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.