Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are there too darn many spellcasters?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7321960" data-attributes="member: 20323"><p>Maybe a better way to state the question is: </p><p></p><p>What's the design space for new primarily "martial/non-caster" classes? Are there "martial/non-caster" concepts players have that current classes aren't meeting?</p><p></p><p>For instance, Mike Mearls once worked on <u>Iron Heroes</u> which created a whole bunch of "martial" classes for that game. It can be done, and one of the lead D&D designers has done. The question is would it add value to the game? Is it something we as players want? Does it fill a unique design space?</p><p></p><p>My observation/opinion is that WotC knows how to design an excellent "martial" class – the Rogue is, in my mind, the epitome of how to do it well. The Monk and Barbarian are also well done, albeit with minor flaws that are being discussed. And the Fighter's design is the most mediocre (or, a kinder way to say it: most <em>conservatively</em> designed) of the bunch. I think this harkens back to an ongoing shift throughout the history of the game that assumes "players find magic more interesting, and fighters are plenty popular, so we're doing fine with an abundance of casters." </p><p></p><p>My hunch is there's a bit of a chicken-and-an-egg scenario happening with this line of thought. Similar to "our statistics find very few players play high-level, therefor we don't produce much high-level content." Whereas I tend to think it's a grayer situation, where that Field of Dreams quote applies: "If you build it (well), they will come."</p><p></p><p>We've seen the Warlock (4e) and Sorcerer (3e) get added to the list of base classes over the history of D&D. I didn't realize I ever wanted to play those concepts or that there was a void in the class design space...but they seemed to be pretty popular among players. It would be interesting to dream up, say, two "martial/non-caster" concepts that might be introduced to the game, similar to how Warlock and Sorcerer were added over the years...</p><p></p><p>If you look back through the history of D&D's alternative classes, there are a four recurring themes that might provide inspiration:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Sages/Experts</strong> began in AD&D's <em>Sages and Specialists</em> which allowed you to play engineers, scribes, etc. Sounds odd for an adventurer, but I believe the concept was picked up in 3e as the Expert NPC class, and various Dragon magazine articles has "generic adventurer"/"professional" classes that followed a similar theme. Maybe the 3e Factotum class could serve as inspiration.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Merchants/Tradesmen</strong>-type classes have appeared in several AD&D supplements, including <em>Birthright Campaign Setting</em> (Guilder), <em>Dark Sun Campaign Setting</em> (Trader), and <em>Masque of the Red Death</em> (Tradesman). This concept was kind of carried into 3e with the Expert NPC class as well, and possibly with 3e <em>Dragonlance</em>'s Noble class, though I'm not sure how it would work given 5e's adventuring class structure & fast-and-loose economy.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Knights</strong> appeared in AD&D's <em>Dragonlance Adventures</em>, there was a Pious Knight class in <em>Legends & Lore</em>, and it graduated to a Knight class in 3e's <em>Player's Handbook 2</em>. The question would be How is a knight different from a fighter in 5e? How does it justify more design space than a martial archetype like XGtE's Cavalier? And if you focus on the 3e Knight's Challenge as being a key class feature, how does that compare to the 5e Oath of the Crown Paladin's Channel Divinity: Champion Challenge?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Warlords</strong> were introduced in 3e's <em>Miniatures Handbook</em> as the Marshal and later in the 4e <em>Player's Handbook</em>; apparently they were so controversial during closed playtesting of D&D Next that the team decided to scrap the concept and put pieces of it into the Battle Master martial archetype. Definitely they have as much history as the Sorcerer or Warlock, so I think it's more a matter of coming up with a design that has broader appeal.</li> </ol><p></p><p>Personally, I think you could merge #1 and #2 into an interesting (if hard to design) class, and you could definitely merge #3 and #4 into a cohesive class.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 7321960, member: 20323"] Maybe a better way to state the question is: What's the design space for new primarily "martial/non-caster" classes? Are there "martial/non-caster" concepts players have that current classes aren't meeting? For instance, Mike Mearls once worked on [U]Iron Heroes[/U] which created a whole bunch of "martial" classes for that game. It can be done, and one of the lead D&D designers has done. The question is would it add value to the game? Is it something we as players want? Does it fill a unique design space? My observation/opinion is that WotC knows how to design an excellent "martial" class – the Rogue is, in my mind, the epitome of how to do it well. The Monk and Barbarian are also well done, albeit with minor flaws that are being discussed. And the Fighter's design is the most mediocre (or, a kinder way to say it: most [I]conservatively[/I] designed) of the bunch. I think this harkens back to an ongoing shift throughout the history of the game that assumes "players find magic more interesting, and fighters are plenty popular, so we're doing fine with an abundance of casters." My hunch is there's a bit of a chicken-and-an-egg scenario happening with this line of thought. Similar to "our statistics find very few players play high-level, therefor we don't produce much high-level content." Whereas I tend to think it's a grayer situation, where that Field of Dreams quote applies: "If you build it (well), they will come." We've seen the Warlock (4e) and Sorcerer (3e) get added to the list of base classes over the history of D&D. I didn't realize I ever wanted to play those concepts or that there was a void in the class design space...but they seemed to be pretty popular among players. It would be interesting to dream up, say, two "martial/non-caster" concepts that might be introduced to the game, similar to how Warlock and Sorcerer were added over the years... If you look back through the history of D&D's alternative classes, there are a four recurring themes that might provide inspiration: [list=1][*][B]Sages/Experts[/B] began in AD&D's [I]Sages and Specialists[/I] which allowed you to play engineers, scribes, etc. Sounds odd for an adventurer, but I believe the concept was picked up in 3e as the Expert NPC class, and various Dragon magazine articles has "generic adventurer"/"professional" classes that followed a similar theme. Maybe the 3e Factotum class could serve as inspiration. [*][B]Merchants/Tradesmen[/B]-type classes have appeared in several AD&D supplements, including [I]Birthright Campaign Setting[/I] (Guilder), [I]Dark Sun Campaign Setting[/I] (Trader), and [I]Masque of the Red Death[/I] (Tradesman). This concept was kind of carried into 3e with the Expert NPC class as well, and possibly with 3e [I]Dragonlance[/I]'s Noble class, though I'm not sure how it would work given 5e's adventuring class structure & fast-and-loose economy. [*][B]Knights[/B] appeared in AD&D's [I]Dragonlance Adventures[/I], there was a Pious Knight class in [I]Legends & Lore[/I], and it graduated to a Knight class in 3e's [I]Player's Handbook 2[/I]. The question would be How is a knight different from a fighter in 5e? How does it justify more design space than a martial archetype like XGtE's Cavalier? And if you focus on the 3e Knight's Challenge as being a key class feature, how does that compare to the 5e Oath of the Crown Paladin's Channel Divinity: Champion Challenge? [*][B]Warlords[/B] were introduced in 3e's [I]Miniatures Handbook[/I] as the Marshal and later in the 4e [I]Player's Handbook[/I]; apparently they were so controversial during closed playtesting of D&D Next that the team decided to scrap the concept and put pieces of it into the Battle Master martial archetype. Definitely they have as much history as the Sorcerer or Warlock, so I think it's more a matter of coming up with a design that has broader appeal.[/list] Personally, I think you could merge #1 and #2 into an interesting (if hard to design) class, and you could definitely merge #3 and #4 into a cohesive class. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Are there too darn many spellcasters?
Top