[dnd5.5 rant post] Disappointed the direction D&D is going in

[HorizonWalkerRanger]

I’ve been playing this game for a long time, through clunky editions, broken combos, and the occasional rulebook that needed an interpretive dance to make sense. But at least back then, your choices felt like they meant something. Now? I genuinely don’t know why I should care about my mechanical identity when it feels like the system doesn’t either.

This didn’t start with 5.24e, but it sure as hell feels like it’s culminating here.

Let’s talk about the Ranger’s Beast Master companion, because it’s the canary in the coal mine. Originally, you could pick from actual creatures in the Monster Manual. Your panther, your giant badger, your hawk. Each with quirks. Sure, some were better than others, but the concept was you had a pet. Then came the tweaks: limit the CR, then the size. Okay, still a creature. Then it became “or you can just take a statblock with a name like Beast of the Land.” Now? It’s a single generic statblock that you flavor as any beast. It’s not a panther. It’s a “Level + Proficiency scaling melee damage unit with a speed trait and fluff text.” The entire gameplay function is divorced from any actual animal traits. It’s not a panther. It’s a token you painted black and called “stealthy.”

Imagine if they applied that same design to Druid Wild Shape, and they’re already halfway there. Instead of choosing from a massive, growing library of beasts that vary in mobility, attack types, HP, special traits, and creative possibilities, you just get “Generic Tiny Form,” “Generic Tank Form,” “Generic Scout Form.” Flavor it however you want, ferret, bear, eagle, whatever, it doesn’t do anything different. The game doesn’t recognize those distinctions anymore. No grapples, no swim speeds, no darkvision, no poison immunity. Just one size fits all stat blocks with different names.

Or imagine if it was applied to the Warlock’s Pact of the Chain. You used to choose your familiar based on function, do you want invisibility from the imp? The sprite’s poison arrows? The pseudodragon’s telepathy and advantage aura? Now? Just one Chain Familiar+ statblock that can maybe fly, maybe do Help, and maybe has a tail if you squint hard enough. The ranger doesn’t form a bond with a unique creature. They get a themed drone. So what’s to say WotC doesn’t give familiars the same treatment?

And this issue isn’t hypothetical. It’s actively showing up in subclasses that are still ostensibly “supported.” Like the Horizon Walker ranger, whose entire flavor revolves around traveling the planes. You’d think that, with the release of Planescape, they’d seize the opportunity to expand on it, give us a teleporting skirmisher with meaningful planar interaction, utility spells tied to shifting realities, maybe even passive resistances that shift depending on the plane you’re in. Instead, it’s still “detect portal once per short rest” and a damage boost that requires a bonus action, directly competing with Hunter’s Mark, the ranger’s bread and butter. And unlike, say, Colossus Slayer, which gives you bonus damage with zero action cost, Horizon Walker actively punishes you for trying to do your job. The rest of the kit? Some mobility and minor damage resistance. It’s not bad, it’s just empty. The flavor is rich, but the mechanics don’t follow through.

Same goes for the College of Spirits Bard. The original hook was seances. Every day, you’d commune with different spirits and gain wildly different temporary abilities. Sometimes it was niche and unpredictable, but that was the charm, it felt haunted. Now? Seance is gone. In its place is… basically nothing. Just a standardized spell list that other bards can mimic with a feat and a lootable scroll. The one mechanic that made this bard subclass distinct in both theme and function has been scrubbed out because it didn’t fit the mold of modular balance.

Even the infamous Hexblade, the subclass that practically carried the warlock on its back, isn’t immune. It was supposed to be the “weapon pact” warlock. Charisma based gish. Bound to a cursed weapon. But in the latest iteration, their features no longer care if you use a weapon at all. You can throw a dart, slap someone with a shoe, or blast away with Eldritch Blast and still trigger Hexblade features. The subclass isn’t about wielding a blade anymore, it’s just another way to justify Charisma to damage and some built in tankiness. So again, why call it Hexblade? Why pretend it’s mechanically distinct from other warlocks when it’s just a cosmetic wrapper around some slightly reworded damage scaling?

And then there’s the race/background overhaul. In theory, decoupling ability scores from race and background increases freedom, but in practice, it removes all mechanical significance from those choices. You don’t play a dwarf because they’re hardy and tough anymore, you play a dwarf because you like the beard art. Stat bumps are universal. Backgrounds grant feats now, sure, but most of those feats are shallow and interchangeable. You could swap out your background and barely notice a difference. There’s no functional identity. It’s aesthetic.

Yes, I understand the intent. Modular, flexible design. More freedom. More expression. But at a certain point, all they’ve done is shift the burden of character identity onto the player’s imagination while offering fewer actual tools to support it. You can reflavor anything as anything. You can call it whatever you want. The game will never acknowledge the difference. But if I wanted to make up everything and rely entirely on headcanon, I wouldn’t need a $70 rulebook and a supplemental expansion. I’d grab a $15 D6 system, roll 1D6 for everything, and move on.

It’s not that I want to go back to endless tables and nested exception rules. It’s that I want the choices I do make to matter. Right now, you’re not a Goliath Echo Knight who lost their arm and replaced it with a summoned spectral blade. You’re “Martial Subclass 1A,” with optional reach, flavor text pending. You’re not a kenku bard who channels the stories of long-dead playwrights through seance rituals, you’re “Full Caster 3B,” with reflavored Force damage and the same Help action as everyone else. This is not a call for bloat. It’s a plea for meaningful mechanical identity. The more they lean into generic statblocks, generic class features, and open ended design that says “just describe it however you want,” the less this feels like Dungeons & Dragons and more like an overpriced homebrew prompt with fancy art. It’s not that I don’t like reflavoring. It’s that when all of the mechanical variety is removed, reflavoring is all you have left. And that’s not a game, that’s just a storytelling exercise with optional dice.

Say what you will about 3.5 being bloated, or PF1e having too many edge case rules. But there were rules that created interesting design space. There was personality. If you played a kenku necromancer with a background in plague doctoring, you could find a way to make that mechanically distinct from the aasimar paladin with a tragic past. Now it’s just: “Pick your class, reskin the stats, and reflavor the same handful of effects.”

There’s a strange design dogma that’s taken root in modern D&D, the idea that mechanics get in the way of creativity. That constraints stifle imagination. That restrictions are obstacles to be removed so players can “truly express themselves.” And while I understand the sentiment, the truth is, rules are creative fuel. Limitations can inspire the most memorable characters, the most interesting playstyles, and the most personal stories. When you sand down everything in the name of “freedom,” what you’re actually doing is flattening the design space so thoroughly that meaningful uniqueness has nowhere to grow.

