I feel there should only be three types of casters.
Studied casters (AKA nerds). Casters whose magic comes solely from thousands of hours of study. They understand magic, its uses, its underpinnings, its theory and its practice. These types of casters would be the only ones able to make new spells and magic items, because they are the only ones who actually understand how magic works. I would make them INT-based.
Dabblers. Casters who know a bit of magic, but don't really understand the theory behind it. Bards, Rangers, arcane rogues, eldritch knights all fall here. I would argue that any ability score would count for them, but also having no bonuses from any ability score would also count.
Cheaters. Casters that ask an external power for the magic, often in return for some service. Clerics of course fall here, but so do warlocks and sorcerers. I'd make them all CHA-based, on the idea that they had to negotiate for the power, and negotiation comes under CHA.
Gone is content that once provided us with more options for weapons. There used to be about five times as many types of polearms for example.
Which, unless you were a medieval history geek with an interest in polearms (which describes EGG), is about ten times as many polearm types as we need. Polearm types really didn't do anything significant unless you were using the weapon vs armor types rules, which nobody used because they were a confusing PITA.
The only edition of D&D that didn't go into far more detail about spells than about martial abilities was 4e, and that was because in 4e everyone used powers.
Let's not be hyperbolic and say what "nobody" did. If you mean you didn't say you didn't. Many didn't. Say that. There are people even today of a more simulationist persuasion who still play AD&D who apply weapon versus armor type adjustments to a target's AC when resolving combat. So enthusiastic are they about making combat as "realistic" as possible at their tables. And there are far more rules-intensive games when it comes to combat than is AD&D. People play them too and enjoy their more comprehensive rules too believe it or not.
Whether or not magic has always occupied more pages than has weapon-based combat in the books is beside the point. We have seen new subsystems for magic be added to differentiate casters and how they use magic and things similar to magic rules like monks with ki points be added. While melee and ranged combat has gotten the shortest straw and has stagnated in terms of design.
Your reply misses my main points that (1) you would think given all the time poured into design they might come up with something a little more innovative than Weapon Mastery for those inclined to use weapons and not opt for magic and (2) their having pretty much erased from the game adequate resources for having higher level characters do things beyond repeatedly saving the planet with the rest of the Avengers is another way the game has become more and more about super teams and the powers they possess. The current DMG barely even touches the surface. Not every player wants to just facilitate the power fantasies of those players at his or her table who are in control of the party's then godlike casters. Some players like it if their characters can do other things: e.g. "leading armies" or "schooling others in wizardry" or "running guilds." Nothing stopping us from doing these things. But Wizards have given these things less and less attention. D&D has always been about parties of adventurers. But the notable absence of resources that were in place to provide guidance on how to make each member in any such party feel so much more grounded in a campaign world? That's a real loss and one I think skews for many what D&D can be.
My experience was the exact opposite: I've played every edition since 2E, and 5th Edition is the first time where I've regularly seen groups that didn't have groups that stuck hard to making sure that there was at least one cleric, one fighter, one wizard, and one thief/rogue per party. Self-healing is now sufficient that healing magic is no longer essential, nor is having a rogue/thief around because traps don't require a class-specific ability to find or disarm. That's left significantly more leeway when it comes to party composition.
Healing, Traps, magic.. all of these things were part of a game that had defined strategies built around a core playstyle and premise. If healing is not special or unique to any class, if magic is not special or unique to any class, if anyone can fight in a melee as good as anyone else, if traps can be circumvented by anyone.. etc..etc.. the game becomes a blob of nothing special. Again, I have to ask, what is the point of classes if every class can do everything and no class needs any other class? Why have a class system at that point?
I mean even the video game archetypes don't actually exist, any class can be a tank, any class can be a DPS, any class can be a healer.. I mean.. none of these things have any value in the game anymore beyond the mathematical optimization. So far as I can see every balance issue the game has stems from the fact that there is no attempt to balance anything. The game can be summed up as any Character can do X damage and we just put a lot of adjectives on what that X damage represents. Its actually pretty lifeless and meangless.
D&D should never be a video game, where each PC is locked into a specific role like WoW.....however, in old school D&D that kind of is where it went. But I agree with you overall. If a Thief can do as much damage as a Fighter, and a Wizard can stand in the front lines, there is something wrong with the game design.
It makes fighters practically redundant.
Personally I think fighters should be the only class who get their proficiency bonus on their attack roles.
In order to make playing a fighter even remotely attractive to most they have had to make the class more about its subclasses and what these grant. That to me is a failure in class design.
I have played or run a ton of game systems in the past 12-18 months. Among them: Shadowdark, Scarlet Heroes, Basic Fantasy 3e, AD&D 1e, Everyday Heroes, Pathfinder 2e, Traveler, Vaults of Vaarn, and of course, 5e. I think I am forgetting at least one other system. Many of them DO give Fighters bonuses for physical combat over other classes, and more importantly, no decent player would EVER think of allowing their Magic User anywhere near a front line. Further, almost of those game systems that actually have casting classes have drastically scaled back options in classes, particularly casters, as well as equally scaled back options for spells, compared to 5e. Pathfinder is the exception to that, and it suffers because of that.
wotc could have learned some valuable game design lessons if their designers did not have "D&D 5e is the greatest ever" blinders on, and actually played other systems. Imagine a D&D game that adopted the Shadowdark casting mechanic where spell failure is possible every time a spell is cast, and the penalties are not trivial. Of course, introducing failure into a game system is not what Mr. crawford likes. One only has to watch his informercials about the newest system to understand that.
I hear you. I have taken to using ShadowDark to introduce new players to the hobby. It is basically 5E. Its focus on the traditional four classes however instead of saturating the game with options makes the classes feel more varied from one another. Less is more. And the innovations it has drawn from other OSR games has really made it something else. It deserved all four ENNIEs it received.
The idea now that every player must be able to fight during combat? I will never get this. A wizard who runs out of spells except for utility spells is forced to think outside of the box making for a much more interesting character than one that can just spam damage round after round.
It used to be that it was not uncommon for characters to have to flee. And even the most brave of characters in the literature did that occasionally. Fafhrd comes to mind. A character who is an outright coward and who habitually hides during combat can be a fun character. And should that character ever overcome its fear that is now a character that has grown exponentially more than one that has just obtained new features and feats.
It used to be that it was not uncommon for characters to have to flee.
That has nothing to do with edition; I can create an unwinnable fight in any edition of D&D. Modern editions (3.0 and above) do have a concept of a balanced encounter which was largely absent in AD&D, and if you actually use those rules it's very unlikely that the PCs will need to flee, but there's no rule that says I can't drop an ancient dragon on a third level party.
I mean even the video game archetypes don't actually exist, any class can be a tank
Citation needed.
, any class can be a DPS,
Citation needed.
any class can be a healer.
Citation needed.
. I mean.. none of these things have any value in the game anymore beyond the mathematical optimization. So far as I can see every balance issue the game has stems from the fact that there is no attempt to balance anything. The game can be summed up as any Character can do X damage and we just put a lot of adjectives on what that X damage represents. Its actually pretty lifeless and meangless.
Well, if you want to break the game down that far, it's just bedtime stories with dice.
I mean, dude isn't necessarily wrong when they said any class can be a dps. I played in a campaign for Journey to Ragnarok. Out of the "dps" classes (barbarian, ranger/warlock, fighter) that we had in the group, you want to know who was the bad-ass wrecking shop? My tiefling Hexblade/Pact of the Blade Warlock. Roleplay wise and mechanics wise, my character was the one on the frontline destroying the opposition. And this was before I added 2 levels of Paladin once he made level 5 in Warlock, which made him even more ridiculous. And to be fair, I have no problem with that and I'm not complaining. I do like that 5e allows players be more versatile and not lock characters into specific roles. But at the same time, my "caster class" was more of a Barbarian/Fighter than the actual Barbarian and Fighter? I mean...lol. It's kind of crazy.
Warlocks have always been a damage-dealer class, though. Eldritch Blast plus Agonizing Blast plus Hex is all right there in the PHB. But where's the high damage output Bard build? Where's the Barbarian healer build (it's going to have to be a lot more than "I can cast Cure Wounds as a first level spell my proficiency bonus times per day")? Where's the sorcerer tank*?
*I've seen theorycraft attempts to build one and they've all been terrible: they have to focus all their abilities on boosting the character's durability by burning through all their spells to the point that they can't do anything else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There was a time when wizards could not just spam damage every round.
