Oh, I’m well aware, this one was Defensive 12; Offensive 17, so it should probably be CR 14, but I personally didn’t think that was right, so I dropped it to 13. But with average rolls this thing can crank out 77 - 108 damage in a turn (185 max, nocrit). That should be more than enough to put the fear of bejeepers into anyone in Tier-3, even your average Barbarian only has 170ish HP by 15th level. And with 240 HP, it’ll likely take the whole party to drop in a single round or a good 3 rounds in a 1V1 scenario. it doesn’t have to murder a PC, it just has to be capable of murdering a PC.
D&D might benefit by looking at how progression works in modern video games. Where you get skill points to spend on complex skill trees, the lower "boxes" unlock the upper boxes and such.
D&D might benefit by looking at how progression works in modern video games. Where you get skill points to spend on complex skill trees, the lower "boxes" unlock the upper boxes and such.
That was, to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, more or less how 4e worked. Choices made early in your character's progression were the basic prerequisites for later options, and you could decide which course through the skill tree/feat pool to chart as you played. Everybody universally hated it, because...I never actually figured out why, other than "IT'S NOT D&D". But nevertheless. We're unlikely to ever see it again in D&D, even if there's very strong arguments for it being a better system than fixed, rigid, unbending, always-identical character classes.
D&D might benefit by looking at how progression works in modern video games. Where you get skill points to spend on complex skill trees, the lower "boxes" unlock the upper boxes and such.
On the other hand, if I wanted to play a video game, I'd play a video game
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
D&D might benefit by looking at how progression works in modern video games. Where you get skill points to spend on complex skill trees, the lower "boxes" unlock the upper boxes and such.
You mean like the skill trees in Diablo II or WoW?
I suppose it could work maybe. But then it would no longer be D&D.
That was, to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, more or less how 4e worked. Choices made early in your character's progression were the basic prerequisites for later options, and you could decide which course through the skill tree/feat pool to chart as you played.
No, that was more of a 3.5e thing, between prestige classes with complex prerequisites and feat chains such as whirlwind attack. There were some core choices you made early in your career, but it didn't really have much of prereq system.
How come whenever this topic comes up it's just a lot of "play a different game". There a lot of things people can Still like about d&d and what to keep all that while making it classless. There's. Lot of content and popularity for d&d. If you wanted to come up with a classless option that let's you Stull use everything else what is the problem? It's not like the classes are actually that balanced.
Full disclosure, I have a classless version I came up with and reworked all skills to fit on a card for easy building. I accepted that balance wasn't as important as providing the option to build a character how you want. There will always be min/max players out there.
How come whenever this topic comes up it's just a lot of "play a different game". There a lot of things people can Still like about d&d and what to keep all that while making it classless. There's. Lot of content and popularity for d&d. If you wanted to come up with a classless option that let's you Stull use everything else what is the problem? It's not like the classes are actually that balanced.
Full disclosure, I have a classless version I came up with and reworked all skills to fit on a card for easy building. I accepted that balance wasn't as important as providing the option to build a character how you want. There will always be min/max players out there.
The thing is, having classes is deep in the bones of D&D from its very beginnings and the 6 stats fro STR to CHA are also part of that. Get rid of either or both and it just isn’t D&D. It might feel like D&D but it isn’t. Kind of like Star Trek: Picard. It looked like Star Trek, but to me it felt more like Firefly without the hootenanny.
How come whenever this topic comes up it's just a lot of "play a different game". There a lot of things people can Still like about d&d and what to keep all that while making it classless. There's. Lot of content and popularity for d&d. If you wanted to come up with a classless option that let's you Stull use everything else what is the problem? It's not like the classes are actually that balanced.
Full disclosure, I have a classless version I came up with and reworked all skills to fit on a card for easy building. I accepted that balance wasn't as important as providing the option to build a character how you want. There will always be min/max players out there.
If you want to play that, that's fine. But that isn't D&D. It's a fantasy TTRGP using a different system.
How come whenever this topic comes up it's just a lot of "play a different game". There a lot of things people can Still like about d&d and what to keep all that while making it classless. There's. Lot of content and popularity for d&d. If you wanted to come up with a classless option that let's you Stull use everything else what is the problem? It's not like the classes are actually that balanced.
