D&D 5E (2024) No 5.5 AP Yet?

[AnotherGuy]

I think you are conflating the Pathfinder Adventure Paths and the D&D Campaign Adventures. The latter have monster sections, but they don't really do what you are talking about. But the Pathfinder ones do. I just looked at Avernus as a reference and its info on important characters is disjointed and split between sections. I don't expect that is an anomoly.

As a fan of AP's because I'm having success with them (at high levels) I agree that layout could improve. DiA is all over the place.

 

[Reynard]

Perhaps ironically, the only campaign I thought felt like a true toolkit is also the worst actual module: Dragon Heist. It is full of great bits with which one can build a low level urban campaign. But it is a crap adventure.

 

[tetrasodium]

As a fan of AP's because I'm having success with them (at high levels) I agree that layout could improve. DiA is all over the place.

I think sometimes it feels like the HC adventures create a lot of unique throw away NPCs and distinctive places that could and should be combined into a smaller number of returning fixer types with longer tails and memorable places with history at the table.

Some of that is almost certainly the result of farming content out from different creators who need to create enough of an adventure to have it be an adventure, but someone doing the work of adapting that into a cohesive whole is part of why I'm buying a huge 60$ HC adventure instead of several one off modules and doing the work of putting them together myself. "Fixer" types have the benefit of being able to call bs on murderhobo excess, care about filling the needs§ of their talent, and credibility resist diplomancy without needing to secretly be a deity or disguised great wyrm while memorable hub locations somewhat predictably embed the choices actions and successes/failures PC's to the world as a whole.

§ of course that one requires a change so PC's have needs beyond this/next week's adventure.

 

[Reynard]

Just for fun I made a poll thread for speculation.

R

D&D 5E (2024) Thread 'What Is 2026's Big Adventure'

Tuesday at 12:39 PM

Since we (almost) have confirmation that there will be a big adventure this year due to the Beadle & Grimm's Platinum Edition set to pre-order late Q2, I thought it would be fun to have a poll and see what people think it might be.

I have included the options from the speculation I have seen in other threads, but of course feel free to speculate something else as "Other" and I will add it when I get a chance.

ETA: It is really weird to vote "other" and then not post what that might be.

• Reynard
• Replies: 106
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

 

[AnotherGuy]

I think sometimes it feels like the HC adventures create a lot of unique throw away NPCs and distinctive places that could and should be combined into a smaller number of returning fixer types with longer tails and memorable places with history at the table.

I agree.

Some of that is almost certainly the result of farming content out from different creators who need to create enough of an adventure to have it be an adventure, but someone doing the work of adapting that into a cohesive whole is part of why I'm buying a huge 60$ HC adventure instead of several one off modules and doing the work of putting them together myself.

At this point it would be nice if the purchase of an AP got you a discount on the inevitable must-get DMs Guild guide or such related content for the respective AP.

"Fixer" types have the benefit of being able to call bs on murderhobo excess, care about filling the needs§ of their talent, and credibility resist diplomancy without needing to secretly be a deity or disguised great wyrm while memorable hub locations somewhat predictably embed the choices actions and successes/failures PC's to the world as a whole.

§ of course that one requires a change so PC's have needs beyond this/next week's adventure.

I have leaned into the black-bolded part much more for higher levels.

 

[tetrasodium]

I agree.


At this point it would be nice if the purchase of an AP got you a discount on the inevitable must-get DMs Guild guide or such related content for the respective AP.


I have leaned into the black-bolded part much more for higher levels.

Ime there is a significant chunk of players who react to the gm creating that need through changes to monsters as an immense and unjust overstep and there is ultimately some moment of outrage where they explode in outrage over noticing that a monster is capable of hitting an absurd ac without a nat20 or itself has dramatically increased ac they are capable of missing with cool gear. Alternatively it just winds up being treated like needing the blue key to progress box ticking by the group after the first couple times. Fixing that pretty much requires a willingness to provide alternative subsystems that address reasons why PC's don't need anything

Take rhime of the frost maiden name where they have a sidebar that makes wilderness resting awkward ... At low levels ... Until someone levels up and makes a choice that deletes it with the words "I ritually cast tiny hut" a level 5 or so. That could have been avoided with the inclusion of the missing container rules and more relevant carrying capacity rules that make a need to carry more/heavier winterized stuff relevant enough to make wilderness Arctic resting nontrivial and all levels if used. Different attribute bonus/proficiency bonus scaling to carve out a need for regular upgrades would be another good way of re-creating that need without the outrage

 

[AnotherGuy]

Ime there is a significant chunk of players who react to the gm creating that need through changes to monsters as an immense and unjust overstep and there is ultimately some moment of outrage where they explode in outrage over noticing that a monster is capable of hitting an absurd ac without a nat20 or itself has dramatically increased ac they are capable of missing with cool gear. Alternatively it just winds up being treated like needing the blue key to progress box ticking by the group after the first couple times. Fixing that pretty much requires a willingness to provide alternative subsystems that address reasons why PC's don't need anything

I am fortunate not to have that issue with my players.

