D&D (2024) Would you be fine with classes that you can't always play but are better than base classes?

[payn]

One of the reasons why I preferred PF1 over PF2. You don't have to give up a feat in order to play a particular archetype or to multiclass in another class.

It is a bummer.

 

[Corinnguard]

It is a bummer.

Agreed. PF1's archetypes are lot simpler and easier to understand and implement that PF2's archetypes. They altered a feature here, replaced another feature there, and you had something that came very close IMO to what you wanted your character to have. The only major drawback that the PF1 archetypes had was that you really couldn't stack more class archetype together if they altered/replaced the same class features. PF2's take on the archetypes by the way of archetype feats was an attempt to fix that problem. Just take the dedication feat and two of the archetype feats of a given archetype, and then you could go pick up a second dedication feat and get the benefits of another archetype.

Btw, I know of at least two Magus archetypes in PF1 that can be stacked. The Staff Magus and the Card Caster Magus. They work especially well if paired with a certain Cajun-speaking Tiefling named Gambit.

 

[ECMO3]

Back in the long long ago, Paladins and Rangers where just better. They were Fighters+.

But you couldn't just pick it. You had to roll stats high enough. And even if your DM let you insert your rolls into any stat still didn't mean you had high enough stats to be a Ranger or Paly. They were special and you wanted one in the party if possible. It was always a pleasant surprise when one got to be in the party. Now-a-days it's just ho hum another Ranger.

Of course, with the standard being Point Buy or whatever now there would have to be an alternate method. Like roll a 6 on a D6 if you want to make a Paladin or Ranger. This is assuming they are Better Class Plus. Could be whole new classes that are a take on the regular balanced class. Not a Sorcerer but a... Witch King! Or whatever.

Do classes need to be balanced anyways? Most people seem to get a character idea and not really worried if they will be A+ tier in combat.

There are a few things to unpack here.

First point buy is not universal and I believe 4d6d1 is the default method of doing ability scores.

Second 5E classes are not balanced right now and 5.5 does not seem like it will be any more balanced. The difference between 5E and 1E is Rangers and Paladins (pre UA) were better from 1st level on in 1E. The only thing fighters had was faster leveling. In 5E balance is not constant. Classes that are really strong in tier 1 can be really weak in tier 3 or vice versa, so while there is wide imbalance at a given level, that imbalance is not consistent across all levels.

To answer your question - no IMO classes do not need to be balanced. The current classes are not balanced and that has never caused any problems in 5E games I have played.

On the other hand, most homebrew attempts to "improve balance" actually hurt the game and the fun for the players. These things to achieve better balance either make the game far worse and less fun for most players or they balance one area of the game or at one level range while causing a wildly larger imbalance in another area.

Class balance changes dramatically with level. Because of this any attempt to balance the classes would need different mechanics at different levels, boosting them at some levels and nerfing at others. Example - buff the Monk by letting them make 2 unarmed strikes in tier 2, but then undo that and take move it back to one unarmed strike in tier 4 when they are the best non-caster.

Finally you would have to restrict multiclassing to make any balance attempts work, otherwise players interested in optimizing will simply multiclass to cover their shortfalls. Again, taking away multiclassing or making it more difficult or restricted would make the game A LOT worse for many players as it would restrict what characters they can build.

 

[Staffan]

One of the reasons why I preferred PF1 over PF2. You don't have to give up a feat in order to play a particular archetype or to multiclass in another class.

Well, multiclassing would cost you levels, not feats. Although PF2 class feats are more along the lines of those selectable special abilities many classes got (primarily barbarians and rogues in PF1 core, IIRC). But 3e/PF1 multiclassing would generally fall into one of two categories: most multiclassing would be pretty weak because you give up high-level abilities in class A for low-level abilities in class B, but some combinations with front-loaded classes would be broken. That's generally not ideal.

The main advantage of PF2 archetypes, particularly in the context of this thread, is that they aren't 1st-level things. You can pick one up at a later point, which makes them suitable rewards – particularly if you have some downtime to retrain previous class feats. They are more akin to prestige classes than PF1 archetypes.

That said, I do believe PF2 class feats tend toward the ungenerous, with many being part of feat chains where you spend 2-3 class feats in order to get something that's about half-way to being cool. One example is the Barbarian's Thrash feat chain: Thrash at 8th level lets you deal a small amount of damage to a grabbed foe (with a save instead of an attack roll), Collateral Thrash at level 16 also lets you deal the same damage to another adjacent foe (aka hit a bleep with another bleep), and finally one AP has a capstone version as a reward where you get to deal Thrash damage against all adjacent foes and then throw the grabbed creature a short distance away. These feel like something that should cost one feat in total, perhaps with some auto-upgrading function as well.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, I will be the odd woman out here and say yes, I would be totally fine with some classes being straight-up more powerful, but also being rarer, with some sort of randomized procedure used to determine when/if one can be played. However, I recognize that this sort of design has extremely niche appeal, and would not be a good fit for D&D. Such a system is better suited for a game where characters are meant to be disposable game pieces rather than vehicles for creative expression. And while D&D may have had roots as such a game, we’re well past that point. I, personally, think wargame-style D&D would be a lot of fun. But I don’t think it’s the kind of experience most people who want to play D&D are looking for from it.

