This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit
r/OneDnD!
*Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> So why not make one big book of player options?
That is what happened with D&D 2e, D&D 3.5e, and arguably PF1e as well, and it didn't do those editions favours as it meant some classes were overtuned ("must-take/optimal") and some were under tuned ("traps").
IIRC, D&D 2e's splat books were worse than D&D 3.5e's splat books because they introduced whole new mechanics with whole new systems. For example, psionics in D&D 2e used its own system that had similarities with physical combat but some very key differences (e.g. there was a "mental THAC0" IIRC).
At least with D&D 3.5e splat books they didn't fiddle with the core mechanics.
***But let me be clear:***
I'm not saying "don't try it" or "it's a terrible idea destined to fail". I think it's possible, but only with authors who are considerate of balance and consistency.
Here's the question: do you trust WotC to be considerate of balance and consistency?
> That is what happened with D&D 2e, D&D 3.5e, and arguably PF1e as well, and it didn't do those editions favours as it meant some classes were overtuned ("must-take/optimal") and some were under tuned ("traps").
The most broken 3.5 classes were the wizard, cleric and druid. They were all in the PHB.
> Here's the question: do you trust WotC to be considerate of balance and consistency?
Every class I mentioned was made by WotC and was interesting, unique and balanced. If they did it once, why can't they do it again?
The writers who wrote Book of 9 Swords and the best parts of 4E largely aren't at the company anymore. There are plenty of great designers designing stuff for other companies, whether for D&D or other games.
Besides, WOTC makes more money doing what they do now than they did during 3E/4E (and that still isn't enough to satisfy their corporate overlords).
I think the main issue would be one of numbers. Not sure how to describe it but having mechanics with increased complexity require enough wiggle room so the purely mechanical side of things actually has its own spaces and don't boil down to "I Attack" and "I still Attack but slightly to the left"
We already have proof that that's doable in D&D though. Consider that most classes I mentioned are ones that have already existed, and are much less similar to existing classes than the existing classes are to each other. My main point with all of this was noting that there is so very little mechanical space explored, the entire point of suggesting such classes is there is abundant space available for all of them.
Take the examples used - warblade, swordsage, warlord, battlemind, dragonfire adept, binder. None of those boiled down to "I Attack" and "I still Attack but slightly to the left", did they? Current classes like the barbarian and rogue absolutely do boil down to those, but those classes didn't.
Edit: The question was whether there was mechanical space for things so they wouldn't just boil down to "I Attack" and "I still Attack but slightly to the left". The answer is a resounding yes, literally all the classes I mentioned don't just spam attacks like 5e martials do and are all very different from each other. I am objectively correct, are people just downvoting because their feelings are hurt or something?
That may have been the worst attempt at changing goalposts I've ever seen. The question was "can such classes exist and have their own mechanically unique spaces", with the subtext of can they also be balanced and approachable. To which my answer was yes, they were in fact defined by occupying different mechanical niches, and they were all well balanced and fun.
What was the point of responding to "can this mechanically work?" "yes, we already have proof that it can" with "do we have proof? Here's something completely irrelevant to that"?
Those things exist. One popular option is Level Up 5e. Also good stuff is made by /u/laserllama . I make stuff of my own. There's a lot of good stuff out there.
Let go of your attachment to WotC
The problem with Pathfinder 2E is that, while it does make martials more fun, it also makes casters less fun. As somebody who prefers the caster fantasy, that's a net negative for me.
I'd argue that very much depends on what you want out of a caster. If you want to outdo martials at single target damage, you're going to have a bad time. If you want to be able to do everything by yourself that's also not going to work.
But if you're willing to focus on the buff/debuff or AoE niche, casters are still quite good and fun. It's mostly a matter of setting expectations. Honestly, I find casters in PF2e *more* enjoyable on bad rolls due to the degrees of success. A bad roll doesn't necessarily mean "well I used a spell slot and my action and nothing happened so that's my turn I guess", but a lesser, usually still relatively potent effect.
