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

[Crimson Longinus]

This conversation seems to validate the idea that players are better at spotting when things are wrong or off-putting about design (i.e., the Necromancer) than they are with actually fixing the design problem.

That certainly always is the case.

 

[Mind of tempest]

This conversation seems to validate the idea that players are better at spotting when things are wrong or off-putting about design (i.e., the Necromancer) than they are with actually fixing the design problem.

it is easy to see flaws fixing them is difficult.

 

[Weiley31]

Honestly, I'm fine with most of 5E in regards to classes. I wish they would bring back the NEXT Sorcerer in some way or format. And maybe one or two changes to the Monk in general. Like not two of their Ki abilities requiring the use of your Bonus Actions (Patient Defense and Step of the Wind.)

I can also probably agree that all Classes should be able to get their Subclass choice AT Level One.


And just dump the PHB Ranger for the Revised Ranger OR offer it as a Variant choice since the current Ranger Subclasses wouldn't be too compatible with the Revised Ranger now that I think about it.

 

[Weiley31]

The bard concept has bugged me since 1e and has only gotten worse over time. I mean, singing insults to cause damage and/or make creatures attack poorly? 5e has my least favorite version of a class I've never liked.

I don't know, the French used it to great affect against Arthur and the gang.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Honestly, I'm fine with most of 5E in regards to classes. I wish they would bring back the NEXT Sorcerer in some way or format. And maybe one or two changes to the Monk in general. Like not two of their Ki abilities requiring the use of your Bonus Actions (Patient Defense and Step of the Wind.)

I can also probably agree that all Classes should be able to get their Subclass choice AT Level One.


And just dump the PHB Ranger for the Revised Ranger OR offer it as a Variant choice since the current Ranger Subclasses wouldn't be too compatible with the Revised Ranger now that I think about it.

I want a way bigger overhaul of the monk, I would like to fix the name but none really work that are not multiple words.

 

[Weiley31]

And in regards to the complaints about the Paladin/Warlock/Sorcerer/Bard combos, well its just a nature of the beast that a Charisma casters seems to work together since they all rely upon one main stat. It doesn't help with the fact that a Paladin/Warlock combo is technically a better "Paladin" than a single classed Paladin. In regards to flavor like how a Sorclock can make any kind of sense or a Hexadin/whatever, I think the reflavoring/refluffing nature of 5E has had an effect on that.

A Sorclock could be a Sorcerer whose blood was somehow tainted or altered by "their" Patron, for whatever the reason, and now they have to figure out why or what effect this is going to have. In a situation like this, the Sorclock "doesn't have" a Patron per se, its just that "something" has taken an interest in said character and is going from there. The Hexadin/Paladin-Warlock combo is more of a "Witch Knight" and the Patron can be easily fluffed out with the Patron mechanics of the Warlock in that multi-class just handling the crunch. Heck, I think a Swordmage thread outside of this one even had the idea of making the Hexblade Warlock as a refluffed version basically.

The Cleric being refluffed as a "More Spell Caster" version of the Paladin makes sense in that regards and is something I've never considered, despite be being a big fluffer in regards to 5E and its aspects.

Also I don't know how anybody can't see Singing/Song Magic being able to change the world/cause magical effects. If singing is Mathematics, then Singing CAN do that as Reality Hacking IS Mathematics. In Destiny 2, you literally kill an Alien god with the use of a Spear that is composed entirely out of Math basically...........although said Alien god comes back to life as a Sniper Rifle later on after said boss fight.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

It's statements like this as well as your whole "four attributes" schtick that cause @TwoSix and I to repeatedly recommend Shadow of the Demon Lord to you.

Yesterday I had an idea to remove the whole ''use X ability as spellcasting stat for X class'' with a Magic Score and Mods (a 7th ability score, if you will) that you roll once you gain the spellcasting/pact magic trait. Like in SotDL. Maybe with an ''extra ASI'' feature for the full spellcasters since they have 1 extra stat to buff.

On the other hand I already ran a game with a houserule that Warlock and Paladin used the DMG's Sanity and Honor ability for their features instead of CHA. That one was fun!

On the third other hand (!), one other way of doing it would be to have spells auto-hit (thus removing the spell attack mod) unless it requires a saving throw, but the casters need to pass an ability + skill check against a DC of 10 + spell level to cast it. (Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock = Arcana, Cleric/Paladin = Religion, Druid/Ranger = Nature, Bard = Perform, all of then using the Skills with Other Ability Scores rule). Sure it allows Expertise in a spellcasting skill, but its not too bad since Expertise, if you dont allow Multiclass and Feats like I do, is pretty rare; only bards, knowledge cleric and AT could have expertise in their spellcasting skill.

 

[Faolyn]

Your half-caster necromancer would literally be unable to learn create undead, which is a sixth level spell!

What if they got it as a class ability?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What if they got it as a class ability?

And all the high level necromancy spells? What if wizards had no spells but gained fireball as class ability? This game has an existing system for these sort of things, it is pointless to invent a parallel system that does the same thing.

 

[Faolyn]

And for all the high level necromancy spells? What if wizards had no spells but gained fireball as class ability? This game has an existing system for these sort of things, it is pointless to invent a parallel system that does the same thing.

Honestly, I don't actually even care about the idea of necromancers as their own class. But my idea was, if you really want a class that emphasizes a specific school of magic--whether necromancy, illusion, or any of the others--the idea that the things that make that school interesting should be built into the class and not dependent on spells. Since let's face it, the typical player is going to take whatever spells they can get, no matter the school, unless the DM has houseruled it to make it harder for you to learn magic outside of your specialty. So there's a couple of possibilities here:

Full caster. The class spells are more limited in scope, not broad like the wizard. The necromancer gets necromancy spells plus a handful of other spells. Because there's no reason why a necromancer needs fireball.

Half Caster. Spells up to 5th level. But all the really necromantic spells are built into the class. So a necromancer archetype built around manipulating life energy would get an innate ability to (perhaps) suck the life energy out of one creature (maybe even themselves), store it, and give it to someone else. This would mimic cure wounds/cause wounds and even heal/harm. A necromancer archetype built around undead would start being able to make undead early on--maybe even as soon as they take the archetype--and as they progress they can make better and better undead. So this sort of necromancer could make a ghoul at, say, 9th level where a standard wizard casting create undead would have to wait to 11th level. And an archetype built around manipulating souls would get some innate abilities that mimic spells like soul cage, but again with more options as they level up.

And you can also give them a warlock-style Mystic Arcanum so they can still take the less well-themed necromancy spells, like eyebite, which is necromancy only in the sense that it's spoooooky.