All classes gain their archetype at Level 0 (I.E. if your Fighter is an Eldritch Knight, they should be an Eldritch Knight from the very beginning. They shouldn’t be identical to every other Fighter for a couple levels).
I don't really get this part.
This one I agree with. Mechanically, I don't care. But in terms of backstory and character concept, I think there are a lot of cases where it makes sense to know from the outset of character creation rather than at level three. For instance, paladin oaths, to me, seem like a life-defining event sort of thing. There isn't a reason that can't happen in the midst of a campaign, but I can see a lot of reasons that a player would want it to be embedded in the character concept from session 0/1. If I were to play an assassin, I'd probably want that established at the beginning. So what was I at levels one and two? An assassin trainee? A blank slate? What happened between level two and three that made me a full-fledged assassin? Can it be explained or ignored? Sure, but it seems more logical to me that the option to be an assassin was there at the start.
In some cases, it makes sense. Like you Paladin - my understanding g of the lore is that they make the of and then become the Paladin - it therefore, it only makes sense that your oath comes at level 1. On the other hand, Wizards probably wouldn't specialise until having practiced a bit, and then their talents would surface. Therefore, it makes sense for Wizards to gain their dedicwtion to a school after a few levels rather than instantly knowing what their talents are. Of course, you could come up with explanations to justify the reverse, both for the Wizard and the Paladin, but I think variable levels for when you get your specialisation for different classes makes sense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that WotC decided to make a 5E AD&D game which, rather than being a replacement for 5E, was instead meant to run alongside it as a more difficult and detailed game for those players who prefer that in their game (I.E. They would sell D&D and AD&D alongside each other in stores)? What would you like to see in such a game? For myself, I’d like the following:
The return of race penalties. A Half-Orc should be, on average, dumber and less charismatic than a human, which should be less stout than a dwarf or less agile than an elf, on average. And of course, no variable ability score bonuses like in Tasha’s. A Dwarf always gets +2 Con, an Elf always gets +2 Dex, etc. None of this silliness with Mountain Dwarves with +2 Dex/+2 Int.
That's not advanced. That's limited. Advanced should have more options to choose from. In the current game DMs can choose to use race penalties are not.
Different ability score caps for different races. Maybe something like 22 for a stat a race has a +2 bonus in, and 18 for a stat that a race has a -2 bonus in. I’ve never liked that, by Level 20, a Half-Orc Wizard is just as intelligent as a High Elf Wizard. The smartest High Elf Wizard should absolutely be noticeably smarter than the smartest Half-Orc Wizard. The strongest Halfling Fighter should never be as strong as the strongest Human Fighter, nor anywhere near as strong as the strongest Half-Orc Fighter.
There's a lot of advanced rules you could add to better balance the game or give more options. Why add more race-based restrictions?
Humans changed to a combination of the standard human and variant human (+1 to all six stats, 1 extra language, 1 extra proficiency, and 1 bonus feat).
This seems just like, "How you would write the rules," than anything more or less advanced.
1 Feat is automatically granted at Level 1 and every 5 levels thereafter (5, 10, 15, 20).
I think that's a nice house rule, but since feats are already in the base game, it doesn't really make it more advanced, it just encourages your players to make use of an option that's already available.
Level 0 for all classes, even weaker than a Level 1, somewhere between a commoner and a Level 1 adventurer.
Okay, that seems like a reasonable "game extension" that mostly advanced players would be interested in.
I think the advanced game would give this option, but you could of course still start at level 1 if the DM chooses, just as DMs today can choose to start at level 5 if they want.
Leveling requiring training time to advance to the next level, with experience point gains frozen until such time, thus preventing characters from advancing multiple levels and inexplicably gaining new abilities while in the middle of a dungeon.
Some rules to cover this would be interesting. Again, I would make it the DM's option. There could be a suite of "advanced realism" features with things like longer rests, injuries, increased consequences for dropping to 0 hp, etc.
All classes gain their archetype at Level 0 (I.E. if your Fighter is an Eldritch Knight, they should be an Eldritch Knight from the very beginning. They shouldn’t be identical to every other Fighter for a couple levels).
Seems like a reasonable "advanced rule". I imagine delaying the choice of subclass is mainly targeted at inexperienced players who don't want to be overwhelmed with choices at session 0.
Wizard/Sorcerer HD reduced to D4.
Bard/Rogue/Warlock HD reduced to D6.
Okay. In general you could have a set of rules that constitute "hard mode" for the game.
Maybe even a general system of handicaps. Like noobs crit on 19 and 20. Powergamers crit fail on 1 and 2. Players of different experience could play in the same game, without the new players feeling underpowered.
Proficiency Bonus divided into three stats: Combat Proficiency Bonus, Magic Proficiency Bonus, and Skill Proficiency Bonus. Different classes get different bonuses in each, rather than getting the same for all (in other words, a high Dex Wizard at Level 1 should not be as good of a knife fighter as a Fighter. Likewise, a Wizard gets a higher bonus to their skills than a Fighter would, as the Wizard is far more educated).
Okay. I mean to some extent this is already modeled by different classes having different saves, which will mostly matter in combat, and different classes getting different skill proficiencies. But if you want to make it more complex so there's even more variation among classes, that's appropriate for an advanced game.
