D&D 5E Loss of genericity

[Kurzon]

Hi folks. I've been going through some old notes from D&D campaign worlds I created years ago when I was playing more regularly, and thinking about using one of them for my first 5th edition campaign. One thing that struck me when looking at the twists and variants on regular races/classes I created for my world is that it seems like in 5th edition the classes are a lot less generic and mostly come heavily pre-loaded with flavour. Which can cause a real problem when you're trying to play in a original world that you have created.

For example, in one campaign world I created for 3rd edition, dwarves all belonged to a particular tribe that practised tattoo magic. They would tattoo themselves with runes, using an arcane substance that leeched into their blood and granted them the ability to cast spells. So in 3rd edition terms, they were Sorcerers. The magic was innate and in their blood, and the Sorcerer class was generic enough that this worked well. But now in 5th edition, Sorcerers have to choose between a draconic or wild magic origin. Neither of these fit my original idea, and looking at the other arcane classes, they don't either. The wizard uses a spellbook and has traditions. The warlock gets their power from an otherworldly source.

And it's the same with many of the other classes too, mostly due to the subclasses that you have to choose. Don't get me wrong - I like many of these subclasses, and some of then are generic enough to fit into almost any campaign world. I just wish they (along with the other pre-loaded flavour) were an option that you could choose to add flavour to a basic, generic class if your DM didn't already have his own world-specific options.

I'm not sure I've explained this well, but, like I said, it's just an observation.

Cheers.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would make my own subclass. I would mostlyikely bend warlock (Hello Rune Pact) but you could go other ways...

 

[MonsterEnvy]

You could just give them all the magic initiate feat.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, DMG has some pointers on new subclasses, make a new "Dwarf Tatoo" Heritage for sorcerers.

Honestly, hoe well has the game ever been able to handle being truly "generic?" Vancian casting is a huge preloaded assumption that makes playing, say, the Wheel of Time or Harry Potter fairly difficult, let alone something low magic like Tolkien or Game of Thrones. Dungeons & Dragons is a distinct flavor. It can be tweaked, and I'd be interested in hearing about Dwarf Tatoo Sorcery for one. That's the beauty of the TTRPG, it's whatever you make it.

 

[Mistwell]

Hi folks. I've been going through some old notes from D&D campaign worlds I created years ago when I was playing more regularly, and thinking about using one of them for my first 5th edition campaign. One thing that struck me when looking at the twists and variants on regular races/classes I created for my world is that it seems like in 5th edition the classes are a lot less generic and mostly come heavily pre-loaded with flavour. Which can cause a real problem when you're trying to play in a original world that you have created.

For example, in one campaign world I created for 3rd edition, dwarves all belonged to a particular tribe that practised tattoo magic. They would tattoo themselves with runes, using an arcane substance that leeched into their blood and granted them the ability to cast spells. So in 3rd edition terms, they were Sorcerers. The magic was innate and in their blood, and the Sorcerer class was generic enough that this worked well. But now in 5th edition, Sorcerers have to choose between a draconic or wild magic origin. Neither of these fit my original idea, and looking at the other arcane classes, they don't either. The wizard uses a spellbook and has traditions. The warlock gets their power from an otherworldly source.

And it's the same with many of the other classes too, mostly due to the subclasses that you have to choose. Don't get me wrong - I like many of these subclasses, and some of then are generic enough to fit into almost any campaign world. I just wish they (along with the other pre-loaded flavour) were an option that you could choose to add flavour to a basic, generic class if your DM didn't already have his own world-specific options.

I'm not sure I've explained this well, but, like I said, it's just an observation.

Cheers.

Just re-skin Draconic.

Runic Power: Choose one Rune of Power. The damage type associate with each Rune of Power is used by features you gain later [name the various Runes]

Rune of Resilience: As runic magic flows through your body, it causes physical manifestations of your power to emerge. At 1st level, your hit point maximum increases by 1 and increases by 1 again whenever you gain a level in this class. Additionally, your skin slowly becomes covered with faintly glowing runes of power. When unarmored, these runes provide an AC equals 13 + your Dexterity modifier.

