D&D 5E Why the fixation with getting rid of everything but fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard?

[doctorbadwolf]

It depends on how specific your concept is, and how much mechanical support you feel you need to adequately express it. I like a certain amount of front-loading, but only provided that there are still interesting build choices to be made later down the line. For me, somewhere between 4e Essentials and 5e would be the sweet spot. I would want the root archetype (which I’ve been calling “Class”, but I would be open to it being called something else) to give the character access to their spell list and/or fundamental martial abilities, and for the next level down the customization tree (which I’ve been calling subclass) would expand on that baseline with other spells/abilities and/or new ways to utilize the fundamental abilities. A bit like how a 5e Cleric has the base Cleric spell list, and the different domains give them access to other spells. Or how in 5e Essentials, every Defender class had the Defender’s Aura Power, and their own Power or Powers that interacted with Defender’s Aura. If I were to iterate on that concept, Defender’s Aura would be a class ability, and the Powers that piggyback off of it would come from Subclass. The next level down would be your more specific abilities that you use to refine your concept beyond the Subclass.

Another comparison would be something like the Dragon Age games. Class determines what ability trees you have access to, the Ability trees determine what abilities you have access to, and your ability choices determine what your character can do. I would do something similar, only the Ability trees would be subclasses.


There would definitely be room for different magic users using magic in different ways. The class would just determine which list you choose your spells from (which is why different magical Power Sources like Arcane, Divine, and Primal would be seprate classes in my take, instead of unifying the wizard and cleric into a single magic user class). Subclass would determine how you use those spells. So, looking at 5e as an example, Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock would all be subclasses of the base Arcane caster class. They already have very similar class spell lists in 5e, so I would just simplify by giving them all the same class spell list. Then the Wizard would cast spells from that list Vancian style with the spellbook, spell memorization, and spell slots. The Sorcerer would go all-in on the Sorcery Point concept, learning a limited selection of spells from the Arcane list and spending sorcery points to cast known spells. The Warlock would probably work similarly to how it does in 5e, bypassing the whole spell slot system and using Rituals to cast spells from the Arcane list and Invocations to modify their cantrips and spells.

I get where you’re coming from, but frankly I think that is more complex to understand than using distinct classes, and keeping things like power source somewhat behind the scenes. Power sources are useful, for sure. Wizards get all arcane spells, cleric get all divine, druids get all primal, would make sense.
At some point, though, you’ve got “martial” classes in an umbrella getting features that don’t make sense for them, or “defenders” in an umbrella getting features that don’t make sense for them. Rogues and monks both get evasion, and that makes sense, but they get very little else the same, which also makes sense. If monks go under the same umbrella as fighters, they don’t get what, armor and weapon proficiencies of a fighter? Maybe they are under the Psionics umbrella, in which case they get the base stuff of a Mystic, basically?

Or, ya just build eachclass, making decisions on a case by case basis, instead of having to fight against incidental shoehorning situations.

 

[Parmandur]

FWIW, I like 5e. I think it plays very well and is a very good representation of what the heart of D&D is...but if it was perfect they would shut down sites like ENWorld!

My biggest itch about 5e isn't the # of classes per se. I can live with a game with a zillion classes or a handful....

...but only because I think there are currently too many Layers to mechanically customize your character. You Choose: Ability Scores, Background, Race(and subrace), Class (and subclass), and the Class choices keep on giving each level, when you choose class features, ASIs, spells, etc. Additionally, many of these choices provide hidden layers of sub-choice for proficiencies, weapons, companions, etc. Do we really need to have so many layers of "customization"? Especially since some design artifacts like Ability Score Dependence make some of the choices redundant. And if we must have all these layers....can't we trim the large number of choices within some of these?*

You want to have 105 classes, each with their own special abilities, but without having to constantly choose feats, proficiencies, etc., because they are baked-in...I'm in. If you'd rather have 3 classes (or even possibly two) but have something like subclasses or feats that have a lot of baked-in goodness as well, I'm in. But this zillion classes and a zillion customization layers is just tedious. Wrap ability scores into Class/Race/Background and I'm feeling even better.

