D&D 5E Best designed classes in 5e

[TheCosmicKid]

(1) You have to somehow convey the status of that offscreen, in-game clock to the players at all times, perhaps through e.g. a magic item that lets them spy on the cultists, or a defector from the cultists who lets them know what the calendar schedule for sacrifices is like...

They don't have to know when the deadline is. In fact, it may be better if they don't. The uncertainty means every rest is a risk, rather than a calculation like "Well, it's four hours until midnight, so we can short-rest three times." Also, verisimilitude: the fog of war and all that. And it incentivizes active intelligence gathering: maybe, if they play it smart, they do get the timetable and can plan around it.

(2) You have to align gameplay to the in-game clock, but that doesn't make your metagame time constraints disappear, and now you have to satisfy TWO sets of constraints instead of one. If the evening ends, but there is still time on the in-game clock remaining, you have to delay resolution of the story until the in-game clock runs out EVEN THOUGH THAT CLOCK WAS ARBITRARILY DERIVED IN THE FIRST PLACE. You're spending the evening without a climax or a clear win/lose condition, and you're doing it for no particular reason.

What was going to be a climax becomes a cliffhanger. That sort of pivot is a pretty handy tool in the DM's bag of tricks.

Depending upon how often you game with this particular group, and how busy your various lives are, that might potentially mean that you NEVER get closure on this particular adventure--next time you find time to get together, everyone may want to play different characters entirely instead of resuming the interrupted story arc from eight weeks ago.

Yeah, that doesn't happen with my group. It's been almost eight weeks now since we last played, and my players would slit my throat if I suggested not resolving what happens to their intrepid heroes currently fleeing through the jungle from enraged snakemen. Like I said, make it a cliffhanger. Then it'll be worth the wait. Fans wait years to see what happens next in the Star Wars movies.

Precisely. In the absence of a compelling in-game reason to prefer a particular timeframe, why not simply align the failure condition to the metagame constraints so that you NEVER have to "wait until the next session... to see what happens?" Why not just make "ran out of time" the same thing as "you lose this time"?

My group would be irked by the notion that they lost because a random encounter wasted thirty real-life minutes even though it was at most thirty seconds of in-game time.

It's not appropriate for all adventures, but I see definite potential for using it in certain kinds of episodic adventures, especially with new players and busy players. Especially busy, new players who have five kids under the age of ten, for whom scheduling even a single game session can sometimes take six weeks.

I can understand that.

 

[CydKnight]

In my humble opinion, it depends on the campaign, the DM, how you like to play, and house rules. I don't like playing the Warlock but that doesn't mean I think it's not well designed. It just means it doesn't fit with my preferred play style at least at that moment in time. Conversely I may think a Cleric build is the best character I ever played in one particular campaign and then wonder why a Cleric doesn't seem as effective to me in the next one.

 

[mflayermonk]

Ok, lets do this one class at a time. First up, Barbarian. Is it mechanically well designed? Does it have a good story behind it? Why or Why not?

No.
Why: There are two clear winners in the Barbarian class-Bear Totems DR and Frenzy's extra attack. The rest of the class from Wolf and Eagle totem are rarely made choices.
This implies that Bear Totem's DR should be available to all three bear/eagle/wolf subtypes and then each subtype should have an additional choice.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

They don't have to know when the deadline is. In fact, it may be better if they don't. The uncertainty means every rest is a risk, rather than a calculation like "Well, it's four hours until midnight, so we can short-rest three times." Also, verisimilitude: the fog of war and all that. And it incentivizes active intelligence gathering: maybe, if they play it smart, they do get the timetable and can plan around it.

I've tried that way. "You show up to save the princess but she is already dead because I rolled a 1 on the 1d20 hours check earlier tonight." It isn't fun to run
[*] and I think it isn't fun to play. I am constantly trying to give my players more information about their environment so they can make decisions with their eyes open.

* For the kind of group I'm thinking of here. For groups that are more into roll-with-the-punches/heavy roleplaying/Combat As War/etc. it can work just fine, but ANYTHING works fine with those groups including being enslaved by Ancient Red Dragons at 3rd level. I'm speaking here of groups for which 5E is functioning primarily as a finite game and not a fantasy world with infinite game aspects.

