log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Add

Reynard

Legend
As a companion to the other thread: What would you add to 5E. Difficulty: it can only be one thing.

Mine: an effects based magic system. You can keep all the magic "flavor" but I would add a system not unlike Hero or M&M where you build spells based on effects and variables and the end result point cost determines the spell level. So fireball is fire damage, ranged, area of effect, increased damage -- or some such.
 

log in or register to remove this ad











CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
There are several things I'd like to add to 5th Edition D&D that didn't get carried over from previous editions. Lately I've been missing the old Monster Templates from 3.X, so that's my answer for today.
 


Sacrosanct

Legend
I've been feeling cringey about using "shaman" and "witchdoctor" for a while - not sure about animist, but good to know other folks are looking for different terminology that does not lean on problematic cultural assumptions.
I've given this a lot of thought lately (because I'm working on a project that will be having such a class), and thus have been doing quite a bit of research on it. Shaman is problematic not just because of the cultural appropriation aspect, but the term is actually specific to a certain culture (indigenous Russia), so it's only applied to one specific type, and is completely different from totem magic or others, despite our modern tendency to conflate it with everything. Same with "totem magic", as that term came from indigenous North American Ojibwe and Aborigines. And "witchdoctor" was originally referring to European witches, but then applied to African healers in the mid 19th century.

Animism, on the other hand, is more of a larger umbrella that each of those fall under, as well as the Germanic/Nordic fylgjur. So it seems to be the best term to use in regards to generic spirit speaking/worship style of magic that avoids issues of cultural appropriation while capturing the intent of what you're trying to write.
 
Last edited:

overgeeked

B/X Known World
One thing I would add (and really, it's a host of things), is a modular layer up of simplified BECMI-style classes like dwarf, rogue, fighter, tiefling, no subclasses.
I'm with you, but wouldn't that be: dwarf (champion fighter), rogue (thief), fighter (champion fighter), tiefling (the fiend warlock).
 


overgeeked

B/X Known World
As a companion to the other thread: What would you add to 5E. Difficulty: it can only be one thing.

Mine: an effects based magic system. You can keep all the magic "flavor" but I would add a system not unlike Hero or M&M where you build spells based on effects and variables and the end result point cost determines the spell level. So fireball is fire damage, ranged, area of effect, increased damage -- or some such.
They basically had this with 4E. The math was so consistent you could break down the powers by level and type and get a really consistent measure of what certain effects were worth. But that's with combat and non-combat spells split. I don't know how well that would work with 5E.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
Yeah. That's tough. It's down to the classic settings or 4E monster design. Most of the settings are fluff and not crunch so they're easy to homebrew. So 4E monster design.
 



An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top