D&D (2024) Should paladin's aura of protection be "normalized" a little?

[Horwath]

I mean, that's what 5e actually did with them, more or less. I'm saying that that's criminally wasted potential. It's one of the very few areas of 5e that actually could've, maybe, kinda sorta, actually lived up to the vast "promises" (quotes because you know someone will say they didn't ACTUALLY promise anything...but you know they wanted us to see it that way) of modularity.

ONE of the biggest misses of 2024 is backing down from universal class level progression.

if we got that, there would be rooms for universal subclasses.

then we could have rangers beastmaster as universal subclass, like anyone can form a bond with a beast or spirit of the wild.

or life cleric can be universal caster subclass

or some kind of lore master or skill expert; bonus skills, bonus expertise, reliable talent, using Bonus action for skills that takes an action, "taking 20" few times per Long rest with skills,

champion is also a great universal subclass for martials and all who feel that way.

same for battlemaster,

 

[EzekielRaiden]

ONE of the biggest misses of 2024 is backing down from universal class level progression.

if we got that, there would be rooms for universal subclasses.

then we could have rangers beastmaster as universal subclass, like anyone can form a bond with a beast or spirit of the wild.

or life cleric can be universal caster subclass

or some kind of lore master or skill expert; bonus skills, bonus expertise, reliable talent, using Bonus action for skills that takes an action, "taking 20" few times per Long rest with skills,

champion is also a great universal subclass for martials and all who feel that way.

same for battlemaster,

I don't think universal subclasses would actually be good for the game. I think they would be massively detrimental, actually, because they would bland-ify things even more than they've already been bland-ified.

 

[Horwath]

I don't think universal subclasses would actually be good for the game. I think they would be massively detrimental, actually, because they would bland-ify things even more than they've already been bland-ified.

what is exactly bland?

do we need 50+ classes that can describe every ones idea what their character should be or is it better to have few classes and a lot more options how to build your characters with feat slots/sub-classes.
and honestly 90% of subclass features can be full feats/half feats without any problem.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

what is exactly bland?

The Fighter and Wizard classes are extremely bland and almost empty. Mearls himself explicitly said that that was one of his few regrets with 5e.

do we need 50+ classes that can describe every ones idea what their character should be

No. I've gone on record that D&D is missing somewhere between 5 and 12 class fantasy representations, depending on how restrictive you wish to be. I doubt you care, but I can dig them up for you if you do.

It's really quite hard to get much beyond 25 total classes (13 existing ones + my 12 proposed missing ones) without very obviously stepping on the toes of things that are already there. At that point, subclasses then step in to both fill in any remaining gaps, and to genuinely rework the play-experience in various ways, so that a single class actually covers quite a bit of ground in a reliable, testable way.

or is it better to have few classes and a lot more options how to build your characters with feat slots/sub-classes.

Given 5e only offers five feats to characters, and you give up stat improvement to get them, feats are already out the window as it is. Even if they weren't, "a la carte" character building absolutely does lead to much more bland character-building. That's...literally the intended consequence: the onus is absolutely, purely on the player, and unfortunately a lot of the time, all you're going to see is people picking up the smart choices, or (IMO worse) feeling terribly punished because they built something that sounded cool but was absolutely crap at actually DOING anything.

That's why we have a class-based game in the first place. Classes are big, solid things. Something you can sink your teeth into. Something you can grok, and which designers can actually run through meaningful testing in a reasonable period of time, to ensure that they do in fact actually work. (Assuming, of course, that the designers actually bother to test in the first place...something both WotC and Paizo quite clearly don't always do.)

and honestly 90% of subclass features can be full feats/half feats without any problem.

They could be, if you don't give a fig at all about game balance. Most people are not accurately described as such. Hence why there has been brouhaha about various things, and why 5.5e had to rewrite several subclasses because they sucked (like Berserker).

 

[James Gasik]

Back in 2e, we had "Kits" for customizing characters. Initially, each class got it's own book full of them, but eventually it expanded to racial kits and setting kits.

But you saw a lot of overlap because, it turns out, some of these ideas are agnostic. Both Warriors and Rogues could be Swashbucklers. We had Savage versions of several classes. That sort of thing.

