What I like: The spells chapter covers things beyond spells. This isn't done super well in 5e, but if they really wanted to deticate to it, reposing the way that they do it in 5e would be nice.
Stuff I like: Artificers and Psions use spells. I may not want them to actually use spell slots, but I like the idea of saving pages in a book by having Mage Hand cover a magical grip, a psionic grip, and an automoton like drone. It wouldn't be hard to give each class a spell list with an alternate name after, like Mage Hand "Psionic Vector".
The idea that I was toying with: You have your 14 base classes (or something like it... Artificer, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Mystic, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard.) And they each get their own level up mechanics. Subclasses are their own list / tree.
Each feature within the list has a Level requirement, and must come from something you already have. As an example, fighter has it's own 10 features or so... from Indomitable, to Indomotable 2, Second Wind, Third Wind, Fourth Wind, Extra Attack, Extra Attack 2, Extra Attack 3, Extra Attack 4, etc. Each of those requires a specific number of Fighter levels to unlock, and you must have the previous part to unlock it.
Then when it comes to subclasses they all start with the prerequisite "Fighter Level 3", which means you can take a Battle Master feature at level 3. Then the first Champion feature at level 4. Then the first Eldritch Knight feature at level 5. Then Extra Attack 1 at level 6. Then the second BM feature at level 7, etc. You can multi-class into your own class without ever repeating a feature. Heck, if a Level 3 fighter can figure out Champion stuff, why can't a level 13 Battle Master?
I'd like them to bring back the distinction of "Spell", "Spell-Like Ability" and "Supernatural Ability" to make it so much easier to determine what can be dispelled or be suppressed by antimagic field.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I don’t. What I have seen so far is a joke. This is just to get people to spend more money, the recent book releases combined with the UA shows no clear vision, no quality control and no effort beyond ‘lets see how much money we can milk before the gravy train come to an end’.
I'd like to see a lot of new classes. Since 1DD is doing 4 class groups, here are my thoughts on what new classes would fit in well:
Artificer (Expert Group)
Psion (Mage Group)
Witch (Priest Group)
Blood Hunter (Warrior Group)
Some other ideas I had were that we could add a complex martial and a simple spellcaster, because that would allow us to expand on the options for both new and advanced players without taking away preexisting options from either of those groups. Anyways, Blood Hunter may be somewhat of a stretch for Warrior group, but I think it would make a cool addition to the official rules and that is the group in which it would probably fir best.
And before people complain about how adding new classes just makes the game more convoluted, let me say this: Adding new options to the game almost never hurts anyone. Why? Because they are options, and you don't need to use them or play with them if you don't want to. However, other people who like those options now have more cool things they can choose from and enjoy. This way, nobody loses anything and a bunch of people gain something.
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.
I don’t. What I have seen so far is a joke. This is just to get people to spend more money, the recent book releases combined with the UA shows no clear vision, no quality control and no effort beyond ‘lets see how much money we can milk before the gravy train come to an end’.
A real re-balance and vast improvement in the classes would be the following:
Druid class wiped out, moved back to a subclass of Cleric.
Rangers and Paladin's classes wiped out, both moved back as subclasses of Fighter.
Bards wiped out, moved into a subclass of Rogue.
Barbarians gone.
Warlocks gone as a class, BUT Warlock Invocations become available as ASI's arise.
All subclasses go online at 3rd level.
It makes for a much cleaner game, one easier for players to learn and for the DM to manage. But no, wotc believes that the customer base demands more options and more powerful options. It would be interesting to see a real survey done, by professionals pollsters and data scientists, to see what the real sentiment of the customer base is.
The scary thing is that from the beginning of dnd when being an elf was your character class as well as your race…. Nothing you said here is true.
It would be interesting to see a real survey done, by professionals pollsters and data scientists, to see what the real sentiment of the customer base is.
Do you really think a multi-billion dollar company like hasbro hasn’t done that? It’s basic market research. I’d bet not only have they done that, but that they are updating that research frequently.
And if that’s not enough, the PHB sitting on the bestseller list for years now should really be all the proof you need that they’re giving people what they want. Or at least most people are getting most of what they want, which is really about the best a business can do.
