It seems like a no-brainer to me that every class should be construct-able by complex system of rules and character options, that each class is some end result of a particular spattering of those chosen options. And represented as the default options for players to choose from so they needn't build their own if they don't want to. But then also offer the complex system used to generate those classes as a more in-depth system for those people who do enjoy tinkering behind the scenes and complex character creation.
Gee, I wonder where someone could have gotten the idea that you want to make a system without classes.
I agree with you on some parts of your argument, but definitely not this one.
Yes. You caught me. Having a system to build classes means I dont want classes. /s
What are you even saying here? Im explicitly in favor of classes. Say as much. And then say i want a system by which to create more of them.
???
Dungeons and Dragons has classes, but your suggestion makes those just samples. Just like backgrounds are basically gone in 1D&D, since nobody is going to say "I'm a Charlatan, which means I have +2 to to Charisma, +1 to Dexterity, and proficiency in gaming sets." No, they're going to say "I get a +2 to Charisma and a +1 to Dexterity" since there's no need to name it. Suddenly people would stop being Sorcerers and Bards and instead start being arcane casters with full Inspiration Dice at level 3, 1/3 metamagic starting at level 6, two spells from any list at level 13, d6 hit dice, proficiency in simple weapons and light armor, and uncanny dodge at level 15.
Let it be known that I've already said all of this, and I literally copy and pasted it from a previous post.
So youre just anti-player choice, then? Too many character options is a bad thing? I guess that's an opinion you can have. I just wouldn't share it. I'm not sure that many people would either.
Like, someone wanting to make a character concept of a sorcerer who specialized in enchantment and could inspire people. Your advice to them: go play some other RPG. We don't take kindly to your kind 'round here.
Idk. Seems like itd be straightforward to let people make the character they're envisioning. Is that really so bad?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It seems like a no-brainer to me that every class should be construct-able by complex system of rules and character options, that each class is some end result of a particular spattering of those chosen options. And represented as the default options for players to choose from so they needn't build their own if they don't want to. But then also offer the complex system used to generate those classes as a more in-depth system for those people who do enjoy tinkering behind the scenes and complex character creation.
Gee, I wonder where someone could have gotten the idea that you want to make a system without classes.
I agree with you on some parts of your argument, but definitely not this one.
Yes. You caught me. Having a system to build classes means I dont want classes. /s
What are you even saying here? Im explicitly in favor of classes. Say as much. And then say i want a system by which to create more of them.
???
Dungeons and Dragons has classes, but your suggestion makes those just samples. Just like backgrounds are basically gone in 1D&D, since nobody is going to say "I'm a Charlatan, which means I have +2 to to Charisma, +1 to Dexterity, and proficiency in gaming sets." No, they're going to say "I get a +2 to Charisma and a +1 to Dexterity" since there's no need to name it. Suddenly people would stop being Sorcerers and Bards and instead start being arcane casters with full Inspiration Dice at level 3, 1/3 metamagic starting at level 6, two spells from any list at level 13, d6 hit dice, proficiency in simple weapons and light armor, and uncanny dodge at level 15.
Let it be known that I've already said all of this, and I literally copy and pasted it from a previous post.
So youre just anti-player choice, then? Too many character options is a bad thing? I guess that's an opinion you can have. I just wouldn't share it. I'm not sure that many people would either.
Like, someone wanting to make a character concept of a sorcerer who specialized in enchantment and could inspire people. Your advice to them: go play some other RPG. We don't take kindly to your kind 'round here.
Idk. Seems like itd be straightforward to let people make the character they're envisioning. Is that really so bad?
I said literally nothing about being-anti player choice in the post that you quoted. You said that your idea didn't include a classless system, I told you why you're wrong. I used the new background system as an example for how your idea actually would be a classless system. I didn't mean to throw shade at the new backgrounds; in fact, I love them.
If you actually want my opinion instead of extrapolating randomly from a separate point that I made, I think that the idea of a sorcerer who specializes in enchantment and could inspire people is a great idea. I just think it makes infinitely more sense for it to be done with a few feats instead of a whole new class creation system.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
You said that your idea didn't include a classless system, I told you why you're wrong.
My idea isn't a classless system. It just isn't. I am not suggesting a classless system. You can't tell me I'm wrong about it, it is my idea. Like, I'm the authority.
