Level Up (A5E) Class redesign

[Morrus]

We‘ll do an actual survey on this later, of course. This is just in the spirit of getting the discussion going. This is a general approach discussion not one about any specific class, or about subclasses at this stage.

One thing I’ve personally found is that levelling up isn’t as exciting as it has been in some other editions. I don’t know how much others share this, but that’s what surveys are for!

So here are some initial thoughts:

• meaningful choices at each level so you look forward to your level up every time
• balanced with the original core classes to ensure compatibility
• strong capstones for all classes

General thoughts welcomed!

 

[Stalker0]

I would agree with the general sentiment. There is a very strong power up from levels 1-5 maybe 6. Each level feels pretty good. Then the scaling falls off a cliff.

the worst offenders are the “scaling powers” thatare just so laughably stupidly weak. An example, the bards “song of rest” is a nice little class feature. The fact that I get slightly higher die with the ability asa part of my core level up is stupid (and I say that noting that’s bards have full spell progression so they get better scaling than most classes.

I think you also need to redefine the “capstone”. We need to remember that for most games, the game is over at 10-11th level. There should be a capstone at 10th, and one at 20th. 4e had the right idea with paragon powers it just wasn’t the best execution, but something in that vein is a proper “capstone”

 

[Zaukrie]

Do many campaigns even make the capstone levels? I doubt it....

Lots of choices every level. That's the key for me. We already have BASIC 5e where I don't get choices......

 

[prabe]

Do you mean "meaningful choices" or "meaningful benefits" here? I remember the 3.x conversation about "dead levels" and I understand how having something to look forward to on level-up (heh, heh) would be good, but I'm not sure that having a decision-point at every level is consistent with 5E's relatively streamlined approach to D&D.

I'm also not sure that having every level gained result in a choice among competing goods is an ideal I want. Maybe meaningful benefits every level but actual choices two or three times (over twenty levels, not counting ASIs/Feats/multiclassing) a little more important than picking a Totem as a Totem Barbarian.

 

[Morrus]

Do you mean "meaningful choices" or "meaningful benefits" here?

I mean choices.

 

[aco175]

I also feel like some of the builds end up being bland and samey. I like the design of having low-level play for levels 1-3 before you pick your archtype. I like most of the types and over the years there has been more added. Although I still wish that there was some more split at higher levels, like another type to split into.

Are there classes that can be eliminated or 'have' to keep to still make 5e feel? I would almost just make the basic 4 and have splits off of them, but most likely we should keep the PHB classes and add to them with more types and super-prestige classes.

 

[prabe]

I mean choices.

Fair enough. Your product.

 

[aco175]

I would avoid the front-loading of 3e where one would pick a level or two of ranger to get all the cool benefits before going back to the main class.

Does it make sense to have choices along the path of each class? A rogue gets evasion at 5th level, would it be ok to give 2-3 choices to specialize them more, or is the specialization in picking the path at 3rd level and every rogue must get evasion at 5th level.

 

[Morrus]

Fair enough. Your product.

When we do the survey we’ll investigate the topic throughly.

 

[prabe]

When we do the survey we’ll investigate the topic throughly.

I have no doubt of it. If I sounded short, I apologize; anything longer-winded seemed as though I was picking holes in/arguing with the position, and ... it's your product and it's your decision how to handle this (and everything else) and you don't and didn't need me (at this point, anyway) nitpicking it to death.