Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
:heart: So 'yes' to bringing back class restrictions and level limits?
I'd rather see more archetype-breaking example characters from the different race / class combos - what does an Orc Paladin look like, for example? How might they view their cause? What sort of bargain might a Dwarven Warlock have struck? How does an Elven Alchemist interact with the forest? What ferocity does a Kobold Barbarian bring and what might make them abandon their tribe? How does a Tiefling Cleric reconcile their faith and their ancestry, and how do others reconcile that about them? Set them in default D&Dland, but double down on the new options provided.
 
I'd rather see more archetype-breaking example characters from the different race / class combos - what does an Orc Paladin look like, for example? How might they view their cause? What sort of bargain might a Dwarven Warlock have struck? How does an Elven Alchemist interact with the forest? What ferocity does a Kobold Barbarian bring and what might make them abandon their tribe? How does a Tiefling Cleric reconcile their faith and their ancestry, and how do others reconcile that about them? Set them in default D&Dland, but double down on the new options provided.
I'm into the idea. But how's the optimiser culture in D&D these days? I'm assuming that certain things fit better together than others. And there's people who see things that don't fit as bad.

Surely the game hasn't moved away from that?
 
Whiterooms boys gonna whiteroom shit no matter what. Generally optimization for DPR is the main thing, with optimized spell choices being the other main topic.
 
Optimising is basically easy as pie in 5e as there's very few pieces that can be moved around, but that doesn't stop people making their colour coded guides and the like.
 
Optimising is basically easy as pie in 5e as there's very few pieces that can be moved around, but that doesn't stop people making their colour coded guides and the like.
Yes and no. Light optimization is easy. Some of the serious nova builds are little more work. Unless you have, you know, the internet and shit. I blame treantmonk.
 
I'm into the idea. But how's the optimiser culture in D&D these days? I'm assuming that certain things fit better together than others. And there's people who see things that don't fit as bad.

Surely the game hasn't moved away from that?
As much as ever, but the concepts in Tasha's have essentially removed the concept of "bad" racial choices so it's even easier to make a perfectly playable character. Sure, optimizers are gonna keep on doing their thing, but I'm of the opinion that designing a game to counter optimisers at the expense of standard players is a waste of time; ultimately they're a harmless stress test.
 
The argument isn't "remove them entirely", it's "do them in an interesting way"; a special rule is more interesting than a stat modifier for reflecting a racial physiological difference because every member gets it. For example, the half-orc's Relentless Endurance ability ("When you are reduced to 0 hit points but not killed outright, you can drop to 1 hit point instead. You can’t use this feature again until you finish a long rest.") is more interesting than their Constitution increase because it drastically changes how they fight; it makes even the frailest Half-Orc tougher than you'd expect, able to stand on their own a bit more, and meaning any enemy they fight needs to put in more effort to put one down. It also makes them tough in a different way to Dwarves, for example, and their Dwarven Resilience feature; a Dwarf won't go down, a Half-Orc won't stay down.

If anything, I think Elves don't have any flavourful ability of their own, Keen Senses being... eh (I'd be inclined to go with advantage on Perception rolls instead, which might be a bit too strong)... but +2 Dex isn't as interesting as their OD&D class-switching (For example).
One person's 'interesting' is another person's overly complex and unnecessary.
 
I'd rather see more archetype-breaking example characters from the different race / class combos - what does an Orc Paladin look like, for example? How might they view their cause? What sort of bargain might a Dwarven Warlock have struck? How does an Elven Alchemist interact with the forest? What ferocity does a Kobold Barbarian bring and what might make them abandon their tribe? How does a Tiefling Cleric reconcile their faith and their ancestry, and how do others reconcile that about them? Set them in default D&Dland, but double down on the new options provided.

You are asking about interesting setting ideas which in chargen mini-game circles would be deemed "fluff." :wink:

I, like you, find those questions interesting AND was impressed 5e let you make those combinations out of the gate with near minimal fuss. AND I, unlike you it seems, was glad that they were for the most part setting agnostic about those ramifications. I like talking about those things and exploring them in settings, but first there had to be a re-establishment of the GM as a table authority.

So they had to tone down officiality of Sage Advice rules answers, explicitly empower the GM role in the PHB, DMG, & MM, actually type up again "permission" for Improvised Actions to exist and show examples of allowance to mix different Ability (stats) with atypical Skills, etc.. A lot of the past 15 years had to be explicitly undone to return to a baseline ambiguity so people could be reminded they are allowed to DIY. Aaaaand Org Play and online forum build culture has been fighting tooth and nail to stamp out that divergence ever since.

