... What subclasses would you like to see in One D&D, seeing as each class will have 4 subclasses? ...
So yeah. I'm very much hoping that we see more dramatic and impactful subclasses than we've gotten in R5e, and fewer "the base class but with a handful of pointless perks" subclasses like Champion fighter. And I'd also like to echo the hope that we get at least one new subclass for each class, as well. It'd be so much less fun if they just repackaged the same stuff we already have; we already have that stuff! It's easy enough to homebrew R5e subclasses into 1DD, or it should be at any rate. I'd like to see something new and unique to One for each class. What those would be? Dunno. But it'd be super nice to get new stuff in the new books.
So, I am a very firm believer in that each class and subclass should be identifiably unique. like if they have five things, at least two should be unduplicated in any other class.
I think a lot of the stuff from Champion and Battlemaster and even Samurai is prime for being a single subclass -- leave the color to the settings. And each of the main classes should be more than just a container for subclasses -- one should be able to be a Fighter, and then also be able to be subclass one, subclass two, subclass three, subclass four.
give folks the ability to make a subclass unique for them in more ways...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
What subclasses would you like to see in One D&D, seeing as each class will have 4 subclasses?
I mean, each will have 4 subclasses - but, let's face it - they're going to keep coming out with new books and expanding on all of those classes. They have to, to make sure the game doesn't get stagnent.
I think it would be cool, if every level you were given "X" amount of points to buy "class features" - so everyone could make a unique class. So when you hit level 2 you get 10 points. And each skill costs 5 points. Once you buy them, they're permanent to your character. And so when you hit Level 3, you get 10 points and maybe you want to buy a 2nd level skill you didn't get at level 2, so you buy one, and then one level 3 skill. It'd create a very unique way of everyone's character being very different depending on how they build out these "skills."
What subclasses would you like to see in One D&D, seeing as each class will have 4 subclasses?
I mean, each will have 4 subclasses - but, let's face it - they're going to keep coming out with new books and expanding on all of those classes. They have to, to make sure the game doesn't get stagnent.
I think it would be cool, if every level you were given "X" amount of points to buy "class features" - so everyone could make a unique class. So when you hit level 2 you get 10 points. And each skill costs 5 points. Once you buy them, they're permanent to your character. And so when you hit Level 3, you get 10 points and maybe you want to buy a 2nd level skill you didn't get at level 2, so you buy one, and then one level 3 skill. It'd create a very unique way of everyone's character being very different depending on how they build out these "skills."
I think at that point, you'd be halfway to a classless game. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't think it would be a good fit for D&D.
What subclasses would you like to see in One D&D, seeing as each class will have 4 subclasses?
I mean, each will have 4 subclasses - but, let's face it - they're going to keep coming out with new books and expanding on all of those classes. They have to, to make sure the game doesn't get stagnent.
I think it would be cool, if every level you were given "X" amount of points to buy "class features" - so everyone could make a unique class. So when you hit level 2 you get 10 points. And each skill costs 5 points. Once you buy them, they're permanent to your character. And so when you hit Level 3, you get 10 points and maybe you want to buy a 2nd level skill you didn't get at level 2, so you buy one, and then one level 3 skill. It'd create a very unique way of everyone's character being very different depending on how they build out these "skills."
4e’s intensive customisation options gave you the ability to take a feat fairly regularly (with some locked based on race, class, etc. so those choices meant something); gave you a bunch of different abilities you could take for each class; and gave two different late game progression systems one could use. It was very easy to take a Sorcerer and build something entirely unique from another Sorcerer. Players hated it, and that’s why 5e has such crappy character customisation options.
Considering Wizards couldn’t sell players on 4e’s level of customisation and differentiation (heck, they can’t even sell players on something basic like “hey, let’s not have a racist game”), I can’t imagine they would come anywhere close to this suggestion.
(heck, they can’t even sell players on something basic like “hey, let’s not have a racist game”)
You owe me a new keyboard and a cup of afternoon coffee, but given I probably owe a lot of folks the same, I'll let you off easy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
4e’s intensive customisation options gave you the ability to take a feat fairly regularly (with some locked based on race, class, etc. so those choices meant something); gave you a bunch of different abilities you could take for each class; and gave two different late game progression systems one could use. It was very easy to take a Sorcerer and build something entirely unique from another Sorcerer. Players hated it, and that’s why 5e has such crappy character customisation options.
