[+] Here's my ideal future 5E supplement

[Paul Farquhar]

Items can be looted, so I'd rather not if I get a choice.

You're right: there's no reason for the devs to give AMM monsters feats, since feats are an assumed inclusion for the heroes that opposes them


That would be cool too. Assuming the monsters are first given tools that enable tactics

PS. I would not want to bait you, so just as a friendly unofficial heads-up: this is a plus thread, so please only respond if you basically agree more than you disagree to the overall premise of the thread. Thank you.

I generally work the other way around: if there are magic items for the players to loot, the monsters will use them against the players first.

The whole advantage of PnP over a CRPG is you don't have to wait for "The Devs" to create content for you. If you want something you can make it yourself. "The Devs" can't know what abilities and magic items your players have: you are much better placed to design things to challenge them than they are.

If you put an idea into the public domain, then you are putting it up for criticism. You don't get to dictate if responses are positive or negative. Nor should you want to: have you heard of the phrase "echo chamber"? Ideas can never be improved unless you listen to all kinds of feedback, both positive and negative.

 

[CapnZapp]

I generally work the other way around: if there are magic items for the players to loot, the monsters will use them against the players first.

The whole advantage of PnP over a CRPG is you don't have to wait for "The Devs" to create content for you. If you want something you can make it yourself. "The Devs" can't know what abilities and magic items your players have: you are much better placed to design things to challenge them than they are.

If you put an idea into the public domain, then you are putting it up for criticism. You don't get to dictate if responses are positive or negative. Nor should you want to: have you heard of the phrase "echo chamber"? Ideas can never be improved unless you listen to all kinds of feedback, both positive and negative.

You need to read up on the concept of "plus" threads if you think I want an echo chamber, or if you don't see the very valid reasons why the site supports such threads.

If you want to keep discussing this that's fine, but I will need to ask you to start a new thread to do it.

 

[dave2008]

I would be inclined to say I agree... but on second thought - I only want monsters to have spells that deserve a write-up!

In other words, I am not at all yearning for the ridiculous overdose of spells d20 monsters got. If you don't think a write-up is merited, why does the monster even have the spell listed, amirite?

Obviously a monster that is described as a scholarly Wizard might be the exception. But even there it might be easier to just say "Fireball, Fly, ... and six more random 3rd level spells" and then focus on how the monster uses Fireball and Fly.

But I would totally be okay with monsters getting only three or five spells (or "spell like abilities" as they were called), and then getting the full details on those. Each such spell would deserve to be included because it is useful to the monster. (Which does not necessarily mean all monsters lob Fireball. It's quite okay with monsters using weak:ish spells, as long as that's mirrored in their CR. No more "all level 3 spells are equal" BS, thankyouverymuch )

I generally agree, but I still think there is a place for "flavor" spells in the stat block. Speak with Animals, doesn't really need to be spelled out, and it is not likely to be needed in combat, but it adds a certain flavor that I like to see in the stat block. This could be handle in the "fluff" text instead, but some DMs are dead set against treating that text = to stat block text.

 

[robus]

Obviously a monster that is described as a scholarly Wizard might be the exception. But even there it might be easier to just say "Fireball, Fly, ... and six more random 3rd level spells" and then focus on how the monster uses Fireball and Fly.

Totally agree with this. How much time have I wasted looking up effectively useless spells that I guess are there for flavor? Just list the key spells that make the monster dangerous and encourage us to randomize the rest to suit our needs (if desired)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You need to read up on the concept of "plus" threads if you think I want an echo chamber, or if you don't see the very valid reasons why the site supports such threads.

If you want to keep discussing this that's fine, but I will need to ask you to start a new thread to do it.

You can ask me as much as you like, I aint goin ta do it!

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure how much mass market appeal there would be.

TTRPGs don't /have/ mass market appeal - heck, books hardly do, these days. There's definitely a niche that'd be delighted with more crunch on the character-building side of 5e, though, and apart from D&D core, any RPG product is a niche product.

The reason for the popularity of 5e lies solely in it's simplicity. There is Pathfinder for a crunchier, more complex system, but 5e is far more popular.

5e isn't actually simple, not by any stretch of the imagination, not even 'by RPG standards.' It /is/ more familiar to fans of the TSR era than PF, just as PF was more familiar to fans of 3.x than 4e was. In the in the latter case it was system mastery that was preserved by that familiarity, but, in former case that familiarity often seems to be perceived as simplicity, because it's /easier/ to use something that feels familiar (easy = simple).

Anyway, just as PF2 seems to be gunning for 5e's audience, a 5e supplement that gunned for PF1's audience would probably be a good move - and D&D could likely win both those battles, thanks to the advantage of it's name.

 

[Jester David]

I can only speak for myself, but personally I am only interested in official 1st party supplements, and I am talking exclusively about my ideal future 5th edition products from Wizards of the Coast.

Okay, but that's never going to happen. Sorry.

Only a minority of players like spending their time designing characters. Heck, even if we round up to 51% and say "small majority" it's still not every player. By its very nature, a book such as the one you're requesting would not appeal to all fans. And while not all players will buy their books, WotC wants their books to *potentially* appeal to every player. They don't want to purposely exclude a segment of their audience.

If you want to talk about how to do design such a book, or how to add complexity to classes, I can offer suggestions. But there's nothing really productive about a thread where you just wish really, really hard.

At least half the appeal of an APHB and an AMM is to read reviews, opinions and analysis about them here on these forums from people like you or me - writing guides, offering builds, and discussing Orcish Grandmothers . No 3PP comes even close to that kind of market penetration!

All you need is a dozen ENWorlders to agree to support the one 3rd Party book and you're golden. It's not like more people than that really participate in build discussions.


Try it out. Get a 3rd Party book, such as Kobold Press' Midgard Heroes Handbook, and get some discussion going.

 

[BookBarbarian]

This has been fun to read.

I agree that WotC will likely never make these advanced books. I think the market for people who want fewer barriers of entry to the game is simply larger than those who don't. Every published book, like it or not adds another barrier of entry even if they say "you don't need this one to play the game".

Still the more I read this thread the more I wish Paizo had made exactly this for PF2.

 

[robus]

This has been fun to read.

I agree that WotC will likely never make these advanced books. I think the market for people who want fewer barriers of entry to the game is simply larger than those who don't. Every published book, like it or not adds another barrier of entry even if they say "you don't need this one to play the game".

Still the more I read this thread the more I wish Paizo had made exactly this for PF2.

It would have been quite a coup if they had done that and then had Critical Role season 2 adopt characters from it. They (Critical Role) were a PathFinder-based group originally.

 

[CapnZapp]

Okay, but that's never going to happen. Sorry.

This is a plus thread.

If you want to argue against the premise of the thread, start a new one.