D&D 5E Races and classes

[Charlaquin]

I probably prefer a focus on the roleplay in terms of differences.

d6 damage is d6 damage. Is it area of effect or single target? You are correct about that.

but I cannot say my experience playing a fiend patron warlock vs a celestial patron warlock seemed too samey samey.

Well, warlocks are the single most customizable class in the game, between spell selection, patron, pact boon, and evocations. If other classes were as variable as warlocks, I would be much more satisfied with the breadth of options. That said, the main mechanical difference between the celestial and the fiend is the expanded spell lists. The features you get at 1st, 3rd, 6th, 10th, and 15th level make only very small differences. Obviously if you choose different spells and evocations your characters will play differently, but that’s true whether they have different patrons or the same patrons. In this case though, I think that’s fine. Unlike most classes, Warlocks have so many different avenues of customization, each of them individually being small is actually a good thing in my opinion.

or a conquest Paladin vs a devotion Paladin...if people are feeling those aren’t differentiated enough it’s probably the over focus on some aspects.

Yeah, you can roleplay them differently, but you can also roleplay two devotion Paladins differently. In terms of capabilities, they are mostly the same, and it’s only on how the player chooses to exercise those capabilities that makes the difference.

your surely have a right to your preferences. You cannot be wrong. I just have a different experience than that.

even spell selection...I take some spells in groups of themes. Sure I can raise a skeleton army with a LG cleric of pelor but I probably would make a different play experience with this character than say a cleric of wee jas. Especially if the former is a blaster with fireball and the latter is a brawler with gfb and spiritual weapon.

Yeah, spell selection has much more potential for differentiating characters than subclasses. But yet, you don’t see people complaining about spell bloat for some reason.

literally everyone’s mileage may vary. And that is ok. Personally though, tacking on extra mechanics a la prestige classes is not desirable for me.

Sure. I’d certainly prefer characters be differentiated by a larger number of more granular decisions, such as spell selection, feat selection, etc. than by single choices that grant a group of abilities like subclasses or prestige classes.

 

[Charlaquin]

LOL that is part of it-- because it has so little meaning, why bother? shrug

Sure. But I think the better solution is more meaningful options, not fewer options period.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Hm isn't the Wood Elf in the PHB?

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Helldritch]

Sure. But I think the better solution is more meaningful options, not fewer options period.

I would say we need less options, but these options must be more meaningful. Sometimes, less is a lot more as it forces you to think outside the box. Having all options chewed and cooked for you does not encourage you to think. You just mechanically apply the receipee and you don't invent anything. I would have been quite happy with only the PHB, SCAG and XGtE. Eberron with the Artificer is ok. The rest... I don't really care. I much prefer to see adventures and corrections to the ranger (not the crap TCoE gave us) and true correction to the sorcerers' problems. But hey... they went the easy way.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would say we need less options, but these options must be more meaningful.

I think we should differentiate here between options and decision points. I think the game would benefit from fewer of the former but more of the latter. Most subclasses are just one single decision point that gives you a handful of fixed abilities spread across the span of levels, and that feels pretty bad. The more appealing subclasses to me are the ones like the Battlemaster fighter that give you multiple maneuver options to choose from at each level that you gain a subclass feature. More decision points means more ways to make one character play differently from another. I can make two Battlemasters that feel more different from each other than, say, a Champion does from a Cavalier.

Sometimes, less is a lot more as it forces you to think outside the box. Having all options chewed and cooked for you does not encourage you to think. You just mechanically apply the receipee and you don't invent anything.

This sums up why I don’t like the way 5e does (most) subclasses. I just pick one at character creation and from then on the advancement path is set in stone. I want, at later level ups, to have more decisions to make. More to think about how I want to advance my character instead of just following the book’s instructions.

I would have been quite happy with only the PHB, SCAG and XGtE. Eberron with the Artificer is ok. The rest... I don't really care. I much prefer to see adventures and corrections to the ranger (not the crap TCoE gave us) and true correction to the sorcerers' problems. But hey... they went the easy way.

Eh. SCAG and XGtE didn’t really have much meat to them either. I would have preferred bolder subclass designs that gave us more to work with instead of a list of fixed upgrades at fixed levels. But I think the flaw has more to do with 5e’s fundamental design than with the subclasses themselves. It’s just not really structured for the kind of flexibility I’m looking for.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Sure. But I think the better solution is more meaningful options, not fewer options period.

Options were always there, even in earlier editions, you just had to use this thing called an imagination.

Because of that, I (personally) see no need for all the options, etc. WotC keeps throwing at us. I mean, some of this stuff if getting quite silly IMO. If other people love it, have at it (you'll make WotC happy, anyway, by giving them your money LOL), you won't see such things at my games. shrug

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Options were always there, even in earlier editions, you just had to use this thing called an imagination.

Because of that, I (personally) see no need for all the options, etc. WotC keeps throwing at us. I mean, some of this stuff if getting quite silly IMO. If other people love it, have at it (you'll make WotC happy, anyway, by giving them your money LOL), you won't see such things at my games. shrug

Funny u say that. One objection I had about 2e kits was that they stole my thunder. I had a swashbuckler (drow pirate in the late 8Os) I had crusader clerics. I never needed it codified.

though many things we made up and added have been implemented in 5e.

different people, different approaches and wants. 5e is about as technical as I want foe an rpg. I play some miniature and war games and that I have a wider acceptance of fiddle and ‘extra.’

full disclosure, we skipped 2e so I am no authority...

 

[DND_Reborn]

Funny u say that. One objection I had about 2e kits was that they stole my thunder. I had a swashbuckler (drow pirate in the late 8Os) I had crusader clerics. I never needed it codified.

Oh, 2E was notorious for splat! It started out okay, basically a rehash of 1E with a twist on some things. But yeah, 2E went crazy... 5E isn't anywhere close to that yet--but give it time.

 

[tetrasodium]

Exploring eberron has ruinbound dwarf, aereni elf, seeker aasimar, court aasimar, & gnoll PC race options

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Oh, 2E was notorious for splat! It started out okay, basically a rehash of 1E with a twist on some things. But yeah, 2E went crazy... 5E isn't anywhere close to that yet--but give it time.

No, I don’t think I will! There is a ton here and if we dig in (my group) there is material for decades.

I am struggling to decide what to play next but probably a damn warlock again. Though a cleric of wee Jas focused on melee and grappling in spirit guardians sounds entertaining.