Not make shitty threads about it
More fucking classes.
Not just archetypes for existing classes.
More equipment. Much more nonmagical equipment.
A few more feats.
>>45989463
Which classes would you add? Otherwise I agree. Not that 5e is bad or anything.
>>45989370
More stuff to do that's not spells, that is, more feats.
Better archetypes, more archetypes.
Just more of most things, I think spellcasters have it decently enough.
>>45989463
This guy seems to have it.
Make classes more general
>I wanna be a martial artist... oh wait I need to use these ki points and be in tune with my bullshit
More feats, that are actually worthwhile.
Weapon variety, more weapon properties
Damage types that actually do different things
Non-boring races
Better skills system
Better background system
Better magic system, Vancian magic a shit
No empty or near empty levels
Better character progression
Combat maneuvers for everyone
Make combat maneuvers like tripping, feinting, distracting, that are actaully worth doing
Switch from HP to Vitality/Wounds
NPC creation system that works
Magic item system that works
Just make it Fantasy Craft t.b.h.
>>45989501
Scout, Duskblade, Spellthief, Truenamer. I'd also want a Weapon Thrower class.
>>45989370
Feats need to be done better and be made a core part of the game instead of optional rules that are somewhat tacked on.
Disassociate with a "default" setting. Especially FR.
More weapon and mundane item variety.
Have actual crafting rules.
Don't make weird shit like Dragonborn and Tieflings core races.
Give us races that have options for attribute bonuses so playing a certain race in a nonarchetypal class for said race doesn't gimp them. As it stands the game essentially flips anybody who wants to make something like a dwarf wizard or strength-based Elf fighter the middle finger and calls it a day.
>>45989670
+2 Wisdom race
fuck
>>45989922
My nigga.
>>45989670
Shit taste my friend.
>I'd also want a Weapon Thrower class.
More feats to this effect would be nice, or just this being better in general.
>>45989670
subtle b8 or?
This is part of what drove 2e and 3.x into a tailspin.
>>45990115
>>45990127
How about offering an actual point of contention?
Spellthief is a neat concept. It's an antimagic class that takes from others to enhance itself.
Truenamer is an awesome concept. Words of power that produce effects, instead of just wizard 2.0. Don't allow previous edition's executions of the concept to corrupt the concept itself.
Scout is just a fun class centered around moving as much as you can through the battlefield and being flighty. It's also got a range weapon focus, which is something 5E lacks at the moment.
And I just like duskblades for being a proper "sword and spell" class that I don't feel Eldritch Knight does very well.
Weapon Thrower is just because that character concept is always, always sub-par as a strategy so a class that could actually perform it at a baseline level would be a useful option.
>>45989370
Wherever it says "GM can change this as he sees fit" put something like "Play by the fuckign rules you cheater".
Im tired of every NPCs/monsters ever with infinite HPs, infinite AC, with invisibility at will, 20 actions, 5 movements and attack = Insta-hit. I came here to play, not to see my GM fap with his madeup story.
>>45990286
No amount of rules will stop a shit GM from fucking the party like that.
>>45990260
The fact that you consider "weapon thrower" to be an actual character concept is retarded.
Alternate magic users are cool though. I'm cool with there being a hundred different character classes, but usually only a few should be playable in any given campaign.
>>45990286
Stop playing with cunts.
>>45990382
>The fact that you consider "weapon thrower" to be an actual character concept is retarded.
I want a quiver full of axes and your judgments will not stop me.
>>45989370
Completely remove Vancian "per-day" casting altogether instead of just making it suck. It's always ruined balance, and should be replaced with something more natural
Remove lair abilities, and therefore actually make endgame viable
Make magic items not shit, and standardize how much gold a character starts with when not level 1 instead of the current bullshit.
More feats as options, including any a spellcaster might actually feel like taking. Also, double the rate feats are acquired.
More classes instead of just more archetypes.
Remember that skills are a thing
DON'T CAP MAXIMUM STATS AT 20 FOR NO GOD-DAMNED REASON
I'd really like to see monster races, as well as racial classes with racial HD and LA. It's always fun to play an Ogre or an Angel or something like that.
>>45989617
>>45989635
soo you basically want 3.5...
well go play 3.5 then!
>>45990417
Why don't you just play a fighter, they can throw shit all day with no problem.
>>45990491
Because nothing is worth throwing with a base kit and it is a dramatically inferior option to either committing to melee or ranged combat.
>>45989370
Redo several Warlock invocs, PotFE Monk spells, and Battlemaster manuevers. Add more of each. Make a few new feats (especially one or two to make Dual Wielding better). Give Champions better save buffs and two more points of crit range, rework Know Your Enemy to automatically give you the enemy's worst stat. Rework Druid and Ranger capstones. Delete Beastmaster.Make Wild Magic table a d1000
>>45990519
But you can still play it.
Why do you want to be better than everyone else? Just play a different edition or stop playing all together.
>>45990547
I want to be as good as baseline, not "better than everyone else". Why would anyone want to play a character who is half as good as any other?
>>45990417
Still retarded.
If you want any retarded idea you come up with to be viable, just write "throwing axe" instead of "longbow" on your character sheet. You can literally just make the optimum the default and excise any other options. Then describe it however you like.
And then your friend can make a character who shoots a wad of cum at his enemies for 1d8 damage. I think cum blasting enemies is sub par and I think that a class that could actually perform it at a baseline level would be a useful option.
>>45990491
You can only throw two weapons per turn nomatter how many attacks you have due the "you can only draw one weapon per turn" rule
>>45990573
>it's simple, just roleplay this other thing differently!
And you're a freeformfag.
>>45990433
Yea removing vancian magic or atleast modifying it would be quite interesting and a bit less complex to newcomers.
>>45990572
What do you consider baseline?
>>45990585
Ask the DM if you can work together to make a feat to be able to throw all the shit you want.
>>45990547
>Better than everyone else
He wants to be as good, not better, are you blind? oh, no, you just like your strawmen a lot.
>>45990127
Everything that put 3.x into a tailspin can be found in the core book. One of the few redeemable parts of 3.x were the various unusual classes that were unlike anything in any other rpg, had interesting mechanics and backround, and were a barrel of fun to play. Classes like the binder, totemist, warlock, and factotum were the best part of 3.x.
>>45990324
It will, however, stop a new or inexperience DM from doing something foolish, like run a game without feats.
>>45990616
>What do you consider baseline?
1d10+primary modifier per attack, average attacks per round for your archetype
>>45990573
>Look at my unarmed unarmored monk!
>Anon, here it says is a full plate glaive wielding Paladin
>Unarmed and Unarmored!!
>>45989370
changing the skill system so people can more reliably do their thing... it annoys me when mr. acrobat the rogue tumbles with only 65% success rate... and he was doing that his entire life!!
Also change crafting rules
>>45990644 (me)
I should say 1d8 is also somewhat acceptable, though I feel clerics are held back with Sacred Flame being their only combat cantrip.
>>45990466
Did you even read my post? 3.5 is just as bad as 5e, just for different reasons.
oh and
>fix the broken action economy
>>45990466
>Wanting more stuff of one system is the same as wanting a different system that has more stuff.
That's not even remotely true, and many of the things that hurt 5e are the things that hurt 3.5, without a lot of the options 3.5 had.
>Vancian magic a shit
>You must want 3.5
You're talking out of your ass because we said 'more feats'.
>>45989370
Dicks.
Dicks everywhere.
>>45990604
>It's not real unless Monte Cook spoonfeeds it to me!
If you need to make every option as good as every other option... then you don't want options. You just want "good ranged combat stats" while you describe your character TOATUHLLY THROWIN AXES AT ALLA THEM GUYS HUH HUH. You're a storygame fag and you don't even know it.
>>45990652
Sure. Just give him all the weight penalties and say he's a sumo wrestler. Instead of "smite evil", call it a "body slam".
>>45990573
I'm so sorry I wanted my characters to feel different from one another, anon.
>>45990466
>anon says he wants it to take inspiration from fantasycraft
>"soo you basically want 3.5"
pic related; I refuse to believe that someone can actually be this stupid
>>45989463
I would love to see spellfire redone in a way that isn't total ass.
>>45990763
Why not simply make feats look like this (with different chains for different weapon types)? And for Hurled Weapons, something like this represents their diversity and utility well without being too weak or strong.