I don't think it would turn the game into oatmeal to have a Swashbuckler or Pirate available to multiple classes without the need of making multiple subclasses for each version.

As it is, only a Fighter can be a Samurai, and a Paladin can't be anything, really, because "Oath of Whatever" isn't quite as evocative as Horizon Walker or Rune Knight (if you want to talk about oatmeal, lol).

Now, some might say that these concepts are more backgrounds than full on subclasses- if you want to be a Pirate Wizard, you just take a background like Sailor. But WotC has already blurred this line with things like Cavalier, Hunter, or Scout.

Assassin seems amusing to me especially, as I recall the reason 2e didn't have an Assassin class- anyone could be an assassin, they said. It was a profession, not a class. But here we are.

 

[Horwath]

The Fighter and Wizard classes are extremely bland and almost empty. Mearls himself explicitly said that that was one of his few regrets with 5e.

that is because both fighter and wizard are "skeleton" classes.

both can be removed as full classes and be renamed as "mage" and "warrior".

then you can have wizard a a subclass of mage that does not "know" spells, but has a book and can be more versatile than basic mage.
sorcerer is better for basic mage than a wizard.

as for fighter, they had a chance now to make battlemaster base class feature and it wouldn't break anything, comparing to full casters, but OFC because of "muh compatibilitah" they backtracked on that also.

and yes, assassin can be any class,

I.E:
3rd level features:
1. proficiency+expertise in stealth.
2. advantage on initiative.
3. 1st attack that hits on the 1st round of combat deals +2 damage per level.

 

[Guest 7037866]

Back in 2e, we had "Kits" for customizing characters. Initially, each class got it's own book full of them, but eventually it expanded to racial kits and setting kits.

But you saw a lot of overlap because, it turns out, some of these ideas are agnostic. Both Warriors and Rogues could be Swashbucklers. We had Savage versions of several classes. That sort of thing.

LOL I remember in 2E I had a Fighter/Thief and took kits for both classes--Swashbuckler for both. It was fun, actually.

I don't think it would turn the game into oatmeal to have a Swashbuckler or Pirate available to multiple classes without the need of making multiple subclasses for each version.

As it is, only a Fighter can be a Samurai, and a Paladin can't be anything, really, because "Oath of Whatever" isn't quite as evocative as Horizon Walker or Rune Knight (if you want to talk about oatmeal, lol).

Yep, it is very odd a Paladin can't be a Cavalier, for instance, since at one time Paladin was a subclass of Cavalier.

Now, some might say that these concepts are more backgrounds than full on subclasses- if you want to be a Pirate Wizard, you just take a background like Sailor. But WotC has already blurred this line with things like Cavalier, Hunter, or Scout.

Assassin seems amusing to me especially, as I recall the reason 2e didn't have an Assassin class- anyone could be an assassin, they said. It was a profession, not a class. But here we are.

Yeah, we homebrewed an Assassin subclass that any class could take as a subclass.

And yes, many subclasses could be backgrounds or professions. The lines are very blurry in many cases on what should be what when you just go by the name alone.

In a strange sort of way, subclasses seem like prestige classes to me, with only two requirements: you must have a certain class and must be a certain level, to take them.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Now, I like powerful features as much as the next guy, but is this really too much and does it forces paladin little too much into max CHA build?

One of the improvements made in the 2024 rules was how it eased back out of this trap through moving the subclasses to level 3 and adding stat modifiers to the feats.

Under 2014 rules the strongest paladin and contender for the strongest all rounder in the game (certainly the strongest without 9th level spells) was easily the single level dip into hexblade (which as a bonus even gave you the Shield spell; dipping no longer grants a multiclass). Especially with Variant Human or Custom Lineage to pick up Polearm Master at level 1 to combine with spear and shield or duelist style. This meant that by level 9 you'd be rocking Cha 20 (plus either Str 15 or, more often Str 13, Dex 14) and getting up to four attacks per round all with the best saves in the game. All while having a very good AC (you have a shield), being able to smite, and more.

