D&D 5E Anyone else finding character advancement pretty dull?

[TwoSix]

What I am a fan of is the concept of modular customization - I very much like the idea that you can trade an ASI for something else (currently, the choice of "something else" is limited to feats, but the first iteration of Dragonmarks treated those as another option). Similarly, the idea of switching out the characters Subrace or Subclass for something else has merit.

Yea, the ASI/Feat choice is pretty close to perfect. Getting +2 to a stat is always a strong option, or I can choose from a medium-size pool of strong options, all of which are strongly named for easy identification (not much question of what concepts Tough or Great Weapon Master will fit!), and that theming to concept means the choices are already filtered to greatly lower analysis paralysis.

One of the reason I like Spells Known classes so much is that picking that one new spell, and choosing whether to give one up to get a second spell, allows for that same level of customization and analysis.

 

[Jester David]

If they had no requirements other than level, why not? The most onerous part of Prestige Classes was the requirement to build towards them, removing that would make the concept much more workable.

They tested the idea of doing prestige classes again with an Unearthed Arcana.
Most people didn't like it and it didn't test well. So they scrapped that idea.


Prestige Classes also work best when there's a story behind them. When they exist for reasons other than being quick infusions of alternate mechanics, where membership in the "alternate class" is tied to story requirements that justify how this class is different from the baseline classes. Such as an elite knighthood or the secret arcane arts of the Red Wizards. Or something that causes a physical change, such as being infused with spellfire.
The catch is, that kind of story based requirement greatly limits prestige classes to just being additional options to take. Since there's story and campaign requirements.

 

[Gradine]

They tested the idea of doing prestige classes again with an Unearthed Arcana.
Most people didn't like it and it didn't test well. So they scrapped that idea.


Prestige Classes also work best when there's a story behind them. When they exist for reasons other than being quick infusions of alternate mechanics, where membership in the "alternate class" is tied to story requirements that justify how this class is different from the baseline classes. Such as an elite knighthood or the secret arcane arts of the Red Wizards. Or something that causes a physical change, such as being infused with spellfire.
The catch is, that kind of story based requirement greatly limits prestige classes to just being additional options to take. Since there's story and campaign requirements.

I feel like that design space suits the way Feats in 5e are designed much better than as a 3.X "prestige-class" model. The only problem is, again, how rare and costly feats can be.

 

[Jester David]

All that said, D&D is currently riding a big wave of 80s nostalgia, which will inevitably come down at some point. So past performance shouldn't be taken as an infallible guide to future earnings...

I'm uncertain about that.
I'm a big fan of the '80s. But I'm also pushing 40. I doubt there are many people 30 years and younger who have much nostalgia for the '80s. And D&D seems to be doing very well with people in their 30s, 20s, and even teens.

Some of the '80s nostalgia is almost more for the pop culture and aesthetic without actually being nostalgic for the '80s.
The Duffer Brothers of Stranger Things fame are a good example, having been born in 1984, they likely don't remember much of the '80s let alone are nostalgic for that era. They're not reliving their childhood with that series since the first season took place before they were born.

 

[TwoSix]

Prestige Classes also work best when there's a story behind them. When they exist for reasons other than being quick infusions of alternate mechanics, where membership in the "alternate class" is tied to story requirements that justify how this class is different from the baseline classes. Such as an elite knighthood or the secret arcane arts of the Red Wizards. Or something that causes a physical change, such as being infused with spellfire.
The catch is, that kind of story based requirement greatly limits prestige classes to just being additional options to take. Since there's story and campaign requirements.

Well, I don't see the idea as being exactly equivalent to Prestige Classes. I see it more like this:

1) When you level, the most fundamental choice you make is what class to take the next level in. Every other option flows from there. (Assuming multiclass is allowed, of course.)
2) Right now, you have 12 options as to where to put that level. (More if homebrew is allowed.)
3) More options are fun, so what if I had more options as to what to do with that level choice?
4) You can add new classes, but that has a lot of design overhead and must support a thematic concept with room for subclasses going from 1-20. That design space is limited.
5) 5e's math is based on hit points and proficencies increasing with level, so simply trading in a level for another option isn't feasible. Any new silo for level benefits must grant hit points and a Hit Die, and must count towards overall character level.
6) Based on 4 and 5, the concept of a class with limited scope becomes appealing. Allows for more options, but less design overhead. 1-20 progression is not required, as is room for subclasses. Modular options within a design chassis already meant to encourage modularity would be redundant (although not poor design, just not required).

