D&D 5E Player Flavour, Skills, & Money Sinks

[TornadoCreator]

I agree that the 5E design philosophy precludes low-to-mid-level PCs from true mastery on the d20 range. The expertise class ability gets you part of the way there for Bards and Rogues.

Maybe you could also introduce a feat that grants mastery in one skill where you are already proficient. I would shy away from anything granting permanent advantage, because I see dis/advantage as reserved for exceptional circumstances rather than innate skill.

I was considering specialisation feats. Something like "Specialist Knowledge: Demons" or "Specialist Knowledge: Feywild"; with perhaps the rule "Whenever you make a skill check where your specialist knowledge could be applied, the DC for the check is lowered one level". This could work, but as feats are so rarely given out, and they'd need to be on par, power wise, with other feats (there's one feat that gives you proficiency in three skills or tools of your choice for a single feat, for example). I'm not sure if feats can work, especially as most characters can't access feats until 4th level, longer if they're none-human and multiclassing.

 

[TornadoCreator]

So write your own RPG. Stick it up on DriveThruRPG. Maybe others will buy it. Who knows? At the very least your time and effort and word count would be better spent there than in ineffectual internet rants about how this game that folks like failed you. Because LOTS of folks disagree - they think the game did just fine. And they're not wrong, they're just maybe looking for different things, so trying to convince them that you're "right" is just screaming into the void.

Have the courage to be the change you want to see in the game, and the serenity to accept that your view isn't universal, and put your time to better use.

I enjoy debating and discussing my hobby, that's all...

I could write my own RPGs but why would I. I have games here that with relatively minor changes could easily fit my needs; and the background and settings are far richer than anything I could write. (I love Forgotten Realms as a campaign setting, just fantastic).

Honestly your post comes across as "don't like it don't play it", or "well, let's see you do something better". The fact is Wizards Of The Coast are not geniuses and their games are not perfect. Critique and commentary is the entire purpose of getting together to discuss the game, surely. Now you can white-knight for WotC if you want, but it's hardly useful is it?

I'm not forcing people to use my house rules or agree with my critiques, so why are people so hostile when I bring up issues with the game?

Fanboyism, is never healthy guys...

 

[I'm A Banana]

I could write my own RPGs but why would I. I have games here that with relatively minor changes could easily fit my needs; and the background and settings are far richer than anything I could write. (I love Forgotten Realms as a campaign setting, just fantastic).

You said:

as with literally every RPG I've ever played I do in many ways want to re-write about half of the damn book.

...which indicates that you only want to play about half of every RPG you've ever played. Not make "relatively minor changes," but re-write half the book. And if you're rewriting half of the book, you're basically writing your own RPG anyway (I mean, Pathfinder is probably more than half of 3e, and that's a different game!).

If you're re-writing half the rules anyway, it's no longer really the "same game," except in name. As long as everyone at your table's on board, no harm, but you might find new players you recruit to be unpleasantly surprised by the wall o' house rules you have for the game if you're changing the way 50% of it works, and you'll certainly find discussion of the game online difficult since you have pretty dramatically changed your experience from what most others experience.

Which isn't a problem, it's just a trade-off.

So you might get better results just admitting that it's not really the same game, treating it like the unique beast that it is, and dealing with it from the ground up, unfettered by the presumptions and biases of the D&D that has come before.

Honestly your post comes across as "don't like it don't play it", or "well, let's see you do something better". The fact is Wizards Of The Coast are not geniuses and their games are not perfect. Critique and commentary is the entire purpose of getting together to discuss the game, surely. Now you can white-knight for WotC if you want, but it's hardly useful is it?

I'm not forcing people to use my house rules or agree with my critiques, so why are people so hostile when I bring up issues with the game?

Honestly, your post comes across pretty defensive and disingenuous here. People disagreeing with your take on mechanics doesn't equate with mindless defense of WotC, and by playing Internet Psychic and telling people why they're really disagreeing with you is hardly useful or constructive (or much of a conversation). Your "critiques" are issues of taste and preference, not issues of absolute reality. If you're re-writing half the thing anyway, it may be time to admit that you just don't really like the thing as it currently is. Fair enough, but nobody has to agree with you on that.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why?

