D&D (2024) Symmetric Balance vs Asymmetric Balance.

[UngeheuerLich]

Nawp! Same issue. A subclass simply cannot do it in 5e.

I still disagree. But I do understand what you mean. Luckily we have a ranger class and so the whole discussion is obsolete.

 

[Scott Christian]

Just brainstorming. But for those that like niche, could it be better done by decreasing spell lists, and having absolutely zero spells crossover between classes?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Just brainstorming. But for those that like niche, could it be better done by decreasing spell lists, and having absolutely zero spells crossover between classes?

Sure! Look, if I had my druthers, I'd make a very different, and probably far less popular game.

But if I was going for niche protection, my changes would start like this-

Casters would each get unique spell lists. There would be absolutely minimal crossover. Subclasses might get you access to a small handful of additional spells. That protects each of the casters (Cleric, Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Druid). I would get rid of the full scaling of attack cantrips- it should always be an option, but a lesser option, to ensure that casters would have to make meaningful choices in terms of combat (and choosing combat spells with their slots). Maybe one of the casters, like the Warlock or Sorcerer, would keep a meaningful attack cantrip, but if so, they would have to be nerfed in other ways ... and would be the "Fighter/Champion" of casters.

Paladins and Rangers would become martials. Instead of spells, they would get ... wait for it ... abilities. Each of them could have a "third-casting" subclass (Cleric for Paladin, Druid for Ranger) akin to the Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight.

The rest of the martials would stay martials, of course. I would add additional skill (niche, expertise) protection to some martial classes, while leaving certain areas protected for the Rogue, and ensuring that the Rogue had more.

Bards would be nuked from orbit, with extreme prejudice.


The devil is in the details, of course (except for Bards), but that's a general starting point.

 

[Scott Christian]

Sure! Look, if I had my druthers, I'd make a very different, and probably far less popular game.

But if I was going for niche protection, my changes would start like this-

Casters would each get unique spell lists. There would be absolutely minimal crossover. Subclasses might get you access to a small handful of additional spells. That protects each of the casters (Cleric, Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Druid). I would get rid of the full scaling of attack cantrips- it should always be an option, but a lesser option, to ensure that casters would have to make meaningful choices in terms of combat (and choosing combat spells with their slots). Maybe one of the casters, like the Warlock or Sorcerer, would keep a meaningful attack cantrip, but if so, they would have to be nerfed in other ways ... and would be the "Fighter/Champion" of casters.

Paladins and Rangers would become martials. Instead of spells, they would get ... wait for it ... abilities. Each of them could have a "third-casting" subclass (Cleric for Paladin, Druid for Ranger) akin to the Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight.

The rest of the martials would stay martials, of course. I would add additional skill (niche, expertise) protection to some martial classes, while leaving certain areas protected for the Rogue, and ensuring that the Rogue had more.

Bards would be nuked from orbit, with extreme prejudice.


The devil is in the details, of course (except for Bards), but that's a general starting point.

I like it. Also, if your game had WoTC backing and the D&D, I doubt it would be less popular. You would still have people complaining that their fighter can't do everything though.

 

[tetrasodium]

Just brainstorming. But for those that like niche, could it be better done by decreasing spell lists, and having absolutely zero spells crossover between classes?

I don't think it needs to be zero crossover , but right now there is so much crossover that there is practically no distinction. Back in 3.5 that issue was handled nicely by combining class specific slot &caster level progression with class specific spells lists that further limited overlap by staggering what level class a & class b got a particular shared spell. 2e had more overlap but made up for it with differing experience tables differing slot progression and other class differences. As snarf noted 5e attack cantrip scaling throws a big wrench in things by needing weaken leveled spell power in a way that hurts some classes far more than others, cantrips should be massively redesigned