So what was the point of discouraging multiclassing, removing prestige classes and introducing archetypes in 5e? It seems like variety has decreased, not increased. People still do OP multiclass combos (though this is less bad than in 3e), and pick the better archetypes, but now it's harder to do different characters mechanically with the same class, since the archetypes change so little.
>inb4 "3eaboo"
I'm partial to TSR's editions, but I like to discuss game design.
Oh shit, I remember that amazing variety of 3.5. When you can make million of different characters, and like, ten won't suck during actual play
Wanting to cut down on the number of books surely had something to do with it.
Especially with the popularity of the internet, I'd have players showing up to the table holding a book I'd never heard of asking if they could use a prestige class in it.
I for one enjoy having 3-4 books that I know I can find just about everything in, and not needing 7 just to understand what my players can do.
/thread
>why this change in mechanics in 5e
>let's discuss 3.5 instead
Like, we get it, 3.5 was broken. But there's nothing that says the brokeness is inherently related to the classes. For fuck's sake, there's archetypes in 5e that are considered vastly inferior to some others. (e.g. champion and battlemaster)
Can't you do the same by simply limiting books available? This always seemed a bit silly to me. People were asking for 'less stuff' for 5e and now it has a severe dearth of content/variety (which people are now complaining about).
Dumbing down the rules for casuals.
All things considered, this was a good thing, makes it easier to get your non-autistic friends into the hobby. Although a 300 page rule book is still about 200 pages longer than it needs to be, especially when 100 of those are a magic system that's still broken as fuck and does way too much.
Basically, it was to remove the stigma of 4e whilst still preserving the "character reinforcement" elements of paragon paths & epic destinies without actually retaining those mechanics.
The problem isn't the lack of multiclassing and prestige classes, it's the archetypes not being bold enough. They should have given them more non-combat gimmicks and maybe unique mechanics.
The problem comes from players who get fired up for the class or character without running it by the DM first. Also more content means more things for the DM to keep track of in order to make a balanced experience.
Splatbook classes are rarely as versatile as core full casters
>People wanted X, but now complain about X!
You know that humans aren't a hive mind, right?
The magic is a holdover from when D&D was closer to a board game about resource management. Now that it can be anything(tm), it doesn't make as much thematic sense.
>non-combat skills have been hidden away to one single page of reference in the phb
>they're just called "tool proficiencies" now
>none of the classes give proficiencies) with these (rogue and thief tools don't count)
>have to make background to get them
>no way to gain proficiency with them unless your GM makes some shit up
>there's archetypes in 5e that are considered vastly inferior to some others. (e.g. champion and battlemaster)
Next time you open your mouth, please consider learning about the subject beforehand.
Over half of the spells need to be in a splatbook or online supplements.
But the DM doesn't have to, right in the DMG their is a general guideline for how long it the creators feel someone should spend training on something to become proficient.
Why would you introduce your friends to TTRPGs with 3.5/4e/5e? If you're going to use D&D, at least use B/X.
What page is that on?
to be fair, that means that the one guy who wants his character to have a figurine-carving hobby doesn't need to pull skill points out of his dungeoneering/combat-useful skills to be able to do it with actual skill.
that being said, i agree that they needed to put more emphasis on noncombat skills.
No, but it WAS a common complaint. And now the reverse IS a common complaint. Which implies that at least some people failed to see the predictable consequences of what they were asking for.
>not introducing people to D&D through a B/X retroclone
For the exact reason you stated, to decrease variety therefore make it a)less confusing for new people they are trying to pull in b)far easier to try and keep classes on par with each other(they at least try, success varies) and c) because the give you the option of making your own background that is supposed to substitute for the different classes having x or y. As for the mechanically argument I'll be honest, pick a different class or mc to produce the results you want. I've never seen the need to play the same class five different ways as interesting, then again that's my opinion and preference.
I got mixed up it is in fact the PHB page 187, under down time activities.
>Which implies that at least some people failed to see the predictable consequences of what they were asking for.
