I just rolled the following numbers: 10, 13, 8, 15, 11, 17. Right off I see that I should make a character that really only needs one good stat. To my eyes I see a rogue. Kind of weak and weaselly sort. Bit of outcast that lives on the fringes.
So arrange the stats. Str 8, Dex 17, Con 10, Int 13, Wis 15, Cha 11.
So my outcast is starting to take shape. I gotta pick a race though. I don't generally think of Halflings, Elves and Dwarves as the outcast type, but a Tiefling could be fun or maybe human. Nope, Tiefling is stuck in my mind.
Now the stats are Str 8, Dex 17, Con 10, Int 14, Wis 15, Cha 13.
She has lived on the streets most of her life, picking the pockets of travelers. I think Urchin fits well in this case, I might have gone with Charlatan if her charisma were a little higher, but that is not how this character worked out. She is above average in charisma, but her attitude tends to get in the way of pulling off any worthwhile cons. Living on the streets has left her a bit malnourished and scrawny, but that works in her favor when it comes time to give the guards the slip.
There you go. That is how that character worked out for level 1. Depending on how the campaign would go, I could see her going Thief at level 3, but she may go Arcane Trickster should things play out differently.
I think the 5e developers and product managers are more than happy to expand the game horizontally (so to speak) with greater and greater diversity of race options settings and (to some extent) subclasses. just look at how excited they were about the new Strixhaven colleges, which of course kind of got 'shot down' by the feedback after the UA release. I'm afraid when stuff like that happens it probably reinforces their assumptions that the customer base will not support more 'texture or depth'. But there is a big difference between adding complexity (e.g. new colleges of magic) and adding more texture and depth in my opinion at least.
It is so-called 'vertical' expansion that gives them pause. What EN are looking to do IMO is bring more texture and control / player agency to the levelling up process and specifically the management of the core class features (rather than purely relying on subclasses for flavour)... For instance: with the martial classes and in particular ranger it seems their objective is to make them as interesting and fun to play as the full spell-casting classes (which by definition have so much more so-called texture due to the variety and breadth of spells available ). EN take the view (and I agree with them) that fleshing out the martial classes at the core class level rather than simply relying on wider and wider array of subclasses which really do quickly become so niche (e.g. swarm keeper, rune master, samurai ) will end up increasing both fun and (importantly) the sense of agency and control a player has to build the precise type of character she wishes to play. Games like Dungeon World, 13th Age and (yes) Pathfinder 2e have some features that can help us keep 5e as the elegant and versatile system it is while at the same time allowing a little more scope for player led customisation.
I would agree generally but saying that it would be great if we had a more rotisserie approach to building out characters such as what is seen in games like Skyrim, Assassin's Creed, Dungeon World or 13th Age. The whole lock-in-to-a-subclass thing seems rigid. Also the optional features from Tasha's were awesome and I'd like see more of that type of thing. I think it can be done without adding complexity.
I forget where I heard about this, but the coolest thing I'd like to see is something along the lines of prestige classes. Further specializations in your class without feats/multiclassing would be super cool imo, especially since characters make their archetype choice by lvl 3. I'd just like to see something for later levels that would customize the class
“What EN are looking to do IMO is bring more texture and control / player agency to the levelling up process and specifically the management of the core class features (rather than purely relying on subclasses for flavour)... For instance: with the martial classes and in particular ranger it seems their objective is to make them as interesting and fun to play as the full spell-casting classes (which by definition have so much more so-called texture due to the variety and breadth of spells available ). EN take the view (and I agree with them) that fleshing out the martial classes at the core class level rather than simply relying on wider and wider array of subclasses which really do quickly become so niche (e.g. swarm keeper, rune master, samurai ) will end up increasing both fun and (importantly) the sense of agency and control a player has to build the precise type of character she wishes to play.”
Might be more accurate to say that what it doesn't sound like is the old school D&D approach 5e took. There is a strange pleasure some people take in the concept that wizards should be deep and complex to play but fighters should just be dumb meatbags who hit things and be hit by things. D&D is the exception here, not the rule. Depth across classes is pretty standard these days.
Might be more accurate to say that what it doesn't sound like is the old school D&D approach 5e took. There is a strange pleasure some people take in the concept that wizards should be deep and complex to play but fighters should just be dumb meatbags who hit things and be hit by things. D&D is the exception here, not the rule. Depth across classes is pretty standard these days.
Well, it's not a problem per se to have classes that are simple to play -- there are plenty of players who do not want to deal with complexity. The problem is that the simple classes are pigeonholed into certain roles and are generally designed to be inferior (look at the amount of grief the champion gets), particularly at higher levels.
