D&D (2024) Class features with drawbacks

[Galendril]

MtG is a single player game. In DND with multiple players, it’s way too easy to make drawbacks become negligible.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Chronurgists' capstone also gives you an exhaustion, but this is completely warranted, as it is way overpowered.

 

[Lanefan]

Considering how much wailing and gnashing of teeth there was over the ability score penalties in Volo's Guide to Monsters, I don't think today's gamers react to downsides very well (I'm pretty sure I've seen the goblin and kobold in Volo's Guide described as "literally unplayable" because they have ability score penalties).

Best to avoid penalties in future designs.

I'm of the complete opposite mindset: no benefit without drawback.

Ability scores are a perfect example. There should be a baseline (usually Human) and every other race is compared to that for each stat and given a racial bonus, or penalty, or neither. Ideally the bonuses and penalties for each race more or less cancel off, unless one actually wants the races to start with greater or lesser overall ability power.

And if people can't handle downsides now and then: tough.

 

[Phazonfish]

Considering how much wailing and gnashing of teeth there was over the ability score penalties in Volo's Guide to Monsters, I don't think today's gamers react to downsides very well (I'm pretty sure I've seen the goblin and kobold in Volo's Guide described as "literally unplayable" because they have ability score penalties).

Best to avoid penalties in future designs.

Oh wow, really? I assumed it was the opposite reason. I assumed the designers realized that strengths are more meaningful than weaknesses because players will always play to their strengths while playing around their weaknesses, so giving player options more pluses and minuses just results in really stacked characters. Well at least it sounds like we are all in agreement to just not include penalties anyway.

MtG is a single player game.

I don't know how to respond to this.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm of the complete opposite mindset: no benefit without drawback.

Ability scores are a perfect example. There should be a baseline (usually Human) and every other race is compared to that for each stat and given a racial bonus, or penalty, or neither. Ideally the bonuses and penalties for each race more or less cancel off, unless one actually wants the races to start with greater or lesser overall ability power.

And if people can't handle downsides now and then: tough.

I agree with benefits pairing with drawbacks.

I don't agree with racial bonuses and penalties to attributes though. I don't think it adds anything to the game to encourage players to play specific races for specific classes.

Even if we want to agree that elves (in general) have high dexterity, and dwarves (in general) have high constitution, adventurers are not average representatives of their races.

But back on topic, I've always wanted to play a monk with Blindsight who is also actually blind. I homebrewed a subclass for it, somewhere in this forum. "Way of Four Senses" I think I called it.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't agree with racial bonuses and penalties to attributes though. I don't think it adds anything to the game to encourage players to play specific races for specific classes.

Even if we want to agree that elves (in general) have high dexterity, and dwarves (in general) have high constitution, adventurers are not average representatives of their races.

No, but it doesn't make sense that all the clumsy Elves and non-sturdy Dwarves would be the ones to go adventuring, does it?

And, I don't at all mind races other than Human trending toward specific classes and even being outright banned from a few others. That's the whole point of playing a Human - you've got the flexibility to equally be any class you want (and have the stats for).

But back on topic, I've always wanted to play a monk with Blindsight who is also actually blind. I homebrewed a subclass for it, somewhere in this forum. "Way of Four Senses" I think I called it.

Cool idea!

 

[Li Shenron]

In another thread we spent some time discussing the merits and flaws of the Barbarian's Frenzy ability from 5e. I don't want to rehash that whole conversation, but it did strike me as odd that the Frenzy feature has a significant benefit, and a scaling penalty depending on number of times it is used. More specifically, that it appears to be the ONLY instance where the 5e designers did this. With that in mind, how would the community feel about more class features using this type of model in future editions?

The drawback of the Barbarian ability is temporary and I think this makes it totally fine.

What I think it's generally a bad idea, is to have a permanent drawback or limitation, such as forbidden magic schools.

I think the developers have been pretty clear why they didn’t include drawbacks in character classes.

That's ridiculous, they should ask the Druid about that. Except that I think the developers were not fully responsible of the armor restrictions, I always had the feeling that it was sneaked into the PHB by a high-up who listened to a bad but influential playtester at the last minute without thinking of the repercussions.

Druid armor restrictions are by far the worst possible kind of drawback, because not only they are permanent, but they also carry over when multiclassing, there is technically no way to offset them except merrily ignore or reinterpret the rule.

 

[Rikka66]

Try this out, in MTG black decks often use sacrificing life or creatures to power their best tricks.

Was just reading through some magic articles about various mechanics and the designer (Rosewater) mentions that those that require a sacrifice on the part of the player are generally not received well by newer or inexperienced players, at least initially.

I think it's a very natural reaction that extends across all games, and really is a basic part of human psychology.

 

[Shiroiken]

Abilities with drawbacks are perfectly fine, so long as the benefit makes the cost worthwhile. Overchannel is farily acceptable, but I think the argument with Frenzy is that getting rid of Exhaustion is rather difficult.

 

[Horwath]

I'm of the complete opposite mindset: no benefit without drawback.

Ability scores are a perfect example. There should be a baseline (usually Human) and every other race is compared to that for each stat and given a racial bonus, or penalty, or neither. Ideally the bonuses and penalties for each race more or less cancel off, unless one actually wants the races to start with greater or lesser overall ability power.

And if people can't handle downsides now and then: tough.

I play D&D for 20 years and I am not in favor of racial ability bonuses/penalties. Especially if there are both.

Maybe best way for 6E to get rid of ability modifiers from race and make them class only or make something similar like 13th age where both race and class gets bonuses and you cannot stack them.

And bonuses/penalties from race could be "floating" so most character concepts could be avalilable.

No combination in unplayable but we cannot even compare in 3E, difference between Sun elf and half-Orc wizard.

So I.E:
elf could get 3 favorite abilites; DEX,INT and WIS and 3 secondary abilities STR,CON and CHA.
they would get +2(or +1, or what ever) to 2 of those abilities and -2(or whatever) penalty to one of the latter 3.

Half-orcs would have favorite STR,DEX and CON and secondary INT,WIS and CHA.

Humans, +2 to any score

etc...

In addition every class would get +2 to one of 3 abilities that are key for that class:
I.E. fighter +2 to STR, DEX or CON. rogue +2 DEX,INT or CHA. ranger +2 STR,DEX or WIS...etc...

keep max point buy to 14 for this variant