Level Up (A5E) What's Your Unofficial Errata?

[lichmaster]

Well, we agree on these points at least! But I wonder whether you think A5E's crafting system overcomes these issues then.

It's definitely an improvement over the standard 5e, as there are costs, crafting recipes, and at least an idea of what kind of wealth per level is reasonable for a generic campaign. But I don't really use the rarity system much. Or at least, I don't necessarily conform to the same standards

So maybe this is something specific to my table, but I did attempt something similar to this at some point. I said they couldn't go find materials for any item wily-nily, that some items might not be available in the general area that they are in, and that getting it might be a whole endaevour that acts as a side adventure.

And they... did not like that. Notably, they said it felt like I was arbitrarily limiting their choices by having the authority to say that the items I don't like don't have collectable materials in the area. Sure, perhaps with a group of complete newcomers to D&D, I can introduce recipes slowly, and they might not have any item expectations. But once players gain some degree of experience, they'll know (form cultural osmosis) what a Bag of Holding is. Or that their sword could be a +2 sword. And they start asking about how to get that item. Thing is, as a near-forever DM, I would be in such a position. I know a good portion of the magic item list. When I'm a player, I might start thinking how an item would be really cool for my concept. But if I had no way of obtaining it because the DM didn't want to have the recipe appear in the next treasure trove, I'd be a bit miffed. So crafting theoretically allowing every kind of item, but in truth being limited to DM's whims through recipes/materials within adventuring distance doesn't feel like a good solution to me. I'd much prefer being upfront and saying "Look, you won't get every single Major item you want. But I'll add signature, iconic items, one per character, that you can craft. You can even upgrade it over time. But that's it."

This IMO is a problem that isn't related to the ruleset, but to the players' expectations and how you manage them.

The sentence you used "limiting their choices" is a symptom of a problem IMO. Magic items are NOT part of their choices, especially when there's room for abuse and there have been previous examples of this (which is a different issue btw)

Players are not entitled to treasure, or magic items. They are a form of reward that of course is entirely dependent on the DM. I know what kind of items my players would like, of course, and I'll be more than happy to make them find the recipes they'll need to craft those items, if they put in the work. But they don't have access to every item on T&T just because it's written there. There are campaign/settings/adventure limitations that we agree beforehand. If I want to let them freely craft whatever is written on T&T, it's a stipulation valid for that campaign only, in another campaign they know it won't necessarily be the same, and understand it's for the benefit of the game, not because I like to be stingy for no reason.

I think healing potions are almost always left out of this equation, precisely because they're too commonly used to be on the same level as other items.

Yes, but I don't think this is written explicitly anywhere

 

[Orion5000]

There’s a lot of good suggestions here. My personal one is somewhat of an overhaul to the Herald class and how it handles exertion points to make it work like the Death Knight subclass for the Warlock, and explicitly say that they can’t get extra exertion from a dip into fighter

 

[Timespike]

S

There’s a lot of good suggestions here. My personal one is somewhat of an overhaul to the Herald class and how it handles exertion points to make it work like the Death Knight subclass for the Warlock, and explicitly say that they can’t get extra exertion from a dip into fighter

Say more?

 

[Orion5000]

S

Say more?

I meant the Dread Knight from GG #8. a pure Herald at 1st level can have 4 exertion points per long rest, while a Fighter of the same level has 4 per short rest. This might initially seem ok for what ought to be a half-martial class, but at 20th level the Herald can have a whopping 72 exertion points per long rest, while a 20th level Fighter get only 16 per short rest. Additionally, if the Herald takes only 1 level into Fighter it can have 72 points per long rest and 12 points per short rest, making it the most reliably useful weapon-user despite only learning up to 8 maneuvers without feats.
The Dread Knight accomplishes a half-martial / half-caster much better by using spell points for both spells and maneuvers, which are regain on a short rest, making it more like a magical Fighter than a magician who can fight for longer than a Fighter.
As a side note, a Warlock can already choose its casting stat (and therefore, the mental stat it uses for its Maneuver save DC), and you have the building blocks for a well balanced, generic gish that be either the emissary of a deity, nature itself, or its own arcane knowledge depending on your flavour and choice of maneuvers.
I would personally revamp the whole Herald class to work like this and to be more of a generic gish rather than a reskinned paladin

 

[Larnievc]

Mine is that anything from WotC books is banned. It's not just animus toward WotC, either. I've found that other stuff based on the OGL is less of a hassle to implement because of the shared 5.0/5.1 SRD baseline.

I find on nearly all cases non-PHB subclasses and spells work fine with A5E.

 

[Shardstone]

Well, we agree on these points at least! But I wonder whether you think A5E's crafting system overcomes these issues then.

So maybe this is something specific to my table, but I did attempt something similar to this at some point. I said they couldn't go find materials for any item wily-nily, that some items might not be available in the general area that they are in, and that getting it might be a whole endaevour that acts as a side adventure.

And they... did not like that. Notably, they said it felt like I was arbitrarily limiting their choices by having the authority to say that the items I don't like don't have collectable materials in the area. Sure, perhaps with a group of complete newcomers to D&D, I can introduce recipes slowly, and they might not have any item expectations. But once players gain some degree of experience, they'll know (form cultural osmosis) what a Bag of Holding is. Or that their sword could be a +2 sword. And they start asking about how to get that item. Thing is, as a near-forever DM, I would be in such a position. I know a good portion of the magic item list. When I'm a player, I might start thinking how an item would be really cool for my concept. But if I had no way of obtaining it because the DM didn't want to have the recipe appear in the next treasure trove, I'd be a bit miffed. So crafting theoretically allowing every kind of item, but in truth being limited to DM's whims through recipes/materials within adventuring distance doesn't feel like a good solution to me. I'd much prefer being upfront and saying "Look, you won't get every single Major item you want. But I'll add signature, iconic items, one per character, that you can craft. You can even upgrade it over time. But that's it."

I think healing potions are almost always left out of this equation, precisely because they're too commonly used to be on the same level as other items.

I'm sorry but your players just sound extremely annoying. I don't mean to offend or insult you or them, but this is behavior I would not stand for.

 

[Ondath]

I'm sorry but your players just sound extremely annoying. I don't mean to offend or insult you or them, but this is behavior I would not stand for.

Eh, I chalk it to a difference in playstyles. I don't think they're annoying, and I do think it's a bit presumptous of you to call them that when you don't know our table dynamics, but different people have different playstyles and we came up with a crafting system that makes everyone happy, so it all ends well

 

[Shardstone]

Eh, I chalk it to a difference in playstyles. I don't think they're annoying, and I do think it's a bit presumptous of you to call them that when you don't know our table dynamics, but different people have different playstyles and we came up with a crafting system that makes everyone happy, so it all ends well

My man I already said I don't mean to offend and clarified what I meant. I never claimed to know your table dynamics and I really don't care about them either beyond what I already said.

 

[Ondath]

My man I already said I don't mean to offend and clarified what I meant. I never claimed to know your table dynamics and I really don't care about them either beyond what I already said.

Sorry if I came across as too aggressive. That wasn't my intention!