NEED more character options

[Sitri]

I have been out of the loop for about a year now I am guessing. Before that we played through about a year long campaign, maybe a little more, and several games that lasted a few months. Coming back, I really fluffed the hell out of my character, other people at the table talk about what a wacked out but interesting and fun character it is, but to me, it feels like lipstick on a pig.

At its heart, it is so similar to three other characters that I have seen or played. Yes it has different motivations, quirks, yatta yatta that are very important to a role playing game, but as soon as initiative is rolled, not only is my character just a mutated version of others I have played and seen, so is every other character at the table. The only thing that makes them different is any homebrew magic items that are present. I think this is a necessity due to the lack of options available to characters if you have played for any real time. I have taken some very obvious hits to maximization on both this character and others just to make them feel different, but as stated above, when combat hits, everyone becomes clones with slightly different modifiers or a personal trick that operates subpar.

Yes I could ask my DM to let me homebrew something different, and I think in all likelihood he would let me, but I hate doing that to the table. I have set at the table with the guy that comes in all homebrewed and anything that appears to outperform something else is constantly looked on with disdain.

So this is all to say, why the hell hasn't more official character options been released yet? This edition is so streamlined, it isn't like there are a lot of crunch involved in making an entire new race/class/subclass.

Follow up question, are other people bored with these same options?

[Belac93]

Well, here is a list of resources for official stuff I know, hopefully it helps:

Player's Handbook (core)
DMG (death domain, eladrin, aasimar, oathbreaker)
Elemental evil player's guide (new spells and races, free online)
Sword Coast Adventurer's guide (bunch of new class options, and a couple of race options)

And then Volo's guide to Monsters is coming out in November, with Tritons, Catfolk, Firblogs, Orcs, Goblins, and probably several other races.

My signature has a bunch of free official stuff from wizards, including the Elemental evil player's guide, and all the Unearthed Arcana.

[Gastronomie]

You have only played 4 characters, and you're already asking for more options? When there are 12 core classes and over 50 sub-classes? Are you serious?

Perhaps, you're playing too much at lower levels. Classes differ a lot more at higher levels.

[Biggstick]

You have only played 4 characters, and you're already asking for more options? When there are 12 core classes and over 50 sub-classes? Are you serious?

Perhaps, you're playing too much at lower levels. Classes differ a lot more at higher levels.

This right here. Play any class single classed and you'll have at the very least, 12 different characters whose playstyles can vary widely.

Barbarians: Creatively utilizing the rage. Finding a mix between a savage brute criminal, a cunning tribal warrior, and or anything else that utilizes raw strength (or dex)

Bard: Play an instrument, or don't? You can totally mix it up here with Valor Bard, which is an extremely powerful gish just by itself.

Cleric: While some of the domains can be similar, and you may get tired of being asked to run the Bless spell, there is most definitely a huge difference between a Tempest and a Life domain cleric. A Cleric can be focused on tanking, support, ranged caster dps/crowd control, or heals.

Druid: A Land Druid's combat is vastly different then a Moon Druid's combat rotation. Bringing even more complexity into it is the which Land does your Druid originate from?

........

I was going to go further into explaining each class, but I think I made my point clear. Something else I haven't gone into yet is the number of races available. A Dwarf Cleric of Moradin (knowledge) will play much different then a Human Cleric of Lathander (life) then a Half Elf Cleric of Valkur (Tempest). The race you play can make a huge difference in how the PC is played in combat.

Are you playing PC's that multiclass for similar things? Do you always pick up two Warlock levels for Eldritch Blast goodies? Do you always pick up a pair of Fighter levels for Action Surge? Do you always grab some Rogue levels for Cunning Action? Do your backgrounds always seem the same (ensuring you have Thieves Tools)?

[Sitri]

I quit playing a couple of months after sword coast. It was the best thing I have seen as far as new options but it was extremely light as far as what was needed. But thank you for effort in the listed resources.

For the others: Reading comprehension -1. I don't know how many characters I have played, I have lost track. The current character I am playing feels like carbon copies with superficial mechanical changes to two others. Additionally, many subclasses, in or between classes start to feel very similar. I think the desire to make everyone "balanced" and "simple to level" has reduced a lot of player agency.

[Gastronomie]

For the others: Reading comprehension -1. I don't know how many characters I have played, I have lost track. The current character I am playing feels like carbon copies with superficial mechanical changes to two others. Additionally, many subclasses, in or between classes start to feel very similar. I think the desire to make everyone "balanced" and "simple to level" has reduced a lot of player agency.Was there any need to be rude there? You're the one asking for help. If you have that sort of attitude no one will want to help you.

Now, I do not know Pathfinder or the other editions so I cannot say for sure, but at least I feel the classes are very different and diverse at what they do. Perhaps you could tell us what the identical characters were like (what classes, what sub-classes, what spells etc.) and we might get a clue as to how to solve your problem.

[PeteNutButter]

In reference to the OP. I have much the same sentiments, but I suspect that is because we both really like to build characters. The majority of players probably don't see the game the way you or I do.

It's for those players that they've limited options so far in 5e. They don't want to have to own every book or be sub-optimal, or read every passage to take that perfect feat, etc.

Now I'd prefer they gave us these options, so I can have my fun, but I understand the decision, even if it appears lazy.

[JellyPooga]

It's a "problem" I've noticed with roleplayers in general (myself included), at least with crunch-focused games (as opposed to narrative focused ones like FATE); once initiative is rolled, all characterisation goes out the window. This is not a problem with the system or lack of options...it's a problem with the way you (we) are playing the game.

I've seen it so many times where a player has built a character around a certain theme, has interesting and deep character hooks and interactions and then *BAM* combat happens and all of that is forgotten in favour of "optimal strategies" and game-mechanics;

"Of course I'm going to murder that goblin; it's the only way to be certain it won't follow us" [/Cleric of Eldath, Goddess of Peace]

You don't need more options, you just need to keep roleplaying in combat. That which entertains you outside of combat is playing in-character and the fact that the infinite possibilities of characters you can play aren't limited by the rules. It's no different in combat.

Sure, Fighter A might be functionally identical to Fighter B in mechanical terms, but if Fighter A is a Lawful Good exemplar of all that is right and just and Fighter B is a ruthless murderer, the way they play in combat is going to be as different as the way they play out of combat; dirty tricks vs. honour, pulling blows vs. murder, protecting ones allies vs. selfish interest. The list goes on as far as your character is deep. Don't let the rules limit you to "optimal" play; that's not what they're there for. Utilise the options available, certainly, but don't always do the "best" thing if it's not in character for you to do so.

Don't blame the system, the system is fine and has more than enough options to explore. Just don't forget the "R" in "RPG" when it comes to crunch time.

[2D8HP]

Follow up question, are other people bored with these same options?Nope not at all.
The D&D rules that I first used 37 to 38 years ago had 4 classes, 4 races, and 5 alignments (just a few years earlier, the game had only 3 classes, and 3 alignments), this edition has a lot more, and I've hardly played all the 5e "options" yet.
If you've already been blessed with enough table time to be bored with the current options than I'm pretty jealous of you.

[ruy343]

So this is all to say, why the hell hasn't more official character options been released yet? This edition is so streamlined, it isn't like there are a lot of crunch involved in making an entire new race/class/subclass.

Follow up question, are other people bored with these same options?

I think that the problem that you're experiencing has less to do with a lack of character options, but that you're concerned with playing a "good" character. Yes, there are some character options that are inferior to others from a strictly mechanical standpoint, but which may make your choices feel rather limited (For example, why play any other flavor of wizard if the Diviner's "Portent" ability is so good? Why choose any cantrip other than Eldritch Blast if you can? Why wouldn't anyone take a 2 level dip in Warlock if you're already playing a Cha-based class?). However, just because said options are better or "comparable" in combat (even though they totally are) does not mean those options aren't available.

Personally, I enjoy the simplicity available in this edition thus far: it allows me the chance to focus on roleplaying and playing memorable characters. AS DM, it made it easier for me to know what my players were capable of, so I could design unique challenges for them.

If you're interested in new ideas, visit some of the links that others have posted or head off to the homebrew section of the 5th edition forum on this site for some neat ideas. There's plenty out there, but there has been plenty all along, in my opinion.

[Sir cryosin]

I have played a lot of pc " I have a higher death rate". It started to get bored because it would min-max and wanted to do a lot of damge or be the best at any role I was trying to fill. But my character right now I'm having a blast with. Because it not I run up and hit with my sword or I cast X spell. Now it " I swipe this legs swing my sword up in the same motion and bring it down into his chest. Or last game my character and another pc was checking out a wired liquid we find out it some kind of drow moonshine. We drink it so I was poison so I was rolling at disadvantage. So I described my pc stumbling around a few time he went head first in to the ground. The point is put roleplaying into combat. Try doing thing other then I swing X, I cast X. No body takes about " hey remember when I rolled the 15 and then killed that dragon." They talk about " remember when John did a file over the acid pit and Feld into it but was able to pull the the wizard in with him."
We all love combat but the most fun part it the storys we get and the stores we tell and remember fondly are ones that are descriptive, out of the norm of I swing X, cast X. So no I don't think they need more classes right now. But it would be cool. In other editions or pathfinder with all there options your still doing the same thing. As wizard feels the same a fighter still swings weapon. At it core you still doing the same thing no matter what class your playing, or any edition or game.

[Willie the Duck]

In reference to the OP. I have much the same sentiments, but I suspect that is because we both really like to build characters. The majority of players probably don't see the game the way you or I do.

It's for those players that they've limited options so far in 5e. They don't want to have to own every book or be sub-optimal, or read every passage to take that perfect feat, etc.

Now I'd prefer they gave us these options, so I can have my fun, but I understand the decision, even if it appears lazy.

