There have been a few threads about which 5th Ed rules would you like to see in Pathfinder. However what do you think is missing in 5th ed that you would like to see ported across from Pathfinder?
Thoughts please... : )
The only thing I can think of at the moment is the size consistency. If you Enlarge a character their weapon actually deals the amount of damage a normal weapon of the new size deals, in 5e an enlarged weapon deals an additional d4, while a naturally large weapon deals twice the dice of the medium version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+2 for flanking. It's pretty easy to implement, both tactically and mathematically.
Consistency in monster creation rules.
Right now, monsters are essentially bags of hitpoints with an AC and some ability scores. Hit Dice don't really matter, even though they're size-based (which is neat!!!), when designing a monster, you aim for a hit point total and just use algebra to figure the numbers of hit dice and Con bonus.
Likewise, you just eyeball skills and saves and even resistances and immunities. There's no rule for giants getting 2 skills, aberrations getting 4 skills, and fey getting 6 skills. Not all demons are immune to lightning, not all devils are immune to fire, not all constructs are immune to psychic damage, etc. etc.
There are no guidelines for monster types. I really miss those. Some sacred cows still exist (red dragons do fire stuff) and some have been lifted (water elementals are immune to acid???).
Now, you just give any monster you design whatever saving throw or skill proficiencies (or expertise even!) that you want. There doesn't seem to be a guideline or design principles for monster creation.
And if you don't have a ranger in the party, even designating different kinds of monsters is just fluff.
Also, how do undead heal?
A few of the base classes, like Alchemist and Magus. Most of the others can be archetypes. I'd also like to see some of the PrCs as archetypes, like the Stalwart Defender.
I think there is room for 1 new hardcover a year. Maybe alternate between a Monster Manual and a Players Handbook 2+ every other year?
EDIT:
Also, a way to dabble in skills. Maybe you can split your proficiency bonus between 2 skills for +1/+1 at 1st level? And then at levels 5, 9, 13, and 17, you can choose to increase your proficiency by 1, or gain a +1 in a new skill.
Maybe give every character a flexibility option. They get 2 flex points at 1st level, and 1 at levels 5, 9, 13, and 17. You can spend a flex point to get a (cumulative) +1 to a skill, weapon proficiency, or tool proficiency of your choice. Alternatively, you can spend 1 flex point to learn a language.
So if you want, you can spend all your flex points in a single skill, and it's just like a regular skill proficiency. Easy peasy.
Alternatively, you can get +1 to Arcana and Perception at 1st level, spend another point of it to raise Perception at +2 at 5th, learn Abyssal by spending your 9th level flex point, gain a +1 on Poison Kits at level 13, and then raise your Perception to +3 at 17th level.
I'm just spitballing here.
I agree definitely on the monster building.
I'd probably like to see something similar for npcs.
Yeah, I was rather shocked at how loosey-goosey the rules for monster creation are. They seem to have put a lot of effort into all the other rules systems. I wonder why monsters got the short stick?
|
It's a design philosophy. I seriously suggest looking at the following articles. Parts 1-5
I'd post all of them but linking via phone is a pain.
Anyhow, the idea is that you can use the design of monsters as a see-saw to balance out the design of PCs. Monsters rely on stats that are mathematically sound, while PCs use a different metric that is based on a multi group party with varying abilities. This is why group combat is so much stronger than any one creature/PC.
Thanks, Lorathorn. I've read those before.
|
|
Oh sorry. But I do stand by my assertion; the statistics and math are pretty sound. You just have to follow the guidelines. It isn't much different from the pathfinder maths for monster creation, but for the aforementioned codification. To that end, I do rather like that you can't assume that plants or constructs will always have the same set of traits.
No problem! :-D
But there are some "classic" monsters that have been the same throughout 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, and PF, and when they're wildly divergent, it can throw a grognard off.
I'm not sure if there are any pathfinder mechanics that I would want in 5e. I want better downtime rules in 5e but I don't think the pathfinder downtime mechanics and ultimate campaign stuff is what I really want for that, I have certainly been going a very different direction from them in my personal downtime and travel houserules.
I was inspired by the whetstone in pathfinder to create some interesting weapon and armour upkeep rules (in the form of short term buffs) so I suppose that is kind of a heavily altered pathfinder mechanic that I have included.
Adrastus
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh sorry. But I do stand by my assertion; the statistics and math are pretty sound. You just have to follow the guidelines. It isn't much different from the pathfinder maths for monster creation, but for the aforementioned codification. To that end, I do rather like that you can't assume that plants or constructs will always have the same set of traits.