>>45990644
>>45990676
So what you're saying is you want a thrown weapon that deals 1d8, and a feat to allow you to pull out as many thrown weapons a turn as you want.
Why not do that instead of making an entire class?
>>45989370
Make gaining advantage/disadvantage multiple times do something.
>>45990825
Forgot image.
>>45990417
>>45990652
>>45990604
Holy shit you people are retarded.
Instead of taking the already balanced rules and reflavoring it to the best approximation you want to completely fuck everything up and add more pointless redundant rules for your specific flavor of magic or fighting man.
Your kind of people is what makes 3.pathfinder shit.
>>45990547
>>45990491
A good throwing feat and throwing style would solve this problem without needing a whole base class dedicated to it.
>>45990829
'Cause a class can add more features around it, like throwing tricks or lobbing things that aren't weapons for weapon-like damage (though that risks delving into the Hulking Hurler shenanigans that broke 3.5 to pieces).
Maybe allow the character to throw the same weapon multiple times via some magic return-to-hand feature, or there could be weapons that do that that aid in this class (if there are specific magic items to aid druids or barbarians predominantly over other classes, there'd be no issue for another such limited item).
>>45990893
>stop trying to change things in this thread about changing things
>>45990944
Stop wanting to change things for the worse.
You should be wanting more options and more generic classes that can be modified instead of incredibly specific and heavy handed "balanced" I-can-throw-things-real-good-no-i-dont-want-to-be-a-fighter-i-want-to-be-a-snowflake class
>>45991017
Flinging things from your hands is pretty goddamn generic, bro.
>>45991017
Dude calm the fuck down. We're having fun discussing things we'd like to have in our games as matters of OPINION. We're not going to come into your house and use Wite-Out on your rulebook. Stop freaking out that people have opinions that you don't agree with.
>>45989670
I've always wanted to make a weapon-throwing scout, to be frank.
>>45990825
The more rules you make, the more chances there are for shit to get hinky.
>>45990798
I'm just being salty on the internet. It's great to have characters that play differently, but having +/- a few points in a combat stat is not really "different".
>>45990893
C'mon son, let's get back to /osrg/
>>45990944
I'm simply critical of the premise that "whatever dumb shit I want to play should have balanced mechanics to support it, but also make it noticeably different from other options".
Throwing a knife at somebody is strictly inferior to shooting them with a bow or a gun. Maybe there are cases where it's dramatically appropriate (like a brawl in a gambling hall) but the situation is remarkable precisely because it's not a pitched battle with the best weapons local technology can afford.
Characters with "signature weapons" like a throwing axe or a spike chain should stay in fucking anime.
>I'm a highly trained warrior who makes his living with strength of arms
>So should we attack with a phalanx of spears? Pepper them with arrows at a distance? Challenge their leader to a duel?
>no I'll just charge in throwing axes at everyone like I always do.
>>45989670
>there will never be a non-garbage spellthief
>>45990893
>Look at my 12 headed hydra that stips fire and is the size of a skycrapper
>Anon, here it says it's a mouse
>12 headed hydra!!!
>>45990893
pathfinder is shit because it inherited 3.5's terrible game balance, and 3.5's terrible game balance was because of wizards, not axe throwers.
>>45990904
That's one feat. Suddenly, my axe-thrower isn't "a warrior who specializes in thrown weapons." He's just "a warrior who is good at axe throwing, and also a bunch of other shit depending on the feats he took."
I want a character who not only knows some obscure fighting style, but dedicates his life to it and ends up becoming a fucking expert. You can't do that with just one feat.
>>45991017
This is d20 we're talking about here. Your character is always gonna primarily be defined by your class, not your feats.
The axe-thrower has nothing in common to the greatsword-wielder: why should the only differences between to two be archetypes That only affect you at levels 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18?
>>45991229
So you want to snowflake, got it.
>>45991202
If I wanted my 12 headed hydra to perform in a game like a mouse, then that would be entirely appropriate.
If I wanted a guy who throws axes to be "just as good as a guy with a bow", I would just give him identical stats to the bow guy. It makes zero fucking difference.
>>45991276
>the only thing you need mechanically is "sword at the dragon" and everything else should be ~THEATER OF THE MIND~
>>45991202
If your "12 headed hydra" has the stats of a mouse, it wouldn't be able to spit fire or be the size of the skyscraper.
It would be a tiny sized beast with 1 HP.
You tried to sound smart but you're so stupid you can't understand the concept of "reflavor existing stats" isn't the same as "completely ignore stats"
>>45991299
>I want to throw axes
>Use a bow and call it "throw axes"
Sorry, but your reflavour shit is that, shit.
>>45991299
Nobody said to give them the 150 foot range of the longbow though. Or the Dexterity base attribute.
>>45991324
That is literally true.
How many variations of fireball do you need? Does it really matter what you call 6d6 damage in a 20 foot radius? Balance is what matters, flavor depends on the setting. Luckily the rulebook already handles the former.
>>45991276
>I want a character different from the last 3 warriors I play
>"stop being such a special snowflake"
>>45991299
I want a 12 head hydra in my game. Unfortunately, they only have these stats for a mouse. What do I do if I want my hydras to be different from my mice?
yea less gay shit like tiefling and dragon born... ugh that shit makes me want to puke
>>45990545
Incorporate eldritch blast/swordlock into the class itself and don't force people to waste invocations on them
>>45990825
>>45990853
>feat chains
You done fucked up now.
>>45991403
You want to make a class just for you and do exactly what your imagination thinks you should do to look cool and be awesome because.
Sounds snowflake like to me.
Also, if you are playing a game with only stats for a mouse, then you are playing an incomplete game, not 5e.
>>45991376
You can add more rules that are still balanced for fuck's sake. It's a delicate thing but not fucking impossible.
It wouldn't just be reskinning a longbow.
>>45991354
>>45991362
Ok.
When you're done making "throwing weapon guy" at least as effective as "bow guy", let's compare them side by side and see if they're actually any different. I'm guessing they'll be 90% identical, with some "special abilities" that make you feel clever when you say "snowflake powers go!".
>>45991403
Retarded false equivalencies. The comparison is more like "I want to make a dragon with five heads and they only have stats for a dragon with four heads".
>>45990417
That could easily be accomplished with a single Thrown Weapon fighting style, if not the rules as they currently are.
It's not something that even needs a full subclass, let alone an entirely new class.
New classes should be reserved for things that can't be fit into an existing class shell.
>>45991457
>You can add more rules that are still balanced for fuck's sake. It's a delicate thing but not fucking impossible.
Precisely. But it's far easier and more likely a lot more balanced to reflavor an existing thing than to try to finagle some bullshit for your particular flavor of "guy who throws projectiles". Fighter class already exists. Thrown weapons already exists. No need to waste everyone's time with some new class. Add some thrown weapon feats and call it a day.
>>45991513
A Fighter is a master of all weapons and styles, and can easily wade into melee combat or pull out a bow or anything else. They lack limitations or specialization.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with specialized classes. Some people actually like them. Not everything has to be some expanded container as a matter of sacred design edict.
Run FATE instead.
>>45989800
>Disassociate with a "default" setting. Especially FR.
Everything else you said is also bullshit, but I just wanted to specifically address that this is especially bullshit.
>>45991629
Then make a specialized Fighter subclass instead. We don't need 50 different flavors of Fighter that are 'exactly like the normal fighter, except can only use X, but does so better'. Nobody would bother with a normal fighter at that point, since there would always be another class that could use their preferred weapon style better.
>>45991689
Forgotten realms is dogshit.
>>45991376
So then why have different RPGs, then?
Why don't we all just play one basic RPG with a few but broad options (or do the opposite and play GURPS) and just re-skin anything and everything? Why not get rid of character progression entirely, and just reskin our characters as getting better and better and the enemies getting stronger and stronger?
Could it perhaps be that playing similar things over and over with not enough variance is boring?
>>45991449
>>45991478
it was a bad metaphor to begin with, I was just continuing it. Obviously it's not as major as calling a mouse a 12 headed hydra, but it's certainly not as minor as giving an extra head to an 11 headed hydra.
>>45991727
Nobody's saying to make them exactly like normal fighter, god damn.
How about not having Action Surge? Or not having the boosted ability scores because they don't represent the mastery of physical form that Fighter does?