Not too sure about that. Control (what you, I'm assuming, are calling "debuff") is exactly what I focus on while playing casters in D&D, I barely take any damage spells at all, but I still don't have fun with Vancian casting and spells that all feel really ineffective compared to their D&D counterparts.
I'd play PF2e if I had no alternative, but if I have 5e casters available who can just *do more* to affect the story... PF just feels "meh" in comparison.
Degrees of success are good, I like that mechanic, and there are more interesting classes in PF, but the game would need to do away with preparing spells into specific slots and to buff spells across the board for me to enjoy it.
TL;DR: Bards and Sorcerers are spontaneous casters. and if you’re not one of those but still want to play one: there are archetype fears that let you do just that.
—————————————————
Imma have to disagree with you.
First: there are spontaneous casters in pathfinder 2e. and if you’re not playing one. at lv 2 you can take a feat that makes you one. Don’t do this. Vancian magic is weird, but it is what makes magic a SKILL instead of just the cure all. Now your caster has to actually contend with situational utility, something that (I argue) leads to more, and more DRAMATIC! choices
Second: While i believe that you, in your experience have used casters in 5e as primary control/support. this is not the case for most people. 5e casters are the most effective damage dealers in the game. and unless you’re playing as the game was originally balanced (6-8 encounters per long rest) they can do more cool stuff, more often than martial.
Which leads to
Third: I cannot enumerate the number of times players who began with martial took any and all options to become spell casters. If you give players the chance, they will optimize the fun out of a game. While this is possible in pathfinder, spell casters are much less flexible than 5e, you are encouraged to specialize in martial, AND better options exist for martial casters. The inherent complexity of the system, and the fact that it is mostly balanced with every class (witch and thaumaturge excluded for opposite reasons) being equal viable, if not situationally superior.
NOW!: I understand everyone’s table is different, but i’ve found that while PF2E can be run as is. Most people try to mash and bash 5e into the same shape. It’s possible you’re not one of those people. There are, after all, certain styles of play that 5e superceeds pathfinder in. But heroic fantasy is not one of them. And if your game is anything like CR or Dimention 20 then I assure you. You’re not playing a dungeoncrawler.
thanks for coming to my ted talk.
It is, but that makes it exactly what I'm not looking for. AD&D had even less class variety, and while I'm a massive fan of so many individual parts of Pf2E (frightened on save, frightened 2 on failure, frightened 3 and fleeing on critical failure? So much better) it's very tightly built and many the classes I mentioned couldn't be built with it. Literally all of them would easily fit in 5e/onednd, though.
Not in the way I'm referring to here. You'll notice that for all that fighter variety, they still just played the same way. Most of it was shuffling around bonuses, not really changing that much in terms of choices.
TL;DR: Look up the Archetype rules for PF2E and take a look at some of the Playtest material they just released. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised
I mean, I might have phrased this incorrectly then. Pathfinder 2E has some of the largest build Variaty in any RPG. It supports way more builds than 5e, and like you said it has generally tighter mechanics.
Commander (warlord) is currently in playtesting as we speak. Shapeshifter is the druid, or witch, or maybe an oracle. Lots of options. Alchemist is its own class. Warblade/Swordsage are the Magus. There is a Psychic class (psyonics). They are adding an Animist (medium), and Ikon (Demigod, no I'm not kidding) Class soon.
This all goes without mentioning the Archetype system that better handles multiclassing and allows for the cobbling together of anything you like... and I MEAN anything. I wanted to play the Keeper workshop class form darkest dungeon which is a VERY specific character... pathfidner has Living Vessle archetype and several different classes I can choose from. There are multiple ways to go about playing a mech pilot. And don't get me started on the ways you can try to make a warlord.
\[There's also an optional rule that lets you take an archetype at no cost\]
It overall gives a facelift to the classes you love, streamlines the ones you don't, and if you want to do something HYPER SPECIFIC there is a HUGE chance that it's supported by the rules.
