Seriously, after nearly 40 years of playing D&D, I believe 5e is the best version yet.
But... I really wish that instead of creating defined subclasses that we were just able to choose from the available archetype skills at each appropriate level.
Or... more access to feats, maybe allowing selection of non-attribute increasing feats during levels 1-4.
I guess I just think think the more individualization the better, within their own classes. You know, have our cake and eat it too. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Perpetually annoyed that Eldritch Knights can't use Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Smite, and Eldritch Sight.
The subclasses can be used in a variety of ways, and if you want a group to get access to perhaps a partial extra feat (as many have multiple effects) that might be a fun and interesting way to give some variation. Heck give each person some feat that is aimed at RP to help develop their characters personality and style.
Something like that can be wrangled around and used to allow you and your group to enjoy it more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
But... I really wish that instead of creating defined subclasses that we were just able to choose from the available archetype skills at each appropriate level.
That particular thing is a really big ask, considering the things that would need to be true in order to not have such an option create larger balance issues than the current system has.
Namely that not only would every sub-class option have to have its options balanced against each other sub-class' option at the same level, but all of the base classes would also have to be balanced with each other without the inclusion of sub-class features - where the current system of balance allows for some classes to be more potent in their base features in exchange for less influential sub-classes, other classes to put their potent features into their sub-classes because the base class is less influential, and for classes to be overall balanced with each other even though a level-by-level analysis might show noteworthy difference in performance aspects, because some are more front-loaded and others have more of their potent features set at higher levels.
I guess I just think think the more individualization the better, within their own classes. You know, have our cake and eat it too. :)
I agree in theory, but setting up meaningful individualization choices (by which I mean the choice not only matters, but there is no "wrong" or "almost always better" choice) is difficult. There is a big risk when trying to achieve greater individualization of characters that things go the route of the 3rd edition/v3.5 skill system; you can absolutely put your ranks wherever you want for a large amount of individual difference between one character and the next... but if you do, your chances of succeeding at a skill check actually relevant to the game drop significantly compared to picking the "right" few skills to constantly put maximum ranks towards. Or the route of the 3rd edition/v3.5 feat system, where there are thousands of feats... and only actually a few feat chains that most groups ever saw get taken, so what is claimed by some as "endless customization" is actually, in practical play, no more options than 5th edition provides between combination of a sub-class and 1 or 2 feats.
and only actually a few feat chains that most groups ever saw get taken, so what is claimed by some as "endless customization" is actually, in practical play, no more options than 5th edition provides between combination of a sub-class and 1 or 2 feats.
I have actually been a big proponent for how this works out. I like the gradient of Fighter -> Fighter + Magic Initiate -> Fighter (Eldritch Knight) -> Bladesinger ->Full Caster I feel it is a nice smooth transition depending on how much in a certain direction you want to go. This example can be used for a few other feat/subclass options which i think is kinda entertaining allowing you to dip into some interesting bits without necessarily being forced to multiclass. A very positive aspect to me. It feels like a Rheostat and you can turn just enough knobs to allow a variety of interesting results.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
I agree with everything Aaron said. The current design also allows subclass features to emphasize different areas of the game (e.g. social encounters or exploration instead of combat). Having a free-for-all mix-and-match system guarantees players will feel like every time they pick a social feature over a combat feature, they're being a detriment to the group.
I agree with the original poster in that archetypes seem to make the most sense in terms of what's already been done with the original book. On the other hand, subclassing really does allow for individualized balancing. WotC has definitely made huge attempts at keeping power reasonably confined, which is better from a play perspective. It's simply not fun to have one member of the group totally control the encounter. We play tested some of UA in the beginning and, compared to then, they've made really great changes that were needed (artificer comes to mind). This level of power control really would be hard for an archetype alone, although not impossible.
I'd imagine it has to do with the extent that the intended fantasy is different from the core fantasy, as well. If you try to take something that is majorly different and make it an archetype, a lot of exceptions would need to be made in the rules (ie take x, y, z,.. spells from (insert class) spell list), which really confuses the ease of understanding of the books. WotC has definitely made it a focus to make things concise and clear, with as few exceptions as possible.
As a comparison, Pathfinder has a wide variety of customization (core classes, prestige classes, archetypes, sub classes, maybe more). And, as a player and DM, I have to say that the individualized power is absolutely all over the range. Even with the best of situations, it can be confusing beyond anything in 5e. It's imperative that WotC avoids this kind of situation to continue trends of 5e so far, and I think that they've majorly accomplished that.
Seriously, after nearly 40 years of playing D&D, I believe 5e is the best version yet.
But... I really wish that instead of creating defined subclasses that we were just able to choose from the available archetype skills at each appropriate level.
