I'm of the opinion that hame designers fir already complete games, are an arrogance that is 100% unnecessary.

Lol we need more classes and he want less

Where the frell did you find a corduroy blazer? Did you go back in time to the 70s??? lol

Looks like an awesome project! Looking forward to seeing more about Delve.

Examples?

@ChartreuseDan biggest one is the Martial battlefield control, enter 4e Warlord. I am currently playing a 5e conversion in a live campaign. Been playing since level 1 and we just hit level 14. It is a blast to play as long as you like to help make others shine. Being able to move people around, give them extra attacks, chance to hit, defense, etc. is so much fun. The second is a true spellblade class. 5e has plenty of martial with a dip of magic or magic with a bit of stabby, but misses the mark in my opinion. Shout out to u/fanatic66 for his "Blast from the 4e Past: Warlord and Swordmage" classes. The third one I wish we had was a dedicated pet class that focused on one big summon. Pathfinder has the Summoner and u/FragSauce made one called the Soul Binder that I think does the archetype justice. I'm sure I could think of a few more, but those three I would love to see the most. Edit: spelling - bet to pet

@@MrBoredinthedorm While I've personally never really felt those gaps in 5e (I'd most be with you on the summoner one but conjured creatures in 5e can be a bit of a nightmare for the table) you've definitely made a good point well 👍

@@ChartreuseDan the pathfinder summoner is actually stupidly well balanced. it'd be pretty close to the 5e beastmaster (revised of course), and if a similar class appeared in 5e the power budget could just be partially shifted into the pet, maybe sitting around a 50/50 balance of power budget.

​@@ChartreuseDanhave you ever played anything other than 5E?

I’ve not looked into that. Should I?

Compared to a lot of other class based TTRPG systems, 5e actually makes multiclassing pretty difficult with its' multiclassing requirements.

​@@shawnpeterson2523it's pretty good!

​@@shawnpeterson2523yes, but it's complicated. The default setting is very edgy. Even more so the spells. But it's an amazing game if you're into that. But if you are used to "combat as sports" approach, which is typically how 5e is run, you might find combat difficult to balance. Tl;dr if you don't mind the possibility of players losing and either enjoy edgyness or can balance it at the table, the game is fantastic

I like the sound of that!

Thought the same. That way if the other content is shiet people will still pay for the totem barbarian or whatever. 😂

so true.

And then his changes reverse the outcome.

"if I could risk immense success, I'd have made the game espousally worse."

Yeah, their base mechanics do need to feel unique and distinguished, and to be useful as well. Looking at the example of Wizards and Sorcerers, your choice is basically Wizard or diet Wizard now with metamagic... But you can take a feat and get metamagic on a full flavor Wizard, so what`s the difference? Fewer spells? No book? "where they get their spells from" is more flavor than mechanics. How about Rangers? What the heck are they trying to be? A weird Fighter of some kind? A spellcaster or healer maybe? A pet class? "Shooting Arrows" can be done just as well on a Fighter, and there are subclasses like Eldritch Knight that can cast spells, so... What mechanic actually makes them unique and useful?

This. I like having more classes as long as they're still thematically and mechanically distinct. Sorcerers and wizards should feel different when you play them, otherwise people will just think of them synonymously. The same goes for several classes

Yea, they all play totally different. In the other campaign I played, I had a Paladin. I switched him because the DM did not like me smiting everyone. So I made a Warlock Hexblade, and kept smiting everyone. Hot Take: In 5e all classes are balanced toward combat, therefore every character at level 1 has a +5 to hit rolls and a +3 to damage. All classes feel the same. Less classes might be a chance to have them have their niches. The Rouge does not need to be as competent in combat as the Fighter.