Spellcasting foci (F) become a separate component in addition to Verbal (V), Somatic (S), Material (M). Many spells require the use of a foci (wand, staff, rod, orb, etc.) in order to be able to be cast. ALL cantrips require a foci (I.E. a Wizard without their foci, whether a wand or a staff, can’t cast Magic Missile).
To some extent this function is fulfilled by spell components with a gp cost that aren't consumed. You have to obtain that item in the world before you can cast the spell. Thereafter, there is no additional gp cost per spell cast. It's the same as a required focus, but it's even more fine-grained. It's specific to a particular spell.
Material (M) components becoming more common and dependent on possessing the specific material component to cast the spell (copper wire, two magnets, pork rind, chalk, etc), giving Wizards a reason to hunt for weird items.
Again, this is satisfied by simply using material components with a gp cost that are consumed by the spell. In that case you need the particular ingredient. It can cost 1 silver and be of little impact to the gold economy. But the fact that it has a cost means you can't just use a focus.
Armor purchased in pieces for different parts of the body, making it possible to mix-and-match armor pieces.
I guess. I don't really think anything interesting is added to the gap by mixing and matching your gauntlets and your helm. Unless you also establish some kind of tradeoffs for going helmless. Like with a helm on it's +1 AC, but Perception checks are at disadvantage. Maybe you can't use gauntlets with a bow. Etc.
Armor damage rules, which necessitate armor requiring regular upkeep and repair.
Weapon wear too, right?
A variety of shields(I.E. Tower Shield, Large Shield, Small Shield, Buckler, and Targe). Each shield should have different bonuses and rules (I.E. Tower Shield is +2 AC/+4 AC Vs. Ranged Attacks against all attacks from the front and flank. Targe shields are only +1 AC against one attack from the front, but keep the hand free, allowing it to hold another weapon or another item, and so on).
Seems cool, though Wizards could easily just publish those as "magic items". I think what's really needed is more support for homebrewing mundane equipment. Right now on D&D Beyond I can't just create a mundane weapon that does 3d4 + Dex damage. I can only create homebrew magic items, and technically I don't want my new weapon to be magical.
Certain weapons gaining multiple damage types (I.E. a longsword should be both Slashing and Piercing, as it can both slash and thrust).
Why not? For advanced players who know the importance of damage types, having a choice is good. I think the single damage type was just for simplicity so new players don't have to understand that they need to declare their damage type with every attack.
Bring back Weapon Speed. If a Barbarian with a maul is about to start fighting a Rogue with two daggers, the Rogue should be more likely to be able to strike first due to how small and nimble their weapons are, versus the heavy cumbersome maul wielded by the Barbarian, and should thus impact Initiative rolls.
Yeah, this is fine. I mean you could even add optional advanced initiative systems that recalculate your initiative each round depending on your pre-declared action.
Called Shot rules, making it possible to strike a specific body part and inflict an effect depending on which body part was struck, with more dangerous effects if that called shot becomes a critical hit.
What happens probably has to depend on the body part and the damage type. Like bludgeoning damage to the head could do Int damage, to the legs Dex damage, and to the arms Str damage. Called shots to the face could do Cha damage, but the bludgeoning kind would recover faster than the slashing kind.
Critical hit tables similar to the ones found in the old AD&D book Player’s Option: Combat & Tactics, which could lead to permanent scars, crippling wounds, severed limbs, and even instant death.
Yeah sure. Tables are always nice to have.
Long Rest no longer restores all lost hit points. Instead, a character only regains one hit point per level per each Long Rest, with the possibility of regaining more under different circumstances (bed rest, hospitalization, etc.). Without magical healing, it should be common for an adventurer to require several days rest to fully recover, should they have been severely hurt on an adventure.
Yeah, this is a cool advanced option, which makes taking damage more of a long-term impact. Each mission is not pass or fail: TPK or total victory. If you survive a mission but take too much damage, and have to rest while there's a ticking clock in the real world, it could be a Pyrrhic victory.
Similar to how Classic World of Warcraft brought back the Vanilla World of Warcraft game, settings for AD&D 5E should bring back versions of beloved campaign settings as they were by the end of 3E, unaffected by changes made to them in 4E or 5E. So for example, AD&D Ravenloft should reflect the Ravenloft setting as of the last Ravenloft book published by Arthaus. AD&D Forgotten Realms should reflect the Forgotten Realms setting as of the last Forgotten Realms book published at the end of the 3E era, and so on.
I don't think "I want things to go back the way they were," is advanced, either. You can purchase those old books and follow their rules as house rules in an otherwise 5e game if you want. They should instead focus on creating new content and better balancing 5e with its own ruleset, rather than stick with a rule that causes play balance problems because you're used to it.
So those are my thoughts. How about you all? Would you like an AD&D which is concurrent with regular D&D and doesn’t replace it? And if so, what would you like to see in it? What would make it “Advanced” for you?
I don't really think it's necessary. The DMG and other books contain plenty of optional rules. Could you have even more optional rules? Yeah. You could have suggested ways of dealing with rare situations like combat over several rounds of free-fall.
