Next Supplement Rulebook?

[Spectre9000]

Anyone know when the next Supplement Rulebook is coming? I'd like to see what they add to class options.

[Regitnui]

The Eberron Explorer's Guide is coming before the end of the year.















No, I don't actually know. But I want that so badly.

[RickAllison]

Anyone know when the next Supplement Rulebook is coming? I'd like to see what they add to class options.

RavenloftRavenloftRavenloftRavenloft....

I'm not hoping too much, am I?

[mgshamster]

We already have a Ravenloft adventure. I'm betting the next major supplement will come with either the Eberron adventure or a Dark Sun adventure - both with new player options and a campaign setting.

[RickAllison]

We already have a Ravenloft adventure. I'm betting the next major supplement will come with either the Eberron adventure or a Dark Sun adventure - both with new player options and a campaign setting.

Adventure, not supplement rulebook; Curse of Strahd apparently has little for adding to player options. I would like Eberron, and is Dark Sun the one with the Thri-Kreen?

[Belac93]

Well, I posted this on another thread.

If they made a splatbook based on campaign settings, here is what I think I would want. (And what I think is most likely.) All things taken from my diseased imagination and one of Wizards surveys.
Planescape. Faction options (probably backgrounds), bladelings, and that one goat-taur race.
Ravenloft. Mongrelfolk, Paladin Oath, and Shadow Sorcerer official.
Ebberon. Official versions of everything in the UA.
Athas. Thri-kreen, Mul, Half-giants, defiling, templar warlock subclass, elemental priest cleric subcalss.
And, because why the hell not? Final version of the Mystic, Goblins, Kobolds, and just more races and subclasses! (Mystic is very needed for Athas and Ebberon).
And so much more. But I cannot list it all, and I feel like I'm crowding the thread.
This would make me a very happy person.

This would be awesome. They've had different campaign setting conversions in some of the adventures, so why not have a book focused on the actual settings?

[mgshamster]

Adventure, not supplement rulebook; Curse of Strahd apparently has little for adding to player options. I would like Eberron, and is Dark Sun the one with the Thri-Kreen?

I'm not sure where Dragon Queen takes place, but Elemental Evil was traditionally in Greyhawk - and there's no Greyhawk supplement. Even so, that book has a section on placing it in different settings. And it has player options.

Next up was OotA, with no player options, set in Forgotten Realms. SCAG is probably the best we're going to see for a forgotten realms supplement.

Does the Ravenloft adventure come with player options? If so, we probably won't see a supplement book to go with it, based on their publishing history so far. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I hope I'm not only because my group doesn't like Ravenloft, so I have to wait until the next setting to purchase a new book. If the next book is Ravenloft, then it'll be another six months before I can use something they publish.

So if we don't see a Ravenloft supplement, then the next one will be Eberron or Darksun (and yes, that's the one with Thrikreen - also low magic, no metal, psionics introduction, and cannibal halflings). One thing I'd love to see is a revisit of Planescape. Or something completely new.

[JumboWheat01]

So if we don't see a Ravenloft supplement, then the next one will be Eberron or Darksun (and yes, that's the one with Thrikreen - also low magic, no metal, psionics introduction, and cannibal halflings). One thing I'd love to see is a revisit of Planescape. Or something completely new.

I'm somewhat hoping for Eberron myself. I've gotten somewhat attached to it thanks to DDO, and would love to see/learn more of it.

[JoeJ]

I'm somewhat hoping for Eberron myself. I've gotten somewhat attached to it thanks to DDO, and would love to see/learn more of it.

My top 5 would be:

1) Spelljammer
2) Spelljammer
3) Al-Qadim
4) Birthright
5) Spelljammer

[Stray]

I'm not sure where Dragon Queen takes place, but Elemental Evil was traditionally in Greyhawk - and there's no Greyhawk supplement. Even so, that book has a section on placing it in different settings. And it has player options.

Next up was OotA, with no player options, set in Forgotten Realms. SCAG is probably the best we're going to see for a forgotten realms supplement.

Does the Ravenloft adventure come with player options? If so, we probably won't see a supplement book to go with it, based on their publishing history so far. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I hope I'm not only because my group doesn't like Ravenloft, so I have to wait until the next setting to purchase a new book. If the next book is Ravenloft, then it'll be another six months before I can use something they publish.

So if we don't see a Ravenloft supplement, then the next one will be Eberron or Darksun (and yes, that's the one with Thrikreen - also low magic, no metal, psionics introduction, and cannibal halflings). One thing I'd love to see is a revisit of Planescape. Or something completely new.

All adventures published until Curse of Strahd were set in Forgotten Realms. Princes of the Apocalypse was not about THE Temple of Elemental Evil (which is in Greyhawk), but about Elemental Evil cults gaining a foothold in Faerun.
Curse of Strahd has only one new background an a table of trinkets, so not much.

[Madbox]

Adventure, not supplement rulebook; Curse of Strahd apparently has little for adding to player options. I would like Eberron, and is Dark Sun the one with the Thri-Kreen?

All I've seen for Strahd is a new background, and new starting equipment pack. Just a 2 page pdf on the WotC site.:smallfrown:

[RickAllison]

Well based on Mystic V2, I'm really hoping for Dark Sun then! I love the Thri-kreen from the MM and would be excited to get that as a playable race.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm hoping for the Tyr Region Adventurer's Guide. Templar Warlock and Elemental Cleric subclasses, defiling and preserving magic (hopefully not as subclasses, that approach rubs me the wrong way), psionics and, of course, the Thri-Kreen. Also, complete lack of Sorcerers, they just don't work with Athas.

Other things I'd like to see is a Planescape book, which I'd title 'A Cutter's Guide to the Planes', and a book on creating homebrew settings, sort of a 'Guide to the Multiverse'.

Never really got into Eberron, might try it if I can get a copy of the 4e setting.

[MeeposFire]

I'm hoping for the Tyr Region Adventurer's Guide. Templar Warlock and Elemental Cleric subclasses, defiling and preserving magic (hopefully not as subclasses, that approach rubs me the wrong way), psionics and, of course, the Thri-Kreen. Also, complete lack of Sorcerers, they just don't work with Athas.

Other things I'd like to see is a Planescape book, which I'd title 'A Cutter's Guide to the Planes', and a book on creating homebrew settings, sort of a 'Guide to the Multiverse'.

Never really got into Eberron, might try it if I can get a copy of the 4e setting.

I love Eberron and I love 4e but if terms of interesting books I would recommend the 3e book if you want setting material. I would not recommend the 4e one unless you were specifically going to use it in a 4e game directly. The 3e one is way more complete a setting book.

[Belac93]

My #1 is Dark sun players guide, closely followed by Planescape and Ebberon. But I want final Mystics and Thri-kreen! Or, barring that, a monstrous races guide.

Something awesome might be a new, 5e specific setting. I believe it has been hinted at.

[pwykersotz]

My #1 is Dark sun players guide, closely followed by Planescape and Ebberon. But I want final Mystics and Thri-kreen! Or, barring that, a monstrous races guide.

Something awesome might be a new, 5e specific setting. I believe it has been hinted at.

I wish they'd break out the Giant's campaign world that we've never seen. That would be pretty sweet.

[Lines]

I'm just wanting a big book of new options. New classes, new subclasses, new spells, new feats, new races, new monsters, optimally some actual magic item crafting rules, it's been out for a year and a half now and 95% of our options still come from the PHB.

[mgshamster]

I'm just wanting a big book of new options. New classes, new subclasses, new spells, new feats, new races, new monsters, optimally some actual magic item crafting rules, it's been out for a year and a half now and 95% of our options still come from the PHB.

My guess is that we won't see this. I'm betting that they want the majority of options to come from the PHB, with other options coming in minute form from smaller books or adventures.

Oddly enough, I still don't have SCAG. My birthday was last weekend, and that book was the only thing I asked for. My wife bought me some movies that I wanted to see (but haven't yet), and my players bought me Curse of Strahd. It's really nice, and I'm really thankful, but I really wanted SCAG. Guess I'll have to go buy it.

[Lines]

My guess is that we won't see this. I'm betting that they want the majority of options to come from the PHB, with other options coming in minute form from smaller books or adventures.

But the PHB doesn't have enough options, I'd be happy for the majority of options to come from the PHB if it could cover everything, but it can't - which is fine, it is overall a very good PHB that provides an excellent basis for the edition, but it lacks depth and breadth in many areas that could easily be fleshed out elsewhere. There is still only one proper subsystem (spellcasting) and it there are so many things it doesn't cover - for one thing, I'm still waiting on the warlord they promised during playtesting.

[mgshamster]

But the PHB doesn't have enough options, I'd be happy for the majority of options to come from the PHB if it could cover everything, but it can't - which is fine, it is overall a very good PHB that provides an excellent basis for the edition, but it lacks depth and breadth in many areas that could easily be fleshed out elsewhere. There is still only one proper subsystem (spellcasting) and it there are so many things it doesn't cover - for one thing, I'm still waiting on the warlord they promised during playtesting.

I'd be happy to be wrong.

[Lines]

I'd be happy to be wrong.

I would be happy for you to be wrong too. There's no good reason not to have more options, if a DM doesn't want them they don't have to use them.

[pwykersotz]

I would be happy for you to be wrong too. There's no good reason not to have more options, if a DM doesn't want them they don't have to use them.

Provided they don't introduce massive power creep. That's always the fear. But yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing a Psionic system. I'm sure that will come soon. And many, many more subclasses. Those are my favorite. :smallbiggrin:

Minimal spell increase though. I think we're good for magic. If other "magic" areas are to come into play, I'd like them to be inaccessible by existing casters to limit classes with open-ended options from getting all the toys. Even if they then add things like more battlemaster maneuvers, it leaves the subclasses without those systems too far behind the curve.

[JoeJ]

Provided they don't introduce massive power creep. That's always the fear. But yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing a Psionic system. I'm sure that will come soon. And many, many more subclasses. Those are my favorite. :smallbiggrin:

One problem to watch out for is that increasing options exponentially increases the time required to properly playtest all the combinations.

[Lines]

One problem to watch out for is that increasing options exponentially increases the time required to properly playtest all the combinations.

Honestly I think that's looking at it from the wrong end of the problem - playtesting can't possibly cover everything, so you want to make sure the rules are consistent and well worded so anything unexpected doesn't turn out to be game breaking. Booming blade could have been ridiculous, for instance, but they made sure to specify it was a weapon attack as part of a spell action so it can't be used with extra attack. When it came out a lot of people asked on the forums if it could be extra attacked, but the rules were clear and concise and so there was never any real doubt that it could not be - write new stuff well and you don't have to worry about unexpected brokenness.

[Regitnui]

There is still only one proper subsystem (spellcasting) and it there are so many things it doesn't cover - for one thing, I'm still waiting on the warlord they promised during playtesting.

3.5 adds up to about 9GB of pdfs, of varying quality. I'd rather have less and have it better balanced and put together than go back to having 70 races with 5 subraces apiece and 55 base classes with 5 subsystems. Honestly, keep 5e as clean as possible. Pretty much every other tabletop RPG manages to be fun without an endless glut of classes and specializations that nobody ever uses.

At Most:
> 3 more classes; Artificer (no subs), Mystic (psion, soulknife and lurk) and Totemist (single Incarnum class).
> 8 player races; Warforged, Shifter, Changeling, (Eberron) Kalashtar, Dromites, (Psionics) Thri-keen and Mul (Dark Sun}
> Backgrounds, magic items and the concept of magical locations.

We don't need a metric ton of variation and strange new tricks to have fun. It's mostly settings and their own takes on D&D that we're missing, not mechanical options and player choice.

[Lines]

3.5 adds up to about 9GB of pdfs, of varying quality. I'd rather have less and have it better balanced and put together than go back to having 70 races with 5 subraces apiece and 55 base classes with 5 subsystems. Honestly, keep 5e as clean as possible. Pretty much every other tabletop RPG manages to be fun without an endless glut of classes and specializations that nobody ever uses.

At Most:
> 3 more classes; Artificer (no subs), Mystic (psion, soulknife and lurk) and Totemist (single Incarnum class).
> 8 player races; Warforged, Shifter, Changeling, (Eberron) Kalashtar, Dromites, (Psionics) Thri-keen and Mul (Dark Sun}
> Backgrounds, magic items and the concept of magical locations.

We don't need a metric ton of variation and strange new tricks to have fun. It's mostly settings and their own takes on D&D that we're missing, not mechanical options and player choice.

Speak for yourself, mechanically unique characters are interesting. In addition to the incarnum, infusions and psionics you mentioned, a proper martial subsystem and if possible pact magic would be lovely. Pluuuus the dragonfire adept, though that could be a subclass.

[Anonymouswizard]

I love Eberron and I love 4e but if terms of interesting books I would recommend the 3e book if you want setting material. I would not recommend the 4e one unless you were specifically going to use it in a 4e game directly. The 3e one is way more complete a setting book.

I meant a physical copy, because I gave my 3.X books to my younger brother after managing to get a copy of 2e, and need a book I can use at the table. I am also planning to get the 3e rulebook for setting material, but likely only as a pdf. Although, really, my brother would give me back the books at any time if I asked, and one book is cheaper than two, so I'll probably end up getting the 3e version pdf and printing out the rules bits. I'm just annoyed I never realised it was there during 3.5's run, although I was only about 15 when 3.5 ended, maybe younger, and mistakenly thought the Forgotten Realms sounded cool (now I just like many of the gods, and shall be pinching Kelemvor for my homebrew setting).

EDIT: although I'd love to see a book with a bunch of new magic systems, including psionics, artificing, and an updated Dragonfire Adept, I think it's just a dream. Instead I think the most we'll see is maybe official psionics and a few updated classes on DMsGuild.

I want to play a Dragonfire Adept/Artificier now though, who supplements their combat focused Invocations with a bunch of utility magical items (okay, really the other way around).

[Cybren]

My top 5 would be:

1) Spelljammer
2) Spelljammer
3) Al-Qadim
4) Birthright
5) Spelljammer
Mine are
1)Spelljammer
2)Mystara
3)Spelljammer
4)Spelljammer
5)Mystara

[Regitnui]

Speak for yourself, mechanically unique characters are interesting. In addition to the incarnum, infusions and psionics you mentioned, a proper martial subsystem and if possible pact magic would be lovely. Pluuuus the dragonfire adept, though that could be a subclass.

Eh. The problem was more having four classes and six new races for each new subsystem, like they didn't have any confidence the concept could stand on its own.

[Lines]

Eh. The problem was more having four classes and six new races for each new subsystem, like they didn't have any confidence the concept could stand on its own.

Agreed, especially regarding the races part. I don't hate the idea of multiple new classes, but I would prefer fewer and better quality ones that fill the required space, the soulborn had no need to exist.

[Regitnui]

That's why I suggested the Psion and Soulknife as psionic classes. Both are unique and have their own expression of the psionic arts. Wilders can be folded into Sorcerer, like Favoured Soul. Psychic Warrior can merge completely with Soulknife. Totemist can take incarnum on alone as their class gimmick. Dragonfire adepts I've never played with, so I don't know how their play differs from sorcerers.

We certainly don't need races for the sole purpose of a mechanic. Kalashtar and Dromites have their own unique flavour beyond being psionic; kalashtar have the possessed human thing, and dromite are colonial bug people.That's why I recommend them over half-giants or maenads.

[Lines]

That's why I suggested the Psion and Soulknife as psionic classes. Both are unique and have their own expression of the psionic arts. Wilders can be folded into Sorcerer, like Favoured Soul. Psychic Warrior can merge completely with Soulknife. Totemist can take incarnum on alone as their class gimmick. Dragonfire adepts I've never played with, so I don't know how their play differs from sorcerers.

We certainly don't need races for the sole purpose of a mechanic. Kalashtar and Dromites have their own unique flavour beyond being psionic; kalashtar have the possessed human thing, and dromite are colonial bug people.That's why I recommend them over half-giants or maenads.

I'd do it the other way around - have soulknife be a psychic warrior subclass. Not everyone wants the psychic energy blade thing, it sounds pretty ideal as a subclass. Totemist wise, two classes wouldn't hurt - totemist had a hardcore nature theme, a class with and a class without seems pretty logical, though I wouldn't hate it if they made a single class work - I just want to see a 5e soulmelder, it was needlessly complex in 3.5 and if anything would benefit from 5e's simplifying touch, soulmelding would.

Dragonfire adepts were like warlocks, except instead of eldritch blast they had a breath weapon and obviously the invocations did different things. It's like comparing a cleric to a sorcerer - same setup, very different execution. I previously thought they'd make a good warlock subclass, but you'd need to remove and replace so many warlock things (patron, pact boon, different spells and invocations) while at present subclasses only add, they don't remove or change.

[Anonymouswizard]

We certainly don't need races for the sole purpose of a mechanic. Kalashtar and Dromites have their own unique flavour beyond being psionic; kalashtar have the possessed human thing, and dromite are colonial bug people.That's why I recommend them over half-giants or maenads.

Well of course, Half-Giants had no inherent psionic bonuses back in 2e. People just think 'psionics' when they think of Dark Sun, forgetting that Half Giants were a Fighter race.

Personally, the more I read into Eberron, the more I want the next book to focus on it. Let's get Artificer as a class and let them create permanent magic items at a low level, with a note that it's intended for High Magic campaigns and isn't suitable for every game. Changelings, Shifters, and Warforged as fully official races (for this case, I count Unearth Arcana as semi-official) as well as official Dragonmarks. Maybe a psionic class, although I suspect that will be more likely to appear in a Dark Sun book (mainly because you can steal from DS for other settings than you can the opposite).

[Spectre9000]

Well of course, Half-Giants had no inherent psionic bonuses back in 2e. People just think 'psionics' when they think of Dark Sun, forgetting that Half Giants were a Fighter race.

Personally, the more I read into Eberron, the more I want the next book to focus on it. Let's get Artificer as a class and let them create permanent magic items at a low level, with a note that it's intended for High Magic campaigns and isn't suitable for every game. Changelings, Shifters, and Warforged as fully official races (for this case, I count Unearth Arcana as semi-official) as well as official Dragonmarks. Maybe a psionic class, although I suspect that will be more likely to appear in a Dark Sun book (mainly because you can steal from DS for other settings than you can the opposite).

Page 128-129 of the DMG tells you how players can create magic items. You can make them whenever you have free time starting at 3rd level.

[Regitnui]

Personally, the more I read into Eberron, the more I want the next book to focus on it. Let's get Artificer as a class and let them create permanent magic items at a low level, with a note that it's intended for High Magic campaigns and isn't suitable for every game. Changelings, Shifters, and Warforged as fully official races (for this case, I count Unearth Arcana as semi-official) as well as official Dragonmarks. Maybe a psionic class, although I suspect that will be more likely to appear in a Dark Sun book (mainly because you can steal from DS for other settings than you can the opposite).

The psionic elements in Eberron are designed to be easily removed or included. They're a lot more integral to Dark Sun's motif, so Eberron should be rolled out first, to solidify the psionics rules, then we get Dark Sun.

[Lines]

Page 128-129 of the DMG tells you how players can create magic items. You can make them whenever you have free time starting at 3rd level.

Those rules are atrocious though, Eberron sounds like the perfect time for getting real magic item crafting and pricing rules.

[Anonymouswizard]

Page 128-129 of the DMG tells you how players can create magic items. You can make them whenever you have free time starting at 3rd level.

I don't have the DMG, although from what I've heard the rules are mainly 'say pretty please and the DM may check if you can craft that type yet'. Eberron and Artificiers are only going to benefit from player-focused rules of a specific 'you can craft X by Y' style.

[Spectre9000]

I don't have the DMG, although from what I've heard the rules are mainly 'say pretty please and the DM may check if you can craft that type yet'. Eberron and Artificiers are only going to benefit from player-focused rules of a specific 'you can craft X by Y' style.

You can craft any magic item provided you have the spell and time under the DMG rules.


A 3rd-level character could create a wand of magic missiles (an uncommon item), as long as the character has spell slots and can cast magic missile.



Item Rarity Creation Cost Minimum Level
Common 100 gp 3rd
Uncommon 500 gp 3rd
Rare 5,000 gp 6th
Very rare 50,000 gp 11th
Legendary 500,000 gp 17th


Remember it takes 1 day per 5gp the item you're creating is worth. So you could cast the above example of Magic Missile in 10 days.

[Anonymouswizard]

You can craft any magic item provided you have the spell and time under the DMG rules.


A 3rd-level character could create a wand of magic missiles (an uncommon item), as long as the character has spell slots and can cast magic missile.



Item Rarity Creation Cost Minimum Level
Common 100 gp 3rd
Uncommon 500 gp 3rd
Rare 5,000 gp 6th
Very rare 50,000 gp 11th
Legendary 500,000 gp 17th


Remember it takes 1 day per 5gp the item you're creating is worth. So you could cast the above example of Magic Missile in 10 days.

Cool, so how does that change if I want a single-user item? An eternally glowing pebble of light? A Collar of Gnat's Strength? How does it change if I change the attunement status? What's the cost of an Untying Rope? An air elemental powered train? A Warforged (or, Pelor forbid, a Whoreforged)?

I said Magic Item Creation, not only Magic Item Crafting.

[Lines]

I don't have the DMG, although from what I've heard the rules are mainly 'say pretty please and the DM may check if you can craft that type yet'. Eberron and Artificiers are only going to benefit from player-focused rules of a specific 'you can craft X by Y' style.

Yep, crafting is 100% 'mother may I?' now. It should also be noted that all items are valued at 500, 5000, 50000 etc because WotC are lazy.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yep, crafting is 100% 'mother may I?' now. It should also be noted that all items are valued at 500, 5000, 50000 etc because WotC are lazy.

To be fair, 'mother may I?' crafting is fine for the assumed 5e setting. It's just not for common magic settings where 'magical engineer' and 'magical scientist' are supposed to be valid character concepts in addition to 'magical artist' (the assumed kind of nondivine casters). To me a big part of Eberron's appeal is the possibility of being that engineer, heck I'd even like rules for designing and prototyping new magical items.

[Drackolus]

I just want an official kobold race. Then I could die happy.

[mephnick]

I"m so glad crafting is less of a focus in 5e. It bogged the game down to a standstill on numerous occasions beforehand and always felt like a mini-game.

A crafting character is the antithesis of an adventurer.

[Anonymouswizard]

I"m so glad crafting is less of a focus in 5e. It bogged the game down to a standstill on numerous occasions beforehand and always felt like a mini-game.

A crafting character is the antithesis of an adventurer.

Says you. I like crafting, and I wish I had a way to garrentee my Cleric could turn her longsword into a magic item (it holds sentimental value) that ideally acts as a holy symbol (because divine magic). I'd also like to be able to choose between vorpal and keen without having to go 'can I use X' every time.

Now this character is and adventurer. The sword never leaves her side unless taken by force, she'll literally give up everything else first. Now I'm fine if I have to take a cartfull of diamonds and meditate for 15 days under a Mystic waterfall in the middle of a volcano to do it, but I want my holy sword.

It's easier to ignore a crafting system that empowers players than it is to create one.

[DanyBallon]

Says you. I like crafting, and I wish I had a way to garrentee my Cleric could turn her longsword into a magic item (it holds sentimental value) that ideally acts as a holy symbol (because divine magic). I'd also like to be able to choose between vorpal and keen without having to go 'can I use X' every time.