@@anonymouse2675 I feel this so freaking hard. I understand the spirit behind the phrase, "flavor is free", but it really isn't. Mechanics matter, because mechanics help build the fantasy. The fact that most people can't find or explain the difference between sorcerers and wizards in a meaningful way demonstrates to me that either a) The mechanics poorly build the sorcerer's fantasy or b) The Sorcerer doesn't have a strong enough fantasy/identity to stand on its own As for the ranger, while I do think it has its fair share of problems, I think the biggest problem it has is existing in the current play culture of 5e. A play culture that no longer engages in the old procedure of play, where you must survive and navigate a wilderness before even arriving to the dungeon you're trying to raid for treasure. People actively despise this part of the game and skip over it entirely, taking the ranger's intended niche right along with it. Same reason why the lack of solid, well-defined crafting rules leaves the artificer feeling lackluster.

@@TheGraphicOz The sad part about Sorcerers, is that WotC missed an opportunity to make them super unique with the whole "They don't learn magic, They ARE magic!". They could have done something like the Bladesinger or even Pathfinders Magus class Channel die and Spell Strike as base Sorcerer, then work from there. I mean really, if you have the blood of Dragons flowing through your veins, why are you so squishy? Something like that. And I agree about basically glossing over wilderness survival, exploration, tracking, and especially travel basically being trivialized in 5e, thus sidelining Rangers. I can`t really blame DMs for this, as it was mostly poor design choices and a lack of mechanics on WotC`s part.

Yes.... because we know what the original intention of 4e was but it never materialised. Now with more people using online Table tops and minatures you could probably go back to 4th and have zero problems unless you're a theatre of the mind player. (I personally pinch stuff from 4th edition all the time)

They denounced 4e so hard, and yet fully half the things people like about 5e were intro'ed in 4th. Heck, a bunch of the folks theorycrafting in this comment section are basically just recreating 4e's class+powers build approach, if not going all the way to an entirely skill-based system like GURPS. WotC could release 4e next year with the serial numbers filed off and get away with it as smoothly as Paizo did (PF2e riffs on a lot of ideas from 4e, and has several designers in common).

4E did so many things right.

@@rekzorsand some really fundamental things wrong.

@@RobOfTheNorth2001 I think the only thing 4E did overtly wrong was squishing skills too much, which is why broadened it back out a bit for 5e. Skill challenges were kind of poorly implemented, but I went in using Rodrigo Lopez's rules from Critical Hit. Grappling was a shit show, but it has been in every edition

Ironic because last stream announced 2 more classes making it 27 at this point. Dnd players deserve what they got idc

@@strikerdx2 who has 27 classes? I assume you mean Pathfinder because 5e has 12 classes, 13 if you count Bloodhunter; to say nothing on subclasses.

@@GhostCryProductions yep

​@@GhostCryProductions DND 5e has 14 classes if you include Blood Hunter

You describe it like it anything but bad, lol. Pf have zero stylistic consistency, and none narrative depth. Stinking pile of mmo design docs.

Ssssshhhh....

I mean this is also a good reason to design a class system in general. Gives players restricted gameplay options so you can sell pay to win dlc later

@trentkelly8131 known as power creep! Cause the bast stuff is almost always in the newest books.

@@trentkelly8131 it all depends on the player

Blabby, Punchy, Furry

Angry

Great quote. Cosplaying as Professor DM. LOL

Ahhh why didn't I think of that!

I mean hes married to the World Destroyer... :P

World-Builder Here! Support the Delve Kickstarter and pick up some merch by clicking the links below!

True, and since story can happen in dungeons too, more options are fun

@@BobWorldBuilder I feel like an approach more akin to Pulp Cthulhu would solve that problem better but at the same time I feel like it doesn’t fit into DnD at all as CoC is skill and not class based/focused.

first they come for the dungeons, then they take the dragons too. give it time.

