V.A.L.U.E. Season 5 - PREPLANNING

FrozenKimchi · May 30, 2026, 12:51am

I personally do not even like Faerûn. It is a compromise I deal with to begin with for the sake of common ground. Which is completely irrelevant to any of my original points, yet now somehow serves to express that “Faerûn” is part of my claim when it simply is not. The core of my point was about consistency and handling player freedom versus setting integrity and never about any particular setting.

It was just an example because it’s common shared knowledge among TTRPG players.I could write “Azeroth,” “Middle-earth,” or even Naruto’s “Land of Fire.” and my point would stay exactly the same. Hence, promoting it to being “my preference” as means to engage with a counter argument feels mouth-shutting. (I still fail to see why you need to ascribe a tone to object and implications to what I say I am feeling.)

You say that anything BESIDES my one mention Faerûn boils down to preference. Alright

Any opinions on the different suggestions I had regarding restricting player limitations?
Is there a way an unlocking races through the season/restricting available races it could appeal to you narratively?
Another implementation you’d actually like?\

To name a few points to engage with on what I express and suggest. Are these points all " personal preference" points to tackle?

“This means for 95% or so of your post I had nothing to add or respond to.”<- That’s disrespectful (Not reacting to irrelevant elements of my text. that’s just frustrating and annoying. which I took time to express why).

What feels disrespectful is that I explained what it makes me feel like when a pointless part of my argument becomes the center stage for a counterargument, and your response is to double down on it being a core point of my argument and promote it into my “claim/statement/belief.” Then you assign intentions to my “this makes me feel” statements by selectively playing the “choice of words” game. That’s what feels disrespectful

I could have simply been short, to the point, and indifferent by saying: “Hey friend, insert any fictional low-fantasy world in place of ‘Faerûn’ and my text stays the same. The Faerûn thing is totally beside the point. Anything to add?” I chose not to because, were I to receive such a reaction, I would feel dismissed. Would you not feel dismissed by such reaction? If not mayhaps it was the path better taken. Frankly, Now I feel I am paying for that by getting dismissed by you.

AGmilky · May 30, 2026, 1:24am

No it’s not. This is a thread with many ideas and suggestions. Do you want me to reply to each and every idea with “agree” or “disagree”?

It’s perfectly valid to respond to specific statements.

This has been done over and over again in this thread both by me and by others.

Me choosing not to engage or respond to certain of your points is not an act of disrespect. It would be disrespectful if you specifically asked me and I ignored you.

You don’t get to pick or demand what I reply to.

For whatever reason you’ve decided to start a fight with the one person who read your post and made the effort to reply to a part of it.

Please leave me alone and stop making this thread about us.

JustJules · May 30, 2026, 7:05am

As I predict that it doesn’t speak to a lot of people, then I’d alternatively like to forgo any established DND or roleplay setting and simply decide we have our own cool thing. If we simply are from such world where PHB races are the bigger minorities among all kinds of people who never dominant enough to be a majority, then I am on board.

Cool, then you should be on board with keeping how things are currently, because I can count the times where I was in an established setting over the last almost two years on one hand.

Not to even mention that, if we do switch to 5.5e and don’t allow backwards compatibility, you do only have the PHB races and 5 races from Eberron to choose from currently. I don’t see why that should be further limited at all.

I do like (most of) your other ideas though! Keeping just standard point buy, letting characters start at lv3, slowing down leveling, more downtime activities (really like your suggestion for the ritual casters), no downleveling are all things I very much do like! Oh, and named items! That sounds like a really fun idea!

katnyx · May 30, 2026, 7:20am

I like the named item idea that has come up a lot, but I think we need to distinguish between rules and things you can do as DM but that should not be rules, and this is one of them in my opinion.

Any DM can already do named items. Like saying: Here is your Tooth of the dragon morhenad, and explain it’s a +1 dagger. Whether that carries over to another game is player’s choice anyway.

But as a rule, it would be a limit on loot the DM can give out. It would mean I can’t just give out the +1 weapon if that’s what I want to do. Or, I can, but then it would be homebrewed and only playable at my table? Doesn’t make sense if you ask me.

As a rule, it would be an additional item limitation for DMs.

We should not be limiting things too much or forcing things outside of RAW too much, I think. We should make sure that the characters we have are balanced from one table to the next, and that should be our focus. If a DM wants to prep and give out named items for players, that’s great. If a DM shows up 10 minutes before VALUE and decides to run because someone else is sick, don’t stress them even more by requiring their games have certain aspects. The exception being downtime days. Downtime days are vital because we play one-shots and in a campaign you would have them regularly, in one-shots we just don’t really get to them.

All tables are different. All DMs are different. You play a few, find which ones you like, and that’s okay.

katnyx · May 30, 2026, 7:25am

This was my bastion suggestion from last year’s vote

FrozenKimchi · May 30, 2026, 5:51pm

That was not my experience. Most sessions I played this year referenced Forgotten Realms locations with a big emphasis on Faerun.