Now this character is and adventurer. The sword never leaves her side unless taken by force, she'll literally give up everything else first. Now I'm fine if I have to take a cartfull of diamonds and meditate for 15 days under a Mystic waterfall in the middle of a volcano to do it, but I want my holy sword.

It's easier to ignore a crafting system that empowers players than it is to create one.

There's an easy way to do this, talk with your DM about it!
It open great adventures opportunities to gather the components and to find a suitable smith to enchant your longsword into an holy sword.
A rigid set of crafting rules often lead to a magic mart feel and enchanting your longsword into an holy sword doesn't feel special anymore.

Back to topic; if a setting book was to be made I'd like it to be Darksun. But I don't want a supplement book for the sake of having a supplement book. I really like the SCAG as it was a good setting book that expand information about the world without going into character options bloat. Not that it is needed, but a similar Greyhawk campaign setting book would be easier to released as you don't need new races, classes, etc. Dragonlance, Darksun, Eberron, need more crunch to be released, and in such requires that this new material be tested in order not to break balance.

[Anonymouswizard]

There's an easy way to do this, talk with your DM about it!

So an incomplete rules system isn't bad because I can talk to someone who might think holy sword making requires pouring my life force into it rather than a spiritual journey and a ritual?

Okay, that's an unfair criticism. The thing is, I want to know if I can prepare my sword while adventuring. Something that should be in the rules.


It open great adventures opportunities to gather the components and to find a suitable smith to enchant your longsword into an holy sword.
A rigid set of crafting rules often lead to a magic mart feel and enchanting your longsword into an holy sword doesn't feel special anymore.

Note, the setting I said the crafting rules should come with:
-Has easily buyable magic items.
-Has had a class in every edition devoted to crafting.
-Has magic items being technology as an established part of setting lore.

So simple suggestion: if you don't want magic marts, just ignore the books with decent crafting systems.

Because I have character concepts who are intended to invent and prototype a single invention over a campaign.

[mgshamster]

So an incomplete rules system isn't bad because I can talk to someone who might think holy sword making requires pouring my life force into it rather than a spiritual journey and a ritual?

D&D is a game which requires open communication with other people - and especially communication between the GM and the player.

When you feel like there's something missing or wrong with the rules, use your imagination and critical thinking skills to come up with a solution. Bring up your ideas with your GM/Player to make it a better experience for the both of you.

If that bothers you, maybe this game isn't for you.

[DanyBallon]

So an incomplete rules system isn't bad because I can talk to someone who might think holy sword making requires pouring my life force into it rather than a spiritual journey and a ritual?

Okay, that's an unfair criticism. The thing is, I want to know if I can prepare my sword while adventuring. Something that should be in the rules.

5e is all about the cooperation between the DM and the players. By talking with your DM you'll be able to meet a middle ground that will suits your needs as well as helping the game to evolve toward more fun for everyone.
I find it more easy to sit and talk to create something together, than having to deal with rule lawyers that argue if you ever think about moving a single comma. This is one reason I left 3.P and happily move to 5e.


Note, the setting I said the crafting rules should come with:
-Has easily buyable magic items.
-Has had a class in every edition devoted to crafting.
-Has magic items being technology as an established part of setting lore.

So simple suggestion: if you don't want magic marts, just ignore the books with decent crafting systems.

Because I have character concepts who are intended to invent and prototype a single invention over a campaign.

Sorry, but I haven't read all the previous post, and the one I quoted didn't have any setting information.

[JoeJ]

Okay, that's an unfair criticism. The thing is, I want to know if I can prepare my sword while adventuring. Something that should be in the rules.

Something like that is in the rules. DMG p. 129. If crafting is allowed, and if you have the formula, you can produce 25gp worth of work per day, working 8 hours. So probably no adventuring on the days that you're so occupied. It doesn't say those days have to be contiguous, though.

[Anonymouswizard]

D&D is a game which requires open communication with other people - and especially communication between the GM and the player.

When you feel like there's something missing or wrong with the rules, use your imagination and critical thinking skills to come up with a solution. Bring up your ideas with your GM/Player to make it a better experience for the both of you.

If that bothers you, maybe this game isn't for you.

The thing is, there are 4+ editions of D&D which aren't as incomplete.

Also, I'm in a group that tends to hit the books when a rule question comes up. We've used games than go from 'rules light-ish bar magic' (Unknown Armies) to rules heavy (GURPS). 'Ask your GM' would slow us down.

Stop trying to tell me an incomplete game is complete. There are glaring holes in the rules (seriously, nothing in the PhB about social situations beyond a few skills, basically no non-skill non-spell out of combat abilities, etc). If you gave me 5e and told me 'it's for combat' ID be fine.

What I am not fine with is the insanely increased in-game workload as a GM. I have to decide the difficulty of all actions, and integrate them in the game without guidelines as to how they work? No thank you, I have Fate. 5e would be a great game, if for the price of the core I couldn't get a system that wasn't missing 1/4 of it's rules, plus a homebrewing guide; or a game that intentionally stays light on everything but powers; or a game that admits it's combat focused, and so on. If I was buying a book to not have rules and guidelines ID buy a notepad and play freeform.

Also, ever tried planning where every 2 minutes you have to ask the GM 'can I do this?' It slows the game down immensely, compared to being able to say 'you build a wall while I craft a wand of fireball'. The GM can also get on with working out how the plan affects the world instead of what I need to do to make my wand.

EDIT: can people please just accept that NOT EVERYBODY WANTS THE EXACT SAME THING FRON A GAME. Say I haven't made a holy sword before, even if I have the formula. What happens if:
-I mess up
-I use the wrong components
-I have to abandon it for a while halfway through
-The formula I have is for a similar unholy sword and I'm extrapolating.

What if I want to make a rod of bees, that allows me to command all bees within 200ft. What are the rules for making that.

[Lines]

There's an easy way to do this, talk with your DM about it!

There's an easy way to cast spells, talk with your DM about it!

Or, you know, have a proper system with sorted costs and actual rules. That's nice too.

[DanyBallon]

The thing is, there are 4+ editions of D&D which aren't as incomplete.

Also, I'm in a group that tends to hit the books when a rule question comes up. We've used games than go from 'rules light-ish bar magic' (Unknown Armies) to rules heavy (GURPS). 'Ask your GM' would slow us down.

Stop trying to tell me an incomplete game is complete. There are glaring holes in the rules (seriously, nothing in the PhB about social situations beyond a few skills, basically no non-skill non-spell out of combat abilities, etc). If you gave me 5e and told me 'it's for combat' ID be fine.

What I am not fine with is the insanely increased in-game workload as a GM. I have to decide the difficulty of all actions, and integrate them in the game without guidelines as to how they work? No thank you, I have Fate. 5e would be a great game, if for the price of the core I couldn't get a system that wasn't missing 1/4 of it's rules, plus a homebrewing guide; or a game that intentionally stays light on everything but powers; or a game that admits it's combat focused, and so on. If I was buying a book to not have rules and guidelines ID buy a notepad and play freeform.

Also, ever tried planning where every 2 minutes you have to ask the GM 'can I do this?' It slows the game down immensely, compared to being able to say 'you build a wall while I craft a wand of fireball'. The GM can also get on with working out how the plan affects the world instead of what I need to do to make my wand.

EDIT: can people please just accept that NOT EVERYBODY WANTS THE EXACT SAME THING FRON A GAME. Say I haven't made a holy sword before, even if I have the formula. What happens if:
-I mess up
-I use the wrong components
-I have to abandon it for a while halfway through
-The formula I have is for a similar unholy sword and I'm extrapolating.

What if I want to make a rod of bees, that allows me to command all bees within 200ft. What are the rules for making that.

A game system where everything is covered with rules isn't better. 5e rely more on collaboration between DM and players, or "ask your DM" if you prefer, than the last two editions... If it's slowing down your game, then maybe 5e ain't the right game for you and your friends. It's not that the game is incomplete, it's just not the right game that covers your needs.

[pwykersotz]

It's easier to ignore a crafting system that empowers players than it is to create one.

For what it's worth, I accept that you enjoy a solid crafting system that empowers players, and I've enjoyed them in the past too. But I do want to say that this statement isn't necessarily correct.

A robust player-oriented crafting system comes with expectations that magic items will be a part of the game, and they will occur at a rate the player controls. This has all sorts of repercussions in the design space of the game and is VERY difficult to ignore. On the other hand, I've empowered players to craft their own magic items by simply saying "Find a magical creature piece you think is worthy, spend a week forging it to the item, and tell me what your item does." That easy. It's true that it's DM created and was only for one campaign, but I put the power squarely in the hands of the players and it was simple. I've also come up with more nuanced systems to play with.

That said, I respect your desire for a crafting system that differs from what we have. I wouldn't mind one either, since now that the core game is out, such a system would by definition be a modular add-on. I'd like one that a) didn't require the crafter to be a caster, b) shared resources and hence opportunity costs with other facets of the game to make magic items not always the best choice, and c) allows flexibility in time and gold needed to be able to adjust for different campaign styles. All while providing a bit more detail than we currently have.

[Anonymouswizard]

A game system where everything is covered with rules isn't better. 5e rely more on collaboration between DM and players, or "ask your DM" if you prefer, than the last two editions... If it's slowing down your game, then maybe 5e ain't the right game for you and your friends. It's not that the game is incomplete, it's just not the right game that covers your needs.

Yes, but less rules isn't better. Fate has more rules than 5ecitation needed, but I find it easier to GM because I just need to decide if an action is Overcome, Create an Advantage, Attack, or Defend. It's player-GM collaboration does not happen in the middle of a scene, but when adding a new Stunt or Extra.


For what it's worth, I accept that you enjoy a solid crafting system that empowers players, and I've enjoyed them in the past too. But I do want to say that this statement isn't necessarily correct.

A robust player-oriented crafting system comes with expectations that magic items will be a part of the game, and they will occur at a rate the player controls. This has all sorts of repercussions in the design space of the game and is VERY difficult to ignore. On the other hand, I've empowered players to craft their own magic items by simply saying "Find a magical creature piece you think is worthy, spend a week forging it to the item, and tell me what your item does." That easy. It's true that it's DM created and was only for one campaign, but I put the power squarely in the hands of the players and it was simple. I've also come up with more nuanced systems to play with.

That said, I respect your desire for a crafting system that differs from what we have. I wouldn't mind one either, since now that the core game is out, such a system would by definition be a modular add-on. I'd like one that a) didn't require the crafter to be a caster, b) shared resources and hence opportunity costs with other facets of the game to make magic items not always the best choice, and c) allows flexibility in time and gold needed to be able to adjust for different campaign styles. All while providing a bit more detail than we currently have.

I agree, as I said, 5e's crafting system looks like it's fine, for the assumptions of 5e. It's just when you remove those assumptions, like Eberron does, it stops working so well.

[Coyote81]

I'd like to see an Dragonlance Adventure Guide.

Minotaurs
Tinker Gnomes
Kender

Favored Souls (Mystics?) - A Sorcerer favored Archtype
Inquisitor - A Rogue Archtype
Legendary Tactician - A Fighter Archtype
Righteous zealot
Solamnic Knights - A Paladin Archtype
Wizards of High Sorcery - With Black Red and White Robe specialties.

Talk in depth about clerics and the deities of dragonlance. Give the following options:
-Various Medallions of Faith, one for each major deity (Chances the Channel Divinity feature of the base cleric class)
-Cantrips for Wisdom based classes (Clerics and rangers)

Finish up the book with lots of new backgrounds, all Krynn based

[MrStabby]

A guide to the outer planes could be good.

Possibly fleshing out the waterborne adventures into a full book could work - cool islands, sea monsters, shipwrecks, underwater civilisations, races, fleshed out ship to ship combat...

[JackPhoenix]

Artificer (no subs)

I think Artificer would work well with 3 subclasses: one construct focused (hopfully better then BM ranger, though pet doing nothing without direct order would at least made more sense for a homonculus), one melee focused based on turning yourself into cyborg (renegade mastermaker) and one buff/healing focused (there was apparently lot people asking for an alchemist class, even though there was none in D&D... PF influence shows)

While I love crafting, It won't fit into 5e, and these subclasses are better fit for a adventurer then craftsman that sits in his workshop all the time, creating equipment for the rest of the group

[Lines]

I think Artificer would work well with 3 subclasses: one construct focused (hopfully better then BM ranger, though pet doing nothing without direct order would at least made more sense for a homonculus), one melee focused based on turning yourself into cyborg (renegade mastermaker) and one buff/healing focused (there was apparently lot people asking for an alchemist class, even though there was none in D&D... PF influence shows)

While I love crafting, It won't fit into 5e, and these subclasses are better fit for a adventurer then craftsman that sits in his workshop all the time, creating equipment for the rest of the group

If there's no crafting, there shouldn't be an artificer. Find a different name for it. And you don't have to sit in a workshop, just have a homunculus do it or have it like 3.5 where you can craft at most 8 hours a day, but shorten the time.

[TentacleSurpris]

3.5 adds up to about 9GB of pdfs, of varying quality. I'd rather have less and have it better balanced and put together than go back to having 70 races with 5 subraces apiece and 55 base classes with 5 subsystems. Honestly, keep 5e as clean as possible. Pretty much every other tabletop RPG manages to be fun without an endless glut of classes and specializations that nobody ever uses.

At Most:
> 3 more classes; Artificer (no subs), Mystic (psion, soulknife and lurk) and Totemist (single Incarnum class).
> 8 player races; Warforged, Shifter, Changeling, (Eberron) Kalashtar, Dromites, (Psionics) Thri-keen and Mul (Dark Sun}
> Backgrounds, magic items and the concept of magical locations.

We don't need a metric ton of variation and strange new tricks to have fun. It's mostly settings and their own takes on D&D that we're missing, not mechanical options and player choice.

It's not a forum debate until someone uses the phrase "logical fallacy". So I guess I'll use it.

You're "excluding the middle." You're citing the worst-case scenario, "a metric ton" of options, and giving the only other option as a paltry offering of obscure, irrelevant classes. There is middle ground between the endless glut of 3.5 and the 1 sourcebook in the 2 years of 5e.

- There are many DND standards and fantasy archetypes that aren't covered in the current offerings.

- There is no mechanically functional beastmaster, (My RL puppy and I can go out for a run together, but a BM and his doggie can't because only one of them can take the Dash action in a turn), meanwhile MM has been alluding to a reworked ranger for a year now. Heck, an Eagle owned by BM can't even fly at its full speed unless the BM stands there, shouting at it to dash every round. Human beings are conceived and gestated in less time than it takes Mike Mearls to write a 3-page Ranger fix.

- There should be a book of monstrous races and backgrounds and subclasses. I don't mean weird things like Aboleth fighters, but Orcs and Hags and Minotaurs and goblins, scaled down to CR 0 so that they can be used as PC races.

- There should be, at a minimum, three archetypes for each class. Rangers, Druids, and Bards have very little replayability. I want to keep playing this edition weekly for 3 more years, but we're already getting bored of the similarity in party makeups from one campaign to the next.

- There should be viable melee options for each class. The SCAG cantrips and Bladesinger were a big step in the right direction. But still, a Blade warlock does what for levels 1-2?

- They should fix the problem of races that have weapon/armor training not being able to actually afford their weapons/armor at start.

- There should be a psionics book.

- There needs to be more monsters. Right now, the Monster Manual has barely anything at each CR above 11. Above level 11, you can fight a conveyor belt of identical dragons and a few demons, a beholder, and a lich to level up, but that's about it.


There is a LOT OF ROOM for design before hitting the book bloat. The issue right now is Wizards doesn't want to invest in a book for fear of losing money on it. I bought the SCAG, as disappointed as I was in the page/price ratio, because I want to see more content. But multi million dollar corporations shouldn't be guilting money out of me to "support" them, they should be making products that we want to buy.

I've got money and I want to give to WOTC, but they apparently don't want it.

[Socko525]

I'd like to see the fruits of the various surveys. They continually ask for balance help and our feelings on additional options, but the V2 of the Mystic is the only thing we've seen (updated Ranger with beast companion as part of the base class anyone?).

Unearthed Arcana was great but the break where they just showcase DM guild modules makes me hesitant of its future. I get the feeling they're relying on the DM guild to extend options more than developing new stuff.

As has been mentioned, the Giant campaign that was talked about a while back would be interesting.

[Elfcrusher]

I would be happy for you to be wrong too. There's no good reason not to have more options, if a DM doesn't want them they don't have to use them.

I don't want to start a war over this, and my opinion is 100% opinion, but I disagree with the above, and with all due respect I'd like to lay out my argument:

1) The "good reason" to not have more options is the increase in contrived/wonky builds that start appearing, and it impacts my enjoyment of the game when other people at the table start using them. Case in point: Polearm Master / Great Weapon Master builds. I roll my eyes whenever this appears (which is too often) and it impacts the game: suddenly there's this guy destroying everything in site and making the other players feel like extras.

2) The "if the DM doesn't want them" option only applies to the DM. The players might not have a choice. And I'm usually a player.

3) I also mostly play Adventurer's League. If content is official then it becomes an option in Adventurer's League. So then I'm *really* stuck with it.

On the other hand, to flip your argument, if you're the DM and you're not playing Adventurer's League then you're free to add in whatever home brews, house rules, and 3rd party content that you want. There's a LOT of unofficial content out there, with countless options. So if it's options you want, they're already out there.

I just hope the official options don't become bloated. *SOME* new options? Sure. But I hope they don't start cranking them out like they did in previous editions.

For me the variety and novelty in the game comes from new adventures, new challenges, new stories. Not character options. It seems like in some games the focus is on the options.

[Regitnui]

- There are many DND standards and fantasy archetypes that aren't covered in the current offerings.

Name a few. All the basic classes and races are represented, with a few outliers. What isn't explicitly modelled can be refluffed fairly easy if you have some imagination.


- There is no mechanically functional beastmaster, (My RL puppy and I can go out for a run together, but a BM and his doggie can't because only one of them can take the Dash action in a turn), meanwhile MM has been alluding to a reworked ranger for a year now. Heck, an Eagle owned by BM can't even fly at its full speed unless the BM stands there, shouting at it to dash every round. Human beings are conceived and gestated in less time than it takes Mike Mearls to write a 3-page Ranger fix.

The beastmaster works. That makes it mechanically functional, because the mechanics function. It is suboptimal and illogical, but not competely broken like you seem to think it is. It's no truenamer.

I don't presume to know the WoTC design process. However, I will say that I'd much rather have less quality than lots of trash.


- There should be a book of monstrous races and backgrounds and subclasses. I don't mean weird things like Aboleth fighters, but Orcs and Hags and Minotaurs and goblins, scaled down to CR 0 so that they can be used as PC races.

Savage Species is a book I've never picked up. 5e is perfectly capable of using monsters as NPCs via the loathed DM fiat. Balancing the races into 5e would require losing most of their more iconic abilities.


- There should be, at a minimum, three archetypes for each class. Rangers, Druids, and Bards have very little replayability. I want to keep playing this edition weekly for 3 more years, but we're already getting bored of the similarity in party makeups from one campaign to the next.

How many characters have you gone through?! 9 races with 12 classes leaves us with 108 possible combinations before subclasses.Admittedly, a human warlock feels similar to a elf warlock, but the backgrounds and personality aspects are what makes a character, not the numbers.

Are you a mechanics-focused player or an accountant? Or heaven-forbid, an optimizer...


- There should be viable melee options for each class. The SCAG cantrips and Bladesinger were a big step in the right direction. But still, a Blade warlock does what for levels 1-2?

I'm sorry. This is wrong. Giving every class mêlée removes the fighter and barbarian from usefulness. Would you give every class spells, or eldritch blast expies? The entire point of having the fighter, barbarian and paladin is to have someone to do mêlée well. If you want to be a spellblade, play an eldritch knight. That's what it's there for. If you want to be all-powerful, why play the game with other party members?

The classes are supposed to have gaps. Look at the classic 4-person party; Warrior for melee, Mage for crowd control, Rogue for stealth and Priest for healing. Giving the other three archetypes strong mêlée makes the Warrior archetype redundant. I mean, why would anyone play a fighter when every other class could be a "fighter+"?


- They should fix the problem of races that have weapon/armor training not being able to actually afford their weapons/armor at start.

In the PHB class descriptions:


You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your chosen background.

So why is it a problem that the starting gold is less than you need for the equipment when you already have your equipment provided?


- There should be a psionics book.

No argument here. And they're working on one, judging by the UA. Does KT need its own book all to itself? No, put it in a PHB2 with the totemist, dragonfire adept and a fixed beast master. The PHB2 could also contain Thri-keen, warforged, changeling, mul, and other classic races. Maybe even a full lore writeup for the aasimar. Then you've got everything you need in one package.


- There needs to be more monsters. Right now, the Monster Manual has barely anything at each CR above 11. Above level 11, you can fight a conveyor belt of identical dragons and a few demons, a beholder, and a lich to level up, but that's about it.

Yes, because we only fight one creature per party /irony. How many people here can assemble a CR11 encounter with individual creatures worth less than CR10 individually? I'll give every person an internet cookie.

A personal rant below. I might be wrong or right with this, but it's my opinion. It's in spoiler tags because it's irrelevant to the discussion and somebody's going to use it to try an attack my character for disagreeing with them, since this is the internet.


That's the DM's job. To make the game more than "start, kill, treasure, xp", but most of the complaints I see about 5e, as in actual whines is that there's so much left up to the DM. This is the 5th edition of D&D, the third/fourth where they've had regular organized play events where WotC can see how people play and what they enjoy about the game. Yes, it doesn't cater to your (not tentacle specifically) specific tastes. I don't complain about D&D not containing the rules for every possible situation. If it doesn't objectively make the game better, it's unnecessary. What does playing a cut down minotaur get you that a Goliath wearing spiked armour wouldn't? What about magic item crafting? So you want to make a wand that shoots bees? How is that different mechanically from a wand of magic missile?

Here's a question before you complain about something, ask this question: "Do I want this for any reason besides my own satisfaction?" If the answer is no, see how you can do it within the rules already.

Bored with D&D? I've got 5 different free RPG systems on my laptop alone. Finding something new isn't that hard or that expensive. If you're unscrupulous like me, you can find a lot of paid material for free as well, so there really isn't any reason for a ttRPG player to complain of boredom at all.

Or you could just keep playing electronic RPGs where you get lore and character spoonfed while you endlessly optimize. Rant over

[Anonymouswizard]

I think Artificer would work well with 3 subclasses: one construct focused (hopfully better then BM ranger, though pet doing nothing without direct order would at least made more sense for a homonculus), one melee focused based on turning yourself into cyborg (renegade mastermaker) and one buff/healing focused (there was apparently lot people asking for an alchemist class, even though there was none in D&D... PF influence shows)

While I love crafting, It won't fit into 5e, and these subclasses are better fit for a adventurer then craftsman that sits in his workshop all the time, creating equipment for the rest of the group

Looking at the 3e Artificier, someone focused around magic potions/scrolls, recharging wands and staffs, and creating temporary magic items? Give them half casting for infusions, let them brew potions/scribe scrolls at level 1 by sacrificing infusion slots, then at higher levels let them burn infusion slots instead of charges for magic items. Throw in an identify ability, an infusions subclass, a constructs subclass, and a potions subclass, and I'd happily forget about the lack of player-focused crafting rules.