Going along with this...I must admit I am eternally baffled by folks arguing that So-and-so needs to be a full class in order to ...what? I dunno. I can't comprehend why a Ranger or Paladin as a subclass of Fighter would be such a big "insult" to the class or its fans. (How can a class be insulted?) ::shrug::

*
13 Backgrounds
15 (sub)Races
38 (sub)Classes, not counting things like Fighting Style, Favored Enemy, and Spell Choice, etc.
Makes for 7,410 combinations, without even counting all the options that might drive it into the millions....Are there really 7,410 fantasy "archetypes" that need to be represented? How about 38?

Anyway, that's just my $.02

The combinational trio of Class/Subclass-Race/Subrace-Background is one of the best parts of D&D these days: baking it in from the beginning prevents the kludgey nature of 2E Kits, 3.X Prestige Classes, or 4E Themes.

 

[Parmandur]

I think we have different ideas in mind when we say broad or narrow. When I say breadth I refer to the variety of characters -their backgrounds and stories- that the class naturally supports. Being the only class with the mechanics would mean all casters would have to be that class, but that is not a net positive, it is forcing pegs of all shapes into a square hole, the wizard just doesn't really support many backgrounds and life stories. While the example with the orphan that stole a spellbook and stuff is ingenious, it is the result of dancing around the limitations of the class and not a good strategy longterm. (Heck, before divine soul I had to constantly fight the flavor/mechanics of Dragon sorcerer until I just couldn't handle the disparity anymore)

Having only the wizard would be going back to what I call the dark ages. It being the sole caster wouldn't magically make it suitable for every kind of caster. Perhaps to you it would be a positive, but for me it would mean a net negative and completely giving up on playing casters of any kind other than clerics, I just can't make the wizard/mage/MU class do what I want/need/seek in a caster, and the stories and kind of characters it actually supports aren't really my thing.

But that's not what was proposed in the 5E playtest: the broad base "Mage" Class didn't have that baggage, the "Wizard" Subclass did, and never mind the specialist Themes (so you could have a Mage/Sorcerer/Necromancer or Mage/Sorcerer/Illusionist, or a Mage/Wizard/Draconic, etc).

Interesting idea, but WotC seems to have hit a nice balance.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think we have different ideas in mind when we say broad or narrow. When I say breadth I refer to the variety of characters -their backgrounds and stories- that the class naturally supports. Being the only class with the mechanics would mean all casters would have to be that class, [...]

Even if we had the same definition of broad vs narrow, we could be thrown off by units. It looks like you're measuring in terms of absolute number of different backgrounds that can be reflected with the class, and I'm looking at percentages of the whole. (In my mind, if one class covers every arcane spellcaster in the entire setting, then that's a pretty broad class.)

Having only the wizard would be going back to what I call the dark ages. It being the sole caster wouldn't magically make it suitable for every kind of caster. Perhaps to you it would be a positive, but for me it would mean a net negative and completely giving up on playing casters of any kind other than clerics, I just can't make the wizard/mage/MU class do what I want/need/seek in a caster, and the stories and kind of characters it actually supports aren't really my thing.

We had the opposite problem, when I was in college and we were playing 2E regularly. None of us was willing to buy into the whole cleric thing, since it meant you had to be super pious and follow a strict code from your deity, so we all just played mages (and sometimes fighters or bards). That's why all of my stories from 2E involve spending weeks to heal up between encounters.

Honestly, it wasn't the worst thing in the world, because the mage class was so incredibly broad. When all of your class features boil down to casting a handful of spells each day, you can make quite a statement just from the way you go about choosing spells. An enchanter does none of the things that a conjurer or transmuter could do, because spell slots were so limited. The fact that everyone in the party was both smart and literate (because that's what the class was) didn't seem like a big deal; I mean, literally everyone at that school was both smart and literate, and there was still a ton of variety between individuals.