That an i love how fast you can crate a fully formed monster statblock for a completely new monster in 5e. In pathfinder you have to look up all the traits associated with the chosen type then count skill points and allocate all of them, and generally do a lot of numbers that are different. With 5e you can just put down your hit points choose however many skills, resistances, weaknesses and saves you find appropriate and adjust the attack bonuses if you under or overestimated what proficiency bonus the monster has and you're done. Same for NPCs.
Not to mention the fact that when using an existing monster you don't have something on its statblock just saying "construct traits" and then you have to look that up if you haven't committed it all to memory. I think its really a lot easier on the GM all around and it's not like the players will really notice what's different there.
If there is one thing where i would like to have monsters as consistent as in pathfinder, its the traits of certain monster npc races. Like Orcs, who have nothing in common with half-orcs, except maybe the dark vision but they also have that in common with elves, dwarves, gnomes and tieflings.
I agree PF could be a little "lazy" or "laconic" with their stat blocks when it comes to construct traits, plant traits, etc. (Once in flight school, they were terse!) It's meant to save room on the stat blocks, but it makes running the monster harder. I would rather have less art and easier to run stat blocks, but that's just me.
Personally, I don't think it takes a lot of effort to learn the PF aberration, animal, construct, dragon, elemental, fey, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, outsider, plant, undead, and vermin traits and stats.
I guess it's the consistency that I miss. I've made and designed a bunch of 5th Ed monsters for personal use, and it IS easy, but I miss having templates (so to speak) to follow.
On that I can say, i would like some sort of pseudotemplates for zombies and skeletons. Rather than hard baked rules how to convert a monster into an undead, more of a guideline on what it should have preserve and what should change in which direction. I've tried cross-referencing zombie ogres and beholders with their living forms and the changes are not 100% the same as if they used a template, so I don't think you can put it down to hard rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even though I know it runs counter to the spirit of the edition, I still wish we had NPC classes in 5e. Every time I stat up an NPC for my game...
Yeah, I was rather shocked at how loosey-goosey the rules for monster creation are. They seem to have put a lot of effort into all the other rules systems. I wonder why monsters got the short stick?
Because monsters being built through a system like PC's is highly restrictive. Look at Pathfinder, you are fairly limited in the types of enemies you can have. Yes, there are lots of options for the "type" of enemy, but essentially you have a couple of styles of enemies and a very limited window in which they're useful.
A more open monster design lets you build the enemies you need, instead of trying to figure out how the system works to build what you want. It takes more practice and fundamental understanding of the system as a whole, but it removes a tedious and restrictive process.
In Pathfinder, I throw out the NPC/Monster building rules. I give enemies a BAB that makes them useful, and HP/AC depending on how long I want them to live. It means I can have enemies with 20 HP, 15 AC and deal 1d8+2 damage... but have a +15 to hit. I enjoy them, because the players can cut through swathes of them, since they're easy to kill, but they can't ignore them cause they will hit and do at least some damage.
I guess.
But why have different sized hit dice for different sized monsters? Why give them proficiency bonuses instead of ad hoc bonuses?
The proficiency bonus thing I think exists to preserve bounded accuracy. Which is also why it's tied to CR rather than number of HD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind bounded accuracy with some proficiency thing, but what I WOULD LIKE is for 5e D&D to be more like AD&D than Pathfinder!
What do I mean by that?
Bounded accuracy actually makes 5e LESS like AD&D in just about everyway, from Thief Skills to Fighters (which in prior editions before 4e being able to hit better JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE FIGHTERS). Bounded accuracy makes the game more reliant on Ability Scores, than experience and class abilities.
Sure, Fighters get multiple attacks, but heads up...they also get multiple attacks in Pathfinder, AND in AD&D.
What Pathfinder and AD&D (and OD&D before that and B/X, and BECMI, see a trend there??) did differently is that fighters could hit better with weapons simply because of what their class was.
To me, that's actually one of the basic core tenets of D&D, and without it, well, you might as well be Paladium Roleplaying game or other systems where you have something similar to 5e.
If 5e just did something like...Fighters got to double their proficiency bonus with weapons...I might not have such a bad taste about 5e.
Similarly, prior to 3e, Thief/Rogues had skills that were special to them. Even 3e and PF sort of recognize this, and though others can get trapfinding...overall that's a speciality that identifies the Rogue or classes that replace your Rogue in your party.
