D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

MoonSong said:

But all I said is it was a cool monster, a character that felt comfortable at being non-humanish -good if that is you thing, but I just don't dig these-,

Click to expand...

I don't recall you saying that. Not at all. Did you? If so I completely missed it.

MoonSong said:

I didn't have the context to understand what you were trying to say. Nothing is more ambiguous than a picture without a context. I didn't know what you were trying to say. Without that context all I could think of was "Why are you comparing my desired kind of character that I want to look as normal as possible with a character that is an obvious mutant of sorts?"

Click to expand...

But you later admitted that the description you gave was not an actual character you want to play, but a composite of a bunch of things you have issues with mashed together. And claiming a character looking like the picture I attached as being somehow a monstrous mutant is an odd thing to claim when you have dragonborn, firbolg, tieflings, goliaths, and such running around the game already.

MoonSong said:

I'm really confused here, were you doing an example in good faith? what effect exactly were you trying to say by exaggerating? -The language barrier is not a poblem for me, but the pragmatic barrier and the lack of tone are not working too well for me now-

Click to expand...

Your example wasn't in good faith either, though, now was it? You eventually admitted as much. So why jump all over me for what you saw as doing the same?

MoonSong said:

But the creativity came with mixing and matching, to get spells together to do stuff on the fly with ingenuity rather than a cold calculation.

Click to expand...

Then you can still do that in 5e. Nothing has changed in that regard. Can you still get on your floating disk and get pushed by ghost drones? I guess not by RAW. But now you are claiming that was just an example of how you like to be creative with spells. Well, now you get to find other fun and creative uses of 5e spells.

MoonSong said:

Well it is nice of you. Just one thing, I don't care as much at mechanical minutia, but mechanics in D&D matter, I cannot really play a frail weak and vulnerable cute enchantress if she has 20 Str, 20 Con 22 AC, tons of hit points, tons of blowing stuff spells, no actual meaningful charms and she also looks like a dead body or a reptilian dragon, or if she is perpetually surrounded in sparks. No amount of roleplaying will turn a fireball into a familiar, a flying disk or any of the other effects sorcerers cannot do anymore. And well, symbols to me matter, a lot. A book is a symbol too hard to ignore, more so with the heavy emphasis on schools and all that.

Click to expand...

I never told you to use a wizard class. Why do you keep acting like I did and arguing against it? Some people around here love to yell, "strawman," every chance they get at the drop of a hat. But in this case, I think we really are in that territory.

Another interesting thing about what you just said, is that you are still hung up on very specific needs. Like familiar, floating disk, etc. Are we back to trying to build your hypothetical mish-mash character? You are starting to confuse me with all this back-and-forth waffling. Is the character you described *exactly* what you want to play or not? Or just a combination of issues you have with 5e as you've stated earlier?

MoonSong said:

What I described was the poster child of what I want, not a literal character build. So far I have used elements here and there of that composite character, not every sorceress I have played had a talking raven, but the relationship with the familiars has been a strong element with most of them. Not everyone was a melee combatant, but the spear is both iconic and a representation of how I roll -without combat magic, without blowing stuff apart-. I only put together the flying disk/servant combo once, it wasn't a drag, it was push and more than one servant, but both spells show my approach to magic, to cause mayhem, to do unexpected things, to create stuff, to shape the world around. Those spells have been staples of my playing before.

And not everyone has been dumb as nuts, some were clever, but having to carry a book around ruins the illusion, it spoils the fantasy of what I want. It reinforces the technocratic positivistic vibe that permeates the world around us, part of me playing is to get away from that, from a cold emotionless environment. Part of my fantasy involves emotions and humanity being a thing greater than us, not being subjugated and limited by cold reason.

Click to expand...

Most of what you want from your composite is easily doable as a sorceress.