 

[jonathonhawke]

I never liked “rogue”, either, but it’s better than trickster.

How about "Expert", or "Specialist"?

 

[MoonSong]

But that's not what was proposed in the 5E playtest: the broad base "Mage" Class didn't have that baggage, the "Wizard" Subclass did, and never mind the specialist Themes (so you could have a Mage/Sorcerer/Necromancer or Mage/Sorcerer/Illusionist, or a Mage/Wizard/Draconic, etc).

Interesting idea, but WotC seems to have hit a nice balance.

The August package had that baggage with Esoteric Knowledge, Scrolls making and potions.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How about "Expert", or "Specialist"?

Works for me.

The current 5e rogue already has subclasses that aren’t necessarily roguish, though, and it isn’t really a problem, so it’s more of a quibble than something important.

 

[Wiseblood]

I don't know, please explain to me why this:

• Just has magic, it may come from lineage, the blessing of a deity, a prophecy, a curse, a planetary alignment, simple happenstance, or not really bother with it.
• Can only use a few spells at the same time, yet is even capable of healing and rising the dead
• The caster's relationship to the magic is irrelevant. He or she doesn't even have to want it, let alone like it.
• Can come from any station in life, without any mandatory element on the backstory. Poor or rich, spoiled or destitute, literate or not.
• The main caster stat isn't tied to any personality type, and can even be dumped without contradicting any mandatory backstory.

Is just a slight narrower variation on this:

• Had to earn the magic by studying.
• Has to actively want and desire magic.
• Cannot heal nor raise the dead.
• Has to come from a background that accounts for literacy, and that somehow can cover the cost of magical training.
• The main caster stat favors a limited selection of personalities, and has a trend to produce a bunch of cold calculating Spocks. dumping it actively strains the credibility that this person could actually get magic by studying.

MoonSong you have a very good point here. I had to see it with a rested brain. My thanks to Parmandur for accidentally reminding me to answer.

The first list you presented would be better and more comparable to the flexibility of the fighter. After all you can have a fighter that is dex based or one that is strength based you can have the focused on just being hard to kill.

I would still want to have spell list focus or limitation to keep one class from having all the answers so to speak.

 

[Lanefan]

It's my opinion that with about six to eight additional base classes, and perhaps a couple of official class variants (staring at you, cloistered cleric)

By "clostered cleric" do you mean something like a stay-at-home temple cleric? If not, please elaborate.

Warlord
Pugilist
Witch
Shaman
Scholar/Expert
Swordmage (with a better name/concept behind it)
That awesome Emergent class on DMG

What would distinguish a Witch from a Shaman; and what would distinguish either or both from either Sorcerer or Druid/Nature Cleric?

And by "Scholar/Expert" are you thinking of some sort of Mage/Rogue hybrid, or are you instead thinking of a (perhaps non-adventuring) sage-like class?

And for those of us who don't DMGuild, in short form what makes the Emergent tick?

 

[Parmandur]

By "clostered cleric" do you mean something like a stay-at-home temple cleric? If not, please elaborate.

What would distinguish a Witch from a Shaman; and what would distinguish either or both from either Sorcerer or Druid/Nature Cleric?

And by "Scholar/Expert" are you thinking of some sort of Mage/Rogue hybrid, or are you instead thinking of a (perhaps non-adventuring) sage-like class?

And for those of us who don't DMGuild, in short form what makes the Emergent tick?

I hadn't heard of the Emergent, but a quick look at the description makes it seem to be a Summoner Gish, maybe?

Most of the other concepts suggested seem like material for subclasses or backgrounds: a witch can be a Fey Warlock Outlander, easily enough, and a Druid is a Shaman (in terms of normal usage of words).