I used the new background system as an example for how your idea actually would be a classless system. I didn't mean to throw shade at the new backgrounds; in fact, I love them.
A more detailed granular multiclass system is not a classless system. It is exactly what it says on the tin. A multiclass system.
I said in black and white that all of the existing classes should exist and be presented as the default prebuilt classes.
If you actually want my opinion instead of extrapolating randomly from a separate point that I made, I think that the idea of a sorcerer who specializes in enchantment and could inspire people is a great idea.
Ok, then why argue against wanting a multiclass system that allows for this and similar combinations?
I just think it makes infinitely more sense for it to be done with a few feats instead of a whole new class creation system.
... so you want exactly what I proposed. You just think feats are a good enough way to do it. I don't care if it is done with feats. If feats are good enough to create a better mix and match, then I'd agree. I just don't think they would be. And I don't think you could offer every feature a class or subclass gives with a feat equivalent. Easier to spruce up the multiclass rules directly. Maybe feats handle part of it, and a better multiclass system handles the rest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Making the system which you claim "hurts nobody" would divert resources from the parts of the damn book that people will actually use. This is not "we can all have our cake and eat it too," this is "we can take some of your cake, put hot sauce on it, and then eat it." Sure, sometimes spreading the cake around is good and helps attract players, but when you're going to take so much of the cake for so few people it just isn't worth it. Honestly, at this point, go play GURPS. Sure, fewer people like the GURPS cake, but it's better to go with the cake that is already there and available than to take a part of somebody else's cake and turn it into a different cake. Your argument that GURPS is less popular is poot because this system (which is effectively a different game) would also be way less popular. You would have about as much luck convincing people to use this system as you would convincing them to play GURPS.
Many DMs allow multiclassing, and often a few players will multiclass when it is allowed, but the majority of people will stick with one class. It's perfectly viable to stick with one class for the whole campaign. If a DM allows your "I get absolutely everything I want" fiasco, then people will have the choice of either spending all the time necessary to make their own class or simply having the worst character in the group. That's not fun. Adding this option would detract from the majority of players to benefit very few.
If everyone bought every single book, then maybe there would not be enough cake to go around, but not everyone buys every single book. There is still a lot of slack in the system to include everyone with their sped up release schedule. At least on this very forum from my perspective, more likely than not, older GMs and players completely despise and disallow the entirety of TCOE over a few optional rules they do not like. And it seems like every time they have bought a book recently, they regret it. If they are not even going to buy the books, then why does their opinion matter more than the people who will buy such books? To me, it seems like they do not want the game to go anywhere, and they can choose to do that already by simply not using whatever new stuff Wizards publish. And if they really want something simple, they can literally just use the three core rulebooks, or even just using only the SRD, or even only BR that only contains like four classes. Players like me on the other hand who want more complexity are getting rules expansion drip fed to us at a snails pace.
The beauty of 5e is that can be made modular. You can make the system as simple or as complex as you want it to. You want super simple? Sidekicks are your answer. You want a lot more crunch and complexity? Well, there is technically homebrew, but you are shit out of luck if you want an official common frame of reference so you do not have to waste an extra session zero every time to nail all the homebrew rules down. 5e already caters to a lot of different play styles and campaign. Catering to different mechanical preferences is not going to kill the game.
If I was a player, I like to stick with one class not because I want to. I stick with one class because mutliclassing as a wizard sucks because of the dumb level limit. I cannot be a super wizard with all the key features of a wizard, sorcerer, and warlock, along with learning all the spells unique to druids, clerics, paladins, and rangers.
PS: Multiclassing into the same class is a sentence that does not make sense. Just thought I would let you know.
If you want to use a different terminology, then by all means make one. I use multiclassing because it is an official term and it gets the message across of what I want to do.
5e is only flexible and modular in that it actually doesn't do anything (any playstyle) particularly well by not committing to anything specific and frankly trying to please an audience that doesn't actually have an opinion or preference, at least not one based on experience. The selling point of 5e so far as I can tell according to the community is that "it's really narrative" but that is not a virtue of a system, a game system is as narrative as the people running it.
This is why your playstyle is not supported and neither is mine.
You might not feel that 5e is doing anything well, but I think 5e is more than sufficient for the things I want it to do. I think it is more than fine as a dungeon crawler and hack and slash. Hell, I think it is great at running fantasy games, and all it needs for a science fiction game is just a coat of paint. Hex based exploration is serviceable, but it could be improved with a bit more complexity for people want something more.