Full disclosure, I have a classless version I came up with and reworked all skills to fit on a card for easy building. I accepted that balance wasn't as important as providing the option to build a character how you want. There will always be min/max players out there.
I do not care about classes either, and I find it annoying and limiting. While it is a minor reason, it is still one of the reasons that I prefer being a GM rather than being a player, as I can design and play monsters and NPCs however I want.
As for whether the class system is core to D&D, it depends on who you ask. I do not find classes to be central to D&D at all, and the game will still be recognizable to people if the system went classless.
How come whenever this topic comes up it's just a lot of "play a different game". There a lot of things people can Still like about d&d and what to keep all that while making it classless. There's. Lot of content and popularity for d&d. If you wanted to come up with a classless option that let's you Stull use everything else what is the problem? It's not like the classes are actually that balanced.
Full disclosure, I have a classless version I came up with and reworked all skills to fit on a card for easy building. I accepted that balance wasn't as important as providing the option to build a character how you want. There will always be min/max players out there.
I do not care about classes either, and I find it annoying and limiting. While it is a minor reason, it is still one of the reasons that I prefer being a GM rather than being a player, as I can design and play monsters and NPCs however I want.
As for whether the class system is core to D&D, it depends on who you ask. I do not find classes to be central to D&D at all, and the game will still be recognizable to people if the system went classless.
It does depend on who you ask, but if you take out classes, the six stats and/or the core races you can find quite a lot of other fantasy TTRPGs that fit the mold. Maybe for you the six stats are all that's needed to make the game recognizeable as D&D, maybe you don't need even that and it's more of a nebulous feel, or maybe it's something else entirely that wouldn't even cross my mind. All of which is fine, but I think that for a majority of players there are a few key elements that make D&D D&D in a sea of other fantasy games and that classes (not just there being classes, but there being a number of specific ones) are usually one of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As for whether the class system is core to D&D, it depends on who you ask. I do not find classes to be central to D&D at all, and the game will still be recognizable to people if the system went classless.
Recognisable as being related to something isn't the same thing as being that thing. For pretty much anyone who hasn't played D&D or has only played it a bit, they almost certainly wouldn't recognise D&D if it has no classes - classes is one of the most well known things about D&D. It's certainly the only thing that I knew about it for many years - and a vague feeling that it had something to do with dice. Even for many people who have played it a significant amount, classes play a significant enough role in their experience that they consider it an integral part of the game.
If you don't like classes (for whatever reason), it makes sense that you wouldn't consider the two as being inseparably married. But I think a large majority of people would consider a game without classes of some kind to be at most D&D inspired(ish). Certainly, if 2024e were to abolish classes, I'd considered it a different game to what I have at the moment that just happens to be compatible.
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.
The issue lies not with "what is D&D?", as fascinating a question as that can be to discuss, but rather with the multitude of people who close ranks any time someone even so much as discusses what they find fault with in the game saying "Don't like it, play something else". [REDACTED]. People use "there are other games, just play those you sweaty *******" as a means of dismissing entirely valid criticisms of the overall D&D engine, poo-pooing arguments and theoreticals such as "would D&D work without classes?" by saying "here, have an obscure ruleset invented in 1993 by a guy in Guam that hasn't been updated or supported since it was released. There's exactly thirty-seven copies of it in print, I'll let you examine this one for fifteen entire seconds and then you can play that instead while I continue playing this popular well-supported RPG with tons and tons of really cool content released for it all the time. Good? Good! Now get the **** out of my hobby you little leaky armpit boil."
And people wonder why maybe - just maybe - D&D has such an issue with grognards and gatekeeping?
A classless D&D could totally exist. Furthermore, even a class-based D&D could exist without being on unbreakable rails the way 5e currently is. *Hundreds* of other games, both tabletop and video, have cracked the code of allowing meaningful and impactful choices at every stage of character growth and development even within a given overall class architecture. Why can't D&D? What the hell is wrong with even just the idea of discussing what more the game could do if people weren't so tied down by ancient decrepit sacred cows?
What the hell is wrong with even just the idea of discussing what more the game could do if people weren't so tied down by ancient decrepit sacred cows?
