Anyone else looking forward to the next Priest Classes Packet? What do you expect?

[Vaalingrade]

As long as they finally do away with the stupid metal armor thing for Druids.

 

[mellored]

Different classes getting shared spells at different spell levels was a huge loss for classes that factored those spells more towards their core identity. Seeing shared spells shift levels about some in the spell lists would be a good thing

Wizards getting level 3 fireball, and clerics getting level 5 flamestrike, protects the identity of wizards.

But I do think druids should get a level 3 polymorph equivalent.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Wizards getting level 3 fireball, and clerics getting level 5 flamestrike, protects the identity of wizards.

But I do think druids should get a level 3 polymorph equivalent.

Level 2 flamestrike for clerics then.

Niche protection can and should burn.

 

[mellored]

Yeah, if the point is to balance the Class, then mess with the Class.

Dont mess with the balance of the Spell Slots.

Except 90% of the class is the spell slots.

 

[mellored]

Level 2 flamestrike for clerics then.

Niche protection can and should burn.

Then why have classes?

 

[mellored]

But I do think druids should get a level 3 polymorph equivalent.

Oh..
Make wild shapes a spell.

And druids can cast it on themselves for free.

 

[Mephista]

Niche protection can and should burn.

No, no it shouldn't. The whole point of different classes is because people LIKE niches and specialization. Even in freeform systems people gravitate towards certain tropes and archetypes. If you want druids to cast fireballs... then it should be restricted to wildfire druids. Having every single spellcaster be same-y is a BAD THING.

Example - this was for Vampire the Requiem, but same concept applies. Three magic factions, and one of them got an ability that would let them freely steal magic from the other factions for free. Players did NOT like that. They wanted niches. The writers were surprised, thought it was strange. But the players were clear. Having one magic type have free access to all other magics was not something the player base at large wanted.

As far as I'm aware, people are upset about the bard's spell choices, because they're being pulled from their niche.

 

[mellored]

As far as I'm aware, people are upset about the bard's spell choices, because they're being pulled from their niche.

IMO, if any class should get magical secrets, it should be wizards.

 

[Yaarel]

Then why have classes?

Classes are convenient readymades, whose features players can then customize, swap, and tweak.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Classes are convenient readymades, whose features players can then customize, swap, and tweak.

This! This is the way.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I'm pretty sure "Channel" (which includes Wildshape) is the priest classes thing, much like how Expertise is the Experts classes thing.

 

[tetrasodium]

No, no it shouldn't. The whole point of different classes is because people LIKE niches and specialization. Even in freeform systems people gravitate towards certain tropes and archetypes. If you want druids to cast fireballs... then it should be restricted to wildfire druids. Having every single spellcaster be same-y is a BAD THING.

Example - this was for Vampire the Requiem, but same concept applies. Three magic factions, and one of them got an ability that would let them freely steal magic from the other factions for free. Players did NOT like that. They wanted niches. The writers were surprised, thought it was strange. But the players were clear. Having one magic type have free access to all other magics was not something the player base at large wanted.

As far as I'm aware, people are upset about the bard's spell choices, because they're being pulled from their niche.

Bards also got pulled out of the wizard's niche & into their own niche, which is a good thing because 5e made bard overlap too much with wizard. Bards aren't masters of all things magic who also happen to have competent melee skills & great strengths in diplomancy type stuff.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm looking forward to seeing what, if anything, they do with smite, given the common perception that it is overpowered (I don't necessarily agree with this, but I can see where folks are coming from). I would not be surprised if it is reworded so that you declare whether or not you are using smite before you roll the attack, with the caveat that the spell slot is only consumed if the attack hits.

For druids, I want to see what they can do to make the rest of the class competitive with Moon Druid, since right now that is the overwhelming favourite among players, and with good reason (is any other class so completely dominated by one sub-class?). This is a tricky one because I generally don't like nerfs, so I think for the fix to be class-wide it has to be something that is pretty good but that druids can't do while shapeshifted. Something with channel divinity?

I'm keeping my expectations minimal, given that OneD&D's mandate is to tinker with 5e but not do a vast revision. So we aren't going to see druids made half-casters or anything like that. We are going to see fine-tuning.

 

[mellored]

Classes are convenient readymades, whose features players can then customize, swap, and tweak.

So your fine with a fighter casting fireball at level 5 too?

 

[Vaalingrade]

So your fine with a fighter casting fireball at level 5 too?

To the point that I explicitly built my game to make that a thing, yes.

 

[Clint_L]

Classes are convenient readymades, whose features players can then customize, swap, and tweak.

I disagree, because I think this would homogenize the game. Given the internet, players would have optimization spreadsheets available within 24 hours and instead of more choice we would end up with less.

If playing World of Warcraft for years taught me anything, it is to fear the power of optimization in the hands of players.

Edit: I think to keep the game interesting you have to force players to make difficult choices: if you want this, then you can't have that. Then they have to work together to solve problems. You can't have a party where everyone is just Superman.

 

[Yaarel]

So your fine with a fighter casting fireball at level 5 too?

If the Fighter is giving up part of the Fighter design space in order to cast Fireball, and it is a fair trade, and the character is balanced compared to other characters, then why not?

Why would I want to play the character that the designer wants to play, when customization allows me to play the character that I want to play?

 

[Clint_L]

If the Fighter is giving up part of the Fighter design space in order to cast Fireball, and it is a fair trade, and the character is balanced compared to other characters, then why not?

Why would I want to play the character that the designer wants to play, when customization allows me to play the character that I want to play?

I think we would end up with three, maybe four de facto classes: the optimized fighter/tank, the optimized ranged DPS, the optimized rogue, and maybe the optimized buffer/support.

 

[Amrûnril]

I disagree.

I don't see any reason why one spell list can't be weaker than the others. And then classes that use that list get stronger other features.

I.e. wizards power is all in the spells. But druids power is half spells and half other.

Might want to make it a little more clear from class descriptions that druids are more gish than straight casters, but I don't see a problem with that.

If the goal is for one class to have weaker spellcasting, then that class should have fewer and/or lower level spell slots. Describing intentionally stronger/weaker spells as being the same level is confusing, and it complicates within-class spell balance if some spells appear on multiple lists.

 

[Vaalingrade]

For me, a class is not a thing in the game world. It is shorthand for the mechanical package that's closest to what you're trying to do.