Totally agree with you on 5E being the best version. I've enjoyed the heck out of all of them but this one is something special.
Mixing and matching the archetype features within a single class...I'd allow it if only our of curiosity how it would pan out. Individual classes have all the same level breaks among their own subclasses and they're balanced between each other. If anything, my instinct is characters created this way might be a little wonky (like if later features build off what was gained earlier).
Mixing and matching the archetype features within a single class...I'd allow it if only our of curiosity how it would pan out.
It'd get weird pretty quickly. For one example, look at the rogue class; at 3rd level you can take the Assassin feature and be very much better at combat, and then at 9th level you could skip the non-combat feature of the Assassin and instead take the combat-relevant feature of the Thief, and then at 13th take the Thief feature again for broader magic item usage instead of the even more campaign-style-dependent imposter feature, and still swing back into the Assassin features at 17th level to get even better at combat again... which might not be completely imbalanced, but is absolutely ignoring that the design of the sub-classes is to provide abilities which apply to all three pillars of the game and the effectiveness of features in one pillar is often influenced by other features (i.e. the really effective combat pillar features of the Assassin sub-class are balanced by the other features being not as effective in the general sense).
It'd get weird pretty quickly. For one example, look at the rogue class; at 3rd level you can take the Assassin feature and be very much better at combat, and then at 9th level you could skip the non-combat feature of the Assassin and instead take the combat-relevant feature of the Thief, ...
That's exactly the case I was thinking about. Another example would be swapping out Way of the Open Hand's Tranquility.
It gets even sillier when you consider classes whose subclasses have strong ties to a character's background. It's hard to justify swapping cleric, paladin, sorcerer or warlock subclass features for example.
Subclasses aren't just collections of class features, they say something about your character's place in the world. A Barbarian that follows Path of the Ancestral Guardian is a very different person from one that follows Path of the Zealot.
It'd get weird pretty quickly. For one example, look at the rogue class; at 3rd level you can take the Assassin feature and be very much better at combat, and then at 9th level you could skip the non-combat feature of the Assassin and instead take the combat-relevant feature of the Thief, ...
That's exactly the case I was thinking about. Another example would be swapping out Way of the Open Hand's Tranquility.
It gets even sillier when you consider classes whose subclasses have strong ties to a character's background. It's hard to justify swapping cleric, paladin, sorcerer or warlock subclass features for example.
Subclasses aren't just collections of class features, they say something about your character's place in the world. A Barbarian that follows Path of the Ancestral Guardian is a very different person from one that follows Path of the Zealot.
Mmm....Are they really though? All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. That's how I view those two particular options. I'd say archtype aspects can be altered to tailor a character to the story, not a story tailors the character. If I have a design for a character in my head that blindly follows ancestral guardian spirits like a zealot, I'd favor swapping features over saying, "Sorry, pick one." It's a thing for a DM to allow but that's always been the case in DnD.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You only lose if you die. Any time else, there's opportunity for a come back.
Mixing and matching the archetype features within a single class...I'd allow it if only our of curiosity how it would pan out.
It'd get weird pretty quickly. For one example, look at the rogue class; at 3rd level you can take the Assassin feature and be very much better at combat, and then at 9th level you could skip the non-combat feature of the Assassin and instead take the combat-relevant feature of the Thief, and then at 13th take the Thief feature again for broader magic item usage instead of the even more campaign-style-dependent imposter feature, and still swing back into the Assassin features at 17th level to get even better at combat again... which might not be completely imbalanced, but is absolutely ignoring that the design of the sub-classes is to provide abilities which apply to all three pillars of the game and the effectiveness of features in one pillar is often influenced by other features (i.e. the really effective combat pillar features of the Assassin sub-class are balanced by the other features being not as effective in the general sense).
Not disagreeing that it would most certainly get weird with unusual combinations but i feel like it would be balanced mechanically. Like the rogue example, the character could become a combat beast but without the other subclass features aiding in other pillars that particular character would be balanced in a sense. If combat, exploration and interaction are each a jug filled 1/3 with water, you're just redistributing the liquid.
All that said, I'm not interested in playing this way myself. I just meant if that was something a group wanted to experiment with i don't think it would break the game per se. At least worth trying fornthe curious.
Not disagreeing that it would most certainly get weird with unusual combinations but i feel like it would be balanced mechanically. Like the rogue example, the character could become a combat beast but without the other subclass features aiding in other pillars that particular character would be balanced in a sense. If combat, exploration and interaction are each a jug filled 1/3 with water, you're just redistributing the liquid.