@@aunderiskerensky2304 honestly? My first dnd game ran for 2 years without featuring one dragon. Now my players nearly die from recklessly running into wyrmlings

I'll be honest, I really don't like that the game is becoming more and more of a soap opera at more and more tables. I think it's largely due to newer players and DMs all still expecting everything to be akin to critical role, but there are better systems to tell drama-based stories. Combat and dungeon crawls should still be the main focus of the game system design for D&D.

there are many systems like tht in many different ways :) pf2E keeps the classes but has a lot of level appropriate level features :)

PF2e also has around 20+ classes :P

Take some inspiration from dragonbane. It does not even use levels, but allows for a lot of flexibility.

I always laugh when I see 5e players essentially reinvent earlier editions or other games.

@@kid14346 Which system?

My guy, TSR put the entire modern subclass concept behind splatbooks for years. You behave like a business ain’t going to business. The extensive fluff in the various leatherette books is the reason that the game is what it is now. It’s not because of feat trees and other bloat. It’s because the game had depth in the late 80s.

@@Xplora213 “business is going to business” is not a reason good enough for me to blithely accept it. It puts greater impetus on us to be more vocal about the products we are passionate about. The Lore of DnD is not DnD. DnD is Feat Trees and equations. Instead of solving for X, we add flavor to give understanding and instead, for example, solve for AC or Spell Save DC Dungeons and Dragons is a game system, a framework of rules to play a game in. Classes have different playstyles, roles to fulfill, and added flavor. DnD isn’t strong today because of its depth in the late 80s (though I’m sure it is an important factor). DnD is strong today because it has adapted its game system to be less complex and more accessible. I’m not against cutting/combining classes. But I’m against what cutting classes could lead to. The price of this game is going up, making it less accessible. Now it feels like they’re gonna start cutting features without lowering the price. But business is gonna business amiright? Guess I’ll just be quiet and take it. Sorry I spoke up, you’re obviously correct and all knowing. Could you please help lift WoTC’s boot? I’d like to lick it now.

@@Xplora213 hey, I’m sorry about that last paragraph, I got a little worked up and should have taken a moment. I’m sorry about that.

All the informations about the game is free online… so what do you mean paywalls…

@@googloocraft1217 Internet access is still not a given to many people. It’s a service/utility you have to pay for that falls behind more pressing money requirements (rent, food, water). If people buy the PHB, it should have all the player assets they need to play the game.

Yeah that's pretty much how I feel about it. It's cool to see the ones that have been raelly fleshed out into their own sort-of-archetypes. But at the end of the day, the fantasy literature that inspired D&D leans on: mage, warrior, scout

Barbarian's been a separate class since 2e and Bard was more or less the games first prestige class all the way back in 2e. I want more classes, not less

It's quite the opposite to me. Having, for example, paladin be a cleric subclass would be really awkward. You would have to somehow cram smites, an aura, extra attack, lay-on hands and the level 20 transformation ability into a single subclass to preserve what makes a paladin a paladin, while losing all the flavorful option paladin subclasses themselves used to provide. If something is a class, then it can have a lot of different spins on the theme by having many different subclasses. If it is a subclass to begin with, then that's it, you're stuck with what's in that single subclass for your thematic options. You can roleplay differently, of course, but you don't have the mechanics to back it up.

@@firnen_ Well an arcane trickster is kind of mage-thief. Nothing stops them from doing the paladin a fighter subclass with limited cleric spell casting and smites.

@@shagohad3 You say that, but more classes means less versatility within a class, which leads to less character customization. Fewer classes means you can have much more versatile classes without the classes making each other redundant. It's also much cleaner from a rules crafting perspective. For example, in D&D 5e because barbarian, ranger and druid are all separate classes, making a wild shaping barbarian with an animal companion is a multiclassing nightmare. In a system with three classes (Mage, Fighter, Rouge) it's a dip into mage and leveling fighter the rest of the way out. You use feats and traits as you level to build your architype as opposed to piecemealing Frankenstein's monster out of premade architypes. In this case less can be more.