I am not interested in a book that forks the setting. I'm only playing homebrew so far, so I don't care about the setting one whit. But making slight changes to the setting seems like bad business. Then new adventures are only usable by players of either the basic game or advanced. I think modules should be playable on either system.
Do I think Wizards would publish it, because some people would be fascinated by the cred of it being the rebirth of AD&D? Yeah. And Wizards would also put some exclusive new race or subclass in there so that completionists have to buy it.
Racial penalties... I wouldn't make that part of the core rules. At the extremes, yes, it's difficult to believe that a Halfling and a Goliath should be able to reach the same pinnacles of Strength, let's say.
But an absolute unit of a Halfling would be a pretty entertaining character to play.
I think we can sum up a lot of the OPs suggestions as that he wants to play a game with more "realism". Which is fine and definitely could be a variant play style offered as an optional rule. I don't think it should the centerpiece of what's considered "advanced" play. There are all kinds of ways to play an advanced game. You can have enhanced narrative options like more backgrounds and flaws and bonds and maybe even requiring you to actually complete some kind of training or accomplishment in-game to get a feat. And you can have advanced simulationist rules for calculating the effect of a moderate wind on a free-falling owlbear. And you can have rules for advanced tactical combat.
If there was an AD&D, I think it should be all three, and all as optional rulesets that can be mixed and matched.
I was going to write a snarky play 3.5 post (at least 2/3 of these requests are to have the game work like it did in that generation), but instead ill just put the only constructive bit i was going to say. Lvl 0 chars do exist to a degree using https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/vrgtr/horror-adventures#Survivors
Edit: Also if you feel the need to have smarter elves than half orcs just applying the penalties does the job as it will take more resources to reach the cap and 20 represents the pinnacle of non divine study
I don't really see the need for an advanced rule-set. Everything here can be added reasonably easily with home brewing (and a bit of work to note it all down and solidify it).
All classes gain their archetype at Level 0 (I.E. if your Fighter is an Eldritch Knight, they should be an Eldritch Knight from the very beginning. They shouldn’t be identical to every other Fighter for a couple levels).
I don't really get this part.
This one I agree with. Mechanically, I don't care. But in terms of backstory and character concept, I think there are a lot of cases where it makes sense to know from the outset of character creation rather than at level three. For instance, paladin oaths, to me, seem like a life-defining event sort of thing. There isn't a reason that can't happen in the midst of a campaign, but I can see a lot of reasons that a player would want it to be embedded in the character concept from session 0/1. If I were to play an assassin, I'd probably want that established at the beginning. So what was I at levels one and two? An assassin trainee? A blank slate? What happened between level two and three that made me a full-fledged assassin? Can it be explained or ignored? Sure, but it seems more logical to me that the option to be an assassin was there at the start.
In some cases, it makes sense. Like you Paladin - my understanding g of the lore is that they make the of and then become the Paladin - it therefore, it only makes sense that your oath comes at level 1. On the other hand, Wizards probably wouldn't specialise until having practiced a bit, and then their talents would surface. Therefore, it makes sense for Wizards to gain their dedicwtion to a school after a few levels rather than instantly knowing what their talents are. Of course, you could come up with explanations to justify the reverse, both for the Wizard and the Paladin, but I think variable levels for when you get your specialisation for different classes makes sense.
This is part of why, unless there's someone at the table new to D&D that would benefit from starting simpler at level 1, I prefer games to start at level 3. Everyone has their archetype and a bit more to work with than a level 1, while still being early on in their careers.
It just 'feels' better to me for say, the swashbuckler to not spend two levels as a generic rogue, for the paladin to have some of their features that distinguishes their oath from other generic paladins, etc. Though that's just my two cents on the subject.
What i'd like in 5E don't necessarily need a new release. Things like expanded feats, backgrounds, weapons, armors and equipment list etc.. other things that can bring more grit to the game are already possibly through variant rules and the rest can easily be achieved through personal houserules. I'm ready for more campaign setting for sure though!
This is part of why, unless there's someone at the table new to D&D that would benefit from starting simpler at level 1, I prefer games to start at level 3. Everyone has their archetype and a bit more to work with than a level 1, while still being early on in their careers.
It just 'feels' better to me for say, the swashbuckler to not spend two levels as a generic rogue, for the paladin to have some of their features that distinguishes their oath from other generic paladins, etc. Though that's just my two cents on the subject.
Agreed, never cared for Sub-Classes for this reason. If a player wants to be an Assassin, my instinct as a DM is to let him be one. The point of the game is to play the character you want to play. The few times we have played 5e we always started at 3rd level for this reason, but it never sat well with anyone, it felt like cheating.
I LOVE subclasses in and of themselves...just wish they all started at level 1 like the sorcerer/warlock/cleric do.
Someone whose opinion I value has made the comment multiple times that the Basic Rules and their expansions were more fun than AD&D. I can't say for myself, as I started with the first edition of AD&D. The game was filled with nonsense, score limits, a score "cap" of 18, as there really were no rules for improving your scores without magic. Strength had special rules to make it more powerful, and Charisma had no in game mechanical effect. There were class limits based on both scores and Alignment that made it nearly impossible to play a Paladin and very difficult to play a Ranger. Bards were a high level thing because you had to take levels in two classes first. Multi-Class characters lost the ability to use any of their previous class powers until they reached one level higher than their previous Class, and if they wanted to advance, they had to keep switching back and forth. Only certain races could have three classes.