I'm sorry. This is wrong. Giving every class mêlée removes the fighter and barbarian from usefulness. Would you give every class spells, or eldritch blast expies? The entire point of having the fighter, barbarian and paladin is to have someone to do mêlée well. If you want to be a spellblade, play an eldritch knight. That's what it's there for. If you want to be all-powerful, why play the game with other party members?

Apart from the Barbarian and Monk every class can take an option that gives them several spells and spell slots (monks can get spells, but not in any meaningful way for this discussion). Now I don't disagree with your point, but remember that those three classes also have the greatest amount of HP. Especially for Sorcerers and Wizards, melee combat should always be dangerous for low-hp and low-armour classes.

[supergoji18]

Can we please get something that gives more cleric domains? So far the only thing they have gotten is a death domain and an arcane domain, and while they're awesome there are still so many awesome domains to find (elemental domains, madness, etc.)

Actually, more archtypes in general would be awesome. I'd love to see some more options for druids and rangers (they haven't even been touched since the player's handbook it feels). Also, more races would be amazing.

Psionic's handbook would be awesome as well, though we all know that isn't coming for a long time (they're only halfway through the class as it is, and they have a few things to fix).

[JumboWheat01]

Can we please get something that gives more cleric domains? So far the only thing they have gotten is a death domain and an arcane domain, and while they're awesome there are still so many awesome domains to find (elemental domains, madness, etc.)

Actually, more archtypes in general would be awesome. I'd love to see some more options for druids and rangers (they haven't even been touched since the player's handbook it feels). Also, more races would be amazing.

Psionic's handbook would be awesome as well, though we all know that isn't coming for a long time (they're only halfway through the class as it is, and they have a few things to fix).

Wait, has Death been given an official, player available version yet? I know it's in the DMG, but not in player hands. I've been meaning to play a Doomguide, since Kelemvor is awesome. Still, it would be nice to see more domains, and the gods be expanded to have a few more domains to choose from. Maybe nothing like 3rd Edition's several domains per god, but still, a few each would be nice. So many have just one.

[eastmabl]

Wait, has Death been given an official, player available version yet? I know it's in the DMG, but not in player hands. I've been meaning to play a Doomguide, since Kelemvor is awesome. Still, it would be nice to see more domains, and the gods be expanded to have a few more domains to choose from. Maybe nothing like 3rd Edition's several domains per god, but still, a few each would be nice. So many have just one.

DMG-only.

***

Honestly, I'd rather see more of the Wizards IP opened up like FR and Greyhawk.

[RickAllison]

Wait, has Death been given an official, player available version yet? I know it's in the DMG, but not in player hands. I've been meaning to play a Doomguide, since Kelemvor is awesome. Still, it would be nice to see more domains, and the gods be expanded to have a few more domains to choose from. Maybe nothing like 3rd Edition's several domains per god, but still, a few each would be nice. So many have just one.

It's official; the reason it is in the DMG is because it does not fit into every campaign due to its Morally questionable material. Based on the references in the PHB to that and Oathbreaker, it seems like those are staying where they are, only accessible with DM approval.

[Lines]

Wait, has Death been given an official, player available version yet? I know it's in the DMG, but not in player hands. I've been meaning to play a Doomguide, since Kelemvor is awesome. Still, it would be nice to see more domains, and the gods be expanded to have a few more domains to choose from. Maybe nothing like 3rd Edition's several domains per god, but still, a few each would be nice. So many have just one.

The one in the DMG is a fully fleshed out domain, why wouldn't you let a player use it? Honest question here, I can't see a reason why not. Same for the oathbreaker really, which should not be evil only - if you're a paladin of the crown and you break your oath, that makes you chaotic, not evil. And what if you're an evil vengeance paladin and break your oath because you were merciful?

[JumboWheat01]

DMG-only.

***

Honestly, I'd rather see more of the Wizards IP opened up like FR and Greyhawk.


It's official; the reason it is in the DMG is because it does not fit into every campaign due to its Morally questionable material. Based on the references in the PHB to that and Oathbreaker, it seems like those are staying where they are, only accessible with DM approval.

Well... poo. Then I definitely stand by what I said about gods getting more domains. As is, unless allowed, no cleric could be made of Kelemvor since his domain is some "dark and evil" thing. And a god without worshipers is a dead god.

...Must tell my DM-buddy that potential story arc.

[RickAllison]

The one in the DMG is a fully fleshed out domain, why wouldn't you let a player use it? Honest question here, I can't see a reason why not. Same for the oathbreaker really, which should not be evil only - if you're a paladin of the crown and you break your oath, that makes you chaotic, not evil. And what if you're an evil vengeance paladin and break your oath because you were merciful?

For Oathbreaker, it's because the abilities are rather... negatively inclined. Let's look at some fun quotes!!!


.:1 Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her
sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an
power. Whatever light burned in the paladin's heart
has been extinguished. Only darkness remains.
A paladin must be evil and at least 3rd level to
become an Oathbreaker.

...As an action, the paladin channels
the darkest emotions and focuses them into a burst of
magical menace...

...Aura of Hate...

So the idea from the DMG is he isn't just breaking his oath (he could just switch oaths, for which Vengeance seems ideal) but specifically doing evil. It can be re-fluffed (as can anything) but by default it is evil. As for the Death domain gods in the PHB, eighteen are evil, four are neutral, and one is good. The only good one and one of the neutrals are only in the Egyptian pantheon, one neutral is from Eberron, one neutral is from Greyhawk, and the final is from the Forgotten Realms. This is why Death domain is in the DMG, because it's much rarer to have non-evil clerics of death and so it is prohibited by default.

[Drackolus]

Well... poo. Then I definitely stand by what I said about gods getting more domains. As is, unless allowed, no cleric could be made of Kelemvor since his domain is some "dark and evil" thing. And a god without worshipers is a dead god.

...Must tell my DM-buddy that potential story arc.

Wait.... Kelemvor despises undeath. How could a death cleric - which has many abilities aiding the summoning of undead - possibly fit with Kelemvor? I mean, I get that death is one of his domains, but the death cleric domain is more of an "undeath" domain. You'd need a new kelemvor-ish death domain, I think.

[JumboWheat01]

Wait.... Kelemvor despises undeath. How could a death cleric - which has many abilities aiding the summoning of undead - possibly fit with Kelemvor? I mean, I get that death is one of his domains, but the death cleric domain is more of an "undeath" domain. You'd need a new kelemvor-ish death domain, I think.

Well, according to the PHB, Death is Kelemvor's ONLY domain in 5th Edition. Agreed that it doesn't seem overly fitting, but maybe all the years as the God of Death are finally getting to the man.

[Drackolus]

Well, according to the PHB, Death is Kelemvor's ONLY domain in 5th Edition. Agreed that it doesn't seem overly fitting, but maybe all the years as the God of Death are finally getting to the man.

Actually, now that I look again, the only thing that actually involves undeath is "animate dead" as a 3rd level spell. Simply swap that out for something else and it would be fine.

[Lines]

For Oathbreaker, it's because the abilities are rather... negatively inclined. Let's look at some fun quotes!!!
Their abilities still aren't any worse than what a wizard gets up to. Not that I object to them being in the DMG, the PHB has limited space and it's not like the DMG uses most of its space well, new classes was the best thing from it.


So the idea from the DMG is he isn't just breaking his oath (he could just switch oaths, for which Vengeance seems ideal) but specifically doing evil. It can be re-fluffed (as can anything) but by default it is evil. As for the Death domain gods in the PHB, eighteen are evil, four are neutral, and one is good. The only good one and one of the neutrals are only in the Egyptian pantheon, one neutral is from Eberron, one neutral is from Greyhawk, and the final is from the Forgotten Realms. This is why Death domain is in the DMG, because it's much rarer to have non-evil clerics of death and so it is prohibited by default.
Which is fine, but am I correct in assuming that if they wanted to play a death cleric of appropriate alignment to the campaign there's no reason not to let them?

[mephnick]

Which is fine, but am I correct in assuming that if they wanted to play a death cleric of appropriate alignment to the campaign there's no reason not to let them?

Assuming it fits into the world/party/playstyle there's no real reason to disallow anything.

I disallow dragonborn and drow for setting reasons, but have no problems with them otherwise.

Being in the PHB or the DMG is meaningless, the DM will decide regardless.

[RickAllison]

Their abilities still aren't any worse than what a wizard gets up to. Not that I object to them being in the DMG, the PHB has limited space and it's not like the DMG uses most of its space well, new classes was the best thing from it.


Which is fine, but am I correct in assuming that if they wanted to play a death cleric of appropriate alignment to the campaign there's no reason not to let them?

Of course; the only reason they aren't in the PHB is because they don't fit into every campaign as easily and it gives precedent for the DM to say "No" (incidentally, are they disallowed in AL play?). For Oathbreaker, while the abilities aren't any worse than a Necromancer, the issue is that they are by default powered by evil and hate.

Do you think they'll ever release a domain for Nuitari, or is there a lore reason why no one can be a cleric of him?

[JackPhoenix]

Of course; the only reason they aren't in the PHB is because they don't fit into every campaign as easily and it gives precedent for the DM to say "No" (incidentally, are they disallowed in AL play?). For Oathbreaker, while the abilities aren't any worse than a Necromancer, the issue is that they are by default powered by evil and hate.

Do you think they'll ever release a domain for Nuitari, or is there a lore reason why no one can be a cleric of him?

Dragonlance's magic gods don't have any clerics (they just doesn't care about worship), only wizards. Magic is more impotant than anything else to them, they are closer to each other than to other gods from their respective alignments, even their parents.

Now, arcana domain changes things a little, but still, they propably won't empower any clerics anyway.

[RickAllison]

Dragonlance's magic gods don't have any clerics (they just doesn't care about worship), only wizards. Magic is more impotant than anything else to them, they are closer to each other than to other gods from their respective alignments, even their parents.

Now, arcana domain changes things a little, but still, they propably won't empower any clerics anyway.

Just looked at my copy of SCAG:


the triple
moon gods of Solinari, Lunitari, and Nuitari of Krynn;

Arcana domain it is :smallsmile: I'm not familiar with the Dragonlance setting, so that might be why I was confused.

[Lines]

Name a few. All the basic classes and races are represented, with a few outliers. What isn't explicitly modelled can be refluffed fairly easy if you have some imagination.
Fluff can't cover the lack of mechanical variety. We have one major subsystem (spellcasting), a bunch of minor ones (all of them are x points per rest - sorcery, ki, etc) and nothing else. Psionics will hopefully come soon and there's a room for a lot more beyond that, we still don't have a proper martial subsystem even though that probably should have been in the PHB.


The beastmaster works. That makes it mechanically functional, because the mechanics function. It is suboptimal and illogical, but not competely broken like you seem to think it is. It's no truenamer.

I don't presume to know the WoTC design process. However, I will say that I'd much rather have less quality than lots of trash.
We all would, problem there is the beastmaster is trash. The main thing that gets to everyone is the fact that you have to order it every six seconds to do something that should come naturally to it, becoming a ranger's companion apparently comes with a free lobotomy.


Savage Species is a book I've never picked up. 5e is perfectly capable of using monsters as NPCs via the loathed DM fiat. Balancing the races into 5e would require losing most of their more iconic abilities.
Not really, you just need a system of level adjustment or similar - that's what Savage Species introduced. I'd like a more nuanced system than LA, but I would like a way of balancing things like half dragons other than 'lol we couldn't be bothered thinking of a good way to balance it, so we're just going to not balance it and pretend that's a feature'.


How many characters have you gone through?! 9 races with 12 classes leaves us with 108 possible combinations before subclasses.Admittedly, a human warlock feels similar to a elf warlock, but the backgrounds and personality aspects are what makes a character, not the numbers.

Are you a mechanics-focused player or an accountant? Or heaven-forbid, an optimizer...
Why can't we be all 3? I have a player who is an accountant, he ran the last campaign and it was a weird and imaginative setting that turned out to be taking place inside the mind of a dreaming Tarrasque. Optimisation is not a bad thing, and you've answered your own question - yes, it isn't the numbers that make a character (although they're important, your barbarian concept isn't going to work with 8 strength), but for many people it is the mechanics that are important. Mechanically interesting characters are important to a lot of people - you may be happy to play a champion fighter, maybe you also know other people that are, doesn't mean there aren't people who would find it boring as hell.

Seriously, I need to reiterate this, mechanics are very important to how a character plays and feels. A well roleplayed character that does well is fun, a well roleplayed character that does well and doesn't play the same way as your last 5 characters is better. One of the absolute best things that came out of the later parts of 3.5 were classes like the dread necromancer, dragonfire adept, factotum, totemist, crusader, binder etc that gave us a huge amount of mechanical variety and were an absolute blast to play. 5e has done several things very well, but ultimately it still looks a lot like 3.5 did on release - a dozen classes that are either autoattacks, spellcasting or autoattacks and spellcasting with a few subsystems thrown in. Which is a good start, but it's time for more.


I'm sorry. This is wrong. Giving every class mêlée removes the fighter and barbarian from usefulness. Would you give every class spells, or eldritch blast expies? The entire point of having the fighter, barbarian and paladin is to have someone to do mêlée well. If you want to be a spellblade, play an eldritch knight. That's what it's there for. If you want to be all-powerful, why play the game with other party members?

The classes are supposed to have gaps. Look at the classic 4-person party; Warrior for melee, Mage for crowd control, Rogue for stealth and Priest for healing. Giving the other three archetypes strong mêlée makes the Warrior archetype redundant. I mean, why would anyone play a fighter when every other class could be a "fighter+"?
Ehhhh, give the mage the ability to go into melee (hello polymorph) and that 4 man party is all melee in general. In response to that last question... to be honest, that's my problem with fighters. They deal and take damage. Every class deals and takes damage, and a fighter basically brings nothing beyond that while most other classes are useful in several other areas, in practice bringing a fighter at higher levels really is pointless when you can just get more out of grabbing a sorclock or paladin instead.

I don't think every class needs to be capable in melee either, though bladelock certainly needs improvements. It should be noted that doing so won't step on the fighter and barbarians toes, however, they're the best they are at what they do even if what they do is basically two things that everyone is competent in.


So why is it a problem that the starting gold is less than you need for the equipment when you already have your equipment provided?
Because, as he said, if you're a dwarf sorcerer you can't start with the armour you're proficient with. On an average roll you now have 25gp left after buying a scale mail or chain shirt, not enough for the adventuring necessities.


A personal rant below. I might be wrong or right with this, but it's my opinion. It's in spoiler tags because it's irrelevant to the discussion and somebody's going to use it to try an attack my character for disagreeing with them, since this is the internet.


That's the DM's job. To make the game more than "start, kill, treasure, xp", but most of the complaints I see about 5e, as in actual whines is that there's so much left up to the DM. This is the 5th edition of D&D, the third/fourth where they've had regular organized play events where WotC can see how people play and what they enjoy about the game. Yes, it doesn't cater to your (not tentacle specifically) specific tastes. I don't complain about D&D not containing the rules for every possible situation. If it doesn't objectively make the game better, it's unnecessary. What does playing a cut down minotaur get you that a Goliath wearing spiked armour wouldn't? What about magic item crafting? So you want to make a wand that shoots bees? How is that different mechanically from a wand of magic missile?

Here's a question before you complain about something, ask this question: "Do I want this for any reason besides my own satisfaction?" If the answer is no, see how you can do it within the rules already.

Bored with D&D? I've got 5 different free RPG systems on my laptop alone. Finding something new isn't that hard or that expensive. If you're unscrupulous like me, you can find a lot of paid material for free as well, so there really isn't any reason for a ttRPG player to complain of boredom at all.

Or you could just keep playing electronic RPGs where you get lore and character spoonfed while you endlessly optimize. Rant over

The answer to why I want most of everything I've mentioned is that mechanical variety is fun. I don't understand most of your rant, however - what's wrong with electronic RPGs, and what are we getting spoonfed exactly? And again, what's wrong with optimization?

[Anonymouswizard]

And again, what's wrong with optimization?

I'm not sure. It can cause problems, in some games, if one character is more optimised than the rest, but as 3.5 shows at least as many people who know about the imbalance will happily play with sword+board fighters and debuffer wizards in the same group. I almost got annoyed at one of the fellow players in my current group until I realised how useless his highly-optimised mage was (he uses magic usefully about once a session on average and occasionally knows a secret path) while my less optimised priest was loved by the hold thanks to a few of the times his illusions were useful. Conversely the character who is consistently the most useful has wasted points because of lingering resentment towards their race.

But optimisation seems to be a dirty word. I'm worried that the roleplaying community will eventually devolve into telling people that if their characters are useful they are playing it wrong.

Okay, I've actually already seen that argument. It was weird. But this 'anti-optimisation' thing has made me wonder what sort of character I should play, a 3 Strength 3 Dexterity Fighter (Champion) with 20 Intelligence?

[Safety Sword]

Your lack of Dragonlance disturbs me.

[pwykersotz]

The one in the DMG is a fully fleshed out domain, why wouldn't you let a player use it?

You ask this question a lot, and I honestly think that the question itself is one of the strongest reasons not to have extensive additional mechanical content (even though I still want more). Because while a DM might be trying to run a world, some players have no respect for those boundaries and are forever pushing them. The trouble of vetting every single extra system that comes into play is not a simple one, and overly permissive use of systems to powergame can be a serious issue with less experienced GM's.

[JoeJ]

Okay, I've actually already seen that argument. It was weird. But this 'anti-optimisation' thing has made me wonder what sort of character I should play, a 3 Strength 3 Dexterity Fighter (Champion) with 20 Intelligence?

20 Intelligence! What a munchkin move. You should have 3 in all your ability scores. And use your ASIs for feats like Weapon Master. Linguist might be okay too, but that +1 Intelligence is pushing it.

[Lines]

You ask this question a lot, and I honestly think that the question itself is one of the strongest reasons not to have extensive additional mechanical content (even though I still want more). Because while a DM might be trying to run a world, some players have no respect for those boundaries and are forever pushing them. The trouble of vetting every single extra system that comes into play is not a simple one, and overly permissive use of systems to powergame can be a serious issue with less experienced GM's.

That's kind of my point, though. There are already a bunch of cleric domains, if you're allowed the war domain, why not death? At least death was going to happen anyway, you're not basing it around the far more evil concept of going out for the specific purpose of killing a bunch of people.

[JoeJ]

You ask this question a lot, and I honestly think that the question itself is one of the strongest reasons not to have extensive additional mechanical content (even though I still want more). Because while a DM might be trying to run a world, some players have no respect for those boundaries and are forever pushing them. The trouble of vetting every single extra system that comes into play is not a simple one, and overly permissive use of systems to powergame can be a serious issue with less experienced GM's.

I agree. Putting those options into the DMG means that, by default, they are not allowed. It's putting them in that needs a reason, not leaving them out. The question, in other words, is not "why shouldn't a player be allowed to choose this option," but "why is this a good thing to add into the game?" (Hint: "It's not unbalanced" is only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.)

[mgshamster]

I'm not sure. It can cause problems, in some games, if one character is more optimised than the rest, but as 3.5 shows at least as many people who know about the imbalance will happily play with sword+board fighters and debuffer wizards in the same group. I almost got annoyed at one of the fellow players in my current group until I realised how useless his highly-optimised mage was (he uses magic usefully about once a session on average and occasionally knows a secret path) while my less optimised priest was loved by the hold thanks to a few of the times his illusions were useful. Conversely the character who is consistently the most useful has wasted points because of lingering resentment towards their race.

But optimisation seems to be a dirty word. I'm worried that the roleplaying community will eventually devolve into telling people that if their characters are useful they are playing it wrong.

Okay, I've actually already seen that argument. It was weird. But this 'anti-optimisation' thing has made me wonder what sort of character I should play, a 3 Strength 3 Dexterity Fighter (Champion) with 20 Intelligence?

If you create a character where the mechanics and the numbers are of most importance, then you're playing to optimize. This is not to say that you're not also playing to roleplay (suggesting otherwise is what the Stormwind fallacy is all about).

Conversely, if you build a character without the numbers as priority - instead the character background, personality, lifestyle, etc.. are the primary focus, then you're playing to roleplay.

Most people on the boards are capable to doing both equally well. Some people on the boards can do one or both well, but/and sometimes ask for advice on the other.

People who lament optimization want you to always do the second, because the first is "doing-it-wrong."

[RickAllison]

Your lack of Dragonlance disturbs me.

I know that it's awful! I've played a little with D&D before but it wasn't until this year that I really hit the lore and mechanics hard :smallsmile:

[Anonymouswizard]

You ask this question a lot, and I honestly think that the question itself is one of the strongest reasons not to have extensive additional mechanical content (even though I still want more). Because while a DM might be trying to run a world, some players have no respect for those boundaries and are forever pushing them. The trouble of vetting every single extra system that comes into play is not a simple one, and overly permissive use of systems to powergame can be a serious issue with less experienced GM's.

Okay, first off, that single domain is the one I really like, because the concepts are awesome once you get past 'muderhobo priest'. Thankfully my current GM okayed it, so I'm finally getting to play my Cleric focused on making sure death happens in the right place at the right time with the right person. She saves the minor bag guys as much as possible while killing most of the big ones.

Oh, and the Cure Wounds spell is not because she likes you or anything. Baka.


If you create a character where the mechanics and the numbers are of most importance, then you're playing to optimize. This is not to say that you're not also playing to roleplay (suggesting otherwise is what the Stormwind fallacy is all about).

Conversely, if you build a character without the numbers as priority - instead the character background, personality, lifestyle, etc.. are the primary focus, then you're playing to roleplay.

Most people on the boards are capable to doing both equally well. Some people on the boards can do one or both well, but/and sometimes ask for advice on the other.

People who lament optimization want you to always do the second, because the first is "doing-it-wrong."

The thing is, I generally start with a broad background, build the mechanics, and then make the specific background decisions.

[pwykersotz]

Okay, first off, that single domain is the one I really like, because the concepts are awesome once you get past 'muderhobo priest'. Thankfully my current GM okayed it, so I'm finally getting to play my Cleric focused on making sure death happens in the right place at the right time with the right person. She saves the minor bag guys as much as possible while killing most of the big ones.

Oh, and the Cure Wounds spell is not because she likes you or anything. Baka.

Haha, nice. Yeah, I don't think there's any problem with the Death Domain either. I do think there's a problem with the sentiment "It exists, why NOT put it in the game?" as the baseline. Rather, I think the question should be "What does this add that makes the game better?" I could come up with a system for meticulously calculating realistic weight to the 1/100th of a lb for all gear, but it doesn't necessarily add anything useful (hyperbole, obviously). But if the game comes out with 2 other magic systems (all meticulously designed and properly balanced of course), it is still the using of them that should require justification, not their exclusion. You have a great reason in that a Cleric of Death is a fantastic staple of fantasy, but it was still worth asking the question of "what does this add?"

Obviously the answer could be as easy as "I like the added complexity and resulting depth, I think it makes the world feel more real." Cool. That works. But you should still need to answer the question in that capacity, not in the reverse.

In my opinion, of course. :smallsmile:

[RickAllison]

Okay, first off, that single domain is the one I really like, because the concepts are awesome once you get past 'muderhobo priest'. Thankfully my current GM okayed it, so I'm finally getting to play my Cleric focused on making sure death happens in the right place at the right time with the right person. She saves the minor bag guys as much as possible while killing most of the big ones.

Oh, and the Cure Wounds spell is not because she likes you or anything. Baka.



The thing is, I generally start with a broad background, build the mechanics, and then make the specific background decisions.

