D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[NaturalZero]

I really like the core 5e mechanics but my main issue with class design from day one has been the way that they decided to integrate subclasses.

In 4e, you get your "subclass" at level one. If you're a battlerager or a dragon blooded sorcerer, you got your feature right away and you knew how to build your character around the variant of the class that you picked. Now, if you want to design a strength based monk subclass, for example, you're caught with your pants down as a new player when you arrive at level 3 with a standard Dex/Wis build. If you want a mystical fighter, you're just like every other fighter until you start to get a tiny trickle of magic at level 3. Instead of being a psionic flavored Battlemind or Ardent at right out of gate at first level, they're talking about forcing you to be a run-of-the-mill fighter for a few levels before giving you a small taste of psionics in 5e.

I honestly wouldn't mind if they release no new base classes after the PHB, but it would only really work well if they redesigned the classes to be launch pads for unique subclass mechanics from square one instead of veering off of your build after a few levels. If the fighter got to be a battlemind, ardent, or psionic warrior with legit psionic powers and appropriate ability score allocation at level 1, that would be great. Being the same as every other fighter for a few levels before slowly turning on the feature faucet severely hampers design space.

 

[Yaarel]

I really like the core 5e mechanics but my main issue with class design from day one has been the way that they decided to integrate subclasses.

In 4e, you get your "subclass" at level one. If you're a battlerager or a dragon blooded sorcerer, you got your feature right away and you knew how to build your character around the variant of the class that you picked. Now, if you want to design a strength based monk subclass, for example, you're caught with your pants down as a new player when you arrive at level 3 with a standard Dex/Wis build. If you want a mystical fighter, you're just like every other fighter until you start to get a tiny trickle of magic at level 3. Instead of being a psionic flavored Battlemind or Ardent at right out of gate at first level, they're talking about forcing you to be a run-of-the-mill fighter for a few levels before giving you a small taste of psionics in 5e.

I honestly wouldn't mind if they release no new base classes after the PHB, but it would only really work well if they redesigned the classes to be launch pads for unique subclass mechanics from square one instead of veering off of your build after a few levels. If the fighter got to be a battlemind, ardent, or psionic warrior with legit psionic powers and appropriate ability score allocation at level 1, that would be great. Being the same as every other fighter for a few levels before slowly turning on the feature faucet severely hampers design space.

Fighting Style can help a little bit at level 1, to define archetype/subclass.

For casters, choice of cantrip can also help at level 1 to define the mage archetype.

But really, a level 1 character should be able to clearly express the archetype identity.

 

[NaturalZero]

Fighting Style can help a little bit at level 1, to define archetype/subclass.

For casters, choice of cantrip can also help at level 1 to define the mage archetype.

But really, a level 1 character should be able to clearly express the archetype identity.

I have a whole different issue with spellcasters. They went with old kitchen sink DnD wizard to appeal to tradition instead of breaking up the class into a handful of unique archetypes with much stronger identities, like the dedicated necromancer, and now we have tables where 3 players show up with different wizard subclasses and the exact same spell list. Once again, I love the system but I see so much missed potential with the class design.

 

[Eric V]

Pretty much this. Lazy is how I'd describe most of their recent efforts. The artificer, which is probably the greatest innovation in an official sourcebook since the release of 5e, is not exactly a huge breakthrough. The edition is almost six years old and I've replaced my fear of rules bloat with a feeling of stagnation that makes me want to reevaluate the options for my next game. This coming from someone who actually loves the 5e core engine.

Thing is, true innovation necessarily requires risk, which is simply not what WotC does with the game these days, not when any potentially new rule/class/whatever first has to be agreed upon by the masses...a process that is inherently conservative*.

This approach has made the game the most economically successful version of D&D by far, no doubt. When one looks at the number of innovations 5e brings to the table in the history of D&D...it's very, very few. People like to point out that it sells well (and they're right!), though the game's economic success does not mean it's a particularly innovative or creative design.

It's too bad; with the huge branding advantage making it the clear leader in the RPG industry, one would think D&D would be in a position to take more risks, but that's not going to happen it seems...other games are going to need to fill that role. Maybe if WotC sees another system become really popular on its own merits (not that anything could reasonably challenge D&D's spot at the top), it might try to safely copy some of that system's ideas, who knows?

*I'd love to think that every idea that gets rejected is rejected based on vigorous playtest, etc. but, I am sure that a lot of good ideas receive negative feedback/get shouted down for lots of reasons that don't have to do with how they play at the table. I wish I would get product ideas from the professional designer (something I maybe didn't even know I wanted!) without those ideas being tossed through a non-professional "strainer."

 

[Yaarel]

I have a whole different issue with spellcasters. They went with old kitchen sink DnD wizard to appeal to tradition instead of breaking up the class into a handful of unique archetypes with much stronger identities, like the dedicated necromancer, and now we have tables where 3 players show up with different wizard subclasses and the exact same spell list. Once again, I love the system but I see so much missed potential with the class design.

Dividing spell lists by themes? I agree 100%.

 

[Sadras]

Some prefer the archetype to be baked into level 1.
Baking the archetype earlier promotes multi-class dipping to gain archetype benefits along with everything else.

The numerous spell lists for each archetype creates another headache.
It would have been simpler to have opposing schools as opposed to a plethora of spell lists.

 

[Eric V]

Some prefer the archetype to be baked into level 1.
Baking the archetype earlier promotes multi-class dipping to gain archetype benefits along with everything else.

The numerous spell lists for each archetype creates another headache.
It would have been simpler to have opposing schools as opposed to a plethora of spell lists.

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

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.

 

[NaturalZero]

Baking the archetype earlier promotes multi-class dipping to gain archetype benefits along with everything else.

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.

The numerous spell lists for each archetype creates another headache.
It would have been simpler to have opposing schools as opposed to a plethora of spell lists.

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There's been a long-term dearth of official options. The solution is to simply get off the "official" train, and branch out a bit.

That's not compatible with Beyond, sadly, which is gigantic asset to a lot of groups, especially ones with more casual players, or ones with less time. If Beyond let you add classes then this would be a non-issue but presently it does not. I suspect if WotC force Psions to be Wizards and/or just don't do Psionics then that will become a more pressing issue for the Beyond devs.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Just to make something clear:
Psion is not going to be a ''wizard subclass''.
When you listen what the designers said in the last 2 years, there will be a class named Psion, with telepath, kineticist and telekinetist as archetypes.

You presumably have not seen the current UA, where it is just a Wizard subclass?