I think there is a fundamental difference with how different people view dnd.
Some see it as a fixed game like chess. You pick your pieces which are all different from each other, yet fixed, then go and work through a pre set dungeon. Asking for new classes or mixed classes is like asking for a new type of chess piece.
Others see it as an adventure RPG, and want to make their own character, and then do their own stories and character development, and grow more and more frustrated trying to hammer this interesting character they have in their head into a class which doesn't suit them mechanically, thematically, or both.
I'm not sure that it's possible to reconcile these two different approaches.
I think there is a fundamental difference with how different people view dnd.
Some see it as a fixed game like chess. You pick your pieces which are all different from each other, yet fixed, then go and work through a pre set dungeon. Asking for new classes or mixed classes is like asking for a new type of chess piece.
Others see it as an adventure RPG, and want to make their own character, and then do their own stories and character development, and grow more and more frustrated trying to hammer this interesting character they have in their head into a class which doesn't suit them mechanically, thematically, or both.
I'm not sure that it's possible to reconcile these two different approaches.
A biased comparison, but a good one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
If you want a bard that can backstab, cleric that can cast meteor swarm, or a monk that can rage, etc, what is the point of having classes?
Besides, you can do that currently in 5E, just multiclass.
First, "choices" does not mean "Unlimited choices". There's no particular reason any of those options would be possible (though an unarmed combat specialist barbarian sounds cool to me). Secondly, 5e multiclassing mostly amounts to exploit-ey dips and ways of making ineffective characters. Third, the basic problem with gish builds is that you have a finite action economy, and for any given action you're only using one class -- which generally means you have a choice between two subpar options, unless you're using action types that are only particularly available to one class (e.g. casting bonus action spells on a fighter build).
If you want a bard that can backstab, cleric that can cast meteor swarm, or a monk that can rage, etc, what is the point of having classes?
Besides, you can do that currently in 5E, just multiclass.
First, "choices" does not mean "Unlimited choices". There's no particular reason any of those options would be possible (though an unarmed combat specialist barbarian sounds cool to me). Secondly, 5e multiclassing mostly amounts to exploit-ey dips and ways of making ineffective characters. Third, the basic problem with gish builds is that you have a finite action economy, and for any given action you're only using one class -- which generally means you have a choice between two subpar options, unless you're using action types that are only particularly available to one class (e.g. casting bonus action spells on a fighter build).
Puglist....yes pls. Quickened spell is the only way to PROPERLY Cast/whack in the same turn. Sorcadins are so much fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I'm not in favor of a la carte character creation. Character classes should mean something.
If each class means a lot, then there needs to be a lot of classes to let people make the characters they want.
If classes are more flexible with lots of choice, there can be a lot less classes while still offering the same variety.
I wouldn't mind more classes, but as I said before, unless they can come up with completely different mechanics and abilities, it's just going to result in more overlap than currently exists.
I mean, most fighter type classes can cast spells to some degree in 5E, something that much earlier editions either didn't allow, or were very restrictive. To me, that was a big step in flexibility.
If you want a bard that can backstab, cleric that can cast meteor swarm, or a monk that can rage, etc, what is the point of having classes?
Besides, you can do that currently in 5E, just multiclass.
Precisely. The concept of picking class features from a pool is the same concept as picking ability bonuses from a pool, which is to say, awful. Now all chars are just re-skinned blobs created from the same material, and the term "class". loses all meaning. We already see this with the truly idiotic ideas put forward in the UA created some months ago.
Ouch. I liked those feats! And... Guess what? Multiclassing does limit a characters potential power!
A lot of people want more classes. To those who want less classes or no more classes, how would it harm you to have more options in the game for classes? Don't give me the "it will destroy D&D" argument. That's BS. There's absolutely no reason why adding about half a dozen more classes to the game would destroy the hobby as we know it. How would it hurt you to have a Psion, Warlord, Occultist, Magus, and/or Shaman in the game?
I wouldn't go so far to suggest that it would destroy D&D, but the point I'm making is that there is a difference between what a Class can do and who a character is. By becoming overly specific about what classes can do, the more your character is the class rather then the concept. If you pick a Fighter as your class, you might be a Thyatian Gladiator or a Alphatian Guard, that will define what kinds of armor you wear, what weapons you use, how you narrate your fighting style. You choose to do those things, they are not class features, they are part of your character concept. What is being suggested is that because those are "possible choices" then we must have classes that define them. Hence we must now have a Thyatian Gladiator and Alphatian Guard class.
