D&D (2024) 5e vs Oe Cleric...

[Steampunkette]

So I'm looking at the 5e and Oe Clerics and... Honestly I'm not terribly impressed?

Like... I kind of like that you get the choice of Holy Order to gain different benefits for different orders. Thaumaturgy is, for example, a really -neat- option, giving back a long-rest use on a short rest and an extra always-available action is nice to me.

But moving the Subclass to 3rd level really feels like a bad choice because of the specific narrative attachment of the subclass. This isn't "How you learn to fight" this is the -basis- of your belief system that you don't gain access to out of the gate at level 1. It means a cleric of Pelor and a cleric of Gruumsh gain the exact same powers and abilities with nothing to distinguish them for the first two levels. And to me that just feels weird.

It feels like it was a decision not to limit power gain, or make things fundamentally better, but just to make the cleric leveling table look "Fuller" since they took out the gap at 3rd level. Especially since you're gaining access to 2nd level spells at that point -and- your subclass.

And it feels like they dropped Blessed Strikes from 8th to 7th for the same reason. You -just- gained access to a new level of spells (4th) so you don't really need an additional feature at that level in order to feel stronger.

And then Holy Order round 2 at level 9 grants another passive bonus right at 9th level when you get 5th level spells. Some of the best and most defining spells for Clerics.

It makes me wonder just how many of the Oe revamps are going to be "Make it look like you get more stuff on the chart".

 

[This Effin’ GM]

Personally I love it. You have some time as a player to play in the game before making a major defining choice. Classes that choose archetypes at level 1 or even 2 have always bothered me for this reason.

 

[Steampunkette]

I can certainly respect that position, @This Effin’ GM.

It does make sense to want to get a feel for a character before making important character decisions... I just feel that some decisions should probably be made first. For example... which warlock patron grants a warlock their power.

For a Wizard I don't think whether they're an Abjurer or a Diviner or Necromancer needs to be decided at level 1, for example. But for a Sorcerer, Warlock, or Cleric it feels a bit important because it's the -source- of their defining traits.

That said... I'm thinking that the reason they're standardizing to level 3 has less to do with power-gain or ensuring players have their class features as meaningful choices with a nice narrative pacing... and more to do with making all the charts look nice and "Full". Which is probably not a great way to design, ultimately.

A 3rd level Fighter is gonna get somewhat more powerful with their new subclass features. A 3rd level Spellcaster is gonna get even more powerful with their new subclass features -and- 2nd level spellcasting unlocking at the same time. And if they follow the course for Cleric on Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Druid... it's gonna be a continuing trend of gaining more power than martials and experts at spell-improvement levels.

Though it's also kinda weird that they just lopped off the free cure wounds and bless preparation from the Life Domain spell list, in retrospect. I wonder if they actually thought "Well, people are gonna be preparing Cure Wounds anyway, so why bother giving it to them for free?" or if they just chopped off the 1st level spell grants because you don't get the subclass 'til 3rd level.

I suspect it was the former, since the Life Domain Spell List itself is different... but it definitely makes things a little janky on spells prepared. You're almost always going to wind up with a bunch of 2nd+ level spells prepped and very few at level 1.

But I guess it's a good thing that every level of spells they -do- add allows for some kind of healing, unlike Death Ward/Guardian of Faith at 4th level for the 5e Life domain, which provided no healing to benefit from the Disciple of Life feature. So that's a positive?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'd rather like to have holy order at level 1. And remove armor proficiency from it.

Or a different take: change armor proficiency categories.

Simple and martial armor:

Classes with simple armor gain simple up to leather, medium up to chain shirt and heavy up to chain mail.
Classes with martial armor gain access to all of the respective groups.

So you can start a cleric with simple armors of all kinds and if you chose a wariorlike domain, you can get better armor. But you don't have to feel bad that up to level 2, you have to suck it up and wear chain mail with a potential -1 dex bonus.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

That said... I'm thinking that the reason they're standardizing to level 3 has less to do with power-gain or ensuring players have their class features as meaningful choices with a nice narrative pacing... and more to do with making all the charts look nice and "Full". Which is probably not a great way to design, ultimately.

I think it’s neither. I think they are preparing for cross class subclasses

 

[Steampunkette]

I'd rather like to have holy order at level 1. And remove armor proficiency from it.

Or a different take: change armor proficiency categories.

Simple and martial armor:

Classes with simple armor gain simple up to leather, medium up to chain shirt and heavy up to chain mail.
Classes with martial armor gain access to all of the respective groups.

So you can start a cleric with simple armors of all kinds and if you chose a wariorlike domain, you can get better armor. But you don't have to feel bad that up to level 2, you have to suck it up and wear chain mail with a potential -1 dex bonus.

See... THIS is some clever game design! You mind if I use this?

I think it’s neither. I think they are preparing for cross class subclasses

Which means making subclasses as bland and non-interactive with class features as is possible in order to ensure they're not bound to a given class... which I personally find bad design.

Like... If I make a Rogue Subclass that does not interact with -any- Rogue abilities whatsoever to make it available to ranger, bard, fighter, and other classes, it's just gonna feel one dimensional AF. 'Cause it can't interact with any of those class's features, either.

But it'd work for Bard/Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard because you can use spell-stuff since they all get it. MAYBE Paladin/Ranger, too.

Like the Life Domain wouldn't work cross-class because Wizards don't get Channel Divinity for the 6th level Preserve Life subclass feature, but the REST of the subclass would work for other caster classes.

Meanwhile if I did that in A5e I could at least make Martial cross-class features interact on Combat Traditions... but it'd still be pretty dull, all things considered.

Damn... now I kind of want to try a cross-class martial archetype for Martial Artistry... I feel like it could maybe work so long as the archetype granted and played off it's own features and improved or granted maneuvers/traditions/exertion...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

See... THIS is some clever game design! You mind if I use this?

Not at all.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

I’m not saying every subclass is designed to be cross class but having some be is awesome.

I personally am getting tired of “here are 70 different archetypes that all amount to eldritch warrior”.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

I’m not saying every subclass is designed to be cross class but having some be is awesome.

I personally am getting tired of “here are 70 different archetypes that all amount to eldritch warrior”.

On this same note: there is precedence. In an unearthed arcana article leading up to strixhaven, WotC attempted this. It didn’t make the cut but I’m pretty sure they went back to the drawing board with it rather than scrapping the idea

 

[Steampunkette]

I’m not saying every subclass is designed to be cross class but having some be is awesome.

I personally am getting tired of “here are 70 different archetypes that all amount to eldritch warrior”.

I meeeeean... yeah... I'm kinda guilty of that a little bit.

But that mostly has to do with the three player guideline and the different ways people individually want to express the same concept.

Or do you mean less "Gish" more "There's not enough fighter types without magic!" because that one's also true to some degree or another.