D&D 5E (2024) Unpopular opinion: I wish 5e PCs looked like NPCs

[CreamCloud0]

Then I would not have understood it, and would instead have interpreted your message as saying to me, "Homebrew need not have any rules nor consistency whatsoever, it is and can be truly anything, without any limits. It is inappropriate of you to expect limits of any kind, least of all consistency."

exactly.

 

[Morrus]

Well, I did label it "unpopular opinion" for a reason.

But, I just look at the cambion block or the mage block and think "That's my perfect character for a 5e game". I could play that for 25-30 sessions, and as long as we get some fun magic items periodically to change things up, I don't even need to level.

Why don’t you try it? Give the players a choice of any NPC stat block of the right CR. Could be fun!

I guess a big issue is that NPCs are designed for combat and don’t really include much if any non-combat stuff as it’s rarely relevant to an encounter. And they’re designed around an encounter rather than an adventuring day.

 

[Clint_L]

Sure, but in this thread we were also talking about torching the very concepts around which PCs are built. (I was certainly making that strong implication.)

With that as the use case, every assumption of normal PC progression is open to being analyzed.

I’m confused. I thought you were playing, not DMing this campaign?

 

[Teemu]

Sure. I can convince 1-2 of my tables to give almost anything a try.

I'm curious to see if I can get one of my GMs to go along with me playing a cambion in an upcoming game, which is starting at 8th level.

Cambion is on the stronger side of CR 5, probably closer to a 9th or 10th level character. He might go for it.

I'd knock down the HD to 10 and remove the 1/day spells. Cambions don't need material components for spells so you could Plane Shift anywhere. You have a good fly speed, several good resistances and even an immunity to a common condition, and solid melee and ranged attacks. I think with a bit less hp and some of the strongest utility spells removed, it might work out fine in a party of level 8 PCs.

 

[TwoSix]

I’m confused. I thought you were playing, not DMing this campaign?

I’m examining the idea for a character idea for one particular game, but also thinking more broadly for ideas I might try the next time I GM at a different table.

 

[TwoSix]

Going back and re-reading, now, since I missed the original post discussing these things.

Now I see that your project really is, and has always been, "This system is bad and should be replaced." I mean, that might be hyperbolic for the sake of simplicity, but...it seems to be where you're coming from. If you will always feel worse having a resource you aren't using because it doesn't interest you, then frankly, no system that isn't tailored to your interests will satisfy you. That's...really the only conclusion I can draw from that stance. It's a valid stance, there's nothing logically wrong with it. It just means that you're going to find the large majority of class-type game systems problematic and frustrating, unless they have a truly mind-boggling number of classes, or do some other unusual trick to push far closer to the kind of thing you want. (E.g. there's a 4e-based homebrew Pokemon tabletop game, where "classes" have, I believe, 5 levels each. You're meant to end up taking something like 4-6 classes over the course of a character's career, reflecting their growing and changing interests over time. "Pokemon Tabletop United" I think was the name, but I haven't played it in years, possibly a decade or more.)

If "I have X, and don't use it because I don't like it" is worse than "I wish I did not have X, but I use it anyway because I can't choose not to have it", then the only way for you to be happy is to never have X in the first place--and that means the classes can't ever include any features that aren't what you want out of that class.

Other than disagreeing with the idea that I’m saying “the system is bad”, which comes across as me making a normative judgment, and I feel I tried pretty hard to avoid that in my postings, you’re essentially correct in your interpretations of my stance.

Edit: To expand on this a little more, my OP was kinda vibey and I hadn't really fully examined my thoughts on what was appealing to me.

Thinking on it more, I realize I like the process of making NPCs, where I can dream up a few features that fit the concept, do a quick math balance to make sure the numbers work out, and then just run it. Nothing extraneous, no wasted abilities.

And a lot of my homebrew attempts are similar, making subclasses for casters that lose access to almost all their spell lists in order to have just a few strong combat and utility options. I guess I just want the freedom to make a character that can do one or two things well, right from the start, even if they're spells, and leveling just makes a few numbers go up.

 

[TwoSix]

I'd knock down the HD to 10 and remove the 1/day spells. Cambions don't need material components for spells so you could Plane Shift anywhere. You have a good fly speed, several good resistances and even an immunity to a common condition, and solid melee and ranged attacks. I think with a bit less hp and some of the strongest utility spells removed, it might work out fine in a party of level 8 PCs.

