Level Up (A5E) [+] What features should a "Advanced 5E" have?

[Stalker0]

Would love to see a lot of weapon / armor materials, always enjoyed those.

putting a callback to mearls iron heroes book. While not perfect, the book had a lot of classes that gained tokens in combat for “doing their job”. You could spend these tokens to do cool stuff. I think there is a lot of untapped design space there that could be interesting

 

[Stalker0]

The most important thing not yet mentioned. An actual index that’s worth a damn!

 

[TheSword]

Can I ask what the virtue is of separating species from culture?

Not a dig, I’m just genuinely interested in how it helps?

 

[Zardnaar]

Can I ask what the virtue is of separating species from culture?

Not a dig, I’m just genuinely interested in how it helps?

Latest internet craze.

Think they'll do something like PF2 instead of ancestries you pick the abilities you want instead of racial feats.

Something like darkvision is genetic I suppose, weapon training is cultural. My dwarf wasn't trained in racial weapons.

 

[CubicsRube]

Can I ask what the virtue is of separating species from culture?

Not a dig, I’m just genuinely interested in how it helps?

For me when I wrote on this is purely interest from a gaming perspective of creating combinations I couldn't otherwise.

For example, perhaps a Half-Orc with the Gnomish Tinker ability, because they grew up in a tinker town, or a Dwarven Ranger who can hide in the woods and was trained in bow and sword and has another 5' of movement as they grew up on a forest enclave.

To some extent some of it can be done in backgrounds, but I think for my tastes, the idea of Ancestry+Culture+Profession+Class hits the sweet spot of modularity.

 

[TheSword]

Okay. So it’s just a desire for more flexibility?

Would it be easier just to add a paragraph to the race/ancestry section that reads...

“A character growing up in a different community may Have use features from a different ancestry. Discuss this with your GM.”

Is it really needed to have an entire extra stage of character generation for the Corporal Carrots out there?

 

[CubicsRube]

Okay. So it’s just a desire for more flexibility?

Would it be easier just to add a paragraph to the race/ancestry section that reads...

“A character growing up in a different community may Have use features from a different ancestry. Discuss this with your GM.”

Is it really needed to have an entire extra stage of character generation for the Corporal Carrots our their?

Corporal Carrots?

I think having a codified extra element would be interesting and add to replayability. I've played quite a few characters now, as I imagine others on this forum have, so I look for more unique combinations. The GM fiat rule means in practice a lot of people wouldn't use it. Remember we're talking about an "advanced" 5e, which if I've understood @Morrus intentions right, partly means more choices. As to what that means I have no idea, the above is something that appeals to me.

I guess it's different tastes. It sounds like for you it comes across as extra work. For me, it'd be an enjoyable extra choice.

 

[Quartz]

Corporal Carrots?

Discworld, IIRC

 

[ART!]

One of the things the original Advanced D&D tried to do was to expand the game beyond dungeon crawls. It added rules for broader campaigns, basically pushing back the envelope in a lot of areas, like PCs having lands and keeps, higher-level and god-like characters, etc.

So, in that spirit, I'd like to see an Advanced 5E really dig in to down time, the social and exploratory pillars of play, warfare, and whatever else I'm not thinking of.

 

[TheSword]

Corporal Carrots?

I think having a codified extra element would be interesting and add to replayability. I've played quite a few characters now, as I imagine others on this forum have, so I look for more unique combinations. The GM fiat rule means in practice a lot of people wouldn't use it. Remember we're talking about an "advanced" 5e, which if I've understood @Morrus intentions right, partly means more choices. As to what that means I have no idea, the above is something that appeals to me.

I guess it's different tastes. It sounds like for you it comes across as extra work. For me, it'd be an enjoyable extra choice.

Corporal Carrot Ironfoundersson. His given name was because of his stature... 6’6” tall and broader across the shoulders than the waist.

His dwarfish name is Kzad-bhat, which, roughly translated, means "Head Banger". This is because he used to work in his adopted father's mine before his career in the City Watch, and as the dwarfs thought five foot a good roofheight in the mines he often banged his head.

He’s the best example I can think of a person being raised in a different community to the extent that one would actually adopt that race’s traits.

GM fiat works for customized backgrounds. I find it odd when we look for rules to force a DM to accept something that they wouldn’t otherwise do.

If giving an elf who was raised among dwarves, Stonecunning and dwarven weapon and tool proficiency instead of an equivalent elf trait, is something that wouldn’t be agreed to normally. Why would you want to force the DM to accept it by adding a complicated points system that seems a gift to optimisers rather than improving the way the game is played?