That sort of balance would rely even more heavily on all three pillars being treated as equally important by the group playing the game than the current sort of balance does. To use your jug analogy, 3 jugs of the same size 1/3 full of water is the same amount of water as 1 jug 2/3 full, 1 jug 1/3 full, and an empty jug... unless the group is playing a "grab jug in position A, and jug in position C, but you don't get to use whatever water is in jug B" sort of play-style. Then the standard distribution gets each player 2/3 of a jug worth of water, and the (to borrow an old joke for illustrative purposes) "I gave up being able to read for a +1 to hit" distribution gets the player a full jug of water.
Yes really. Path of the Ancestral Guardian is all about your protecting people and having a connection to your ancestors. Path of the Zealot is about fanatical worship of a deity of war, fighting, or destruction. There's a lot of leeway in every subclass's description, but those are still two very different ideas.
If I have a design for a character in my head that blindly follows ancestral guardian spirits like a zealot, I'd favor swapping features over saying, "Sorry, pick one." It's a thing for a DM to allow but that's always been the case in DnD.
If you're going to be house ruling anyways, you might as well create a new subclass rather than letting players freely hack up parts of existing subclasses. You'll get something that's better tailored to whatever character concept you're trying to create and you're also much less likely to break something by mixing features that were never meant to be mixed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Forum Infestation (TM)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Seriously, after nearly 40 years of playing D&D, I believe 5e is the best version yet.
But... I really wish that instead of creating defined subclasses that we were just able to choose from the available archetype skills at each appropriate level.
Or... more access to feats, maybe allowing selection of non-attribute increasing feats during levels 1-4.
I guess I just think think the more individualization the better, within their own classes. You know, have our cake and eat it too. :)
Perpetually annoyed that Eldritch Knights can't use Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Smite, and Eldritch Sight.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Rule 0 man! I'm making custom subclasses for my players all the time to match the flavor they want to play.
The subclasses can be used in a variety of ways, and if you want a group to get access to perhaps a partial extra feat (as many have multiple effects) that might be a fun and interesting way to give some variation. Heck give each person some feat that is aimed at RP to help develop their characters personality and style.
Something like that can be wrangled around and used to allow you and your group to enjoy it more.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Believe me, I understand there are work arounds. I am not complaining, just voicing my druthers.
Thanks for the replies.
Perpetually annoyed that Eldritch Knights can't use Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Smite, and Eldritch Sight.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
I agree with everything Aaron said. The current design also allows subclass features to emphasize different areas of the game (e.g. social encounters or exploration instead of combat). Having a free-for-all mix-and-match system guarantees players will feel like every time they pick a social feature over a combat feature, they're being a detriment to the group.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I agree with the original poster in that archetypes seem to make the most sense in terms of what's already been done with the original book. On the other hand, subclassing really does allow for individualized balancing. WotC has definitely made huge attempts at keeping power reasonably confined, which is better from a play perspective. It's simply not fun to have one member of the group totally control the encounter. We play tested some of UA in the beginning and, compared to then, they've made really great changes that were needed (artificer comes to mind). This level of power control really would be hard for an archetype alone, although not impossible.
I'd imagine it has to do with the extent that the intended fantasy is different from the core fantasy, as well. If you try to take something that is majorly different and make it an archetype, a lot of exceptions would need to be made in the rules (ie take x, y, z,.. spells from (insert class) spell list), which really confuses the ease of understanding of the books. WotC has definitely made it a focus to make things concise and clear, with as few exceptions as possible.
As a comparison, Pathfinder has a wide variety of customization (core classes, prestige classes, archetypes, sub classes, maybe more). And, as a player and DM, I have to say that the individualized power is absolutely all over the range. Even with the best of situations, it can be confusing beyond anything in 5e. It's imperative that WotC avoids this kind of situation to continue trends of 5e so far, and I think that they've majorly accomplished that.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
InsiderContent director for Nerdarchy.com
Lifelong gamer and writer
The Forum Infestation (TM)
You only lose if you die. Any time else, there's opportunity for a come back.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
InsiderContent director for Nerdarchy.com
Lifelong gamer and writer
That sort of balance would rely even more heavily on all three pillars being treated as equally important by the group playing the game than the current sort of balance does. To use your jug analogy, 3 jugs of the same size 1/3 full of water is the same amount of water as 1 jug 2/3 full, 1 jug 1/3 full, and an empty jug... unless the group is playing a "grab jug in position A, and jug in position C, but you don't get to use whatever water is in jug B" sort of play-style. Then the standard distribution gets each player 2/3 of a jug worth of water, and the (to borrow an old joke for illustrative purposes) "I gave up being able to read for a +1 to hit" distribution gets the player a full jug of water.
The Forum Infestation (TM)