D&D (2024) My wishes for 6e: less dark vision and spellcasting classes

[Micah Sweet]

It took until Tasha's to get new maneuvers while Wizards got spells at every opportunities, usually far more than any other spell casting classes too.

Spells have always been treated as a player bone to throw in virtually any product, so people who otherwise don't care about the book have a reason to buy it anyway. Subclasses and races are the same. If feats weren't "optional" in 5e they would have been the same way. But, maneuvers are considered a new mechanic, designed for a single subclass, so they got short shrift. I would have liked to have seen more earlier too.

 

[Minigiant]

The big problem was that when they created the Wizard they didn't really know what a Controller was. What they created was more like a combo of Striker and Leader than what the Controller eventually became. And by the time they fixed it most of the folks who really liked Wizards had already moved on.

It took too long for them to figure out what controller was. And bythetime they did, managing the rider effects was a hassle.


They didn't get Striker right either. Well they did. They just didn't stress that Strikers deal damage AND avoided retaliation via naturally described aggro dump (I shift/moonwalk a billion squares/feet away).

 

[Minigiant]

Can I make another post bout the hope for a Man of Fantasy Science owning dragons with Da Vinci gadgets, alchemist fire, distilled poisons, gunpowder, anatomy charts, and historic battle maps?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Totally agree on less spells and bringing back the interesting 4e Monster designs!

Sadly, the reversion on gnolls (for example) does not bode well for such changes.

If we can't have a separated Warlord class, then I just want the Warlord to skin the Fighter and wear his name. The 'basic Fighter' should just be a single build, and the Fighter should go back to its roots as the mundane leader of men like back when it became the lord of a castle.

This would be good, but the major problem is the underlying design of the Fighter class fights this. While it isn't powerful compared to what magic can do, as far as basal class features go, FIghters have some of the beefiest basic features (particularly Action Surge), so it's very hard for subclass to make a dramatic effect on them (as opposed to, say, Ranger, Monk, or Druid, which are almost defined more by subclass than base class).

How about, instead of 'spend Spell Slots to Smite' they went the other way around? Spend Smite charges to cast from a subclass specific set of spells? Then, if you want a more spell caster Paladin, you can give them a subclass with actual spell slots to use on a curated list of utility spells? While the more warrior-like subclasses just get more bashing-heads-in stuff.

See, I'd be super on board for that. You have (say) Proficiency * Charisma smites per day. You can expend them to perform Litanies, some of which are spells, some of which are unique effects. At high levels, you can expend multiple smites to perform Grand Litanies, which are significantly more powerful but costly to use.

Keeps the Smite power front-and-center, and ditches the spellcasting without overly sacrificing flexibility. Oaths can thus offer unique Litany options tailored to the feel and tone of that specific oath, too.

elemanthal

That's a queso-elemental plane.

It's like, can't you see the problem of a game that has "Badass Normal Fighters" and "Godlike Magical Wizards" on the same team?

For a significant portion of people--no, they can't. Sometimes it's because they see "the DM can play favorites and give the Fighter special treatment to fix it" as a valid fix, rather than the incredibly awful non-fix that it actually is. Sometimes it's because they legitimately believe Wizards simply should be better than Fighters. (Yes, I have had someone tell me that to my digital face, live on stream.) Sometimes it's because they don't necessarily want Wizards to be more powerful, but their expectations force Fighters into a mechanical dead end while continually giving powerful and flexible options to the Wizard, so they think there are at worst minor wrinkles that can be easily smoothed over.

Hey, if WotC really wanted to nerf wizards, they would do it. More people like crazy magic powers than not.

There is a difference between "crazy magic powers" and "better than everyone else magic powers." That difference is one WotC doesn't seem to grasp very well--and which they have continuously, and seemingly not-fully-intentionally, leaned into across multiple editions now. It happened in 3e, it would have happened in 4e without Heinsoo actively fighting it, and it happened again in 5e even with an overall tweaking downward of the power of magic compared to 3e.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't know, I played a Ranger in 4e. I could strike and control from range if need be, and I was basically the team all-star in a lot of fights. The problem with Strikers was that most DM's I played with didn't understand the role. I heard complaints all the time that Strikers did "too much damage". "Uh, yeah, that's kind of the point, but also, most of the Strikers you see in play aren't that good!"

This went on for awhile until we got to the Next Playtest, and I helped another player put together the UBER RANGER, completely maximized for damage. Our first big fight, the Ranger won initiative, and the monster was dead before he was even finished with his turn!

But many Strikers were kind of bad at their jobs, I'll grant. The Rogue was ok, but you needed Combat Advantage, and with no "always available" way to get it (outside of flanking, which required the other players to remember you were a Rogue), many players overloaded on Utility Powers that granted it. The Sorcerer was a mess. The Assassin was a mess. The Monk was a mess (though fun to play, if you understood it's mechanics). But Barbarians and Rangers were always top shelf in my experience.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know, I played a Ranger in 4e. I could strike and control from range if need be, and I was basically the team all-star in a lot of fights. The problem with Strikers was that most DM's I played with didn't understand the role. I heard complaints all the time that Strikers did "too much damage". "Uh, yeah, that's kind of the point, but also, most of the Strikers you see in play aren't that good!"

This went on for awhile until we got to the Next Playtest, and I helped another player put together the UBER RANGER, completely maximized for damage. Our first big fight, the Ranger won initiative, and the monster was dead before he was even finished with his turn!

