One D&D: More problems with shared spell lists

[Talij]

In the Druid and Paladin UA, there were some great improvements to the smite spells that I think overall seem to have gotten a good reaction to. I think this definitely is an improvement. They now all scale, can be applied after you hit, and most no concentration. I think they'll all get a lot more use from Paladins now.

But...

Since the cleric and paladin share the Divine spell list, this seems like a nice boost to cleric too. Their faster spell progression means access to the stronger smite spells earlier and higher level spell slots means higher level castings. And since paladins can only smite/spell once per turn too, clerics will be able to nova just as much, possible better than paladins can. Someone else can do the DPR math, but once clerics hit 9th level and get banishing smite for sure things start to turn. I'd take 5d10 force AND a chance to banish (a few rounds at least) over 4d8 the paladins smite could do at that level, even with their extra attack.

The shared lists just really blur the lines here between classes. If clerics smite better than paladins, what's the point of paladins? A free horse? Clerics get enough spell slots they can afford to spend one on a horse of their one if they want one.

[Xihirli]

Agreed. If they’re going to have a shared spell list then the class-defining spells should become class features. Find Steed just shouldn’t be a spell, just move its description under the Faithful Steed class feature.
Maybe the same with smites. They could be treated more like Battlemaster Maneuvers instead of spells and be exclusive to the Paladin.

[Ignimortis]

Since the cleric and paladin share the Divine spell list, this seems like a nice boost to cleric too. Their faster spell progression means access to the stronger smite spells earlier and higher level spell slots means higher level castings. And since paladins can only smite/spell once per turn too, clerics will be able to nova just as much, possible better than paladins can. Someone else can do the DPR math, but once clerics hit 9th level and get banishing smite for sure things start to turn. I'd take 5d10 force AND a chance to banish (a few rounds at least) over 4d8 the paladins smite could do at that level, even with their extra attack.

The shared lists just really blur the lines here between classes. If clerics smite better than paladins, what's the point of paladins? A free horse? Clerics get enough spell slots they can afford to spend one on a horse of their one if they want one.
Oh hey, welcome back to 3.5.

[Hurrashane]

The shared lists just really blur the lines here between classes. If clerics smite better than paladins, what's the point of paladins?

... The rest of the paladin? More HP, non-spell slot healing, auras, fighting styles, different channel divinity options, their subclass features... Etc.

Like there's a lot more to the paladin than having smite spells. Pretty sure some clerics got access to a few in 5e yet there was still a point to the paladin.

[Gignere]

... The rest of the paladin? More HP, non-spell slot healing, auras, fighting styles, different channel divinity options, their subclass features... Etc.

Like there's a lot more to the paladin than having smite spells. Pretty sure some clerics got access to a few in 5e yet there was still a point to the paladin.

Well the old smite spells sucked. It will probably be less optimal for a cleric to use the new smite spell anyway as long as clerics doesn’t get extra attack. A Paladin gets two opportunities to land a smite spell and clerics probably doesn’t want to be in melee all the time unless built for it.

[Oramac]

It will probably be less optimal for a cleric to use the new smite spell anyway as long as clerics doesn’t get extra attack. A Paladin gets two opportunities to land a smite spell and clerics probably doesn’t want to be in melee all the time unless built for it.

Not really. The new ones can be used after you hit. So it's not less optimal at all, assuming the cleric is built for melee. And with Holy Order from the Cleric UA giving the possibility of ANY cleric getting heavy armor (not just a couple subclasses), it's even easier to make a melee-focused cleric.

I've been staunchly against the shared arcane/divine/primal spell lists since I read the first UA, and I see no reason to change my mind. The changes to smite spells definitely helps incentivize paladins to use them, but it causes more issues than it solves.

[Segev]

This is a case where the classes need to have features that explicitly enhance categories of spells. Paladins having features that make the smite spells better when the paladins use them is the answer to this problem. Whether that's a feature focused on and naming the smite spells by name/category/description, or it's something like smiting being doable as many times as you have attacks in a turn, and paladins naturally have extra attack while clerics would have to be 5 levels behind on their progression to get it. But you have to very intelligently design your classes who are meant to have specific spells be "their thing" with clever features that enhance or synergize with "that thing."

[Gignere]

Not really. The new ones can be used after you hit. So it's not less optimal at all, assuming the cleric is built for melee. And with Holy Order from the Cleric UA giving the possibility of ANY cleric getting heavy armor (not just a couple subclasses), it's even easier to make a melee-focused cleric.

I've been staunchly against the shared arcane/divine/primal spell lists since I read the first UA, and I see no reason to change my mind. The changes to smite spells definitely helps incentivize paladins to use them, but it causes more issues than it solves.

Having extra attack means you have two opportunities to cast the spell instead of 1. This is definitely a Paladin is better at requirement of the smite spell.

[Aimeryan]

This is a case where the classes need to have features that explicitly enhance categories of spells. Paladins having features that make the smite spells better when the paladins use them is the answer to this problem. Whether that's a feature focused on and naming the smite spells by name/category/description, or it's something like smiting being doable as many times as you have attacks in a turn, and paladins naturally have extra attack while clerics would have to be 5 levels behind on their progression to get it. But you have to very intelligently design your classes who are meant to have specific spells be "their thing" with clever features that enhance or synergize with "that thing."