Or lacking in ability to perform melee combat at all? There is no problem with drawbacks.
The base class does not necessarily work with the concept given.
>>45990615
what's so complicated about 5e spellcasting though? this is coming from someone who tried and failed to grasp the intricacies of 3.PF's assorted spellcasting formats, because I have a serious case of the dumbs. Like, holy fuck what are you doing and how are you not getting this retarded. Yet I can understand how they do it in 5e. So, I think it's the opposite of complex.
>>45991727
>Nobody would bother with a normal fighter at that point, since there would always be another class that could use their preferred weapon style better.
Fighters can use any weapon style though. And they should. Why would you play a fighter then only arm yourself with one greatsword and nothing else? You should be going into battle with a bow, several spears, a longsword and shield, a warhammer, etc. to be prepared for various circumstances.
>>45991766
>Why don't we all just play one basic RPG with a few but broad options (or do the opposite and play GURPS) and just re-skin anything and everything?
Yes.
>Could it perhaps be that playing similar things over and over with not enough variance is boring?
Because you're literally already doing that. If you're not that only means the game you're playing isn't actually balanced.
There's only so many variations of fighting man and magic user that aren't minor deviations of the same concept.
>>45991797
The concept giving is 'Thrown Weapon user'.
How is that not accomplished by 'Fighting Style: Thrown-Weapons - +1 to hit with thrown weapons, may make an extra attack with a thrown weapon as a bonus action.' or something similar?
Not being able to do melee is really questionable, as pretty much every thrown weapon doubles as a melee weapon. That'd be a more sensible downside for an Archer. If anything, a thrown weapon specialist should be blending melee and ranged attacks effectively.
What would you give to a 'Throw things guy' class that an Archer fighter wouldn't have?
Here. Lets find a middle-ground between archetypes and classes:
I propose that the best system is one with generic classes, with archetypes, but that each archetype simply does more than what you find in 5e.
archetypes in 5e usually only affect you 4 or 5 times in 20 levels, and never at level 1. Most of the time, archetypes end up doing little to define your character mechanically.
What if, instead, we just tripled the number of levels that archetypes affected? A system where the similarities between two fighters with two different archetypes have less than a 50% similarity, instead of such variance only being possible by taking a whole other base-class.
>>45991866
>Why would you play a fighter then only arm yourself with one greatsword and nothing else?
Because Great Weapon fighting won't benefit you with a sword & board, and swapping between the two is tricky?
People also don't always want to play the golf-bag fighter. I've seen many players build their fighters around a single weapon, and it makes sense to do so, since Fighting style makes you better with a certain weapon type compared to others.
If Fighting style just gave you an even bigger bonus in exchange for say, not getting Extra attacks with different weapon types, I could see tons of people going for it anyway, since in a lot of cases they're not really losing anything over how they're currently playing.
It's the sort of thing that doesn't deserve an entirely new class. Maybe a Subclass, at best, but we don't need a class that is 99% fighter but only uses bows.
>>45991873
>yes
Did you just advocate for only one RPG? No Ehadowrun, no L5R, no DnD, no Dark Heresy, no Exalted: nothing else but one RPG and playing pretend?
Legitimate question, also. Am I misinterpreting what you're saying? Do you actually believe there should just be 1 RPG?
>>45990433
>Remember that skills are a thing
This. 5e does a lot of good things, but skills are not one of them.
>>45992058
Ideally speaking, there could only be 1 Perfect RPG.
The fact that people prefer various RPG systems only means that they are all flawed and nothing more.
>>45991878
>The concept giving is 'Thrown Weapon user'.
No, the concept given was "weapon throwing combatant". As in someone who fights with throwing weapons.
>Not being able to do melee is really questionable, as pretty much every thrown weapon doubles as a melee weapon.
Nobody swings a mambele or a bolas in melee. Nobody stabs with a dart or a shuriken and stabbing with a throwing knife is a terrible idea. There are plenty of "throw only" weapons to be found.
>That'd be a more sensible downside for an Archer. If anything, a thrown weapon specialist should be blending melee and ranged attacks effectively.
That wouldn't be a weapon thrower, that'd be a fighter who throws weapons.
>What would you give to a 'Throw things guy' class that an Archer fighter wouldn't have?
Off the very start, a basis in Strength and not Dexterity. Second, shorter range; longbows work at very extreme distances.
Further options would be weapon tricks, similar in concept to the Battle Master of cooldown-based abilities like throwing a weapon to knock an enemy prone or even stunning them at higher levels.
I'm not a master of game design. This is just a fucking concept that I would enjoy. I have no idea why you're so offended by the possibility of making a class out of it.
>>45992109
What's wrong with skills in 5e?
Not to familiar with 5e as a whole.
>>45992182
That's like saying that there could, ideally, be 1 Perfect Movie, 1 Perfect Story, and 1 Perfect Meal.
>>45992182
You're actually serious, aren't you?
ladies and gentlemen of /tg/, the prosecution rests.
>>45992248
they're not even in the bloody PHB.
>>45992248
They're fairly generalized, and they're an all or nothing affair. They work well within the framework of DnD, but they don't do a good job of simulating people. Which is fine, but, that's what people usually want when they complain about 5e skills.
>>45992248
They're incredibly broad.
One for example is "Athletics", which covers running, jumping, lifting, climbing, or swimming. You're either proficient with it or your not, meaning you're good at all of these or you're not.
>>45992340
>>45992314
>These plebs who think because perfection doesn't exist it shouldn't be desired.
>>45992204
>Thrown weapon user
>Weapon throwing combatant
Those are different how?
>mambele
>bolas
>shuriken
Because those are on the 5e weapon list right?
>dart
>throwing knife
Darts don't have something preventing them from being used in melee, and Daggers are very commonly used for melee in 5e.
>That wouldn't be a weapon thrower, that'd be a fighter who throws weapons.
>Someone who throws weapons wouldn't be a weapon thrower
Right...
> a basis in Strength and not Dexterity.
All those 'exclusively thrown' weapons you listed earlier are usually dex based anyway. Daggers and Darts especially are both Finesse
>Second, shorter range; longbows work at very extreme distances.
So something inherent to the weapons themselves, rather than an actual class feature.
>Further options would be weapon tricks
Meaning your entire class can be built as a Battlemaster Fighter with a Thrown Weapon fighting style.
>I have no idea why you're so offended by the possibility of making a class out of it.
Because it's not substantial enough of a concept to make an entire class out of. All it tells me is you don't understand 5e well enough to know why it's not a good idea for a class.
>>45992370
>Thinking perfection comes from unity.
>>45989370
Settings(/Setting Books). Revamped as well as brand new ones.
>>45992182
Whoa there, Elesh Norn. Hold your horses.
>>45992370
>if its not perfect, it shouldn't exist
>>45992340
>they're not even in the bloody PHB.
Skills are described under what ability score they use, in the chapter on ability scores.
>>45992182
>>45992370
Have you ever considered reading a book?
Seriously, though. You obviously don't like the "game" part of tradition games, what with anything and everything being able to just be reskinned by roleplaying. Maybe you should just read your perfectly balanced stories with just enough variance, and leave that terrible unbalanced mechanically-diverse gameplay to us
>>45992399
>Those are different how?
One can selectively do other things, one can't.
>Because those are on the 5e weapon list right?
You notice in my original post I also wanted much more nonmagical equipment? As in, before this whole stupid back and forth started?
>Darts don't have something preventing them from being used in melee, and Daggers are very commonly used for melee in 5e.
A dagger is not a throwing knife and darts are tagged as ranged weapons so you are disadvantaged to use them within 5 feet.
>Someone who throws weapons wouldn't be a weapon thrower
>Right...
You're deliberately using semantics to avoid the point of "someone who fights [exclusively] by throwing weapons" is not the same as "someone who throws weapons [as one of many vectors for their fighting]".
>All those 'exclusively thrown' weapons you listed earlier are usually dex based anyway. Daggers and Darts especially are both Finesse
Finesse weapons are not DEX-based, they're alternative STR or DEX. It is, in fact, important to their game design.
>So something inherent to the weapons themselves, rather than an actual class feature.
But nevertheless is true for any archer.
>Meaning your entire class can be built as a Battlemaster Fighter with a Thrown Weapon fighting style.