I feel like I can throw anything at 5e and it will turn out fine. I can run Star Wars, Dead by Daylight, and Avatar: The Last Airbender on this system. If they expanded their Mass Combat UA to be a bit more in depth, I can run Advance Wars and Warhammer. If they have more ship combat rules, I can run Pirates of the Carribean and Star War's space combat.
I think that is a question for each individual GM or table to answer, and game designers should give GMs the tools to make the game as simple or as complex as they want.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I said literally nothing about being-anti player choice in the post that you quoted. You said that your idea didn't include a classless system, I told you why you're wrong. I used the new background system as an example for how your idea actually would be a classless system. I didn't mean to throw shade at the new backgrounds; in fact, I love them.
If you actually want my opinion instead of extrapolating randomly from a separate point that I made, I think that the idea of a sorcerer who specializes in enchantment and could inspire people is a great idea. I just think it makes infinitely more sense for it to be done with a few feats instead of a whole new class creation system.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
My idea isn't a classless system. It just isn't. I am not suggesting a classless system. You can't tell me I'm wrong about it, it is my idea. Like, I'm the authority.
A more detailed granular multiclass system is not a classless system. It is exactly what it says on the tin. A multiclass system.
I said in black and white that all of the existing classes should exist and be presented as the default prebuilt classes.
Ok, then why argue against wanting a multiclass system that allows for this and similar combinations?
... so you want exactly what I proposed. You just think feats are a good enough way to do it. I don't care if it is done with feats. If feats are good enough to create a better mix and match, then I'd agree. I just don't think they would be. And I don't think you could offer every feature a class or subclass gives with a feat equivalent. Easier to spruce up the multiclass rules directly. Maybe feats handle part of it, and a better multiclass system handles the rest.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If people want to discuss different systems, please take it to either our off topic section, or homebrew. Thank you
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
If everyone bought every single book, then maybe there would not be enough cake to go around, but not everyone buys every single book. There is still a lot of slack in the system to include everyone with their sped up release schedule. At least on this very forum from my perspective, more likely than not, older GMs and players completely despise and disallow the entirety of TCOE over a few optional rules they do not like. And it seems like every time they have bought a book recently, they regret it. If they are not even going to buy the books, then why does their opinion matter more than the people who will buy such books? To me, it seems like they do not want the game to go anywhere, and they can choose to do that already by simply not using whatever new stuff Wizards publish. And if they really want something simple, they can literally just use the three core rulebooks, or even just using only the SRD, or even only BR that only contains like four classes. Players like me on the other hand who want more complexity are getting rules expansion drip fed to us at a snails pace.
The beauty of 5e is that can be made modular. You can make the system as simple or as complex as you want it to. You want super simple? Sidekicks are your answer. You want a lot more crunch and complexity? Well, there is technically homebrew, but you are shit out of luck if you want an official common frame of reference so you do not have to waste an extra session zero every time to nail all the homebrew rules down. 5e already caters to a lot of different play styles and campaign. Catering to different mechanical preferences is not going to kill the game.
If I was a player, I like to stick with one class not because I want to. I stick with one class because mutliclassing as a wizard sucks because of the dumb level limit. I cannot be a super wizard with all the key features of a wizard, sorcerer, and warlock, along with learning all the spells unique to druids, clerics, paladins, and rangers.
If you want to use a different terminology, then by all means make one. I use multiclassing because it is an official term and it gets the message across of what I want to do.
You might not feel that 5e is doing anything well, but I think 5e is more than sufficient for the things I want it to do. I think it is more than fine as a dungeon crawler and hack and slash. Hell, I think it is great at running fantasy games, and all it needs for a science fiction game is just a coat of paint. Hex based exploration is serviceable, but it could be improved with a bit more complexity for people want something more.
I feel like I can throw anything at 5e and it will turn out fine. I can run Star Wars, Dead by Daylight, and Avatar: The Last Airbender on this system. If they expanded their Mass Combat UA to be a bit more in depth, I can run Advance Wars and Warhammer. If they have more ship combat rules, I can run Pirates of the Carribean and Star War's space combat.
I think that is a question for each individual GM or table to answer, and game designers should give GMs the tools to make the game as simple or as complex as they want.
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 >