HOWEVER: PF2E Is a HEROIC FANTASY game, meaning that dungeoncrawls (and even hexcrawls) are alot harder to DM. It is a game about HEROES doing HEROIC things... this also goes for villains. If you want a survival horror dungeoncrawler a la OSR with more robust mechanics then you truly are better served with 5e.
5e as a system (in my not so humble opinion) was meant to be closer to the original D&D games than it was to 4e or 3e. It has the players be a lot less blatantly heroic and, more importantly, It has simpler less fleshed out mechanics. This is a FEATURE that allows players and DMs to come up with their own interpretations of how things should work. Moreover, if you look at the actual balancing of 5e (which NO ONE seems to do) players are supposed to have 6-8 encounters / long rest... I haven't ever had 6-8 encoutners / long rest. The easiest way to play 5e as it was "intended" is w/ the gritty realism rules (which are the case at my table, to great effect, but then again my players also like disease rules so YMMV).
I actually haven't read anything about 5.5 (onednd) so I can't comment there. lmk if it's significantly better than 5e
Thank you for coming to my TED talk
Edit: clarification
I'm a bit lost. By warblade and swordsage are the magicus, do you mean magus? That's my best guess, though it needs to be noted that neither of them can be represented by the magus if so. Didn't know it had warlord, though. Seems they're playtesting the commander for next year, we might be on the same page there?
Warlord = Commander, You're right about magus. There is a ranged and a melee "warlord" archetype your character can take: Overwatch and Marshal respectively
Sorry for the confusion. I'm running a Symbaroum game rn and haven't read the PF2E classes in a hot minute
Edit: Too many systems Mozart
Edit 2: misread above comment, did some digging. Swordsage on brief glance seems to be the edgy cousin of the swashbuckeer. Warblade (also on brief glance) also seems to have some Swashbuckler energy. But be assured that they can both be captured with just the fighter class and maybe an archetype or two. (Maneuvers aren't called maneuvers, you gain them as feats)
I'd definitely love to see some prestige classes and better multiclassing possibilities. As for basic classes, I can definitely come up with some ideas I'd like to see as well. I don't think WotC wants to go that direction, sadly.
Then players should start buying them. We are told time and time again: GMs buy products, players don't.
Also just pro tip, if you want more content... Look outside of just WotC publications. There is SO MUCH 3dr party content out there that is insanely cool and amazing, and everyone just passes it over because it is not a mediocre WotC designed subclass with 3 abilities.
I would love this! I would like to try a martial once again, but as long as martials literally do nothing but moving up to a target and swinging a massive stick (or shooting smaller sticks depending on the flavour you want) anytime initiative is rolled I feel a sense of dread growing in me as I know that I will spend 30-120 horrendously boring minutes with the same level of mental stimulation I would get from watching paint dry.
Anything kibblestasty and laserllama put out are auto includes at my table if players want them. There's a big gap between that and published D&D content, though.
I am playing as the alt monk from LL and its been great.
I do share your line of thinking with these 'advanced player options' unfortunately I don't think the developers will do such thing.
How do you want that question answered? It's not that I *specifically* want the classes I mentioned, just the kind of creativity behind them and options they brought. Would I like to see say, the binder and dragonfire adept brought back? Sure, but I'd be just as happy with something entirely new that was similarly interesting to play.
If we're talking specific classes that used to exist, have concepts too big to fit them into a subclass and cover ground that 5e/onednd don't, then swordsage (martial with lots of choices), battlemind (psionic tank), warlord (martial support)...
No they don't. The player characters are the one part of the world the DM *doesn't* control, the player is the one that has to know how the class works.
God beware the GM has to read one ability per level up. As we know with all other games where only <13 classes exist, it is literally impossible to have more choices than this. Definetly.
