Level Up (A5E) Class redesign

[Zaukrie]

I think the UA approach to dipping into classes with feats makes some sense.....but I hate that feats are SO BIG in 5e that they eat up 3-5 old feats and you only get them every 4th level of a class (not a character, so multi-classing really sucks at times)

 

[Haldrik]

Even if pre-built "classes" are provided, I can't help but look at all of those available options. Now, if those options were a separate book, that might work. Out of sight, out of mind.

What about a separate section of a book?

The first chapter can be a presentation of all the pregenerated characters features for class, species, and culture/background. Features to swap can be in a separate chapter, and organized by class, species, and culture/background.

 

[dave2008]

No.

You can pick any feat from a lower tier.

So you can use a Paladin feat to instead pick up a Warlock feature from a lower tier, for example. As one gains in tiers, more and more options become available.

Obviously, higher tier options are unavailable for balance reasons.

That is functionality similar. You have just made it each feat at a given level must be equal. Which is more rigid IMO. What I would like to see is:

1. Class features being roughly equal (probably with level restrictions/ prerequisite). Allows for swapping of class features.
2. SubClass features being roughly equal (possibly with level restrictions/ prerequisite). Allows for swapping of subclass features.
3. Feats being roughly equal with no prerequisites (just like 5e now)

This provides a lot more design variety and flexibility, but it is more difficult to pull off well.

 

[dave2008]

What about a separate section of a book?

I mean that is how I would probably do it as publisher, but that wouldn't work for me as a player (I mean it is still right there in book - how can I not flip a few pages and check it out). To me, the best middle ground would be a separate book in a boxed set.

But, look, I am not the demographic this book is for. I am happy with our 5e house rules and choices we allow (no ASI, all UA feats & book feats, and variant class features UA). We don't need a "crunchier" 5e. We have the game we want already.

 

[Haldrik]

Since PF2e came out I have retreated heavily from that idea.

I havent played PF2. Give examples of issues you found difficult.

I have looked at PF2, but I also am less enthusiastic about its layout.

The layout I presented is one feat per level. Fullstop. The player can use the feat for absolutely anything one wants. The table is just for the purpose of default, thematic organization, and level prereqs for powerful features.

 

[Haldrik]

That is functionality similar. You have just made it each feat at a given level must be equal. Which is more rigid IMO. What I would like to see is:

1. Class features being roughly equal (probably with level restrictions/ prerequisite). Allows for swapping of class features.
2. SubClass features being roughly equal (possibly with level restrictions/ prerequisite). Allows for swapping of subclass features.
3. Feats being roughly equal with no prerequisites (just like 5e now)

This provides a lot more design variety and flexibility, but it is more difficult to pull off well.

But you can use one feat, to gain two separate half feats. Each half feat can be designed separately.

At the same level, a player could get a class half-feat and a species half-feat.

A player could add a different subclass archetype feature instead of a class feature.

There is no rigidity.

 

[Li Shenron]

Choice every level + 5e compatibility = alternate class features

It doesn't seem more complicated than that to me.

 

[Gradine]

For me, "analysis paralysis" is never a problem.

Each class is like a pregenerated character that selects the default feats. If there are 12 or so classes, then the most popular archetypes are already covered.

Only a player who actively wants, would swap out the default for something else.

For a player who is happy with the default, the game is super simple.



Since every feature is a lego-like unit, there are no trap options, because any trap option (or broken option) can be updated in isolation.

I agree that there are ways to avoid the problem, and this is definitely one of them. I also suspect that these will be less common problems for players seeking out a product titled, in some form, "5e Advanced". Such players are much more likely to identify as some form of optimizer, and thus will likely seek out and deride whichever "trap options" exist. I humbly submit that a cure to that would be to design the game the better emphasize all three pillars equally, and give every class options to excel in these pillars, and allow the classes to make these choices in isolation. To borrow from my own writeup in a different thread:

Bards are the party face. Rangers handle the exploration pillar. This leaves social skill challenges with the Bard running point everyone else essential being sidekicks. The solution comes from giving each character and each class unique ways to contribute to each pillar. A (poorly executed) example would be the Fighter's Extreme Athlete. The Fighter's excellent conditioning allows them naturally excel at swimming and climbing (outside of heavy armor, anyway). But the Fighter could have access to other choices to help them excel in a variety and encounters. A great-axe fighter may have a background as a lumberjack, and thus know their way around a forest better than most. A mercenary would excel at bartering. A bodyguard? Intimidation, perception, insight. These not only increase choices points at level up but also help flesh out more who the character not only is but was.

Ideally, this would involve incorporating backgrounds more into the class design themselves, giving specific bonuses (I'm thinking less "static bonus to d20 roll" and more "skill tricks") and abilities (sometimes derisively referred to as "ribbons") to characters. This is especially ideal for those players who don't plan out their characters' entire intricate background to the slightest detail in advance. By a lowish level (somewhere around 3-5) your character would have selected the abilities that collectively make up their background and the roles they can play and contribute in each pillar. These pillars don't have to be balanced by class, necessarily; it would make sense for the Bard to pick up more social pillar abilities, the Ranger more exploration, the Fighter more combat, etc. But you're never left with the choice between combat effectiveness and social effectiveness. You're not left to decide "should my character take this bonus to swords, or to weaving?"

 

[Gradine]

Choice every level + 5e compatibility = alternate class features

It doesn't seem more complicated than that to me.

I'm not sure that direct 5e compatibility is the worthiest goal. Easy to enough to convert adventures, maybe even monsters and spells? Sure. Balancing 5e Fighter with an Advanced 5e Fighter? That doesn't seem nearly as necessary to me.

 

[dave2008]

I havent played PF2. Give examples of issues you found difficult.

I have looked at PF2, but I also am less enthusiastic about its layout.

For me, it is to many choices. Every level you choose at least one feat, 2 feats every other level. Each feat category has 7-8 choices. So I have to select 1 out 8 or 2 out of 16 choices every single level. I know there are people that like this, but I am not one of them.

They layout I presented is one feat per level. The player can use the feat for absolutely anything one wants.

Yep, that used to be what I wanted to do too. Basically you get rid of multiclassing by allowing a character to be built anyway you like (just need to meet the pre-requisites). Complete flexibility of character creation and then then simple "builds" (that is what I called the predetermined classes) for dummies like me. After get a tasted of something close to that, I realized that wasn't what I wanted. I am reserving that type of freedom to my Immortal level games where I want a different play experience.