I like to start with a core concept, either story-bound or mechanical, then optimize to make it happen. Once I've got the basic framework, I find what inkling of personality that character gets from his mechanics. I take that inkling and expand it, optimize the build to fit the character developments, then find what story inklings come from those optimizations. Repeat ad nauseam.

Basically, I believe that while story should inform the mechanics, the mechanics should also inform the story. As many have commonly complained against the so-called "min-drifters", it makes little sense to have a Barbarian that has neither the Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution to fulfill his concept. A pure Barbarian with none of those doesn't make sense RP-wise unless he was supposed to be someone who has never been in a serious fight before; with multi-classing, it could be possible but he needs at least 13 Strength to make that possible anyway.

[mgshamster]

The thing is, I generally start with a broad background, build the mechanics, and then make the specific background decisions.

Yeah. That's perfectly fine. Even complete optimization with no roleplaying is fine, or complete roleplaying with no optimization - so long as you're having fun. That's the point. It's a game, we should be having fun. As long as we're not trying to ruin the fun of others, then we're not playing the game wrong.

Some of us may personally prefer one over the other (I prefer to focus more on roleplay, but I've been known to ignore that and focus on the meta as well); but it doesn't really matter what I have fun with. You need to have your fun too. If roleplaying is what you have fun with, then have at it! If optimization is what you have fun with, have at it! If you want to play it as a purely meta tactical game where you only care what the rules say and you don't care to view it from the eyes of your character, have at it! What's important is that we have fun in our various ways of approaching and playing the game.

The only way to truly play the game wrong is to play it to the detriment of others. I've actually seen this, where a player intentionally does things to actively ruin the fun of the other players. The most memorable one for me is when a player created a character focused on enchantment and mind control - and exclusively used those abilities on other PCs to control what the other player characters did in game. It made it so that one player played everyone's characters and everyone else barely played at all.

[JoeJ]

Okay, first off, that single domain is the one I really like, because the concepts are awesome once you get past 'muderhobo priest'. Thankfully my current GM okayed it, so I'm finally getting to play my Cleric focused on making sure death happens in the right place at the right time with the right person. She saves the minor bag guys as much as possible while killing most of the big ones.

I kind of like it too, but I would replace Animate Dead with something else. Gods of death in my settings are almost always very opposed to creating undead.

[Lines]

I kind of like it too, but I would replace Animate Dead with something else. Gods of death in my settings are almost always very opposed to creating undead.
Makes sense - it's like having fabricate on the nature domain. Not really thematically appropriate at all.

[RickAllison]

Makes sense - it's like having fabricate on the nature domain. Not really thematically appropriate at all.

Well, except for the Blood of Vol from Eberron and Chemosh from Dragonlance. They both encourage it! As a DM, I would have a Death Cleric grab an alternate spell (worked out between the two of us) that fit the patron more thematically for the ones for whom it doesn't fit.

[Lines]

It's more that there used to be an undeath domain, it'd be a lot better a fit there.

[Regitnui]

People seem to have misinterpreted my "optimizers, ugh" feeling as "numbers shouldn't line up". What I have a distaste for is people who come to the metaphorical table with "I rolled an 8! I must reroll to ensure optimization! I must take variant human! That way I can get a feat bonus! My background of soldier gives me +2 to all blades!" Without thinking about their character as a character. Perhaps a better word would be 'minmaxer' or 'munchkin'. Remember that half-orc with the spiked chain in the comic? I'm the sort of DM who'd put cliffs, walls and crowds in the fight scenes until that player realises that the other half of PC is 'Character', and starts playing the game.

I agree that you can't play a barbarian with 8 strength, but character informs player decisions. They don't call it a 'number sheet', but a character sheet. You're not here to crunch numbers and murder imaginary creatures. You're here, at my table, to experience a story where you're a protagonist. You want to kill things? OK, but expect to be held on a leash by your more socially-adjusted companions, because RL people who start looking at everyone else like XP points are considered serial murderers of the worst order.

Apologies to any accountants or friends of accountants. I was making a point, and few occupations work as well for a complaint about 'numbers over fun' than accountancy. I get the role numbers play, and have tremendous difficulty picking dumpstats for my own characters. I also play electronic RPGs on a regular basis, but I spend little time worrying about optimization and more spending hours getting immersed. I fill in the blanks of game worlds, and when I look at 5e I see the ultimate sandbox. The only difference is that a person runs the game instead of a computer. AI fiat in (say) Dragon Age is replaced with DM fiat.

Do you really think your DM will not let you have a flaming sword by crafting it? If it makes the game more fun, go for it. DMs aren't stern parents that'll stop you having fun because it's up to them. They're fellow players. I once changed the sound effect on the barbarian's kill because the player didn't think it sounded "squishy" enough. It gave everyone a laugh.

[Lines]

People seem to have misinterpreted my "optimizers, ugh" feeling as "numbers shouldn't line up". What I have a distaste for is people who come to the metaphorical table with "I rolled an 8! I must reroll to ensure optimization! I must take variant human! That way I can get a feat bonus! My background of soldier gives me +2 to all blades!" Without thinking about their character as a character. Perhaps a better word would be 'minmaxer' or 'munchkin'. Remember that half-orc with the spiked chain in the comic? I'm the sort of DM who'd put cliffs, walls and crowds in the fight scenes until that player realises that the other half of PC is 'Character', and starts playing the game.
For the first, rolling is bad, people get characters that are flat out worse than others despite supposed parity. For the second, why wouldn't you take variant human over regular human? For the third, that's just trying to cheat and shouldn't be allowed. But none of what you said precludes thinking about the character as a character in any way, shape or form. Everything you just listed has no relation to whether they are roleplaying.

And as a side note, munchkin and minmaxer are not the same thing and the half orc with a spiked chain was a terrible character both mechanically and fluff wise. One dimensional characters are boring, both in the fluff and gameplay senses.


I agree that you can't play a barbarian with 8 strength, but character informs player decisions. They don't call it a 'number sheet', but a character sheet. You're not here to crunch numbers and murder imaginary creatures. You're here, at my table, to experience a story where you're a protagonist. You want to kill things? OK, but expect to be held on a leash by your more socially-adjusted companions, because RL people who start looking at everyone else like XP points are considered serial murderers of the worst order.
I disagree. I have a couple of players who are there to murder imaginary creatures, and wanting to have interesting fights and kill neat things is just as valid a motivation as any - three quarters of the PHB and all of the MM is dedicated to fantastic beasts and ways to kill them, D&D very much caters to those whose primary motivation is combat.


Apologies to any accountants or friends of accountants. I was making a point, and few occupations work as well for a complaint about 'numbers over fun' than accountancy. I get the role numbers play, and have tremendous difficulty picking dumpstats for my own characters. I also play electronic RPGs on a regular basis, but I spend little time worrying about optimization and more spending hours getting immersed. I fill in the blanks of game worlds, and when I look at 5e I see the ultimate sandbox. The only difference is that a person runs the game instead of a computer. AI fiat in (say) Dragon Age is replaced with DM fiat.
Numbers, as part of the overall mechanical whole, are fun for a tremendous amount of people. Since you're using two parts interchangably here, I'd like to try to separate them. Pure numbers, for example the 3.5 power attack/shock trooper/leaping attack/pounce combo that could do thousands of damage are not fun to anyone but a very small section of the playerbase, and I think most of them would swiftly get bored with it after a little while. Mechanical variety and optimization, while it includes numbers (there's no point in making sure your character can do a variety of things if they're all useless), is not about numbers. Let me give you an example of the difference, and why I would like some of the more interesting classes from the PHB to have 5e incarnations:

Let's take the totemist. You could, if you focused on it, have a build entirely around getting as many natural weapons as possible from soulmelds and other sources and boosting them as hard as you possibly can. Like the charging barbarian above, you would do hundreds of damage, but it would be one dimensional and boring, being far too effective in some encounters and useless in all others. You could take girallon arms and rage claws and totem avatar a bunch of others and turn into a character with ten attacks a round and absolutely nothing else, or you could take manticore belt and basilisk mask and shadow mantle and blink shirt and winter mask and be prepared for anything, with the ability to fly, phase, shoot spikes at a distance, breathe frost, turn enemies to stone and still have enough left over to bind a claw meld and slash it up in melee if the need arises. That is optimization, and while you wouldn't do any of the above if it didn't have good numbers (who wants to shoot a spike that does 1 damage?), the numbers are merely an essential part of the character being fun and effective, not the entire point.


Do you really think your DM will not let you have a flaming sword by crafting it? If it makes the game more fun, go for it. DMs aren't stern parents that'll stop you having fun because it's up to them. They're fellow players. I once changed the sound effect on the barbarian's kill because the player didn't think it sounded "squishy" enough. It gave everyone a laugh.
I think I'd much rather have rules to craft my own sword, rather than say 'mother may I?'. Same reason I'd like rules regarding what my character can do - I'd much rather kill a mind flayer by luring it onto a delayed blast fireball than ask the DM if I can kill a mind flayer.

[Regitnui]

1) If you don't play with feats, what's the point of variant human?

2) I have no problem with interesting encounters, but combat doesn't necessarily mean that the point of the game is to kill everything you encounter. Say I have a expository encounter with a hobgoblin warlord. The player who sees non-player races as XP bags would ruin the encounter. Combat is one of the three pillars of D&D. 1/3. Storytelling is another. Do we have to cut out the possiblity of the players getting involved in a goblinoid civil war because one player wants to kill everything?

3) Alright, you like to optimize and be batman. I prefer to have the characters rely on each other and form bonds. Neither is worse than the other, I just like the latter more.

4) You're kinda forgetting that even with the rules, whether you can craft or not depends on the DM. Even in 3.5, the DM was well within their rights to tell you that you could or could not craft an item. The only thing 5e is missing is the exact definition of the process. I don't get the complaint with 5e magic items. Either way, you're asking the DM, with or without explicit rules.

4 addendum) The only real difference is that in 5e, a DM can let the fighter craft a flaming sword by hunting a salamander, collecting its heartblood in a special container and quenching a fresh-forged blade in it, (all roleplaying, net gain) rather than 3.5 going "OK, do you know burning hands? Do you have 3000XP? Do you have 8 days and 6000gp? OK, here's your sword." (all mechanical, break even/net loss). Explain the problem here?

[Lines]

1) If you don't play with feats, what's the point of variant human?
If you don't play with feats, there's no point in being human at all. Fortunately, there is pretty much no reason not to play without feats, so almost nobody does.


2) I have no problem with interesting encounters, but combat doesn't necessarily mean that the point of the game is to kill everything you encounter. Say I have a expository encounter with a hobgoblin warlord. The player who sees non-player races as XP bags would ruin the encounter. Combat is one of the three pillars of D&D. 1/3. Storytelling is another. Do we have to cut out the possiblity of the players getting involved in a goblinoid civil war because one player wants to kill everything?
You say 1/3, I see over 2/3s of the entire book being dedicated to combat. Enjoys fighting and wants to kill everything he sees are two completely separate concepts, it's only the rarest chaotic evil character that is omnicidal.


3) Alright, you like to optimize and be batman. I prefer to have the characters rely on each other and form bonds. Neither is worse than the other, I just like the latter more.
Can't see how optimisation, forming bonds and relying on each other are in any way mutually exclusive. Like, I've come at it from every angle and I'm damn sure that the first is completely unrelated to the second or third.


4) You're kinda forgetting that even with the rules, whether you can craft or not depends on the DM. Even in 3.5, the DM was well within their rights to tell you that you could or could not craft an item. The only thing 5e is missing is the exact definition of the process. I don't get the complaint with 5e magic items. Either way, you're asking the DM, with or without explicit rules.
You're really not. We had specific costs and requirements to create magic items in 3.5, with the added bonus of precise rules for customisation of items for those who wanted it. If you're caster level 5, can cast bear's endurance, have craft wondrous item and have 2000gp and 160xp to spend you don't need to ask the DM whether you can create a +2 amulet of constitution any more than you need to ask whether you can cast fireball.


4 addendum) The only real difference is that in 5e, a DM can let the fighter craft a flaming sword by hunting a salamander, collecting its heartblood in a special container and quenching a fresh-forged blade in it, (all roleplaying, net gain) rather than 3.5 going "OK, do you know burning hands? Do you have 3000XP? Do you have 8 days and 6000gp? OK, here's your sword." (all mechanical, break even/net loss). Explain the problem here?
Uh... no. 5e supports homebrewing your item creation method even less than 3.5 did, at least 3.5 had legacy weapons and such. Asking to forge a sword by doing a fetch quest is just as valid a choice in 3.5 as it is in 5e, the only difference is if you don't want to play mother may I, you don't have to because there's an actual crafting system you can use instead.

Now, I'm going to prove the point I made above by translating it into combat:

4 addendum) The only real difference is that in 5e, a DM can let the wizard kill a mind flayer by telling him to go seek out the grimoire of fell secrets, learn the spell of mind breaking and then cast it on the day of the black moon(all roleplaying, net gain) rather than 3.5 having mechanics to do so and the wizard casting delayed blast fireball and use his familiar as bait to lure the mind flayer onto it(all mechanical, break even/net loss). Explain the problem here?

[DanyBallon]

If you don't play with feats, there's no point in being human at all. Fortunately, there is pretty much no reason not to play without feats, so almost nobody does.

You play a human because it's the most common, playable race in most setting.



You say 1/3, I see over 2/3s of the entire book being dedicated to combat.
You don't really need any role to teach you how to roleplay, and exploring can be covered mostly by skills, so yeah, the PHB is 2/3 combat rules for only one of the three pillar of D&D, it's not however an sufficient reason to not consider roleplay and exploration as being as important as combat.


Uh... no. 5e supports homebrewing your item creation method even less than 3.5 did, at least 3.5 had legacy weapons and such. Asking to forge a sword by doing a fetch quest is just as valid a choice in 3.5 as it is in 5e, the only difference is if you don't want to play mother may I, you don't have to because there's an actual crafting system you can use instead.


Try not seeing "Ask your DM" as "Mother may I" and more as an incentive to discuss with your DM about what you want and how you could create together a unique and fun way to enchant your weapon.

i.e. player wants his longsword to become a flaming sword, he talk about it with it's DM and together they came up with a unique set of material and conditions to be fulfilled in order to enchant his sword. The search for material and special method of fabrication will lead to more adventuring.
In my opinion this is much more interesting and gives a unique backstory to the player's new flaming sword, than the bland crafting rules under 3.x

[mgshamster]

If you don't play with feats, there's no point in being human at all.

Well, there's always the classic reason: you want to roleplay a human and you don't want to roleplay an elf or dwarf or anything else.

[Regitnui]

If you don't play with feats, there's no point in being human at all. Fortunately, there is pretty much no reason not to play without feats, so almost nobody does.

Er... Simplicity for new players is the first reason I can think of. Feats are modular now, they can be removed.


You say 1/3, I see over 2/3s of the entire book being dedicated to combat. Enjoys fighting and wants to kill everything he sees are two completely separate concepts, it's only the rarest chaotic evil character that is omnicidal.

I don't mind people who enjoy fighting. I mind people who say it's the only thing you play D&D for.


Can't see how optimisation, forming bonds and relying on each other are in any way mutually exclusive. Like, I've come at it from every angle and I'm damn sure that the first is completely unrelated to the second or third.

Never said it was, and I never said you were wrong. Saying I prefer X over Y doesn't make X and Y mutually exclusive.


You're really not. We had specific costs and requirements to create magic items in 3.5, with the added bonus of precise rules for customisation of items for those who wanted it. If you're caster level 5, can cast bear's endurance, have craft wondrous item and have 2000gp and 160xp to spend you don't need to ask the DM whether you can create a +2 amulet of constitution any more than you need to ask whether you can cast fireball.

Er...
- No tools.
- No time.

Two reasons any DM can justify not allowing you to craft a magic item in 3.5. Or can you put a +2 Amulet of Vigor together in the middle of a dungeon while everyone else is on potty break?

The only thing 5e doesn't have is the rules, and those aren't much of a loss.


Uh... no. 5e supports homebrewing your item creation method even less than 3.5 did, at least 3.5 had legacy weapons and such. Asking to forge a sword by doing a fetch quest is just as valid a choice in 3.5 as it is in 5e, the only difference is if you don't want to play mother may I, you don't have to because there's an actual crafting system you can use instead.

Now, I'm going to prove the point I made above by translating it into combat:

4 addendum) The only real difference is that in 5e, a DM can let the wizard kill a mind flayer by telling him to go seek out the grimoire of fell secrets, learn the spell of mind breaking and then cast it on the day of the black moon(all roleplaying, net gain) rather than 3.5 having mechanics to do so and the wizard casting delayed blast fireball and use his familiar as bait to lure the mind flayer onto it(all mechanical, break even/net loss). Explain the problem here?

That makes no sense at all. You can't analogize X and A when the only thing they have in common is existing in the same space. It's like claiming black holes is impossible because The Earth exists.

Seriously, the example I used for Item creation falls apart for combat. You can't directly correlate the two. You want to take my argument apart, try comparing it to something else. Like say, killing a demilich. That takes a fetch quest. Your delayed blast fireball will just destroy the physical form, while the lich comes back.

Here's a simpler way of putting it;

Kill Mind Flayer in either edition -> Find it -> Reduce it to 0HP -> Done.

Kill Demilich in either edition -> Find phylactery -> Destroy phylactery -> Find lich -> reduce lich to 0HP -> done

Craft item in 3.5 (-> Ask DM if item crafting is allowed) -> fulfil requirements, lose XP and time -> done.

Craft item in 5e -> Ask DM -> Fulfil requirements -> Done.

Killing a mind flayer is not the same thing as crafting a magic sword. Killing a demilich is a far better analogy, but doesn't support your view nearly as well.

[Lines]

Er... Simplicity for new players is the first reason I can think of. Feats are modular now, they can be removed.
If they're new and can't handle reading, they can just take ASIs. No need to prevent the players that did read the book from taking feats.


I don't mind people who enjoy fighting. I mind people who say it's the only thing you play D&D for.
Nobody should presume to speak for everybody, I mind anyone who says x is the only reason people prefer y, as do you. But if someone is mostly playing D&D for the combat, that's not a problem - though it is to be preferred that players with similar interests group together.


Er...
- No tools.
- No time.

Two reasons any DM can justify not allowing you to craft a magic item in 3.5. Or can you put a +2 Amulet of Vigor together in the middle of a dungeon while everyone else is on potty break?
I'm not sure how to describe this, but that's... not actually a rebuttal. What you initially said that crafting was DM fiat in both editions, which it is not. The rules existing but current conditions preventing you from succeeding is not the same thing as the DM being well within their rights to tell you that you could or could not craft an item. I used fireball as an analogy, and to continue it being inside an anti magic field does not mean a DM is well within their rights to tell you that you could or could not cast a fireball, it means the rules say whether you can or can't and right now you're in a situation that doesn't allow it. The rules state crafting requires access to a laboratory or magical workshop, special tools, and so on and to spend one day (8 hours of crafting) per thousand gold of the magic item's price - if you try to start crafting but don't have time and leave halfway through that's your own fault, doesn't make it DM fiat any more than needing to spend 8 hours casting simulacrum does.


The only thing 5e doesn't have is the rules, and those aren't much of a loss.
That's an enormous loss. Again equate it to fighting and rework the sentence - '5e doesn't have any rules for combat, and that isn't much of a loss'


That makes no sense at all. You can't analogize X and A when the only thing they have in common is existing in the same space. It's like claiming black holes is impossible because The Earth exists.

Seriously, the example I used for Item creation falls apart for combat. You can't directly correlate the two. You want to take my argument apart, try comparing it to something else. Like say, killing a demilich. That takes a fetch quest. Your delayed blast fireball will just destroy the physical form, while the lich comes back.
Yes I can. You claimed that is was fine having crafting be DM fiat rather than part of the rules, and I showed you what it would be like asking your DM if you're allowed to kill a creature and asking him how to do it, ie boring and agency removing.



Here's a simpler way of putting it;

Kill Mind Flayer in either edition -> Find it -> Reduce it to 0HP -> Done.

Kill Demilich in either edition -> Find phylactery -> Destroy phylactery -> Find lich -> reduce lich to 0HP -> done
No. In 3.5 there were actual rules on creating the phylactery and it wasn't that simple, the demilich also had 8 soul gems - but what you've done is compared 4 examples, all of which consist of the rules covering combat. No DM fiat needed, no asking 'mother may I', all satisfying to play. Which is completely ignoring my point - which is that if compared was covered the way you think magic items being covered is acceptable, in 5e it would look like

Demilich -> ask DM how to kill it -> DM gives you specific steps you must take -> you take them -> demilich dies, while if analogised to 3.5 would look like

Demilich -> acquire information about its weaknesses -> plan and take actions -> hopefully you kill it


Craft item in 3.5 (-> Ask DM if item crafting is allowed) -> fulfil requirements, lose XP and time -> done.

Craft item in 5e -> Ask DM -> Fulfil requirements -> Done.

Killing a mind flayer is not the same thing as crafting a magic sword. Killing a demilich is a far better analogy, but doesn't support your view nearly as well.
No, the demilich thing is equally as good at proving my point, when I was comparing A to B you showed me two examples of A and then said that meant A and B were the same. As to the rest, how the hell is asking the DM if item crafting is allowed a step? It is allowed. It's in the rules. You can do it. You don't need permission. Sure, the DM can say no item crafting, but the DM can say nobody can play any magic using classes, random DM decisions to not make a good discussion point. The actual analogy is

Craft item in 3.5 -> figure out what you're capable of and what you want -> select an option -> fullfill requirements -> done

Craft item in 5e -> figure out a concept you'd like -> ask the DM if you're allowed to and how to do it -> he doesn't like your concept, you aren't allowed to
OR -> he modifies the item to his liking and invents requirements -> fulfill requirements ->done

The only optional part in 3.5 was custom magic items, where it was stated that the prices were guidelines. Most DMs followed them, but you were free to rule that the item cost a different amount to what the guideline said (mostly in the case of custom items that replicated spells, some of which like wraithstrike got way too strong when made into a continuous item)

[Anonymouswizard]

I fill in the blanks of game worlds, and when I look at 5e I see the ultimate sandbox.

Really? I look at 5e and see a sandbox less ultimate than GURPS and Fate. Fate lets me make any world, and have a balanced version of any character.


Do you really think your DM will not let you have a flaming sword by crafting it? If it makes the game more fun, go for it. DMs aren't stern parents that'll stop you having fun because it's up to them. They're fellow players. I once changed the sound effect on the barbarian's kill because the player didn't think it sounded "squishy" enough. It gave everyone a laugh.

I can see reasons why the GM might not allow it. From 'unbalancing the game' to 'no vorpal swords exist in the world' (well I'll tracking invent them then, let me prototype one).


1) If you don't play with feats, what's the point of variant human?

Because I'd still take that skill over +1 to a bunch of really weak stats. Nonvariant human is a newbie trap, and only good in extremely MAD builds, and so anybody who isn't new and has sense will be playing something else unless they specifically want human.


2) I have no problem with interesting encounters, but combat doesn't necessarily mean that the point of the game is to kill everything you encounter. Say I have a expository encounter with a hobgoblin warlord. The player who sees non-player races as XP bags would ruin the encounter. Combat is one of the three pillars of D&D. 1/3. Storytelling is another. Do we have to cut out the possiblity of the players getting involved in a goblinoid civil war because one player wants to kill everything?

