D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Mistwell]

Well, that kind of glosses over the fact that some designer decided that in order to gain the actor benefits, you need to give up the Greatweapon Fighter feat (or somesuch).

In other words, you can think Actor to be a trap without devaluing its benefits or be a mere minmaxer.

You're paying a very steep price for Actor. I believe that to be a trap for everyone.

The bard in our game has gotten more good use out of Actor than literally any other feat anyone has chosen in our game. For example, he has done more with that feat in our game than my fighter did with polearm master and sentinel combined (which as I am sure you know, can be highly effective). Literally, no joke, the advantage on those checks and mimicry have been devastatingly impactful (particularly the mimicry).

It is deeply campaign dependant, and also luck dependent. If you can't imagine it being one of the most powerful options in a particular kind of game, feel free to ask specifics.

 

[CapnZapp]

Unless of course you have a very RP heavy campaign where actor comes into play more often than GWM feat ever would.

It depends on the game. In addition, it's not a "trap". It's a choice to not optimize for combat.

Well, if I'm not in one of those campaigns, I'm being overly punished for choosing actor.

I submit it would be better overall if the opportunity cost of Actor was lowered. Even if that makes it a "must buy" or "feat tax" in a very RP heavy campaign.

Why? Because in such a campaign mechanical cost is not a major concern.

That is, complaints about overpriced options ("traps") and underpriced options ("must haves") carry much more weight in campaigns where mechanical concerns are paramount than in campaigns where they are secondary.

The cost of any given DPS loss in a combat-heavy campaign is larger than in a combat-light one. The current rules balancing price Actor based on its immense utility in a very RP heavy campaign, but using the metrics of a crunch-heavy campaign.

I submit this is faulty thinking - in a very RP heavy campaign, rules and options fade into the background. Balancing them should be done for the opposite case, where they are acutely felt.

I hope you can appreciate that I'm not saying one type of campaign is better than others, because I am not thinking that.

 

[Zardnaar]

The bard in our game has gotten more good use out of Actor than literally any other feat anyone has chosen in our game. For example, he has done more with that feat in our game than my fighter did with polearm master and sentinel combined (which as I am sure you know, can be highly effective). Literally, no joke, the advantage on those checks and mimicry have been devastatingly impactful (particularly the mimicry).

It is deeply campaign dependant, and also luck dependent. If you can't imagine it being one of the most powerful options in a particular kind of game, feel free to ask specifics.

The main problems with those type of feats and things like illusionists is you can't really rate then as it's subjective.

At least compared with something like sharpshooter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I hope you can appreciate that I'm not saying one type of campaign is better than others, because I am not thinking that.

You are saying that the game only works well in one of the three pillars, and should be balanced more around that pillar, though.

Which is maybe a tad defeatist, but I suppose I have to agree, not wrong, exactly.

 

[CapnZapp]

WotC isn't a big enough tent for their style are the same ones who infer or imply that other playstyles are wrong (using terms to describe people who make those choices as "traps"--an inherently negative descriptor, or are "wrong" choices to make).

I can only speak for myself, but I don't use "trap" this way.

When I speak of trap I mean an option the player thought would be good, but turned out not to be. Not an obvious bad choice, but a "hidden" bad choice.

No playstyle judgement is intended. In fact, suggesting it is only poisons the discussion.

That is, yes, "trap" is a good word precisely because it's an "inherently negative descriptor", but not because your choice is judged. Except by yourself, as in "I'm disappointed this option didn't help me as much as I thought it would."

Regards

 

[Garthanos]

'Balancing across pillars' = 'fig-leaf to cover total lack of balance.'
'Balancing within each pillar' = 'actually trying for balance.'

Ummm well another way of looking at it is all three pillars use different amounts of mechanical emphasis rather naturally and also can dynamically have differing degrees of emphasis within a given campaign so its impossible to create equitable weight for the same design resource across them (allowing swap out one for the other is well only ever going to work coincidentally) and the only kind of equity achievable going to be between classes within a pillar. Of course none of that closely relates to multiclassing exactly (It's spurious).

 

[CleverNickName]

My 10th level warlock (hexblade) just took his first level of sorcerer today (draconic bloodline). My cantrips doubled. I get +1 hit point per level now. My spell slots doubled, and I can swap them back and forth. Which is to say, I can use my 5th level Warlock spell slots to cast my scaling sorcerer spells (magic missile and witch bolt) and/or I can use my 1st level Sorcerer spell slots to cast my non-scaling warlock spells (like misty step and shield.)

So...trap sprung? I guess?

 

[Big J Money]

This is one of the problems of 3rd edition Prestige Classes... all over again. Subclasses are there to make D&D a CRPG more than a pen and paper game of imagination. They appeal to a certain sense of gamism at the expense of something else. It's not surprising. If Hasbro is going to make profit, it needs to be able to sell books that players will buy, not just GMs. And players love these crunchy options, even if (IMO) they harm the overall product quality.

 

[pogre]

This is one of the problems of 3rd edition Prestige Classes... all over again. Subclasses are there to make D&D a CRPG more than a pen and paper game of imagination. They appeal to a certain sense of gamism at the expense of something else. It's not surprising. If Hasbro is going to make profit, it needs to be able to sell books that players will buy, not just GMs. And players love these crunchy options, even if (IMO) they harm the overall product quality.

While I agree in regards to 3rd edition - 5th edition has seemed mostly different to me. One of the main complaints around here is how slowly WOTC introduces new player material.

WOTC has exhibited quite a bit of caution in their releases and this has helped keep the game more accessible to new players. It has also helped keep the game evergreen.

While I am a minimalists when it comes to PC options (and it sounds like you may be too), I think WOTC's current strategy has mostly worked out.

They are really walking a fine line by keeping the game accessible to new folks and satisfying folks who want every option.

YMMV, IMO, etc.

 

[Mistwell]

This is one of the problems of 3rd edition Prestige Classes... all over again. Subclasses are there to make D&D a CRPG more than a pen and paper game of imagination. They appeal to a certain sense of gamism at the expense of something else. It's not surprising. If Hasbro is going to make profit, it needs to be able to sell books that players will buy, not just GMs. And players love these crunchy options, even if (IMO) they harm the overall product quality.

Your post is so far from reality I question if you have even read 5e, much less played it.

Edit - I did a quick search of your posts and you recently said, " I'm running a 5E game without the PHBook and not very happy with the vague Bard writeup in the basic rules". So, I was right. You don't even have the books that have subclasses.