Which again would be fine if those are optional choices, but they are not, under the 5e sub-class system, come 3rd level you have to choose a sub-class. There is no standard fighter or some sort of base game in general. The game is balanced on sub-classes, its a required choice.
I'm totally down with all of the crazy expansions you want to create, go nuts, create endless splash books. We did it in 3e and it didn't bother be in the slightest. Want an new option, add it in a book of options. There should be a homebase D&D for the people who want a simpler, straightforward D&D experience and I know they are not particularly well represented on the forums, but I assure you their is plenty of them out there.
The issue, and the thing I keep trying and trying and trying to explain, is that in your given ideal version of D&D, there is no "Thyatian Gladiator", nor any "Alphatian Guard". Those two characters are completely identical. They use exactly the same features and exactly the same basic equipment to accomplish exactly the same objectives in exactly the same way. Yeah okay, one of them describes his shortsword and half-plate as gladiator's gear and the other describes his chainmail and halberd as standard military issue kit, but if they were to switch clothes they'd also switch identities.
That complete and utter lack of mechanical reinforcement matters. The total disconnect between the story and the rules weakens both the story and the rules. You keep saying that too many rules just get in the way of the story, and in some ways you're right. But the guy playing the Thyatian Gladiator should feel like a very different kind of warrior than the guy playing the Alphatian Guard. No, the one narrating his attacks differently than the other is not enough, especially because we all know that in the thick of heavy party-wide combat, narration falls off save for the briefest blurbs. If the mechanical structure of the game does not naturally differentiate between these two options, then they are not different options at all. They are candy wrappers, as quickly and easily discarded as any other candy wrapper.
You keep assuming I know absolutely nothing about game design simply because I haven't been playing this specific game for forty-plus years May I ask why? I understand your system works for you and your table, which is legitimately great. If your version of D&D is the clear and obvious perfection of the system, however...why do the people in charge of the game keep consistently disagreeing with you every single time they release a new book?
A lot of people want more classes. To those who want less classes or no more classes, how would it harm you to have more options in the game for classes? Don't give me the "it will destroy D&D" argument. That's BS. There's absolutely no reason why adding about half a dozen more classes to the game would destroy the hobby as we know it. How would it hurt you to have a Psion, Warlord, Occultist, Magus, and/or Shaman in the game?
I wouldn't go so far to suggest that it would destroy D&D, but the point I'm making is that there is a difference between what a Class can do and who a character is. By becoming overly specific about what classes can do, the more your character is the class rather then the concept. If you pick a Fighter as your class, you might be a Thyatian Gladiator or a Alphatian Guard, that will define what kinds of armor you wear, what weapons you use, how you narrate your fighting style. You choose to do those things, they are not class features, they are part of your character concept. What is being suggested is that because those are "possible choices" then we must have classes that define them. Hence we must now have a Thyatian Gladiator and Alphatian Guard class.
Which again would be fine if those are optional choices, but they are not, under the 5e sub-class system, come 3rd level you have to choose a sub-class. There is no standard fighter or some sort of base game in general. The game is balanced on sub-classes, its a required choice.
I'm totally down with all of the crazy expansions you want to create, go nuts, create endless splash books. We did it in 3e and it didn't bother be in the slightest. Want an new option, add it in a book of options. There should be a homebase D&D for the people who want a simpler, straightforward D&D experience and I know they are not particularly well represented on the forums, but I assure you their is plenty of them out there.
The issue, and the thing I keep trying and trying and trying to explain, is that in your given ideal version of D&D, there is no "Thyatian Gladiator", nor any "Alphatian Guard". Those two characters are completely identical. They use exactly the same features and exactly the same basic equipment to accomplish exactly the same objectives in exactly the same way. Yeah okay, one of them describes his shortsword and half-plate as gladiator's gear and the other describes his chainmail and halberd as standard military issue kit, but if they were to switch clothes they'd also switch identities.
That complete and utter lack of mechanical reinforcement matters. The total disconnect between the story and the rules weakens both the story and the rules. You keep saying that too many rules just get in the way of the story, and in some ways you're right. But the guy playing the Thyatian Gladiator should feel like a very different kind of warrior than the guy playing the Alphatian Guard. No, the one narrating his attacks differently than the other is not enough, especially because we all know that in the thick of heavy party-wide combat, narration falls off save for the briefest blurbs. If the mechanical structure of the game does not naturally differentiate between these two options, then they are not different options at all. They are candy wrappers, as quickly and easily discarded as any other candy wrapper.
