Intriguing concept. I see issues with the 9th/9th wizard cleric. How do you determine what class spells are on which level? Additionally, I see it somewhat limiting this way. If you say your 9th level spells come from the cleric side you wouldn't be able to say they are wizard spells the next day. They would always be cleric spells - otherwise a multiclasser would have incredible flexibility. I'm honestly interested in how you would handle those issues.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E 2 types of warrior and 2 types of spellcaster and a perspective
- Thread starter Sadrik
- Start date
Intriguing concept. I see issues with the 9th/9th wizard cleric. How do you determine what class spells are on which level? Additionally, I see it somewhat limiting this way. If you say your 9th level spells come from the cleric side you wouldn't be able to say they are wizard spells the next day. They would always be cleric spells - otherwise a multiclasser would have incredible flexibility. I'm honestly interested in how you would handle those issues.
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
If you have 9th level spell slots, you can choose to cast either 9th level Wizard or Cleric spells - the limitation comes from how many you're able to prepare. With single-class, you get 21 different spells at top level, given the current distribution that's enough for 1 every level and some variety at lower level, or levels you care about. Splitting 10/10 offers you only 11 of each level, so if you want to be able to use a slot for either a Wizard or Cleric spell, you'll have only one choice of each. Bear in mind also that some class features should be based on class level, not character level, so you won't be turning undead that often, and ought to lose out on something arcane (but right now you don't, admittedly).
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
I'd like to add another voice saying that the Rogue is not, and should not be, a Warrior-type class.
Warriors are Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers. Rogues are Thieves and Assassins. Wizards are Magic-Users and Illusionists. Priests are Clerics and Druids.
This may seem like silly old-school terminology, but for me it really isn't. "Skill guy" and "fighting guy" are two completely different archetypes, and trying to put them both into the same box weakens each of them.
As for the actual mechanics? I actually liked it a lot better back when Expertise Dice were universal. Fighters could use them to do combat things, Rogues could use them to do skill things, and each of them could dabble in other stuff. I think the only real problem with the Rogue using Expertise Dice was that the design of Sneak Attack really sucked.
TwoSix
"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
I actually object more to having Cleric and Wizard be labeled as separate roles, since that seems very campaign specific to me. The standard cleric is really a Wizard with a subset of spells and some fighter ability.
Three archetypes, three pillars.
Fighter - Combat
Rogue - Exploration
Wizard - Roleplaying (not in-character talking, which isn't a pillar, but the ability to affect the larger story via spells, in a way that fighters and rogues can't.)
Every other class is a hybrid or different flavor of the base 3.
Three archetypes, three pillars.
Fighter - Combat
Rogue - Exploration
Wizard - Roleplaying (not in-character talking, which isn't a pillar, but the ability to affect the larger story via spells, in a way that fighters and rogues can't.)
Every other class is a hybrid or different flavor of the base 3.
It's easy to see why EGG and company designed OD&D to have 3 classes: Fighter, Magic-User and Cleric. Fighter encompassed both the stalkers and the tanks. Any differences between were left to role-playing. This also allows the class to cover characters that were a little of each. Was Conan a stalker or tank? Both!
It should be easy to "cherry pick" from skill/ feat lists for each and come up with the character you want. The rest is all role-playing.
As for merging the spellcaster classes, I think this too can be done to great effect. A "magus" in the ancient world was both a wizard and a cleric to some extent. Thoth-Amon was both a dark sorcerer and a priest of Set. One could see Gandalf as a "white magic" caster, wielding both clerical and arcane magic. I would facilitate this thusly:
1. Make all spellcasters spontaneous casters with fewer spells-known.
2. Convert the standard cleric/druid class abilities into spells. Turn Undead and Wildshape would both become "normal" spells; and using them would figure into a caster's "spells-per-day." Want a druid who can cast Lightning Bolt? Go for it!
3. Armor would have similar effects on casting as it does now, depending on the school/domain/sphere of spell being cast.
Much of a caster's "flavor" would be determined by spell choice and roleplaying, just like the fighters.
It should be easy to "cherry pick" from skill/ feat lists for each and come up with the character you want. The rest is all role-playing.
As for merging the spellcaster classes, I think this too can be done to great effect. A "magus" in the ancient world was both a wizard and a cleric to some extent. Thoth-Amon was both a dark sorcerer and a priest of Set. One could see Gandalf as a "white magic" caster, wielding both clerical and arcane magic. I would facilitate this thusly:
1. Make all spellcasters spontaneous casters with fewer spells-known.
2. Convert the standard cleric/druid class abilities into spells. Turn Undead and Wildshape would both become "normal" spells; and using them would figure into a caster's "spells-per-day." Want a druid who can cast Lightning Bolt? Go for it!