You can do the same even if Barbarian were a subclass, it would just take redesigning how the classes work in general. There would have to be two levels of "subclasses"- your "subclass" that gives you unique abilities, and a "specialization" that modifies those unique abilities and mechanics. The actual core "classes" would have to be much broader to compensate - you'd have a class that's for dealing and taking loads of damage, a class that's quick and sneaky, a magic-based class, all those. The things we know as regular core classes now would then become subclasses, and then the current subclasses would be specializations. It makes the system a bit more complex, but it is possible, and interesting.

You make a graet point about rage. The designers have over time created some mechanics that exist as almost archetypes of their own.

​@@untapped8776That just sounds like going back to where we started but with extra steps.

With One D&D bringing back the four original classes as class groups more or less accomplishes this, does it not?

@@pedrogarcia8706 I had not heard of that. I guess we will see if the class groups makes it into the final product. Even if it does not, I like the idea of using the class groups for feat prerequisites or item prerequisites. Makes it easier to include without having to make them specific to one class.

I was thinking the same thing. Character creation would become incredibly complicated to emulate the kind of options that are much more easily available in the current class/subclass breakdown.

My First Impression was: wait a second, the whole reason Pointy Hat can't do "D&D with a Twist" about the Artificer because it isn't part of the core rules protected by the Fair Use policy. This sounds like they are trying to keep others from using their stuff again without changing the original OGLs wording.

@@andrewcarter9649 It would be cool if you could spend points as you level up to mix and match abilities though! (assuming you had the prerequisites and required levels)

Take a look at Pathfinder 2e/Remaster and what it does with archetypes... many if which mimic what were prestige classes in 3.x. Especially if you use the Free Archetype optional rule. It's also how it handles the idea of multiclassing. Most of the archetypes granted new options every two or three levels. And you take those options with your class feats, without sacrificing any of your core class abilities like happened with 3.x multiclassing and prestige classes.

Exactly!

I feel like a lot of this is a limitation of 5e's subclass system - a class is always going to have certain core features and its subclass has a small set of features with a fixed power budget. Beastmaster has to be subclass because not every ranger wants a pet and subclasses can only add things. But a subclass doesn't have enough power budget to make a pet work. Also there can't be other subclasses that play off of an animal companion because you can only have one subclass and the pet isn't part of the core class. Also, there are a bunch of subclasses with one neat theme-agnostic feature that come bundled with so much flavour baggage because they have to fill the feature quota. Pathfinder's archetype system in comparison is a lot more freeform - it's free to choose what base features to swap out and can modify its power budget accordingly. I'm willing to bet that you can make a fighter with no core-fighter features (granted, it will probably suck, Advanced Weapon Training is baller and losing that hurts). I know that Spiritualist has an archetype that swaps out its ghost pet (its main feature) for a funky sword so it can be a psychic Magus. Alchemist can ditch bombs to gain sneak attack and drop mutagen for a different archetype. There are a handful of archetypes that can switch a class' spell list or change it from spontaneous to prepared or vice versa. A Psychic Sorcerer Subclass could be fine if it was allowed to say "You no longer choose spells from the Sorcerer spell list, instead choose spells from the Psychic spell list." Maybe change the selection of metamagics too. It would be a whole different class at that point, but I guess you wouldn't have to reprint the spell slots/spells known table.

the subclass system in PF has virtually no limits, some can and do replace every single class ability with something else. IMO, the fact that entire classes exist for some of these concepts is wholly redundant. it's not just frustrating for new players, it's frustrating for anyone who doesn't spend hours poring over class options in their spare time, who has a character concept in mind and has to go through pages upon pages of a la carte options just to get the end result they want.

making it an independent class doesnt automatically make it an entire class balanced around a concept. and every class has to be balanced and developed with the other classes in mind, or else the balance isnt going to be good. thats what makes the subclass so useful as a developement tool. you can try new things and introduce new themes without deviating so entirely from the core class that it breaks balance. it strikes a middle ground where the DM can be comfortable letting this strange new character into the game, because they know they can expect it to fit into the slot the game is designed for, but the player still gets to enjoy a new experience with new features and flavor. if anything, lowering the number of core classes is a boon to these players, as the amount of detail filled in by the subclass increases. instead of wanting to write a blood mage and having to choose between making a sorcerer or a warlock subclass, you can confidently say "thats a magic user", and start developing the subclass with more freedom.

