D&D General What kind of class design do you prefer?

[Lanefan]

Cannot answer the poll, as my preference is "relatively few character classes with narrow build choices".

 

[payn]

PF improved it, but it is still not as open as 5E IMO. The big problem is not the garbage feats, although those do exist, but that good feats are not available or that good feats are bad choices because the opportunity cost of not optimizing and "falling behind" is so high.

Also even in PF prestige classes have a bunch of stupid prerequisites, and while they are not "garbage feats" they are prerequisites and you are either locked out of that prestige class because you did not take the prerequisites or you are locked out of building the character you want because you have to take the prerequisites when you have feat options.

For example if I am playing a wizard and I decide at 12th level that I want to be an Arcane Archer because that is cool and we got a magic bow and I just want to do it. If I have not planned for it already, it is going to be AT LEAST 20th level Wizard before I have all the feats I need in place. To make matters worse I am a wizard and I get regular bonus feats, but for some stupid reason I can't use them to get any of the feats that are actually needed for an Arcane Archer. The vast majority of prestige classes will be similar or worse. If I want to be an assasin and I am not evil, I need to figure out how to change my freaking alignment.

Those kinds of restrictions are just stupid and it is a HUGE limitation on the actual choices you have for your character at any time after 1st level.

I can see this, but it is not a problem for me as I rarely run games above level 10-15. I like working inside the boxes to make the characters work. I do think prestige classes should have restrictions and not willy nilly join up cause I found a bow. Archetypes make that kind of thing work. YMMV

 

[Undrave]

Not really. The divine casters pray for spells and are rewarded them by their deity (DM fiat) and the arcane casters either learn their spells from books (DM fiat) or their blood is magic (DM fiat). Any spells you find during the game, and want to keep...there you go.

Then what exactly are the Spells in that situation? Are they just plot token that do a thing? Do they not have mechanic? Or do you just push whatever you want onto your players and they should be happy with whatever tablescrap you hand them? "Your god answered your prayer! You get to use Knock three times today." "But we're in a swamp, there is no doors anywhere?" "Better luck tomorrow then!" And how does that still not make casters simply BETTER at impacting the reality of the game than the mundane characters? Any "DM may I" system unjustly punishes Fighter -types, everybody knows that.

Most of them seem to. They really do expect that any random DM will let any bizarre optimized beast of a character into a game, and when the DM says no or has different character creation guidelines or options than the assumed standard...charop folks tend to get...uh, less than pleasant about it. I've had players rage quit because I wouldn't allow their copy-pasta charop beasts into my games. "How dare you make us roll stats! That'll throw off my build! I have it planned out perfectly until 20th level." Well, you should have asked me...you know, the DM of the actual game you're trying to play in what I was using for character creation first. "You're not using multiclassing! How dare you! Now I can't cheese dip warlock." Well, again, you should have asked the actual DM from the actual game you're trying to play in first. And yes. Those are near as I can remember quotes or amalgams of at least a dozen players I've had trouble with.

Seems more like a people problem than a game design problem.

Also, Rolling for stats was fine in the dark ages where you could bash together a character in 30 seconds when they got eaten by the ceiling or the floor in a single round and you would go through a conga line of disposable Bob Jr., but sticking to the same character for monthes on end? I'd rather pick what I'm playing, even with class and race restrictions. Dice already hate me enough as it is...

 

[Undrave]

Cannot answer the poll, as my preference is "relatively few character classes with narrow build choices".

So just very few archetypes? Or very strict progression within subclasses with no choices?

Hero Quest with roleplaying?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Definitely few classes with customisation. I really like 5e's class + subclass paradigm, but I feel most subclasses are weirdly narrow and there are too many actual classes. For example conceptually warlock and sorcerer don't need to be different classes. There could be fewer classes and subclasses could contain more customisation. I think totem barbarian is a great example of how I would prefer subclasses to work. You get to choose from a bunch of things each time you gain a subclass feature. Most subclasses in the game don't do this, but if they would, you would need far fewer of them and people would have more choices as they could mix and match. I also feel that narrowness of classes and subclasses often make them thematically weak, as they're just unnecessarily specific.

 

[payn]

So just very few archetypes? Or very strict progression within subclasses with no choices?

Hero Quest with roleplaying?

I see you met Lanefan.

 

[Lanefan]

So just very few archetypes? Or very strict progression within subclasses with no choices?

Maybe a dozen distinct classes total with distinct protected niches; most if not all abilities baked in; and with character differentiators being largely based around personality and characterization rather than mechanics.

Hero Quest with roleplaying?

I'm not familiar with Hero Quest, sorry.

 

[Stormonu]

So just very few archetypes? Or very strict progression within subclasses with no choices?

Hero Quest with roleplaying?

Don't you diss my HeroQuest, my copy just came in the mail.

And who doesn't roleplay when they play HeroQuest/Gloomhaven/Descent/Warhammer Quest? (though I'll forgive skipping it in Dungeon!)

 

[Maxperson]

Few classes with narrow build choices.

I counter with lots of classes with lots of choices.

 

[Maxperson]

If this is 'lots of classes' and not 'lots of build options' then chalk me up for 'lots of classes'.

I absolutely love how 3e/PF handle this, and miss it greatly with 5th edition.

Same. 3e had more classes than 5e and tons of prestige classes and tons of feats. I could build just about any concept I could imagine, which I also very much miss in 5e. 5e is a lot more balanced, but I would give up some of that balance to get the ability to make my character concepts and not be pigeon holed into 5e's much more narrow band of concepts.