They never have the choice I would make for any question. They alwasy look like push polls. Choose an answer from out preselected changes. Almost never do they have a choice like "leave it alone" Basically they are just saying "we are making these changes but just to keep you happy we will give you a few choices we already are going to do.
And they are still asking what ethnicity and gender we are. Just asking implies racism and sexism. If they asked those questions on their own job applications they would get the riot act called on them for it.
I'd generally like to see them return to the PHB of 5e. I find most of the other stuff released to be an attempt to address requests to get "this class " something better, and something better for "this subclass." The power gamers will always find a build that is pretty tough and several other builds can't get close. Then you seem to end up with four or five best builds covering some measure of tanks, glass cannons, spell casters, and something else. For me, and many others, the RP is where the real fun is. Combat is unlikely to make the game become the big draw. Even with the power builds, combat falls into a repetitive rhythm and then the fun is the story, the RP and what you do outside combat.
No, I've like to see a return to the PHB.
But I'd also like to see them give the DM more to work with. The Artificer has demonstrated that players want exposure to crafting. But making a "Crafting Class" that balances the others is like chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Give the DM things for the players to do outside of combat that help the play both in and out of combat. But be very reticent to making it powerful. Just having a little edge like the feats give you a better saving throw (Resilient) or one spell and one cantrip (Magic Initiate). Give us a small scale crafting system and that will give players quite a bit to do outside combat. Give them rules for building a castle like we had in AD&D. Flesh out a framework for a Factions dimension to the player, and the players have something else to do as they develop their build. As a DM, I try to track my players Piety, Renown and introduce them to faction NPCs. They don't know it is going on unless they are really thinking about their relations with other NPCs. If they did know, would they turn it into a video game and try to meet the right people?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I don't really see the need for a "crafting class" so much as "crafting rules" that engage existing proficiencies and class powers so that things may be crafted through a party/team and hired experts effort.
I'd agree that the old school strongholds and followers, ahem, rules would also give players and DMs more to do, especially at higher tiers of play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't really see the need for a "crafting class" so much as "crafting rules" that engage existing proficiencies and class powers so that things may be crafted through a party/team and hired experts effort.
I'd agree that the old school strongholds and followers, ahem, rules would also give players and DMs more to do, especially at higher tiers of play.
Personally not a fan of crafting, but I agree a more robust system for those that use it would be nice. I don’t think it will ever be like elder scrolls where you make a suit if armor in an instant, and I do think that’s what a lot of people want. But crafting is really an expectation now, and they’re disappointing a lot of people by not having one, so sure, let’s get one.
I am looking forward to the bastion system they mentioned. Hopefully it doesn’t amount to, add a d4 to a die roll pb/long rest, but done kind of stronghold rules would be great.
Personally not a fan of crafting, but I agree a more robust system for those that use it would be nice. I don’t think it will ever be like elder scrolls where you make a suit if armor in an instant, and I do think that’s what a lot of people want. But crafting is really an expectation now, and they’re disappointing a lot of people by not having one, so sure, let’s get one.
I am looking forward to the bastion system they mentioned. Hopefully it doesn’t amount to, add a d4 to a die roll pb/long rest, but done kind of stronghold rules would be great.
Maybe I am out of touch with what a lot of players expect from "crafting." I certainly am not looking for a system of instantaneous fabrication (and actually a lot of the "quick change" enchantment, I mean infusion, of the Artificer is probably why I've never been really sold on the class) a la Elder Scrolls (though I'm not familiar with those. I'll have to look into wherever "Bastions" are apparently on the drawing board for 1 D&D.
I guess with strongholds, followers, crafting, and I'd also say things like magical research, a system or systems (that maybe would straddle whatever PHB rules they'd have about high level play and the DMG's "DM's workshop" equivalent) for 'building' on the player character level would be awesome. D&D claims to lean on three pillars of role playing, combat, and (very shaky in this edition) exploration, I think if they recognized "building" as a fourth pillar or rather leg, the game would have a much more sturdy table.
Of course, this is deviating from topic. In terms of future classes, every class should be able to have some role in building rather than having a "crafter class." Maybe you could have a mechanically or mechanisms inclined "tinkerer"; but to make them the only "builder" would be like saying the Ranger was the only "explorer" or the Bard the only "role player" or the Fighter the only "combatant."