Considering Wizards couldn’t sell players on 4e’s level of customisation and differentiation (heck, they can’t even sell players on something basic like “hey, let’s not have a racist game”), I can’t imagine they would come anywhere close to this suggestion.
Literally depression in a can there, Caerwyn. Holy **** I'm both infinitely sad and endlessly salty about the average D&D player's abject refusal to learn game rules or engage any mechanical system with any degree of depth. I never got to play 4e, but I'm betting it was a vastly better game than 5e was, if one that was harder to Role Play.
But I suppose that's off target for this thread, as much as I desperately miss the sort of intensive customization we could've once had. Just...makes me pine for ways to actually make meaningful decisions in my D&D games, that's all...
4e’s intensive customisation options gave you the ability to take a feat fairly regularly (with some locked based on race, class, etc. so those choices meant something); gave you a bunch of different abilities you could take for each class; and gave two different late game progression systems one could use. It was very easy to take a Sorcerer and build something entirely unique from another Sorcerer. Players hated it, and that’s why 5e has such crappy character customisation options.
Considering Wizards couldn’t sell players on 4e’s level of customisation and differentiation (heck, they can’t even sell players on something basic like “hey, let’s not have a racist game”), I can’t imagine they would come anywhere close to this suggestion.
Literally depression in a can there, Caerwyn. Holy **** I'm both infinitely sad and endlessly salty about the average D&D player's abject refusal to learn game rules or engage any mechanical system with any degree of depth. I never got to play 4e, but I'm betting it was a vastly better game than 5e was, if one that was harder to Role Play.
But I suppose that's off target for this thread, as much as I desperately miss the sort of intensive customization we could've once had. Just...makes me pine for ways to actually make meaningful decisions in my D&D games, that's all...
I think the biggest issue was the way they tried to make the task of role playing into a fixed thing, more than the customization aspects.
Probably a biased view, and sadly I was still married to my ex-wife at the time, so D&D was verboten. Though I will say that 4e from the rule books fell completely under the "too many choices" paralysis for a lot of people. A similar thing is happening with the proliferation of classes (counting homebrew) in 5e.
It was a failure to see the problem from 3.5, and why I call them player centric games -- as opposed to 1e and 2e which were absolutely DM centric versions. 5e smoothed that out (perhaps a bit too much) but never reinvested in the DM stuff -- and so became accused of losing all the crunch.
Crunch is a table call, imo, but I am a long time player, so I don't really count as I am not sure what it feels like to "learn D&D" again -- I can guess, but am far too jaded to *feel* it anymore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
4e’s intensive customisation options gave you the ability to take a feat fairly regularly (with some locked based on race, class, etc. so those choices meant something); gave you a bunch of different abilities you could take for each class; and gave two different late game progression systems one could use. It was very easy to take a Sorcerer and build something entirely unique from another Sorcerer. Players hated it, and that’s why 5e has such crappy character customisation options.
Considering Wizards couldn’t sell players on 4e’s level of customisation and differentiation (heck, they can’t even sell players on something basic like “hey, let’s not have a racist game”), I can’t imagine they would come anywhere close to this suggestion.
Literally depression in a can there, Caerwyn. Holy **** I'm both infinitely sad and endlessly salty about the average D&D player's abject refusal to learn game rules or engage any mechanical system with any degree of depth. I never got to play 4e, but I'm betting it was a vastly better game than 5e was, if one that was harder to Role Play.
But I suppose that's off target for this thread, as much as I desperately miss the sort of intensive customization we could've once had. Just...makes me pine for ways to actually make meaningful decisions in my D&D games, that's all...
I would posture that it was better for roleplaying as well - every class had fun out-of-combat abilities - martial classes even had their own version of a ritual book comprising of things they could spend some time doing to produce an out of combat effect (unlike, say, Barbarians in 5e where you get hitting things and more hitting things).
Its biggest problem was that it was almost too complex - every class had the “decision paralysis” issue 5e caster classes have, so if you had novice players or folks who just were not super committing, there was lots of flipping through sheets saying “wait, I think I have something for this.” But that always was more of a player issue - not a system one (even if folks like to paint it as a system one).
