IIRC, 3E started imposing increasing XP penalties if you had too big a gap between your various classes. That seems like an effective way to limit 1 level dips, although it doesn't work with milestone advancement.
Imma be annoying and say that all the classes need to be nerfed down.
[...]THere is so little difference among some of the subclasses that it can read like 'well, this is a fighter who has all the rogue class abilities" or (more commonly) "here is a fighter that has all the wizard stuff".
Why nerf casters when you can just buff martials? This is a genuine question, because adding power to the classes just serves to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
I do agree with you that their should be more distinct and varied subclaasses though. The base chassis for something already has a concept and theme. Your subclass is the biggest way in which you can make that class your own, so it should be important and cool too.
They might as well drop the class system and just go with "pick your own features, here is a list for each of these levels, call yourself whatever".
I really like the class system. It helps create distinctions between concepts and characters, and point buy character creation is an absolute nightmare to properly balance encounters for.
I like a lot of what I see. But all of that is based on the status quo[...]
Some of the things that have been with D&D for a long time are there for a reason: Because they worked. The next edition's goal is to build of the framework 5e has provided, not to change it drastically and completely remodel all of the game.
Also, how will 1DD remain backwards compatible if we throw out all of the systems that are currently in place?
I just really hope classes have their own niches so different classes can feel special, and it doesn't end up a little like World of Warcraft ('everyone evolved to do everything').
You clearly haven't done a M+ high key where nobody could battle rez, lust, shroud/soothe, kick, kite etc etc 😛
Trust me, every class does not do everything in WoW.
There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding what Exploration is supposed to encompass. While Exploration certainly can involve travel, and depending on the group you might track food, water, and other resources, saying that Exploration equals travel is like saying Combat equals making sure your character has weapons and armor. To be a meaningful Exploration scene you need all the same elements of what makes a meaningful Combat or Interaction scene: the players need at least some agency, they need to be given important choices, and it needs to be exciting.
Exploration actually encompasses everything that isn't Combat or Interaction. The former ranger features (finding food, not getting lost) represent a very thin slice of Exploration. A session where the PCs delve into a dungeon doesn't require you to track food or make survival checks to avoid becoming lost, but will contain many Exploration options.
I agree but I'd take it a step further - the former ranger features like never getting lost are the opposite of challenge. They involved bypassing obstacles entirely rather than simply being better at them. So I don't mind those ribbons being cut.
Imma be annoying and say that all the classes need to be nerfed down.
[...]THere is so little difference among some of the subclasses that it can read like 'well, this is a fighter who has all the rogue class abilities" or (more commonly) "here is a fighter that has all the wizard stuff".
Why nerf casters when you can just buff martials? This is a genuine question, because adding power to the classes just serves to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
I do agree with you that their should be more distinct and varied subclaasses though. The base chassis for something already has a concept and theme. Your subclass is the biggest way in which you can make that class your own, so it should be important and cool too.
They might as well drop the class system and just go with "pick your own features, here is a list for each of these levels, call yourself whatever".
I really like the class system. It helps create distinctions between concepts and characters, and point buy character creation is an absolute nightmare to properly balance encounters for.
I like a lot of what I see. But all of that is based on the status quo[...]
Some of the things that have been with D&D for a long time are there for a reason: Because they worked. The next edition's goal is to build of the framework 5e has provided, not to change it drastically and completely remodel all of the game.
Also, how will 1DD remain backwards compatible if we throw out all of the systems that are currently in place?
As I have note, it should be both — magic is an intense degree of leverage with no effective mechanical limits to balance it against martials except “they take a hit badly”. When they are essentially front line types right now because they won’t get hit, Martials take a back seat. Doesn’t have to be huge, but it should give enough of a boost to a martial that the dos factor is closer than 1/10th at level 10.
I adore the class the class system. I have tried to use and developed my own alternatives in the past several times, but the reason a class system remains is it is the most effective at giving a solid structure and enabling that distinction capability. It also makes adventure planning and campaign development hell easier, lol — but only if the classes have clear cut, solid lines between.
5e Plus is moving away from that.
While I may have some gripes, it is more about the moving forward piece here: I can do all those changes for my campaign, but they can’t. They do have to go to lowest common denom. And the magic system is fine, but it isn’t as smooth or as easily picked up as a spell point system is, and it takes some, um, role and story options away that you can get with spell points 😇..
However, I will take note that things that worked are the strictly because they worked. The Vancian spell system has been loathed since at least 1978, lol, and there are systems that work far better out there. The THAC0 system worked, and well, but it wasn’t “simple” and it wasn’t “easy”. So it isn’t about just working. If it was, they’d never have moved past 2e.
Worked is a weasel measure. They succeeded because they were simple, they were faster to pick up, and they give the broadest possible number of people the ability to start playing from a point of knowing zero (not even what a Tolkien is). All of those things worked, and all of them expanded the game. But it isn’t about does it work, it is about how much money does it make for the folks who own the rule books, lol.
and they have a real, persistent interest in increasing the number of players (but don’t seem to think that includes DMs too much), and so keeping things as simple as possible (like creating new stat blocks just for wildshape that don’t actually stop one from taking on the shape of an owlbear like the movie, but also take away the owlbear stats that the older players wanted, lol), and as broad as possible (including the abandonment of classes and archetypes and shifting to the pick a feature system).
as for backwards compatible, well, I still recall how folks said that 3e was backwards compatible with 1e and 2e. Seriously. Wizards was so excited, the swore up and down that it would be.
then 5e was supposed to be backwards compatible with 3.5, and, well….
