Overall I think that the 5e classes are pretty great and they really hit the nail on the head with them this edition. However what things would you like to have seen done differently to what we got in 5e?
For me:
Bard: This one is probably the biggest for me. I liked the bard being a 'jack of all trades' class which sat between fighter, rogue, and wizard, rather than being a full caster wizard alternative of DnD 5e. I'd have liked to have seen the bard being a 1/3 caster main class, with an extra attack by default rather than in the subclass. I'm not sure what the reasoning for the change was this edition.
Druid: Move wildshape to the subclass, rather than the main class.
Fighter: Manoeuvres default like in the playtest.
Paladin: Divine smite moved to subclass (but all subclasses having it), in order for the damage type to be tweaked where it suits. Necrotic smites for oathbreaker.
Ranger: Move hunters mark from a spell to a class feature (honestly Tasha's ranger is great, and finally feels like it's designed for the same game as the other classes.)
Sorcerer: Another big one for me, as I dislike metamagic being its class feature at all, rather than a feat like prior editions. Subclass spells (sorcerer subclasses feel like they could be super thematic, but fall flat.). Will point casting like the playtest would get across the spontaneous natural casting feel.
Warlock: Move eldritch blast to a class feature which they get automatically. (seriously when the entire class is designed around having something, they should have it.)
I have fewer changes, but I can dig yours. Maybe mine are just because I get power hungry, but here goes:
All: I'd give them all at least one level early on where they take a feat without the option of an ASI.
Barbarian: Give them a power to take a level of exhaustion to turn a hit into a crit (or super crit).
Druid: I'd give them more features based on potion making. They get an Herbalism kit, make it a bigger part of them! Also, make wildshape more flexible (by allowing them to spend spell slots for more uses).
Fighter: Instead of Indomitable, give them an ability that gives them a bonus to hit. Really make these guys hit more often than everybody else.
Ranger: I mostly would just straight up make the TCE changes... but besides those, I'd like to see them get a fourth skill which could alternatively be heavy armor proficiency.
Sorcerer: They just need Bloodline Spells like the TCE subclasses get. If not, maybe a number of spells they know equal to their proficiency bonus may be swapped out each long rest for another spell. Really play up their flexible casting.
Warlock: I'm right there with you. Even if you cost them a cantrip on the chart, let them all know it if it's going to be such a big deal.
Wizard: My answer would have been "make the subclasses less lame" a year ago... but as more expansions come out and the school subclasses become a smaller percent of wizard subclasses, they actually become more interesting and unique by virtue of no longer dominating the wizard subclass list.
Mostly just blanket changes, feats worked into the classes as they progress instead of being asi or feat.
Also I'd put in a few more subclass features, the pause between mechanics gets to be really long at times and while 5e doesn't have dead levels like other editions theres a lot of levels that are still pretty dull. Feel like it could add just a bit more.. change to the classes to further distance subs from base
I love the wide range of themes and styles, overlapping classes, and the fact that you don't need certain classes to be a viable party.
For me the storytelling part of DnD is important, and I'd rather players were able to make 'their' ideal character, rather than get forced into playing a set of chess piece archtypes of what they 'should' be playing.
Overall I think that the 5e classes are pretty great and they really hit the nail on the head with them this edition. However what things would you like to have seen done differently to what we got in 5e?
Whole heartedly disagree with that, I think 5e is a complete cluster-F&/(! when it comes to classes.
I think the problems can be boiled down to five points.
1. No Class Identity: All of the classes are a mixed bag of cross class abilities without any recognizable archetype or role in the game.
2. Wildly unbalanced abilities: Some classes are totally dominate, others are effectively NPC's.
3. Creates generic fantasy: The wide range of themes, motifs and styles of the classes results in a hodgepodge of generic fantasy classes without any meaningful place in any D&D setting. There are so many options and gizmos that the game has no identity as a result.
4. Designed for Power Gaming: The classes are designed to act as building blocks for optimization, turning the game into a power fantasy by default requiring significant changes to avoid this to the point that you basically have to be a game designer to fix it.
5. Most class abilities are voided by the mechanic: You can make a cleric, but healing is not needed, you can be a wizard, but 70% of the classes can also cast spells etc... Nothing you pick matters, no class is needed in a party.
With the exception of point 2, these seem more like matters of taste than actual problems. What does it matter if no class is needed in a party, for instance?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To me, if classes each had a super clear defined purpose, I'd rather than had a very general theme. And if they had a super specific theme, I'd rather they had a very general purpose.
