D&D 5E The Quest to Reduce "Sameyness" (+)

[DND_Reborn]

I guess the first question I would have is what qualifies sameness? Is it a diversity of mechanics, a sort of identity tied to each class or a distinctive feel in play for each class? Or is a combination of these things, or, perhaps, something I am completely off the mark of?

For me sameyness if having too many PCs being able to do the same thing or have the same feature options. I understand of course some degree of overlap is needed, but too much overlap is when the problems appear IMO. Also, as I stated in the OP, this is primarily about the sameyness between classes, not within a class (where I would expect it).

An example of acceptable sameyness is Fighting Styles. Fighters get them all. Paladins and Rangers have a reduced subset. Barbarians, Monks, and Rogues have none. This means if a PC has a fighting style, it might be a Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger, but I know it won't be a Barbarian, Monk, or Rogue.*

Extra Attack, however, went a bit too far IMO by allowing Monks to have it, so 5 out of 6 martial classes get it! Monks already have Flurry of Blows for when they need the extra strikes, but it shouldn't be a default feature for them. And of course, your gish-style casters (e.g. College of Swords, Bladesinger) get Extra Attack as well, even if a level later, further increasing the sameyness of the feature. Those subclasses could have been given more distinctive features allowing for increased damage output without resorting to Extra Attack.

As I said in other posts, spells are a huge offender IMO and so I reworked the spell lists to create more unique spells.

Saving throws were just a side note in the process of reworking our 5E Mod. When I saw Clerics, Paladins, and Warlock all had the same saves, I thought "This is crazy? If they are so similar, why bother making them distinct classes?" Frankly, you could combine them all into a core class, Devotee or something, and make each distinct subclasses. But, in an effort to keep them distinct, I reassigned them new saves to decrease the areas they overlapped a bit more.

I wouldn't mind seeing different mechanics for casters instead of identical spell slot progress for Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards. Like Extra Attack for martials, 5 out of 6 casting classes progress nearly identically. Only Warlocks are currently a stand out, which I believe is one reason why so many find the class appealing.

Within a class is where flavor, fluff, feel for a character is largely about your concept IMO, not the mechanics behind it. That might mean the mark was missed on the design for core classes a bit, with gaps that players are finding, but making more of everything the same for everyone only aggravates the problem and at that point, just get rid of classes because they no longer serve a purpose of defining what is unique about your PC compared to other classes.

*Tasha, of course, ruined this by allowing a Fighting Style as a feat. BOO! Bad form!

 

[Shadowedeyes]

So, mechanics then. I suspected so, based on the initial post, but figured I would try to clarify for my own sake.

The idea of changing saving throws doesn't really do anything for me personally in sameyness, but as you said, it's a side note. It doesn't really change much anyway, besides fighters maybe losing out slightly in the change.

The spell list changes are a far more interesting change, and one that I actually agree with in theory. in practice, deciding who gets what seems like a nightmare. There are certainly choices you made that I don't agree with. I suspect that would be a hard selling point between a lot people.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The spell list changes are a far more interesting change, and one that I actually agree with in theory. in practice, deciding who gets what seems like a nightmare. There are certainly choices you made that I don't agree with. I suspect that would be a hard selling point between a lot people.

LOL it was, and some VERY hard choices had to be made, particularly with Wizards losing half their spells.

In our mod, other compensations have been made, though, and thus far even with our initial list months ago, no one has screamed yet LOL!

Granted, it is a hard sell, but one worth pitching IMO if you want magic to feel more magical and less common.

 

[Lanefan]

I believe that when people talk about DMPCs in the negative, they're usually referring to either the stage hog or plot helmsman varieties where the DM ends up taking up the spotlight (because the NPC is so awesome) or essentially makes plot decisions on the players' behalf, leaving the PCs as just passengers along for the ride.

Yeah, I agree those aren't good. The problem arises when people automatically assume that any adventuring NPC in the party will by default be one of those, because this doesnt have to be the case.

It probably isn't as big a problem in old school dungeon or hex crawls.

It still can be; it all depends on how the DM manages her in-party NPCs.

As both DM and player, given the choice I'd rather the players run extra PCs than have me run NPCs, but I'm fine with either.

 

[Irlo]

First, I want to say that I love the idea of the focused and exclusive spell lists.

Here are a few half-baked ideas to decrease the sameness among the classes:

• Curate available backgrounds by class so that PCs are effectively limited to skills and tools from their class list. That avoids stealthy Clerics and lock-picking Barbarians.
• Remove subclasses that allow classes to encroach on others’ territories. You might end up with a very short list!
• Further restrict fighting styles (removing Archery from the Fighter options, for example —leaving that for Rangers only).
• Limit classes that can take advantage of Finesse weapons to Rogue and maybe Ranger (and maybe open to Elves of any class).
• If you use Feats, assign class prerequisites to them.