It isn’t that they lied or they were wrong or anything, and I am not saying they are now. One D&D is an iterative build, not a 6e. A 5.5, if you will. That is made clear through the spokespersons words. So it absolutely will be backwards compatible because what they are doing is — so far — slapping a few fixes on the current out of control subs (not counting the homebrew) and figuring out some side mechanics, tweaking a few spells. It will be the same game because the engines that make it work — rolls, magic and spells, existence of classes — are merely tweaks of the extant system. For it not to be compatible it would have to break free of the D20 System that still sits at the heart of the game and is why, officially, 5e is still backwards compatible with 3e.
D&D is modular. That is one of the best things they did — they did make it moreso than it was in 1e and 2e. So they can just start dropping different chunks here and there. I didn’t remodel the whole game, either. I popped bits out, and dropped new bits in. 80% of the work I am doing is making sure the rules are all working together — it is otherwise pretty much an SRD with a pretty dress on, lol.
or, since typing that conjured the image in my brain, I transitioned D&D, lol. Still the same thing, just packaged differently.
WotC is doing the same thing I did. Their packaging is just more official and, well, status quo…
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
It's a contrived mess designed from the ground up to facilitate microtransactions to purchase spells and feats and background features.
The playtest materials all reek of 'free to play' MMO models.
It's like WoTC looked back at what happened in 2012 and were like "You know... It's about time another Pathfinder was born...".
Welcome to TABLE pt II.
The hubris is breathtaking.
What are you even talking about? For one, 5th edition already sells feats, spells, and backgrounds on the very site you're posting to. There isn't anything wrong with that; All it does is make it so some people don't have to buy a whole book to just get one small part of it that they want.
Overall, the playtests have been awesome. They aren't like "free to play MMO models" whatsoever. I honestly have zero idea what you are talking about, you haven't given any evidence or reasoning to support your claims of horrible hubris on Wizards part.
If you really think that 1DD is low quality, then I think you wouldn't want to check out Project Black Flag.
This isn’t really profound, but I think everyone needs to get ready for at least some level of disappointment. For every person saying they want classes to be distinct with no overlap, there’s someone else asking why wizards can’t cast healing spells, or suggesting that all martial classes should get battlemaster maneuvers by default. People on the boards often like the idea of customization and making choices, but the developers are pretty sure new players bounce off the game if there’s too many choices.
There’s a lot of competing goals out there. No matter what you want, the game won’t tick all of everyone’s boxes
This is profound, actually.
I think this is an important statement, and something that very much needed to be said. Everyone disagrees on different things and has varying opinions on where the game should be headed. Pleasing everyone is impossible, and we should all be ready for at least some disappointment.
I adore the class the class system. I have tried to use and developed my own alternatives in the past several times, but the reason a class system remains is it is the most effective at giving a solid structure and enabling that distinction capability. It also makes adventure planning and campaign development hell easier, lol — but only if the classes have clear cut, solid lines between.
<Snip>
or, since typing that conjured the image in my brain, I transitioned D&D, lol. Still the same thing, just packaged differently.
WotC is doing the same thing I did. Their packaging is just more official and, well, status quo…
I am going to disagree with you that classes should have "clear cut, solid lines between." To me at least, classes work better because they allow for balance, distinctions aren't as important and are only really secondary to me.
Yes, each class should be different. The class system allows for different themes and concepts to be explored in an easier, more understandable and comprehensive way. That being said, sometimes it is more enjoyable to play a Cleric, but still be able to do certain things like a Wizard, or vice versa. Having less distinct, more flexible and clearer class concepts allows for more fun and enjoyment for those who want to not be forced into a box for their class concept and mechanics and told they can't think outside of it.
More open class concepts and more overlap allows for more fun. Having everything be different and distinct is good to a certain extent, but it gets in the way of fun when it merely serves to limit creativity and options. Yes, a Wizard should be better at doing Wizard stuff than a Cleric. That being said, it can be really cool to play a Cleric and still get to do some of the things that a Wizard is able to do, or to pretend to be an old man with a beard and a stuff and not be told to change your character concept because you're encroaching on another classes theme.
On the topic of 1DD not modifying 5e enough, I'm happy with that. Sure, they aren't making everything super different. That being said, I should have stated that some of the things in the current edition of the game are working excellently, not just very well. The system we are using today is great, and there is nothing wrong with the developers not wanting to stay from it drastically.
Besides, it's worth not having too many core and structural major changes being made to the game, so long as all the 5e content that I spent years collecting and hours reading is still usable with the new edition of the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding what Exploration is supposed to encompass. While Exploration certainly can involve travel, and depending on the group you might track food, water, and other resources, saying that Exploration equals travel is like saying Combat equals making sure your character has weapons and armor. To be a meaningful Exploration scene you need all the same elements of what makes a meaningful Combat or Interaction scene: the players need at least some agency, they need to be given important choices, and it needs to be exciting.
