D&D 5E Class power and Subclass design space: a discussion

[Minigiant]

That's not a useful suggestion, because the same players don't want to play a Fighter. Fighters are really clearly described, and very specific, and there is no "Ranger" Fighter in the subclasses. They want to be good at archery and stealth, they're not interested in clanking around in plate, they want to be good at survival (not merely "proficient"), and they often want an animal companion, and may like the idea of nature magic too, when they find out about it.

And Rangers are very specific as well. That's my point. A newcomer would have to explain to the DM what they want to be. If you want martial weapons, light and medium armor, a warrior HD, stealth, survival, an animal companion, and druid magic, play a ranger. If you want an archer with a couple specific skills, play a fighter.

It isn't Favored enemy's fault Beast Companions are bad and the spell list is missing spells.
Again, the main complaint is implementation.

New players should not be forced into using a class in a way that makes it basically another class, nor engaging in other metagame-y shenanigans. That's exactly and precisely the opposite of what you want new players to be dealing with. For a highly experienced player, it's much less of an issue. You can suggest that, or funky multiclass combinations to achieve things or the like. But my long experience in D&D is that new players love the idea of a Ranger, but are weirded out by the specifics, or just don't like the specifics (oddly the magic is rarely an issue - I think people tend to see it as a bonus).

Again your issue is implementation.
At the table I DM and the table I play, a ranger can learn a favored enemy or terrain as a downtime activity. I make it time based when I DM. My DM when I makes it cost heaps of gold and treats it like an expensive wizard's spellbook. Metagame problem solved..

The 5e designers falling into the traps that the 2e and 3e designers did is not the problem with Favored Enemy/Terrain. It's them not researching the many many discussions about FE in 2e and 3e on the internet. There is so much they could have done. They could Make Primeval Awereness swap FE/FT with spell slots.
Or made a feat to add more FE/FT.
Or gave you extra ones with high INT or WIS
Again your issue is implementation. The idea wasn't bad, the implementation was.

And with the CFV, FE/FT become optional, so I think claiming that was a "false hope" isn't really reasonable. My point is that in 6E or whatever the Ranger should have FE/FT as alternatives or subclass abilities not the default.

I still thing it would be better if FE/FT was core but done well for once. Get someone who has passion about ranger to finishes its playtesting in time. Rangers have been hunting specific foes better since the olden days. Time for someone you use that open design space well.

Because ifthey make FE/FT optional but pull this mess again in 6E, everyone will blame them for not making FE/FT strong and core.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Because ifthey make FE/FT optional but pull this mess again in 6E, everyone will blame them for not making FE/FT strong and core.

Ah that's where your wrong - because nobody will actually care. I mean, aside from a handful of grogs, who actually cares about Favoured Terrain? FE probably has a few more fans due to dubious memories of a time in a previous edition when it was cool, or because they really want to be dedicated to murdering innocent lovely goblins, those monsters, but there would not be many mourners at that funeral.

Again your issue is implementation. The idea wasn't bad, the implementation was.

Um, okay lol. I guess if you know my mind better than I do, there's not much point discussing this is there?

 

[Olrox17]

Can FE/FT be implemented well? Sure. NotAYakk's post showed that you can attach generally useful benefits to those abilities, rather than rarely useful ribbons. Minigiant's work on the defunct WotC forum showed that, as well.
Now, are those abilities important enough to the ranger's identity and legacy to be worth saving? That, I'm not sure about.

I personally don't care if a potential 5.5 ranger has FE/FT or not. If it does end up having those abilities, I would prefer them to be generally useful, not ribbons. About on par with warlock invocations in term of design space and power. But I also wouldn't mind if they took out those abilities from the ranger's chassis entirely, and gave them to a Foe Hunter and an Horizon Walker subclass, respectively. That would align with my desire to have less powerful base classes, and more powerful subclasses with stronger identities.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That would align with my desire to have less powerful base classes, and more powerful subclasses with stronger identities.

The biggest barrier to this will always be full casters, more than anything else. Just being a full caster in the 2E, 3E or 5E style means your character is incredibly powerful as a baseline, and if literally all you had was full caster spells and a reasonable (not even amazing) spell list, and say the 5E Druid/Cleric* way of casting, you'd be solidly strong (if somewhat boring). This really limits what you can do with subclasses with casters, just like it really limited what PrCs could do with full casters.

Whereas everyone else has a lot of lesser stuff that could potentially be more modular. In a more daring world, the solution would be to get rid of full casters, as 4E did. That way your design space is absolutely massive, as 4E very clearly and repeatedly demonstrated. But even ignoring that option, it's problematic, because it means you can't really have "less powerful base classes" for those classes, only for non-full-casters.

The only other way around it I can see is to perhaps further weaken spells (perfectly reasonable IMHO, and I say that as someone who plays full casters most of the time in 5E), even beyond what 5E has done, or just really fill up the subclasses of all classes with tons and tons of stuff, beyond what 5E does.

* = This made me realize that the real issue with the 5E Sorcerer, can't believe I never quite got this before, despite having touched on it, is that because everyone is a spontaneous caster in 5E, even Wizards, having a class who has the deal of "spontaneous caster", and worse access to spells as a result makes zero sense. The Sorcerer no longer has a niche, and metamagic ain't cutting it.

