D&D General Requesting permission to have something cool

[Paul Farquhar]

Sure, but we don't always have to assume we are talking about new players. Experienced players have responsibilities at the table, too

True, one prefers D&D players to have grown-up responsibility.

. And away from it, in fact. RTFM and pick character options that support your preferences.

Even experienced players won't have tried every option though, and so may only discover they have made a mistake mid-campaign. I don't have a problem with players changing characters.

 

[Remathilis]

I mean sure, but then maybe Eowyn or Eomer? (Is Faramir a ranger?). Can we Silmarillion and take Hurin?

Or maybe Boromir is the perfect representative for the Fighter ;-)

I was just keeping it to the Fellowship, but you could make that argument.

 

[Remathilis]

Point of order: the line of Stewards does possess some blood of Numenor, though not as strong as the Dunedain.

Faramir must have got it all. [emoji6]

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not as large a jump as it might have once been. Most subs for those classes are inherently magical. What is holding them back is that the base class has to be 100% nonmagical to accommodate the one or two subclasses that are likewise nonmagical. If we removed that limit, we could offload some of that magical ability to the base class rather than jam it into four subclass features.

The game itself is awash in magic. Even dwarves, elves and halflings have explicit supernatural abilities like tremorsense and luck. I see very little advantage to neutering "martial" classes to support a half-dozen nonmagical subclasses so someone can still play Boromir.

Like I said, it changes the character of the game, not to mention excluding players who don't want to play supernatural characters. This is why such ideas are used in 3pp. WotC is far too risk-averse.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's a real reason why but it's cynically and sad.

I'd love to hear it anyway, in the interest of honest discussion.

 

[Corinnguard]

The local village priest isn't trained in armor and mace, is granted divine magic or the ability to hold back the dread. The highwayman can't move triple his speed, dodge fireballs and disappear with ease. The scribe doesn't throw fire and lightning from his fingers and the town guard can't recover stamina and complete two actions in the time most take for one. They ARE superheroes; starting out as a Young Avenger/Teen Titan before moving up to the Avengers/JLA is part of the leveling process. The idea that D&D characters are at all mundane people hasn't been part of the design theory since the mid 90s.

This sounds like it's a matter of perspective. When a villager sees an adventurer, what do they see? They see a priest trained in armor and wielding a mace as they are granted divine power by the gods to hold back the dead. They see a rogue dodging a fireball with ease. They see a wizard casting magic by incanting strange words and making gestures with their hands. They see a fighter 'summon' back some of their stamina and surge across the battlefield. In other words, they see stuff that must have taken a lot of training and practice. But does this make the adventurer into a superhero in their eyes? "Umm...what's a superhero?" "Someone who is better trained than you." "Oh...."

 

[Micah Sweet]

As someone who has sought such a thing, I can at least give my personal experience:

Every single 5e DM I have ever asked for homebrew content has said no, unless they were already a close personal friend.

Literally 100% of 5e DMs I've asked, with one friend of mine as the only exception. Most of them complimented me on my design; most of them said that they thought it would probably work out alright, or didn't comment at all. All of them were quite polite about it.

Over a year of applying for 5e games, and none of them accepted.

That to me reads as bad luck. I'm sorry you've had that experience.

 

[Reynard]

True, one prefers D&D players to have grown-up responsibility.

Even experienced players won't have tried every option though, and so may only discover they have made a mistake mid-campaign. I don't have a problem with players changing characters.

Sure. All I am arguing is that if you have a preference and you have the book(s), you should probably look for the things in those books that support your preferences. Maybe you can get 90% there and ask for a small exception. or maybe you can just reskin a thing, so most every "limitation" in 5E is just flavor text anyway.

What I don't understand is the people that want to change the fighter into an archetype that is already served by different classes and/or subclasses. If you think the Champion Fighter is boring and weak, just, like, don't choose to play that class.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

WotC is far too risk-averse.

Whilst I agree in general (Psionics: just pick one and push it through, never going to please everyone), I do feel it's important for WotC not to try and occupy all the available design space, and leave room for 3PP.

And when they do takes risks (e.g. Stryxhaven) WotC attracts a lot more abuse than 3PP.

I would say the Deck of Many Things turned out to be far more risky than WotC anticipated!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Legolas and Gimli are fantastic species. Gimli shrugs off blows because he's a dwarf. Legolas does amazing acrobat and trick shots because he's an elf. Aragorn is a ranger and descendant of the King. Boromir is a dude with a sword and shield. As mundane as can be even by Tolkien status.

Well by Tolkien's standards, only the hobbits are mundane. That's what they're for.