I said similar, not identical, for fuck's sake.
>Because it's not substantial enough of a concept to make an entire class out of. All it tells me is you don't understand 5e well enough to know why it's not a good idea for a class.
I'm saying 5E could profit from more goddamn specialization and we don't have to keep moving forward with this one design skeleton.
>>45992514
Is that all there is?
As someone new to 5e what's presented for skills seems pretty lacking.
>>45992514
That's pretty fucking retarded, not gonna lie.
>>45992399
The difference between a weapon thrower and someone who can throw their weapons is the same difference between a kung-fu master monk and a fighter who's OK at boxing.
>>45992651
It's still the sort of thing that can be handled by a Fightings Style, maybe a feat, and maybe MAYBE a subclass.
If you think 'throws weapons really well' is enough for a distinct class 'when uses any weapons well' already exists, I don't think you understand 5e's design principles.
>we shouldn't have monks because fighters can use their fists just fine
>we shouldn't have barbarians because fighters can get angry just fine
>we shouldn't have rogues because fighters can sneak just fine
>we shouldn't have paladins because fighters that oppose evil are too niche and not open for a class
>>45991229
>That's one feat. Suddenly, my axe-thrower isn't "a warrior who specializes in thrown weapons." He's just "a warrior who is good at axe throwing, and also a bunch of other shit depending on the feats he took."
>I want a character who not only knows some obscure fighting style, but dedicates his life to it and ends up becoming a fucking expert. You can't do that with just one feat.
So you don't know the game you're playing because you can precisely do that. Fighter Battlemaster, using strength and not dexterity for thrown weapons. You can throw shit to your hearts content to work any valid maneuvers as you like.
>>45992769
>If you think 'throws weapons really well' is enough for a distinct class 'when uses any weapons well' already exists, I don't think you understand 5e's design principles.
Monks punch things really well and they exist just fine in 5E's design principles. You can go in as an unarmed Fighter with the Tavern Brawler feat and make a semblance of a monk, but that's not as fun as making a proper monk.
>>45992713
That's like saying we need a dedicated Pyromancer class because an Evocation wizard or Red Dragon sorcerer with Elemental Adept isn't doing it for you.
Classes in 5e already have specializations within them. If you want to be a Pyromancer, just pick Fire spells and the class features and feats that go with them.
>>45992795
>we shouldn't have monks because fighters can use their fists just fine
True. "I fight with my fists" shouldn't be enough to be worth an entire class.
>we shouldn't have barbarians because fighters can get angry just fine
Even less worthy of being a class than Monks are.
>we shouldn't have rogues because fighters can sneak just fine
Rogues never should have been a class to begin with. Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric are all you need. Maybe add in some kind of spellsword for good measure. But that's it.
>we shouldn't have paladins because fighters that oppose evil are too niche and not open for a class
The original paladin was literally just an OP fighter that could cast spells because of strict attribute requirements. Also never should have been it's own class.
>>45992918
>That's like saying we need a dedicated Pyromancer class because an Evocation wizard or Red Dragon sorcerer with Elemental Adept isn't doing it for you.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that as a concept.
At worst, it's wasted effort that only a small selection of players would enjoy, but if you're part of that small selection, then it's still something you can validly desire.
>>45992967
Go back to 0E and stay there.
>>45992975
But it doesn't need to be a class. It already exists in the game.
Not everything needs to be a class to be in the game.
If you have a suggestion for a class, you need to have a very good reason for it to not be a sublcass, feat, spell, class feature, or some combination for an existing one.
Do we need a Scout class when Ranger and Rogue both exist? What would it do that a subclass of those couldn't?
>>45992795
>we shouldn't have barbarians because fighters can get angry just fine
that's true though. it's no wonder the fighter ends up so boring every edition when, every time someone has an interesting idea for the fighter, it spins off and becomes its own class.
>>45993050
Maybe "guy who is good at every possible spectrum relating to combat" is the poor design that shouldn't exist.
>>45993093
I think it works just fine in a game where subclasses also exist, allowing you to have those specializations without needing to create a new class just for them.
Then you can save new classes for things that don't work within a current classes framework with the minimal tweaks from a subclass.
>>45993040
>What would it do that a subclass of those couldn't?
Not be good at everything else those classes do in addition to being good at that one thing.
Why can't we desire limitations?
>>45993153
What does a Rogue do that you wouldn't want a Scout to be capable of?
>>45989463
I'd do the opposite. Fewer classes; change redundant classes into archetypes of existing classes. "Magic user" would be the class and "Wizard", "Warlock", or "Sorcerer" would be the archetype. "Fighter" would be the class, "Paladin" would be the archetype. Arcane tradition would be an archetype feature of Wizard rather than an archetype itself. Some archetypes (like Paladin) can be selected at character creation. Others (like Sorcerer) _have_ to be selected at character creation.
Feats would stay pretty much the same -- their purpose of feats would be to facilitate character concepts that don't fit neatly into the listed archetypes. Any added feats would be added in order to give them flexibility in a system with few classes but lots of archetypes. For example, if you want to be a Sorcerer that dabbles in Wizardly studies, there'd be a feat for that, because you wouldn't be able to multiclass into a different archetype of the same class.
>>45992856
Yeah, and it feels exactly like what my last fighter felst like because, lets be honest here, EVERYONE TAKES BATTLEMASTER FIGHTER.
The whole point is to be able to do cool stuff with my thrown weapons, not cool stuff with any weapon. That's like playing a Monk who can Flurry of Blows with a greatsword.
>>45992918
Dude, I would totally play a straight pyromancer base-class in 5e.
>>45993040
because archetypes do nothing in 5e and feel boring and half-assed. If you have a system with archetypes, make sure they affect at least half of all the shit you can do.
>>45993153
Superficial limitations. IT makes far more sense to have a class with options that cover most bases, and players can elect to parse themselves down further.
Limitations aren't limitations when all the limited options still cover all bases anyways. That's how you get serious bloat, and bloat is shit.
>>45993093
if anything the fighter usually ends up being too restrictive and inflexible, so i doubt that's the problem.
>>45993230
>Yeah, and it feels exactly like what my last fighter felst like because, lets be honest here, EVERYONE TAKES BATTLEMASTER FIGHTER.
>The whole point is to be able to do cool stuff with my thrown weapons, not cool stuff with any weapon. That's like playing a Monk who can Flurry of Blows with a greatsword.
Then it's up to you to only use thrown weapons.
What you want will bring bloat like 3.5 had. That is shit.
>>45993230
>I would totally play a straight pyromancer base-class in 5e
But would you not also play a Sorcerer with only Fire Spells?
Why does calling it a class suddenly make it worth playing?
Does every weird idea for a build need its own class?
>>45993271
>What you want will bring bloat like 3.5 had. That is shit.
3.5 was shit due to the awful skill system and the horrendous balance of casters, the extreme numbers of classes and prestige classes was great and an excellent design philosophy to aspire to. I reject your assertion; the "bloat" is very desirable.
>>45993334
>>45993334
True those were also problems of 3.5, but class bloat was too fucking much.
Bloat kills page-counts and gets so damn confusing with too many damn options. Fuck no, dear god no.
Clear concise parsed down mechanics and consolidated options are best for players and DMs.
>>45993334
So many interesting ideas that never really got any support too.
I loved magic of incarnum and was always so surprised and pleased when any of the new splats remembered it existed and had a new soulmeld.
>>45993334
>the extreme numbers of classes and prestige classes was great and an excellent design philosophy to aspire to
No, It really wasn't. Having tons and tons of classes that were just 'Fighter but X' isn't good design, especially when the Feat system was already in place to make Fighters more customization.
If instead of having a Knight class, they made a Knight feat tree that only fighters could take, what would the difference be?
For this 'Thrown weapon user example', somebody said it should be focused on strength. Cool. What if somebody wants a Dex-based one? Does that need a new class? What if somebody wants one that can mix it's throwing axes with melee attacks fluidly? Does that need a new class?
What if somebody wants one that can only use shuriken, but does so in an even better way because it's more specialized? What if somebody wants improvised thrown? What if somebody wants an Eldritch Knight style Thrown weapon user that also gets spellcasting? What if somebody wants a divine casting version of that previous one?
Do all of those also need to be classes?
