D&D 5E [+] On Building 5e Classes

[doctorbadwolf]

So, classes are big. 20 levels, multiple systems intersecting often in different ways from any other class, balance in terms of no class overshadowing another in play, but also balance in terms of people not looking at a class and calling it broken before they ever get it onto a character sheet. In addition to all that, it has to "pop", it has to help create "hell yeah!" moments for the character, it has to have multiple unique hooks, and it has to have a cohesive identity for it's subclasses and for most characters to hook onto and build from.

It's a lot.

But can it be made simpler, or at least less intimidating? Can we device a system by which a class and at least 1 subclass can be built, at least to level 12 let's say, in a day? A week? A few hours?

What would that process look like? Do we break down and separate things like;

• 1/2 spellcasting
• full spellcasting
• half extra attack (all warriors except fighter)
• full extra attack (fighter)
• extra attack + a force multiplier
• Sneak Attack or "nova mechanic" (of which the game currently only has one, but I don't think there has to be only one)
• Half Sneak Attack or "half nova power" (if the paladin had smite that didn't use a spell slot and either was usable X per day and increased dice or was 1/round at-will but only scaled at high level, it would be a half sneak attack ability)
• expertise
• 2 skills
• 3 skills
• 4 skills
• beefy armor and HD package
• Whatever else needs to be an "item"

If so, can that be done more simply than the point system I've seen passed around online? Could a decent number of people agree on what goes into Major, Moderate, Minor, and Ribbon, fields, and a custom class gets XYZ number of each category?

What does this idea allow?

• Dual Class/Hybrid/Simpler Multiclass characters, whose class is just "Winter Knight of The Court of Mabd", and gains extra attack, a half nova ability, moderate defense package, and half casting. Or "Fey Master of the School of The Faerie Circle" which has half nova that resembles Sneak Attack and is limited by situationality rather than x/day, some expertise but not full expertise, light defenses with unarmored defense (Int) and solid light weapon proficiencies, half casting and ritual casting with a spell book, and a couple minor abilities that help it feel light on it's feet and hard to pin down, basically making Swashbuckler Rogue/Bladesinger Wizard into a class.
• The player gets to build their class, with the DM. Because the balance of the options and the system is transparent to the player and DM, they can tweak the progression of abilities if it isn't quite doing what was desired.
• Front loads the work of leveling in a classless system, while still being simpler than actual classless systems (ie, you choose x major, y moderate, z minor, and pepper with ribbons as appropriate but no more than 3 in one tier, and no ribbons in a tier following a 3 ribbon tier. If needed, 2 minors can be traded for 1 moderate, but that moderate should upgrade at a later level to make sure every level has something. that's the system. You look at the list of features in each category, there are notes on what each accomplishes and what narratives and play styles they lend themselves to, and you build your class.)

Any thoughts? Note, + thread. I'm fine with "I don't think I'd use it, but" replies, but not "this is a bad idea and you should stop" replies.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Forgot, probably the guidelines would include picking a basic chassis in terms of what levels you gain your subclass, whether your identity lives primarily in class or subclass, etc.

I think a half caster with a form of sneak attack would be really fun, with subclasses that take both into account.

Could you mix extra attack with half nova? Probably, that's close to what the paladin is, just don't quite throw so much additional power on top of that into it! Hmmm...I'm actually kinda doing that with my Archer class.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Would you be looking at trying to break down the current classes into their components, on the assumption that they're all balanced against each other?
Or are you looking at a more "eyeball it" attitude towards whether one class is balanced against another?
Are you separating the three pillars out, or does a character being weak at two of the pillars justify overwhelming power in one?

What is the typical adventuring day that we are balancing at-will/Short res/Long rest powers around?

I'd suggest for example, that half-casting is worth less than half or what full-casting is. Maybe 1/3rd.
Also that Sneak Attack is very much not a nova mechanic. Its a steady, sustained level of damage, which should be given less of a weighting than damage that can be called up on demand like a Paladin's smites, or full spellcasting.

 

[TwoSix]

I like the idea, full stop. I've advocated in the past for a 5e model with more classes, but the classes are simpler with less decision points during the leveling process. More of an AD&D model than the 3e model. Using that kind of a template combined with a "class construction guide" could empower both players (who can design a class to fit their exact conception of a character) and DMs (who can design classes to model concepts within their setting.)

Personally, I'd argue that you can build classes without the need to hold subclasses, they simply need more features (or stronger or scaling features) to fill in the gaps.

I think the types of features you broke down in the all make sense. Special abilities like wild shape (moon druid strength, normal wild shape not so much) and warlock invocations might need to be considered as specific builds. Like, a simple invocation like Agonizing Blast completely changes the at-will attack profile of the class, which should impact the number of other features it should receive.

Spell list access is also a key factor in balancing what other features can be received. Just limiting to existing spell lists is probably the easiest approach to balance, especially when access to just a few of the most useful and powerful spells can be class defining.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't know about getting it all down to one 'class', but you could probably get it down to three:

1. Full caster, getting additional minor abilities at set levels. With a robust list of options, you could do a lot here. The tricky part would be figuring out how to handle spell lists. They need to work before you know theme, flavor, or playstyle, but jst giving them access to any spell will make unbalanced spells more obvious than they already are.