Take something as simple as the classic “orc wizard.” In older editions, orcs typically had penalties to Intelligence, meaning you could still play a wizard, but it would be an uphill climb. A character like that had mechanical friction built in, and that friction created identity. You’re not just “a wizard.” You’re an orc wizard. Maybe you struggle to pronounce incantations correctly. Maybe you brute-force spellcasting with sheer willpower. Maybe your magic is raw, primal, hard to control. You lean into different spells, maybe more buffs and utility than complex saves. You compensate in roleplay, or you build a character arc around mastering intellect over time. The rules prompted that. Not a spreadsheet, not a writer’s room. The rules said “this will be hard,” and that’s what made it fun.

Now? There are no stat penalties. Races don’t give meaningful mechanical identity anymore. That orc wizard is identical to a high elf wizard unless you, the player, do all the heavy lifting, and if the game doesn’t recognize the difference, does it even matter? Without some degree of mechanical distinction, character identity becomes just another paragraph in a backstory doc nobody reads after session three.

Mechanics can, and should, be part of the flavor. There’s a massive difference between baked in flavor mechanics and player applied fluff. For example, if a class feature says “your bard performs a haunting seance to invoke the spirits of long-dead storytellers,” that creates narrative and thematic expectations. You can build around that. The dice mechanics and the story complement each other. Now compare that to the current philosophy, which says “gain a bonus to spell damage and reflavor it however you want.” Sure, you could flavor it as a seance, but nothing in the game acknowledges that, supports that, or distinguishes that from “I tap my lute and a lightning bolt comes out.”

One is a design space. The other is just vibes.

A lot of the most unique characters I’ve ever seen were born because of mechanical friction. The halfling barbarian who dumped Strength and leaned entirely into rage fueled mobility and creative use of terrain. The Dex based cleric who chose finesse weapons, not for power, but because she took a vow not to shed blood. The low Charisma paladin who wasn’t inspiring, but terrifying, divine conviction as intimidation, not persuasion. These weren’t exploits. They weren’t “optimal.” But they were supported by the rules in ways that felt intentional, even if they were unusual.

And when the game acknowledges those choices, through restrictions, through challenge, through meaningful consequences, it makes those characters feel real. That’s not a limitation. That’s flavor with teeth.

When you remove that scaffolding in the name of universal balance, you don’t empower players, you burden them. You put all the responsibility on them to make things interesting without giving them any tools that actually matter. Now everyone picks their +2 and +1 ability scores. Everyone gets a feat at level one. Everyone casts the same curated spell list with minor tweaks. Your drow necromancer and your tiefling necromancer and your kobold necromancer all feel the same, unless you spend hours writing flavor text to convince yourself otherwise. The game won’t back you up.

And don’t get me wrong, I’m not pining for the return of punishing stat penalties or deeply unbalanced racial traits. What I want is meaningful identity. A reason to pick something beyond aesthetics. If the only difference between my wood elf monk and your lizardfolk monk is the paragraph we read aloud at session zero, then the system has failed us both. Mechanics don’t need to replace creativity, they can inspire it.

Here’s the thing, flavor without mechanics is just fan fiction. Mechanics without flavor is just math homework. But when the two support each other, when the rules help shape the story and the story reshapes how you engage with the rules, that’s when a game like D&D shines.

Right now, too much of 5.24e feels like it’s being designed from the top down: a blank canvas for you to paint on. And that sounds liberating… until you realize they’ve stopped giving you brushes, stopped giving you colors, and told you to just imagine the masterpiece. I don’t need infinite choice. I need meaningful ones.

Dungeons and Dragons is turning into a video game. And I don’t mean a rich, narrative driven RPG like Baldur’s Gate 3 or Disco Elysium. I mean it’s becoming a stripped down, UI focused MMO where mechanical depth is flattened into character templates and flavor text is left for the player to invent while the game quietly shrugs and moves on.

That separation of appearance from mechanics is a hallmark of video game design. Especially online games, where balance and accessibility trump asymmetry. Everyone can be anything. Everyone can look however they want. The numbers are the same behind the curtain. But Dungeons and Dragons wasn’t supposed to be that. The beauty of a tabletop RPG is that the rules and the story talk to each other. The character you build on paper shapes the fiction, and the fiction shapes how you interact with the mechanics. That link is breaking.

Class features are being homogenized the same way. Most subclasses now follow a strict structure. You get one damage boost, one mobility option, one situational tool. It does not matter if you are a gloomstalker or a horizon walker or a monster slayer. If the damage is coming from a bonus action and scaled off proficiency, that’s what defines your turn. The rest is paint.

As I said before, backgrounds now grant feats. Feats are carefully balanced around general use. Races no longer matter for stat bonuses. Stat penalties are gone entirely. What you look like, where you come from, what your story is, it has no mechanical teeth. The system doesn’t care if you are a goliath or a goblin or a satyr or a dwarf. Pick your plus two and your plus one. Assign it wherever. Close the menu.

And again, this mirrors video games. In MMOs, you pick a class. You pick a build. Then you pick a skin. Your racial choice might give you one passive ability, maybe a cosmetic emote. That’s where DnD is heading. Functional decisions are narrowing while aesthetic options are growing. But the mechanical personality of a character, which used to come from the intersection of stats, race, class, and playstyle, is being flattened into a series of plug and play options. Like scrolling through presets in a character creator. There is less room for friction. Less room for bad builds with great stories. Less room for asymmetry and jank and creativity.

If the only thing that distinguishes your character is what you invent out of game, then you are just LARPing with a math sheet. And again, if that’s the experience you want, there are other systems built for that. DnD used to support mechanical storytelling. Now it supports a rules engine with cosmetics layered on top.

It’s not inherently wrong to borrow ideas from video games. But DnD is trying to become a live service title with no servers. It’s balancing for a competitive environment that doesn’t exist and optimizing for ease of use over depth of play. And in doing so, it’s losing what made it special. The weirdness. The mechanical identity. The meaningful friction between what a character wants to be and what the rules will let them be. That’s where the story lived. That’s where players found interesting choices.

