D&D 5E (2024) How I Would Do 5.75

[UncleGoblin]

I would like something like Daggerhart's "campaign frames". A set of optional rules that apply to a setting or play style. Could include grittier rest mechanics, blanket ban on spells that ruin exploration and other tools that could align settings and mechanics more.

I would also love some guidance on how to create boss NPCs with legendary actions for all levels play. Instead of a character sheet, it could have a BBEG sheet, with rules and options, spell selection, xp evaluation, CR and the works.
Maybe even a BBEG builder on dndbeyond, a bit like the character creator, that created a homebrew statblock.

 

[ECMO3]

I am glad it is your favorite option. I am also glad 5e has accommodated you. But the thread asked how I or you would change 5.75? I stated, I would get rid of multiclassing. I have used it successfully, both to power up my character design and/or to roleplay specific events that happened in my character's lives. But I also feel that to have roles, it is better to not have a multi-classing character. The second my fighter started taking cleric levels, he was no longer the damage dealing tank, he was the kind-of damage dealing tank/healer. I find that kind of play a little banal.

My post was more about "play your role". I don't think class and party composition defines role, I think the player defines that regardless of class he or she chooses. I would find that very hard to do without multiclassing.

I've played lots of Fighters and some Clerics but I have never played a Fighter who I would call a damage dealing tank, nor a Cleric who was a healer or any PC that was a healer for that matter. Don't get me wrong, I have a few healing spells, and if you go down I will probably spend a slot or potion on you to get you back up on your feet, but that is not my "role" per se, nor do I think it should be expected to be someone's role if they choose to play a single-class Cleric.

The best damage dealing tank I have played with the 2024 rules it is an Aasimar Ranger/Warlock I am playing right now. Tanking has become my role in that party and I do it far better than anyone else in the party. I am not saying that you could not build a single class fighter to be better at it, but it would be difficult to do that. More over, with that group the party tank is usually a single class Cleric played by another player. In this campaign he went a different way with his PC, so I am doing the tanking.

 

[ECMO3]

That’s an interesting take. Why do you think so?

Because it lets you build more diverse characters.

I look at classes as a set of mechanics you use to get the kind of PC you want to play. Being able to mix and match them from different tropes makes that easier and IME more fun.

 

[Silam]

Because it lets you build more diverse characters.

I look at classes as a set of mechanics you use to get the kind of PC you want to play. Being able to mix and match them from different tropes makes that easier and IME more fun.

I’m onboard, but why do you consider the 5e implementation of MC the best so far? As opposed to, say, 2e or 3.5e?

 

[ECMO3]

I’m onboard, but why do you consider the 5e implementation of MC the best so far? As opposed to, say, 2e or 3.5e?

2E there was all kind of racial restrictions and you had to level both classes at the same time. Just far more difficult to do what you want. For example a Paladin/Druid was impossible, and a Fighter/Mage had to be an elf or half elf.

3X was better but there was still favored class rules that kind of boxed you in.

5E is pretty much wide open except for the ability score minimums, and I think we should do away with those.

 

[Silam]

2E there was all kind of racial restrictions and you had to level both classes at the same time. Just far more difficult to do what you want. For example a Paladin/Druid was impossible, and a Fighter/Mage had to be an elf or half elf.

3X was better but there was still favored class rules that kind of boxed you in.

5E is pretty much wide open except for the ability score minimums, and I think we should do away with those.

Interesting points. I guess I liked and disliked all three for various reasons …

The 2e racial restrictions were just dumb, IMHO. Also the fact that multiclassing was a non-human (maybe even inhuman ?) thing but dual classing was a human-only thing. Just plain weird.

As far as the XP getting split equally between two classes in 2e, I thought it was kind of nice actually. Doing evenly split builds in 3.5e was usually pretty weak, especially if mixing different types of classes, e.g., martial + arcane. You kind of needed Prestige Classes to pull it off.

2e was weird for having different XP thresholds for each classes, but when MC was involved it was actually kind of nice. Your Fighter/Mage would drift a bit with the Fighter pulling ahead, so you got your level ups at different times, rather than all at once.

I also agree with you that 3e favored classes were a headache and didn’t really provide much benefit. Kind of like a watered down version of 2e’s restrictions.

I think 3.5e was probably my favorite overall, because BAB, saves and skills progressed on a per-class basis on each level, and that felt pretty good. The 1st level-is-destiny approach of 5e is a bit less interesting IMHO.