Like the paladin 'archtype' is meant to be the lawful good, god following, oath making character in theme. And the Nova damage melee magic warrior in role. Which is fine. But if there is no overlap, what of the people who want to play a nature themed melee magic warrior? Or a lawful good, oath making, divine themed archer?
Forcing super specific archtypes means that you can't play your character. You're playing someone else's idea of a character.
With the exception of point 2, these seem more like matters of taste than actual problems. What does it matter if no class is needed in a party, for instance?
I see so its a matter of taste if I think classes should have clear defined purpose and theme, but its a fact if you think they don't?
This entire topic is a matter of opinions, its about what we think. No one has stated any facts in this post yet.
It's a matter of opinion either way, but I didn't use the words cluster**** and problem. If you'd told us for instance what you'd done differently would be going back to four strict classes, I'd have read that with interest and everything'd be copacetic even if that's not at all what I'd do. But that isn't what you did, you suggested the current system is wrong rather than just not to your liking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Big Liazrd is of course correct. Each species culture should dominate the classes and abilities of each class/sub-class.
I know it is heresy with the current social fads and the SJW's are going to cancel them soon enough, but Volo's and Mord's both try to dive into the culture of a species. There should be entire books dedicated to each.The culture of your species must hugely influence your decisions and AND LIMIT your options as a player.
Should a Wood Elf be able to be a Barbarian? An argument can be made for that. Can a High Elf? No High Elf would ever consider it.
Half-Orcs can't be Wizards, but they certainly can have Shaman's that are just as powerful.
And yes, each species DOES have specific abilities that are stronger or weaker than other species. A Gnome should never be as strong as a Half-Orc.
And each class MUST have specific skills attached to it. There is NO choice on whether a Wizard takes the Arcana skill. A Ranger WILL have Survival and probably Nature on their skill list. If one keeps the concept of Expertise (which I actually like), then each class should automatically have Expertise with at least one skill associated with that class. And there HAS to be more differentiation between classes. I cringe every time I read how every book allows more and more spells to be cast by more and more classes. It should be the opposite. Of course there is some commonality, but it should be as small as possible.
Further, the amount of sub-classes is ludicrous. There are 18 sub-classes for Clerics, but 7 for Sorcerer and Bard. That is idiotic. Create some balance. And that does not mean creating 18 sub-classes of Sorcerer.
There is no doubt that certain species should distrust, or even hate, other species. Elves and Dwarves, two of the Greater Species, have tolerated each other since the beginning, but seldom were friends. Half-Orc's, well, they are almost always outlaws. Oh, and the concept that there are dozens of playable species, or a player can choose to design their own species, flies in the very face of everything the game was designed around.
If you're well-trained enough in martial combat to have a signature fighting style, you're well-trained enough to know special combat stunts. All classes with Fighting Styles (Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Blood Hunter, and subclasses that introduce fighting styles like Sword bard) gain maneuvers and Superiority dice. I know peoplel wanted to minimize complexity, but the result is that martial weapon-based combat is exceptionally boring and has essentially zero turn-by-turn variation in what a character can do. Offering maneuvers to most things that focus on martial combat gives them options to exercise some tactical judgment and acumen beyond "I stand here and swing my sword until there's nothing else to swing it at."
I wouldn't have put all my spellcasting eggs in one basket. I understand that the pseudo-weirdboi Vancian-inspired 'Spell Slot' system was used universally to cut down on system complexity, but frankly it failed in that task. Getting one's head wrapped around spell slots rather than simple systems of mana or spell points is harder for most people to do. The sorcerer class didn't need spell slots - I would've built sorcerers to solely and specifically use spell points, and in the doing perhaps chop off higher-level spells that 5e has a huge problem balancing in exchange for a multitude of sorcerer class features that allows them to use their reserve of mana to do cool shit.
I wouldn't have made feats optional. Or rather, I wouldn't have forced players to choose between making interesting choices that help differentiate their character and improving their numbers the way the shitty game math is expecting them to. Were I to design the system, one would gain an ASI every time their proficiency bonus went up a point, and the 'feat' levels would be strictly for feats. As an optional rule for people to opt out of complexity they don't want, each class would have a "suggested feat" at that level that the class gains unless the player specifically decides otherwise
In that vein, I hate the fact that 5e classes/subclasses never allow the player to make any meaningful choices for their character's growth and progression after third level. I understand why the game did that, but I honestly think they're wrong - the burden of onboarding new players that don't speak Gaming is all in the early levels, divesting characters of any meaningful choices to make after third doesn't help a DM teach a new player the language of gaming before third level, where those decisions exist. I think it would've been a better idea to dispense with the subclass idea entirely in favor of allowing choice points within a main class, similarly to how Eldritch Invocations can be used to sculpt one's warlock into a character that is ACTUALLY MEANINGFULLY DIFFERENT from someone else's warlock. Let the space occupied by "subclasses" be occupied by Advanced Class Features, which could be released in packages in new books to do the same thing new subclasses do. Admittedly that's a huge change and it'd require rejiggering a great deal of the bones of 5e, and Pathfinder 2E does show some of the perils of going too far that way, but...well. I'm just sop absolutely fed up with the only choice you're ever given at any level above 3 for anything but warlocks or artificers being "do you take another level in this class or do you bail and pick up something new?"