It's not about good or bad, or right or wrong, Yurei. It's about identity.
I like Guild Wars 1. It's my favourite MMO, largely because it's mostly instanced and I'm not much of a fan of the Massive part of MMOs. Guild Wars 2 is great as well, but doesn't have that same instanced aspect - good game, is called Guild Wars and that's fair, but doesn't feel like Guild Wars to me. I enjoy it, but it's different.
Legend of the Five Rings is my favourite TTRPG. Has 5 editions now (I prefer 3rd, 1st, 4th, 5th, 2nd, in that order). They all use a roll-and-keep system (2nd had a parallel d20 system using D&D, but that's irrelevant - that wasn't L5R and wasn't marketed as L5R). 2nd reversed 1st's roll-and-keep system, which made it feel odd and unlike the L5R I knew; 3rd reversed it back, and that immediately felt familiar again. Fifth was created by Fantasy Flight Games (as opposed to the Alderac Entertainment Group for the first four) and also uses a roll-and-keep system, but it's very different and replaces the d10s from before with narrative dice. Actually does some similar things, but in a mechanically different way. The AEG editions also turned around Honor, while FFG's narrative element turns around Giri (duty) vs Ninjo (desire). Fifth ed. is a well-designed game, and it has many recognizeable elements from its AEG ancestry (the five rings, to name the big one, although they get used somewhat differently too). It can rightfully carry that name - but it doesn't feel like an L5R game to me, because of that very different roll-and-keep system.
Same with D&D. If WotC (or someone else) develops a classless edition and still calls it D&D, that doesn't have to mean it'd be a bad game, or that it shouldn't be called D&D. But it wouldn't feel like it, at least not to me, and it'd compete for my time with different games than D&D does.
And, also pertinent here, D&D currently is not classless. Turning it into a classless game would take quite a bit of effort. I could see a few reasons why someone would go to that trouble rather than switching to something else entirely, but it definitely seems like "reflavor another system" would be a sensible suggestion for someone looking for a classless experience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
And people wonder why maybe - just maybe - D&D has such an issue with grognards and gatekeeping?
It's not gatekeeping to point out that changing a core tenant of the game turns it into another game. If you take away dice rolling, it's literally not D&D anymore. If you take away levels or classes, arguably 2 of the most recognized parts of the game, it literally is not D&D anymore. If I asked someone what a PB&J is like without the peanut butter, and they say it's not a PB&J, they're not gatekeeping, just pointing out that one of the core components has been removed.
Counterpoint: if, as the original post of the thread surmised, a great number of people all independently try and do the same thing, identify the same weakness in the game and come to similar conclusions on how to repair that weakness, might that point to either an unfulfilled need or a legitimate deficiency in the system?
D&D 5e's class system is bad. It's overly basic and restrictive and dispermits players to make meaningful decisions for their characters. it is not as bad as the Six Sacred Scores and the rigid skill system, both of which actively hinder core gameplay, but that doesn't mean 5e handing everybody an action figure instead of a character isn't also an issue. There are middle-ground points between totally classless/level-less a'la GURPS and D&D 5e's "you make ONE choice - what class you are - and then you're done making meaningful decisions forever". Savage Worlds is actually a good example, in that it is classless but not truly level-less, withg clear and distinct tiers of play and the best advancement system I've seen in any TTRPG I've been exposed to.
And yes, I know the classic refrain - "just go play that, then!" That's always the dismissal, "play something else, play something else, play something else!" The "shut up, go away, and leave D&D alone!"
First of all: no. Stop it. That response is bad and people should feel bad for parroting it.
Second of all: every game has its strengths and weaknesses. Pointing out a strength of another game in a discussion of the first game's weaknesses is not "Everything sucks forever." It is a simple fact that Game 1 is really, truly terrible at [X]. Game 2 does [X] much better, though it's not as good at [Y]. What might happen were someone to do a Game 3 that tried to do as well as Game 2 at [X] and as well as game 1 at [Y]?
