D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Sadras]

Some groups might multi-class dip for min/max...so that means level 1 archetypes shouldn't happen?

No. I'm just stating the issue that mechanism might introduce.
There are other ways to start with a level 1 archetype and that is to have an apprentice level (below level 1).
Perhaps when 1 does multiclass one first needs to acquire the apprentice level. I dunno - thinking out as I type. Just trying to find a solution to appease as many camps as possible.

I don't understand why separate spell lists would be a headache, genuinely. It's already in the game, just with spells being found on multiple lists; you still need to know your own classes' list.

Just think about how many spell-casting sub-classes exist. Imagine having a list for each of them.

 

[Sadras]

Not any more or less than right now though, as long as you just don't give you MORE abilities on top of what a "vanilla" class gets in an alternative, hypothetical design. Every character I make in 5e is already dipping levels in fighter for action surge, or some other class for a spells, or whatever. If you designed all of the classes with the subclasses in mind from the start, this isn't an issue more than having them start later.

Agree with this.

The huge problem with the 5e PHB though is that there simply aren't enough themed spells to flesh out archetypes when you do the kind of kitchen sink spell list that they went with. If i try to make a necromancer, i literally cannot load out my character with enough choices to differentiate him from the other wizards and sorcerers at the table because of the way the list is designed. If they had just made a necromancer class, for example, they could have come up with a handful of multipurpose class features that do the heavy lifting instead of relying on a huge spells list that ultimately ends up being a copy and paste of other builds. I'd rather have a single feature that allows me to customize and field undead with different options as I level up instead of gaining 6 spells choices that are the same as the evoker and the oracle.

I'm not convinced it is the spell list that is the issue more so than say the subclass design which doesn't differentiate enough particularly if everyone shares a kitchen sink spell list. Prohibited school of magic is a good start though and very easy to implement.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The existence of a psionic flavored archetypes in another class doesnt prevent the existence of a full Psion class. Just because there's a sorcerer that can use cleric spells does not mean that the game no longer need a a cleric class.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I started playing during the 3E era, so yes, I have seen Class bloat cause huge problems.

What problems, specifically?

I'm particularly interested in any that aren't the results of general rules bloat, and aren't the result of problems with other systems or classes which just interact poorly with a class.

Personally in 3.XE I fully expected to see problems with the number of classes, especially post Tome of Nine Fighter Replacements or whatever it was called, but they never actually materialised. So I'm curious.

PRCs caused huge problems, but they aren't classes, and it was largely a double handful of specific, broken PRCs, mostly from early 3E days which were at the heart of every PRC issue. Bloat was only a problem with them in that 80% were simply bad choices.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The existence of a psionic flavored archetypes in another class doesnt prevent the existence of a full Psion class. Just because there's a sorcerer that can use cleric spells does not mean that the game no longer need a a cleric class.

I think you're confusing shouldn't and doesn't. I agree that it shouldn't. But I am confident that WotC intend, if possible, to replace Psion and related concepts with subclasses. The Wizard subclass is the clearest evidence, because they don't read like a Wizard with an interest in Psionics, but like an actual Psion (with terrible rules).

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think you're confusing shouldn't and doesn't. I agree that it shouldn't. But I am confident that WotC intend, if possible, to replace Psion and related concepts with subclasses. The Wizard subclass is the clearest evidence, because they don't read like a Wizard with an interest in Psionics, but like an actual Psion (with terrible rules).

Well, time will tell. I agree that 5e tend to be a little too much on the conservative side of game design for my taste. In retrospect, I think the UA Mystic, with some more work, would have been perfect. They just needed to clarify a little more the psion-vs-magic interaction and fix the ''problem'' with the ''can do anything'' feel of the class. I dont know why they dropped it just because the feedback said there was some problem with the class. At my table, I think I'll go back to the mystic, with a trimmed disciplines and archetypes list.

 

[Oofta]

One of my pet peeves is the "WOTC developers are lazy" lament. Good grief. We have the best selling TTRPG ever published with multiple years of double digit growth. The dev team isn't there to explore every possible option, or to create something that's never been done before. They exist to create content for a game that can sell at a profit. Period.

No game can be or ever will be perfect. I have no doubt that for some people there are other games out there that suit their needs better. But just because the dev team doesn't come to your house and design a class for you specifically doesn't mean they're lazy. It just means they develop for their aggregate customer base and they can't possibly cater to every niche in existence.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

@Oofta You're overstating your case severely.

Some people, in all fields, use lazy as a synonym for "things they don't like" . Sure. This is a real issue.

But sometimes implementations genuinely are so lackadaisical and half-hearted and thoughtless that lazy seems apposite. I avoid it myself but you go to far to suggest it is always wrong or just about taste. The current Wizard Psionic subclass particularly has a half-hearted, low effort vibe.

The idea that they "develop for their aggregate customer base" is also silly and takes a sort of faith-based attitude to how companies work.

 

[Oofta]

@Oofta You're overstating your case severely.

Some people, in all fields, use lazy as a synonym for "things they don't like" . Sure. This is a real issue.

But sometimes implementations genuinely are so lackadaisical and half-hearted and thoughtless that lazy seems apposite. I avoid it myself but you go to far to suggest it is always wrong or just about taste. The current Wizard Psionic subclass particularly has a half-hearted, low effort vibe.

The idea that they "develop for their aggregate customer base" is also silly and takes a sort of faith-based attitude to how companies work.

Huh? Companies develop products they think will sell. Some companies like Toyota go for the broad base, others like Lamborghini go for niche. WOTC is the Toyota of TTRPGs.

Does that make some of their products a bit boring? Perhaps to some people. I don't personally have that problem, but class build is rarely the most interesting part of a PC for me.

I disagree that makes them "lazy" which has all sorts of negative and insulting connotations.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I disagree that makes them "lazy" which has all sorts of negative and insulting connotations.

This Toyota analogy really makes my point. WotC are nothing like Toyota. The D&D market is nothing like the car market. Comparing them is silly and shows you're taking this faith-based approach rather than looking at the market.

WotC as a whole are certainly not lazy. We concur there. However specific products or implementations absolutely can be, and that's not to do with the market, that's to do with half-hearted or thoughtless design. Or people designing above their pay grade, as it were.