While looking at how and when the classes get their abilities, I noticed what could be a problem. There is a pattern that I assume will continue concerning subclasses. It at least holds true for the ones we have currently.
Here's what they look like now:
Levels 1 and 2 - Some combination of 3 Core abilities and a Class Group Ability
3 - Subclass ability
4 - Feat
5 - Core ability
6 - Subclass ability
7 - Core ability or Class Group ability
8 - Feat
9 - Core ability or Class Group ability
10 - Subclass ability
That's 5 core class abilities, with 3 of them front loaded in the first two levels. There's 2 Feats at the normal levels. 3 subclass abilities. And 2 abilities based on the Group the class falls in. In the case of Experts, that ability is always Expertise.
Classes have always had power front loaded in DnD. It's why multiclass 'dips' are both popular, and why they are difficult from a balance perspective. Getting your capstone at level 18 makes it even more tempting. This is partially why there are so many discussions about Hunter's Mark now.
Group abilities, at least here, are shared across the group. So there's not much variety there to be interesting.
The standardization of subclass levels means the class Core abilities get pushed back to levels where they don't feel as great. In the three classes we have here, you only get 2 new Core abilities between level 2 and 10. Most games are almost over by then sadly
This means those group abilities and your subclass have to carry all the weight. That's not necessarily a problem. But it puts even more pressure on the those features to be desirable, interesting, thematic, and balanced. If they aren't great, then we will continue to have some subclasses be chosen all the time, and others laughed at. You don't get a real sense of what the class is until higher levels.
I think I might prefer the classes to stand on their own. And the subclasses and groups to just build on them. It would mean your subclass choice isn't make-or-break for the character. You don't have to sacrifice your character concept for value to the party. People don't pick Alchemist now, unless they are really dedicated to the idea, because of this (I know I played one). It would be even worse with the new progression.
This might be just me. It might be an intentional design choice. But I think it's at least partially responsible for some of the disappointment in some of the abilities in this playtest.
This is where I apologize to the ten people who might have wasted their time reading this. I was thinking about about it more, and how I would fix it, and the idea occurred to me - there are core Class abilities, Subclass abilities, and class Group abilities. And there are 3 levels between Feats. They should just give you one of each of the 3 ability types each level between Feats!
Then I went back and looked and realized that is basically what they did...
So, I get it now. At least I understand what they were trying to do. And it makes sense. I do still think they might have them in the wrong order in some places. I think a lot of class and subclass features are going to be better and more thematic than the group features. I would honestly rather wait until level 13 or so for a second Expertise set. But I get what they were going for at least.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While looking at how and when the classes get their abilities, I noticed what could be a problem. There is a pattern that I assume will continue concerning subclasses. It at least holds true for the ones we have currently.
Here's what they look like now:
Levels 1 and 2 - Some combination of 3 Core abilities and a Class Group Ability
3 - Subclass ability
4 - Feat
5 - Core ability
6 - Subclass ability
7 - Core ability or Class Group ability
8 - Feat
9 - Core ability or Class Group ability
10 - Subclass ability
That's 5 core class abilities, with 3 of them front loaded in the first two levels. There's 2 Feats at the normal levels. 3 subclass abilities. And 2 abilities based on the Group the class falls in. In the case of Experts, that ability is always Expertise.
Classes have always had power front loaded in DnD. It's why multiclass 'dips' are both popular, and why they are difficult from a balance perspective. Getting your capstone at level 18 makes it even more tempting. This is partially why there are so many discussions about Hunter's Mark now.
Group abilities, at least here, are shared across the group. So there's not much variety there to be interesting.
The standardization of subclass levels means the class Core abilities get pushed back to levels where they don't feel as great. In the three classes we have here, you only get 2 new Core abilities between level 2 and 10. Most games are almost over by then sadly
This means those group abilities and your subclass have to carry all the weight. That's not necessarily a problem. But it puts even more pressure on the those features to be desirable, interesting, thematic, and balanced. If they aren't great, then we will continue to have some subclasses be chosen all the time, and others laughed at. You don't get a real sense of what the class is until higher levels.
I think I might prefer the classes to stand on their own. And the subclasses and groups to just build on them. It would mean your subclass choice isn't make-or-break for the character. You don't have to sacrifice your character concept for value to the party. People don't pick Alchemist now, unless they are really dedicated to the idea, because of this (I know I played one). It would be even worse with the new progression.
This might be just me. It might be an intentional design choice. But I think it's at least partially responsible for some of the disappointment in some of the abilities in this playtest.
This is where I apologize to the ten people who might have wasted their time reading this. I was thinking about about it more, and how I would fix it, and the idea occurred to me - there are core Class abilities, Subclass abilities, and class Group abilities. And there are 3 levels between Feats. They should just give you one of each of the 3 ability types each level between Feats!
Then I went back and looked and realized that is basically what they did...
So, I get it now. At least I understand what they were trying to do. And it makes sense. I do still think they might have them in the wrong order in some places. I think a lot of class and subclass features are going to be better and more thematic than the group features. I would honestly rather wait until level 13 or so for a second Expertise set. But I get what they were going for at least.