D&D 5E What new content do you like most?

What new content do you like most? (choose up to 3)

  • Species (races)

    Votes: 20 15.6%
  • Subclasses

    Votes: 38 29.7%
  • Feats

    Votes: 22 17.2%
  • Monsters/NPCs

    Votes: 68 53.1%
  • Spells

    Votes: 25 19.5%
  • Magic items

    Votes: 37 28.9%
  • Equipment

    Votes: 8 6.3%
  • Classes

    Votes: 34 26.6%
  • Rules variants/additions

    Votes: 47 36.7%
  • Backgrounds

    Votes: 12 9.4%
  • Other (specify below)

    Votes: 8 6.3%
  • Locations (not full settings)

    Votes: 35 27.3%

What prevents making a magic item which gives you a feat only so long as you're wearing it? If it has a built in choice (like Skilled or the one that gives BM maneuvers), they can just be baked in when the item is made, or perhaps when a character first equips it.

3.X did that all the time.
PCs don't get many feat slots. Even a magic item that grants a feat should likely be limited via attunement slots.

A magic staff can have 4 spell options you can spend charges on. A magic item shouldn't provide 4 feats.

But I'm not saying feats are bad. I want feats. But the rules of the thread limit me to my top 3.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
PCs don't get many feat slots. Even a magic item that grants a feat should likely be limited via attunement slots.

A magic staff can have 4 spell options you can spend charges on. A magic item shouldn't provide 4 feats.

But I'm not saying feats are bad. I want feats. But the rules of the thread limit me to my top 3.
Personally, I think this just shows that spells, and spellcasters, are still the favored child. Feats and non-spell solutions are kept from actually achieving their potential.
 

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
voted other: given that subclasses are listed separately from classes would subspecies be considered a separate choice from species? personally i do consider a subspecies to be of a different but equal appeal than species themselves, and i think that seeing only the one option for a species' traits in their entry is a special kind of disappointing.
 

So my personal experience proves your claim that designers favor spellcasters? I'm honored.

Or are you agreeing with me that the way spells and spellcasting are designed is that powerful and useful? That's not a bad thing.

I wouldn't be against a Tome of Battle-level system of maneuvers. But I understand that type of design isn't core book-level, because it deserves more design space dedicated to it, and warrants its own book, like it did in 3E. I feel the same about psionics.
 

GrimCo

Adventurer
Equipment- more variations with mechanical differentiation. One of the things i liked in 3.x was loads of weapons and armors. Armor and weapon list is just short and boring.

Rules, specifically rules on how to DIY stuff. Also, Tome of battle style manuvers/stances rules, so martials can get something similar to spells without getting actual spells. I'm tired of all classes having at least spellcasting subclass.

Locations- I liked setting books mostly for lore about places and NPCS. So more of that please. I saves prep time for lazy DMs like myself.
 


Yaarel

🇮🇱He-Mage
I wish the class advancement schedule had a consistent structure.

EVERY TIER HAS FOUR LEVELS
Every first level (1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21): establish the foundation for the class concept
Every second level (2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22): grant a powerful distinctive class feature
Every third level (3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 13): subclass specialization
Every fourth level (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24): free feat of players choice


Making every third level a specialization, would help with subclass, multiclass, prestige class, paragon path, and so on.
 




Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top