D&D 5E (2024) A critical analysis of 2024's revised classes

[Lanefan]

That's my point. Those players should get over themselves. Those players not only got to completely come up with the idea, they convinced the other players that it was a good idea, and then they saw the idea they came up with entirely work out to a T... And yet that's not enough for them? They also need their "PC" to be the one to do it 'in-game', otherwise it doesn't count?

In a game where xp are given individually for what a character does (as opposed to what ideas it comes up with that others then carry out), yes - this can be an issue.

IME (and I include myself-as-DM here) when looking over things later in order to assign xp the DM will remember (or have noted down) who actually did what but won't nearly as often note or remember who came up with the idea for what. Part of that is because there's no risk attached to thinking but there can often be risk attached to acting on those thoughts, and risk is what earns xp.

As an example Corinda - a clanky heavy Fighter - might be the one who realizes scouting around the back of the castle could be a good idea but if it's Jarrod - the party's Thief - that actually does the scouting (and thus takes any associated risks) then Jarrod gets the xp.

 

[Minigiant]

Wizard partisans don't argue their class should be the best per se, instead ever since mid-2e-era they just incessantly low-grade argue for a little relaxation of a restriction here, a bit less risk to a spell there, a slight power-up to a spell somewhere else, more opportunities to cast per day, on and on and on......and before you know it, wizards are the best by default.

Why? Because all those now-removed restrictions and limitations are what once kept mages in balance.

That too.

By 3e, a wizard fan has received most of what they could want.

In fact what I would say is for the most part, wizards has gained mostly from the fandom of other spellcasters requesting things and Wizards benefiting it secondhand. Cantrips, rituals, Neovancian spell casting, innate magic features. All primary from other classes

If anything. Wizards fans might be mad at Cleric fans for getting buffs nerfed.

 

[Belen]

That too.

By 3e, a wizard fan has received most of what they could want.

In fact what I would say is for the most part, wizards has gained mostly from the fandom of other spellcasters requesting things and Wizards benefiting it secondhand. Cantrips, rituals, Neovancian spell casting, innate magic features. All primary from other classes

If anything. Wizards fans might be mad at Cleric fans for getting buffs nerfed.

Yeah. Lanefan made the point better than I.

People moaned about the restrictions and 3.5 started the massive slide to get rid of them.

The end result was massive loss of magic flavor.

 

[GobHag]

Here's an idea for a 'narrative' power/passive;

"After winning combat, any surviving enemies increase their attitude towards the Gladiator/Fighter/(Fighter Subclass) by one step and can't fall below unfriendly due to anything that happens during the combat"

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, there's a need there. That assumption in D&D that your character is not normal has not always been a comfortable fit, especially since AD&D had a slightly different assumption. Even if D&D is explicitly magical, there's a lot of folks who would rather it be less so. I think it's the other side of the coin from a "high level" module.

What both share in common is that D&D's level system changes genre as you move through tiers, and that change isn't always welcome. Maybe we should instead separate genre from level advancement so that, for instance, your proficiency bonus doesn't automatically increase, and you don't automatically get more HP or advance in spell level. Maybe we don't assume more damage at higher levels. Maybe levels become "more options" rather than "more power," or we at least give tables ways to pause that "more power" advancement without losing the appeal of character advancement entirely.

Not even sure this is THAT hard to implement given how the principles of something like E6 can still be used in D&D today pretty well.

I’m a huge fan of horizontal advancement over vertical advancement, so I’d be all for such a system.

 

[Clint_L]

In a game where xp are given individually for what a character does (as opposed to what ideas it comes up with that others then carry out), yes - this can be an issue.

IME (and I include myself-as-DM here) when looking over things later in order to assign xp the DM will remember (or have noted down) who actually did what but won't nearly as often note or remember who came up with the idea for what. Part of that is because there's no risk attached to thinking but there can often be risk attached to acting on those thoughts, and risk is what earns xp.

As an example Corinda - a clanky heavy Fighter - might be the one who realizes scouting around the back of the castle could be a good idea but if it's Jarrod - the party's Thief - that actually does the scouting (and thus takes any associated risks) then Jarrod gets the xp.

That…seems really unfair.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah. Lanefan made the point better than I.

People moaned about the restrictions and 3.5 started the massive slide to get rid of them.

The end result was massive loss of magic flavor.

The slide started with 3e, not 3.5, with two huge developments

1 - spells lost their casting times and instead started and resolved within the same initiative (or "action"), thus becoming massively harder to interrupt
2 - combat casting was introduced as a feat; naturally every caster in the known world took it, and casting thus became even harder to interrupt.

 

[Lanefan]

That…seems really unfair.

Why?

It's a risk-reward paradigm, where taking risk = gaining reward (in this case, xp) and no risk = no reward.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've said it before and I'll say it again... I have always felt it's the people complaining about "wizard supremacy" who are louder and angrier about it than any "wizard fan" demanding that the wizard be king or bitching when another class supposedly moves in on their territory.

Now maybe I just don't go to the places where the "wizard fans" are actually bitching when something isn't designed to keep that class the best... but at least around here it's always seem to me people suggesting that the wizard fans keep yelling and getting mad, than it is than actually seeing the wizard fans themselves behave that way.

So I assume then that you did not see the furious """discussion""" regarding Spell Versatility?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why?

It's a risk-reward paradigm, where taking risk = gaining reward (in this case, xp) and no risk = no reward.

Because ideas should have value? I should think that obvious.

Your description teaches a lesson: Never be the ideas guy. Always be the action guy. Ideas guys get left in the dust. Action guys get money, power, and fame. Hence, never be the ideas guy. It is always to your advantage to be 100% action, all the time.

Like this is pretty much literally the Prisoner's Dilemma. A "rational" actor would always choose to be the action guy because it actually gives rewards, while being ideas guy gives you diddily squat. Doesn't matter that you're much more likely to die and lose it all. So you get a structure which actively cultivates disruptive behavior and discourages planning or creative thinking, just always go in guns blazing before someone else beats you to it.

I don't want to play that game, and I'm reasonably confident most D&D players are not interested in that game.