D&D (2024) Things You Think Would Improve the Game That We WON'T See

[DEFCON 1]

Kinda.... It initially did something that wotc never actually drew attention to by talking about or mentioning it as more than coincidence until it was scrapped from lack of excitement. Namely every class had subclass levels at the same level.

True, but that really has nothing to do with the condensing of classes down to 4. You could keep all 12 classes as-is and still give them subclass features all at the same levels. So those are really two separate issues in my mind.

 

[DEFCON 1]

True. I get your point that it isn't going to make that group happy.

But if their goal is removing everything which makes differing character unique so people can no longer have mechanics matching the idea they had for their character in their head, is DnD the right game for them?

5e is already notable for having far less options than prior editions or pathfinder. If you keep simplifying more and more then you lose anything which separates it from the thousands of simple boardgames which run on a similar theme.

I mean, I agree with you. I don't personally see what is gained by only playing Core Four. Especially considering anyone who actually wants just the Core Four classes could have been playing that way these entire past 10 years by just only allowing Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard to be chosen at their table (and then renaming certain subclasses to the other class names if they wanted those themes to still be in the game-- so instead of Scout Rogue it's Ranger Rogue and instead of War domain Cleric it's Paladin Cleric.)

If players have not been doing that this entire time, it belies the idea they actually want it.

 

[ECMO3]

I'd be interested to see how much actual variation comes from the most popular methods of character creation. And whether that ratio has changed much by, say, level 8 when everyone has had a chance at a minimum of two ASIs.

I suspect that the so-called "random" methods, like 4d6 drop1, that are actually used don't actually produce that much more variation. And I further suspect that they skew towards higher totals, because players with unlucky results just go again. And that, plus the thrill of (sort of) gambling is why some folks like them.

In terms of starting everyone on the same footing, which I do think is important, it's standard array or point buy. There's no good argument to make for rolls, from a fairness perspective.

4d6d1 doesd produce a lot of variation, both higher- starting with a 18 is relatively common and a 20 is not unheard of, and lower-starting with no 16.

Getting two 16s like you can always do on point buy is often not possible while rolling dice and there are often no "dump" stats.

Finally rolling dice often makes the standard human a very attractive race option, while it is almost never played on point buy.

 

[ECMO3]

Stats are too foundational to your character’s basic competency levels for me to want true randomness to be the deciding factor in their generation, as well as disliking that low rollers generally have to spend all their ASI just bumping their stats each level to not fall behind the curve while those who rolled high to begin with get to spend their ASI as they like on feats for flavour, versatility or just even greater optimisation.

Not really, if you play at the intended level of difficulty characters can be very competent with very low stats.

Also in combat specifically, creativity, luck and tactics beat good abilities every time.

A 14 vs a 16 in a stat is only going to make a difference on 5% of d20 rolls. If it is in strength or dexterity it matters on weapon damage too, but again will not usually make a difference.

 

[tetrasodium]

True, but that really has nothing to do with the condensing of classes down to 4. You could keep all 12 classes as-is and still give them subclass features all at the same levels. So those are really two separate issues in my mind.

It really did. That level parity could have allowed a subclass to be swapped at class group level or even between class groups.. But of course nobody discissed such things because wotc never made clear it was a deliberate design choice to have subclass level parity so all we got was complaints about how it wasb't 100% compatible with subclass X in splatbooks designed for 2014

 

[Micah Sweet]

It really did. That level parity could have allowed a subclass to be swapped at class group level or even between class groups.. But of course nobody discissed such things because wotc never made clear it was a deliberate design choice to have subclass level parity so all we got was complaints about how it wasb't 100% compatible with subclass X in splatbooks designed for 2014

This. Why can't WotC just tell us about their design philosophy and why they make the choices they do? Are they so afraid of the public rejecting their choices that they have to hide them?

 

[ECMO3]

DnD is not a game that especially rewards players for diversifying their stat distribution into being a jack of all trades

This depends entirely on the size of the party and playstyle. In some games with small parties diversity is extremely beneficial, far more beneficial than being an optimized max expert at one thing.

I think this is true to a degree in point buy too and a fighter with a 14 Dexterity and 14 Strength is going to be generally more effective in combat as compared to a fighter with a 16 in one of those and an 8 in the other, yet the latter is far more common among optimizers.

IME where diversity does not matter is in the whiteroom.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It really did. That level parity could have allowed a subclass to be swapped at class group level or even between class groups.. But of course nobody discissed such things because wotc never made clear it was a deliberate design choice to have subclass level parity so all we got was complaints about how it wasb't 100% compatible with subclass X in splatbooks designed for 2014

But you could do that even without "class groups". If by some chance down the line WotC wanted to make a subclass that could be taken by multiple classes (which they actually pitched to us probably 5 years ago any most folks already said "no thanks"), they could just write unto the subclass description "This subclass can be taken by class X, Y, and Z." No class group necessary.

Especially considering the fact that why would you want to limit those types of subclasses to ONLY subclass groups? There wouldn't be a time when someone came up with a subclass that was good for bother the Fighter and the Paladin? Well, by your class group division apparently not. So it ends up being an arbitrary division of classes into groups for no actual benefit and in fact hinders other possibilities.

 

[Minigiant]

But you could do that even without "class groups". If by some chance down the line WotC wanted to make a subclass that could be taken by multiple classes (which they actually pitched to us probably 5 years ago any most folks already said "no thanks"), they could just write unto the subclass description "This subclass can be taken by class X, Y, and Z." No class group necessary.

It's less that most folks don't want class groups, it's that you have to start the edition with that assumption.

Class groups would be great and loved for 6e. However you cannot retroactively put them into 5e.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

It's less that most folks don't want class groups, it's that you have to start the edition with that assumption.

Class groups would be great and loved for 6e. However you cannot retroactively put them into 5e.

Yeah I feel this about sums it up. Same with the shared subclasses concept from Strixhaven. Great idea in a vacuum. Bad idea when shoved into a game not at all set up to function that way.