Fixing D&D: YOUR WAY

[Cosi]

I tend to like doing it that way instead of subclass multiclassing because in that setup you can either subclass your main class or multiclass, not both, so you can have a Wizard (Evoker) or a Wizard (Fighter) but not an Evoker (Fighter) or a Fighter (Evoker).

I don't think you have to do it that way. You could ban Wizard sub-Wizard if you wanted, and there's no reason to expect that there wouldn't be customization options within a class. There is, at minimum, the specialization of choosing whichever spells it is you choose.

Definitely true. I do think, though, that it's easier to AD&D multiclass/3e gestalt a class onto a monster (like my upthread example of an ogre being a Giant and an ogre mage being a Giant//Wizard) than to have monster subclasses you'd swap out for player-class subclasses because it makes writing monsters easier (you don't have to worry about which of their abilities might get swapped out in a multiclass scenario and how integral those are to running the monsters, it's a complete unit on its own and you can add on whatever you want) and modifying monsters easier for DMs (strictly adding abilities and increasing some numbers is easier to do on the fly than trading abilities and adjusting things up and down).

What? The subclass is supposed to be its own complete track. There's no swapping abilities around.

Not all clerics of Boccob are just wizards with a couple priestly class features on top in the same way that not all paladins of Heironeous are just fighters with a couple priestly class features on top--and, for that matter, priests of Wee Jas aren't just priests with a couple necromancer-y class features on top, either.

Why not? I could understand having priests of Boccob who were Sorcerers or Warlocks, but I can't see any benefit to a unified Priest class which provides mechanical support for both priests of Pelor and Nerull. Do priests of Grummsh and priests whatever-the-Elf-god-is have enough in common to carry an entire class? Does whatever that is generalize to priests of Obad-hai, Kord, and Tiamat?

Classes are supposed to not just provide a theme, but also provide different resource subsystems (or lack thereof, in the case of some classes) and different mechanical ways to express the same flavor.

I agree. But classes need to have the same level of conceptual weight. And I don't see a satisfying Priest class that is the equal of Necromancer, Shaman, Druid, Summoner, Illusionist, Fire Mage, or Warlock. You also have to remember that it goes the other way too. If you write a Priest class that has enough mechanical diversity to support both Vecna and Karl Glittergold, people are going to want to play characters who use the Illusion and Death spheres without having to worship your god of Assassins. Going the other way works better.

Yeah, it's the conceptual block I was talking about, not the mechanical part--it's not that you can't balance them, just that up to this point the designers haven't, so they've used magic items to sneakily give the fighter magic with varying levels of success.

I don't think the magic item system has done that since 3e. If everyone gets the same magic, the catch-up effect is minimal.

The main benefit of the luck blade in this scenario is actually the wishes it potentially comes with; the trident comes in very handy in certain campaigns, and the holy avenger comes in very handy for certain classes, but there's no class for whom or scenario in which the luck blade doesn't come in handy (albeit only 1 to 3 times). I wasn't even thinking about the boring bonuses part, and am definitely in favor of ditching those for the most part and making "+X weapon" one weapon option among many (and not a particularly appealing one) rather than a default part of every magic weapon.

Sure, the story where you find a thing with a bunch of wishes is a good one. But it's not particularly better than the story where you find a thing that lets you control fish, or that lets you send your shadow out to kill people, or whatever other magic stuff you could be doing. +X weapons shouldn't exist at all. Magic items should probably give a fixed "its magic" bonus if they give any bonus at all.

Disagree; there's nothing wrong with enabling people to play pre-Trench-Run Luke, pre-unplugged-from-the-Matrix Neo, pre-Eye-of-the-World Rand, and other characters who are still more "commoner swept up in larger events" than action hero. But the game should definitely make clear that that is what 1st level represents, that 3rd level (or whenever) represents more capable heroes, and that it's perfectly acceptable and even encouraged to start above 1st to get the particular feel you're looking for, instead of making it seem like you have to start at 1st or you're doing it wrong (which none of the editions really do, but they don't do anything to argue against that common perception, either).

I think if you want to do that it's probably better to put in content below 1st level. Have like a Prologue Mode or something where you run through a level 0 adventure as part of character creation.

Those are benefits, yes. I'm honestly not sure if they're worth the drawbacks, especially considering how wobbly the CR system has always been.

I think the CR system is actually pretty good. It's not perfect, but it's mostly accurate, and when it's inaccurate it's usually not by very much (even the much feared-Shadow and Giant Crab are probably only CR 5 monsters). Certainly it's better than the alternative of "the DM has to wing it".

Is it? Or is it just something people have taken for granted because that's what the rules result in?

Yes. Even BECMI D&D went up to Immortals, who "who discovered the multiverse, and decided to give it order and purpose". Every edition of D&D (except 5e, though it's not over yet) has explicitly endorsed the notion that things would eventually go all crazy and gonzo. The idea that you eventually become very powerful is a deep part of D&D's heritage, and shows up to varying degrees in the source material. The hobbits in LotR don't become particularly powerful in an absolute sense, but they do become much more powerful than any other hobbits.

This I can mostly agree with, but the logical conclusion is that low levels can remain low-powered and people who want to be action heroes right off the bat can just start at a higher level.

Certainly there should be some degree of that, but you only have so many levels for your power progression.

Those are roles that can and should be covered. But whether or not they deserve entire classes is another question altogether. If we're going to have, say 12 classes, then we really do need to decide which ideas deserve them and which can be covered by subclasses, feats or something else. Creating Aragorn should be possible - whether or not you need a whole class called "ranger" to do that is a different question.

I mean, if you have a class that you could plausibly call "Ranger", there's no real reason to not call it "Ranger". I'm all for killing sacred cows, but I don't really understand your apparent grudge against that idea of Rangers.

I've never thought about it this way. It's a fair point, but I'm not sure how I feel like designing things around high-end play. Power granted by deities or otherworldy patrons is a staple, so should we restrict players from using it because of something that might happen on a level of play that they will likely never see?

You don't have to eliminate it, you just have to be careful with how it works. The obvious solution in my mind would be to have Lloth's spider magic be something she teaches you, rather than something she gives you. So if you happen to be a real prodigy at spider magic, you can become more powerful than Lloth, and if you do decide to kill Lloth all you lose is access to whatever secret spider magic she hasn't taught you yet.

Wall of stone twice a week replaces every stonemason in the world, unless it's really expensive.

Anything that requires you to get the attention of someone who can by definition cast fabricate, major creation, wall of stone, and lesser planar binding is going to be expensive. What do you even offer someone who can do that? You can't give them stuff, because they can make all the stuff you make better and faster. You can't give them money, because money is used to buy stuff.