Yes, and it was bad. At low levels, you had a useless bozo you had to keep alive, and he could help once or twice, and then you've still got a useless bozo, except he no longer has his "break glass in case of emergency" ability ready. That's annoying for everyone, and not fun for the player, because they basically don't get to play most of the time.
The idea that everyone should be able to be at least moderately effective in combat at all times was just a straight-up improvement to the game.
And the Healer feat now very much allows any class to be an affective healer.
(goes to look at healer feat)
Ok....
I think the origin feats are more generally useful than some, but healer is not particularly good, and it never gets better. (The 2014 version is outright better, and there's no way anybody took it unless they were in a party that was completely lacking in healing abilities.)
I mean, dude isn't necessarily wrong when they said any class can be a dps. I played in a campaign for Journey to Ragnarok. Out of the "dps" classes (barbarian, ranger/warlock, fighter) that we had in the group, you want to know who was the bad-ass wrecking shop? My tiefling Hexblade/Pact of the Blade Warlock. Roleplay wise and mechanics wise, my character was the one on the frontline destroying the opposition. And this was before I added 2 levels of Paladin once he made level 5 in Warlock, which made him even more ridiculous. And to be fair, I have no problem with that and I'm not complaining. I do like that 5e allows players be more versatile and not lock characters into specific roles. But at the same time, my "caster class" was more of a Barbarian/Fighter than the actual Barbarian and Fighter? I mean...lol. It's kind of crazy.
The thing is, Warlock is a DPS class. More often ranged, but the melee build doesn't suck. Fighter and barb are less DPS and more tank, particularly barb. (These roles often overlap, of course, and are more complicated than 'Tank', 'DPS', etc.) If they hadn't been there on the front lines, it would've rapidly illustrated the difference, because Warlock can dish it out, but they can't take it.
It also depends on how they're being played. You were warlock, multiclassing into paladin. You were optimizing for what you did. Were your fellow players?
The classes all have things they're good at, and they can excel at those, but they can't cover the full spectrum. There's not infrequently a subclass that lets them play against type to a degree, but they're still not as good at it as the specialists. (You can make a bladesinger wizard, and fight on the front lines, but you're not as good at it as the fighter is, and will often be better off as you level by staying behind the front and wizarding.)
But part of the game's design goals is that everyone should have combat effectiveness, so everybody's capabilities includes "and can more-or-less handle themselves in fight in a mixed party".
(And the optimizing subculture really loves DPS as a measurement because it's quantifiable, so there are "if you try hard enough, you can do absurd damage" builds for all the classes.)
wotc could have learned some valuable game design lessons if their designers did not have "D&D 5e is the greatest ever" blinders on, and actually played other systems.
I guarantee, WotC's designers have a deeper knowledge of 5e's flaws and design compromises than you do, and each and every one of them has a long, long, list of "Things I would change if I had absolute power over D&D."
But that is not their job. Their job is to deliver more 5e. And 5e had specific design constraints and goals, and 5e24 is largely locked to the constraints of 5e.
Do they play other systems? I can't say, but it's likely; trying out a new RPG is a lot easier than a new CCG is. But that doesn't mean the things they learn from them can work their way back into 5e.
It also doesn't mean they're playing your games. Games that are designed to look backward bring them fewer new ideas. When the day comes for 6e, it's more likely to be informed by Blades in the Dark than ShadowDark.
Imagine a D&D game that adopted the Shadowdark casting mechanic where spell failure is possible every time a spell is cast, and the penalties are not trivial.
Why? I mean, sure, it's clearly a thing some people can enjoy, but do you really think arbitrary failure on your basic powers is a thing general audiences would find fun?
Also "the penalties are not trivial" reminds me of RoleMaster, where, if you fought long enough, you would eventually crit fumble badly enough to cut off your own limb. Or head. Maybe it's not that bad, but people don't like it when they get screwed purely by random chance.
Of course, introducing failure into a game system is not what Mr. crawford likes. One only has to watch his informercials about the newest system to understand that.
You have no idea what he likes. He's doing PR. It's part of his job. Of course he's talking up 5e like it's the best thing since sliced ochre jelly. For all you know, he's got a regular home shadowdark game with a 75% kill rate. But even if he does, it doesn't mean D&D will ever be that.
The thing about learning from other systems is... you really can't do it and remain feeling like D&D, because D&D has a bunch of features that other games have deliberately done away with. Probably the most noticeable things of they were looking at non-D&D games that would just go away are armor class (if armor exists, it's damage reduction) and daily spell slots (magic recovery is either fast or based on a non-time-based resource, and is either per-ability limits or a shared resource pool).
There is a difference between mandatory and optional extremes. I've said this before, but it tends to be ignored. The reality is that the amount and variation of classes, species, backgrounds, and all of the other optimization choices and elements that cross-pollinate the nature of archetypes and the premise of setting and fantasy are all perfectly fine to be/exist in the core rulebook, in fact I would encourage it as long as and only if players can accept that it only breaks when you try to put everything into a single game. It should be understood the players handbook is never going to be all the options available in your game, these are all the options available in THE game for the DM to choose from and decide what will allowed the game.
Like I found that with 5e I could have a perfectly decent, balanced and long-running game as long as players were able to accept me throwing a wrench into optimization, placing limitations on choices based on setting and aesthetic of the game I wanted to created and allowed me to introduce mechanical adaptations to iron out some elements of the game that create a specific mood and playstyle. I think its going to be even more true with the revised edition. I think the only problem that exists is that if you take the entire players handbook and all the splatbooks (most of which are now part of the revised players handbook) you end up with the undefined hyper generic anything goes fantasy with very clearly hyperbroken combinations and options.
The funny thing is most of these presumed "adjustments" are actually official optional rules in the DMG and if they are not in the current DMG, they certainly existed in previous DMG's
Don't like all the self-healing... use gritty realism, slow natural healing, healer kit dependency and/or add Lingering Injuries. All official rules p. 266-267
Don't like some of the classes, sub-classes or specific abilities gained from them.. change them, official rules on page 287-288
Don't like hyper-optimized characters, roll 3d6 down the chain.. trust me, it fixes it.
In any case, the entire archetype conversation is very often (and it definitely is in the above discussions) very misunderstood. Archetypes and the class design of heavy limitations and heavy reliance on each other existed for a game with a wildly different playstyle than what is in the 5e (modern generation) of D&D. This playstyle which was the primary and default way to play D&D in 1e days is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve in modern games, you would literally have to redesign the whole game (ala Shadowdark for example). This playstyle simply does not exist in modern gaming anymore. So when we describe "archetypes" and whether they were a good thing or a bad thing,it makes no sense at all in the context of 5e. The two have nothing to do with each other, it's like discussing whether the Jamie Olivers cooking recipes are good or not and should be added to the player's handbook. These are two, unrelated topics that have nothing to do with one another, why are we even discussing it?
The only weird part is how some parts of this playstyle have been kept in the game out of tradition for some reason, yet they don't actually serve any purpose at all in the game anymore. We hang on to these weird D&D sacred cows because "it's D&D", but, the "D&D" we grew up with in the 80's doesn't exist anymore. It hasn't existed in the official D&D rules since 2nd edition AD&D, that was the last version of D&D as we (people who played the original game) knew it. Matt Coville does a great video that explains this premise. The main point of which is that 5e D&D is designed in such a way that it is literally a game absent of playstyle, it is a game about nothing. But I would argue all the pieces are there to make it into something and you do this by removing stuff.
I feel there should only be three types of casters.
Studied casters (AKA nerds). Casters whose magic comes solely from thousands of hours of study. They understand magic, its uses, its underpinnings, its theory and its practice. These types of casters would be the only ones able to make new spells and magic items, because they are the only ones who actually understand how magic works. I would make them INT-based.
Dabblers. Casters who know a bit of magic, but don't really understand the theory behind it. Bards, Rangers, arcane rogues, eldritch knights all fall here. I would argue that any ability score would count for them, but also having no bonuses from any ability score would also count.
Cheaters. Casters that ask an external power for the magic, often in return for some service. Clerics of course fall here, but so do warlocks and sorcerers. I'd make them all CHA-based, on the idea that they had to negotiate for the power, and negotiation comes under CHA.
I would question how you came to those conclusions.