So when I am told that I should be on board with keeping things how they currently are, I am feeling puzzled. Admittedly I didn’t attend more than 8-10 times this year, but I can confidently say that I played only 2 sessions which did not take place specifically in Faerun.

This is a big part of why fixing my whole point onto Faerun (which isn’t the point) while telling me “welp, the reality is that we don’t do Faerun” ends up feeling dismissive to what I voiced there.

I would be on board with keeping things as they are if I didn’t feel that discomfort I voiced as often as I did when it comes to the break of immersion.

Darthbinks · May 30, 2026, 9:35pm

I think restricting species for certain games is a good idea for (open) mini campaigns, where a dm has a spec. setting in mind … or at least re-flavour species so they fit into that campaign’s frame
(e.g. reflavoured species for the Primal open table).

When most players hop from VALUE table to VALUE table often with different dms, restricting everything to one setting feels a bit harsh. Esp. considered we chose not to restrict ourselves to only run official adventures.

Restricting stuff that had been published only online via DNDBeyond (e.g. Astarion’s Book of Hunger), is something I can behind though … since this would otherwise confuse dms who do not use this platform and just consult books.
(was not mentioned yet, I just had the idea when reading the posts above)

That being said just for my pers. statistics, the bigges % of the games I ran and joined as a player in the last season where either set in Eberron or were set in homebrew settings.
There were only 2 Faerûn games, and 1 Strixhaven game. Others were just “generic fantasy land”.

… but I agree, that dep. on the location you play in and the dms/tables you join, this could be vastly diff. experience on how many % of Faerûn adventures a player experiences.

edit:

Setting wise - there is a new Ravenloft book coming out and if rumours are true there will be a Dark Sun book later this year … so plenty of more worlds to explore

AGmilky · May 31, 2026, 3:58am

Suggestion: Allow bringing more magical items than the current limits, while limiting the amount of active/attuned/equipped magical items using the current limits:

Swapping them out would require a short rest (since attuning, if needed would require that anyways and to avoid hot swapping magical items mid-combat)

Essentially in T2 you could bring let’s say 4 uncommon/rare magical items with you, but only have 3 of them active. During a short rest you could adjust your “loadout”.

Reasoning:

Give players (especially martials) more versatility especially since usually you do not know much about the challenges of the adventure you’re joining, but have to pick your magical items beforehand. This way if you realize you’re going on the high seas you swap in the item that gives you swim speed and if you’re heading for the desert that Decanter of Endless Water sounds useful
Put less pressure on DMs to pick useful items as rewards as even less useful ones could be brought to an adventure as situational substitute.
Possibly encourage more item trading as even “substitute slot” items are worth being traded for, you’re not gonna be only aiming for items that can replace one of your active/best ones.
Allow lower tier (uncommon) items to remain in your backpack and be situationally useful, which might also encourage trade of those

Darthbinks · May 31, 2026, 4:12am

btw. just for clarification,
the reason for this rule was, that this are the offical AL rules

not 100% against changing it, but I kinda like that you have to choose which item to bring to an adventure … and you can always ask a dm what kind of adventure they want to run

AGmilky · May 31, 2026, 4:25am

I can see the appeal of that.

An obvious compromise would be limiting to one substitute slot (so limit +1)

AGmilky · June 1, 2026, 2:13pm

The reality is that even without digital only DnD Beyond stuff, you will have many situations where a player shows up with a species or item so niche, that the DM will have no easy way to access it. Like, if someone shows up with a Verdan or a Grung, how likely is the DM to own, able to borrow or willing to buy “Acquisitions Incorporated” or “One Grung Above” (which is digital only too, albeit available outside of Beyond). It can get even more niche with backgrounds and items.

My point is, this is not a novel issue connected with digital only DnD Beyond stuff and DMs not wanting to use that platform, it already exists simply, because we cannot demand DMs to own every possible source on our sources list. Whether the item is physical or digital is not the issue, the issue is cost and practicality (to borrow).

In such cases the DMs already have to either trust the player or find ways to access the relevant info in more or less shady ways xD

So unless we wanna generally limit the use of “niche” content, I don’t see how picking one specifical category of “hard to get” content makes sense.

P.S.: and ofc if you are willing to use DnD Beyond, there are ways to share content etc

Istariel · June 12, 2026, 2:38pm

One minor thing I want to suggest is, to allow players to pick rare languages as part of character creation (except for druidic and thieves’ cant since those are already included with the respective classes). My reasoning is that, while it usually works fine in a traditional campaign to pick standard languages + maybe rare ones depending on what your DM might think, this doesn’t work so well in the VALUE setting, since these characters aren’t created for a specific campaign or with the help and cooperation of one single DM.

More specifically also, there are some species including newly released ones in 2024+ who would be unable to choose their lorewise native language, for ex:

Aasimar Celestial
Drow Undercommon
Tiefling Infernal/Abyssal
Hexblood Sylvan

Also quite a few subclasses might naturally wanna select a rare language since it fits the subclasses flavour:

Abyssal/Infernal Fiend Warlock
Celestial Celestial Warlock
Deep Speech Aberrant Mind Sorcerer, Great Old One Warlock
Primordial Noble Genie Paladin
Sylvan Archfey Warlock, Fey Wanderer, Moon Bard

Imho it would really add to roleplay in VALUE to make this slight rule adjustment.