And I guess that gets to what I'm patient for, though am anticipating disappointment, in One D&D, instead of character options and small or micro aspects of the system ("we call this making d20 test") but floating out "macro" systems where there's a lot more liberty granted to high level characters to really build the game world alongside the DM (which should excite the player agency advocates).
Because back when the game was first designed, Druid were indeed a subclass of Clerics, Rangers and Paladins were considered subclasses of Fighters. Now, there were no such things as subclasses, but for all intents and purposes that is what they were.
Not at all. Sure paladin and ranger were part of the fighting man group way back in 1974, but by 1977 it was it’s own separate entity. When the game came out in 74 there were only 3 classes- fighting man, magic user, and cleric. The ranger was also part of the fighting men class from original d&d, it wasn’t in basic edition in 74, but every edition after. The thief class came out in 74, and has existed in every edition though now called the rogue. Bards came out with 1st edition, you had to be a human or half elf, and went fighter to lvl 5, then multiclass into thief for another 5 levels and then cleric because bard was a divine caster originally, (changed to wizard and arcane caster in later editions). Druids came out in 1976 and yes they were part of the cleric group to begin with.
Barbarians actually came out in Dragon magazine in 82, much earlier than the UA in 65, though I don’t believe it was released in it’s own right until maybe 1985. Which means it’s been around longer than a lot of the players currently playing dnd.
But saying they are subclasses is disingenuous, there were only the 3 character meta-groups, fighting man, wizard or cleric, and every class was a member of one of those. It’s actually fairly analogous with what they seem to be doing with 6ed by having the groups of expert, warrior, wizard and priest. Druids are part of the priest group but they are still their own class. You wouldn’t refer to them as character class: priest, subclass: druid. You seem to be suggesting that we should get rid of staples of the game that have been present on most cases since the mid to late 70’s? Am I misreading or are you saying we should roll back all of the changes to the game and go back to playing how we used to in 77? I mean at that time (74 I think) elf and dwarf were their own character class (at least in the basic edition, though this changed in ad&d) as well as the race, (for those unaware if you picked either then you didn’t pick fighter / wizard etc as your class). I believe from 2nd ed an elf could be a single or multiclass combination of fighter, wizard, and thief and dwarves were fighter - limited to level 6. Though I think from 76/77 they could also multiclass as thieves.
When AD&D was released, there were Four Classes and each of these had one or two subclasses.
The Fighter Class had Paladins and Rangers as subclasses, or you could be a pure fighter. Subclasses acted like classes do in these times because your class or subclass started at level 1. So calling them sub-classes may just be semantics. But in the way the game was presented, Fighter class allowed the PC to be a fighter, a paladin or a ranger, provided you met the prerequisite stat requirements. In my group, because rolling stats was very different, we hoped we could roll the stats to play a paladin.
The Cleric Class had Druids as a subclass, or you could just be a cleric. Again, the difference between then and today is really semantics.
The Magic User Class had Illusionists as a subclass.
The Thief Class had Assassins as a subclass.
The Bard was a special case presented in the appendix. I don't recall if Monks were part of D&D when it was AD&D before 1980 sometime.
Getting back to my point about a Crafting Class, this is how I view the Artificer Class in the current setup. I think it is fraught with danger for creating a game everyone will enjoy. Instead, I think Wizards should come up with other rules for crafting that may be used or may not be used, like feats, at the DM discretion. So I am in favor of returning to a slimmed down version of the class tree as presented in the PHB. For example, I like Lore Bards, and I'd be in favor of including two other Bard subclasses such as Swords and Whispers. For Rangers, I would like to see Gloomstalkers and one or two other subclasses that capture the nature fighter theme in different ways. I always thought Beastmaster was a good idea, but it seems to not be in vogue. For Clerics, I like Life (thematic), Knowledge (also thematic) and War, but I couldn't put my finger on which are the best subclasses. So this is the broad brush of what I'd like to see.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
The archetype you choose at 3rd level can be considered a subclass. Its just a different name but does the very same thing.