For me, for example, a bard is someone who spent decades in study (which is historically accurate of that time period) but are powered by true inspiration (awen). They had roles in society with similar counterparts under other names in other cultures across the planet. They were mysterious and magical. Famous legends like Amergin, Myrddin (Merlin), and Taliesin were bards. The magical battle in Song of Rhiannon was done by bards. Gandalf was inspired by a Finnish bard legend. For modern counterparts I posted (over at Enworld) a bard build I'm working on Alice Coopers portrayal in Dynamite Comic's CHAOS! verse as the lord of nightmares.
The goal isn't to make a class what you see it as. The goal is to make the class capable of covering the different view of other people as well in how they see the class and cover as much as possible.
My examples aren't "dabblers" even though "dabbler" is a style of bard that can be applied. The classes should be capable of covering both styles. I could old school my bard by multiclassing and the less spell caster levels he has the more dabbler he is. Covered. Or I could select spells that suit more of "dabbler" style -- even roll them randomly, or only learn spells encountered or found on scrolls because class mechanics aren't actually required to roleplay that style.
I could also just play a rogue (arcane trickster), fighter (eldritch knight), or ranger (any) and build towards the bard style. I could even go with a much less magical bard with a barbarian, fighter, or rogue and build towards the style of the character. All I need to do is call myself a bard and play him like a bard.
I also have options withing the subclasses. A dance or valor bard using magic to support combat or skills takes different spells than a lore bard who might be more into knowledge and magic or a glamour bard who focuses on enchantments and illusion. Valor and lore bards are very classic tropes while glamor and dance fall into more modern tropes.
The concepts you're expressing are fluff. The more mechanics that get added to a class to force some of that fluff leads to less ability to reimagine the fluff to meet other viewpoints; therefore, it's that mechanical reinforcement that causes the need to add classes in order to maintain that variety of concepts.
Conversely, the less mechanics we have in the game the more we're forced to create our own fluff and variety diminishes. We need a happy middle ground to satisfy as many player as possible.
By labelling any of the classes in the way that you did you would be forcing your views onto other players if that was mechanically applied and make more work for them to make their own characters, possibly eliminating some character tropes altogether.
Created characters from classes, subclasses, and multi-classes should be about opening up archetypal tropes, forcing them. ;-)
I would say that people place too much emphasis on the "label" of a class. For example Eldritch Knight is not an archetype, it's not a setting premise, its an option. This is a fighter that uses magic as part of their abilities and while I don't think it's 's appropriate for every setting and should often be removed as an option, in my setting for example this is not only an important sub-class, its actually in Dragonborn culture the ONLY kind of fighter you can be. More importantly, the class is not called Eldritch Knight in my world, its called Cha'Arkaris.
If I was playing in Dragonlance, this sub-class would be banned from the game.
The point is that its existence as an option in the player's handbook is no a bad thing, it's a good thing. I fully agree with Ashrym that offering options, is not a flaw, its a perk, its less crap for me to have to invent when I'm creating a campaign or chronicle or building a new setting. I want 2nd edition D&D days of a million splat books, go nuts, I will buy them all... but ... no I won't offer them all in a single game and herein lays the problem with how most people handle D&D.
The only problem endless options create is if players, if the D&D culture believe everything in the PHP and splash books is cannon in every game and that all options must be available always or your a bad DM. That's when the whole thing falls apart and 5e goes from being a decent game to being a burning dumpster fire (same as 2e, same as 3e, same as 4e). You cannot run a game with all the options open, the game is completely broken if you do that and absolutely worthless in every way you can measure it and anyone who has ever played 5e or any system after 1e for any extended period knows this is true. You just can't run a "everything is open" game, it doesn't work, especially at anything past level 7 or 8.
With some restrictions and some common sense... well... actually than it can be quite brilliant. You just need to pluck from the options the things that make sense for your setting, use options to fine tune the experience to the tone you want. Its a great game when you use it responsibly. I think the reason so many DM's have problems in their game, as evidence from this forum that is absolutely litered with DM's reporting problems is this basic core premise. Don't allow everything. Its that simple.. be very picky.
Further, almost of those game systems that actually have casting classes have drastically scaled back options in classes, particularly casters, as well as equally scaled back options for spells, compared to 5e. Pathfinder is the exception to that, and it suffers because of that.
wotc could have learned some valuable game design lessons if their designers did not have "D&D 5e is the greatest ever" blinders on.
The problem isn't with the game designers. The problem is with the players. Every time there's been an attempt to fix spellcasters the player base has rejected it.
If 5e is the greatest game ever, the consumer base will accept it. Consider how many current players have NEVER played another game system. Those people have zero frame of reference to decide if they prefer a system of potential failure to one that has no failure. But I do accept that there is no way, and I mean no way at all, that any amount of marketing would make people believe "it is still 5e" if the magic system was revamped.
It is kind of funny the certainty with which people who have never played other games will say nothing beats 5E. They cannot possibly know short of treating it as a popularity contest but popularity in any medium has never been a sign of greatness.
It used to be that it was not uncommon for characters to have to flee.
That has nothing to do with edition; I can create an unwinnable fight in any edition of D&D. Modern editions (3.0 and above) do have a concept of a balanced encounter which was largely absent in AD&D, and if you actually use those rules it's very unlikely that the PCs will need to flee, but there's no rule that says I can't drop an ancient dragon on a third level party.
It ain't entirely dependent on edition. But as you yourself even mention we have seen more and more focus on balance and seen it prioritized in the development of the rules. And like I said: wizards and other casters can now just spam damage round after round. This has led to many approaching all classes the same way. Seeing them all as "fighters." To some degree. Throw a monster or monsters at a party and the player with the wizard wants to fight more than like I said "to think outside of the box." To use some utility spell say. To do something else. It's not as if the party's wizard can't do something else. Why does the party all have to hold hands and fight alongside one another whenever combat breaks out?
You could create an unwinnable fight even in 5E and your players if they were sensible wouldn't fight. My point however wasn't that entire parties would often flee. But that one or some members of a party would do so. For example: when they were out of spells. Which now never happens. Fewer players these days seem okay with the idea of a wizard say more vulnerable as far as HP is concerned having to flee or hide while others get to fight. As if that's "not fair." "Fair" or "unfair" I think what we are seeing is the prioritization of the role of combat in the game by ensuring every class and subclass is more than capable of it and the prioritization of this even over good characterization.
I mean even the video game archetypes don't actually exist, any class can be a tank
Citation needed.
, any class can be a DPS,
Citation needed.
any class can be a healer.
Citation needed.
. I mean.. none of these things have any value in the game anymore beyond the mathematical optimization. So far as I can see every balance issue the game has stems from the fact that there is no attempt to balance anything. The game can be summed up as any Character can do X damage and we just put a lot of adjectives on what that X damage represents. Its actually pretty lifeless and meangless.
Well, if you want to break the game down that far, it's just bedtime stories with dice.
I mean, dude isn't necessarily wrong when they said any class can be a dps. I played in a campaign for Journey to Ragnarok. Out of the "dps" classes (barbarian, ranger/warlock, fighter) that we had in the group, you want to know who was the bad-ass wrecking shop? My tiefling Hexblade/Pact of the Blade Warlock. Roleplay wise and mechanics wise, my character was the one on the frontline destroying the opposition. And this was before I added 2 levels of Paladin once he made level 5 in Warlock, which made him even more ridiculous. And to be fair, I have no problem with that and I'm not complaining. I do like that 5e allows players be more versatile and not lock characters into specific roles. But at the same time, my "caster class" was more of a Barbarian/Fighter than the actual Barbarian and Fighter? I mean...lol. It's kind of crazy.
Warlocks have always been a damage-dealer class, though. Eldritch Blast plus Agonizing Blast plus Hex is all right there in the PHB. But where's the high damage output Bard build? Where's the Barbarian healer build (it's going to have to be a lot more than "I can cast Cure Wounds as a first level spell my proficiency bonus times per day")? Where's the sorcerer tank*?
*I've seen theorycraft attempts to build one and they've all been terrible: they have to focus all their abilities on boosting the character's durability by burning through all their spells to the point that they can't do anything else.
I am currently playing in a campaign and my barbarian is the party's healer. The Healer feat makes anyone a more than competent healer. A Hit Die at no cost to the healed. Plus the healer's proficiency bonus. Reroll any 1 for a chance to gain more than 1. The only cost for any of this is to expand a use of a healer's kit.
There was a time when wizards could not just spam damage every round.
Yes, and it was bad. At low levels, you had a useless bozo you had to keep alive, and he could help once or twice, and then you've still got a useless bozo, except he no longer has his "break glass in case of emergency" ability ready. That's annoying for everyone, and not fun for the player, because they basically don't get to play most of the time.
