D&D (2024) Things You Think Would Improve the Game That We WON'T See

[CreamCloud0]

personally the concept of baseclass+subclass mix-and-matching is something that really appeals to me, maybe with some class feature prerequisites for taking certain subclasses, but if the progression was made to match what's really stopping them from putting swashbuckler on say, monk, or circle of the land on a bard.

 

[Minigiant]

Not really, if you play at the intended level of difficulty characters can be very competent with very low stats.

Also in combat specifically, creativity, luck and tactics beat good abilities every time.

A 14 vs a 16 in a stat is only going to make a difference on 5% of d20 rolls. If it is in strength or dexterity it matters on weapon damage too, but again will not usually make a difference.

Depends on how often you roll.

5e Martials can roll 2-3 timesa turn AND their main effect is chunky and stacks. So that 5% matters the more you optimize.

 

[ECMO3]

Depends on how often you roll.

5e Martials can roll 2-3 timesa turn AND their main effect is chunky and stacks. So that 5% matters the more you optimize.

It is still a flat 5% boost to their d20 rolls, so that is 5% more hits whether they roll once or 6 times on a turn and it 5% more hits overall whether each hits for 1 damage or 100 damage. It matters for the damage too, but the relative increase in damage per hit is less if you are optimized to do high damage.

Martial optimization like this to do "chunk" damage tends to focus on a single fighting method at best (melee or ranged), not both simultaneously and at worst it favors a specific weapon type or small groups of weapons making the character far less versatile even at the pillar she is optimized for.

The reply you quoted was focused on whether characters with low abilities have "basic competency". A highly optimized martial with a max combat stat will be substantially better at her chosen type of weapon combat, but another martial who rolled poor and has a 14 is still going to be "competent" at that very same role of weapon combat. Further a character with a diverse ability distribution will be more versatile and generally more "competent" in play overall.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

personally the concept of baseclass+subclass mix-and-matching is something that really appeals to me, maybe with some class feature prerequisites for taking certain subclasses, but if the progression was made to match what's really stopping them from putting swashbuckler on say, monk, or circle of the land on a bard.

Main problem I can think of is that a lot of subclasses build directly onto the base class mechanics. With shared subclasses this isn't possible.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah I feel this about sums it up. Same with the shared subclasses concept from Strixhaven. Great idea in a vacuum. Bad idea when shoved into a game not at all set up to function that way.

Exactly.

Like one thing that could help the Ability scores is to just exclusive class group uses of them.

Like Warriors could shoot bows with STR or DEX or add DEX or INT to light and medium armor AC. Something you wouldn't want to allow for Mages and Priests.
Or you could add all kinds of interesting fighting styles with a Warrior requirement.

But you would have to design Warriors, Experts, Priests, and Mages, and their exceptions from the start.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's less that most folks don't want class groups, it's that you have to start the edition with that assumption.

Class groups would be great and loved for 6e. However you cannot retroactively put them into 5e.

Heh... I might quibble on the claim that they'd be "loved" in 6E... but I do agree that trying to shoehorn them into 5E was unnecessary.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Main problem I can think of is that a lot of subclasses build directly onto the base class mechanics. With shared subclasses this isn't possible.

i feel like this wouldn't be an issue if sub/classes were designed with the mix and match functionality in mind, you could work subclasses to also provide limited access to the baseclass mechanics they're modifying if they require that mechanic, so that you can still use the features but it's enhanced when combined with the apropriate baseclass, for example the moon druid subclass would give you some wildshape uses so you can put it on a warlock or a fighter and still turn into a bear, but putting it on the druid baseclass is going to give you more wildshape uses to play with.

 

[Shardstone]

On his Patreon, Mike Mearls talks about how the Class + Subclass is one of the simpler ways of doing 5E class. To prove his point, he's currently designig a new class, the Psyker, that has menus of features throught their levels (kind of like PF2E feats), and choices on certain menus can impact non-menu features later on in the class. It gives you a lot of choice, is still relatively simple, but doesn't work with 5E multiclassing -- something Mearls says is tech debt, but he's working on a new kind of multiclassing to address this.