That’s what I really want out of 6e - a system that marries 5e’s ease of access and 4e’s incredible customisation. Some of the early info looks like they might be heading that way with the revamped feat system (though it might take a while before we’re at the 250+ feat options of 4e), which is one of the main reasons I’m really looking forward to the edition change.
What subclasses would you like to see in One D&D, seeing as each class will have 4 subclasses?
I mean, each will have 4 subclasses - but, let's face it - they're going to keep coming out with new books and expanding on all of those classes. They have to, to make sure the game doesn't get stagnent.
I think it would be cool, if every level you were given "X" amount of points to buy "class features" - so everyone could make a unique class. So when you hit level 2 you get 10 points. And each skill costs 5 points. Once you buy them, they're permanent to your character. And so when you hit Level 3, you get 10 points and maybe you want to buy a 2nd level skill you didn't get at level 2, so you buy one, and then one level 3 skill. It'd create a very unique way of everyone's character being very different depending on how they build out these "skills."
I'm going to be the guy that says if you want more crunch, there are games out there that can give it to you.
"But I want D&D!"
There is a point at which you can change a game so much that it no longer resembles itself.
Seriously though, there are games in which there are no classes - total customization if you want it. And they are just as fun as D&D.
Subclasses: echoing the call that I want the subclasses to be distinct. I've whinged about this before: I personally HATE that 5E has so many variants of the party healer, with what feels like a bare minimum of differences between them. I don't want a warlock to feel like a cleric to feel like a monk.
I'm going to be the guy that says if you want more crunch, there are games out there that can give it to you.
"But I want D&D!"
There is a point at which when you can change a game so much that it no longer resembles itself.
Seriously though, there are games in which there are no classes - total customization if you want it. And they are just as fun as D&D.
Well...
I mean, 1e had subclasses only for Wizard (illusionist) and Thief (assassin), , and you had to earn your way through fighter and thief before you could become a bard.
When you say
There is a point at which when you can change a game so much that it no longer resembles itself.
you are literally talking about D&D, lol. The differences between 1e/2e and 5e are so great it *is* basically a new game.
But what they are talking about is something closer to a Skill Base or Ability Base game instead of a Class Base game. Historically, class based games are the most popular and easiest to get going in, which is why that system dominates over the often far more complex Ability or Skill based games.
The old Champions worked a lot like what they described. Rolemaster took that idea even further, but still kept classes. The most common implementation these days is in video games, where everyone has "skill trees" within a certain kind of basic set up, allow them to focus on a given set of skills they prefer to use.
SJ games used to use that for some stuff, but I can't recall the game that did that first (it was a TTRPG and ported over to video games).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The old Champions worked a lot like what they described. Rolemaster took that idea even further, but still kept classes. The most common implementation these days is in video games, where everyone has "skill trees" within a certain kind of basic set up, allow them to focus on a given set of skills they prefer to use.
SJ games used to use that for some stuff, but I can't recall the game that did that first (it was a TTRPG and ported over to video games).
I believe Champions was the first point buy RPG system. SJ games GURPS also came up with a point buy system. Shadowrun has a kind of sort of point buy system - which I love.
The first skill tree in video games was Civilization but probably the best known would be DIABLO.
So, um let's just say that as an exercise, you needed to create the classes yourself, with something about them that makes them distinct from the others. I know, I am being all old farty, I will turn on a fan or something, but I mean, let's say you didn't have to have a subclass as a class.
What classes would you want to see in a game? It can include existing classes.
now, my motivation for this is that my players wanted something different from 5e for classes -- they wanted them to be narratively part of the setting and i opted to take it all the way back to the original archetypes.
So for me I ended up with (having them give LOTS of input) the following, using current Terms:
"New":
Jedi, Witch, Magical Girl, Shaman, Gunslinger, Runewright (draws from Rune Knight and Player Requests), Swordmage (draws from Bladesinger and Eldritch Knight)
Been toying with Psi abilities around the Jedi (Nomads), Monks, and Arcane trickster one (Envoys). Some of the narrative justifications are half jokes (Monks are caught up in Mortal Kombat, with bad guys from a dimension betting they can beat and then come to rule the world) (Magical girls are the servants of a particular set of deity types, with a dark side to them), and my place I keep running into problems is with the ruid, but I might be able to work that into the magical girl stuff -- as long as folks can let go of the archetype as nature lovers. That goes to the rangers.
