D&D (2024) Would you be fine with classes that you can't always play but are better than base classes?

[DEFCON 1]

I don't see the need to have more powerful classes that don't get played as often. Not sure what that's meant to accomplish.

 

[CleverNickName]

This thread is making me miss Name-Level classes (or later, Prestige Classes).

If you want them, you can build toward them. Otherwise, just keep doing what you're doing.

 

[tetrasodium]

I seem to recall a lot of people 'rolling at home' and getting the 17 CHA needed to be a paladin. Not that they did not roll 500 times before they get what they wanted or just created what they wanted to play, but it happened. I tend to think that the same would happen if some classes were cooler, but needed something like that.

I also think that the classes need to be at least sorta balanced to play together. We could introduce feat trees to spread power across levels again, or different XP charts for the class so the wizard gets to be 5th level when the thief is about 9th level. But, I tend to find that people in a group want to be about the same as the others in order to play nicely with each other.

I feel like a good number of folks talking about this don't have experience with the old editions or don't rememember it. Not singling you out either way, just good post for a bit of infodump

It wasn't just 17 charisma that paladin required. It took cha 17 str con 9 wis 13 lawful good & human specifically. Also attributes back then were nowhere near as impactful as they have been since 3.0. It's kinda complicated since each attribute had its own unique table, but the time +1 was generally obtained at 15 with -1 at like six.

Looking at the ad&d 2e PHB40 paladin had the following additional complications in play

• A paladin may not possess more than 10 magicalitems. Furthermore, these may not exceed one suit of armor, one shield, four weapons (arrows and bolts are not counted),and four other magical items.
  • 5e nullifies what was a significant check on power by designing for zero magic items with FR baselines rather than darksun stone & bone gear
• A paladin never retains wealth. He may keep only enough treasure to support himself in a modest manner, pay his henchmen, men-at-arms, and servitors a reasonable rate, and to construct or maintain a small castle or keep (funds can be set aside for this purpose). All excess must be donated to the church or another worthy cause. This money can never be given to another player character or NPC controlled by a player.
  • Again 5e nullifies this right out of the gate because by not needing to ever spend money on anything & being able to rest to full recovery by sleeping in the gutters while it's sleeting out there is nothing lost
• A paladin does not attract a body of followers upon reaching 9th level or building a castle. However, he can still hire soldiers and specialists, although these men must be lawful good in comportment.
  • Paladin was a warrior group thing (think fighter subclsass). This was a significant loss fir anyone playing a warrior group PC... Of course 5e preemptively nullifies this loss by designing for an assumed starting gear as the only gear ever obtained levels 1-20.
    
• A paladin may employ only lawful good henchmen (or those who act in such a manner when alignment is unknown). A paladin will cooperate with characters of other alignments only as long as they behave themselves. He will try to show them the proper way to live through both word and deed. The paladin realizes that most people simply cannot maintain his high standards. Even thieves can be tolerated, provided they are not evil and are sincerely trying to reform. He will not abide the company of those who commit evil or unrighteous acts. Stealth in the cause of good is acceptable, though only as a last resort.
  • This meant a lot of things, but pretty much the paladin couldn't even hire help like everyone else a lot of the time unless the GM blessed it.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Played 2ed Paladin. And it wasn't all that great. Although it was more powerful, it came with heavy role play restrictions. Those were there for balancing purposes. Only Human, only lawful good, can associate only with good creatures, cant lie or cheat, use suprise and some other things i don't remember. You got fair bit of restrictions to player agency and ways you could play your paladin that it killed lot of fun. Not to mention tiny bit that you can fall from grace, lose your powers and you are just fighter with high charisma.

I like classes to be balanced mechanically, not with role play restrictions to balance them out.

2E was real bad about this once it got to the Kits.

"You get plus 2 to damage but you won't wear red." Yeah that seems fair.

 

[Staffan]

It depends on the game. In something like Warhammer, it's kinda fun to make it as a ratcatcher when some other player was lucky enough to roll a pit fighter – that's part of the game's charm. But in a more balance-focused game like D&D, I would not like that.