If you think what’s happening to Dungeons and Dragons is new, it’s not. We’ve seen this kind of streamlining before, and the end result isn’t innovation, it’s homogenization. Take a long look at what happened to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, and more broadly, to Games Workshop’s design philosophy across the last fifteen years. You’ll see a clear blueprint for what’s going on with D&D right now. And it should make people nervous.

Once upon a time, Warhammer Fantasy was messy, fiddly, deeply uneven, and packed with mechanical identity. Careers were strange and specific. A ratcatcher with a small but angry dog played nothing like a squire. You had to work your way into higher professions. A soldier and a mercenary had different flavor and different mechanics. Your stats were mostly static. Advancement was slow. Combat was deadly. That jank was part of the charm. The rules forced you to engage with the world as it was, not just as a combat arena.

Then came newer editions. Simpler classes. Faster resolution. Cleaner skill lists. Progression became linear. Careers became flatter. Now a ratcatcher and a mercenary and a grave robber are all using mostly the same core abilities, with minor tweaks. Backgrounds are flavor. Advancement is a progression tree. You’re not exploring a world anymore. You’re slotting into a chassis. The danger and weirdness that gave the system texture were removed for accessibility. Sound familiar?

The same thing happened with Warhammer 40k as a minis game. Older editions had complex unit interactions, bespoke wargear, overlapping rules, faction specific stratagems. It wasn’t always fair. It was a mess. But it had character. An Imperial Guard player had to think differently than a Tyranid player. They weren’t playing the same game. There were trap choices. There were niche tools. Some things were bad. But bad was part of the meta.

Then GW began standardizing everything. Index rules. Simplified stratagems. Fewer wargear options. Point balancing. Streamlined datasheets. Now most armies follow the same logic. Units all get one ability. One leader. One enhancement. It’s cleaner. Easier to onboard. Easier to teach. But that’s the point it’s easier to sell. The unique edge of each faction was dulled in favor of consistency. Fewer headaches. And fewer surprises.

Back to D&D. Look at what’s being done to classes. Most subclasses now follow the same formula. One damage boost. One reaction. One ribbon. They’re balanced for “combat clarity.” Spells are trimmed. Wild Shape is becoming a suite of standard statblocks. Summoning is a single creature with level scaling math, not an actual monster. Backgrounds are now feat bundles. Races are aesthetic. Roleplay hooks are optional. You get the illusion of choice. But underneath it’s the same structure, every time.

And yes, it’s easier. Just like new Warhammer editions are easier to play, or teach, or run in a tournament. But that’s the tradeoff. Systems that prioritize ease of access lose their texture. They lose friction. They lose the space where players make interesting or suboptimal choices. Where characters feel unique not just because of their lore, but because their stats force them to interact with the world differently.

People will say “it’s just natural evolution.” That old systems were bloated or inaccessible. That nobody wants to memorize obscure rules or interact with janky systems. But that jank is where the life was. That complexity didn’t just gatekeep. It defined the world. A game where a goblin thief and a vampire noble have to navigate the same ruleset is a game that forces creativity. It creates emergent stories. Modern design flattens that.

This is what happens when rulebooks are written with marketing first. When game design is aimed at smoothing player experience rather than deepening it. When uniqueness is delegated entirely to player flavor instead of emerging through mechanics. It’s how you get the same five builds over and over again with different hats.

So when people say “this is just where D&D is going,” remember, it’s where Warhammer already went. And the result was a cleaner, safer, simpler game that left half its soul in the dumpster behind the edition change.

Forced balance might seem like a noble goal on paper, but in practice it threatens to strip tabletop gaming of the very soul that makes it worth playing. When every class is tuned to deal the same damage, when every race is standardized for fairness, when every subclass is balanced around the same action economy templates, you’re not fostering creativity, you’re choking it. Tabletop games thrive on asymmetry, on weird builds that somehow work, on roleplay driven choices that don’t follow optimal math. If you remove the highs and lows in the name of mechanical parity, you flatten the game into something sterile. You lose the beauty of struggle, of compromise, of carving out an identity in a world that doesn’t hand it to you. Perfect balance doesn’t create better stories. It creates more identical ones.

There’s similar stances for this post all over Reddit if you know where to look. Dig through class feedback threads on Unearthed Arcana releases, scroll through edition war debates, check the countless side by side comparisons of legacy subclasses versus their OneD&D counterparts. You’ll find players pointing out how their favorite subclass gets power crept by every newer subclass, how the new beast companion erase flavor, how features are getting boiled down to statblock soup. You’ll see bards mourning the loss of Spirits’ seance, and warlocks wondering why their blade subclass no longer needs a blade. These aren’t isolated grumbles. They’re a pattern. A steadily growing unease that beneath all the polish and friendliness, something vital is being drained out of the game.

And honestly, I doubt most players would even read this whole post. I get it, it just keeps going. And ITA for making y’all read this if you did. Not because they’re stupid or lazy, but because the current design philosophy encourages surface level engagement. The system is built around quick access, curated builds, and modular content that can be consumed like a Netflix show, play it for a bit, move on, maybe pick up a new subclass next week. There’s no incentive to dig deeper when everything is polished smooth and packaged with a tooltip. Why care about mechanical identity when the game tells you every race is equal, every background is interchangeable, and your subclass is just a themed damage boost with some sparkles? Some didn’t even read the players handbook. They’ll skim the first few lines, maybe catch a buzzword or two, and move on to a meme or a build guide. And that’s fine. Attention spans are short, and Reddit isn’t exactly built for longform discourse. But I’m willing to bet that even if they don’t read it, most players feel what’s being said here. They’ve noticed their characters starting to feel more samey. They’ve felt that nagging sense that their choices don’t carry as much weight. They’ve scrolled through a new subclass and thought, “Wait, didn’t I already play this but with a different coat of paint?” “I’m happy for you, or sorry that happened” if it’s longer than a paragraph or two. Whether they read every word or not, I think deep down, a lot of people agree. For a lot of people, that’s enough. But it’s not Dungeons & Dragons. It’s just a very elaborate character creator with a dice roller attached.

Just to be clear, every post in this discussion has been entirely serious. None of this is a joke, a parody, or some elaborate bit. These concerns are real, the examples are specific, and the trends are observable across official releases and public playtests. This isn’t about gatekeeping or nostalgia for its own sake, it’s about the erosion of meaningful mechanical identity in a game that once thrived on the tension between flavor and function. When players are pointing out systemic issues with class design, race homogenization, or the flattening of subclass identity, that’s not whining, it’s feedback rooted in years of experience.

