D&D 5E Subclasses, complexity and decision points

[1of3]

As a GM I do not need to know the special abilities of PCs. The player will probably tell me, when it becomes relevant. That's a great advantage of a class based system, assuming it works: Make an adventure for third level characters and you do not have to worry what characters will appear. That's the theory at least.

Still, a game needs consistend rules / guidelines for GMs, as you say.

 

[Warbringer]

The way I look at, D&DNext isn't being designed for the "us here on the boards". Most of us are experienced, play multiple systems, and have so many house rules our games probably don't look much like any version of D&D

For the hobby to survive it needs new DM blood, not just players. To me that means low complexity on sub-systems; better that fewer subsystems and different ways of interacting with them dependent on class.

(Personally, I'd love to see something like "effect dice pool" be a general mechanic where rogues and rangers interact with it as "expertise"; the gladiator via "combat superiority; the monk via "ki"...;barbarian "rage" and so on. Of course, the complaint will be "classes all feel the same", but then I don't believe a different mechanical design makes a class flavorful)

 

[Squidmaster]

I'm with Warbringer, but I also think that we should give the design team a long leash at the moment. From the latest packet, it seems to me that they are blowing things up a bit to see what resonates with people before contracting them again.

One thing that bothers me in the latest packet is that classes like the fighter are using multiple mechanics within the same class. That would appear to be a no-no to me.

… And for people who think that combining certain mechanics would make all classes feel the same, hasn't that been true for ages with the spellcasting system? I don't personally feel that clerics and wizards feel all that similar despite that.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

There's a balance to be struck. It's fine for classes and subclasses to have unique mechanics. But, where mechanics are very similar, it's a good idea to have them work the same way across classes.

Spellcasting is a current example of this. The expertise die is another.

 

[YRUSirius]

Yeah, I'd like to have a common mechanic like the expertise dice for martial and skill dice. Call it skill expertise for rogues, monks and rangers and martial expertise or weapon expertise for gladiators and tactical fighter classes. Or just keep calling it expertise, but some classes just add it to ability checks and others add it to attack rolls etc.

Btw what about just changing the superiority dice back to expertise dice for gladiators and let them add to ability contest rolls (which will occur as part of an attack action if you hit and spend an expertise die) if they want to trip or push someone, and when they fail the contest roll the die will be added to the attack's damage.

Just like the gladiators maneuvers but without a new subsystem of comparing the result of the superiority die to the wisdom modifier. Yes, it would be an additional die roll by the player and the DM, but it would only occur if the attack hits and it would resemble the standard contest rules - only the gladiator gets bonuses to it.

-YRUSirius

 

[Obryn]

I like how each subclass can have its own idiosyncratic subsystem, actually. It works for me. Reminds me of post Essentials 4e, actually, with pick-your-own-complexity.

 

[Kunimatyu]

The way I look at, D&DNext isn't being designed for the "us here on the boards". Most of us are experienced, play multiple systems, and have so many house rules our games probably don't look much like any version of D&D

For the hobby to survive it needs new DM blood, not just players. To me that means low complexity on sub-systems; better that fewer subsystems and different ways of interacting with them dependent on class.

(Personally, I'd love to see something like "effect dice pool" be a general mechanic where rogues and rangers interact with it as "expertise"; the gladiator via "combat superiority; the monk via "ki"...;barbarian "rage" and so on. Of course, the complaint will be "classes all feel the same", but then I don't believe a different mechanical design makes a class flavorful)

I strongly disagree. If most classes have the same underlying subsystem, there's no way to avoid said subsystem it if you hate it. In a system where every class has slightly different mechanics, it's very easy to choose mechanics you like and avoid what you dislike.

 

[Warbringer]

I strongly disagree. If most classes have the same underlying subsystem, there's no way to avoid said subsystem it if you hate it. In a system where every class has slightly different mechanics, it's very easy to choose mechanics you like and avoid what you dislike.

Well the game made it through AC, Hit Points and Vancian spellcasting, we'd be OK

Again, my point was around DM, not player, so its a little harder to avoid mechanics you don't personally like

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Yeah, I'd like to have a common mechanic like the expertise dice for martial and skill dice. Call it skill expertise for rogues, monks and rangers and martial expertise or weapon expertise for gladiators and tactical fighter classes. Or just keep calling it expertise, but some classes just add it to ability checks and others add it to attack rolls etc.

Btw what about just changing the superiority dice back to expertise dice for gladiators and let them add to ability contest rolls (which will occur as part of an attack action if you hit and spend an expertise die) if they want to trip or push someone, and when they fail the contest roll the die will be added to the attack's damage.

Just like the gladiators maneuvers but without a new subsystem of comparing the result of the superiority die to the wisdom modifier. Yes, it would be an additional die roll by the player and the DM, but it would only occur if the attack hits and it would resemble the standard contest rules - only the gladiator gets bonuses to it.

-YRUSirius

I'm no fan of d20+dX+Y, but at least this is the same form of resolution as every other check in the game, so there's consistency. It means that the same saving throw bonus you might have to resist being pushed by Thunderwave is there to help resist being shoved by the Gladiator.

 

[howandwhy99]

To me Subclasses should be Campaign Setting first elements. You go to DarkSun and most (all?) of the subclasses are going to be unique to that setting. Just like Races, Magic Items, Spells, and probably some rule mechanics like Skills, Feats, Backgrounds or whatever can all be custom to effect a place and time.

However, that doesn't mean subclasses shouldn't be mechanically interesting or unique. But I do agree we shouldn't be stuck with Knight, for instance, if we want a Defender build or however we define it.

This is a tempest in a teakettle though. I believe WotC has already said they will be releasing rules for customizing and creating new core elements and specifically subclasses. Sure, it's initially a little more work, but sooner or latter this websphere-thingy will be full of homebrewed options.