75 hybrid in 5e.

It being a variant rule is not a good reason to build it as a garbage, nigh-unusable mechanic. And frankly, it *shouldn't* be a variant mechanic. It should be a core mechanic that fucking works.

>>54395885
If your players can make the characters they want in 5e exactly as they want them then your players are boring as fuck.

Not everyone wants to play as Gandalf or Aragorn or Bilbo.

>>54397352
Maybe not, but that's kinda the intent of DnD.

>>54397383
If that's the intent of d&d then d&d is shit and people should stop supporting the kind of people who would come up with such an uninspired, boring, shitty game.

If I want to experience Lord of the Rings again, I'll re-read Lord of the Rings.

>>54397352
Have you ever tried roleplaying?

>>54397383
D&D is very poorly suited to middle earth. Unless you're playing, like, e6. Even in 2e, the magic was way more than you see in middle earth.

>>54397237
No, thank you.

Thank you for saying something that is related to the question being asked. Now discussion can happen.

And I'm sure this would look like anything else than a desperate attempt to save face if you had mentioned this at all before.

>>54392305
Its still D&D. It still uses D20s, which are objectively terrible for a few solid reasons. It still uses vancian casting. It restricts characters to just being whatever their class is with a few variations. It grew in rather than out, and is more D&D than any game since the original, but shows no innovation. Its more of the same, and everybody's already played that in more or less the same system. Its as inflexible as ever, and lacks the volume of content 3x, PF, and 4e had to make up for their shortcomings.

>>54397343
They would probably prefer to remove it entirely, the reason for it being there are fans, who would miss it dearly (and loudly).

And, frankly, i feel small dip is usually enough to give you enough of other classes flavor.

>>54397237
So you think it should be *easier* to resurrect people, like it was in previous editions?

>>54397490
>"only post things that are intrinsic to this edition of the game and not the game itself"

It's like you don't know how to read!

>lacks the volume of content 3., PF, and 4e had to make up for their shortcomings.
This is the only thing you said that has anything to do with this thread.

>>54397530
It hasn't been easier than 5e Mystic's restoration

>>54397492
Doing away with multiclassing is fine if you make that change at the same time as doing away with classes.

>>54397596
>Mystic Posting.
1. It's UA. That means its only a rough draft.
2. It's the UA that's widely regarded as being overpowered all over the place.

>>54397583
Other games try other things. My problem is that there is nothing intrinsic to 5e. Reading comp breh. 4e didnt lean so hard on vance. 3e lets you be whatever the hell you want to be.

File: 10522454.jpg (27KB, 500x473px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x473px

>>54397436
There's no point in roleplaying if entire aspects of your character can't function mechanically within the game. I've been following 5e for a while now and homebrew comes up in almost every discussion I've seen because even some basic character concepts require homebrew to work in the first place. Why bother with something like that when you could just play 3.5e or Pathfinder where there are plenty of options to support literally any character you could imagine?

Both of those systems have their flaws, and not every option is optimal, but at least the choice is there without having to resort to extensive homebrew and refluffing.

5e feels like an unfinished project. I'd rather have too many options that I might not end up using as opposed to so few options that I have to convince my group to let me bend the rules just so I don't have to play as Conan the Barbarian or Merlin the Wizard.

>>54397643
other than 4e there's no edition that isn't overpowered all over the place though. There are ways to powergame in all of them.

>>54392781
how is this a bad thing?

the simplicity is something i really thought was a good thing

>>54397792
Simplicity is good for people who want to play as generic archetypal fantasy characters.

If you're not a creative person, 5e is perfect for you. If you have a lot of unique ideas, you're going to hate it.

>>54397691
There's powergaminginallof them, sure.

That doesn't mean you're not bitching primarily about a rough draft class that's poorly regarded anyways, and that is going to be very nerfed by the time it gets actually published.

>>54397792
Unless its very well tuned for a vast number of viable permutations, simple wears out its welcome quite quickly.

