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

[tetrasodium]

because Barbarians, Monks, and Rangers don't get heavy armor.

"don't get" is very different from "can't use"....

Spoiler: for example

With it being class group locked it could even have exceptions baked in like "does not interfere with rage for wearers with N warrior group levels "

 

[Minigiant]

Medium armor then, whatever.

Mooks don't get medium armor.

See. That's the issue. You are dancing around with a mechanic not design to do something instead of designing a mechanic to do it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Mooks don't get medium armor.

See. That's the issue. You are dancing around with a mechanic not design to do something instead of designing a mechanic to do it.

Why would monks have access to orichalcom armor anyway? Not really an armor-wearing bunch. My focus is on the setting here. The rules should serve the fiction IMO.

 

[cbwjm]

And then once they do that the first time or two they no longer are new players and they become experienced players... at which point you could hand them 12 classes for them to choose from and it wouldn't be a problem.

But what's better? A book that includes 12 classes that a DM who knows they are teaching the game to new players can choose to hand out a series of pre-gens that only cover 4 of them for the new players to learn... and then they can move on to the other 8 once they have the game under their belt...

Or a book that only includes 4 classes total... which is great for new players to learn from, but then they have nowhere else to go once they've learned the game?

I agree with you that it is easier for a new player to learn from a smaller set of choices. But that's why a specific DM can make those choices for the new players themselves, rather than ask the book designers to do it but thus removing options for the other 99.99% of the playerbase.

I've found that new players don't really have trouble with 12 classes so I don't really see the need to reduce this down to 4. I could see sticking to the PHB in the 3e days with all of the books adding in 2-3 new classes, but for 5e I don't think 12 classes is that big a deal for new players.

 

[Minigiant]

Why would monks have access to orichalcom armor anyway? Not really an armor-wearing bunch. My focus is on the setting here. The rules should serve the fiction IMO.

My version of Orichalcum armor gives you a swim speed, AC bonus, and lets you attack underwater as if you were not.

It would be warrior restricted as to allow warriors to fight underwater but force casters to lean on magic.

 

[nevin]

or monks could have access to ki or magical powers that give them stoneskin, ironskin etc as they level. But it needs to be something like rage powers that can be used a lot not just a few times a day like spells.

 

[tetrasodium]

Why would monks have access to orichalcom armor anyway? Not really an armor-wearing bunch. My focus is on the setting here. The rules should serve the fiction IMO.

Sure they are

Spoiler

 

[Retros_x]

WoTC writing adventures with DMs as primary target group. Will never happen because it would hurt their module sales if adventures would be not very exciting to read but fun to run.

 

[Lanefan]

This depends entirely on the size of the party and playstyle. In some games with small parties diversity is extremely beneficial, far more beneficial than being an optimized max expert at one thing.

Flip side: in a large party with lots of characters, having one or two of them be jack-of-all-trades types can come in very useful as backup options when for whatever reason the experts can't get it done.

 

[ECMO3]

That's what I disagree with.

You need a good roll in your prime score to meet basic competency and need to continually boost your primary scores to maintain it.

No you don't, at least not if the DM follows the guidelines for difficulty.

5E is extremely forgiving and because of that a comparitavely low roll character is mathematically still competent.

In 2014, they leaned too hard on simplicity of mechanic on many classes. This put too much pressure on primary score, feats, and fighting styles to maintain basic competency at anything but a defender.

Not true and I routinely play martials at high level that never get beyond a 16 in their attack stat, including several 20th level games. As a matter of fact I personally usually do not making my attack stat higher than a 16 at all on a martial, I am usually boosting a spell casting stat first, or taking feats that give me spells.

The designers created a system where your either need good rolls or higher level dominance to fill any role other than body blocker, defender, healer.

This is completely false in 5E. It may have been true in other versions, but it is no longer the case.

Your STR14/DEX14 fighter/barb/pally doesn't have a supporting fighting style for both their attack options and if they attempt to level both STR and Dex equally, they will fall behind the curve.

"Behind the curve" is not the same as "incompetent" and if that Paladin really wants "power" she should put all her ASIs into Charisma, because spells and abilities beat weapons in 5E all day long in combat and spell casting stats beat Strength and generally beat dexterity out of combat.

There is a mathmatical standard out there about the "baseline" damage being a Warlock who starts with a 16 Charisma and Hex and takes ASIs at 4th and 8th level. That is considered the "normal" or average damage for a damage dealer. The 14 fighter you mention can easily do half of that baseline all day long and that is without even trying to optimize. If you optimize that fighter who starts with a 14 strength and dexterity will equal or beat that baseline.

And in this discussion let's remember we are talking about damage which is an easy metric to compare characters but a poor one to measure power as doing damage is generally weak in combat compared to effects or control and is useless out of combat.