The idea that everyone should be able to be at least moderately effective in combat at all times was just a straight-up improvement to the game.
And the Healer feat now very much allows any class to be an affective healer.
(goes to look at healer feat)
Ok....
I think the origin feats are more generally useful than some, but healer is not particularly good, and it never gets better. (The 2014 version is outright better, and there's no way anybody took it unless they were in a party that was completely lacking in healing abilities.)
I mean, dude isn't necessarily wrong when they said any class can be a dps. I played in a campaign for Journey to Ragnarok. Out of the "dps" classes (barbarian, ranger/warlock, fighter) that we had in the group, you want to know who was the bad-ass wrecking shop? My tiefling Hexblade/Pact of the Blade Warlock. Roleplay wise and mechanics wise, my character was the one on the frontline destroying the opposition. And this was before I added 2 levels of Paladin once he made level 5 in Warlock, which made him even more ridiculous. And to be fair, I have no problem with that and I'm not complaining. I do like that 5e allows players be more versatile and not lock characters into specific roles. But at the same time, my "caster class" was more of a Barbarian/Fighter than the actual Barbarian and Fighter? I mean...lol. It's kind of crazy.
The thing is, Warlock is a DPS class. More often ranged, but the melee build doesn't suck. Fighter and barb are less DPS and more tank, particularly barb. (These roles often overlap, of course, and are more complicated than 'Tank', 'DPS', etc.) If they hadn't been there on the front lines, it would've rapidly illustrated the difference, because Warlock can dish it out, but they can't take it.
It also depends on how they're being played. You were warlock, multiclassing into paladin. You were optimizing for what you did. Were your fellow players?
The classes all have things they're good at, and they can excel at those, but they can't cover the full spectrum. There's not infrequently a subclass that lets them play against type to a degree, but they're still not as good at it as the specialists. (You can make a bladesinger wizard, and fight on the front lines, but you're not as good at it as the fighter is, and will often be better off as you level by staying behind the front and wizarding.)
But part of the game's design goals is that everyone should have combat effectiveness, so everybody's capabilities includes "and can more-or-less handle themselves in fight in a mixed party".
(And the optimizing subculture really loves DPS as a measurement because it's quantifiable, so there are "if you try hard enough, you can do absurd damage" builds for all the classes.)
wotc could have learned some valuable game design lessons if their designers did not have "D&D 5e is the greatest ever" blinders on, and actually played other systems.
I guarantee, WotC's designers have a deeper knowledge of 5e's flaws and design compromises than you do, and each and every one of them has a long, long, list of "Things I would change if I had absolute power over D&D."
But that is not their job. Their job is to deliver more 5e. And 5e had specific design constraints and goals, and 5e24 is largely locked to the constraints of 5e.
Do they play other systems? I can't say, but it's likely; trying out a new RPG is a lot easier than a new CCG is. But that doesn't mean the things they learn from them can work their way back into 5e.
It also doesn't mean they're playing your games. Games that are designed to look backward bring them fewer new ideas. When the day comes for 6e, it's more likely to be informed by Blades in the Dark than ShadowDark.
Imagine a D&D game that adopted the Shadowdark casting mechanic where spell failure is possible every time a spell is cast, and the penalties are not trivial.
Why? I mean, sure, it's clearly a thing some people can enjoy, but do you really think arbitrary failure on your basic powers is a thing general audiences would find fun?
Also "the penalties are not trivial" reminds me of RoleMaster, where, if you fought long enough, you would eventually crit fumble badly enough to cut off your own limb. Or head. Maybe it's not that bad, but people don't like it when they get screwed purely by random chance.
Of course, introducing failure into a game system is not what Mr. crawford likes. One only has to watch his informercials about the newest system to understand that.
You have no idea what he likes. He's doing PR. It's part of his job. Of course he's talking up 5e like it's the best thing since sliced ochre jelly. For all you know, he's got a regular home shadowdark game with a 75% kill rate. But even if he does, it doesn't mean D&D will ever be that.
As I already asked: Why does every single member of a party have to fight when combat breaks out? Is there absolutely nothing else a wizard could possibly do? Is there no utility spell that might be utilized to continue doing whatever the party were doing before they were attacked? Is there some compelling reason the wizard simply cannot avoid the fray to instead move beyond the location in which the fight is taking place and make itself useful there? Making every class combat-ready is an awfully myopic approach to a game with which there are really no limits to the stories we can tell at our tables. If every time combat breaks out every single member of the party enters combat mode that is about as two-dimensional as storytelling can get.
I have played in campaigns using both D&D and WFRP in which little to no combat took place. Campaigns that were more about intrigue or even romance than they were the fantasy equivalent of just some empty MCU blockbuster that has viewers just waiting for the next fight scene. These ranking among the most memorable of games I have played in over the years.
EDIT: I'm curious to know if you reckon it is "bad" and that everyone else in an adventuring party is "a useless bozo" when it's the party's most charismatic getting the party out of trouble say? Is it "bad" and is everyone else "a useless bozo" when a member of a party does something during "downtime" that does not concern others? Does everyone else in the party have to hold the rogue's hand as he or she navigates through some business with a guild with which he or she has become affiliated? Why is it just combat in which everyone must play an active role? Must fight? You don't think this overemphasizes the role of combat in a game that is about so much more?
It ain't entirely dependent on edition. But as you yourself even mention we have seen more and more focus on balance and seen it prioritized in the development of the rules.
I don't think this is really true, I know this is something the developers say all the time, but the game is balanced using these odd ideologies that are in a constant upswing. For example they will make Wizards more powerful, so in turn they have to make fighters more powerful and then they have to make Monks more powerful which in turn means Druids need to be upgrade dand by then they are back to making Wizards even more powerful and so on and so forth, always in response to player complaints about how OP X class is compared to Y...
No one ever thinks, ok, lets trim this the other way. The reason they don't do that is D&D culture which has become so player centric with so little regard to the people running the games behind the screen that at this point, the idea of an AI DM and just cutting the job out entirely is starting to look pretty good. It's really not that fun to be a DM when running the game these days, its more like this burden of trying to keep the game from falling off the rails and all people are doing is just following the rules as written, so you can't exactly complain to the players even though, strictly speaking they are collectively the root cause.
This is why, I don't even consult players at my table about the very stiff changes I make to the game. Like every campaign I run, I gut the crap out of the power levels of the game. I take a lot of crap for it, but people always come back to my table and the reason is that my games run well, they run long and I produce a good experience. I don't think its possible to do it with the rules as written.
The reality is that the game is CRAZY OP at this point as written, it isn't even power fantasy anymore, we've had to invent an entirely new scale to describe your average D&D character. It's so far removed from the D&D medieval fantasy on which the game is based, its not even recognizable. Which is not to say I want to go back to Magic-Users with 1 spell, but the amount of design space between 1st edition AD&D Magic Users and Revised 5th edition Wizards is MASSIVE. I think there is a lot of middle ground we could find to bring the game back into a believable abstraction and a game that has sensible power levels.
It ain't entirely dependent on edition. But as you yourself even mention we have seen more and more focus on balance and seen it prioritized in the development of the rules.
I don't think this is really true, I know this is something the developers say all the time, but the game is balanced using these odd ideologies that are in a constant upswing. For example they will make Wizards more powerful, so in turn they have to make fighters more powerful and then they have to make Monks more powerful which in turn means Druids need to be upgrade dand by then they are back to making Wizards even more powerful and so on and so forth, always in response to player complaints about how OP X class is compared to Y...
No one ever thinks, ok, lets trim this the other way. The reason they don't do that is D&D culture which has become so player centric with so little regard to the people running the games behind the screen that at this point, the idea of an AI DM and just cutting the job out entirely is starting to look pretty good. It's really not that fun to be a DM when running the game these days, its more like this burden of trying to keep the game from falling off the rails and all people are doing is just following the rules as written, so you can't exactly complain to the players even though, strictly speaking they are collectively the root cause.
This is why, I don't even consult players at my table about the very stiff changes I make to the game. Like every campaign I run, I gut the crap out of the power levels of the game. I take a lot of crap for it, but people always come back to my table and the reason is that my games run well, they run long and I produce a good experience. I don't think its possible to do it with the rules as written.
