If we have specialities, why do we need a plethora of classes?

[ferratus]

If I want to play a ranger with the playtest packet with D&D Next, I can pretty much already do it. I I just need a start with a fighter and give him a good dex. Then I need is a background that gives me spot, stealth, survival and nature lore. If I take the sharpshooter speciality, I essentially have the low-level 3.5 ranger. So... why do I need a Ranger class?

Specialities can pretty much cover everything that variant classes did. A warlord is essentially a fighter that gives bonuses to allies or restores hp right? So why couldn't that be a speciality? Fighters can be Rangers and Warlords, Clerics can be Paladins or Invokers, Rogues can be bards and assassins, and Wizards can be Illusionists or Necromancers. Specialities also have the advantage that they are easier to multiclass with, (Cleric Warlords or Wizard Bards or Fighter Assassins) to give a little variation.

There is only one way that WotC 5e design team can make me give two toots about new classes. The warlock and the sorcerer have new mechanics for magic for people who don't like it Vancian, or for those who just like to try something new (like the guys who liked playing psionicists). But I don't really need them. In fact, I wouldn't mind if they were kept out of the basic game and put in an advanced player's guide.

I can pretty much get all the flavour of a warlock or sorcerer with the right selection of spells. The warlock needs evocation and summoning spells, the sorcerer needs evocation and spells that boost his melee attack, damage and AC. Both are perfectly feasible with the wizard.

But I can appreciate someone wanting to fool around with variant systems. So if the 5e design team does decide to give us a ranger, warlord, paladin, assassin, bard, and other subclasses as being full classes, I hope they take all the time they need to create something interesting from a gamist perspective. From a roleplaying perspective, all of our needs can be covered with specialities connected to the big 4 classes (Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, Fighter).

 

[The Shadow]

I agree in a qualified sense.

If the paladin and ranger are going to continue to be fighters-without-bonus-feats with a few tricks and a bit of magic, we don't need them as classes at all. Full stop. Make them as fighters with appropriate backgrounds and specialties, and call it good. (You could also make a paladin as a War cleric.) I could see a Paladin specialty which granted things like Lay on Hands, the mount, and so forth. If you want spellcasting, multiclass a bit.

The barbarian is in an even worse spot, as I see no reason at all why it couldn't be replaced with a Berserker fighting style - it might not even need a specialty.

(Conceivably you could handle many paladin abilities as a "fighting style" too - ie, a Smite maneuver which does more damage but only works vs. evil, and so on. Lay on Hands would let the paladin spend a CS die to give someone else some of his hit dice to roll on the spot.)

The only way I'd like to see them remain as classes is if something truly interesting and mechanically unique can be done with them.

 

[slobster]

But I can appreciate someone wanting to fool around with variant systems. So if the 5e design team does decide to give us a ranger, warlord, paladin, assassin, bard, and other subclasses as being full classes, I hope they take all the time they need to create something interesting from a gamist perspective. From a roleplaying perspective, all of our needs can be covered with specialities connected to the big 4 classes (Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, Fighter).

This is exactly it, in my opinion. RP and world-building wise, I can call the "wizard" class whatever I want. I can call them alchemists, or wu-jen, or psychics, or benders, or contractors. I can backfill the fluff to match whatever I want. So if WotC is going to all the trouble to make a new base class, then they should focus on making it mechanically distinct from anything that came before.

I understand that they will give it an identity of its own, complete with presupposed ways that it fits into WotC campaign products and so on. That's fine, I can ignore (or use) that with little effort. But the problem with reskinning a class and calling it something new (3.x shugenja/shaman/wu jen I'm looking at you ) is that, once I peel back the new paint job, I'm left with . . . the same classes I've seen before. I can repaint my own classes. So what exactly was I paying for?

But if the class mechanics underneath are new and shiny and distinct, then after stripping away the superficial paintjob I still have a class that I can use. There is still value.

For all that ranting, 5E does look like it's proceeding nicely in this regard. So far, each class feels and plays distinctly. As long as we get a paladin who is actually different from a fighter, and not just fighter with a few cleric spells tacked on, I'll be quite happy.

 

[Minigiant]

That is it.

From the Narrative aspect: you only need Warrior, Caster, and Other. As long as the DM matches the way you describe your character with the actions of the world, all is good.

Gamist wise, there is only one true core exclusive mechanic: spell casting and there are two types. So you have the classic 4 Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard.

BUT if your Simulation follows a belief that a warlock is very different from a wizard, a paladin is vastly different from a cleric of a War deity, and a ranger is completely different from a fighter or rogue AND the mechanics must show it, then you need a fully different base class for each archetype each with their own unique mechanic. Then the fans can mix and match mechanics to match their fluffy parts with their crunchy bits.

 

[ferratus]

But the problem with reskinning a class and calling it something new (3.x shugenja/shaman/wu jen I'm looking at you ) is that, once I peel back the new paint job, I'm left with . . . the same classes I've seen before.

All editions had classes that could have just as easily been handled by tweaking an existing class, but it really only became annoying with 3e when the introduced a modular mechanic for tweaking classes (feats) and gave us a plethora of classes anyway. In fact, the sorcerer and the wizard were almost exactly the same class, and you could have put a sidebar in the wizard saying (don't like memorizing set spells? Then just allow them to cast spontaneously from their spells known, and limit their spells known to the number of spell slots).

4e was probably the worst for unnecessary classes though. There was only really 4 classes in 4e, striker, leader, controller and defender. There was lots of variation in play, but that was because of the particulars of powers, not because the classes were really distinct from each other. The shaman could have been a variation of cleric or druid, the executioner assassin a build like cunning sneak or artful dodger.