The new smite Spells would make more sense as an ranged spell attack as an Action. Paladins could then have a feature that allowed them to cast those Spells as a Bonus Action immediately after hitting a creature with an attack, without requiring a new attack roll. It rewards the Paladin by allowing them to add their weapon damage to the mix.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

What’s the point of the Paladin?

I will always think Paladin should be a “prestige subclass” where classes like the Fighter (Paladin), Cleric (Paladin), Rogue (Avenger), and Druid (Warden) can take it to gain Lay on Hands, Smite, and Fond Steed.

I want a bunch of classes, more than 5e at least, but Paladin has never felt like a class of its own because so often other classes already fills everything about it.

[animorte]

I will always think Paladin should be a “prestige subclass” where classes like the Fighter (Paladin), Cleric (Paladin), Rogue (Avenger), and Druid (Warden) can take it to gain Lay on Hands, Smite, and Fond Steed.
I love this idea. Not the 3.5e prerequisite prestige nonsense, but still the "subclass as prestige" concept.

[stoutstien]

What’s the point of the Paladin?

I will always think Paladin should be a “prestige subclass” where classes like the Fighter (Paladin), Cleric (Paladin), Rogue (Avenger), and Druid (Warden) can take it to gain Lay on Hands, Smite, and Fond Steed.

I want a bunch of classes, more than 5e at least, but Paladin has never felt like a class of its own because so often other classes already fills everything about it.

It should be the "oath" focused choice of those who have power granted via some form of agreement. Warlocks are contractual and clerics are aleatory in nature.

[KorvinStarmast]

Smite spells: paladins add a damage die to the smite spells, clerics don't.
How's that for a class distinction?

[Mindflayer_Inc]

I love this idea. Not the 3.5e prerequisite prestige nonsense, but still the "subclass as prestige" concept.

I only use the term “prestige” to show a difference from normal subclasses. A prestige subclass could be one that different classes can take, instead of just being stuck to one class.

So, Champion is a subclass specifically for the Fighter but the Paladin is a “Prestige Subclass” that is for Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Druid or whomever.

This could also work as a sort of multiclass system if you wanted (Paladin is Cleric + Fighter + awesome lore) but that’s a different thing all together.



It should be the "oath" focused choice of those who have power granted via some form of agreement. Warlocks are contractual and clerics are aleatory in nature.


Clerics are, essentially an oath or contract in of themselves, they worship a deity and follows their rules, and the deity rewards them for their service. Always felt that Clerics shouldn’t have Wizard style casting but Warlock style casting as they are more closely related. Paladin doesn’t need a deity or outsider but an oath and contract is basically the same thing with slightly different fluff.

[KorvinStarmast]

So, Champion is a subclass specifically for the Fighter but the Paladin is a “Prestige Subclass” that is for Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Druid or whomever. Let's not do that.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Let's not do that.

I rather do that 10 times over than have Cleric and “also basically Cleric“ in the game as separate classes and their biggest difference is fluff.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I rather do that 10 times over than have Cleric and “also basically Cleric“ in the game as separate classes and their biggest difference is fluff.

How about actually having different mechanics like they do now and not doing the dumb homogenization that OneD&D insists on?

And I'll note that there is no fluff crunch distinction in 5e. But I agree that the UA goes way too far toward homogenization on both accounts.

[Atranen]

Keeping the generic spell lists but giving classes "exclusive" spells seems like a good way to deal with the problem. Put the smites on the paladin bonus list.

[stoutstien]

Clerics are, essentially an oath or contract in of themselves, they worship a deity and follows their rules, and the deity rewards them for their service. Always felt that Clerics shouldn’t have Wizard style casting but Warlock style casting as they are more closely related. Paladin doesn’t need a deity or outsider but an oath and contract is basically the same thing with slightly different fluff.

There are some key difference between clerics and paladin

Cleric- conduits of X power, flows into the world as a direct extension of X. They get this power right off the bat but access is conditional.
X Dont grant this to everyone who seek it but only those who seek "higher calling". Adventuring clerics do so because X told them and they are meant to work towards X's goals

Most important part- which X do you follow?


Paladin- train for years. Heck they aren't even "fully" engaged in their oath until they have proven themselves in action (wait to lv 3 before you get oath). They must be warriors in some regard before the oath is available even if this is a secondary part of being a paladin.
When they finalize thier oath it might be to a X but that is also secondary compared to the oath itself. For example if the oath is to destroy the truest of evil they would kill their X or break the oath. The latter actually prevents them from being a paladin. They live to constantly strive for ideals over goals. Doesn't matter if you chose this path or are picked this is consistent.

Key point- even if they have a quest or follow X. The ideal is the oath not the source or goal(s).


The fluff is everything when we are talking about power and thier sources without that it's all pointless.