That should work for initial thoughts, methinks. Specific class fixes or changes would come after fixing the bones of the system such that the player is making choices at every stage of the character's growth, rather than just the start.
As somebody whose only really played 5E, I don't have a ton of changes.
off-topic reactions to other posts
Yeah classes don't have a defined role, mostly cause they seem more tied to roleplay than tied to their actions in combat For example, Bladesinger and Fighter party-wise could just be melee tanks, but roleplay-wise one is a scholar who uses magic to shield himself and the other relies on pure skill. The reason it seems the classes don't fit archetypes is because your thinking of the wrong archetypes.
Maybe it would be interesting to see a system where classes are focused on each role in the party like in older version of D&D (dps, tank, heal, magic) and I would be fine with all roleplay being tied exclusively to fluff and flavor-text, but that's hard on the imagination for some (esp. newer players whom 5E is trying to attract). Same thing with classes being tied to cultures, like eh I can see it but cultures and how other races view each other is like one of the first things people HB, which makes turning it to a gameplay mechanic seem awkward. Although, it was like that for older version of D&D so idk if it's really a problem.
Personally I love how the new Deft Explorer gives a expertise, not expertise in Survival. It means I don't need to focus on survival and can instead for example, be a urban Monster Hunter with expertise with Arcana in recognizing extraplanar entities. Or a Fey Wanderer who relies purely on Fey magic for survival and doesn't care for actual survival proficiency. The idea all Rangers must have survival proficiency annoys me somewhat. Same with all rogues needing stealth and other similar things, Swashbucklers exist.
Although I do agree that all classes getting a single expertise would be great. Just not one already pre-chosen for you.
Getting back to the topic, as for the actual classes
Barbarian, I would probably allow for a more variety of builds since a lot of barbarians are pretty similar, allow barbarians to use dexterity for one (and probably buff strength but that's a different discussion for a different thread).
Bard, could be interesting as a half-caster to fully focus on that jack of all trades, as of right now it seems to be half and half between a jack of all trades, and a master of enchantment/charms. It should focus on one or the other in my opinion.
Fighter, yeah maneuvers 100%. Give them some choices to make in the middle of combat, as well as feats so they have choices leveling up and in combat. Maneuvers also fit the skill-flavor that fighter has and makes it more different than the more "brute" barbarian.
Monk, I would want to double down on that flavor of versatility, someone who can fit any role. Like for one, at least mention their versatility in fluff, and allow give them at least one more option in combat between levels 12 and 16.
Sorcerer needs some more emphasis on sorcery points to further separate them as a specialist making the most out of a few spells. Give them some more things to use them with (maybe every origin comes with a free metamagic option), allow them to gain some sorcery points back on a short rest, etc.
Other than that just less dead levels for classes. I generally consider dead levels to be bad game design, people should feel like they gain something every level up, cause leveling up doesn't happen often in most games.
More specific alterations.
Cleric, the 14th level Destroy Undead (CR 3) seems like a dead level, but Clerics are such a powerful class already I guess it's fine. Maybe toss in a fluff/ribbon based off their subclass in there.
Monk level 15 seems like a dead level, and 9/13/10 are only situationally useful. Honestly I would give them Martial Arts die to proficiency bonus, which would make levels 9 & 13 seems less "dead" (you gain a martial arts die increase), as well as making tier 4 monks more exciting (d12 martial arts die). Capstone is perfectly fine, Empty Body is basically the monk capstone anyways.
bow paladin divine archer come on- okay this one is half-serious but things like the Oathbow really do fit the paladin theme well. I agree with the others that Divine Smite should be more than just radiant.
Ranger needs some better late-game features, levels 8, 14 (hiding only granting advantage on 1 attack is eh), 18, aren't dead but so many situational features makes people go eh. 10 is situational feature as well if your not into stealth. Perhaps add some features relating around concentration in the late-game (Rangers do fine at 1-11, also a feature like double concentration would be very op for multiclass dips if not handled right). Also more Ranger spells so there's more unique options than just going Hunter's Mark.
