Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Barbarian rage: Almost follows the pattern of "number of rage per day = to proficiency bonus". Gets 1 rage per short rest
Bardic inspiration: Number of times per day = charisma modifier. Level 5 = refresh all on short rest
Cleric channel divinity: Starts on level 2. Two uses per day, refreshing one per short rest.
Druid wild shape: Starts on level 2. Same as cleric
Fighter action surge: Starts on level 2. Once per short rest.
Monk focus: Starts on level 2. Regain all focus points on short rest.
Paladin channel divinity: Starts on level 3. Otherwise same as cleric.
Ranger favored enemy: Follows proficiency bonus exactly, only refreshes on long rest
Rogues: Resource limited actions? No! Unlimited ones thank you very much.
Sorcerer innate sorcery: 2 times a day, refresh on long rest
Warlock pact magic: Almost "number of times per short rest = proficiency bonus -2".
Wizard arcane recovery: 1 per long rest
I know there are some additional options for some classes at higher levels - but let's ignore that for now and just focus on the early levels for these staple class abilities.Why isn't the same system used for all of them? Do a "number of times per day = proficiency bonus + 1 regained per short rest".
Is it perhaps because it would make some classes a lot more powerful? Yeah, then the problem is that the ability is too powerful and you have to hack a limit to the ability rather than having a unified mechanic to use that ability.
So my question would be. Can you see any obvious problems with house ruling all of these class abilities to be = proficiency bonus per day + 1 regained per short rest?
Because there's no reason to, especially given each class uses their limited resources in a different manner.
You're falling into the symmetry trap—a very common, almost intuition level belief that symmetric design is somehow better/right.
It's not a hack to dial in the limit of a resource to fit it's power level, it's good design. What isn't good design is coming up with identical resource limits based on the arbitrary reason of "that way they're all the same" and then trying to dial in the power level to fit.
Yes, these abilities aren't designed to work that way so there's no rational reason to make the change and you'll just risk breaking some of the abilities.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Mentioning that the abilities themselves aren't necessarily of equal merit(as noted above), although that is somewhat intuitive to some, is still worth stating specifically.
A Barbarians Rage is pretty core to their design, while Bardic Inspiration might be considered this as well BUT, it is a party support utility. Some of these class specific abilities aren't critical core components of the class but, are quality of life or conveniences. Sometimes the benefit is more specific to the character and other times it's a full party buff that is a bigger gain for others or the party at large than it is to the character that invokes the effect.
Remember how everyone hates 4e, partially because of this idea? It tends to make things boring, and that forces all of the abilities to have the exact same power level. I want classes to feel different.
That was actually a criticism of 4e I personally agreed with. I'm going to be simplistic (and a touch hyperbolic) but it'd basically be
"Oh, we're level 4. My wizard gets Forking Blast which lets me deal 2d6 damage to a creature within 10 squares and then 1d6 to a creature within 5 squares of the first. Hey Sarah, what does your Ranger get?"
"She get's a cool Ranger power called Ricochet Arrow. It let's her shoot an enemy within 10 squares to deal 2d6 damage and then bounce the arrow off them to deal 1d6 damage to a second creature within 5 squares..."
"Oh, that's cool, uh Becks, what does your Fighter get?"
"Huh, he gets "Boomerang Throw" which lets him throw a melee weapon to deal 2d6 damage and....yeah...deal another 1d6 to a second creature no more than 5 squares away..."
Now it wasn't literally that bad, but it was pretty darn close. Asymmetry between classes is a strength
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Doing something proficiency bonus times per day gets real weird with multiclassing. As PB scales with character level, you have someone with a 1-level dip in a class being able to do the thing as often as someone who is single-classed all the way to 20.
Also, to the OP’s idea that allowing someone to use an ability more often would make the ability more powerful seems like a strange flaw in logic. Letting the character do it more would make it too powerful, so the game restricts how often they can do it. And then you criticize the game for restricting how often they can do it.
It seems like the developers already found the solution to the ability being overpowered, and then you want to remove that solution and blame them for designing the power incorrectly.
If i could wildshape my proficiency bonus number of times, my druid would be such a menace to the table, because wildshape as a feature is so much more varied and potent than say, Bardic inspiration.
