D&D 5E What does 5E NEED

[Gnarl45]

Generalist wizard = don't take a school. Bam done.
Skill monkey rogue or ranger = ask your dm to swap sneak attack or spells for more skills. Done

I'd rather ask my DM to let me make up a generalist wizard subclass. That's the ideal solution: do it yourself. It's increadible easy to do these things in 5e. The only problem is when I'm not the DM... For some reason I don't understand, some DMs only accept WoTC stuff.

If you want to see DnD classes in stories, read dragon Lance. Even in that, they're nearly all just fighters with different personalities and equipment.

Lord of the Rings characters were just exemples. There are many more exemples of fighters that are also good at other things than fighting.

 

[Gnarl45]

The complaints that 5E doesn't support spell-less rangers and sneak attack-less rogues is a head-scratcher to me. I can't vouch for Chainmail or BECMI, but from 1st Edition on, the thief/rogue has had backstab or sneak attack in some form. So why 5E is being blamed for not having a rogue without one of the iconic rogue abilities that's existed since the beginning seems really odd to me. Likewise, the ranger since its first appearance has had spells by default (outside of 4E).

The title of this thread is "what does 5e need". I wonder why people think that wanting something that isn't possible in 5e means you're complaining.

There's been a lot of good suggestions for how to make a "spell-less ranger" in this thread, that have been summarily dismissed because the word "ranger" doesn't appear anywhere on the resulting character sheet. That seems unnecessarily picky, to me.

None of those solutions actually adressed the issue for me. My issue is that I'd like to play a fighter or a sorcerer that is actually the best at picking locks and disarming traps, not a fighter or sorcerer that is the best at these things only if the rogue doesn't have expertise in the thieves' tools.

The missing word is "official", not "ranger". I'm not really interested in the 5e ranger but I'm sure a lot of ranger fans would love to play a ranger that is better at tracking than the rogue or bard.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There are many more exemples of fighters that are also good at other things than fighting.

This is absolutely correct. Conan could sneak and climb. But 5e, with the background mechanic, handles all of these very well. If you want a fighter who isn't going to multi-class, he or she can still get pretty much any other skill based on background. And be good at it. So in my opinion, 5e isn't missing anything in that regard.

 

[77IM]

I think what it needs most of all, then, is a decent licensing paradigm.

To clarify why I think this is the best way to meet everyone's needs:

Official material always, always sets an expectation in the minds of players. The DM is free to disallow official material but because this violates player expectations it can lead to disappointment, which in turn makes some DMs reluctant to do it. Thirdparty licensed material sets no such expectation precisely because it's not official.

With a continuous splat-book schedule, some players also develop a "gotta keep up with the Joneses" or "gotta catch 'em all" attitude, which can prove an impediment to new or casual players, who instead suffer from option-overload. Thirdparty licensed material is boundless and infinite: there's always going to be more books, articles, PDFs, en5iders, etc. So it's easier to ignore, and not feel any obligation to stay "current."

It can be harder to experiment in official material. People expect it to be balanced, playtested, and compatible with existing material -- not weird new ideas that throw major parts of the game all out of whack. Thirdparty licensed material is almost expected to throw the game all out of whack, and personally, I think it's at its best when it contains weird new ideas.


These are all subtle issues involving subconscious player expectations, and I'm sure some people will read this and think "sheesh, people should just get over it." But humans have an annoying tendency to not get over it. I think a good thirdparty licensing model would manage these expectations well, and satisfy both the people who want lots and lots of crunchy rules options and the people who fear rules-bloat.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

For me to play it long-term, it needs more options for classes and playable races.

 

[jayoungr]

I need a reason not to start a campaign and say "OK guys, no sorcerers. They're lame."

So wait, you wouldn't allow a player at your table to play a sorcerer, even if he/she wanted to? You never know, you might just find that the right player could make a sorcerer work.

 

[S'mon]

I just ordered a whole bunch of BFRPG adventures from amazon, and I have many hundreds of adventures from other versions of D&D, so I don't much need adventures.

What I would like are
(a) comprehensive encounter tables geared to the 5e MM, including NPCs (eg 'gladiator' and 'thug' encounters) and
(b) A massive tome of NPC stats covering all the PHB classes and a good range of levels, plus lots more generic non-classed NPCs.

They could put (a) into (b) and make my perfect book.

 

[Greg K]

So wait, you wouldn't allow a player at your table to play a sorcerer, even if he/she wanted to?

If and when I decide to run 5e, I would not allow it based on the current subclasses (This might change when new origins come along). I also will not allow Path of the Totem Barbarians, Circle of the Moon Druids, Champion Fighters, Way of Shadow Monks, Way of the Four Element Monks (if I run a setting where this is fitting, I will use a different system), Oath of Vengeance Paladins, Fiend Pact Warlocks (NPC only in my campaign), and Great Old One Pact Warlocks (if my campaign had Great Old ones, it would be an NPC only class with characters eventually going insane or being destroyed by the knowledge).

 

[Greg K]

I dont agree that players wanting a non-spell casting ranger or paladin are the exceptionally rare case. It was one of the few popular things about 4e.

I agree with you. It was a complaint that I heard many times in 1e, 2e, and 3e. Both 2e and 3e had the non-spellcasting rangers in supplements. In 2e, it was found in one of the historical reference books. There were two versions in 3e. The one in Complete Warrior that I and most people I know thought sucked as it still gave them mystical powers. Then, there was the one in Complete Champion that substituted bonus feats for spells which was an optional/house rule that appeared back on message boards back in 3.0 including a publisher (I think it was Monte's Malhavoc Press). There were also several other third party publishers that had their spellless rangers, because many fans wanted it.

 

[Cernor]

If and when I decide to run 5e, I would not allow it based on the current subclasses (This might change when new origins come along). I also will not allow Path of the Totem Barbarians, Circle of the Moon Druids, Champion Fighters, Way of Shadow Monks, Way of the Four Element Monks (if I run a setting where this is fitting, I will use a different system), Oath of Vengeance Paladins, Fiend Pact Warlocks (NPC only in my campaign), and Great Old One Pact Warlocks (if my campaign had Great Old ones, it would be an NPC only class with characters eventually going insane or being destroyed by the knowledge).

What are your reasons for limiting your PC build options so much? I can understand Moon Druid because of its power in an extremely narrow level band, but the rest seem incredibly arbitrary...