2. Non-caster. You'd probably want a few options for 'defense mode' (armor/dodging/toughness/warding) and something like a fighting style but bigger. (ie rage, sneak attack, extra attacks). Then a few modular options like maneuvers or static bonuses. I'd be generous with skills for any non-caster - fighters getting six skills at level one wouldn't be a problem.

3. Half-caster would likely need to be it's own thing, progression-wise, but could borrow from and expand on the first two.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Would you be looking at trying to break down the current classes into their components, on the assumption that they're all balanced against each other?
Or are you looking at a more "eyeball it" attitude towards whether one class is balanced against another?
Are you separating the three pillars out, or does a character being weak at two of the pillars justify overwhelming power in one?

What is the typical adventuring day that we are balancing at-will/Short res/Long rest powers around?

I'd suggest for example, that half-casting is worth less than half or what full-casting is. Maybe 1/3rd.
Also that Sneak Attack is very much not a nova mechanic. Its a steady, sustained level of damage, which should be given less of a weighting than damage that can be called up on demand like a Paladin's smites, or full spellcasting.

I like the idea, full stop. I've advocated in the past for a 5e model with more classes, but the classes are simpler with less decision points during the leveling process. More of an AD&D model than the 3e model. Using that kind of a template combined with a "class construction guide" could empower both players (who can design a class to fit their exact conception of a character) and DMs (who can design classes to model concepts within their setting.)

Personally, I'd argue that you can build classes without the need to hold subclasses, they simply need more features (or stronger or scaling features) to fill in the gaps.

I think the types of features you broke down in the all make sense. Special abilities like wild shape (moon druid strength, normal wild shape not so much) and warlock invocations might need to be considered as specific builds. Like, a simple invocation like Agonizing Blast completely changes the at-will attack profile of the class, which should impact the number of other features it should receive.

Spell list access is also a key factor in balancing what other features can be received. Just limiting to existing spell lists is probably the easiest approach to balance, especially when access to just a few of the most useful and powerful spells can be class defining.

I don't know about getting it all down to one 'class', but you could probably get it down to three:

1. Full caster, getting additional minor abilities at set levels. With a robust list of options, you could do a lot here. The tricky part would be figuring out how to handle spell lists. They need to work before you know theme, flavor, or playstyle, but jst giving them access to any spell will make unbalanced spells more obvious than they already are.

2. Non-caster. You'd probably want a few options for 'defense mode' (armor/dodging/toughness/warding) and something like a fighting style but bigger. (ie rage, sneak attack, extra attacks). Then a few modular options like maneuvers or static bonuses. I'd be generous with skills for any non-caster - fighters getting six skills at level one wouldn't be a problem.

3. Half-caster would likely need to be it's own thing, progression-wise, but could borrow from and expand on the first two.

I think that what I’m looking to do is figure out how much space each class part takes up, so that if you have a concept that would normally be like a Monk/Paladin or something, you’re gonna give up some parts, and probably either have ki or spells slots and figure out how many spell slot levels a ki point is worth, or soemthing, but if a feature from Druid makes the build come together, and is within the category budget you have left, then you can just add it. If not, you have to figure out what to get rid of to make room for it. In the end, you have an Avenger class, tailored as close as possible to your vision of an Avenger, with Unarmored Defense, Martial Arts, ki and ki features, no Spellcasting, smite that costs x ki, and Druid cantrips. (Note, I’ve no clue if that would be doable yet, since I haven’t built the system yet, it’s just an example).

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think that what I’m looking to do is figure out how much space each class part takes up, so that if you have a concept that would normally be like a Monk/Paladin or something, you’re gonna give up some parts, and probably either have ki or spells slots and figure out how many spell slot levels a ki point is worth, or soemthing,

If it helps, Ki points are directly equivalent to spell points, which can then be converted to spell slots using the known table. Monks are literally short-rest based half-casters based on the amount of Ki points they have and the spells they can cast using them.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think that what I’m looking to do is figure out how much space each class part takes up, so that if you have a concept that would normally be like a Monk/Paladin or something, you’re gonna give up some parts, and probably either have ki or spells slots and figure out how many spell slot levels a ki point is worth, or soemthing, but if a feature from Druid makes the build come together, and is within the category budget you have left, then you can just add it. If not, you have to figure out what to get rid of to make room for it. In the end, you have an Avenger class, tailored as close as possible to your vision of an Avenger, with Unarmored Defense, Martial Arts, ki and ki features, no Spellcasting, smite that costs x ki, and Druid cantrips. (Note, I’ve no clue if that would be doable yet, since I haven’t built the system yet, it’s just an example).

If you get the two other down pat, I think the half-caster becomes a lot easier to put together. You just get half-caster slots, a 'fighting style' (in this example Martial arts), a defense mode (in this case either dodging or magical warding) and a bunch of options that could be caster features or martial features or special half-caster features (ie smites) at your option.