3. Armor would have similar effects on casting as it does now, depending on the school/domain/sphere of spell being cast.
Much of a caster's "flavor" would be determined by spell choice and roleplaying, just like the fighters.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
I think of Multi-classing as simply being able to play another class or two with the same character. A Fighter 3 / Magic-User 2, for instance. Each session you choose which class you're playing and that's the one you gain XP in. Each class has a separate XP total and begins at level 1 for everyone.
The core 3 classes are Fighter, Magic-User, and Cleric. Each has some of the abilities of the other, but each is its own game with its own subsystem of mechanics integrated into the whole. The classes don't just play differently, they are built to play in different places. The original Dungeon! boardgame is actually one of the most insightful games for understanding D&D. It uses a similar design with different classes, different XP requirements, and different levels of the board for engagement. However, it was all combat and designed for competitive play instead of cooperative.
Role playing, at least for D&D, really is playing your class. Portraying a fictional personality is largely irrelevant, but you can portray one if you wish (like you can portray one during any game). The more you master the unique elements of your class, the more you move up in level and are equipped to deal with more difficult challenges (for the players).
Every class is an Exploration class. Fighters explore combat, magic-user's explore magic, and clerics do so with civilization. Each has its own subsystem, which can more or less be avoided if no one wants to engage with those elements (though if that's your class, then that's also where your going to get your XP).
I'm not averse to Classes overlapping in scope. In fact, it has to be so on at least some level for the players to find common ground. But this doesn't mean classes should be all designed for uniform play either. That gets boring real fast and you'll see yourself constantly looking for next quick "feel good" game because of its freshness. Instead, creativity can grow in cooperation when it's built on complementary abilities and behavior. Having this diversity actually improves the capability of the whole when acting as a group, while also lowering the threat to each when facing individual weaknesses. It also opens the door for inventiveness on a group level instead of just for individual players trying new strategies out.
Fighters use magic for combat, namely arms and armor. The use of magic for their trade. Clerics use magic via their god instead of learning it themselves. If anything, it is part of understanding their beliefs. Magic Users engage with magic as students everywhere they find it, which is pretty much everywhere they explore. Combat and creatures overlap into the other core classes as well, but each in their own way.
The core 3 classes are Fighter, Magic-User, and Cleric. Each has some of the abilities of the other, but each is its own game with its own subsystem of mechanics integrated into the whole. The classes don't just play differently, they are built to play in different places. The original Dungeon! boardgame is actually one of the most insightful games for understanding D&D. It uses a similar design with different classes, different XP requirements, and different levels of the board for engagement. However, it was all combat and designed for competitive play instead of cooperative.
Role playing, at least for D&D, really is playing your class. Portraying a fictional personality is largely irrelevant, but you can portray one if you wish (like you can portray one during any game). The more you master the unique elements of your class, the more you move up in level and are equipped to deal with more difficult challenges (for the players).
Every class is an Exploration class. Fighters explore combat, magic-user's explore magic, and clerics do so with civilization. Each has its own subsystem, which can more or less be avoided if no one wants to engage with those elements (though if that's your class, then that's also where your going to get your XP).
I'm not averse to Classes overlapping in scope. In fact, it has to be so on at least some level for the players to find common ground. But this doesn't mean classes should be all designed for uniform play either. That gets boring real fast and you'll see yourself constantly looking for next quick "feel good" game because of its freshness. Instead, creativity can grow in cooperation when it's built on complementary abilities and behavior. Having this diversity actually improves the capability of the whole when acting as a group, while also lowering the threat to each when facing individual weaknesses. It also opens the door for inventiveness on a group level instead of just for individual players trying new strategies out.
Fighters use magic for combat, namely arms and armor. The use of magic for their trade. Clerics use magic via their god instead of learning it themselves. If anything, it is part of understanding their beliefs. Magic Users engage with magic as students everywhere they find it, which is pretty much everywhere they explore. Combat and creatures overlap into the other core classes as well, but each in their own way.
That's some impressive versalitity there. Being able to change from wish one day to true res the next day is pretty powerful. Additionally, how would that work if it was cleric 18 wizard 1?
