D&D General What kind of class design do you prefer?

[payn]

I was a bit concerned about that when I made my post, yes.

If people want to do that and have fun with it, sure, great. Same way people can obsessed over cameras and not photos.

But while it doesn't have to be disruptive at the table, it can be, I've seen it in person. And I sort of wish all that effort that was spent on better character build/cameras was instead focused on better roleplaying/photography.

What about folks who obsess about cameras and photography?

 

[ECMO3]

This is something I've noticed a lot around here, with people complaining that we have too many classes. It got me to thinking what kind of design people prefer.

Do you prefer to have a small number of class, but that they can be designed into almost whatever you want through the uses of multiple choice class features, subclasses system, feats, and so on.

OR

Do you prefer to have lots of smaller classes with a more narrow design. Classes that can be sum up with one or two specific 'thing' they do, and that do it well.

Personally, I'm not a fan of classes like the 5e Wizard that try to do EVERYTHING. I feel like, if you pair things down to a few classes and just throw the complexity in the classes themselves, might as well go for a point build system. The fun of classes is in the restriction and siloing of ability, IMO. It's why I liked the roles in 4e and how, for exemple, the Fighter didn't need design space to be a Striker or an Archer in addition to being the front line defender, it could be an amazing defender.

But what do you guys think?

I like 5Es design. I don't really think all the classes are necessarym but neither do they hurt. The only negative for the numerous subclasses is they come out with them quicker than I can play them, I am currently playing in 5 campaigns and a new book comes out before I play the subclasses and races I wanted to try out from the last one.

What I don't understand is the people who say 3E had more choices. That is not my experience at all. 3.0/3.5 had very few real choices IME. With the chained feats and xp penalties for multiclassing, after first level you were forced to select from very few choices or else your character would be way behind and poor or could even stop advancing completely.

You also had no ability to change or evolve your character concept. You had to know at 1st level what your 10th level character would look like because choices you made at 1st level locked out other choices down the road. With 5E there is far less of this. Multiclassing rules may lock out a few multiclass combos, but even those can often be overcome with feats or other classes for a similar character build or idea.

I found character development to be a "railroad" in 3.0/3.5 with very few actual choices after 1st level.

 

[payn]

I like 5Es design and I don't really think all the classes are necessary.

What I don't understand is the people who say 3E had more choices. That is not my experience at all. 3.0/3.5 had very few real choices IME. With the chained feats and xp penalties, after first level you were forced to select from a few choices or else your character would be way behind.

You also had no ability to change or evolve your character concept. You had to know at 1st level what your 10th level character would look like because choices you made at 1st level locked out other choices down the road. With 5E there is far less of this.

I found character development to be a "railroad" in 3.0/3.5 with very few actual choices after 1st level.

I think the PF answer of archetypes really blew the doors open on all that. Though, I do agree there were tons of garbage feats and some prestige class requirements that just didn't make a ton of sense (and often forced you into garbage options).

 

[Tonguez]

I want a Skills Package (Background)
a Few Archetypes (Fighter -Sage-Rogue-Mage)
lots of feats, selectable class abilities, perks and stuff

 

[clearstream]

A few useful choices are better than a lot where half are crappy.

I didn't read the survey as a choice between good classes and crappy classes.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I find that "builds" are bad for the game. You have people who are more invested in chargen than the game itself. The game becomes just a tool, an operation to "test/prove/showoff" their build. A bit like photographers more interested in what their camera can do vs taking good photos.

I find this to be a misunderstanding of the charOp community.

1) Character creation as game is a part of the experience for a lot of people. They're not ignoring the game, they just enjoy that element as well.

2) A lot of builds you see will never see actual games. they're thought experiments dealing with the puzzle presented by the game and various goals these characters are built toward.

 

[overgeeked]

Then that means no spells. You can't cut off discrete mechanical options for everybody BUT the casters and expect some kind of balance. Imagination has a bad tendency to punish the mundane more than the magical.

Not really. The divine casters pray for spells and are rewarded them by their deity (DM fiat) and the arcane casters either learn their spells from books (DM fiat) or their blood is magic (DM fiat). Any spells you find during the game, and want to keep...there you go.

In any case, at that point you don't need D&D, you need a leaflet with some rules and MAYBE some monsters...

No one needs any game system. You've got enough with some dice and imagination.

Do you even need numbers at all?

Not really, no.

Why roll for stats?

Some people like to. But you don't need to.

I'm sure there's plenty of games like that out there, but that sounds like it would be just as much 'not D&D' as the super crunchy 4e was deemed 'not D&D' by the masses.

Well, they'd be just as wrong about this now as they were about 4E then. It was still D&D with three classes, all hit points were 1d6, all weapons did 1d6 damage, and you could make attack rolls using 2d6. It'll still be D&D without the silly bloat we have now.

It's the only pillar you can engage away from the table and thus is not reliant on getting everybody's schedule to coincide, of course people will have fun with it. This invisible fourth pillar also includes the discussions we're having here on this forum. The 'fourth pillar' is basically any time you can have fun with the game without sitting down at a table to play it. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it. But if you build some massively optimized beast you shouldn't have any expectation that you'll get to play it at a table. That's where the trouble comes in. Expecting your solo play to be allowed into an actual game. Or some elaborate hyper-detailed backstory for a 1st-level character with exactly zero XP. Sure, your character saved several kingdoms, married all the prettiest princes and princesses and fought and killed every monster in the MM...but you still mysteriously have zero XP and are 1st level. Just because you put in the time and effort and energy to create that thing doesn't mean some random DM is obligated to let it into their game. So yeah, solo play the hell out of character creation. Knock yourself out. No one should have a problem with that. But that doesn't mean you're going to actually get to play the thing in any game. At that point you might as well just write fiction and not bother with all the oddities of the game's restrictions.