I’m not asking for complexity for its own sake. I’m asking for mechanical personality. For identity that’s recognized in the rules, not just in my monologue to the DM before a long rest. Because right now, D&D is turning into a toolkit that says, “Here’s your Lego blocks, make something cool.” And I love Lego. But if I wanted to build the entire game from scratch myself, I wouldn’t be paying Wizards of the Coast to do it for me though. It’s sad to see this decline.

[Thaluikhain]

Not played it, but it looks like the way to do interesting characters is now to multiclass in weird and power limiting ways, and even then, it's really not great.

[deaddmwalking]

Beating someone with a shoe is cool if you make 'we will bury you' your battle cry, but otherwise, point taken.

Without interesting mechanical choices the game tends to lack replayability. In earlier editions players often had a favorite class, and playing that class in different settings and different adventures could be diverting, but it's nice to grab a change or pace once in awhile. When every class is the same, that's hard to do.

That said, earlier editions still exist. Shadzar spent a lot of time railing against a D&D that catered to people who didn't already love D&D and we pointed out that he was unhinged. At the end of the day the important thing us finding a group you can have fun with (including a ruleset that supports that).

[Aryxbez]

Having read this whole post, I disagree having sub-optimal builds, or Races with penalties was a good design to have. The proverbial Orc Wizard didn't magically have more flavor because of -2 Int/Wis/Cha, it was either too minor to notice, or was just a constant annoyance they could've easily just not had. I do agree in having a suite of abilities on a race in 3.X like the Dwarf, would help to differentiate them, but a lot of races were just stat bumps that people were more wanting to play for the flavor of being that race. I've clamored for Stat increases divorced from race since 2008 from the early 4e days, and even a little bit before into late 3e. With interesting racial abilities you can have that gradient where an Orc or Gnoll wizard feel different.

Having trap options is bad game design, but nor does it mean "balance" is making every build the same. In fact, this is a failure of balance, because you're not creating meaningful choices that contribute to the game state and at level appropriate junctures. A game where they print Ryu and guile over and over again, is just palette swaps, and not a meaningful achievement of balance.

Minimizing sub-optimal choices is going to be ideal, so to create less bad experiences where a player is not only having a bad time, but also bringing down others as well. Optimization from a caster or something actually Overpowering could help compensate and save the day, but shouldn't have to come down to that to "carry" the game.

[deaddmwalking]

Having read this whole post, I disagree having sub-optimal builds, or Races with penalties was a good design to have.

I agree with this. That's prompted me to revisit the rant and explain my thoughts a little more.

Now? It’s a single generic statblock that you flavor as any beast. It’s not a panther. It’s a “Level + Proficiency scaling melee damage unit with a speed trait and fluff text.” The entire gameplay function is divorced from any actual animal traits. It’s not a panther. It’s a token you painted black and called “stealthy.”
....
Flavor it however you want, ferret, bear, eagle, whatever, it doesn’t do anything different. The game doesn’t recognize those distinctions anymore. No grapples, no swim speeds, no darkvision, no poison immunity. Just one size fits all stat blocks with different names.

This part I agree with. There's something to be said for reusing a stat block. Maybe a lion and a cheetah are similar enough that you can sub one for the other, or make an 'on-the-fly-change' and increase the speed of one at the expense of a quick -2 to attack and damage. But that type of substitution works in part because you're trying to quickly model a real (or imagined) thing using the existing rules. There's probably not enough difference between a squirrel and a rat to make a difference at the scale that D&D plays, but there's definitely reason to model a wolf and a lion differently. This loss of differentiation matters - when we're told that 'minion ogres' have 1 hit point and that they don't actually represent 'ogre' anymore, it causes real angst. We could fight the same level-appropriate stat block over and over and the GM could flavor it as a Balor or a Zombie, but part of what makes combats interesting is the different tactics that are appropriate based on the opposition.

On the player's side, we expect the players to roll into battle with the same characters as the last fight. In that sense, a change to the animal companion rules doesn't 'create variety' for a single player, but between players, it definitely matters. And when a player likes a class and plays it in different campaigns, having ways to distinguish those characters from each other can actually matter a lot.

Take something as simple as the classic “orc wizard.” In older editions, orcs typically had penalties to Intelligence, meaning you could still play a wizard, but it would be an uphill climb. A character like that had mechanical friction built in, and that friction created identity. You’re not just “a wizard.” You’re an orc wizard.

There are a lot of ways to distinguish characters, and I do think that an orc wizard should be different than a gnome wizard, just like an orc fighter should be different from a gnome fighter - but only a very little bit. By the time you get to 20th level, there really shouldn't be any meaningful difference between them because the differences from race are relatively small after you've increased the power level 400x. Like, there's a big difference between a 3-year-old and a 5-year-old, but there's not much difference between an 27-year-old and a 29-year-old. The fact that they've both grown so much means that starting difference stops being so meaningful. Unless you get continuing benefits from your racial choice as you gain levels (and in standard D&D you don't), it doesn't make sense that a difference that is +0 ECL makes as much difference at 15th level as it does at 1st.

I'm also not a fan of penalties, especially to attributes. If you give someone a bonus and you don't give someone else a bonus, effectively you've given the second character a penalty. But it doesn't FEEL like it. Somewhere in your game world is the 'smartest orc', and maybe the difference between them and the 'smartest elf' is immaterial - as a result it makes sense to give BOTH characters a bonus on INT at creation; but maybe the orc gets a bonus to CON and the Elf gets a bonus to DEX as well - those bonuses will make them feel different without consigning one to 'worst wizard choice' and the other to 'best wizard choice'. I'm mostly against favored classes or other ways of pigeon-holing a character into a concept. There are times from a world-building standpoint it might make sense to say something like 'dwarf wizards are rare' or even 'dwarf wizards don't exist', but I'm less okay with saying that they CAN'T exist. I can see creating a mechanical incentive to discourage an uncommon choice, but I think that should be done sparingly if at all, and that those penalties, whatever they might be, are small enough that they don't make such a large difference that it represents more than a level difference. Ie, a 15th-level Dwarf Wizard shouldn't be weaker than a 14th level Elf Wizard - they're both 15th level characters; but I could see the two 15th level characters still having some minor differences, even making one slightly better at the 'core functions' of the class. That's a pretty tough line to tow, but it's possible.