You keep assuming I know absolutely nothing about game design simply because I haven't been playing this specific game for forty-plus years May I ask why? I understand your system works for you and your table, which is legitimately great. If your version of D&D is the clear and obvious perfection of the system, however...why do the people in charge of the game keep consistently disagreeing with you every single time they release a new book?
I think what he is saying is that the more specialized and narrow a class concept is, the further away it should be from PHB. As in - release only a Fighter in PHB and then Alphatian Guard and Thayan Gladiator in splatbooks.
I mean. 3rd edition did it to some extent with prestige classes. You had base classes in PHB with some traditional Prestige Classes in DMG (I think it was DMG, don't remember now) and then if you wanted to create a thief from Teflamm mechanically, you could pick up a Telflammar Shadowlord prc from a splatbook.
Sure, 3e was unbalanced and broken. But due to sheer number of prestige classes and how they interacted, sky was the limit. Same with races. I mean, if you considered races with level adjustment as technically playable if DM was fine with them, you really could go crazy. Broken, sure, but no one could complain that they can't find something for themselves.
Vince never actually said for himself which UA it was. That said, I can only imagine it's the UA feats or the UA Class Feature Variants. Possibly both. ...probably both.
The Feats: Some were reasonable, some underwhelming, and some ridiculously OP. Same can be said about many of the new spells.
The class variant features: Nope, never, ever will be in my game. You make choices with your char, and you live with those choices. That is D&D.
And the increased blurring of the lines between spell casting classes by allowing various spells to be cast by an increased range of spell-casting classes, that is just so wrong.
While some CFV blur the lines between classes, ones like Barbarians\, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue all simply allow more choices when building your character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
While I agree that most classes are too restrictive (basically all of them except Artificer and Warlock, mostly Warlock), I don't think the solution to making more classes is to do what you recommended. I like your suggestions, but even with those changes, there are still niches that need filling, like the psion, gish, and occultist.
Psion and Occultist aren't niches, they're reskins. Gish I agree is something the rules don't do well, but a class does not seem like a good fix because you should really be able to make a functional hybrid of any spellcaster and warrior (or rogue), which suggests the real need is a change to how multiclassing works, plus maybe a feat.
While I agree that most classes are too restrictive (basically all of them except Artificer and Warlock, mostly Warlock), I don't think the solution to making more classes is to do what you recommended. I like your suggestions, but even with those changes, there are still niches that need filling, like the psion, gish, and occultist.
Psion and Occultist aren't niches, they're reskins. Gish I agree is something the rules don't do well, but a class does not seem like a good fix because you should really be able to make a functional hybrid of any spellcaster and warrior (or rogue), which suggests the real need is a change to how multiclassing works, plus maybe a feat.
A Psion is not a reskin.
Oh no. I sense an incoming flame war.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Vince never actually said for himself which UA it was. That said, I can only imagine it's the UA feats or the UA Class Feature Variants. Possibly both. ...probably both.
The Feats: Some were reasonable, some underwhelming, and some ridiculously OP. Same can be said about many of the new spells.
The class variant features: Nope, never, ever will be in my game. You make choices with your char, and you live with those choices. That is D&D.
And the increased blurring of the lines between spell casting classes by allowing various spells to be cast by an increased range of spell-casting classes, that is just so wrong.
Well, your opinion is by far the minority. WotC made it clear that the CFV Unearthed Arcana was the most popular UA ever. It turns out, characters like freedom more than being deadlocked to the worst individual parts of their classes (To clarify, I don't mean the downsides of playing a character. Barbarians rage, and it prevents them from casting spells, that is a downside. A downside to casting a bonus action spell is that you have to cast a cantrip if you want to cast a spell again. I am absolutely okay with downsides like that. I am not okay with Countercharm, you know, that stupid useless ability bards get. I am not okay with Rangers being godawful. Just a clarification on what I mean).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
My big problem with the class feature variants article was that it actually included very few variants; almost everything was an enhancement.
I actually concur. While the CFVs playtest was obviously an attempt to slap patch the game without admitting that's what they were doing, I would've liked to see some more boldness with true variant features. I think only the barbarian and technically the ranger got variant features, as opposed to enhanced features? I remember it being very few of them, but the ones that were most intriguing were the swap-outs. Here's to hoping the Tasha's Allspice Soup Pot versions have more variants for us to monkey with.