Why does that define a fighter in your eyes? Surely a fighter is just a fighter; someone who's area of expertise is fighting. If someone only ever fights with a Greataxe or only ever fights with a Rapier are they less of a fighter? No... and there is the Weapon Master feat for people who want to be able to switch weapons regularly.

That's exactly it. A fighter's area of expertise is fighting, period. Not melee OR missile, not JUST with a couple of weapons, but fighting in general. This includes basic competency will all general weapons. Not specialty or anything, just baseline competency which means proficiency.

There is nothing wrong with a fighter who chooses a favorite weapon and prefers to use it over others. The reasons for that should be because the fighter likes that weapon not because the system forces the character to pigeon-hole him/her self by only being competent with a few weapons.

This line is an arbitrary absolutism and does nothing to help determine if the game we're playing is fun or not. I'm asking, would my house rule make for an interesting change to the game or does it fundamentally fail, (for example someone brought up the issue of balance); the Fighter not meeting your arbitrary definition doesn't impact gameplay AT ALL. Elves and Dwarfs gain additional proficiencies, and Humans could take the Weapon Master feat at first level. Fighters who carry many different weapons are still very much viable options.

To me, a class based system represents archetypes. I enjoy playing skill based systems such as GURPS where you need to choose what skills your character knows individually. D&D doesn't work well like that. The fighter archetype should be great at fighting and not have to grind out training for basic competency in that area. Secret techniques, fighting styles, and super exotic weapons certainly. Those are worth going through extra training to acquire.

 

[Mercule]

I enjoy debating and discussing my hobby, that's all...

As do I. Based on what you've said, so far, it doesn't sound like D&D is for you. I'd recommend Hero. Why? Because it's pretty much explicitly intended for tweaking at that level. It's a bag of Legos, have at it. There are other "universal" systems out there, but HERO sounds like the best fit.

I hacked the pieces out of 1E AD&D, and had a blast doing it. If that's what blows your skirt, have at it. I think it's reasonable, though, for others discussing it to wonder if a shorter path to your end state would start with a different system.

I could write my own RPGs but why would I. I have games here that with relatively minor changes could easily fit my needs; and the background and settings are far richer than anything I could write. (I love Forgotten Realms as a campaign setting, just fantastic).

The nice thing about the fluff is that it's largely system agnostic. I've occasionally wondered whether Eberron might be a better fit for the Savage Worlds or Fate systems.

Fanboyism, is never healthy guys...

I haven't seen any of that, here. My reaction is more wondering why the heck you're using a football (American) to play volleyball. I like both, but that doesn't seem like a wise hybrid.

 

[Blue]

If the players are focused on the GAMEPLAY (i.e. mechanical) rewards for gold, they will most likely also be focused on the GAMEPLAY rewards for skills, spells, tools, etc.

I think that the most popular skills like Perception will find everyone quickly trained and expertice-d, and mastered once the coin becomes available. Same for things like the useful tools like thieves' tools. If anyone can pick up cantrips I can see a majority of PC getting Shillelagh (and training in a martial weapon) to either give themselves a viable melee attack or to potentially reduce MAD.

Once you take out the niche protection of classes/backgrounds and open up everything, many could converge on "the best skills overall plus the best skills for my high abilities" with little variation. That makes PCs more alike instead of more customized.

This is not true for everyone by any stretch of the imagination. But considering that you start with worrying about gameplay rewards for coin, it sounds like mechanical rewards are important to your group.

 

[Wik]

My issue with Darkvision, is more a style issue; Darkvision should be far rarer, and much more useful for the few races that should have it like Drow.

Yeah, I'll agree with that. It's off topic, so I'll keep it brief, but I pretty much agree 100%. My group consists of all non-humans, and they all have darkvision. Blech. I'm not a fan of that, because it encourages them to be much more stealthy - and I just don't like "Ninja D&D", which is where they're heading...