I was right there with you until you said it appears lazy. The reason behind the decision to reduce that whole character creation/abilitydevelopment mini-game was not taken lightly, and it very much had nothing to do with laziness. This decision was done after lots of gamer feedback and careful deliberation. The simple fact of the matter is that while some people really enjoy this subcomponent of the game, a lot of people don't care about it, and the system mastery and good and bad options that it engenders (i.e. skewed balance) disrupts the enjoyment for many. There is no one game that satisfies everyone, and WotC made a very active and unlazy decision to make an new edition which favors those for whom it isn't important (and bring them back into the fold after 3e and 4e favored the other factions).

[ad_hoc]

...but as soon as initiative is rolled...

How much of your play time is in combat?

[PeteNutButter]

I was right there with you until you said it appears lazy. The reason behind the decision to reduce that whole character creation/character development mini-game was not taken lightly, and it very much had nothing to do with laziness. This decision was done after lots of gamer feedback and careful deliberation. The simple fact of the matter is that while some people really enjoy this subcomponent of the game, a lot of people don't care about it, and the system mastery and good and bad options that it engenders (i.e. skewed balance) disrupts the enjoyment for many. There is no one game that satisfies everyone, and WotC made a very active and unlazy decision to make an new edition which favors those for whom it isn't important (and bring them back into the fold after 3e and 4e favored the other factions).

I don't mean to say it is lazy. Just that it can appear so for those that are used to seeing the spamming splat books of 3.x.

[Willie the Duck]

For the others: Reading comprehension -1. I don't know how many characters I have played, I have lost track. The current character I am playing feels like carbon copies with superficial mechanical changes to two others. Additionally, many subclasses, in or between classes start to feel very similar. I think the desire to make everyone "balanced" and "simple to level" has reduced a lot of player agency.

As others have mentioned, there's no need to be rude, and as far as being rude goes, "Reading comprehension -1" isn't even a clever way of doing so.

Onward to the meat of the problem. First and foremost, I'd just like to say that you are right. That's right, you are right. The desire to make gameplay balanced and simple has indeed reduced the number of choices that players get to make. There's an argument that it actually opens up a lot of decision making because in editions 3&4 there were 1-2 clear obvious best choices that no smart person ever deviated from with all other options being false ones, but overall, there are in fact fewer options. This is probably unavoidable if you want something remotely balanced (unless you think the designers simply aren't smart enough) and still D&D-like enough for most people (let's not rehash the 4e debate).

The gameplay is roughly comparable to 2nd edition, pre-Player's Options. You have a lot of decision making at the beginning, can always dual class out, but after that you're mostly just getting better at what you do. In combat, your decisions most involve which spells to cast and when, or where to focus your martial type's aggression.

I could make some high-falutin speech about the value of roleplay or of making tactical decisions, but the end results is that large swaths of the gamer market decided that all the efforts to add these decisions to D&D didn't improve their experience and the designers took note.

As for advise, work with your DM to make sure that in-game strategic decisions actually benefit combat. A DM that lets you swing from the chandeliers and roll wine casks down the stairs and pole vault with your halberd (and adjudicate some outcome-influencing benefit for doing so) can make up for a lot of system simplicity. If not, consider 3e, 4e, HERO SYSTEM, GURPS, lots of other options. There is a game out there for everyone, especially now.


I don't mean to say it is lazy. Just that it can appear so for those that are used to seeing the spamming splat books of 3.x.

Okay, well then I guess we aren't disagreeing then. :-)

[Sitri]

Was there any need to be rude there? You're the one asking for help. If you have that sort of attitude no one will want to help you....

I apologize you are right. I used to be active on these boards and a guy that used the same avatar as Biggstick antagonized most of my threads with some crazy logical contortions. I was in a rush and I thought that was him as the third post. But either way, sorry.


In reference to the OP. I have much the same sentiments, but I suspect that is because we both really like to build characters. The majority of players probably don't see the game the way you or I do...

Yes I probably build 3 to every one I play, unless I am DMing, then most all of them see action at some point as an antagonist or "caravan mission."


It's a "problem" I've noticed with roleplayers in general (myself included), at least with crunch-focused games (as opposed to narrative focused ones like FATE); once initiative is rolled, all characterisation goes out the window. This is not a problem with the system or lack of options...it's a problem with the way you (we) are playing the game.

I've seen it so many times where a player has built a character around a certain theme, has interesting and deep character hooks and interactions and then *BAM* combat happens and all of that is forgotten in favour of "optimal strategies" and game-mechanics;

"Of course I'm going to murder that goblin; it's the only way to be certain it won't follow us" [/Cleric of Eldath, Goddess of Peace]

You don't need more options, you just need to keep roleplaying in combat. That which entertains you outside of combat is playing in-character and the fact that the infinite possibilities of characters you can play aren't limited by the rules. It's no different in combat.

Sure, Fighter A might be functionally identical to Fighter B in mechanical terms, but if Fighter A is a Lawful Good exemplar of all that is right and just and Fighter B is a ruthless murderer, the way they play in combat is going to be as different as the way they play out of combat; dirty tricks vs. honour, pulling blows vs. murder, protecting ones allies vs. selfish interest. The list goes on as far as your character is deep. Don't let the rules limit you to "optimal" play; that's not what they're there for. Utilise the options available, certainly, but don't always do the "best" thing if it's not in character for you to do so.

Don't blame the system, the system is fine and has more than enough options to explore. Just don't forget the "R" in "RPG" when it comes to crunch time.

I/we all try to voice our opinions about how to solve a problem in character, but through attrition (and what I just think of as good table manners) we don't leave others out to dry when combat happens. I can think of one time a teammate decided not to participate in combat for philosophical reasons; my character died and the others barely made it out alive.

We play very lethal games and pragmatism is both real from a in game and out of game perspective. These are the people you constantly depend on to keep you alive, as much as you might sympathize with X, when it becomes the party against X, X loses. If I played it any different, I would expect at least one character (for RP and Metagame purposes) to dispatch me later whenever they had the chance. Such a person is too much of a liability to trust with your life.


I think that the problem that you're experiencing has less to do with a lack of character options, but that you're concerned with playing a "good" character. Yes, there are some character options that are inferior to others from a strictly mechanical standpoint, but which may make your choices feel rather limited (For example, why play any other flavor of wizard if the Diviner's "Portent" ability is so good? Why choose any cantrip other than Eldritch Blast if you can? Why wouldn't anyone take a 2 level dip in Warlock if you're already playing a Cha-based class?). However, just because said options are better or "comparable" in combat (even though they totally are) does not mean those options aren't available.

Personally, I enjoy the simplicity available in this edition thus far: it allows me the chance to focus on roleplaying and playing memorable characters. AS DM, it made it easier for me to know what my players were capable of, so I could design unique challenges for them.

If you're interested in new ideas, visit some of the links that others have posted or head off to the homebrew section of the 5th edition forum on this site for some neat ideas. There's plenty out there, but there has been plenty all along, in my opinion.

From first post


... I have taken some very obvious hits to maximization on both this character and others just to make them feel different...

Yes I could ask my DM to let me homebrew something different, and I think in all likelihood he would let me, but I hate doing that to the table. I have set at the table with the guy that comes in all homebrewed and anything that appears to outperform something else is constantly looked on with disdain...


How much of your play time is in combat?

Normally about 1/2 to 3/4 but it varies.



Onward to the meat of the problem. First and foremost, I'd just like to say that you are right. That's right, you are right. The desire to make gameplay balanced and simple has indeed reduced the number of choices that players get to make. There's an argument that it actually opens up a lot of decision making because in editions 3&4 there were 1-2 clear obvious best choices that no smart person ever deviated from with all other options being false ones, but overall, there are in fact fewer options. This is probably unavoidable if you want something remotely balanced (unless you think the designers simply aren't smart enough) and still D&D-like enough for most people (let's not rehash the 4e debate).

The gameplay is roughly comparable to 2nd edition, pre-Player's Options. You have a lot of decision making at the beginning, can always dual class out, but after that you're mostly just getting better at what you do. In combat, your decisions most involve which spells to cast and when, or where to focus your martial type's aggression.

I could make some high-falutin speech about the value of roleplay or of making tactical decisions, but the end results is that large swaths of the gamer market decided that all the efforts to add these decisions to D&D didn't improve their experience and the designers took note.

As for advise, work with your DM to make sure that in-game strategic decisions actually benefit combat. A DM that lets you swing from the chandeliers and roll wine casks down the stairs and pole vault with your halberd (and adjudicate some outcome-influencing benefit for doing so) can make up for a lot of system simplicity. If not, consider 3e, 4e, HERO SYSTEM, GURPS, lots of other options. There is a game out there for everyone, especially now.



He did bring up maybe running a Pathfinder game sometime in the future because he is feeling the same way about virtual clones. He didn't stop playing for a year, so he has seen even more repetition than I have. I have never played Gurps, but by the way they are described it sounds like something I would probably like.

I guess this was 1 part hope someone could supply some sources I didn't know about, 1 part voice player demand for devs to create more crunch, and one part rant.

I do appreciate the helpful advice I have gotten, and apologize again for my first reply.

[Sabeta]

I think your problem might have to do with the System, and not the Classes.

At the end of it all, every class does the same thing. They do damage, they take damage, they recover damage, or the find some way to change or prevent the other three things from happening. That hasn't really changed since the beginning. The same thing happened in FFXIV, where all that really separates classes is how they manage their resources, and how well they do it. Scholar's, despite having lower DPS than White Mage and better Healing ended up being the off-healer/off-DPS role because it manages MP so well that it can fully dedicate itself to both rolls at the same time; whereas the White Mage can only fully commit to one and still runs out of MP after a while.

That is to say, even if you homebrew something from the ground up you're probably going to get bored eventually as you find that ultimately you're just rolling the dice. For that reason I suggest the following things.