Exploration actually encompasses everything that isn't Combat or Interaction. The former ranger features (finding food, not getting lost) represent a very thin slice of Exploration. A session where the PCs delve into a dungeon doesn't require you to track food or make survival checks to avoid becoming lost, but will contain many Exploration options.
I agree but I'd take it a step further - the former ranger features like never getting lost are the opposite of challenge. They involved bypassing obstacles entirely rather than simply being better at them. So I don't mind those ribbons being cut.
Definitely. It would be the same with a feature that says, "You always notice any trap and secret door." or "You are never tricked by any lie." Or even, "You dodge every attack, taking no damage." Incidentally, this is why I also dislike spells and features that negate curses, disease, etc. They effectively remove these elements from the game. I'm fine with giving some characters an edge against effects, but taking them completely away never feels right.
On a note on a point that has been raised - I don't like classes to be 100% distinct. Some distinction, yes, but I like having multiple classes having takes on a similar idea. I shared the example of the archer concept before. You have the Fighter take on it, the Ranger, the Rogue and even the Artificer (to an extent). We'll probably see the Paladin have a take on it as well, if they keep that aspect of the new Smite rules. Each archer-based subclass is different because the mother class has a different contribution, producing multiple different flavours. While classes should be unique, there should be plenty of space for different takes on the same concept.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
On a note on a point that has been raised - I don't like classes to be 100% distinct. Some distinction, yes, but I like having multiple classes having takes on a similar idea. I shared the example of the archer concept before. You have the Fighter take on it, the Ranger, the Rogue and even the Artificer (to an extent). We'll probably see the Paladin have a take on it as well, if they keep that aspect of the new Smite rules. Each archer-based subclass is different because the mother class has a different contribution, producing multiple different flavours. While classes should be unique, there should be plenty of space for different takes on the same concept.
I think part of it stems from the the nature of the Archetypes used to construct the classes. See, in my mind, for that I would make an Archer Class, and then (in current format) those would all be subclasses of the Archer Archetype -- and an Archer would still be distinct from a Fighter.
So it comes down to what are the archetypes used -- and how are they grounded in that setting, as opposed to this world -- for how you construct them -- but if one cannot add Archer as a class (since that isn't the way the official archetypes are structured), then your path is good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding what Exploration is supposed to encompass. While Exploration certainly can involve travel, and depending on the group you might track food, water, and other resources, saying that Exploration equals travel is like saying Combat equals making sure your character has weapons and armor. To be a meaningful Exploration scene you need all the same elements of what makes a meaningful Combat or Interaction scene: the players need at least some agency, they need to be given important choices, and it needs to be exciting.
Exploration actually encompasses everything that isn't Combat or Interaction. The former ranger features (finding food, not getting lost) represent a very thin slice of Exploration. A session where the PCs delve into a dungeon doesn't require you to track food or make survival checks to avoid becoming lost, but will contain many Exploration options.
I agree but I'd take it a step further - the former ranger features like never getting lost are the opposite of challenge. They involved bypassing obstacles entirely rather than simply being better at them. So I don't mind those ribbons being cut.
Definitely. It would be the same with a feature that says, "You always notice any trap and secret door." or "You are never tricked by any lie." Or even, "You dodge every attack, taking no damage." Incidentally, this is why I also dislike spells and features that negate curses, disease, etc. They effectively remove these elements from the game. I'm fine with giving some characters an edge against effects, but taking them completely away never feels right.
For curses/diseases I actually don't mind, because a bog-standard way in the game to remove those is fine. If you instead want a Real Ultimate Plot Curse/Disease that resists all attempts to remove it, that can be built into language of the plot curse/disease itself.
On a note on a point that has been raised - I don't like classes to be 100% distinct. Some distinction, yes, but I like having multiple classes having takes on a similar idea. I shared the example of the archer concept before. You have the Fighter take on it, the Ranger, the Rogue and even the Artificer (to an extent). We'll probably see the Paladin have a take on it as well, if they keep that aspect of the new Smite rules. Each archer-based subclass is different because the mother class has a different contribution, producing multiple different flavours. While classes should be unique, there should be plenty of space for different takes on the same concept.
I agree, however I think overlap should largely be the province of subclasses, because subclasses have a hefty opportunity cost. Like if I want a pet-focused Bard, I go for Creation, and that means I'm not going to have the melee capabilities of Swords or the blasting capability of Lore.
On a note on a point that has been raised - I don't like classes to be 100% distinct.
Classes can't be 100% distinct, the aren't enough distinct dungeoneering tasks to make them distinct.
One of the core problems with the exploration leg is that there are classes with very minimal interaction with the exploration leg, meaning that when an exploration scene comes up they don't have anything to do. That's bad gameplay, so DMs are likely to limit exploration scenes when one of those classes is in the party.
On a note on a point that has been raised - I don't like classes to be 100% distinct.
Classes can't be 100% distinct, the aren't enough distinct dungeoneering tasks to make them distinct.
