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

[Lanefan]

I have a big aversion to the DM "putting his foot down" on anything. If you players want that option and it is in the rules why take it away from them? How is the game improved by telling players "you can't do that". This is especially true if it was not stated in session 0. If the DM says in session 0 - no multiclassing or even if he introduces a homebrew where you have to progress both classes, that is fine .... and most players who want to build this type character will simply find another game. But it is not right to literally change the rules on the fly because you don't like the options a player chose.

With the bolded, I fully agree: once precedent is set within a campaign, you're stuck with it for that campaign. But if precedent has not yet been set, then IMO it's fair game to be changed or ruled on.

For example, even though my current campaign's 16 years in if I see a potential issue with, say, a spell that's not yet been cast or seen in the game, I-as-DM can freely fix it without violating precedent.

That said, I see it as both the DM's right and the DM's job to tweak the rules ahead of time to suit the sort of game she wants to run; and that includes fixing potential headaches before they have a chance to manifest.

 

[overgeeked]

It should have been:

A mid- to low-crunch mix of the best parts of B/X and 5e (in particular), but refined on both counts, further emphasising backgrounds, while shedding such chaff as skills and feats altogether.

Oh, and with an open license for just about everything, a la 3e, to better allow all the creators out there to shine, and perhaps make a little money for their troubles.

And, Fighter types (along with other non-casters) would be truly just as capable and impressive and fun/interesting to play as casters.

That would be my ideal. Mix in some balance, monster & encounter design from 4E and that’s about as pitch perfect a D&D game as I could imagine.

 

[Lanefan]

It is a game. If players like it you should keep it.

The problem with following that path is that you eventually (and fairly quickly) reach a point where the game has little or almost no challenge; because players in general want to mitigate or reduce or eliminate challenges wherever they can, and so that's what they'll vote for every single time.

Why?

To keep the game challenging.

 

[overgeeked]

End result: someone seeing these characters in play would have no idea that under it all their game-mechanics are nigh-identical. And that's the point: not only are game mechanics not everything when it comes to defining a character; there comes a point where their input doesn't mean that much at all.

That’s one of the things I miss deeply when not playing old-school, OSR, or NuSR games. Roleplaying different characters differently being enough. What happens in game mattering so much more than “character build.”

 

[overgeeked]

The problem with following that path is that you eventually (and fairly quickly) reach a point where the game has little or almost no challenge; because players in general want to mitigate or reduce or eliminate challenges wherever they can, and so that's what they'll vote for every single time.

To keep the game challenging.

Exactly. If there’s no challenge, there’s almost no point playing.

 

[ezo]

I have heard a few (very few) players talk about balance and imply that they might like a more balanced game, but I have never actually seen that displayed in play.

Come by and join us sometime, then.

There are numerous posters here on EnWorld who expound the same experiences I do, so whether you've seen it or not, it's out there.

I have a big aversion to the DM "putting his foot down" on anything. If you players want that option and it is in the rules why take it away from them? How is the game improved by telling players "you can't do that". This is especially true if it was not stated in session 0. If the DM says in session 0 - no multiclassing or even if he introduces a homebrew where you have to progress both classes, that is fine .... and most players who want to build this type character will simply find another game. But it is not right to literally change the rules on the fly because you don't like the options a player chose.

The DM has all the power levers and can challenge any party with any gear or any options, so I don't see how this is something bad.

Yeah, the bolded part is very true. Establish your rules for running the game from the beginning. Multiclassing is optional, and about half the groups use it IME and from the polls, etc. I've seen online. The ones who avoid it do so because it is easily abused. Feats are much more commonly used in the game, with over 90% of groups using them, even if some nerf or restrict some feats.

But advancing in both classes is a great compromise IMO and one I encourage if players want to multiclass. You are giving up depth for breadth, giving yourself more options but not quite as much power. My preference is for no more than a 2:1 split. For example at 3rd level (becoming 2/1), and by the time you reach 6th you have to be 2nd level in the other class (4/2 or 3/3), etc. so by the end you are have at least 7 levels in your "lesser" class (13/7).

But dipping for just 1 or 2 levels and then leaving a second (or more) class behind is abusive. Those levels are feature rich, with baseline features which tend to be strong. Also, with subclasses and feats, multiclassing really doesn't need to be a thing in D&D anymore. Now, dual classing, abandoning one class and "forever" progressing in a different class? Sure, that makes sense--people change "careers" all the time after all. But this carries the same rule as multiclassing at a 2/1 or closer balance. For example, you go to 7th-level Rogue (for Evasion! ) and then decide to pick up a level of Sorcerer to augment your Arcane Trickster subclass. Well, you are going to 3rd level or higher in Sorcerer before you can advance your Rogue again.

For myself as DM or player, those are basically my rules for multiclassing.

So, yes, the DM has all the power levers--and this is one of them. Dipping does not, IME, have anything to do with character development so much as power-gaming and optimization, getting some "cool-combo" or syngery with your base class. There's nothing wrong with that, in and off itself, if that is the type of game you want to run or play in, but it isn't to my preference and I've played with, heard of or ead about way too many DMs who feel more or less the same.

Remember, the game IS about having fun, but that includes the DM as well as the players. For some reason, I feel like people keep forgetting that... Otherwise, for players who want to dip in multiclassing, they can either abide by the DMs preferences or move on if they can't accept it. It comes up often enough on the forum: why should the player have to compromise? Well, why should the DM? After all, they are playing, too.

 

[ezo]

As someone who played MtG, most players are not a good judge of what makes for a good card for the game. D&D isn't exactly the same, generally it is far less competitive between players for example, but I've seen enough homebrew to believe that it is similar in terms of RPG design.

Yeah, IME 90% of homebrew is either OP (to one degree or another)...

To keep the game challenging.

Without becoming ridiculous.

That’s one of the things I miss deeply when not playing old-school, OSR, or NuSR games. Roleplaying different characters differently being enough. What happens in game mattering so much more than “character build.”

Yep. None of my 1E fighters ever felt the "same" or generic because they each had different personalities, goals, etc. despite having the same features (which prior to Unearthed Arcana, was extremely limited---at least it added weapon specialization).

Exactly. If there’s no challenge, there’s almost no point playing.

You might as well just be telling a collaborative story at this point, and then you don't have to worry about classes or levels or anything anyway.

 

[Aldarc]

I wish that D&D 2024 would have been the opportunity when WotC delivered the modularity that was initially promised with the 2014 game.

 

[ezo]

I wish that D&D 2024 would have been the opportunity when WotC delivered the modularity that was initially promised with the 2014 game.

I was (possibly is... we'll see) the oppotunity... I just doubt they took it.

 

[CapnZapp]

What about the sort of spells that most of the time serve no purpose but in particular (if rare) circumstances could and would be the difference between life and death? Or even between being able to complete a mission or not?

Water Breathing might be one such. It'd be all red all the time in a desert-based campaign and might be red in most others; you rarely ever need it, but when you need it you really need it, and right now.

(BTW, where do these colour codes come from anyway?)

The short answer is: you don't need to worry, not about this anyway.

Guides dont make situational spells like Water Breathing red.

Red means the spell is irredeemably bad, or worse, tricks the newbie into believing it is better than it really is (given reasonable campaign assumptions).