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
Well, as I described, if you had Wish in your spellbook, you could cast it using a 9th level slot by preparing it as one of your 2 Wizard spells for the day. Perhaps that's a bit mental. A simple check on power might be that you can only cast Wiz/Clr spells of level X if you have at least level X in said class (finally level-level parity!). This would recreate the old-fashioned multiclass spellcaster to some extent - Wiz3 would be casting from the 3rd row of the spellcasting chart and be able to do both 1st and 2nd level Wizard spells, preparing 4 per day. Wiz2/Clr1 would have the same slots, but have 1st and 2nd Wizard spells, and 1st Cleric spells, preparing 3/2 in total. Later, if you do 15/5 your powers in the lesser class would be limited - to be a true full spellcaster you'd have to go for at least 9/11 (it's a conspiracy). Triple-classed casters would be flexible, but if evenly divided limited to 7th level spells. The limit would be on spell preparation, not casting, so if you have 9th level slots but highest individual class level 7, you'd have to spend those high slots on lesser spells.
I'm with TwoSix on this one... why do the Cleric and the Wizard keep getting separated? As far as I can tell... they're both the same concept-- the spellcaster. They have different emphasis in their spell lists, yes... the Cleric mainly healing and buffing, the Wizard mainly damage-dealing... but they both behave the same way. They cast spells. That's their schtick. So if you're going to combine the Fighter and the Rogue into a single "weapon-using" amalgam... then you have to merge the Cleric and Wizard into a single "spellcaster" amalgam.
But this is why I think trying to compartmentalize all these different classes into tiny, unique boxes is a completely futile exercise. Because no class IN ITS ENTIRETY falls into any box.
It's been obvious for the Cleric since Day 1-- they are a spellcaster AND they are a martial weapon-user. But also... they now don't have to be based upon the domain/deity their worship and the types of spells they take. They can completely strip away their martial ability if they so choose.
And what about Rogues? Half the people see them as martial characters because they do their damage in combat using weapons... half the people don't want them as martial "Fighter-lites" because they want their focus of the class elsewhere in the exploration pillar. But the thing is... the entire concept of a "Rogue" class is so wide and broad that different types of builds within the Rogue can fall into EITHER camp. The "Dualist" and "Thug" Rogues? Martial part of the Rogue. The "Thief" and the "Charlatan"? The exploration/interaction part of the Rogue.
Which means anyone trying to say that the Rogue IS a martial character or IS NOT a martial character is simultaneously RIGHT and WRONG at the same time.
The Wizard? People have wanted Martial Wizards for DECADES. Usually it meant multi-classing. Sometimes it was staying as a Wizard but taking a specific set of spells. In recent years it's meant designing new classes that are martial wizards from the get-go... or adding builds to the Wizards that allow for it like the Cleric always had.
And need we forget that one of the biggest complaints of the Fighter in recent years has been their lack of skills? People have wanted their Fighters to move further into the interaction and exploration pillars moreso than the game has generally allowed them to (without again having to multi-class). But that means at some point... Fighters become "Rogue-lites", don't they? And when you throw in the concept of the Warlord-warrior-- the buffing and healing type of Fighter that a large part of the gaming populace thought was a brilliant addition to the game... these "boxes" keep having their walls exploded.
The idea of the "Class" was originally supposed to mean an archetype. And way back in the 70s and early 80s... those archetypes generally served us. But not anymore. Most players don't WANT a "Thief" archetype at the expense of all other roguish concepts. Most players don't WANT a "Cleric" archetype that is mainly a martial character that can cast a few heals spells at the expense of all the other types of Clerical concepts with regards to deities, domains and spells. There is no "Fighter" archetype anymore... players want the "soldier" archetype, or the "berzerker" archetype, or the "brawler" archetype, or the "archer" archetype, or the "swashbuckler" archetype.
Like it or not... I think 95% of most players want the idea that D&D is actually a class-less (or archetype-less) system... while maintaining the trappings of classes. Because god forbid anything appear in these classes that don't allow the player to do whatever the frak they want in designing and illustrating the character they have in their head. And all of us who continually try and put these classes into "boxes" keeps that from happening.
So we should just stop it. And finally admit that "Class" is two separate things-- it is a Story that describes what kind of ability a particular PC has within the fiction of the world... and it is a set of Game Mechanics that we use to illustrate those abilities. And they are SEPARATE THINGS. And any attempt to merge the two together into a cohesive whole results in a whole heap of people GETTING PISSED OFF. Because one person's "Sneak Attack defines the Rogue" is another person's "Rogues should try and avoid combat at all cost".
But this is why I think trying to compartmentalize all these different classes into tiny, unique boxes is a completely futile exercise. Because no class IN ITS ENTIRETY falls into any box.
It's been obvious for the Cleric since Day 1-- they are a spellcaster AND they are a martial weapon-user. But also... they now don't have to be based upon the domain/deity their worship and the types of spells they take. They can completely strip away their martial ability if they so choose.
