D&D 5E Evil characters material not going to be in the PHB

[Gadget]

There was no option for "don't care" so I chose the DMG. I really think this is one of the things that people get all up in arms about for little reason. Wait until we have more details. One of the best things 4e did was to cut down by quit a bit the mechanical impact of alignment.

 

[DMZ2112]

Thinking is that an evil game is a DM option.

Right up until the evil game actually starts, and everyone needs both a PHB and a DMG at the table. Bad form.

 

[Kobold Stew]

When I hear ideas like this, it feels like the hobby will never escape the unthinking fear from the 80s. Ugh.

I don't play evil characters myself, but I feel strongly that the ideas have to be there so that it's a player choice -- that the system support the all available choices. As long as alignment is presented as a character choice, all available choices must be supported fully. I'm fine without anti-paladins, frankly -- it's not that all choices need to be identical, and alignment-specific classes are (IMO) fine -- but of the options available, there has to be full support.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I cannot imagine how anyone could agree with this decision.

Even people who think no one should ever play an evil PC, think about it: Now, DMs will have to look in two books for bad guys' spells. You know how annoying it is to look up spells right now? Imagine if there were two places you had to look!

 

[DMZ2112]

I cannot imagine how anyone could agree with this decision.

Even people who think no one should ever play an evil PC, think about it: Now, DMs will have to look in two books for bad guys' spells. You know how annoying it is to look up spells right now? Imagine if there were two places you had to look!

This is definitely the bigger concern. As weird as the anti-evil bias is, I just don't understand why anyone laying out an RPG sourcebook any reference book would not choose to publish like with like. If it's a paladin subclass, it ought to be published with the paladin. If it's a spell, it ought to appear in the master spell list.

I mean, okay, if the bias is that important to you, print a third book and call it the Douchebag Handbook, or Complete Douchebag, or Player's Option: Douchebags, but don't interrupt dungeon mastery material with stuff that clearly belongs in a class sourcebook.

Frankly, it is weird enough that D&D still insists on two core rulebooks. I'm not against having a PHB and DMG for the sake of tradition, but if you're going to split up your core rules, split them up in a way that makes logical sense.

 

[Mistwell]

True, and if it's all in the PH then it's all gravy.



If a major goal of 5e remains to allow gamers from all editions and playstyles to jump in on day 1

I do not recall that being even a minor goal, much less a major goal, of this edition. It's a goal to allow gamers of all editions and playstyles to play the game, but I have never seen anything indicating "from day one". I think that would be impossible, in fact, as just encompassing all the classes and races from all the editions in the first set of books would itself likely be impossible (or massive).

Naw, I think the goal has always been to eventually come out with support for all of it, but to focus the first books on what the majority of people want, and then drill down on the more minority-supported things as they go, with additional books.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Mearls says he wants the "evil campaign" to be optional. I actually agree--I just think the "good campaign" should be exactly as optional. In my opinion, campaigns where the players are assumed to be "heroes" are just as annoying.

 

[dmgorgon]

Mearls says he wants the "evil campaign" to be optional. I actually agree--I just think the "good campaign" should be exactly as optional. In my opinion, campaigns where the players are assumed to be "heroes" are just as annoying.

I don't like them either, but I do think it's more natural and intuitive for the base game to be designed that way. Running an Evil campaign takes time and experience. As the DM, you must have the right plot devices to keep the players working together.

 

[Dannager]

Mearls says he wants the "evil campaign" to be optional. I actually agree--I just think the "good campaign" should be exactly as optional. In my opinion, campaigns where the players are assumed to be "heroes" are just as annoying.

I disagree - in fact, it makes much more sense for players in a structured D&D-style campaign to be good than it does for them to be evil. Why? Because selflessness is rolled into the concept of being good. An evil character often embodies many fundamentally selfish qualities, and those often directly conflict with the group dynamic, wherein cooperation towards an agreed-upon goal is a central conceit. It tends to be much easier for five good characters of disparate backgrounds to band together around a common cause than it is for five evil characters of disparate backgrounds to decide on just about anything.

Does this mean that it's impossible to run a game featuring evil characters who somehow manage to cooperate with each other? No. Does this mean that a group of good-aligned characters will never experience any intra-party friction? No. All it means is that good characters will tend to find it easier to work with each other, and that this tendency will in turn make it easier to move the game forward rather than get hung up on infighting.

 

[Dannager]

Even people who think no one should ever play an evil PC, think about it: Now, DMs will have to look in two books for bad guys' spells.

Not if they use the inevitable online compendium-style toolset, they won't.

You know how annoying it is to look up spells right now? Imagine if there were two places you had to look!

It's really easy for me to look up spells right now. I type the name into a box, and the spell's description magically appears on my screen!

I'm not saying it's a good decision (and I'd be surprised if it ended up happening), but as you describe it the only DMs who would be inconvenienced are the ones who make a habit of flipping through books to find spells. I think the age of that is passed.