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I imagine that 5e appeals a lot to more casual people who don't want to have to spend hours pouring over PC options and just want to do some fantasy adventure gaming. Level, roll HP, maybe adjust prof bonus, maybe pick a feat or maybe not, bang! Back to the adventure.

 

[Parmandur]

Given how successful they've been recently, I wouldn't be surprised to see very few new subclasses - basically a book like Xanathar's in 2020ish, another in 2022ish, and then "6th Edition" in 2024 for the 50th anniversary - but where that 6th edition is more like the 1st->2nd jump or the 4e->Essentials shift, rather than the 2nd->3e, 3.5e->4e, or 4e->5e jump. Heck, it might even be a smaller step than 3e->3.5e.

All that said, D&D is currently riding a big wave of 80s nostalgia, which will inevitably come down at some point. So past performance shouldn't be taken as an infallible guide to future earnings...

Well, we are getting some indeterminate number of Subclasses in November with Ravnica (Spore Druid and Order Cleric confirmed to be in the book, Brute confirmed not to be, Inventor Wizard no confirmation, and maybe some surprises), and R&D is actively working on two whole new Classes and assorted Subclasses (Artificer & Psion, and various Psionic & Summon focused Subclasses for other classes). I don't see the Subclass train slowing down too much. Otherwise, seems plausible. I expect 6E will be a fully backwards compatible "Best of" replacing unpopular core 5E options with latter 5E options as 6E core (change-up in base Subclasses, replace summoning spells with what Mearls is working now if that pans out, that sort of thing). Something where a 5E PC can walk in and play, it a DM use a 5E AP with no conversion, but have different base options.

80's aesthetic is in right now, but hip 10's stuff like Critical Role means that it is also now hip and current.

 

[Jester David]

Well, I don't see the idea as being exactly equivalent to Prestige Classes. I see it more like this:

1) When you level, the most fundamental choice you make is what class to take the next level in. Every other option flows from there. (Assuming multiclass is allowed, of course.)
2) Right now, you have 12 options as to where to put that level. (More if homebrew is allowed.)
3) More options are fun, so what if I had more options as to what to do with that level choice?
4) You can add new classes, but that has a lot of design overhead and must support a thematic concept with room for subclasses going from 1-20. That design space is limited.
5) 5e's math is based on hit points and proficencies increasing with level, so simply trading in a level for another option isn't feasible. Any new silo for level benefits must grant hit points and a Hit Die, and must count towards overall character level.
6) Based on 4 and 5, the concept of a class with limited scope becomes appealing. Allows for more options, but less design overhead. 1-20 progression is not required, as is room for subclasses. Modular options within a design chassis already meant to encourage modularity would be redundant (although not poor design, just not required).

A class with limited scope, that isn't level 1-20, and lacks subclasses.
That is literally the definition of a Prestige Class.

My point was that 5e is designed with story in mind. So the Prestige Classes would be story based and narrow enough to fill the voids that do not make for good subclasses. They would be the "classes" that do not work as level 1 options. Like the archmage or elite knight. But while said Prestige Classes might not have mechanical prerequisites, that type of class would almost certainly have story requirements.


What you're asking for sounds like Prestige Classes divorced from story. New mini-classes that exist solely to provide new options and mechanics. New options for the sake of options. Which isn't how the design team is adding options to the game.

Adding new options just for mechanical benefits doesn't improve gameplay at the table. The opposite really. More options are fun... away from the table. Between games. But that fun typically comes at the expense of fun during the game.
The catch is perfect balance is impossible, so when you add new options, some are going to be better than the baseline and some are going to be worse. If you add a dozen new options, there will be three that are just outright better. Option creep = power creep. So if you add a bunch of new mechanical Prestige Classes that's just outright increasing the power of characters, destabilising the balance at the table and negatively impacting play.
That's exactly why feats are easily the most disruptive part of the game's balance: they're a list of a couple dozen modular options people can use to maximise their effectiveness, where you can pick the very best ones and ignore the weak choices.
Each decision point in classes is a point of variance in terms of power level. A place where a character can be above or below the norm, And when you can have not one but a dozen points of variance in a single class, that creates a wide gulf of power levels between characters. That's when expected power level and encounter design falls apart. That's what breaks games.