One of the core problems with the exploration leg is that there are classes with very minimal interaction with the exploration leg, meaning that when an exploration scene comes up they don't have anything to do. That's bad gameplay, so DMs are likely to limit exploration scenes when one of those classes is in the party.
Actually I would reverse this. It’s not that the class has no connection, it’s that the vast majority of players have no connection. A mideveal citizen generally knew how to start and care for fires, how to build basic wilderness shelters, simple ways to find north, what common wild plants were edible and what weren’t.etc. WHY? Because those skills were in many ways essential to their survival on a yearly if not daily basis. Realistically every character in a mideveal setting should have a half proficiency in survival. And a case could be made for extending that right up until the post WWII period for folks from a rural or semi rural background. The problem isn’t what the PC’s should be credited with knowing, the problem is with the players being clueless about how, what, why, when and where to make use of the survival and Nader skills they could be credited with having. Folks who’ve heard me rant on the ranger forum have heard this before but if DMsand players don’t know how to use mundane skills to do things it’s difficult to get them to do the stuff in game and much easier to just movie montage it away. All of the classes and subclasses should be able to interact with the exploration leg but classes dedicated to it (Druid, Ranger, some monks, and scout rogues) should be much better at it. But it should not be a complete slam dunk for them either.
A second quick note - it’s a heck of a lot easier for Classes to be distinct when there are 4 classes than it is when there are 12. In one sense that is almost what they are doing in 1D&D - 4 groups (experts, Clerics, Martials and Mages) with 3 classes and (eventually) 4 subclasses for each group (somewhat similar the my earlier suggestion of 4 classes with subclasses and prestige classes). I actually like that part of 1D&D, I just don’t like what they have done with some of classes.
On a note on a point that has been raised - I don't like classes to be 100% distinct.
Classes can't be 100% distinct, the aren't enough distinct dungeoneering tasks to make them distinct.
One of the core problems with the exploration leg is that there are classes with very minimal interaction with the exploration leg, meaning that when an exploration scene comes up they don't have anything to do. That's bad gameplay, so DMs are likely to limit exploration scenes when one of those classes is in the party.
Actually I would reverse this. It’s not that the class has no connection, it’s that the vast majority of players have no connection.
No, it's that the character has no connection, because there's someone else better at whatever the task is than you are, and it's not a task where adding extra bodies makes it easier. This is most often a problem for strength-based classes because strength just doesn't have a lot of exploration uses, but in any party of 5+ there's likely to be an odd man out because there's only four major classes of exploration (stealth, perception, social, and research).
Imma be annoying and say that all the classes need to be nerfed down.
[...]THere is so little difference among some of the subclasses that it can read like 'well, this is a fighter who has all the rogue class abilities" or (more commonly) "here is a fighter that has all the wizard stuff".
Why nerf casters when you can just buff martials? This is a genuine question, because adding power to the classes just serves to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
I do agree with you that their should be more distinct and varied subclaasses though. The base chassis for something already has a concept and theme. Your subclass is the biggest way in which you can make that class your own, so it should be important and cool too.
Honestly, I'd prefer to see casters nerfed than to see martials buffed. Adding power to the classes most definitely does not make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
I have always found much greater enjoyment in those lower levels of play, when the characters are just finding their footing and figuring things out.
Not everyone wants to play D&D as Dragonball Z; some people prefer something more along the lines of Grimgar: Ashes and Illusions.
Imma be annoying and say that all the classes need to be nerfed down.
[...]THere is so little difference among some of the subclasses that it can read like 'well, this is a fighter who has all the rogue class abilities" or (more commonly) "here is a fighter that has all the wizard stuff".
Why nerf casters when you can just buff martials? This is a genuine question, because adding power to the classes just serves to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
I do agree with you that their should be more distinct and varied subclaasses though. The base chassis for something already has a concept and theme. Your subclass is the biggest way in which you can make that class your own, so it should be important and cool too.
Honestly, I'd prefer to see casters nerfed than to see martials buffed. Adding power to the classes most definitely does not make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
I have always found much greater enjoyment in those lower levels of play, when the characters are just finding their footing and figuring things out.
Not everyone wants to play D&D as Dragonball Z; some people prefer something more along the lines of Grimgar: Ashes and Illusions.
If the answer is always add on more and more power it only compounds the issues with CR calculations as well if you want to retain some backwards compatibility. If you're making a clean break instead, sure go for it and make all of your new monsters that much more powerful so it's a wash overall as players become weaker compared to the new monsters.
Imma be annoying and say that all the classes need to be nerfed down.
[...]THere is so little difference among some of the subclasses that it can read like 'well, this is a fighter who has all the rogue class abilities" or (more commonly) "here is a fighter that has all the wizard stuff".
Why nerf casters when you can just buff martials? This is a genuine question, because adding power to the classes just serves to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
I do agree with you that their should be more distinct and varied subclaasses though. The base chassis for something already has a concept and theme. Your subclass is the biggest way in which you can make that class your own, so it should be important and cool too.