No rules for certain things and before:

"UGH, you need a foot for everything?"

No, I meant shit like mounted combat rules, and benchmarks for destructible environment.

The game feels UNFINISHED. Like they cobbled a whole bunch of shit together, and then said "Just fucking patch it up GM" at which point I wonder why I even BOUGHT the game.

>>54397802
I kindof like it. It's easier for me to homebrew what 5e is missing than to redesign 3.5 from the ground up and rebalanced everything it has.

>>54397837
>A foot
Damn Autocorrect

A Feat.

>>54397837
What was your gaming history prior to buying 5e? Im just asking out of curiosity.

>>54397828
my players are usually completely fine with the classes in the PHB, they even chose them above the UA i got for them

and they love combat, and 5e combat seems good enough for them, when i tried a "Crunchier" system they looked like they got bored a bit

>>54397883
Good. Im happy that its working for you. Really. Its nice that somebody can get something out of all the work WotC put into 5e. It probably helps that they love combat.

>>54397042
Oberoni posted on the issue fifteen years ago. If people are still using his name for it, it's going to stick.

>>54393091
OG D&D was like an unseasoned, well cooked chicken breast. It did nothing wrong technically, but it didnt try to do anything especially hard either. Its technically food, but Id rather eat something else.

>>54394767

As a class, the fighter actually has a lot of options, and with feats can basically make a dude capable of anything you really want them to be. There are still issues, mainly that the battlemaster onl;y has a few really good superiority attacks and a lot of trap/ultra situational options, and the eldritch knight is focused too much on attack spells, when a magic fighter should be doing utility stuff all over.

>>54398015
just what I always wanted, a dude capable of hitting things with pointy sticks, blunt sticks, and even sharp sticks

>>54396822
>the difference between one hour and eight hours is very narrow by my reckoning
What the fuck are you on?

Besides, the rules have you covered: A character can't benefit from more than one long rest in a 24-hour period.

>>54397802
>having a lot of unique ideas
>not being willing to homebrew
Instead of being mad that the box isn't big enough, you could just think outside of it.

>>54398015
I don't see why you would play fighter when you can just go fighter for the martial archetype and then multiclass to rogue or something and be better than a full fighter.

>>54398169
Not every DM allows homebrew.

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-18 at 9.29.53 PM.png (103KB, 394x325px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 394x325px

>>54395713
>>54396669
>>54396746
>Making everything a "she" and "her" instead of "him" or "he"
It's not like 3.5 didn't do it. This shit has been going on for a decade and a half, and you're just bothering to complain about it now.

>>54398258
>not every DM is good
fixed for you, you can spot the DnD DM right away with that one you said.

>>54398169
Yeah, you try that shit on your players, see how far it gets you.

>>54397343
I can't speak to pre 4th, but has it ever truly worked? 4e is basically worse than the 5e method, and PF is basically the same as 5e. An argument could be made that more features should be tied to character level rather than class level, but I feel like you're just asking for more than is deserved. What is your proposal? Getting the level 7 stuff for barbarian for taking a level in it at level 7?

File: Race - Human.pdf (949KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

949KB, 1x1px

>>54398300
Nobody reminded me replacing the human racial stats, so it seems to be working out pretty well, thanks.

>>54398260
IIRC they use gender pronouns based on the "iconic" character of the class it's about. 3.5 Druid was female and all text referred to "her". 3.5 Bard was male and all text referred to "him".

>>54398260
>you assume I haven't been complaining about this for a decade and a half.
You're mistaken

The weapon variety is so boring. There are such clearly better combination of weapons + feats for melee classes that it sort makes the rest of the list irrelevant. I wish there was a way or mechanic to make everything have it's own non-worthless use.

>>54398169
>The system has objective shortcomings in X
>Well, it doesn't matter! You can just make thing X up on your own!

Great way to avoid legitimate critique. At least the ham-stringed box is rather balanced this time around, I doubt you or many players generally could make things that integrate well into the game without breaking other (if not breaking more) aspects of it.

