Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9369107" data-attributes="member: 7037866">Point 1: increased character build depth and complexity.As a DM I agree--I don't want even more stuff I have to remember, especially when my players don't. I deal with a lot of new players, or players with problems recalling everything about their characters, so giving them more would not only increase their cognitive load, but mine as well.Keeping the same (or very close) number of decision points, but offering a bit more options, is fine. But adding more decision points along the way, with more stuff for players to remember, not so much IME.Point 2: Additional "subclass" (prestige) at level 12.Considering how few games last long enough to get to this point, or enjoy playing at this power level, this isn't much an issue personally. I've always loved prestige classes and miss them from 5E.Point 3: Massively increased option space?One additional choice at 12th level? I don't see that as very massive. IMO what I would rather see is to have 3-4 options for subclass features at their levels, like Totem Barbarian and Hunter Ranger. Of course, trying to keep them balanced is going to be the difficult part IME.DEFINITELY agree! Not only should subclass choice be at the same level, but so should all subclass features. Not 6th for some, 7th for others, and 8th as well, etc.I also agree that certain subclasses can be generic enough to work across multiple classes.Again, I have to disagree that it is okay to give more in terms of absolute choices, but more options per choice (not too much!) is okay. That's just my preference and experience, however.You're still adding complexity for the player. Fine in many cases, I'm sure. And if you think your players can deal with that and enjoy it, go for it! I know with most of mine, we're actually moving in the other direction... less complexity.I'd move towards general usefulness, not "adventurer" helpful. For example, a local ruler might highly value a divination magic item, but not their ancestor's adamantine plate, if they have no concern of physical danger or war, etc. However, to many adventurers, magical armor and weapons would be much more helpful.I'm not saying there will always be a large difference or anything, just a different point of view.Another DEFINITELY agree!!! I despise the absolute features in 5E. You always get this, you never can have this happen, etc. No, no, no! Getting a +2 or 5 bonus, advantage, etc. helps enough. Speed of play really should affect DM agency.Magical items, like becoming immune to critical hits, is a bit much. Reducing the amount criticals can do, or requiring the good-old confirmation roll, is good enough. Adamantine armor could simple require a confirmation hit after the natural 20.Agreed again. We removed darkvision from most races, only keeping it for ones really should have it. For a while our other DM added shadowsight, turning dim light into bright light, but not affecting darkness at all. At this point, we even removed that for now.I do fine the disadvantage on Perception, especially the -5 to passive Perception, pretty decent however.Yep, a fair number of spells need redesigning, and creatures some as well.Yeah, certain skills, armors, weapons, etc. are nearly always taken over others. A lot of it is intentionally vague, to allow for group "freedom", but creates more issues than it solves IME. Two-Weapon Fighting is the only generic universal bonus action that I can think of unless you allow the overrun and tumble options from the DMG.But you are adding things... not just more options (which is fine), but more decision points, likely new systems perhaps (skills, etc.)?Depending on how far you went, it really sort of does become its own thing. Our largest effort produced over 150 pages of homebrew and house-rules, and really wasn't 5E or D&D anymore at that point. 5E-based, D&D-like, certainly.</blockquote>

Verification