They called it "Advanced" because they marketed the game as being for adults, and implied that the Basic game was only for young teens. It did in fact contain most of the things that Wizards of the Coast now says they don't want in their game.
While the 5th edition rules can be complicated, if all you use is the Core Rules, you're pretty much set and can make your own games as you see fit.
I don't see any point in a Zero level character, nor do I see any reason why people should get all sub-class benefits at first level. That would essentially mean there were 75 or so classes, most of them will duplicate powers and it would be unreasonably complicated to balance. Milestone leveling means that nobody levels unless the DM decides they do, so if you're worried about training time, just say "You spent 4 weeks of downtime and are now level <whatever>" Sub-class benefits should come at 3rd level for all classes, it would save a lot of silliness without having to remove multi-classing from the game.
The choice between ability score increases and feats is one of the most interesting things about leveling up. It can be a very hard decision, and that's a good thing for the game. The idea of giving everyone a feat at first level has some merit, but a Human is supposed to get one at first level, so if you are playing a Human, do you get two at first level? It would be quite nice to be able to start the game with Pole Arm Master and Sentinel after all.
The resting rules are already overly complicated. A short rest ought not be required to be declared, it ought to just happen any time an hour's worth of downtime happens. Long Rests don't tell you anything about how many you can skip without becoming exhausted, and some races are able to accomplish a Long Rest in fewer than 8 hours. Elves can do this in 4 hours of Trance.
I have yet to meet anyone who enjoyed roleplaying spending weeks at a time healing. It's dull. About the only things that happens is wandering monsters getting to attack when you're already in poor shape. The entire point of the rules of recovering all hit points is so that the player characters can do far more interesting things, like go on Adventures.
Called shots, piecemeal armor, and armor degradation all combine to make an overly complicated mess that wouldn't solve the most essential point about armor in the current game. The ability to hit scales with level, armor does not. Armor needs to do more than just make it harder to hit you, it needs to provide a defense against damage.
No thanks to Advance Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition. The normal version serves my needs perfectly well.
I LOVE subclasses in and of themselves...just wish they all started at level 1 like the sorcerer/warlock/cleric do.
I don't really get the point of them... The only purpose of a sub-class compared to a standard class is that you don't get your sub-class until 3rd level. What is the mechanical point of that? What is the gameplay point in that? What is the relevance to the game of doing that? The whole thing to me feels like it just pushes the video gamey aspects of the game where you have to plan your "build".
Diversifies play styles, shakes things up, allows two of the same class to have some different abilities beyond spell choices etc. The point of them isn't that they 'start at level 3' it's to allow more diversity in concept and toolkits within the classes. In fact they don't even all start at 3. Sorcerer, warlock and cleric get their subclass at level 1. Wizard and Druid at level 2. The rest at 3.
You can different spins off of the core class concept. You could have the champion fighter who's main thing is critting more often. Versus the strategic maneuvers of the battlemaster. The trick shots of the arcane archer. The spellblade flavor of the eldritch knight. For paladins, you could have your classic goody two shoes oath of devotion, or the more neutral good oath of the ancients with some nature theming, the ruthless oath of conquest. A wild magic sorcer vs draconic ancestry vs shadow magic etc.
Granted, some subclasses are better designed than others. Not all of them are great. But they allow a lot of variation in flavor, RP and mechanics building upon the base class in different ways when done right.
The main purposes of subclasses is to offer more choice and diversity in your progression. It's all about customization. You can have two member of a same class in a party that could play and feel different depending on their choice of subclasses.
The main purposes of subclasses is to offer more choice and diversity in your progression. It's all about customization. You can have two member of a same class in a party that could play and feel different depending on their choice of subclasses.
You can achieve the same thing by simply having 3 different classes without the need for them to be the same for 3 levels.
That's a lot more design work and a bigger pain to balance (insofar as things get balanced anyway).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The main purposes of subclasses is to offer more choice and diversity in your progression. It's all about customization. You can have two member of a same class in a party that could play and feel different depending on their choice of subclasses.
You can achieve the same thing by simply having 3 different classes without the need for them to be the same for 3 levels.
Having 3 more classes is different as they are much more complex. With subclasses, it's a simple ad-on that brings significant changes. They remind me of AD&D 2nd edition kits.
This is part of why, unless there's someone at the table new to D&D that would benefit from starting simpler at level 1, I prefer games to start at level 3. Everyone has their archetype and a bit more to work with than a level 1, while still being early on in their careers.
It just 'feels' better to me for say, the swashbuckler to not spend two levels as a generic rogue, for the paladin to have some of their features that distinguishes their oath from other generic paladins, etc. Though that's just my two cents on the subject.
Agreed, never cared for Sub-Classes for this reason. If a player wants to be an Assassin, my instinct as a DM is to let him be one. The point of the game is to play the character you want to play. The few times we have played 5e we always started at 3rd level for this reason, but it never sat well with anyone, it felt like cheating.
It is in no way cheating to start at whatever level you want. Run a level 20 one-shot if you feel like it. The no-subclass level 1 is there at least for new players to get used to their base class features before having to choose and learn a bunch of subclass features.
