D&D 5E (2024) Eye Tyrant. Who Died and Made You Gygax?? Design Your Own D&D 2024X3.

Not a Decepticon · 2026-03-17T10:01:39+0000

Horwath said:
get rid of subclasses, all subclass features are now feats to take, some might have a base class requirement, most would not have

You just increased barrier to entry tremendously and ensured caster's dominance over martials.

Horwath · 2026-03-17T10:55:41+0000

Not a Decepticon said:
You just increased barrier to entry tremendously and ensured caster's dominance over martials.

How?
There can always be build suggestions in PHB on what feat to take at certain level for one archetype per class.
and how it more helps casters than martials?

Not a Decepticon · 2026-03-17T11:34:56+0000

Horwath said:
How?
There can always be build suggestions in PHB on what feat to take at certain level for one archetype per class.
and how it more helps casters than martials?

Because any feat or class feature that helps martials keep up with casters and also can be taken by casters, will just serve to make casters more powerful. If I can build a wizard who buffs himself so much he is better frontliner than Barbarian, and try to offset it by making feat Strike With Great Might, that Barbarian can take to double his damage and half damage he receives...then what's stopping that Wizard from taking it, so that he still overshadows the Barbarian?

And no, restricting it to class doesn't work because unless you ban multiclassing, that Wizard can just take one level of Barbarian and qualify for the feat. You could make requirements more complex to avoid that, but the more complicated requirements you make also makes the barrier to entry rise and primes the playerbase towards build optimization.

Horwath · 2026-03-17T13:33:29+0000

Not a Decepticon said:
Because any feat or class feature that helps martials keep up with casters and also can be taken by casters, will just serve to make casters more powerful. If I can build a wizard who buffs himself so much he is better frontliner than Barbarian, and try to offset it by making feat Strike With Great Might, that Barbarian can take to double his damage and half damage he receives...then what's stopping that Wizard from taking it, so that he still overshadows the Barbarian?

And no, restricting it to class doesn't work because unless you ban multiclassing, that Wizard can just take one level of Barbarian and qualify for the feat. You could make requirements more complex to avoid that, but the more complicated requirements you make also makes the barrier to entry rise and primes the playerbase towards build optimization.

What is the difference between having a subclass feature at level 10 and having a feat that has level 10 requirement?
maybe even a class requirement if the feature is keyed of some base class ability.

Tigris · 2026-03-17T13:54:32+0000

Horwath said:
What is the difference between having a subclass feature at level 10 and having a feat that has level 10 requirement?
maybe even a class requirement if the feature is keyed of some base class ability.

The difference is subclasses from different class can have HUGELY different power budgets (for different levels).

Like casters have just with full cadting and 1 class mechanic (like sorcery points) already used up most of their power budget. While (some) martial characters need subclasses to give them a huge power boost.

But even between similar chararacters on same level subclass features power budget can be hugely different.

Ranger and monk in 5.5 both have level 11 subclass features. However, the ranger ones needs to be a huge power spike (similar to extra attack of the fighter), while the monk CANNOT have a strong subclass festure and must mostly be highly situational/limited, because thr monk level 10 feature already grants the level 11 power spike.

Horwath · 2026-03-17T13:56:06+0000

Tigris said:
The difference is subclasses from different class can have HUGELY different power budgets (for different levels).

Like casters have just with full cadting and 1 class mechanic (like sorcery points) already used up most of their power budget. While (some) martial characters need subclasses to give them a huge power boost.

But even between similar chararacters on same level subclass features power budget can be hugely different.

Ranger and monk in 5.5 both have level 11 subclass features. However, the ranger ones needs to be a huge power spike (similar to extra attack of the fighter), while the monk CANNOT have a strong subclass festure and must mostly be highly situational/limited, because thr monk level 10 feature already grants the level 11 power spike.

if you turn subclass features into feats, assumption is made that the features will be rebalanced to value of full feats or half feats.
and that classes will balanced around those extra 4 or 5 feat slots.

Tigris · 2026-03-17T14:02:51+0000

Horwath said:
if you turn subclass features into feats, assumption is made that the features will be rebalanced to value of full feats or half feats.
and that classes will balanced around those extra 4 or 5 feat slots.

The assumption does not work though if classes have hugely different base mechanics, especially spellcasting.

Thats why 3.5 with the tons of feats instead of subclasses was not in the sleightest balanced. Because strong classes will profit even more from good feats than weak classes.

The only way this works is by putting almost all power for all classes into their main class like casters or the 5.5 monk, but these means that these feats hardly matter, and means that classes without spells can even less differentiate themselves between different builds than they can now.

So you will have more choices, but your choices mostly dont matter, like in PF2 (for many of the choices).

Horwath · 2026-03-17T14:21:49+0000

Tigris said:
The assumption does not work though if classes have hugely different base mechanics, especially spellcasting.

Thats why 3.5 with the tons of feats instead of subclasses was not in the sleightest balanced. Because strong classes will profit even more from good feats than weak classes.

The only way this works is by putting almost all power for all classes into their main class like casters or the 5.5 monk, but these means that these feats hardly matter, and means that classes without spells can even less differentiate themselves between different builds than they can now.

So you will have more choices, but your choices mostly dont matter, like in PF2 (for many of the choices).

well, guess if you make a caster a class, you should balance it with a non caster, what a shock.
maybe add battlemaster features to all martials at a different pace(similar to A5E) so that will compensate for power difference.

or just remove most hard crowd control spells from the game,
damage spells are not a problem, summon spells are not a problem(conjure spells are), most of utility spells are not a problem, some still are.

make maritals more interesting and complex to play.

MichaelSomething · 2026-03-17T21:13:49+0000

I think you're all barking up the wrong tree by discussing rules. Cause we all know the rules are nothing compared to the power of the Dungeon Master.

So for my plan for a complete rebuild wouldn't concern itself with rules. I would...

Commission a musical about DM. Many people don't read the DMG but maybe they would listen to a catching song explaining how to make judgment calls or whatever.

Hire an anthropologist, an improv instructor, and a statication for the development team.

Start a prepackaged meal delivery service targeted towards DMs. Proper nutrition could greatly enhance their DMing capabilities.

Recruit Enworlders to take on new DMs as apprentices.

Not a Decepticon · 2026-03-17T21:26:35+0000

Horwath said:
maybe add battlemaster features to all martials at a different pace(similar to A5E) so that will compensate for power difference.

1. Battlemaster features are not enough to close martial-caster disparity
2. Congratulations, you just alienated all grognards and old-school fans who get really mad the second they cannot play a "simple sword & board fighter who only attacks every turn", the same people because of whom maneuvers were relegated to a subclass in the first place.