*Fighting with a spear (or other weapon not on your "list") - anyone can do this. You just don't get to add your prof. bonus....
You can just accept that, put a few more points into Str., ask DM if they mind you swapping/adding spear to your list (say in place of 1/4staff), try & lay hands on a magic spear, just use a staff - and describe it as having a spear head that you never stab anyone with & never throw (the weapons do the same damage except for one bludgeoning & ones piercing)

* The familiar & the floating disc. Neither is on the Sorcerer spell list. So Mechanically wich one is more important to you? Take that one via Magic Initiate (from wizard list). I make the assumption here that feats are in play & that you're a variant human so that you can get one of them at 1st lv. (Floating Disc can be gained later via Ritual Caster)

* If mechanics aren't the driving concern with the familiar & Disc? Then perhaps you could achieve them by using the variant Noble background. V.Noble gives you 3 non-combatant NPC retainers.
Well, what if for one of them you took a talking raven? And for the second you took an odd looking mount that looked like & had all the limitations of a Floating Disc (except you could ride it)? Give it the stats of a mule or something if stats are required..... The 3rd follower? An invisible, mute guy who's only function is to pull/push the Disc mount.

* Of course if you can find a reasonable DM you might just ask them if you can add the missing spells to the Sorc list.

* And yes, I know you claim to hate the Wizard class, particularly because of the spell book. But if you & a DM could re-stile that spell book? Then I think that'll open up a lot of options for you.

Maxperson said:

About what? 90% of the third party stuff I looked at, and I looked at stuff a ton of 3e third party stuff, was much worse than most things put out by WotC.

Click to expand...

No, just the ridiculous conclusions you came to based on your anecdotal evidence. What you thought of third party 3E stuff is by-the-by; using that to then claim that only WotC hires professionals is completely absurd.

pkt77242 said:

Can't the same thing be said about a WoTC product?

Click to expand...

As far as I am concerned, yes. During 3e, I found most of WOTC's material average at best. And even, most the stuff that some people considered to be WOTC's best new mechanics material, I thought paled in comparison to third party products covering similar niches.

Azzy said:

Look no further:

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/march-2016-review

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/may-dungeon-masters-guild-review

That should get you started.

Click to expand...

Ahhhh. I see they mentioned two class variants. The monsters don't really count because it's not adding any new mechanics to the game. Still not impressed and my main point still stands. Now if they did a big write up on that Gunslinger class that has sat at the top for ages then I may change my view a bit, but other than that no.

Corpsetaker said:

Ahhhh. I see they mentioned two class variants. The monsters don't really count because it's not adding any new mechanics to the game. Still not impressed and my main point still stands. Now if they did a big write up on that Gunslinger class that has sat at the top for ages then I may change my view a bit, but other than that no.

Click to expand...

Well, they did help produce a web series where the creator of that class DMed a game for some comics and actors, and the game features a pretty prominent NPC that used that class. Does that count?

Corwin said:

I don't recall you saying that. Not at all. Did you? If so I completely missed it.

Click to expand...

Ok, going back I see I said "awesomely inhuman" instead of "cool monster", everything else was clarifying?

But you later admitted that the description you gave was not an actual character you want to play, but a composite of a bunch of things you have issues with mashed together.

Click to expand...

Well I said not an actual build, this description is a character that is the sum of all characters I want to play that aren't minstrels, rogues or healbots. If this character is playable I get to play all others I want to play even if I don't play this one in particular.

And claiming a character looking like the picture I attached as being somehow a monstrous mutant is an odd thing to claim when you have dragonborn, firbolg, tieflings, goliaths, and such running around the game already.

Click to expand...

Well, those are fine if you want them, but I don't play them or am interested on playing them. Half-orc is about my limit, and only once with a huge charisma and playing against type. Deep down I have the visceral feeling of them being monsters and I don't play them.

Your example wasn't in good faith either, though, now was it? You eventually admitted as much. So why jump all over me for what you saw as doing the same?

Click to expand...

But it is, I just describe the poster child, the most over the top of the bunch, instead of always describing the same twelve or so character archetypes I want to play. Even if I don't get to play that one it opens the door to all others.

Then you can still do that in 5e. Nothing has changed in that regard. Can you still get on your floating disk and get pushed by ghost drones? I guess not by RAW. But now you are claiming that was just an example of how you like to be creative with spells. Well, now you get to find other fun and creative uses of 5e spells.

Click to expand...

I said I wasn't so interested on repeating the combo, but individual spells -grease, unseen servant, tenser's, control rope', Tasha's - are staples, things I'm used to have in hand. All the interesting effects locked away.

I never told you to use a wizard class. Why do you keep acting like I did and arguing against it? Some people around here love to yell, "strawman," every chance they get at the drop of a hat. But in this case, I think we really are in that territory.