1) Play more Mages. Doesn't matter what kind really, but Wizard is has the most diverse spell list, and Sorcerer has the most diverse way to use spells. Freely refluff any of your spells to fit a core theme, most DMs will let you change attributes around that don't seem like they would matter too often (ie: I've seen 'Iceball' just about as often as Fireball. Iceball is theoretically better because fewer enemies in the game resist Ice, but most DMs just don't care about that incredibly minor detail)
2) Play a resource dependant class, and then re fluff that power source, as well as all of its powers. For example, Monk in my opinion makes a pretty decent Psionic knockoff. Ki points are now Psionic Points, Stunning Strike is now Mindbreak, Flurry of Blows is now Ora Ora Ora, and Unarmored Defense is now Psionic Defense. Bonus points because the entire package keys off Wisdom. None of the mechanics need to change, just how you imagine them.
3) Don't play optimally. This is one is surprisingly hard for players (you damn metagamers!), but as others have said don't forget about your character once Initiative is rolled. It's super easy to just play mechanics, but think about your environment, think about your character, and think about how those things would interact. I've played games with a Bard who had a phobia of zombies, and if we ever fought them she was guaranteed to run away. I've played games with a guy whose only weapon was an Ale Mug, and had to search the room for different improvised weapons, such as heavy rocks or tables, or beer kegs.

Whenever you build a character, I personally find it best to think of an interesting concept, and then try to wrap a classes chassis around that concept. Call it lipstick on a pig if you want, but to me there's a huge difference between the Psionic Open-Hand Monk and the Ninja Way of Shadows Monk.

[MrStabby]

I do kind of agree with you.

For martial characters it seems to be: stand next to enemy, take attack action - take feat to allow a bonus action attack.

Sometimes you decide to use a resource for extra damage like smiting, action surge or rage. The name changes but the Do MOAR Dammage side of it doesn't.

Casters seem more complex but most of their power comes from the spells they have access to not how they cast them. To be honest a Sorcerer isn't that different from a wizard simply because of the overlap of spells. Likewise a cleric and a bard can play pretty much the same for 60% of encounters - due to having a similar role from their spells. Even different spell lists have spells that fulfil similar roles - flamestrike/fireball or arcane/divine divination spells.

That said there are some classes that appear to buck the trend a little more. Monks have more flexibility in what to do and the choices they make are not all about who needs to die first as they can remove enemies as a threat without killing them. Rogues are more positioning based and their in class provision of bonus action choices can help them play a little differently.

Finally warlocks feel different to play as their resource management is so different to other casters - decisions about when to use limited resources are quite different.

I also think that multiclassing extends this. Take one of the classes I listed as being a bit different and add that to any other class and you have a character that can play quite differently. It might not be a power build, but roleplaying a PC fighting for their life in an encounter becomes a different experience.

[JellyPooga]

I/we all try to voice our opinions about how to solve a problem in character, but through attrition (and what I just think of as good table manners) we don't leave others out to dry when combat happens. I can think of one time a teammate decided not to participate in combat for philosophical reasons; my character died and the others barely made it out alive.

We play very lethal games and pragmatism is both real from a in game and out of game perspective. These are the people you constantly depend on to keep you alive, as much as you might sympathize with X, when it becomes the party against X, X loses. If I played it any different, I would expect at least one character (for RP and Metagame purposes) to dispatch me later whenever they had the chance. Such a person is too much of a liability to trust with your life.

I'm not talking about literally sitting out a fight and watching your team-mates die; there's more to combat than merely "We Die" or "They Die".

I used the example of a Priest of Eldath who should morally object to killing a Goblin; just because he objects to the murder (as he sees it), doesn't stop him from subduing that Goblin, even very effectively. In many ways, that priest might even prove useful for insisting on keeping foes alive; dead men tell no tales, after all. The objection he might raise is if and when his morals are breached; does that make him a liability? Perhaps, yes. When that time comes, you can deal with it and have fun with the social interaction between your characters and the consequences those decisions create.

In the mean time, you get to play something more than just a kill-bot spamming "teh best comboz" in combat; you get to play a righteous servant of the Goddess of Peace, protecting the weak and innocent, defending your comrades in battle and bringing the light of The Quiet One to the darkest reaches of the Realms. Does that sound like the kind of guy you want on your team? He sure as hell ain't pulling the best his Class could theoretically do, but he's still an effective and trustworthy comrade. How are the other characters supposed to know that according to some metaphysical rulebook in the sky, their faithful companion could be pulling Spirit Guardian + Spiritual Weapon + Shillelagh in every fight when he's never shown any capability to do so? Why should they when he's, instead, using the likes of Protection from E/G, Warding Bond and Calm Emotions to great effect. Optimal? Perhaps not. Still fun to play, despite that? You betcha.

It's not all about DPR and not every character is a mathematician or master strategist, despite their players' attitude and aptitudes. Characters should have flaws and it's playing with those flaws that is usually the most enjoyable part of roleplaying. Whether that flaw applies to any or all of the pillars of social, exploration or combat is irrelevant; where one character is weak another is strong and that's why adventurers have party companions. It's ok for the Wizard to have low HP because the Barbarian has loads. It's ok for the Fighter to be an uncharismatic oaf, because the Bard has a silver tongue. It's ok for a character to have a flaw because another character has (or should have) you covered. D&D is a team sport and only through exploring the nature of that will you find all that the game has to offer.

The high lethality of the game you play makes playing suboptimally even more of a challenge to survive and that in itself can be fun, if you want to look at it from the gamist perspective. Revel in the difficulty of playing on Hard-Mode, but don't let it force you into certain builds or play styles. If the GM isn't making the game "fun" enough, because you have the solution to every problem, then change the parameters. Crank that Hard-Mode up to Nightmare and solve the problem with a handicap. Not only is the game more challenging, you also get to expand the range of characters you get to play. Wiping out an Orc Village isn't so easy when you're a pacifist and might just lead you down a path you didn't expect.

Hmm...that got longer than I intended. Spoilered for length.

[ad_hoc]

I would say if your game is approaching 3/4 combat, then 5e isn't really designed for you. 1/2 the time in combat should still be a fun game.

The default game is designed to be about 1/3 combat.

The other thing is that there is more emphasis on decisions in play rather than decisions before play. In 3.x you needed to have abilities to perform actions. In 5e you can just do them. That is a different approach that isn't for everyone. Personally, I have found the player agency of 5e to be much increased from 3.x for this reason.

Or in other words it is more tactical than strategic. It isn't about programming a character and then observing how that program overcomes the obstacles. It is about coming up with real time solutions to those obstacles in game using a limited tool set.

[DragonSorcererX]

I have been out of the loop for about a year now I am guessing. Before that we played through about a year long campaign, maybe a little more, and several games that lasted a few months. Coming back, I really fluffed the hell out of my character, other people at the table talk about what a wacked out but interesting and fun character it is, but to me, it feels like lipstick on a pig.

At its heart, it is so similar to three other characters that I have seen or played. Yes it has different motivations, quirks, yatta yatta that are very important to a role playing game, but as soon as initiative is rolled, not only is my character just a mutated version of others I have played and seen, so is every other character at the table. The only thing that makes them different is any homebrew magic items that are present. I think this is a necessity due to the lack of options available to characters if you have played for any real time. I have taken some very obvious hits to maximization on both this character and others just to make them feel different, but as stated above, when combat hits, everyone becomes clones with slightly different modifiers or a personal trick that operates subpar.

Yes I could ask my DM to let me homebrew something different, and I think in all likelihood he would let me, but I hate doing that to the table. I have set at the table with the guy that comes in all homebrewed and anything that appears to outperform something else is constantly looked on with disdain.

So this is all to say, why the hell hasn't more official character options been released yet? This edition is so streamlined, it isn't like there are a lot of crunch involved in making an entire new race/class/subclass.

Follow up question, are other people bored with these same options?

Finally someone who shares my views! Yes! I want that Draconic Overhaul we had on 3.5 back, a Draconic version of EVERYTHING! I also want psionics! BRING THE WEIRDNESS BACK! I also want that stuff that I will never use like Incarnum, Binding, Shadow Magic, etc... because they are cool!

[CantigThimble]

Finally someone who shares my views! Yes! I want that Draconic Overhaul we had on 3.5 back, a Draconic version of EVERYTHING! I also want psionics! BRING THE WEIRDNESS BACK! I also want that stuff that I will never use like Incarnum, Binding, Shadow Magic, etc... because they are cool!

Strangely enough this is pretty close to my list of things I definitely never want to see official releases for in 5e. (Just add in book of nine swords and a few others) Homebrew? Sure, but not official versions. It's all well and good to say that they're optional and you don't have to use them but that's not quite the problem. Official material being released warps the way people think about the game whether you use it or not at your table.

[2D8HP]

I guess this was 1 part hope someone could supply some sources I didn't know about, 1 part voice player demand for devs to create more crunch, and one part rant.Oh.
In that case I oppose your goal.
You see to me the already immense amount of "crunch" which chiefly comes from the variety of PC abilities already makes it difficult to be or find a DM, and anymore "options" will cause there to be even less chance of wannabe players finding tables, as there is already too few DM's.
I went far too many years of no D&D already, so I gladly choose less PC options, but get to actually play the game instead.
If you want a game with even more character creation options, you may like Fantasy HERO, GURPS, or Pathfinder

[Ghost Nappa]

Yes I probably build 3 to every one I play, unless I am DMing, then most all of them see action at some point as an antagonist or "caravan mission."

I/we all try to voice our opinions about how to solve a problem in character, but through attrition (and what I just think of as good table manners) we don't leave others out to dry when combat happens. I can think of one time a teammate decided not to participate in combat for philosophical reasons; my character died and the others barely made it out alive.

We play very lethal games and pragmatism is both real from a in game and out of game perspective. These are the people you constantly depend on to keep you alive, as much as you might sympathize with X, when it becomes the party against X, X loses. If I played it any different, I would expect at least one character (for RP and Metagame purposes) to dispatch me later whenever they had the chance. Such a person is too much of a liability to trust with your life.

