I wouldn’t mind that either, it frees up a lot of design space when you can make the first level of a class knowing it can’t just be dipped in, you have to commit to the first 3 levels (heck even the first 2 would be something)
Level Up (A5E) Class redesign
I wouldn’t mind that either, it frees up a lot of design space when you can make the first level of a class knowing it can’t just be dipped in, you have to commit to the first 3 levels (heck even the first 2 would be something)
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
As a very general thought: I think that you need to decide what your "Standard adventuring day" is, and establish that before any class redesign.
If you're keeping that the same as the current "6-8 encounters of 3-4 rounds each, with two short rests and a long rest", that is fine.
If you decide (yourself or through a survey) that you are going with one that matches the way people actually seem to play, that is fine too.
But as long as you have classes with different resource recovery scales, that baseline for comparison needs to be established.
Also, personally, I would like to see Charisma-based spellcasting removed. Let Sorcerors use Con, and bards and warlocks use Int, or whatever.
I do not think that the primary stat for the social pillar should also be the primary combat stat of a class - it leads to too much reinforcement of a "face-man" being set by class rather than everyone feeling like they can play a social character.
Last edited:
Bacon Bits
Hero
I don't mind if a given subclass is simple, but I'm not really into the idea that a whole class should just have fewer options, especially in Level Up/A5E. However, I don't think that having options or meaningful choices in combat is necessarily the same as having complexity.
For example, imagine three simple combat maneuvers: one adds d8 to your attack roll, one adds d8 to damage roll, and a third adds d8 to your AC until the beginning of your next turn. You can use one every turn.
I think that's a fair argument, but I think that's a popular choice due in part because it's a more correct design. The problems that asynchronous ability recovery introduces are significant and they're at such a base level of the game that they're not decisions that DMs can correct for. If you want fewer, longer, and more difficult combat encounters than were originally planned for, you kind of need to redesign the classes. That's a very inflexible design and it's not a problem that prior editions really suffered from because hit points and spells basically recovered on the same clock (days) instead of a different clock (days vs hours).
I think it's possible to be asymmetric and not have a problem. The asymmetry isn't the problem, it's having two rest types and then asymmetrically gatekeeping class ability uses behind them. Battlemaster Fighter could largely have their issue corrected if they could their combat maneuvers at will but with a different type of limit.
For example, let's say you have a d8 combat die. And let's say you can only use one maneuver each turn (because most classes that can do an extra die or dice of damage are limited to once per turn).
After you use a maneuver -- hit or miss -- it reduces one size to a d6, then another size to a d4 after the second maneuver, and finally it reduces to nothing after the third. Maybe you can still use your maneuver, but you get a +0 from the combat die. Then, each round that you don't use a combat maneuver, you recover one die size. As you level up, your die grows to a d10 and then a d12. This gives you more "stamina" to use maneuvers and a deeper reserve and you can't use them endlessly but you're no longer linked to short rests. At higher level you could even represent "boundless endurance" by making d4 be the minimum die size, or maybe you can use two maneuvers a turn and then spend a bonus action to recover a die size.
Now -- here's the kicker -- If you find that there are maneuvers that would be abusive to use over an over, you limit that maneuver. Perhaps Trip only works when your die size is d8 or larger. Perhaps there are some maneuvers that are very powerful or exhausting and take your die size right to +0. Maybe Disarm only works when you have a d8 or larger die, and it makes the die drop an additional size (all the way to d4 if you were at d8). Or some maneuvers themselves might be limited to use once per short rest (for example, something Second Wind could be a combat maneuver).
For non-combat maneuvers -- which, honestly should probably be a different mechanic entirely -- you would probably have to say that you're unable to recover a die size in an encounter, or you only recover a die size after rolling a check without using a maneuver (in effect taking a turn off in non-combat).
The Battlemaster Fighter now has this tension about spending abilities and regaining stamina for them, balancing the power of your maneuvers with the need to not exhaust yourself and be reduced to just making single attacks. You only need 4 or 5 maneuvers to feel like you've got a lot of options. If the battle is short you won't expend all your stamina, but if it's long you have more interesting choices.
Although, honestly, a mechanic like this is probably deep enough that you would want to base an entire class around it rather than a subclass.
You could also make a Barbarian-like class that gains a die size when they take damage in combat. Now you have a Barbarian that wants to be hit and wants to tank because that's how they fuel their cool abilities, similar to WoW's Warrior. That may not be feasible due to how healing works in 5e, but it's an idea.
I'm probably going too complex for actual play, though.
Kits were like total conversions for classes. They would take a class and modify several parts of it. Magic-Users might have different spell lists, Fighters have different proficiencies, etc. Paladin and Ranger are basically Fighter kits, Illusionist was basically a Magic-User kit, and Druid was like an extreme Cleric kit. The key with kits is that you start play as what you want to be.