>>54398342
4e had mc and hybrids. Mc was pretty much foolish to not do and hybrids largely worked because they weren't level by level. You'd have your pick of 7th level barb or fighter feature at 7th level because you've been booth since level one

>>54398342
>what do you suggest, a barbarian should get 7 levels of stuff if he takes it at 7?
No so much.
1. A barbarian should get one "level 7"'s worth, of "level 7" appropriate abilities.
2. All abilities that you *do* have, should scale to whatever character you are.

All class features should scale to stay relevant, by character level.

>>54396525
yeah but pathfinder is also shit

>>54397802
>Being able to work under constraints makes you uncreative.

File: stop_liking_file.jpg (79KB, 600x673px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 600x673px

>>54397418

>>54398990
>2010 memes

>>54399064
>It's current year!

>>54398798
GURPS.

Or homebrew the shit out of 5e/use far more DMG than the average guy.

Good luck finding the stuff you want on DMG though.

>>54398987
>Having ideas that don't fit inside a tiny box is bad

File: REEEEEEEEE.jpg (4KB, 250x211px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 250x211px

>>54398428

>>54397036
>>54397343
>>54398342
I wrote up a 5E hack a few years ago, back when the Playtest was finishing up, that followed the Legend RPG model and it alleviated these issues. Here's basically how it worked:

At each odd-numbered level, characters gain one rank in a Path of their choice. Each Path basically gives you the benefits of a class or a specialization within that class. There are five ranks in each Path, and the maximum Rank you can have in a Path is based on your Proficiency:
+2 = Rank 1
+3 = Rank 2
+4 = Rank 3
+5 = Rank 4
+6 = Rank 5

So in the example of a 6th level Fighter you might have the following Paths:

Soldier 1 (Lv 1): You gain a Fighting Style and the Second Wind ability
Weapon Master 1 (Lv 3): You gain 2d6 superiority dice and two Maneuvers
Soldier 2 (Lv 5): You gain the Action Surge ability

At level 7 you could take Berserker 1 (Rage twice per day), at level 9 you could take Berserker 2 (Reckless attack and movement speed while raging, now twice per day), at level 11 you could take Berserker 3 (Brutal Critical, four rages per day, better damage bonus while raging), and so on. Essentially you're fast-tracking one Path to catch up instead of raising two Paths equally. You could easily end the game with Soldier 3, Weapon Master 2, and Berserker 5, or maybe something else totally different.

Characters who take non-magical Paths gain bigger Hit Dice, more ASIs, more/better Proficiencies, and occasionally gain Extra Attacks.

I reworked spells slightly so they go from 1st to 5th level instead of 1-9. 2nd level spells in my hack are what 2nd and 3rd level spells are in the regular game, with the damage occasionally tweaked so they're roughly equal.

It even has Tome of Magic, Psionics, and Incarnum content. It's pretty neat.

>>54399202
Well, I have.

And I've stopped buying whitewolf products (or whatever the fuck they're calling themselves this month) and that was one of the reasons why. (their shitty setting was the major reason).

>>54399280
Link?

File: D&D Next Hack.pdf (338KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1x1px

>>54399304
Sure, what the hell. I hope it helps your game.

This isn't the last version I made (which I can't seem to find right now), it still has spells up to level 9 and it's a little more restricted with levelling Paths. I'd recommend merely limiting people based on their Proficiency as I stated above, that'd be more reasonable. If you want to remove the Warrior / Mage / Mage Warrior 'classes' just give everyone d6 hit dice and few proficiencies and give them extra hit points and proficiencies every time they take a Rank in a non-magical Path.

>>54399197
>Having ideas that don't fit inside a tiny box is bad

Never said it was. Learn to reading comprehension.

>>54399395
This is actually kind of neat.

What do you do if someone wants to move from of the three classes to another?

Is that why you suggested classless?

It doesn't follow any of the really great ideas that the playtest had in order to appease the 3.5 fanbase. I don't think that it is that bad otherwise.