(on how frequently combat occurs)
Normally about 1/2 to 3/4 but it varies.


So... I'm going to say something crazy and I have no idea if it'll be helpful or not.

Play something else for awhile or find a different group.

I'm not saying "Play a different edition."
I'm not saying "Play a different brand" (i.e. Pathfinder).

I'm saying, "find a totally different game." Or play with a group of people that emphasize a totally different aspect of the game.


To begin with the latter, I joined a D&D group at college were the DM was absolutely struggling to get the party to fight anything. The party always tried to find peaceful solutions and to talk it out and worked together to solve problems and make deals so that no one ever died. I entered the group as a Fighter and after a couple of sessions of some debauchery and shenanigans with royal courts and disguises, there was a sea hag who was kidnapping and torturing pixies and I made it absolutely clear to the others that this was going to be something they could not talk there way out of, and I rushed in and starting slashing the sea hag and her little groupies. After a round or two of debating (and me struggling to fight off 4 things by myself) all but one of the other party members dropped the idea of parleying and the fight's momentum totally reversed. That was the only fight we had for about two months but the DM was ecstatic that they actually ended a combat encounter with combat.

You seem to have a bit of the opposite problem of too much combat, so my suggestion is to either find a group that doesn't have combat that frequently...

Or to find a game that doesn't feature tactical combat. There is too much of a good thing and burn-out is perhaps the worst danger of any game. Maybe you need to spice things up and try something new.

I don't know. I hope you find the answer you're looking for.

[CaptainSarathai]

Meh.
I played 3.5 and hated it. I loved it at the time, I didn't know any better. But when 4e dropped, I was a happy camper. I went back and gave Pathfinder a shot, and it reminded me of all the things I didnt like. It just took souch effort to build anything and optimization meant scouring a dozen books for that one feat and so on. More than half the game was locked away from you at any given time because you didn't meat the prerequisites. And all for the same basic playstyle: i do "my schtick - NEXT!"

4e seemed like it embraced the CharOP mentality, and streamlined it and made the most of it. For deeply tactical combat, I still haven't seen it beaten. It felt like playing a TCG like M:tG, or playing a wargame like the Warhammer I was used to. The characters I made were in-sane:
Halfling Paladin wearing Full Plate and riding a Displacer Beast
Dwarf Fighter who went into combat with 2 gauntlet axes and just punched things to death
A Vyrloka hybrid Blackguard+Berserker nicknamed "Rageolf Hitter"
An Elvish Swordmage who could teleport around the battlefield and slash apart enemies he passed over
A Goliath Avenger who could literally punch you into a pocket dimension and torture you for days before stepping out seconds later in real time

My friends and I still run hardcore dungeon-crawls or games of Deathmatch with 4e builds. I own every splat ever released. I have decks of ability cards printed out and filed with scans of the class rules in binders on my bookcase.

And people hated 4e because... it was easy to look at the options strategically and optimize strictly for combat that could last whole sessions (pre-MM3). Was it because the stupidity of things like Pun-Pun had been eradicated? Good riddance. I'd rather be OP because I dug through 6 books and pieces together an equipment and power combo that was just too OP, rather than because I had a f---ing Law Degree and a penchant for arguing until I got my way.

And now that 5e is out, I love it too. I've taught more people to play, found more DMs and more games, have DMed several campaigns of my own - it has a totally different feel. It's finally a game so light that I don't have to play it like a massive strategy game. I can knock back a few beers and laugh with my friends and not spend hours obsessing over every detail of my character.

5e is hilarious because my friends and I "broke it" less than halfway through our first campaign. So we're all sitting around, rolling up new characters, and realizing that everyone is basically running BlastLocks, Sorcadins, and Fighters, and everyone has the same Feats, and same Backgrounds, and same Ability Array, and everyone is either a Half Elf or VUman. We jumped into some encounters, minced a couple of Terrasques in a matter of seconds, and just sat back like, "yeah, I guess we could do that." And we've never done it again.

We used to p--s away hours of campaign time on those childish boasting contests about what our builds did, or could do "if I took this feat or that ability," and how it could be outdone by this or that rule and this item combo.
Last week, one of the new players started giggling maniacally - the Fighter, and asked the DM "can we take feats?!"
My friend and I just sighed and were like, "found PoleArm and Great Weapon Master combo huh?"
And the kid's just like, "how'd you know?"
"You're not the first. Have fun."
And he stopped. He didn't take it. It's like we made it sound "not fun" by just not caring.
Don't get me wrong, my friend's building a crit-fishing HalfOrc ChampFighter with 2 levels of Barbarian and trying to decide if he wants to go for Smite or not. I'm running a DevPaladin aiming for the DragSorc multiclass and 2 levels of Undying Warlock for RadiantSoul+ElementalAffinity and WitchSight w/ Darkness, PAM and Tunnel Fighter, plus Fiendish Resilience and Dark 1's Blessing for icing.
In another game I'm shamelessly building a SorLock Blaster.

Just because we have the abilities and the knowledge doesn't mean we use it all the time at the table. Yeah it's fun to push the envelope with a character, but it's also fun to watch the Wizard roll up a Crit with her sword because "why the hell not?" or see the Noble Fighter tackle a dungeon bare-knuckle to win a kiss from a "fair lady" he met while drinking in a bar on the seedy side of town.

5th is finally Beer'n'Pretzels D&D at its finest. And if I'm gonna sit with friends for a 4-6hr session of anything, there better be lots of Beer'n'Pretzels.

[Corsair14]

I sympathize with the OP. I am used to having a multitude of different options that just aren't available in 5e. I came from playing 3.5 and pathfinder, and while I like the limited feats available in 5th, I hate the lack of classes and races. Without using a ported over class I cannot even play something remotely similar to my favorite class(summoner) and it has little to do with power. Its just the concept I love. I like the option of varied races away from the standard few and it looks like that's slooooooowly changing.

When I DM next I will be incorporating the ported summoner as standard that someone was nice enough to make on here. Havent figured out if I am going to go Spelljammer, Planescape, or Ravenloft as a world. Raven is most likely and I will have to add half vistani.

I haven't looked, is there an official option to play a dark paladin type character or do they have to be lawful good for a good god?

[mgshamster]

I like the option of varied races away from the standard few and it looks like that's slooooooowly changing.

Playable monster races are coming out in less than a month. :)


I haven't looked, is there an official option to play a dark paladin type character or do they have to be lawful good for a good god?

The base paladin will work for you. There is no deity or alignment requirement for the paladin in the PHB. That's been removed. From there, pick ancient or vengeance archetype. Or third party content.

Speaking of third party content, there's already some good summoner remakes for 5e on the DMs Guild.

[CaptainSarathai]

I haven't looked, is there an official option to play a dark paladin type character or do they have to be lawful good for a good god?

OathBreaker is in the DMG and is your old school BlackGuard type.
But no, Paladins don't have to follow an alignment anymore - just their Oath. My GF is playing a Vengeance Paladin in a current newby campaign and she's Chaotic Good at best, and no problems. She lives up her Oath - stops at nothing to bring evil to justice; if you're a bad guy, she'll torture you to find your gang. I taught her the quote:
"The only thing better than a dead bandit, is a dying bandit who tells you where to find his friends" and she's apparently taken it to heart. Her character's themesong is "Cut You Down" by Johny Cash.

Heck, one Paladin Oath is the Oath of the Crown, and you're basically just a knight in service of the king. If your King is a bad dude, well...

[Corsair14]

I know people have ported them over. I dislike having to ask my DM if I can use them them and they are not official.

I knew about the book next month, that's why I said sloooowly. I think aside from a starter campaign book, an alternate races book should be an early release book for any established game system. Like I said, I don't mind the reduction of feats away from the mishmash of PF feats. Peripheral skills seem useful, I like the background system. I didn't notice a crafting section but that isn't unusual. But more options, races, kits, classes etc would have been nice. Note they are already spreading the new things they do release across multiple sources so the whole one book for everything is already out the window. That isn't an issue for me, I don't mind since I only buy the books that interest me.

[DragonSorcererX]

I sympathize with the OP. I am used to having a multitude of different options that just aren't available in 5e. I came from playing 3.5 and pathfinder, and while I like the limited feats available in 5th, I hate the lack of classes and races. Without using a ported over class I cannot even play something remotely similar to my favorite class(summoner) and it has little to do with power. Its just the concept I love. I like the option of varied races away from the standard few and it looks like that's slooooooowly changing.

When I DM next I will be incorporating the ported summoner as standard that someone was nice enough to make on here. Havent figured out if I am going to go Spelljammer, Planescape, or Ravenloft as a world. Raven is most likely and I will have to add half vistani.

I haven't looked, is there an official option to play a dark paladin type character or do they have to be lawful good for a good god?

Paladins can be servants of any deity with any alignment these days. I never played 3.5, but when I look back to the older editions, I start drolling like a fat kid in front of the ice cream truck! I want all those classes and races back! It's not that I will use or incorporate them in my games, but the more options I have the more aces up my sleeve I have to draw and do something cool!

[Naanomi]

Try making a character dedicated to avoiding combat... a svirfneblin rogue going all out on stealth; an illusionist who never takes a damage spell past cantrips, a bardic master of disguise. If 2/3 of your game is combat and that is boring turn thatnexpectation on its head

As an aside, calling back to 3.X for versatility in builds seems a bit off... probably 70% of material was unusuable with anyone with even a slight optimizing mindset

[mgshamster]

Try making a character dedicated to avoiding combat... a svirfneblin rogue going all out on stealth; an illusionist who never takes a damage spell past cantrips, a bardic master of disguise. If 2/3 of your game is combat and that is boring turn thatnexpectation on its head

As an aside, calling back to 3.X for versatility in builds seems a bit off... probably 70% of material was unusuable with anyone with even a slight optimizing mindset

Or try to make a character based on an actual personality and a life, rather than mechanical options on a character sheet.