RPGs are, at their core, games about making decisions and seeing the consequences of those decisions. D&D 5e's progression system involves neither decisions nor consequences - your character's actions, history, and experiences have absolutely no bearing, relevance, or impact on their progression. That is objectively bad. It's Not Good. 5e's argument is that the simplicity of its level-based system and the whole Tradition Of D&D thing offsets the objectively terrible nature of its hyper-ultra-mega-super-fixed on-rails progression through increased approachability and an obeisance to the game's core identity. Sure, if those things are more important to you, enjoy them, but there is no way in which 5e's advancement system is not actively working at cross purposes to the entire point of an RPG.
It's gotten to the point for me, in just a few short years, where I honestly don't even really care about leveling up anymore. Not for anything outside a simple gamist curiosity about using new abilities. Leveling up doesn't really excite me or interest me anymore, but if somebody decides they're going to run an entire campaign at level 3 and never let the characters level up? Instead, they'll award boons, feats, or other abilities based on what the characters actually do and accomplish? I'd be down to try. That sounds like it'd be a fascinating experiment to run.
To people who've played plenty of D&D, classes (and races, alignment, the 6 stats, the d20, blah blah blah) are probably pretty integral to the game's identity.
To people who haven't played it? D&D is just a Big Name fantasy tabletop game where you (supposedly) fight dragons and crawl through dungeons. Apparently dice are involved, and sometimes people talk about spells... There's very little technical detail you can get as a casual observer who watches, say, Stranger Things or Community and saw the game bits.
And of course there's plenty of people for whom "D&D" is what you call any tabletop roleplaying, or any roleplaying for that matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Meh. I wouldn't give a better assassin 32 hd or anything. 16d8+32 (114) seems like plenty. On the other hand, I'd have notes such as
And other bonuses, as needed to make sure the surviving PCs are busy chasing a successful assassin, not a would-be assassin.
Hey, I just (mostly) followed the guide in the DMG, for this one.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Eh, remember you can trade off. CR 6 defensive/20 offensive is a much better assassin than 13/13 :).
Oh, I’m well aware, this one was Defensive 12; Offensive 17, so it should probably be CR 14, but I personally didn’t think that was right, so I dropped it to 13. But with average rolls this thing can crank out 77 - 108 damage in a turn (185 max, nocrit). That should be more than enough to put the fear of bejeepers into anyone in Tier-3, even your average Barbarian only has 170ish HP by 15th level. And with 240 HP, it’ll likely take the whole party to drop in a single round or a good 3 rounds in a 1V1 scenario. it doesn’t have to murder a PC, it just has to be capable of murdering a PC.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
D&D might benefit by looking at how progression works in modern video games. Where you get skill points to spend on complex skill trees, the lower "boxes" unlock the upper boxes and such.
That was, to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, more or less how 4e worked. Choices made early in your character's progression were the basic prerequisites for later options, and you could decide which course through the skill tree/feat pool to chart as you played. Everybody universally hated it, because...I never actually figured out why, other than "IT'S NOT D&D". But nevertheless. We're unlikely to ever see it again in D&D, even if there's very strong arguments for it being a better system than fixed, rigid, unbending, always-identical character classes.
Please do not contact or message me.
On the other hand, if I wanted to play a video game, I'd play a video game
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You mean like the skill trees in Diablo II or WoW?
I suppose it could work maybe. But then it would no longer be D&D.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
No, that was more of a 3.5e thing, between prestige classes with complex prerequisites and feat chains such as whirlwind attack. There were some core choices you made early in your career, but it didn't really have much of prereq system.
How come whenever this topic comes up it's just a lot of "play a different game". There a lot of things people can Still like about d&d and what to keep all that while making it classless. There's. Lot of content and popularity for d&d. If you wanted to come up with a classless option that let's you Stull use everything else what is the problem? It's not like the classes are actually that balanced.
Full disclosure, I have a classless version I came up with and reworked all skills to fit on a card for easy building. I accepted that balance wasn't as important as providing the option to build a character how you want. There will always be min/max players out there.
The thing is, having classes is deep in the bones of D&D from its very beginnings and the 6 stats fro STR to CHA are also part of that. Get rid of either or both and it just isn’t D&D. It might feel like D&D but it isn’t. Kind of like Star Trek: Picard. It looked like Star Trek, but to me it felt more like Firefly without the hootenanny.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
If you want to play that, that's fine. But that isn't D&D. It's a fantasy TTRGP using a different system.