Other than that there's very little I want to change. 5e is far closer to what I want than 3.5e or Pathfinder was, and 4e, while interesting, isn't a roleplaying game it's a (very good) miniatures skirmish game;

Ah, the edition wars. How I've missed you.... ;

The only thing that I genuinely dislike and feel is a MAJOR step backwards from 3.5e is the Bard, which I'm genuinely tempted to outright re-write. 9th level spells!? Where they f*ckin' high?! A Bard should be the equivalent of a mix Fighter, Rogue, Wizard three way multiclass with a specialisation in Enchantments... having a full spell progression and nearly as much utility as the Rogue, makes this class in my opinion outright broken; and Bard is my favourite class so it was quite annoying.

Hm. We like the new bard. Our group has been together for five or so years now, and gone through four different version of the game (3.5, Pathfinder, 4e, 5e). And every party has had a bard. The 5e bard doesn't seem weaker or stronger than any other. I have absolutely no problems with a 9th level spell progression. Because any round that they're casting a spell is a round they're not doing something else. It just means they get to keep their diversity, but their strength doesn't really increase. It works.

At the moment they're staying as written but as with literally every RPG I've ever played I do in many ways want to re-write about half of the damn book. After this long roleplaying I'm always shocked at how much they get "wrong" in these books, because nothing ever seems well catered to my style of roleplaying... the closest is World Of Darkness, but even that gives out far too few skill points in order to make a proper well rounded character.

You do seem like that type of player. I've met others like you - those who houserule everything at the drop of a hat. Probably part of the fun for you, I'm sure.

What's funny is you're saying there's not enough specialization in 5th, and then you talk about a point buy game (WoD) that doesn't allow enough for a well-rounded character. I don't know what the fix would be for you.

 

[S'mon]

3. With no magic item economy, the players are easily finding themselves with literally thousands of gold and having little of tangible GAMEPLAY reward to spend it on. Sure they could buy a keep in the mountains but that's flavour, not tangible gameplay bonus.

For me if owning a castle has no gameplay bonus, that's a problem with the game, and an indicator the game is likely too linear, pre-plotted, & encounter-centric, like many Adventure Paths. In a good roleplaying game it should make a big difference to the in-game experience whether you are a dominion ruler or living in a room at the inn. If it makes no difference then the game probably doesn't feel like a living world.

So I guess my house ruling is to use systems like the Mentzer Companiom Set Dominion & War Machine rules that make castles, armies et al very useful for achieving in-world goals, and for stopping your enemies achieving theirs.

 

[ExploderWizard]

For me if owning a castle has no gameplay bonus, that's a problem with the game, and an indicator the game is likely too linear, pre-plotted, & encounter-centric, like many Adventure Paths. In a good roleplaying game it should make a big difference to the in-game experience whether you are a dominion ruler or living in a room at the inn. If it makes no difference then the game probably doesn't feel like a living world.

So I guess my house ruling is to use systems like the Mentzer Companiom Set Dominion & War Machine rules that make castles, armies et al very useful for achieving in-world goals, and for stopping your enemies achieving theirs.

AMEN BROTHER! There are many facets of D&D that will seem useless or not make sense if your game is nothing more than an endless series of encounters to beat. The classic game featured domain management, military command and diplomacy challenges at upper levels because the designers knew that eventually just putting bigger and tougher monsters and deadlier dungeons in the game wasn't enough to keep things fresh.

 

[Wik]

AMEN BROTHER! There are many facets of D&D that will seem useless or not make sense if your game is nothing more than an endless series of encounters to beat. The classic game featured domain management, military command and diplomacy challenges at upper levels because the designers knew that eventually just putting bigger and tougher monsters and deadlier dungeons in the game wasn't enough to keep things fresh.

In my current campaign, I convert old dungeon modules. I throw three hooks to the players, making sure each adventure is different, and see what they grab. This campaign, the very first hook they grabbed was an old keep for sale at a ridiculously low price (1000 GP). This is a second level party that REALLY wants the money sink of an old keep.

PCs will always have something to spend money on. The fact that it's no longer in pursuit of an endless stream of +1s is a good thing, not a bad.