Level Up (A5E) Class redesign

[Tales and Chronicles]

another hot take: I'd give wizards the Metamagic feature (I love the idea of costing more slots to add some effect, like the Invention wizard UA had). In exchange, sorcerers could have their own thing that is not an afterthought.

I would love a sorcerer that gains the ability to wildshape, like the druid, but into a ''living spell'' from its known damage spell.
Then give them feature that gain ''eat'' the magic effect of spells when dispelling them, or to consume charges from magic item to regain HP.

 

[DeviousQuail]

Note, some gamers seem to make a big deal about "species" and things like Darkvision. But Darkvision can easily be a CULTURAL trait. Because magic.

The Warlock can gain darkvision by means of magic despite species. Perhaps every police officer in a certain city has to be imbued with Darkvision as part of the job description. So, honestly, my only concern for who gets what, is flavor. If a dwarf culture is deep underground then for flavor reasons they seem likely to have darkvision. But if they dwell around muddy riverbanks on the surface then maybe they lack darkvision. If they live immediately under the surface using a hill like a windowless apartment building, maybe they lack darkvision, and rely on oillamps and lanterns like humans do.

Regarding Strength and small species. In my eyes, halflings are "natural" and shouldnt be strong, but gnomes are "magical" and might be superhumanly strong. So the only thing that matters is the character concept and the coherent flavor that comes with it. So the line between "species" and "culture" is porous. That said, to silo certain things into a particular species like Large size or waterbreathing, or misty step, or elven accuracy, helps give a sense of shared commonality across a species, even if individuals might swap these traits out.

The utility of "species" and "culture" is to organize themes and tropes.

Of the six ability scores, Strength seems to be the one that is hardest to grasp when looking at the inherent size differences of DnD's race/heritage. And to a lesser extent Constitution. Mechanical ways to differentiate size (AC, melee damage, jumping, grappling, carrying capacity, weapon and armor availability) that ignores character race/heritage is one way to tackle the issue. A Gnome could have 20 Strength and gain all modifier and class benefits for having it. But when the Gnome comes up against a 20 Strength Half-Orc they could be at a disadvantage.

 

[Haldrik]

Of the six ability scores, Strength seems to be the one that is hardest to grasp when looking at the inherent size differences of DnD's race/heritage. And to a lesser extent Constitution. Mechanical ways to differentiate size (AC, melee damage, jumping, grappling, carrying capacity, weapon and armor availability) that ignores character race/heritage is one way to tackle the issue. A Gnome could have 20 Strength and gain all modifier and class benefits for having it. But when the Gnome comes up against a 20 Strength Half-Orc they could be at a disadvantage.

I suspect "carrying capacity" can strictly refer to size. A Large character can carry a Medium-size load, without encumbrance, and upto a Large-size load, with encumbrance, and maybe a require a check to do it, if the DM feels the shape of the load seems awkward to carry.

A Medium character carries a Small load.

A Small character carries a Tiny load.

I dont care about encumbrance, but this is a rule of thumb in case there seems to be a narrative issue. It normally only comes if one character is carrying an other character − or carrying items from a hoard of treasure.

Generally, I use size (not weight) during gameplay. I prefer things like Mage Hand and Telekinesis to refer to the size of an item or creature.

Say a Small gnome is carrying a Large horse. If the gnome could lift the horse, it would still be awkward to carry. The gnome seems more likely to drag the horse, which might be painful to the horse.



In 5e, a Large player character is no problem − except for Large weapon damage. Everything else balances well.

For Large weapons, my current thinking is, a Large creature adds a 1d6 size bonus to damage after all calculations. So a Large longsword deals 1d8 plus any class or magic calculations, and afterward adds +1d6 to the total. Huge adds 2d6. Gargantuan adds 3d6. Done. As such, a two-weapon fighter adds 1d6 twice if each weapon hits, yet because this spends a bonus action to do, it might be fine.

Notice, the size of the weapon doesnt matter. Only the size of the creature wielding it matters. The weapon itself is only larger or smaller for the creature to wield it comfortably (thus avoid a disadvantage).

 

[Weiley31]

another hot take: I'd give wizards the Metamagic feature (I love the idea of costing more slots to add some effect, like the Invention wizard UA had). In exchange, sorcerers could have their own thing that is not an afterthought.

I would love a sorcerer that gains the ability to wildshape, like the druid, but into a ''living spell'' from its known damage spell.
Then give them feature that gain ''eat'' the magic effect of spells when dispelling them, or to consume charges from magic item to regain HP.

Metamagic for Wizards would be more like Elven High Magic. Metamagic is a thing for Sorcerers. Now if the NEXT Sorcerer could be remade to utilize the NEXT features it had AND a revamped Metamagic, that would be great.

Sorcerer Living Spell Wild(Spell?) Shape sounds like a kickass idea though.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

To be perfectly frank, the first thing I'd do if I wanted to make dnd 5e "crunchier" and ensure that a) meaningful choice happens every level and b) multiclassing is not just 100% more optimal is to remove classes period. Give each character a set package of "perks" (call them whatever you want) and then give each and every ability a cost/prerequisite for purchasing. Sort of like the elder scrolls games or talent trees in games. Separate abilities into "main" features (like sneak attack, spellcasting, channel divinity, bardic inspiration, ki/flurry of blows, rage, etc.) and "minor" features like feats, ribbon abilities (anything that does not "level up" currently).

Frankly I think the biggest thing holding D&D back from truly evolving as a game are the classes themselves.