It was 'Start Here: Generic Forgotten Realms' baseline setting, which given the other D&D settings available I can excuse. (Greyhawk *might* make more sense but FR has 'muh novels', and Mystara needs to be very... "compartmentalized" lest things gets too quickly into Jurrasic Park the Arcade Ride and Samurai Pizza Cats from the Moon territory). It also let all those wonderful setting questions you have have no real official answer or extra mechanics. I think that was a necessary ambiguity to derive a net good for player re-orientation to the GM instead of Official Rules & Legates -- it allows your questions to thrive in potential across different tables.

Basically the next generation needed space and permission to unlearn a lot of assumptions that were starting to accrue from various related entertainments. This is seeding the bed to grow self-motivated hobbyists as 4e was starting to show they needed.
 
You are asking about interesting setting ideas which in chargen mini-game circles would be deemed "fluff." :wink:

I, like you, find those questions interesting AND was impressed 5e let you make those combinations out of the gate with near minimal fuss. AND I, unlike you it seems, was glad that they were for the most part setting agnostic about those ramifications. I like talking about those things and exploring them in settings, but first there had to be a re-establishment of the GM as a table authority.
I think you've read me wrong. Ladybird's Unconventional Adventurers would be a demonstration of this openness. Yes, it would be fluff, but it would clearly be not for the people that don't like fluff; but stick a subclass or two in there for everyone and they'd be content with the front half of the book.

So they had to tone down officiality of Sage Advice rules answers, explicitly empower the GM role in the PHB, DMG, & MM, actually type up again "permission" for Improvised Actions to exist and show examples of allowance to mix different Ability (stats) with atypical Skills, etc.. A lot of the past 15 years had to be explicitly undone to return to a baseline ambiguity so people could be reminded they are allowed to DIY. Aaaaand Org Play and online forum build culture has been fighting tooth and nail to stamp out that divergence ever since.
Another thing I quite liked about 4e; the improvised actions table made ruling that sort of thing easy. Player wants to chew the scenery? Cool cool, here's a table with suggested difficulties and damage, so the player can have their fun and the DM doesn't need to worry about if they're breaking the game.

And it's not that CharOp fans are trying to stamp out creative play, more it's just not what they're interested in while doing their CharOp stuff. It's another thing about the game that interests them, in addition to playing the game itself (In my experience, anyway).

Organised Play isn't about removing DIY things either, it's about providing a fair and consistent experience across tables. "No homebrew stuff at this table" isn't saying that homebrew stuff shouldn't exist, it's just saying they're not interested in it right then and there.
 
Let me get out of the way that my experiences with Org Play and CharOp Boards runs contrary to yours. The one concession I'll make is there is way more pushback nowadays against "best practices" diktat than during the 3.PF & 4e days. It is one of the reasons I still return to Giant In The Playground 5e forums because there is a strong cadre that pushes back -- with citable explicit text -- against such behavior spilling over from typically the 3.PF board.

And that's all I want to say about that, because...

... Your initial idea IS fun and way more interesting to talk about! :heart: (And yes, I read you right about that the first time.) I personally would prefer it explore the ASI slots, beyond Feats, as perhaps a development of one's ethos or path. But regardless I think curated settings and musings on unusual combinations' ramifications are cool!

Unfortunately, as Gronan cited before, "examples will get read like Holy Writ." So your beautiful extra-special Archytype examples (because you already can do those combinations, like Orc Paladin & Tiefling Cleric) or any of my non-Feat ASI widgets if WotC acknowledged will be read as Unearthed Arcana and Dungeon Guild -- as we've already seen in Xanathar's and Tasha's and upcoming DG Adv Anthology I forget name of -- likely later be compiled for print. Which once Official means none of our ideas will be given much creative thought beyond how our widgets dominate/"imbalance" the widget-field. :cry: Sad but I believe we both know it to be true.

That's why I mentioned WotC needing to undo its past by loosening "permissions" up. You offer the children a world of dreams contemplating the textures and colors of heavenly clouds, but too many still see only their cardboard box and how to maximize their DPRs dominance of that tiny space. To dream they need to doubt, to lack official shared certitude, and turn to their own table instead, to embrace their "individual permission" to dream differently.

As an SRD Setting book it could be wonderful. But how hard it will be to prevent it from being read as just another "101 New Widgets to Make Your GM Cry!" You cannot control the manner of reading the text once it is put out there. BUT, WotC can add explicit localized empowerment and feed ambiguity in the text to maybe, hopefully, grow critical thinking into a fertile bed for such creative Setting Discussion Books.