Honestly, I'd prefer to see casters nerfed than to see martials buffed. Adding power to the classes most definitely does not make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
I have always found much greater enjoyment in those lower levels of play, when the characters are just finding their footing and figuring things out.
Not everyone wants to play D&D as Dragonball Z; some people prefer something more along the lines of Grimgar: Ashes and Illusions.
The fun of casters is not necessarily in the power they present, but the capabilities. What's fun about them is doing all this magic, the variety, the ability to do cool things. Unfortuantely, to do anything significant to the casters to nerf them, means taking away the core of what makes them fun. We've seen that as they've tried to nerf the Druid by making WS weaker - that's a class I'll never play, not in that form. That's one of the easier things about casters to gently bring in to line without killing it - and they killed it.
As for the early levels... that's the part that's least fun. Judging by the numbers that skip those levels completely, I'm not alone, and many feel the same way. We even see it in the official adventures - the majority of the adventures I own (without seeking this trait at all) either have a provision so you can start later in the adventure and skip the first few levels...or just drop them completely.
If you really feel the early levels are where the fun is at, then the solution is simple: run perpectual early levek campaigns. I did it (as a playe) for a while in the form of one-shots. It was excruciating for me who love progression and increase, who likes getting more and more cool things I can do, but if that's what you loved go ahead. The problem from where I'm standing is that martials don't get the cool solutions to most problems that casters do, so the solution is to give solutions to martials as well, rather than making casters less fun. Early game, the martials shine, and they're actually better than casters. It's later on that the tables turn.
And, to be honest, if nerfing the fun parts about another class is the solution...then it strikes me that the attitude isn't so much "my class could be more fun, so..." So much as "Your class looks too fun, so..."
That's never sat well with me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
People still had fun playing casters back in the early days of D&D, when casters were extra squishy with 4hp at most and only a single spell at first level.
For the most part, I *do* run exclusively low-level campaigns, usually ending a campaign before it hits tenth level, which is about the point I begin to lose interest as the PCs suddenly turn from somewhat realistic, believable adventurers into four-color comic/cartoon characters.
Low-magic campaigns have been the most rewarding for me, and I prefer to focus on simulating medieval economies in my worlds rather than fleshing out obscure magic systems. I like to give players incentives to pay something *other* than spellcasters, and have always sought to present a fairly exciting--if abstracted--simulation of medieval combat in my games; that's where I want the focus to be, and when some spellcaster can come along and essentially say, "Oh yeah? Well, I snap my fingers and everyone's swords are suddenly too hot to hold!" or press some other "instant win" button, that ruins the fun for everyone else. Now, I understand that there are players out there for whom stealing the spotlight in that way holds immense appeal, but I feel that that's a selfish style of play, and I'd rather not support it. And the game's overpowered spellcasters make that entirely too easy at present.
So, yeah--casters to be hit with the nerf bat hard, IMO. All of 'em.
Actually I would reverse this. It’s not that the class has no connection, it’s that the vast majority of players have no connection.
“No, it's that the character has no connection, because there's someone else better at whatever the task is than you are, and it's not a task where adding extra bodies makes it easier. This is most often a problem for strength-based classes because strength just doesn't have a lot of exploration uses, but in any party of 5+ there's likely to be an odd man out because there's only four major classes of exploration (stealth, perception, social, and research).”
if I took out most D&D players on a survival camping trip your saying that because I’m ( probably) better at they should just sit back and do nothing? Assuming I’m better I am still going to want and need your help in setting up a camp, finding safe water, building and maintaining fires, cooking food, making sure that we aren’t turned around etc. My point is that the PCs should be played as having some knowledge and skill in nature, survival, perception, stealth, etc they are not, not because they shouldn’t have these skills but because ( by and large) the players don’t so they have no clue about how to play them as having them. Getting lost can happen to anyone, and getting unturned around can be done by anyone. I was about 10 when we pulled into campground after dark and set up for the night. In the morning, my mother, who grew up in a log cabin, looked up to see the sun rising over the lake she thought we were east of and was asking how the sun could be rising in the west. Turns out we had made a wrong turn and were camped at the campground west of the lake not the one east of it.
as for nerfing casters I’m waiting to see what they do with the Wizard group and the martial group to make one stronger and the other weaker to maintain a power balance.
People still had fun playing casters back in the early days of D&D, when casters were extra squishy with 4hp at most and only a single spell at first level.
Yeah but like... in the early days of D&D, D&D was pretty much the only game in town, so a lot more people were willing to put up with brutal difficulty and wonky design just to play something with their friends.
It's like all the people clamoring for a return to old-school MMOs where you drop all your stuff and lose XP when you die. That was tolerable when there were few to no alternatives - but nowadays, most people will just go play something else if your game wastes their time, and who can blame them?
if I took out most D&D players on a survival camping trip your saying that because I’m ( probably) better at they should just sit back and do nothing?
There are tasks where more bodies are more valuable than expertise, but they also tend to be the tasks where there's not a lot of glory to be had by being good at it (the real currency of RPGs is attention). In stealth and social tasks, low skill characters tagging along are usually a liability, not an asset.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
IIRC, 3E started imposing increasing XP penalties if you had too big a gap between your various classes. That seems like an effective way to limit 1 level dips, although it doesn't work with milestone advancement.