Might be more accurate to say that what it doesn't sound like is the old school D&D approach 5e took. There is a strange pleasure some people take in the concept that wizards should be deep and complex to play but fighters should just be dumb meatbags who hit things and be hit by things. D&D is the exception here, not the rule. Depth across classes is pretty standard these days.
Well, it's not a problem per se to have classes that are simple to play -- there are plenty of players who do not want to deal with complexity. The problem is that the simple classes are pigeonholed into certain roles and are generally designed to be inferior (look at the amount of grief the champion gets), particularly at higher levels.
I don’t know if simple classes are pigeon-holed into certain roles. The Warlock is about as easy a spellcaster as can be done, while the Paladin, the Hexblade, etc. provide a swordsman with plenty of complexity.
Or Pathfinder. Or the Book of Seven Swords. In any case, I don't think the core complaint with 4e was that it made martial classes interesting.
If you don’t find martial types interesting, then I don’t believe you are trying hard enough. The Paladin can be very interesting to pick just one example.
Paladins have exactly ONE extra button in combat - "do I bother with Smite?". Otherwise they're barely more engaging than a typical Champion fighter.
Also why did we feel the need to resurrect this old dead thread to chatter about this? It had failed to serve its purpose over a year ago.
I think you forgot that Paladins have a lot of spells, healing, and skills, all of which can be used in combat, as well as positioning so that the party gets optimal use of Paladin auras.
Paladins have spellcasting, yes. They don't use it in combat because their whole gameplan is "burn every spell I can on Divine Smite". You might - might - see a paladin cast one buff spell at the start of combat, but that's it. Positioning themselves to hit their enemy with their hittin' stick is going to be more important than Maximizing Their Aura - that's on everybody else in the party to do, not the paladin. Moment-to-moment paladin gameplay mostly consists of "where do I need to stand in order to beat on this thing with my sword until it runs out of candy?"
Can you make paladins more complicated? Sure - if you want to be bad at paladin. And even if you don't consider it being bad at paladin, that still doesn't solve the other half-dozen martial classes being painfully one-note, boring, and essentially pointless.
Paladins have spellcasting, yes. They don't use it in combat because their whole gameplan is "burn every spell I can on Divine Smite". You might - might - see a paladin cast one buff spell at the start of combat, but that's it. Positioning themselves to hit their enemy with their hittin' stick is going to be more important than Maximizing Their Aura - that's on everybody else in the party to do, not the paladin. Moment-to-moment paladin gameplay mostly consists of "where do I need to stand in order to beat on this thing with my sword until it runs out of candy?"
Can you make paladins more complicated? Sure - if you want to be bad at paladin. And even if you don't consider it being bad at paladin, that still doesn't solve the other half-dozen martial classes being painfully one-note, boring, and essentially pointless.
[REDACTED]
A Paladin who wants to burn everything on smites is not a very effectively played Paladin. To pick just one example, a Conquest Paladin can get a lot of bang out of a Fear spell.
Paladins have spellcasting, yes. They don't use it in combat because their whole gameplan is "burn every spell I can on Divine Smite". You might - might - see a paladin cast one buff spell at the start of combat, but that's it. Positioning themselves to hit their enemy with their hittin' stick is going to be more important than Maximizing Their Aura - that's on everybody else in the party to do, not the paladin. Moment-to-moment paladin gameplay mostly consists of "where do I need to stand in order to beat on this thing with my sword until it runs out of candy?"
Can you make paladins more complicated? Sure - if you want to be bad at paladin. And even if you don't consider it being bad at paladin, that still doesn't solve the other half-dozen martial classes being painfully one-note, boring, and essentially pointless.
[REDACTED]
A Paladin who wants to burn everything on smites is not a very effectively played Paladin. To pick just one example, a Conquest Paladin can get a lot of bang out of a Fear spell.
Oh, and a Command spell to Grovel meaning that the enemy can’t stand back up? Pure gold.
Paladins have spellcasting, yes. They don't use it in combat because their whole gameplan is "burn every spell I can on Divine Smite". You might - might - see a paladin cast one buff spell at the start of combat, but that's it. Positioning themselves to hit their enemy with their hittin' stick is going to be more important than Maximizing Their Aura - that's on everybody else in the party to do, not the paladin. Moment-to-moment paladin gameplay mostly consists of "where do I need to stand in order to beat on this thing with my sword until it runs out of candy?"
Can you make paladins more complicated? Sure - if you want to be bad at paladin. And even if you don't consider it being bad at paladin, that still doesn't solve the other half-dozen martial classes being painfully one-note, boring, and essentially pointless.
