D&D 5E Anyone else finding character advancement pretty dull?

[Maxperson]

You do know we can just scroll up and re-read, right?

Then you know that I did in fact acknowledge the 50% new and increased sales portions. Feel free to scroll up and re-read a few dozen more times if it helps.

 

[Caliburn101]

There is not quite enough choice really - which is of course a positive part of the levelling-up experience.

Macro feats and 'either/or' stat/feat progression means choice doesn't come up much for non-spellcasters after subclass is chosen, and things are accrued in blocks - almost like a mini-subclass. GWF for instance...

The unfortunate number of 'meh' and just plain useless spells takes even some of the spellcaster fun out of the choices available. The concentration mechanics are fine, but over-egged and sometimes applied to already weak spells to make them near useless, and yet not to others better suited to the mechanic in some cases. Sensible players don't choose these making long spell lists effectively shorter.

But it all leads to the same place - not as much choice.

There is of course a balance point to be chosen between counterproductive complexity and choice, and between railroad advancement and 'too much on the menu to choose' powers and ability proliferation.

I agree with those that argue that WoTC went a little too conservative on this point.

I would have smaller feats around halfway between the current ones and the paper slicing approach of 3.5 in terms of scope and power, a little more skill development (extra class skills after character gen generally for instance) and stat boosts decoupled from feats throughout levelling with +1/+1 at a time to discourage monorailing primary stats and sucking up all the oxygen of choice until you're into double figures in terms of level and most campaigns are about to end.

None of that would add too much more complexity, but it would serve choice - a win/win in my book.

 

[Sadras]

I don't use APs. APs don't have anything to do with what we are asking for in any case, as they are pretty much just fluff.

Fair enough, but how often do you play?

 

[Maxperson]

Once a week for about 6 hours.

 

[Parmandur]

You do know we can just scroll up and re-read, right?

SORCERY!!!

 

[Sadras]

Once a week for about 6 hours.

Yeah, that is awesome, approximately double the amount of time I usually get in a month. I have only recently switched to online play to gain an additional 2 hours per week. If I keep up that frequency of play for a year, then perhaps I might begin to feel as you do.

 

[Parmandur]

There is not quite enough choice really - which is of course a positive part of the levelling-up experience.

Macro feats and 'either/or' stat/feat progression means choice doesn't come up much for non-spellcasters after subclass is chosen, and things are accrued in blocks - almost like a mini-subclass. GWF for instance...

The unfortunate number of 'meh' and just plain useless spells takes even some of the spellcaster fun out of the choices available. The concentration mechanics are fine, but over-egged and sometimes applied to already weak spells to make them near useless, and yet not to others better suited to the mechanic in some cases. Sensible players don't choose these making long spell lists effectively shorter.

But it all leads to the same place - not as much choice.

There is of course a balance point to be chosen between counterproductive complexity and choice, and between railroad advancement and 'too much on the menu to choose' powers and ability proliferation.

I agree with those that argue that WoTC went a little too conservative on this point.

I would have smaller feats around halfway between the current ones and the paper slicing approach of 3.5 in terms of scope and power, a little more skill development (extra class skills after character gen generally for instance) and stat boosts decoupled from feats throughout levelling with +1/+1 at a time to discourage monorailing primary stats and sucking up all the oxygen of choice until you're into double figures in terms of level and most campaigns are about to end.

None of that would add too much more complexity, but it would serve choice - a win/win in my book.

Who decides how much complexity is "too much?" Given the market success of 5E, and the input WotC says they have been getting, I wouldn't expect to see any sort of changes in this direction, not even for 6E.

 

[Caliburn101]

Who decides how much complexity is "too much?" Given the market success of 5E, and the input WotC says they have been getting, I wouldn't expect to see any sort of changes in this direction, not even for 6E.

And who decides whether changes such as those I proposed wouldn't make it even more successful?

I find statements of this type the kind of sterile conjecture that adds nothing to the debate.

Your last point does have some fizz to it however, as success on this level may breed complacency, or at the very least the kind of performance that takes the edge off continual improvement.

To that end I wouldn't expect to see 6E for a long span of years.

 

[Cornpuff]

I could go for an idea like getting an extra Skill proficiency when proficiency increases to make up for the broad skill gap between Bards/Rogues and everyone else, but by and large, I love the leveling up system here. I'd rather take 5 minutes to finalize my abilities and then go off running to use them than leveling up being its own goddamn ordeal. Even accounting for D&D ostensibly being a power fantasy, what I've heard about 3.5 levels making characters that were either unplayable or broken seems like, idk, really indulgent.

 

[5ekyu]

And who decides whether changes such as those I proposed wouldn't make it even more successful?

I find statements of this type the kind of sterile conjecture that adds nothing to the debate.

Your last point does have some fizz to it however, as success on this level may breed complacency, or at the very least the kind of performance that takes the edge off continual improvement.

To that end I wouldn't expect to see 6E for a long span of years.

Well, the first of such deciders or gatekeepers to the "more successful" for your ideas is you, yourself.

Take the OGL stuff, wirte up your better system type changes, publish thru the numerous easy ways to self-publish these days and put your better ideas out there on the market and see the massive groundswell that drives you into the actual arena of "more successful."

As a lesser stage half-measure, do it up as web-site and youtube streamer type stuff with basically free-for-clicks and see again how that works for gaining momentum.

Either of those is the start of the path towards turning this from just "yet another forum poster musing around partially stated/formulated ideas about how they can do it better" to an actual attempt at putting out better and letting the so-called "marketplace of ideas" weigh in on the validity of your judgments as to "what is too much."