Why nerf casters when you can just buff martials? This is a genuine question, because adding power to the classes just serves to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
I do agree with you that their should be more distinct and varied subclaasses though. The base chassis for something already has a concept and theme. Your subclass is the biggest way in which you can make that class your own, so it should be important and cool too.
I really like the class system. It helps create distinctions between concepts and characters, and point buy character creation is an absolute nightmare to properly balance encounters for.
Some of the things that have been with D&D for a long time are there for a reason: Because they worked. The next edition's goal is to build of the framework 5e has provided, not to change it drastically and completely remodel all of the game.
Also, how will 1DD remain backwards compatible if we throw out all of the systems that are currently in place?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.You clearly haven't done a M+ high key where nobody could battle rez, lust, shroud/soothe, kick, kite etc etc 😛
Trust me, every class does not do everything in WoW.
I agree but I'd take it a step further - the former ranger features like never getting lost are the opposite of challenge. They involved bypassing obstacles entirely rather than simply being better at them. So I don't mind those ribbons being cut.
As I have note, it should be both — magic is an intense degree of leverage with no effective mechanical limits to balance it against martials except “they take a hit badly”. When they are essentially front line types right now because they won’t get hit, Martials take a back seat. Doesn’t have to be huge, but it should give enough of a boost to a martial that the dos factor is closer than 1/10th at level 10.
I adore the class the class system. I have tried to use and developed my own alternatives in the past several times, but the reason a class system remains is it is the most effective at giving a solid structure and enabling that distinction capability. It also makes adventure planning and campaign development hell easier, lol — but only if the classes have clear cut, solid lines between.
5e Plus is moving away from that.
While I may have some gripes, it is more about the moving forward piece here: I can do all those changes for my campaign, but they can’t. They do have to go to lowest common denom. And the magic system is fine, but it isn’t as smooth or as easily picked up as a spell point system is, and it takes some, um, role and story options away that you can get with spell points 😇..
However, I will take note that things that worked are the strictly because they worked. The Vancian spell system has been loathed since at least 1978, lol, and there are systems that work far better out there. The THAC0 system worked, and well, but it wasn’t “simple” and it wasn’t “easy”. So it isn’t about just working. If it was, they’d never have moved past 2e.
Worked is a weasel measure. They succeeded because they were simple, they were faster to pick up, and they give the broadest possible number of people the ability to start playing from a point of knowing zero (not even what a Tolkien is). All of those things worked, and all of them expanded the game. But it isn’t about does it work, it is about how much money does it make for the folks who own the rule books, lol.
and they have a real, persistent interest in increasing the number of players (but don’t seem to think that includes DMs too much), and so keeping things as simple as possible (like creating new stat blocks just for wildshape that don’t actually stop one from taking on the shape of an owlbear like the movie, but also take away the owlbear stats that the older players wanted, lol), and as broad as possible (including the abandonment of classes and archetypes and shifting to the pick a feature system).
as for backwards compatible, well, I still recall how folks said that 3e was backwards compatible with 1e and 2e. Seriously. Wizards was so excited, the swore up and down that it would be.
then 5e was supposed to be backwards compatible with 3.5, and, well….
It isn’t that they lied or they were wrong or anything, and I am not saying they are now. One D&D is an iterative build, not a 6e. A 5.5, if you will. That is made clear through the spokespersons words. So it absolutely will be backwards compatible because what they are doing is — so far — slapping a few fixes on the current out of control subs (not counting the homebrew) and figuring out some side mechanics, tweaking a few spells. It will be the same game because the engines that make it work — rolls, magic and spells, existence of classes — are merely tweaks of the extant system. For it not to be compatible it would have to break free of the D20 System that still sits at the heart of the game and is why, officially, 5e is still backwards compatible with 3e.
D&D is modular. That is one of the best things they did — they did make it moreso than it was in 1e and 2e. So they can just start dropping different chunks here and there. I didn’t remodel the whole game, either. I popped bits out, and dropped new bits in. 80% of the work I am doing is making sure the rules are all working together — it is otherwise pretty much an SRD with a pretty dress on, lol.
or, since typing that conjured the image in my brain, I transitioned D&D, lol. Still the same thing, just packaged differently.
WotC is doing the same thing I did. Their packaging is just more official and, well, status quo…
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
What are you even talking about? For one, 5th edition already sells feats, spells, and backgrounds on the very site you're posting to. There isn't anything wrong with that; All it does is make it so some people don't have to buy a whole book to just get one small part of it that they want.
Overall, the playtests have been awesome. They aren't like "free to play MMO models" whatsoever. I honestly have zero idea what you are talking about, you haven't given any evidence or reasoning to support your claims of horrible hubris on Wizards part.
If you really think that 1DD is low quality, then I think you wouldn't want to check out Project Black Flag.
This is profound, actually.
I think this is an important statement, and something that very much needed to be said. Everyone disagrees on different things and has varying opinions on where the game should be headed. Pleasing everyone is impossible, and we should all be ready for at least some disappointment.