Where's the advice on cooperative storytelling? Investigation? Exploration? Roleplaying? I see none.


3) Alright, you like to optimize and be batman. I prefer to have the characters rely on each other and form bonds. Neither is worse than the other, I just like the latter more.

Why are optimisation and relying on party members mutually exclusive?


4) You're kinda forgetting that even with the rules, whether you can craft or not depends on the DM. Even in 3.5, the DM was well within their rights to tell you that you could or could not craft an item. The only thing 5e is missing is the exact definition of the process. I don't get the complaint with 5e magic items. Either way, you're asking the DM, with or without explicit rules.

The difference is that in 3.5 crafter is supported as a character concept. In 5e I can be a crafter if the DM feels like being nice and isn't exhausted from compensating for all the missing rules.

EDIT: agreeing 'can't do so now' is different to 'can only do if the DM allows it'.

[Regitnui]

OK, we've derailed the thread for long enough. You're speaking from a player viewpoint, I'm from a DM's. You obviously like having rules for everything, while I like freeform roleplaying. If you want to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me, because we're just taking up space right now. For that PM, let me state this: magic item crafting is nowhere near as integral to the game as combat and analogizing them is illogical. There, you may now send me a message to explain in great detail how I'm wrong.

[Lines]

OK, we've derailed the thread for long enough. You're speaking from a player viewpoint, I'm from a DM's. You obviously like having rules for everything, while I like freeform roleplaying. If you want to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me, because we're just taking up space right now. For that PM, let me state this: magic item crafting is nowhere near as integral to the game as combat and analogizing them is illogical. There, you may now send me a message to explain in great detail how I'm wrong.

No, I'm not. I'm both playing and DMing at the moment, but almost all of my D&D experience has been as a DM. If I wanted freeform, I'd play a freeform game.

[Regitnui]

OK.

Back on topic:

I think it's possible we'll get a PHB2 containing a few more races, classes and a psionics system than individual books for all three.

[JumboWheat01]

OK.

Back on topic:

I think it's possible we'll get a PHB2 containing a few more races, classes and a psionics system than individual books for all three.

I think that's almost a guarantee. Both 3.5 and 4th had at least two PHBs, and since Wizards did both those editions, it's more likely than not that we'll see the trend continue. And with how popular Psionics are (not that I've ever played one myself, they tend to be ignored in video games,) they'll definitely get an official release so AL can use them.

[Gtdead]

The Eberron Explorer's Guide is coming before the end of the year.

No, I don't actually know. But I want that so badly.

I second that, Eberron is awesome.

[JackPhoenix]

I second that, Eberron is awesome.

Funny thing is, the longer it takes to release that book, the less I need it. Unlike FR, Eberron's fluff stays the same between editions (4e added some stupid stuff, but haven't advanced the storyline or changed anything important), and I already hav those books (which together have more content than the one book they'll release for 5e) and if I need something mechanical (artificer, Eberron races and monsters, magic items, dragonmarks), I won't stop my game for year or so to wait for an offical release, but create or find a homebrew port myself.

By that point, the only thing that would interest me would be an adventure, and WotC insists to set them in FR. With the time and effort I would need to make OotA (that's the hardest one to port yet, though I haven't seen CoS) port, I could've created my own adventure, better suited to my GMing style and my players.

[Beleriphon]

There should be viable melee options for each class. The SCAG cantrips and Bladesinger were a big step in the right direction. But still, a Blade warlock does what for levels 1-2?

Zap things with spells, like they do after 3rd level along with occasionally poke something with a sword. The Pact of the Blade warlock isn't a melee fighter, they're a spell slinger that can poke things better than the other guy that slings spells.


- They should fix the problem of races that have weapon/armor training not being able to actually afford their weapons/armor at start.

Use the starting packages. Or accept this isn't a bug, its a feature you just don't like.


- There should be a psionics book.

- There needs to be more monsters. Right now, the Monster Manual has barely anything at each CR above 11. Above level 11, you can fight a conveyor belt of identical dragons and a few demons, a beholder, and a lich to level up, but that's about it.

I agree with these in principle. On the monsters the idea is to have more lower level monsters in a fight rather than fewer high level monsters.



There is a LOT OF ROOM for design before hitting the book bloat. The issue right now is Wizards doesn't want to invest in a book for fear of losing money on it. I bought the SCAG, as disappointed as I was in the page/price ratio, because I want to see more content. But multi million dollar corporations shouldn't be guilting money out of me to "support" them, they should be making products that we want to buy.

I've got money and I want to give to WOTC, but they apparently don't want it.

They do, but ROI on splats tends to be low, and a company needs to make money. WotC always, always, puts out high production value books which means a certain price point for books that may not be purchased in high numbers. By limiting the number of books being published it reduces WotC costs and increase ROI. It isn't what you want, but then again I haven't bought any of the adventures and been quite happy with the game thus far.

[Regitnui]

I think that's almost a guarantee. Both 3.5 and 4th had at least two PHBs, and since Wizards did both those editions, it's more likely than not that we'll see the trend continue. And with how popular Psionics are (not that I've ever played one myself, they tend to be ignored in video games,) they'll definitely get an official release so AL can use them.

Devote the book to psionics where the first phb had magic, add our Eberron races with a couple for psionics, the two psionic classes (ranged Psion and mêlée Soulknife) along with some classes that don't tread on existing classes like the Totemist, and you're golden. Release the Eberron Explorer's Guide a few months later to tie it all together in a setting, then the Dark Sun Survival Manual. Keep dropping adventures along the way with lesser known settings like Ravenloft and Planescape that DMs can weave into their existing FR campaigns, then bam. 5e is sorted.

[Anonymouswizard]

For my Player's Handbook 2 (which is what I hope Unearthed Arcana is building up to) I want to see:
-Warforged Race v2 (or just the current one, which I hope to see if I can play over my priest)
-Mystic v3, including a Wilder subclass
-Psychic Warrior/Soulknife (although I think 'Mind Blade' should be a subclass)
-An item focused class (artificier)
-A bunch more feats

I'm not adverse to there being more, such as totemist or Dragonfire Adept (which could be Dragon Pact Warlock or a new class), this is just the specifics that I want to see.

[cloud4an]

I'd like to see the campaign setting Rich submitted all that time ago. Knowing that it came second place has kind of spoiled Eberron to me

[Safety Sword]

I'd like to see the campaign setting Rich submitted all that time ago. Knowing that it came second place has kind of spoiled Eberron to me

Pretty sure there's a whole lot of confidentially issues with that getting a green light. But we can dream.

[Regitnui]

-Psychic Warrior/Soulknife (although I think 'Mind Blade' should be a subclass)

I'd say that having a lightsaber as a class feature is pretty cool. The soulknife was a great concept, let down by the fact that the psychic warrior did mêlée better. That's why we give the 'mind blade' to the Warrior, rename the class Soulknife, because Jedi is trademarked, and we're great! Why would anyone choose a normal weapon over a lightsaber that can be anything you want?

As for the artificer, you just need a class with a list of 'infusions' that it can temporarily put onto items and armour and a resource meter that determines how often they can do it, with a ritual-like tag making the infusion permanent at the cost of losing all your 'craft points' for the day/level of infusion.

Example: the artificer has feather fall and enhance ability as infusions. If he starts falling, he can infuse the former into his boots (for 1 point) and settle gently to the ground, at the cost of the boots losing the enchantment right after. Spending 2 points, he can infuse the barbarian's belt with bull's strength for one task, then the belt loses the enhancement. Alternatively, he can lose all his 'craft points' for two days to make the belt permanently offer bull's strength to the barbarian.

I think that's an elegant 5e solution that doesn't pull the 3.5e rules tangle back while keeping the essential flavour. And no, Lines, I'm not looking to spend another page arguing about item creation.

[Lines]

I'd say that having a lightsaber as a class feature is pretty cool. The soulknife was a great concept, let down by the fact that the psychic warrior did mêlée better. That's why we give the 'mind blade' to the Warrior, rename the class Soulknife, because Jedi is trademarked, and we're great! Why would anyone choose a normal weapon over a lightsaber that can be anything you want?

As for the artificer, you just need a class with a list of 'infusions' that it can temporarily put onto items and armour and a resource meter that determines how often they can do it, with a ritual-like tag making the infusion permanent at the cost of losing all your 'craft points' for the day/level of infusion.

Example: the artificer has feather fall and enhance ability as infusions. If he starts falling, he can infuse the former into his boots (for 1 point) and settle gently to the ground, at the cost of the boots losing the enchantment right after. Spending 2 points, he can infuse the barbarian's belt with bull's strength for one task, then the belt loses the enhancement. Alternatively, he can lose all his 'craft points' for two days to make the belt permanently offer bull's strength to the barbarian.

I think that's an elegant 5e solution that doesn't pull the 3.5e rules tangle back while keeping the essential flavour. And no, Lines, I'm not looking to spend another page arguing about item creation.

Not intending to, I've made my point clear. 5e doesn't have item creation, therefore it can't have an artificer. Pick another name for your class idea and you're golden, it sounds fun.

And the soulknife wasn't let down by psychic warrior being better in melee, it was let down by being crap in melee and bringing nothing else to the table. The psychic warrior was decent, the soulknife was terrible - in 5e, a psychic warrior type class with a soulknife subclass sounds like a perfect fit.

[Regitnui]

Not intending to, I've made my point clear. 5e doesn't have item creation, therefore it can't have an artificer. Pick another name for your class idea and you're golden, it sounds fun.

You're demonstratably wrong. DMG page 128. Looks like there's item creation to me. It might not be (as many) rules as you like, but it's there. It's an artificer.


And the soulknife wasn't let down by psychic warrior being better in melee, it was let down by being crap in melee and bringing nothing else to the table. The psychic warrior was decent, the soulknife was terrible - in 5e, a psychic warrior type class with a soulknife class feature sounds like a perfect fit.

There, fixed that for you. I'm not saying remove the psychic warrior. Just give it the soulknife's gimmick and we're great for a psionic mêlée class.

[Lines]

You're demonstratably wrong. DMG page 128. Looks like there's item creation to me. It might not be (as many) rules as you like, but it's there. It's an artificer.
'mother may I' item creation is not item creation. This is like having a wizard class in an edition where the only way to cast a spell is to ask the DM if he'll let you cast one, and if so how much he has decided it will cost.


There, fixed that for you. I'm not saying remove the psychic warrior. Just give it the soulknife's gimmick and we're great for a psionic mêlée class.
No, that's a terrible idea. The soul weapon class feature should be strong enough to be important, and therefore should be a subclass so those who don't want to use one don't have to. There are several directions you could take the psychic warrior class, having one of those directions be soulknife means you can do it without forcing it to be a major part of every psychic warrior's power budget.

Same with pact blade - you don't make every warlock use one, you give the opportunity for those who want to. Except hopefully without screwing up and making the blade useless like they did with the warlock.

[Anonymouswizard]

There, fixed that for you. I'm not saying remove the psychic warrior. Just give it the soulknife's gimmick and we're great for a psionic mêlée class.

Unfortunately, making it a class feature hampers the breadth of concept, which WotC seems to be aiming for. Also, what if I want a precognition-focused warrior? A lightsaber doesn't fit with their powers.

[Lines]

Try not seeing "Ask your DM" as "Mother may I" and more as an incentive to discuss with your DM about what you want and how you could create together a unique and fun way to enchant your weapon.

i.e. player wants his longsword to become a flaming sword, he talk about it with it's DM and together they came up with a unique set of material and conditions to be fulfilled in order to enchant his sword. The search for material and special method of fabrication will lead to more adventuring.
In my opinion this is much more interesting and gives a unique backstory to the player's new flaming sword, than the bland crafting rules under 3.x

I'm going to change this to combat again to show you why what you're saying doesn't make sense:

Try not seeing "Ask your DM" as "Mother may I" and more as an incentive to discuss with your DM about what you want and how you could create together a unique and fun way to cast a spell.

i.e. player wants to shoot a fireball at the mind flayer, he talks about it with his DM and together they came up with a unique set of material and conditions to be fulfilled in order to cast his spell. The search for material and special method of casting will lead to more adventuring.
In my opinion this is much more interesting and gives a unique backstory to the player's new fireball spell, than the bland casting rules under 3.x

[Regitnui]

Unfortunately, making it a class feature hampers the breadth of concept, which WotC seems to be aiming for. Also, what if I want a precognition-focused warrior? A lightsaber doesn't fit with their powers.

That is actually a good point. I apologize. I didn't see much space for 'psychic warrior' beyond 'jedi'. :smallfrown:

[DanyBallon]

I'm going to change this to combat again to show you why what you're saying doesn't make sense:

Try not seeing "Ask your DM" as "Mother may I" and more as an incentive to discuss with your DM about what you want and how you could create together a unique and fun way to cast a spell.

i.e. player wants to shoot a fireball at the mind flayer, he talks about it with his DM and together they came up with a unique set of material and conditions to be fulfilled in order to cast his spell. The search for material and special method of casting will lead to more adventuring.
In my opinion this is much more interesting and gives a unique backstory to the player's new fireball spell, than the bland casting rules under 3.x

Rewording it to combat doesn't make sense at all. crafting would be closer to skills. And in 5e, you can tell your DM that you'd like tu jump over the balcony handrail, grab the chandelier, and swing over to land in the back of the enemy. Then your DM and you may talk about which skill would be more appropriate (acrobatics come to mind, but a flashing swashbuckler could think about using performance...) and what would be the benefits, is the creature surprised or, disadvantaged, do you get advantage?

While you may see it as "mother may I?" I see it as an cooperative way to create a better story.

If you absolutely need hard coded rules for everything, there's 3.P out there, and Pathfinder is keeping the legacy much alive

[Anonymouswizard]

Rewording it to combat doesn't make sense at all. crafting would be closer to skills. And in 5e, you can tell your DM that you'd like tu jump over the balcony handrail, grab the chandelier, and swing over to land in the back of the enemy. Then your DM and you may talk about which skill would be more appropriate (acrobatics come to mind, but a flashing swashbuckler could think about using performance...) and what would be the benefits, is the creature surprised or, disadvantaged, do you get advantage?

While you may see it as "mother may I?" I see it as an cooperative way to create a better story.

If you absolutely need hard coded rules for everything, there's 3.P out there, and Pathfinder is keeping the legacy much alive

So 5e is better because it slows the game down? That's the opposite of what I normally here.

For the record, in 3.5 that would be a tumble check (maaaaybe jump), probably a grapple, and the opponent takes -2 from surprise.

How is 5e any better in this situation?

EDIT: also, still waiting to see actual storytelling rules in 5e.

[Lines]

Rewording it to combat doesn't make sense at all. crafting would be closer to skills. And in 5e, you can tell your DM that you'd like tu jump over the balcony handrail, grab the chandelier, and swing over to land in the back of the enemy. Then your DM and you may talk about which skill would be more appropriate (acrobatics come to mind, but a flashing swashbuckler could think about using performance...) and what would be the benefits, is the creature surprised or, disadvantaged, do you get advantage?
It's far more analogous to saying you'd like to get to the enemy and the DM telling you you can do so by jumping over the balcony handrail, grabbing the chandelier, and swinging over to land in the back of the enemy. You're asking after the result and then having him tell you how to get it, rather than having rules which allow you to obtain the result.


While you may see it as "mother may I?" I see it as an cooperative way to create a better story.
So what's the point of having rules for anything? Why have a book full of spells when you can just ask your DM if you can cast something?


If you absolutely need hard coded rules for everything, there's 3.P out there, and Pathfinder is keeping the legacy much alive
I don't, no. There are too many things to cover properly with the rules, so instead we have an ability check ruling system to use instead, which works nicely for its purpose. For discrete things like spells, class features and magic items? Yes, those need rules.

And there's basically no reason to play pathfinder, it's just 3.5 with none of the problems they promised they'd fix fixed. Haven't played 3.x in a while and won't again until the current group gets bored of 5e's limited options (which, since 5e does so many things right, is why I want some more sourcebooks soon), but if I do so I'll be heading back to 3.5.

[mgshamster]

So 5e is better because it slows the game down? That's the opposite of what I normally here.

For the record, in 3.5 that would be a tumble check (maaaaybe jump), probably a grapple, and the opponent takes -2 from surprise.

How is 5e any better in this situation?

EDIT: also, still waiting to see actual storytelling rules in 5e.

How does that slow the game down?

I've seen this argument several times, but I've yet to see evidence of it in game play and I've yet to see anyone actually provide evidence or tell a story of how it negatively effected their own game.

In my home game, these deliberations take about 30 seconds to a minute, if it's that long. When we played pathfinder, we had to put a ten minute time limit on looking up rules because it slowed the game down so much. Before we put the limit on it, there were times when it would take over a half hour between looking up a rule, finding contradictory rules, and consulting the Messagebords to see if there was an eratta or what the community thought about it.

So have you actually experienced the game slowing down or do you have any evidence of it, or are you just hypothesizing? It's fine to hypothesize, just be aware that I've never experienced the game slowing down and neither has anyone I've ever talked to about it - in real life or on the Internet.

[DanyBallon]

So 5e is better because it slows the game down? That's the opposite of what I normally here.

For the record, in 3.5 that would be a tumble check (maaaaybe jump), probably a grapple, and the opponent takes -2 from surprise.

How is 5e any better in this situation?

EDIT: also, still waiting to see actual storytelling rules in 5e.

Tell me how, in 5e, it's longer for a player to tell "I'd like tu jump over the balcony handrail, grab the chandelier, and swing over to land in the back of the enemy. I don't have acrobatics, but since I'm a flashing swashbuckler, I'd like to use performance instead?" and the DM saying, ok, but you'll have disadvantage on your check, the DC is X and if you succeed, you'll have advantage on your next attack roll vs the ennemy, compare to 3.P where, first it can happen unless DM fiat because there's no rule for that, second, there will always be a player arguing that it can't happen and the DM is a bad DM because he used DM fiat, and third, even if it happen as in your example it requires 2 or 3 rolls?

As far as I see it, it's by far faster in 5e.

To Lines: I believe our view of what 5e should be is far too different for us to agree. And since we've derailed this thread for so long, what about we stop here?

[JumboWheat01]

To Lines: I believe our view of what 5e should be is far too different for us to agree. And since we've derailed this thread for so long, what about we stop here?

Please do.


Anyhoo, a thought occurred to me, after flipping through SCAG again, I would like to see more race-specific paths in future supplements and handbooks. They help to make the races seem more diverse than a pack of numbers.

[Lines]

Please do.


Anyhoo, a thought occurred to me, after flipping through SCAG again, I would like to see more race-specific paths in future supplements and handbooks. They help to make the races seem more diverse than a pack of numbers.

Just the opposite, I don't want to see anything race specific unless it's something other races are physically incapable of. Something can be associated with a race, but there should always be a note saying there's no reason a human couldn't do it, just that it's more common for x race.

[Anonymouswizard]

How does that slow the game down?

It depends on the group, in mine it will cause the game to grind to a halt for a bit as someone wants to know why they have disadvantage or the like, where's I can use an index and find the rule in two minutes.


I've seen this argument several times, but I've yet to see evidence of it in game play and I've yet to see anyone actually provide evidence or tell a story of how it negatively effected their own game.

Some groups like to try to reality model, which causes discussions to lengthen.


In my home game, these deliberations take about 30 seconds to a minute, if it's that long. When we played pathfinder, we had to put a ten minute time limit on looking up rules because it slowed the game down so much. Before we put the limit on it, there were times when it would take over a half hour between looking up a rule, finding contradictory rules, and consulting the Messagebords to see if there was an eratta or what the community thought about it.

Good for you, just remember that some groups have the opposite experience.


So have you actually experienced the game slowing down or do you have any evidence of it, or are you just hypothesizing? It's fine to hypothesize, just be aware that I've never experienced the game slowing down and neither has anyone I've ever talked to about it - in real life or on the Internet.

Mainly hypothesising because I still have to get Sen, my Warforged Fighter (yeah, I forgot Warforged existed in 5e before making my Cleric) approved, although as he's a very tanky tank and I think the Barbarian is offensive it should be okay. Then I can start playing, and eventually get into an argument about me throwing acid in the dragon's face (I have two flasks of acid as ranged weapons and a flask of alchemist's fire to create some terrain for a couple of rounds, he spent time in a monster-hunting squad before getting out of service).


Tell me how, in 5e, it's longer for a player to tell "I'd like tu jump over the balcony handrail, grab the chandelier, and swing over to land in the back of the enemy. I don't have acrobatics, but since I'm a flashing swashbuckler, I'd like to use performance instead?" and the DM saying, ok, but you'll have disadvantage on your check, the DC is X and if you succeed, you'll have advantage on your next attack roll vs the ennemy, compare to 3.P where, first it can happen unless DM fiat because there's no rule for that, second, there will always be a player arguing that it can't happen and the DM is a bad DM because he used DM fiat, and third, even if it happen as in your example it requires 2 or 3 rolls?

5e 'I want to chandelier swing':
Acrobatics check (or according to you performance with disadvantage)
Attack

3e:
Tumble or jump check, DC 10-15, DM call (as the rules say)
Attack or Grapple.

I don't really see a difference, other than Acrobatics can be used untrained but Tumble can't.

For what it's worth, I hate the 5e skill system, it feels too broad.


As far as I see it, it's by far faster in 5e.

It's really about the same speed here.

[JumboWheat01]

Just the opposite, I don't want to see anything race specific unless it's something other races are physically incapable of. Something can be associated with a race, but there should always be a note saying there's no reason a human couldn't do it, just that it's more common for x race.

Fair enough. Maybe I've just gotten so used to the segregated class idea after playing Baldur's Gate so much.

[DanyBallon]

Anyhoo, a thought occurred to me, after flipping through SCAG again, I would like to see more race-specific paths in future supplements and handbooks. They help to make the races seem more diverse than a pack of numbers.

I agree with you. I like that some archetypes (and in 3.0, prestige class) are tied to specific races, regions or organisations. It add to the setting immersion and is an easy houserule to allow to everyone if best suit a given table. The other way around could also be true, but I find that it easier to allow in than to restrict out player options.

[Regitnui]

I agree with you. I like that some archetypes (and in 3.0, prestige class) are tied to specific races, regions or organisations. It add to the setting immersion and is an easy houserule to allow to everyone if best suit a given table. The other way around could also be true, but I find that it easier to allow in than to restrict out player options.

I have a hand spear I use to keep discipline at the table. It also works very well on people who want to play drow rangers with panther companions. :smallgrin: Seriously though, a good approach would be what the setting books from 3.5 did. You present the class within the world, and offer a section on adaption. Like the SCAG did.

[Belac93]

I agree with you. I like that some archetypes (and in 3.0, prestige class) are tied to specific races, regions or organisations. It add to the setting immersion and is an easy houserule to allow to everyone if best suit a given table. The other way around could also be true, but I find that it easier to allow in than to restrict out player options.

That would be pretty awesome.

What I've been mostly seeing so far, is that people want the mystic, an artificer/totemist kind of character, and dark sun and ebberon stuff.

Also, I'm not sure how many people saw this, but the mystic document did say that it would be adding 2 new subclasses in its final version, the order of the knife, and the order of the invisible hand. (So telekinesis and Soulknife.) And Mystic characters can take out-of-discipline abilities, I believe.

[JoeJ]

OK.

Back on topic:

I think it's possible we'll get a PHB2 containing a few more races, classes and a psionics system than individual books for all three.