[Willie the Duck]

4e seemed like it embraced the CharOP mentality, and streamlined it and made the most of it. For deeply tactical combat, I still haven't seen it beaten. It felt like playing a TCG like M:tG, or playing a wargame like the Warhammer I was used to. The characters I made were in-sane:


And people hated 4e because... it was easy to look at the options strategically and optimize strictly for combat that could last whole sessions (pre-MM3). Was it because the stupidity of things like Pun-Pun had been eradicated?

No, I think it was everything in quote block #1, along with a bunch of other things (released before people were "done" with 3e, edition warring, ruleset that deviated from what people considered essential elements of a D&D game, etc.). It's really neither here nor there. 4e is a perfectly lovely, very consistent game that did not meet the needs of the audience it was trying to capture. People go way overboard in trying to make it more than just a bad matchup between customer and design.


And now that 5e is out, I love it too. I've taught more people to play, found more DMs and more games, have DMed several campaigns of my own - it has a totally different feel. It's finally a game so light that I don't have to play it like a massive strategy game. I can knock back a few beers and laugh with my friends and not spend hours obsessing over every detail of my character.

5e is hilarious because my friends and I "broke it" less than halfway through our first campaign...[specifics snipped]

Yes, 5e does have some clearly-best-options (most of them involving Cha-based multiclasses or combat feat stacking). There are also of course some sub-optimal choices (any massively MAD combo, 4 elements monk, initial rangers, wild magic sorc, etc.). Everything, however, seems to be within shouting distance of each other, which is decidedly different than 3e/PF, where even the distance between optimized wizard and unoptimized wizard was playing in completely different worlds.

Yeah, 5e is much better for beer&pretzels, but I also find it better for overall balance compared to every edition but 4e, which is a nonstarter for too many people I want to play with.

[Willie the Duck]

Or try to make a character based on an actual personality and a life, rather than mechanical options on a character sheet.

Normally I'd say "c'mon, when someone is complaining about a mechanical issue, they want a mechanical solution. It's foolhardy to assume they don't know how to roleplay." However, this raises a good point. At some point, no matter how many options you give a rule system, the combat part of the game almost always ends up boiling down to either removing all of an opponent's "hit points" or placing some effect on them (restrained, dead, charmed) that otherwise stops them from being a threat. Even wide open systems like Hero System start sounding like "Okay, so the BBEG has resistance 50 to physical damage, let's try psychic damage, if that doesn't work, we'll try a flash effect" which eventually starts sounding like "purple damage doesn't work, try yellow, and if not that, blue." If you are sufficiently desperate for options, searching in the rule system might never be enough. Especially in a balanced system, because there is little or no sense of reward for finding a 'special' option (that sense of System Mastery that Cooke gets raked over the coals for promoting). Changing one's focus to story element options might be beneficial if only in that there is at least an infinite number of options.

[Plaguescarred]

For me D&D 5E has enought options for thousands of happy-hours and hasn't bored me since i started playtesting it internally during the Friends & Family Playtest and there wasn't much options back then compared to what we have today.

Could i take more options? Definitly, i always like to playtest new stuff and think the game could take more feats, backgrounds, sub-races, sub-classes equipment, magic items, spells etc.. But i think it has enought to give most people tools to use, create, expand, and thrive with them and enjoy the game. I also know that publishing too much stuff and bloating a system is not always good for it so i'm good with what i have to run the game even though i could take a little more.

[mgshamster]

Normally I'd say "c'mon, when someone is complaining about a mechanical issue, they want a mechanical solution. It's foolhardy to assume they don't know how to roleplay." However, this raises a good point. At some point, no matter how many options you give a rule system, the combat part of the game almost always ends up boiling down to either removing all of an opponent's "hit points" or placing some effect on them (restrained, dead, charmed) that otherwise stops them from being a threat. Even wide open systems like Hero System start sounding like "Okay, so the BBEG has resistance 50 to physical damage, let's try psychic damage, if that doesn't work, we'll try a flash effect" which eventually starts sounding like "purple damage doesn't work, try yellow, and if not that, blue." If you are sufficiently desperate for options, searching in the rule system might never be enough. Especially in a balanced system, because there is little or no sense of reward for finding a 'special' option (that sense of System Mastery that Cooke gets raked over the coals for promoting). Changing one's focus to story element options might be beneficial if only in that there is at least an infinite number of options.

Thanks for the elaboration.

You're right that a mechanical complaint should involve a mechanical fix. But this complaint is that the OP has run out of character concepts, and wants more mechanics so they can play more concepts.

Well, there's a whole world of concepts out there if you branch away from just the mechanics of the game.

[Plaguescarred]

The DM's Guild has a lot to offer for people looking for more materials and that aren't affraid of 3PP or self-publishing.

[Slipperychicken]

Or try to make a character based on an actual personality and a life, rather than mechanical options on a character sheet.

This. When I started doing this, I starting having more fun than I ever had from fixating on stats.


Your statblock isn't your character. All it does is represent some of the things your character can do, and there is so much more to it than that. I could make a dozen human fighters with similar game statistics and have them be distinct and interesting characters.

[Corsair14]

I agree the character is the character. But there are characters you simply cannot build with the few classes available. I will again use summoner since out of all the expanded classes in PF, its the one I had the most experience with playing. There is no way to make a Summoner type character within the official limits of the game. I have several very much fleshed out characters I loved playing, like the confused Deep Gnome with the a Shadow dragon eidolon that follows him around, but he doesn't understand its simply a fragment of his mind and not a real shadow dragon. I did not play 4e as I hated the mechanics of it(and I will leave it at that) but stuff is simply missing in 5th that earlier editions had. Again, yes you can make a lot up but even weapons are missing heavily. Bastard sword, (I fight with one in the SCA so I am biased) a classic weapon from the late middle ages, completely missing, while hand crossbows, something that never existed is there.

The WoTC website is very uninformative. With a game as large as DnD, it should be full of material for download or articles to read, tables of exotic or relatively common(bastard swords) weapons. Oriental Adventures(the original, not the silly LO5Rs from 3rd) is still one of my favorite source books to date, followed by Greyhawk Adventures. Why after two or three years is not this kind of stuff up there, if they make the sourcebook, I would expect a much more thorough sourcebook than anything online and they could take the online stuff down as it comes out. I have a lot of those old books, and eventually when I have time I will adapt them if I plan on using them but it is kind of a pain when one has limited time, and a DM might simply say no.

PS: I know the bastard sword is an easy one to make stats for in the framework, that its not there officially is the problem.

[Willie the Duck]

Well, there's a whole world of concepts out there if you branch away from just the mechanics of the game.

So perhaps just re-skinning and re-interpreting?

[DizzyWood]

It's a "problem" I've noticed with roleplayers in general (myself included), at least with crunch-focused games (as opposed to narrative focused ones like FATE); once initiative is rolled, all characterisation goes out the window. This is not a problem with the system or lack of options...it's a problem with the way you (we) are playing the game.

I've seen it so many times where a player has built a character around a certain theme, has interesting and deep character hooks and interactions and then *BAM* combat happens and all of that is forgotten in favour of "optimal strategies" and game-mechanics;

"Of course I'm going to murder that goblin; it's the only way to be certain it won't follow us" [/Cleric of Eldath, Goddess of Peace]

You don't need more options, you just need to keep roleplaying in combat. That which entertains you outside of combat is playing in-character and the fact that the infinite possibilities of characters you can play aren't limited by the rules. It's no different in combat.

Sure, Fighter A might be functionally identical to Fighter B in mechanical terms, but if Fighter A is a Lawful Good exemplar of all that is right and just and Fighter B is a ruthless murderer, the way they play in combat is going to be as different as the way they play out of combat; dirty tricks vs. honour, pulling blows vs. murder, protecting ones allies vs. selfish interest. The list goes on as far as your character is deep. Don't let the rules limit you to "optimal" play; that's not what they're there for. Utilise the options available, certainly, but don't always do the "best" thing if it's not in character for you to do so.

Don't blame the system, the system is fine and has more than enough options to explore. Just don't forget the "R" in "RPG" when it comes to crunch time.

YES 100% THIS. We have this life cleric that will not attack regular humanoids unless there is no other option. It is bad tactics but he takes that whole life cleric shtick seriously he spends his time in those cases buffing healing and distracting, also one time making sandwiches. It is less than optimal but it works for his character and is a ton of fun to work with. We collectively lost our shart when the mercenary leader who had been hounding us for weeks executed an NPC we were friends with. The little halfling cleric charged at him and with a combination of halfling luck and inspiration he landed sacred flame and then three high damage melee attack while taking NO damage. He killed a character that the DM wanted to live for a while yet. It was all so perfectly played and rolled that it was one of our best sessions. Who cares if it in the most tactically thought out plan it is FUN!!!

[Plaguescarred]

As much as a player i'd be interested in more character options, as a DM i'd be interested in more world options as well. New campaign settings, sourcebooks, adventures, new twist on things such as Manual of the Planes with new demiplanes, Tome of Magic with new curses, magic items and spells, Wilderness/Dungeon Survival Guide with new poisons, traps, hazards etc...

[Addaran]

I agree the character is the character. But there are characters you simply cannot build with the few classes available. I will again use summoner since out of all the expanded classes in PF, its the one I had the most experience with playing. There is no way to make a Summoner type character within the official limits of the game. I have several very much fleshed out characters I loved playing, like the confused Deep Gnome with the a Shadow dragon eidolon that follows him around, but he doesn't understand its simply a fragment of his mind and not a real shadow dragon. I did not play 4e as I hated the mechanics of it(and I will leave it at that) but stuff is simply missing in 5th that earlier editions had. Again, yes you can make a lot up but even weapons are missing heavily. Bastard sword, (I fight with one in the SCA so I am biased) a classic weapon from the late middle ages, completely missing, while hand crossbows, something that never existed is there.