*In some regards X's should dislike paladins because they don't need to worship or agree to their goals to gain power. That is a serious threat to the whole system. IMO that's why they seek out paladins in the first place. They feat what they could do if they channel that against them. Paladin who break their oath don't lose their power source because X don't fuel it. The betrayal of the oath has as much power as they do in this circumstance. See oath breakers*

[solidork]

Taken in isolation, I actually really like that it gives melee oriented cleric subclasses a bit more incentive to use their attacks. I played a War Cleric and you eventually get to the point where it doesn't make sense to swing a weapon around.

I agree with everyone that I don't like that it's encroaching on the Paladin's shtick though. It's hard to imagine a way to make Paladins use Smite spells better that's future proofed without adding something like a tagging system to spells.

[Oramac]

a tagging system to spells.

What would be wrong with that? They effectively already have tags in the Spell School notes. Just rename it "Tags" instead of "School" and say that your spells must have the "divine" and "paladin" tag.

Of course, then you get back to the question of just using a class-specific spell list. Oh, wait........

[PhoenixPhyre]

What would be wrong with that? They effectively already have tags in the Spell School notes. Just rename it "Tags" instead of "School" and say that your spells must have the "divine" and "paladin" tag.

Of course, then you get back to the question of just using a class-specific spell list. Oh, wait........

I wouldn't tag by class. I'd tag by theme and then at the class level say "your spell list is all spells tagged any of (list)." Then provide an appendix with lists of spells by level and tag.

Edit: and save spells for things that are supposed to be shared. Class-exclusives should be features, not spells.

[Oramac]

I wouldn't tag by class. I'd tag by theme and then at the class level say "your spell list is all spells tagged any of (list)." Then provide an appendix with lists of spells by level and tag.

Sure, but even then, it'd just be simpler to have a class spell list like we already do.


Edit: and save spells for things that are supposed to be shared. Class-exclusives should be features, not spells.

Also a good plan.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure, but even then, it'd just be simpler to have a class spell list like we already do.



Simpler, of course. Keeping the existing values is always simpler than changing things.

But class spell lists do cause homogenization of their own (more precisely, they prevent enforcing specialization within a class). An evoker can still cast all those other wizard spells just as well as anyone who isn't specialized in those areas. So the temptation is to grab all the strongest spells regardless of their "school" or "specialty" except for a few choice spells from within your specialty. Subclass bonus lists do some here, but only additively.

A more thorough tagging-based system would solve this, especially for clerics. All (PC) clerics might get the Healing tag (which includes restoration and resurrection spells), but a Light domain might also get the Fire tag and a War cleric might get the Holy Warrior tag. Or whatever. No more Life clerics casting animate dead or Nature clerics casting Blight. Etc.

[Oramac]

A more thorough tagging-based system would solve this, especially for clerics. All (PC) clerics might get the Healing tag (which includes restoration and resurrection spells), but a Light domain might also get the Fire tag and a War cleric might get the Holy Warrior tag. Or whatever. No more Life clerics casting animate dead or Nature clerics casting Blight. Etc.

That's fair. And yes, a much more robust and well done tagging system would be great. But do we really trust WOTC to get that right?

Funny thing, in my own game system design, I hit on using tags for spells weeks ago. It's funny to me that it's now coming up in ODnD discussion.

[Kane0]

That's fair. And yes, a much more robust and well done tagging system would be great. But do we really trust WOTC to get that right?

Funny thing, in my own game system design, I hit on using tags for spells weeks ago. It's funny to me that it's now coming up in ODnD discussion.

Game devs and dabblers have been getting a lot to work with from various sources over the last few weeks, great isnt it?

[BerzerkerUnit]

Yeah. I hate these.

[Sorinth]

I think getting the more martial clerics to actually attack is probably a good thing and given that spell preparation has been reduced across the board many Clerics will probably find it difficult to find the room to actually prepare the smite spells unless they were built to be a frontline martial kind of cleric.

And it's worth noting that although we've only seen 1 subclass, there's a smite boosting feature Smite of Protection. It's plausible that most Paladin subclasses will have a similar feature and so have a class feature boosting their smites. And this does make it easier to fine tune things if it really is a problem, which is still up in the air for me until I see it in actual play.

[Salmon343]

Agreed, but this feels more like a problem of half casting rather than shared spell list.

Shared spell list fixes more issues than it brings in problems (allows book exclusive subclasses to reference (different) book exclusive spells, less work compared to unique spell lists which reduces the chance of thematic spells not being given to the right class).

Half casting has significant issues in my opinion - although I appreciate that some classes have stronger non spellcasting features so full spellcasting would be overtuned, you end up getting level appropriate spells late. Fly at 9th level is a bit too late when 5th level challenges started calling for it, Fireball at 9th is hilarious thanks to fire resistance, Greater Restoration at 17 is several levels too late, etc. So now we have Clerics getting Paladin's thematic spells well before them, and being able to use them better too.

I'd rather see a system where half casters gain spells at the same level as full casters, but with significantly fewer slots. Paladins could then smite at the same standard as Clerics, but just fewer times per day - and subclass strengths could make up the difference.