With Prestige Classes, you would multiclass into the Prestige Class after earning all the prerequisites, which usually required you to be level 5 before you could even enter the class, but sometimes it wasn't until level 8 or level 10 (or higher!). In most campaigns I played in, that meant you spent 60% to 80% of the campaign trying to get to the point where you could qualify to be the class you really wanted to play. It's a frustrating design, IMO, and it's one that focused on making it fun to plan or build a character already at level 20 rather than play a character to level 20, and it also ignored the fact that most games never get much beyond level 10 let alone get anywhere near level 20. I don't want my character to "come online" at level 8, because most games don't make it much further. Characters need to be fun and flavorful at level 1.
Oh, I don't mind the game going to level 20 or 30 or beyond, but I think the game needs to focus on where people actually play first and foremost, and the "sweet spot" has been levels 5-8 in most editions, although I think 5e is closer to 3 to 11. That's where almost everyone plays, and where people have the most fun. Everyone knows that high level magic makes the game break down pretty significantly, meaning it's harder to run and feels more unfair to the PCs. I think they're part of the reason so few people like to play the game at high level. They are, simply put, the toxic element of high level play.
I'm saying that I would not be unhappy if most of the 8th and 9th level spells got tossed out or changed to 7th level spells and if high level casters only got one 7th level spell per day or maybe two. The only thing I think worth saving at very high level is Wish. I think that should still be in the game, but I don't know what form it should take. I think 8th and 9th level spells in general are a poor design decision because 7th level spells are already unreachable 90% of the time in 90% of campaigns.
Indeed, I'd rather see all class abilities other than high level spells squashed down from level 11-20 to level 11 to 15, and then levels 16-20 should just be ASIs. I'd like that because then at least you'd get to play with those cool capstone abilities that might as well be at-will Wish for every class how often they see actual play. More than getting to play with things, high level rewards should be what the DM gives out as rewards. Artifacts, major items, divine rewards, land, titles, whole planes of existence, etc. At level 17 I shouldn't be looking to the PHB for what cool new bauble I get next.
End game D&D doesn't need to be about kingdoms, fortresses, armies, and nations, but it shouldn't be about making an extra saving throw once in awhile, or being able to rage as often as you want, or casting a level 1 spell like it's a cantrip. That's power, but it's not an epic reward.
We all know that high level D&D has historically been about the players outgrowing the DM's control. Why can't it be about the players outgrowing the game's built-in rewards instead? I don't want to design things that are balance at very high level. I want nothing to be on the player's roadmap but everything they find is epic and absurd.
Sure, okay. I'm not really concerned with what things are called at this stage. I am thinking about what things do and am trying to abbreviate the idea.
Sorry, not to derail here, but at what point did 6-8 encounters a day become 6-8 combats a day? Those really aren't the same thing at all. I was pretty sure that the former rather than the latter was the design yardstick for 5E. Maybe I'm misremembering...
Sword of Spirit
Legend
The XP calculations imply that the designers meant combat encounters, as does the fact that if you include an unspecified number of encounters that don't use up party resources there is no way for the guidelines for how many encounters you can handle between short rests and between long rests to be useful.
Combat encounters aren't the only ones that can chew resources, that's very much a function of the kind of game you're running and your approach to encounter design. That's maybe less true as you progress toward tier 3 of course, but whatevs. I think that assuming 6-8 combats a day is a poor base assumption for a redesign discussion though. The XP system as presented is wonky as all get out anyway, as is the CR system generally. Part of people wanting better tools for exploration and social interaction is so that this isn't the case.
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
At the point it was late and I was tired.
Edited post: As long as an encounter drains resources, it should be part of the adventuring day calculations.
Are there any classes in PF1e that aren't in 5e that could be ported over? Or is the work in porting them just as hard as doing them from scratch? Just wondering if that would be a reason for some folks who might not otherwise to check it out.
Agreed. Same with 4E and it's new power ever level. And PF2 and it's buckets of feats.
I don't think the choice is needed at every level. Maybe the first 5. Then some T2-4 levels could be stuff just getting bigger numbers, uses, or standard class features everyone of the class gets.
At a certain point, classes and races lose meaning if you shop too much.
Xeviat
Hero
The class > subclass as your two big choices are good for me. Subclass is better than class feats because subclass comes with story; a themed box of Legos is generally cooler than a bucket of random Legos. But, spellcasters, and especially the warlock, get to make little choices that are cool and feel like they're greatly customizing your character. Warlock invocations are the biggest example of this.
If warriors had weapon talents and experts had skill talents, there would be room for these little choices in the noncasters and gishes.
If warriors had weapon talents and experts had skill talents, there would be room for these little choices in the noncasters and gishes.