They could make the base classes [x3 or x4] more generic and less powerful. The subclasses have more of the power built into them. A champion classes could have the same hit die [d12], extra attack, etc. cooked into them at levels 1, 5, 10, 15 & 20. While the beefier subclasses could have unique mechanics and more frequent power spikes at even levels [2, 4, 6, 8, etc.].

That's incredibly kind! :) Thank you

That's kind of the thing, though. You're playing as a monk for the mysticism vibe and mobility options, not the attack count. Fighter is honestly a much better option for that in most respects.

@@Amia_the_Smol ok now imagine a world where the monk's vibe wasn't locked behind its mechanics, and vice versa. A mysticism vibe sneak attack rogue mechanics character sounds fun, but current subclasses for rogue are locked behind being a criminal-minded fellow who knows Thieves Cant and lockpicking. Decoupling flavor and mechanics would only allow for more combinations and options for character building. I once wanted to play a war general esque support character screaming support and being frontliney once, and was forced to play cleric despite the original idea having zero religious themes. The character ended up fine, but I was forced to roleplay something I didn't care about because I was mandated to have a major part of my life be my devotion to a god to be allowed to cast the "allies hit better" spell. I've also wanted to play a character that is a criminal banned from wielding weapons thus being forced to fight unarmed. The current only class that really supports that is monk. That character is not monastic, doesn't manage the flow of Ki, and does not meditate. As it is now, if they hit 10th level, they have to become immune to disease and poison. All of their abilities are named mysticism style. I'm forced to push the square peg in a round hole and "flavor is free" my way to a tolerable vibe. That's not fun, it feels like an unfortunate obligation to do what I actually want to.

@@henryjones3232 Flavour is free. A monk doesn't have to be a "monk" just because you use that class mechanically.

@@mannagrynet ​ you say that until they start running on walls, slow falling, becoming immune to aging, speaking every language, and astral projecting. You can only add free flavor, it's very difficult to remove it. And even when you do, the new flavor you add comes with zero mechanical backing.

@@henryjones3232 What? You can flavour the mechanics however you want, no idea what you are trying to say. Do you understand what I mean by flavour? You pick mechanics that fit your fantasy, you explain those mechanics with flavour. Your supporting war general did not NEED to pray or be religious for the mechanics of that class to work? You could change your Channel Divinity to be a great war strategy passed down from a legendary general. One of my friends flavoured all their spells to be potions and grenades. Mechanics are just numbers, flavour is how you explain those numbers in roleplay.

The thing is, they then both perform music they've memorized for an audience, and the audience members can't tell the difference. To them, it doesn't matter *how* the performer learned the music, just that they play it and it is good.

@@centurosproductions8827 True, but as a player, you are not the audience, you ARE that musician. And to you as a musician, how you get to that musical mastery is the most crucial thing ever, because that's where the enjoyment in the process is. If you don't like the "mechanics" of learning music from sheets, then the entire process of preparing for a performance through that will not feel good. In a similar vein people will often enjoy one type of a class of the same category but not the other. (Saying this as a 3.5 player who doesn't like playing prepared casters like Wizards but adores spontaneous casters).

First edition bard was a prestige class You needed several levels of fighter then a few levels of thief Then bard. Mostly bardic knowledge and musical performance to inspire or distract. Very few spells if any

@@mazerumaze The thing is, the Target Audience for D&D (which is currently everyone and their mom) *is* the audience who doesn't know the difference between a saucerer and a pastamancer. The entire point of simplifying things and removing stuff from the core rules so it's "less confusing" for new players, is specifically to draw in people who are currently not enfranchised.

