Hey everyone,

I’d like to know if there is enough interest in a new 5th edition D&D game that would start at the upper end of the level scale, followed soon by a transition into epic levels that are based on house rules. I would have no second thoughts about just starting a game like this for Pathfinder, as I know that there are enough players around who would enjoy such an opportunity, but seeing that 5th is not that old yet I’m not really sure how much interest is out there for a high level game.

As it takes quite a while to get anything done within a game if you use pbp-and my personal main interest lies with the epic tier content-this game would probably start around level 18 or 19 with an expected posting rate of once per day. In addition you can expect some straightforward houserules that will alter some basic elements of this edition; because even if I love most the changes they have made, some of the rules got overly simplified in my opinion and could use a bit more detail.

I’m not 100% sure yet about the setting we will be using, probably either the Forgotten Realms or a homebrew one that would still need to get fleshed out. Any opinions or preferences from your side would be most welcome regarding this matter.

Anyway, I’d appreciate any comments and thoughts on this Interest Check and thanks for your consideration!

I would definitely be interested in playing. There's already a ton of low and mid level games. Personally, I would prefer a FR game, but I'm open to anything.

I think the deciding factor for some people might be what the house rules are you're thinking of implementing. Can you give an example of something you feel 5e oversimplified?

Disclaimer: This is not an attempt to start a discussion about what 5e did right or wrong. This is merely an attempt to decide my personal level of interest.

Great, thanks for the feedback!



Sure! For example, I think that the list of skills could be expanded-along with making more of them available for characters of course-to create a bit more diversity and potential for specialization. New/Old skills would include Knowledge Alchemy, Geography, Nobility, Dungeoneering and maybe one or two more.
Also, I'm not a big fan of the simplifaction in monster defences. Giving them either complete immunity against 'x' or just resistance is a bit too bland; I'd prefer the 3.5/Pathfinder model of having DR10/Magic and Silver, or Resistance Fire 20 for example over the current rules.

In the end my variants take some rules from D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder and bringing them back to 5th. I'll present all of these rules in my game for everyone to read, so there won't be any surprises after you decided to join. To make things easier, not one of these rules will be set in stone. If I see that several potential applicants voice their displeasure with a certain rule I have no real problem scrapping it again.

Anyway, hope I was able to help!

Yikes. Honestly, if that's your plan, count me out. Personally, I think Vulnerability, Resistance and Immunity are just fine how they are, and I would really prefer not to bring in that headache of DR.

The skills I can deal with. I think honestly though that too many people are too hung up on needing a skill for every little thing and have a hard time wrapping their head around having a general skill, but it's a minor thing.

I guess it really all depends on how much you're wanting to change things. Because honestly, it's starting to seem like you're just trying to bring some 5e elements into a PF/3.5 game.

I'm going to agree with GammaBear in regards to the two houseruled examples you gave. Adding more specific knowledge skills is something I can live with (so long as you can still make untrained INT checks as usual), but I feel that adding DR (and removing Immunity / Resistance / Vulnerability if I'm reading correctly) will add a level of complexity to a system I believe is fine in its simplified form (especially if you're jumping straight into high levels).

To clarify, I'm not opposed to a game in which DR is an integral part of the mechanics, I just feel it's better off staying in 3.5 or Pathfinder. If that's the direction you want to go, you might find more interest presenting this as a Pathfinder game.

Best of luck to you whichever direction you choose to go.

I guess we have different opinions of what rules causes 'headaches', but thanks for the feedback anyway.



Sure, I can live with general skills or basic Intelligence checks as well, but I was under the impression that many players prefer more ways to customize their characters in regard to skills.




I have to say that is not really a fair assumption, as I've only mentioned two examples that would make 5th edition a bit more complex, but maybe it looks that way.




Fair enough. I guess my wish to play in a sort of mix between PF and 5th (PF being too complex at some parts and not really balanced for high-level play - 5th being a bit too oversimplified in some parts) is not really shared by you guys.