The reality is that the game is CRAZY OP at this point as written, it isn't even power fantasy anymore, we've had to invent an entirely new scale to describe your average D&D character. It's so far removed from the D&D medieval fantasy on which the game is based, its not even recognizable. Which is not to say I want to go back to Magic-Users with 1 spell, but the amount of design space between 1st edition AD&D Magic Users and Revised 5th edition Wizards is MASSIVE. I think there is a lot of middle ground we could find to bring the game back into a believable abstraction and a game that has sensible power levels.
You are right about that power creep. It is an endless stream of giving more to one class after another to achieve what is at least seen as balance.
The way people talk about older editions of D&D and how not "CRAZY OP" characters were back then you'd think no one had fun playing them. Even though they provided us with some of the most memorable gaming experiences of our lives. The 1981 Moldvay/Cook ruleset remains one of the most popular iterations of the game. Many a retro clone is based on it. And some people still play AD&D. But these "weren't fun" because one's character wasn't a superhero?
ShadowDark has received nothing but praise and promotion even from some of 5th. Edition's most visible advocates on YouTube. Because it has taken 5th. Edition and removed from it that power creep is just one of the many reasons for this.
There was a time when wizards could not just spam damage every round.
Yes, and it was bad. At low levels, you had a useless bozo you had to keep alive, and he could help once or twice, and then you've still got a useless bozo, except he no longer has his "break glass in case of emergency" ability ready. That's annoying for everyone, and not fun for the player, because they basically don't get to play most of the time.
The idea that everyone should be able to be at least moderately effective in combat at all times was just a straight-up improvement to the game.
And the Healer feat now very much allows any class to be an affective healer.
(goes to look at healer feat)
Ok....
I think the origin feats are more generally useful than some, but healer is not particularly good, and it never gets better. (The 2014 version is outright better, and there's no way anybody took it unless they were in a party that was completely lacking in healing abilities.)
I mean, dude isn't necessarily wrong when they said any class can be a dps. I played in a campaign for Journey to Ragnarok. Out of the "dps" classes (barbarian, ranger/warlock, fighter) that we had in the group, you want to know who was the bad-ass wrecking shop? My tiefling Hexblade/Pact of the Blade Warlock. Roleplay wise and mechanics wise, my character was the one on the frontline destroying the opposition. And this was before I added 2 levels of Paladin once he made level 5 in Warlock, which made him even more ridiculous. And to be fair, I have no problem with that and I'm not complaining. I do like that 5e allows players be more versatile and not lock characters into specific roles. But at the same time, my "caster class" was more of a Barbarian/Fighter than the actual Barbarian and Fighter? I mean...lol. It's kind of crazy.
The thing is, Warlock is a DPS class. More often ranged, but the melee build doesn't suck. Fighter and barb are less DPS and more tank, particularly barb. (These roles often overlap, of course, and are more complicated than 'Tank', 'DPS', etc.) If they hadn't been there on the front lines, it would've rapidly illustrated the difference, because Warlock can dish it out, but they can't take it.
It also depends on how they're being played. You were warlock, multiclassing into paladin. You were optimizing for what you did. Were your fellow players?
The classes all have things they're good at, and they can excel at those, but they can't cover the full spectrum. There's not infrequently a subclass that lets them play against type to a degree, but they're still not as good at it as the specialists. (You can make a bladesinger wizard, and fight on the front lines, but you're not as good at it as the fighter is, and will often be better off as you level by staying behind the front and wizarding.)
But part of the game's design goals is that everyone should have combat effectiveness, so everybody's capabilities includes "and can more-or-less handle themselves in fight in a mixed party".
(And the optimizing subculture really loves DPS as a measurement because it's quantifiable, so there are "if you try hard enough, you can do absurd damage" builds for all the classes.)
wotc could have learned some valuable game design lessons if their designers did not have "D&D 5e is the greatest ever" blinders on, and actually played other systems.
I guarantee, WotC's designers have a deeper knowledge of 5e's flaws and design compromises than you do, and each and every one of them has a long, long, list of "Things I would change if I had absolute power over D&D."
But that is not their job. Their job is to deliver more 5e. And 5e had specific design constraints and goals, and 5e24 is largely locked to the constraints of 5e.
Do they play other systems? I can't say, but it's likely; trying out a new RPG is a lot easier than a new CCG is. But that doesn't mean the things they learn from them can work their way back into 5e.
It also doesn't mean they're playing your games. Games that are designed to look backward bring them fewer new ideas. When the day comes for 6e, it's more likely to be informed by Blades in the Dark than ShadowDark.
Imagine a D&D game that adopted the Shadowdark casting mechanic where spell failure is possible every time a spell is cast, and the penalties are not trivial.
Why? I mean, sure, it's clearly a thing some people can enjoy, but do you really think arbitrary failure on your basic powers is a thing general audiences would find fun?
Also "the penalties are not trivial" reminds me of RoleMaster, where, if you fought long enough, you would eventually crit fumble badly enough to cut off your own limb. Or head. Maybe it's not that bad, but people don't like it when they get screwed purely by random chance.
Of course, introducing failure into a game system is not what Mr. crawford likes. One only has to watch his informercials about the newest system to understand that.
You have no idea what he likes. He's doing PR. It's part of his job. Of course he's talking up 5e like it's the best thing since sliced ochre jelly. For all you know, he's got a regular home shadowdark game with a 75% kill rate. But even if he does, it doesn't mean D&D will ever be that.
Last time I checked the "basic powers" of any martial class was its prowess when it came to melee or ranged combat and the dice determine whether or not you are going to succeed or fail in that regard.
On a more serious note I would argue that the possibility of spell failure brings magic much more in line with how it works in fantasy fiction where we see users of magic often fail to cast.
I would also argue that there being consequences when spell failure is critical in nature makes magic look and feel more like magic instead of just superpowers at a character's disposal.
The DM's house rules in a campaign I played in that lasted three years saw Roll to Cast introduced into what was for all intents and purposes a 5E campaign. Not only did a fail mean the spell failed to cast but one's degree of success on a successful roll could mean the effects of the spell were more powerful. This made magic less predictable—and in turn less dull. One of the reasons a lot of players became burned out on 5E is because of how predictable it can be. Short of having a DM who is going to tinker with the rules as written everyone knows not only what this or that spell will do but what this or that class will get at any given level et cetera et cetera et cetera.
Do you not think "general audiences" would warm to the idea of making a roll to cast if a very good result meant the spell delivered more damage or grew in range or area or lasted longer or even indefinitely?
That's half the fun of DCC. And I bet if Wizards introduced that into official D&D tomorrow people would be singing from the rooftops about how brilliant it is.
Last time I checked the "basic powers" of any martial class was its prowess when it came to melee or ranged combat and the dice determine whether or not you are going to succeed or fail in that regard.
On a more serious note I would argue that the possibility of spell failure brings magic much more in line with how it works in fantasy fiction where we see users of magic often fail to cast.
I would also argue that there being consequences when spell failure is critical in nature makes magic look and feel more like magic instead of just superpowers at a character's disposal.
The DM's house rules in a campaign I played in that lasted three years saw Roll to Cast introduced into what was for all intents and purposes a 5E campaign. Not only did a fail mean the spell failed to cast but one's degree of success on a successful roll could mean the effects of the spell were more powerful. This made magic less predictable—and in turn less dull. One of the reasons a lot of players became burned out on 5E is because of how predictable it can be. Short of having a DM who is going to tinker with the rules as written everyone knows not only what this or that spell will do but what this or that class will get at any given level et cetera et cetera et cetera.
Do you not think "general audiences" would warm to the idea of making a roll to cast if a very good result meant the spell delivered more damage or grew in range or area or lasted longer or even indefinitely?
That's half the fun of DCC. And I bet if Wizards introduced that into official D&D tomorrow people would be singing from the rooftops about how brilliant it is.
Roll to cast is definitely a rule I have been considering for my next chronicle, but I'm still a bit on the fence about it. I agree with you from the stand point of fiction and fantasy, I agree that magic being dangerous and potentially failing is a cool theme, and sets a fun tone but I'm just not 100% sure its a good mechanic specifically in 5e, a game about high fantasy adventures.
Shadowdark has this mechanic but its a very different tone as one of the features of Shadowdark is that failure and higher-risk die rolls are a constant. It's a very dangerous game for every class and in a sense, magic without a chance of failure would actually be the most reliable weapon in the game. This is probably why designer added chance of failure to sort of bring the risk to the magic-user as well.