As far as origins or level 0 was concerned, I think 2e races + kits were the ultimate in terms of fluff and flavor, while 3.5e was ok but not exceptional (it was just races, no kits nor origins, at least nothing significant), and 5e, ugh… I’m not a fan of the backgrounds + origins. I think it’s a good idea in theory but the background choices from the PHB and 2024 splatbooks are just so uninteresting. Makes me feel like my character is an electrician in the Sims or something. Takes a lot to bring these characters out of the gutter and into some kind of heroic story. Basically, it would have been better if the backgrounds were fully custom and the example ones they gave were optional rules. Technically it’s totally fine to run it this way, but it’s not presented as such and the digital toolings don’t necessarily support custom backgrounds very well, so it’s all meh in the end. Oh well, too bad.

What irks me about 5e is having feats and ASIs tied to class levels rather than character levels… I also find the spellcasting slot pooling slightly weird, but not in a way that it feels completely broken, just kind of odd. The slot rounding mechanics make no sense. But it’s a mild issue.

I also find that subclasses are too restrictive compared to 3.5e’s full classes and prestige classes… but again, not the end of the world.

Lots of things are simpler in 5e and it can be fun in and of itself to learn a new system, regardless of how good or bad it actually is… so we’re having plenty of fun with 2024 regardless of all the above complainery

 

[Bill Zebub]

5.75 is so 2025.

I'm working on 5.875.

 

[ECMO3]

Interesting points. I guess I liked and disliked all three for various reasons …

The 2e racial restrictions were just dumb, IMHO. Also the fact that multiclassing was a non-human (maybe even inhuman ?) thing but dual classing was a human-only thing. Just plain weird.

As far as the XP getting split equally between two classes in 2e, I thought it was kind of nice actually. Doing evenly split builds in 3.5e was usually pretty weak, especially if mixing different types of classes, e.g., martial + arcane. You kind of needed Prestige Classes to pull it off.

2e was weird for having different XP thresholds for each classes, but when MC was involved it was actually kind of nice. Your Fighter/Mage would drift a bit with the Fighter pulling ahead, so you got your level ups at different times, rather than all at once.

I also agree with you that 3e favored classes were a headache and didn’t really provide much benefit. Kind of like a watered down version of 2e’s restrictions.

I think 3.5e was probably my favorite overall, because BAB, saves and skills progressed on a per-class basis on each level, and that felt pretty good. The 1st level-is-destiny approach of 5e is a bit less interesting IMHO.

As far as origins or level 0 was concerned, I think 2e races + kits were the ultimate in terms of fluff and flavor, while 3.5e was ok but not exceptional (it was just races, no kits nor origins, at least nothing significant), and 5e, ugh… I’m not a fan of the backgrounds + origins. I think it’s a good idea in theory but the background choices from the PHB and 2024 splatbooks are just so uninteresting. Makes me feel like my character is an electrician in the Sims or something. Takes a lot to bring these characters out of the gutter and into some kind of heroic story. Basically, it would have been better if the backgrounds were fully custom and the example ones they gave were optional rules. Technically it’s totally fine to run it this way, but it’s not presented as such and the digital toolings don’t necessarily support custom backgrounds very well, so it’s all meh in the end. Oh well, too bad.

What irks me about 5e is having feats and ASIs tied to class levels rather than character levels… I also find the spellcasting slot pooling slightly weird, but not in a way that it feels completely broken, just kind of odd. The slot rounding mechanics make no sense. But it’s a mild issue.

I also find that subclasses are too restrictive compared to 3.5e’s full classes and prestige classes… but again, not the end of the world.

Lots of things are simpler in 5e and it can be fun in and of itself to learn a new system, regardless of how good or bad it actually is… so we’re having plenty of fun with 2024 regardless of all the above complainery

I am not a fan of backgrounds, but I really don't think that has anything to do with multiclassing. Pretty much I always use the custom background, and so do most players I DM for. So it is essentially pick a backstory, which can be anything your imagination (or your AI) can dream up, then pick 2 skills a tool and a feat.

I hated the 3E BAB and saves, 5E is far, far better for that IMO. Standard proficiecny bonus based on character level is much better IMO. I hated the different save progressions so bad I actually think it would be better if you just got proficiecny in the saves for each new class than go back to the class based progression. To put it another way: I like the way it is now, but given the choice of my 3 Cleric/3Fighter having 3 levels in Wisdom and 3 levels of Con or just having 6 levels in both, I would take the latter.

I also hated the prestige classes for the most part in 3E. What I disliked most about them were the barriers to entry. IMO Prestige classes only work if anyone from any race with any stats and any (or no) feats can take them at any time in the game. None of this BS that you need to be an Elf with 3 levels of Arcane spell casting and a BAB of 6 with these two feats to qualify for this prestige class ..... No .... If the preestige class exists I should be able to take it at level 2 with a Character that played 1st level as a Human Ranger! If there were no prerequisites AT ALL I would be ok with prestige classes. If there is anything that I need to do to "qualify" for them, that sucks IMO, especially if the qualifications are not something possible to have with a standard level 1 PC.

The ASIs with class level don't bother me, but I would be fine with doing those at character level too.