D&D 5E Krynn's Free Feats: setting-specific or the future of the game?

[GMforPowergamers]

You said the game would be ruined if the Warlock died. I took that to mean that the DM wouldn't allow them to. Apologies if I misunderstood.

lol... we have had MANY games end badly... and if me and Joe both died that campaign would have ended early (and we had like 4 epic boons by the end so we could have ended it at like level 8 or 9 if we had made wrong moves)

This is why we don't want 'save or die' or 'dead at -10' (or worse dead at 0) anymore... more then once My warlock was down making death saves... and if I failed, or if someone didn't get to me it would have messed up that campaign.

Now if Kurts Barbarian died (not that I even think that was possible with him having mine and Joes HP added togather, and better saves and AC) it would have sucked, but a new character from him would not have derailed the whole thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It really comes down to is your game trying to tell a story, or is it a virtual world that people exist in and their stories don't actually matter to anyone but themselves.

The latter used to be the assumption of play way back in the day for most rpgs back in the day, outside of a few outliers, but now it's the reverse. The assumption now is that there's a narrative, which means character death becomes a narrative stopper, not an interesting outcome.

(It's funny too - I described a real "virtual world" game that we played back in the day to my 14 year old and asked them what they thought and they shrugged and said if that was what D&D was like back in the day they'd "rather play video games" - they felt like the narrative was the point and they could get a virtual world elsewhere. So I wonder if that's part of the shift.)

Well, the virtual world is what I want, how I behave as a player, and how I run as a GM. I know its old-fashioned, and I don't care. You can as a player have a narrative in mind, but you try to play that out through your character's actions. I have no use for.metacurrency intended to force a particular story.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Having the death be a bad thing for the game IF it happened doesn't mean the possibility of the death doesn't exist.

I mean, I have one game right now where are the PCs are childhood friends, any death would probably see the PC group disband/give up adventuring. But we all know that we COULD die, it would just likely end the game.

yeah, we had a 4e game that we tried to keep going but we had at game 1 made 3 friends who grew up together and when 1 died another retired we tried to keep it going with new characters... but it fell apart in a week or two.

 

[Micah Sweet]

lol... we have had MANY games end badly... and if me and Joe both died that campaign would have ended early (and we had like 4 epic boons by the end so we could have ended it at like level 8 or 9 if we had made wrong moves)

This is why we don't want 'save or die' or 'dead at -10' (or worse dead at 0) anymore... more then once My warlock was down making death saves... and if I failed, or if someone didn't get to me it would have messed up that campaign.

Now if Kurts Barbarian died (not that I even think that was possible with him having mine and Joes HP added togather, and better saves and AC) it would have sucked, but a new character from him would not have derailed the whole thing.

If you can't or don't want to continue a campaign if a particular character dies, than that character is fundamentally immune to death. I'm afraid I don't really see a way out of that.

 

[TwoSix]

If you can't or don't want to continue a campaign if a particular character dies, than that character is fundamentally immune to death. I'm afraid I don't really see a way out of that.

That's an odd take. I don't know many players who object to shutting a campaign down if something important to the plot happens (like a central PC dying) that makes continuing the storyline not feasible. You just start a new game, and everyone likes a fresh start!

 

[Jaeger]

Mearls was trying to woo the OSR community, including some of its most unsavory bunch, during the D&D Next design and playtest phases. These people gave their input, Mearls appeased them, and then they promptly ignored 5e and continued playing their preferred OSR games. But these aren't the people who are now playing 5e D&D in mass numbers. Most of the D&D "veterans" who play 5e are likely WotC-era players (e.g., 3e D&D, Pathfinder 1e, and 4e D&D) at this point.

Aside from one shady actor (ZS), I disagree.

But our disagreement doesn't matter.

Because: Mearls was right to simplify 5e the way he did.

Lots of new and casual players have tried the game more than ever before. 5e being more accessible and newbie friendly if not outright helping D&D being played by more people than ever before, it certainly didn't get in the way.

Power creep just raises the bar of accessibility of the system to new players. Yes longtime players love the new switches and dials for their PC's, but it has no upside to bring new players into the fold.

I do think that the game would benefit from greater character customization at 1st level. ...

That is my knock on the "subclass". They only start at level 3, and they are a feat tree on rails. You make one decision at level 3 (But realistically everyone decides at chargen...) and then your done.

I think if the number of class feats cough I mean abilities was properly curated they could have been made more free form in selection.

You would not have had an increase in system complexity, but you would have had more actual choices to make in your PC's advancement, which would make them more unique.

I personally wish that WotC would do away with curated class-specific spell lists precisely for this reason. Having more "power source" or themed spell lists (e.g., Arcane, Primal, Divine, etc.) would be easier for adding future spells with far less wasted page layout space on classes that get the same spell.

^^THIS^^

Not hard WotC. Just not that hard.

I am probably in the minority for not wanting classes to share spell lists. But you can't have everything all at once.

Baby steps...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you can't or don't want to continue a campaign if a particular character dies, than that character is fundamentally immune to death. I'm afraid I don't really see a way out of that.

I don't understand this at all.

I mean when you TPK do you just continue as if nothing happened?

I have very rarely seen anyone have scripted immunity to death (I think of HP as your plot armor)

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's an odd take. I don't know many players who object to shutting a campaign down if something important to the plot happens (like a central PC dying) that makes continuing the storyline not feasible. You just start a new game, and everyone likes a fresh start!

Sure. I love a new game. But if the existance of a campaign is hinged on the life of a particular PC, then that character is indestructible while the game lasts.

 

[James Gasik]

Number one, you don't play an exact clone. That's not an option at my table, and my players don't push for that anyway.

Number two, you build in ways in the game for new PCs to enter the game in case of death. That maintains yourselves of verisimilitude.

Number three, given the softball default of 5e combat, you have to push for there be a real risk of PC death in any case.

So if the game was harder, you'd be down to two points? Not trying to be glib, just, it seems your comment is based on the current lethality of play, and I'm wondering how a more lethal game would/could affect how you feel.

 

[Jer]

That's an odd take. I don't know many players who object to shutting a campaign down if something important to the plot happens (like a central PC dying) that makes continuing the storyline not feasible. You just start a new game, and everyone likes a fresh start!

I agree, but if you're playing in a particular kind of "old school" model the campaign never ends even as PCs die and new PCs come in.

It's a very DM-centric view of what a campaign is, but it's definitely a model I know a number of folks used back in the day.