 

[payn]

Well, multiclassing would cost you levels, not feats. Although PF2 class feats are more along the lines of those selectable special abilities many classes got (primarily barbarians and rogues in PF1 core, IIRC). But 3e/PF1 multiclassing would generally fall into one of two categories: most multiclassing would be pretty weak because you give up high-level abilities in class A for low-level abilities in class B, but some combinations with front-loaded classes would be broken. That's generally not ideal.

Its actually generally overstated. The only multiclass combos that are overpowered are those that lean into certain racial aspect5s and prestige classes. Otherwise, as noted, its a trade off of power for versatility. It wasnt the true multiclassing system that was the issue, it was the game math and bad feat design.

The main advantage of PF2 archetypes, particularly in the context of this thread, is that they aren't 1st-level things. You can pick one up at a later point, which makes them suitable rewards – particularly if you have some downtime to retrain previous class feats. They are more akin to prestige classes than PF1 archetypes.

A real bummer that you have to wait to realize your concept and accept it as a special treat and not just part of chargen that expands the possibility of class.

That said, I do believe PF2 class feats tend toward the ungenerous, with many being part of feat chains where you spend 2-3 class feats in order to get something that's about half-way to being cool. One example is the Barbarian's Thrash feat chain: Thrash at 8th level lets you deal a small amount of damage to a grabbed foe (with a save instead of an attack roll), Collateral Thrash at level 16 also lets you deal the same damage to another adjacent foe (aka hit a bleep with another bleep), and finally one AP has a capstone version as a reward where you get to deal Thrash damage against all adjacent foes and then throw the grabbed creature a short distance away. These feel like something that should cost one feat in total, perhaps with some auto-upgrading function as well.

The idea is that you are funneled into class paths. The idea is to put lanes in front of you that you must choose but cant really move beyond or back on to keep the system tight. It works at its goal, which is to make you a specialist, and keep the CR tight and predictable. Which is great if thats what you are after. I happen to very much not be looking for that. Though, I do appreciate a well designed system even if its not for me.

 

[Yaarel]

So, I will be the odd woman out here and say yes, I would be totally fine with some classes being straight-up more powerful, but also being rarer, with some sort of randomized procedure used to determine when/if one can be played. However, I recognize that this sort of design has extremely niche appeal, and would not be a good fit for D&D. Such a system is better suited for a game where characters are meant to be disposable game pieces rather than vehicles for creative expression. And while D&D may have had roots as such a game, we’re well past that point. I, personally, think wargame-style D&D would be a lot of fun. But I don’t think it’s the kind of experience most people who want to play D&D are looking for from it.

Kinda like playing Magic The Gathering on a battlemat?

 

[payn]

So, I will be the odd woman out here and say yes, I would be totally fine with some classes being straight-up more powerful, but also being rarer, with some sort of randomized procedure used to determine when/if one can be played. However, I recognize that this sort of design has extremely niche appeal, and would not be a good fit for D&D. Such a system is better suited for a game where characters are meant to be disposable game pieces rather than vehicles for creative expression. And while D&D may have had roots as such a game, we’re well past that point. I, personally, think wargame-style D&D would be a lot of fun. But I don’t think it’s the kind of experience most people who want to play D&D are looking for from it.

It did occur to me that this seems like a very OSR type option.

 

[billd91]

Back in the long long ago, Paladins and Rangers where just better. They were Fighters+.

But you couldn't just pick it. You had to roll stats high enough. And even if your DM let you insert your rolls into any stat still didn't mean you had high enough stats to be a Ranger or Paly. They were special and you wanted one in the party if possible. It was always a pleasant surprise when one got to be in the party. Now-a-days it's just ho hum another Ranger.

That depended on how much of a stickler the DM/group was about rolling the stats. We eventually got to the point where we didn’t care so much and just had players get as close as they could with what they rolled and then raised the stats to the class minimums. We‘d rather have a player play the class they wanted.

Do classes need to be balanced anyways? Most people seem to get a character idea and not really worried if they will be A+ tier in combat.

Exact balance? No. Able to positively contribute in most play situations? Yes.

 

[Maxperson]

Back in the long long ago, Paladins and Rangers where just better. They were Fighters+.

But you couldn't just pick it. You had to roll stats high enough. And even if your DM let you insert your rolls into any stat still didn't mean you had high enough stats to be a Ranger or Paly. They were special and you wanted one in the party if possible. It was always a pleasant surprise when one got to be in the party. Now-a-days it's just ho hum another Ranger.

Of course, with the standard being Point Buy or whatever now there would have to be an alternate method. Like roll a 6 on a D6 if you want to make a Paladin or Ranger. This is assuming they are Better Class Plus. Could be whole new classes that are a take on the regular balanced class. Not a Sorcerer but a... Witch King! Or whatever.

Do classes need to be balanced anyways? Most people seem to get a character idea and not really worried if they will be A+ tier in combat.

I'm good with things like that. I was back in 1e and I still am.