It's getting there, but it will take time to bear fruit. It's easy to forget D&D also serves as TTRPG gateway and primer. That said those 2e bluebooks like "Creative Campaigning" and "Catacombs & Campaigns" could use a modern revisit of your idea discussing things like 'what does it mean to play the against-type'.
 
Last edited:
I'm kind of puzzled by some of the idea that atyical class combinations are now possible.

They became possible twenty years ago. As soon as 3E came out we were playing Hafling Paladins and Half-Orc Monks and Dwarven Wizards.
 
I'm kind of puzzled by some of the idea that atyical class combinations are now possible.

They became possible twenty years ago. As soon as 3E came out we were playing Hafling Paladins and Half-Orc Monks and Dwarven Wizards.
Gnome Paladins. They represent everthing that's wrong with 5E. Also, they're devilish tricky to smoke out of their burrows when they've gone feral.
 
You wonder if racial abilities should be dumped altogether. Want to play an ogre? Fine, roll 3d6 or standard array like everyone else.
Let's ignore that they stand over 9' tall and have excessive levels of strength (As they were Large creatures.) Let's turn every single character into a same grey blob!
 
One of the differences between 3e and 5e that mitigates racial differences in ability scores is that scores max out at 20. So, races that don't increase their main class stat is behind for only a bit, not forever. I'm fine with racial modifiers for abilities but if a player wanted to switch things around, I'd be ok with it.
 
Last edited:
The crap really only matter to white room knights anyway. If I'm playing an Ogre because I want to play an Ogre, does it really matter if I start at 17 or 19 strength? Not at all. If those two pips really matter to someone, I might suggest they don't have the right reasons in mind for playing an ogre in the first place. I would also bet that a lot pf people who want to play ogres don't seriously want their GMs to make them pay the penalty for being 9 foot tall and 4 foot wide. How about disadvantage on combat when the ceiling is less that 15' high and/or the passage or room is 10 feet wide or less. So in like every dungeon everywhere. Same with fucking centaurs. Yeah, go ahead Black Beauty, try to run on cobble stones and still corner.

OK, /rant.:grin:
 
One of the differences between 3e and 5e that mitigates racial differences in ability scores is that scores max out at 20. So, races that don't increase their main class stat is behind for only a bit, not forever. I'm fine with racial modifiers for abilities but if a player wanted to switch things around, I'd be ok with it.
That psychological element of always being behind is important I think. It's why these small differences seem to bother people more in D&D than in point buy systems where the progression is often theoretically infinite.
 
You wonder if racial abilities should be dumped altogether. Want to play an ogre? Fine, roll 3d6 or standard array like everyone else.
That's... not what anybody wants, though? The intention is to find some way to implement those abilities in a way that actually makes Ogres stronger and tougher than a human with the same stats.

The crap really only matter to white room knights anyway. If I'm playing an Ogre because I want to play an Ogre, does it really matter if I start at 17 or 19 strength? Not at all. If those two pips really matter to someone, I might suggest they don't have the right reasons in mind for playing an ogre in the first place. I would also bet that a lot pf people who want to play ogres don't seriously want their GMs to make them pay the penalty for being 9 foot tall and 4 foot wide. How about disadvantage on combat when the ceiling is less that 15' high and/or the passage or room is 10 feet wide or less. So in like every dungeon everywhere. Same with fucking centaurs. Yeah, go ahead Black Beauty, try to run on cobble stones and still corner.
Playing a centauroid in a dungeon crawl is a fucking miserable experience, I can tell you. Corridors and low ceilings suck, sure, that's obvious, but eventually you'll need to go up or down and you are not designed for that, plus you're too big to be hoisted easily. Having tried it, I'd rather play a wolf or a sabre-tooth tiger instead if I ever feel like playing a quadruped again.
 
The crap really only matter to white room knights anyway. If I'm playing an Ogre because I want to play an Ogre, does it really matter if I start at 17 or 19 strength? Not at all. If those two pips really matter to someone, I might suggest they don't have the right reasons in mind for playing an ogre in the first place. I would also bet that a lot pf people who want to play ogres don't seriously want their GMs to make them pay the penalty for being 9 foot tall and 4 foot wide. How about disadvantage on combat when the ceiling is less that 15' high and/or the passage or room is 10 feet wide or less. So in like every dungeon everywhere. Same with fucking centaurs. Yeah, go ahead Black Beauty, try to run on cobble stones and still corner.

OK, /rant.:grin:
I played a centaur in a RuneQuest 2E game (Griffin Island) back in the day. He was fun right up until we entered a city or a dungeon, then it was a massive pain the ass.

My next character was human.
 