I am going to disagree with you that classes should have "clear cut, solid lines between." To me at least, classes work better because they allow for balance, distinctions aren't as important and are only really secondary to me.
Yes, each class should be different. The class system allows for different themes and concepts to be explored in an easier, more understandable and comprehensive way. That being said, sometimes it is more enjoyable to play a Cleric, but still be able to do certain things like a Wizard, or vice versa. Having less distinct, more flexible and clearer class concepts allows for more fun and enjoyment for those who want to not be forced into a box for their class concept and mechanics and told they can't think outside of it.
More open class concepts and more overlap allows for more fun. Having everything be different and distinct is good to a certain extent, but it gets in the way of fun when it merely serves to limit creativity and options. Yes, a Wizard should be better at doing Wizard stuff than a Cleric. That being said, it can be really cool to play a Cleric and still get to do some of the things that a Wizard is able to do, or to pretend to be an old man with a beard and a stuff and not be told to change your character concept because you're encroaching on another classes theme.
On the topic of 1DD not modifying 5e enough, I'm happy with that. Sure, they aren't making everything super different. That being said, I should have stated that some of the things in the current edition of the game are working excellently, not just very well. The system we are using today is great, and there is nothing wrong with the developers not wanting to stay from it drastically.
Besides, it's worth not having too many core and structural major changes being made to the game, so long as all the 5e content that I spent years collecting and hours reading is still usable with the new edition of the game.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Definitely. It would be the same with a feature that says, "You always notice any trap and secret door." or "You are never tricked by any lie." Or even, "You dodge every attack, taking no damage." Incidentally, this is why I also dislike spells and features that negate curses, disease, etc. They effectively remove these elements from the game. I'm fine with giving some characters an edge against effects, but taking them completely away never feels right.
On a note on a point that has been raised - I don't like classes to be 100% distinct. Some distinction, yes, but I like having multiple classes having takes on a similar idea. I shared the example of the archer concept before. You have the Fighter take on it, the Ranger, the Rogue and even the Artificer (to an extent). We'll probably see the Paladin have a take on it as well, if they keep that aspect of the new Smite rules. Each archer-based subclass is different because the mother class has a different contribution, producing multiple different flavours. While classes should be unique, there should be plenty of space for different takes on the same concept.
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 think part of it stems from the the nature of the Archetypes used to construct the classes. See, in my mind, for that I would make an Archer Class, and then (in current format) those would all be subclasses of the Archer Archetype -- and an Archer would still be distinct from a Fighter.
So it comes down to what are the archetypes used -- and how are they grounded in that setting, as opposed to this world -- for how you construct them -- but if one cannot add Archer as a class (since that isn't the way the official archetypes are structured), then your path is good.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
For curses/diseases I actually don't mind, because a bog-standard way in the game to remove those is fine. If you instead want a Real Ultimate Plot Curse/Disease that resists all attempts to remove it, that can be built into language of the plot curse/disease itself.
I agree, however I think overlap should largely be the province of subclasses, because subclasses have a hefty opportunity cost. Like if I want a pet-focused Bard, I go for Creation, and that means I'm not going to have the melee capabilities of Swords or the blasting capability of Lore.
Classes can't be 100% distinct, the aren't enough distinct dungeoneering tasks to make them distinct.
One of the core problems with the exploration leg is that there are classes with very minimal interaction with the exploration leg, meaning that when an exploration scene comes up they don't have anything to do. That's bad gameplay, so DMs are likely to limit exploration scenes when one of those classes is in the party.
Actually I would reverse this. It’s not that the class has no connection, it’s that the vast majority of players have no connection. A mideveal citizen generally knew how to start and care for fires, how to build basic wilderness shelters, simple ways to find north, what common wild plants were edible and what weren’t.etc. WHY? Because those skills were in many ways essential to their survival on a yearly if not daily basis. Realistically every character in a mideveal setting should have a half proficiency in survival. And a case could be made for extending that right up until the post WWII period for folks from a rural or semi rural background. The problem isn’t what the PC’s should be credited with knowing, the problem is with the players being clueless about how, what, why, when and where to make use of the survival and Nader skills they could be credited with having. Folks who’ve heard me rant on the ranger forum have heard this before but if DMsand players don’t know how to use mundane skills to do things it’s difficult to get them to do the stuff in game and much easier to just movie montage it away. All of the classes and subclasses should be able to interact with the exploration leg but classes dedicated to it (Druid, Ranger, some monks, and scout rogues) should be much better at it. But it should not be a complete slam dunk for them either.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
A second quick note - it’s a heck of a lot easier for Classes to be distinct when there are 4 classes than it is when there are 12. In one sense that is almost what they are doing in 1D&D - 4 groups (experts, Clerics, Martials and Mages) with 3 classes and (eventually) 4 subclasses for each group (somewhat similar the my earlier suggestion of 4 classes with subclasses and prestige classes). I actually like that part of 1D&D, I just don’t like what they have done with some of classes.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
No, it's that the character has no connection, because there's someone else better at whatever the task is than you are, and it's not a task where adding extra bodies makes it easier. This is most often a problem for strength-based classes because strength just doesn't have a lot of exploration uses, but in any party of 5+ there's likely to be an odd man out because there's only four major classes of exploration (stealth, perception, social, and research).