Warlock make the invocations work with non-Eldritch Blast cantrips. Eldritch blast will still be the best of course, but it'll allow more diversity in cantrip usage. More innovations in general is good, the loss of the armor innovation in the UA CFV still hurts me deeply.
Half-Orcs can't be Wizards, but they certainly can have Shaman's that are just as powerful.
This is an interesting line of thought, because should a Shaman be it's own fully dedicated class, or would it just be a subclass or reflavoring of a Wizard? I don't think "Wizard" necessarily needs to be a bearded old man with a pointy hat and robes. One thing I like about the openness of 5e is that one can often use the official classes as "mechanics" that they can build their character around, rather than immutable archetypes to which one must adhere. There's no "Pirate" class... there's the Rogue Swashbuckler for those who associate that form of fancy dueling with pirates, but one could just as easily play a Battlemaster Fighter and treat them as a Captain who expertly commands their crew.
As for me, I don't know enough about game design to offer any really useful insight on what could be done to actually improve things if the whole thing got a do-over. I will say that I don't think that feats necessarily need to be easier to get... I actually like the idea that it's a major investment to choose to take a feat rather than an ASI... it can really help define who your character is and what they do, and the choice to take a feat over maximizing a stat should carry weight. Plus there's just like... too much variety in the feats. I feel like it would really, really be hard to balance letting everyone essentially get a free one now and then. I think people are too used to the idea that important stats need to be maxed out... it's nice when they are, but the game still runs fine if nobody in a party has a stat over 16. Maybe CR would actually be accurate if that was the case.
Although another point that Vince brought up that I also like is the idea of giving every class at least one expertise related to their class. It is kind of weird that a Rogue can easily outclass the wizard in knowledge of the arcane if they have a background that gives them proficiency in arcana.
Half-Orcs can't be Wizards, but they certainly can have Shaman's that are just as powerful.
This is an interesting line of thought, because should a Shaman be it's own fully dedicated class, or would it just be a subclass or reflavoring of a Wizard? I don't think "Wizard" necessarily needs to be a bearded old man with a pointy hat and robes. One thing I like about the openness of 5e is that one can often use the official classes as "mechanics" that they can build their character around, rather than immutable archetypes to which one must adhere. There's no "Pirate" class... there's the Rogue Swashbuckler for those who associate that form of fancy dueling with pirates, but one could just as easily play a Battlemaster Fighter and treat them as a Captain who expertly commands their crew.
As for me, I don't know enough about game design to offer any really useful insight on what could be done to actually improve things if the whole thing got a do-over. I will say that I don't think that feats necessarily need to be easier to get... I actually like the idea that it's a major investment to choose to take a feat rather than an ASI... it can really help define who your character is and what they do, and the choice to take a feat over maximizing a stat should carry weight. Plus there's just like... too much variety in the feats. I feel like it would really, really be hard to balance letting everyone essentially get a free one now and then. I think people are too used to the idea that important stats need to be maxed out... it's nice when they are, but the game still runs fine if nobody in a party has a stat over 16. Maybe CR would actually be accurate if that was the case.
Although another point that Vince brought up that I also like is the idea of giving every class at least one expertise related to their class. It is kind of weird that a Rogue can easily outclass the wizard in knowledge of the arcane if they have a background that gives them proficiency in arcana.
I have always visualized a Shaman as a person that is far more attuned with nature, and the gods of nature. If you have a look at anyone considered as a Shaman in real life, that is the flavour. The more I think about it, the more a Shaman could be a subclass of Druid or Cleric, but a subclass that is restricted to exclusive cultures. A Shaman won't operate in the city of High Elves or Humans, but it would certainly work well in the hinterlands where a tribe of Half-Orcs, Humans, or maybe Wood Elves exists. Imagine the RP if a Shaman, who has lived on the borders of civilization his entire life, suddenly is thrust for whatever reason into a large city. What powers could go haywire, if the Shaman's connection with his natural base are severed?
Similar to what some of the subclasses in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything did for some of the class features, I would use the proficiency bonus (versus the ability modifier) for the number of times said class features could be used. Personally, I liked this concept and approach for a couple main reasons:
Character/Class levels meant more versus having an unusually high ability score at earlier levels. For example, a 1st-level character with an 18+ score would have four (4) uses of a particular class ability, which might be just as good or better than a much higher level character that didn't have a high ability score.