The main purposes of subclasses is to offer more choice and diversity in your progression. It's all about customization. You can have two member of a same class in a party that could play and feel different depending on their choice of subclasses.
You can achieve the same thing by simply having 3 different classes without the need for them to be the same for 3 levels.
Except it's a lot more work for the publisher to create 3 completely unrelated classes than it is to create one class with 3 subclasses each with only a few extra features. And it's more work for players to learn 3 completely unrelated classes. And there's a tyranny of choice problem where as a player you would look at 72 classes, ungrouped into any kind of categories, and have to know where to start.
It's a terrible idea, there are 5+ editions of the game, and most "advanced" suggestions are just, "We liked 3.5, come back with us."
3.5 still exists, there's even Pathfinder, and if you don't want to play them or can't find ppl who want to join you, carving out part of the community that has grown because of the superiority of 5E isn't a dignified solution.
Most "advanced" players of 5E have personal preferences on what should be different, and the ones who are actually good at it are perfectly capable of generating their own homebrew rules to enhance their games.
The virtue of a universal codified system of play is that players can join with most other participants and use their knowledge of the same system to engage in games, parallel systems directly conflicts with that virtue.
There certainly would be benefits to a codified "advanced" system if it was done well and had adopters, but there's more room for a decline in the general popularity or a flop than there is for success. Experimentation and planning should be devoted toward 6E to find a more engaging, yet less complex system which also delivers better depth, if they can discover it, and the right time arises to move on, that would be swell. But I can think of few mistakes worse than confusing the current generation of D&D during its greatest popularity and and participation. They might as well be like, "Wow, we are more successful than ever, how quickly can we F this up?"
The main purposes of subclasses is to offer more choice and diversity in your progression. It's all about customization. You can have two member of a same class in a party that could play and feel different depending on their choice of subclasses.
You can achieve the same thing by simply having 3 different classes without the need for them to be the same for 3 levels.
That's a lot more design work and a bigger pain to balance (insofar as things get balanced anyway).
How would that be more difficult exactly? Sub-Classes are just classes, you have to balance them against every other class just the same as if they were a normal class. Quite literally the only difference between a sub-class and a regular class from a design perspective is that one starts at 3rd level and the other at 1st. There is no more or less design work.
I disagree that they're 'just like classes.'
Again, not all of them even start at level 3. Most do, five of them do not. It's not 'about' the starting level, it's about diversifying options for the classes.
Subclasses only have a handful of features compared to the full class kits. They are extensions of base classes, but are not nearly as complicated or extensive as full classes are. It's a lot easier to design a new subclass for an existing class than it is to build a new full class from the ground up. (Hence why we see regular additions to subclasses but only ARtificer has officially been added if I'm not mistaken since 5E started, not counting blood hunter which to my understanding is basically a homebrew class but popular enough from CR that D&D beyond added it.)
Subclasses could not exist independantly and the best ones expand upon the base kit of their class in interesting ways, that can make two fighters, or two wizards, or two rogues etc feel significantly different but still be rogues and not as comlicated as making all new classes.
I LOVE subclasses in and of themselves...just wish they all started at level 1 like the sorcerer/warlock/cleric do.
I don't really get the point of them... The only purpose of a sub-class compared to a standard class is that you don't get your sub-class until 3rd level. What is the mechanical point of that? What is the gameplay point in that? What is the relevance to the game of doing that? The whole thing to me feels like it just pushes the video gamey aspects of the game where you have to plan your "build".
I think the point of subclasses is actually to help get away from being forced to plan a build. It means for most characters, there's two decision points, class and subclass and from there, you're kind of on autopilot. (Yes, there's feats, but they're optional. I mean technically.)
In 3.x and 4e, but 3 in in particular, there were so many class and feat options, that system mastery was far more important to the game than it is now. You had to know which feats to take, in which order, which ones were prerequisites, which ones to avoid because they looked good but were useless. The end result was it was easy to end up with a pretty ineffective character in those editions. Subclasses allow for some customization, but remove most of the decisions, and so remove the chances you'll make a bad decision. Yes, people still build more effective and less effective characters in 5e, but the gap between them is not nearly as large as it used to be.
I agree that having them kick in at level 3 isn't great, but, like bogwitch said, it can help new players ease into the game, giving them fewer things to track and slowly adding them on.
It is in no way cheating to start at whatever level you want. Run a level 20 one-shot if you feel like it. The no-subclass level 1 is there at least for new players to get used to their base class features before having to choose and learn a bunch of subclass features.
Well we want to start at 1st level, we just don't want to be treated like newbies who need 3 levels to learn to play the game.. we already know how to play. Its a bit like installing a PC game you already played before, but it forces you through the tutorial before you can actually start playing.
Except it doesn't. There's a skip tutorial button right there. Just start at level 3. Your problem is that you want to skip the tutorial, but you don't want to have to feel like you're being "treated like newbies" by having to press the skip tutorial button. Just press the button. It's not a problem.
The main purposes of subclasses is to offer more choice and diversity in your progression. It's all about customization. You can have two member of a same class in a party that could play and feel different depending on their choice of subclasses.