I've got mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, more options can be fun. But on the other, the more classes and races there are, the more work it is to go through them all and decide what will and what won't be available in my world.

[Regitnui]

I've got mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, more options can be fun. But on the other, the more classes and races there are, the more work it is to go through them all and decide what will and what won't be available in my world.

They won't be arbitrary, like illumians or dusklings. Leave those for the DMsG. Introduce races that already have a place in an existing world, like the finalized Eberron and Dark Sun races. The classes... Yeah, can't help you there. Some people apparently need more variety on a surgical drip, so yeah.

[Lines]

They won't be arbitrary, like illumians or dusklings. Leave those for the DMsG. Introduce races that already have a place in an existing world, like the finalized Eberron and Dark Sun races. The classes... Yeah, can't help you there. Some people apparently need more variety on a surgical drip, so yeah.

It's been a year and a half with nothing, how are you equating that with a surgical drip?

[Quintessence]

That would be pretty awesome.

What I've been mostly seeing so far, is that people want the mystic, an artificer/totemist kind of character, and dark sun and ebberon stuff.

Also, I'm not sure how many people saw this, but the mystic document did say that it would be adding 2 new subclasses in its final version, the order of the knife, and the order of the invisible hand. (So telekinesis and Soulknife.) And Mystic characters can take out-of-discipline abilities, I believe.

The latest Mystic document sadly had zero mention of those two orders, possibly they were scrapped :(


As for the topic at hand, I would honestly just be happy with them counting UA stuff as usable. It would require more thought going into the UA but I think that would be a fairly decent source of new material.

[Regitnui]

It's been a year and a half with nothing, how are you equating that with a surgical drip?

You grabbed the wrong end of the metaphor. Careful, now it can turn around and bite you. I'm saying there are people who want new official material released every other month. The types who religiously bought Dragon magazine back in the day for the latest trick, exploit or monster. That's the surgical drip. 5e itself is more like a massive buffet than a surgical drip.



As for the topic at hand, I would honestly just be happy with them counting UA stuff as usable. It would require more thought going into the UA but I think that would be a fairly decent source of new material.

The UA is usable. They just don't guarantee balance or finality. It's akin to officially-sanctioned homebrew.

[JumboWheat01]

The UA is usable. They just don't guarantee balance or finality. It's akin to officially-sanctioned homebrew.

It's not usable in "official" things, like AL. As you said, it's like officially-sanctioned homebrew, and homebrew, no matter its stripes, are not allowed in AL. So when things are made official through splat books or things like the Elemental Evil companion, it's a big thing and lets us use them EVERYWHERE.

[DanyBallon]

It's not usable in "official" things, like AL. As you said, it's like officially-sanctioned homebrew, and homebrew, no matter its stripes, are not allowed in AL. So when things are made official through splat books or things like the Elemental Evil companion, it's a big thing and lets us use them EVERYWHERE.

AL is just one big homebrew campaign. Not everything from the player's is even allowed to play. You are only allowed what's in the AL player's guide, anything else is forbidden, to me this is pretty much what a homebrew game does, but on a different scale. Also stuff like the EEPC is temporary as it can be apply only in the last two Adventure Theme, and as soon as Curse of Strahd will be on, you won't be able to use that content.

In this regard, UA may not be AL legal, but are still official releases (that have a big disclaimer that they aren't fully tested and may be unbalanced)

[Anonymouswizard]

It's been a year and a half with nothing, how are you equating that with a surgical drip?

It's been that long? Man, I thought it was going to be a book per year, including new stuff and slight revisions.


You grabbed the wrong end of the metaphor. Careful, now it can turn around and bite you. I'm saying there are people who want new official material released every other month. The types who religiously bought Dragon magazine back in the day for the latest trick, exploit or monster. That's the surgical drip. 5e itself is more like a massive buffet than a surgical drip.

5e is more like a roast beef dinner, in that there's a lot of stuff and I can decide if I want Yorkshire Puddings or not, but there's nowhere near the variety of the Fate buffet.

[Lines]

You grabbed the wrong end of the metaphor. Careful, now it can turn around and bite you. I'm saying there are people who want new official material released every other month. The types who religiously bought Dragon magazine back in the day for the latest trick, exploit or monster. That's the surgical drip. 5e itself is more like a massive buffet than a surgical drip.

No, 5e is more like a well prepared and reasonably tasty if a bit bland meal served for a very wide audience. It is a couple of main dishes meant to be done with various spreads, sauces, sides and spices in order to appeal to everyone and let them customise it to fit their tastes. The only problem with that (aside from a few mistakes in cooking like the magic item section) is that at present the selection of garnishes, sides etc is far too limited.

[pwykersotz]

No, 5e is more like a well prepared and reasonably tasty if a bit bland meal served for a very wide audience. It is a couple of main dishes meant to be done with various spreads, sauces, sides and spices in order to appeal to everyone and let them customise it to fit their tastes. The only problem with that (aside from a few mistakes in cooking like the magic item section) is that at present the selection of garnishes, sides etc is far too limited.

I am getting really hungry for some reason...

[Lines]

I am getting really hungry for some reason...

As did I, but I've now eaten the same thing several times in a row and I'd like some new ways to eat it.

[Regitnui]

5e is more like a roast beef dinner, in that there's a lot of stuff and I can decide if I want Yorkshire Puddings or not, but there's nowhere near the variety of the Fate buffet.


No, 5e is more like a well prepared and reasonably tasty if a bit bland meal served for a very wide audience. It is a couple of main dishes meant to be done with various spreads, sauces, sides and spices in order to appeal to everyone and let them customise it to fit their tastes. The only problem with that (aside from a few mistakes in cooking like the magic item section) is that at present the selection of garnishes, sides etc is far too limited.

You really have nothing to stand on regarding your hatred of 5e's magic items.

And so.what if 5e is a big, tasty steak dinner or not? It isn't a surgical drip, when a few people are clamouring for variety just because previous editions of D&D sprawled all over the place with poorly differentiated classes and barely conceptualized races. A PHB2 would offer just enough variety without threatening balance and bounded accuracy.

[Lines]

You really have nothing to stand on regarding your hatred of 5e's magic items.
Other than not having a proper crafting system, every rarity being costed the exact same amount, being ridiculously ranked in rarity (items of unlimited flight are uncommon, while a jar of universal solvent is legendary?), breaking their own systems (29 strength belts!) and benefitting different classes wildly different amounts?


And so.what if 5e is a big, tasty steak dinner or not? It isn't a surgical drip, when a few people are clamouring for variety just because previous editions of D&D sprawled all over the place with poorly differentiated classes and barely conceptualized races. A PHB2 would offer just enough variety without threatening balance and bounded accuracy.
Races wise, nobody is arguing with you. Nobody thought humans except also kinda meldshapey was a good concept for a race. Class wise though? Name a class from the last ten years that was poorly differentiated from others.

[Regitnui]

Races wise, nobody is arguing with you. Nobody thought humans except also kinda meldshapey was a good concept for a race. Class wise though? Name a class from the last ten years that was poorly differentiated from others.

3.5's sorcerer and wizard were pretty much the same thing. One was a spontaneous caster and the other a Vancian caster, but the sorcerer was essentially a poorer wizard. Now the two are very different mechanically and conceptually.

[Lines]

3.5's sorcerer and wizard were pretty much the same thing. One was a spontaneous caster and the other a Vancian caster, but the sorcerer was essentially a poorer wizard. Now the two are very different mechanically and conceptually.

They aren't from the last ten years.

[Regitnui]

They aren't from the last ten years.

I didn't play 4e, nor DM it. I've never criticized that edition not compared it to 5e beyond broad strokes. Do you really insist on making me trawl through every single 4e class looking for every slight variation on the theme of "fighter" and "wizard"? I'm just stating my opinion on the game. Does it have to be cited chapter and verse because I disagree with you? Look, Lines, I really don't like finding you contradicting me on every single thread.

I'd much rather have fewer classes with more distinct themes than four hundred exploring every possible variation on the Archetypal Four. That's my opinion. What's wrong with it?

[JumboWheat01]

3.5's sorcerer and wizard were pretty much the same thing. One was a spontaneous caster and the other a Vancian caster, but the sorcerer was essentially a poorer wizard. Now the two are very different mechanically and conceptually.

Though in this day and age, I'd still rather have the wizard, if just for the utility alone. Blasting is all right, but it doesn't seem to be all that useful. Which suits my wizard play just fine. Plus prepared casters seem to have it better rather than learned casters.

Not that I wouldn't mind seeing a proper (and separate) Favored Soul in a future PHB, and not one tied to the Sorcerer, that strikes me as a little odd. Though now that I think about it, we really don't need yet ANOTHER spell casting class with their spells tied to Charisma. It's getting a little excessive.

[Regitnui]

Not that I wouldn't mind seeing a proper (and separate) Favored Soul in a future PHB, and not one tied to the Sorcerer, that strikes me as a little odd. Though now that I think about it, we really don't need yet ANOTHER spell casting class with their spells tied to Charisma. It's getting a little excessive.

The idea of a caster forcing his will upon reality because he's incredibly arrogant is fairly standard in fantasy, and that's what a charisma casting stat can be thought of as. Though it's tricky to justify casting off a non-mental stat, and we only have three of those.

[DanyBallon]

Though in this day and age, I'd still rather have the wizard, if just for the utility alone. Blasting is all right, but it doesn't seem to be all that useful. Which suits my wizard play just fine. Plus prepared casters seem to have it better rather than learned casters.

Not that I wouldn't mind seeing a proper (and separate) Favored Soul in a future PHB, and not one tied to the Sorcerer, that strikes me as a little odd. Though now that I think about it, we really don't need yet ANOTHER spell casting class with their spells tied to Charisma. It's getting a little excessive.

Favored Soul get innate divine power, much like Sorcerer get inate arcane magic. I think it is one reason, why the created it as a sorcerer archetype. Not creating a whole new CHA based spellcaster class may be an other good reason :smallsmile:

[Anonymouswizard]

You really have nothing to stand on regarding your hatred of 5e's magic items.

First off, agree to call a cease fire here? I don't actually care about 5e's magic item system except where it comes to Eberron.


And so.what if 5e is a big, tasty steak dinner or not? It isn't a surgical drip, when a few people are clamouring for variety just because previous editions of D&D sprawled all over the place with poorly differentiated classes and barely conceptualized races. A PHB2 would offer just enough variety without threatening balance and bounded accuracy.

For me, it's because I don't always want steak, some days I want grilled chicken with boiled potatoes, and occasionally I want sweat and sour pork with rice. My problem is when somebody comes up to me and says that this new steak is also grilled chicken and sweat and sour pork.

I have nothing against 5e, it's just some days I wish I had something that could be both steak and a cheeseburger.


3.5's sorcerer and wizard were pretty much the same thing. One was a spontaneous caster and the other a Vancian caster, but the sorcerer was essentially a poorer wizard. Now the two are very different mechanically and conceptually.

I'm considering how to deal with this for a 3.5 Eberron game I'm planning that uses infinite cantrips (no Cure Minor Wounds) and spell points, so Sorcerers are even worse. In a spoiler as it's off topic.

Spell Energy and Spell costs are as in Unearthed Arcana. All full casters use the Cleric/Druid/Wizard track, with Bard and Artificier levels counting as 1/2 and Paladin and Ranger levels counting as 1/4. Bards and Artificers use the Bard track, and Paladins and Rangers use the Paladin/Bard track.

In addition, a character cannot spend more Spell Energy in a round than their caster level.

Clerics and Wizards prepare spells as normal, and then cast as outlined in Unearthed Arcana. The same goes for Paladins and Rangers.

Druids know spells as a Sorcerer and then work normally. I thought they could do with a downgrade.

Bards and Artificiers learn and cast spells as normal.

Sorcerers get two new abilities. The first, Arcane Torrent, allows them to spend any amount of spell energy in a round where they only cast Sorcerer spells. That also lose the need to take longer to cast metamagicked spells, making them the caster's with the most raw power. At layers levels they become able to cast 1st and then second level spells for free (metamagicked must still be paid for).

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Not that I wouldn't mind seeing a proper (and separate) Favored Soul in a future PHB, and not one tied to the Sorcerer, that strikes me as a little odd. Though now that I think about it, we really don't need yet ANOTHER spell casting class with their spells tied to Charisma. It's getting a little excessive.

I would like more classes with INT as a primary or secondary stat. Not necessarily casters. So far we have EK, AT (which are basically codified martial/wizard multiclasses) and then a whole lot of nothing.

[RickAllison]

I would like more classes with INT as a primary or secondary stat. Not necessarily casters. So far we have EK, AT (which are basically codified martial/wizard multiclasses) and then a whole lot of nothing.

Psionics will fill in that slot, but you still run into the problem of that being a caster.

[JumboWheat01]

I would like more classes with INT as a primary or secondary stat. Not necessarily casters. So far we have EK, AT (which are basically codified martial/wizard multiclasses) and then a whole lot of nothing.


Psionics will fill in that slot, but you still run into the problem of that being a caster.

You mean kinda like the ol' 3.5 Swashbucklers? Oh wait, don't we have that as a rogue archetype now? Hmm... I can't really think of how one would get a mental stat to work for a martial character unless they somehow tied it into a feature. And more than one feature, unlike that one single one where Enchanters use their CHA, despite the PHB suggesting it be their second highest stat.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I was thinking along the lines of the Tactician archetype, or a preparation-based class; a trap-maker, engineer or tinkerer class. The later would likely be right at home in an Eberron book.

[DanyBallon]

First off, agree to call a cease fire here? I don't actually care about 5e's magic item system except where it comes to Eberron.


I wouldn't mind if a fully developped (magic item) crafting system was included in an Eberron campaign setting book as it fits the world. But I don't want something more than what's in the DMG for more traditionnal settings like FR and GH. The same psionic rules should be setting specific as well.

The reason why I would like it that way, is that I find it easier to cherry pick and add stuff to my setting that to ban stuff.

[Regitnui]

I was thinking along the lines of the Tactician archetype, or a preparation-based class; a trap-maker, engineer or tinkerer class. The later would likely be right at home in an Eberron book.

I had a suggestion around here for a similar interpretation of the artificer class, but it got buried under magic item system hate. I'm not digging it out for fear of triggering it again.

[JumboWheat01]

I had a suggestion around here for a similar interpretation of the artificer class, but it got buried under magic item system hate. I'm not digging it out for fear of triggering it again.

Isn't Artificer still partly a spell casting class? At least it is on DDO.

[DanyBallon]

I had a suggestion around here for a similar interpretation of the artificer class, but it got buried under magic item system hate. I'm not digging it out for fear of triggering it again.

Was it in the homebrew forum? Usually folks over there are more constructive about new stuff. Or maybe just add an Eberron tag in front of your thread topic, so people will understand that it apply to this particular setting, it may prevent some to think that you are trying to messing up with the core rules.

[Anonymouswizard]

I had a suggestion around here for a similar interpretation of the artificer class, but it got buried under magic item system hate. I'm not digging it out for fear of triggering it again.

Don't feel bad, I made the same basic suggestion earlier and it was ignored.


Isn't Artificer still partly a spell casting class? At least it is on DDO.

In 3.5 they can cast spells on items but not creatures. They are buff-dudes, who cast magic indirectly.

[Arkhios]

Isn't Artificer still partly a spell casting class? At least it is on DDO.

DDO is a MMORPG, meaning it has to bend for certain expectations for a videogame. Plus, programming completely new system for magical effects to exist side by side with spellcasting would take a lot of time and money, something I doubt many games producers are likely to commit budget for a cornercase solution when similar results can be accomplished via spellcasting.
DDO isn't a good comparison to the actual rules, either.

No, Artificer, as written in the books, is not a spellcasting class. Artificers know how to infuse items with magic, but cannot produce pure magical effects without their implements. An artificer might know how to infuse a wand to produce fireballs, but couldn't cast a fireball themselves. If that makes any sense. Artificers combine technology with magic.

[Regitnui]

In 3.5 they can cast spells on items but not creatures. They are buff-dudes, who cast magic indirectly.

It basically worked around that idea. Maybe I'll try flesh it out into a full chassis for a homebrew forum, right after I finish the aasimar lore article and figuring out how Eberron magewrights would make gun-like devices... Which came first, the pistol or the rifle...?

[JumboWheat01]

DDO is a MMORPG, meaning it has to bend for certain expectations for a videogame. Plus, programming completely new system for magical effects to exist side by side with spellcasting would take a lot of time and money, something I doubt many games producers are likely to commit budget for a cornercase solution when similar results can be accomplished via spellcasting.
DDO isn't a good comparison to the actual rules, either.

No, Artificer, as written in the books, is not a spellcasting class. Artificers know how to infuse items with magic, but cannot produce pure magical effects without their implements. An artificer might know how to infuse a wand to produce fireballs, but couldn't cast a fireball themselves. If that makes any sense. Artificers combine technology with magic.

Wasn't too sure, since I never had any experience with the class outside of the MMO. It is weird that they can make magic without being able to use said magic. It sounds like using a wand of fireball to make a wand of fireball, which strikes me as a bit odd.

[RickAllison]

Wasn't too sure, since I never had any experience with the class outside of the MMO. It is weird that they can make magic without being able to use said magic. It sounds like using a wand of fireball to make a wand of fireball, which strikes me as a bit odd.

Think of Artificers as magic engineers. Engineers use their knowledge to create things beyond normal capabilities (smaller, stronger, faster, etc.) even when they cannot do the same. An Artificer uses his knowledge to combine aspects of magic into his magic items to accomplish things he isn't normally capable of.

[JoeJ]

Think of Artificers as magic engineers. Engineers use their knowledge to create things beyond normal capabilities (smaller, stronger, faster, etc.) even when they cannot do the same. An Artificer uses his knowledge to combine aspects of magic into his magic items to accomplish things he isn't normally capable of.

When I think of a magic engineer type of adventurer, there are two distinct types that come to mind:

1) Great item crafter. This is the character who creates a small number of permanent and fairly powerful magic items for their own use (maybe they don't work, or don't work very well, for anyone else). This is Tony Stark.

2) Jury rigger. This character is continually coming up with single use magic items on the fly. Think of Gizmo of the Fearsome Five, or a supercharged version of MacGyver.

[Arkhios]

When I think of a magic engineer type of adventurer, there are two distinct types that come to mind:

1) Great item crafter. This is the character who creates a small number of permanent and fairly powerful magic items for their own use (maybe they don't work, or don't work very well, for anyone else). This is Tony Stark.

2) Jury rigger. This character is continually coming up with single use magic items on the fly. Think of Gizmo of the Fearsome Five, or a supercharged version of MacGyver.

both of which would definitely deserve being called artificers.

[JackPhoenix]

It basically worked around that idea. Maybe I'll try flesh it out into a full chassis for a homebrew forum, right after I finish the aasimar lore article and figuring out how Eberron magewrights would make gun-like devices... Which came first, the pistol or the rifle...?

Cannon, bombs, rockets and fire-lance. Firearms started crude and big, as technology improved, they started getting smaller.

There was a mention of "siege staves" (either Forge of War or some KB's post on WotC forum) as big magic weapons used in large-scale warfare. FoW also had a mention of bombards (I think) used in siege of some Cyran city, though that book is problematic, Keith Baker wasn't working on it and disagrees with some things mentioned inside (similar with Faiths of Eberron).

DDO have arcane cannons, basically fireball (or something) launchers, and smaller version in artificer's hand-held rune arms. One quest also mentions explosives used for "pirate ships' cannons", though DDO is suspicious from lore perspective

[Regitnui]

When I think of a magic engineer type of adventurer, there are two distinct types that come to mind:

1) Great item crafter. This is the character who creates a small number of permanent and fairly powerful magic items for their own use (maybe they don't work, or don't work very well, for anyone else). This is Tony Stark.

2) Jury rigger. This character is continually coming up with single use magic items on the fly. Think of Gizmo of the Fearsome Five, or a supercharged version of MacGyver.

My idea was essentially the latter with the option for the former during downtime. Maybe subclasses for potions (alchemist) and wands (warmage?)


Cannon, bombs, rockets and fire-lance. Firearms started crude and big, as technology improved, they started getting smaller.

There was a mention of "siege staves" (either Forge of War or some KB's post on WotC forum) as big magic weapons used in large-scale warfare. FoW also had a mention of bombards (I think) used in siege of some Cyran city, though that book is problematic, Keith Baker wasn't working on it and disagrees with some things mentioned inside (similar with Faiths of Eberron).

DDO have arcane cannons, basically fireball (or something) launchers, and smaller version in artificer's hand-held rune arms. One quest also mentions explosives used for "pirate ships' cannons", though DDO is suspicious from lore perspective

I was primarily wondering which would evolve first. Cannith already made eternal wands with a limited number of charges per day. Maybe the eberron equivalent of firearms would start there rather than at cannon.

[JoeJ]

both of which would definitely deserve being called artificers.

They would play very differently, although I'm not sure which one I would find more fun. However, there are a lot of world where they would not fit aesthetically. They'd work great in Eberron or anything similar. Not so much if the campaign premise is Charlemagne's paladins.

[Regitnui]

Rename them 'magewrights' and they'll head for Forgotten Realms handily Historical RPGs have to cut out most of everything already, so the theoretical artificer isn't a great loss.

[Anonymouswizard]

They would play very differently, although I'm not sure which one I would find more fun. However, there are a lot of world where they would not fit aesthetically. They'd work great in Eberron or anything similar. Not so much if the campaign premise is Charlemagne's paladins.

You can make the same argument for:
-Wizards
-Sorcerers
-Cleric's
-Druids
-Paladins
-Warlocks
-Bards
-Barbarians

'It only works in some campaigns' is not a reason to not make a class, because that can be applied to a lot of the PhB.

[JoeJ]

You can make the same argument for:
-Wizards
-Sorcerers
-Cleric's
-Druids
-Paladins
-Warlocks
-Bards
-Barbarians

'It only works in some campaigns' is not a reason to not make a class, because that can be applied to a lot of the PhB.

No, not necessarily a reason to refrain from creating the class, but it does illustrate the reason for my mixed feelings. More options can be fun, but more options also means more work for the DM in creating a campaign.

[Arkhios]

No, not necessarily a reason to refrain from creating the class, but it does illustrate the reason for my mixed feelings. More options can be fun, but more options also means more work for the DM in creating a campaign.

A DM, when creating a campaign, can always rule out any classes he or she doesn't like or want in his or her campaign.
Creating new classes isn't going to change much of that routine.

[DanyBallon]

A DM, when creating a campaign, can always rule out any classes he or she doesn't like or want in his or her campaign.
Creating new classes isn't going to change much of that routine.

It's harder for a DM to restrict stuff from official sources. DM who do so are often called bad DM, or tyrant DM. Just look at Drow, even if there's a big "Ask your DM" sign next to it, players expect DM to let them play one, since it's in the PHB.

By releasing new material in setting specific book, DM that want to restrict access to part of the new stuff, can at least say that it is setting specific and don't apply in their campaign.

[JoeJ]

A DM, when creating a campaign, can always rule out any classes he or she doesn't like or want in his or her campaign.
Creating new classes isn't going to change much of that routine.

They can and should. However, how do they know what to rule out? The only way to decide that is to go through all the choices and make a note of whether or not they fit the theme of the campaign. The more options, there are, the more work that entails. So there's a bad side as well as a good side to having more classes.

