D&D 5E Races and classes

[tetrasodium]

I think that the list only included official content. Wayfarers is, but Exploring Eberron isn't technically IIRC.

See. This is why people have spent the last 5 years pissy that the PHB & nearly every core book was largely a vehicle to step up for the fact that a 5e "forgotten realms campaign setting" couldn't be justified. Then a couple weeks ago wotc admitted that they've not effectively walked that tightrope .

 

[Charlaquin]

See. This is why people have spent the last 5 years pissy that the PHB & nearly every core book was largely a vehicle to step up for the fact that a 5e "forgotten realms campaign setting" couldn't be justified. Then a couple weeks ago wotc admitted that they've not effectively walked that tightrope .

I’m not sure the tightrope Jeremy was talking about here is the same one you’re talking about.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

Fully agree on that. I would have much prefer to have three or four choices at the meaningful levels than just choose a subclass and get my brain on auto pilot from then on.
For example: Wizard subclass evocation...
Level 2: Sculpt spell (as usual). Or: Insescapable evocation: Gives disadvantage to the save of your evocation spell to 1 target once per day per profiency bonus.
Or Unerring Evocation: Have the advantage on the attack roll of one of your evocation spell against 1 target once per day per proficiency bonus.
Now the evocation wizard has a lot to decide. Defensive? Offensive? Going for saves or for hit bonuses? Spread this accross all classes and subclasses and you might get as many different characters as you wish. Put more of these choices at level 6, 10, 14th and your mind goes BOOM!

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.

Fully agree again. See the above. Again, less in this case would mean a lot more. And no more auto pilot on the character design. We could also have the choice of taking one variant power instead of a feat. The wizard above could choose Unerring evocation instead of feat or an ASI.

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.

I really liked XGtE. SCAG was more of a setting book but the few spells and two subclasses in it were for our games, quite game breaking and brought a fresh novelty that we still really like. I long ago corrected the cantrip exactly as TCoE did by not allowing the potential abuses with a RAI interpretation instead of a RAW one. It worked wonders.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

This is a good point and one I can get on board with. If the newer books focused on this sort of thing (decision points) instead of just options I would probably be more interested in the material.

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.

And this, too.

 

[Rikka66]

1. It focuses on the PCs and builds instead of just enjoying the adventure.
2. It leads to too many features for the PCs and analysis-paralysis.

This is a good point and one I can get on board with. If the newer books focused on this sort of thing (decision points) instead of just options I would probably be more interested in the material.

If points 1 and 2 are important issues you have with 5e than it seems like you would want less decisions points than options (as Charlaquin defines them).

 

[DND_Reborn]

If points 1 and 2 are important issues you have with 5e than it seems like you would want less decisions points than options (as Charlaquin defines them).

I don't think so, not as I understood @Charlaquin anyway.

A perfect example (IMO) are prestige classes. A prestige class is a decision point as I see it. Getting the requirements means you have to establish a path to become that. In 5E, once your subclass is chosen (unless you MC) you have no options.

Now, that being said, there is a difference between decisions on your character's progress and just getting so many features and options thrown on top of each other leads to the the analysis-paralysis I mentioned. It happens in game when players can't decide what to do, not so much during leveling, etc.

As for point 1, things like prestige classes impact PC development during the adventure as those requirements are met (sometimes, anyway). Otherwise, there probably isn't a huge difference between them as you suggest. shrug

 

[Zsong]

Not really. There is a lot of crap in 5E I don't want in my game. And WotC just keeps adding more and more of that crap IMO. If you don't agree, that's fine, but just respect that is how I feel instead of questioning it again? Thanks.

You don’t have to use what you don’t want. I think it’s great they have option for what people may want. Take it or leave it.

 

[Rikka66]

I misunderstood you as far as point 2, but what you said clears that up. But as far as point 1, while prestige classes certainly allow for an impact on PC development, the nature of many of them with their requirements and synergies further encourages a focus on the long term planning of a PC and their build.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely! What bugs me about 5e subclasses is that many of them are bizarrely specific both mechanically and conceptually. With subclasses like that you will need a ton of them as each can only represent one very narrow concept. With broader, more flexible subclasses you could represent a greater number of concepts with fewer subclasses.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't think so, not as I understood @Charlaquin anyway.

A perfect example (IMO) are prestige classes. A prestige class is a decision point as I see it. Getting the requirements means you have to establish a path to become that. In 5E, once your subclass is chosen (unless you MC) you have no options.

Now, that being said, there is a difference between decisions on your character's progress and just getting so many features and options thrown on top of each other leads to the the analysis-paralysis I mentioned. It happens in game when players can't decide what to do, not so much during leveling, etc.

As for point 1, things like prestige classes impact PC development during the adventure as those requirements are met (sometimes, anyway). Otherwise, there probably isn't a huge difference between them as you suggest. shrug

This is a good point & I think people arguing that past editions had decision paralysis in some areas so 5e needs to avoid any hint of glancing in such a direction are ignoring the benefits that came with such a wide number of decision points/choices to pick from, the negatives of not having it to some reasonable degree, and most importantly just how far 5e cranked the dial back. If we point at any given area someone could reasonably claim was analysis-paralysis inducing & accept for the sake of argument that it may have gone a bit too far we still have an ocean of distance between two many & 5e's "basically none" where a reasonable middle ground that has benefits of both and minimizes the possible negatives of each to a point where they don't overload the positives.