I do not care about classes either, and I find it annoying and limiting. While it is a minor reason, it is still one of the reasons that I prefer being a GM rather than being a player, as I can design and play monsters and NPCs however I want.
As for whether the class system is core to D&D, it depends on who you ask. I do not find classes to be central to D&D at all, and the game will still be recognizable to people if the system went classless.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
It does depend on who you ask, but if you take out classes, the six stats and/or the core races you can find quite a lot of other fantasy TTRPGs that fit the mold. Maybe for you the six stats are all that's needed to make the game recognizeable as D&D, maybe you don't need even that and it's more of a nebulous feel, or maybe it's something else entirely that wouldn't even cross my mind. All of which is fine, but I think that for a majority of players there are a few key elements that make D&D D&D in a sea of other fantasy games and that classes (not just there being classes, but there being a number of specific ones) are usually one of them.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Recognisable as being related to something isn't the same thing as being that thing. For pretty much anyone who hasn't played D&D or has only played it a bit, they almost certainly wouldn't recognise D&D if it has no classes - classes is one of the most well known things about D&D. It's certainly the only thing that I knew about it for many years - and a vague feeling that it had something to do with dice. Even for many people who have played it a significant amount, classes play a significant enough role in their experience that they consider it an integral part of the game.
If you don't like classes (for whatever reason), it makes sense that you wouldn't consider the two as being inseparably married. But I think a large majority of people would consider a game without classes of some kind to be at most D&D inspired(ish). Certainly, if 2024e were to abolish classes, I'd considered it a different game to what I have at the moment that just happens to be compatible.
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.
The issue lies not with "what is D&D?", as fascinating a question as that can be to discuss, but rather with the multitude of people who close ranks any time someone even so much as discusses what they find fault with in the game saying "Don't like it, play something else". [REDACTED]. People use "there are other games, just play those you sweaty *******" as a means of dismissing entirely valid criticisms of the overall D&D engine, poo-pooing arguments and theoreticals such as "would D&D work without classes?" by saying "here, have an obscure ruleset invented in 1993 by a guy in Guam that hasn't been updated or supported since it was released. There's exactly thirty-seven copies of it in print, I'll let you examine this one for fifteen entire seconds and then you can play that instead while I continue playing this popular well-supported RPG with tons and tons of really cool content released for it all the time. Good? Good! Now get the **** out of my hobby you little leaky armpit boil."
And people wonder why maybe - just maybe - D&D has such an issue with grognards and gatekeeping?
A classless D&D could totally exist. Furthermore, even a class-based D&D could exist without being on unbreakable rails the way 5e currently is. *Hundreds* of other games, both tabletop and video, have cracked the code of allowing meaningful and impactful choices at every stage of character growth and development even within a given overall class architecture. Why can't D&D? What the hell is wrong with even just the idea of discussing what more the game could do if people weren't so tied down by ancient decrepit sacred cows?
Please do not contact or message me.
It's not about good or bad, or right or wrong, Yurei. It's about identity.
I like Guild Wars 1. It's my favourite MMO, largely because it's mostly instanced and I'm not much of a fan of the Massive part of MMOs. Guild Wars 2 is great as well, but doesn't have that same instanced aspect - good game, is called Guild Wars and that's fair, but doesn't feel like Guild Wars to me. I enjoy it, but it's different.
Legend of the Five Rings is my favourite TTRPG. Has 5 editions now (I prefer 3rd, 1st, 4th, 5th, 2nd, in that order). They all use a roll-and-keep system (2nd had a parallel d20 system using D&D, but that's irrelevant - that wasn't L5R and wasn't marketed as L5R). 2nd reversed 1st's roll-and-keep system, which made it feel odd and unlike the L5R I knew; 3rd reversed it back, and that immediately felt familiar again. Fifth was created by Fantasy Flight Games (as opposed to the Alderac Entertainment Group for the first four) and also uses a roll-and-keep system, but it's very different and replaces the d10s from before with narrative dice. Actually does some similar things, but in a mechanically different way. The AEG editions also turned around Honor, while FFG's narrative element turns around Giri (duty) vs Ninjo (desire). Fifth ed. is a well-designed game, and it has many recognizeable elements from its AEG ancestry (the five rings, to name the big one, although they get used somewhat differently too). It can rightfully carry that name - but it doesn't feel like an L5R game to me, because of that very different roll-and-keep system.