[REDACTED]
A Paladin who wants to burn everything on smites is not a very effectively played Paladin. To pick just one example, a Conquest Paladin can get a lot of bang out of a Fear spell.
[REDACTED]
Paladins will use the majority of their slots on smite and that's just a truth. They will occasionally use slots for things like bless or if they get spirit guardians but it's mostly to augment their ability to get smites off
Don't antagonize me. You know exactly where that leads and nobody here wants it.
Paladins have spellcasting, yes. They don't use it in combat because their whole gameplan is "burn every spell I can on Divine Smite". You might - might - see a paladin cast one buff spell at the start of combat, but that's it. Positioning themselves to hit their enemy with their hittin' stick is going to be more important than Maximizing Their Aura - that's on everybody else in the party to do, not the paladin. Moment-to-moment paladin gameplay mostly consists of "where do I need to stand in order to beat on this thing with my sword until it runs out of candy?"
Can you make paladins more complicated? Sure - if you want to be bad at paladin. And even if you don't consider it being bad at paladin, that still doesn't solve the other half-dozen martial classes being painfully one-note, boring, and essentially pointless.
Antagonize you? I’m complementing you and stating my appreciation.
if you find that antagonistic, then you’ve misunderstood me.
A Paladin who wants to burn everything on smites is not a very effectively played Paladin. To pick just one example, a Conquest Paladin can get a lot of bang out of a Fear spell.
Oh, and a Command spell to Grovel meaning that the enemy can’t stand back up? Pure gold.
And the fact is that there should be classes that you, yourself, find boring and one note.
Those classes are for people who want or need something easy to play.
There are a multitude of useful things a paly can use spell sots for, not least of which are Shield of faith, Mirror image, Darkness, Hex, and Shield are my go to spells for my Paly. There are loads of others too depending on your build. I usually have either shield of faith or hex up, sometimes bless. One of my allies casts darkness on me or I cast darkness and mirror image. If I don't use shield of faith then I often have mirror image. They are just too good not to have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok sure, why not.
I just rolled the following numbers: 10, 13, 8, 15, 11, 17. Right off I see that I should make a character that really only needs one good stat. To my eyes I see a rogue. Kind of weak and weaselly sort. Bit of outcast that lives on the fringes.
So arrange the stats. Str 8, Dex 17, Con 10, Int 13, Wis 15, Cha 11.
So my outcast is starting to take shape. I gotta pick a race though. I don't generally think of Halflings, Elves and Dwarves as the outcast type, but a Tiefling could be fun or maybe human. Nope, Tiefling is stuck in my mind.
Now the stats are Str 8, Dex 17, Con 10, Int 14, Wis 15, Cha 13.
She has lived on the streets most of her life, picking the pockets of travelers. I think Urchin fits well in this case, I might have gone with Charlatan if her charisma were a little higher, but that is not how this character worked out. She is above average in charisma, but her attitude tends to get in the way of pulling off any worthwhile cons. Living on the streets has left her a bit malnourished and scrawny, but that works in her favor when it comes time to give the guards the slip.
There you go. That is how that character worked out for level 1. Depending on how the campaign would go, I could see her going Thief at level 3, but she may go Arcane Trickster should things play out differently.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think the 5e developers and product managers are more than happy to expand the game horizontally (so to speak) with greater and greater diversity of race options settings and (to some extent) subclasses. just look at how excited they were about the new Strixhaven colleges, which of course kind of got 'shot down' by the feedback after the UA release. I'm afraid when stuff like that happens it probably reinforces their assumptions that the customer base will not support more 'texture or depth'. But there is a big difference between adding complexity (e.g. new colleges of magic) and adding more texture and depth in my opinion at least.
It is so-called 'vertical' expansion that gives them pause. What EN are looking to do IMO is bring more texture and control / player agency to the levelling up process and specifically the management of the core class features (rather than purely relying on subclasses for flavour)... For instance: with the martial classes and in particular ranger it seems their objective is to make them as interesting and fun to play as the full spell-casting classes (which by definition have so much more so-called texture due to the variety and breadth of spells available ). EN take the view (and I agree with them) that fleshing out the martial classes at the core class level rather than simply relying on wider and wider array of subclasses which really do quickly become so niche (e.g. swarm keeper, rune master, samurai ) will end up increasing both fun and (importantly) the sense of agency and control a player has to build the precise type of character she wishes to play. Games like Dungeon World, 13th Age and (yes) Pathfinder 2e have some features that can help us keep 5e as the elegant and versatile system it is while at the same time allowing a little more scope for player led customisation.