It isn't normally going to be a Fighter with a Criminal background...etc...
Rogues get a bonus to a few skills of their choice in 5e, but it should be expanded to automatically be for specific Rogue skills. Rogues aren't necessarily a ton better or get a ton more skills than everyone else...and overall, success is more reliant on what their ability score for that skill is rather than how much experience or what they've put into the skill.
In otherwords, 5e made things FAR more focused on ability scores rather than what a class is and what a class can do.
No one mentions this giant in the room, I think because most don't realize that in many ways this goes counter to what Pre-2000 D&D was, and in many ways still goes counter to what pre-4e D&D was.
In Pathfinder, ability scores are important...but your class has inherent abilities which grant you things that your ability scores can affect but not really dictate.
I feel 5e is different and focuses purely on the ability scores rather than what your class is and what things you gain from it. It dilutes the Experience system and how you gain and grow in power from your experiences.
In OD&D, the maximum bonus you got from your ability scores was a +1. That's right...a +1. In addition, you had to have a score higher than 16 to get that.
This idea of having to have a score at least as high as a 16 to even consider getting a +1 continued to AD&D (though DEX and CONS lowered to 15). B/X and BECMI reduced it to much lower, but AD&D 1e and 2e kept that spirit where your abilities as a class rather than your stats that you rolled, were more important.
5e throws that out to the wind in some ways...HOWEVER...I actually could be happy with 5e if it simply made it so a martial who had a 10 STR could actually hit better than a Wizard with 10 STR.
That probably would appease me, though a Rogue with expanded abilities beyond what 5e granted them would probably make me even happier.
PS: You could also include Saves into that as well...but overall, I don't mind the save system that much, in some ways it's just as broken as Pathfinders...though in some instances it is better, and in some it is FAAAAAR worse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one mentions this giant in the room, I think because most don't realize that in many ways this goes counter to what Pre-2000 D&D was, and in many ways still goes counter to what pre-4e D&D was.
I don't think that's the reason - I think people who like 5E don't mention it because they are generally glad that you don't need to be a specific class to do certain things. (I always found it a bit silly that in AD&D only thieves could move silently, for example. Even I can move silently if I put my mind to it!)
In 5E, one can choose to play 'against type' without being laughably incompetent. Nevertheless, a fighter who puts their mind to it will always be better at fighting than anything else (even ignoring multiple attacks, the fighting styles ensure that, plus the expanded proficiencies). A rogue (or bard) who puts any effort in will be better at roguey things than anyone else.
The fact that a fighter with a 10 strength, armor and a sword is not much better than a wizard with ten strength, armor and a sword is just a function of the fighter devoting character-building resources away from the schtick and a wizard devoting resources (via proficiencies) towards being martial (for some reason). They're both mediocre at fighting - they've just come at it from different directions.
I agree with Steve here, I like it that you're not barred from doing anything just because you don't have the class. Even if you have no resources dedicated toward something you still have arealistic chance of getting something reasonably challenging done right. And Even if you're not a rogue you can dedicate resources toward being competent at lockpicking. I think it's good that in order to be able to pick locks I don't have to order the whole package with sneak attacks, uncanny dodge good int and dex saves etc, but I can just get the lockpicking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one mentions this giant in the room, I think because most don't realize that in many ways this goes counter to what Pre-2000 D&D was, and in many ways still goes counter to what pre-4e D&D was.I don't think that's the reason - I think people who like 5E don't mention it because they are generally glad that you don't need to be a specific class to do certain things. (I always found it a bit silly that in AD&D only thieves could move silently, for example. Even I can move silently if I put my mind to it!)
In 5E, one can choose to play 'against type' without being laughably incompetent. Nevertheless, a fighter who puts their mind to it will always be better at fighting than anything else (even ignoring multiple attacks, the fighting styles ensure that, plus the expanded proficiencies). A rogue (or bard) who puts any effort in will be better at roguey things than anyone else.
The fact that a fighter with a 10 strength, armor and a sword is not much better than a wizard with ten strength, armor and a sword is just a function of the fighter devoting character-building resources away from the schtick and a wizard devoting resources (via proficiencies) towards being martial (for some reason). They're both mediocre at fighting - they've just come at it from different directions.
Actually, if you played AD&D as Gygax and others did...Move silently was a very special ability.