Back when, your species gave you an advantage in something but also took a disadvantage, normally in the class of character you could be. Humans being the only species that could be every class but they gained no bonuses to abilities or had a special vision. Now no one seems to be able to deal with any type of disadvantage and the game makers just took them all out and by doing that they had to give more advantages so everyone felt special. Now there is so many special abilities added in that any and all species and classes can get the DM will never be able to even attempt to keep up on them let alone use them with his NPC's.
There are so many special things added in that its all just a huge pile of homogeneous glitter plopped down on a table. Everything is sparkles. Nothing is unique.
Now there is so many special abilities added in that any and all species and classes can get the DM will never be able to even attempt to keep up on them let alone use them with his NPC's.
There are so many special things added in that its all just a huge pile of homogeneous glitter plopped down on a table. Everything is sparkles. Nothing is unique.
This absolutely. I have been a player in games where I was the solo healz and did Lost Mines as a Celestial warlock, I did another one shot as a Divine Soul sorcerer. I find the complete freedom to take a completely unusual (usually because they are considered sub optimal) concept and power game the bejesus out of it to make it as good or in some cases even better than going for a more standard choice. I accept that the massive number of options can be incredibly overwhelming, and it is easy for someone new to make really bad choices ending up with a poor game experience. But I don’t think removing them is the way forward. I think dm’s need to be more in control and say right this is a beginner game so only stuff from the players handbook. Or this is a game set in Theros so only the phb and Theros book. That still leaves the options open for other more experienced tables to mix and match to their hearts content. The idea of playing a single class would bore me silly, designing and building a character is as much fun for me as playing the game.
My biggest complaint with the UA right now is that it is just rehashing the PHB classes and not including newer classes like artificer. Any new PHB should be including all the current 5e classes updated to whatever the 1D&D standard turns out to be. I get that they are still experimenting with what that standard is and I’m still waiting to see what some of my other favorite classes look like to give judgement. I understand (but disliked) the skills vs spells balancing in the expert classes and really hated the way they eliminated any obvious ranger nests from the ranger class leaving it an expert Gish chassis not a ranger. I liked the character creation UA but don’t play clerics enough to have an opinion on its UA. So I’m waiting to see what they do next.
I was really hoping D&D PROJEKT GOLD 2024 was going to be more of a "consolidated" edition, rather than what evidently is becoming a soft reboot edition.
ARtificer is mentioned in asterisks to be an Expert class though apparently not slated for a core product, again, but at the pace stuff is being teased out for One D&D, I'm expecting the PHB for 6 to being something with the same amount of content and compromises and limitations as the 5e PHB. I would've preferred an "innovative" product that would have a "minimalist" basic rules boxed set, and the PHB would be more a compendium adapted the 5e PHB, XGTE and Tasha's (maybe with MMM races, though I'm guessing MMM, will remain a "bridge" project). Really they should be giving us more player options within the character class templates, not "Ardlings ... ok how about Ardling 2.0 ... look, you're going to have to accept Ardlings".
Of course Ardlings are possible something actually slated for next year's Planescape, and that book as well as MMM (and maybe, ahem) Spelljammer will be "bridge" products for 5 and "6"e.
How would you like to see them handled? Actual examples.
I had an idea today and I'll describe it in its own post, but what would you actually like to see them do? Why?
Also, what would you like to see them keep?
What I like: The spells chapter covers things beyond spells. This isn't done super well in 5e, but if they really wanted to deticate to it, reposing the way that they do it in 5e would be nice.
Stuff I like: Artificers and Psions use spells. I may not want them to actually use spell slots, but I like the idea of saving pages in a book by having Mage Hand cover a magical grip, a psionic grip, and an automoton like drone. It wouldn't be hard to give each class a spell list with an alternate name after, like Mage Hand "Psionic Vector".
The idea that I was toying with: You have your 14 base classes (or something like it... Artificer, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Mystic, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard.) And they each get their own level up mechanics. Subclasses are their own list / tree.
Each feature within the list has a Level requirement, and must come from something you already have. As an example, fighter has it's own 10 features or so... from Indomitable, to Indomotable 2, Second Wind, Third Wind, Fourth Wind, Extra Attack, Extra Attack 2, Extra Attack 3, Extra Attack 4, etc. Each of those requires a specific number of Fighter levels to unlock, and you must have the previous part to unlock it.