You can achieve the same thing by simply having 3 different classes without the need for them to be the same for 3 levels.
Except it's a lot more work for the publisher to create 3 completely unrelated classes than it is to create one class with 3 subclasses each with only a few extra features. And it's more work for players to learn 3 completely unrelated classes. And there's a tyranny of choice problem where as a player you would look at 72 classes, ungrouped into any kind of categories, and have to know where to start.
Again I don't see how that situation is any different as it is. You still have to create, test, and publish all of the classes, you would have the exact same amount of features if you broke this down into classes at 1st level as you do if you do it at 3rd level as a sub-class,
No, you don't.
Say every class + subclass character has a total of 20 features by level 20. 15 of those are class features, and 5 of those are subclass features. There are 5 subclasses. That's a total of 15 + 5 x 5 = 40 total features for designers to create.
To have the same complexity with 5 individual classes: 20 features by level 20, that's 100 unique features to create. Multiply by the total number of classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In some cases, it makes sense. Like you Paladin - my understanding g of the lore is that they make the of and then become the Paladin - it therefore, it only makes sense that your oath comes at level 1. On the other hand, Wizards probably wouldn't specialise until having practiced a bit, and then their talents would surface. Therefore, it makes sense for Wizards to gain their dedicwtion to a school after a few levels rather than instantly knowing what their talents are. Of course, you could come up with explanations to justify the reverse, both for the Wizard and the Paladin, but I think variable levels for when you get your specialisation for different classes makes sense.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
That's not advanced. That's limited. Advanced should have more options to choose from. In the current game DMs can choose to use race penalties are not.
There's a lot of advanced rules you could add to better balance the game or give more options. Why add more race-based restrictions?
This seems just like, "How you would write the rules," than anything more or less advanced.
I think that's a nice house rule, but since feats are already in the base game, it doesn't really make it more advanced, it just encourages your players to make use of an option that's already available.
Okay, that seems like a reasonable "game extension" that mostly advanced players would be interested in.
I think the advanced game would give this option, but you could of course still start at level 1 if the DM chooses, just as DMs today can choose to start at level 5 if they want.
Some rules to cover this would be interesting. Again, I would make it the DM's option. There could be a suite of "advanced realism" features with things like longer rests, injuries, increased consequences for dropping to 0 hp, etc.
Seems like a reasonable "advanced rule". I imagine delaying the choice of subclass is mainly targeted at inexperienced players who don't want to be overwhelmed with choices at session 0.
Okay. In general you could have a set of rules that constitute "hard mode" for the game.
Maybe even a general system of handicaps. Like noobs crit on 19 and 20. Powergamers crit fail on 1 and 2. Players of different experience could play in the same game, without the new players feeling underpowered.
Okay. I mean to some extent this is already modeled by different classes having different saves, which will mostly matter in combat, and different classes getting different skill proficiencies. But if you want to make it more complex so there's even more variation among classes, that's appropriate for an advanced game.
To some extent this function is fulfilled by spell components with a gp cost that aren't consumed. You have to obtain that item in the world before you can cast the spell. Thereafter, there is no additional gp cost per spell cast. It's the same as a required focus, but it's even more fine-grained. It's specific to a particular spell.
Again, this is satisfied by simply using material components with a gp cost that are consumed by the spell. In that case you need the particular ingredient. It can cost 1 silver and be of little impact to the gold economy. But the fact that it has a cost means you can't just use a focus.
I guess. I don't really think anything interesting is added to the gap by mixing and matching your gauntlets and your helm. Unless you also establish some kind of tradeoffs for going helmless. Like with a helm on it's +1 AC, but Perception checks are at disadvantage. Maybe you can't use gauntlets with a bow. Etc.
Weapon wear too, right?
Seems cool, though Wizards could easily just publish those as "magic items". I think what's really needed is more support for homebrewing mundane equipment. Right now on D&D Beyond I can't just create a mundane weapon that does 3d4 + Dex damage. I can only create homebrew magic items, and technically I don't want my new weapon to be magical.
Why not? For advanced players who know the importance of damage types, having a choice is good. I think the single damage type was just for simplicity so new players don't have to understand that they need to declare their damage type with every attack.
Yeah, this is fine. I mean you could even add optional advanced initiative systems that recalculate your initiative each round depending on your pre-declared action.
What happens probably has to depend on the body part and the damage type. Like bludgeoning damage to the head could do Int damage, to the legs Dex damage, and to the arms Str damage. Called shots to the face could do Cha damage, but the bludgeoning kind would recover faster than the slashing kind.
Yeah sure. Tables are always nice to have.
Yeah, this is a cool advanced option, which makes taking damage more of a long-term impact. Each mission is not pass or fail: TPK or total victory. If you survive a mission but take too much damage, and have to rest while there's a ticking clock in the real world, it could be a Pyrrhic victory.
I don't think "I want things to go back the way they were," is advanced, either. You can purchase those old books and follow their rules as house rules in an otherwise 5e game if you want. They should instead focus on creating new content and better balancing 5e with its own ruleset, rather than stick with a rule that causes play balance problems because you're used to it.
I don't really think it's necessary. The DMG and other books contain plenty of optional rules. Could you have even more optional rules? Yeah. You could have suggested ways of dealing with rare situations like combat over several rounds of free-fall.