Summoner was one of my favorite class too. But WoTC decided to greatly reduce the potential of summoning monsters. They want 5ed to be quicker and simpler, that's why there's no summoning spell under 3rd and why they summon much lower CR then they used to.


You realize that a batard sword is basically just a longsword? The one single thing that was different was the damage dice and now it increase if you use a longsword two-handed. There's nothing else they can make between longsword and greatsword mechanically. Personnaly, i'm glad they reduced the number of weapons. Half of them were exactly the same (except weight and price) and half of them were simply trap options. Same exact weapon as another one but with less features.
5ed have the weird case of rapier, but aside of that, it's great for weapon choice.

[Sitri]

I have either not properly articulated my position, or I suffer from “unreliable narrator” perception. I have tried to say several times, out of combat 5e offers lots of options. I love the reskin at will philosophy. I think there are an unlimited number of characters to be had.

However, I also love combat. I like fights in my RPGs to heighten the level of intensity and excitement. It is one of the cornerstones of RPGs as far as I am concerned.

I have only played two games since returning to 5e, and in that the DM has done a fantastic job of making varied combats with original terrain and interesting foes. However, the most interesting part of combat is, “This enemy is cool because I have never seen X,Y,Z. When every player takes a turn, it is “Yeah that person attacks X times with virtually the same numbers as every other person who attacks like they do, this one casts a spell I have seen 1000 times.…..so on and so forth.

Someone earlier commented about how a plethora of false choices lead to less choices……Well while there are some strait out false choices that could be had, there is a lot of room to grow laterally, supplying real choices without alienating others. Additionally, there are combinations of false choices that can lead to viable ones. I haven’t played PF in forever, but the last character I played had about 5 pieces to make it work; only one of which I think I MIGHT have seen on another character. However, with all my “bad choices” I created a master controller that could eliminate one creature from combat every round virtually without fail and without expending resources unless it was immune to mind effects.

Now I know this will feed back into the unreliable narrator motif I have seen running throughout a lot of this thread. “I must not roleplay characters because I am just about winning combat.” For those interested in the rebuttal, I am spoilering it.


Before creating my character, my DM gave me a few page rundown of the world he had made. Some key parts in if for my character are: The world is on its second generation of gods and Minotaurs were great inventors until they were taken with a madness that drove them to war and belligerence; the small numbers that survive are not welcome in many towns. Party is at 7th level.

So from this I created a hornless minotaur, str not dex based, lore bard. I am not min/maxing this guy. My drumstick is a reskinned mace. I wear funeral attire all the time because I am a follower of the old gods (who in lore were more violent than the current ones and this lead to a world effort to overthrow them). My minotaur “war madness” causes me to respect them and their ways as true gods. One of many oral prophesies handed down through my family line is “The true gods will return even before their funeral is over.” So my clan has been holding a daily funeral for these guys for generations in order to help this prophesy come true. When in towns hostile to minotaurs, I wear a mask of a mourning person as part of my funeral garb. I make decisions regularly based off prophecies, which is pretty clear just bull**** my character believes. My party hook is that one prophecy states that “Three broken beasts will play a key role in raising the gods: One that sees but can’t touch (I believe this to be a party member), one who has been neutered of its birthright (me), and one that knows the path but not the destination (pretty much any odd thing that can provide a plothook, my character hasn’t committed to who this is yet but has tested the waters many times.) To feed into the mad inventor vibe, I regularly critique others skilled labor and have a ton of inventions on my person like "dust of appearance" that I "created;" most of them don't work.


This is all to say, I don’t need more ideas about how to fluff or roleplay, I am OK with less than optimal. I NEED more crunch because I want combat to stay as fresh and interesting as non-combat.

EDIT: I am excited to hear about new races; this was the first I heard of it. I just hope there are more options than SCAG. All the race crunch in that entire book could fit on the nutrition label of a bottle of water.

[Sigreid]

There is no way to make a Summoner type character within the official limits of the game.

I agree with you on the summoner. I've been toying with home brewing a summoner type character based loosely on the concepts in the beastmaster and beast conclave ranger. Sort of a chassis that has some basic adventuring skills, but nothing really combat oriented until it summons a creature and then uses his/her actions through the creature to do battle. Kind of a partial puppet master situation.

[Slipperychicken]

I have either not properly articulated my position, or I suffer from “unreliable narrator” perception. I have tried to say several times, out of combat 5e offers lots of options. I love the reskin at will philosophy. I think there are an unlimited number of characters to be had.

However, I also love combat. I like fights in my RPGs to heighten the level of intensity and excitement. It is one of the cornerstones of RPGs as far as I am concerned.

I have only played two games since returning to 5e, and in that the DM has done a fantastic job of making varied combats with original terrain and interesting foes. However, the most interesting part of combat is, “This enemy is cool because I have never seen X,Y,Z. When every player takes a turn, it is “Yeah that person attacks X times with virtually the same numbers as every other person who attacks like they do, this one casts a spell I have seen 1000 times.…..so on and so forth.
I had been thrown off by mentions of RP before and thought it was an RP thing, but I think I'm starting to get it now.

It seems that you find the combat itself (not the roleplay) is getting samey and repetitive, so you want more options to shake it up. That makes a lot more sense to me.

[xanderh]

I agree the character is the character. But there are characters you simply cannot build with the few classes available. I will again use summoner since out of all the expanded classes in PF, its the one I had the most experience with playing. There is no way to make a Summoner type character within the official limits of the game. I have several very much fleshed out characters I loved playing, like the confused Deep Gnome with the a Shadow dragon eidolon that follows him around, but he doesn't understand its simply a fragment of his mind and not a real shadow dragon. I did not play 4e as I hated the mechanics of it(and I will leave it at that) but stuff is simply missing in 5th that earlier editions had. Again, yes you can make a lot up but even weapons are missing heavily. Bastard sword, (I fight with one in the SCA so I am biased) a classic weapon from the late middle ages, completely missing, while hand crossbows, something that never existed is there.

The WoTC website is very uninformative. With a game as large as DnD, it should be full of material for download or articles to read, tables of exotic or relatively common(bastard swords) weapons. Oriental Adventures(the original, not the silly LO5Rs from 3rd) is still one of my favorite source books to date, followed by Greyhawk Adventures. Why after two or three years is not this kind of stuff up there, if they make the sourcebook, I would expect a much more thorough sourcebook than anything online and they could take the online stuff down as it comes out. I have a lot of those old books, and eventually when I have time I will adapt them if I plan on using them but it is kind of a pain when one has limited time, and a DM might simply say no.

PS: I know the bastard sword is an easy one to make stats for in the framework, that its not there officially is the problem.

The bastard sword isn't really a type of sword distinct from the longsword. Historically, 4 classes of medieval sword existed:

The sword: this is what's now known as the arming sword, and encompasses swords built for use in one hand.

The short sword: now called a shortsword, it's a sword that is bigger than a knife, but shorter than an arming sword. Mostly for civilian use, since there isn't much point in having a sword this small, except for practicality of carrying the thing.

The long sword: now known as longsword, these swords are meant to be used in two hands, but it's possible to switch to a one-handed grip if you need the extra reach, or if you need to hold something with your other hand. The bastard sword falls in this category, and it is a class of longsword that is slightly shorter than most longswords, allowing for easier use in one hand. The bastard sword is NOT a sword meant to bridge the gap between longsword and greatsword.

The two handed sword: this is what's now known as the greatsword, but it was historically just called a two handed sword, a Zweihänder, or a montante, depending on the region. The greatsword has two distinct types of sword: the claymore which was a sword too big to use in one hand, but nevertheless used like a sword, and the Zweihänder/montante which was more similar to polearms in the way it was used.

[JellyPooga]

“I must not roleplay characters because I am just about winning combat.” For those interested in the rebuttal, I am spoilering it.


Before creating my character, my DM gave me a few page rundown of the world he had made. Some key parts in if for my character are: The world is on its second generation of gods and Minotaurs were great inventors until they were taken with a madness that drove them to war and belligerence; the small numbers that survive are not welcome in many towns. Party is at 7th level.

So from this I created a hornless minotaur, str not dex based, lore bard. I am not min/maxing this guy. My drumstick is a reskinned mace. I wear funeral attire all the time because I am a follower of the old gods (who in lore were more violent than the current ones and this lead to a world effort to overthrow them). My minotaur “war madness” causes me to respect them and their ways as true gods. One of many oral prophesies handed down through my family line is “The true gods will return even before their funeral is over.” So my clan has been holding a daily funeral for these guys for generations in order to help this prophesy come true. When in towns hostile to minotaurs, I wear a mask of a mourning person as part of my funeral garb. I make decisions regularly based off prophecies, which is pretty clear just bull**** my character believes. My party hook is that one prophecy states that “Three broken beasts will play a key role in raising the gods: One that sees but can’t touch (I believe this to be a party member), one who has been neutered of its birthright (me), and one that knows the path but not the destination (pretty much any odd thing that can provide a plothook, my character hasn’t committed to who this is yet but has tested the waters many times.) To feed into the mad inventor vibe, I regularly critique others skilled labor and have a ton of inventions on my person like "dust of appearance" that I "created;" most of them don't work.


This is all to say, I don’t need more ideas about how to fluff or roleplay, I am OK with less than optimal. I NEED more crunch because I want combat to stay as fresh and interesting as non-combat.

I can't speak for others, but I've not been accusing you of not roleplaying at all, but rather I'm asking if you're roleplaying in combat. That's a great character you've got there, but the question I ask is how does all that translate into how your character acts in combat? If none of that backstory and personality is having any effect on what combat options you've chosen and how you actually act in those combats, then of course you're going to think you need more options; you might be playing infinite characters out of combat, but in combat it sounds like you're only playing a limited number of character types; restricting the options available to you because you've taken the roleplaying out of the fight. Maybe I'm wrong, perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but that's what it sounds like the problem is to me.