​@@centurosproductions8827 trying to reach everyone isn't necessarily a good game design decision. it's a decision driven by a desire to maximize profit not to make the best game.

Agreed, hence why I stayed with 3.5.

Finished and basically haven changed my mind, the problem is that systems like this are pretty common now. You can just play AD&D or any of the OSR games to get that same system. And that’s not even going into awesome games like Shadow of the Demonlord, which already do a system like this well. It just feels like your trying to drag the game backwards to make it even more accessible for people who arnt going to bother to try to learn what the different classes do. Whats the difference between a Wizard and a Sorcerer just take fifteen minutes and read both pages, it explains it very well.

@@jamesanderson6769cool, I never got a chance to play it myself until after 5e came out. Some of my group wanted to play in the older editions. I’m not going to lie, I don’t like how crunchy it is and how easy it is to break. Which is why I have to work so hard to learn and get comfortable with pathfinder. But I’m trying.

@@Bluehairedgirl89 3.5 and Pathfinder are crunchy for sure and that's not for everyone. For that reason I do think 5e works decent for one shots and short campaigns. But you get the hang of it in longer campaigns. I don't really notice how crunchy it is anymore and I miss it when it is gone. My 5e character made exactly the same or incredibly similar combat roles the entire game. It got dull fast. Game breaking characters is honestly less of an issue in 3.5 in my opinion (which most people would probably disagree with). Anytime you have casual gamers and power gamers at the same table you will get power discrepancies. But in 5e, there is less you can do about it. Once you have broken the bounded accuracy it's broken. In 3.5, I can always give my players a bigger badder fish. And I can do it in a way that doesn't keep my casual players from helping and being useful.

I find it a lot more rewarding to build a character if there are a large number of classes with noticeable differences in playstyle and mechanics, than take a class that is formless and shape it into what I what.

​@@jakksonkobaltI think this is the take. Video games aren't D&D, but games are games and lessons can be extrapolated. In video games, we've seen a massive push towards the "classless" rpg in the last 10 years, with the very blatant intention of making games more accessible to newcomers. While this has led to great financial success, it has also washed a lot of color and depth out of these games and left fairly sizeable portions of longtime fan-bases annoyed and disillusioned. 5e has done a great job of making D&D accessible, and I think the right step would be to build on and refine the successes of that system. Stripping it back to further accessibility would be a mistake. I know some people are talking about this with the idea that stripping out some core classes would result in greater complexity and choices in the remaining ones, but I don't think those people really get where WoTC is as a company. They are looking at how to bring the most people and money possible into the game, and changes to that end will rarely, if ever, increase the complexity of the game.

Not sure what to tell you, savage worlds works pretty well

I think 2nd Ed hit the sweet spot on classes...

AD&D 1E had fighter, cleric, bard, magic user, monk, thief, druid, paladin, assassin, ranger, and illusionist. You’re listing the classes from Basic, not 1E.

@@DragonsinGenesisPodcast Try reading the whole post next time.

Roll that back a second, monk was an offshoot of cleric?

@@AGrumpyPanda A monk is necessarily a member of a religious order.

except dnd has never been good at flexibility

With a massive amount of flexibility, really you get to a point where you don't want classes, you want tons of traits that can be mixed and matched to create whatever "class" you want.

Monte Cook, one of the developers of 3e, used to say on his blog he thought there were basically three fantasy classes: person who's good at fighting, person who's very skillful, and person who commands supernatural forces (i.e. warrior, rogue, mage) and every other class was basically a variation or combination of those three. The games his own Monte Cook Games publishes all reflect this philosophy.

@@BobWorldBuilder But at what point does that become a point-buy system, which while great for character flexibility, are extremely difficult to balance combat and challenges for.

