2017 D&D 5E Class Satisfaction Survey Results

Thank you for doing this. This is actually really good feedback.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Wait, why not? Why not have a generic base class and a bunch of very specific subclasses? Is there anything wrong conceptually with making Cowboy, Samurai, Knight Templar, Gunfighter, and Welsh Archer all subclasses of Fighter?

Page count would be my best guess.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Page count would be my best guess.

Oh, you were talking about something different than I thought. I thought you were saying the base chassis couldn't support those specialized archetypes, but I guess you were just saying the PHB didn't include subclasses for them. True.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app

 

[Thurmas]

I would have liked the Sorcerers to have more blaster type Arcane Ranger powers ala Warlocks, and the Warlocks to have an even bigger pool of debilitating powers then they already have.

Agreed on the warlock part. My hands down favorite invocation is Mask Of Many Faces. Such awesome Faceless men like power. I wish there were more like that. At will powers that the warlock can use unlike abilities other classes have. Curses, hexes and powers granted by your pact. If an invocation is going to use one of your spell slots, it needs to be really powerful, and not just a normal spell the wizard can already cast.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Oh, you were talking about something different than I thought. I thought you were saying the base chassis couldn't support those specialized archetypes, but I guess you were just saying the PHB didn't include subclasses for them. True.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app

Yeah, I was speaking from a logistics context. Sure all those subclasses are feasible from a design standpoint. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Agreed on the warlock part. My hands down favorite invocation is Mask Of Many Faces. Such awesome Faceless men like power. I wish there were more like that. At will powers that the warlock can use unlike abilities other classes have. Curses, hexes and powers granted by your pact. If an invocation is going to use one of your spell slots, it needs to be really powerful, and not just a normal spell the wizard can already cast.

That's why I love illusionists. They can use Seeming + Malleable Illusion to turn a whole *party* into at-will shapeshifters.

 

[Shayuri]

I've always kind of felt, even from 3rd Edition, that Warlocks did the 'innate magic' thing better than sorcerers did. Seriously, just reflavor your Otherworldly Patron as a Bloodline and boom, you basically have a really neat template for a sorceror. Someone who has innate magic powers, and some limited spellcasting that refreshes faster than a book-mage.

I agree you'd need to work pretty seriously on the invocation list. And possibly have quite a number of unique invocations available only to specific bloodlines to make sure that each bloodline had fun toys no one could steal, and a unique theme or flavor.

Then make Metamagic a feat or something. Like, each type of metamagic is a feat, and you get a limited number of points per day (each additional metamagic feat increases that number by a small amount) or maybe just you can only use each feat a limited number of times or something. I dunno. Playtest needed here.

Or. OR. Maybe that's the difference. Warlocks get their Pact type (tome, chain, etc), but sorcerors get Metamagic instead of a Pact. Mm. That'd be kind of weird.

I don't know, I only just started thinking about this. Even so, the point is just that the way warlocks use magic strikes me as very sorcerous. The way sorcerers use magic...not so much.

 

[doctorhook]

I don't know how popular my opinion is, but I think the best example of what a warlock should look like mechanically is the Raven Queen warlock. It has a great expanded spell list with spiritual weapon, sanctuary, and cone of cold. It has unique mechanics in the sentinel raven merging. It is flavorful, and can do things no other class can do. Spiritual weapon is an amazing spell to use with how the pact slots scale. Combine that level of design with more at will or 1/day no pact slot used invocations and I really think the warlock would be a winner

I have to admit, I haven't followed UA very closely, mainly because I've sorta come to the conclusion that it's generally pretty low quality. However if Raven Queen warlock is a winner, I'll definitely have a look for it! I'm hoping some of that stuff gets polished and published this fall.

Well the Champion fighter is a really good example of a simple class in 5E. It's only got a few things that are fiddly. IMO it's one of the best "I just like rolling dice" classes there is. What would you want more simplified?

It's ideal, isn't it? In fact, I tend to believe that all of Basic D&D (i.e.: the parts of 5E that were being provided for free under the name "Basic D&D") were solid. Every complaint I've had about 5E is something that fell outside of those, and I believe it's because these features received the most playtesting. Warlock, Sorcerer, and Ranger could have used a lot more IMHO.

Yeah, the battlemaster is pretty well done as indeed is the Eldritch Knight, though I think they played it a little too safe with it and it would have benefited from a "burning spell slots" type mechanic akin to the paladin, though different enough so as not to clone the Paladin. Same for the Arcane Trickster.

If I have a complaint about Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster, it's that they're just a little bit too boring; I'd love it if both subclasses got a "cherry" on top of what they've already got.