Having said that, the problem with wanting more options like this is that you inevitably end up with power-creep. The other option is that any new options will be disregarded as "useless" compared to the "boring" existent material and you still wouldn't use it. New material is hard to balance, so it's easy to er on the side of "more powerful" than trying to legitimately make a level playing field. It's the reason that homebrew material is so often frowned upon.

Thus far, from the material that's been released, I've noticed that the devs have actually tended to er in the other direction; the Baronet and Oath of the Crown are perfect examples of new material I rarely see played or even discussed because they're considered weak archetypes. UA material seems to test or even break the limits of power-creep, but actual releases have displayed a tendency to rein those limits back a lot (example; Storm Sorcerer).

So do you want to see power creep, or do you just want to see more material that you'll probably discard as a waste of ink and paper? That's pretty much what you're asking for; there is almost zero middle ground.

IMO, of course.

[mgshamster]

Continuing on the "roleplay in combat" thought, there's also the idea that you shouldn't just "push buttons" while in combat. The character sheet isn't just a list of video game controller buttons to press over and over again until combat stops.

There's two primary ways, as a player, that you can get around this.

1) Set different goals. Don't try to kill everything. Have goals that fit your character. Maybe your character loves animals and refuses to kill them, and tried his best to even harm them. Or a humanist who avoids harming humans (or all humanoids). Subdue and capture is always a solid tactic.

From a DM perspective, they can set these goals for you. They can introduce terrain in combat to make it more interesting so you always have something else to interact with besides hitting the bad guy over and over.

The DM can also set goals such as, "capture their leader" (may not even engage with anyone else, or may kill everyone else), or try to reach a point while taking as little damage as possible, or "don't get noticed." Some of these goals you can even set yourself, based on character personality.

I have noticed that as d&d players, we tend to view every opponent as a sack of HP that must be reduced to zero. But I know very few people in real life who believe that every conflict should end with someone's death. Even when I was in the army, in a warzone, people still tried to avoid having to kill someone if they didn't have to.

2) Make up new options for yourself in-character. Just a few sessions ago, I had a rogue with a rope of climbing. We were in combat in a tavern. My character ducked under the next table, behind his opponents, and commanded his rope to tie around the neck of one of them. Then he started running the other direction, knocking the bad guy off his feet.

Don't just rely on the mechanics on your character sheet to engage in combat. Use your equipment and your abilities creatively. Doing this, while also setting goals for yourself, will make combat much more interesting. Especially if the DM is also descriptive in terrain features.

[JellyPooga]

Don't just rely on the mechanics on your character sheet to engage in combat. Use your equipment and your abilities creatively. Doing this, while also setting goals for yourself, will make combat much more interesting. Especially if the DM is also descriptive in terrain features.

A+ thinking right there. :smallwink:

[Fishybugs]

Oh.
In that case I oppose your goal.
You see to me the already immense amount of "crunch" which chiefly comes from the variety of PC abilities already makes it difficult to be or find a DM, and anymore "options" will cause there to be even less chance of wannabe players finding tables, as there is already too few DM's.
I went far too many years of no D&D already, so I gladly choose less PC options, but get to actually play the game instead.
If you want a game with even more character creation options, you may like Fantasy HERO, GURPS, or Pathfinder



So much this.

I love the simplicity of the 5e system. When 3e and 3.5 came out everything started getting so complex, but it was playable. Between the original red box and 3rd edition, that was where I spent most of my playing time. Years went by without playing, and when I tried to get back into gaming, the overwhelming amount of choices really turned me off. If I didn't have things optimized just *exactly* right, my character couldn't compete with the rest of the party.

Additionally, I have met more new players and more people willing to DM since 5e came out. There really weren't 'casual D&D players' before because they couldn't keep up. Now I'm meeting people everywhere who are trying it out. It's a revolution for the game, and I'm happy to see it.

[Corsair14]

I am curious where the whole competition thing came about. DND has always been about teamwork and not individuals competing to have their imaginary characters be better than other players. Then again when I DM I always direct attention more towards the characters I feel are OP or gaming the system and a good fight for me was when half the party was lying on the ground at the end knocked unconscious.

[2D8HP]

I I am excited to hear about new races; this was the first I heard of it. I just hope there are more options than SCAG. All the race crunch in that entire book could fit on the nutrition label of a bottle of water.I can't tell until it's out,, but it does look like
Volo's Guide to Monsters (https://www.amazon.com/Volos-Guide-Monsters-Wizards-Team/dp/0786966017#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1 476276175869)
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51yD0I7mRXL._SY400_.jpg
may have more PC races.


I NEED more crunch because I want combat to stay as fresh and interesting as non-combat..Perhaps this thread may help:
How to make combat interesting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503182-How-to-make-combat-interesting)

While I'm still enjoying the novelty of most PC's surviving to reach 2nd level, I think the problem you described may be from hit point inflation.
As usual I feel that the solution is not to make 5e more like other 21st Century versions of D&D, but to instead make it more like 20th century D&D, especially low level old D&D.
One or two hits was usually enough to kill a Goblin or a 1970's 1st level PC, and nothing makes combat more exciting than the possibility of quick PC death.
Have your DM tweak the PC's foes, so that they have less hit points but do more damage. You could also implement the old "morale" rules, so the goal becomes scaring off the enemy, not just killing them. That should speed things up and make it more exciting.

[Sitri]

While I could write at least a much a description of creative/ rp decisions in combat, I am on the phone and don't know how much it would matter. Any time you work a quirk into a decision, it is a tiny ripple in a sea of same.

Reading through this has helped me come to some realizations. I really miss the ability to inflict a lot of meaningful status effects and lots of resistances as well.

A lot of people say they like the "beer and pretzels" feel. I am not looking for that in a game. I drink enough trying to relax or not be bored. I play games for enjoyable mental engagement. Just as I like role-playing, I like complex manipulations and interactions in games.

To answer an earlier question about power creep, it doesn't bother me at all. I don't like broken options, but I don't require perfect balance. As long as a party roughly optimizes to the same degree, a good DM can properly challenge and engage them. Yes problems arise when there is a huge gap in optimization on other systems, but those problems can be solved away from the table.

[Willie the Duck]

A lot of people say they like the "beer and pretzels" feel. I am not looking for that in a game. I drink enough trying to relax or not be bored. I play games for enjoyable mental engagement. Just as I like role-playing, I like complex manipulations and interactions in games.

To answer an earlier question about power creep, it doesn't bother me at all. I don't like broken options, but I don't require perfect balance. As long as a party roughly optimizes to the same degree, a good DM can properly challenge and engage them. Yes problems arise when there is a huge gap in optimization on other systems, but those problems can be solved away from the table.

This is going to sound crass, but it's an honest question--then why are you playing 5e? Between PF and 4e, you have two of the most systems farthest in that direction short of a build-you-character-out-of-parts game like Hero System.

[Sitri]

I can't tell until it's out,, but it does look like
Volo's Guide to Monsters (https://www.amazon.com/Volos-Guide-Monsters-Wizards-Team/dp/0786966017#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1 476276175869)
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51yD0I7mRXL._SY400_.jpg
may have more PC races.

Perhaps this thread may help:
How to make combat interesting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503182-How-to-make-combat-interesting)

While I'm still enjoying the novelty of most PC's surviving to reach 2nd level, I think the problem you described may be from hit point inflation.
As usual I feel that the solution is not to make 5e more like other 21st Century versions of D&D, but to instead make it more like 20th century D&D, especially low level old D&D.
One or two hits was usually enough to kill a Goblin or a 1970's 1st level PC, and nothing makes combat more exciting than the possibility of quick PC death.
Have your DM tweak the PC's foes, so that they have less hit points but do more damage. You could also implement the old "morale" rules, so the goal becomes scaring off the enemy, not just killing them. That should speed things up and make it more exciting.
Thank you, I will look into it.

This is going to sound crass, but it's an honest question--then why are you playing 5e? Between PF and 4e, you have two of the most systems farthest in that direction short of a build-you-character-out-of-parts game like Hero System.

Part smaller town living reducing options and part because I find some of the staff at PF deplorable. However, I think I might could get over it if my local group wanted to go back.

[mgshamster]

Thank you, I will look into it.


Part smaller town living reducing options and part because I find some of the staff at PF deplorable. However, I think I might could get over it if my local group wanted to go back.

Really? I've always found the Paizo staff to have some of the best customer relations in any business I've seen. It would be pretty odd for them to allow their public facing employees to start acting inappropriately.

[Sitri]

Really? I've always found the Paizo staff to have some of the best customer relations in any business I've seen. It would be pretty odd for them to allow their public facing employees to start acting inappropriately.

Some are. Mike Brock and Sean K. were both awesome.

But Jessica Price went out on an alt-left wing crusade against me (I consider myself left wing) and two other staff gave one liners to basically say "we support Jessica." I had several people I don't know pm me to tell me how ridiculous it was and that I had handled myself really well in spite of a witch hunt.

[mgshamster]

Some are. Mike Brock and Sean K. were both awesome.

But Jessica Price went out on an alt-left wing crusade against me (I consider myself left wing) and two other staff gave one liners to basically say "we support Jessica." I had several people I don't know pm me to tell me how ridiculous it was and that I had handled myself really well in spite of a witch hunt.

Huh. I'm kind of surprised by that. They normally don't allow their employees to discuss politics with customers. They just close the threads.

[Willie the Duck]

Well we weren't there, and probably don't need to be put in the position of being asked to take sides. You don't like PF, the reason doesn't need to matter. SO...

4e exists. It has lots of meat and bones and decisions. I've heard that in-combat, you eventually run out of interesting moves and finish it off spamming your at-will attack, but I think that overall there is plenty of combat strategy.

3.5 (non-PF) is still there and is quite frankly not that different from PF, but without the individuals you aren't a fan of. So long as you have a DM who is willing to say no, there is much fun to be had using that system.