The limitations are there to balance out the usefulness of the power. If they were all the same, then classes would lose their flare.
There was already a rebalancing in 5.5 by shuffling around when Warlock and Cleric get their specialties. They used to get them at level 1, now it is level 3 like everyone else. If they made class progression all the same, it would strip a lot of variety out of the game.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
This honestly makes me think of someone complaining that a recipe calls for a teaspoon of salt, a pinch of chilli powder, and a tablespoon of mixed herbs, with their solution being "Make it a teaspoon of each thing, and if that ruins the recipe, well it's a bad recipe and you should just change the ingredient"
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
So so so much this. I have a huge collection of TSR/WotC books all the way back to 1st edition AD&D, but I took a couple of looks at the 4E PHB and never spent a dime on the entire edition. If DnD goes back to this count me out.
Yes this makes it hard for everything to feel 100% balanced all the time, but this isn't a competitive game, it's all about fun storytelling. "Ooh, we can all do the same thing but it has a different name." - that's 0% interesting. Also not what the OP was suggesting, but bottom line: making classes feel more same-y is definitely not a good thing.
I'd much rather that different characters have different cadences so each one shines at different times and gets their spotlight. Everyone having the spotlight at the same time just means no one gets it.
Now that subclass progression cadence is that same, you need to retain variety in power and frequency of use for abilities. One person gets a powerful attack that they can only do a couple of times, while another gets one that is less powerful but can do half a dozen times. That makes the spotlight shift between them and provides variety.
If anything, I want less uniformity, not more.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I prefer class features to be
(some number based on class level) per day
That way, you dont get a reward for a 1 level dip into a class that uses proficiency bonus to scale that feature.
Sneak Attack is roughly (rogue level/2) d6
If it was (pb)d6, everyone would dip into rogue 1 level to get sneak attack and then use pb to scale the damage.
There's another detail you're missing here. You're cherry-picking abilities to make a point. Other abilities:
Barbarian: Reckless Attack (unlimited uses)
Fighter: Second Wind (start with 2 uses, more over time, recover 1 use on short rest)
Monk: Deflect Attacks (unlimited uses)
Paladin: Lay on Hands (5xPaladinLevel points, use any number you want each time)
Sorcerer: Sorcery Points (SorcererLevel points, used for multiple abilities, Metamagic, and spell slots)
All of this doesn't even touch on subclasses (which is where most Proficiency-based tracking is for abilities), Weapon Mastery as class features enhancing flexibility, or spellcasting as a primary feature of a class. And you're really reaching on Warlock. That tracking only follows for levels 9-10 then 13-20. "Almost" is apparently half, and not the more commonly played half.
Another factor is what else the class can do. Sure, clerics and druids only get a couple of uses. They're also full casters.
Meanwhile, monks recharge their entire, potentially quite large, pool every short rest. That pool is the power source for everything they do.
Yeah, this was on purpose. Because I was only focusing on the core identifying feature of the class. Other abilities are of varying "effectiveness" to add or subtract from the power difference of the identifying feature.
I get what people are saying about the 4e problem. Not every ability can just be a reskin of the same ability for each class. And clearly the identifying features of each class can not be like that. Otherwise there is no real difference.
And yes, you can argue that I did not identify the correct core features of each class - like reckless attack and second wind. But this was more of a general observation on the "core features". Even combining action surge and second wind for fighter you still have a mismatch. Reckless attack also has it's own penalty.
I'm not advocating for this being the same reskinned ability at all. I'm also not saying other abilities need to follow this identical mechanic. I'm just trying to say that the "identifying features" of each class should be something you can kind of use as much as any other class.
No, because that requires that the "identifying feature"—be it wild shape, sneak attack, rage, divine intervention, or focus points—needs to be exactly as powerful across each class. Which would seriously limit what those features could actually do and would seriously homogenise the classes to a detrimental degree.
You're saying they "should" be this way
Why? What is the benefit?
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Ok, but like, a class is more than their "identifying features." Many of which are not all the special on their own and i don't get why you picked, and i would say are much less special than what the same class has that you didn't call "identifying features" in order to present a mismatch that is not there.