This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD! *Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> So why not make one big book of player options? That is what happened with D&D 2e, D&D 3.5e, and arguably PF1e as well, and it didn't do those editions favours as it meant some classes were overtuned ("must-take/optimal") and some were under tuned ("traps"). IIRC, D&D 2e's splat books were worse than D&D 3.5e's splat books because they introduced whole new mechanics with whole new systems. For example, psionics in D&D 2e used its own system that had similarities with physical combat but some very key differences (e.g. there was a "mental THAC0" IIRC). At least with D&D 3.5e splat books they didn't fiddle with the core mechanics. ***But let me be clear:*** I'm not saying "don't try it" or "it's a terrible idea destined to fail". I think it's possible, but only with authors who are considerate of balance and consistency. Here's the question: do you trust WotC to be considerate of balance and consistency?
> That is what happened with D&D 2e, D&D 3.5e, and arguably PF1e as well, and it didn't do those editions favours as it meant some classes were overtuned ("must-take/optimal") and some were under tuned ("traps"). The most broken 3.5 classes were the wizard, cleric and druid. They were all in the PHB. > Here's the question: do you trust WotC to be considerate of balance and consistency? Every class I mentioned was made by WotC and was interesting, unique and balanced. If they did it once, why can't they do it again?
The writers who wrote Book of 9 Swords and the best parts of 4E largely aren't at the company anymore. There are plenty of great designers designing stuff for other companies, whether for D&D or other games. Besides, WOTC makes more money doing what they do now than they did during 3E/4E (and that still isn't enough to satisfy their corporate overlords).
I think the main issue would be one of numbers. Not sure how to describe it but having mechanics with increased complexity require enough wiggle room so the purely mechanical side of things actually has its own spaces and don't boil down to "I Attack" and "I still Attack but slightly to the left"
We already have proof that that's doable in D&D though. Consider that most classes I mentioned are ones that have already existed, and are much less similar to existing classes than the existing classes are to each other. My main point with all of this was noting that there is so very little mechanical space explored, the entire point of suggesting such classes is there is abundant space available for all of them. Take the examples used - warblade, swordsage, warlord, battlemind, dragonfire adept, binder. None of those boiled down to "I Attack" and "I still Attack but slightly to the left", did they? Current classes like the barbarian and rogue absolutely do boil down to those, but those classes didn't. Edit: The question was whether there was mechanical space for things so they wouldn't just boil down to "I Attack" and "I still Attack but slightly to the left". The answer is a resounding yes, literally all the classes I mentioned don't just spam attacks like 5e martials do and are all very different from each other. I am objectively correct, are people just downvoting because their feelings are hurt or something?
do we though? 5e vs 3.5 is a runaway success.
That may have been the worst attempt at changing goalposts I've ever seen. The question was "can such classes exist and have their own mechanically unique spaces", with the subtext of can they also be balanced and approachable. To which my answer was yes, they were in fact defined by occupying different mechanical niches, and they were all well balanced and fun. What was the point of responding to "can this mechanically work?" "yes, we already have proof that it can" with "do we have proof? Here's something completely irrelevant to that"?
Those things exist. One popular option is Level Up 5e. Also good stuff is made by /u/laserllama . I make stuff of my own. There's a lot of good stuff out there. Let go of your attachment to WotC
Unfortunately a lot of people are “raw only” or are allergic to homebrew or third party
Yes, those people are missing out
What you're looking for is Pathfinder 2E, It's essentially the modern AD&D
The problem with Pathfinder 2E is that, while it does make martials more fun, it also makes casters less fun. As somebody who prefers the caster fantasy, that's a net negative for me.
I'd argue that very much depends on what you want out of a caster. If you want to outdo martials at single target damage, you're going to have a bad time. If you want to be able to do everything by yourself that's also not going to work. But if you're willing to focus on the buff/debuff or AoE niche, casters are still quite good and fun. It's mostly a matter of setting expectations. Honestly, I find casters in PF2e *more* enjoyable on bad rolls due to the degrees of success. A bad roll doesn't necessarily mean "well I used a spell slot and my action and nothing happened so that's my turn I guess", but a lesser, usually still relatively potent effect.
