D&D 5E D&D Class Design Criticism

[discosoc]

This is something that's kind of bothered me since the 3e days, but it seems to get worse with each edition. Basically, classes really only start to feel "complete" in the later levels. Just think of all the character concepts that don't really come online until level 8 or 11 or something, which is basically the tail end of an average AP. There's a lot of attention paid towards "class balance" at level 20, without really considering how few people actually play post 15 for any length of time.

Does anyone else wish more class features came online much earlier, and maybe topped out at level 10? Feats, ABI's, or the DMG boon system could flash out 11-20 range. I guess it would be different if D&D was like an MMO, where it really only gets started at max level, but it's not. Groups tend to end at max level, and often several levels before.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This is a totally legitimate concern, but it really hit home around the transition between 3.0 and 3.5 edition. At some point, somebody decided that it had to be a thing for a class to get a new feature at every level (in addition to improved stats), which meant that they had to delay handing out class features in order to have stuff left over for high levels. A ranger shouldn't need to hit level 13 before they can benefit from camouflage, but if they let anyone do that at level 1, then the ranger wouldn't get anything new at that level.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I believe that's a feature, not a bug of their design. Maybe you should just start at a higher level and play from there. The playing style of my own group, for example, works well with the idea that PCs start with a lot of potential but not a lot of actual power. When we want to play, for example, a fighter who is everything you should expect of a fighter, we just start at a higher level.

 

[Xeviat]

This is a totally legitimate concern, but it really hit home around the transition between 3.0 and 3.5 edition. At some point, somebody decided that it had to be a thing for a class to get a new feature at every level (in addition to improved stats), which meant that they had to delay handing out class features in order to have stuff left over for high levels. A ranger shouldn't need to hit level 13 before they can benefit from camouflage, but if they let anyone do that at level 1, then the ranger wouldn't get anything new at that level.

Your example is a perfect example of something that should be a skill check and not a class ability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fanaelialae]

For my experienced players, I usually just start them between 3rd and 5th level. IMO, at that point the class concept is pretty solid. Admittedly, you still have features to look forward to, but I don't really feel like a ranger NEEDS camouflage to feel like a ranger, any more than a wizard NEEDS teleport to feel like a wizard. They're certainly nice features to have, but they aren't necessary.

 

[Bacon Bits]

It's the fault of 3e style, a la carte, choose-your-own-abilities multiclassing. If 3e style multiclassing -- where each level was a self-contained set of abilities that you can freely mix and match in any ratio -- didn't exist and D&D still used hybrid multiclassing, there would be much less of a requirement for classes to have abilities at every level or abilities worth remaining single classed to achieve.

If we still used 1e style hybrid multiclassing, then there would never be concerns about "frontloading" or about keeping a class worthwhile to take 20 levels of it. It wouldn't be a concern at all. That doesn't mean that hybrid multiclassing doesn't have it's own design concerns, like balancing level progression vs single classed characters. It just means that as long as we have a la carte multiclassing we're going to have classes with 1 or 2 abilities each level all the way to level 20 because that's the only design pattern that has been found that supports that style of multiclassing.

That said, I really think that most 5e classes feel "complete" by level 3-5.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Your example is a perfect example of something that should be a skill check and not a class ability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMO, anyone can camouflage themselves in order to hide in plain sight, given the proper circumstances. How long that takes is up to the DM. A 10th level ranger with the Hide in Plain Sight feature can do it in 1 minute (likely faster than the time required for anyone without this feature) and gains a +10 to their stealth check (which I would not grant to someone without this feature under any circumstances).

Why would a bonus to your skill check be a skill check?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Your example is a perfect example of something that should be a skill check and not a class ability.

That's just an issue with the Ranger class being a Fighter with nature skills. Another example might be how, in 5E, a Paladin doesn't start out with the ability to smite.

At least, for the most part, they tend to hand out the iconic abilities at low levels. A level 1 Paladin may not really feel like a Paladin yet, but everyone is mostly themself by level 7 or so.

 

[Jester David]

There are a lot of iconic and cool powers in the levels 5-10 range. Which is unfortunate, but levels 1-3 are kinda a wash, so you don't want to put too much there. And it would be crazy to give everyone everything at levels 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Plus, you kinda want your fighter or rogue to get fightery and roguish things at levels 11+ and not just generic stuff like ASI or feats. Otherwise, it doesn't really feel like gaining a rogue level. You might as well end advancement at 10 and have a generic "class" following that. Like taking an epic level.
And just getting "improved X" or "greater Y" class features is rather boring, as is extra uses.

I suppose the alternative is something like 4e (or half the classes in 1-2e), where you get all the class features you will ever get at first level. But that's hard to balance against spellcasters and pretty much tosses out the concept of multiclassing. And it's less interesting for people who do enjoy building characters.

 

[Raith5]

I am not sure I agree. I dont think this criticism was true with regards to 4e. Even in 5e I still think the main class defining abilities are there by 3rd level.