D&D 5E (2024) What Should D&D 2024 Have Been +

[Micah Sweet]

I hope they can stretch that a little further out

History suggests otherwise, but hope springs eternal.

 

[ECMO3]

I am not sure anyone wants to play a weak character, the choice should be more along the lines of melee, wizard, healer, what have you than ‘I want to play a doorstop’

I think you are wrong. Many, I would argue the vast majority, do not care about playing a strong character. If they did we would have lots and lots of Clerics in tier 1 and full casters in tier 2+. Those are the strong characters and every experienced 5E player knows that.

There is only one "best" character design for any given adventure or level in a campaign and it is almost never a Fighter, Monk or Barbarian (maybe never at all).

I think choice is better if I can choose Melee-Wizard or Wizard-Healer rather than being forced to pick one or the other in each of those examples.

but did you play it because you were looking for weak or because you wanted to play a martial artist, despite knowing it is weaker? I assume the latter

I did not want to play a martial artist at all. I wanted to play a specific character idea and the Monk fit that design better than any other class. After 10th level I rarely even used unarmed strikes at all, most of the time I was using a different bonus action all together. My primary attack was a Dhampir Vampiric bite (using martial arts die).

I would have had FAR less fun playing the UA ONE Monk even though it is undoubtedly more powerful.

The point is this - I played the overall weakest class in the game. I played it at every single level and loved it. I am not the only one. PCs I personally played 1st to 20th level include a Wizard, 2 Fighters, a Monk and a Paladin and I loved them all. They were weaker than other party members at some levels and stronger at other levels, but except for the Wizard none of them was overall the strongest PC in the party for most levels.

If you look at PCs played at other levels I have played well over 200 Pcs total and over 30 from low level to level 8+ The latter has included "terrible" subclasses like Undying Warlock (which I loved) and Whispers Bard (my favorite and most common Bard subclass) and Scout Rogue (probably my favorite Rogue PC I have ever played). I can there is no correlation I have found between how mechanically powerful a character is and how much I enjoyed playing her.

The only classes I can't really comment on are Druid and Barbarain as I have never personally played those.

 

[mamba]

I think you are wrong. Many, I would argue the vast majority, do not care about playing a strong character. If they did we would have lots and lots of Clerics in tier 1 and full casters in tier 2+. Those are the strong characters and every experienced 5E player knows that.

that is not my point though… my point is they want to play an archetype. that is more important than it being powerful. It also being as powerful as other archetypes would be a bonus. No one intentionally wants to be weak, that is not why they chose the archetype

I think choice is better if I can choose Melee-Wizard or Wizard-Healer rather than being forced to pick one or the other in each of those examples.

choice obviously is better, but having the choice of the archetype while being on equal footing with the others is better than having to settle for less. Having the same power as others is not decreasing your choices, if anything it is increasing them by you not having to rule out the weak ones

I did not want to play a martial artist at all. I wanted to play a specific character idea and the Monk fit that design better than any other class.

same thing, you chose the Monk because of your character idea, not because it was weaker

I would have had FAR less fun playing the UA ONE Monk even though it is undoubtedly more powerful.

why? because it is more powerful or because it is not as close to your char idea?

 

[Blue]

I'm going to answer without reading so I am not biased by other's answers, then go back and read the (currently 16 pages) of others answers.

I really enjoyed 5e, but it's age is showing. My personal biggest grievance is the poor matchup between designer number of encounters per day needed for inter-class balance, and how people (including myself) actually run. But there are others as well. None that stopped it from being loads of fun, but I'm ready for something else.

Something else can be another game - there are plenty out there. And the OGL debacle has spawned more that might catch the die-hard "heroic fantasy = D&D" fans that I play with. But having D&D turn the crank to something new would be preferred.

I'm actually pretty flexible on what that "something new" looks like. I do hope they bring back Keywords, but that's a minor thing.

A few things off the top of my head.

1. Rebalance around much fewer encounters per day.

2. Provide the DM usable mechanical knobs for common styles of play. A few might be: 1-3 PCs (less niche protection, etc.), High Magic and Low Magic (and the same just in regards to number of items), Dungeon Crawling (more encounters per day), Sandbox Exploration, etc.

3. Leverage other tools besides spells. For example, the Invocation system from Warlock could work just fine for a Ranger, especially if it has a mix of "I'm a master of this" and "Nature Magic" allowing one to build a purely mundane or a connect-to-nature-magic just by choice of invocations.

4. Double down on the genre as heroic fantasy, and re-calibrate non-magical actions in view of that. For example, if a Tier 2 fighter can fall 30 feet and keep fighting, why can't a T2 fighter jump a 30 foot chasm? Include guidance to DMs to match abilities to the tropes of the genre, not to the real world.

5. Subclasses are good to fill a needed archetype, but they should also be awesome. I have a quote from someone talking about one of the Ranger UAs, I think that turned you into a giant tree. I wish I kept who said it, but the quote was:

“...it is unbelievably flashy compared to other ranger archetypes. It might be power-balance-neutral with the rest of the archetypes (hard to judge, and I’m not getting into it here), but it’s absolutely more rockstar to play, and that gives an impression that it is better.“

Make rockstars that are exciting.