Take rhime of the frost maiden name where they have a sidebar that makes wilderness resting awkward ... At low levels ... Until someone levels up and makes a choice that deletes it with the words "I ritually cast tiny hut" a level 5 or so. That could have been avoided with the inclusion of the missing container rules and more relevant carrying capacity rules that make a need to carry more/heavier winterized stuff relevant enough to make wilderness Arctic resting nontrivial and all levels if used. Different attribute bonus/proficiency bonus scaling to carve out a need for regular upgrades would be another good way of re-creating that need without the outrage

It is very difficult for me to comment on RAW given that I run things very differently

Characters are 15-16th level.
Our table has significant changes done for TIBFs & Inspiration, Rests, HD usage, Lingering Injuries and Monsters
We incorporate various subsystems from other RPGs and ideas from previous editions (variation on Touch Attacks etc)
I'm currently running for our table's split party

• DiA for a 15th, 10th and 8th level PC (controlled by 1 player) and a 7th-level PC (another player - this is a temp PC of his); and
• ToD multi-AP mashup for 3 x 16th level PCs, and a 10 level PC.

So, my only advice is for DMs to be honest and fair with their subsystems and new rules.
Do express as DM what you wish to accomplish with this subsystem or new rule.
Do not be afraid to change something if it doesn't work. Discuss with the table if anyone has a better idea.

 

[tetrasodium]

I am fortunate not to have that issue with my players.

Yeah think it's a symptom of Rules As Written evolving under "rulings not rules" into Rules As a Guarantee & it's probably somewhat related to your be honest fair comment being built on a patch of rules that are quicksand or lava for the gm.

So, my only advice is for DMs to be honest and fair with their subsystems and new rules.
Do express as DM what you wish to accomplish with this subsystem or new rule.
Do not be afraid to change something if it doesn't work. Discuss with the table if anyone has a better idea.

Back in the old days it wasn't as difficult for the GM to make changes for flavor/tone/style/etc or look at a situation in play and say "because of [thing that happened/was done/is present] I'm going to change this one rule for this one time [like so]". sometimes that one off change partially or fully favored the players over the original rule and the important part was to strike a balance between tough but fair vrs rule of cool. With much of 5e the rules took that option away from the GM by writing a particular rule or subsystem so it would be almost impossible to hinder a pc under normal play without the gm just completely throwing out a rule written to be a guarantee with no safety net serving the gm. Players who might have been a little bit on edge but grudgingly accepting the gm saying "yea you did x y & z, that would make [thing] a little easier... But I don't think it's enough to ignore the rule standing in your way" just look at a rule like resting and recovery encumbrance the missing container/body slot rules or whatever and see it as the absolute guarantee that wotc wrote because the gm who changes it to be stricter is simply cheating rather than making a ruling on an unclear rule given the absolute clarity.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I am fortunate not to have that issue with my players.

I’ve never seen it either.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Yeah think it's a symptom of Rules As Written evolving under "rulings not rules" into Rules As a Guarantee & it's probably somewhat related to your be honest fair comment being built on a patch of rules that are quicksand or lava for the gm.

Yes excellent point about rulings not rules.

Back in the old days it wasn't as difficult for the GM to make changes for flavor/tone/style/etc or look at a situation in play and say "because of [thing that happened/was done/is present] I'm going to change this one rule for this one time [like so]". sometimes that one off change partially or fully favored the players over the original rule and the important part was to strike a balance between tough but fair vrs rule of cool. With much of 5e the rules took that option away from the GM by writing a particular rule or subsystem so it would be almost impossible to hinder a pc under normal play without the gm just completely throwing out a rule written to be a guarantee with no safety net serving the gm. Players who might have been a little bit on edge but grudgingly accepting the gm saying "yea you did x y & z, that would make [thing] a little easier... But I don't think it's enough to ignore the rule standing in your way" just look at a rule like resting and recovery encumbrance the missing container/body slot rules or whatever and see it as the absolute guarantee that wotc wrote because the gm who changes it to be stricter is simply cheating rather than making a ruling on an unclear rule given the absolute clarity.

Incorporeal creatures in my campaign have the touch attack (per 3x) so they ignore armours + shields except for the enchantment mods (if any). Obviously Shield, Mage Armour and the like work.

Knowing something about the Tethyrian War is a general INT(history) check. Trying to know something specific about that war is with Disadvantage.

Sanity is a 7th ability. Now characters have to determine if they wish to spend ASI on Sanity as it its use becomes more common at the higher levels as PCs explore the weird and terrifying.
I'm not completely heartless but high level has its dangers. It doesn't always come down to damage and hit points.

We use racial age in similar fashion from 3x.

The barbarian tried to defeat an intelligent weapon and found himself trapped within its "world".
I asked the barbarian to take his Traits Bonds Ideals and Flaws (we have many more than the usual) and allocate his hit points as he wished to each one according to importance. The intelligent weapon represented as a hag battled him with each strike doing psychic damage (could not use his barbarian ability to halve the damage). The damage done was randomly allocated to his TIBFs. Once a TIBF reached 0 it was erased from his character sheet. They did not return once he defeated the hag (spirit of the weapon). A Restoration would be needed to restore each one lost, but they were now stricken from his memory.

Earnestly I could give many many more examples to how I have tailored the game...
I just find I'm able to bring about thematic elements much easier with the system of 5e than those of the 1e-2e. And my players trust me not be a xxxx about it.
And to give a fuller picture our houserules also provide many many perks.

I really do not agree that 5e is limiting in any way to be honest. It's actually quite liberating and that's predominantly because of the engine. What you really need is a table of like minded people that trust you to be fair and are open to suggestions.
The table decides at the end of the day.