Reduces the need to force optimization in order to have and use certain class features. Low level characters (with high ability scores) might not have as many uses early on, but they would gain more as their proficiency bonus increases with levels. However, players aren't having to focus on pumping up a score as much because so many of their abilities rely on having that higher number to get another use or two.
Not saying that this applies to everything, and spellcasters will still want to increase their main ability scores to make their magic more effective, but not every cleric of war needs to boost their Wisdom score in order to get more uses of their War Cleric ability.
You aren't necessarily the idiocy I'm referring to, BL. Though I sharply, severely disagree with the idea that the game should have a tiny number of classes, each strictly pigeonholed into a single narrow niche with absolutely no possibility of overlap or crossover. That's far too restrictive for a game of imagination and storytelling.
As for me, I don't know enough about game design to offer any really useful insight on what could be done to actually improve things if the whole thing got a do-over.
Funny enough, have designed games! And with that experience, I can tell you that a lot of the arguments here all stem from a misunderstanding of how D&D is made and there is a large assumption that the designers are saying more than they really are.
What everything is called in D&D is an assigned name... such as, if you have a son and you assign him the name Timmy. He might get teased growing up because South Park has special character named Timmy. Both are Timmy, and they are associating one Timmy with another... but your Timmy isn't a cartoon. This is how D&D works.
Dexterity means "hand eye coordination" which is specifically a motor skill allowing you to see something on a table and grab it on the first try. Dexterity is not your ability to aim a rifle. It is not your reflexes. It is not your sense of balance. It is not your ability to perform gymnastics. Dexterity is an assigned title like your kid Timmy, that people assume is the Cartoon (not your kid).
Compare that to Wizards who literally get their name for being Wise! But their stat is Intelligence to spite being wise. Wiser even! Do you know what administrators were often called for their wisdom back in older cultures? Viziers. Yes, the term Vizier means Wiser, i.e. Wizard... and many people might consider a Vizier a Shaman. They might also call a Druid a Shaman.
My point is: People assign traits to game mechanics that aren't actually there. This is why people get butthurt over multi-classing. "Why would a Barbarian become a Wizard?" Maybe I could counter that with, "Why would someone who drives a forklift and stacks pallets also make games? I mean, physical labor and crafting joy aren't the same thing!" Everything in D&D is assigned a name, and often a bad one. Don't give it more thought than it needs. Orcs can be Wizards because you aren't playing for Jeremy Crawford. You're playing with a DM who says, "It's rare, but possible. Go for it!"
I find it annoying that 5e is set up where if you want to play a class that has a wide variety of interesting options you have to play a spellcaster. I recognize that there are people who want simple and straightforward, even if I'm not one of them, but it shouldn't be tied to your character type -- there should be high and low complexity options for all character types. There's okay-ish simple blaster type spellcasters, but nothing for support other than the pretty questionable celestial warlock, and the most complex martial builds are still nothing compared to the range of options for a cleric or wizard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Overall I think that the 5e classes are pretty great and they really hit the nail on the head with them this edition. However what things would you like to have seen done differently to what we got in 5e?
For me:
Bard: This one is probably the biggest for me. I liked the bard being a 'jack of all trades' class which sat between fighter, rogue, and wizard, rather than being a full caster wizard alternative of DnD 5e. I'd have liked to have seen the bard being a 1/3 caster main class, with an extra attack by default rather than in the subclass. I'm not sure what the reasoning for the change was this edition.
Druid: Move wildshape to the subclass, rather than the main class.
Fighter: Manoeuvres default like in the playtest.
Paladin: Divine smite moved to subclass (but all subclasses having it), in order for the damage type to be tweaked where it suits. Necrotic smites for oathbreaker.
Ranger: Move hunters mark from a spell to a class feature (honestly Tasha's ranger is great, and finally feels like it's designed for the same game as the other classes.)
Sorcerer: Another big one for me, as I dislike metamagic being its class feature at all, rather than a feat like prior editions. Subclass spells (sorcerer subclasses feel like they could be super thematic, but fall flat.). Will point casting like the playtest would get across the spontaneous natural casting feel.
Warlock: Move eldritch blast to a class feature which they get automatically. (seriously when the entire class is designed around having something, they should have it.)
I have fewer changes, but I can dig yours. Maybe mine are just because I get power hungry, but here goes:
All: I'd give them all at least one level early on where they take a feat without the option of an ASI.
Barbarian: Give them a power to take a level of exhaustion to turn a hit into a crit (or super crit).
Druid: I'd give them more features based on potion making. They get an Herbalism kit, make it a bigger part of them! Also, make wildshape more flexible (by allowing them to spend spell slots for more uses).