Just not 100% convinced that making magic in a high fantasy systems like 5e would bring it in line in terms of reliability equity. Like fighters in melee are very unlikely to miss their attacks, the success rates are very high and there are a lot of dice manipulation mechanics like advantage that are fairly easy to get for most classes that are mixing it up in melee's. I think if you brought chance of failure to magic, that would likely mean that the failure rate of casters would increase dramatically as many of their spells actually already have chances of failure between saving throws and ToHit rolls many spells come with. There aren't that many spells that guarantee their effects will go off in 5e, most have some sort of chance of failure already built in.
Roll to cast is definitely a rule I have been considering for my next chronicle, but I'm still a bit on the fence about it. I agree with you from the stand point of fiction and fantasy, I agree that magic being dangerous and potentially failing is a cool theme, and sets a fun tone but I'm just not 100% sure its a good mechanic specifically in 5e, a game about high fantasy adventures.
Shadowdark has this mechanic but its a very different tone as one of the features of Shadowdark is that failure and higher-risk die rolls are a constant. It's a very dangerous game for every class and in a sense, magic without a chance of failure would actually be the most reliable weapon in the game. This is probably why designer added chance of failure to sort of bring the risk to the magic-user as well.
Just not 100% convinced that making magic in a high fantasy systems like 5e would bring it in line in terms of reliability equity. Like fighters in melee are very unlikely to miss their attacks, the success rates are very high and there are a lot of dice manipulation mechanics like advantage that are fairly easy to get for most classes that are mixing it up in melee's. I think if you brought chance of failure to magic, that would likely mean that the failure rate of casters would increase dramatically as many of their spells actually already have chances of failure between saving throws and ToHit rolls many spells come with. There aren't that many spells that guarantee their effects will go off in 5e, most have some sort of chance of failure already built in.
ShadowDark handles magic really well. I much prefer having to roll to cast even if this means the possibility of the spell not even manifesting than having success or failure dependent on an attack roll or a save made by the spell's target like it is in 5E. And given the number of spells the average caster in 5E has at its disposal it can be a real pain having to remember how each one even works.
You do though make a good point about how this might not match the more high fantasy angle with which they have gone with 5E.
It really does come down to what people want at their tables. And we are spoiled for choice today with so many great games out there.
WRT to failure rates in magic, it is not the concept that is flawed, but a question of implementation. Let;s work with the Shadowdark version. You cast a spell. Say it is a 1st level spell. If I remember correctly, the "DC" was 10 plus the spell level, so in this case, 11. A d20 is rolled against that number, and the PC's Int bonus was tacked on. Assuming a +3 to Int, that would mean a 65% chance of a 1st level spell working properly. I can't remember if the caster level was also added to that d20 roll, but it would make sense to. So, going with 5e stats, we could have a 4th level caster, with an 18 Int (+4), and now that DC 11 is going to succeed 90% of the time. Now, that almost trivializes the risk. But some modification to that mechanic would create a situation where casters could, and should, fail occasionally.
Yeah I get that, but that is on top of the already built-in failure rates (saving throws, missing to hit rolls). Its a bit like adding a % miss chance to attacks on top the already existing to hit roll. Its sort of like a double penalty in many cases when it comes to magic in 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I feel there should only be three types of casters.
Studied casters (AKA nerds). Casters whose magic comes solely from thousands of hours of study. They understand magic, its uses, its underpinnings, its theory and its practice. These types of casters would be the only ones able to make new spells and magic items, because they are the only ones who actually understand how magic works. I would make them INT-based.
Dabblers. Casters who know a bit of magic, but don't really understand the theory behind it. Bards, Rangers, arcane rogues, eldritch knights all fall here. I would argue that any ability score would count for them, but also having no bonuses from any ability score would also count.
Cheaters. Casters that ask an external power for the magic, often in return for some service. Clerics of course fall here, but so do warlocks and sorcerers. I'd make them all CHA-based, on the idea that they had to negotiate for the power, and negotiation comes under CHA.
Let's not be hyperbolic and say what "nobody" did. If you mean you didn't say you didn't. Many didn't. Say that. There are people even today of a more simulationist persuasion who still play AD&D who apply weapon versus armor type adjustments to a target's AC when resolving combat. So enthusiastic are they about making combat as "realistic" as possible at their tables. And there are far more rules-intensive games when it comes to combat than is AD&D. People play them too and enjoy their more comprehensive rules too believe it or not.
Whether or not magic has always occupied more pages than has weapon-based combat in the books is beside the point. We have seen new subsystems for magic be added to differentiate casters and how they use magic and things similar to magic rules like monks with ki points be added. While melee and ranged combat has gotten the shortest straw and has stagnated in terms of design.
Your reply misses my main points that (1) you would think given all the time poured into design they might come up with something a little more innovative than Weapon Mastery for those inclined to use weapons and not opt for magic and (2) their having pretty much erased from the game adequate resources for having higher level characters do things beyond repeatedly saving the planet with the rest of the Avengers is another way the game has become more and more about super teams and the powers they possess. The current DMG barely even touches the surface. Not every player wants to just facilitate the power fantasies of those players at his or her table who are in control of the party's then godlike casters. Some players like it if their characters can do other things: e.g. "leading armies" or "schooling others in wizardry" or "running guilds." Nothing stopping us from doing these things. But Wizards have given these things less and less attention. D&D has always been about parties of adventurers. But the notable absence of resources that were in place to provide guidance on how to make each member in any such party feel so much more grounded in a campaign world? That's a real loss and one I think skews for many what D&D can be.
I hear you. I have taken to using ShadowDark to introduce new players to the hobby. It is basically 5E. Its focus on the traditional four classes however instead of saturating the game with options makes the classes feel more varied from one another. Less is more. And the innovations it has drawn from other OSR games has really made it something else. It deserved all four ENNIEs it received.
The idea now that every player must be able to fight during combat? I will never get this. A wizard who runs out of spells except for utility spells is forced to think outside of the box making for a much more interesting character than one that can just spam damage round after round.
It used to be that it was not uncommon for characters to have to flee. And even the most brave of characters in the literature did that occasionally. Fafhrd comes to mind. A character who is an outright coward and who habitually hides during combat can be a fun character. And should that character ever overcome its fear that is now a character that has grown exponentially more than one that has just obtained new features and feats.
That has nothing to do with edition; I can create an unwinnable fight in any edition of D&D. Modern editions (3.0 and above) do have a concept of a balanced encounter which was largely absent in AD&D, and if you actually use those rules it's very unlikely that the PCs will need to flee, but there's no rule that says I can't drop an ancient dragon on a third level party.
Warlocks have always been a damage-dealer class, though. Eldritch Blast plus Agonizing Blast plus Hex is all right there in the PHB. But where's the high damage output Bard build? Where's the Barbarian healer build (it's going to have to be a lot more than "I can cast Cure Wounds as a first level spell my proficiency bonus times per day")? Where's the sorcerer tank*?
*I've seen theorycraft attempts to build one and they've all been terrible: they have to focus all their abilities on boosting the character's durability by burning through all their spells to the point that they can't do anything else.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yes, and it was bad. At low levels, you had a useless bozo you had to keep alive, and he could help once or twice, and then you've still got a useless bozo, except he no longer has his "break glass in case of emergency" ability ready. That's annoying for everyone, and not fun for the player, because they basically don't get to play most of the time.
The idea that everyone should be able to be at least moderately effective in combat at all times was just a straight-up improvement to the game.
(goes to look at healer feat)
Ok....
I think the origin feats are more generally useful than some, but healer is not particularly good, and it never gets better. (The 2014 version is outright better, and there's no way anybody took it unless they were in a party that was completely lacking in healing abilities.)
The thing is, Warlock is a DPS class. More often ranged, but the melee build doesn't suck. Fighter and barb are less DPS and more tank, particularly barb. (These roles often overlap, of course, and are more complicated than 'Tank', 'DPS', etc.) If they hadn't been there on the front lines, it would've rapidly illustrated the difference, because Warlock can dish it out, but they can't take it.
It also depends on how they're being played. You were warlock, multiclassing into paladin. You were optimizing for what you did. Were your fellow players?
The classes all have things they're good at, and they can excel at those, but they can't cover the full spectrum. There's not infrequently a subclass that lets them play against type to a degree, but they're still not as good at it as the specialists. (You can make a bladesinger wizard, and fight on the front lines, but you're not as good at it as the fighter is, and will often be better off as you level by staying behind the front and wizarding.)
But part of the game's design goals is that everyone should have combat effectiveness, so everybody's capabilities includes "and can more-or-less handle themselves in fight in a mixed party".