 

[Olrox17]

The biggest barrier to this will always be full casters, more than anything else. Just being a full caster in the 2E, 3E or 5E style means your character is incredibly powerful as a baseline, and if literally all you had was full caster spells and a reasonable (not even amazing) spell list, and say the 5E Druid/Cleric* way of casting, you'd be solidly strong (if somewhat boring). This really limits what you can do with subclasses with casters, just like it really limited what PrCs could do with full casters.

Whereas everyone else has a lot of lesser stuff that could potentially be more modular. In a more daring world, the solution would be to get rid of full casters, as 4E did. That way your design space is absolutely massive, as 4E very clearly and repeatedly demonstrated. But even ignoring that option, it's problematic, because it means you can't really have "less powerful base classes" for those classes, only for non-full-casters.

The only other way around it I can see is to perhaps further weaken spells (perfectly reasonable IMHO, and I say that as someone who plays full casters most of the time in 5E), even beyond what 5E has done, or just really fill up the subclasses of all classes with tons and tons of stuff, beyond what 5E does.

A possible solution for a future (or updated) edition: no class (or subclass) gets a spell slot table. Rather, we get 3 or 4 generic spell slot tables at the beginning of the class chapter. A table for 1/3 casters, a table for 1/2 casters, a table for full casters, possibly a table for 3/4 casters.
Then, your respective subclass would direct you to one the generic tables. Are you a Moon Druid? Use the half caster table. Land Druid? Welcome to the full caster table. Wizard? Probably full caster no matter what. Ranger? You may finally have some spell-less options.

How does that sound? I know it would require a bit of page flipping between your class page and the page where all the spell slot tables are, but spellcasters are already required to do a lot of page flipping between their class page, the spellcasting chapter, the spell by class lists, and the spell section. They're used to it.
That would also mean that subclasses must be chosen at level 1, which I don't see as a downgrade anyway.

* = This made me realize that the real issue with the 5E Sorcerer, can't believe I never quite got this before, despite having touched on it, is that because everyone is a spontaneous caster in 5E, even Wizards, having a class who has the deal of "spontaneous caster", and worse access to spells as a result makes zero sense. The Sorcerer no longer has a niche, and metamagic ain't cutting it.

Sad, but true.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How does that sound? I know it would require a bit of page flipping between your class page and the page where all the spell slot tables are, but spellcasters are already required to do a lot of page flipping between their class page, the spellcasting chapter, the spell by class lists, and the spell section. They're used to it.
That would also mean that subclasses must be chosen at level 1, which I don't see as a downgrade anyway.

I think it sounds like something WotC definitely wouldn't make part of the PHB, post-5E.

That's the main issue with it. It's clear that the extreme accessibility of 5E has been a big asset, and anything that makes it even feel more complicated or tricky is not going to be core to the design of the game. If anything, in 6E, I'd expect classes to be even more self-enclosed, design-wise, so a player just feels like they need to know about the class they're playing (which was also 4E's approach, but 4E had other issues), rather than referring to general rules or general tables.

I could see a design like you're describing in extremely late 5E, when we've got to the kind of phase of 5E's life where the Player's Option books came out in 2E, or the sort of Book of Nine Swords era for 3.5E. But in the PHB for a 5.5E or 6E? No chance.

 

[Olrox17]

I think it sounds like something WotC definitely wouldn't make part of the PHB, post-5E.

That's the main issue with it. It's clear that the extreme accessibility of 5E has been a big asset, and anything that makes it even feel more complicated or tricky is not going to be core to the design of the game. If anything, in 6E, I'd expect classes to be even more self-enclosed, design-wise, so a player just feels like they need to know about the class they're playing (which was also 4E's approach, but 4E had other issues), rather than referring to general rules or general tables.

I could see a design like you're describing in extremely late 5E, when we've got to the kind of phase of 5E's life where the Player's Option books came out in 2E, or the sort of Book of Nine Swords era for 3.5E. But in the PHB for a 5.5E or 6E? No chance.

If they'd somehow manage to explore this kind of design direction at the end of 5e's lifespan, I would honestly be quite happy. I'd be tempted to do it myself, if I had the time for such a massive project.

 

[Aldarc]

Brainstorming: remove full casters as part of the base class. Spells naturally only go up to fifth level. Subclasses may provide access to 6-9th level spells. You may be a wizard with only 5th level spells because you took the Swordmage subclass whereas another wizard may have taken the Archmage subclass and gained access to upper level spells. And similarly with other caster classes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Brainstorming: remove full casters as part of the base class. Spells naturally only go up to fifth level. Subclasses may provide access to 6-9th level spells. You may be a wizard with only 5th level spells because you took the Swordmage subclass whereas another wizard may have taken the Archmage subclass and gained access to upper level spells. And similarly with other caster classes.

I think this is a good approach, and somehow strangely familiar. I'm not sure what game I saw which did something like this, but I think it has happened.

It would be a particularly good approach, because if subclasses gave level 6-9 spells for those who wanted them, they'd need to give stuff that was equally powerful to that for people who didn't take those options, which would mean more parity there.

 

[Olrox17]

Brainstorming: remove full casters as part of the base class. Spells naturally only go up to fifth level. Subclasses may provide access to 6-9th level spells. You may be a wizard with only 5th level spells because you took the Swordmage subclass whereas another wizard may have taken the Archmage subclass and gained access to upper level spells. And similarly with other caster classes.

Not bad. Similar to how a warlock gets high level spells through Mystic Arcanum, but tied to subclass instead of class.