I ask in part in case there are some good ideas, of course, but I also wonder if the class mix seems pretty decent, since a lot of class abilities and features are grouped and they start of something -- but no subclasses. I am making feats a whole big deal and adding a bunch of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
4e’s intensive customisation options gave you the ability to take a feat fairly regularly (with some locked based on race, class, etc. so those choices meant something); gave you a bunch of different abilities you could take for each class; and gave two different late game progression systems one could use. It was very easy to take a Sorcerer and build something entirely unique from another Sorcerer. Players hated it, and that’s why 5e has such crappy character customisation options.
Considering Wizards couldn’t sell players on 4e’s level of customisation and differentiation (heck, they can’t even sell players on something basic like “hey, let’s not have a racist game”), I can’t imagine they would come anywhere close to this suggestion.
Literally depression in a can there, Caerwyn. Holy **** I'm both infinitely sad and endlessly salty about the average D&D player's abject refusal to learn game rules or engage any mechanical system with any degree of depth. I never got to play 4e, but I'm betting it was a vastly better game than 5e was, if one that was harder to Role Play.
But I suppose that's off target for this thread, as much as I desperately miss the sort of intensive customization we could've once had. Just...makes me pine for ways to actually make meaningful decisions in my D&D games, that's all...
Its biggest problem was that it was almost too complex - every class had the “decision paralysis” issue 5e caster classes have, so if you had novice players or folks who just were not super committing, there was lots of flipping through sheets saying “wait, I think I have something for this.” But that always was more of a player issue - not a system one (even if folks like to paint it as a system one).
If the system isn't catering to the players, then it is absolutely a system issue. The whole point of the system is to make it fun for the players.
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)
Hey, I know I've been away for a couple weeks after promising to be more active (some unforeseen real-life stuff came up that I had to deal with), but I've been lurking in this thread ever since my initial post. I like this thread. It's cool, and its discussions have been interesting and constructive so far. Can we please not turn it into another debate thread? Those have a nasty habit of getting locked. If you seriously want to debate the problems of game design and catering to players, please move that to another thread.
I'll back down if Sposta (the creator of this thread) disagrees with me, but I have a feeling that he doesn't want this thread to get locked or devolve into a debate thread, either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
4e’s intensive customisation options gave you the ability to take a feat fairly regularly (with some locked based on race, class, etc. so those choices meant something); gave you a bunch of different abilities you could take for each class; and gave two different late game progression systems one could use. It was very easy to take a Sorcerer and build something entirely unique from another Sorcerer. Players hated it, and that’s why 5e has such crappy character customisation options.
Considering Wizards couldn’t sell players on 4e’s level of customisation and differentiation (heck, they can’t even sell players on something basic like “hey, let’s not have a racist game”), I can’t imagine they would come anywhere close to this suggestion.
Literally depression in a can there, Caerwyn. Holy **** I'm both infinitely sad and endlessly salty about the average D&D player's abject refusal to learn game rules or engage any mechanical system with any degree of depth. I never got to play 4e, but I'm betting it was a vastly better game than 5e was, if one that was harder to Role Play.
But I suppose that's off target for this thread, as much as I desperately miss the sort of intensive customization we could've once had. Just...makes me pine for ways to actually make meaningful decisions in my D&D games, that's all...
Its biggest problem was that it was almost too complex - every class had the “decision paralysis” issue 5e caster classes have, so if you had novice players or folks who just were not super committing, there was lots of flipping through sheets saying “wait, I think I have something for this.” But that always was more of a player issue - not a system one (even if folks like to paint it as a system one).
If the system isn't catering to the players, then it is absolutely a system issue. The whole point of the system is to make it fun for the players.
I don’t think that’s quite true, particularly when a large number of the players “not being catered to” could have solved their problem by not being Luddites and reading their character sheets. Sometimes there is a need for innovation - and that innovation must come from developers. The masses, after all, tend to suffer from inertia and prefer to keep things the same rather than admit there might be something better out there.
But, regardless of one's opinion on 4e, the simple fact remains that Wizards messed up on learning from 4e. Rather than look at things that worked and things players liked, they purged as much about 4e as possible when making 5e. It was a reactionary decision that made the game worse - they basically pulled a 360 and appeased the mob of detractors, throwing legitimate game improvements out the window. That’s not good for anyone - it is backpedaling rather than learning, and letting folks who are hardly experts in game development make development decisions.