(And the optimizing subculture really loves DPS as a measurement because it's quantifiable, so there are "if you try hard enough, you can do absurd damage" builds for all the classes.)
I guarantee, WotC's designers have a deeper knowledge of 5e's flaws and design compromises than you do, and each and every one of them has a long, long, list of "Things I would change if I had absolute power over D&D."
But that is not their job. Their job is to deliver more 5e. And 5e had specific design constraints and goals, and 5e24 is largely locked to the constraints of 5e.
Do they play other systems? I can't say, but it's likely; trying out a new RPG is a lot easier than a new CCG is. But that doesn't mean the things they learn from them can work their way back into 5e.
It also doesn't mean they're playing your games. Games that are designed to look backward bring them fewer new ideas. When the day comes for 6e, it's more likely to be informed by Blades in the Dark than ShadowDark.
Why? I mean, sure, it's clearly a thing some people can enjoy, but do you really think arbitrary failure on your basic powers is a thing general audiences would find fun?
Also "the penalties are not trivial" reminds me of RoleMaster, where, if you fought long enough, you would eventually crit fumble badly enough to cut off your own limb. Or head. Maybe it's not that bad, but people don't like it when they get screwed purely by random chance.
You have no idea what he likes. He's doing PR. It's part of his job. Of course he's talking up 5e like it's the best thing since sliced ochre jelly. For all you know, he's got a regular home shadowdark game with a 75% kill rate. But even if he does, it doesn't mean D&D will ever be that.
The thing about learning from other systems is... you really can't do it and remain feeling like D&D, because D&D has a bunch of features that other games have deliberately done away with. Probably the most noticeable things of they were looking at non-D&D games that would just go away are armor class (if armor exists, it's damage reduction) and daily spell slots (magic recovery is either fast or based on a non-time-based resource, and is either per-ability limits or a shared resource pool).
There is a difference between mandatory and optional extremes. I've said this before, but it tends to be ignored. The reality is that the amount and variation of classes, species, backgrounds, and all of the other optimization choices and elements that cross-pollinate the nature of archetypes and the premise of setting and fantasy are all perfectly fine to be/exist in the core rulebook, in fact I would encourage it as long as and only if players can accept that it only breaks when you try to put everything into a single game. It should be understood the players handbook is never going to be all the options available in your game, these are all the options available in THE game for the DM to choose from and decide what will allowed the game.
Like I found that with 5e I could have a perfectly decent, balanced and long-running game as long as players were able to accept me throwing a wrench into optimization, placing limitations on choices based on setting and aesthetic of the game I wanted to created and allowed me to introduce mechanical adaptations to iron out some elements of the game that create a specific mood and playstyle. I think its going to be even more true with the revised edition. I think the only problem that exists is that if you take the entire players handbook and all the splatbooks (most of which are now part of the revised players handbook) you end up with the undefined hyper generic anything goes fantasy with very clearly hyperbroken combinations and options.
The funny thing is most of these presumed "adjustments" are actually official optional rules in the DMG and if they are not in the current DMG, they certainly existed in previous DMG's
Don't like all the self-healing... use gritty realism, slow natural healing, healer kit dependency and/or add Lingering Injuries. All official rules p. 266-267
Don't like some of the classes, sub-classes or specific abilities gained from them.. change them, official rules on page 287-288
Don't like hyper-optimized characters, roll 3d6 down the chain.. trust me, it fixes it.
In any case, the entire archetype conversation is very often (and it definitely is in the above discussions) very misunderstood. Archetypes and the class design of heavy limitations and heavy reliance on each other existed for a game with a wildly different playstyle than what is in the 5e (modern generation) of D&D. This playstyle which was the primary and default way to play D&D in 1e days is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve in modern games, you would literally have to redesign the whole game (ala Shadowdark for example). This playstyle simply does not exist in modern gaming anymore. So when we describe "archetypes" and whether they were a good thing or a bad thing,it makes no sense at all in the context of 5e. The two have nothing to do with each other, it's like discussing whether the Jamie Olivers cooking recipes are good or not and should be added to the player's handbook. These are two, unrelated topics that have nothing to do with one another, why are we even discussing it?
The only weird part is how some parts of this playstyle have been kept in the game out of tradition for some reason, yet they don't actually serve any purpose at all in the game anymore. We hang on to these weird D&D sacred cows because "it's D&D", but, the "D&D" we grew up with in the 80's doesn't exist anymore. It hasn't existed in the official D&D rules since 2nd edition AD&D, that was the last version of D&D as we (people who played the original game) knew it. Matt Coville does a great video that explains this premise. The main point of which is that 5e D&D is designed in such a way that it is literally a game absent of playstyle, it is a game about nothing. But I would argue all the pieces are there to make it into something and you do this by removing stuff.
I would question how you came to those conclusions.
For me, for example, a bard is someone who spent decades in study (which is historically accurate of that time period) but are powered by true inspiration (awen). They had roles in society with similar counterparts under other names in other cultures across the planet. They were mysterious and magical. Famous legends like Amergin, Myrddin (Merlin), and Taliesin were bards. The magical battle in Song of Rhiannon was done by bards. Gandalf was inspired by a Finnish bard legend. For modern counterparts I posted (over at Enworld) a bard build I'm working on Alice Coopers portrayal in Dynamite Comic's CHAOS! verse as the lord of nightmares.
The goal isn't to make a class what you see it as. The goal is to make the class capable of covering the different view of other people as well in how they see the class and cover as much as possible.
My examples aren't "dabblers" even though "dabbler" is a style of bard that can be applied. The classes should be capable of covering both styles. I could old school my bard by multiclassing and the less spell caster levels he has the more dabbler he is. Covered. Or I could select spells that suit more of "dabbler" style -- even roll them randomly, or only learn spells encountered or found on scrolls because class mechanics aren't actually required to roleplay that style.
I could also just play a rogue (arcane trickster), fighter (eldritch knight), or ranger (any) and build towards the bard style. I could even go with a much less magical bard with a barbarian, fighter, or rogue and build towards the style of the character. All I need to do is call myself a bard and play him like a bard.
I also have options withing the subclasses. A dance or valor bard using magic to support combat or skills takes different spells than a lore bard who might be more into knowledge and magic or a glamour bard who focuses on enchantments and illusion. Valor and lore bards are very classic tropes while glamor and dance fall into more modern tropes.
The concepts you're expressing are fluff. The more mechanics that get added to a class to force some of that fluff leads to less ability to reimagine the fluff to meet other viewpoints; therefore, it's that mechanical reinforcement that causes the need to add classes in order to maintain that variety of concepts.
Conversely, the less mechanics we have in the game the more we're forced to create our own fluff and variety diminishes. We need a happy middle ground to satisfy as many player as possible.
By labelling any of the classes in the way that you did you would be forcing your views onto other players if that was mechanically applied and make more work for them to make their own characters, possibly eliminating some character tropes altogether.
Created characters from classes, subclasses, and multi-classes should be about opening up archetypal tropes, forcing them. ;-)
I would say that people place too much emphasis on the "label" of a class. For example Eldritch Knight is not an archetype, it's not a setting premise, its an option. This is a fighter that uses magic as part of their abilities and while I don't think it's 's appropriate for every setting and should often be removed as an option, in my setting for example this is not only an important sub-class, its actually in Dragonborn culture the ONLY kind of fighter you can be. More importantly, the class is not called Eldritch Knight in my world, its called Cha'Arkaris.
If I was playing in Dragonlance, this sub-class would be banned from the game.
The point is that its existence as an option in the player's handbook is no a bad thing, it's a good thing. I fully agree with Ashrym that offering options, is not a flaw, its a perk, its less crap for me to have to invent when I'm creating a campaign or chronicle or building a new setting. I want 2nd edition D&D days of a million splat books, go nuts, I will buy them all... but ... no I won't offer them all in a single game and herein lays the problem with how most people handle D&D.
The only problem endless options create is if players, if the D&D culture believe everything in the PHP and splash books is cannon in every game and that all options must be available always or your a bad DM. That's when the whole thing falls apart and 5e goes from being a decent game to being a burning dumpster fire (same as 2e, same as 3e, same as 4e). You cannot run a game with all the options open, the game is completely broken if you do that and absolutely worthless in every way you can measure it and anyone who has ever played 5e or any system after 1e for any extended period knows this is true. You just can't run a "everything is open" game, it doesn't work, especially at anything past level 7 or 8.