6. Keep multiclass balance vs. cherry picking, but also don't drastically change the character at 3rd level. This is especially true if subclasses are rockstars. Perhaps you start getting subclass abilities at 1st, but a character only has a single subclass no matter how many classes they have.

7. Changes to freshen up the experience after 10 years of 5e. Basically, turn that crank and give us things that are new that we will have the wonder of exploring again.

 

[Reynard]

3. Leverage other tools besides spells. For example, the Invocation system from Warlock could work just fine for a Ranger, especially if it has a mix of "I'm a master of this" and "Nature Magic" allowing one to build a purely mundane or a connect-to-nature-magic just by choice of ininvocations.

I legitimately think the Warlock mechanics are a good chassis for most of the "half casters" in 5E: the ranger, the paladin and the monk certainly could all be built on it, and probably a bard.

Hell, you could probably build a really cool heroic fighter on the chassis with maneuvers and feats in place of spells and invocations.

 

[Aurel Guthrie]

I wish we could get expanded rules on how to use artisan tools, magic item crafting, potion-making and the like. What we currently have is very bare-bones.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I wish we could get expanded rules on how to use artisan tools, magic item crafting, potion-making and the like. What we currently have is very bare-bones.

Not bare bones. DM empowering!!

 

[ECMO3]

that is not my point though… my point is they want to play an archetype. that is more important than it being powerful.

Exactly! So there is no reason they all need to have equal power, especially when it puts at risk some of the thematic elements of specific archtypes.

What matters is getting the archtype right and letting the power level fall where it may.

It also being as powerful as other archetypes would be a bonus. No one intentionally wants to be weak, that is not why they chose the archetype

Which is it? Do they want to play an archtype or do the want to play a character equal to all other characters (if such a thing is even possible).

Those few people who care about having strong characters have many strong options to choose from AND those people generally WANT to be stronger than others at the table. If you balance classes they can't be.

choice obviously is better, but having the choice of the archetype while being on equal footing with the others is better than having to settle for less.

It is not settling for less and being on equal footing takes choice away. You lose the choice to play a weaker or stronger class.

"God Wizard" is an archtype and if you make every other class equal to it, then it is not an archtype players can play. They lose that choice.

Having the same power as others is not decreasing your choices, if anything it is increasing them by you not having to rule out the weak ones

In RAW 5E every single class and every single subclass are viable, so there will be no increase in viable choices by leveling the power.

If there was a problem where a class or subclass was so underpowered it could not be played effectively it would be a different story. As it is now the difference in balance between the classes has very little effect in game when compared to other things, including dice, experience and understanding of the rules. These three things, which are in every game, cause imbalance far more than one PC playing a God Wizard and the other a Battlerager Barbarian.

same thing, you chose the Monk because of your character idea, not because it was weaker

Sure and if it was more powerful (like the UA version) it would not have been as fun. 100% undeniable. I would have lost the "choice" to play that character like I did.

why? because it is more powerful or because it is not as close to your char idea?

Because it would not represent my character idea. The changes they made to the Monk in UA make it much less desireable as a thematic platform for what I wanted to do.

As Vallingrade suggested if we really are so insistent on balance then let's just go with Wizards and no other class.

 

[mamba]

Exactly! So there is no reason they all need to have equal power, especially when it puts at risk some of the thematic elements of specific archtypes.

what archetype has as one of its themes to be particularly overpowered or underpowered?

What matters is getting the archtype right and letting the power level fall where it may.

I’d say get it right and make sure it is balanced with the others

Which is it? Do they want to play an archtype or do the want to play a character equal to all other characters (if such a thing is even possible).

why is this an either or? They want both (as much as possible), play the archetype and be of close to the same power level as everyone else

You lose the choice to play a weaker or stronger class.

you can still gimp your build if that is what you want. Haven’t really seen anyone actually seeking that out, it’s more a putting up with it because of the archetype…

And if you are only happy if you are stronger than the rest, so they all have to pick weaker ones, well, then screw you…

Sure and if it was more powerful (like the UA version) it would not have been as fun. 100% undeniable. I would have lost the "choice" to play that character like I did.


Because it would not represent my character idea. The changes they made to the Monk in UA make it much less desireable as a thematic platform for what I wanted to do.

so archetype or power level? You kinda said both

As Vallingrade suggested if we really are so insistent on balance then let's just go with Wizards and no other class.

sounds like him… I cannot see what he suggests

 

[Vaalingrade]

As Vallingrade suggested if we really are so insistent on balance then let's just go with Wizards and no other class.

Or, the far more superior: delete the wizard.

An embargo on the wizard or wizard-like classes until 7e.

And it has to be officially 7th Edition, meaning it has to be after such time as the ad men at WotC get over their terror of the 'E' word. Give the designers a nice, long time to detox from Wizardry so they can treat it like any other class instead of the Kirito of D&D.