If you like mucking about in under the hood of the rule system, Hero System is very very very good at that function. If playing about with the numbers of the game is your creative outlet, it is like working in Assembly.

GURPS starts at the different end (pay points for causes, instead of for effects) but is the same basic thing. There's all sorts of supplements for martial-arts. I have found that it isn't as good for fantasy as Hero System is, but if you can find more people interested, cool.

None of this is trying to force you out of 5e. It's just that, well, what you've expressed as your preference is what WotC has expressly retreated from in this edition.

[NecessaryWeevil]

OP, you mention that you've made so many characters you've lost count, and that many of the ones you've made just show up occasionally as NPCs.

My group switched to 5E around the time the DMG came out, and we just finished our FIRST campaign, which went to level 20. We play every Wednesday. I have just created my second ever 5E character, and I've been playing 5E for over a year.

Is it possible that your problem is that you've rarely or never played characters long enough for them to become distinct from each other? I can see how they could all feel the same if you rarely take them past level 5.

[Sitri]

Well we weren't there, and probably don't need to be put in the position of being asked to take sides. You don't like PF, the reason doesn't need to matter. SO...

4e exists. It has lots of meat and bones and decisions. I've heard that in-combat, you eventually run out of interesting moves and finish it off spamming your at-will attack, but I think that overall there is plenty of combat strategy.

3.5 (non-PF) is still there and is quite frankly not that different from PF, but without the individuals you aren't a fan of. So long as you have a DM who is willing to say no, there is much fun to be had using that system.

If you like mucking about in under the hood of the rule system, Hero System is very very very good at that function. If playing about with the numbers of the game is your creative outlet, it is like working in Assembly.

GURPS starts at the different end (pay points for causes, instead of for effects) but is the same basic thing. There's all sorts of supplements for martial-arts. I have found that it isn't as good for fantasy as Hero System is, but if you can find more people interested, cool.

None of this is trying to force you out of 5e. It's just that, well, what you've expressed as your preference is what WotC has expressly retreated from in this edition.

Since I am jumping in on an established game now, I wouldn't feel comfortable pushing another system, but if the DM brings up another system again, I will certainly keep this in mind.


OP, you mention that you've made so many characters you've lost count, and that many of the ones you've made just show up occasionally as NPCs.

My group switched to 5E around the time the DMG came out, and we just finished our FIRST campaign, which went to level 20. We play every Wednesday. I have just created my second ever 5E character, and I've been playing 5E for over a year.

Is it possible that your problem is that you've rarely or never played characters long enough for them to become distinct from each other? I can see how they could all feel the same if you rarely take them past level 5.

You could be on to something. I just did a count of ones on my google drive and I only see 8 over level five, a whole lot more below. Only one of those went to level 20.

However, it isn't just a problem of overlapping one's own characters, but also feeling the same as something someone else has played. Either way, I think you raise a good point.

[ad_hoc]

You could be on to something. I just did a count of ones on my google drive and I only see 8 over level five, a whole lot more below. Only one of those went to level 20.

However, it isn't just a problem of overlapping one's own characters, but also feeling the same as something someone else has played. Either way, I think you raise a good point.

Maybe you have just played a lot of D&D in the last 2 years.

I doubt I could play that much in 20 years.

[Sitri]

Maybe you have just played a lot of D&D in the last 2 years.

I doubt I could play that much in 20 years.

Between deaths and games that only lasted a few months, that helped to up the number.

I should also back peddle some on an earlier post. I said I helped push my group away from PF because I found some of the staff deplorable. That wasn't really a fair comment. I went back just now to read through the threads that irritated me a few years ago. While I think one of them was completely out of line, a lot of my frustration came from other posters who I felt were bandwagoning off her distorted accusations.

[Knast]

I think 4ed could be the system you are looking for.

In my group(s) we have three 4ed campaigns and one 5ed. And I feel about the same as you do, that the 5ed combat are somewhat lacking, at least in the melee department. (A caveat: the 5ed campaign has only been running from july and we are only level 3. BUT we are having loads of fun.)

But with 4ed you get loads of options, uniquely tied to each class and race in the form of feats and powers. And combat is more fun, when you blow kisses that makes your foe rise 30 feet in the air, restraining him there for the ranged part of the party to finish off. You develop different strategies with each new party you make.

Some say the game is too MMORPG like, but in my opinion, that is only if you choose to make it so. Someone said earlier to remember to bring your character with you into combat. I think that rule is golden.

[LordVonDerp]

You seem to be mixing up character with abilities.

Also, so what if different characters feel the same during combat? How do they feel during all the other stuff?

[djreynolds]

Some of the problem could lay in ASI increases. You never had that before. You got for your career what you rolled.

And yes there is an ability cap, but still we all want the best scores... it makes walking into death and danger easier.

So at 4th level, I'm taking +2 dex, but what I want is feat. I'm torn because it's so spread out. 4 levels between every selection... dreaming of what my 15th level ranger is going to look like.

There are solutions, but it's homebrew. Try giving out either a stat bonus with the feats, or even splitting up feats into parts. For instance, say I want sharpshooter, you could give me part of the features at 3rd, another part at 6th, and the rest at 9th, in lieu of selecting it at 8th.

Remember feats are optional, but you the DM could just say hey you get feats every 3 levels and ASI every 4.

You could say you only get feats instead of ASI. That could be fun. Players might take athlete for the strength dex bonus or durable.

5E system is very forgiving, try things out, PCs become too strong... up the CR.

[odigity]

Some are. Mike Brock and Sean K. were both awesome.

But Jessica Price went out on an alt-left wing crusade against me (I consider myself left wing) and two other staff gave one liners to basically say "we support Jessica." I had several people I don't know pm me to tell me how ridiculous it was and that I had handled myself really well in spite of a witch hunt.

SJWs are a big part of why I mostly hide at home these days. I'm really a nice guy (polite to everyone, don't even flirt, can't stand bullies and sadists), but they're all about looking for every opportunity to sow hate, division, and false guilt. They're brainwashed bullies, and I just don't have the stomach for it anymore.

I'm about to try to get a new group of strangers together for a game (just moved across the country), and I'm kind of terrified. I really hope everyone ends up being cool, because I'm not looking for a fight (out of game).

[mgshamster]

SJWs are a big part of why I mostly hide at home these days. I'm really a nice guy (polite to everyone, don't even flirt, can't stand bullies and sadists), but they're all about looking for every opportunity to sow hate, division, and false guilt. They're brainwashed bullies, and I just don't have the stomach for it anymore.

I'm about to try to get a new group of strangers together for a game (just moved across the country), and I'm kind of terrified. I really hope everyone ends up being cool, because I'm not looking for a fight (out of game).

Just have a policy of "Leave politics and religion at the door. We're here to play D&D, not discuss varying opinions of the real world."

[pwykersotz]

Just have a policy of "Leave politics and religion at the door. We're here to play D&D, not discuss varying opinions of the real world."

And sports. I've seen sports conversations get more heated than either of the other two.

[mgshamster]

And sports. I've seen sports conversations get more heated than either of the other two.

We're playing a game of imagination. No real world stuff allowed. If it exists outside the books and dice, don't bring it up. Including, but not limited to, religion, politics, sports, science, personal life experiences, and anything else not related to the game itself.

[2D8HP]

Just have a policy of "Leave politics and religion at the door. We're here to play D&D, not discuss varying opinions of the real world."

And sports. I've seen sports conversations get more heated than either of the other two.
C'mon guys what can I get good and enraged about then?
:frown:

There can be no end to the "Edition Wars" when they're still unrepentant heathens out there who refuse the one true game!
:wink:

I may also suggest arguments about:
Emo vs. Goth,
Chevrolet vs. Ford,
Death Metal vs. Thrash Metal, and
49ers vs Raiders as subjects of vital importance that we may argue passionately about!
:biggrin:
Such arguments cannot possibly go anywhere, for everyone knows goth>emo, Ford>Chevy, all forms of metal are equally valid, and the Cowboys are 'Murica's Team [the rest of the NFL can suck it]. :smalltongue:
How dare you! My argument is way more argumentative than your argument :smallfurious:

[djreynolds]

I have been out of the loop for about a year now I am guessing. Before that we played through about a year long campaign, maybe a little more, and several games that lasted a few months. Coming back, I really fluffed the hell out of my character, other people at the table talk about what a wacked out but interesting and fun character it is, but to me, it feels like lipstick on a pig.

At its heart, it is so similar to three other characters that I have seen or played. Yes it has different motivations, quirks, yatta yatta that are very important to a role playing game, but as soon as initiative is rolled, not only is my character just a mutated version of others I have played and seen, so is every other character at the table. The only thing that makes them different is any homebrew magic items that are present. I think this is a necessity due to the lack of options available to characters if you have played for any real time. I have taken some very obvious hits to maximization on both this character and others just to make them feel different, but as stated above, when combat hits, everyone becomes clones with slightly different modifiers or a personal trick that operates subpar.

Yes I could ask my DM to let me homebrew something different, and I think in all likelihood he would let me, but I hate doing that to the table. I have set at the table with the guy that comes in all homebrewed and anything that appears to outperform something else is constantly looked on with disdain.

So this is all to say, why the hell hasn't more official character options been released yet? This edition is so streamlined, it isn't like there are a lot of crunch involved in making an entire new race/class/subclass.

Follow up question, are other people bored with these same options?

When I DM, I really try to make players who have skill proficiencies the ones to use them, even if the sorcerer has a better persuasion check.

I tell players, its like a sword or armor, if you do not have proficiency you have disadvantage... but this is done to make sure everyone feels included at the table.

Does it suck that the barbarian has low charisma, and the paladin is better at social skills? Yes. A paladin with a 20 charisma has +5 to charisma checks, and is equal to that of 16 level barbarian with an 8 in charisma.

Also I try not to roll if truly needed.

But that's the game unfortunately