My biggest problem with 5E came with feats. Unbalanced and ill thought out in 3e and 5e.

Quote from: Omega on March 04, 2025, 12:11:01 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on March 01, 2025, 10:42:02 PMSaying that it has less system bloat than 3e just isn't saying very much.

5e is worlds easier and has far far less system bloat than 3e.
Over the course of its run they introduced very few expansion books and of those most were new class paths. Some skill expansion, etc.
There were only 2 rules expansion books. Xanithar and Tasha.
And 3 that were setting books but also had a bunch of new class stuff. Sword Coast, Spelljammer and Planescape are the only ones.

Thats pretty much it.

There's definitely more supplement books than that. Some of the supplement books were mostly about monsters or lore, and had few new rules - but even Fizban's Treasury of Dragons had 3 new races, 2 new subclasses, 3 new feats, and 6 new spells. Here's the complete list, I think:

Supplements
Volo's Guide to Monsters
Xanathar's Guide to Everything
Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
Fizban's Treasury of Dragons
Monsters of the Multiverse
Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants
The Book of Many Things

Campaign Settings
Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide
Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica
Acquisitions Incorporated
Eberron: Rising from the Last War
Explorer's Guide to Wildemount
Mythic Odysseys of Theros
Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft
Strixhaven: A Curriculum of Chaos
Spelljammer: Adventures in Space
Planescape: Adventures in the Multiverse

(source)

There's an awful lot of pages for the amount of meaningful choices.  That's what happens when you write a lot of filler to sell books.  A 5E distilled down into the useful bits still wouldn't have very many meaningful choices but it would be a simple system to understand and run. 

And in fact, anyone spending any time running for very long does do that, if only unconsciously.  You ignore large chunks of it as irrelevant.

Quote from: jhkim on March 04, 2025, 01:06:04 PMThere's definitely more supplement books than that. Some of the supplement books were mostly about monsters or lore, and had few new rules - but even Fizban's Treasury of Dragons had 3 new races, 2 new subclasses, 3 new feats, and 6 new spells. Here's the complete list, I think:

Supplements
Volo's Guide to Monsters
Xanathar's Guide to Everything
Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
Fizban's Treasury of Dragons
Monsters of the Multiverse
Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants
The Book of Many Things

Campaign Settings
Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide
Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica
Acquisitions Incorporated
Eberron: Rising from the Last War
Explorer's Guide to Wildemount
Mythic Odysseys of Theros
Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft
Strixhaven: A Curriculum of Chaos
Spelljammer: Adventures in Space
Planescape: Adventures in the Multiverse

(source)

You're correct of course, but he was comparing it to 3.X, which has a truly incredible amount of stuff.

Note that each of these, beyond the ones he brought up (XGtE, TCoE), have very few additional spells, subclasses, and feats- the one you picked out, Fizban's, is maybe a bit above average in player-choice content added, but even those few things are very small compared to others.  5.0 only added one class ever- the artificer- in Eberron (the current 5.0 version is printed in Tasha's). 


Here's a by-class list of subclass options, with the first number being the count in the PHB, and the second being by the end of 5.0.

Artificer:0:4
Barbarian:2:9
Bard:2:8
Cleric:7:14
Druid:2:7
Fighter:3:10
Monk:3:10
Paladin:3:9
Ranger:2:8
Rogue:3:9
Sorcerer:2:8
Warlock:3:9
Wizard:8:13

Basically, the number of options to track tripled over the decade of 5.0 books.  An equivalent amount of time in 3.5 was way bigger; 4e as well.

So while he definitely undershot with his estimation of 5.X books, the magnitude of comparison with older editions was correct.

Quote from: Venka on March 04, 2025, 01:23:49 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 04, 2025, 01:06:04 PMThere's definitely more supplement books than that. Some of the supplement books were mostly about monsters or lore, and had few new rules - but even Fizban's Treasury of Dragons had 3 new races, 2 new subclasses, 3 new feats, and 6 new spells.

Basically, the number of options to track tripled over the decade of 5.0 books.  An equivalent amount of time in 3.5 was way bigger; 4e as well.

So while he definitely undershot with his estimation of 5.X books, the magnitude of comparison with older editions was correct.

