D&D General Stuff 5E Did Right

[Oofta]

Nothing. I use the rules I like. So should everyone else. My preference is for Level Up's version over Matt Collville's though. Most of his work is too influenced by 4e's design philosophy for my taste.

I think one of the strengths of 5E is that they continue to support 3PP, even to the point starting to add content to DDB. So I don't see what the issue is.

No, WotC is no longer doing the book-a-month club. It never really worked anyway and led to confusion amongst casual buyers so they've decided to focus on their core books and modules. I think this is one of the things 5E did right. The books for additional rules expansions like this are still available for those that want it. No it's not "official". That just means that you can have multiple ideas on how to approach the same gap in the rule so, for example, you can use LU's version instead of MC's because it works best for you.

Meanwhile for those of us that don't want or need domain and stronghold rules but want different styles of monsters also have multiple options. All without confusing grandma about what book to buy little Sally because there are just too darn many D&D books published by WotC.

 

[TiQuinn]

Didn't forget that but 4E did the same thing. It's not unique to 5E.

Yeah, I would’ve said the same about conditions but that too started in 4e.

 

[Voadam]

Strongholds and followers were part of the game through the end of 2e.

Technically.

1e had the PH say at name level classes could establish different types of strongholds and get followers according to tables and collect taxes and tithes. The DMG had some costs for various stronghold features and servitors and how much structural damage different siege weapons did to structure but that was basically it.

Nothing on how this would integrate into the game of party adventuring, just that it is there as an option with these rules.

None of the AD&D modules for high level adventurers ever had anything to do with strongholds or ruling from the Gygax G and D modules or Isle of the Ape to the end of 2e. The closest was some stuff with battlesystem battles, but that did not use the core stronghold and leadership stuff.

3e similarly gestured at this history with the DMG leadership fest which was mostly useful for the high level NPC survivor who could adventure with you usefully, you were on your own for integrating the low level followers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Technically.

1e had the PH say at name level classes could establish different types of strongholds and get followers according to tables and collect taxes and tithes. The DMG had some costs for various stronghold features and servitors and how much structural damage different siege weapons did to structure but that was basically it.

Nothing on how this would integrate into the game of party adventuring, just that it is there as an option with these rules.

None of the AD&D modules for high level adventurers ever had anything to do with strongholds or ruling from the Gygax G and D modules or Isle of the Ape to the end of 2e. The closest was some stuff with battlesystem battles, but that did not use the core stronghold and leadership stuff.

3e similarly gestured at this history with the DMG leadership fest which was mostly useful for the high level NPC survivor who could adventure with you usefully, you were on your own for integrating the low level followers.

I never really took much stock in published adventures for anything other than taking pieces for my own games and for inspiration, so what they did or did not feature was never a concern of mine. And I know the significance of domains, strongholds, and followers diminished over time, but it has been part of the game to some degree until the advent of 4e, when the full evolution of the "forever adventurer" banished it entirely, IMO to the detriment of the verisimilitude of the imaginary world. And since making and exploring that world is my primary motivation in the hobby...

 

[Quartz]

3. Opt in complexity. Yes the champion might not be to exciting and we probably love our feats.

Specifically the Champion makes running a second character / sidekick - the Champion - a breeze when you have only a few players.

 

[Quartz]

I'd love max 18 stats with +3's...

This is easily solvable by making a house rule that PCs may not start play with a stat greater than 16. Help players put their points elsewhere to create more rounded characters.

Let me add two features I particularly like:

Action Surge. Useful for so much more than an extra set of attacks; unfortunately once you realise this it severely nerfs the Fighter at higher levels.

Legendary features. Principally legendary attacks and saves. They really help the solo monster.

 

[J-H]

Having run a campaign to epic and a couple of higher-level modules and adventurers, I'd say 5e also does high levels well. It's certainly more balanced (between classes) and easier to write fo and DM than 3.5's epic calculus.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is easily solvable by making a house rule that PCs may not start play with a stat greater than 16. Help players put their points elsewhere to create more rounded characters.

Let me add two features I particularly like:

Action Surge. Useful for so much more than an extra set of attacks; unfortunately once you realise this it severely nerfs the Fighter at higher levels.

Legendary features. Principally legendary attacks and saves. They really help the solo monster.

The real issue with these kind of rules is getting players already familiar with 5e core (which is, let's be honest, most players who have played any RPG) to accept what is a strict nerf to their PCs. I love it, but I've had many players basically burn me in effigy and accuse me of hating players in general for suggesting a power downgrade.

 

[Oofta]

Technically.

1e had the PH say at name level classes could establish different types of strongholds and get followers according to tables and collect taxes and tithes. The DMG had some costs for various stronghold features and servitors and how much structural damage different siege weapons did to structure but that was basically it.

Nothing on how this would integrate into the game of party adventuring, just that it is there as an option with these rules.

None of the AD&D modules for high level adventurers ever had anything to do with strongholds or ruling from the Gygax G and D modules or Isle of the Ape to the end of 2e. The closest was some stuff with battlesystem battles, but that did not use the core stronghold and leadership stuff.

3e similarly gestured at this history with the DMG leadership fest which was mostly useful for the high level NPC survivor who could adventure with you usefully, you were on your own for integrating the low level followers.

D&D simply doesn't really lend itself to domain management or large scale battles in my opinion, it's too focused on action at the individual and party level. They've taken passes at large scale battle rule off and on but never with any real success. There's been rules for building structures, but nothing about what to do then. I remember one of my PCs gaining followers and to me they were just basically the same old hirelings we could already have.

Of course I could RP stuff, and have once in a blue moon when it made sense for the PC. But I don't really require a lot of rules support for stuff like that because it would only matter if we had mass battle rules. Which, once again, they've never really been able to figure out. I don't really want to play Budgets and Bureaucracy, which is what it would come down to for me.

I don't blame WotC for not doing this, although it will be interesting to see what they do with the bastion system for the new DMG. I've just never seen a huge interest in domain management from people I play with so I don't blame them for not putting effort into something very few people want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

D&D simply doesn't really lend itself to domain management or large scale battles in my opinion, it's too focused on action at the individual and party level. They've taken passes at large scale battle rule off and on but never with any real success. There's been rules for building structures, but nothing about what to do then. I remember one of my PCs gaining followers and to me they were just basically the same old hirelings we could already have.

Of course I could RP stuff, and have once in a blue moon when it made sense for the PC. But I don't really require a lot of rules support for stuff like that because it would only matter if we had mass battle rules. Which, once again, they've never really been able to figure out. I don't really want to play Budgets and Bureaucracy, which is what it would come down to for me.

I don't blame WotC for not doing this, although it will be interesting to see what they do with the bastion system for the new DMG. I've just never seen a huge interest in domain management from people I play with so I don't blame them for not putting effort into something very few people want.

It worked just fine in B/X and BECMI, and those are D&D too. Even 1e, 2e and 3e did better with it then 4/5e. "D&D" may or may not only refer to the official game, but it certainly refers to more than just the current official edition. The point is, 4e and 5e straight-up removed game options that used to be present, resulting in an experience that is, to me, less rich.