• Lianodel@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fair point. I think it would still take a lot of work, though, since Diablo includes a lot of fast-paced, high-powered stuff, while 5e kind of falls apart and turns into a slog at higher levels. To put it another way, it handles up to the heroic level fine, but the epic levels can feel like a drag, and WotC’s solution was to mostly publish adventures that stop at level 15. Cutting HP would be a part of it, maybe streamlining some stuff, creating a different inventory system…

    So it can be done. But the fact that it’s not D&D also means there’s a higher floor to how much thought was put into the game, you know? Sometimes designers put the work in, but sometimes they just pick D&D to be lazy or as a cash grab.

    Speaking of Adventures in Middle-Earth, I haven’t played it, but I heard the 5e edition is actually pretty good. You’re right in that Tolkien’s fantasy is way different from the high-fantasy superheroics of 5e, but I heard it had great rules for going on a journey, which 5e mostly glosses over (at least in practice).

    • anlumo@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In a world where there’s the system The One Ring, I don’t see a point in doing any other Middle Earth system. Perfection has already been achieved (for this specific setting).

      Concerning high-level play, I think having way lower HP for everybody would also fix a lot of things, since the main issue is that battles take forever due to having to whittle down ridiculous HP sponges.

      • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess as the devil’s advocate, the publisher put out both. So it seemed like it was the high-effort way to both create a bespoke system, and appeal to the people who are completely stuck on D&D.

        Lowering HP would absolutely go a long way, you’re right. I think limiting or disabling multiclassing would also help, but that would be an extremely unpopular change that most people would ignore anyway. :/

        • anlumo@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Beneath the Monolith” was also put out by the same company that produced the original setting with its bespoke system (Numenera/Cypher System). They just know which way the wind blows and strive to maximize their profits.

          Multiclassing is an optional rule in D&D5e, not allowing it should not be controversial.

          • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re right that multiclassing an optional rule, but in practice, I think nearly every player assume it’s in use unless the DM says otherwise (and they will likely complain if the DM says otherwise). So I’d bet that if a ruleset basedo n 5e disabled multiclassing, people would either complain about it, or ignore that part and then complain when it breaks the game.