Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8062572" data-attributes="member: 6777737">Some of this is repeating from your survey, but:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Meaningful choices are good during level up, but meaningful choices during gameplay are golden. Granted, the DM is vital to making the latter happen, but a class shouldn't have once choice that's so overwhelmingly better especially if it can be repeated constantly.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The game shouldn't be predicated on some classes needing 2-3 short rests every day while others gain minimal benefit from even 1 short rest. This requirement completely warps the encounter design system. If you run higher difficulty, longer running encounters then Fighter, Warlock, and Monk quickly run out of interesting decisions to make.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">All classes should be able to participate in all three pillars if they want to. "Participate" does not mean "roll an untrained skill check once in awhile", and at medium level it doesn't mean "roll a skill check in that background skill once in awhile" too.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Combat abilities should not replace social or exploration abilities and vice-versa. You should not have to sacrifice combat effectiveness to be able to participate in social or exploration encounters or vice-versa. Each class should get abilities for each mode of play. In order for the game to be built on three pillars, each class must be so as well. One of the problems with 3e was that skills intruded into combat (Tumble being the worst offender) and it meant that every character </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">This goes into skill design, but one class should not be able to do everything with one ability score. It's silly that Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks more or less get to dominate social encounters for free because they're Cha-based. This would be helped a lot by skills being more ability-diverse, but also by not letting classes derive combat ability and social ability from the same ability score. Its quite egregious given how small a role the exploration pillar plays.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">D&D is a class-based game. The game should reward players who follow that scheme. In this I agree with the core 5e design: Multiclassing should remain a second-class citizen.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I'm hard against 3e style prestige classes, but I love the idea of 2e kits that do total conversions of classes. Move subclass choices to level 1 so you can allow them to modify starting proficiencies and other elements of the class from day one. But don't make me waste time in a class I don't really like to "earn" the right to play what I'm looking forward to. Let me have fun now! Let me start play with the character I already want to play!</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I don't care about end game abilities. You could take everything above level 13 or level 15 in the entire game and throw it out the window and it would basically never affect 99% of the campaigns I've played in. I almost want all classes to stop at level 10 and then you're required to multiclass. Maybe 4e had this design right?</li> </ul>Actually... hm. What about a game where you picked three classes: one combat class, one social class (not "class in society" but "character class for social abilities"), and one exploration class. Hm. I think that's way too heavy for an actual game, but I think it's an interesting toy design idea.</blockquote>

Verification