D&D in 2024?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
How that? Yes saving throws don't scale unless you have proficiency. Yes there are a handful of DCs higher than 20 like the Kraken's Ink Cloud, or Ancient Gold Dragon's Frightful Presence with a DC24 Wisdom save. But most tap out around 18 to 20. Combined with a modest ability bonus of +1 or +2 can often give you a 1 in 4 chance to save to a 1 in 5 chance of saving at 20th level.

I don't think it reasonable that at 20th level every character should have a 50-50 change of save with their worst ability against the toughest monsters. Especially when there are magic items that give save bonuses available.

Personally I view this aspect of 5e as a feature not a problem.

I also have never understood this complaint. Considering the common complaints about HP bloat I find it even stranger.
 
I also have never understood this complaint. Considering the common complaints about HP bloat I find it even stranger.
Yeah for real. Also I don’t get the complaint: pretty much all save vs. suck effects are gone and PCs can roll to save every single turn thereafter.
 
I also have never understood this complaint. Considering the common complaints about HP bloat I find it even stranger.
Hit point bloat is important way that 5e keeps the power curve reasonable but still allowing for a variety of combat options.
 
My guess is that they'll do nothing about this however, on the grounds that people don't play high levels.

And then, when people play high levels even less-- because they're unplayable garbage-- 6e will be E6 in 2029.
 
I think the only problem with lack of save scaling is Concentration checks. Without feats the Sorcerer is the only caster that is proficient in Constitution saving throws.

This makes it increasingly harder to concentrate on spells as you level up as the damage you would take from a single hit escalates VERY quickly. A level 1 Wizard who takes half their HP in damage can reliably pass the check to maintain spells. A level 20 Wizard who takes half their HP in damage has no chance in hell.

Granted, I would fix that by just making Concentration checks not a Con Saving Throw, and just make it a Con based check that all casters are proficient in.
 
So is it fair to say they have solved the linear fighter quadratic spellcaster issue and folks don't like it because they have done it by nerfing the spellcaster?
 
On a (mildly) more serious note, I would actually prefer that the Fighter and Rogue Classes would remove the magical sub-Class options (the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster).

Firstly, you could always build this type of option with Multi-Classing anyway. Secondly, especially in the case of the Rogue, more space could be used for some more useful archetypes - Mastermind, Swashbuckler, Scout, Investigator, etc. Thirdly, it would be nice for D&D to have some actual non-magical Classes as normal.
 
On a (mildly) more serious note, I would actually prefer that the Fighter and Rogue Classes would remove the magical sub-Class options (the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster).

Firstly, you could always build this type of option with Multi-Classing anyway. Secondly, especially in the case of the Rogue, more space could be used for some more useful archetypes - Mastermind, Swashbuckler, Scout, Investigator, etc. Thirdly, it would be nice for D&D to have some actual non-magical Classes as normal.
Multiclassing for casting is almost universally awful though.
 
I always want them to fix the linear fighter quadratic wizard problem by giving the fighter back their 1 attack per level. What I did in Dark Passages was allow each +1 to hit from skill to be used as an extra attack.

Oh well, I'd like them to pare the classes down to a bare minimum set of abilities and move all the options to feats. Very 3.0 I suppose. I know some of the class options are essentially prestige class but I still don't really like em.
 
I always want them to fix the linear fighter quadratic wizard problem by giving the fighter back their 1 attack per level. What I did in Dark Passages was allow each +1 to hit from skill to be used as an extra attack.

Oh well, I'd like them to pare the classes down to a bare minimum set of abilities and move all the options to feats. Very 3.0 I suppose. I know some of the class options are essentially prestige class but I still don't really like em.
I think switching to very bare classes 1-10 with an optional feat system to customize said character is probably the best way to do it.

This will probably be just a rules cleanup though.
 
I thought that was 4E? :wink:
No.

You could argue I guess that mechanically, it felt like 4e classes are magical in that they all have daily resources.

But in the PHB there were Fighters, Rangers, Warlords and Rogues who were specfically non-magical.

In 5e there is only the Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian (and all of them are potentially magical with subclass picks)

Compared to 3e Rangers and Paladins get more magic, get it earlier, and it is more integral in the way their classes and subclasses function.

The other issue is the unimaginative use of spells in subclasses. The same spells, "Disguise Self" and "Misty Step" seem to come up an awful lot. "Disguise Self" seems to basically be the answer to "we need to add some non-combat utility to this subclass".
 
No.

You could argue I guess that mechanically, it felt like 4e classes are magical in that they all have daily resources.

But in the PHB there were Fighters, Rangers, Warlords and Rogues who were specfically non-magical.

In 5e there is only the Fighter, Rogue and Barbarian (and all of them are potentially magical with subclass picks)

Compared to 3e Rangers and Paladins get more magic, get it earlier, and it is more integral in the way their classes and subclasses function.

The other issue is the unimaginative use of spells in subclasses. The same spells, "Disguise Self" and "Misty Step" seem to come up an awful lot. "Disguise Self" seems to basically be the answer to "we need to add some non-combat utility to this subclass".
In AD&D 1e We had

Fighter, Thief, Assassin

versus

Monk, Ranger, Paladin, Magic-User, Illusionist, Cleric, Druid.

In OD&D 3 LBB we had

Fighting Man

versus
Cleric and Magic-User

Not seeing the issue here. If anything it is a return to form outside of the addition of subclass.
 
Rangers and Paladins in early D&D were largely non-magical at levels people actually play.

Even clerics are a lot different in feel now they have cantrips and a lot more access to direct damage spells.

And it’s not a “complaint”. It is what it is.

Although I did think we were comparing 5e to 4e.
 
Last edited:
Are there some statistics on what sub-classes people pick most, i.e. whether the spell-casting ones are more popular than the regular ones?
 
Rangers and Paladins in early D&D were largely non-magical at levels people actually play.
Ranger had to wait until 8th level get spells.

However that is not the case Paladins who had magical ability from first level on up.

Even clerics are a lot different in feel now they have cantrips and a lot more access to direct damage spells.
Don't see how that relevant to your main point about how classes are magical. Of course cleric feel different. In every editions classes changed and the result felt different than the preceding edition.
Although I did think we were comparing 5e to 4e.
Yes it was Torque2100 Torque2100 who made the initial comment. But you make a distinction in your reply that I disputed by pointing out that D&D having a super majority of it's classes with magic abilities is not a new thing. In fact there was never an editions where that wasn't the case.

Torque2100 Torque2100 feels if it is the subclasses that the issue then AD&D 2e would have been far far worse with it kits system and later Skills & Power.
 
I'm confused Rob. I never said that there was ever a point in which the majority of classes were non-magical. (Why would I be suggesting something that is so obviously wrong?)

I just said that there were more non-magical classes in 4e than 5e (In fact half the classes in the PHB which is probably the high point for non-magical vs magical - Unless we count Castles and Crusades.)
 
Last edited:
I'm confused Rob. I never said that there was ever a point in which the majority of classes were non-magical. (Why would I be suggesting something that is so obviously wrong?)

I just said that there were more non-magical classes in 4e than 5e (In fact half the classes in the PHB which is probably the high point for non-magical vs magical - Unless we count Castles and Crusades.)
Fair enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJS
On a (mildly) more serious note, I would actually prefer that the Fighter and Rogue Classes would remove the magical sub-Class options (the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster).

Firstly, you could always build this type of option with Multi-Classing anyway. Secondly, especially in the case of the Rogue, more space could be used for some more useful archetypes - Mastermind, Swashbuckler, Scout, Investigator, etc. Thirdly, it would be nice for D&D to have some actual non-magical Classes as normal.

I hate multi-classing as it doesn't have any flavour to it so I prefer the subclasses like the Arcane Trickster who feel more coherent as a concept. I agree about the Scout, etc. though.
 
I hate multi-classing as it doesn't have any flavour to it so I prefer the subclasses like the Arcane Trickster who feel more coherent as a concept. I agree about the Scout, etc. though.
Well, maybe. I just felt that the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster were an attempt to make all Classes potential magic-wielders though. Personally,
I’d like to keep Fighters and Rogues as pure non-casters, but I’d see the compromise being multi-Classing. This may be pie in the sky though.
 
I like the variety of magical and martial subclasses; I think my ideal would be for every class to have a full set of "like this other class" subclasses, and then that's a lot of ground covered that otherwise would have needed multiclassing but also gives designers a finer control over thematic consistency.

I really, really like the design of Pathfinder 2e's multiclassing system; you don't technically leave your class, but you can pick up "archetype feats" which give you some of the feel of other classes, or vaguer concepts at the cost of feats from your main class.
 
I hate multi-classing as it doesn't have any flavour to it so I prefer the subclasses like the Arcane Trickster who feel more coherent as a concept. I agree about the Scout, etc. though.
I don't know, the AT/EK being in the core book and basically the "obvious" gish options, they're not exactly used for their unique flavor. Never mind that this isn't very strong in the first place.

Then again, I see D&D constantly failing when it comes to the flavor part, so I'd much rather see it do "generic" classes and features that then get combined to a flavorful whole. No chance in the nine hells of that going to happen, though. People like their clerics, bards and druids, the system has become the flavor.
 
I don't know, the AT/EK being in the core book and basically the "obvious" gish options, they're not exactly used for their unique flavor. Never mind that this isn't very strong in the first place.

Then again, I see D&D constantly failing when it comes to the flavor part, so I'd much rather see it do "generic" classes and features that then get combined to a flavorful whole. No chance in the nine hells of that going to happen, though. People like their clerics, bards and druids, the system has become the flavor.
+10 000:shade:!
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top