Level Up (A5E) [+] What features should a "Advanced 5E" have?

[aco175]

I fear a 3e style of cherry-picking the best combos coming if we allow everyone to pick all the traits they want from other races. I could see some other form of ability but still based on that race but modified a bit for the new location. Something like a dwarf not raised underground would no longer get stonecunning and darkvision, but replace it with skill focus (profession) and +1 Cha to show growing up around human shops and farms. Not- 'I want the halfling reroll ability and high elf cantrip." Other systems do this.

 

[CapnZapp]

That is why races, classes etc need to remain fairly rigid and inflexible.

Point-buy generation of a character D&D is not.

The point is to force you to take the good with the bad.

Elves might have superior vision or higher Speed, but also lower Constitution.

And so on.

Allowing too much customization is a sure-fire way to lose the "5E feel".

 

[ART!]

Either give every "race" a flaw, or have no races with flaws. I'm thinking about things like -2 Strength for kobolds, and Sunlight Sensitivity - just off the top of my head. I totally get why the races who have those flaws have them, but I want races to be as mechanically equal overall as possible.

 

[CapnZapp]

Pro Tip: flaws don't appreciably contribute towards balance.

Why? Because a race is invariably taken by a player for whose concept that flaw isn't a concern.

Flaws instead contribute to a game's idiosyncracies. They create texture to the chargen phase of gameplay. Resistance to the notion every build can do everything.

 

[Haldrik]

Every Background comes with a Flaw. The Background suggests flaws, and players can make up their own.

The nice part. The strength and the weakness are the same thing. They are two sides of the same coin. There are advantages to being introvert, and costs. There are advantages to being extrovert, and costs. The strength itself is the weakness.

I find this highly realistic.

 

[Undrave]

Can I ask what the virtue is of separating species from culture?

Not a dig, I’m just genuinely interested in how it helps?

Because a specie is not a culture. Just looking at humans in the real world in the past and present and you'll see tons of difference in upbringing. The idea that 'Elf' or 'Dwarves' are all that same, or that species like Orcs, Drow, Goblins, etc, are born with naturally 'evil' traits is filled with all sorts of weird real world connotations, unintentional or not.

Divorcing what is genetic from what is learned would help add variety, but also avoid unfortunate implications.

The idea, at least the one I would suggest, would be to allow the DM to create their own set of cultures (which would themselves be built by smushing one of each Environmental and Societal traits together), and so the PC would just pick from the available species and one of the DM's pre-set cultures, creating a replacement 'race' block that could cover the stuff the Race pick normally does.

That is why races, classes etc need to remain fairly rigid and inflexible.

Point-buy generation of a character D&D is not.

The point is to force you to take the good with the bad.

Elves might have superior vision or higher Speed, but also lower Constitution.

And so on.

Allowing too much customization is a sure-fire way to lose the "5E feel".

To a point yes, but what I'm advocating is just 1 more segment of what is already there. Instead of Race-Background-Class, you go Species-Culture-Background-Class. That way, an Elf Noble Wizard from the Norther Metropolis and an Elf Noble Wizard from the Forest Conclave won't feel like the same character, even if they pick all the same Class element.

 

[Undrave]

Oh! Bring back the 'Bloodied' condition and stuff that triggers off of it! Especially recharging monsters abilities.

 

[Haldrik]

Oh! Bring back the 'Bloodied' condition and stuff that triggers off of it! Especially recharging monsters abilities.

Bloodied is a helpful design.

It clarifies how hit points work. It ensures fair fights, by at least allowing the target to do some action before shutdowns become possible. It makes nonlethal combat practicable. It serves as a reasonable indicator to make a morale check. And so on.

A really good design idea.

 

[ART!]

Pro Tip: flaws don't appreciably contribute towards balance.

Why? Because a race is invariably taken by a player for whose concept that flaw isn't a concern.

Flaws instead contribute to a game's idiosyncracies. They create texture to the chargen phase of gameplay. Resistance to the notion every build can do everything.

"Pro Tip": I don't think there's any way to quantify that...unless we're talking about extremely quantifiable things like a -2 to Strength, which I was.

 

[TheSword]

Because a specie is not a culture. Just looking at humans in the real world in the past and present and you'll see tons of difference in upbringing. The idea that 'Elf' or 'Dwarves' are all that same, or that species like Orcs, Drow, Goblins, etc, are born with naturally 'evil' traits is filled with all sorts of weird real world connotations, unintentional or not.

Divorcing what is genetic from what is learned would help add variety, but also avoid unfortunate implications.

The idea, at least the one I would suggest, would be to allow the DM to create their own set of cultures (which would themselves be built by smushing one of each Environmental and Societal traits together), and so the PC would just pick from the available species and one of the DM's pre-set cultures, creating a replacement 'race' block that could cover the stuff the Race pick normally does.




To a point yes, but what I'm advocating is just 1 more segment of what is already there. Instead of Race-Background-Class, you go Species-Culture-Background-Class. That way, an Elf Noble Wizard from the Norther Metropolis and an Elf Noble Wizard from the Forest Conclave won't feel like the same character, even if they pick all the same Class element.

So the DM has to now create cultures for every possible playing race in their world? In case a player wants to play it?

It seems you are suggesting an elf from Waterdeep has different mechanical benefits than an elf from the High Forest. Can I ask how this is more inclusive. Surely you have just broken your discrimination into a smaller segment. Instead of

saying ‘elves are X’... you’re now saying ‘these elves are X’

I mean if your saying you want extra abilities not currently available, then ok. I understand. I don’t agree that it’s needed. But I understand the desire.

I just find it odd that we are justifying a different shade of difference as if that is somehow better.



It mystifies me.