The half-caster ends up with a ton of options, but it can't cover wizards or non-casters, so you have three classes.

The progression would look like:

1. attack mode, defense mode
2. 1st-level spells, source (where you get your magic, basically an archetype) feature
3. special feature (pick a caster, noncaster, or halfcaster feature)
4. ASI
5. 2nd-level spells
6. source feature
7. special feature
8 ASI
9. 3rd-level spells
10. source feature
11. special feature
12. ASI

(repeat the last four two more times)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Would you be looking at trying to break down the current classes into their components, on the assumption that they're all balanced against each other?

Mostly. The classes aren’t really balanced, but they all have a way to do roughly spell level appropriate damage reliably, ways to defend, major defining features and features that support those features, ribbons, etc.

Or are you looking at a more "eyeball it" attitude towards whether one class is balanced against another?

More this. Half casting seems to roughly equal the fighters additional extra attacks and action surge, judging by class design in the phb, for instance.

Are you separating the three pillars out, or does a character being weak at two of the pillars justify overwhelming power in one?

Definitely rough balance in each pillar is the ideal.

What is the typical adventuring day that we are balancing at-will/Short res/Long rest powers around?

I’d say probably per the PHB, with options to change short rest abilities to proficiency per day abilities? Or advice that if you do short days you should make short rests 5-20 minutes rather than an hour.

I'd suggest for example, that half-casting is worth less than half or what full-casting is. Maybe 1/3rd.

That’s probably fair. However, whate does that put it in a “major, moderate, minor, ribbon” categorization? Moderate, alongside extra attack?

Also that Sneak Attack is very much not a nova mechanic. Its a steady, sustained level of damage, which should be given less of a weighting than damage that can be called up on demand like a Paladin's smites, or full spellcasting.

Sneak attack is a nova, it’s just situational (you nova on a crit, and should have advantage pretty often) rather than controlled by a limited resource.

It’s equal to extra attack and a moderate feature, I’d say.

I like the idea, full stop. I've advocated in the past for a 5e model with more classes, but the classes are simpler with less decision points during the leveling process. More of an AD&D model than the 3e model. Using that kind of a template combined with a "class construction guide" could empower both players (who can design a class to fit their exact conception of a character) and DMs (who can design classes to model concepts within their setting.)

Personally, I'd argue that you can build classes without the need to hold subclasses, they simply need more features (or stronger or scaling features) to fill in the gaps.

I think that is a doable goal as an addition to my primary goal of less weird and kludgey multiclassing/mixing mechanics to suit a concept.

I think the types of features you broke down in the all make sense. Special abilities like wild shape (moon druid strength, normal wild shape not so much) and warlock invocations might need to be considered as specific builds. Like, a simple invocation like Agonizing Blast completely changes the at-will attack profile of the class, which should impact the number of other features it should receive.

Absolutely.

Spell list access is also a key factor in balancing what other features can be received. Just limiting to existing spell lists is probably the easiest approach to balance, especially when access to just a few of the most useful and powerful spells can be class defining.

Agreed.

If it helps, Ki points are directly equivalent to spell points, which can then be converted to spell slots using the known table. Monks are literally short-rest based half-casters based on the amount of Ki points they have and the spells they can cast using them.

For sure, although it’s worth noting that satisfying play doesn’t quite translate with direct spell point math. IIRC the 4elements monk costs its spells using direct spell point to slot conversion, and nearly everyone agrees that it runs out way too fast for what you get out of using the disciplines, while other subclasses that instead convert at 1ki/spell level are generally considered satisfying and fun.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you get the two other down pat, I think the half-caster becomes a lot easier to put together. You just get half-caster slots, a 'fighting style' (in this example Martial arts), a defense mode (in this case either dodging or magical warding) and a bunch of options that could be caster features or martial features or special half-caster features (ie smites) at your option.

The half-caster ends up with a ton of options, but it can't cover wizards or non-casters, so you have three classes.

The progression would look like:

1. attack mode, defense mode
2. 1st-level spells, source (where you get your magic, basically an archetype) feature
3. special feature (pick a caster, noncaster, or halfcaster feature)
4. ASI
5. 2nd-level spells
6. source feature
7. special feature
8 ASI
9. 3rd-level spells
10. source feature
11. special feature
12. ASI

(repeat the last four two more times)

I’m not currently thinking in terms of a class, but will have to at some point. Part of my worry is that Warlock and Artificer weird their class chassis. I’m not sure if you could mix Invocations with Wizard Spellcasting, for instance. Nor am I sure that Artificer actually gives anything up overall to get cantrips and Spellcasting at level 1. Maybe Extra Attack? Actually yeah...we can separate Spellcasting and Cantrips and Ritual Casting into their own features. I don’t think that it would be a problem to have a character with Full Spellcasting, no cantrips, and Extra Attack, with the Druid’s spell list, for instance.

Spellcasting has a system for mixing different levels, which is the multiclass table. I’m confident we can use that to figure out a 2/3 caster,