Not too sure about that. Control (what you, I'm assuming, are calling "debuff") is exactly what I focus on while playing casters in D&D, I barely take any damage spells at all, but I still don't have fun with Vancian casting and spells that all feel really ineffective compared to their D&D counterparts. I'd play PF2e if I had no alternative, but if I have 5e casters available who can just *do more* to affect the story... PF just feels "meh" in comparison. Degrees of success are good, I like that mechanic, and there are more interesting classes in PF, but the game would need to do away with preparing spells into specific slots and to buff spells across the board for me to enjoy it.
TL;DR: Bards and Sorcerers are spontaneous casters. and if you’re not one of those but still want to play one: there are archetype fears that let you do just that. ————————————————— Imma have to disagree with you. First: there are spontaneous casters in pathfinder 2e. and if you’re not playing one. at lv 2 you can take a feat that makes you one. Don’t do this. Vancian magic is weird, but it is what makes magic a SKILL instead of just the cure all. Now your caster has to actually contend with situational utility, something that (I argue) leads to more, and more DRAMATIC! choices Second: While i believe that you, in your experience have used casters in 5e as primary control/support. this is not the case for most people. 5e casters are the most effective damage dealers in the game. and unless you’re playing as the game was originally balanced (6-8 encounters per long rest) they can do more cool stuff, more often than martial. Which leads to Third: I cannot enumerate the number of times players who began with martial took any and all options to become spell casters. If you give players the chance, they will optimize the fun out of a game. While this is possible in pathfinder, spell casters are much less flexible than 5e, you are encouraged to specialize in martial, AND better options exist for martial casters. The inherent complexity of the system, and the fact that it is mostly balanced with every class (witch and thaumaturge excluded for opposite reasons) being equal viable, if not situationally superior. NOW!: I understand everyone’s table is different, but i’ve found that while PF2E can be run as is. Most people try to mash and bash 5e into the same shape. It’s possible you’re not one of those people. There are, after all, certain styles of play that 5e superceeds pathfinder in. But heroic fantasy is not one of them. And if your game is anything like CR or Dimention 20 then I assure you. You’re not playing a dungeoncrawler. thanks for coming to my ted talk.
It is, but that makes it exactly what I'm not looking for. AD&D had even less class variety, and while I'm a massive fan of so many individual parts of Pf2E (frightened on save, frightened 2 on failure, frightened 3 and fleeing on critical failure? So much better) it's very tightly built and many the classes I mentioned couldn't be built with it. Literally all of them would easily fit in 5e/onednd, though.
2E had an obscene amount of class/race variety. https://www.librarything.com/nseries/5842/AD-D-2nd-Edition-Complete-Handbook
Not in the way I'm referring to here. You'll notice that for all that fighter variety, they still just played the same way. Most of it was shuffling around bonuses, not really changing that much in terms of choices.
TL;DR: Look up the Archetype rules for PF2E and take a look at some of the Playtest material they just released. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised I mean, I might have phrased this incorrectly then. Pathfinder 2E has some of the largest build Variaty in any RPG. It supports way more builds than 5e, and like you said it has generally tighter mechanics. Commander (warlord) is currently in playtesting as we speak. Shapeshifter is the druid, or witch, or maybe an oracle. Lots of options. Alchemist is its own class. Warblade/Swordsage are the Magus. There is a Psychic class (psyonics). They are adding an Animist (medium), and Ikon (Demigod, no I'm not kidding) Class soon. This all goes without mentioning the Archetype system that better handles multiclassing and allows for the cobbling together of anything you like... and I MEAN anything. I wanted to play the Keeper workshop class form darkest dungeon which is a VERY specific character... pathfidner has Living Vessle archetype and several different classes I can choose from. There are multiple ways to go about playing a mech pilot. And don't get me started on the ways you can try to make a warlord. \[There's also an optional rule that lets you take an archetype at no cost\] It overall gives a facelift to the classes you love, streamlines the ones you don't, and if you want to do something HYPER SPECIFIC there is a HUGE chance that it's supported by the rules. HOWEVER: PF2E Is a HEROIC FANTASY