These advanced classes with menus at every odd level are, IMO, something that could greatly benefit the game. You could have Sidekick Classes, Classes with Subclsses, and Classes with Menus and really just have a lot of fun creating different fantasies via new Class options. Even some 5E options, like the Warlock or Ranger, would IMO work better as Menu Classes (I'm working on a Menu Ranger right now, actually).

Ultimately, I feel like class balance is held back by Multiclassing and the huge amount of generic spells. If there were fewer spells, or if spell lsits were smaller and more diverse, there would be no problem adding more classes. I think these two changes (more diverse spell lists and three paradigms of Class design) would turn 5E into the true Ur-Fantasy game, one easy to make content for and easy to use for your exact table's whims. Likewise, with more Alternative Class Features, you could do so much, like making Alternative features for more Social or Exploration-themed campaigns.

If WotC just truly embraced the toolbox game kit idea, D&D could just be so much more for EVERYONE who plays it imo

 

[Quickleaf]

On his Patreon, Mike Mearls talks about how the Class + Subclass is one of the simpler ways of doing 5E class. To prove his point, he's currently designig a new class, the Psyker, that has menus of features throught their levels (kind of like PF2E feats), and choices on certain menus can impact non-menu features later on in the class. It gives you a lot of choice, is still relatively simple, but doesn't work with 5E multiclassing -- something Mearls says is tech debt, but he's working on a new kind of multiclassing to address this.

These advanced classes with menus at every odd level are, IMO, something that could greatly benefit the game. You could have Sidekick Classes, Classes with Subclsses, and Classes with Menus and really just have a lot of fun creating different fantasies via new Class options. Even some 5E options, like the Warlock or Ranger, would IMO work better as Menu Classes (I'm working on a Menu Ranger right now, actually).

Ultimately, I feel like class balance is held back by Multiclassing and the huge amount of generic spells. If there were fewer spells, or if spell lsits were smaller and more diverse, there would be no problem adding more classes. I think these two changes (more diverse spell lists and three paradigms of Class design) would turn 5E into the true Ur-Fantasy game, one easy to make content for and easy to use for your exact table's whims. Likewise, with more Alternative Class Features, you could do so much, like making Alternative features for more Social or Exploration-themed campaigns.

If WotC just truly embraced the toolbox game kit idea, D&D could just be so much more for EVERYONE who plays it imo

This sort of proliferation of class options has an upside and a downside. One of the trends I've seen toward an edition's lifecycle is that there's a sort of "Design Rules Funnel" where the bandwidth that the designers have within which to introduce genuinely NEW ideas/rules into classes gets narrower and narrower.

The rules framework laid out for 5e's classes is already pretty narrow in the grand scheme. You can see that in the design language for the few non-combat-focused abilities.

To use a really bad analogy (but it least it's a clear one), if we commit to a design principle of "each power is one letter of the English alphabet", eventually we run out of letters.

 

[Minigiant]

It is still a flat 5% boost to their d20 rolls, so that is 5% more hits whether they roll once or 6 times on a turn and it 5% more hits overall whether each hits for 1 damage or 100 damage. It matters for the damage too, but the relative increase in damage per hit is less if you are optimized to do high damage.

Martial optimization like this to do "chunk" damage tends to focus on a single fighting method at best (melee or ranged), not both simultaneously and at worst it favors a specific weapon type or small groups of weapons making the character far less versatile even at the pillar she is optimized for.

The reply you quoted was focused on whether characters with low abilities have "basic competency". A highly optimized martial with a max combat stat will be substantially better at her chosen type of weapon combat, but another martial who rolled poor and has a 14 is still going to be "competent" at that very same role of weapon combat. Further a character with a diverse ability distribution will be more versatile and generally more "competent" in play overall.

The 5% bonus isnt in a vacuum though.

Optimization in one direction or another grants huge bonuses. The STR feats/styles don't benefit the DEX feats/fightingstyles but each add a bunch of power.

So you get more and more by focusing on one end and adding the 5% to it instead of going even on STR/DEX and having no support for it.
Only the ranger has support for being versatile.

This is why martials should really get 2 fighting styles each.