And what about Rogues? Half the people see them as martial characters because they do their damage in combat using weapons... half the people don't want them as martial "Fighter-lites" because they want their focus of the class elsewhere in the exploration pillar. But the thing is... the entire concept of a "Rogue" class is so wide and broad that different types of builds within the Rogue can fall into EITHER camp. The "Dualist" and "Thug" Rogues? Martial part of the Rogue. The "Thief" and the "Charlatan"? The exploration/interaction part of the Rogue.
Which means anyone trying to say that the Rogue IS a martial character or IS NOT a martial character is simultaneously RIGHT and WRONG at the same time.
The Wizard? People have wanted Martial Wizards for DECADES. Usually it meant multi-classing. Sometimes it was staying as a Wizard but taking a specific set of spells. In recent years it's meant designing new classes that are martial wizards from the get-go... or adding builds to the Wizards that allow for it like the Cleric always had.
And need we forget that one of the biggest complaints of the Fighter in recent years has been their lack of skills? People have wanted their Fighters to move further into the interaction and exploration pillars moreso than the game has generally allowed them to (without again having to multi-class). But that means at some point... Fighters become "Rogue-lites", don't they? And when you throw in the concept of the Warlord-warrior-- the buffing and healing type of Fighter that a large part of the gaming populace thought was a brilliant addition to the game... these "boxes" keep having their walls exploded.
The idea of the "Class" was originally supposed to mean an archetype. And way back in the 70s and early 80s... those archetypes generally served us. But not anymore. Most players don't WANT a "Thief" archetype at the expense of all other roguish concepts. Most players don't WANT a "Cleric" archetype that is mainly a martial character that can cast a few heals spells at the expense of all the other types of Clerical concepts with regards to deities, domains and spells. There is no "Fighter" archetype anymore... players want the "soldier" archetype, or the "berzerker" archetype, or the "brawler" archetype, or the "archer" archetype, or the "swashbuckler" archetype.
Like it or not... I think 95% of most players want the idea that D&D is actually a class-less (or archetype-less) system... while maintaining the trappings of classes. Because god forbid anything appear in these classes that don't allow the player to do whatever the frak they want in designing and illustrating the character they have in their head. And all of us who continually try and put these classes into "boxes" keeps that from happening.
So we should just stop it. And finally admit that "Class" is two separate things-- it is a Story that describes what kind of ability a particular PC has within the fiction of the world... and it is a set of Game Mechanics that we use to illustrate those abilities. And they are SEPARATE THINGS. And any attempt to merge the two together into a cohesive whole results in a whole heap of people GETTING PISSED OFF. Because one person's "Sneak Attack defines the Rogue" is another person's "Rogues should try and avoid combat at all cost".
Last edited:
I see the big issue being this - certain classes (fighters, rogue) don't need to ever refer to the magic rules but EVERY class must, to some extent, refer to how weapons work which is why most classes have limitations on weapons they can use and it was a way of balancing classes in the past.
The fact that fighters and rogues use the same weapons and that both cover very similar design space in combat is where a lot of issues come in. The wizard and cleric follow similar spell casting rules but their "weapons" are very different and serve the game very differently from each other (wish vs true resurrection for example). The concept has existed since day one and most players accept the difference between the cleric and the wizard. Unfortunately, the same cant be said for weapons in a rogues hand vs the fighters hand. If a rogue can stick someone a certain way to do damage, why can't the fighter who is better trained than the rogue do the same thing. This is where things kind of break down IMO.
I don't have any real answers to this issue but perhaps the game can focus on things other than damage to differentiate the classes. Maybe fighters can parry, and on crits can inflict an effect such as blind, disarm, or trip. As for rogues, maybe they never provoke and thus never need to use the disengage action, and climb at full speed. That way damage is damage (and could still keep the concept of maneuvers and the players choice being a way of differentiating character from character when it comes to the rogue and the fighter).
The fact that fighters and rogues use the same weapons and that both cover very similar design space in combat is where a lot of issues come in. The wizard and cleric follow similar spell casting rules but their "weapons" are very different and serve the game very differently from each other (wish vs true resurrection for example). The concept has existed since day one and most players accept the difference between the cleric and the wizard. Unfortunately, the same cant be said for weapons in a rogues hand vs the fighters hand. If a rogue can stick someone a certain way to do damage, why can't the fighter who is better trained than the rogue do the same thing. This is where things kind of break down IMO.
I don't have any real answers to this issue but perhaps the game can focus on things other than damage to differentiate the classes. Maybe fighters can parry, and on crits can inflict an effect such as blind, disarm, or trip. As for rogues, maybe they never provoke and thus never need to use the disengage action, and climb at full speed. That way damage is damage (and could still keep the concept of maneuvers and the players choice being a way of differentiating character from character when it comes to the rogue and the fighter).
Similar Threads