You wonder if racial abilities should be dumped altogether. Want to play an ogre? Fine, roll 3d6 or standard array like everyone else.
Well, RAW, a Halfling could end up with just as much strength as an Ogre. Perhaps there are other, non-ability score ways to differentiate the physiological differences between races.

That’s why I am a fan of Feats or special abilities that make a difference. Perhaps Ogres could wield 2-handed weapons in one hand? Perhaps they can’t be grappled by smaller foes? Perhaps they can eat just about anything (in large amounts) so their living expenses are negligible? Or maybe they have resistance to non magical damage from smaller targets? I dunno, something more interesting than +4 strength, -2 intelligence.
 
35ccb912b07be9306b314a59d5f0f6ab.jpg
 
Org Play and online forum build culture has been fighting tooth and nail to stamp out that divergence ever since.
C'mon Opa, you know there's no such thing as forum build culture, certainly not any different from the 70's, we all know culture can't change over 40 years. It is known. :wink:
 
The crap really only matter to white room knights anyway. If I'm playing an Ogre because I want to play an Ogre, does it really matter if I start at 17 or 19 strength? Not at all. If those two pips really matter to someone, I might suggest they don't have the right reasons in mind for playing an ogre in the first place. I would also bet that a lot pf people who want to play ogres don't seriously want their GMs to make them pay the penalty for being 9 foot tall and 4 foot wide. How about disadvantage on combat when the ceiling is less that 15' high and/or the passage or room is 10 feet wide or less. So in like every dungeon everywhere. Same with fucking centaurs. Yeah, go ahead Black Beauty, try to run on cobble stones and still corner.

OK, /rant.:grin:
It's called setting balance. What would and should happen given the realities of the setting does happen. Centaurs split their hooves if they don't get shod. Ogre's aren't going to be able to squeeze through a goblin bolt hole.

In WFRP, Ogres are frequently mercenaries or enlisted with the Reikland armies, but one without any papers proving such probably doesn't want to take vacation in Middenheim.

In Greyhawk, Tieflings anywhere in the countries near Iuz or The Horned Society would be killed on sight.

You make the repercussions for having a Very Rare PC verisimilar with respect to the campaign, then you can allow them to be verisimilar mechanically and not have to worry about stupid balance shit like warforged can be poisoned, need to breathe and can drown.
 
It's called setting balance. What would and should happen given the realities of the setting does happen.
This is the norm at a lot of tables including mine but it might be considered old fashioned. I personally enjoy setting balance but I think a lot of 5e playerbase is clamoring for standardization for league play or whatever they call it when you play with randos.
 
This is the norm at a lot of tables including mine but it might be considered old fashioned. I personally enjoy setting balance but I think a lot of 5e playerbase is clamoring for standardization for league play or whatever they call it when you play with randos.
Just don't get the Org Play. It just has never lived up to the promise. If I'm going to play with a group I'm never seeing again, a normal RPG with pregens, a cardgame, boardgame, wargame, narrative rpg or storygame is preferable to AL play. I've done and watched enough to know that's just not my jam.
 
Just don't get the Org Play. It just has never lived up to the promise. If I'm going to play with a group I'm never seeing again, a normal RPG with pregens, a cardgame, boardgame, wargame, narrative rpg or storygame is preferable to AL play. I've done and watched enough to know that's just not my jam.
Agree, neither of us cares for this sort of play but apparently a lot of people want to be able to take their characters from table to table and thus the push for standardization across the board insofar as balance goes.
 
Agree, neither of us cares for this sort of play but apparently a lot of people want to be able to take their characters from table to table and thus the push for standardization across the board insofar as balance goes.
I'd totally play in a RPG League if it was setup like KoDT depicts.
 
Agree, neither of us cares for this sort of play but apparently a lot of people want to be able to take their characters from table to table and thus the push for standardization across the board insofar as balance goes.
I think organised play is used more to justify some weird RAW obsession much more often than it is a real active concern.
 
I think organised play is used more to justify some weird RAW obsession much more often than it is a real active concern.
So it's just like 40K has been for maybe the last 20 years? :ooh:
 
I'm not sure sure how you got from my post, which is more the stuff of nightmares, to your post, which is like the opposite, but I'm cool with it.:thumbsup:
 
Let's ignore that they stand over 9' tall and have excessive levels of strength (As they were Large creatures.) Let's turn every single character into a same grey blob!

I know what you're saying. In some of the skirmish war-game rules that I have, the base is that everyone is a "grey blob". It's what traits or abilities you purchase for that model that differentiates it. So yeah, you could have an ogre that was the same as the halfling who was the same as the human. But you had a list of traits you could purchase to give the model those abilities.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top