Same with D&D. If WotC (or someone else) develops a classless edition and still calls it D&D, that doesn't have to mean it'd be a bad game, or that it shouldn't be called D&D. But it wouldn't feel like it, at least not to me, and it'd compete for my time with different games than D&D does.
And, also pertinent here, D&D currently is not classless. Turning it into a classless game would take quite a bit of effort. I could see a few reasons why someone would go to that trouble rather than switching to something else entirely, but it definitely seems like "reflavor another system" would be a sensible suggestion for someone looking for a classless experience.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It's not gatekeeping to point out that changing a core tenant of the game turns it into another game. If you take away dice rolling, it's literally not D&D anymore. If you take away levels or classes, arguably 2 of the most recognized parts of the game, it literally is not D&D anymore. If I asked someone what a PB&J is like without the peanut butter, and they say it's not a PB&J, they're not gatekeeping, just pointing out that one of the core components has been removed.
Counterpoint: if, as the original post of the thread surmised, a great number of people all independently try and do the same thing, identify the same weakness in the game and come to similar conclusions on how to repair that weakness, might that point to either an unfulfilled need or a legitimate deficiency in the system?
D&D 5e's class system is bad. It's overly basic and restrictive and dispermits players to make meaningful decisions for their characters. it is not as bad as the Six Sacred Scores and the rigid skill system, both of which actively hinder core gameplay, but that doesn't mean 5e handing everybody an action figure instead of a character isn't also an issue. There are middle-ground points between totally classless/level-less a'la GURPS and D&D 5e's "you make ONE choice - what class you are - and then you're done making meaningful decisions forever". Savage Worlds is actually a good example, in that it is classless but not truly level-less, withg clear and distinct tiers of play and the best advancement system I've seen in any TTRPG I've been exposed to.
And yes, I know the classic refrain - "just go play that, then!" That's always the dismissal, "play something else, play something else, play something else!" The "shut up, go away, and leave D&D alone!"
First of all: no. Stop it. That response is bad and people should feel bad for parroting it.
Second of all: every game has its strengths and weaknesses. Pointing out a strength of another game in a discussion of the first game's weaknesses is not "Everything sucks forever." It is a simple fact that Game 1 is really, truly terrible at [X]. Game 2 does [X] much better, though it's not as good at [Y]. What might happen were someone to do a Game 3 that tried to do as well as Game 2 at [X] and as well as game 1 at [Y]?
RPGs are, at their core, games about making decisions and seeing the consequences of those decisions. D&D 5e's progression system involves neither decisions nor consequences - your character's actions, history, and experiences have absolutely no bearing, relevance, or impact on their progression. That is objectively bad. It's Not Good. 5e's argument is that the simplicity of its level-based system and the whole Tradition Of D&D thing offsets the objectively terrible nature of its hyper-ultra-mega-super-fixed on-rails progression through increased approachability and an obeisance to the game's core identity. Sure, if those things are more important to you, enjoy them, but there is no way in which 5e's advancement system is not actively working at cross purposes to the entire point of an RPG.
It's gotten to the point for me, in just a few short years, where I honestly don't even really care about leveling up anymore. Not for anything outside a simple gamist curiosity about using new abilities. Leveling up doesn't really excite me or interest me anymore, but if somebody decides they're going to run an entire campaign at level 3 and never let the characters level up? Instead, they'll award boons, feats, or other abilities based on what the characters actually do and accomplish? I'd be down to try. That sounds like it'd be a fascinating experiment to run.
Please do not contact or message me.
To people who've played plenty of D&D, classes (and races, alignment, the 6 stats, the d20, blah blah blah) are probably pretty integral to the game's identity.
To people who haven't played it? D&D is just a Big Name fantasy tabletop game where you (supposedly) fight dragons and crawl through dungeons. Apparently dice are involved, and sometimes people talk about spells... There's very little technical detail you can get as a casual observer who watches, say, Stranger Things or Community and saw the game bits.
And of course there's plenty of people for whom "D&D" is what you call any tabletop roleplaying, or any roleplaying for that matter.