I am not interested in a book that forks the setting. I'm only playing homebrew so far, so I don't care about the setting one whit. But making slight changes to the setting seems like bad business. Then new adventures are only usable by players of either the basic game or advanced. I think modules should be playable on either system.
Do I think Wizards would publish it, because some people would be fascinated by the cred of it being the rebirth of AD&D? Yeah. And Wizards would also put some exclusive new race or subclass in there so that completionists have to buy it.
But an absolute unit of a Halfling would be a pretty entertaining character to play.
I think we can sum up a lot of the OPs suggestions as that he wants to play a game with more "realism". Which is fine and definitely could be a variant play style offered as an optional rule. I don't think it should the centerpiece of what's considered "advanced" play. There are all kinds of ways to play an advanced game. You can have enhanced narrative options like more backgrounds and flaws and bonds and maybe even requiring you to actually complete some kind of training or accomplishment in-game to get a feat. And you can have advanced simulationist rules for calculating the effect of a moderate wind on a free-falling owlbear. And you can have rules for advanced tactical combat.
If there was an AD&D, I think it should be all three, and all as optional rulesets that can be mixed and matched.
I was going to write a snarky play 3.5 post (at least 2/3 of these requests are to have the game work like it did in that generation), but instead ill just put the only constructive bit i was going to say. Lvl 0 chars do exist to a degree using https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/vrgtr/horror-adventures#Survivors
Edit: Also if you feel the need to have smarter elves than half orcs just applying the penalties does the job as it will take more resources to reach the cap and 20 represents the pinnacle of non divine study
I don't really see the need for an advanced rule-set. Everything here can be added reasonably easily with home brewing (and a bit of work to note it all down and solidify it).
- Loswaith
This is part of why, unless there's someone at the table new to D&D that would benefit from starting simpler at level 1, I prefer games to start at level 3. Everyone has their archetype and a bit more to work with than a level 1, while still being early on in their careers.
It just 'feels' better to me for say, the swashbuckler to not spend two levels as a generic rogue, for the paladin to have some of their features that distinguishes their oath from other generic paladins, etc. Though that's just my two cents on the subject.
What i'd like in 5E don't necessarily need a new release. Things like expanded feats, backgrounds, weapons, armors and equipment list etc.. other things that can bring more grit to the game are already possibly through variant rules and the rest can easily be achieved through personal houserules. I'm ready for more campaign setting for sure though!
I LOVE subclasses in and of themselves...just wish they all started at level 1 like the sorcerer/warlock/cleric do.
Someone whose opinion I value has made the comment multiple times that the Basic Rules and their expansions were more fun than AD&D. I can't say for myself, as I started with the first edition of AD&D. The game was filled with nonsense, score limits, a score "cap" of 18, as there really were no rules for improving your scores without magic. Strength had special rules to make it more powerful, and Charisma had no in game mechanical effect. There were class limits based on both scores and Alignment that made it nearly impossible to play a Paladin and very difficult to play a Ranger. Bards were a high level thing because you had to take levels in two classes first. Multi-Class characters lost the ability to use any of their previous class powers until they reached one level higher than their previous Class, and if they wanted to advance, they had to keep switching back and forth. Only certain races could have three classes.
They called it "Advanced" because they marketed the game as being for adults, and implied that the Basic game was only for young teens. It did in fact contain most of the things that Wizards of the Coast now says they don't want in their game.
While the 5th edition rules can be complicated, if all you use is the Core Rules, you're pretty much set and can make your own games as you see fit.
I don't see any point in a Zero level character, nor do I see any reason why people should get all sub-class benefits at first level. That would essentially mean there were 75 or so classes, most of them will duplicate powers and it would be unreasonably complicated to balance. Milestone leveling means that nobody levels unless the DM decides they do, so if you're worried about training time, just say "You spent 4 weeks of downtime and are now level <whatever>" Sub-class benefits should come at 3rd level for all classes, it would save a lot of silliness without having to remove multi-classing from the game.
The choice between ability score increases and feats is one of the most interesting things about leveling up. It can be a very hard decision, and that's a good thing for the game. The idea of giving everyone a feat at first level has some merit, but a Human is supposed to get one at first level, so if you are playing a Human, do you get two at first level? It would be quite nice to be able to start the game with Pole Arm Master and Sentinel after all.
The resting rules are already overly complicated. A short rest ought not be required to be declared, it ought to just happen any time an hour's worth of downtime happens. Long Rests don't tell you anything about how many you can skip without becoming exhausted, and some races are able to accomplish a Long Rest in fewer than 8 hours. Elves can do this in 4 hours of Trance.
I have yet to meet anyone who enjoyed roleplaying spending weeks at a time healing. It's dull. About the only things that happens is wandering monsters getting to attack when you're already in poor shape. The entire point of the rules of recovering all hit points is so that the player characters can do far more interesting things, like go on Adventures.
Called shots, piecemeal armor, and armor degradation all combine to make an overly complicated mess that wouldn't solve the most essential point about armor in the current game. The ability to hit scales with level, armor does not. Armor needs to do more than just make it harder to hit you, it needs to provide a defense against damage.