 

[DND_Reborn]

First, I want to say that I love the idea of the focused and exclusive spell lists.

Thanks! I am glad to hear it. We've been using them (in one form or another) for a while now. After some use/ play-testing, the ones I posted above are the (hopefully) final iteration.

Here are a few half-baked ideas to decrease the sameness among the classes:

• Curate available backgrounds by class so that PCs are effectively limited to skills and tools from their class list. That avoids stealthy Clerics and lock-picking Barbarians.
• Remove subclasses that allow classes to encroach on others’ territories. You might end up with a very short list!
• Further restrict fighting styles (removing Archery from the Fighter options, for example —leaving that for Rangers only).
• Limit classes that can take advantage of Finesse weapons to Rogue and maybe Ranger (and maybe open to Elves of any class).
• If you use Feats, assign class prerequisites to them.

I like most of these, so I'll give it some thought and discuss the ideas with my players to get their feedback. Thanks again!

 

[Lanefan]

The one follows from the other though. If there is lots of variation within classes, it doesn't matter if there are similarities between classes, since its easy enough to build a wide range of characters.

Except if it's to be a class-based game isn't it logical to expect that variation to largely be rooted in the classes themselves, with only sub-variations within each class?

How that variety is achieved mechanically doesn't matter, so long as it exists. For example, if if I can build a ranger as a spellcaster with a pet, they aren't samey to a fighter. If I can build a ranger as an ace swordsman they aint samey to a druid.

And one could argue neither is a Ranger any more. A spellcaster with a pet is a Wizard with a familiar. An ace swordsman is a Fighter.

My point is that to preserve and enhance difference between classes (as opposed to within them) your initial concept e.g. spellcaster-with-a-pet should point you directly to the class that does spellcasting* first; and that being able to also sneak Ranger abilities into this otherwise-already-strong-enough character without having to multiclass is a loophole in the design. It comes back to my point about having and eating cake at the same time: if you want to play a Ranger and a caster in the same character then you should have to multiclass, and accept the various drawbacks that multiclassing presents.

* - I should note here that I see Rangers as 1/4 casters at best; they might work better as non-casters but the 5e version would - as usual - need some help.

 

[Lanefan]

And not samey to a fighter who is an ace archer.

Truth be told, there's been design space since the dawn of time for some sort of Archer class or sub-class. The hard part would be making it work well in an otherwise melee-centric system.

 

[Lanefan]

First, I want to say that I love the idea of the focused and exclusive spell lists.

Here are a few half-baked ideas to decrease the sameness among the classes:

• Curate available backgrounds by class so that PCs are effectively limited to skills and tools from their class list. That avoids stealthy Clerics and lock-picking Barbarians.
• Remove subclasses that allow classes to encroach on others’ territories. You might end up with a very short list!
• Further restrict fighting styles (removing Archery from the Fighter options, for example —leaving that for Rangers only).
• Limit classes that can take advantage of Finesse weapons to Rogue and maybe Ranger (and maybe open to Elves of any class).
• If you use Feats, assign class prerequisites to them.

The only one of these I'd personally not want to see is leaving archery as a Ranger thing, as that plays even further into the idea of a light-armoured high-Dex Ranger where my preference is and always has been the 1e-style tough quasi-tank Ranger who had four mid-high stat requirements of which Dex was not one.

As I noted just above I think there's room for Archer as, if not a full class in its own right, a clearly-distinct sub-class of Fighter.

 

[ECMO3]

plot helmsman varieties where the DM ends up taking up the spotlight (because the NPC is so awesome) or essentially makes plot decisions on the players' behalf, leaving the PCs as just passengers along for the ride.

It has been a consistent problems in games I play and this is the reason why. If you have a DMPC and that character is a core part of the party for balance/mechanics reasons there are really only 2 ways to play it.

1. One is the DMPC makes no decisions at all. In this case it is not really a character, it is just a set of skills the party uses to cover gaps. It rubber stamps whatever the characters do and the characters can use it however they want more or less. The party decides what magic items he gets, the party decides where they go, what they do. The character is essentially a party familiar or a meat shield.

2. The other type is the DMPC that makes core decisions and they can't really be vetoed because they need the DMPC to play the game. This is what you are talking about in the quote above. A realistic, fleshed out character is going to have opinions and there is going to be friction between that character and other characters, just like there is between PCs. As a DM though if you are playing this out there is a huge power imbalance.

An NPC that is part of the story is different. They are not there to round out the party, they are there for story purposes.