---
Don't be Lawful Evil
I would agree generally but saying that it would be great if we had a more rotisserie approach to building out characters such as what is seen in games like Skyrim, Assassin's Creed, Dungeon World or 13th Age. The whole lock-in-to-a-subclass thing seems rigid. Also the optional features from Tasha's were awesome and I'd like see more of that type of thing. I think it can be done without adding complexity.
---
Don't be Lawful Evil
I forget where I heard about this, but the coolest thing I'd like to see is something along the lines of prestige classes. Further specializations in your class without feats/multiclassing would be super cool imo, especially since characters make their archetype choice by lvl 3. I'd just like to see something for later levels that would customize the class
“What EN are looking to do IMO is bring more texture and control / player agency to the levelling up process and specifically the management of the core class features (rather than purely relying on subclasses for flavour)... For instance: with the martial classes and in particular ranger it seems their objective is to make them as interesting and fun to play as the full spell-casting classes (which by definition have so much more so-called texture due to the variety and breadth of spells available ). EN take the view (and I agree with them) that fleshing out the martial classes at the core class level rather than simply relying on wider and wider array of subclasses which really do quickly become so niche (e.g. swarm keeper, rune master, samurai ) will end up increasing both fun and (importantly) the sense of agency and control a player has to build the precise type of character she wishes to play.”
Sounds like 4e.
Or Pathfinder. Or the Book of Seven Swords. In any case, I don't think the core complaint with 4e was that it made martial classes interesting.
Might be more accurate to say that what it doesn't sound like is the old school D&D approach 5e took. There is a strange pleasure some people take in the concept that wizards should be deep and complex to play but fighters should just be dumb meatbags who hit things and be hit by things. D&D is the exception here, not the rule. Depth across classes is pretty standard these days.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Well, it's not a problem per se to have classes that are simple to play -- there are plenty of players who do not want to deal with complexity. The problem is that the simple classes are pigeonholed into certain roles and are generally designed to be inferior (look at the amount of grief the champion gets), particularly at higher levels.
I don’t know if simple classes are pigeon-holed into certain roles. The Warlock is about as easy a spellcaster as can be done, while the Paladin, the Hexblade, etc. provide a swordsman with plenty of complexity.
If you don’t find martial types interesting, then I don’t believe you are trying hard enough. The Paladin can be very interesting to pick just one example.
Paladins have exactly ONE extra button in combat - "do I bother with Smite?". Otherwise they're barely more engaging than a typical Champion fighter.
Also why did we feel the need to resurrect this old dead thread to chatter about this? It had
failed toserve its purpose over a year ago.Please do not contact or message me.
I think you forgot that Paladins have a lot of spells, healing, and skills, all of which can be used in combat, as well as positioning so that the party gets optimal use of Paladin auras.
[REDACTED]
I mean, they aren’t meant to be full casters. That’s a good thing.
[REDACTED]
Paladins have spellcasting, yes. They don't use it in combat because their whole gameplan is "burn every spell I can on Divine Smite". You might - might - see a paladin cast one buff spell at the start of combat, but that's it. Positioning themselves to hit their enemy with their hittin' stick is going to be more important than Maximizing Their Aura - that's on everybody else in the party to do, not the paladin. Moment-to-moment paladin gameplay mostly consists of "where do I need to stand in order to beat on this thing with my sword until it runs out of candy?"
Can you make paladins more complicated? Sure - if you want to be bad at paladin. And even if you don't consider it being bad at paladin, that still doesn't solve the other half-dozen martial classes being painfully one-note, boring, and essentially pointless.
Please do not contact or message me.
[REDACTED]
A Paladin who wants to burn everything on smites is not a very effectively played Paladin. To pick just one example, a Conquest Paladin can get a lot of bang out of a Fear spell.
Oh, and a Command spell to Grovel meaning that the enemy can’t stand back up? Pure gold.
[REDACTED]
Paladins will use the majority of their slots on smite and that's just a truth. They will occasionally use slots for things like bless or if they get spirit guardians but it's mostly to augment their ability to get smites off
And the fact is that there should be classes that you, yourself, find boring and one note.
Those classes are for people who want or need something easy to play.
A reminder to everyone to remain civil; if you cannot post in a respectful fashion, it's wise not to post at all
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
There are a multitude of useful things a paly can use spell sots for, not least of which are Shield of faith, Mirror image, Darkness, Hex, and Shield are my go to spells for my Paly. There are loads of others too depending on your build. I usually have either shield of faith or hex up, sometimes bless. One of my allies casts darkness on me or I cast darkness and mirror image. If I don't use shield of faith then I often have mirror image. They are just too good not to have.