​@@BobWorldBuilder I'm building my own system and I'm playing with the idea of having physical or mental based characters. There are archetype templates but it's also possible to freely pick from a pool of options, and multiclassing just means you're taking a mix of physical and mental abilities.

In brazil, there's a RPG called Skyfall, where the game has basically 3 classes (Duelist, Specialist, and Spellcaster), but has lots of customization, and the subclasses aren't linked to any specific class, so the same subclass works for both 3 classes, and each class has some optional skills... So the number of classes being low, but with more customization is really a great option, it's simpler to choose the way you want, and you can feel free to custom your character a bit more

The system of shadow of the weird wizard works amazingly because it makes classes as some kind of multiclass progression. You get the 4 basic classes, then at level 3 you choose an expert path that is basically a subclass or multi-class. Again, at 7th level you get a master path. And you can combine them as you want without any major balance issues because each path gives you features for different levels. It's an amazing game. I really recommend it to anyone who is looking for a "cleaner" version of d&d.

I'm saying this as a Pathfinder stan -- If 5e (or whatever the heck the new edition is gonna be called) had fewer classes but with a ton of creative options in how they played and could be built, I think I would prefer that model over Pathfinder's model of a ton of classes with a decent amount of options.

littler room for customizations? you can play an entire party of Clerics and they can each be a completely different character.

@@flamepulse42 Little room for custiomization AFTER INITIAL CHARACTER CREATION. You can indeed play a party of 4 wildly different clerics, but most of that customization will have been decided at character creation. after level 3 hits you're basically done. very few campaigns go to level 12, so your character's already entirely on rails outside of two feats. like some classes still have to pick spells they can't change, but if you aren't sorcerer or something you don't make choices anymore.

It doesn’t even belong in forgotten realms.. why??

​@@Hot_DiceWho do you think makes all the magic items?

Artificer is from the Eberron setting. Ed Greenwood’s Forgotten Realms is the default setting contemporary D&D is set around.

Fix it first, I've literally homebrewed my own at this point (and I say this as someone who has played a vanilla artificer since I got into 5e)

I hate artificer I hate artificer I hate artificer

What do you think of taron pounds alchemist?

Subclasses are amazing and we should do more with them but that dose not mean that we need to remove classes they need to just make better subclasses

You might wanna have a look at Pathfinder 2e. Okay, they have a ton of classes (all way more different than 5e ones) but almost everything you pick up is a choice to build em how you want.

TRUTH

Someone teach that DM about the 80-20 rule

This is much more to what DCC does on the Cleric and Mage. To be a cleric you have to have a Deity which effects lots of things. Alignment plays a role in there too. But if you fail rolls on your spells it starts effecting you relationship with your Deity to the point you could lose their favor and not be able to cast. For mage it is a contract formed similar to a pact that gives you your magic and casting or failing to cast can effect you, warping and mutating your body.

I can see a problem with certain game master strangling character progression through their story, though. In the proper hands, I'm all for a system like this

​@@zyronos8292what is DCC

Great idea, in theory. In practice, other systems basically do this. Mutants and Masterminds, Warhammer Wrath and Glory, Warhammer Fantasy, and Shadowrun all come to mind as systems that do something like this. While those games are all fun, most of them are notorious for being very poorly balanced. One of the things that makes D&D 5e popular is that it's easy for people to get into, but as someone who has played systems like the one you're describing; They are Significantly more complicated to get started in.