Fighter: Instead of Indomitable, give them an ability that gives them a bonus to hit. Really make these guys hit more often than everybody else.
Ranger: I mostly would just straight up make the TCE changes... but besides those, I'd like to see them get a fourth skill which could alternatively be heavy armor proficiency.
Sorcerer: They just need Bloodline Spells like the TCE subclasses get. If not, maybe a number of spells they know equal to their proficiency bonus may be swapped out each long rest for another spell. Really play up their flexible casting.
Warlock: I'm right there with you. Even if you cost them a cantrip on the chart, let them all know it if it's going to be such a big deal.
Wizard: My answer would have been "make the subclasses less lame" a year ago... but as more expansions come out and the school subclasses become a smaller percent of wizard subclasses, they actually become more interesting and unique by virtue of no longer dominating the wizard subclass list.
Mostly just blanket changes, feats worked into the classes as they progress instead of being asi or feat.
Also I'd put in a few more subclass features, the pause between mechanics gets to be really long at times and while 5e doesn't have dead levels like other editions theres a lot of levels that are still pretty dull. Feel like it could add just a bit more.. change to the classes to further distance subs from base
I would not build Warlock around one cantrip. It kind of ruins the class for me.
I agree with the change to Bard. And I would add that I would beef up the valor bard.
Rangers are mostly fixed with what's been added in Xanathars and Tasha's but the PHB Ranger is awful.
I love the wide range of themes and styles, overlapping classes, and the fact that you don't need certain classes to be a viable party.
For me the storytelling part of DnD is important, and I'd rather players were able to make 'their' ideal character, rather than get forced into playing a set of chess piece archtypes of what they 'should' be playing.
With the exception of point 2, these seem more like matters of taste than actual problems. What does it matter if no class is needed in a party, for instance?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To me, if classes each had a super clear defined purpose, I'd rather than had a very general theme. And if they had a super specific theme, I'd rather they had a very general purpose.
Like the paladin 'archtype' is meant to be the lawful good, god following, oath making character in theme. And the Nova damage melee magic warrior in role. Which is fine. But if there is no overlap, what of the people who want to play a nature themed melee magic warrior? Or a lawful good, oath making, divine themed archer?
Forcing super specific archtypes means that you can't play your character. You're playing someone else's idea of a character.
It's a matter of opinion either way, but I didn't use the words cluster**** and problem. If you'd told us for instance what you'd done differently would be going back to four strict classes, I'd have read that with interest and everything'd be copacetic even if that's not at all what I'd do. But that isn't what you did, you suggested the current system is wrong rather than just not to your liking.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Big Liazrd is of course correct. Each species culture should dominate the classes and abilities of each class/sub-class.
I know it is heresy with the current social fads and the SJW's are going to cancel them soon enough, but Volo's and Mord's both try to dive into the culture of a species. There should be entire books dedicated to each.The culture of your species must hugely influence your decisions and AND LIMIT your options as a player.
Should a Wood Elf be able to be a Barbarian? An argument can be made for that. Can a High Elf? No High Elf would ever consider it.
Half-Orcs can't be Wizards, but they certainly can have Shaman's that are just as powerful.
And yes, each species DOES have specific abilities that are stronger or weaker than other species. A Gnome should never be as strong as a Half-Orc.
And each class MUST have specific skills attached to it. There is NO choice on whether a Wizard takes the Arcana skill. A Ranger WILL have Survival and probably Nature on their skill list. If one keeps the concept of Expertise (which I actually like), then each class should automatically have Expertise with at least one skill associated with that class. And there HAS to be more differentiation between classes. I cringe every time I read how every book allows more and more spells to be cast by more and more classes. It should be the opposite. Of course there is some commonality, but it should be as small as possible.
Further, the amount of sub-classes is ludicrous. There are 18 sub-classes for Clerics, but 7 for Sorcerer and Bard. That is idiotic. Create some balance. And that does not mean creating 18 sub-classes of Sorcerer.
There is no doubt that certain species should distrust, or even hate, other species. Elves and Dwarves, two of the Greater Species, have tolerated each other since the beginning, but seldom were friends. Half-Orc's, well, they are almost always outlaws. Oh, and the concept that there are dozens of playable species, or a player can choose to design their own species, flies in the very face of everything the game was designed around.
Weapon damage by class. Fighters get d8 to d12 damage. While thief would get d4 to d6. Etc.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
[REDACTED] just off the top of my head...:
That should work for initial thoughts, methinks. Specific class fixes or changes would come after fixing the bones of the system such that the player is making choices at every stage of the character's growth, rather than just the start.
Please do not contact or message me.