Once upon a time, Warhammer Fantasy was messy, fiddly, deeply uneven, and packed with mechanical identity. Careers were strange and specific. A ratcatcher with a small but angry dog played nothing like a squire.

I get that there are different people, and people like different things, but I've NEVER seen anyone hold Warhammer Fantasy up as a paragon of good design. One reason is perhaps random elements completely subsume player choices. If you don't want to play as a ratcatcher but that's what you roll, that's what you get. Flavor and mechanics may be united, but player choice is not served.

The same thing happened with Warhammer 40k as a minis game. Older editions had complex unit interactions, bespoke wargear, overlapping rules, faction specific stratagems. It wasn’t always fair. It was a mess.

I don't think that current Warhammer rules are sufficiently streamlined and the various factions definitely play differently. A horde army (like Tyranids) is going to be different than one that has a few big models (like Imperial Knights). In any combat game players are going to look for some of the same things - everybody needs anti-tank and everybody needs anti-infantry - and factions are going to be different in how much access they have to these things and individual armies are going to be different in how much of these things they include.

But back to D&D!

Back to D&D. Look at what’s being done to classes. Most subclasses now follow the same formula. One damage boost. One reaction. One ribbon. They’re balanced for “combat clarity.” Spells are trimmed. Wild Shape is becoming a suite of standard statblocks. Summoning is a single creature with level scaling math, not an actual monster. Backgrounds are now feat bundles. Races are aesthetic. Roleplay hooks are optional. You get the illusion of choice. But underneath it’s the same structure, every time.

Look, the guys behind 5th edition originally thought 4th edition was a good idea. So much so that they trashed 3x when 4th edition launched. They were SURPRISED and CONFUSED that players weren't on board with everyone basically getting the same powers. They never repudiated their stance, so yes, it's totally obvious that they're trying to sneak 4th edition 'samey-sameness' into the current edition subtly enough that people won't notice. It's like the apocryphal story about boiling a frog by slowly raising the temperature - turns out frogs will jump out when it starts getting hot but we do tend to tolerate the slow deterioration of a previously good thing more than we will accept a terrible thing initially.

You have a lot of discussion of 'evolution' and 'simplified rules' and I think that's where we align least. Having 'bespoke rules' for a goblin with a mace and separate rules for a goblin with a crossbow is not simple or streamlined. When the picture shows a mace but the stat block shows a scimitar there's a question of whether the differences between those weapons matter enough that you can't just use one for the other (just like discussion of a cheetah or a lion - incidentally I think those are different enough that they warrant separate stat blocks). There certainly are times and places where the differences are enough that you should be able to account for them. Anyways, what D&D is doing isn't necessarily indicative of 'evolution' or 'modern game design principles'.

So while I agree that mechanical personality is desirable and that D&D doesn't have enough of it, I disagree about how it should be included and in what forms. I frequently fall back on the home-brew I play for the sake of discussing these types of hypotheticals. In our game, race doesn't matter much, and it's something we could probably flesh out a lot more. It gives you some abilities and they're intended to be roughly equal and aren't supposed to completely limit your ability to play any character (though being small has some down-sides for melee focused characters baked in - we think that being small should make it harder to grapple or wield big weapons, so we accept that as a trade-off for the sake of emulation). We only have 7 classes, total, with no sub-classes. Still, each character gets to make a lot of meaningful choices in terms of how they play, so two characters of the same class can feel very different. There are lots of places you can put the 'meaningful choice' levers; race doesn't have to be one, and even class doesn't have to be THE ONLY ONE.

[Dogbert]

Personally I'm all for effects-orientation systems, provided the list of effects is sufficient to create your fictional creature's identity and make it actually different from the druid next to you (see Mutants and Masterminds), otherwise we're going back to 4E's Cookie Cutter chargen which is the worst of both worlds. Either add sufficient detail, or go full abstract HeroQuest 2, just don't give me cookie cutter shit.

[Meikle641]

I can see the stablock option working, but it has to have flexibility to it. Look at the Astral Construct from 3.5, a totally modular and explicitly flavor flexible creature that can be whatever you want it to be.

At each level range, you can choose an ability from the following menus (2 if you spend a feat and Expend Focus)"

Astral Construct Menu A
A manifester creating a 1st-level, 2nd-level, or 3rd-level astral construct can choose one special ability from this menu.
Buff (Ex): The astral construct gains an extra 5 hit points.
Celerity (Ex): The astral construct’s land speed is increased by 10 feet.
Cleave (Ex): The astral construct gains the Cleave feat.
Deflection (Ex): The astral construct gains a +1 deflection bonus to Armor Class.
Fly (Ex): The astral construct has physical wings and a fly speed of 20 feet (average).
Improved Bull Rush (Ex): The astral construct gains the Improved Bull Rush feat.
Improved Slam Attack (Ex): The astral construct gains the Improved Natural Attack feat.
Mobility (Ex): The astral construct gains the Mobility feat.
Power Attack (Ex): The astral construct gains the Power Attack feat.
Resistance (Ex): Choose one of the following energy types: fire, cold, acid, electricity, or sonic. The astral construct gains resistance 5 against that energy type.
Swim (Ex): The astral construct is streamlined and shark like, and gains a swim speed of 30 feet.
Trip (Ex): If the astral construct hits with a slam attack, it can attempt to trip the opponent as a free action without making a touch attack or provoking attacks of opportunity. If the attempt fails, the opponent cannot react to trip the astral construct.