Here’s hoping OneD&D decides to learn from all prior editions, rather than repeat the 5e’s goal of catering to the lowest common denominator with its over-simplicity.
Subclasses: echoing the call that I want the subclasses to be distinct. I've whinged about this before: I personally HATE that 5E has so many variants of the party healer, with what feels like a bare minimum of differences between them. I don't want a warlock to feel like a cleric to feel like a monk.
I actually think this is a strength of the current system, not a weakness. A party shouldn't be absolutely required to have a Life cleric if they want any healing whatsoever, just like classes other than Fighter are allowed to do damage and classes other than Wizard are allowed to have utility. The more diverse the option pool is for playing any given broad character theme such as Team Healer Guy, the less a given table has to worry about strict, rigid party composition and the more they can all play something they find fun an interesting.
Like, I find the Life cleric to be incredibly boring. Super ******* boring. I don't think I could ever really get into playing a Life cleric, and I say this as someone fully aware of how generally Ohh Pee clerics-in-general are. I just can't with that boring milquetoast nubclass. But a Circle of Dreams druid? A fey guardian who can fight on the front lines with their team and whose magics allow them to ward their party and be exactly where they're needed at higher levels? Trading "You heal better, then you heal even better, then you heal even more better!" for "You can heal without expending precious spells or you can heal with spells too if you need to, you can safeguard your team's encampments, you can teleport pretty dang often, and also you can do all the Druid Shit"? Yes. I'd be more than down to try my hand at a Dreams druid sometime and be my party's medic that way. Which I wouldn't be allowed to do if only one specific subclass was allowed to have total dominion over such a broad character archetype.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So yeah. I'm very much hoping that we see more dramatic and impactful subclasses than we've gotten in R5e, and fewer "the base class but with a handful of pointless perks" subclasses like Champion fighter. And I'd also like to echo the hope that we get at least one new subclass for each class, as well. It'd be so much less fun if they just repackaged the same stuff we already have; we already have that stuff! It's easy enough to homebrew R5e subclasses into 1DD, or it should be at any rate. I'd like to see something new and unique to One for each class. What those would be? Dunno. But it'd be super nice to get new stuff in the new books.
Please do not contact or message me.
Roar
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So, I am a very firm believer in that each class and subclass should be identifiably unique. like if they have five things, at least two should be unduplicated in any other class.
I think a lot of the stuff from Champion and Battlemaster and even Samurai is prime for being a single subclass -- leave the color to the settings. And each of the main classes should be more than just a container for subclasses -- one should be able to be a Fighter, and then also be able to be subclass one, subclass two, subclass three, subclass four.
give folks the ability to make a subclass unique for them in more ways...
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I mean, each will have 4 subclasses - but, let's face it - they're going to keep coming out with new books and expanding on all of those classes. They have to, to make sure the game doesn't get stagnent.
I think it would be cool, if every level you were given "X" amount of points to buy "class features" - so everyone could make a unique class. So when you hit level 2 you get 10 points. And each skill costs 5 points. Once you buy them, they're permanent to your character. And so when you hit Level 3, you get 10 points and maybe you want to buy a 2nd level skill you didn't get at level 2, so you buy one, and then one level 3 skill. It'd create a very unique way of everyone's character being very different depending on how they build out these "skills."
Check out my publication on DMs Guild: https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?author=Tawmis%20Logue
Check out my comedy web series - Neverending Nights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wr4-u9-zw0&list=PLbRG7dzFI-u3EJd0usasgDrrFO3mZ1lOZ
Need a character story/background written up? I do it for free (but also take donations!) - https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?591882-Need-a-character-background-written-up
I think at that point, you'd be halfway to a classless game. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I don't think it would be a good fit for D&D.
[REDACTED]
4e’s intensive customisation options gave you the ability to take a feat fairly regularly (with some locked based on race, class, etc. so those choices meant something); gave you a bunch of different abilities you could take for each class; and gave two different late game progression systems one could use. It was very easy to take a Sorcerer and build something entirely unique from another Sorcerer. Players hated it, and that’s why 5e has such crappy character customisation options.
Considering Wizards couldn’t sell players on 4e’s level of customisation and differentiation (heck, they can’t even sell players on something basic like “hey, let’s not have a racist game”), I can’t imagine they would come anywhere close to this suggestion.
