D&D 5E Krynn's Free Feats: setting-specific or the future of the game?

[James Gasik]

What does "not playing the game as intended" mean? Let me look at a few game variants I've heard people talk about:

*Spells above 3rd level do not exist.

*Healing requires you to spend Hit Dice.

*Short Rests only take 5 minutes.

*Players can purchase magic items with gold.

*Players can only be non-Variant Humans.

*Players get two subclasses per class.

*Players get the ability to "cheat death" once per adventure; that is to say, if they would die, a deus ex machina saves them.

*Revivify, Raise Dead, Reincarnation, and Resurrection are banned.

*All hit point totals are halved.

*Only the DM rolls dice.

At what point does any of these variants go beyond the pale to the point we can say "that goes against the intent of the game"?

And what gives us the right to make those judgements? I say if the players and the DM agree upon rules like these, and they are having fun, they are playing D&D exactly the way they were intended to.

 

[Arilyn]

I'd say taking death off the table is actually a minor change, more one of flavour. Since players can make a new character or get resurrected, how frequent characters die is just a dial. It comes down to the goals of the campaign and preferences of the table. Since there'll be d20 rolls, classes, levels, monsters, and D&D on the books getting employed, it's D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

What does "not playing the game as intended" mean?

There's no such thing. It's a complete fabrication since the game being played as intended, intends for major changes and shifts to happen at the discretion of the DM/Table.

I say if the players and the DM agree upon rules like these, and they are having fun, they are playing D&D exactly the way they were intended to.

And you would be 100% correct.

There was a time years ago when I would sometimes tell someone that their version wasn't D&D, but I eventually realized that I was wrong and didn't have the right to make that claim. I still occasionally at a major change or changes that someone makes, respond with, "That game wouldn't feel like D&D to me.", making it crystal clear that I am only speaking for myself.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd say taking death off the table is actually a minor change, more one of flavour. Since players can make a new character or get resurrected, how frequent characters die is just a dial. It comes down to the goals of the campaign and preferences of the table. Since there'll be d20 rolls, classes, levels, monsters, and D&D on the books getting employed, it's D&D.

It is a fairly minor change, which is why I have likened it to removing Counterspell from the game or adding in a crit table.

 

[Azzy]

No, you're serving as an object lesson in reality denial.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[teitan]

Victory!

Now for subclass at Level 1 and taking magic item pricing and creation seriously.

Eww no. Leave them how they are and make magic item creation and pricing an optional rule. Like in an expansion, hidden in a corner where very few people can see it. Like those relatives no one talks about with the extra eye and webbed toes.

Making subclasses at level 1 just makes it "new class" or revives the "kit" idea. Subclasses fit more in the prestige class role without needing to plot out every level to get it. It's fine. Keep D&D simple.

 

[teitan]

My favorite reply when things are getting dicey is to say "we are not going to agree so I think it is best to say good bye and thank you for the conversation". I then put the person in time out so that I don't engage with them and put myself back into an argumentative state with them for not just myself but the health of the forum, whether I was right or wrong.

 

[Parmandur]

Eww no. Leave them how they are and make magic item creation and pricing an optional rule. Like in an expansion, hidden in a corner where very few people can see it. Like those relatives no one talks about with the extra eye and webbed toes.

Making subclasses at level 1 just makes it "new class" or revives the "kit" idea. Subclasses fit more in the prestige class role without needing to plot out every level to get it. It's fine. Keep D&D simple.

Yeah, Subclass already is the Kit idea, though.

 

[teitan]

Yeah, Subclass already is the Kit idea, though.

I agree but so were prestige classes and they fit both ideas really well but fit the idea of prestige classes better in my opinion.

 

[Horwath]

I would really hate the return of prestige classes, but I would like subclasses to be from 1st level.

And that most of "new" class features are acquired up to level 11, and rest are just improvements/more usage.

