D&D General A Class's Spell List Should be Listed With the Class Description.

[MuhVerisimilitude]

just like 3.5E fighter.
I'm all for it.

No the 3.5 fighter can't pick any class features. The problem with the trashy 3.5 fighter is that they don't have any class abilities at all. They can pick feats, not features. I mean things like other class abilities.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

just like 3.5E fighter.
I'm all for it.

While I think I see what you were going for with this, I'm afraid MuhVerisimilitude has the right of it.

3.x feats almost universally suck. Fighter feats doubly so. You have to wade through three crap feats to get one decent feat, and it takes half or more of a character's natural play-life to get that far.

As with many, many, many parts of 3.x, it's a conceptually compelling idea executed extremely poorly and with few other examples in the D&D milieu. The first and last (compelling, rarely matched) mean people still stick to it years upon years later....and cling to the middle bit despite the significant evidence of its flaws.

Design by what sounds like great design philosophy, rather than by testing and analysis, is often prone to such issues.

 

[Horwath]

No the 3.5 fighter can't pick any class features. The problem with the trashy 3.5 fighter is that they don't have any class abilities at all. They can pick feats, not features. I mean things like other class abilities.

just house rule class features as feats. for 5E that is.
it can be half feat with +1 ASI or a full feat depending on potency,
some features might require to be broken down in two feats(paladins bonus to saves, I'm looking at you!!)

 

[Horwath]

While I think I see what you were going for with this, I'm afraid MuhVerisimilitude has the right of it.

3.x feats almost universally suck. Fighter feats doubly so. You have to wade through three crap feats to get one decent feat, and it takes half or more of a character's natural play-life to get that far.

As with many, many, many parts of 3.x, it's a conceptually compelling idea executed extremely poorly and with few other examples in the D&D milieu. The first and last (compelling, rarely matched) mean people still stick to it years upon years later....and cling to the middle bit despite the significant evidence of its flaws.

Design by what sounds like great design philosophy, rather than by testing and analysis, is often prone to such issues.

I said like fighter, not exactly like it.

yeah, most feats were trash and you need to read 500 of them to pick 20 that work great for you.

I like the base chassis of the fighter, no predetermined set in stone features, just pick what you like for your character, within balance OFC.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I said like fighter, not exactly like it.

I think most folks would interpret "just like 3.5E fighter" as meaning a pretty close comparison, given the "just" in there, rather than "well, the general idea, y'know?"

yeah, most feats were trash and you need to read 500 of them to pick 20 that work great for you.

I like the base chassis of the fighter, no predetermined set in stone features, just pick what you like for your character, within balance OFC.

You'd appreciate the 13A Druid then. They actually solved the problem of the Druid being four classes in a trenchcoat. You get three talents to spread between six options (TL;DR: Animal companion, wildshape, warrior, herbalism, elemental magic, environmental magic). One talent makes you a novice at that. Two makes you a master.

It's probably not as flexible as you're speaking of, since you make this decision at first level and stick with it thereafter. But it really is a very elegant solution to the problem of "ask a dozen people what 'a druid' is and you'll get 14 answers."

 

[Horwath]

I think most folks would interpret "just like 3.5E fighter" as meaning a pretty close comparison, given the "just" in there, rather than "well, the general idea, y'know?"


You'd appreciate the 13A Druid then. They actually solved the problem of the Druid being four classes in a trenchcoat. You get three talents to spread between six options (TL;DR: Animal companion, wildshape, warrior, herbalism, elemental magic, environmental magic). One talent makes you a novice at that. Two makes you a master.

It's probably not as flexible as you're speaking of, since you make this decision at first level and stick with it thereafter. But it really is a very elegant solution to the problem of "ask a dozen people what 'a druid' is and you'll get 14 answers."

yeah, 13th age solves some problems rather nicely.
But suffers from 3.5e curse to have most feats horrible, so again you have to read a lot to avoid traps.


But, now that you have mentioned, Wild shape(for 5E) can just be a feat that anyone can take, not being gated behind druid class.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

yeah, 13th age solves some problems rather nicely.
But suffers from 3.5e curse to have most feats horrible, so again you have to read a lot to avoid traps.


But, now that you have mentioned, Wild shape(for 5E) can just be a feat that anyone can take, not being gated behind druid class.

I think I'd gate it as three feats.

First one, available at first level: 2/day, you can assume the form of a simple creature you've studied (e.g. domesticated animals, simple forest creatures, etc.) Limited to weaker creatures, CR does not scale, etc. This is utility shapes only, no flight, no water breathing, pretty basic stuff.

Second, available at level 4, basic combat shapes but not super great scaling, 3/day. Can do water breathing creatures, and "limited" flight--essentially songbirds and other things that can hop over a wall but can't fly around town.

Third, available at level 8, full wildshape, better combat forms, but still inferior to an actual, proper Moon Druid, PB/day. Far fewer restrictions on what you can become.

Of course, I wouldn't actually do this in general--I am opposed to turning the class system into a pure all-you-can-eat point-buy, as I think that change in design significantly distorts gameplay--but if I were to do it, something like the above is how I'd handle it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Another idea is for people to take all the hours they spend over here on EN World arguing about the spell lists and use a little bit of that time to just flip through the Player's Handbook to figure out what spells their character has access to and which ones they want.

Apparently none of us have enough time to work on our own game... but we have all the time in the world to argue about the game as a whole. It's very amusing, LOL!

 

[Horwath]

I think I'd gate it as three feats.

First one, available at first level: 2/day, you can assume the form of a simple creature you've studied (e.g. domesticated animals, simple forest creatures, etc.) Limited to weaker creatures, CR does not scale, etc. This is utility shapes only, no flight, no water breathing, pretty basic stuff.

Second, available at level 4, basic combat shapes but not super great scaling, 3/day. Can do water breathing creatures, and "limited" flight--essentially songbirds and other things that can hop over a wall but can't fly around town.

Third, available at level 8, full wildshape, better combat forms, but still inferior to an actual, proper Moon Druid, PB/day. Far fewer restrictions on what you can become.

Of course, I wouldn't actually do this in general--I am opposed to turning the class system into a pure all-you-can-eat point-buy, as I think that change in design significantly distorts gameplay--but if I were to do it, something like the above is how I'd handle it.

yes, it should not all be one feat.

but, here is for starters:

Wild shape:
+1 ASI

as a Bonus action you can change your shape to medium size 4-legged animal with 40ft walk and climb speed.
you keep your mental stats and all your proficiency and feats that can be used with new shape.
your physical stats are STR, DEX and CON of 14.
you have natural attack, bite or claw 1d6+STR damage
Your AC is 12+prof bonus.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think most folks would interpret "just like 3.5E fighter" as meaning a pretty close comparison, given the "just" in there, rather than "well, the general idea, y'know?"


You'd appreciate the 13A Druid then. They actually solved the problem of the Druid being four classes in a trenchcoat. You get three talents to spread between six options (TL;DR: Animal companion, wildshape, warrior, herbalism, elemental magic, environmental magic). One talent makes you a novice at that. Two makes you a master.

It's probably not as flexible as you're speaking of, since you make this decision at first level and stick with it thereafter. But it really is a very elegant solution to the problem of "ask a dozen people what 'a druid' is and you'll get 14 answers."

It's the same way they solved the ranger (same problem so of course it works)