You owe me a new keyboard and a cup of afternoon coffee, but given I probably owe a lot of folks the same, I'll let you off easy.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Literally depression in a can there, Caerwyn. Holy **** I'm both infinitely sad and endlessly salty about the average D&D player's abject refusal to learn game rules or engage any mechanical system with any degree of depth. I never got to play 4e, but I'm betting it was a vastly better game than 5e was, if one that was harder to Role Play.
But I suppose that's off target for this thread, as much as I desperately miss the sort of intensive customization we could've once had. Just...makes me pine for ways to actually make meaningful decisions in my D&D games, that's all...
Please do not contact or message me.
I think the biggest issue was the way they tried to make the task of role playing into a fixed thing, more than the customization aspects.
Probably a biased view, and sadly I was still married to my ex-wife at the time, so D&D was verboten. Though I will say that 4e from the rule books fell completely under the "too many choices" paralysis for a lot of people. A similar thing is happening with the proliferation of classes (counting homebrew) in 5e.
It was a failure to see the problem from 3.5, and why I call them player centric games -- as opposed to 1e and 2e which were absolutely DM centric versions. 5e smoothed that out (perhaps a bit too much) but never reinvested in the DM stuff -- and so became accused of losing all the crunch.
Crunch is a table call, imo, but I am a long time player, so I don't really count as I am not sure what it feels like to "learn D&D" again -- I can guess, but am far too jaded to *feel* it anymore.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I would posture that it was better for roleplaying as well - every class had fun out-of-combat abilities - martial classes even had their own version of a ritual book comprising of things they could spend some time doing to produce an out of combat effect (unlike, say, Barbarians in 5e where you get hitting things and more hitting things).
Its biggest problem was that it was almost too complex - every class had the “decision paralysis” issue 5e caster classes have, so if you had novice players or folks who just were not super committing, there was lots of flipping through sheets saying “wait, I think I have something for this.” But that always was more of a player issue - not a system one (even if folks like to paint it as a system one).
That’s what I really want out of 6e - a system that marries 5e’s ease of access and 4e’s incredible customisation. Some of the early info looks like they might be heading that way with the revamped feat system (though it might take a while before we’re at the 250+ feat options of 4e), which is one of the main reasons I’m really looking forward to the edition change.
I'm going to be the guy that says if you want more crunch, there are games out there that can give it to you.
"But I want D&D!"
There is a point at which you can change a game so much that it no longer resembles itself.
Seriously though, there are games in which there are no classes - total customization if you want it. And they are just as fun as 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
How impactful would it be to have no subclasses.
Instead of base class and subclass, just a bajillion classes.
"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
Subclasses: echoing the call that I want the subclasses to be distinct. I've whinged about this before: I personally HATE that 5E has so many variants of the party healer, with what feels like a bare minimum of differences between them. I don't want a warlock to feel like a cleric to feel like a monk.
Well...
I mean, 1e had subclasses only for Wizard (illusionist) and Thief (assassin), , and you had to earn your way through fighter and thief before you could become a bard.
When you say
you are literally talking about D&D, lol. The differences between 1e/2e and 5e are so great it *is* basically a new game.
But what they are talking about is something closer to a Skill Base or Ability Base game instead of a Class Base game. Historically, class based games are the most popular and easiest to get going in, which is why that system dominates over the often far more complex Ability or Skill based games.
The old Champions worked a lot like what they described. Rolemaster took that idea even further, but still kept classes. The most common implementation these days is in video games, where everyone has "skill trees" within a certain kind of basic set up, allow them to focus on a given set of skills they prefer to use.
SJ games used to use that for some stuff, but I can't recall the game that did that first (it was a TTRPG and ported over to video games).
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I believe Champions was the first point buy RPG system. SJ games GURPS also came up with a point buy system. Shadowrun has a kind of sort of point buy system - which I love.
The first skill tree in video games was Civilization but probably the best known would be DIABLO.
"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
So, um let's just say that as an exercise, you needed to create the classes yourself, with something about them that makes them distinct from the others. I know, I am being all old farty, I will turn on a fan or something, but I mean, let's say you didn't have to have a subclass as a class.
What classes would you want to see in a game? It can include existing classes.
now, my motivation for this is that my players wanted something different from 5e for classes -- they wanted them to be narratively part of the setting and i opted to take it all the way back to the original archetypes.