While I agree that most classes are too restrictive (basically all of them except Artificer and Warlock, mostly Warlock), I don't think the solution to making more classes is to do what you recommended. I like your suggestions, but even with those changes, there are still niches that need filling, like the psion, gish, and occultist.
Psion and Occultist aren't niches, they're reskins. Gish I agree is something the rules don't do well, but a class does not seem like a good fix because you should really be able to make a functional hybrid of any spellcaster and warrior (or rogue), which suggests the real need is a change to how multiclassing works, plus maybe a feat.
Psions aren't reskins, they're their own unique niche. Occultists aren't reskins, they are their own niche. Can other subclasses borrow from their flavor? Of course, like Paladins borrow from Clerics and Sorcerers borrow from Warlocks. But, they deserve, IMHO, to be their own class and concept.
Multiclassing definitely needs fixing, but I disagree with your last point. If Gish deserve their own class as much as Paladins do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Eh, basically everything a psion can do is on the sorcerer spell list. Just take a sorcerer, take subtle spell as one of your metamagics, and choose your spells to match a tk theme.
Psions aren't reskins, they're their own unique niche. Occultists aren't reskins, they are their own niche. Can other subclasses borrow from their flavor?
The fact that you mention 'flavor' is why they're reskins. A reskin adjusts the flavor of a class without meaningfully changing its mechanics.
Eh, basically everything a psion can do is on the sorcerer spell list. Just take a sorcerer, take subtle spell as one of your metamagics, and choose your spells to match a tk theme.
No, the one narrating his attacks differently than the other is not enough, especially because we all know that in the thick of heavy party-wide combat, narration falls off save for the briefest blurbs. If the mechanical structure of the game does not naturally differentiate between these two options, then they are not different options at all. They are candy wrappers, as quickly and easily discarded as any other candy wrapper.
It is enough in a role-playing game, its not enough in a miniature combat game or a video game. Your suggesting that I'm trying to force or change D&D somehow to be some idealized version of my vision for the game, I'm not, I'm trying to make sure it remains a role-playing game in the realm of a narrative experience as it was for decades, as it intends to be by design. Your character is not what is on your character sheet, its what you defined in your background story, how you behave in the game, what choices you make, what morale stance you take, how you describe and define your character. That is your character.
Your character is not the difference between how a Thyatian Gladiator class attacks and does the same amount of damage differently than an Alphatian Guard. That's not a character, that's a mechanic. Fighters attack by rolling a D20 and trying to hit an armor class then they roll their damage. Its a simple abstraction, the entirety of the rest of the game lives in this abstraction and no one has a problem with it, why do you need 50 different rules for 50 different ways to attack something in a role-playing game?
What your suggesting already exists its called Pathfinder 2nd edition, its a 650 page book of heavy rules and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Why do you insist on turning D&D into that, D&D very specifically inspires to not be that.
You do realize the D&D was born from a tactical miniatures wargame. Right?
I think there is a fundamental difference with how different people view dnd.
Some see it as a fixed game like chess. You pick your pieces which are all different from each other, yet fixed, then go and work through a pre set dungeon. Asking for new classes or mixed classes is like asking for a new type of chess piece.
Others see it as an adventure RPG, and want to make their own character, and then do their own stories and character development, and grow more and more frustrated trying to hammer this interesting character they have in their head into a class which doesn't suit them mechanically, thematically, or both.
I'm not sure that it's possible to reconcile these two different approaches.
A biased comparison, but a good one.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
First, "choices" does not mean "Unlimited choices". There's no particular reason any of those options would be possible (though an unarmed combat specialist barbarian sounds cool to me). Secondly, 5e multiclassing mostly amounts to exploit-ey dips and ways of making ineffective characters. Third, the basic problem with gish builds is that you have a finite action economy, and for any given action you're only using one class -- which generally means you have a choice between two subpar options, unless you're using action types that are only particularly available to one class (e.g. casting bonus action spells on a fighter build).
Puglist....yes pls. Quickened spell is the only way to PROPERLY Cast/whack in the same turn. Sorcadins are so much fun.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I mean the paladin smite spells are the ideal. Enchant your weapon with an effect as a bonus action, and then it discharges when you hit.
It's the definition of magically enchanting your smacks.
The focus is on flexibility, not power.
The issue, and the thing I keep trying and trying and trying to explain, is that in your given ideal version of D&D, there is no "Thyatian Gladiator", nor any "Alphatian Guard". Those two characters are completely identical. They use exactly the same features and exactly the same basic equipment to accomplish exactly the same objectives in exactly the same way. Yeah okay, one of them describes his shortsword and half-plate as gladiator's gear and the other describes his chainmail and halberd as standard military issue kit, but if they were to switch clothes they'd also switch identities.