Rune of Elemental Might: Starting at 6th level, when you cast a spell that deals damage of the type associated with your Runic Power, add your Constitution modifier to that damage. At the same time, you can spend 1 sorcery point to gain resistance to that damage type for 1 hour.

Rune of Flight: At 14th level, as a bonus action you gain the ability to draw a rune on your chest that grants you the power of flight. You gain a flying speed equal to your current speed. Your flight lasts until you dismiss the rune as a bonus action on your turn. You cannot draw this rune while wearing armor, unless the armor is made to accommodate a space on your chest to allow for the drawing of the rune.

Rune of Dread: Beginning at 18th level, you can draw the Rune of Dread, causing those around you to become awestruck or frightened. As an action, you can spend 5 sorcery points to draw on this power, and exude an aura of awe or fear (your choice) to a distance of 60 feet. For 1 minute or until you lose your concentration (as if you were casting a concentration spell), each hostile creature that starts its turn in this aura must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be charmed (if you chose awe) or frightened (if you chose fear) until the aura ends. A creature that succeeds on this saving throw is immune to your aura for 24 hours.

 

[Kurzon]

Honestly, hoe well has the game ever been able to handle being truly "generic?" Vancian casting is a huge preloaded assumption that makes playing, say, the Wheel of Time or Harry Potter fairly difficult, let alone something low magic like Tolkien or Game of Thrones. Dungeons & Dragons is a distinct flavor. It can be tweaked, and I'd be interested in hearing about Dwarf Tatoo Sorcery for one. That's the beauty of the TTRPG, it's whatever you make it.

You're right, of course. D&D does have it's own distinct flavour. It just seems like it's been more concentrated in this particular edition, that's all.

 

[Coredump]

People wanted more options, so they had to come up with more details.... that means they wouldn't be as generic...

 

[Kurzon]

People wanted more options, so they had to come up with more details.... that means they wouldn't be as generic...

But they're not options. Like with the sorcerer, you have to choose one. You can't just have a sorcerer without a draconic or wild origin. Same with the bard schools, druid circles, etc. It's all built into the class.

 

[Parmandur]

You're right, of course. D&D does have it's own distinct flavour. It just seems like it's been more concentrated in this particular edition, that's all.

I can definitely feel where you are coming from here. The DMG goes into this quite a bit, and discusses making the game your own. Reskinning, alternate systems, but from s definite baseline.



Thing is, that doesn't feel like much of a change to me? I got into the hobby with 3E, dabbled a bit with 2E and played a bit of 4E. 5E seems actually to be the most generically flexible of any edition since 2E, to me (2E has all the kits to fill different flavors of game, 5E has not quite caught up there yet after three books). 3E explicated Greyhawk in particular, and was chock full of specificity in that regard, and 4E had a strong default basis, like crazy strong.

 

[Kurzon]

I can definitely feel where you are coming from here. The DMG goes into this quite a bit, and discusses making the game your own. Reskinning, alternate systems, but from s definite baseline.



Thing is, that doesn't feel like much of a change to me? I got into the hobby with 3E, dabbled a bit with 2E and played a bit of 4E. 5E seems actually to be the most generically flexible of any edition since 2E, to me (2E has all the kits to fill different flavors of game, 5E has not quite caught up there yet after three books). 3E explicated Greyhawk in particular, and was chock full of specificity in that regard, and 4E had a strong default basis, like crazy strong.

But most of the Greyhawk specific stuff in 3E was just names and fluff, not mechanics that are hardwired into classes, etc. That stuff is much easier to change.

To be honest, I haven't given the DMG a thorough read-through. Although I am aware that it has alternate rules and suggestions for changing stuff around. It just feels like with 5E we got more options, but less flexibility?