Honestly, I'd prefer to see casters nerfed than to see martials buffed. Adding power to the classes most definitely does not make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
I have always found much greater enjoyment in those lower levels of play, when the characters are just finding their footing and figuring things out.
Not everyone wants to play D&D as Dragonball Z; some people prefer something more along the lines of Grimgar: Ashes and Illusions.
If the answer is always add on more and more power it only compounds the issues with CR calculations as well if you want to retain some backwards compatibility. If you're making a clean break instead, sure go for it and make all of your new monsters that much more powerful so it's a wash overall as players become weaker compared to the new monsters.
The fun of casters is not necessarily in the power they present, but the capabilities. What's fun about them is doing all this magic, the variety, the ability to do cool things. Unfortuantely, to do anything significant to the casters to nerf them, means taking away the core of what makes them fun. We've seen that as they've tried to nerf the Druid by making WS weaker - that's a class I'll never play, not in that form. That's one of the easier things about casters to gently bring in to line without killing it - and they killed it.
As for the early levels... that's the part that's least fun. Judging by the numbers that skip those levels completely, I'm not alone, and many feel the same way. We even see it in the official adventures - the majority of the adventures I own (without seeking this trait at all) either have a provision so you can start later in the adventure and skip the first few levels...or just drop them completely.
If you really feel the early levels are where the fun is at, then the solution is simple: run perpectual early levek campaigns. I did it (as a playe) for a while in the form of one-shots. It was excruciating for me who love progression and increase, who likes getting more and more cool things I can do, but if that's what you loved go ahead. The problem from where I'm standing is that martials don't get the cool solutions to most problems that casters do, so the solution is to give solutions to martials as well, rather than making casters less fun. Early game, the martials shine, and they're actually better than casters. It's later on that the tables turn.
And, to be honest, if nerfing the fun parts about another class is the solution...then it strikes me that the attitude isn't so much "my class could be more fun, so..." So much as "Your class looks too fun, so..."
That's never sat well with me.
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.
People still had fun playing casters back in the early days of D&D, when casters were extra squishy with 4hp at most and only a single spell at first level.
For the most part, I *do* run exclusively low-level campaigns, usually ending a campaign before it hits tenth level, which is about the point I begin to lose interest as the PCs suddenly turn from somewhat realistic, believable adventurers into four-color comic/cartoon characters.
Low-magic campaigns have been the most rewarding for me, and I prefer to focus on simulating medieval economies in my worlds rather than fleshing out obscure magic systems. I like to give players incentives to pay something *other* than spellcasters, and have always sought to present a fairly exciting--if abstracted--simulation of medieval combat in my games; that's where I want the focus to be, and when some spellcaster can come along and essentially say, "Oh yeah? Well, I snap my fingers and everyone's swords are suddenly too hot to hold!" or press some other "instant win" button, that ruins the fun for everyone else. Now, I understand that there are players out there for whom stealing the spotlight in that way holds immense appeal, but I feel that that's a selfish style of play, and I'd rather not support it. And the game's overpowered spellcasters make that entirely too easy at present.
So, yeah--casters to be hit with the nerf bat hard, IMO. All of 'em.
“No, it's that the character has no connection, because there's someone else better at whatever the task is than you are, and it's not a task where adding extra bodies makes it easier. This is most often a problem for strength-based classes because strength just doesn't have a lot of exploration uses, but in any party of 5+ there's likely to be an odd man out because there's only four major classes of exploration (stealth, perception, social, and research).”
if I took out most D&D players on a survival camping trip your saying that because I’m ( probably) better at they should just sit back and do nothing? Assuming I’m better I am still going to want and need your help in setting up a camp, finding safe water, building and maintaining fires, cooking food, making sure that we aren’t turned around etc. My point is that the PCs should be played as having some knowledge and skill in nature, survival, perception, stealth, etc they are not, not because they shouldn’t have these skills but because ( by and large) the players don’t so they have no clue about how to play them as having them. Getting lost can happen to anyone, and getting unturned around can be done by anyone. I was about 10 when we pulled into campground after dark and set up for the night. In the morning, my mother, who grew up in a log cabin, looked up to see the sun rising over the lake she thought we were east of and was asking how the sun could be rising in the west. Turns out we had made a wrong turn and were camped at the campground west of the lake not the one east of it.
as for nerfing casters I’m waiting to see what they do with the Wizard group and the martial group to make one stronger and the other weaker to maintain a power balance.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Yeah but like... in the early days of D&D, D&D was pretty much the only game in town, so a lot more people were willing to put up with brutal difficulty and wonky design just to play something with their friends.
It's like all the people clamoring for a return to old-school MMOs where you drop all your stuff and lose XP when you die. That was tolerable when there were few to no alternatives - but nowadays, most people will just go play something else if your game wastes their time, and who can blame them?
There are tasks where more bodies are more valuable than expertise, but they also tend to be the tasks where there's not a lot of glory to be had by being good at it (the real currency of RPGs is attention). In stealth and social tasks, low skill characters tagging along are usually a liability, not an asset.