That complete and utter lack of mechanical reinforcement matters. The total disconnect between the story and the rules weakens both the story and the rules. You keep saying that too many rules just get in the way of the story, and in some ways you're right. But the guy playing the Thyatian Gladiator should feel like a very different kind of warrior than the guy playing the Alphatian Guard. No, the one narrating his attacks differently than the other is not enough, especially because we all know that in the thick of heavy party-wide combat, narration falls off save for the briefest blurbs. If the mechanical structure of the game does not naturally differentiate between these two options, then they are not different options at all. They are candy wrappers, as quickly and easily discarded as any other candy wrapper.
You keep assuming I know absolutely nothing about game design simply because I haven't been playing this specific game for forty-plus years May I ask why? I understand your system works for you and your table, which is legitimately great. If your version of D&D is the clear and obvious perfection of the system, however...why do the people in charge of the game keep consistently disagreeing with you every single time they release a new book?
Please do not contact or message me.
I think what he is saying is that the more specialized and narrow a class concept is, the further away it should be from PHB. As in - release only a Fighter in PHB and then Alphatian Guard and Thayan Gladiator in splatbooks.
I mean. 3rd edition did it to some extent with prestige classes. You had base classes in PHB with some traditional Prestige Classes in DMG (I think it was DMG, don't remember now) and then if you wanted to create a thief from Teflamm mechanically, you could pick up a Telflammar Shadowlord prc from a splatbook.
Sure, 3e was unbalanced and broken. But due to sheer number of prestige classes and how they interacted, sky was the limit. Same with races. I mean, if you considered races with level adjustment as technically playable if DM was fine with them, you really could go crazy. Broken, sure, but no one could complain that they can't find something for themselves.
The Feats: Some were reasonable, some underwhelming, and some ridiculously OP. Same can be said about many of the new spells.
The class variant features: Nope, never, ever will be in my game. You make choices with your char, and you live with those choices. That is D&D.
And the increased blurring of the lines between spell casting classes by allowing various spells to be cast by an increased range of spell-casting classes, that is just so wrong.
Yurei, I hope you had that written down and sealed in an envelope over the fireplace, because you were spot on.
My big problem with the class feature variants article was that it actually included very few variants; almost everything was an enhancement.
While some CFV blur the lines between classes, ones like Barbarians\, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue all simply allow more choices when building your character.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
A Psion is not a reskin.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Oh no. I sense an incoming flame war.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Well, your opinion is by far the minority. WotC made it clear that the CFV Unearthed Arcana was the most popular UA ever. It turns out, characters like freedom more than being deadlocked to the worst individual parts of their classes (To clarify, I don't mean the downsides of playing a character. Barbarians rage, and it prevents them from casting spells, that is a downside. A downside to casting a bonus action spell is that you have to cast a cantrip if you want to cast a spell again. I am absolutely okay with downsides like that. I am not okay with Countercharm, you know, that stupid useless ability bards get. I am not okay with Rangers being godawful. Just a clarification on what I mean).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I actually concur. While the CFVs playtest was obviously an attempt to slap patch the game without admitting that's what they were doing, I would've liked to see some more boldness with true variant features. I think only the barbarian and technically the ranger got variant features, as opposed to enhanced features? I remember it being very few of them, but the ones that were most intriguing were the swap-outs. Here's to hoping the Tasha's Allspice Soup Pot versions have more variants for us to monkey with.
Please do not contact or message me.
Psions aren't reskins, they're their own unique niche. Occultists aren't reskins, they are their own niche. Can other subclasses borrow from their flavor? Of course, like Paladins borrow from Clerics and Sorcerers borrow from Warlocks. But, they deserve, IMHO, to be their own class and concept.
Multiclassing definitely needs fixing, but I disagree with your last point. If Gish deserve their own class as much as Paladins do.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Eh, basically everything a psion can do is on the sorcerer spell list. Just take a sorcerer, take subtle spell as one of your metamagics, and choose your spells to match a tk theme.
The fact that you mention 'flavor' is why they're reskins. A reskin adjusts the flavor of a class without meaningfully changing its mechanics.
Except for one simple thing:
Psionics =/= Spellcasting
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You do realize the D&D was born from a tactical miniatures wargame. Right?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting