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

[Lanefan]

No actually, it is not because of their archetype it is because of their mechanics, if the mechanics are good I can mold any class into the theme I want. I don't like Barbarians because they can't cast spells or use heavy armor while raging. I don't like Druids because I don't like wild shape (or polymorph or other spells that due similar) and can't wear decent armor at all.

Fair point about the wild shape etc., but wouldn't a typical Druid be mostly a back-liner anyway and thus not have so much need of stellar armour?

I also don't particularly like the Druid spell options (both for thematic and mechanic reasons), but if they had more spell options I would still dislike the class. Those mechanics are central parts of those two classes that can not effectively be built around and that is why I don't like those classes.

By reading this, I gather you like heavy tanks and-or full-on arcane casters. I get the appeal.

Further why would it be "perfectly ok" to like or not like a class because of its archetype but not ok to like it or dislike it because it is powerful or weak? Why should one player rule over the kind of character another player wants to play.

Choosing one's class solely based on "moar power" might be a bit of a red flag for some.

 

[CapnZapp]

What do you wish D&D 2024 would have done that evidence says it isn't?

Make all subclasses begin at the same level, and pay a thought to mixing classes and subclasses, so that a Rogue or Ranger can take the Champion subclass, for instance. (It's fine if this compatibility work only extends to Martial, Arcane and Divine classes. For instance, if it's a bit wonky if a Sorcerer or Druid takes Champion, because that's crossing the Martial/Arcane/Divine divide, that's okay.)

Okay so now all subclasses start at, say, level 3. Then make them end at mid-level (and again, all at the same level). Say level 11. This opens up an important decision upon reaching level 12 that impacts high-level play, which will put much needed emphasis on high-level play. (Your second subclass would take you from level 12 through level 20, meaning that instead of making a single decision at low level that you have to live with "forever", you get to make one decision for low to mid levels, and another for mid to high levels. Both subclasses would now also be of equal length; nine levels).

Every spell that the various guides out there rates red should be significantly improved, or redone entirely. (Yes I know there is value of having subpar spells you can give to high level caster monsters, but a spell every guide agrees is red is simply a waste of PHB space)

Every spell (including Fireball!) that's rated sky blue or gold should be nerfed slightly. WIth many more spell options roughly comparable, we will see more varied builds, approaches and strategies. This is a good thing.

I personally don't like the way Summon spells are fixed. I would have loved an approach that still lets players pick critters from the Monster Manual, with all the variety that entails. Summon spells with genericized stat blocks is a pale shadow to that.

Regarding feats I believe the official info already suggests fairly significant fixes, so nothing to say there.

Lastly, reinstate the goal of pricing magic items using a utility-based rational approach. No more picking price numbers out of thin air, or make prices relate to rarity - rarity has no connection to how useful an item is to help an adventurer survive adventures.

Edit: If you wish to discuss these specific ideas, here's a thread:

D&D 5E - Advanced D&D or "what to minimally fix in 5E?"

For a while now I've been frustrated by the lack of a product that enhancens and deepens 5E without shooting off and making a new game. There's been quite a number of supposedly saviors of 5E that upon inspection (or right away) turns out to be something else than 5E. They change up the classes...

www.enworld.org

 

[ECMO3]

Fair point about the wild shape etc., but wouldn't a typical Druid be mostly a back-liner anyway and thus not have so much need of stellar armour?

Perhaps, but suggesting I should play a typical Druid instead of the PC I want is part of the problem. It is not a problem in play, because I just choose a different class.

By reading this, I gather you like heavy tanks and-or full-on arcane casters. I get the appeal.

I like lots of characters. I play more characters in light and medium armor than I play in heavy armor. But when I play Clerics they are usually (always???) in heavy armor and when I play melee oriented Fighters, Paladins, Rangers or some Rogues, they are usually in heavy armor too.

Choosing one's class solely based on "moar power" might be a bit of a red flag for some.

Sure and those people, to include me, do not do that. But whether it is a red flag for you personally it is not uncommon and not bad overall. Respect others PC choices and expect them to respect yours.

 

[ECMO3]

it's not that I am interest in ruling over someone's character, but if the only thing you like about e.g., the Wizard is how strong the class is and pick it because of that, then to me that indicates that the Wizard is probably too strong.

Why is your position more valid than theirs? You are saying their reason for playing a character is wrong or that the mechanics that offer them the ability to make that choice are wrong.

I strongly disagree with you on this. It is none of my business why you chose to play what you decided to play.

If mechanics actually make the game unplayable, that is a legit reason to discuss them in session 0. But there are no classes that do that. There are a few spells (not many and none at low level), but that should not be a refernedum on the class.

You should pick the class because you like its archetype and / or mechanics, not because it is OP relative to the others. If strong or weak enters the picture, then from my perspective the classes are not sufficiently balanced.

You should pick a class for whatever reason you want, your reasons are your reasons, mine are mine. There is not a right and wrong reason to pick a specific class unless you are picking something that the rules do not support.

In this respect what is "wrong" is picking a fighter or monk and expecting them to be as strong in tier 2 as a Cleric or Wizard with the same stats. That is "wrong" because the rules don't support this.

 

[ECMO3]

Moment to moment balance within an individual combat or scenario or session doesn't much matter to me.

Different ability scores represent balance difference end-to-end in a campaign.

I can build 2 identical characters in terms of race, class, subclass, ASIs, spell selection etc and the one who rolled higher in session 1 will be stronger and will be stronger the entire campaign if they get equivalent loot and equipment.

But I do look at what classes and species people choose to play over the long run, and if one seems unduly popular or neglected I start asking myself why.

I have seen no evidence at all that classes or species are neglected for being weak or selected for being strong.

When it comes to class there is nothing to indicate weaker classes are neglected, but when it comes to race (species) the weak species are far more common than the strong ones.

How many people do you see playing stong racial options like Goblins or Shaddar Kai? Very few IME.

 

[mamba]

Why is your position more valid than theirs? You are saying their reason for playing a character is wrong or that the mechanics that offer them the ability to make that choice are wrong.

I am not saying my position is more valid, I am saying that when there is a clear difference in power so someone can choose to play a weak class or a strong class, then the balance is off

I want the balance to be good enough that there is no clear stronger or weaker to pick

 

[cbwjm]

I am not saying my position is more valid, I am saying that when there is a clear difference in power so someone can choose to play a weak class or a strong class, then the balance is off

I want the balance to be good enough that there is no clear stronger or weaker to pick

I do kind of feel like that's 5e now. Things are balanced enough that everyone in my groups has fun no matter what they pick and no one feels overshadowed by others. There might be occasions where one PC shines more than another but that I find tends to be balanced out in other encounters.

 

[leozg]

4E was the most successful attempt at balance, the least successful commercially, the least popular and arguably the least fun for the most people.

If balance mattered 4E would have been more popular I think

Balance does matter. 4e had some problems and balance itself was not one of them. The designers approach to balance, purely balancing numbers, boxing all powers, making everything looks the same, was the problem.

 

[ECMO3]

I am not saying my position is more valid, I am saying that when there is a clear difference in power so someone can choose to play a weak class or a strong class, then the balance is off

I want the balance to be good enough that there is no clear stronger or weaker to pick

So you want to take away their choice to play a stronger or weaker character. That is saying their reasons for choising a class should not be allowd.

 

[mamba]

So you want to take away their choice to play a stronger or weaker character. That is saying their reasons for choising a class should not be allowd.

if that is their reason, then yes, I am taking it away. To me having balanced classes is a design goal, having unbalanced classes is not. Find some other criteria to choose a class by than it being OP or its opposite