The problem arises when that solo play is expected to be allowed in a real game with other people. It's not. Then players get bent out of shape about it. "I spent all this time on it. I read all the optimization boards. I built the perfect character. Spent hours writing the perfect power fantasy backstory. You have to let me play this character exactly as I created it." It's great that you're that invested, but nope. It's also a problem because the mindset of optimization and ridiculous backstories permeates the culture and becomes expected. This creeping thing of "unless you're perfect, you suck". People read charop threads and somehow think that max DPS is somehow now the bare minimum and talk crap about anything less than perfect. Trash talking non-optimized builds. Or odd character choices. Or anything that's less than perfect. There's also this weird smugness to it. Like congrats, you solved a 3rd grade math problem. Here's your gold star. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back about it.

It's an elfgame. Relax. It's about playing pretend with dice and friends. Go have actual adventures with some other people. Throw some dice. Cheer. Laugh. Get frustrated. Play the game. That's what all this is for.

 

[overgeeked]

I find this to be a misunderstanding of the charOp community.

I've found the same is true as the poster you're quoting.

1) Character creation as game is a part of the experience for a lot of people.

Yes, of course it is.

They're not ignoring the game, they just enjoy that element as well.

Most of them seem to. They really do expect that any random DM will let any bizarre optimized beast of a character into a game, and when the DM says no or has different character creation guidelines or options than the assumed standard...charop folks tend to get...uh, less than pleasant about it. I've had players rage quit because I wouldn't allow their copy-pasta charop beasts into my games. "How dare you make us roll stats! That'll throw off my build! I have it planned out perfectly until 20th level." Well, you should have asked me...you know, the DM of the actual game you're trying to play in what I was using for character creation first. "You're not using multiclassing! How dare you! Now I can't cheese dip warlock." Well, again, you should have asked the actual DM from the actual game you're trying to play in first. And yes. Those are near as I can remember quotes or amalgams of at least a dozen players I've had trouble with.

2) A lot of builds you see will never see actual games. they're thought experiments dealing with the puzzle presented by the game and various goals these characters are built toward.

Someone should tell the players that. Every other person I have apply to a game thinks that simply copy-pasting a charop build into D&D Beyond is enough and expect to play the build as is.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

This is something I've noticed a lot around here, with people complaining that we have too many classes. It got me to thinking what kind of design people prefer.

Do you prefer to have a small number of class, but that they can be designed into almost whatever you want through the uses of multiple choice class features, subclasses system, feats, and so on.

OR

Do you prefer to have lots of smaller classes with a more narrow design. Classes that can be sum up with one or two specific 'thing' they do, and that do it well.

Personally, I'm not a fan of classes like the 5e Wizard that try to do EVERYTHING. I feel like, if you pair things down to a few classes and just throw the complexity in the classes themselves, might as well go for a point build system. The fun of classes is in the restriction and siloing of ability, IMO. It's why I liked the roles in 4e and how, for exemple, the Fighter didn't need design space to be a Striker or an Archer in addition to being the front line defender, it could be an amazing defender.

But what do you guys think?

I would like a few base classes (fighter, rogue, wizard) with more restricted subclasses as an option. Meaning, I could play a basic fighter and build it any way I choose, or I could play a fighter-paladin with many of the build choices made for me. On top of all of that I would like optional archetypes that further divide each class and subclass into specialized things like fighter-paladin-oath of vengeance.

I want options. Paradoxically I want the option to have less options, similar to the way feats and multiclassing are handled. Currently feats and multiclassing are optional additions to the game. I would like subclasses and archetypes to be optional additions.

Of course my thinking on this is undoubtedly flawed but it's what I would like. Those of us who would like more options can have them, while those of us who don't simply elect not to add them.

 

[ECMO3]

I think the PF answer of archetypes really blew the doors open on all that. Though, I do agree there were tons of garbage feats and some prestige class requirements that just didn't make a ton of sense (and often forced you into garbage options).

PF improved it, but it is still not as open as 5E IMO. The big problem is not the garbage feats, although those do exist, but that good feats are not available or that good feats are bad choices because the opportunity cost of not optimizing and "falling behind" is so high.

Also even in PF prestige classes have a bunch of stupid prerequisites, and while they are not "garbage feats" they are prerequisites and you are either locked out of that prestige class because you did not take the prerequisites or you are locked out of building the character you want because you have to take the prerequisites when you have feat options.

For example if I am playing a wizard and I decide at 12th level that I want to be an Arcane Archer because that is cool and we got a magic bow and I just want to do it. If I have not planned for it already, it is going to be AT LEAST 20th level Wizard before I have all the feats I need in place. To make matters worse I am a wizard and I get regular bonus feats, but for some stupid reason I can't use them to get any of the feats that are actually needed for an Arcane Archer. The vast majority of prestige classes will be similar or worse. If I want to be an assasin and I am not evil, I need to figure out how to change my freaking alignment.

Those kinds of restrictions are just stupid and it is a HUGE limitation on the actual choices you have for your character at any time after 1st level.