Thanks, Venka. That sounds easily believable from what I know. I never played 3.5 at all and only briefly played 4e with my nephews, that using only core books. Do you have any idea how much more than tripled the options were in 3.5e and 4e?

Quote from: Venka on March 04, 2025, 12:54:33 PMWhatever those systems are, there's a one true build in them too. Maybe there's not enough players to have published a thorough guide, or maybe the games aren't predictable enough so that there's a small milieu of builds depending on the type of campaign, but overall the fact that there's fewer choices in 5e actually makes it better in this regard.

Disagree, because the presumption there's "one true build" in those systems presumes everyone is building towards the exact same goal versus everyone having their own idea for what's best and what they want to be good at.

In the M&M campaign I'm setting up one of the group came to me with a concept (a teleporter akin the guy in the Jumper novels) because he was worried it'd be overpowered (because it absolutely would be in a D&D game, whereas for a superhero game that was so mundane I just needed to find the Teleport power and apply the proper extras and limits to it).

He didn't want to max out his combat ability or toughness or anything like that. His ideal build was something that would let him play as a teleporter who could go anyplace he's ever seen.

Your argument amounts to "well, everyone's favorite hero should be Superman" even if it's Batman or Green Latern or Beast Boy or Daredevil.

There's no one perfect build to be found in that... at best "this is the perfect build to emulate [insert character here] as I understand the character (because every other fan has their own interpretation of their capabilities and limitations... ex. my writeup for Superboy would look nothing like the one in DCAdventures because I find use of his TTK to be far more capable than the afterthought it was in the guide... because I read all hundred issues of his original series, Superboy and the Ravers, and the whole of Young Justice, not just Geoff Johns' Teen Titans).

Quote from: jhkim on March 04, 2025, 02:16:38 PMThanks, Venka. That sounds easily believable from what I know. I never played 3.5 at all and only briefly played 4e with my nephews, that using only core books. Do you have any idea how much more than tripled the options were in 3.5e and 4e?

For 3.5, the number of base classes increased from 11 in the PHB to around 60, but that really underestimates the sheer craziness of 3.5 classes.  The favored way to add splatbook content was the prestige class, which gave you a bunch of flavorful powers over a few levels.  Most prestige classes were just strictly better than their non-prestiged versions, and many stacked in ludicrous fashion.
https://wikiproject-dungeons-dragons.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_prestige_classes

There's hundreds listed here.  And then there's the feats- I'd be shocked if there were less than a thousand official feats.

So to answer your question, for 3.5 it's not some mere factor of 3, it's at least 50x and probably closer to 100x.

For 4e it's pretty big too, much bigger than 5e.  In 4e, feats played a much smaller role (though there were still more than 5e ended up with), and there were no "prestige classes" to allow for moderately sized rule additions.  4e you could add a class (and they did, going from 8 in the PHB to 26, roughly triple like in 5e), but this doesn't count the various subclasses that were added throughout (counting those it's more like 60 options).  But this is still a poor counting- if you were a fighter leveling up you had to pick some options every level, like "this is the level I pick a new encounter power", for instance.  If the game was new you cracked open the PHB and checked out your three or so options and looked ahead to see if there was any big synergy coming up, etc.  But that same fighter by the end of the edition was checking a small pile of books, opening them, turning to fighter, looking up the level you were gaining, and seeing if any of those few options per book were better.  Or really, you'd do this all with a computer program to list them out for you.

4ed is harder to get an exact number for this reason, but there's also the fact that it is both (a) less popular than the other versions and (b) very well handled if you go and grab all the 4e tools, which are still available as binaries that you can go and find some way to run in an old browser or something.  So there's less online resources for those two reasons.  Trust me it's a lot bigger than 5e though, even if it isn't as wildly overpowering as 3.5.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 04, 2025, 04:31:15 PMDisagree, because the presumption there's "one true build" in those systems presumes everyone is building towards the exact same goal versus everyone having their own idea for what's best and what they want to be good at.

There's an optimized version for each of those too! 

QuoteYour argument amounts to "well, everyone's favorite hero should be Superman" even if it's Batman or Green Latern or Beast Boy or Daredevil.

If your system prices Superman the same as Batman, it has failed at balance.  For a given cost, there's an optimal guy for combat, and almost assuredly an optimal guy for a concept. 