So for me I ended up with (having them give LOTS of input) the following, using current Terms:
"New":
Jedi, Witch, Magical Girl, Shaman, Gunslinger, Runewright (draws from Rune Knight and Player Requests), Swordmage (draws from Bladesinger and Eldritch Knight)
Fighters:
Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, (Gunslinger)
Healers:
Cleric, Druid, (Witch), (Shaman)
Half-cast FIghter:
Ranger, Paladin, (Swordmage)
Rogues:
Arcane Trickster/Mastermind/Inquisitive, Thief/Assassin/Scout, Swashbuckler/leftovers/Bandit
Full Caster:
Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock
Others:
Bard, (Jedi), (Magical Girl), (Runewright)
Notes:
Been toying with Psi abilities around the Jedi (Nomads), Monks, and Arcane trickster one (Envoys). Some of the narrative justifications are half jokes (Monks are caught up in Mortal Kombat, with bad guys from a dimension betting they can beat and then come to rule the world) (Magical girls are the servants of a particular set of deity types, with a dark side to them), and my place I keep running into problems is with the ruid, but I might be able to work that into the magical girl stuff -- as long as folks can let go of the archetype as nature lovers. That goes to the rangers.
I ask in part in case there are some good ideas, of course, but I also wonder if the class mix seems pretty decent, since a lot of class abilities and features are grouped and they start of something -- but no subclasses. I am making feats a whole big deal and adding a bunch of them.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
If the system isn't catering to the players, then it is absolutely a system issue. The whole point of the system is to make it fun for the players.
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)
Hey, I know I've been away for a couple weeks after promising to be more active (some unforeseen real-life stuff came up that I had to deal with), but I've been lurking in this thread ever since my initial post. I like this thread. It's cool, and its discussions have been interesting and constructive so far. Can we please not turn it into another debate thread? Those have a nasty habit of getting locked. If you seriously want to debate the problems of game design and catering to players, please move that to another thread.
I'll back down if Sposta (the creator of this thread) disagrees with me, but I have a feeling that he doesn't want this thread to get locked or devolve into a debate thread, either.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don’t think that’s quite true, particularly when a large number of the players “not being catered to” could have solved their problem by not being Luddites and reading their character sheets. Sometimes there is a need for innovation - and that innovation must come from developers. The masses, after all, tend to suffer from inertia and prefer to keep things the same rather than admit there might be something better out there.
But, regardless of one's opinion on 4e, the simple fact remains that Wizards messed up on learning from 4e. Rather than look at things that worked and things players liked, they purged as much about 4e as possible when making 5e. It was a reactionary decision that made the game worse - they basically pulled a 360 and appeased the mob of detractors, throwing legitimate game improvements out the window. That’s not good for anyone - it is backpedaling rather than learning, and letting folks who are hardly experts in game development make development decisions.
Here’s hoping OneD&D decides to learn from all prior editions, rather than repeat the 5e’s goal of catering to the lowest common denominator with its over-simplicity.
I actually think this is a strength of the current system, not a weakness. A party shouldn't be absolutely required to have a Life cleric if they want any healing whatsoever, just like classes other than Fighter are allowed to do damage and classes other than Wizard are allowed to have utility. The more diverse the option pool is for playing any given broad character theme such as Team Healer Guy, the less a given table has to worry about strict, rigid party composition and the more they can all play something they find fun an interesting.
Like, I find the Life cleric to be incredibly boring. Super ******* boring. I don't think I could ever really get into playing a Life cleric, and I say this as someone fully aware of how generally Ohh Pee clerics-in-general are. I just can't with that boring milquetoast nubclass. But a Circle of Dreams druid? A fey guardian who can fight on the front lines with their team and whose magics allow them to ward their party and be exactly where they're needed at higher levels? Trading "You heal better, then you heal even better, then you heal even more better!" for "You can heal without expending precious spells or you can heal with spells too if you need to, you can safeguard your team's encampments, you can teleport pretty dang often, and also you can do all the Druid Shit"? Yes. I'd be more than down to try my hand at a Dreams druid sometime and be my party's medic that way. Which I wouldn't be allowed to do if only one specific subclass was allowed to have total dominion over such a broad character archetype.
Please do not contact or message me.