>100 people
>25 hate X and complain about it while it is in place
>25 different people love X and complain about when it is not in place
QED
Considering the classes up to 10-14th level (since nobody actually reaches 20th level)
>5% extra crit chance
>add half your ability bonus to checks you aren't proficient in (basically flavor)
>extra fighting style
vs
>on-demand maneuvers which apply effects in combat and add more damage on top of that
>some flavor features
y-yes very balanced and fun our wotc overlords are the best
Yes. So?
Maybe you're right and the two groups of people do not intersect. Maybe I'm right and they do. We can't figure out who's right without making an extensive statistical study. What's the fucking point of arguing over it.
>250 days training
Yes, that is not something that is accomplished within a typical campaign.
>Champion
>Vastly Inferior
Dunno man, my champion archer does 21 damage per attack on average, and is closing on on 4 attacks/rnd before Action Surge. Haste is usually up. Sure it's not the topest of top tier damage, but it's absolutely a far cry from subpar.
The differences between "optimal" and "suboptimal" choices are less marked in 5e than in 3.5, especially in terms of damage. But when it comes to it, as a Champion even though you do "average" damage you do not bring anything else to the table. Meanwhile the Battlemaster is doing as much or more damage than you are, while applying some other effect at the same time. Not to speak of other classes.
I should have said Purple Dragon Knight. Holy shit, that archetype was terrible.
Depends on your group, although I will not deny it is a bit of a stretch for some, but it atleast gives you a general idea that you can tweak to fit your groups play style.
PDK is my favorite archetype because more Ethan once people in 5eg have forgotten it even exists.
What was the point of encouraging multiclassing, adding prestige classes, and removing kits in 3.5e? Seems like variety has increased to the detriment of quality. People still do decent single class characters (though they aren't as good as in 2e), and pick the stronger single class, but now it's harder to do different characters without being baited by multiclassing to get different mechanics.
>inb4 "grognard"
I'm partial to WotC's editiosn, but I like to discuss game design.
The battlemaster in my game doesn't even come close, even with 20 STR and a +2 frostbrand and rage up (3 levels of barb)
My champ archer does 19 static damage a round at +8 to hit, thanks to bracers of archery, archer fighting style, and a +2 bow.
Champion is fine, don't believe everything you read on forums.
Maybe make the campaign involve travel time or passage of time between adventure arcs?
That's the assumption for any downtime activity.
>(3 levels of barb)
Something tells me your friend isn't exactly optimizing
Wouldn't that depend on what level they are?
You do realize Dex and archer are arguably the strongest route to go for martials right? Unless you are grabbing stuff like PAM/GWM melee fighters lag behind period.
He is at +8 to hit, +2 from archery style and +2 from the bow; he must be level 6 and have a fucked Dex
He said that he's coming up on 4 attacks per round before Action Surge.
>My champ archer does 19 static damage a round at +8 to hit, thanks to bracers of archery, archer fighting style, and a +2 bow.
Now think about what would happen if your character was a Battlemaster instead.
Oh shit.
How is this possible? You literally cannot have less than a +4 to hit after level 12 unless you're using your dump stat.
Sharpshooter.
Yeah he took it for RP reasons.
Almost everyone at our table can manage about 80 damage a round with weird RP choices. And single monsters get fucking destroyed, like a purple worm did last week.
The other main difference is the champion go go from archery to dual wielding extremely easily if someone decided to close the gap since fighters have the feat support for both styles and champion itself gets two fighting styles.
I don't think there's enough of a damage gulf after checking out some top end optimized battlemasters to call champion a "bad" choice.
Or if I just took a couple maneuver feats.
Sharpshooter, and I made an error, I'm at +10 now.
>Battlemaster
>Bad
>Champion
>Bad
I think 5e's problem is being too easy
All the enemies in the monster manual are just glorified hitsticks, it's super hard to die in 5e which sort of takes away a lot of the fear factor of going up against some big enemy like a hydra
Archetypes sort of make this worse because you don't need to think all that hard about making your character good anymore, it just happens when you pick your archetype, and keeps happening as you level up, so suddenly you've put zero thought into your character and have close to zero chance of dying. It's hard to get invested.
The CR system is kind of designed for casual, non-optimized groups that will be making mistakes, I think.
If your players are familiar with ttrpgs then bump up the CR by 1 or 2 to make things more interesting.