>>54399570
Yes, I recommend classless. Here's how I would do it:

Characters start with 6 + Con modifier hit points, 1d6 hit dice, are proficient with two Skills or Tools, and are proficient with two Saving Throws of their choice. The first is Dex, Con, or Wis, and the second is Str, Int, or Cha.

Characters have a Proficiency Modifier of +2. This increases to +3 at 5th level, +4 at 9th level, +5 at 13th level, and +6 at 17th level.

Characters start with one Rank in a Path. They gain an additional Rank at each odd-numbered level thereafter (3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, …). Ranks are bought in order; you need to have Rank 1 of a Path to learn Rank 2. The maximum Rank a character can take in a Path is based on their Proficiency modifier:
+2 = Rank 1
+3 = Rank 2
+4 = Rank 3
+5 = Rank 4
+6 = Rank 5

Paths are listed as Physical or Magical. When a character takes a Rank in a Physical Path they gain two of the following of their choice. They can choose the same benefit twice.
>+1d6 hit dice (and Hit Points)
>Proficiency with an additional Skill or Tool
>Double their Proficiency bonus with a Skill or Tool they’re already Proficient with

Characters gain an ASI at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level. Characters with five Ranks in Physical Paths gain a bonus ASI. Characters with nine Ranks in Physical paths gain a second bonus ASI.

Characters with three Ranks in Physical Paths gain the Extra Attack ability. Characters with seven Ranks in Physical Paths improve this to Extra Attack (2).

>>54399990
I ran a short campaign using this homebrew. I'll give you the character builds so you have an idea of what you can build with this.

Warforged Brawler (Marital Artist 2, Soldier 2, Weapon Master 2) Played like a WWE wrestler, suplexing and elbow dropping enemies with a combination of unarmed strikes and maneuvers via superiority dice.

Dwarf Healer (Hospitaler 3, Priest of Life 3) Lots of healing, reasonably tough as well, basically a wall of meat that kept the brawler alive.

Tiefling Pyromancer (Evoker 3, Infernal Truenamer 3) All kinds of fire spells plus some utility utterances in a pinch, he was also the face of the party.

Dragonborn Hunter (Vengeful 2, Tracker 1, Soulborn 3) Soulmelds, while not powerful, are pretty versatile; Bloodwar Gauntlets gave her a lot of damage and she almost turned out like a Barbarian in the end.

The characters that focused on two Paths didn't feel significantly stronger than the ones who took three Paths. Nobody took four different ones but I think you could still make it work, anything beyond that might be stretching it a little too much.

File: 1462207059096.jpg (183KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 900x600px

>>54392305

>>54392781
>>54395261
>>54396441
>>54396822
>>54397673

Pretty much these, and a good GM needs to wing a fair amount of stuff for the game to be semi enjoyable.

A high fantasy game becomes a slog if it's not a one shot, a low fantasy game feels wrong because of how dull combat is, Dark Fantasy is okay but doesn't have the same resources / gimmicks of other systems to pull from - so it's ultimately a shambled mess.

It's D&D lite for sure. Taking both the positives and negatives of the connotation. You get a similar experience to stuff like AD&D/3.PF/4e, but it ultimately wasn't the same because it tried to be a simplified version of it's predecessors. Hell, KDM feels far more D&D than 5e.

File: 1454778629164.png (2MB, 898x1061px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 898x1061px

>>54396822
My fix for this is the following:
- Characters can suffer up to 8 Exhaustion levels instead of 6. The first two do nothing, the third one functions like the first level of exhaustion in the rulebook, and so on
- Characters that have five minutes to rest outside of battle can spend Hit Dice to heal. They may also suffer a level of Exhaustion to gain the benefits of a Short Rest. They may take three levels of Exhaustion to gain the benefits of both a Short and a Long Rest, but they may only choose this once per day. Characters can't willingly suffer exhaustion if it would kill them, obviously.
- When a character rests for 8 hours or more they roll 3d10 and compare it with their current Lifestyle. For each die that matches or exceeds their Lifestyle value, they remove a level of Exhaustion. They may only benefit from this once per day.

