D&D 5E D&D Class Design Criticism

[Psikerlord#]

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.

Completely agree. We mostly play in the 1-10 bracket. In some modern D&D like games the levels top out at about 10 for this reason (13th Age, Low Fantasy Gaming, just two examples).

 

[Capn Charlie]

I chose to end fifth age at 10th level for much the same reasons, and intended it to be able to be played after that so you could enjoy your fanciest toys.

Historically favorite level has been six, as the power to mortality rate felt almost perfect.

Sent from my MT2L03 using EN World mobile app

 

[machineelf]

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.

It is true that 5th edition, and other editions, seem to cater best to long-running groups that can exist through all 20 levels and beyond. I'm lucky in that I have a group like that. We have been playing together for three years and plan to keep going. Even then, we have only run a couple of campaigns that have gotten us to about level 15 each. plus a lot of one-shots. We haven't played much beyond that, but we plan to in our current campaign. But if your group can only last for about 8-10 levels or so, then yes, this can be a real problem.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It is true that 5th edition, and other editions, seem to cater best to long-running groups that can exist through all 20 levels and beyond....

Most editions of D&D have a definite 'sweet spot' where they play best, usually in the single-digits (I consider 1e's to be 3-7, for instance, though the exact range is always debatable). 5e's experience table is designed to give you fast progression through to level 4, and after 12th, so 5-11 is probably the intended sweet spot. So, yeah, any build that waits longer than that to be sufficiently 'realized' is kinda out in the cold.

(13th Age, Low Fantasy Gaming, just two examples).

I saw what you did there.

 

[Alexemplar]

I also remember one of the commonly heard criticisms of 4e being that 1st level characters felt too hardy/powerful. There are some people who seem to enjoy having characters struggle a bit with more limited resources and higher levels of lethality at lower levels.

 

[Lanefan]

I also remember one of the commonly heard criticisms of 4e being that 1st level characters felt too hardy/powerful. There are some people who seem to enjoy having characters struggle a bit with more limited resources and higher levels of lethality at lower levels.

Yeah, I'll second this one as that was one of my issues: there seems to be a huge gap in 4e between a commoner and a 1st-level character; much more than the difference between 1st and 2nd level, or 2nd and 3rd, etc. There's probably enough design space to shoehorn in about 3 "extra" levels between commoner and RAW 4e 1st (I'll call them -2, -1 and 0 levels; with commoner equating to -3), with the normal 1st level abilities slowly accreting as you progress through -2 to -1 to 0 so that by 1st you're indistinguishable from any other 1st level 4e character. Similarly toning down monsters etc. and-or using lots of minions isn't difficult, to provide meaningful but not always deadly opposition.

'Cause yes, I'm one who enjoys starting with nothing...and maybe dying with nothing; or maybe going from nothing to everything, depending how things go.

Lanefan

 

[devincutler]

Old School D&D was that you played a single campaign for years and years. I am running an ongoing campaign that has been playing regularly since 1st edition (with some of those PCs still around). This type of play needs all 20 levels present in the game and it needs the abilities to be spread amongst those levels.

The idea that you run one AP and then reroll PCs is a very new one and not one with which I am thrilled. I'd like to see WOTC issue more short term scenarios. I understand they need a certain price point, which is why anthologies of shorter scenarios are likely to be the way to go from now on, and DMs Guild also provides short scenarios, but to me just playing 1 AP and then rerolling misses out on some of the great aspects of RPing.

 

[GMMichael]

I'm not seeing the truth in the premise. Can you provide concrete examples of high level abilities that are fundamental and required for character concepts?

That's a good question, because what I hear the OP asking is: "why can't I have all my cool abilities at first level?"

Or, "can't WotC just make all abilities into a gradient that gets more powerful each time you go up a level?"

My ideal RPG would define each classes' core "fun thing" at level one, make it super easy to use, and then expand off of it.

Noted. And way to admit, off-handedly, that D&D is not your ideal RPG. You are not alone.

 

[Horwath]

Some things could get tweaked a little.

I.E. both paladins and rangers should get their fighting style at 1st level as does the fighter.

Wizard school specializations should be from 1st level not 2nd.

Rogues evasion could come sooner. 3rd or 4th level.

Clerics 8th level domain feature could be combined with 6th level one.

Champions 2nd fighting style at 3rd level with improved crit.

Barbarian should have fast movement from 1st level.

Monks slow fall and deflect arrows from 1st level.

To disencourage some multiclassing full casters could have 10 levels of spells, 10th level spells available at 19th level.


Also what is missing the most as 1st level character is a bonus feat for ALL 1st level characters.
That level of personalization is really important right from the start.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think rogue's slippery mind is too late. Actually any ability that gives proficiency that late is not the most elegant thing...
It gives you an instant bonus of +5 to will saves.
And it makes you think twice about taking resilient earlier.
In my opinion giving advantage on will saves at that level would have been the better choice. And mathematically it would not be a lot worse.