Ask yourself this: would the prestige class options be as fun if the class options were entirely out-of-combat bonuses? Exploration features and ribbons? Theoretically they should be as fun: it's more options, right?
Probably not. Because it's not just about more options: it's about picking the best option from the options. Which means it's inherently about breaking the game's balance.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

*shurg* I put down the "Love it", because I like it more than "it's ok". It's fast, easy, and doesn't typically change a character drastically. And with how vocal I am about this I feel like a broken record, but if I don't say this people will make assumptions, reply, and I'll have to explain again: I don't allow Multiclassing, Feats and "other books" (exceptions for the "other books" thing are made when someone has a cool idea for a character or wants to use something in particular to it...but never MC or Feats).

I think this thread pretty much has folks in one of two camps. Those that like to play D&D, and those that like to play D&D but actually want to play GURPS/HERO System. At least in spirit. D&D is alluring in it's simplistic base: "Go confront bad guys in their lair, kill them, take their stuff; rinse and repeat". That's D&D at it's core. I think the 5e system's level advancement is just fine, pretty dang good actually. If a player is finding they want more "niggly noodly bits to fiddle around with", well, that's not 5e and probably (hopefully) never will be. IMHO, of course.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[TwoSix]

A class with limited scope, that isn't level 1-20, and lacks subclasses.
That is literally the definition of a Prestige Class.

That can't actually be true, since Prestige Classes existed in 3e, which didn't have subclasses.

But yes, functionally, it's pretty much Prestige Classes, just without the prerequisites.

My point was that 5e is designed with story in mind. So the Prestige Classes would be story based and narrow enough to fill the voids that do not make for good subclasses. They would be the "classes" that do not work as level 1 options. Like the archmage or elite knight. But while said Prestige Classes might not have mechanical prerequisites, that type of class would almost certainly have story requirements.

I'm not really a fan of "class = narrative", so that wouldn't be exactly to my taste.

What you're asking for sounds like Prestige Classes divorced from story. New mini-classes that exist solely to provide new options and mechanics. New options for the sake of options. Which isn't how the design team is adding options to the game.

Yes, exactly that! Sure, it's not going to happen officially, but any mechanical expansion of the 5e chassis by official channels is a pipe dream. This is just theorizing.

Adding new options just for mechanical benefits doesn't improve gameplay at the table. The opposite really. More options are fun... away from the table. Between games. But that fun typically comes at the expense of fun during the game.

I don't actually agree with that. Complexity CAN bog down a game, absolutely, but the ability to play a character tuned closer to your vision can make your whole play experience. There's are plenty of people playing Pathfinder over 5e, after all. Add judging by Paizo's forum, the most prevalent single reason they don't choose 5e is because of the lack of modularity in designing their character.

Now, granted, no game can appeal to everyone, and that's why different games exist. I understand that. But as someone who prefers the overall play of 5e, but also likes Pathfinder's breadth of customization, I don't think I can be faulted for wondering about possible ways to hybridize the two.

The catch is perfect balance is impossible, so when you add new options, some are going to be better than the baseline and some are going to be worse. If you add a dozen new options, there will be three that are just outright better. Option creep = power creep. So if you add a bunch of new mechanical Prestige Classes that's just outright increasing the power of characters, destabilising the balance at the table and negatively impacting play.
That's exactly why feats are easily the most disruptive part of the game's balance: they're a list of a couple dozen modular options people can use to maximise their effectiveness, where you can pick the very best ones and ignore the weak choices.
Each decision point in classes is a point of variance in terms of power level. A place where a character can be above or below the norm, And when you can have not one but a dozen points of variance in a single class, that creates a wide gulf of power levels between characters. That's when expected power level and encounter design falls apart. That's what breaks games.

I'll be honest, I don't particularly care about that. 5e's balance is awfully loose. As long as enough options exist to create a viable characters of most common tropes, I'm pretty OK with it.

Ask yourself this: would the prestige class options be as fun if the class options were entirely out-of-combat bonuses? Exploration features and ribbons? Theoretically they should be as fun: it's more options, right?
Probably not. Because it's not just about more options: it's about picking the best option from the options. Which means it's inherently about breaking the game's balance.

No, but that's because I've never thought that exploration is nearly as fun as conflict, whether that be combat or roleplaying drama. Exploration is just the necessary filler to contextualize the conflict.