In fact, 4e could be vastly simplified if they removed the redundancies, took off the artificial restrictions on the powers, and just let people build characters by selecting powers. So by choosing a lot of melee weapons and melee attack powers, you can call that character a fighting man. If you choose a lot of ranged magic attacks that do high damage, you are a sorcerer etc. The class abilities can all be done with a pool of starting feats, redo the powers so that they are more flexible to grab(ie. + highest ability score instead of +Cha) and more refluffing friendly (these arrows can do the damage type of your choice instead of weapon damage). If you do that, you have a power-buy system that will play almost exacltly like 4e, but will be different enough that you won't get in trouble with the GSL.

 

[Ellington]

What if I want to play a paladin type that's a sharpshooter? A fighter seems like a nice class to start with, and I'll just take the sharpshooter speciality and we're set.

Except now I don't have any holy abilities. I could take the priest background, but that doesn't give me any holy abilities. Well, there's always the acolyte speciality, that gives me some spells and can imbue my weapon with holy energy! But now I'm not a sharpshooter any more. And that was sort of my whole idea.

Well, what if I go for a cleric? I could be a cleric with the sharpshooter speciality. That gives me holy powers and the sharpshooter speciality. But now I've got the weapon attack bonus of a cleric. That won't do, Paladins are supposed to be martial fighty types. And there's no archetypical smite ability. I can't be a paladin without a smite ability! If only there was some way I could make this whole ordeal easier, such as simply choosing the paladin class and the sharpshooter speciality.

Classes like the ranger and the paladin are very iconic to D&D, and I'd wager that for a lot of people they're even a dealbreaker. Sure, you can give players the option of creating them with specialities and backgrounds, but then you're robbing them of potential flavor and customization. I can create a decent ranger or a paladin using a fighter, a background and a speciality, but without them as base classes, I can't create a ranger or a paladin with unique background and unique specializations. I can't create a ranger with the thief background or a paladin with the lurker specialization. I've spent my potential customization (background/theme) to create a bog standard ranger/paladin.

I would much rather have a few extra pages dedicated to base classes that allow for unique characters than going for a minimalistic approach.

 

[Scribble]

What if we opt not to play with specialties?

Designing so non base classes are built using specialties either forces everyone to use them, or limits those not wanting to use them to the 4 base classes.

 

[slobster]

4e was probably the worst for unnecessary classes though. There was only really 4 classes in 4e, striker, leader, controller and defender. There was lots of variation in play, but that was because of the particulars of powers, not because the classes were really distinct from each other.

I don't really want to get into it, but I don't wholly agree here. I think it held for some cases. But swordmages played differently from wardens, who were entirely distinct from paladins, and none of them felt much like playing a fighter at all, even though they were all nominally defenders. Even if you allowed them to take each other's powers, their base abilities were still enough to make playing them a different experience (and their powers helped reinforce that difference, which I see as a feature, not a bug).

I think they did very well for the most part, with some fumbles. YMMV of course.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

What if I want to play a paladin type that's a sharpshooter? A fighter seems like a nice class to start with, and I'll just take the sharpshooter speciality and we're set.

Except now I don't have any holy abilities. I could take the priest background, but that doesn't give me any holy abilities. Well, there's always the acolyte speciality, that gives me some spells and can imbue my weapon with holy energy! But now I'm not a sharpshooter any more. And that was sort of my whole idea.

Well, what if I go for a cleric? I could be a cleric with the sharpshooter speciality. That gives me holy powers and the sharpshooter speciality. But now I've got the weapon attack bonus of a cleric. That won't do, Paladins are supposed to be martial fighty types. And there's no archetypical smite ability. I can't be a paladin without a smite ability! If only there was some way I could make this whole ordeal easier, such as simply choosing the paladin class and the sharpshooter speciality.

Classes like the ranger and the paladin are very iconic to D&D, and I'd wager that for a lot of people they're even a dealbreaker. Sure, you can give players the option of creating them with specialities and backgrounds, but then you're robbing them of potential flavor and customization. I can create a decent ranger or a paladin using a fighter, a background and a speciality, but without them as base classes, I can't create a ranger or a paladin with unique background and unique specializations. I can't create a ranger with the thief background or a paladin with the lurker specialization. I've spent my potential customization (background/theme) to create a bog standard ranger/paladin.

I would much rather have a few extra pages dedicated to base classes that allow for unique characters than going for a minimalistic approach.

Exactly....

I understand the desire to have just 4 classes... but honestly at that point lets just throw out the classes entirely and go classless.

I understand you can make a Paladin by fighter plus acolyte. But if I can make a fighter with a little arcane magic by Fighter plus magic user, I should be able to make a paladin with a little arcane by Paladin + magic user.

Why is it so important to so many people to prevent me from doing so. If fighter + acolyte is enough Paladin for your game, great. Ban paladin from your game tell your players that this is how your paladins work and let me play my Theif Paladin Magic User

We'll both be happy that way.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Really, this should be considered on a class by class basis. The Paladin is complex enough that he should probably be a class. Plus, we have a long tradition of there being a paladin class.

The Barbarian and the Warlord, though, may actually be better suited to specialties, backgrounds, and class archetypes. I say this, because in both cases, major elements of those classes would work well when layered upon another class. I could easily imagine a Warlord Fighter, Paladin, or Wizard, and a Barbarian Sorcerer, Warlock, or Rogue.

Though, looking at Pathfinder, that version of the Barbarian has a strong core mechanic worthy of a class. Clearly, they'll have to think long and hard about each class to make sure it's concept is properly adapted to D&D Next.