I've only ever played 5th Edition D&D, as opposed to other editions. The edition has been the most popular format of the long-standing tabletop RPG that's ever come out, and while an expanding nerdy fanbase is going through growing pains (possessive gatekeepers resisting re-thinking things like race, gender roles, accessibility, etc.) overall I'm the sort of nerd who's always happy to have new perspectives and experiences at the table, joining in the activity I enjoy (I realize I just said I started in 5th Edition, making me a relative D&D noob, but let me extend that to just, you know, all of gaming, which has been a lifelong thing for me.)
Naturally, there are two major cultural shifts we're looking forward to in future D&D - one is the deconstruction (and perhaps reconstruction) of race as a game system. Long story short, among humans, race is an entirely artificial construct, which is why there's no weird genetic issues for people of mixed-race backgrounds (while my ancestors on both sides are, at least today, considered white, there was a time when Ashkenazi Jew and North/Western European were considered very different ethnic groups.) Race in D&D is thus built on an older and, well, more racist understanding of the world. But I think that there are attempts to remedy this, in part by moving toward removing ability score alterations from races (there's no reason an Orc shouldn't be smart) and also, importantly, moving away from the notion that some races are just plane evil (though not free of its own problematic racial issues, the Warcraft notion that Orcs' misdeeds were part of a toxic cultural movement and not inherent to their identity is one method, though I like even better a notion that "evil" races' portrayal is just due to a misinformed perspective.) I'd love to see more mixed-race characters in D&D, which admittedly is easier for, like, Dwarves and Halflings than it is for Vedalken and Warforged (Warforged might just be a special case here.)
The other shift, which I think WotC is more likely to drag its heels on, is the better incorporation of diverse staff - not just as contractors, but as core members of the D&D team. I know that Mike Mearls has drawn some justifiable ire for backing up an abusive collaborator over the voices of those whom he abused - this kind of corporate house-cleaning is fraught and difficult, and other writers have much more intelligent things to say about it than I do.
But this post is not really about the cultural changes. While D&D's story and lore are crucial to enjoying it (well, for me at least,) the game mechanics are also a big deal.
5th Edition has some really fun classes to play, but I do think that two of them have a couple of glaring issues, and I figured I'd approach them first.
We'll start with the Warlock.
Warlocks are, actually, to my mind, a pretty sound and effective class. The problem is that their mechanics, while powerful, often don't really match up with the fantasy players expect from them.
Essentially, Warlocks, I'd say, are like a Magic version of the Fighter. Your weapon is Eldritch Blast, and you can trick out said weapon with a lot of really effective spells and invocations that make it great.
The high-level spellcasting that you get as a Warlock is less central to the class, and is more like some extra power on top of things - big blowout abilities that you can use in a limited way.
This conflicts, I think, with the expectation - which is that Warlocks should sit amongst Wizards and Sorcerers as a versatile class with a great deal of magical ability, only with a unique origin for their power.
Broadly speaking, the small number of spell slots recharging on a short rest actually feels, flavorfully, more like what you'd expect a sorcerer to have.
The thing is, if you get rid of that, and just have Warlocks use standard spellcasting, does that remove the whole identity of the Warlock?
To me, the absolute most interesting element to the Warlock class from a mechanical perspective is Eldritch Invocations. It makes them the most customizable class in the game. So you'd definitely want to keep those, just changing existing ones to fit with any other major changes you make to the system.
Pact Boons are a cool idea, and I think that linking them to various Eldritch Invocations makes the relatively mild bonus you get at 3rd level feel more like a significant investment - a sort of subclass on top of your patron subclass.
Among the pact boons, I think that some of the Hexblade features need to be rolled into Pact of the Blade. First of all, using Charisma for your attacks will make you feel like you're still a capable spellcaster. I might also incorporate the Medium Armor proficiency into this as well - Bladelocks could then all get away with a +2 Dexterity and wear armor that makes it reasonable that they can survive in melee combat. Meanwhile the Hex Warrior bonuses that are more or less useless to a Hexblade Warlock who doesn't go for melee are now being distributed to those who really need it.
On the subject of Eldritch Blast, I see two options - either they make another Warlock cantrip with invocations to make it competitive with EB, or they just make every Warlock learn Eldritch Blast, because right now it just feels like a trap not to take it.
I think keeping the Pact Boons, the Invocations, and Eldritch Blast would be enough for the Warlock identity to survive a conversion to standard pure-caster spell slots. I might also broaden the spells a Warlock can cast - most of their stuff is available to Wizards, and so it seems there should be more "forbidden" magic that you need some powerful patron to grant to you. I'm also tempted to say that any Pact of the Tome warlock should automatically be able to cast ritual spells, as there's little more spooky and warlocky than beseeching your patron for some dark gift over the course of several minutes.
Moving on, let's talk Ranger:
What does a Ranger get that a Dex-based Fighter doesn't?
Well, you get favored terrain, favored enemies, and some spellcasting. Rangers, to be fair, are not as underpowered as their reputation holds them to be, but I do think there are some features that feel, well, underwhelming.
Favored Enemies and Terrain are, first of all, bonuses that are either off or on, and that means that you're entirely reliant on the DM and their choices for whether these rather class-defining features actually do anything for you.
Also, because of this all or nothing element to them, they're kind of diluted so that they aren't too powerful when they're on, which then makes them feel just slightly more useful than not at all.
To me, the fantasy of a Ranger is someone who scouts and prepares - they know a lot about the monsters they're fighting and tracking, and they go into every fight ready for what's coming.
So I would change favored enemy to, instead, be something like "Preparing the Hunt," i.e., at the end of a long rest, you can choose a creature type, and then you get bonuses when fighting that sort of creature.
I also think that said bonus should involve significant damage bonuses. Currently, at level 20, you can add damage equal to your Wisdom modifier to one hit against your favored enemy per turn. One hit. That means that even if you're hasted, the absolute maximum you can add is 5 damage (and that's assuming you can max out your Wisdom by level 20.)
So I'd change that to be a level... 6 or something ability, and it should be that you add your Wisdom to every hit you make against your favored enemy - which, recall, you're basically switching each day.
The class should reward careful tracking and knowing the land and its creatures.
So these are just some ideas to get the ball rolling. It's not that I am champing at the bit for a new edition, but it's clear that there are some design tweaks that could be very welcome. I'm curious to see if, with the Undead Patron, we might see underwhelming subclasses given upgraded "sequels" like the Undead is for the Undying (I'd love to see the Great Old One Warlock given a little more spice, for instance.)
No comments:
Post a Comment