AGmilky · June 12, 2026, 10:41pm

While I have no serious objections, a few observations:

The Ranger’s Deft Explorer feature allows picking rare languages, and would be slightly devalued by this.
Due to ritual casting being universal for all spellcasters, and with Magic Initiate: Wizard being one of the origin feats, “Comprehend Languages” is now a much more accessible tool to understand rare languages. That doesn’t allow you to speak ofc, but the rarer rare languages remain, the more useful this spell is.
There is sadly a lack of backgrounds that allow picking rare languages, closest I could find is one of the Dark Gifts from the new Ravenloft book and the Planar Pact: Fey Pact (Sylvan) from the DnD Beyond Drops. Missed opportunity imho.
The developers said that the reason why for example not all Drow speak Undercommon (apart from ofc that not actually being their native language anyways) is that they want to stay setting agnostic … but I agree that that kinda works against our system of “blind” one-shots.
On a personal note, I did sometimes had to chuckle at how many players knew Abyssal at any given table lol but your proposed system would prevent that anyways.
It also however means constantly updating our language allowance list with every new species and subclass released.

Istariel · June 12, 2026, 11:15pm

You are right, the deft explorer feature does allow a Fey Wanderer Ranger to pick up Sylvan

I do get the thing about Drow and Undercommon for ex. Still imho it should at least be an option rather than straight outruled RAW without DM permission, which isn’t possible in VALUE. To give a real life example, in the US there are a lot of mexicans who don’t speak spanish. Still if you meet any random mexican person, chances are high that they do speak spanish.

I do agree, that unfort there are very few ways to pick up extra/rare languages. Often that would make sense and in the past there were even subclasses that had that feature like the 2014 Draconic Sorcerer with Draconic, the Giant Barbarian with Giant and the Shepherd Druid with Sylvan.

Btw I’m not suggesting extra language tables/rules. Those were merely examples for which languages and classes/species would make sense. VALUE is meant to be very light with its house rules. To keep it simple I would only change the following line

Standard: Your character knows at least three languages: Common plus two languages you roll or choose from the Standard Languages table.

VALUE: Your character knows at least three languages: Common plus two languages you roll or choose from the Standard or Rare Languages table, except for Druidic and Thieves’ Cant.

I trust players to choose languages that make sense for their characters and therefore simply give them the option

Darthbinks · June 13, 2026, 7:24am

same with the Rogue’s Thieves’ Cant

(there a few 5.5 Feats though that give you a language - but those are typ. setting specific; e.g. you learn Sylvan)

miki3141 · June 14, 2026, 12:27pm

I had another idea (justification) for why both a regular market and a black market should exist (to buy items not to trade between players).

We already know that there are limits on item rewards and gold rewards. So, if I wanted to play a more shady character (a thief, looter, grave robber, charlatan, gambler who cheats, or even someone who kills NPCs and loots them, etc.) and I succeeded in my rolls to steal or obtain valuable items (currency, silverware, jewellery, paintings, gems, etc.), the GM could not simply give me the equivalent reward because it would exceed the VALUE limits.

Instead, I could acquire the items themselves, but I would then need to fence them through a black market or another appropriate channel. Selling these goods would require downtime, with the amount depending on the quality or value of the item. Once converted into gold, I could then spend that gold on additional items through the regular market, black market, or other specialized market; again, using downtime .

Or, for example, I could eventually save up for something I would love to own one day, like having a ship built

Yes, it is true that this system could allow access to some rare or higher-tier items (depending what is available on the market). However, because VALUE limits for uncommon+ still exist, a low-level character would not suddenly become overpowered or break the game. Instead, they would simply have access to more flavourful or unusual possessions that do not necessarily translate into direct combat power (battleship ).

This would create an actual economy within the game while also supporting players who want to play more morally “questionable characters” and make use of those aspects of their character concept. At the same time, it would prevent abuse, since nobody could simply steal ten legendary items (you need to clear them of the “stolen” mark) or five gold bars and instantly profit from them. The downtime requirements would naturally limit how much could be gained and how quic kly.

Most importantly, it would create additional choices for players to make, even outside the immediate gameplay loop.

And before it is mentioned, there are plenty of reasons why a shady character would still join and work with the party: for fun, convenience, shared goals, personal gain, gathering information, using the party to help steal something, eliminating an enemy, or even planning a betrayal at the end. The possibilities are en dless.

I also understand that this may not matter much for one-shots. However, some games using the VALUE system last for two or three sessions, and this kind of economy would become much more relevant in those cases.

I know that I and others have suggested a lot of ideas already, but if we can find a way to implement them, I think we could create a really solid system that other groups could adapt and use as well. In theory, it should be compatible with almost any RPG system or story setting.