But many Strikers were kind of bad at their jobs, I'll grant. The Rogue was ok, but you needed Combat Advantage, and with no "always available" way to get it (outside of flanking, which required the other players to remember you were a Rogue), many players overloaded on Utility Powers that granted it. The Sorcerer was a mess. The Assassin was a mess. The Monk was a mess (though fun to play, if you understood it's mechanics). But Barbarians and Rangers were always top shelf in my experience.

Is having the monster die on turn 1 a desired outcome? I can't imagine it, as either a player or a DM.

 

[James Gasik]

Well one of the resources used was a Daily, and yes, pretty much. The Striker's role is to deal damage. The Leader's is to set him up, and the Defender's is to protect him, while the Controller limits how many enemies can threaten him. So if all moving parts are in synch, that's how one is meant to get past most encounters. Even a powerful solo monster can only do so much, unless it has minions and the like (which is usually the Controller's job).

Most fights aren't one in a single turn- I admit, that character was tuned, but it was to show the DM that he had the wrong idea. He seemed to think that Strikers should only do a little more damage than the other classes, for some reason. There of course, were trade-offs one could make, you can sacrifice a little damage for more mobility, or better defenses, and most people did, because most groups didn't work together that efficiently.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well one of the resources used was a Daily, and yes, pretty much. The Striker's role is to deal damage. The Leader's is to set him up, and the Defender's is to protect him, while the Controller limits how many enemies can threaten him. So if all moving parts are in synch, that's how one is meant to get past most encounters. Even a powerful solo monster can only do so much, unless it has minions and the like (which is usually the Controller's job).

Most fights aren't one in a single turn- I admit, that character was tuned, but it was to show the DM that he had the wrong idea. He seemed to think that Strikers should only do a little more damage than the other classes, for some reason. There of course, were trade-offs one could make, you can sacrifice a little damage for more mobility, or better defenses, and most people did, because most groups didn't work together that efficiently.

Honestly, I would hate to play in a team that gleefully trivialized what was probably a narratively important combat, and I would really hate to DM for such a team. Especially if a stated goal is to show up the DM and prove him wrong.

 

[James Gasik]

Well in the instance of SUPER RANGER, I felt a playtest session, not a real campaign in the slightest, was the best opportunity to prove my point. We were stress testing a new format for adventures, after all. It ended up with a string of easy encounters, a hard one, and a TPK (too...many...trolls...).

Now as far as narratively important combats, I'm going to state that first, I don't super optimize. My last 5e character was a multiclassed High Elf Arcane Cleric/Wizard, and I was keeping my levels even (basically, he was a rebuild of my old 3e character, who wasn't terribly optimized either). I make characters, not robots (unless they ARE robots, of course). I try to match the level of competency of the other players as best I can, but I'm not looking to outshine people with greater mechanical knowledge. As a DM myself, nothing wrecks a game faster than an unbalanced party. Except maybe a Deck of Many Things.

It's just hard to explain "this is how the game is" to someone who thinks a Hybrid Blackguard/Assassin is somehow the bleeding edge of CharOp without showing them, and I thought a game with no real stakes was the best time to do that.

Now, moving on, no plan goes according to plan. Enemies can sometimes be taken out with luck, or players for that matter. I don't see everyone playing on the same level, working to support each other, to achieve greater success through synergy as a problem. Too many tables are just "four or five random guys on an adventure".

If everyone is playing the best they can, how can that be wrong? So the monster the DM thought was a super epic enemy died? It's not like he doesn't have more chances to challenge the party. It's not like there can't be narrative consequences as well- maybe other villains will realize what a threat the party is and move to react?

I don't see how the heroes being good at what they do coming at the expense of the story. It just means the story changes. Which is the expected result for player actions, isn't it?

 

[Undrave]

This would be good, but the major problem is the underlying design of the Fighter class fights this. While it isn't powerful compared to what magic can do, as far as basal class features go, FIghters have some of the beefiest basic features (particularly Action Surge), so it's very hard for subclass to make a dramatic effect on them (as opposed to, say, Ranger, Monk, or Druid, which are almost defined more by subclass than base class).

I would want that for a 6e, not a 5.5e, mind you. I know the CURRENT Fighter can't handle that, but I think a future iteration of the Fighter totally could if built like that from the start.

See, I'd be super on board for that. You have (say) Proficiency * Charisma smites per day. You can expend them to perform Litanies, some of which are spells, some of which are unique effects. At high levels, you can expend multiple smites to perform Grand Litanies, which are significantly more powerful but costly to use.

Keeps the Smite power front-and-center, and ditches the spellcasting without overly sacrificing flexibility. Oaths can thus offer unique Litany options tailored to the feel and tone of that specific oath, too.

Yeah that's a really cool name! Maybe instead of Grand Litanies we could call them 'Miracles' Some could have Litany that heal or gets rid of curses, or cast Shield of Faith on allies, while other allow offensive buffs. It would cut down the base class flexibility but vastly improve the theme of the Oaths. The Oath of the Ancient would feel a lot more druidic with that system.

That's a queso-elemental plane.

Ah, of course!

But many Strikers were kind of bad at their jobs, I'll grant. The Rogue was ok, but you needed Combat Advantage, and with no "always available" way to get it (outside of flanking, which required the other players to remember you were a Rogue), many players overloaded on Utility Powers that granted it. The Sorcerer was a mess. The Assassin was a mess. The Monk was a mess (though fun to play, if you understood it's mechanics). But Barbarians and Rangers were always top shelf in my experience.

The Avenger was a lot of fun and I really chewed the scenery as a Star Pack Warlock!