Click to expand...

Ok, my fault. Sorry -though somebody else in the thread brought it out-. "Refluff the wizard" has been a constant way other posters have swiftly tried to dismiss what I want/need. So it's been drilled into my mind.

Another interesting thing about what you just said, is that you are still hung up on very specific needs. Like familiar, floating disk, etc. Are we back to trying to build your hypothetical mish-mash character? You are starting to confuse me with all this back-and-forth waffling. Is the character you described *exactly* what you want to play or not? Or just a combination of issues you have with 5e as you've stated earlier?

Click to expand...

Well, this specific combo reflects all individual needs I have out of the system. Save this cheerleader, save the world. Make this exact PC playable, and I get all of the other PCs I want to play playable, even if I never play this particular combo -but again if it is playable I might do so in the right campaign-. The core all of them share: Familiar -something I need-, strictly/mostly non-combat magic, access to the good utility spells so I can play around with them, and no books or other external stuff as a source of power.

Corwin said:

What metrics did you use to come to those conclusions?

Click to expand...

IMHO, a good measure of balance is player choices. The more player choices the system provides that are both meaningful and viable, the more balanced the game. A very basic game with very few choices, for instance, not really that high on the balance-O-meter. (The classic straw man of 'perfect balance' - the game where every PC is identical and there are no choices - is perfectly imbalanced by this metric, too.) A game like 3e with many, many choices, only a relatively few specific combinations of them optimal, also wildly imbalanced - and issue D&D has struggled with since AD&D, and still does with 5e, though 5e simultaneously suffers from a lack of choices, overall, compared to 3e (which is unfair, since 3e had so many 'traps' and sub-optimal choices - if you just look at viable choices, 3e and 5e are probably comparable).

Maxperson said:

About what? 90% of the third party stuff I looked at, and I looked at stuff a ton of 3e third party stuff, was much worse than most things put out by WotC.

Click to expand...

Since you bring up 3e as an example, sure, 3pp stuff could be pretty broken in that era, just as it can be now. But, CoDzilla, IIRC, was even coined as an example of how crazy broken 3e was to begin with. WotC-only or even Core-only, 3e was broken (into optimization Tiers), with PH1 stuff right at the top of the problematic list. 5e's not that different, there's no point coming to it with an expectation of balance, it's brokenness is just less focused on rewarding system mastery. It's more of a don't-sweat-it, make a ruling if there's a problem, sort of casual broken, than a system-mastery-rewarding intentional kind.

Maybe they got better for 4e. I didn't really play 4e so I didn't look at any 4e third party stuff.

Click to expand...

The GSL was toxic, so there was very little 3pp 4e stuff. And, 4e, with tight structure and high bars for balance and ease of use, was relatively hard to design for. Some of it that went off into left field, like Ultramodern or Amethyst, though, looked pretty decent.

But it seemed like the point of the GSL was to kill 3pps, and it worked to a small extent - except for Paizo, obviously.

ccs said:

Most of what you want from your composite is easily doable as a sorceress.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the ideas

*Fighting with a spear (or other weapon not on your "list") - anyone can do this. You just don't get to add your prof. bonus....
You can just accept that, put a few more points into Str., ask DM if they mind you swapping/adding spear to your list (say in place of 1/4staff), try & lay hands on a magic spear, just use a staff - and describe it as having a spear head that you never stab anyone with & never throw (the weapons do the same damage except for one bludgeoning & ones piercing)

Click to expand...

Well I made a big ruckus about this, didn't I? With some distance I recognize this is not as important as I made it out to be. And in the end is maybe the easiest one to solve.

* The familiar & the floating disc. Neither is on the Sorcerer spell list. So Mechanically wich one is more important to you? Take that one via Magic Initiate (from wizard list). I make the assumption here that feats are in play & that you're a variant human so that you can get one of them at 1st lv. (Floating Disc can be gained later via Ritual Caster)

Click to expand...

Magic Initiate could be the way to get a familiar indeed. I've been considering the idea for a while, I'm just not ready to take that step yet. As for Ritual Caster, it still is a book you have to carry around. Too external and too much of a wizardly flavor.