No thanks to Advance Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition. The normal version serves my needs perfectly well.
<Insert clever signature here>
Diversifies play styles, shakes things up, allows two of the same class to have some different abilities beyond spell choices etc. The point of them isn't that they 'start at level 3' it's to allow more diversity in concept and toolkits within the classes. In fact they don't even all start at 3. Sorcerer, warlock and cleric get their subclass at level 1. Wizard and Druid at level 2. The rest at 3.
You can different spins off of the core class concept. You could have the champion fighter who's main thing is critting more often. Versus the strategic maneuvers of the battlemaster. The trick shots of the arcane archer. The spellblade flavor of the eldritch knight. For paladins, you could have your classic goody two shoes oath of devotion, or the more neutral good oath of the ancients with some nature theming, the ruthless oath of conquest. A wild magic sorcer vs draconic ancestry vs shadow magic etc.
Granted, some subclasses are better designed than others. Not all of them are great. But they allow a lot of variation in flavor, RP and mechanics building upon the base class in different ways when done right.
The main purposes of subclasses is to offer more choice and diversity in your progression. It's all about customization. You can have two member of a same class in a party that could play and feel different depending on their choice of subclasses.
That's a lot more design work and a bigger pain to balance (insofar as things get balanced anyway).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Having 3 more classes is different as they are much more complex. With subclasses, it's a simple ad-on that brings significant changes. They remind me of AD&D 2nd edition kits.
It is in no way cheating to start at whatever level you want. Run a level 20 one-shot if you feel like it. The no-subclass level 1 is there at least for new players to get used to their base class features before having to choose and learn a bunch of subclass features.
Except it's a lot more work for the publisher to create 3 completely unrelated classes than it is to create one class with 3 subclasses each with only a few extra features. And it's more work for players to learn 3 completely unrelated classes. And there's a tyranny of choice problem where as a player you would look at 72 classes, ungrouped into any kind of categories, and have to know where to start.
It's a terrible idea, there are 5+ editions of the game, and most "advanced" suggestions are just, "We liked 3.5, come back with us."
3.5 still exists, there's even Pathfinder, and if you don't want to play them or can't find ppl who want to join you, carving out part of the community that has grown because of the superiority of 5E isn't a dignified solution.
Most "advanced" players of 5E have personal preferences on what should be different, and the ones who are actually good at it are perfectly capable of generating their own homebrew rules to enhance their games.
The virtue of a universal codified system of play is that players can join with most other participants and use their knowledge of the same system to engage in games, parallel systems directly conflicts with that virtue.
There certainly would be benefits to a codified "advanced" system if it was done well and had adopters, but there's more room for a decline in the general popularity or a flop than there is for success. Experimentation and planning should be devoted toward 6E to find a more engaging, yet less complex system which also delivers better depth, if they can discover it, and the right time arises to move on, that would be swell. But I can think of few mistakes worse than confusing the current generation of D&D during its greatest popularity and and participation. They might as well be like, "Wow, we are more successful than ever, how quickly can we F this up?"
I disagree that they're 'just like classes.'
Again, not all of them even start at level 3. Most do, five of them do not. It's not 'about' the starting level, it's about diversifying options for the classes.
Subclasses only have a handful of features compared to the full class kits. They are extensions of base classes, but are not nearly as complicated or extensive as full classes are. It's a lot easier to design a new subclass for an existing class than it is to build a new full class from the ground up. (Hence why we see regular additions to subclasses but only ARtificer has officially been added if I'm not mistaken since 5E started, not counting blood hunter which to my understanding is basically a homebrew class but popular enough from CR that D&D beyond added it.)
Subclasses could not exist independantly and the best ones expand upon the base kit of their class in interesting ways, that can make two fighters, or two wizards, or two rogues etc feel significantly different but still be rogues and not as comlicated as making all new classes.
I think the point of subclasses is actually to help get away from being forced to plan a build. It means for most characters, there's two decision points, class and subclass and from there, you're kind of on autopilot. (Yes, there's feats, but they're optional. I mean technically.)
In 3.x and 4e, but 3 in in particular, there were so many class and feat options, that system mastery was far more important to the game than it is now. You had to know which feats to take, in which order, which ones were prerequisites, which ones to avoid because they looked good but were useless. The end result was it was easy to end up with a pretty ineffective character in those editions. Subclasses allow for some customization, but remove most of the decisions, and so remove the chances you'll make a bad decision. Yes, people still build more effective and less effective characters in 5e, but the gap between them is not nearly as large as it used to be.
I agree that having them kick in at level 3 isn't great, but, like bogwitch said, it can help new players ease into the game, giving them fewer things to track and slowly adding them on.
Except it doesn't. There's a skip tutorial button right there. Just start at level 3. Your problem is that you want to skip the tutorial, but you don't want to have to feel like you're being "treated like newbies" by having to press the skip tutorial button. Just press the button. It's not a problem.
No, you don't.
Say every class + subclass character has a total of 20 features by level 20. 15 of those are class features, and 5 of those are subclass features. There are 5 subclasses. That's a total of 15 + 5 x 5 = 40 total features for designers to create.
To have the same complexity with 5 individual classes: 20 features by level 20, that's 100 unique features to create. Multiply by the total number of classes.