As long as subclasses are as pathetic as they are in 5E, where it's just a little flavor on a core class, please no

​@@Necroesyeah, I wasn't sure about the "easier to get into" thing. Not without some readymade starter kits, no. But hey, if we are talking balance, I don't personally think d&d has been balanced in a long while. But also I don't think balance is that important either as long as we can get everybody to have enough fun and enough of a spotlight. Also, thanks for mentioning M&M, I completely forgot to look into that one

@@hugofontes5708 In any TTRPG system, balance is derived from the DM. 5e tends to be easier to balance-compared to previous editions-because the numbers stay relative low. This means that a state of difficulty in terms of encounters can usually be achieved just through attrition. Throwing waves of minor, easily defeated (CR roughly half the party level) enemies at almost any party in 5e will eventually drain their resources to the point that a single, powerful enemy with a small contingent of slightly more elite cohorts should present a challenge. In prior editions, this tactic did not work. Numbers scaled directly with level, so a level/CR gap of more than about 3 or 4 (in the player's favor) usually meant the creature could be dealt with too efficiently to be considered a threat. Even in large hordes, low CR threats could usually be taken out without expending valuable resources while also dealing little damage to the party. Encounter balance could still be achieved, but it often require critical thinking and strategic planning on the part of the DM to pull off. In effect, this means that 5e feels like a more 'balanced' system because it's easier for any given DM to achieve challenging encounters without being well versed in the rules and tactics of the game.

@@Necroes oh, you mean that balance. Ok, then

In Shadow of the Demon Lord they solved the problem by giving 3 classes to each character at different levels. I am starting to feel like a PR for SotDL, but I really fell in love with this game.

@@BlueFrenzy I wouldn't say "solved" so much as took a different path. It has its own strengths and weaknesses, as any design does; however I'm glad you found the TTRPG game you like and want to share. I kind of wish Bob would switch to DCC or Shadowdark videos instead of 5E because from what I can tell he has far more love and passion for those systems and all his current 5e videos just.... kind of say "Rip out core DnD mechanics until it looks like Shadowdark" instead of just enjoying what he enjoys.

its a false sense of choice. The Barbarian is a Fighter. Try B/X D&D, Shadowdark or other clone and you will soon find that all that extra subclass nonsense is nothing more than a way to sell more books to more people.

I find they do that on purpose because they know there will always be that one DM or player who is 'You can't play this class in my setting' and they're trying to get around that. There are so many subclasses of other classes I reckon would be fantastic for artificer but because we have these stubborn peeps they're shoved into classes they don't quite fit into instead of giving those classes something that fits them better (and giving more examples for different artificers!)

Right, of course there's differences in their class features and how they learn/prep/know spells, and both are fun! But when it comes to "should they be separate classes or subclasses?" It's just a matter of where you draw the line.

Just dump sorceror. It doesn't mean anything.

​@@gregdaley2661 From an outside glance, yeah they do appear similar. But in play, they are very different. Especially when you look at meta magic.

@@Nemnar7 Which you can get from a feat...

@@anonymouse2675 also true, but it's only two per long rest. The aberrant mind and clockwork soul really added a lot to this class. Also, if you have a good DM, it's an easier caster to play if you've never played one. You don't have to worry about preparing spells each day, you just have access to everything you know. And if you accidentally pick a dud spell, a good DM will let you swap it out.

1d4+Con modifier HP. Which is a problem if you are Raistlin.

while that's true that 1 spell was way more powerful than most spells in modern dnd. Oldschool magic was no joke! Charm person used to be closer to the arabian nights interpretation of charming and the duration could last days, weeks, months, or even years depending on edition.

I wasn't happy. A domestic cat could kill a 1e or 2e 1st level wizard.

@@simonfernandes6809 I mean yeah I guess. That's still very possible in modern dnd if the player is stupid. Magic users can very much kill a cat.

​@@jeshuacordell9342What about Erase or hold portal that last your level.

Another 4e fan!? Nice, they massacred so many 4e Classes

I leave this comment in memoriam of Prestige Classes

5e players: "Fighters & Rangers suck, wish there was a badass martial support class!" Me, cradling my 4e Warlord char sheet: "Look what they've done to my boy" LOL Really so many of the complaints in this entire thread could be resolved by just playing 4e (or reading their class design articles).

Particularly in examples like monk or paladin where you get little subclass features and you have to decote all your asis to stat increase so you cannot use feats