D&D 5E (2024) Preferences in a New Official 5.5e Specific Setting

[Paul Farquhar]

Actually, moving on from that, one thing I would do in a S&S setting is make beasts much more powerful. Beasts in 5e are generally weaksauce, and I think that largely comes from the modern perception of wildlife being vulnerable to humans. Back when REH was writing the common perception of wild animals was that they were scary and dangerous (an image that zoos and circuses where happy to cash in on). Of course, in some cases, such as tigers, an animal can be both critically endangered and capable of crushing your skull with a paw.

 

[Minigiant]

Actually, moving on from that, one thing I would do in a S&S setting is make beasts much more powerful. Beasts in 5e are generally weaksauce, and I think that largely comes from the modern perception of wildlife being vulnerable to humans. Back when REH was writing the common perception of wild animals was that they were scary and dangerous (an image that zoos and circuses where happy to cash in on). Of course, in some cases, such as tigers, an animal can be both critically endangered and capable of crushing your skull with a paw.

That is the source of my uncertainty with a pure S&S setting.

Beasts and humaniods would have to be able to be scaled up to be challenges to PCs at least the mid teens without casting spells.

But a T Rex is only CR 8. But at least there are Questing Knights, Pirate Admirals, and Blackguards.

So a S&S painted setting might work better

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That is the source of my uncertainty with a pure S&S setting.

Beasts and humaniods would have to be able to be scaled up to be challenges to PCs at least the mid teens without casting spells.

But a T Rex is only CR 8. But at least there are Questing Knights, Pirate Admirals, and Blackguards.

So a S&S painted setting might work better

I kind of miss the monstrous beast category from 3e.

I remember a year or so ago a thread discussing stat blocks for domestic cats, and the difference between the reality of a cat and the common perception of a cat. 5e focuses too much on making its animals realistic, when what you really want is the mythic version of the creature. Jurassic Park’s T Rex is a lot more badass than CR8!

I customise most of the creatures in my games in any case, so I don’t really need WotC to provide a full set of more powerful beasts, but it would benefit the game generally.

I don’t see an issue with humanoids though, in S&S most are incredibly fragile, and die by the dozen just to show how fearsome the monsters are. And the game has stat blocks for liches, arch mages, high priests and champions etc. These could be tougher, but that’s an issue with the game generally, not genre specific.

 

[Minigiant]

I kind of miss the monstrous beast category in 3e.

I remember a year or so ago a thread discussing stat blocks for domestic cats, and the difference between the reality of a cat and the common perception of a cat. 5e focuses too much on making its animals realistic, when what you really want is the mythic version of the creature. Jurassic Park’s T Rex is a lot more badass than CR8!

I agree. D&D for the most part wants to minimize most of nature to under level 6 to its detriment.

I customise most of the creatures in my games in any case, so I don’t really need WotC to provide a full set of more powerful beasts, but it would benefit the game generally.

I don’t see an issue with humanoids though, in S&S most are incredibly fragile, and die by the dozen just to show how fearsome the monsters are. And the game has stat blocks for liches, arch mages, high priests and champions etc. These could be tougher, but that’s an issue with the game generally, not genre specific.

The issue to me is the D&D wants to make humaniods that don't cast spells simple and boring to placate "lameos".

You can make waves of mobs but it doesn't have to be boring.

You can make boss monster but they don't have to be brainless scaled up ogres.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The issue to me is the D&D wants to make humaniods that don't cast spells simple and boring to placate "lameos".

You can make waves of mobs but it doesn't have to be boring.

You can make boss monster but they don't have to be brainless scaled up ogres

This is about level of complexity. WotC won’t make the game any more complex because KISS made the game accessible to the mass market. You need to look at other sources, such as Level Up, or create it yourself, if you want enemies to be complex, rather than sacks of hit points.

Personally though, I think the initiative system is what makes D&D a poor combat game.

 

[Minigiant]

This is about level of complexity. WotC won’t make the game any more complex because KISS made the game accessible to the mass market. You need to look at other sources, such as Level Up, or create it yourself, if you want enemies to be complex, rather than sacks of hit points.

Personally though, I think the initiative system is what makes D&D a poor combat game.

It's less KISS and more LCD.

You can have simple creatures and have optional complex variant rules. Like giving a bunch of minor infantry a group spearwall attack to challenge higher level goes

Or you can have creatures with simple options as well as complex ones.

Like how 2024 Mages have a basic Arcane Burst attack if you want to run multiple but still have Lightning Bolt and CoC if you want a single one in a tactical battle.

My issue is that this only applies to Spellcasters. Because Weapon Masteries, Battle Maneuvers, Invocations, Infusions, or anything else isn't generialized or codified. This heavily restricts settings like Sword and Sorcery, Sword and Sandals, Mythic Fantasy, Dark Fantasy, Wuxia/Anime, and Urban Fantasy as everything devolves to "Ogres who cast spells".

It's carcinisation/carcinization but everything devolves into Ogre Magi.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's less KISS and more LCD.

Call it what you like, it sells books so WotC aren't going to deviate from it. The majority of the growth in D&D has come from thespians, not war gamers.

You can have simple creatures and have optional complex variant rules. Like giving a bunch of minor infantry a group spearwall attack to challenge higher level goes

No mileage in WotC doing that. You are using up space in books for stuff that most players won't use.

It's a good thing, in any case. It leaves room in the market for other publishers to produce more complex niche stuff.

 

[Minigiant]

Call it what you like, it sells books so WotC aren't going to deviate from it.

No mileage in WotC doing that. You are using up space in books for stuff that most players won't use.

Nah I think they would.

There are plenty of space for charts and table most people don't use.

A table or box above warriors or goblins that says Warrior Spearwall or Goblin Fury that says "Use X goblins/soldiers/warriors to deal XdY damage and Z condition" takes up nothing.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Nah I think they would.

There are plenty of space for charts and table most people don't use.

A table or box above warriors or goblins that says Warrior Spearwall or Goblin Fury that says "Use X goblins/soldiers/warriors to deal XdY damage and Z condition" takes up nothing.

But if you can create it, there is no need for WotC to do so.

 

[Minigiant]

One idea I'd love to see as a 5.5e setting is a a Mythic Fantasy where every major Dragon, Giant, Celestial, and Fiend are unique. There are only 1 of each type.

Aasimar, Tieflings, Dragonborn and Goliaths are all lesser versions of them. And if the greater versions die, the humaniod versions can metamorphosis into the greater ones and absorbing it's essence

So you can have players going out killing monsters knowing they are opening gaps for themselves, their enemies, and the allies to fill. You kill a balor and when you return to the quest giver you find him transformed into a balor. Ooops.