D&D (2024) Anyone else looking forward to the next Priest Classes Packet? What do you expect?

[Yaarel]

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.

If the class options are well balanced, and the swaps fair, I expect people would use the options like Lego bricks.

Casual players will probably just use the readymades. But enough players need customization.

Consider how popular feats are because of their customization.



Of course, if most of the options are crap, and only three options are good, then obviously the optimizers and many others will just pick the good options.

Why make Fireball the only good option and then make Flamestrike crap? That is naive design that will end up with players refusing to eat crap.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Since I have sometime a hard time understanding the designs of WotC, my bet would on:

• a nerf for the druid, with even less thing for non-moon druid to do with wildshape.
• a power boost given to Paladin, because somehow they think they are lacking. Probably give them fireball or something.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I'm pretty sure that the Paladin's Smite Ability will be nerfed to into "usable once per turn". I always thought it worked that way, but after looking it up it's once per attack in the old rules. So I think the revision will be only once per turn.

In addition to that, I think they might Nerf the Sorcerer-Paladin all-smites multiclass combo by restricting Smites to have a max spell slot level of 5.

 

[mellored]

If the class options are well balanced, and the swaps fair, I expect people would use the options like Lego bricks.

No.
For that to happen, you need each feature needs to be balanced individually with each other. And you need to account for all the interaction.

Classes can be balanced is more ways, like by having one really strong ability vs several medium strength abilities, or a lot of small features. There is more flexibility, variety, and more strength and weaknesses.

Most class less games end up with all the characters feeling the same. When everyone has fireball, no one is special.

 

[Yaarel]

No.
For that to happen, you need each feature needs to be balanced individually with each other. And you need to account for all the interaction.

Classes can be balanced is more ways, like by having one really strong ability vs several medium strength abilities, or a lot of small features. There is more flexibility, variety, and more strength and weaknesses.

Most class less games end up with all the characters feeling the same. When everyone has fireball, no one is special.

For example, one feature can be worth a feat, an other feature can be worth a half feat, an other feature can be worth a proficiency, an other feature can be worth three proficiencies, and so on.

Features that are worth a feat need to balance comparably with other features that are worth a feat.

Spells that are worth a Slot 3 need to balance comparably with other Spells that are worth a Slot 3.

 

[Clint_L]

I think it would all get theory crafted instantly and we would have a totally different game with a handful of optimized "classes."

In World of Warcraft, each sub-class is optimized right down to the specific item to fill each slot for each tier of gear. and it happens within hours of each patch. If they didn't insist on sub-classes, there wouldn't be any. If they didn't insist on classes, there would be 4: ranged DPS, melee DPS, tank, and healer.

That's what would happen in D&D if you did away with classes or made them optional. Sure, there would be exceptions at some tables but the heart of the game would radically change and I don't think it would be nearly as good. Right now, the fact that no one character can do everything means that you need to work together and do group problem-solving. Letting everything become optional drastically reduces choices because everything gets reduced to a few optimal choices. Most spells would become obsolete, most abilities defunct, etc.

Look at the current weapons and armours list. Players can pick and choose...and so most of those lists are pointless, because the optimal choices quickly rise to the top.

 

[Mephista]

Like, as near as I can tell, Yaarel and Vaalingrade are advocating for a freeform skill system. And there are skill systems out there like that.

Those systems are not D&D. D&D is a class-based system, not a freeform skill-based one. We would effectively need to revamp the entire system from the ground up to realistically make it work outside of a few tables that make do with homebrew. And it would undermine or remove a lot of the tropes that D&D is renowned, or even established in the first place.

 

[mellored]

For example, one feature can be worth a feat, an other feature can be worth a half feat, an other feature can be worth a proficiency, an other feature can be worth three proficiencies, and so on.

Features that are worth a feat need to balance comparably with other features that are worth a feat.

Spells that are worth a Slot 3 need to balance comparably with other Spells that are worth a Slot 3.

You would probably want to do a point buy for that then.

Ribbon features are worth 1 point, small features 2 points, and so on.

It would be a completely different game though.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No.
For that to happen, you need each feature needs to be balanced individually with each other. And you need to account for all the interaction.

That's not what the fighter fireball example is about though.

There's it one spell from the wizard's gigantic, hot-swappable list.

Also, breaking up class features to do this was super easy, barely an inconvenience.

 

[Yaarel]

You would probably want to do a point buy for that then.

Ribbon features are worth 1 point, small features 2 points, and so on.

It would be a completely different game though.

The feat is the more useful unit of measurement for doling out features.

Two half-feats work great as meaningful samplings.

Then a half-feat is worth four proficiencies: for a bundle of skills, tools, weapons, armors, low-slot spells per day, and other ribbons.

Each level gained while advancing is worth about a feat.

A very powerful feature, such as Sneak Attack, is worth about 1½ feats, and requires "borrowing" design space from a higher or lower level. Thus the other level will offer less features or sometimes even be empty.

In any case, packing Class features into feats and half-feats is pretty much how 5e works.



Happily, Xanathars and moreso Tashas, shows the designers have a solid handle on how much design space a feat is worth.

The 2014 Players Handbook feats were a bit all of over the place, and typically disappointing, as the designers were kinda guessing how the 5e engine would work in the wild.

But now the sense of how much a feature is worth is solid.