Yeah, that doesn't happen with my group. It's been almost eight weeks now since we last played, and my players would slit my throat if I suggested not resolving what happens to their intrepid heroes currently fleeing through the jungle from enraged snakemen. Like I said, make it a cliffhanger. Then it'll be worth the wait. Fans wait years to see what happens next in the Star Wars movies.

I think your feedback here is overly-focused on the dynamics of your own group without stopping to consider that different groups have different dynamics and need to be managed in different ways. I wouldn't use this technique with your group; but I would use it with one of mine, and I might use it in a prewritten adventure designed for new or casual 5E players.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This strikes me as just a wee bit hyperbolic, considering the paladin uses exactly the same spell system as every other class -- save the warlock. You want a class that's "at odds" with the spellcasting mechanic, start there.

If the Paladin had to cast a spell in order to smite, such as by casting one of the various Smite spells, then I would have no issue with it because it would be subject to the same rate limitation as everyone else. The problem is entirely with its ability to spend slots without casting a spell.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

If the Paladin had to cast a spell in order to smite, such as by casting one of the various Smite spells, then I would have no issue with it because it would be subject to the same rate limitation as everyone else. The problem is entirely with its ability to spend slots without casting a spell.

First of all, the paladin isn't the only class that can do that either. Secondly, I'm having a little trouble buying that the paladin spending slots just like everyone else, only faster, constitutes being "at odds" with the spellcasting system. You have a finite resource, you choose how to spend it, you get it back when you rest. Same principle as ever. The five-minute-workday issue, if it is an issue, is an issue for every non-warlock spellcasting class. It's not as if clerics and wizards find it particularly difficult to burn all their spell slots when that's what they want to do. The paladin is in no way qualitatively distinctive here.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

If the Paladin had to cast a spell in order to smite, such as by casting one of the various Smite spells, then I would have no issue with it because it would be subject to the same rate limitation as everyone else. The problem is entirely with its ability to spend slots without casting a spell.

I also have issues with this, and that the paladin just seems overpowered compared to other hybrid caster choices. Adding +5 on everyone's saves and giving resistance to all spell damage (ancients oath) is absurd when you factor in their excellent "boss fight" offense. Then you compare it to the ranger or EK, who know less spells than the paladin gets as BONUS spells known and prepared from their oaths, and it's clear the paladin is overtuned. It's like it was designed for a different game difficulty, then WOTC decided to make all the enemies wussy bags of HP with no teeth, and no one told the paladin designer.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

First of all, the paladin isn't the only class that can do that either. Secondly, I'm having a little trouble buying that the paladin spending slots just like everyone else, only faster, constitutes being "at odds" with the spellcasting system. You have a finite resource, you choose how to spend it, you get it back when you rest. Same principle as ever.

The fundamental principle behind the spellcasting system is that you have a finite number of spell slots, which you can only spend at a defined rate. If you don't see how the ability to ignore that rate would pose an issue, when several people have reported that it does routinely in the course of play, across multiple tables, then that's on you.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The fundamental principle behind the spellcasting system is that you have a finite number of spell slots, which you can only spend at a defined rate. If you don't see how the ability to ignore that rate would pose an issue, when several people have reported that it does routinely in the course of play, across multiple tables, then that's on you.

Necromancers are far better at exceeding that rate than paladins could ever be.

Warlocks aren't bad at it either, between Hellish Rebuke and Armor of Agathys. You can use your whole spell quota as a Warlock even if you never Cast A Spell in combat.

Also, clerics can pre-burn all their best slots on Death Ward and Aid if they want to go all out for a big fight.

In short, there is no such fundamental principle.

Sent from my Moto G Play using EN World mobile app

 

[TheCosmicKid]

...which you can only spend at a defined rate.

This is the first time I have ever seen anything like this cited as anything like a "fundamental principle". There's certainly nothing explicit or implicit in the 5E rules to indicate that WotC feels this way, and quite a bit to indicate that they don't -- starting with the paladin.

If you personally think that the rate at which spell slots are spent is of fundamental importance, it's easy to houserule that characters can only spend one spell slot a round. That wouldn't prevent paladins from functioning -- I've seen paladin players who never even noticed it was possible to stack their smites. On the other hand, it might have more significant consequences for things like, say, shield and hellish rebuke spells.