D&D 5E D&D Class Design Criticism

[Lanefan]

OTOH slowing character advancement is one of the easiest and least intrusive changes you can make to the game...

Oh, it certainly is, no question there. I just think that having the very low levels go by so fast by built-in design does a great disservice to both a) brand new players and DMs and b) those who want to have the sub-heroic part of the game be more relevant and-or long-lasting.

I do generally still prefer the 4e approach where 1st level characters can be heroic

This is about the last thing I want. I'd rather "heroic" be something a character works toward for the greater part of its career, rather than its start point.

Lan-"once you're at 10, all the way up, here, and here, all the way up, where do you go from there?"-efan

 

[schnee]

When characters had all their abilities early on, it was considered boring because there was no sense of progress, everything felt static, and levels were just some meaningless numbers.

Game designers just can't win.

 

[S'mon]

OTOH slowing character advancement is one of the easiest and least intrusive changes you can make to the game...

It's fairly easy to impose a penalty on XP gain (eg half) and I guess fiat levelling that does not
use XP will not have this issue. Altering the XP charts though is a major undertaking that may cause ill feeling.

I suspect the best way to do it (while using XP) is to cut XP awards while PCs are in the too-fast-levelling zones. But a further complication if just cutting awards is that with individual XP some PCs may be in the
slow-level zones and others in the fast-level zones. I guess cutting XP until all PCs reach 3rd or
4th works, but I don't see how to do it that way to slow 11th+ PCs while others are still in the 5th-10th range.

So overall: no, slowing character advancement in 5th only for PCs in the fast zones is not particularly easy/simple. If using individual XP, it requires rewriting the XP charts for the desired levels, or imposing penalties only on certain PCs. (eg 1st-3rd level PCs getting less XP than 4th-10th level PCs).

It's not like 3e/PF (or 4e) where you can just impose a penalty (eg half XP) whenever desired and get a consistent result. The reduced XP to level at 11th makes it really wonky.

 

[S'mon]

Oh, it certainly is, no question there. I just think that having the very low levels go by so fast by built-in design does a great disservice to both a) brand new players and DMs and b) those who want to have the sub-heroic part of the game be more relevant and-or long-lasting.

This is about the last thing I want. I'd rather "heroic" be something a character works toward for the greater part of its career, rather than its start point.

It's possible to make 1st level 4e PCs feel weak, too - just pit them against 1st level standard kobolds & 3rd level standard orcs, instead of against minions.

 

[TwoSix]

Cap levels at 10, and replace it with some kind of prestige class system.

 

[akr71]

Let me preface by saying I like 5e and its simple, stripped down rule set. I have been able to introduce the game to my family and friends that never played before and they picked it up fairly easily. I also had a long hiatus away from the game and never played 3e or 4e so I am unsure when ASIs and the 'new feature every level' came in.

I do think the OP is on to something though. Not only do most characters get retired before level 15 (in my experience), but level 5-10 is the 'sweet spot' - it would be cool to have access to some of those high end abilities sooner. It would be cool if each class had its own bag of tricks that got better as they progressed, not more full as they progressed. Thinking back to my 1e thief, he could open locks, find/remove traps, pick pockets and hide in shadows all at level 1, but they just got better as he progressed. This is modeled by the Proficiency Bonus, skill checks and Ability Score Improvements. This just furthers my belief that each class should get access to Expertise somewhere in their level tree, at least once.

Off the top of my head, without looking at the PHB to see what sort of balance issues would result, I would consider house ruling that in lieu of an ASI, a character can take Expertise or the class feature granted by the next level. So that Ranger could give up 2 ASIs to get Hide in Plain Site by level 8 - though Expertise in Stealth is probably more valuable in most situations...

 

[Xeviat]

Sorry but at some point you need to question why you are playing a class based game.

Perhaps a skill based game would suit you better.

Not saying this to snark. Am genuinely recommending you to switch games instead of trying to make dnd into what it is not.

Thx

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Everyone should be able to camouflage, or at least everyone with Stealth and Survival. It's really mundane for a 10th level ability. That's my point. The UA version is a lot better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Crimson Binome]

When characters had all their abilities early on, it was considered boring because there was no sense of progress, everything felt static, and levels were just some meaningless numbers.

Game designers just can't win.

Alternatively, when characters had all of their abilities early on, there wasn't nearly as much focus on gaining levels since gaining levels didn't get you anything. There was more of a focus on doing stuff within the game (the story, if you want to call it that), instead of that stuff just being an obstacle on your way to having cool powers.

 

[schnee]

Alternatively, when characters had all of their abilities early on, there wasn't nearly as much focus on gaining levels since gaining levels didn't get you anything. There was more of a focus on doing stuff within the game (the story, if you want to call it that), instead of that stuff just being an obstacle on your way to having cool powers.

Yeah, I'm old and I remember the 'good old days' fondly too. Different times.

 

[Gadget]

Good points made all round. For the OP, I suppose I see what you mean. I've come to realize more and more that a lot of the level design seems stretched out to fill the time honored 20 bucket. I think the the game could be streamlined, smoothed out and better designed over ten levels rather than twenty. Some of the increases and abilities gained could be lost as chafe, others re-balanced and tightened to become even more meaningful and engaging. Even spell levels could be trimmed to something like five levels. But then we would run afoul of the "Not D&D" fallacy. The dial must go to 11, sorry, make that 20.