Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MostlyHarmless42" data-source="post: 8062819" data-attributes="member: 6845520">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.</blockquote>

Verification