Astral Construct Menu B
A manifester creating a 4th-level, 5th-level, or 6th-level astral construct can choose one special ability from this menu. Alternatively, the construct can have two special abilities from Menu A.
Energy Touch (Ex): If you are a kineticist, the astral construct’s physical attacks are wreathed in your energy type, dealing an extra 1d6 points of energy damage. If you are not a kineticist, the astral construct deals an extra 1d4 points of damage of an energy type you choose (fire, cold, acid, or electricity) when you manifest the construct.
Extra Attack: If the astral construct is Medium or smaller, it gains two slam attacks instead of one when it makes a full attack. Its bonus on damage rolls for each attack is equal to its Strength modifier, not its Strength modifier x 1-1/2. If the astral construct is Large or larger, it gains three slams instead of two when it makes a full attack. Its attacks are otherwise unchanged.
Fast Healing (Ex): The astral construct heals 2 hit points each round. It is still immediately destroyed when it reaches 0 hit points.
Heavy Deflection (Ex): The astral construct gains a +4 deflection bonus to Armor Class.
Improved Buff (Ex): The astral construct gains an extra 15 hit points.
Improved Critical (Ex): The astral construct gains the Improved Critical feat with its slam attacks.
Improved Damage Reduction (Ex): The astral construct’s surface forms a hard carapace and provides an additional 3 points of damage reduction (or damage reduction 3/magic if it does not already have damage reduction).
Improved Fly (Ex): The astral construct has physical wings and a fly speed of 40 feet (average).
Improved Grab (Ex): To use this ability, the construct must hit with its slam attack. A construct can use this ability only on a target that is at least one size smaller than itself.
Improved Swim: The astral construct is streamlined and sharklike, and gains a swim speed of 60 feet.
Muscle (Ex): The astral construct gains a +4 bonus to its Strength score.
Poison Touch (Ex): If the astral construct hits with a melee attack, the target must make an initial Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 astral construct’s HD + astral construct’s Cha modifier) or take 1 point of Constitution damage. One minute later, the target must save again or take 1d2 points of Constitution damage.
Pounce (Ex): If the astral construct charges a foe, it can make a full attack.
Smite (Su): Once per day the astral construct can make one attack that deals extra damage equal to its Hit Dice.
Trample (Ex): As a standard action during its turn each round, a Large or larger astral construct can literally run over an opponent at least one size smaller than itself. It merely has to move over the opponent to deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d8 + its Str modifier. The target can attempt a Reflex save (DC 10 + 1/2 astral construct’s Hit Dice + astral construct’s Str modifier) to negate the damage, or it can instead choose to make an attack of opportunity at a –4 penalty.

Astral Construct Menu C
A manifester creating a 7th-level, 8th-level, or 9th-level astral construct can choose one special ability from this menu. Alternatively, the astral construct can have two special abilities from Menu B. (One or both of the Menu B choices can be swapped for two choices from Menu A.)
Blindsight (Ex): The astral construct has blindsight out to 60 feet.
Concussion (Sp): The astral construct can manifest concussion blast (manifester level 7th) as a free action once per round.
Constrict (Ex): The astral construct has the improved grab ability with its slam attack. In addition, on a successful grapple check, the astral construct deals damage equal to its slam damage.
Dimension Slide (Sp): The astral construct can manifest dimension slide (manifester level equal to Hit Dice) as a move action once per round.
Energy Bolt (Sp): The astral construct can manifest energy bolt (manifester level 8th) as a standard action once per round. The creator sets the energy type that the astral construct can manifest when he creates it.
Extra Buff (Ex): The astral construct gains an extra 30 hit points.
Extreme Damage Reduction (Ex): The astral construct’s surface forms hard, armor-like plates and provides an additional 6 points of damage reduction.
Extreme Deflection (Ex): The astral construct gains a +8 deflection bonus to Armor Class.
Natural Invisibility (Su): The astral construct is constantly invisible, even when attacking. This ability is inherent and not subject to the invisibility purge spell.
Power Resistance (Ex): The astral construct gains power resistance equal to 10 + its Hit Dice.
Rend (Ex): The astral construct makes claw attacks instead of slam attacks (it deals the same amount of damage as it would with its slam damage, but does slashing damage instead of bludgeoning damage). An astral construct that hits the same opponent with two claw attacks in the same round rends its foe, which deals extra damage equal to 2d6 + 1-1/2 times its Str modifier.
Spring Attack (Ex): The astral construct gains the Spring Attack feat.
Whirlwind Attack (Ex): The astral construct gains the Whirlwind Attack feat.

[GnomeWorks]

At each level range, you can choose an ability from the following menus (2 if you spend a feat and Expend Focus)"

Apparently menus and options you can pick from multiple times at different points in time are inherently bad.

[deaddmwalking]

At each level range, you can choose an ability from the following menus (2 if you spend a feat and Expend Focus)"

Apparently menus and options you can pick from multiple times at different points in time are inherently bad.

If you're responding to something that I said, it was not that options of abilities are bad, but that additional picks from the same list of abilities offer diminishing returns. Think of it like the NFL draft - your first pick you get your absolute best option; by the time you get to your 5th pick you're rounding out your team or picking up backup options. It's not that the 5th option isn't important, but it's not sexy or flashy. The first and second round are where the excitement is.

In D&D, when you combine the level system, making a pick at 5th level that you didn't choose at 1st or 2nd is extra bad because you're choosing an ability that wasn't good enough at 1st, so it's inherently a worse choice at 5th.

The list above where you get to choose from higher level abilities at higher levels is slightly better than making additional choices from list A for 20 levels.

Also a potential issue from list choices is 'fulfilling a concept'. If my concept is 'lion' it makes sense that I'd want celerity (increased land speed compared to a human) and pounce. If I can only make one selection from either list, but never one selection from each list, it's hard to fulfill the concept. If all of the abilities are integral to the [class, creature, whatever] then giving each ability is more important than giving selections from a list.

The 3.5 Monk at 6th level gives you a bonus feat where you can choose either Improved Trip or Improved Disarm. Both are the kinds of things that you might want for your character at an early level. In fact, a 1st level human monk can get Combat Expertise as their Human Bonus and take Improved Trip as their 1st level Feat, then take Improved Disarm at 3rd level, getting to the concept of that ability 3 levels earlier at the cost of an actual feat. And if they do that they get NOTHING for their 6th level ability. That's a really good example of a bad set of options - it might have been meaningful earlier, and there's all kinds of reasons that you'd want to make both selections, so you're INCENTIVIZED to ignore your class ability and get those feats another way.

Generally, if you're offering lists of abilities, there need to be enough 'really good abilities' that you can't get them all so you're still excited to make an additional choice, and you want tiers, where new abilities come online. Giving someone a choice from Table B or two from Table A is also a pretty good option so you're getting more from your additional selections when they're already not your first or second choice.

[GnomeWorks]

additional picks from the same list of abilities offer diminishing returns.

Only if the picks offer effects that do not scale or are not otherwise evergreen.

This is kind of streching the astral construct example because it was specifically built with multiple menus in mind so how you make your picks is based on that -- but I can certainly envision a single menu for such a thing. Buff and Deflection, and their higher-level counterparts, could each just be one option that scales with level. For the others, I'm sure sensible progressions could be devised to give you additional things at relevant breakpoints.

making a pick at 5th level that you didn't choose at 1st or 2nd is extra bad because you're choosing an ability that wasn't good enough at 1st, so it's inherently a worse choice at 5th.