Wretched: 9
Squalid: 8
Poor: 7
Modest: 6
Comfortable: 5
Wealthy: 4
Aristocratic: 3

While dungeon crawling, your Lifestyle is based on how expensive or high quality your supplies and entertainment are. For example, someone with Performance might be able to lighten the mood, a skilled chef could prepare a tastier meal, someone with medicine could brew you a soothing tea, and so on. Take inspiration from Darkest Dungeon's camping mechanics.

There you go. You simultaneously resolve the length of short and long rests, make exhaustion and lifestyle matter for once, and incentivize characters to have skills and proficiencies that aren't typically useful.

>>54395713
How I know you haven't actually cracked open a 5e book: the books universally use second-person in the rules, using "it" referring to general creatures and "he or she" when referring to characters in the third-person.

I remember an anon made a thread in the past asking this. The anon, and OP stated the same thing some of my other players have said. It lacks variety in options in character building. Both anon, and my players were 4e players. I've never played 4e myself, but I can kinda see where they're coming from. If you had two people playing tempest clerics...mechanically they would have the same option. Even if said clerics worshipped two different deities with additional portfolios.

>>54392305
It is not deadly enough, you can raise dead or stabilised people as a bous action. Not that is awesome if you are running a heroic campaign, but if you want something brutal and deadly you have to kick out stuff. The system does best what it wants to do, and that is create a perfect ruleset for heroic campaigns.

Critical role..

oh you meant the edition itself refering to it's structure and such. Fuck if I know, I like it when I get to play it.

>>54397870
D&D 4e, 3e, Gurps, Mutants and Masterminds 3e, World of Darkness 1e, 2e, Star Wars D6, Shadowrun.

Something like that, but M&M is my favorite.

>>54398419
This would be a good way to avoid all this shit on pronouns.

>>54398608
That's why my homebrew works with sidegrades, not upgrades. You're able to do MORE, not necessarily BETTER.

>>54398342
4e has best multiclassing, conceptually.

level-by-level dip just dilutes class design. In 4e, you can still dip with feats, which gives you access to class PPs and other feats, and you can hybrid if you want to do a more balanced approach.

In execution there are problems, but the design concept itself was waaaay better than anything before or after.

>>54392305
The assumption of the 6-8 encounter adventuring day. It just doesn't happen that much. Most days you only get one or two because you're on the road or in a city, and if you're in a dungeon where that many encounters are even available, the whole party will run and look for a place to sleep after maybe three or four encounters. Often they succeed in finding one because the DM can't think of a good way to stop them. I was once in a campaign where the party spent three whole sessions in one room, because they kept trying to sleep and the DM kept throwing wandering monsters at them and they kept refusing to move.

>>54397792
Simple is not the same as bland.

>>54392305
For me it's the price. Thankfully Amazon usually has good deals on the books, but I can do better with BFRPG at 5 dollars

File: IMG_1998.jpg (106KB, 640x607px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 640x607px

>>54400458
That is very neat.

>>54392305

Superiority Dice.

Not all classes need access to ALL the maneuvers, but only allowing one subclass of one class to make trip and disarming attacks always felt off to me.

>>54405747
Everyone can trip and disarm, but battlemasters are the only one who can do damage while doing that. Not that that makes it any better; I've played games where ALL combat maneuvers did damage as a basic attack would.

>>54392305
Combat is way too simple, especially for martials in a game that requires 5-6 encounters at players

>>54398342
It worked out fine in 2e, because you had to start with all your classes and they all raised equally as you got xp. Since characters stopped getting a lot after level 10, multiclasses we're useful through the whole game.
The system known as dual classing was pretty bad though. It was like modern multiclasses, but you could never go back once you left a class, and you couldn't use your old class features (including things like thac0 and weapon proficiencies) untill your classes were at least equal. But on the other hand, you leveled up like a level 1 character would, and there was no upper limit on number of classes. You could theoretically be a level 10/10/10/10 by the time the rest of the party were at 13 or 14 (or 6 or 7 for the multiclassers).

