D&D 5E New D&D WotC survey! On classes.

[R_J_K75]

I've created a pretty cool Wisdom based ranger beastmaster with tasha's. Got shillelagh from the cantrip fighting style and I was really fun! High wisdom on my damage and boosting the companion's stats.

Ill have him check the options in Tashas and XGtE see if he wants to tweak his PC a bit.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'd agree with all of this, and add that, I think it's bit off to use up one of the PHB subclasses for Fighter (and Rogue) with what is essentially a multiclass combo, rather than a particularly interesting expression of the Fighter. It's like Wizards are so important to D&D, that they need to bleed into the subclasses of other classes. That'd be fine, I think, in post-PHB books, but it seems messed-up in the PHB (I know there's precedent with junk like the Arcane Archer in 3E, but that's not a good reason at all).

I think in any future PHB, the subclasses of a class should be focused on making entertaining visions of what that class can be, not a crummy version of a multiclass. The EK is just not a good design, doesn't have a good spell list, and whilst it can be effective, to do so requires pretty specific spell choices, and making those choices requires a degree of system mastery that I think relatively few players possess. As you point out, the Cantrip + Weapon Attack option is rarely going to be a good idea, but to most players, who aren't system masters, it's going to look like one. Not cool. Equally, because they have this weird and slightly perverse selection of spells, non-system-master players (i.e. most players) are likely to pick spells which are actually not a good idea at all.

All classes and most subclasses in 5E can benefit from system mastery to a degree, but the EK benefits from it far more than most (the AT issues are much smaller).

Hard disagree. I think pseudo-multiclass subclasses are a better way to do things than actual multiclassing that is always an utter mess.

I just wish they would do this in reverse too. I want battlemage wizard subclass that is a fightery wizard and lore raider wizard subclass that is a roguey wizard.

 

[Bolares]

I want battlemage wizard subclass that is a fightery wizard

Doesn't the bladesinger fit this?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not particularly sure that having the eight traditions as eight separate subclasses really adds anything, especially since the spell choices tend to be the samey. While I once hated spell restrictions for traditions, I almost now would prefer it simply for seeing a greater variety of spell selection with wizards.

Yeah. I said this in the survey. Wizard has a lot of subclasses, but they're barely there mechanically and thematically. Fewer subclasses that would be heftier would be preferable.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Doesn't the bladesinger fit this?

Technically yes, but it is super specific and weirdly bardy. Like seriously, leave the signing to bards. What I imagine would be a wizard that wears medium armour and wields flaming great sword.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Doesn't the bladesinger fit this?

No it is more wizard than fighter. The Bladesinger can be decent at melee but you can also play it pretty much the same as a very high AC wizard. The bladesinger is not quite tank enough. The EK is not a bad tank but that is because it is a fighter and feat selection not magic.

 

[Blue]

The amount of spells available to a cleric is and always has been overwhelming to me as a player. This needs to be addressed as well. Id go so far as to get rid of divine and arcane descriptors and give spell casting classes the ability to take whatever spells they want within their limits. The way the different spell casting classes, learn, memorize and cast spells needs to be one concise system. Any mechanical benefit from having classes cast spells differently can be roleplayed away. We've all seen Airplane! you dont need to be a cleric to cast healing magic but just a nun with a guitar.

We allow players to pick their weapons, and we end up with weapon-focused PCs all with the same few best-in-class for their category. When is the last time you saw a primary weapon wielder with a trident unless it's something special on it's own?

I prefer strongly themed lists, both to keep casters distinct from each other and so that casters don't all have the capability to do everything. I'd rather see like 3-5 spells per level on the general cleric spell list, and domain lists that just add to spells known and have 6-10 per level. So a trickster god spell availability is very different than a life cleric and both very different than a light cleric.

(And I'd redo the sorcerer with themes of collected spells, a few each level, and they have themes known instead of spells known, getting all spells in their themes. So a sorcerer picking air might have gust of wind and fly and all sorts fo stuff around that.)

 

[CleverNickName]

I hear you, a tired trope is a tired trope, and it's sad that people are not moving past it.

They say that the best way to lead is by example, so I'm gonna give it a try. Right here, in this thread.

That's right: I will attempt to roll up a Bard that (1) isn't a walking cliché, (2) is fun, interesting, and effective to play, and (3) uses only the 5th Edition Player's Handbook. This will either be easy or impossible, judging from some of the comments in this thread...but we'll see. I don't think it's impossible.

Stay tuned.

And join me, if you dare.

Spoiler: Details

The "walking cliché" of a bard, to me, is one who behaves like a smarmy class clown, fights almost exclusively with the vicious mockery cantrip and/or a rapier, and optimizes Dexterity and Charisma over every other stat. You've already met this bard, dozens of times, so you know what I'm referring to. The point of this exercise is to test the theory that bards don't have to fit this stereotype to be fun, interesting, and effective; therefore my bard will not use the VM cantrip, will not even own a rapier, and neither Dexterity nor Charisma will be their highest (or second-highest) stat. Can it be done? Some argue "yes."

For me, a D&D character is fun and interesting when it has a good backstory and makes sense from a narrative perspective. "Because it gives me a bonus to Whatever" is the antithesis of this philosophy, so it will be avoided. Counter to that, a D&D character is effective when it can fill more than one role on the battlefield and more than one role off the battlefield, has both a ranged and melee attack, has a decent armor class, and doesn't repeat the same two actions in combat...so these will be prioritized.

And finally, this thread (and the WotC survey that spawned it) focuses only on the classes and subclasses in the 5E Player's Handbook, so this will be the only book used. No third-party books, no obscure rules options from the Dungeon Master's Guide, no Xanathar's, no Tasha's, no SKAG, nothing else. Feats and multiclassing are in the PHB, for example, so they will be allowed (and probably necessary, but we will see.)

I will consider this exercise a success if @Blue, @Ruin Explorer, and @Snarf Zagyg can all agree that the Bard I create is one they would enjoy playing, even if only for a one-shot.

Wish me luck.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Wish me luck.

HA HA! No.

 

[Bolares]

No it is more wizard than fighter.

To be fair, that is what I expect from a wizard gish subclass...