Because no one has ever said "I want both of these things, but can only have one right now, so I'll get the other one later."

The 3.5 Monk ... a really good example of a bad set of options

For any given concept I'm sure there absolutely are bad ways to implement them. That does not imply that the thing is bad itself, only the particular implementation (though yes, if you have enough bad implementations of a thing, it may point to the thing itself being bad).

We can just point at monk, say "don't do it like that," and move on.

Generally, if you're offering lists of abilities, there need to be enough 'really good abilities' that you can't get them all so you're still excited to make an additional choice

Ideally, yes, every ability on a pick list would be a good choice. That said, allowing for context, influence from other choices, and some room for personal preference is valuable.

and you want tiers, where new abilities come online.

Again, only really necessary if you've got options that don't scale or are otherwise useful regardless of level. Tiers are a way to handle this, not the way.

[deaddmwalking]

Life is like a box of chocolates. Once you've taken all the good flavors, you'll probably still eat the rest because it's better than nothing, but you won't really mind sharing them either.

Obviously different people will like different things. That's one of the fun things about items as treasure. The party can divvy them up to make sure that people get the thing they like best. That's harder to do with class abilities which are, by their nature, exclusive.

I'm definitely of the opinion that letting Rangers have both Archery and Two-Weapon fighting styles is good. They're useful in different situations and they don't stack, so it's a very clear option to give more powerS without giving more POWER. The action/resource costs of supporting both are enough that most people will favor one, but it's nice to have a backup suite of powers when the situation calls for it.

You know how Aragorn famously never used a bow in the Lord of the Rings because rangers have to pick a fighting style?



Me neither

I absolutely use lists of features like Talents (like Feats) and Spells. Hell, you could consider class and race as choice as a selection from a list! For Talents, the only pre-req is level; we use a 12-level system and some talents have a 5th level pre-req and some have a 9th level pre-req. The talents that you can take at 1st level still scale; often they provide an immediate bonus followed by an increasing bonus at 4th/8th/12th. Spells also have levels; 1st-7th, and you frequently have the option to pick from a 'new list' because you've gained access to new spells. What I don't have is any class ability that says 'pick x or y at level z'. If I want people to have the class ability, I'll give them the class ability. If I think they should select the ability from a list, I'll make it a non-exclusive Talent that anyone can pick. I don't see any reason that any fighting style should be exclusively reserved for one class. Two-weapon rogue? Cool. Two-weapon berserker? Cool. Two-weapon knight? Cool. Two-weapon Wizard????


Yep, that's cool, too.
So when making a list for features, you have to decide whether it's exclusive (one class only) or non-exclusive (open to multiple or maybe even ALL classes), how many selections from each list (understanding that each additional selection from the same list is less rewarding than the first pick), how new lists become available, and the relative utility of a selection for various builds. If some class will always take an ability and no other class will, maybe it should be an exclusive class ability. Making something a tax is also bad. So, there's a lot to think about with list selections. That's not to say that they're bad design - I think a small number of selections from a small number of lists is really good to avoid analysis paralysis. Provided the choices are meaningful and there's an appropriate number of options on offer, appealing to a variety of players, they're absolutely a good thing. On the other hand, I think lots of choices from the same fixed list is usually bad. It's extremely hard to make every choice equally meaningful at every level, so by the nature of the game later choices should be 'bigger' than earlier choices. At 1st level deciding between a bow and a sword actually matters; at 10th level, what weapon you use really shouldn't be a defining feature.

[GnomeWorks]

Life is like a box of chocolates.

Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

I'm definitely of the opinion that letting Rangers have both Archery and Two-Weapon fighting styles is good.

There's -- broadly speaking -- two possible worlds that I can see, so I'll try to address them both.

(1) The benefits of a given style are negligible -- that is, they might have some impact, but they're not necessary for a character to have to be functional in the role the style is attempting to make them good at. In this case, sure, give them both, because they don't matter all that much, but since they don't matter all that much, that's probably a sign they could be replaced with something, y'know, meaningful. This sort of asks the question of why they're class features to begin with.

(2) The benefits of a given style are necessary: without them, the character can't really contribute meaningfully in the role the style was attempting to make the character function in. In which case, giving them both is an increase in power: I think it's a safe thing to say that power budgets and whatnot can and do account for times and situations when a character isn't going to be able to bring their whole kit to bear (which is probably why ranged weapons generally deal less damage than melee ones, as a general rule). Being able to function in multiple idioms, instead of having to make the choice, is a breadth thing, but also enhances the character's depth -- if not by as much -- by virtue of being able to handle more situations than if they were only able to pick one.

What I don't have is any class ability that says 'pick x or y at level z'. If I want people to have the class ability, I'll give them the class ability.

I think this relies on a particular class design paradigm and a given take on what it means for something to be a class.

Look at WoW, for example -- paladins have three specs, and those three paladins all behave rather differently, but each is still identifiably a paladin. Drilling down further: different retribution paladins might have a different talent spread (pretend that's viable for sake of argument) -- they have made different options, but again, each is still identifiably a retribution paladin.

I don't see any reason that any fighting style should be exclusively reserved for one class. Two-weapon rogue? Cool. Two-weapon berserker? Cool. Two-weapon knight? Cool. Two-weapon Wizard????

Again, this speaks to a particular understanding of what classes are and what they represent.

Under certain paradigms I can certainly see being willing to make TWF a generic feature that anyone can pick it up. Under others, I can see it being a class-exclusive thing. I can also see a middle ground where both exist -- perhaps anyone can TWF, but there might be classes that focus on it, or classes that have focus on it available as an option alongside other options that also make sense for the particular trope/concept that the class is trying to evoke.

Regardless -- I think I'm going to say that for whatever it is you're trying to communicate, TWF is probably not the best vehicle for it.

understanding that each additional selection from the same list is less rewarding than the first pick

I fundamentally disagree that this is an axiomatic property of list picks.

It's extremely hard to make every choice equally meaningful at every level, so by the nature of the game later choices should be 'bigger' than earlier choices.

You are overlooking (or just straight-up ignoring) the existence of scaling or evergreen options.

at 10th level, what weapon you use really shouldn't be a defining feature.

Also going to disagree with this. There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "this is the dragoon class, they get cool shit related to both that concept and badass things to do with a lance because they're using a lance."

[deaddmwalking]

There's -- broadly speaking -- two possible worlds that I can see, so I'll try to address them both.