Having them as Feats or Class Features or Subclasses is better, because it makes them more likely to make use of new content. If you have a Fighter class and a thrown weapon class, and a new book with Fighter-only content comes out, the Thrown weapon guy gets nothing. If you make Thrown Weapon a Subclass or Fighting style of Fighter, then they'll be able to use that new stuff as well.
>>45993440
Some of us not only can, but enjoy keeping track of so many options and sculpting characters out of them after being given overwhelming numbers of tools to do so. Having the available material to forge an exact niche design instead of having to hamhand a generic design who behaves niche out of preference can itself be a fun exercise.
>>45993271
1. bloat isn't inherently bad.
2. I gaurentee that 5e is gonna be bloated as all hell after a few splats.
>>45993284
Personally, I want a pyromancer to be wildly different to a flame sorcerer. I'd remove 90% of class features, including spellcasting, and replace it with something else. probably at-will flame abilities.
Thing is, why can't we have pyromancer class and a sorceror that can specialize in fire spells? The sorceror will shill get the benefit of being able to diverge a bit, and the pyromancer will get unique abilities in return for dedication and specialization.
very rarely is more rpg a bad thing.
>>45993583
>>45993583
Then we have fundamentally different needs here, because what you describe makes me figuratively sick to my stomach.
Dear god no.
>>45993589
>bloat isn't inherently bad
Bloat by it's very nature is bad.
Content that isn't extraneous isn't bloat.
>I guarantee that 5e is gonna be bloated as all hell after a few splats.
I heavily disagree, as so far any new additions have been handled well so far.
>>45993589
>very rarely is more rpg a bad thing
I'm not disagreeing with that. My issue is with the idea that the only way to make new characters is to design a new class.
For the Pyromancer example, a Sorcerer can already pull it off very well with Firebolt, control flames, various fire spells, and metamagic to boost it. The Sorcerer being able to take extra stuff isn't really relevant, since somebody who's wants to build a Pyromancer won't take that stuff.
You brought up a good example of something that could actually deserve a new class, being an entirely at-will based caster just using a variety of fire abilities whenever they wish.
That however, only works because it's a new framework that doesn't fit within a Sorcerer or other spellcaster. Even then, using that as a distinct Pyromancer class wouldn't be the best way to handle it.
Instead, imagine what you suggested is the Pyromancer subclass of a new Elementalist class, which also has at-will magic users for other elements as well. Heck, you could make it even broader than that and basically make it an entire class centered around Cantrips and improving them with class features.
You see how that's better than just making a new class for every little thing?
>>45993589
bloat
1. make or become swollen with fluid or gas.
"the fungus has bloated their abdomens"
2. a disease of livestock characterized by an accumulation of gas in the stomach
So both of the definitions of the word are bad.
>>45993534
>If instead of having a Knight class, they made a Knight feat tree that only fighters could take, what would the difference be?
Then everyone would have to operate as a fighter until they achieve their desired feats, and everyone could behave as a fighter even without their feats. It also means they are slaves to the balance of the fighter; they will always be good at what the fighter does, and bad at what the fighter doesn't.
Reducing anyone who fights in any degree to "fighter but X" is itself what I take issue with. You just boil the game down to the two supertypes Martial and Caster, and have no other options to pull from except filtering into one who only limits themselves by choice.
What if we want a fighter who fucking fights differently and doesn't have the base features of the fighter class, but still want to use weaponry?
>>45993661
>figuratively
I just wanted to say thank you on behalf of those of us who still love the English language.
change the 5 for a 4
>>45993440
More page-count and more options aren't a good thing? Jesus, we're not all putting it in the PHB or something.
Here's a splat with some more base-classes and prestige-classes available. If you don't want more options, don't buy it. Simple.
>>45993467
You will never, ever get something as wild or interesting as incarnum in 5e.
>>45993711
no content is inherently extraneous. If you enjoy it, it's good, and if you don't, it's extraneous.
Luckily for you, you don't need to use "extraneous" content if you don't want too.
>>45993739
I don't disagree with you, either. I think that having an elementalist class would be a cool thing, and that having a different class for each kind of elemental-mage is unnecesary.
Problem is, 5e isn't adding in new classes. We're getting archetypes forever, and your elementalists will never feel different than your sorcerers.
This is why its such a shame they got rid of prestige classes. You could easily have Monk, Paladin, Pyromancer, and Thrown-Weapon User all be interesting prestige classes for generalized base-classes. I know that d20 modern does something similar
>>45993739
>I'm not disagreeing with that. My issue is with the idea that the only way to make new characters is to design a new class.
This can easily be an issue in the reverse perspective.
One can be annoyed that you must make a Fighter, Fighter, or Fighter when you want to make a Fencer, Samurai, or Spearmaster. The three concepts could easily be diverged and have next to no similarity beyond usage of arms, but the only option is to be the same Fighter who uses attacks and action surges.
I understand the concept of too much differentiation, but you must understand that you can equally take issue with too little differentiation.
>>45994094
>More page-count
More expensive to produce and print.
>no content is inherently extraneous. If you enjoy it, it's good, and if you don't, it's extraneous.
No, it's extraneous when the same amount of information can be portrayed far more concisely and in less space.
>>45994200
just make it an e-book or a pdf
problem solved
>>45994094
Prestige classes are closer to archetypes anyway. The reason we haven't gotten new classes is to avoid runaway bloat.
They'll probably only introduce one when it's a different enough concept to necessitate an entirely new class.
While at-will elementalists could be an interesting idea, it's not like a Pyromancer is a character concept that can't be done already.
>>45994114
Say you're a new player, and you want to play 5e as a Fencer. It's easy enough to sort out what you want, since Fighter is the weapon user class, and Rapiers are a weapon.
Imagine instead, if their was a Fighter Class, a Fencer class, a Duelist class, and a Swashbuckler class. You have to read over all of them to figure out which one actually works for the character you wanted to play, instead of just having all of those options being things to add-on to the Fighter class to be added once you're higher level and have more of an idea of how you want to play your character.
Having them as distinct classes could work, if you manage to make them all feel extremely different from one another in a way that can't be done by adding them to the Fighter class.
Considering the baseline Fighter class features are just 'attack more' as well, I don't see how that would make any of those classes feel to similar.
Even if you wanted to make say, a dagger-master fighter that got even more attacks, or a heavy weapon user that focused on large single attacks, those too could be accomplished with feats or subclasses.
>>45994280
I'd imagine that, if you're a new player and you want to play a fencer, you'd pick the class labeled "fencer."
It's not rocket science
>>45994362
Or be a Soldier, Burglar, Assassin, or even Courtier and take the Fencing feats?
Entire classes dedicated to a very specific concept are no good. Classes should be broad and cover wide areas, with feats covering specializations.
>>45994280
>Imagine instead, if their was a Fighter Class, a Fencer class, a Duelist class, and a Swashbuckler class. You have to read over all of them to figure out which one actually works for the character you wanted to play, instead of just having all of those options being things to add-on to the Fighter class to be added once you're higher level and have more of an idea of how you want to play your character.
Even if that were the case, you'd have to read over the subclass options too. There would still be that extra reading, just perhaps marginally less page flipping because archetypes are listed one after the other whereas classes are alphabetical.
It would also mean that you have to be a fighter without your character concept but as a generic warrior until you reach the divergence point of your character concept. Levels 1 and 2 are the most utterly boring sections of D&D 5E to me, my group skips them entirely nowadays. But even for levels 3-5 the characters are not that unique from other archetypes. So that's a very large segment of an initial campaign that experienced players would excise because it lacks differentiation.
Meanwhile, they would always be good at what the class is good at, because archetypes as they stand only ever give and never take away. Every fighter will have Action Surge, every fighter will get their Extra Attacks at the same level.
>>45994446
I'm a new player. Isn't it much easier for me to take that option that's labeled "fencer" instead of looking through all those generic, modular options.
But perhaps arguing that a newcomer's perspective is more important that a veteran fan's is stupid.
>>45994561
You'd be wrong. Because history tells us that the fencing class is probably not even the best at fencing.
It's better to just have one Fighter class and give it new options, than to arbitrarily create another base class for something that's nearly the same.
>>45994514
Basically your whole complaint is "I want my character to be able to suck at something."
>>45994362
That's assuming a Fencer actually does what you want though. For all you know, the person who made the Fencer class could have envisioned something entirely different from what you thought of.