If your system is all about choices and doesn't care matching up power levels of superheroes then sure, that sounds great, but it's clear that's not what a class system (or a bunch of modular choices that is somewhere between classes and skills) is about, and you wouldn't bring that up as an example of something you'd expect D&D to do, or want it to do.  If I'm choosing "do I get +2 to damage with a one handed weapon or a smaller bonus with a two-handed weapon" it's clear that the numbers on my choices were put there with game balance in mind.  If I'm choosing between a teleportation power and bullets bouncing off my skin, that's another thing completely, and the guy making them cost some number of build points is simply gonna do way worse at pricing them than the first case is.

Quote from: Ruprecht on March 04, 2025, 01:05:28 PMMy biggest problem with 5E came with feats. Unbalanced and ill thought out in 3e and 5e.

5e feats are not 3e feats. They tend to get bit more done. And are not as all pervasive.

Quote from: jhkim on March 04, 2025, 01:06:04 PM

Quote from: Omega on March 04, 2025, 12:11:01 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on March 01, 2025, 10:42:02 PMSaying that it has less system bloat than 3e just isn't saying very much.

5e is worlds easier and has far far less system bloat than 3e.
Over the course of its run they introduced very few expansion books and of those most were new class paths. Some skill expansion, etc.
There were only 2 rules expansion books. Xanithar and Tasha.
And 3 that were setting books but also had a bunch of new class stuff. Sword Coast, Spelljammer and Planescape are the only ones.

Thats pretty much it.

There's definitely more supplement books than that. Some of the supplement books were mostly about monsters or lore, and had few new rules - but even Fizban's Treasury of Dragons had 3 new races, 2 new subclasses, 3 new feats, and 6 new spells. Here's the complete list, I think:

Supplements
Volo's Guide to Monsters
Xanathar's Guide to Everything
Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
Fizban's Treasury of Dragons
Monsters of the Multiverse
Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants
The Book of Many Things

Campaign Settings
Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide
Guildmasters' Guide to Ravnica
Acquisitions Incorporated
Eberron: Rising from the Last War
Explorer's Guide to Wildemount
Mythic Odysseys of Theros
Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft
Strixhaven: A Curriculum of Chaos
Spelljammer: Adventures in Space
Planescape: Adventures in the Multiverse

(source)

Nice try. But more monsters and settings is not rules bloat.
Nir is material that exists only on DMs Guild PDF store of dubious quality and veracity.

Try again please.

Quote from: Venka on March 04, 2025, 06:08:19 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 04, 2025, 04:31:15 PMDisagree, because the presumption there's "one true build" in those systems presumes everyone is building towards the exact same goal versus everyone having their own idea for what's best and what they want to be good at.

There's an optimized version for each of those too!

You're making lots of assumptions about multiple systems you earlier admitted to not being familiar with.  Systems that have literal decades of history more than 5ed, along with entirely different design goals. 

Quote from: Venka on March 04, 2025, 06:08:19 PMIf your system prices Superman the same as Batman, it has failed at balance.

The key difference (going by memory) in DCA/M&M3 is Superman is built around his powers (flight, super-strength, etc.) and Batman is built around his skills, equipment, advantages, etc.  Batman actually has more points in his build than Superman, IIRC. 

Quote from: Venka on March 04, 2025, 06:08:19 PMFor a given cost, there's an optimal guy for combat, and almost assuredly an optimal guy for a concept.

You're right, and you're wrong. 

If I want to make a character who generates portals that cover vast distances, that'll look different than a teleporter who blinks things away.  But even if two people make "blinkers", then you get into secondary things like one's a martial artist and the other is a super inventor.  But then I make two martial artist blinkers, and one's a human and the other's a spirit, and so on and so forth.  Optimization is possible for each step, but there's so many steps that the end characters don't have to work the identically on a mechanical level.

"Well that sounds a lot like picking a race, class, and background in 5ed!"

It's similar to a point.  The key difference is what you think is an optimal build for a, say, a dwarf in HERO/M&M may be different from my optimal build.  And then we disagree on the optimal build for a close-quarters, dual-warhammer-wielding, lightly armored, berserk fighter.  And -then- we come up with different ways to define his ale-brewing skills. 