>>54408671
>It worked out fine in 2e

You mean "you would be stupid to not do it with a thief/wizard". The way XP values for leveling works, you were, at best, behind a level, maybe a level and half.

>>54405358
Thank you for the compliment.

>>54405747
I loved the brief period of the playtest where all martial classes got Superiority Dice, but Fighters were unique in having the most dice, best dice, and best maneuver selection. It was truly great.

My 5E homebrew >>54399395 lets anyone 'dip' into the Path of the Battle Master and pick up superiority dice. My full homebrew system lets anyone perform Stunts to inflict status effects while in combat, but having the right skill makes you more effective at particular actions. For example, having the Strength ability gives a bonus to brute-force Stunts, having Athletics stops enemies from making opportunity attacks when you try Stunts, and so forth.

>>54400990
I did notice they use 'it' lot more than most games.

>>54409755

>all martial classes got Superiority Dice, but Fighters were unique in having the most dice, best dice, and best maneuver selection

Sounds like exactly what I'd want from the mechanic. I'll have to try and find old playtest rules to see what that looked like.

File: d&d_garbage.png (44KB, 479x509px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 479x509px

A continuation of 4e’s failures, fifth edition D&D is a return to basics. Merals’ goal here was to try to drag in the fractured D&D fanbase that was split among AD&D grognards (who are mostly playing Swords and Wizardry), v3.5 munchkins (who are mostly playing Pathfinder), and 4e edgelords (who are still playing 4e because, you know, the like it). The goal here was to unite all of D&D under one banner. The result was something unbelievably bland. Not even going to talk about the random decision to include pro-tranny gender-identity bullshit in the games section, giving pansexual demi-kin full license to spurg out their Tumblr identity politics crap into a game about fighting dragons and getting treasure. 5th edition isn’t horrible and in all honesty it’s everyone’s second-favorite edition. However it is so full of flat-out mistakes, it’s unbelievable. For example, +2 ASIs because instant gratification is the name of the game (hence why XP requirements for 2nd level are so low you can expect to level up after 1 session), mixed with the “every race should get bonuses and no penalties cause -2 Int to orcs is racisttt” bulllshit (the real explanation is, -2 to certain things makes certain race / class combos unviable. And why shouldn’t it? Not a lot of orc wizards out there, because they are stupid. Yet you can still play one, he just will have 5% less chance of putting someone to sleep. Big fuckin’ whoop). So you have ASIs greater than any previous edition, mixed with a hard cap at 20. You cannot have a Strength higher than 20, yet you will easily get to that as a fighter by 8th level. So by 20th you can have Con 20 as well, unless you decide to sub that out for feats. So, every high level character has basically the same stats, and since ASIs aren’t a +1 anymore, and the game suggests you use a starting array instead of rolling 4d6 drop lowest, the 3-18 stat range is a completely vestigial mechanic.

Proficiency is also pathetically downscaled. Between levels 1 and 20, a fighter only gets 20% better at athletics. And only about 20% better at hitting. Bounded accuracy is nice, but goddamn did they go fucking overboard. With the feats being mostly shit (half of them are so bad they actually have to give a +1 to a stat to be functional, effectively making them half-feats), building a character based on feats is pretty much pointless. Instead of having open, fun feat-based character building, you are instead defined by your class and whatever shitty archetype you choose. Fighters still have once-per-day abilities, especially if you take battlemaster, thus adding to the retarded mindset of “fighters should have to spend abilities to do good things, because that’s what wizards do.” Most of 5e’s failures can be put down to Merals’ retarded mindset on RPG design, which can be seen throughout his works. He has this fallacious idea that martials should have a resource economy just like fighters, instead of having interesting maneuvers based on set-ups or situation. However instead of allowing a fighter strategy metagame evolve naturally from the comabt system, he has to put in prepackaged maneuvers that deal ZOMG SO MUCH DAMAGE. Another thing about 5e: damage is kind. No more poison draining ability scores, now there is poison damage. No more level drain, now there is necrotic damage. Everything is damage. Damage damage damage damage. As a result, DPS is king, and really, damage is all that matters. Chargen and charop are completely emasculated (actually a goal of Mearls) so that we can focus on what’s really important: stories of how you rolled a nat20 and convinced the guard captain to suck your dick.