(1) The benefits of a given style are negligible -- that is, they might have some impact, but they're not necessary for a character to have to be functional in the role the style is attempting to make them good at. In this case, sure, give them both, because they don't matter all that much, but since they don't matter all that much, that's probably a sign they could be replaced with something, y'know, meaningful. This sort of asks the question of why they're class features to begin with.

I agree with this, though I don't have a problem with giving someone for free an ability that they could have chosen. So in that sense Two-Weapon Fighting is a good example - it's something anyone COULD have, and lots of people WILL have, but there's nothing wrong with making a free benefit with your class selection. That automatically qualifies as 'making you better at it' (per your point 2).

(2) The benefits of a given style are necessary: without them, the character can't really contribute meaningfully in the role the style was attempting to make the character function in. In which case, giving them both is an increase in power: I think it's a safe thing to say that power budgets and whatnot can and do account for times and situations when a character isn't going to be able to bring their whole kit to bear (which is probably why ranged weapons generally deal less damage than melee ones, as a general rule). Being able to function in multiple idioms, instead of having to make the choice, is a breadth thing, but also enhances the character's depth -- if not by as much -- by virtue of being able to handle more situations than if they were only able to pick one.

Increase in power is a pretty esoteric concept. If you give someone a +4 to Jump checks, but they have a fly speed, would you say that it qualifies as an increase in power? I mean, in a theoretical sense you've given them an ability that they didn't have before, and more abilities is more power, right? On the other hand, in a practical sense the situations where you would care about an additional bonus to jump when you can fly will seem pretty contrived because they are. In the practical sense, giving Legolas two-weapon fighting and bow-use isn't really more power - either option is pretty much equally good. We know he can use bows in melee so it really becomes a stylistic choice - it can be important to the character concept and having multiple choices that currently exist as a dichotomy (or trichotomy) in the current edition of D&D are head-scratchers for me.

What I don't have is any class ability that says 'pick x or y at level z'. If I want people to have the class ability, I'll give them the class ability.

I think this relies on a particular class design paradigm and a given take on what it means for something to be a class.

I'm an evangelist for a small number of classes with a large amount of customization. While your homebrew 5e classes are tied to the system, I strongly prefer 'Defender' as a class, and you pick your power source but they're otherwise the same class.

Regardless -- I think I'm going to say that for whatever it is you're trying to communicate, TWF is probably not the best vehicle for it.

I wanted to provide an example where the game demands you make a choice, but it really doesn't have to. If Aragorn is the prototypical ranger and he uses a bow and dual-wields weapons, that's a good example of why forcing a choice fails to adhere to the concept which, let's agree, isn't horribly broken or overpowered. Legolas, who clearly does more bow-fu than Aragorn also dual-wields light blades. I actually think that the choice, as presented, is meaningful, which would fall into the 'generally a good thing' category, but since making it an either/or rather than 'and' doesn't really pass the smell test. Creating choices so players have to make choices shouldn't be the goal itself, especially with classes - it should be the natural result of very different options and YES it's worth asking if it should be the same class if making that choice makes them completely different!

understanding that each additional selection from the same list is less rewarding than the first pick

I fundamentally disagree that this is an axiomatic property of list picks.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I can't see how anyone would argue that you wouldn't pick your 'top pick' given one choice will suddenly not make their top pick with their first pick. If you could have had something and you didn't choose it the first time you could, you couldn't have wanted it more than the thing you did choose. I understand wanting more than one thing, hell, even wanting two things NEARLY equally, but if I had to choose JUST ONE, I think most people can figure out what they REALLY want just a little more. You should always get shiny new toys, and the thing you had to put back because you didn't have enough birthday money and you get later can still be sweet, but it definitionally can't be your FIRST choice; it's gotta be your second (or third or fourth). How quickly the joy falls off depends in part on how good the options are, but given any number of picks from the same list I'm confident you'll see this play out time and time again.

It's extremely hard to make every choice equally meaningful at every level, so by the nature of the game later choices should be 'bigger' than earlier choices.

You are overlooking (or just straight-up ignoring) the existence of scaling or evergreen options.

I don't think I am. Even options that scale tend to get overshadowed by newer abilities at higher levels. In our game damage from 1st level spells scales so they remain useful at high levels, in part because they're very cheap. On a 'point-for-point basis' they're the best. If you can spend 5 mana doing 30d10 damage over 5 rounds (5d10 per round), or spend 5 mana and do only 12d6 damage, but all in in a single round, plus a rider effect that may disable your opponent, well, you can see why sometimes people don't use the most cost-efficient damage option. Spells are a really good example of this - even spells that scale get superseded by 'bigger' effects that come online at higher levels.

at 10th level, what weapon you use really shouldn't be a defining feature.

Also going to disagree with this. There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "this is the dragoon class, they get cool shit related to both that concept and badass things to do with a lance because they're using a lance."

Even if they're badass with a lance, their abilties should exceed their equipment. Getting a new lance should be trivial, just like Iron Man built a suit in prison. But larger picture, even if fighting with a lance is fun and the class does that MOSTLY, no class should be completely restricted to a single effective build. When you can't fight mounted on a dragon because you're in a dungeon and there are a lot of narrow passages with sharp turns that lances can't fit in, you, as a high level character, should be able to do cool high level things. 'Guy with a lance' can't EVER be your high level concept.

[OgreBattleFight]

How D&D3.stuffs did things was popular, it was terribly imbalanced and fiddly but sold well and got people to imagine characters, buy more splat books. The factotum class existing is interesting, doesn't mean it's good design or fulfills a purpose not already handled by PHB classes, multiclassing, PrC's, etc, because it's a tabletop game with humans talking to each other.


Having a PC that only uses axes, and a PC that carries an axe, spear, and bow, that's fine. One will probably be better than the other, as long as one isn't falling way behind it's OK. You can design things for yourself the ideal way and then throw in what existing players of previous editions expect.

D&D3e though wasn't made for open multiclassing though with how weird attack bonus, saves, class unlocks got. That's the one thing from D&D3e to solve to declare that you've made an edition to make 3e fans happy and is great for new players too.

Well make it work up to level12 at most, because games usually end at lvl10 and still do. You'll have to write 20 levels in the PHB to keep everyone happy including the guy who claims Aragorn is a lvl20 dude because he likes Aragorn, but then you have splat books that add lvl10+ PrC's that are how you the illuminated know the system was designed to be.