Level Up (A5E) Class redesign

[Haldrik]

Also a fan of 4e, but the Utility powers were very unfocused. They were more likely to give you a choice of combat, exploration and social at the same level, leading to players picking up nothing but combat powers.

The idea of a specific level giving choices that match only one pillar seems safer. There will be some overlap, but that's fine, encounters often have elements of more than one pillar in them.

Yeah. The 4e Utility could include things like mobility, maybe even defense and healing, as well as detection, things that can be highly useful during combat − especially mobility.

 

[Morrus]

Also a fan of 4e, but the Utility powers were very unfocused. They were more likely to give you a choice of combat, exploration and social at the same level, leading to players picking up nothing but combat powers.

The idea of a specific level giving choices that match only one pillar seems safer. There will be some overlap, but that's fine, encounters often have elements of more than one pillar in them.

Yeah, if,people are forced to choose between the pillars, combat will always win out. Thus the idea to make it one pillar at a time.

 

[ThatGuySteve]

Are there some class features too intrinsically linked to a class to remove? Is a Barbarian without Rage just a Fighter or (spelless) Ranger? Could I have a Burglar Rogue who doesn't know how to expertly shank someone with Sneak Attack?

Hunter's Mark and Curse were key components of Ranger and Warlock in 4E but were changed to a spell choice in 5E, you can build characters without them now.

Barbarian is a tough one to crack since so many existing abilities interact with Rage in some way. Rogue without sneak attack could be doable though? Maybe you can choose between sneak attack and getting some Use an Item actions as a bonus action: throw alchemist fire, drop caltrops or ball bearings, drink a potion. You could be more of a gadget rogue than a stabber.

Are there other classes with a feature that is too iconic to mess with?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Barbarian is a tough one to crack since so many existing abilities interact with Rage in some way. Rogue without sneak attack could be doable though? Maybe you can choose between sneak attack and getting some Use an Item actions as a bonus action: throw alchemist fire, drop caltrops or ball bearings, drink a potion. You could be more of a gadget rogue than a stabber.

I think you are on spot: I dont think there's any features in any class that it vital to a class design.

Like you said, sneak attack could be ditched in favor of a list of items to throw, like the first UA artificer had. Or poisons uses, like the 4e executioner.

Barbarian could ditch in favor of Shouts, those a quite popular since Skyrim, but were already a thing in Diablo 2.

Druid's wildshape (I see it as an Exploration feature, myself) could be changed to an improved Beast Sense or Animal Companion like the Warg from ASoIaF.

Sure, ditching spellcasting as a feature for spellcasters might be too much though.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, if,people are forced to choose between the pillars, combat will always win out. Thus the idea to make it one pillar at a time.

Depends on which pillar. Somthing like this would work
Race/culture: race based HP/half feats
Class: maybe 5-7 levels of core class stuff, some with prereqs
Background: 1-3 levels of skill related stuff
Subclass: archetypical stuff
Some class levels (ie 1st especially)could include a gestalt level

Any of those could have prereqs like x levels in Y or Z skills/proficient and it allows for a system that avoids "I want to be a $themeArchetypeFits, but won't really get to play it because the campaign probably won't last that long" problem by allowing someone to quickly accumulate some of the archetype/prc themed stuff at the cost of fewer skills/hp/racial stuff that they could catch up on while the campaign continues. You could even include different advancement rates like apocalypse engines (take 1 of each each level & add any extras granted by one of those), safety net (take as desired but $type1 can't be more than x levels above or below $type2), & plot centric (take in any combo you qualify for).

If you wanted to get fancy you could even have them draw from the mtg color wheel where taking a level might add or subtract 1 to various colors & you need x amount of various colors in addition to whatever else to take a given level in whatever class,

 

[Horwath]

Random brainstorm which helps tie meaningful class choices at each level with beefing up other pillars of the game. If levels cycled through the 3 pillars of play, and you made a choice between three of a particular pillar at each level so that by level 18, say, you have 6 combat, 6 exploration, 6 social abilities. Plus each class’s choices are different of course.

Maybe the fighter has some strong hunting choices, the rogue some good scouting choices, the ranger some good navigation choices, the cleric some good auspicious journey blessing choices, the bard some marching songs, and so on.

maybe cycle through 4 sets of choice.