>>54414564
>>54414580
You write like shit. Learn to use paragraphs. But you tell some truths.

>So you have ASIs greater than any previous edition, mixed with a hard cap at 20. You cannot have a Strength higher than 20, yet you will easily get to that as a fighter by 8th level. So by 20th you can have Con 20 as well, unless you decide to sub that out for feats. So, every high level character has basically the same stats
I felt that when looking at this too. Most will start with 16 or 18 on main stat, and cap it pretty soon, leaving the other ASI for the lacking feats or pumping secondary/tertiary stats.

>since ASIs aren’t a +1 anymore, and the game suggests you use a starting array instead of rolling 4d6 drop lowest, the 3-18 stat range is a completely vestigial mechanic.
Yes, a sacred cow that can't be slaughtered since "this is D&D".

>-2 to certain things makes certain race / class combos unviable. And why shouldn’t it?
Because it is not FUN. If your character already is a one-of-a-kind, there's no need for penalties. And bonii TOO. Races should add options, not bonii. I want my Eladrin teleporting, not a plain +2 Int.
Racial stat modifier is a mistake.

>Between levels 1 and 20, a fighter only gets 20% better at athletics. And only about 20% better at hitting. Bounded accuracy is nice, but goddamn did they go fucking overboard.
Agreed, but this is a problem of the swinginess of the d20. A +6 bonii with a bell curve roll like a 3d6 turn the average roll from 10 to 16. That's a big fucking deal with 3d6, not with d20.

>Another thing about 5e: damage is kind. No more poison draining ability scores, now there is poison damage. No more level drain, now there is necrotic damage. Everything is damage. Damage damage damage damage. As a result, DPS is king, and really, damage is all that matters.
Agreed.

>>54414564
>Yet you can still play one, he just will have 5% less chance of putting someone to sleep.
-10%, because the optimal +2 races will always set the benchmark.

>>54414981
>But you tell some truths.

What? it's just bullshit exaggerated to the nth degree.

There's less substance there than you'd find in an eight year old's rant, which it might as well be.

Lurking. DnD next hack guy was Based. going to try his stuff sometime

>>54399990
>>54400164
please post more about this and how taking levels in magic paths would work.

Setting is Forgotten Realms. Constant cockteasing about different settings leading to more Forgotten Realms books.

>>54403457
what was your favorite of that list?

Disliked the way encounters worked and that they weren't deadly enough but that is because i was trying to challenge my players with one big encounter per day but that was a mistake

I dislike simplicity of skills

Also other thing that was an error of mine is that i was trying to run a more mundane game and normally it tends to high fantasy

>>54399395
Let us know when you find your latest version.

>>54399395
Still waiting.


I need it

>Left feats in
>Gives the complete spell list away to players
>Despite making the entire edition about magic items being rare, the official adventures throw magic loot at the party like candy
>Heavily dependent on environmental descriptions by the DM being relevant and useful at all times (ability/skill checks are way more important in combat than they used to be)

>>54396761
>>54396841
>since the 19th century
Try 14th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

File: hulkingupultimate.gif (3MB, 371x209px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 371x209px

>>54400458
I have a similar solution, but it's a good bit simpler.

Once per day, every character can "Hulk Up," gaining the effects of a short rest. Since the effects of a short rest were statistically meant to happen roughly 1.5 times per day (despite the absurdity of this) I give it a little added versatility in that I let be done in combat-speed, but you must spend your entire turn doing nothing but dramatically recovering