Between Aura of Protection, Abjure Foes, and Radiant Strikes, Paladin's have some very good features that make up the difference - its more the poor scaling on feature attainment compared to the Clerics. They get to fly on their mounts earlier too. An alternative solution is to just remove the 1/turn restriction on smiting - allows Paladins to leverage Extra Attack to Smite better. But that doesn't fix the mount issue.

[Waazraath]

Totally agree with OP. D&D needs more variety between classes, and they are giving us homogenization =/



But class spell lists do cause homogenization of their own (more precisely, they prevent enforcing specialization within a class). An evoker can still cast all those other wizard spells just as well as anyone who isn't specialized in those areas. So the temptation is to grab all the strongest spells regardless of their "school" or "specialty" except for a few choice spells from within your specialty. Subclass bonus lists do some here, but only additively.


Also this. This is what happens in most games (unless players actively restrain themselves at the cost of power to realize a cool concept). Leading to too much samy builds, unfortunately. *puts on the broken record about how the designers look at late 3.5 for inspiration, with classes like the Beguiler, Warmage and Dread Necromancer, and 3.5 psionics, and AD&D clerics*

[Schwann145]

Every spellcaster needs it's own, specifically tailored, spell list to work with. If and when spells are shared between different lists, the level available needs to be taken into consideration (such that if a Paladin half-caster and a Cleric full-caster share the same spell on their lists, they should be appropriately leveled to be available at the correct *character* level - for example, Daylight should be a 3rd level spell for Clerics, Sorcerers, and Druids, and a 2nd level spell for Paladins and Rangers).
To ensure this works, no class should be allowed to steal spells from other lists (Bard).

This would be the absolutely best way for spells to be spread out among casters, and it will never ever happen, because WotC developers are faaar too lazy to put in the footwork.

[Theodoxus]

Agreed, but this feels more like a problem of half casting rather than shared spell list.

Shared spell list fixes more issues than it brings in problems (allows book exclusive subclasses to reference (different) book exclusive spells, less work compared to unique spell lists which reduces the chance of thematic spells not being given to the right class).

Half casting has significant issues in my opinion - although I appreciate that some classes have stronger non spellcasting features so full spellcasting would be overtuned, you end up getting level appropriate spells late. Fly at 9th level is a bit too late when 5th level challenges started calling for it, Fireball at 9th is hilarious thanks to fire resistance, Greater Restoration at 17 is several levels too late, etc. So now we have Clerics getting Paladin's thematic spells well before them, and being able to use them better too.

I'd rather see a system where half casters gain spells at the same level as full casters, but with significantly fewer slots. Paladins could then smite at the same standard as Clerics, but just fewer times per day - and subclass strengths could make up the difference.

Between Aura of Protection, Abjure Foes, and Radiant Strikes, Paladin's have some very good features that make up the difference - its more the poor scaling on feature attainment compared to the Clerics. They get to fly on their mounts earlier too. An alternative solution is to just remove the 1/turn restriction on smiting - allows Paladins to leverage Extra Attack to Smite better. But that doesn't fix the mount issue.

I agree with you, but go one step further. Half casters should be the new full caster. If not going fully with short rest recovery and 1-5 spell slots depending on level, then at least cap Spells at 5th level and turn every 6th-9th spell into rituals. Maybe, just maybe, keep the Mystic Arcanum, Holy Mysterium, Natura Primeval aspect, granting 1 actual spell of 6th-9th levels, if people really cry about it, but otherwise if you're wanting to cast Wish or Weird or Prismatic Wall, it's gonna be a ritual, and it's gonna take some time (I'm a huge fan of communal ritual casting, so if two or more casters have the same ritual, they can divide the casting time by the number of casters available.)

Going this route would allow current 5E half casters to have the same slot progression as 5E full casters, so no silly delay in getting Fireball or Fly or whatever. Instead, as Salmon notes, you could adjust the number of spell slots a specific class has available at any specific level.

So a Cleric or Wizard might have the 5E progression up to 5th level spells, where a Bard or Sorcerer might max out at 3, and Artificer, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger might max out at 2. (That works particularly well if most of the 'unique class spells' become outright abilities or Invocation style options. Heck, it'd be pretty nifty if one of the Invocation style options was 'your spell slots recharge on a short rest.' Of course, it would need to be in a bevy of options that were similarly strong, else it'd just end up an option tax, but I like the idea of it being a player facing choice.)

[Waazraath]

Every spellcaster needs it's own, specifically tailored, spell list to work with. If and when spells are shared between different lists, the level available needs to be taken into consideration (such that if a Paladin half-caster and a Cleric full-caster share the same spell on their lists, they should be appropriately leveled to be available at the correct *character* level - for example, Daylight should be a 3rd level spell for Clerics, Sorcerers, and Druids, and a 2nd level spell for Paladins and Rangers).
To ensure this works, no class should be allowed to steal spells from other lists (Bard).

This would be the absolutely best way for spells to be spread out among casters, and it will never ever happen, because WotC developers are faaar too lazy to put in the footwork.

Yes, this would work perfectly. Guess once which edition (from which the current designers refuse to learn) did this?!?11!?