1 combat
1 exploration
1 social
1 utility(that is you can chose between all 3)

utility levels would add more customization on how much certain character leans towards certain pillar.

OFC, in some classes not all utility slots would give all 3 options.
IE, 4th level rogue could chose between combat and social, ranger between combat and exploration and bard between social and exploration

 

[Xeviat]

I firmly believe we should look to the Warlock for good class design (not necessarily perfect, it still has issues, but hear me out).

The warlock offers choices of class (warlock), subclass (pact), style (boon), powers (spells), and specials (invocations). I haven't had as much fun building a character, mechanically speaking, as I have with a warlock (ensuring I don't have too many concentration spells, looking for something to use with my reactions and bonus actions, choosing spells and invocations ...)

Beyond that, I also firmly believe each class should have something to do with it's bonus action round by round. Martial arts/ki and Cunning Action are great designs. Fighting styles could have been the same.

I also believe each class should be playing with a little mini system that ensures each class plays differently.

Barbarian: Rage, but I think rage should be a toggle that comes with a drawback so you don't always want to rage. But then I wouldn't limit how many times per day.

Bard: Bardic Inspiration is a good system, and I like that newer Subclasses lean into it.

Cleric: Channel Divinity allows you to feel like a Priest of your domain all the time, which is good. I'd lean more into this, though.

Druid: Wildshape is very druid, but I'd make all the Subclasses have uses for those wildshape uses so it isn't just a moon druids thing.

Fighter: It's ok if the fighter's schtick is more of the basics, but my big thought is give the fighter abilities that are dependent on what weapons they're using so switching weapons is rewarded.

Monk: Monk ki is unique. I'd also work stances in to make them more different.

Paladin: I wish Divine Challenge was still a thing and not just a 2nd level spell hidden away.

Ranger: Similarly, Hunter's Mark should be more prominent.

Rogue: Sneak Attack makes rogues play different.

Sorcerer: and here we are ... What's the sorcerer's thing? I think they should have more and better at-will magic; they're a magical creature after all.

Warlock: please please please lean into Warlock's curses. Make Hex a class ability, give them a benny when their cursed target is killed.

Wizard: more of the basic Spellcasting is fine for the Wizard.

 

[jmucchiello]

Level 1 Subclasses are a must.

I kind of feel the opposite should be considered. Subclasses coming at level 2 or 3 makes it harder to dip a class.

But this depends on how the classes are structured. Do all rogues sneak attack? Can all rangers Track?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I kind of feel the opposite should be considered. Subclasses coming at level 2 or 3 makes it harder to dip a class.

But this depends on how the classes are structured. Do all rogues sneak attack? Can all rangers Track?

It's a new game. You could make it so Level Up characters can't multiclass until they reach a certain minimum level in their base class, like 3rd for example.

 

[jmucchiello]

Care to explain this a little? Sounds intriguing.

I doubt I can do it justice as the system cut across all aspects of the book. And my memory isn't the best. But...

There is a list of spells that all casters pull from. Every spell has an increased and diminished effect that happens when it is cast at one level higher or lower: For example, fireball (not a spell in AU) is 3rd level. The diminished effect might mean it only targets one person when cast as a 2nd level spell. The heightened effect might do more damage when cast as a 4th level spell. You could not learn the spell until 5th level because it is a 3rd level spell, even though there is a 2nd level effect. (Yes, 5E has some of this. But remember I'm talking EVERY spell. Not just the 20% of spells or so in 5E.)

All spells had "rarity" Simple, Complex, and unique. They also had a (term forgotten) subtype that divided spells in a way similar to 2nd editions spell spheres for cleric spells. A class granted you access to spells. You might get access to All Simple spells and All Complex Weather spells. Or All Simple and Complex death spells for a narrow set of spells. Feats allows you to learn rarer spells. I'm botching this section, I think.

There were spell modifiers that could be used to make all fire spells better. Lading a spell allowed you to cast it using two spell slots to gain an added affect based on the spells "subtype".

That is the gist of it and it is a fairly butchered gist. Basically, spells were categorized in like 5 dimensions and access to the spells was based on 2 or more of those categorizations. All spells had multiple effect based on the level they were cast at. He also removed automatic raise dead, fireball, magic missile. A lot of the staple spells were missing or altered in a major way.