For example, say the Fencer class ends up being a very defensive and evasion heavy class focused on parrying, and counter-attacking, while you wanted something more mobile, focused on dodging and precision strikes.
While those could also be subclasses or fighting styles underneath a larger fencer class, they could also just as easily fit under the larger Fighter umbrella.
>>45994514
>you'd have to read over the subclass options too
>generic warrior until you reach the divergence point of your character concept
Which gives you time to actually examine what you want your character to be, rather than pidgeon-holing yourself from first level on something that might not fit your concept.
If it's something simple enough to be a Fighting style, then you can pick it at level 1 and proceed from there. If it's in-depth enough to be a subclass, then you have some time in play to figure out what you actually want.
Even having a separate class isn't going to garuntee they feel much different anyway. You said so yourself that you skip the first few levels, so any difference at level 1 is lost on you anyway.
>>45994625
More specifically; "I want my character to be able to suck at something without having to cripple it myself."
I want a road bike that isn't a mountain bike, not an all terrain bike that I busted with a hammer and no longer functions on mountains. Options like that are pleasing to me.
>>45994669
Then isn't the best option to have a general 'bike' class with different things you can purchase to make it specifically better on mountains or roads?
After all, even a mountain bike will still function on a road, just not as well as a dedicated road bike.
Why does the game have to create new options with specific limitations on existing concepts for you to be content, rather than you just imposing those limitations on yourself?
>>45994094
I'm not even sure how you would do something like soulmelds in 5e.
>>45994669
>I want incredibly specific thing
Nobody gives a shit about your personal whims. I wish a robot arm would wipe my ass for me so I could focus on reading my William Gibson on the can, but I've got the presence of mind to know that the lack of such a thing isn't an issue with how my bathroom is designed.
>>45994713
>Then isn't the best option to have a general 'bike' class with different things you can purchase to make it specifically better on mountains or roads?
Because it ends up with too similar experiences even with the different packages. Playing a champion fighter and an eldritch knight fighter only reaches variation in matters of play style in the very high levels. In early levels it is either literally the same experience, or an extremely close experience.
A different class is a different experience. A level two barbarian doesn't feel like a level two fighter even though they're both still primarily hitting things with weapons. They have differentiated options to behave in ways the other cannot. This is the advantage of having different classes vs. archetypes of the same class.
>>45994807
This fucking thread is about how you would enjoy it more, not how you think the best business design for the game moving forward to reach the widest audience base should be.
>>45994849
Then you're naive.
>>45994868
Some people enjoy niche. That's why niches are niches.
>>45994816
>A different class is a different experience
But not if they're super similar anyway. If the only difference between a Thrown-weapon user class and a Thrown-weapon using Battlemaster is that the Thrown weapon user gets to use maneuvers more often with smaller dice, and lacks action surge, then that's a difference that's only going to be felt in certain sitautions.
Maybe you would have killed something faster with action surge, but maybe you would have ran out of trick-shots sooner.
Just calling something a different class doesn't mean it will automatically feel different.
>>45994929
A different class "should be" a different experience, then, and I'm not enough of a master of game design to convey how I would execute a weapon thrower as a significantly different experience from a fighter. However, I do believe that it could be done (by someone more capable in design than myself).
>>45994816
>Because it ends up with too similar experiences even with the different packages.
it doesn't have to be that way, though. the fighter and barbarian both have very 'narrow' design. two wizards at any given level can be very different - two fighters, not so much. but if you design the fighter from the beginning with the assumption that it needs to also function, potentially, as a barbarian and whatever else, then they would probably give it more flexibility.
>>45994987
And I disagree that it would be different enough to deserve it's own class.
I believe a subclass or feat could suffice, and making a subclass or feat for each fighting-style would be better for the long-term health of the game then making a new class for every different weapon.
>>45992895
Monks can throw Hadoukens and do Wuxia shit.
>>45995123
So have a weapons tosser do unique things. Maybe make a grenadier class, then have weapons-thrower be an archetype of that who throws weapons normally that then blast after dealing damage.
Or have weapons boomerang-return to them. Or have weapons strike multiple foes. Or both, like Captain America's shield.
Or they create mystic duplications of weapons they toss. Fling one dart, enemy gets hit by three.
Maybe give them some other spin, like they toss a javelin into the sky, and it comes back down ten times the size two turns later on an enemy's head.
Making unique features is just a matter of weaving imagination with output balance.
>>45995377
So the crux of the problem is that the 5e design philosophy forces characters into narrow ranges, gives very few options for customization, and has many option that are simply superior to others?
>>45995424
The second point is true, but the first and third aren't true. Fighter has a very broad range. This guy wants to do something very narrow; only throw weapons.
>>45995424
I think it's more that 5e expects their current classes to cover a lot of ground as far as archetypes are concerned, with subclasses filling in some of those more niche requests.
In some ways, it works. Swashbucklers and other fighting styles can work just fine as subclasses.
In other cases, like the time they tried Artificer as a Wizard subclass, it really doesn't.
>>45995377
>Grenedier class, thrown weapons explode after dealing damage
Perfect subclass material. Does something distinct, and could easily be handled by 2 or 3 class features as it scales up in level.
>boomerang weapons striking multiple foes
Sounds like a great Feat to me
>mystic duplication of weapons they toss
>Fling one dart, enemy gets hit by three.
Easy enough to make a cantrip or spell
>they toss a javelin into the sky, and it comes back down ten times the size two turns later on an enemy's head
Combine it with the previous one as a feat with a variety of ways to alter weapons mid-flight.
>>45995469
Alright, so I want to make a character who fights with ranged weapons and can do cool things with them.
>5e: Fuck you
Okay, I'll make a Jackie Chan-style martial artist who uses his physical prowess and dexterity
>5e: Fuck you, here's some ki points
Fine, I'll make a dextrous fencer, who parries and riposte and feints the whole night through
>5e: Fuck you
I'll play a cool dude who uses a trident?
>5e:
I'll be an Indiana Jones style dude who uses his whip to distract, disarm, and trip at great range!
>5e: 1d6 lethal damage, 10ft range
Halberds are different than glaives?
>5e
>>45995604
>I want to make a character who fights with ranged weapons and can do cool things with them
Fighter, Archery Style, Battlemaster for Maneuvers
>I'll make a Jackie Chan-style martial artist who uses his physical prowess and dexterity
Monk, possibly a dip into Rogue for Athletics expertise for improved combat maneuvers.
>I'll make a dextrous fencer, who parries and riposte and feints the whole night through
Fighter, Duelist, Battlemaster maneuvers, there's also a good feat for that
>I'll play a cool dude who uses a trident
Cool. Go for a Net as well. Full gladiator. Or a shield if you prefer. It's not any worse than a longsword and can be thrown when needed.
>I'll be an Indiana Jones style dude who uses his whip to distract, disarm, and trip at great range
Totally possible. I don't see why you're complaining about damage when you weren't planning on killing people with it. Indiana Jones usually killed people with his gun anyway.
>>45995604
Battle Master fighter.
Refluff.
Battle Master w/ Defensive Duelist
Same stats as a spear, fine with a shield.
Whips deal 1d4 damage, and such moves are in the preview of the DM. Fair point if you hate that, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Also, lethal damage doesn't matter because melee attacks can knock creatures out if the attacker wishes.
>>45995742
>>45995771
Some of this stuff can also be done by making homebrew feats, which are a huge design space. People act like homebrew doesn't exist, but 5e's built to be easy to build into.
>>45995817
Yep. Homebrew feats, fighting styles, and combat maneuvers make this even easier.
There's no need for a full Trident Man class just to be a cool guy who uses a Trident.
>>45995604
why don't you play a system that more caters to your autistic tendencies
>>45995908
Because this is a thread about changes we think would make 5e better.
>>45995891
I was referencing how trident is literally spear but more five times the price and heavier, and a martial weapon (emphasizing the stupidity of the proficiency system).
>>45995948
A silly bit of simulationism in a system that isn't really about simulationism, but it won't keep someone that wants to be focused on their trident from being good with their trident, so putting it in that list of builds that can't be done undermines your argument.
>>45995948
Price and Weight will matter almost never, even in a game where you're keeping careful track of that sort of stuff.