They would allow anyone to try to move quietly, or try to hide (much like the stealth skill does today)...however, if you failed that, your character was detected.
On the otherhand, when you were a thief, they'd let you roll to test your Thief skill ability with the percentile dice after that.
This is why, even though the skills were low in low levels, it wasn't a total indication of a Thief being unable to perform their function. That was actually an EXTRA attempt if you failed what normal characters could already do!
Anyone who played with the Thief skills as they were without the original rules of allowing characters to try to move stealthily, or bash in doors or chests, or climbing walls with a rope and grapple, or any number of other items would have been completely lost with the OD&D rules (where there were no thieves, but all those other items were actually already allowed for any character that wanted to try them).
Someone who played it without the Thief skills actually being something new and extra, was bound to become frustrated as a low level thief, because rules as written, they would not be able to do ANYTHING most of the time!
Yes, thieves were the only ones that could move silently and could hide in shadows...(though 2e rangers could in their environment), but anyone and everyone could move quietly, hide, climb, and other abilities that sometimes people thought only thieves could do.
That was the handover from OD&D, and the thief for Greyhawk rules was something that added their ability as an additional roll, OR if something truly was impossible (such as hopping into a shadow and hiding...which isn't actually as effective as simply hiding for most people...also holds true for low level thieves).
This was something that continued in the games run by Gygax and co in the 1e rules.
Unsure about the 2e rules...not as familiar with them, did something happen where it suddenly specified players could not do these types of things and only thieves/rogues were allowed to attempt them?
Seems odd, and suddenly a depower for the Rogue (sort of like what happened with 3e and PF with the depowering of Rogue skills, but not as drastic as 5e), but I suppose 2e could have either not mentioned anything about it, oral tradition was lost, or the rules specifically stated that only Rogues could do these sorts of things.
Actually, if you played AD&D as Gygax and others did...
We didn't, of course. He was literally half a world away. We just read the books and tried to make sense of them (still do, pretty much).
Irrespective, the move silently thing was just an off-the-cuff example. The details don't matter, it's the general point that allowing 5E characters to effectively "dabble" is generally seen as a positive by fans of 5E. Which is why they don't complain about the fact that abilities like this have moved away from being exclusively tied to class abilities.
They make a huge difference. They're just not as limiting as prior editions.
You can step out of the standard abilities or style of your class without being just incompetent. A fighter will still always be the best fighter but if you want to focus on that as a different class you can do so and be a bit good (even if the peak is within the fighter's purview- other classes are still in the same league).
The best lockpicker in the world will be a rogue or bard but you can be good at it as a wizard, cleric or fighter.
We all draw the boundaries differently but for me its kind of the best of both worlds. I get the ease of a class based system with flexibility if I want it.
I don't mind bounded accuracy with some proficiency thing, but what I WOULD LIKE is for 5e D&D to be more like AD&D than Pathfinder!What do I mean by that?
Bounded accuracy actually makes 5e LESS like AD&D in just about everyway, from Thief Skills to Fighters (which in prior editions before 4e being able to hit better JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE FIGHTERS). Bounded accuracy makes the game more reliant on Ability Scores, than experience and class abilities.
Not at low level. In OD&D (and AD&D) Fighters got better faster as they levelled up. Everybody started out about the same (needing a 10 to hit an unarmored enemy). Fighters went up in hit probability in 3 level jumps, other classes in 4 (Clerics, Thieves) or 5 (Magic Users) level groups.
Sure, Fighters get multiple attacks, but heads up...they also get multiple attacks in Pathfinder, AND in AD&D.
Multiple attacks was in the original Chainmail combat system that OD&D used. Not in the "optional" (new d20 based system from Book I of OD&D). Fighters did get multiple attacks against opponents of less than 1 hit dice in OD&D. That is Goblins (1-1), Kobolds (1/2) and Skeletons (1/2). You could add Giant Rats to that after Greyhawk. Other than that it was 1 attack in OD&D. AD&D gave multiple attacks slowly... iirc a 7th level fighter got 5 attacks in 4 rounds. Then it went 3/2 for level 7-12, then 2/1 for level 13+. Rangers and Paladins went up a bit slower in multiple attacks as I recall. I don't have my old books in front of me at the moment. 2E AD&D was a bit different too I think.
What Pathfinder and AD&D (and OD&D before that and B/X, and BECMI, see a trend there??) did differently is that fighters could hit better with weapons simply because of what their class was.
After 3rd level, yes. Fighters weapon proficiency in 5E makes them better with a wide range of weapons from the get go.