With some restrictions and some common sense... well... actually than it can be quite brilliant. You just need to pluck from the options the things that make sense for your setting, use options to fine tune the experience to the tone you want. Its a great game when you use it responsibly. I think the reason so many DM's have problems in their game, as evidence from this forum that is absolutely litered with DM's reporting problems is this basic core premise. Don't allow everything. Its that simple.. be very picky.
It is kind of funny the certainty with which people who have never played other games will say nothing beats 5E. They cannot possibly know short of treating it as a popularity contest but popularity in any medium has never been a sign of greatness.
It ain't entirely dependent on edition. But as you yourself even mention we have seen more and more focus on balance and seen it prioritized in the development of the rules. And like I said: wizards and other casters can now just spam damage round after round. This has led to many approaching all classes the same way. Seeing them all as "fighters." To some degree. Throw a monster or monsters at a party and the player with the wizard wants to fight more than like I said "to think outside of the box." To use some utility spell say. To do something else. It's not as if the party's wizard can't do something else. Why does the party all have to hold hands and fight alongside one another whenever combat breaks out?
You could create an unwinnable fight even in 5E and your players if they were sensible wouldn't fight. My point however wasn't that entire parties would often flee. But that one or some members of a party would do so. For example: when they were out of spells. Which now never happens. Fewer players these days seem okay with the idea of a wizard say more vulnerable as far as HP is concerned having to flee or hide while others get to fight. As if that's "not fair." "Fair" or "unfair" I think what we are seeing is the prioritization of the role of combat in the game by ensuring every class and subclass is more than capable of it and the prioritization of this even over good characterization.
I am currently playing in a campaign and my barbarian is the party's healer. The Healer feat makes anyone a more than competent healer. A Hit Die at no cost to the healed. Plus the healer's proficiency bonus. Reroll any 1 for a chance to gain more than 1. The only cost for any of this is to expand a use of a healer's kit.
As I already asked: Why does every single member of a party have to fight when combat breaks out? Is there absolutely nothing else a wizard could possibly do? Is there no utility spell that might be utilized to continue doing whatever the party were doing before they were attacked? Is there some compelling reason the wizard simply cannot avoid the fray to instead move beyond the location in which the fight is taking place and make itself useful there? Making every class combat-ready is an awfully myopic approach to a game with which there are really no limits to the stories we can tell at our tables. If every time combat breaks out every single member of the party enters combat mode that is about as two-dimensional as storytelling can get.
I have played in campaigns using both D&D and WFRP in which little to no combat took place. Campaigns that were more about intrigue or even romance than they were the fantasy equivalent of just some empty MCU blockbuster that has viewers just waiting for the next fight scene. These ranking among the most memorable of games I have played in over the years.
EDIT: I'm curious to know if you reckon it is "bad" and that everyone else in an adventuring party is "a useless bozo" when it's the party's most charismatic getting the party out of trouble say? Is it "bad" and is everyone else "a useless bozo" when a member of a party does something during "downtime" that does not concern others? Does everyone else in the party have to hold the rogue's hand as he or she navigates through some business with a guild with which he or she has become affiliated? Why is it just combat in which everyone must play an active role? Must fight? You don't think this overemphasizes the role of combat in a game that is about so much more?
I don't think this is really true, I know this is something the developers say all the time, but the game is balanced using these odd ideologies that are in a constant upswing. For example they will make Wizards more powerful, so in turn they have to make fighters more powerful and then they have to make Monks more powerful which in turn means Druids need to be upgrade dand by then they are back to making Wizards even more powerful and so on and so forth, always in response to player complaints about how OP X class is compared to Y...
No one ever thinks, ok, lets trim this the other way. The reason they don't do that is D&D culture which has become so player centric with so little regard to the people running the games behind the screen that at this point, the idea of an AI DM and just cutting the job out entirely is starting to look pretty good. It's really not that fun to be a DM when running the game these days, its more like this burden of trying to keep the game from falling off the rails and all people are doing is just following the rules as written, so you can't exactly complain to the players even though, strictly speaking they are collectively the root cause.
This is why, I don't even consult players at my table about the very stiff changes I make to the game. Like every campaign I run, I gut the crap out of the power levels of the game. I take a lot of crap for it, but people always come back to my table and the reason is that my games run well, they run long and I produce a good experience. I don't think its possible to do it with the rules as written.
The reality is that the game is CRAZY OP at this point as written, it isn't even power fantasy anymore, we've had to invent an entirely new scale to describe your average D&D character. It's so far removed from the D&D medieval fantasy on which the game is based, its not even recognizable. Which is not to say I want to go back to Magic-Users with 1 spell, but the amount of design space between 1st edition AD&D Magic Users and Revised 5th edition Wizards is MASSIVE. I think there is a lot of middle ground we could find to bring the game back into a believable abstraction and a game that has sensible power levels.
You are right about that power creep. It is an endless stream of giving more to one class after another to achieve what is at least seen as balance.
The way people talk about older editions of D&D and how not "CRAZY OP" characters were back then you'd think no one had fun playing them. Even though they provided us with some of the most memorable gaming experiences of our lives. The 1981 Moldvay/Cook ruleset remains one of the most popular iterations of the game. Many a retro clone is based on it. And some people still play AD&D. But these "weren't fun" because one's character wasn't a superhero?
ShadowDark has received nothing but praise and promotion even from some of 5th. Edition's most visible advocates on YouTube. Because it has taken 5th. Edition and removed from it that power creep is just one of the many reasons for this.
Last time I checked the "basic powers" of any martial class was its prowess when it came to melee or ranged combat and the dice determine whether or not you are going to succeed or fail in that regard.
On a more serious note I would argue that the possibility of spell failure brings magic much more in line with how it works in fantasy fiction where we see users of magic often fail to cast.
I would also argue that there being consequences when spell failure is critical in nature makes magic look and feel more like magic instead of just superpowers at a character's disposal.
The DM's house rules in a campaign I played in that lasted three years saw Roll to Cast introduced into what was for all intents and purposes a 5E campaign. Not only did a fail mean the spell failed to cast but one's degree of success on a successful roll could mean the effects of the spell were more powerful. This made magic less predictable—and in turn less dull. One of the reasons a lot of players became burned out on 5E is because of how predictable it can be. Short of having a DM who is going to tinker with the rules as written everyone knows not only what this or that spell will do but what this or that class will get at any given level et cetera et cetera et cetera.
Do you not think "general audiences" would warm to the idea of making a roll to cast if a very good result meant the spell delivered more damage or grew in range or area or lasted longer or even indefinitely?
That's half the fun of DCC. And I bet if Wizards introduced that into official D&D tomorrow people would be singing from the rooftops about how brilliant it is.
Roll to cast is definitely a rule I have been considering for my next chronicle, but I'm still a bit on the fence about it. I agree with you from the stand point of fiction and fantasy, I agree that magic being dangerous and potentially failing is a cool theme, and sets a fun tone but I'm just not 100% sure its a good mechanic specifically in 5e, a game about high fantasy adventures.
Shadowdark has this mechanic but its a very different tone as one of the features of Shadowdark is that failure and higher-risk die rolls are a constant. It's a very dangerous game for every class and in a sense, magic without a chance of failure would actually be the most reliable weapon in the game. This is probably why designer added chance of failure to sort of bring the risk to the magic-user as well.
Just not 100% convinced that making magic in a high fantasy systems like 5e would bring it in line in terms of reliability equity. Like fighters in melee are very unlikely to miss their attacks, the success rates are very high and there are a lot of dice manipulation mechanics like advantage that are fairly easy to get for most classes that are mixing it up in melee's. I think if you brought chance of failure to magic, that would likely mean that the failure rate of casters would increase dramatically as many of their spells actually already have chances of failure between saving throws and ToHit rolls many spells come with. There aren't that many spells that guarantee their effects will go off in 5e, most have some sort of chance of failure already built in.
ShadowDark handles magic really well. I much prefer having to roll to cast even if this means the possibility of the spell not even manifesting than having success or failure dependent on an attack roll or a save made by the spell's target like it is in 5E. And given the number of spells the average caster in 5E has at its disposal it can be a real pain having to remember how each one even works.
You do though make a good point about how this might not match the more high fantasy angle with which they have gone with 5E.
It really does come down to what people want at their tables. And we are spoiled for choice today with so many great games out there.
Yeah I get that, but that is on top of the already built-in failure rates (saving throws, missing to hit rolls). Its a bit like adding a % miss chance to attacks on top the already existing to hit roll. Its sort of like a double penalty in many cases when it comes to magic in 5e.