Then when it comes to subclasses they all start with the prerequisite "Fighter Level 3", which means you can take a Battle Master feature at level 3. Then the first Champion feature at level 4. Then the first Eldritch Knight feature at level 5. Then Extra Attack 1 at level 6. Then the second BM feature at level 7, etc. You can multi-class into your own class without ever repeating a feature. Heck, if a Level 3 fighter can figure out Champion stuff, why can't a level 13 Battle Master?
I'd like them to bring back the distinction of "Spell", "Spell-Like Ability" and "Supernatural Ability" to make it so much easier to determine what can be dispelled or be suppressed by antimagic field.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I don’t. What I have seen so far is a joke. This is just to get people to spend more money, the recent book releases combined with the UA shows no clear vision, no quality control and no effort beyond ‘lets see how much money we can milk before the gravy train come to an end’.
I'd like to see a lot of new classes. Since 1DD is doing 4 class groups, here are my thoughts on what new classes would fit in well:
Some other ideas I had were that we could add a complex martial and a simple spellcaster, because that would allow us to expand on the options for both new and advanced players without taking away preexisting options from either of those groups. Anyways, Blood Hunter may be somewhat of a stretch for Warrior group, but I think it would make a cool addition to the official rules and that is the group in which it would probably fir best.
And before people complain about how adding new classes just makes the game more convoluted, let me say this: Adding new options to the game almost never hurts anyone. Why? Because they are options, and you don't need to use them or play with them if you don't want to. However, other people who like those options now have more cool things they can choose from and enjoy. This way, nobody loses anything and a bunch of people gain something.
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.Improve the magic item creation rules.
Actually have spells that let you create all the common magic items And the ability to make all the spell effects permanent.
Basically get rid of any reason to even have the artificer class.
The scary thing is that from the beginning of dnd when being an elf was your character class as well as your race…. Nothing you said here is true.
Do you really think a multi-billion dollar company like hasbro hasn’t done that? It’s basic market research. I’d bet not only have they done that, but that they are updating that research frequently.
And if that’s not enough, the PHB sitting on the bestseller list for years now should really be all the proof you need that they’re giving people what they want. Or at least most people are getting most of what they want, which is really about the best a business can do.
I hate the UA polls.
They never have the choice I would make for any question.
They alwasy look like push polls. Choose an answer from out preselected changes. Almost never do they have a choice like "leave it alone"
Basically they are just saying "we are making these changes but just to keep you happy we will give you a few choices we already are going to do.
And they are still asking what ethnicity and gender we are. Just asking implies racism and sexism. If they asked those questions on their own job applications they would get the riot act called on them for it.
I'd generally like to see them return to the PHB of 5e. I find most of the other stuff released to be an attempt to address requests to get "this class " something better, and something better for "this subclass." The power gamers will always find a build that is pretty tough and several other builds can't get close. Then you seem to end up with four or five best builds covering some measure of tanks, glass cannons, spell casters, and something else. For me, and many others, the RP is where the real fun is. Combat is unlikely to make the game become the big draw. Even with the power builds, combat falls into a repetitive rhythm and then the fun is the story, the RP and what you do outside combat.
No, I've like to see a return to the PHB.
But I'd also like to see them give the DM more to work with. The Artificer has demonstrated that players want exposure to crafting. But making a "Crafting Class" that balances the others is like chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Give the DM things for the players to do outside of combat that help the play both in and out of combat. But be very reticent to making it powerful. Just having a little edge like the feats give you a better saving throw (Resilient) or one spell and one cantrip (Magic Initiate). Give us a small scale crafting system and that will give players quite a bit to do outside combat. Give them rules for building a castle like we had in AD&D. Flesh out a framework for a Factions dimension to the player, and the players have something else to do as they develop their build. As a DM, I try to track my players Piety, Renown and introduce them to faction NPCs. They don't know it is going on unless they are really thinking about their relations with other NPCs. If they did know, would they turn it into a video game and try to meet the right people?
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I don't really see the need for a "crafting class" so much as "crafting rules" that engage existing proficiencies and class powers so that things may be crafted through a party/team and hired experts effort.
