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

[UngeheuerLich]

I think 3E's prestige class was a good idea that went wrong. In the original core, it was more presented as a world building tool for DMs. Create a prestige class to represent something special in your world, and then present it to the players at some point in the campaign as an optional path they can multiclass into. In that capacity, it was a good evolution of D&D design, IMO. Unfortunately (or fortunately for the CharOp advocates, I suppose), it didn't take long for future books to turn it into a purely player facing building block, and a source of significant power creep in the edition. And of course, as you pointed out, it also went from being an option to the option that directed players' other character building choices.

I think if I was to redesign the concept, it would be closer to 2E's kits, but more consistently designed, and something a player can take at levels other than level 1. Make it something of a rider the DM can optionally present, and the player can optionally accept. Doesn't take up space in the main progression system like prestige classes did, and doesn't lock you into anything for future progression like subclasses do.

Combine that with my other post, and increase the rate at which feats are gained (in my 10 level setup, I'd go so far as giving one per level), and you'd have a progression system where players constantly have progression choices to make, and the DM has tools to give avenues for the player to do so in a way that fits into their campaign world.

The problem with 3.0 prestige classes were, that the DM usually could not use it as a world building tool, because of feat prerequisites. Especially since many of those requisite feats were those that noone in their right mond took (3.0 toughness).

So tge right move for 3.5 had been to just remove those prerequisites and allow the DM more freedom.

But 3.5 was indeed some kind of cash crab. WotC figured out that players want to buy more options, not DMs. So they sold them that.
And for 4e they went all in and made everything player facing (including magic items).

5e went a big backwards (which is good!)

 

[Vaalingrade]

for players, anyway. For the publisher, the need for power creep can be measured by the financial quarter.

That's what power breadth is for.

 

[ECMO3]

Or.

Ooooor.

All the choices can be made equal in terms of power because there's no good justification not to and president that is can be done.

I don't like that at all. Only having one single class (Wizards), like you proposed, would be better than balancing all the classes in my opinion, even if that were possible.

I think a far better solution is to make the relative power disparity between choices more obvious, but keep it in place.

 

[mamba]

I think a far better solution is to make the relative power disparity between choices more obvious, but keep it in place.

why would you want to keep it?

 

[ECMO3]

That's what power breadth is for.

I think power creep sells better than power breadth. Do we really need more spellcasting classes or Cleric or Wizard Subclasses?

I will agree with another poster though; I did not need more power when I was playing 5E back in 2016, but I make a lot of use of the high-powered books purchased since then all of which have power creep in them.

 

[ECMO3]

why would you want to keep it?

So players can decide if they want to play a weak or strong class, choices should have ramifications. Why take that choice away by making everything equal?

For example, I played an RAW 5E Monk level 1 to level 20, knowing it would be a weak class through levels 5-10 and a powerful martial, but still weak compared to full casters, after that.

To start with, I think any attempt to balance classes is doomed to failure unless you dramatically change the game mechanics, especially when you consider a class that is powerful at one level is weak at another. There are 3 pillars in the game, which complicates this even more.

For example Tasha's Ranger is by a wide margin the most powerful "martial" if you consider all 20 levels AND all 3 pillars AND include all optional rules from the PHB and TCE. However, Paladin is substantially more powerful in the combat pillar. So depending on the game a Ranger might be way more powerful or way less powerful than the Paladin in play. So if we want to balance these two classes what do we do? Make the Paladin into a skill guy or give him spells to accomplish skills? How do we beef up the combat potential of the Ranger, give him divine Smite? Now consider this 3-pillar problem if we throw Barbarian, Rogue and Fighter into this discussion and we haven't even covered all the martials yet.

Another example, Monks are widely regarded as the weakest class, however they are one of the strongest classes at 1st and 2nd level and they are again the strongest non-caster by quite a wide margin at level 14+. It is really levels 5-10 where they are weak (or 5-8 in games with a lot of Short rests).

So to balance the Monk with the other non-casters, we need to make it weaker at 1st at 2nd level, stronger at 5th-10th, then weaker again at 15+. We have to do this in a way that doesn't clash with previous adjustments on the class tree and in a fashion that stays balanced even when we look at complimentary racial options, complimentary feats or complimentary multiclass options. Far better than to just spell out where it is weak and where it is stong.

Another example - Full casters of some type hold the high rung as the most powerful class at almost every level, but it is not the same class at every level. For example Wizards and Sorcs (arguably the two strongest classes overall) are not very strong at level 1-4, being behind even Barbarians and Monks at some of these levels. Clerics and Druids are tops for levels 1-4 and Clerics at those levels are even better than Fighters or Paladins at playing a tank role. As far as casters go Druids are pretty weak from around levels 7 until Shapechange comes online at level 17, and then they vault back to near the top.

 

[mamba]

So players can decide if they want to play a weak or strong class, choices should have ramifications. Why take that choice away by making everything equal?

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’

example, I played an RAW 5E Monk level 1 to level 20, knowing it would be a weak class through levels 5-10 and a powerful martial, but still weak compared to full casters, after that.

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

 

[Zardnaar]

So players can decide if they want to play a weak or strong class, choices should have ramifications. Why take that choice away by making everything equal?

For example, I played an RAW 5E Monk level 1 to level 20, knowing it would be a weak class through levels 5-10 and a powerful martial, but still weak compared to full casters, after that.

To start with, I think any attempt to balance classes is doomed to failure unless you dramatically change the game mechanics, especially when you consider a class that is powerful at one level is weak at another.

For example, Monks are widely regarded as the weakest class, however they are one of the strongest classes at 1st and 2nd level and they are again the strongest non-caster by quite a wide margin at level 14+. It is really levels 5-10 where they are weak (or 5-8 in games with a lot of Short rests).

So to balance the Monk with the other non-casters, we need to make it weaker at 1st at 2nd level, stronger at 5th-10th, then weaker again at 15+. We have to do this in a way that doesn't clash with previous adjustments on the class tree and in a fashion that stays balanced even when we look at complimentary racial options, complimentary feats or complimentary multiclass options. Far better than to just spell out where it is weak and where it is stong.

Another example - Full casters of some type hold the high rung as the most powerful class at almost every level, but it is not the same class at every level. For example Wizards and Sorcs (arguably the two strongest classes overall) are not very strong at level 1-4, being behind even Barbarians and Monks at some of these levels. Clerics and Druids are tops for levels 1-4 and Clerics at those levels are even better than Fighters or Paladins at playing a tank role. As far as casters go Druids are pretty weak from around levels 7 until Shapechange comes online at level 17, and then they vault back to near the top.

They've been tinkering with the classes since 2000 and can't get it right.

Balance is virtually impossible to do and the cure is really worse the the problem.

Close enough level 3-8 is about the best you can hope for.

 

[mamba]

Close enough level 3-8 is about the best you can hope for.

I hope they can stretch that a little further out

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think power creep sells better than power breadth. Do we really need more spellcasting classes or Cleric or Wizard Subclasses?

Yes!

One billion times yes!

Maybe if we keep trying, we'll get one with a good spellcasting system.