[Arkhios]

It's easy to rule out anything outside 'core'. Simple as that. :)

[Nilse]

I didn't play 4e, nor DM it. I've never criticized that edition not compared it to 5e beyond broad strokes. Do you really insist on making me trawl through every single 4e class looking for every slight variation on the theme of "fighter" and "wizard"? I'm just stating my opinion on the game. Does it have to be cited chapter and verse because I disagree with you? Look, Lines, I really don't like finding you contradicting me on every single thread.

I'd much rather have fewer classes with more distinct themes than four hundred exploring every possible variation on the Archetypal Four. That's my opinion. What's wrong with it?

It's not just 4e, ten years ago was still within 3.5's release cycle - a lot of 3.5's initial efforts were really samey, but they eventually learned and towards the end pretty much everything they released ended up being pretty unique. Aaaaand then 5e kind of backslid, which wouldn't have been a problem (the initial class selection is pretty decent and can do a wide variety of archetypes, but it is strongly lacking in warblade/warlord style options) except that they've released pretty much nothing since.

And there's nothing wrong with wanting to use just a few classes, but does that mean there shouldn't be mechanically distinct classes for those who want them?

[Regitnui]

And there's nothing wrong with wanting to use just a few classes, but does that mean there shouldn't be mechanically distinct classes for those who want them?

I'm happy with a lot of classes, but they all should feel different. What's stopping a warlord from being a fighter subclass?

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm happy with a lot of classes, but they all should feel different. What's stopping a warlord from being a fighter subclass?

What's stopping Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian from being fighter subclasses.

Now excuse me, my lawn ends there, can you please retreat a few steps?

[Nilse]

I'm happy with a lot of classes, but they all should feel different. What's stopping a warlord from being a fighter subclass?

Too much power in the fighter chassis, same reason wizard can't be a fighter subclass - doesn't matter what you do, there's too much fighter in there for there to be enough power to fit a whole class in there. You can make it primarily about fighting with the new thing being a secondary power - see eldritch knight, the fighter's too fighty to be a wizard subclass, but you can add a bit of wizard and end up with mostly fighter and a bit of wizard, if you took fighter and added the entirety of what a wizard is it would be too strong.

Same for the warlord - it may have been martial, but its primary focus was on healing, buffing, supporting etc. Whatever system you used for a warlord you could take a little bit of that and add it to the fighter and you'd get a character primarily about dealing and taking damage with a minor in leadership, but to get a proper warlord it'd need to be its own class.

TL,DR: Warlord is to fighter as wizard is to fighter, making it a subclass gives you an eldritch knight, not a wizard.

[Regitnui]

Too much power in the fighter chassis, same reason wizard can't be a fighter subclass - doesn't matter what you do, there's too much fighter in there for there to be enough power to fit a whole class in there. You can make it primarily about fighting with the new thing being a secondary power - see eldritch knight, the fighter's too fighty to be a wizard subclass, but you can add a bit of wizard and end up with mostly fighter and a bit of wizard, if you took fighter and added the entirety of what a wizard is it would be too strong.

Same for the warlord - it may have been martial, but its primary focus was on healing, buffing, supporting etc. Whatever system you used for a warlord you could take a little bit of that and add it to the fighter and you'd get a character primarily about dealing and taking damage with a minor in leadership, but to get a proper warlord it'd need to be its own class.

TL,DR: Warlord is to fighter as wizard is to fighter, making it a subclass gives you an eldritch knight, not a wizard.

Thanks for explaining. I never played a warlord, so didn't know what it was besides the strict definition; person in charge of war. Now that I know what the class was, isn't there a fighter subclass that does a bit of buffing and leading?


What's stopping Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian from being fighter subclasses.

Now excuse me, my lawn ends there, can you please retreat a few steps?

Unique concepts.

*puts bare toe on lawn*

[PoeticDwarf]

We already have a Ravenloft adventure. I'm betting the next major supplement will come with either the Eberron adventure or a Dark Sun adventure - both with new player options and a campaign setting.

I think Dark Sun

Maybe there comes MM 2 or PHB 2

[PoeticDwarf]

Too much power in the fighter chassis, same reason wizard can't be a fighter subclass - doesn't matter what you do, there's too much fighter in there for there to be enough power to fit a whole class in there. You can make it primarily about fighting with the new thing being a secondary power - see eldritch knight, the fighter's too fighty to be a wizard subclass, but you can add a bit of wizard and end up with mostly fighter and a bit of wizard, if you took fighter and added the entirety of what a wizard is it would be too strong.

Same for the warlord - it may have been martial, but its primary focus was on healing, buffing, supporting etc. Whatever system you used for a warlord you could take a little bit of that and add it to the fighter and you'd get a character primarily about dealing and taking damage with a minor in leadership, but to get a proper warlord it'd need to be its own class.

TL,DR: Warlord is to fighter as wizard is to fighter, making it a subclass gives you an eldritch knight, not a wizard.
Purple dragon knight IS the warlord fighter subclass

[Anonymouswizard]

Unique concepts.

*puts bare toe on lawn*

Eh, you could whittle the Paladin and Ranger down to enough to be subclasses, although I'll definitely agree the 5e Paladin is is different enough to be it's own class as 'warrior empowered by an Oath'. Most of the Barbarian 'concept' is the Outlander background, the rest could have just been a Berserker Archetype for the Fighter.

[Nilse]

Thanks for explaining. I never played a warlord, so didn't know what it was besides the strict definition; person in charge of war. Now that I know what the class was, isn't there a fighter subclass that does a bit of buffing and leading?

Yes, and there's a fighter subclass that does a bit of spellcasting. You wouldn't call that subclass a wizard, just as you wouldn't call the bit of buffing and leading subclass a warlord.

Slightly more explanation wise, a warlord was a martial leader (4e's term for classes like bard and cleric), it focused on boosting ally attacks, shifting people around, healing, buffing etc. Less healing focused than the cleric, more a kind of 'make one attack, if it hits all allies that hit the target before your next turn get your intelligence bonus to attack' kind of thing. You didn't have to do any attacking, there were builds where you basically only used your allies to attack, but the primary flavour was guy in the thick of things that buffs and heals allies.

If whatever you'd call what the warlord does was casting, the purple dragon knight would be the eldritch knight and the warlord would be the bladesinger.


Purple dragon knight IS the warlord fighter subclass

Yes, it is! And it's as much a warlord as the eldritch knight is a wizard. The warlord majored in boosting allies and had a minor in hitting things, the PDK has a double degree in hitting things and taking hits and took a few classes in boosting.

[Regitnui]

Yes, and there's a fighter subclass that does a bit of spellcasting. You wouldn't call that subclass a wizard, just as you wouldn't call the bit of buffing and leading subclass a warlord.

Slightly more explanation wise, a warlord was a martial leader (4e's term for classes like bard and cleric), it focused on boosting ally attacks, shifting people around, healing, buffing etc. Less healing focused than the cleric, more a kind of 'make one attack, if it hits all allies that hit the target before your next turn get your intelligence bonus to attack' kind of thing. You didn't have to do any attacking, there were builds where you basically only used your allies to attack, but the primary flavour was guy in the thick of things that buffs and heals allies.

Ah, I see. So somewhere between Fighter and Cleric with a side helping of forced movement? Hmm... I'm not sure if that can be blown back out into a full class if PDK does some of it... I mean, the Core classes have been around since 3e codified all the previous editions' positives or negatives down, so they're fairly iconic. Even people who've never played D&D can get a joke about a dwarf fighter and elf wizard. Not so much an aasimar warlord. I'm not saying that it won't, but I'm not sure if it will either. Maybe it could get reborn as a setting-specific class...

[MeeposFire]

I think the problem with warlord in 5e is a fear of handing out too many attacks. In 4e generally the warlord handed out extra attacks like candy but in 5e such a thing is probably too strong. We already see how they gave the BM fighter that ability and it only affects one target and requires the target to spend their reaction. After that the other really sweet ability that warlords had as was battlefield positioning which for allies they were probably the best (well bards could be almost as good but much better at moving enemies too so you could debate that). Considering that exact positioning is not really all the prevalent in 5e that makes the other warlord abilities mostly unavailable.

The only way one could create a 5e warlord class would be to go back to giving it healing which in terms of making many people happy would require the use of healing kits and a way for the class to fabricate them on a daily basis (so you can almost always have them available but odes not bother the crowd that does not like the martial healing idea). Making a medic ability would help solve the problems people have with med kit while giving the warlord something that makes them distinct. You could then give them a few abilities to create openings and attacks for other characters and it could work.

It may also be possible to condense that into a subclass perhaps.

[Ewhit]

I would really like to see greyhawk just because of the iconic heroes villains are Awsome.

[JoeJ]

It's easy to rule out anything outside 'core'. Simple as that. :)

Sure, if I assume that nothing outside of core is appropriate for any setting. But if that's the case, why create it?

[Regitnui]

Sure, if I assume that nothing outside of core is appropriate for any setting. But if that's the case, why create it?

Because it's appropriate for the setting it's published in? Or is that too obvious an answer?

[JoeJ]

Because it's appropriate for the setting it's published in? Or is that too obvious an answer?

If it's appropriate for any setting at all, then it might be appropriate for my setting. So that's one more thing I have to think about.

No matter how you arrange things, there's no getting around the basic problem that more options means more things that have to be considered by the DM. That's not a deal breaker, but it is something that needs to be balanced against the fun of having more choices. A small number of very broad classes (and the fewer there are, the broader they can be without stepping on each other) is simply easier to work with than a larger number of more narrowly defined ones.

[Snile]

Ah, I see. So somewhere between Fighter and Cleric with a side helping of forced movement? Hmm... I'm not sure if that can be blown back out into a full class if PDK does some of it...
In the same way that we can't have wizard as a full blown class since there's already an eldritch knight? And yet we have not only wizards but sorcerers, warlocks etc.


I mean, the Core classes have been around since 3e codified all the previous editions' positives or negatives down, so they're fairly iconic.
Warlock only became a core class in 4e, in the same PHB that contained the warlord.


Even people who've never played D&D can get a joke about a dwarf fighter and elf wizard. Not so much an aasimar warlord. I'm not saying that it won't, but I'm not sure if it will either. Maybe it could get reborn as a setting-specific class...
Will they get the joke about the dragonborn warlock or the tiefling sorcerer? And why would it need to be setting specific, it's a setting neutral concept.

[Snile]

I think the problem with warlord in 5e is a fear of handing out too many attacks. In 4e generally the warlord handed out extra attacks like candy but in 5e such a thing is probably too strong. We already see how they gave the BM fighter that ability and it only affects one target and requires the target to spend their reaction. After that the other really sweet ability that warlords had as was battlefield positioning which for allies they were probably the best (well bards could be almost as good but much better at moving enemies too so you could debate that). Considering that exact positioning is not really all the prevalent in 5e that makes the other warlord abilities mostly unavailable.

The only way one could create a 5e warlord class would be to go back to giving it healing which in terms of making many people happy would require the use of healing kits and a way for the class to fabricate them on a daily basis (so you can almost always have them available but odes not bother the crowd that does not like the martial healing idea). Making a medic ability would help solve the problems people have with med kit while giving the warlord something that makes them distinct. You could then give them a few abilities to create openings and attacks for other characters and it could work.
The 5e wizard works nothing like the 4e wizard and the 5e warlock works nothing like the 4e warlock or the 3.5 warlock and the 5e fighter works nothing like the 4e fighter or the 3.5 fighter or the 2e fighter...

The mechanics are free to differ, but there are plenty of ways to make a martial support class work in 5e. The core of the warlord - martial, not caster, can fight primarily by boosting if he doesn't want to attack over and over, rewarded for getting into the fray by enhancing his allies should be fairly easy to do in 5e. I'll give homebrewing one a shot later tonight, show you what I mean.


It may also be possible to condense that into a subclass perhaps.
Not sure it is - the warlord's supposed to be primarily about boosting people, it'd be like fitting the 5e bard into a subclass - pretty much undoable without creating something overpowered, and why would you even if you could?

[deathbymanga]

I wouldn't mind a Dragonfire Adept Archetype for the Warlock. PErhaps with a unique Invocation that lets it cast Eldritch Blast as a cone Breath Weapon instead of multiple Arcane Arrows? Maybe the Archetype is built around being in service to Tiamet or some super old and wise Dragon Master

OR maybe a new Pact for Warlocks so there's more than just Tome, Chain, and Blade.

[Snile]

I wouldn't mind a Dragonfire Adept Archetype for the Warlock. PErhaps with a unique Invocation that lets it cast Eldritch Blast as a cone Breath Weapon instead of multiple Arcane Arrows? Maybe the Archetype is built around being in service to Tiamet or some super old and wise Dragon Master

OR maybe a new Pact for Warlocks so there's more than just Tome, Chain, and Blade.

Not just a unique invocation, we need many. Warlock's a bit underwhelming and I think a lot of that is because their invocations are really lacking - pact of the blade for instance is competing with eldritch blast and merely gets extra attack and +cha to damage, they could have done really cool hexblade style stuff and given whoever you hit your weapon with a penalty to saves or made the weapon drain life etc, but instead we get boring numbers.

I'd like to see a lot more invocations in general, and then a DFA subclass with a bunch of breath effect invocations.

[Regitnui]

I wouldn't mind a Dragonfire Adept Archetype for the Warlock. PErhaps with a unique Invocation that lets it cast Eldritch Blast as a cone Breath Weapon instead of multiple Arcane Arrows? Maybe the Archetype is built around being in service to Tiamet or some super old and wise Dragon Master

OR maybe a new Pact for Warlocks so there's more than just Tome, Chain, and Blade.

I can see that. Pact of the Scale perhaps? You make a deal with a dragon for arcane power, and if you serve well enough your descendants become sorcerers.


Warlock only became a core class in 4e, in the same PHB that contained the warlord.

Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, Barbarian and Ranger have been around since 3.0 and are what I meant by 'Core'. They're the ones, especially the first four, that you build the classic D&D party of. Not to say the others aren't good, but a warlord is a classic fantasy villain. But yeah. if they can make it feel different from a fighter running the PDK, than i'll be happy.

[Snile]

I can see that. Pact of the Scale perhaps? You make a deal with a dragon for arcane power, and if you serve well enough your descendants become sorcerers.



Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, Barbarian and Ranger have been around since 3.0 and are what I meant by 'Core'. They're the ones, especially the first four, that you build the classic D&D party of. Not to say the others aren't good, but a warlord is a classic fantasy villain. But yeah. if they can make it feel different from a fighter running the PDK, than i'll be happy.

Working on it at the moment. But yeah, it should easily feel very different - a PDK is a fighter who buffs a little, a warlord is a buffer who fights a little. Again, eldritch knight vs wizard is a pretty much perfect analogy.

[Regitnui]

I'll look forward to seeing it.:smallbiggrin:

I've still got to get my artificer done...:smalleek:

[deathbymanga]

Not just a unique invocation, we need many. Warlock's a bit underwhelming and I think a lot of that is because their invocations are really lacking - pact of the blade for instance is competing with eldritch blast and merely gets extra attack and +cha to damage, they could have done really cool hexblade style stuff and given whoever you hit your weapon with a penalty to saves or made the weapon drain life etc, but instead we get boring numbers.

I'd like to see a lot more invocations in general, and then a DFA subclass with a bunch of breath effect invocations.

a Vampire power would be kind of kool. Or maybe an Invocation that reintroduces the Chain Eldritch Blast by making it something like "When you successfully hit a target with one of your eldritch blasts, you can choose to fire your next eldritch blast as if you were casting from the tile your previous target was standing on." This would allow the Warlock to easily bypass enemies, as well as get as attack rows of enemies in a windy corridor with ease.

Or maybe an invocation that' exclusive to the Lich Patron that let's you remove your hand and turn it into a Creeping Crawler and use it to scout around and perhaps choke a person from outside a building. Hmm, but that might step on the tracks of Chain. Hmm, ok, how about instead make it a Chain exclusive Invocation that let's you use your skill Proficiencies instead of their own. Making it so if the Lich guy grabbed a Creeping Crawler as his familiar, he can make an Athletics check through it to choke people.

Or maybe an Invocation that's exclusive to Tome that lets you copy-paste any text that you read onto any sheet of paper you're holding onto. Allowing for a Ritual caster who grabbed Familiar to scout, see a document, and quickly steal it without trouble. I mean, if the "Read any text" power is worth an invocation, "copy all text" might as well be one also



I can see that. Pact of the Scale perhaps? You make a deal with a dragon for arcane power, and if you serve well enough your descendants become sorcerers.

Ooh, that's an idea. would be even cooler if they re-introduced the Planar Dragons so that the player would have more variety along what morality he wanted his particular dragon Patron to be. Imagine having a Beast Dragon for a Patron and turning your Eldritch Blast into a Hunting Rifle :P

[Arkhios]

Sure, if I assume that nothing outside of core is appropriate for any setting. But if that's the case, why create it?

Why anything is created then? I'm not saying new options shouldn't be created. I like new classes. I'm saying that if a DM is running a game set in, say, Forgotten Realms, pre-sundering, and a player wanted to play a Dragonborn, the answer could easily be "no", because the race doesn't exist in that era. Period.
Just as easily a new class could not fit for a setting, even if it was just created and published by the officials. It doesn't matter whether a setting is your homebrew or a published "official" setting. If, as THE DM, you deemed that there are only classes from PhB in your game, it doesn't void the new classes creation. A different DM might allow them; even for the same setting. It's more about personal preferences, than studying through every single new tidbit of new rules. I could without a second's delay say that players choose from PhB only. I don't have to read new classes to state that. If I don't want newly published stuff in my campaign, that should be enough. I shouldn't have to explain my motives any further than that. If a player didn't like it, there's the door.

Even though WOTC published new stuff, that doesn't mean everything must be incorporated to every setting, just because there are rules for it.

[deathbymanga]

Why anything is created then? I'm not saying new options shouldn't be created. I like new classes. I'm saying that if a DM is running a game set in, say, Forgotten Realms, pre-sundering, and a player wanted to play a Dragonborn, the answer could easily be "no", because the race doesn't exist in that era. Period.
Even though WOTC published new stuff, that doesn't mean everything must be incorporated to every setting, just because there are rules for it.
Just as easily a new class could not fit for a setting, even if it was just created and published by the officials. It doesn't matter whether a setting is your homebrew or a published "official" setting. If, as THE DM, you deemed that there are only classes from PhB in your game, it doesn't void the new classes creation. A different DM might allow them; even for the same setting. It's more about personal preferences, than studying through every single new tidbit of new rules. I could without a second's delay say that players choose from PhB only. I don't have to read new classes to state that. If I don't want newly published stuff in my campaign, that should be enough.

but, I might be mixing up my eras, but Dragonborn did exist Pre-Sundering. They just weren't a genetic race. they were a race of people born via a ritual that people underwent, abandoning their existing race to become Dragonborns. They're in Races of Dragons Supplement for 3.5

[Arkhios]

but, I might be mixing up my eras, but Dragonborn did exist Pre-Sundering. They just weren't a genetic race. they were a race of people born via a ritual that people underwent, abandoning their existing race to become Dragonborns. They're in Races of Dragons Supplement for 3.5

Admittedly, I forgot that supplement. Then again, it's supplementary, not by any means obligatory. Besides, those dragonborns would have some features from their origin race, and are thus not a real race, like you said, in the genetic sense as the new dragonborn. They're not the same race.

[deathbymanga]

Admittedly, I forgot that supplement. Then again, it's supplementary, not by any means obligatory. Besides, those dragonborns would have some features from their origin race, and are thus not a real race, like you said, in the genetic sense as the new dragonborn. They're not the same race.

if we only used the obligatory, 3.5 would have been a very bring edition

[Arkhios]

if we only used the obligatory, 3.5 would have been a very bring edition

Lack of imagination makes everything boring.

[Snile]

Lack of imagination makes everything boring.

No, lack of interesting options does. Core 3.5 had 11 classes of incredibly variable usefulness and a complete lack of good options for the non spellcasters, with all the full casters being tier 1-2, all martial characters 4 or lower with precisely one tier 3 class, the bard - which was also incredibly dull in core 3.5, all the fun bard options came in later books. I love 3.5, always have, but core 3.5 is boring and unbalanced and there is no reason to ever run it when 5e exists.


Edit: While I'm at it, if you're going to insult someone, come straight out with it and directly insult them. You're strongly implying he has no imagination which is a needlessly insulting thing to do and 'just use your imagination and its fun' can describe anything.

[Arkhios]

Edit: While I'm at it, if you're going to insult someone, come straight out with it and directly insult them. You're strongly implying he has no imagination which is a needlessly insulting thing to do and 'just use your imagination and its fun' can describe anything.

If I intended to insult someone, I would've done it a long time ago. If innocent remarks qualify for insults to someone, they are of course free to make their own interpretations, but to claim I truly was insulting, that's your interpretation, nothing else. :)

[Snile]

If I intended to insult someone, I would've done it a long time ago. If innocent remarks qualify for insults to someone, they are of course free to make their own interpretations, but to claim I truly was insulting, that's your interpretation, nothing else. :)

Nope, it's fact.

Person A: X is Y!
Person B: Maybe for 'Z' people it is.

Person B just called person A 'Z'.

[Arkhios]

Nope, it's fact.

Person A: X is Y!
Person B: Maybe for 'Z' people it is.

Person B just called person A 'Z'.

Whatever. If that's what you want to believe, I won't, or can't even try to change your beliefs.

[Snile]

Whatever. If that's what you want to believe, I won't, or can't even try to change your beliefs.

Not a matter of belief, it's how language works. You can feign ignorance if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it was an insult.

Edit: And you still haven't responded regarding 3.5 core only being boring.

[Belac93]

Insult or no insult, it doesn't matter. If nobody tries to insult anybody, and nobody believes that anybody is trying to insult them, we can actually get back to the topic at hand.

[Regitnui]

Ooh, that's an idea. would be even cooler if they re-introduced the Planar Dragons so that the player would have more variety along what morality he wanted his particular dragon Patron to be. Imagine having a Beast Dragon for a Patron and turning your Eldritch Blast into a Hunting Rifle :P

Or you just go with the plain dragons whose morality covers all shades of Good and Evil. Warlocks aren't clerics, so I don't think that a gold dragon would care whether his pact pet is any alignment as long as they aren't excessively Evil.


Not a matter of belief, it's how language works. You can feign ignorance if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it was an insult.

Edit: And you still haven't responded regarding 3.5 core only being boring.

He did. Nobody was insulted. You misread.

PS. I think "pact pet" is a good way for archfey and demon lords to refer to their willing warlocks. Or more likely, others' warlocks.

[deathbymanga]

Or you just go with the plain dragons whose morality covers all shades of Good and Evil. Warlocks aren't clerics, so I don't think that a gold dragon would care whether his pact pet is any alignment as long as they aren't excessively Evil.



He did. Nobody was insulted. You misread.

PS. I think "pact pet" is a good way for archfey and demon lords to refer to their willing warlocks. Or more likely, others' warlocks.

why no Planar Dragons? Those things are kool. Astral Dragons have a Banishment Breath, Condordant Dragons stand as True Neutral Dragons, waging wars with anyone with an alignment off from Neutrality. Styxian Dragons can breath water from the River Styx, wiping the memories of those clumsy enough to get in contact with it. Planar Dragons rule

[Regitnui]

why no Planar Dragons? Those things are kool. Astral Dragons have a Banishment Breath, Condordant Dragons stand as True Neutral Dragons, waging wars with anyone with an alignment off from Neutrality. Styxian Dragons can breath water from the River Styx, wiping the memories of those clumsy enough to get in contact with it. Planar Dragons rule

Simply because why not have an adapted sea serpent living in the Styx, and island-sized dragon turtles in the Astral Sea? The Wheel is too large to turn on dragons as the 'big bad beastie'.