That said, I realize you might have design goals of wanting to keep it closer to tradition, and classes are popular, so I'll just provide this feedback instead:
I STRONGLY disagree with any point arguing to unshackle ASI from class progression that does not also include an incentive to stick to a single class. Balancing multiclassing is a fine line and one I feel 5th ed has vastly improved overall from previous editions. This is probably an unpopular opinion on a website largely populated by hobbyists and theorycrafters for the game, but if you want to appeal to a broader audience you'll need to keep in mind that not every person wants to multiclass and opportunity costs of doing so are an important mechanic that NEEDs to be there. 3e was rampant with all sorts of balancing issues from a lack of adequate balance on this front.

Additionally, I want to see not only see alternative class feature options or the option to cross pollinate classes (yes, I'm aware that this is a bit contradictory to what I said regarding incentivizing sticking to a single class, but done right it could be such an incentive), and the ability for alternative ability scores for different classes. For example: why CAN'T I play a con based sorcerer, an intelligence based warlock, or a wizard who uses charisma to cast? Why can't I use strength for archery when real archers require far more strength to use heavy bows? Why is AC a static number instead of something like providing DR? Also why can't I craft magic weapons/armor using strength or just blacksmithing? Etc.

Aside from that? Most of my real caution lies in the other thread for monster design. The real reason I use 5e over other systems is because I don't have to spend 30min of math just to have 10 goblins fight the party for one turn, or have ONE high level monster take ONE turn (looking at you both versions of Pathfinder). Likewise I should not have to pull out a spreadsheet, flowchart, or consult 5 different books/pages (urgh spellcasters and feats in 3e/pf) just to have one random encounter. ...but that of course is for the other thread.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

One of my frustrations with the Players Handbook is that it is actually an extremely specific setting, Forgotten Realms. But because it is never called out as a setting with its own design space, it gets entangled and baked into every other aspect of the game.

So it is difficult to use the Players Handbook to game in other settings. And the less that setting resembles Forgotten Realms, the less useful the Players Handbook becomes.

I have to point out that this is incorrect. If you started D&D with 5e and don't know much of the lore it might be a reasonable misconception, but it's inaccurate. The PHB assumes the D&D Multiverse. The settings within that multiverse that hew closest to the assumptions in the PHB are Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Mystara. Planescape, Spelljammer, and Ravenloft are also tightly connected to the D&D Multiverse. Dark Sun, Birthright, and (now) Eberron officially exist within that multiverse, but are more distant from the rest of it.

The PHB and DMG include content and examples from Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and Dragonlance. It's right there in the text, often overtly called out.

I understand that if you are new to D&D with 5e, you might not be familiar with these settings and might see the official D&D settings as being limited to: Forgotten Realms, Eberron, MtG Settings, and Critical Rolia, but it's important to realize that isn't actually how it works, and that's not the premise the PHB was written from.

 

[Rhuarc]

I would throw out any sub-classes and have new class features for each/most levels be the defining factor how to customize your character.

If a rogue wants to specialize in thieving/sneaking skills early on, the player can pick appropriately-themed features for levels 1 through 6. If, for example, there comes a point during the campaign where the rogue has to work together with an assassin/killer for hire for some time and the rogue might pick up a few tips and tricks along the way, the player can reflect this by choosing appropriately-themed new features for level 7, 8 and 9. Later on, maybe the local ruler has heard about the rogue's by now famous exploits and offers them a position as the new head of the royal intelligence agency. This could prompt the player to invest more heavily in social interactions, interrogation, infiltration and decoding hidden messages.

I don't really like the idea of players having to select and finalize a theme for their character early on and for their entire career. Either let each level be a new way how they can customize their character, or have several specific sub-classes that only cover 3-5 levels each. This way the campaign itself can have an impact on how the characters are shaped.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I have to point out that this is incorrect. If you started D&D with 5e and don't know much of the lore it might be a reasonable misconception, but it's inaccurate. The PHB assumes the D&D Multiverse. The settings within that multiverse that hew closest to the assumptions in the PHB are Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Mystara. Planescape, Spelljammer, and Ravenloft are also tightly connected to the D&D Multiverse. Dark Sun, Birthright, and (now) Eberron officially exist within that multiverse, but are more distant from the rest of it.

The PHB and DMG include content and examples from Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and Dragonlance. It's right there in the text, often overtly called out.

I understand that if you are new to D&D with 5e, you might not be familiar with these settings and might see the official D&D settings as being limited to: Forgotten Realms, Eberron, MtG Settings, and Critical Rolia, but it's important to realize that isn't actually how it works, and that's not the premise the PHB was written from.

The Dawn War pantheon from the Nentir Vale is also in the DMG.

 

[aco175]

I would be ok with looking into eliminating archtypes at 3rd level and replace it with multi-classing, even keeping the single class. This allows the option of changing your character over time with new abilities. Give a new level when you get archtype benefits. If someone wants to keep straight class, then they get more single class abilities- not sure if they would/should be better than the choice of multi-classing.

Make a new path/prestige class at higher level/tier. Somewhere over 10th level so some games can use it and other games may never get that high. This would make for a cool bad guy with prestige powers that the PCs do not have yet.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Different strokes for different folks. The spellcasters presently all get to pick new things each level - new spells. The non-casters don't.

Both of these should be fixed; we need both simple casters and complex and varied warriors. Varied warriors seem to be well in hand.

But I also recommend for example an elementalist pyromancer whose only spells are things like firebolt, scorching burst, fireball, fiendfyre, cloak of flames, and teleporting between fires. But e.g. their fires get caustic and stick to things as they level up delivering damage over time as well as doing extra damage.