I'd agree that the old school strongholds and followers, ahem, rules would also give players and DMs more to do, especially at higher tiers of play.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Personally not a fan of crafting, but I agree a more robust system for those that use it would be nice. I don’t think it will ever be like elder scrolls where you make a suit if armor in an instant, and I do think that’s what a lot of people want. But crafting is really an expectation now, and they’re disappointing a lot of people by not having one, so sure, let’s get one.
I am looking forward to the bastion system they mentioned. Hopefully it doesn’t amount to, add a d4 to a die roll pb/long rest, but done kind of stronghold rules would be great.
Maybe I am out of touch with what a lot of players expect from "crafting." I certainly am not looking for a system of instantaneous fabrication (and actually a lot of the "quick change" enchantment, I mean infusion, of the Artificer is probably why I've never been really sold on the class) a la Elder Scrolls (though I'm not familiar with those. I'll have to look into wherever "Bastions" are apparently on the drawing board for 1 D&D.
I guess with strongholds, followers, crafting, and I'd also say things like magical research, a system or systems (that maybe would straddle whatever PHB rules they'd have about high level play and the DMG's "DM's workshop" equivalent) for 'building' on the player character level would be awesome. D&D claims to lean on three pillars of role playing, combat, and (very shaky in this edition) exploration, I think if they recognized "building" as a fourth pillar or rather leg, the game would have a much more sturdy table.
Of course, this is deviating from topic. In terms of future classes, every class should be able to have some role in building rather than having a "crafter class." Maybe you could have a mechanically or mechanisms inclined "tinkerer"; but to make them the only "builder" would be like saying the Ranger was the only "explorer" or the Bard the only "role player" or the Fighter the only "combatant."
And I guess that gets to what I'm patient for, though am anticipating disappointment, in One D&D, instead of character options and small or micro aspects of the system ("we call this making d20 test") but floating out "macro" systems where there's a lot more liberty granted to high level characters to really build the game world alongside the DM (which should excite the player agency advocates).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Not at all. Sure paladin and ranger were part of the fighting man group way back in 1974, but by 1977 it was it’s own separate entity. When the game came out in 74 there were only 3 classes- fighting man, magic user, and cleric. The ranger was also part of the fighting men class from original d&d, it wasn’t in basic edition in 74, but every edition after. The thief class came out in 74, and has existed in every edition though now called the rogue. Bards came out with 1st edition, you had to be a human or half elf, and went fighter to lvl 5, then multiclass into thief for another 5 levels and then cleric because bard was a divine caster originally, (changed to wizard and arcane caster in later editions). Druids came out in 1976 and yes they were part of the cleric group to begin with.
Barbarians actually came out in Dragon magazine in 82, much earlier than the UA in 65, though I don’t believe it was released in it’s own right until maybe 1985. Which means it’s been around longer than a lot of the players currently playing dnd.
But saying they are subclasses is disingenuous, there were only the 3 character meta-groups, fighting man, wizard or cleric, and every class was a member of one of those. It’s actually fairly analogous with what they seem to be doing with 6ed by having the groups of expert, warrior, wizard and priest. Druids are part of the priest group but they are still their own class. You wouldn’t refer to them as character class: priest, subclass: druid. You seem to be suggesting that we should get rid of staples of the game that have been present on most cases since the mid to late 70’s? Am I misreading or are you saying we should roll back all of the changes to the game and go back to playing how we used to in 77? I mean at that time (74 I think) elf and dwarf were their own character class (at least in the basic edition, though this changed in ad&d) as well as the race, (for those unaware if you picked either then you didn’t pick fighter / wizard etc as your class). I believe from 2nd ed an elf could be a single or multiclass combination of fighter, wizard, and thief and dwarves were fighter - limited to level 6. Though I think from 76/77 they could also multiclass as thieves.
When AD&D was released, there were Four Classes and each of these had one or two subclasses.
The Fighter Class had Paladins and Rangers as subclasses, or you could be a pure fighter. Subclasses acted like classes do in these times because your class or subclass started at level 1. So calling them sub-classes may just be semantics. But in the way the game was presented, Fighter class allowed the PC to be a fighter, a paladin or a ranger, provided you met the prerequisite stat requirements. In my group, because rolling stats was very different, we hoped we could roll the stats to play a paladin.