* If mechanics aren't the driving concern with the familiar & Disc? Then perhaps you could achieve them by using the variant Noble background. V.Noble gives you 3 non-combatant NPC retainers.
Well, what if for one of them you took a talking raven? And for the second you took an odd looking mount that looked like & had all the limitations of a Floating Disc (except you could ride it)? Give it the stats of a mule or something if stats are required..... The 3rd follower? An invisible, mute guy who's only function is to pull/push the Disc mount.

Click to expand...

I hadn't considered this, but is a good idea, thank you.

* Of course if you can find a reasonable DM you might just ask them if you can add the missing spells to the Sorc list.

Click to expand...

This is the crux of the issue. I wish I could find an openminded enough DM with the right level of confidence. Right now my DM is very good and open minded but she is not yet at that point, she is still learning the ropes and it wouldn't be fair of me to burden her, besides I'm the party healer right now so maybe someday, but I don't want to bank on it because too much stuff could happen and I'm not that selfish.

* And yes, I know you claim to hate the Wizard class, particularly because of the spell book. But if you & a DM could re-stile that spell book? Then I think that'll open up a lot of options for you.

Click to expand...

The class as a whole is the problem. It wasn't something I could work with back in 2e, and so far nothing has changed, it is still the same core that I cannot really stand and gets in the way at every step.

MoonSong said:

Ok, going back I see I said "awesomely inhuman" instead of "cool monster", everything else was clarifying?

Click to expand...

*Still* not what you said. Did you really go back and check? Because it doesn't seem like it.

MoonSong said:

Well I said not an actual build, this description is a character that is the sum of all characters I want to play that aren't minstrels, rogues or healbots. If this character is playable I get to play all others I want to play even if I don't play this one in particular.

Click to expand...

Exactly. So why are you not giving me the same courtesy?

MoonSong said:

Well, those are fine if you want them, but I don't play them or am interested on playing them. Half-orc is about my limit, and only once with a huge charisma and playing against type. Deep down I have the visceral feeling of them being monsters and I don't play them.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to my point. It's not about *you*. You've made more than one inference that my Helkboyrine was inappropriately "monstrous" (your word). I cited multiple existing races that are also "monstrous". Frankly, I don't care if you like them or not. They exist in the game and plenty of people do.

If I told you I think sorcerers were lame and we don't use them in our games, I guess that means your example character is invalid AFAIC, right? Same deal. Tables turned.

MoonSong said:

But it is, I just describe the poster child, the most over the top of the bunch, instead of always describing the same twelve or so character archetypes I want to play. Even if I don't get to play that one it opens the door to all others.

Click to expand...

Exactly. So why are you not giving me the same courtesy?

Also, compiling every small inconvenience into a single pile just to highlight how terrible 5e is could be construed by many as being unrealistic. I'm sure I could do something similar, I suppose. Wouldn't be all that helpful. Nor would it describe how much I enjoy 5e.

MoonSong said:

I said I wasn't so interested on repeating the combo, but individual spells -grease, unseen servant, tenser's, control rope', Tasha's - are staples, things I'm used to have in hand. All the interesting effects locked away.

Click to expand...

"Locked away"? Geez. Really? All the interesting ones? If you love being creative with spell use, as much as you claim, do so with the spells you *do* have access to. Or do you only want to be creative with things you don't have? Because you suffer from an acute case of grass-is-greener? Possible a terminal one.

MoonSong said:

Ok, my fault. Sorry -though somebody else in the thread brought it out-. "Refluff the wizard" has been a constant way other posters have swiftly tried to dismiss what I want/need. So it's been drilled into my mind.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, given that and what I'm seeing in this current response, its starting to feel like you aren't having a conversation with *me* at all. Just belaboring the same tired bullet points and rehashing your favorite criticisms. Irregardless of what I'm saying on my end.

MoonSong said:

Well, this specific combo reflects all individual needs I have out of the system. Save this cheerleader, save the world. Make this exact PC playable, and I get all of the other PCs I want to play playable, even if I never play this particular combo -but again if it is playable I might do so in the right campaign-. The core all of them share: Familiar -something I need-, strictly/mostly non-combat magic, access to the good utility spells so I can play around with them, and no books or other external stuff as a source of power.

Click to expand...

If you weren't so rigidly finical, I'd say all of it is easily within your grasp. Unfortunately, you are so busy railing against the system, you are missing that the system is there to help you get what you want.