Druid Gets Natural recovery, which is similar the Arcane Recovery of wizard, but Wizard gets Memorize spell where they can switch out a spell in a minute instead of during a long rest, something Druid does not get. Wouldn't that be more of an Identifying feature than Arcane recovery? Wouldn't Sorcerer's Identifying feature be Meta magic?
Not to mention their Caster type is more of a core identity than these little features. Druid, Wizard and Cleric are prepared casters, with Druid and Cleric having access to all their spells of a given level, whereas Wizard finds and Scribes spells, but has a plethora of versatile options that Druid and Cleric don't get at all, they must be found or obtained on level.
Bard, Warlock and Sorcerer have a Repertoire of set spells, are a little less decision heavy in the moment but do take long term planning if you want to be versatile, or become specialized. Within those three, Bard is a Swiss army knife of support functions, Warlock is Burst Damage king, and arguably dungeon crawl endurance champions if short rests are available, and sorcerer is a decent base to build into a thematic character based on Metamagic choices, from blaster caster, elemental damage savant, to a social manipulating genius.
Barbarian and Fighter while both martials but function so differently as to being flavorfully distinct, and taking time to learn when switching from one to the other.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
Most classes don't have an "identifying feature" the way you seem to think. They're a gestalt. All the features come together to create the class fantasy.
Take the wizard. Their identifying feature isn't arcane recovery. That's just something they have to keep them going on long adventuring days.
Their identifying feature is that they have the biggest spell list, with the best spells, and more flexibility in swapping those spells out than anybody else. The class fantasy is Good At Magic.
Similarly, the fighter's identifying feature is "Best At Combat". If anything, their identifying feature is Extra Attack, though that only really differentiates them at high levels. The class fantasy is established by the combination of that, their proficiencies, fighting styles, extra feats, and yes, action surge and second wind.
(And yes, other classes can be argued to be better at combat, especially when you measure that on burst damage, but that's an argument for a different thread.)
And so on. One of the good game design features of a class-based system is that the classes don't have to be structured similarly.
Rage - Typically needs to be used once a fight maybe twice. If you need more than PB+1 and a 1 use refresh every short rest. You are in a meat grinder not a D&D campaign.
Bardic inspiration - It's uses correlate to the idea that a Bard should be using this ability almost all the time, in and out of fights so it needed more uses/ better refresh.
Cleric channel divinity - Generally very impactful, so if they could use it like Rage aka every fight, it would mean the cool ability would be too powerful or need to be tunned down.
Druid wild shape: Again same thing, if the Druid is wild shaping 3 times in a fight, every fight then the druid has WAY too much health or the fight is deadly enough to warrant that, but not every fight needs that.
Fighter action surge - Should a fighter be able to take multiple turns in the same fight? Probably not. If this was like Bardic again the fights would be too easy or your DM has you in a meat grinder.
Monk focus - Almost all features a monk uses needs the FP so again like Bardic it makes sense to keep refreshing them.
Paladin channel divinity - Same as Druid/Cleric
Ranger favored enemy - I mean while low level, it is a free use of spell. Follows most features that allow you to use a spell freely
Sorcerer innate sorcery - Very cinematic and meant to not be used all the time, hence the low uses.
Warlock pact magic - And all spells are cast at highest level, again if this was PB+1 on a long rest - not enough uses. On a short rest - too strong.
Wizard arcane recovery - The fact they can get any spell slots back is a boost, not to mention all the other abilities they get to cast free spells.
Because symmetrical, fair and balanced are very different things.
Just to +1 this point. Symmetry makes balance easy, but it doesn't really make gameplay interesting. One of the ways of making a fun and engaging game that is replayable is to make the gameplay as asymmetrical as possible while maintaining balance. And in a game like DnD, where interclass balance is less of a concern (because PvP is not encouraged as a core feature), leaning on the asymmetry to create that interesting gameplay and replayability makes a lot of sense (though replayability in DnD can lean heavily on good narratives, even when playing similar characters).
Netrunner was a great example of this in the cardgame space. The two sides play very differently, but games were mostly balanced and that added a lot to the fun of the game.