As somebody whose only really played 5E, I don't have a ton of changes.
off-topic reactions to other posts
Yeah classes don't have a defined role, mostly cause they seem more tied to roleplay than tied to their actions in combat For example, Bladesinger and Fighter party-wise could just be melee tanks, but roleplay-wise one is a scholar who uses magic to shield himself and the other relies on pure skill. The reason it seems the classes don't fit archetypes is because your thinking of the wrong archetypes.
Maybe it would be interesting to see a system where classes are focused on each role in the party like in older version of D&D (dps, tank, heal, magic) and I would be fine with all roleplay being tied exclusively to fluff and flavor-text, but that's hard on the imagination for some (esp. newer players whom 5E is trying to attract). Same thing with classes being tied to cultures, like eh I can see it but cultures and how other races view each other is like one of the first things people HB, which makes turning it to a gameplay mechanic seem awkward. Although, it was like that for older version of D&D so idk if it's really a problem.
Personally I love how the new Deft Explorer gives a expertise, not expertise in Survival. It means I don't need to focus on survival and can instead for example, be a urban Monster Hunter with expertise with Arcana in recognizing extraplanar entities. Or a Fey Wanderer who relies purely on Fey magic for survival and doesn't care for actual survival proficiency. The idea all Rangers must have survival proficiency annoys me somewhat. Same with all rogues needing stealth and other similar things, Swashbucklers exist.
Although I do agree that all classes getting a single expertise would be great. Just not one already pre-chosen for you.
Getting back to the topic, as for the actual classes
Barbarian, I would probably allow for a more variety of builds since a lot of barbarians are pretty similar, allow barbarians to use dexterity for one (and probably buff strength but that's a different discussion for a different thread).
Bard, could be interesting as a half-caster to fully focus on that jack of all trades, as of right now it seems to be half and half between a jack of all trades, and a master of enchantment/charms. It should focus on one or the other in my opinion.
Fighter, yeah maneuvers 100%. Give them some choices to make in the middle of combat, as well as feats so they have choices leveling up and in combat. Maneuvers also fit the skill-flavor that fighter has and makes it more different than the more "brute" barbarian.
Monk, I would want to double down on that flavor of versatility, someone who can fit any role. Like for one, at least mention their versatility in fluff, and allow give them at least one more option in combat between levels 12 and 16.
Sorcerer needs some more emphasis on sorcery points to further separate them as a specialist making the most out of a few spells. Give them some more things to use them with (maybe every origin comes with a free metamagic option), allow them to gain some sorcery points back on a short rest, etc.
Other than that just less dead levels for classes. I generally consider dead levels to be bad game design, people should feel like they gain something every level up, cause leveling up doesn't happen often in most games.
More specific alterations.
Cleric, the 14th level Destroy Undead (CR 3) seems like a dead level, but Clerics are such a powerful class already I guess it's fine. Maybe toss in a fluff/ribbon based off their subclass in there.
Monk level 15 seems like a dead level, and 9/13/10 are only situationally useful. Honestly I would give them Martial Arts die to proficiency bonus, which would make levels 9 & 13 seems less "dead" (you gain a martial arts die increase), as well as making tier 4 monks more exciting (d12 martial arts die). Capstone is perfectly fine, Empty Body is basically the monk capstone anyways.
bow paladin divine archer come on- okay this one is half-serious but things like the Oathbow really do fit the paladin theme well. I agree with the others that Divine Smite should be more than just radiant.
Ranger needs some better late-game features, levels 8, 14 (hiding only granting advantage on 1 attack is eh), 18, aren't dead but so many situational features makes people go eh. 10 is situational feature as well if your not into stealth. Perhaps add some features relating around concentration in the late-game (Rangers do fine at 1-11, also a feature like double concentration would be very op for multiclass dips if not handled right). Also more Ranger spells so there's more unique options than just going Hunter's Mark.
Warlock make the invocations work with non-Eldritch Blast cantrips. Eldritch blast will still be the best of course, but it'll allow more diversity in cantrip usage. More innovations in general is good, the loss of the armor innovation in the UA CFV still hurts me deeply.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
This is an interesting line of thought, because should a Shaman be it's own fully dedicated class, or would it just be a subclass or reflavoring of a Wizard? I don't think "Wizard" necessarily needs to be a bearded old man with a pointy hat and robes. One thing I like about the openness of 5e is that one can often use the official classes as "mechanics" that they can build their character around, rather than immutable archetypes to which one must adhere. There's no "Pirate" class... there's the Rogue Swashbuckler for those who associate that form of fancy dueling with pirates, but one could just as easily play a Battlemaster Fighter and treat them as a Captain who expertly commands their crew.