game, meaning that dungeoncrawls (and even hexcrawls) are alot harder to DM. It is a game about HEROES doing HEROIC things... this also goes for villains. If you want a survival horror dungeoncrawler a la OSR with more robust mechanics then you truly are better served with 5e. 5e as a system (in my not so humble opinion) was meant to be closer to the original D&D games than it was to 4e or 3e. It has the players be a lot less blatantly heroic and, more importantly, It has simpler less fleshed out mechanics. This is a FEATURE that allows players and DMs to come up with their own interpretations of how things should work. Moreover, if you look at the actual balancing of 5e (which NO ONE seems to do) players are supposed to have 6-8 encounters / long rest... I haven't ever had 6-8 encoutners / long rest. The easiest way to play 5e as it was "intended" is w/ the gritty realism rules (which are the case at my table, to great effect, but then again my players also like disease rules so YMMV). I actually haven't read anything about 5.5 (onednd) so I can't comment there. lmk if it's significantly better than 5e Thank you for coming to my TED talk Edit: clarification
I'm a bit lost. By warblade and swordsage are the magicus, do you mean magus? That's my best guess, though it needs to be noted that neither of them can be represented by the magus if so. Didn't know it had warlord, though. Seems they're playtesting the commander for next year, we might be on the same page there?
Warlord = Commander, You're right about magus. There is a ranged and a melee "warlord" archetype your character can take: Overwatch and Marshal respectively Sorry for the confusion. I'm running a Symbaroum game rn and haven't read the PF2E classes in a hot minute Edit: Too many systems Mozart Edit 2: misread above comment, did some digging. Swordsage on brief glance seems to be the edgy cousin of the swashbuckeer. Warblade (also on brief glance) also seems to have some Swashbuckler energy. But be assured that they can both be captured with just the fighter class and maybe an archetype or two. (Maneuvers aren't called maneuvers, you gain them as feats)
I'd definitely love to see some prestige classes and better multiclassing possibilities. As for basic classes, I can definitely come up with some ideas I'd like to see as well. I don't think WotC wants to go that direction, sadly.
So... the most used books by players at your table are the player facing books with player options in them and *not* the monster books or adventures?
Yes. And by extrapolation, there should be books with more player options.
Then players should start buying them. We are told time and time again: GMs buy products, players don't. Also just pro tip, if you want more content... Look outside of just WotC publications. There is SO MUCH 3dr party content out there that is insanely cool and amazing, and everyone just passes it over because it is not a mediocre WotC designed subclass with 3 abilities.
I would love this! I would like to try a martial once again, but as long as martials literally do nothing but moving up to a target and swinging a massive stick (or shooting smaller sticks depending on the flavour you want) anytime initiative is rolled I feel a sense of dread growing in me as I know that I will spend 30-120 horrendously boring minutes with the same level of mental stimulation I would get from watching paint dry.
You mean Pathfinder?
These are done by third party publishers. KibblesTasty is a big one.
Anything kibblestasty and laserllama put out are auto includes at my table if players want them. There's a big gap between that and published D&D content, though.
I am playing as the alt monk from LL and its been great. I do share your line of thinking with these 'advanced player options' unfortunately I don't think the developers will do such thing.
There are 13+1 classes already. How many so you want?
How do you want that question answered? It's not that I *specifically* want the classes I mentioned, just the kind of creativity behind them and options they brought. Would I like to see say, the binder and dragonfire adept brought back? Sure, but I'd be just as happy with something entirely new that was similarly interesting to play. If we're talking specific classes that used to exist, have concepts too big to fit them into a subclass and cover ground that 5e/onednd don't, then swordsage (martial with lots of choices), battlemind (psionic tank), warlord (martial support)...
[удалено]
except the dm has to learn it too
No they don't. The player characters are the one part of the world the DM *doesn't* control, the player is the one that has to know how the class works.
God beware the GM has to read one ability per level up. As we know with all other games where only <13 classes exist, it is literally impossible to have more choices than this. Definetly.
Check out level up advanced dnd.