Sure, only the two of you have responded so far, but if this is an indication of how the player base here regards my idea, I guess I'm better off running a normal 5th edition game and reserve my houserules for the epic level stuff. As I mentioned before, having those variants is not a requirement for me; just wanted to see if others have similar thoughts on them.

I would say to give it a little bit of time before changing your mind. Like you said, only two of us have commented so far. I'm sure there are others who share your thoughts on the changes you want to make.

Yeah, don't take our feedback as any indication of the site as a whole. The thread is still young. I say give it a few days. There's enough love for 5e on this site I'm sure you'll get a good bit of feedback. You just gotta give it some time.

My thing is I love 5e's simplicity. It's taken away a majority of the powergaming, min/maxing and munchkining to get back to true role playing. I have a grudge with DR in PF b/c for a player it's utterly useless. Players never get any substantial amount of DR and what they do get is easily negated. That's why I love Resistance in 5e. It's half. No "this enchantment bypasses" or any other headache like that. Bear Totem Barbarians for the win. :D

I do too, but there comes a point when too much simplifaction hinders variety in the game in my opinion. But enough of that now :)



Well, I could argue that epic level abilities would grant characters DR that isn't as easily negated and maybe this would make you rethink this point, but I won't. You like the simple version and that's fine.

Thanks again you two, will wait a few days more and see if I get some more feedback. If not, there's still the option for me to just start a game disregard any variants that mess with the basic rules of this edition.

I'd be tentatively interested. But it would depend on what the final house rules are.



While this is true, a larger number of skills available should also come with an appropriately larger amount of skill proficiencies you can choose. If you add more skills and keep the number of proficiency choices the same, it's essentially nerfing the characters. Would you be willing to give us more proficiency choices?



I have a 12th level wizard that I've played since level 1. Say I were to level her up for your game. What would that mean for her Elemental Adept (fire) feat?

In reply to Archaeon (msg # 10):

I don't think you'll be able to tell if it works or not until you jump in with both feet and have 4 or 5 super excited players breathing down your neck. I say go for it, give it a shot run the declaimer rules by your group of players so they aren't suprised but the premise sounds interesting enough.

Count me in.

I'd be interested, as it's always fun to play with the toys in the toybox that rarely get pulled out, and personally I'm open to testing out some house rules if you're willing to maintain a dialogue about their viability as they get tested out.

I'll quote myself here:



So yes, of course I'd give the players more proficiency options. It wouldn't make much sense otherwise as you've already pointed out.



This feat would basically remain just the same, letting your character ignore all fire resistance regardless of how much the value would be. Only complete immunity would still be effective in such a case.

Thanks ojames, appreciate the suggestion and interest!



Certainly, communication remains the most important part of a successful game after all. Glad to see you would be interested as well.

In reply to Archaeon (msg # 14):

Oh. I wonder how I missed that. Sorry!

I'd certainly be interested in the game.

Hm, consider me interested.  I happen to think the way skills are done in 5e works fairly well, but i'm not adverse to trying something different!

This. i was SO excited when i saw someone considering a high-level 5E game...then the unnecessary houserules reared their heads. I'd give it a shot anyway though, even with proposed changes if absolutely necessary, though i'd second others' sentiments and ask why you don't just run 3.5 or Pathfinder if you want to make 5E into those games. Still, as long as you're open to revision if they turn out to be really awful rules, count me in.

Alright, so my opinion regarding such houserules is not shared with most of the players here. I'll still propose the use of some official variant rules from the DMG in the game and see if there are any objections against those as well, but I'll refrain from introducing any other changes.

I have the game almost ready for advertisement, will post tomorrow a link here and in the Players Wanted forum.


Thanks for the feedback!

Oh i'm totally down with the DMG variants. Some of them i use as default rules in my games, like Climb Onto a Bigger Creature and Marking. Every DM should consider the variants to fine-tune their game.

Here is the link:

link to another game


See you there and thanks again1