[deathbymanga]

Simply because why not have an adapted sea serpent living in the Styx, and island-sized dragon turtles in the Astral Sea? The Wheel is too large to turn on dragons as the 'big bad beastie'.

but Planar Dragons aren't innately evil, unless they are Lower Planes dragons, but even then, a Gloom Dragon (From Hades), is less a villain and more just a scavenger, brought to ruin by the plane's own apathy.

Planar Dragons aren't awesome because they make great villains. I mean half the Planar Dragons are Good you know. It's how they each individually symbolize the very Plane they are from.

[Regitnui]

Planar Dragons aren't awesome because they make great villains. I mean half the Planar Dragons are Good you know. It's how they each individually symbolize the very Plane they are from.

That's why I'm advocating draconic creatures as opposed to dragons. Dragon turtles and the dragonkin are just as intelligent and prone to hoarding, and have the advantage of being more distinct.

[deathbymanga]

That's why I'm advocating draconic creatures as opposed to dragons. Dragon turtles and the dragonkin are just as intelligent and prone to hoarding, and have the advantage of being more distinct.

I don't see what's so distinct? and if you really want distinction, why not include both the Planar Dragons, as well as a bunch of other Dragonkin from those planes.

[Regitnui]

How many people go to the Astral Plane before they have a long enough sea journey to justify a dragon turtle? The river Styx is the safest way through the lower planes, if you don't run into a Styx Serpent.

We already have 10 breeds of dragon on the Material plane. Part of the attraction of the different planes is that they're different and strange. But what's the point of going to the Abyss if you're just going to find a cave, hunt a dragon and loot it's hoard? You can do that anywhere in the material plane. The only extraplanar adventure I'd involve dragons in would be visiting Tiamat on the First Layer of Hell. Otherwise, it feels like a lack of imagination. How do we solve this problem? Go to a dungeon and kill the dragon. The game's grown beyond dragons hiding in underground complexes.

Doesn't "Go to the fifth layer of the Nine Hells and find the Styx serpent Ko'rak" sound more interesting than just finding white dragon with Styx river mouthwash? I've got nothing against material plane dragons hunting on 'wild' planes like the Beastlands or Lamannia, because that sounds in line with the themes of the planes. The astral plane is a weightless sea of silver. Why would the native creatures have legs at all? Mechanus is a realm of gears and order, yet a dragon is an illogical creature. Why would they evolve there? Kythri (or the great wheel chaotic neutral plane) is a swirling storm of potentials. The only natives we see there are formless or slaadi. A wyrmling would be torn apart.

Visiting dragons? OK. Planar dragons? Harder to swallow.

[Arkhios]

Thanks everyone for backing me up with that nonsense previously. I wish that hadn't happened at all, but all people can't be pleased they say :(

Anyway, reading back to the topic, I had this random thought about martial "healing": A warlord stood as the beacon of morale and tactical advice for the group, mostly providing opportunities to strike when normally they couldn't.
What if 5e warlord were to grant temporary hit points throughout the group on regular basis, somewhat alike with Inspiring Leader (which, btw, coupled with either Battle Master or Banneret, would make a fighter perfect warlord if it wasn't a class on its own), but with more frequent usability.

Maybe tie it to other character's hit dice, so that when the warlord bolsters their morale (as whatever action on their turn), allies could roll X amount of their hit dice (plus their Con) to gain the result as Temporary hit points.

Temporary Hit Points have a lot more martial feel on them than actually regaining hit points. It serves the same purpose of keeping up and going, but still isn't as strong as the healing.

[Regitnui]

I can see that as a a martial healer. The warlord shouts/inspires their allies to keep going without actually fixing their problems. I can picture the character smacking the wizard on the back of the head like a Drill Sergeant Nasty yelling "Get up and walk it off! In the army, we drank giant centipede poison with morning breakfast!" Or Mal Reynolds' "We ain't gonna die. You know why? Because we are just too pretty for God to let us die."

[Arkhios]

I can see that as a a martial healer. The warlord shouts/inspires their allies to keep going without actually fixing their problems. I can picture the character smacking the wizard on the back of the head like a Drill Sergeant Nasty yelling "Get up and walk it off! In the army, we drank giant centipede poison with morning breakfast!" Or Mal Reynolds' "We ain't gonna die. You know why? Because we are just too pretty for God to let us die."

Haha, you said better than I could! Exactly what I had in mind :)

[DanyBallon]

Wouldn't the Purple Dragon Knight archetype, be what you are looking for as for an inspirationnal leader? I'm not familiar with 4e Warlord, but this archetype cover part of the Healing with shared Second Wind, and the other abilities, are quite representative for a character that can inspire its troops.

[Arkhios]

Wouldn't the Purple Dragon Knight archetype, be what you are looking for as for an inspirationnal leader? I'm not familiar with 4e Warlord, but this archetype cover part of the Healing with shared Second Wind, and the other abilities, are quite representative for a character that can inspire its troops.

Purple Dragon Knight (a.k.a. Banneret, off-setting) does indeed that. However, their healing is healing as per usual, regaining hit points, however very little and it's restricted to once per short rest. (as per your use of Second Wind triggering it).

What I suggested above would cover the situation a bit differently. Not causing wounds to heal, but in effect reinvigorating fighting spirit and "never give up" attitude, which can be resembled by Temporary Hit Points. :)
Now, obviously the Warlord I had in mind for 5e wouldn't be a fighter sub-class, but a class of its own, which wouldn't get more than 1 Extra Attack, much like Paladin and Ranger, for example, themed around boosting morale, and granting tactical advantages to their allies etc. Similar to bard, but non-magical.
It might be a bit redundant given that there is Banneret, but technically, you could also see Eldritch Knight, for example, as only a fighter dabbling a little in arcane magic, while a Banneret could be seen only as a fighter who is dabbling in Warlord stuff, and therefore not a true warlord, after all.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

One could likely homebrew up a class fairly quickly, just mixing existing features into a sensible progression. Take the extra features from the Banerette, some Battle Master maneuvers, Bard inspiration and songs, and the inspiring leader feat. Remix it a little and put it on a d10 hit die, full equipment proficiency, single extra attack chassis and we've nearly got it.

[Arkhios]

One could likely homebrew up a class fairly quickly, just mixing existing features into a sensible progression. Take the extra features from the Banerette, some Battle Master maneuvers, Bard inspiration and songs, and the inspiring leader feat. Remix it a little and put it on a d10 hit die, full equipment proficiency, single extra attack chassis and we've nearly got it.

I was already thinking something along those lines, and I might post a thread in homebrew sub-forum and compile the idea there, once I have the time. Unfortunately, right now time is wearing thin.

[DanyBallon]

What kind of archetype would a Warlord class have?

[Tenmujiin]

What kind of archetype would a Warlord class have?

Likely one that focuses more on fighting themselves, one focused on tactics and one focused on inspiration.

[Belac93]

I can see that as a a martial healer. The warlord shouts/inspires their allies to keep going without actually fixing their problems. I can picture the character smacking the wizard on the back of the head like a Drill Sergeant Nasty yelling "Get up and walk it off! In the army, we drank giant centipede poison with morning breakfast!" Or Mal Reynolds' "We ain't gonna die. You know why? Because we are just too pretty for God to let us die."

I would probably make it a fighter subclass, mixing and matching the aspects of the inspiring leader feat, the banneret subclass, and the battlemaster subclass.

A thing that you could do, is homebrew a optional separate battlemaster maneuver sheet, that could represent a warlord. Make a few of the abilities charisma based, add some of the ones the battlemaster already has, and you're golden. I may do that, when I have the time.

[deathbymanga]

How many people go to the Astral Plane before they have a long enough sea journey to justify a dragon turtle? The river Styx is the safest way through the lower planes, if you don't run into a Styx Serpent.

We already have 10 breeds of dragon on the Material plane. Part of the attraction of the different planes is that they're different and strange. But what's the point of going to the Abyss if you're just going to find a cave, hunt a dragon and loot it's hoard? You can do that anywhere in the material plane. The only extraplanar adventure I'd involve dragons in would be visiting Tiamat on the First Layer of Hell. Otherwise, it feels like a lack of imagination. How do we solve this problem? Go to a dungeon and kill the dragon. The game's grown beyond dragons hiding in underground complexes.

Doesn't "Go to the fifth layer of the Nine Hells and find the Styx serpent Ko'rak" sound more interesting than just finding white dragon with Styx river mouthwash? I've got nothing against material plane dragons hunting on 'wild' planes like the Beastlands or Lamannia, because that sounds in line with the themes of the planes. The astral plane is a weightless sea of silver. Why would the native creatures have legs at all? Mechanus is a realm of gears and order, yet a dragon is an illogical creature. Why would they evolve there? Kythri (or the great wheel chaotic neutral plane) is a swirling storm of potentials. The only natives we see there are formless or slaadi. A wyrmling would be torn apart.

Visiting dragons? OK. Planar dragons? Harder to swallow.

wtf are you talking about? there is no difference between either of those two encounters. and a gloom dragon isn't just some emo green dragon. a gloom dragon is a unique dragon. an encounter involving one would be like "Devil Lord's son fought and died in the blood war. please recover his body so his father can attempt a resurrection. But, when they find the son's body, they find it already being devoured by the Gloom Dragon since it's a carrion Scavenger. Then you have the person with the Arcane Knowledge find out that a body eaten by a Gloom Dragon cannot be resurrected unless either a wish spell is used, or the Dragon in question has been killed. So in order to complete their mission, they have to fight the dragon in order to retrieve the lost son's body."

That alone could be an interesting encounter for the players to do. Doing so could also open up later plots involving said devil.

An encounter with an Astral Dragon could be fun because you could have the dragon end the battle abruptly by using it's Banishment breath to send the players back to the Material Plane, which could be pretty annoying if they were trying to get to another plane somehow.

Dragons are also not just horde monsters with massive amounts of gold behind them. Dragons have their own goals and desires. a Condordant Dragon could actively be trying to kill a tribe of Eldarin because they are an innately Chaotic Good Race and Concordant Dragons despise non-Neutral beings.

Or perhaps you have a Jurassive Park style campaign and in place of the T-Rex, you have a Beast Dragon reeking havok amongst the people.

Lots of stuff can happen

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

A Condordant Dragon could actively be trying to kill a tribe of Eldarin because they are an innately Chaotic Good Race and Concordant Dragons despise non-Neutral beings.

I feel like this is something we're unlikely to see in a future 5e book, as this edition seems to be moving away from the idea of hard-coded alignments with mechanical enforcement. There a few magic items that interact with alignment, and a few mentions in the MM sidebars about alignment shifts but that's about it.

[deathbymanga]

I feel like this is something we're unlikely to see in a future 5e book, as this edition seems to be moving away from the idea of hard-coded alignments with mechanical enforcement. There a few magic items that interact with alignment, and a few mentions in the MM sidebars about alignment shifts but that's about it.

even then, a Condcordant could be at war with a Chaotic Good CHURCH. or just frankly, a revolutionary group, or whatever you desire. So long as the opposite party is not of a neutral alignment IN-CHARACTER, it should suffice. Maybe have it be a Chaotic Evil serial Killer who's become so destructive the Dragon feels it is important to kill him himself.

The idea of Concordants is that they are Absolute Neutrality. They despite anyone who has an alignment otherwise.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Wouldn't such ardent commitment to an ideal make them lawful? :smalltongue:

[deathbymanga]

Wouldn't such ardent commitment to an ideal make them lawful? :smalltongue:

No, any alignment can be devoted to their alignment religiously

[Regitnui]

Or perhaps you have a Jurassive Park style campaign and in place of the T-Rex, you have a Beast Dragon wreaking havok amongst the people.

I said "why use planar dragons when they're already all over the material realm?" And you answered "because dragons!"

OK, banishment breath? Dragon turtles get a breath weapon too. While normally a jet of scalding steam, an Astral Dragon Turtle could easily exhale banishment over a party of players between it and its destination, and a big enough one could lead to discworld references.

The gloom dragon can be replaced with a Gloom Python (take stats from giant constrictor snake and buff). It fufils exactly the same role except a huge snake slithering just out of darkvision/lamp range is much more memorable than another dragon fight. The biology of snakes also give the characters a bit of leeway; maybe they arrive after the gloom python's eaten and need to cut the soul back out again!

And finally; what on earth does a marauding "beast dragon" do that could not be done just as well by any other dragon? A red dragon doing its best Smaug impression comes to mind, or a silver dragon trying to purge a town of evil but can't attack outright.

I'll go through the Wheel and give you a replacement for every planar dragon that'll work just as well, if you want to.

[deathbymanga]

I said "why use planar dragons when they're already all over the material realm?" And you answered "because dragons!"

OK, banishment breath? Dragon turtles get a breath weapon too. While normally a jet of scalding steam, an Astral Dragon Turtle could easily exhale banishment over a party of players between it and its destination, and a big enough one could lead to discworld references.

The gloom dragon can be replaced with a Gloom Python (take stats from giant constrictor snake and buff). It fufils exactly the same role except a huge snake slithering just out of darkvision/lamp range is much more memorable than another dragon fight. The biology of snakes also give the characters a bit of leeway; maybe they arrive after the gloom python's eaten and need to cut the soul back out again!

And finally; what on earth does a marauding "beast dragon" do that could not be done just as well by any other dragon? A red dragon doing its best Smaug impression comes to mind, or a silver dragon trying to purge a town of evil but can't attack outright.

I'll go through the Wheel and give you a replacement for every planar dragon that'll work just as well, if you want to.

Memorable? all this sounds to me is that you just are tired of Dragons in general. I personally like Dragons still, though my problem with them is that the most common ones, the Chromatic and Metalic Dragons, THOSE are the most boring dragons. It's the Material Dragons that I'd have no problems at all with retconning into something else. Planar Dragons are the fun ones.

[Arkhios]

Likely one that focuses more on fighting themselves, one focused on tactics and one focused on inspiration.

This. Also there could be very distinct differences between how these would play out like. For example, one that would focus more on fighting themselves could be very harsh and intimidating.

PS. Semi-promotional ad: Have a look at what I've done with the Warlord (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?482261-PEACH-Warlord-WIP) so far. And please, be gentle! :smalltongue:

[Regitnui]

Memorable? all this sounds to me is that you just are tired of Dragons in general. I personally like Dragons still, though my problem with them is that the most common ones, the Chromatic and Metalic Dragons, THOSE are the most boring dragons. It's the Material Dragons that I'd have no problems at all with retconning into something else. Planar Dragons are the fun ones.

OK. Then make them extraplanar beings. I've no problem with that.

I've less a problem with dragons and more a problem with shoving them anywhere they may fit. "This is a maybe-sentient world that digests the leftovers and spiritual runoff of the rest of the planes and turns it into monsters." "Hmm... Ok, but what do its dragons look like?" "There are no dragons." "Well, then make some!"

[RickAllison]

OK. Then make them extraplanar beings. I've no problem with that.

I've less a problem with dragons and more a problem with shoving them anywhere they may fit. "This is a maybe-sentient world that digests the leftovers and spiritual runoff of the rest of the planes and turns it into monsters." "Hmm... Ok, but what do its dragons look like?" "There are no dragons." "Well, then make some!"

Actually, dragons in that world could be amazing and make sense. I imagine something more along the lines of Tiamat, a conglomeration of the terrible chromatic dragons that have been slain throughout the realms that overpowers and absorbs all who would oppose it. So while dragons might not be a good fit for the world, one dragon filled with the most dangerous qualities and the evil from dragons across the realms would be awesome :smallsmile:

[Regitnui]

Actually, dragons in that world could be amazing and make sense. I imagine something more along the lines of Tiamat, a conglomeration of the terrible chromatic dragons that have been slain throughout the realms that overpowers and absorbs all who would oppose it. So while dragons might not be a good fit for the world, one dragon filled with the most dangerous qualities and the evil from dragons across the realms would be awesome :smallsmile:

I was describing the fluff for the Abyss there.

But ok, let's run with it. So what's the dominant perception of dragons in the world? Pretty much every sentient being other than dragons themselves see them as huge, fire/ice/somethingbreathing monsters that you can't hurt and have a compulsion to collect things. Run that impression through the Chaotic Evil find and replace of the Abyss and it burps out... Well, it doesn't necessarily end up as a mammal-like reptile with shiny scales, I'll tell you that.

EDIT: If it were one dragon somehow trapped in the Abyss and had all the negative qualities of every dragon in the Material Plane forced into its mind, and that was a unique, demon-lord-type final boss monster designed to make the players crap themselves; I'd support it.

[RickAllison]

I was describing the fluff for the Abyss there.

But ok, let's run with it. So what's the dominant perception of dragons in the world? Pretty much every sentient being other than dragons themselves see them as huge, fire/ice/somethingbreathing monsters that you can't hurt and have a compulsion to collect things. Run that impression through the Chaotic Evil find and replace of the Abyss and it burps out... Well, it doesn't necessarily end up as a mammal-like reptile with shiny scales, I'll tell you that.

EDIT: If it were one dragon somehow trapped in the Abyss and had all the negative qualities of every dragon in the Material Plane forced into its mind, and that was a unique, demon-lord-type final boss monster designed to make the players crap themselves; I'd support it.

See? Each setting can have dragons, but those dragons certainly don't have to abide by the popular image of scaled friends. I mean, think about the different dragons we have in mythology here on Earth! We've got the popular European dragon, the Russian zmey that is a combination of Euro-dragons and hydras, the Greek hundred-headed Ladon, the chaos-serpent Apophis from Egypt, the quetzalcoatl from Central America (which was appropriated by D&D as a celestial in keeping with the godly nature of the feathered serpent), Leviathan, the Chinese long or lung, and the naga from South Asia.

[deathbymanga]

See? Each setting can have dragons, but those dragons certainly don't have to abide by the popular image of scaled friends. I mean, think about the different dragons we have in mythology here on Earth! We've got the popular European dragon, the Russian zmey that is a combination of Euro-dragons and hydras, the Greek hundred-headed Ladon, the chaos-serpent Apophis from Egypt, the quetzalcoatl from Central America (which was appropriated by D&D as a celestial in keeping with the godly nature of the feathered serpent), Leviathan, the Chinese long or lung, and the naga from South Asia.

exactly.

Plus, the point of dragons is not that they are gold hoggers who are rediculously hard to kill and have some unique elemental breath. yeah, those are the common tropes of the dragons, and yeah they all have that.

But what makes the Planar Dragons (Which ARE Extraplanar btw, it's just stupid to call it Extraplanar. That's like visiting Mars and calling all the Martians Aliens. YOU"RE the Alien in this context.) interesting is their representation of the plane.

[Regitnui]

See? Each setting can have dragons, but those dragons certainly don't have to abide by the popular image of scaled friends. I mean, think about the different dragons we have in mythology here on Earth! We've got the popular European dragon, the Russian zmey that is a combination of Euro-dragons and hydras, the Greek hundred-headed Ladon, the chaos-serpent Apophis from Egypt, the quetzalcoatl from Central America (which was appropriated by D&D as a celestial in keeping with the godly nature of the feathered serpent), Leviathan, the Chinese long or lung, and the naga from South Asia.

All of those are separate monsters by our standards. The naga, coatl and leviathan are all in d&d.

But you're actually agreeing with me. I objected to the "four legs, wings and catlike tread" dragons showing up everywhere. I then went on to give examples of other big reptiles that could fill the same gaps. Sea serpents, dragon turtles, drakes and yrthak are all creatures that can fill the 'planar dragon' niche without adding variants on the metallic/chromatic dragons everywhere.


exactly.

Plus, the point of dragons is not that they are gold hoggers who are rediculously hard to kill and have some unique elemental breath. yeah, those are the common tropes of the dragons, and yeah they all have that.

But what makes the Planar Dragons (Which ARE Extraplanar btw, it's just stupid to call it Extraplanar. That's like visiting Mars and calling all the Martians Aliens. YOU"RE the Alien in this context.) interesting is their representation of the plane.

{Scrubbed}

What, really, does a Styx dragon have over a styx serpent beyond making teenage nerds go "omg, like its a dragon!"? In my opinion, the only dragons that should be found off the material plane are the true dragons that have gone planehopping, or unique encounters that were once normal dragons but got templated out of their minds. The mad schizophrenic dragon RickAllison suggested is a far better encounter in the lower planes than an 'abyss dragon'. Heck, a balor is a better encounter.

[RickAllison]

All of those are separate monsters by our standards. The naga, coatl and leviathan are all in d&d.

But you're actually agreeing with me. I objected to the "four legs, wings and catlike tread" dragons showing up everywhere. I then went on to give examples of other big reptiles that could fill the same gaps. Sea serpents, dragon turtles, drakes and yrthak are all creatures that can fill the 'planar dragon' niche without adding variants on the metallic/chromatic dragons everywhere.

I never said I wasn't agreeing with you :smallwink: It was more like we had perpendicular points of view coming back to the same point. As for the alternate dragons that are already in D&D, why do you think they are there? Wyverns, basilisks, the MM is filled with different creatures that can fit in alternative roles without needing to homebrew new (or old) creatures. Heck, toss a few buffs on the dinosaurs and you basically have a new subset of dragons to pick from.

Wait, do they have sea serpents in the MM? Have I managed to skip over them this entire time?

[Regitnui]

Wait, do they have sea serpents in the MM? Have I managed to skip over them this entire time?

I was upgrading the giant constrictor snake with a 'Styx water weapon', since that would have been homebrew anyway. The giant constrictor snake as is makes a pretty fearsome sea serpent. It's already huge, so it can crush a lot of boats even without an upgrade.

[Ashizard]

Wait what?:smallconfused: There are more rulebooks? I have the Player guide, DM guide and MM, what other books or supplements are there?

Is this why I keep hearing about bladesingers and swashbucklers, as well as spells I've not read about?

[Regitnui]

Wait what?:smallconfused: There are more rulebooks? I have the Player guide, DM guide and MM, what other books or supplements are there?

Is this why I keep hearing about bladesingers and swashbucklers, as well as spells I've not read about?

Elemental Evil Player's Companion and the Sword Coast Adventurer's guide. Also the Unearthed Arcana articles.

[RickAllison]

Wait what?:smallconfused: There are more rulebooks? I have the Player guide, DM guide and MM, what other books or supplements are there?

Is this why I keep hearing about bladesingers and swashbucklers, as well as spells I've not read about?

EEPC is available online for free and has new races and spells.

SCAG has new archetypes for rogues, monks, barbarians, sorcerers, warlocks, Wizards, and others, as well as four new cantrips to improve gishes and race variants. Also has the specialty armor of the new barbarians that is the highest AC armor that Druids can wear.

Unearthed Arcana is all over the place :smallsmile:

[deathbymanga]

"Underdeveloped imagination"

Yes, tell someone not to call someone stupid (When I wasn't, like, at all). and this directly follow by insulting them directly to their face. yeah, that's polite and conversational.

I'm not saying creating new stuff isn't good. But the Planar Dragons ALREADY EXIST. This isn't me being some Dragon fanboy and trying to make everything Dragons. It's about how the Planar Dragons already exist, and I want them updated to 5e.