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

[Horwath]

And the existing Fighter is somehow free of caster/martial disparity issues?

not really, but it is better than 3.5e

 

[Thomas Shey]

Feats are not Class Features. Class (and Subclass) Features are not Feats.

But both of them are exactly the same-- small game mechanics a PC takes to modify their character mechanically with what they can do.

So ostensibly one could say Feats and Class Features ARE the same thing, it's just how and when you get them is different.

To a point.

The question ends up being how core to the class operating procedure an ability is, and its magnitude. There are class features in most D&Doids that are too large and dramatic in their effects to be compared to feats in a useful fashion.

 

[Remathilis]

I would probably understand that comment better if I knew anything about PF 2e, or anyone who played it.

Just a reference on how everything in PF2 is a feat.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Just a reference on how everything in PF2 is a feat.

A mild overstatement (there are things that are just class features and that's that) but class feats do do more of the heavy lifting in PF2e than most D&D-adjacents.

 

[DEFCON 1]

To a point.

The question ends up being how core to the class operating procedure an ability is, and its magnitude. There are class features in most D&Doids that are too large and dramatic in their effects to be compared to feats in a useful fashion.

Very true... it all depends on how thin we slice the mechanics.

We wouldn't say 'Spellcasting' is equal to a feat of course. But a specific spell... or even one mechanic within a spell... could equal a standard feat in mechanical heft.

This is why I have no problem sometimes giving PC an extra mechanical bit or bob as a reward for "character growth". It could be a free feat, it could be a class mechanic from another class that is like a free feat, or it could be a magic item whose mechanical ability is like or duplicates a feat or class feature.

So long as the mechanical ability given out does not unbalance the PC compared to the rest of the group... I'll give out those features no questions asked.

 

[Lanefan]

No.

Seriously, this is not that hard to understand. "Class exclusive feats" are still feats.

But sure, why don't we call them, "class exclusive feats, that are gated by level and choice of a subclass and must be taken at that level," which, you know, are exactly what subclass abilities are.

In the same way that we call "class exclusive feats, that are gated by level and choice of class and must be taken at that level" ... class abilities.

So, "baked-in class abilities" rather than "chooseable feats". Makes sense to me.

My concern from a design perspective would be that if you bake in more abilities to more classes AND keep all the feats as is, how to prevent a) general power creep and b) exploits and loopholes.

 

[Yaarel]

Open up more design space for subclasses.

Generally, classes get four levels for subclass features (although some classes might get a little more (Fighter) or less (Bard)). In addition, some classes (such as Warlocks) get a more customization flavor from other customizations (Pact/Patron), while other subclasses get, arguably, less (Wizards and schools).

With all that in mind, if I had my druthers, I would open up more design space by opening up more levels for customization by subclass. Bake in only core features of the class, and have, what, between seven and ten levels of customization available for subclass differentiation.

IMO, this would result in truly differentiated subclasses, and open up a massive design space.

The subclass design space can be for various purposes: class specialization, multiclassing into an other class, picking up a specific feat for customization. A Wizard might use the subclass to pick up levels in the Fighter class, or viceversa.

A subclass is similar to a feat tree with prereqs. This means it is possible to have a prestige class, shared by several classes. It isnt necessary to take every level, and if the prestige class has too few levels for a certain class, fill in the gap with a feat of choice.

 

[Mark Craddock]

Nerf the Rogue. Its too darn good.

 

[MNblockhead]

<SNIP>

Asking them to change the core game to be more complex against the grain of their main audience is just not good business...and no smart business would ever do that. Now devising some optional "crunchy books", sure I can see that. Creating an alternate dnd setting that is more crunchy....yep could see that too. But the core flagship product....no that is both not going to happen.....and it should not happen. Angering the core audience that you have built up over the last 10 years to cater towards a more niche audience is as fantasy as the game we all love to play.

<SNIP>

Emphasis mine. When I say I want some more complexity in D&D, I'm really thinking about the bold part. They should have a streamlines core that is easy to get into for new players but complex enough to support and reward investment into playing for over long periods. When I got back into TTRPGs after not having played since 1e, I stuck to RAW and even limited some options. It was overall easy to pick up, but since I was jumping back into the game as a DM, I was still a little bit intimidated and spend quite a bit of time making sure I understood the rule, to the point of running combats with various PCs I rolled up and different monsters to get comfortable with it. I think they could make it much easier to cross reference and find rules through better organization, cross-referencing, and layout elements, though DnD Beyond makes it even easier, and the WotC VTT will further reduce the learning curve.

But after two years, I felt that I wasn't getting everything I wanted from the official books. For the long campaigns I run, I wanted options for politics, ship travel and combat, strongholds, fame and infamy, and more. Some of that had light treatment in the DMG but not enough to give the game experience I was going for. I filled in the gaps with material from EN5ider, MCDM, blogs, and my own home brew.

I would like for WotC to give some more optional rules and subsystems, because I like what they put out for the most part. I'm sure they've done their market research and determined that it just isn't profitable enough to put their efforts there. This is especially true with the DM-facing systems I'm looking for. Character options will always sell better than the rules that are mostly consumed on the DMs side of the screen. Instead they dribble out small bits of new rules in adventures, but usually with only enough depth to serve for a brief episode in an adventure here or there. Not enough to make it a significant focus of a campaign. The ship rules in Ghosts of Saltmarsh comes to mind.

It would be nice if they would let their designer release some optional subsystems that have real depth in digital only form as PDFs in DMs Guild and also make them available on D&D Beyond (yes, their is expense there, but surly less than releasing books).

 

[MNblockhead]

Sure you could, and then you would have people constantly irritated that so much design and book effort goes to aspects of the game they will never use.

And then it’s a question of balance support, how many options do you need to factor in when you consider balance? Look at a mukticlassing for example, a lot of decisions in the playtest looked to address certain multiclassing “exploits”…but multiclassing is an optional rule! Feats and magic items are the same way. How about encounter balancing, do i need multiple systems to account for players that use the simplest options versus those that use all the complex ones?

On paper, having a slew of dials and options sounds amazing. In practice, it’s a huge drain to support. It’s more efficient to pick a design model and stick with it, and then if you want a different slice…build a different game

Emphasis mine. Yeah, there's the rub. But the crunch I'm really hoping for is less on the character action and more for robust subsystems for politics, fame/infamy, organizations, strongholds, ship combat, etc. These are not things that you generally have to consider when writing an adventure except where they touched upon. And when touched upon, you can simply state "the party will have to travel through the pirate ridden archipeligo on their way to search for the fabled isle of dread. During this period [give some simple instructions for some skill challenges, random and planned encounters]. You can also use the options rules for ship travel and combat found in [supplement with more robust rules for ocean voyages and ship combat].