Compared to 5ed, the level of mechanical granularity in M&M (and even moreso in HERO) means that finding the "optimum" build is contingent on minmaxing so many pieces, it becomes a moving goalpost and eventually you settle on a build that's really really good.     

Quote from: Venka on March 04, 2025, 06:08:19 PMIf your system is all about choices and doesn't care matching up power levels of superheroes then sure, that sounds great, but it's clear that's not what a class system (or a bunch of modular choices that is somewhere between classes and skills) is about, and you wouldn't bring that up as an example of something you'd expect D&D to do, or want it to do

. 

I thought the topic was "I've played three campaigns of 3ed and seen all it has to offer mechanically"?

Quote from: Venka on March 04, 2025, 06:08:19 PMIf I'm choosing "do I get +2 to damage with a one handed weapon or a smaller bonus with a two-handed weapon" it's clear that the numbers on my choices were put there with game balance in mind.  If I'm choosing between a teleportation power and bullets bouncing off my skin, that's another thing completely, and the guy making them cost some number of build points is simply gonna do way worse at pricing them than the first case is.

You're right and wrong, again.

Effects based systems generally presume that GMs will provide oversight and consideration into what players want to bring to the table.  They usually have callouts to game-breaking effects like postcognition, or showcase how players can make effects that literally destroy the world, as examples.  Balance is expected to come from the GM and the needs of their specific game.  Exception based systems meanwhile present the idea that players can pick and choose from pregenerated options and come to the table equally balanced against one another.  My Dwarven Champion Fighter Outsider is equal to play with your Dragonborn Druid Circle of Moon Soldier (or whatever) without the GM having ever seen either character before.

But balance in TTRPGs is a pipe dream, and eventually you realize that feeling like your build is "good enough" is far more important than them being mathematically equal to another.

Quote from: Habitual Gamer on March 05, 2025, 12:33:41 PMThe key difference (going by memory) in DCA/M&M3 is Superman is built around his powers (flight, super-strength, etc.) and Batman is built around his skills, equipment, advantages, etc.  Batman actually has more points in his build than Superman, IIRC. 

...

But balance in TTRPGs is a pipe dream, and eventually you realize that feeling like your build is "good enough" is far more important than them being mathematically equal to another.

Correct on both counts. Superman is PL15 and built on about 300 points. Batman is ONLY PL12, but is built on around 500 points.

By comparison, Superboy and Supergirl are also only PL12 and closer to 200 points.

All of them have more points than a starter PC of their Power Level typically does, but the write-ups aren't for the inexperienced versions of them either.

I'd agree too that perfect balance, like the perfect build in a system like M&M, is a myth; you can do a few things to make things close enough for everyone to have fun though.

That's why most M&M GMs I've come across typically enforce around a +/-5 limit to the trait trade-offs... because that keeps the numbers in a range where it can be fun with a d20-based resolution mechanic (no one wants the Toughness 20, Dodge 0 guy in a PL10 campaign*... Toughness 5, Dodge 15 and Toughness 15, Dodge 5 are about the limits in both directions for PL10 where it won't break).

But while there are some white room theorists claiming certain options are optimal in M&M, some of those options aren't actually much fun to play and a few (unsurprisingly) only work in said white room.

That latter bit is what I've mostly found to be across the board for RPGs. Most of the "one-true build" crap is white room theory crafting that might eke out a couple points more damage at max level than if you'd just picked something that sounded cool. Everything else is just thought experiments like PunPun that no GM will ever let you run except perhaps as a joke.

Congrats, your hours of scouring the Internet and designing the "ultimate build" let's you maybe drop something in the late game one round faster in a fight or two.

Meanwhile, the guy who just took whatever sounded fun at the time has been having a blast the whole campaign and that unexpected nat20 just eclipsed all that extra damage from your perfect build in the climactic final fight anyway.

That's what persuing the "perfect build" has taught me.

Another way that "optimal build" fails is that it has to be optimal for a particular situation.  In a well designed RPG every ability is situational because every encounter is idiosyncratic.  In broad strokes, sometimes you need to fight, sometimes you need to get up the cliff, sometimes you need to run away, sometimes you need to hide, sometimes you need to hack the enemy's computer, and so on and so on.  A character who is optimal for any of these situations will not be optimal for the others.