As for me, I don't know enough about game design to offer any really useful insight on what could be done to actually improve things if the whole thing got a do-over. I will say that I don't think that feats necessarily need to be easier to get... I actually like the idea that it's a major investment to choose to take a feat rather than an ASI... it can really help define who your character is and what they do, and the choice to take a feat over maximizing a stat should carry weight. Plus there's just like... too much variety in the feats. I feel like it would really, really be hard to balance letting everyone essentially get a free one now and then. I think people are too used to the idea that important stats need to be maxed out... it's nice when they are, but the game still runs fine if nobody in a party has a stat over 16. Maybe CR would actually be accurate if that was the case.
Although another point that Vince brought up that I also like is the idea of giving every class at least one expertise related to their class. It is kind of weird that a Rogue can easily outclass the wizard in knowledge of the arcane if they have a background that gives them proficiency in arcana.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
On the mention of swashbuckler... give them automatic scimitar proficiency. The fact that they can't use one of their iconic weapons is obscene.
I have always visualized a Shaman as a person that is far more attuned with nature, and the gods of nature. If you have a look at anyone considered as a Shaman in real life, that is the flavour. The more I think about it, the more a Shaman could be a subclass of Druid or Cleric, but a subclass that is restricted to exclusive cultures. A Shaman won't operate in the city of High Elves or Humans, but it would certainly work well in the hinterlands where a tribe of Half-Orcs, Humans, or maybe Wood Elves exists. Imagine the RP if a Shaman, who has lived on the borders of civilization his entire life, suddenly is thrust for whatever reason into a large city. What powers could go haywire, if the Shaman's connection with his natural base are severed?
Similar to what some of the subclasses in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything did for some of the class features, I would use the proficiency bonus (versus the ability modifier) for the number of times said class features could be used. Personally, I liked this concept and approach for a couple main reasons:
Not saying that this applies to everything, and spellcasters will still want to increase their main ability scores to make their magic more effective, but not every cleric of war needs to boost their Wisdom score in order to get more uses of their War Cleric ability.
Sorry, that was my bad. I proclaimed them as Lord of D&D.
You aren't necessarily the idiocy I'm referring to, BL. Though I sharply, severely disagree with the idea that the game should have a tiny number of classes, each strictly pigeonholed into a single narrow niche with absolutely no possibility of overlap or crossover. That's far too restrictive for a game of imagination and storytelling.
Please do not contact or message me.
Funny enough, have designed games! And with that experience, I can tell you that a lot of the arguments here all stem from a misunderstanding of how D&D is made and there is a large assumption that the designers are saying more than they really are.
What everything is called in D&D is an assigned name... such as, if you have a son and you assign him the name Timmy. He might get teased growing up because South Park has special character named Timmy. Both are Timmy, and they are associating one Timmy with another... but your Timmy isn't a cartoon. This is how D&D works.
Dexterity means "hand eye coordination" which is specifically a motor skill allowing you to see something on a table and grab it on the first try. Dexterity is not your ability to aim a rifle. It is not your reflexes. It is not your sense of balance. It is not your ability to perform gymnastics. Dexterity is an assigned title like your kid Timmy, that people assume is the Cartoon (not your kid).
Compare that to Wizards who literally get their name for being Wise! But their stat is Intelligence to spite being wise. Wiser even! Do you know what administrators were often called for their wisdom back in older cultures? Viziers. Yes, the term Vizier means Wiser, i.e. Wizard... and many people might consider a Vizier a Shaman. They might also call a Druid a Shaman.
My point is: People assign traits to game mechanics that aren't actually there. This is why people get butthurt over multi-classing. "Why would a Barbarian become a Wizard?" Maybe I could counter that with, "Why would someone who drives a forklift and stacks pallets also make games? I mean, physical labor and crafting joy aren't the same thing!" Everything in D&D is assigned a name, and often a bad one. Don't give it more thought than it needs. Orcs can be Wizards because you aren't playing for Jeremy Crawford. You're playing with a DM who says, "It's rare, but possible. Go for it!"
I find it annoying that 5e is set up where if you want to play a class that has a wide variety of interesting options you have to play a spellcaster. I recognize that there are people who want simple and straightforward, even if I'm not one of them, but it shouldn't be tied to your character type -- there should be high and low complexity options for all character types. There's okay-ish simple blaster type spellcasters, but nothing for support other than the pretty questionable celestial warlock, and the most complex martial builds are still nothing compared to the range of options for a cleric or wizard.