What would be OK though would be to have increased abilities earned through play, though it's hard to get that right – particularly in 5e, where most classes are kind of on rails mechanics-wise once they've chosen their subclass at 3rd level or earlier. It can work in something like Pathfinder 2 though, where access to a cool archetype* whose feats might be a little above the baseline for your class and/or other archetypes can be a reward earned through adventuring.

* In PF2, you get most of your core stats from just advancing in your class, and in addition you get to choose a class feat every other level that gives you some nice ability, or improves your action economy in some way, without boosting your core numbers. You can also get access to Archetypes that let you spend class feats for things outside your class, representing specialized training.

 

[Clint_L]

Balance will never be perfect but it should definitely be an aspiration in a game like D&D that is built around cooperative gameplay, so that every player has a chance to feel like a star, and not just a flunky for the paladin. I played 1e and what happened was basically a lot of cheating (to which everyone turned a blind eye) so that every player could create the character they wanted. 5e has done a remarkably good job with balance; even the consensus worst class, the monk, is by no means unplayable or unable to have its moments.

 

[CreamCloud0]

yeah no, DnD has long passed the point where it needs intentionally overpowered classes standing head and shoulders above it's counterparts in power or usefullness, now if only we could get them to do something about the wizard...

 

[payn]

It depends on the game. In something like Warhammer, it's kinda fun to make it as a ratcatcher when some other player was lucky enough to roll a pit fighter – that's part of the game's charm. But in a more balance-focused game like D&D, I would not like that.

What would be OK though would be to have increased abilities earned through play, though it's hard to get that right – particularly in 5e, where most classes are kind of on rails mechanics-wise once they've chosen their subclass at 3rd level or earlier. It can work in something like Pathfinder 2 though, where access to a cool archetype* whose feats might be a little above the baseline for your class and/or other archetypes can be a reward earned through adventuring.

* In PF2, you get most of your core stats from just advancing in your class, and in addition you get to choose a class feat every other level that gives you some nice ability, or improves your action economy in some way, without boosting your core numbers. You can also get access to Archetypes that let you spend class feats for things outside your class, representing specialized training.

Man, I hate that multiclassing and archetypes fight for the same resource in PF2 though. Free archetype variant lessens the sting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think the talk of balance kind of misses the entire point on why this is a bad idea.

Let us say you implement the second idea from the OP, at character creation roll a d6, and if you roll a 6, you get a more powerful class. What is going to happen? Well, a ton of people who want to play the more powerful class... are just going to do it. After all, it is perfectly allowed by the game, and being allowed or not allowed to play your concept based on a random die roll is a pretty arbitrary measure. There is literally no reason to respect that sort of limit.

Okay, let us say you take the class and you give it some restrictions, like the Paladin of old. What is going to happen?

Well, the Bladesinger was original Elf or Half-Elf, and people played them with goliaths, humans, and whatever else they felt with pretty immediately. Let's say you get a powerful class, but all gold burns you for 1 pt of damage a round if you touch it in exchange for your powers? Well, the people who don't ignore that will find trivial work arounds. What if it is an RP restriction? People will ignore them if they don't want to do them, or offer alternatives.

Unless these are specific, mechanical restrictions like "you cannot get feats" or "you cannot wield ranged weapons" they will be ignored or bypassed, because they are just arbitrary and meaningless restrictions. "You cannot knowingly adventure with an evil character." "Um, but the Cleric of Shar in the party?" "Well... I guess it is fine as long as you don't like adventuring with her?" After all, not fair to have your character concept ruined by another player playing their concept.

So, end of the day, what will this amount to? More Powerful classes for the sake of more powerful classes. Which, hey, not complaining. But if the goal is to create these classes with non-mechanical limits or limits based on random chance... it just isn't going to happen.

 

[Corinnguard]

Man, I hate that multiclassing and archetypes fight for the same resource in PF2 though. Free archetype variant lessens the sting.

One of the reasons why I preferred PF1 over PF2. You don't have to give up a feat in order to play a particular archetype or to multiclass in another class.