 

[cbwjm]

I'd also like subclasses to all start at level 1, the different levels that classes gain their subclasses is probably my biggest gripe with the edition.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Eww no. Leave them how they are and make magic item creation and pricing an optional rule. Like in an expansion, hidden in a corner where very few people can see it. Like those relatives no one talks about with the extra eye and webbed toes.

Nope. Part of the PHB.

Making subclasses at level 1 just makes it "new class" or revives the "kit" idea. Subclasses fit more in the prestige class role without needing to plot out every level to get it. It's fine.

Keeping level 3 subclasses wastes 10% of the game with Level 0.

Keep D&D simple.

Never again!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

*Spells above 3rd level do not exist.
*Healing requires you to spend Hit Dice.
*Short Rests only take 5 minutes.
*Players can only be non-Variant Humans.
*Players get two subclasses per class.
*Revivify, Raise Dead, Reincarnation, and Resurrection are banned.
*All hit point totals are halved.

not the same campaign but I have at least tried all of these... (the no variant human thing was my standing rule for 5-6 years that was about that many campaigns)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Keeping level 3 subclasses wastes 10% of the game with Level 0

this is why the warlock chasie is the best... you get 2 subclasses you can mix and match. one at 1st level one at 3rd.

imagine if fighters could at 1st level be 'two handed fighter' 'one handed fighter' 'sup dice fighter' 'caster/gish fighter' 'shadow power fighter' 'unarmed fighter' then at level 3 more flavorful options would be knight, duelist, warblade, sword master

then you could be a simple 1 handed fighter knight a simple 1 handed fighter swordmaster ect ect
i have 6 level 1 choices and 4 level 3 choices so over 100 combos

 

[Vaalingrade]

Imagine if a fighter's weapon and armor choice mattered and that was the 'simple' subclass.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Imagine if a fighter's weapon and armor choice mattered and that was the 'simple' subclass.

in 4e there were feats for different weapons, and some at wills (I think and encounters) that did more if you had a type of weapon... mix that with weapons having more properties and you could (without going overboard) have some good options

 

[Vaalingrade]

in 4e there were feats for different weapons, and some at wills (I think and encounters) that did more if you had a type of weapon... mix that with weapons having more properties and you could (without going overboard) have some good options

Oh, I know.

That all died for 'simple', while spells got long, rambling natural language descriptors that tees up fights over what the mean.

 

[Maxperson]

I would really hate the return of prestige classes, but I would like subclasses to be from 1st level.

And that most of "new" class features are acquired up to level 11, and rest are just improvements/more usage.

I would love to see the return of Prestige Classes, but with a limit of one. The allowed specialization of classes in a way that Subclasses don't.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure. Mean something. But not "every noble simply knows I'm awesome" nor "every peasant will bend over backwards to accommodate you". That's some weird mind-control aura stuff right there.

What lol are you serious? Mind control!? Not only that, but the feature doesn’t even say that every noble or peasant will act a certain way, it establishes a norm. It just means that given no particular reason to behave differently, people will behave how their upbringing teaches them to behave toward an aristocrat.

Yeah, exactly. And it's freaking gross. I was born just being better than you. That's some nasty unexamined fantasy we should really not be promoting.

That isn’t what’s happening at all. What is happening is a recognition of the wild privilege that comes with membership in the elite socio-economic class in your society.

The game, especially in the earlier years of 5e, assumes a setting where the social classes are very similar to the European Middle Ages. In such a time, yeah common folk are going to put up with your nonsense more than they would a farmer, and other nobles are going to just accept your nobility, barring prejudice against your origin on some other axis.

Hell, the time and place D&D tries to model in its social politics (for some reason), had laws against anyone without an aristocratic title wearing certain materials and colors, and you could be fine or imprisoned for breaking those rules.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The solution to people complaining about the Noble background affording respect for the station is to earn that respect like nobles did in the day: murdering the crap out of anyone who doesn't show respect and anyone who complains about all the murders. It's not mind control, it's operant conditioning.