D&D (2024) One D&D Expert Classes Playtest Document Is Live

The One D&D Expert Class playest document is now available to download. You can access it by signing into your D&D Beyond account at the link below. It contains three classes -- bard, rogue, and ranger, along with three associated subclasses (College of Lore, Thief, and Hunter), plus a number of feats.

Unearthed Arcana Playtest

Unearthed Arcana Playtest Materials Get Unearthed Arcana playtest content, try it out in your game, and provide feedback! Check back regularly for ...

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[Hussar]

I have to ask what the next step is. Why have different classes at all? Can't we just pick from a spell list, with suggested load-outs? Hyperbole I know, but that's where this design paradigm goes.

Isn't this what we already have? What differentiates one full caster from another? About the only thing that distinguishes a Land Druid from a Wizard is the spell list.

But there are many fantasy RPGs, derived from one version of D&D or another, that are currently more complex than 5e. Are they objectively worse or aren't they?

Hang on, that's not what I said. I said that when you look at the iterations of a game from one edition to the next, they always (or nearly always) reduce complexity.

So, Pathfinder is quite a lot more complex than 3e D&D. Fair enough. But, Pathfinder 2 massively reduces that complexity.

IOW, any game might start out as very complex, but, as soon as that game goes through a revision and a new edition, the trend is nearly universal that it becomes less complex.

 

[Hussar]

What you aren't asking is why, if the trend is so heavily the way you say, all the early editions of successful RPGs were so complex that they could be simplified in the first place and the systems that started by prizing simplicity didn't make it that far.

They couldn't be simplified in the first place because people had to go through that step of increased complexity. You see it over and over and over again. The game is first released, then it gets played in the wild, then a new edition of the game is released which is simpler than the edition before it. We see this time and time again.

You're comparing games to different games and saying, well, this simple game is less successful than that more complicated game, therefore people like complexity. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that every single time a game goes through a revision, it becomes simpler and more streamlined than the version before it. Of course it does. That's the point of a revision - to make the game work better.

That doesn't mean that simplest is best. Of course not. It means though that games will always evolve through iterations to become simpler than the game was before. This is the history of nearly every single RPG in existence.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've been thinking about the level 1 +2/+1 ASIs. They've moved from Race to floating to Background... I wonder if it wouldn't be best to just take all the "Level 1" Feats and make them equivalent to the Level 4 Feats, with a +1 ASI involved, and get that +1 as part of your background (tied to your feat choice). Then the other +2 (or +1/+1) can move over to class. Just give the class the +2 to its prime ability. (OR +1/+1 in the cases of classes that have two equal prime abilities, OR put "you gain +2 to Strength or Dexterity or +1 to each of them")

 

[Remathilis]

But there are many fantasy RPGs, derived from one version of D&D or another, that are currently more complex than 5e. Are they objectively worse or aren't they?

If complexity is a Hallmark of good game design, I think we can agree D&D hit its peak during the 2nd edition Player's Options line.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If complexity is a Hallmark of good game design, I think we can agree D&D hit its peak during the 2nd edition Player's Options line.

Except those were terrible. So no. I don't think so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If complexity is a Hallmark of good game design, I think we can agree D&D hit its peak during the 2nd edition Player's Options line.

I loved 2nd ed! There were some great ideas in Player's Options. Constantly simplifying things removes options in favor of bland, predictable outcomes.

 

[Hussar]

Note, I'm not saying complexity is bad. Look, I ADORE wargames. I spent way, way too many hours playing things like Star Fleet Battles, so, I'm absolutely no stranger to complexity.

And, obviously, something like 5e D&D is a LOT more complex than some one page RPG. Which does not make 5e a better game at all.

The point I'm trying to make is that within a given game, so, only looking at that specific game, each iteration of that RPG will be simpler and more streamlined than what came before. I'm really struggling to think of an RPG that increased in complexity over time. Although, I suppose you could argue that within the lifespan of a given iteration of a game, complexity does increase as new sub books and rules are added. So, sure, you start with basic 3.5 E, which has a complexity of X. Then you add a bunch of splat books and supplements, and that complexity goes up (sometimes by a LOT).

But, once a new edition rolls around, the baseline of complexity trends downwards each time.

 

[Remathilis]

I loved 2nd ed! There were some great ideas in Player's Options. Constantly simplifying things removes options in favor of bland, predictable outcomes.

But complicating them only rewards those who have the time and dedication to achieve system mastery.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But complicating them only rewards those who have the time and dedication to achieve system mastery.

It also provides options to choose from, and can help with immersion and verisimilitude. Those are my priorities.

 

[Remathilis]

It also provides options to choose from, and can help with immersion and verisimilitude. Those are my priorities.

Of course, there is a sweet spot between simplicity and choice (and that spot will differ from person to person) but I think a simple base with the option to layer complexity may work better. Where 5e dropped the ball was adding more complicated options later. They never really came up with those rules modules that expanded the game in new ways. Cie la vie.

That said, I will take a simpler game that is playable over a complex one every time. I loved Pathfinder when it came out, but three years into it I found the options were overwhelming. Most of my players had dozens of fiddily micro bonuses that would be forgotten, monsters and NPCs were a slog to design and play, and finding the official DC for every possible option was a massive headache (well, the rope is 2" thick, but it's raining and dark out, so that's DC 15 +2 +4, but you have cunning balance so that's a +1 to all balance checks...)

Personally, 5e hits that spot for me: crunchier than your typical ORS retroclone, easier than 3.x based d20 games. Not perfect, but fine. I've not looked into level-up (is there a free sample somewhere?) But to me, it sounds a lot like adding the fiddily Pathfinder stuff back into 5e. If you like it, follow your bliss. But i think 5e is more or less about where I want things and 1D seems to be fixings the issues without adding a bunch of new gears to get stuck.