I could have sworn I remembered it being a d8, but if your point is that every single weapon type needs an entire class to justify it's existence, wouldn't a Feat or Fighting style be better?
I mean, if you make an entire Class that uses a Trident really well, that's cool, but what if somebody wants to make a Trident Paladin? Or a Thrown Weapon Paladin? Wouldn't feats be a better way to make these more underused weapons shine in the hands of a variety of classes?
>>45996074
I never said anything close to that, I'm the one saying classes should be broad and feats should specialize. That's why I don't like monks, barbarians, rangers, ect.
Tridents shouldn't have a class, but they should have something, anything, to set them apart from spears.
>>45990433
The shittiest taste ITT
>>45996120
If the Monk class did not exist, I do not believe playing a Fighter with the Tavern Brawler feat would be that sufficient for getting an unarmed technique brawler across as an execution.
>>45996367
Maybe if they expanded upon maneuvers in general and Tavern Brawler dealt more damage, it could.
>>45996429
So in other words if Fighters were not Fighters (as they are now) but instead a super-class that could realign into other modes. Archetypes would need to operate entirely differently.
In other words, not actually how 5E's design currently works, but taken to an extreme.
>>45992361
Dude, if you have an issue with 5e skills the DM is having you roll too often and not using the right DCs.
>>45996429
Tavern Brawler actually fills a pretty specific niche. An Unarmed fighting style and feat is something that would allow for Sacred Fists, Mundane Martials Artists, and other Fist-concepts that don't want to focus on ki points.
>>45996532
This isn't his complain, at all. He wants to be good at climbing and bad at swimming.
>>45996367
But what if the class was Martial Artist and covered a wide variety of different concepts, and Ki related abilities were granted by a feat or three?
>>45996774
So the way it works in fantasy craft?
>>45996895
Yes. The truth is, I'm just a bitter guy who really likes Fantasy Craft but can only find games of 5e, so I shitpost all day.
5E does permit the existence of prestige classes by UA rules at least.
I wouldn't mind the 3.5 prestige class, Bloodstorm Blade, being recreated in 5E mechanics. That'd be a weapon thrower. Then barbarians or fighters or paladins could opt in to it, sacrificing their abilities as a base class (i.e. giving the limitations that one anon wants).
Must this segue into prestige classes for everything? Certainly not. It's fine to only have it for some things and not others.
>>45989501
Warlord
>>45989370
I want the DMG to suck my dick
I want the Monster Manual to clean my house
I want the PHB to cook my meals
I want the adventure modules to assist the DMG for orgy sessions and fetish encounters
I want the dice to share war stories
>>45996588
>This isn't his complain, at all. He wants to be good at climbing and bad at swimming.
I... wha... ho... why?
I've played 3.pf for years and I don't understand people who have been so severely damaged they prefer the skill system.
IF YOU WANT TO SUCK AT SWIMMING, JUST SUCK AT SWIMMING. Christ, tell your DM you're taking disadvantage because RP or to raise the check difficulty for RP reasons.
>>45998773
Statistically, my character does not suck at swimming, and therefore I should not play him as if he sucks at swimming.
There's nothing wrong with contextualizing your character based on their statistics. Why play a game with numbers if you don't want to use the numbers?
Why even call it a game at that point?
>>45998839
What, so because you know mathematically that your character can do something, you can't stand the idea of playing him as anything else?
If you want to play a Barbarian who can't read, all you have to do is play him as such. If your Fighter is from a desert and has never learned to swim, then just have him not know how to swim.
What's the issue? You're not a computer. You can make your own decisions. Limiting your character to better fit a role you have in mind is one of the easiest things to do.
>>45998952
>What, so because you know mathematically that your character can do something, you can't stand the idea of playing him as anything else?
It is unpleasant to have to screw the statistics, yes. It comes off as less playing a one armed man and more playing an able bodied man who ties one arm behind his back.
>What's the issue? You're not a computer. You can make your own decisions. Limiting your character to better fit a role you have in mind is one of the easiest things to do.
You're not expressing the character you constructed, instead you're ignoring parts of the system as they lay for fluff purposes. This does not in any way make the system better.
It's not difficult, it's unsatisfying.
>>45999062
Would it make you feel better if you homebrewed a flaw system so you could have "Can't swim: Your character automatically fails swim checks."? Because it has the exact same result.
The system is better off from assuming all characters can read and that all Fighters with Athletics can do athletic things.
If all characters can't read, then you need to charge them something on character creation to get that capability. I've played 2e games where things got completely hung up because nobody spent any of their limited non-combat proficiencies on the ability to read.
Same for 3.5, where a Fighter's skills are so limited as to make him choose between Running, Jumping, Climbing OR Swimming. If they offset that by giving him more skills, then there's still not a garuntee that they would spend them in that way, since those skills aren't as valuable as others.
Even if it makes perfect sense for a character to have or not have those things, putting in the option to forgo taking them and take something else instead just paves the way to min-maxing. Not even fully conscious stuff either. None of those people in the 2e game I mentioned intended to skip reading. They just saw other skills that they felt fit their character better, and assumed somebody else would handle it.
Not every single itty bitty tiny aspect of your character needs to have stats that you pay with points in character creation. If you want to be a good cook, ask the DM if your character can be a good cook. If you want your character to not swim, tell your DM you don't want them to be able to swim.
You're making a problem out being given free stuff that you can get rid of.
>>45989370
A different main setting besides FR
>>45999248
I'd love an official flaw system.
Having to homebrew a system directly highlights that the system is incomplete.
>>45999358
The system is incomplete because you don't know how to write 'Can't Swim' on your character sheet?
Do you expect an official Flaw system to do anything except tell you to write that on your character sheet?
>>45999458
>Do you expect an official Flaw system to do anything except tell you to write that on your character sheet?
Drawbacks can offer balancing rewards, furthering specialization.
Demerits into merits.
I'm particularly fond of L5R's Disadvantage system.
>>45989370
Give it content instead of overpriced, shitty modules.
>>45999699
Flaws, disadvantages, demerits, weaknesses... it's all just a way for your character to get more build power by being bad at things they will never do or that your GM will forget you are supposed to be bad at.
>>45999358
>>45999458
It's fair to say that, compared to other editions, 5e is incomplete. Now, 3.5 didn't have flaws when it started either, or 4e. However, due to 5e's update schedule, it's likely to be 'incomplete' for a long time.
So a valid critique of 5e is that, if you want something, you might have to build it yourself or use something non-official. Some people don't like that, it's a matter of taste.
>>45999358
Flaw-for-bonus systems are bullshit only ever used for charop fuckheads. See >>45999771
>>45999699
So just opening up the door for blatant min-maxing. Got it.
You don't want your character to be bad at something for character reasons, you want to put an X next to everything you weren't going to use anyway in order to get more bonuses.
>>45999771
Or you can not minmax and actually take disadvantages that flavor your character.
One of my favorite characters was in L5R aided greatly by taking "Greedy" in character construction. I hadn't anticipated it to give me so much conflict and character growth down the line.
I could make a character greedy on my own, sure, but that'd be giving myself a negative for nothing but my own satisfaction.
>>45999809
>>45999831
Way to strawman.
...Man all this deep philosophy of play stuff and I was just going to say
"give sorcerors a bit more granularity in bloodlines"
It's kind of frustrating for it to boil down to "are you or are you not a dragon"
Favored Soul and stormborn help but not by much
I just play 3.5 instead.
>>45999878
I didn't strawman, flaw-for-bonus systems ARE bullshit only ever used by charop fuckheads. I don't care what your actual justification for wanting flaw-for-bonus is, they're stupid regardless.
>>45999923
Or they're utilized by people who intertwine the system with their roleplaying. Like myself.
"Hey, this guy is a thief, he should be Greedy" was literally my thought process.
>>45999909
Why not Fantasy Craft : ^ )
>>45999878
>Or you can not minmax and actually take disadvantages that flavor your character.
Well, you're clearly not satisfied with that, since we suggested just taking a flaw without getting benefit in return, but you weren't okay with that.
People who actually want to take disadvantages to flavor their character don't need benefits to make up for them. Having negatives like that is entirely for your own satisfaction.
>>45999969
>Well, you're clearly not satisfied with that, since we suggested just taking a flaw without getting benefit in return, but you weren't okay with that.