To me, that's actually one of the basic core tenets of D&D, and without it, well, you might as well be Paladium Roleplaying game or other systems where you have something similar to 5e.
Paladium RPG? It's been a looong time since I played it, but I don't remember too many similarities... I just remember giant amounts of damage...
If 5e just did something like...Fighters got to double their proficiency bonus with weapons...I might not have such a bad taste about 5e.
Fighter in 5E have the same starting advantage they always had, more / better weapons and more hit points. Everything else came later. It was "baked in" to the class, but I think fighters in 5E get better as they level up too.
Similarly, prior to 3e, Thief/Rogues had skills that were special to them. Even 3e and PF sort of recognize this, and though others can get trapfinding...overall that's a speciality that identifies the Rogue or classes that replace your Rogue in your party.It isn't normally going to be a Fighter with a Criminal background...etc...
Rogues get a bonus to a few skills of their choice in 5e, but it should be expanded to automatically be for specific Rogue skills. Rogues aren't necessarily a ton better or get a ton more skills than everyone else...and overall, success is more reliant on what their ability score for that skill is rather than how much experience or what they've put into the skill.
Yes, Thieves skills were specific to them... and they pretty much sucked at them. The only thing they were really good at in OD&D / 1E AD&D at 1st level was climbing walls. 87% for the win. The standard method of escape for them :) Everything else was 10-25% as I recall. You had more of a choice in 2E where you could pick where to put your percentages iirc. I think there is a truth in what you say about this, but it's a trade off between being better overall and having others play in your sandbox and being poor at it but no one else could do it (well, except Assassins and Monks).
In otherwords, 5e made things FAR more focused on ability scores rather than what a class is and what a class can do.
I think the assumption is that you'll have higher ability scores in what your class focuses on and raise those abilities as you level up versus raising characteristics that aren't as useful for your class. They've given you choice in 5E, but that includes bad choices (for your class) or, if you prefer, more flexibility in play style for each class. People have been whining about the "lack of choices" in 5E character generation / builds without realizing the choice is there. Imho, of course.
No one mentions this giant in the room, I think because most don't realize that in many ways this goes counter to what Pre-2000 D&D was, and in many ways still goes counter to what pre-4e D&D was.In Pathfinder, ability scores are important...but your class has inherent abilities which grant you things that your ability scores can affect but not really dictate.
Which, to an extent, is why Pathfinder requires a ton of base classes arch-types to do what 5E does with fewer classes / arch-types.
I feel 5e is different and focuses purely on the ability scores rather than what your class is and what things you gain from it. It dilutes the Experience system and how you gain and grow in power from your experiences.
To each, their own. I've played, and enjoyed, every version of D&D / AD&D (except 4E). They are all different from each other.
In OD&D, the maximum bonus you got from your ability scores was a +1. That's right...a +1. In addition, you had to have a score higher than 16 to get that.
No. Not after Greyhawk anyway. A 13 Dex got you a +1 with missile weapons, and a 15 Constitution got you a +1 on hit dice. After Greyhawk Constitution got you up to +4 (only Fighters could get above +2) and Strength gave bonuses up to +4 (again, only Fighters could get above +2 iirc). And yeah, except for Dexterity bonuses required 15+. In the beginning only Dexterity (8 or under) gave a penalty (-1 with missile weapons), after Greyhawk there were penalties for low Strength and Constitution iirc. Mostly, the classes Prime Requisite effected experience gained, with bonuses of up to 10%. There were other odds and ends in there too.
This idea of having to have a score at least as high as a 16 to even consider getting a +1 continued to AD&D (though DEX and CONS lowered to 15). B/X and BECMI reduced it to much lower, but AD&D 1e and 2e kept that spirit where your abilities as a class rather than your stats that you rolled, were more important.5e throws that out to the wind in some ways...HOWEVER...I actually could be happy with 5e if it simply made it so a martial who had a 10 STR could actually hit better than a Wizard with 10 STR.
That probably would appease me, though a Rogue with expanded abilities beyond what 5e granted them would probably make me even happier.
PS: You could also include Saves into that as well...but overall, I don't mind the save system that much, in some ways it's just as broken as Pathfinders...though in some instances it is better, and in some it is FAAAAAR worse.
A "martial" with 10 Strength will hit harder than a Wizard. Because he has better weapons :) Just like the original game. 5E is a different game than previous editions. I think it's closer to earlier editions than 4E. And it's a game I'll play and enjoy. Which, mind you, I could do with 2E or OD&D with Greyhawk and the other supplements.
I was going to be snarky and say like "Spring Attack" sarcastically but then I saw this:
Most of Ultimate Campaign.
and like YES! 5e has a lot of gaps outside of the moment-to-moment of play. It does exploration, social interaction, and combat well but it doesn't do larger world issues, such as ruling a realm, well.
But, it's easy enough to bring in from sources such as Ultimate Campaign.
I wasn't really going to say the sarcastic thing, I don't like sarcasm and I realize that Pathfinder is a well designed game. It was just a fleeting thought.
A wizard with 10 strength is a martial in that respect. If they want to hit with weapons they can hit with weapons. And the fighter can cast spells if they learn some spells.
Well, this was about what pathfinder rules we'd like to see in 5e.
I explained it and why.
As I said before, and I'll say it again, but more simply this time and without explanation...
If they even had an OPTION to add varied Attack bonuses with Martials like Fighters, Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians have a much better advancement rate with their weapon proficiency bonus like every other edition of D&D (except 4e) prior to it...that's something I'd like to see.
I don't need that specific 4e ism in my D&D...I'd prefer they TRULY went with Old school than trying to be new school with the 4e stuff in that instance.
I'd also like a return to the classic double chance with Thief/Rogue skills like they did in the old times...either that or something more like PF where you can actually IMPROVE your skills by investing in them (5e is more like 4e where you get your set bonuses, and they improve over time, but not like PF where you can improve them to be better than anyone else).
Those are just some of the things I'd like in 5e from Pathfinder...as per what the thread asked.
If they just included them as OFFICIAL OPTIONS I'd actually be far more happier with 5e to be honest.
Well, it's part of 5e's old school approach that most of the options you see are "written in pencil" in the UA web articles rather than published as official material.
I love that you can have a martial rogue, and you don't have to say "hey, I'm a rogue". No one would be able to tell you from a finesse fighter or a rogue, and I think that's ok. You aren't as defined by your class, but more by what you want your class to do.
There is a difference because granting off-turn attacks to Rogues is pretty great for more Sneak Attack, plus the Rogue can be expected to be more consistently mobile.
But yeah, either can do well with a rapier.
If they just included them as OFFICIAL OPTIONS I'd actually be far more happier with 5e to be honest.
I've never understood the NEED to have things as official options. I mean, 99% of people played AD&D with unofficial rules. I get wanting to have things codified, but a group can agree to rules changes, I'd be really surprised to hear of a group that doesn't. I know of a lot of people who have claimed to run RAW games, but it's never turned out to be true in my experience (actually, I find it more common in the indie gaming world, because more often people are interested in the authorial intent of the game).
Having official options is better for players who don't always play with the same group. Or generally only get to play in organized play groups.
In such a situation unofficial rules are nice to read, but you can never know if you actually get to use them.
Having official options is better for players who don't always play with the same group. Or generally only get to play in organized play groups.
In such a situation unofficial rules are nice to read, but you can never know if you actually get to use them.
D&D Adventurer's League does not use any optional rules, except for the "Playing on a grid". So, it wouldn't matter if Wizard's published them or not, they wouldn't get used. At home games, you'll run into them not being used consistently as well.
Rules for Dungeon Masters
The variant rules for “Playing on a Grid” in the D&D
Basic Rules and Player’s Handbook can be used if you
and your players wish. Dungeon Masters should feel
free to use the Dungeon Masters Guide to help run
games if they so choose. However, D&D Adventurers
League play does not use any other optional or variant
rules as presented in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
D&D Adventurer's League does not use any optional rules, except for the "Playing on a grid". So, it wouldn't matter if Wizard's published them or not, they wouldn't get used. At home games, you'll run into them not being used consistently as well.
Nevermind me. When i saw "official options" I thought new feats classes etc. that are more official than Unearthed Arcana. Not completely different rules.
Yeah there's really no tangible difference between officially published variant rules and homebrew. Other than perhaps if Wizards published it they maybe did some testing with it beforehand.
I think the only thing that I'd probably want to transport from Pathfinder/3.5 into 5e is Item crafting, including mundane AND magical items. The 5e Action Economy is great, allows for a lot more versatility for weapon-based classes unlike PF's Full-Attack/Standard Attack and the minimalist approach to things like the Bonus Action and Concentration help to limit spell abuse.