[Segev]

"Nerf casters by making them unable to have things past ninth class level" is a bad choice. At that rate, just cap all characters at tenth level, and be done with it.

[Kane0]

"Nerf casters by making them unable to have things past ninth class level" is a bad choice. At that rate, just cap all characters at tenth level, and be done with it.

How about 12th?

[False God]

"Nerf casters by making them unable to have things past ninth class level" is a bad choice. At that rate, just cap all characters at tenth level, and be done with it.

Well it's not like the tested the game past 17th, their hit-and-miss high-level class abilities show that.
They didn't make any published adventures designed to go above 15th.
And their vaunted "survey data" says noone really plays the game past 10th, and noone plays more than 9-month-long games.

So yeah, if that's their attitude and that's what their precious "data" shows them.

[Theodoxus]

"Nerf casters by making them unable to have things past ninth class level" is a bad choice. At that rate, just cap all characters at tenth level, and be done with it.

That's not what I said at all. Casters have loads of spells from 0 to 5 that are perfectly grand for adventuring. It's the 1 Action casting time for things like Teleport and Wish that make DMs want to pull their hair out. Turning them into rituals makes far more sense, both for verisimilitude, and game balance.

However...


How about 12th?

That's exactly what I did.


Well it's not like the tested the game past 17th, their hit-and-miss high-level class abilities show that.
They didn't make any published adventures designed to go above 15th.
And their vaunted "survey data" says noone really plays the game past 10th, and noone plays more than 9-month-long games.

So yeah, if that's their attitude and that's what their precious "data" shows them.

For this exact reason. Not only is the game less fun for DMs in tiers 3 and 4, what with the lack of support and insanely imbalanced options between casters and martials, but it's less fun for players too - "Oh, we're going off to save Shadowfel or the Quasi-Elemental plane of Salt, again? yay..." Because again, there just isn't any decent support for upper tier play.

I really didn't like 30 levels in 4th Ed. I kinda wish the 20 levels sacred cow would have been tasty burgers by now. 12th level is an excellent cut off. 5th level spells, 6th level Arcanum and rituals.

[False God]

For this exact reason. Not only is the game less fun for DMs in tiers 3 and 4, what with the lack of support and insanely imbalanced options between casters and martials, but it's less fun for players too - "Oh, we're going off to save Shadowfel or the Quasi-Elemental plane of Salt, again? yay..." Because again, there just isn't any decent support for upper tier play.

I really didn't like 30 levels in 4th Ed. I kinda wish the 20 levels sacred cow would have been tasty burgers by now. 12th level is an excellent cut off. 5th level spells, 6th level Arcanum and rituals.

This is circular logic. "The game doesn't provide support at high levels therefore we shouldn't play at high levels. People don't play at high levels therefore we don't support high levels." Ad infinitum.

I like high level play, and generally prefer it to the grindy, repetitive, generally dull and absolutely random gameplay that is low-levels. Don't get me wrong high-level has it's problems. But I far prefer nuclear warfare to random deaths from an unlucky crit by a kobold, leading me to have to jump out of the game to revisit the character-building minigame, especially when I made a character I enjoyed. And frankly, 4E had the best "epic level" system in D&D ever. It is the most balanced, the most flavorful and thematic and generally the least centered around inter-planar god-killing shenanigans.

D&D seems to be heavily focusing towards what we in the MMO world call "PUG" games. The people don't really know each other. They don't form lasting games or friendships, and when the session is over, everyone logs out of the game and goes back to normal life. There's low overhead, low investment, and generally low interest. You die? Who cares, it takes 5 minutes to make another character. Get kicked from the group? Who cares? You didn't know anyone, like anyone or have any real commitment to the game.

[Theodoxus]

I'm glad you like high level play. You either are, or have, an amazing DM willing to do the tons of extra work to make tier 3+ fun.

I don't. No one I play with does. No one they play with does.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea of PUGs outside of possibly AL, and I haven't participated in an AL game since the Covid lockdown... frankly, I haven't been bothered to go look to see if they're still being run here - because yeah, they definitely have a PUG mentality, but my regular Sunday game sure doesn't... but we all know that the campaign is going to start winding down around 10th level, and might go to 12th or 13th, but that's the limit.

Maybe it's because we all have PF1 backgrounds, and adventure paths typically stopped at 12th. Maybe it's because the few times we went into Tier 3 it felt like drudgery... I don't know. But if 90% of professionally produced material is for Tier 1 and 2 (it certainly feels that way, even if my percentage is technically off) - then that's where the majority of players will stop leveling.

Circular? Perhaps. I guess if in the next iteration, WotC et al. only produces content through 9th level, we'll know for sure. /shrug.

[Segev]

What I don't get is the logic of: "Well, it stops being fun (for me) after tier two, so tiers three and four should be nerfed to tha point that they are tier two, as well. After all, I never play higher than tier two, so the parts I don't play should be kept but made just like the parts I do."

Why not just....top leveling up when you feel it has stopped being fun to do so, and you're happy with the level you're at? Why do higher levels need to be made less different from the level you like so you can keep leveling up and not go beyond where you were happy? Why can't you just stop at the level you like, rather than going on to a higher level and insisting on reducing leveling up past that point to pointlessness?

[JackPhoenix]

How about 12th?

I prefer 11. That way, you'll get a capstone, as 11 is the level where you get another power bump: 6th level spells for full casters, Improved Divine Strike for paladin, Reliable Talent for rogue, 3rd attack for fighter....

[False God]

I'm glad you like high level play. You either are, or have, an amazing DM willing to do the tons of extra work to make tier 3+ fun.

I don't. No one I play with does. No one they play with does.

..snip...

Circular? Perhaps. I guess if in the next iteration, WotC et al. only produces content through 9th level, we'll know for sure. /shrug.

See, it's this non-chalant "who cares about these other guys and their other opinions" from folks like you and WotC that really grinds my gears. Like, you don't care for XYZ area of the game, great! We agree that certain areas of the game are not to our tastes! But, then you continue on with "I don't care if its eliminated entirely." Like, I'm not out here asking them to remove levels 1-5. I don't enjoy it, I don't play it. I'm not interested in games where I'm stuck in the kiddie pool forever.

But, I'm not supporting it's removal from the game.

And no, high-level gameplay isn't hard. It's only hard for, again, PUGs. You might play a regular game, but you may still be , fundamentally, a PUG. Low overhead, low investment. High-level gameplay isn't hard, it just requires investment. Even in the MMO world where companies like Blizzard have done everything they can to make high-level content for PUGs as easy as possible, it still requires knowing your class, knowing your spells, knowing your role, and getting your butt out of the fire.

But low-level doesn't require that. It requires knowing, I dunno, maybe 5 or 6 things. It doesn't really require knowledge of your class, or your spell list, or your special abilities, because you don't really have many. You have to know to push the red button, or the blue button, and maybe in an emergency, the green button. And functionally you don't really need to know anything at all. What's your standard attack? The red button. What does it does? 1d6 damage. Is it situationally useful? Who cares, it's your only attack it's what you're going to use. And quite frankly, nothing on your character sheet at low levels will determine success. The d20 gets to determine that.

PUGs aren't just about the get-together. It's about mentality. Lowest investment. Lowest overhead. Highest reward.

And I'm not suggesting that this isn't human nature. That's perfectly natural. But it doesn't make for quality game design.

[Aimeryan]

What I don't get is the logic of: "Well, it stops being fun (for me) after tier two, so tiers three and four should be nerfed to tha point that they are tier two, as well. After all, I never play higher than tier two, so the parts I don't play should be kept but made just like the parts I do."

Why not just....top leveling up when you feel it has stopped being fun to do so, and you're happy with the level you're at? Why do higher levels need to be made less different from the level you like so you can keep leveling up and not go beyond where you were happy? Why can't you just stop at the level you like, rather than going on to a higher level and insisting on reducing leveling up past that point to pointlessness?


Yup. I feel this is the generic problem with martials - WotC want them to play in Tier 3+, but refuse to actually make them play at Tier3+ and instead just keep extending Tier 2 level features. Like, WotC should just have them cap at 10 and acknowledge that they haven't got good ideas for how to put them in Tier 3+ while keeping the same fantasy. If they really cared to, they could bring back Prestige Classes for the remaining 10 levels that work in those Tiers that the martials could progress into, realising that they are in a magical universe and need to take advantage of that too and stop just hitting things with a stick.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yup. I feel this is the generic problem with martials - WotC want them to play in Tier 3+, but refuse to actually make them play at Tier3+ and instead just keep extending Tier 2 level features. Like, WotC should just have them cap at 10 and acknowledge that they haven't got good ideas for how to put them in Tier 3+ while keeping the same fantasy. If they really cared to, they could bring back Prestige Classes for the remaining 10 levels that work in those Tiers that the martials could progress into, realising that they are in a magical universe and need to take advantage of that too and stop just hitting things with a stick.

Honestly...I'm not sure what this whole "playing at Tier3+" thing means. I've played lots into T4. And really, the game doesn't change much. Even for casters. No, really, it doesn't. All that guff about "changing the world" and all? That's all plot-level stuff that happens just as well for martials as anyone else.

The game is not supposed to change radically between tiers. The days of "name level" is over. And has been for the vast majority of the life of the game. The fact that it is, for some groups, is a flaw, not a feature.

[sithlordnergal]

For this exact reason. Not only is the game less fun for DMs in tiers 3 and 4, what with the lack of support and insanely imbalanced options between casters and martials, but it's less fun for players too - "Oh, we're going off to save Shadowfel or the Quasi-Elemental plane of Salt, again? yay..." Because again, there just isn't any decent support for upper tier play.

I really didn't like 30 levels in 4th Ed. I kinda wish the 20 levels sacred cow would have been tasty burgers by now. 12th level is an excellent cut off. 5th level spells, 6th level Arcanum and rituals.

Funnily enough, I am the exact opposite of you. XD Screw the low levels, they can be tossed in the bin. DMing and playing becomes fun after level 11, once you get into the actually interesting spells and abilities. I can't throw my big, fun monsters at a low level table. The only reason I bother DMing for Tier 1 and 2 is because its handy for story purposes. Much easier to establish a character at level 12 and above when they've gone through 11 levels of adventures.

But the moment they pass that threshold? Now I can do things like toss a pair of CR 14s, a CR 15 support, and a CR 12 as a mook for a really interesting encounter without worrying about causing an instant TPK. As for "there isn't any decent support for upper tier play", are you sure? There's about as much support for it as there is for T1 and T2. I've yet to have an issue finding support for upper tier play.




Honestly...I'm not sure what this whole "playing at Tier3+" thing means. I've played lots into T4. And really, the game doesn't change much. Even for casters. No, really, it doesn't. All that guff about "changing the world" and all? That's all plot-level stuff that happens just as well for martials as anyone else.

The game is not supposed to change radically between tiers. The days of "name level" is over. And has been for the vast majority of the life of the game. The fact that it is, for some groups, is a flaw, not a feature.


See, I fully agree with this. The game doesn't have a massive change once you reach T3 and above. And DM prep doesn't change massively either. At most, it might take slightly more work on the DM's side of things because now players have access to higher level abilities, but even then its not that much. Cause you, as a DM, have even more access to those higher level spells/abilities than the players do.

[Oramac]

Funnily enough, I am the exact opposite of you. XD Screw the low levels, they can be tossed in the bin. DMing and playing becomes fun after level 11, once you get into the actually interesting spells and abilities. I can't throw my big, fun monsters at a low level table. The only reason I bother DMing for Tier 1 and 2 is because its handy for story purposes. Much easier to establish a character at level 12 and above when they've gone through 11 levels of adventures.

But the moment they pass that threshold? Now I can do things like toss a pair of CR 14s, a CR 15 support, and a CR 12 as a mook for a really interesting encounter without worrying about causing an instant TPK. As for "there isn't any decent support for upper tier play", are you sure? There's about as much support for it as there is for T1 and T2. I've yet to have an issue finding support for upper tier play.

See, I fully agree with this. The game doesn't have a massive change once you reach T3 and above. And DM prep doesn't change massively either. At most, it might take slightly more work on the DM's side of things because now players have access to higher level abilities, but even then its not that much. Cause you, as a DM, have even more access to those higher level spells/abilities than the players do.

Fully agree on all counts. I love high level play.

[Segev]

I think the games I've played in that "break down" at Tier 3 wouldn't have if we'd started there, simply because teh things that intimidate the DMs seem to be the non-stat-page-related things we've gained, in the form of allies, reputation, and resources. Our political clout and our ability to leverage influence is what really takes over by the time we reach that point. Our actual stat pages facilitate this by making us able to survive a few rounds in the metaphorical ring with supernatural threats, but it's things that we are able to pull off that side-step combat entirely - often only half using stat-page-related powers - that are the big show-stoppers.

Start us at level 12, and we wouldn't have the history in the world, the reputation, the favors and influence to pull these things off.

[Oramac]

I think the games I've played in that "break down" at Tier 3 wouldn't have if we'd started there, simply because teh things that intimidate the DMs seem to be the non-stat-page-related things we've gained, in the form of allies, reputation, and resources. Our political clout and our ability to leverage influence is what really takes over by the time we reach that point. Our actual stat pages facilitate this by making us able to survive a few rounds in the metaphorical ring with supernatural threats, but it's things that we are able to pull off that side-step combat entirely - often only half using stat-page-related powers - that are the big show-stoppers.

Start us at level 12, and we wouldn't have the history in the world, the reputation, the favors and influence to pull these things off.

Eh. Those non-stat-page things are the DMs fault. Or, more accurately, freely letting them work is the DMs fault. The party may have the reputation, but not everyone gives a damn. They may have favors, but NPCs are people too and went on vacation or sabbatical or something. Politicians gonna politic. Favors from them aren't much better than favors from fey.

TL;DR: yes those things all are true, but they shouldn't be entirely reliable.

[Segev]

Eh. Those non-stat-page things are the DMs fault. Or, more accurately, freely letting them work is the DMs fault. The party may have the reputation, but not everyone gives a damn. They may have favors, but NPCs are people too and went on vacation or sabbatical or something. Politicians gonna politic. Favors from them aren't much better than favors from fey.

TL;DR: yes those things all are true, but they shouldn't be entirely reliable.

You say that like it's a "problem." (I mean, it kind-of is, because the DM got intimidated and dropped the game, but that's not the point.) The point I was getting at is that it's not the balance of the stat pages that break the game down.

As to your advice... some of it might've worked, but in the end, it would've required the DM to have NPCs who acted against their own interests in diabolus ex machina ways to screw the party. Now, rewards could've been stingier. Things could've gone worse. But we all were having fun.

As the DM put it, "You've toppled a Dragon Queen and pitted Archfey against each other to your ultimate victory. Where do I take the campaign from there?"