I'm curious, why would a cambion being run as a PC not need material components?

Edit: Just looked it up. Ok, that's a rule I can sort of understand, but is definitely no good for what I would want to do. I would require any monster-PC to have expensive material concepts, and definitely self-nerf myself as a player.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Other than disagreeing with the idea that I’m saying “the system is bad”, which comes across as me making a normative judgment, and I feel I tried pretty hard to avoid that in my postings, you’re essentially correct in your interpretations of my stance.

I apologize. I was trying for a very abbreviated summary, rather than my usual logorrhea. I attributed to you something you don't actually believe. I'm sorry.

Edit: To expand on this a little more, my OP was kinda vibey and I hadn't really fully examined my thoughts on what was appealing to me.

Thinking on it more, I realize I like the process of making NPCs, where I can dream up a few features that fit the concept, do a quick math balance to make sure the numbers work out, and then just run it. Nothing extraneous, no wasted abilities.

And a lot of my homebrew attempts are similar, making subclasses for casters that lose access to almost all their spell lists in order to have just a few strong combat and utility options. I guess I just want the freedom to make a character that can do one or two things well, right from the start, even if they're spells, and leveling just makes a few numbers go up.

It sounds to me, then, like the system you actually want is Dungeon World, or any of the various other PbtA systems.

Because that's literally what I do every other session. Even for my players. Sure, playbooks exist and I can leverage them. I have, many times! I even paid money for a 3PP supplement because the mechanics were very well-made. I've invented a "Compendium Class" (the equivalent of a specialized Prestige Class, more or less, but one deeply rooted in narrative) for one of my players, and it's looking like I'm about to invent another for the player that is pretty close to tapping out the playbook he's working with (because I think DW's default rules for reaching level 10 suck, and use my own instead).

It's not hard. In fact, it's so easy I've only had two times where it failed to work the way I wanted, and it took exactly one iteration to fix each of those times.

If you haven't ever played it, I strongly recommend giving Dungeon World a shot. There's a new edition in the works...and I think it would be accurate to say I'm somewhere between "hopeful but very skeptical" and "cautiously optimistic". They seem to be genuinely listening to feedback, which is very nice. At the same time, they also seem to very much intend radical change, which I am...not yet convinced is a good idea. Time will tell.

You can get all of the rules for free online, IIRC it's CC-by licensed.

 

[TwoSix]

I apologize. I was trying for a very abbreviated summary, rather than my usual logorrhea. I attributed to you something you don't actually believe. I'm sorry.


It sounds to me, then, like the system you actually want is Dungeon World, or any of the various other PbtA systems.

Because that's literally what I do every other session. Even for my players. Sure, playbooks exist and I can leverage them. I have, many times! I even paid money for a 3PP supplement because the mechanics were very well-made. I've invented a "Compendium Class" (the equivalent of a specialized Prestige Class, more or less, but one deeply rooted in narrative) for one of my players, and it's looking like I'm about to invent another for the player that is pretty close to tapping out the playbook he's working with (because I think DW's default rules for reaching level 10 suck, and use my own instead).

It's not hard. In fact, it's so easy I've only had two times where it failed to work the way I wanted, and it took exactly one iteration to fix each of those times.

If you haven't ever played it, I strongly recommend giving Dungeon World a shot. There's a new edition in the works...and I think it would be accurate to say I'm somewhere between "hopeful but very skeptical" and "cautiously optimistic". They seem to be genuinely listening to feedback, which is very nice. At the same time, they also seem to very much intend radical change, which I am...not yet convinced is a good idea. Time will tell.

You can get all of the rules for free online, IIRC it's CC-by licensed.

No worries. My actual next planned game for one of my tables is Stonetop as soon as my physical books arrive.

(I have 4 tables I periodically GM for, which is one reason I jump around to a lot of ideas.).

 

[Eyes of Nine]

If I'm the only person that feels that way, I'm happy to be a unique snowflake in my aesthetic bubble. I was just wondering if other people might feel that way.

You are not. Or rather, I think your idea is interesting. But to someone else's point, I think it's one that should be tried, tested, and if neat-o, released to the world on DMs Guild (or not! I ain't doing it :-D )