D&D 5E Optional Rule: Subclass Gestalt

[Fenris-77]

The point is not that a particular D&D experience requires a certain level of mechanical crunch, that's backward IMO. The point is that a certain level of crunch makes the experience enjoyable for some people. I don't think they need to justify that.

 

[TwoSix]

It isn't quite the same though, is it. If you are sitting down and playing poker, you are playing the game. If you are collecting and strategizing Magic cards, you aren't playing.

That's probably where I'm drawing the distinction. Sitting down and strategizing isn't playing the game, but it's absolutely an engaging and enjoyable activity in its own right. Considering how hard it can be to find time with multiple people to actually sit down and play, why not maximize the time you can spend on your hobby even when other people aren't available?

Let me ask you this: what is it you want to do in D&D that requires the bells and whistles? All the base mechanics are there: use a skill, cast a spell, make an attack, and so on. Anything beyond those is about getting more out of those mechanics. In other words, it is about power.

Nothing in D&D requires it, no. But again, as I mentioned, if I was playing purely for the non-mechanical elements, I'd play a game that didn't have them, or a much simpler set. Fiasco. FATE. Blades in the Dark. Any of the many, many PbtA games.

Fundamentally, there are many lightweight RPGs out there, and a large number of people still gravitate to mechanically heavy options in lieu of playing those. So either they're entirely ignorant as to their existence, deliberately masochistic as to playing games that don't cater to their needs, or (most likely) those mechanical elements provide an amount of psychological satisfaction that lightweight games don't cater to.

Just to be clear, if that is the game you want to play, more power to you (all puns intended! ). As I said earlier, for myself I just never felt the need. I can do what I need to do without having to be better or awesome at it compared to the base mechanic. Now, certain things make some sense and add the variety or differentiation in character, but IME people seem to keep wanting more and more differentiation "mechanically" instead of just role-playing it. That's all.

You're right, in that any sort of mechanically complex game needs more options over time. That's because the desire to understand and master the set of mechanics is an important portion of the enjoyment in playing those sort of games. It's why Magic keeps releasing new cards, League of Legends keeps releasing new champions, and why Civilization adds new civs every expansion.

If you haven't, there are some excellent articles online about the psychology of gamer motivations; those ideas certainly helped me to understand why some people love Pathfinder, some only prefer the OSR, and some people find any kind of D&D to be overwhelmingly complex.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That's probably where I'm drawing the distinction. Sitting down and strategizing isn't playing the game, but it's absolutely an engaging and enjoyable activity in its own right. Considering how hard it can be to find time with multiple people to actually sit down and play, why not maximize the time you can spend on your hobby even when other people aren't available?

Nothing in D&D requires it, no. But again, as I mentioned, if I was playing purely for the non-mechanical elements, I'd play a game that didn't have them, or a much simpler set. Fiasco. FATE. Blades in the Dark. Any of the many, many PbtA games.

Fundamentally, there are many lightweight RPGs out there, and a large number of people still gravitate to mechanically heavy options in lieu of playing those. So either they're entirely ignorant as to their existence, deliberately masochistic as to playing games that don't cater to their needs, or (most likely) those mechanical elements provide an amount of psychological satisfaction that lightweight games don't cater to.

You're right, in that any sort of mechanically complex game needs more options over time. That's because the desire to understand and master the set of mechanics is an important portion of the enjoyment in playing those sort of games. It's why Magic keeps releasing new cards, League of Legends keeps releasing new champions, and why Civilization adds new civs every expansion.

If you haven't, there are some excellent articles online about the psychology of gamer motivations; those ideas certainly helped me to understand why some people love Pathfinder, some only prefer the OSR, and some people find any kind of D&D to be overwhelmingly complex.

Oh, there is certainly nothing wrong with enjoying other aspects of a hobby!! I tinker with rulesets and house-rules for 5E all the time. I enjoy trying to mold it into precisely the game I will enjoy most. Heck, spending time on here is a simple aspect!

I recently dug up my entire BECMI sets! I didn't even think I still had the CMI sets, so that was a wonderful discovery! I am sorely tempted to try to get my group to play it when our current 5E game is over.

Anyway, one of the things I do like about 5E is IMO it is just about perfectly balanced between having enough fluff and crunch for those who want it, but also was designed to be played in "lite-mode" for those who don't. Since I already see it as having more than enough crunch, I find it hard to see why people want more. I certainly don't fault them for it, I just don't feel that way myself so it surprises me a bit when I encounter it.

In that sense I don't think 5E needs more subclasses or classes, more feature, more this or that. There is enough already. Now, I've only been playing for 18 months or so, and I would guess people who have played longer might feel the desire for expansion--something new.

If anything, I wish 5E had more concrete systems for things instead of adopting the rulings over rules approach, but that is just my preference.

 

[Horwath]

Problem with this, as mentioned before is big difference how much subclasses add to the power of the class.

I.E. you could give paladin 5 oaths and it would be weaker that wizard with 2 schools or cleric with 2 domains.

If you want gestalt, then go with full dual class gestalt. That will be more balanced than sub class gestalt.