The Cleric Class had Druids as a subclass, or you could just be a cleric. Again, the difference between then and today is really semantics.
The Magic User Class had Illusionists as a subclass.
The Thief Class had Assassins as a subclass.
The Bard was a special case presented in the appendix. I don't recall if Monks were part of D&D when it was AD&D before 1980 sometime.
Getting back to my point about a Crafting Class, this is how I view the Artificer Class in the current setup. I think it is fraught with danger for creating a game everyone will enjoy. Instead, I think Wizards should come up with other rules for crafting that may be used or may not be used, like feats, at the DM discretion. So I am in favor of returning to a slimmed down version of the class tree as presented in the PHB. For example, I like Lore Bards, and I'd be in favor of including two other Bard subclasses such as Swords and Whispers. For Rangers, I would like to see Gloomstalkers and one or two other subclasses that capture the nature fighter theme in different ways. I always thought Beastmaster was a good idea, but it seems to not be in vogue. For Clerics, I like Life (thematic), Knowledge (also thematic) and War, but I couldn't put my finger on which are the best subclasses. So this is the broad brush of what I'd like to see.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
The archetype you choose at 3rd level can be considered a subclass. Its just a different name but does the very same thing.
Back when, your species gave you an advantage in something but also took a disadvantage, normally in the class of character you could be. Humans being the only species that could be every class but they gained no bonuses to abilities or had a special vision.
Now no one seems to be able to deal with any type of disadvantage and the game makers just took them all out and by doing that they had to give more advantages so everyone felt special.
Now there is so many special abilities added in that any and all species and classes can get the DM will never be able to even attempt to keep up on them let alone use them with his NPC's.
There are so many special things added in that its all just a huge pile of homogeneous glitter plopped down on a table. Everything is sparkles. Nothing is unique.
Wow. I never knew all this lore.
I basically really like what they’ve done with the classes in the One D&D playtest so far.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
This absolutely. I have been a player in games where I was the solo healz and did Lost Mines as a Celestial warlock, I did another one shot as a Divine Soul sorcerer. I find the complete freedom to take a completely unusual (usually because they are considered sub optimal) concept and power game the bejesus out of it to make it as good or in some cases even better than going for a more standard choice. I accept that the massive number of options can be incredibly overwhelming, and it is easy for someone new to make really bad choices ending up with a poor game experience. But I don’t think removing them is the way forward. I think dm’s need to be more in control and say right this is a beginner game so only stuff from the players handbook. Or this is a game set in Theros so only the phb and Theros book. That still leaves the options open for other more experienced tables to mix and match to their hearts content. The idea of playing a single class would bore me silly, designing and building a character is as much fun for me as playing the game.
My biggest complaint with the UA right now is that it is just rehashing the PHB classes and not including newer classes like artificer. Any new PHB should be including all the current 5e classes updated to whatever the 1D&D standard turns out to be. I get that they are still experimenting with what that standard is and I’m still waiting to see what some of my other favorite classes look like to give judgement. I understand (but disliked) the skills vs spells balancing in the expert classes and really hated the way they eliminated any obvious ranger nests from the ranger class leaving it an expert Gish chassis not a ranger. I liked the character creation UA but don’t play clerics enough to have an opinion on its UA. So I’m waiting to see what they do next.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I was really hoping D&D PROJEKT GOLD 2024 was going to be more of a "consolidated" edition, rather than what evidently is becoming a soft reboot edition.
ARtificer is mentioned in asterisks to be an Expert class though apparently not slated for a core product, again, but at the pace stuff is being teased out for One D&D, I'm expecting the PHB for 6 to being something with the same amount of content and compromises and limitations as the 5e PHB. I would've preferred an "innovative" product that would have a "minimalist" basic rules boxed set, and the PHB would be more a compendium adapted the 5e PHB, XGTE and Tasha's (maybe with MMM races, though I'm guessing MMM, will remain a "bridge" project). Really they should be giving us more player options within the character class templates, not "Ardlings ... ok how about Ardling 2.0 ... look, you're going to have to accept Ardlings".
Of course Ardlings are possible something actually slated for next year's Planescape, and that book as well as MMM (and maybe, ahem) Spelljammer will be "bridge" products for 5 and "6"e.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.