Vaalingrade
Legend
And the various defenses thereof.
D&D 5E What (if anything) do you find "wrong" with 5E?
- Thread starter DND_Reborn
- Start date
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
Can I ask you why you bother to come to threads about changing aspects just to shout down any and all desire for change? Were you against the Tasha's ranger changes? Because people complained about the ranger a lot, and WOTC agreed.
Wow, HARD disagree from me. Maybe I'm just a grognard, but I adore that fact that 5e began with pretty much the traditional D&D classes (plus warlock, I guess) and then never expanded. There's the artificer, which in theory is only in one setting, and that's been it. Good! Bloat is bad.
One of the turnoffs of Pathfinder to me is that there are all these oddball classes like Witch, Magus, Investigator (?), Kineticist (??), and Gunslinger (yuck). If I sat down for a Pathfinder game, I might have no earthly clue what anyone else in my party was playing. No disrespect to Pathfinder, but that's not what I want in my D&D. I feel like all those weirdo classes should just be subtypes of fighter or wizard or whatever, as Crom intended.
But I'm just a crusty old man, don't mind me.
Vaalingrade
Legend
That'd be fine is what a subclass could be wasn't so terribly limited.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
One of the cool things about pathfinder 2e, is that you could run them like that. Remove these expanded classes and just use the multiclass archetype. To be honest, I kind of feel like some of them should have just been multiclass options anyway. The way PF2e does multiclassing is pretty good, creates a lot of options.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
Might be better for a different thread, but how many levels for each/every class should be dedicated to subclasses? I feel like 4 is the minimum, but I think that 5 or 6 would be great for defining a subclass.
Bard I feel has too few, only 3, and I think the issue is that level 10, where you'd I'd expect to see a subclass level is taken up by magical secrets.
Bard I feel has too few, only 3, and I think the issue is that level 10, where you'd I'd expect to see a subclass level is taken up by magical secrets.
Exactly.
"Everything as a subclass" only works if you designed it to work that way. 5e wasn't. Subclasses have inconsistent or insufficient design space. Ranger and Sorcerer straight up got more spells. Now they want to try 1st level feats.
It's clear proof that 5e'ssubclasses wasn't designed with enough design space for a "no new classes" policy.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
While I think there could be more base classes, I feel like 1st level (and perhaps 4th level) Feats fit a different design space from subclasses. Looking at their backgrounds that incorporate 1st level feats, they allow different classes/subclasses to fit a specific background option. I think they expand options beyond subclasses.
To me, it seems 1st and 4th level feats slid in this role because crossclass subclasses flopped in UA.
Crossclass subclasses flopped in UA because the designers didn't design subclasses equally in weight. Same reason why "Everything is a subclass" didn't work. The 5e subclass system was only futureproofed a tiny bit. That's why everything in TCOE is so much more powerful. The limits were hit fast. The story of 5e.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Not to deride your opinion, it's perfectly valid if you don't like more classes, but I've been playing for quite awhile myself, and I recall early D&D being absolutely lousy with classes- for awhile it felt like every issue of Dragon was offering up Witches, Ninjas, Scouts, Druids of Rhiannon, and the like, as if the existing Fighters, Paladins, Monks, Bards, Wizards, Thieves, Assassins, Illusionists, Clerics, Druids, Thief-Acrobats, Barbarians, and Cavaliers weren't enough to go around.
Even Basic had Avengers, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Mystics, Shamans, Shamani, and more.