The Champion isn't all that fiddly but IMO that's a good thing for the kind of player who just wants to roll dice and not have to deal with being a quasi-spellcaster. They only have a few decisions to make in play and mostly just get to kick in teeth. There are plenty of players who like that kind of play and it's a good thing to make sure there are classes that let them enjoy the game, which was a major failure of 4E until Essentials came out.

Solid assessment.

Soooooooo this. Last night I had the same revelation: Sorcerers should be doing the thing Wizards cant learn, that Warlocks cant bargain for. Shadow magic, Rune magic, Chaos Magic with its own list of spell with specific riders depending of your origin.

I love what you're putting down here.

You know what I would have liked to see with the sorcerer? A true channeler of magic that is unique from a wizard. Either one of two ways:

1. Runes. Years ago I wrote a game where rune magic was one where each magical affect had a rune associated with it, and you as the caster would "draw" these runes as you cast in a combination that you wanted. for example, you could combine a gust, fire, and explosion rune to replicate something like a fireball. Each rune had a power level to it, and you were limited to a max potential power level depending on skill (level). So a novice rune caster couldn't go around blowing everything up.

I promise that I will buy an "Elements of Magic" product for 5E the very day I become aware that [MENTION=63]RangerWickett[/MENTION] has written and published such a thing. (Especially if it looks a lot like a D&D-ified/simplified version of the O.L.D. magic system; that's my dream product!)

I've always kind of felt, even from 3rd Edition, that Warlocks did the 'innate magic' thing better than sorcerers did. Seriously, just reflavor your Otherworldly Patron as a Bloodline and boom, you basically have a really neat template for a sorceror. Someone who has innate magic powers, and some limited spellcasting that refreshes faster than a book-mage.

I agree you'd need to work pretty seriously on the invocation list. And possibly have quite a number of unique invocations available only to specific bloodlines to make sure that each bloodline had fun toys no one could steal, and a unique theme or flavor.

Then make Metamagic a feat or something. Like, each type of metamagic is a feat, and you get a limited number of points per day (each additional metamagic feat increases that number by a small amount) or maybe just you can only use each feat a limited number of times or something. I dunno. Playtest needed here.

Or. OR. Maybe that's the difference. Warlocks get their Pact type (tome, chain, etc), but sorcerors get Metamagic instead of a Pact. Mm. That'd be kind of weird.

I don't know, I only just started thinking about this. Even so, the point is just that the way warlocks use magic strikes me as very sorcerous. The way sorcerers use magic...not so much.

I like the way you're thinking about this, and I agree with your assessment about 3.5E's Warlock: it was a groundbreaking experiment and it opened up huge new directions for D&D over the past 15ish years. ("At-will magic won't break the game?? You've gone mad!") The Sorcerer was far more modest development, mainly just a mechanical variant of Wizard, and its purpose has been less clear ever since. At least in 4E, the Sorcerer could help fill more mage-archetypes across 4E's role divisions--in 5E, even that's not necessary.

Keep brainstorming! You're doing great work.

 

[RangerWickett]

I promise that I will buy an "Elements of Magic" product for 5E the very day I become aware that [MENTION=63]RangerWickett[/MENTION] has written and published such a thing. (Especially if it looks a lot like a D&D-ified/simplified version of the O.L.D. magic system; that's my dream product!)

Blame the fact that my friends started playing FFG Star Wars and then invited me to a Pathfinder game. I tend to write rulebooks when I get irked at a system that I'm running, so until I get back to running 5e, it probably won't happen. Sorry, but thanks for the vote of confidence.

 

[Ancalagon]

Wait, why not? Why not have a generic base class and a bunch of very specific subclasses? Is there anything wrong conceptually with making Cowboy, Samurai, Knight Templar, Gunfighter, and Welsh Archer all subclasses of Fighter?

Page count would be my best guess.

I thought about this some more and... well there could be a serious drawback to having subclasses for all those archetypes. Those extra options *limit* you. Say that there were cowboy, knight, samurai, crossbowman and wrestler subclasses. Great, more choices you say! But what if I want to play a master fencer? No subclasses for that, sorry. So, consciously or subconsciously, those subclasses will funnel me towards certain choices.

But with a broad, flexible subclass like the battlemaster, I'm only limited by my imagination! I *can* make that swordmaster, or a legionnaire or... I think this was a wise choice, design wise.

 

[doctorhook]

Blame the fact that my friends started playing FFG Star Wars and then invited me to a Pathfinder game. I tend to write rulebooks when I get irked at a system that I'm running, so until I get back to running 5e, it probably won't happen. Sorry, but thanks for the vote of confidence.

No apology necessary, friend! I know exactly what you mean about having other things on the go. If ever you do create such a product, you can count on me to buy it.