D&D 5E Broad vs Narrow Classes

[TwoSix]

And, as stated, making a cloth-wearing heavy weapon user who focuses on dex and has crazy high AC is basically impossible in 5e. Allowing a Zealot Barbarian to use Dex with a greatsword would come relatively close, but every time I've suggested that it's gotten a hugely negative reaction, so I've just accepted that the Avenger is not part of 5e's alleged big tent.

I would clarify only that it's impossible to replicate with the officially published extant classes of 5e; it would be trivial to design a class within 5e's chassis that hits the "Dex based heavy weapon user with good AC" standard. Replicating the oath mechanic that made avengers want to attack isolated targets, and replicating the amount of movement abilities they had, would be somewhat more challenging.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Remove classes, nerf spells, and make nonmagic good? in D&D?

Hand me your keys. You've had enough.

We did it once! You have to believe me! Before the timeline was destroyed, there was something... something beautiful! I seen it! I seen it!

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not if you make non-casting also good.

The problem classless systems have is that no matter how you handle it there will only be a very major choices that will be close to optimal thanks to internal synergies. With a class based system you can have a few optimal subgroups per class.

 

[James Gasik]

I would clarify only that it's impossible to replicate with the officially published extant classes of 5e; it would be trivial to design a class within 5e's chassis that hits the "Dex based heavy weapon user with good AC" standard. Replicating the oath mechanic that made avengers want to attack isolated targets, and replicating the amount of movement abilities they had, would be somewhat more challenging.

Hm. I imagine you could just say "you have advantage on attacks against enemies who have none of your allies within 5' of them" would be fine for Pursuit Avengers.

Retribution could be "you have advantage on attacks against an enemy who has attacked you this combat".

Unity would be the hard one, I think. "You have advantage on attacks against an enemy who has 2 or more of your allies within 5' of it" sounds too hard to gain reliably. And if it was 1 or more, that'd be too easy.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would clarify only that it's impossible to replicate with the officially published extant classes of 5e; it would be trivial to design a class within 5e's chassis that hits the "Dex based heavy weapon user with good AC" standard. Replicating the oath mechanic that made avengers want to attack isolated targets, and replicating the amount of movement abilities they had, would be somewhat more challenging.

Ah, yeah you're right. That was sloppy wording on my part. The Oaths of Enmity would be tricky but not impossible to homebrew, the rest is totally feasible. It just doesn't exist as an implemented thing and is, sadly, unlikely to be.

Shows one of the ways in which the "class, subclass, à la carte multiclass" model can stumble. If your idea requires blending bits from at most two classes, you're fine. If it requires three you're kind of screwed in official 5e. Paladin+Rogue+Barb is rough. Or the "more than just a jack of all trades" Bard, who really wants levels in Cleric, Rogue, and Warlock. Or my "storyteller Paladin" concept from 4e, that would require Bard and probably Sorcerer levels to work in 5e.

The irony being, this sort of thing is what à la carte mutliclassing is supposed to be great at, but because it means sinking more than half the usual levels of a game (e.g. level 6+ out of no more than 11 for most games) into just unlocking the features, the strengths of the tool become weaknesses.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The problem classless systems have is that no matter how you handle it there will only be a very major choices that will be close to optimal thanks to internal synergies. With a class based system you can have a few optimal subgroups per class.

I would like to introduce you to HERO, BESM, Mutants and Masterminds, Shadowrun, World of Darkness, and probably a lot of games I haven't played that roundhouse kick that idea across town and directly into a suspiciously well placed outhouse.

 

[James Gasik]

I would like to introduce you to HERO, BESM, Mutants and Masterminds, Shadowrun, World of Darkness, and probably a lot of games I haven't played that roundhouse kick that idea across town and directly into a suspiciously well placed outhouse.

Wait, hold on. World of Darkness absolutely has traits that are superior to other traits. I've never once been asked to roll Expression, but Alertness comes up all the time. And if you're playing Vampire, well, Celerity vs. Fortitude; the two Disciplines aren't even close to being equal.

 

[Aldarc]

a fair point but what of clearly non-combat features or things so situational they are not normally combat in nature how does that stack up?

A lot of that tends to be baked into the theme: e.g., ranger as "wilderness warrior" or monk as "mystical martial artist" (or whatever).

or fantasies that overlap but are also different.

Do you have something in mind here? This is a bit vague for me to parse.

 

[Staffan]

The big advantage of class-based systems is that you can give a class a Big Defining Trait, and do so at an early stage, and not having to worry about how it works with other Big Defining Traits. In point-based systems you either don't get BDTs at all, or they're either highly expensive or hidden behind a bunch of prerequisites.

To use an example from World of Warcraft: one of the shaman specializations is Enhancement, which focuses on dual-wielding as well as mixing physical and elemental attacks. In old-school WOW, up through Wrath of the Lich King, specialization was handled by choosing abilities from a series of talent trees. So as they advanced, a wannabe enhancement shaman would pick talents that reduced the penalty for dual-wielding, added the ability to parry, culminating in the abilities Windfury (which sometimes granted extra attacks) and Stormstrike (a powerful strike mixing physical and nature/lightning damage. You wouldn't really get the abilities cementing you as a proper Enhancement shaman until level 40 or so, after playing for a couple of days, and leveling up before then was a slog. Then, in the Cataclysm expansion, they changed things so you chose a whole subclass at level 10. This let you play an Enhancement shaman pretty much from the get-go (getting to level 10 takes like an hour or so), which was made possible by locking you into a whole kit instead of letting you choose abilities á la carte.

 

[FrozenNorth]

no, it is just a logical extrapolation if the paladin is the crusader why not have a hashshashin with the gifts of god as well?

I don’t think the problem is spellcasting. The Avenger wore no armor and couldn’t lay on hands, which makes it tough to fit on the paladin chassis.