Doesn't follow. I'm saying disadvantages (that do benefit in return) that work with your character concept, instead of "disadvantages that won't actually penalize you" etc. minmaxing.
3.5 is to Oblivion as 5e is to Skyrim.
>>46000044
Why do you need a page in a book to tell you 'Hey, you can have your character be Greedy. Gain +3 gubbins if you do'?
Why can't you just...be Greedy?
Why do you need something in return?
>>46000131
Because it displeases me to shoot myself in the foot and have nothing to show for it.
As I described before, it's like playing a guy who ties one arm behind his back and claims he's a one armed man. No, you're just not using the arm that you very clearly could use.
>>46000187
>I take flaws for flavor
>But not when it makes my character actually flawed
Min-maxing faggot. Got it.
>>46000187
You just said you did gain something out of it, though. And you know you gain something out of it or you wouldn't want it in the first place.
You want the ability to gimp your characters in minor, flavorful ways, but refuse to do so without compensation, and are now complaining that you're the poorer for it. Why? Do you have the same issue making decisions in character for "no benefit?"
>>46000237
Correction.
I take flaws for flavor and profit in equal measure, because I am an optimizer, not a minmaxer.
I would not take a flaw just for profit; if I don't get flavor out of it then it is a useless footnote on my character sheet and displeases me. I would not take a flaw just for flavor; it detriments me without tangible reason.
>>46000275
Not him but wasn't this all originally about the lack of granularity in the 5e skill system.
The fact that you couldn't be good at climbing without also being good at swimming and jumping.
Sure you could just say you're character is a bad swimmer but he's not you're just saying he is and that bugs some people.
>>46000364
>He's not you're just saying he is
Except it's MY character. If I say he can't do something then he doesn't. What's the issue?
Besides, I'd rather have a Fighter who I have to scratch out things to make bad at something rather than 3.5, where being good at Climbing, Swimming, and Jumping takes all of my skillpoints.
>>46000303
>I would not take a flaw just for flavor; it detriments me without tangible reason.
How would you roleplay a Rogue in 5e? Would you have them be greedy? Would you have them be charitable?
Both of those could be considered flaws, one in the sense of a moral flaw and the other in the sense of a mechanical one that would logically lose you gold.
At what point are you actually willing to make a character and Role-play without words and numbers on a piece of paper telling you who your character is?
>>46000420
Because this isn't 'nam, there are rules, etc.
>>46000420
The issue is he can do it you're just choosing not to.
I mostly play point by systems so it's jarring to have shit on my character sheet i don't want there.
>>46000476
That's a matter of character alignment, mate.
>>46000509
No, by me choosing not to, he can't do it.
If I write 'can't swim' on my character sheet, they can't swim. That's it.
>>46000518
You let alignment dictate 100% of your character's personality traits?
>>46000567
No, character alignment is what is both a flaw and a boon in equal measurement, so if I'm a neutral good rogue who does charity, then that was my choice and I live with it at any consequence. The alignment comes with positives and negatives in adequate balance.
The personality traits decide the alignment, which itself is the demerit and merit.
>>46000364
>Sure you could just say you're character is a bad swimmer but he's not you're just saying he is and that bugs some people.
The problem is that the part that bugs him is the roleplaying part of the roleplaying game. It's an absurd stance to say "because there is no rule I cannot" in a game that differentiates from a video game by operating outside the rules.
>>46000627
>separating the roleplaying and game parts
>not keeping them in unity
>>46000675
You don't need rules for every single aspect of a character.
You don't need "Flaw: fear of spiders", "Trait: mole on right thigh"," Flaw: Doesn't know the rules to 3 dragon ante", "Bonus: can identify species of northern moss", and "Bonus: Can roll tongue" to have your character do those things.
>>46000735
That's because none of those have significant mechanical effect.
>>46000791
>Fear of spiders doesn't have a significant mechanical effect
We'll see who's laughing once you're in the Underdark
>>46000735
But it's good to have rules for big and broad things like "can climb, but not swim", whereas 5E only has "can do all things relating to 'athletics' with equal aptitude regardless of circumstance".
Yes, you can easily fix it with homebrew. That, again, just puts a spotlight on the limitations and awkwardness of the system as it stands.
>>46000791
Neither does being Greedy, but that's been brought up as a meaningful flaw.
Only having 1 arm also doesn't have much mechanical effect for a lot of characters. Just cuts you off from dual-wielding or two-handers, and even the second one is debatable.
>>46000813
Well there is fear of spiders and then there is FEAR OF SPIDERS.
>>46000820
>limitations
It's literally the opposite of limitations. Your character can do X, Y, and Z, by default. Don't want them to do Z? Don't have them do Z!
If your Fighter never would have learned how to use a bow, don't use a bow. What's hard about this?
>>46000846
Greed is hella meaningful in D&D with the amount of GP the players are expected to acquire and utilize. The system's not made to be diverged from its economy.
>>46000878
In 5e? It really isn't that important. Buying magic items to keep your numbers up isn't the default assumption, which means any money you get is mostly going to be spent on RP stuff, or maybe spell components.
You could easily have a Greedy Rogue own a growing pile of gold all game with 0 mechanical impact.
>>46000873
>What's hard about this?
Nothing is hard about it. This has been stated several times.
It is just unsatisfying to limit oneself without any form of return.
>>46000846
Except climbing,swimming,tying rope,lifting, using a bow or any number of physical activities.
Seriously missing an arm is a significant draw back.
Just gonna leave this here.
>>46000936
Because you're a min-maxing faggot, yes, we've established this already.
>>46000936
As someone use to systems with more granularity when it comes to character creation 5e is seriously lacking.
>>46000977
Optimizing is distinct from minmaxing.
>>46000999
And you're trying to optimize even further by maximizing your advantages and minimizing the effects of flaws.
I hope they never introduce Flaws with benefits in 5e, because all it does is encourage min-maxers.
>>46001038
Optimizing is taking a -1 and getting a +1. Minmaxing is using the values and coming up with +2.
>>45989800
Dwarf Wizard can work up to casting in Heavy Armor! I wouldn't call that gimped. Certainly it's not optimal.
>>46001038
No. I have never wanted to minimize the effects of flaws. If I'm playing a one armed man, I want to be one armed, and not have the possibility of pulling out the arm tied behind my back.
Having a flaw give a return doesn't minimize its effect in any way. It just gives a validation for taking it.
>>46001093
No, minmaxing is dumping something that doesn't matter to boost your focus that does.
>Minmaxing is using the values and coming up with +2.
That's munchkinning when you jump through enough loops to ignore the numbers entirely.
>>46001038
>I hope they never introduce Flaws with benefits in 5e, because all it does is encourage min-maxers.
This, with a caveat. mechanical 'flaws' work in the narrow context of insanity, which itself works in the narrow set of, well, trying to introduce Call of Cthulhu elements into other games. Which can be fun. Having a D&D game where the PCs are more like high-fantasy investigators and might develop some phobias as a result of their encounters with Things That Should Not Be works. But it;s hardly for every game and the "take flaws to get bonuses elsewhere" strategy NEVER works.
>>46001134
Right, but the guy that wants flavorful flaws wants his flaws to matter.
There's no way to really balance for that in DnD. Other systems reward players for playing to their flaws. Well, 5e does have Inspiration, which you could get for being greedy or whatnot, but being Blind is too big an issue, and not being able to swim isn't really appropriate for a 5e Flaw.
>>46001134
>No, minmaxing is dumping something that doesn't matter to boost your focus that does.
And I've never advocated that in this thread. Taking flaws that don't matter to your character is uninteresting and is useless data.
>>45989922
That seems ridiculously easy to homebrew. Just make a new race of elf that places a great deal of emphasis on learning from your peers rather than learning from mistakes or going in headstrong and make the bonus that they get from this +2 Wisdom.
fuck
>>46001196
There's no other way to introduce them as codified rules though. You can't easily write into the rules 'Only characters that it matters to may take the 1-armed flaw'.
How do you decide who it matters to? Does it matter to a Barbarian? Probably. Does it matter to a Fighter? Maybe, depending on the weapon. Does it matter to a Monk? Sometimes, for skills. Does it matter to a Wizard? Rarely.
The only way to have it work is to have the DM judge what a fair benefit for a particular flaw is, and at that point you've come full circle where you might as well just talk to your DM about playing a character with a flaw.