We still hope we'll come back to it eventually, but he's running a different one in the meantime. (We have some idea of where the plot was going, but I understand being a little intimidated by trying to keep escalating things. I'd advise not escalating the scope and focusing on narrower goals for the party, but I "get" why that's hard to imagine without making it feel off. Bleach didn't work nearly as well between the end of the Aizen arc and the beginning of the last arc, when Kubo Tite apparently was trying to recapture the pre-Soul Society feel by toning things down. I don't think that'd be an issue with this campaign, but... well, I understand the concern.)

...and this is getting a bit off topic for this thread, sorry. I just felt the need ot defend the DM of the campaign, and also highlight that I don't think the tier 3+ issues likely stem from the stat pages, so much as the history and what it arms the PCs with as they fight their way up to there.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You say that like it's a "problem." (I mean, it kind-of is, because the DM got intimidated and dropped the game, but that's not the point.) The point I was getting at is that it's not the balance of the stat pages that break the game down.

As to your advice... some of it might've worked, but in the end, it would've required the DM to have NPCs who acted against their own interests in diabolus ex machina ways to screw the party. Now, rewards could've been stingier. Things could've gone worse. But we all were having fun.

As the DM put it, "You've toppled a Dragon Queen and pitted Archfey against each other to your ultimate victory. Where do I take the campaign from there?"

We still hope we'll come back to it eventually, but he's running a different one in the meantime. (We have some idea of where the plot was going, but I understand being a little intimidated by trying to keep escalating things. I'd advise not escalating the scope and focusing on narrower goals for the party, but I "get" why that's hard to imagine without making it feel off. Bleach didn't work nearly as well between the end of the Aizen arc and the beginning of the last arc, when Kubo Tite apparently was trying to recapture the pre-Soul Society feel by toning things down. I don't think that'd be an issue with this campaign, but... well, I understand the concern.)

...and this is getting a bit off topic for this thread, sorry. I just felt the need ot defend the DM of the campaign, and also highlight that I don't think the tier 3+ issues likely stem from the stat pages, so much as the history and what it arms the PCs with as they fight their way up to there.

I've just finished up my second T3+ campaign with a given group, my 4th overall. For me, the thing that makes T3+ doable (in the intended scope) is exactly the reputations, alliances, etc. they've built up over the campaign. Starting ab initio (ie without any of this) at level 11+ would just see them crushed if they approached any of the appropriate situations (ie continental+ threats). Because IMX, a T3 party mechanically just isn't that much stronger than a T2 party. It's mostly just slightly higher numbers with slightly faster travel. It's only because of their allies, their reputations, etc that they can face these threats.

A "bare" T4 party can't (in my mind) hope to walk into a Demon Prince's lair with any chance of survival or success. Demon Princes don't face unknown challengers and tend to have armies. They can swamp the party in sheer numbers. A party with a reputation as a power in their own right and with the support of other powerful individuals/groups? Yeah. There they might get a chance to fight without having to wade through an infinite number of demons.

My most recent party dealt with a sealed evil in a can from ancient days. Working alone, they'd not have gotten close (because there was an entire valley worth of evil corrupted things blocking their path). If they could have gotten close, they'd not have been able to actually face it (because they needed technomagical help to open the way once inside the containment). If they could have actually faced it, they'd not have been able to defeat it without dooming everything...because they'd not have known that it was a trap until it was too late. And even if they could have defeated it without dooming everything, the whole valley would have been turned into a pit of hell and even worse things would have been unleashed.

It took an army of dragons, angels, devils, and mages, plus the prayers of continent+, plus several artifacts, plus the intervention of multiple other groups (including taking a chance on a "wish card" given to them by a demon prince of random behavior) to pull it off successfully. No one else could have done it for a lot of reasons, but without their allies they'd have been up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle. Even if they'd been level 20.

-------

And it kinda has to be this way or the whole "why is this still a problem" issue arises. If it could have been defeated by sheer power, well, there are tons of people more powerful (including all sorts of extraplanar folks) than even a level 20 party. So why has it been sitting around for this long? If victory is mostly a function of the entire campaign, that goes away. It hasn't gotten taken care of because no one was in the right place and did the right things to get the ball rolling forward and keep it rolling forward until they could actually apply a bunch of sheer power to the necessary spot.

[Yakk]

My PaliPatch(tm) was that paladins get free divine smite after they cast a spell.

Which double-dips on smite spells, and boosts other stuff, and means paladins don't hog their spell slots for burning on smiting.

This can scale with paladin level in a few ways, so a paladin remains better at smiting than a pali-dip. For example, level 2 you get 1d8 per slot level smite (max 4d8), +1d8 for undead/fiends.

At level 5/9/13/17 your divine smite gets +1d8 damage.

A level 2 paladin doing a 1d6 damage smite spell does 1 less damage per slot and is worse at crit fishing, and gets the smite rider.

A level 5 paladin gets equal efficiency from spell slots smite wise, other than crit-fishing. Level 9 a 1st level spell grants a 3d8 smite. At level 17 each 4th+ level spell grants a 8d8 smite, and even 1st level spells are 5d8 smites.

Meanwhile, a paladin 2 dip still gets smites, but they are capped at 1d8 per spell slot level. And aren't easily crit-fished.