Under 2024 rules this took some heavy sideways nerfs and not just because you can't take PAM at level 1. It (or even its magic initiate Shileleagh partner) has the serious disadvantage that the melee feats add to physical stats but not mental ones. A pure Charismadin is a defensive build, not an offensive one, and doesn't get the stat buff to offensive stats from e.g. Great Weapon Master, Shield Master, Polearm Master, Dual Wielder, Sentinel, Charger, or Mounted Combatant. (They also like Polearm Master a whole lot less than they used to because, rather than having basically no bonus action abilities so always getting the bonus action attack, both Smite and Lay on Hands now use their bonus actions).

With a starting prime stat of 17 the charismadin can, at level 4, choose a melee feat or a Cha of 18. The strength or dexterity based paladin can have both. By level 12 they are two combat feats behind as with three combat feats the paladin just hit Str or Dex 20. Is it worth it for +3 to all saves? Probably. But the best way of coping with incoming spells is to deal with the enemies making them. (Oh, and like for like for a paladin Magic Initiate (Druid) for Shilleleagh is more than cancelled out by Magic Initiate (Wizard) for Shield).

The charismadin dominated the 2014 melee meta. They are one of the few builds to get nerfed. Meanwhile almost everyone else got buffed substantially.

Should they have gone further? Possibly. We need to see how the metagame shakes out. But I have no inherent problem with defensive high utility Cha-primary paladins. I do have a problem with the 2014 situation where Cha primary was Just Better.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The Fighter and Wizard classes are extremely bland and almost empty. Mearls himself explicitly said that that was one of his few regrets with 5e.

When I say that the Wizard should be the Books/Rituals subclass of sorcerer I'm only slightly joking. The fighter takes more finesse to fix because there's no one class that's almost like it but a lot in its space. I do wonder how much of the strength fighter you could melt into giving the barbarian a choice between rage-as-is and a mix of heavy armour and grit. (The armoured fighter gets barbarian rage damage resistances while wearing heavy armour even while not raging - but misses out on danger sense). There's a big pile-up between the dex fighter, the rogue, and the ranger (who is currently as much hedge wizard as anything).

No. I've gone on record that D&D is missing somewhere between 5 and 12 class fantasy representations, depending on how restrictive you wish to be. I doubt you care, but I can dig them up for you if you do.

I'd be interested. And probably disagree about some.

Given 5e only offers five feats to characters, and you give up stat improvement to get them, feats are already out the window as it is. Even if they weren't, "a la carte" character building absolutely does lead to much more bland character-building. That's...literally the intended consequence: the onus is absolutely, purely on the player, and unfortunately a lot of the time, all you're going to see is people picking up the smart choices, or (IMO worse) feeling terribly punished because they built something that sounded cool but was absolutely crap at actually DOING anything.

That's why we have a class-based game in the first place. Classes are big, solid things. Something you can sink your teeth into. Something you can grok, and which designers can actually run through meaningful testing in a reasonable period of time, to ensure that they do in fact actually work. (Assuming, of course, that the designers actually bother to test in the first place...something both WotC and Paizo quite clearly don't always do.)

This.

They could be, if you don't give a fig at all about game balance. Most people are not accurately described as such. Hence why there has been brouhaha about various things, and why 5.5e had to rewrite several subclasses because they sucked (like Berserker).

More accurately most people care about balance to a point. They don't care about minutae but if they are too far behind the curve things feel bad.

 

[James Gasik]

LOL I remember in 2E I had a Fighter/Thief and took kits for both classes--Swashbuckler for both. It was fun, actually.


Yep, it is very odd a Paladin can't be a Cavalier, for instance, since at one time Paladin was a subclass of Cavalier.


Yeah, we homebrewed an Assassin subclass that any class could take as a subclass.

And yes, many subclasses could be backgrounds or professions. The lines are very blurry in many cases on what should be what when you just go by the name alone.

In a strange sort of way, subclasses seem like prestige classes to me, with only two requirements: you must have a certain class and must be a certain level, to take them.

Curiously, by the rules you weren't allowed to have multiple Kits as a multiclassed character in 2e, and some Kits (such as the Fighter Kits in Complete Fighter) didn't allow a multiclassed character to have a Kit at all!

That having been said, your DM either missed that note or didn't care (for most Kits, it's not really a big deal).