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

[Einlanzer0]

I don't think it's a good idea. For starters, those classes aren't as broad as everyone acts like they are. Clerics in particular are actually thematically narrower than a number of other "advanced" classes, IMO. The subclass system only adds a finite amount of range, given that, so far, it isn't used to modify base classes, only add on to them.

For two, if you're going to do this, you might as well remove classes altogether. If you're going to have classes at all, it's better to have more, not fewer, so that players can use classes to create a mostly unique identity in the game.

The main problem I see in 5e is that they gave us 12 somewhat arbitrary conventional classes while leaving out a number of archetypes that should be handled as full classes but doesn't seem like they ever will be. 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) we could achieve better parity and cover pretty much every major archetype imaginable. Mine would be something like this:

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

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If you're going to have classes at all, it's better to have more, not fewer, so that players can use classes to create a mostly unique identity in the game.

That assumes you want to use class mechanics in order to differentiate player characters, which is not necessarily a given. While narrow classes can certainly be used for that purpose (see Rifts for a good example), there are still plenty of other benefits from using a broad class system (instead of a free-form system, as an alternative).

 

[Charlaquin]

Query, if you don’t mind. How much of that would be level 1 choices? Would you have t wait several levels to realize a specific concept like a shadow monk or an acrobatic staff fighting thief, or a warlock with a Fey patron and a pseudo dragon familiar, or would those all be level 1 choices? Or more like 4e and 5e where you get all your main stuff within the first few levels? Or would it be like Star Wars Saga or 3e where you have to wait several levels before you’re most than just a generic fighter or “mage”?

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.

Also, would there be room for some magic users having markedly different ways of doing magic, or would they all be flavors of wizard?

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.

 

[Einlanzer0]

That assumes you want to use class mechanics in order to differentiate player characters, which is not necessarily a given. While narrow classes can certainly be used for that purpose (see Rifts for a good example), there are still plenty of other benefits from using a broad class system (instead of a free-form system, as an alternative).

Sure, but I don't think the official fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue are designed in a way that makes them desirable for that. If I was to go with this approach, I would essentially create three or four new classes that are designed to cover a much broader range of concepts than any of the official classes can.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Sure, but I don't think the official fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue are designed in a way that makes them desirable for that. If I was to go with this approach, I would essentially create three or four new classes that are designed to cover a much broader range of concepts than any of the official classes can.

Of course. The only reason that those four classes are presented with as much detail as they are in 5E is because they're trying to hold up against the narrower classes. Once you ditch the sorcerer and warlock, you don't need detailed class features in order to make the wizard class distinct.

 

[Wiseblood]

Of course. The only reason that those four classes are presented with as much detail as they are in 5E is because they're trying to hold up against the narrower classes. Once you ditch the sorcerer and warlock, you don't need detailed class features in order to make the wizard class distinct.

I didn't even consider that. Thanks.

 

[Wiseblood]

I don't think it's a good idea. For starters, those classes aren't as broad as everyone acts like they are. Clerics in particular are actually thematically narrower than a number of other "advanced" classes, IMO. The subclass system only adds a finite amount of range, given that, so far, it isn't used to modify base classes, only add on to them.

I sincerely think they are that broad. You want a 1980's movie ninja? Use shuriken and smoke bombs. I honestly think all editions of d&d over valued weapon proficiency. Fighter, rogue, cleric or wizard would do.

 

[MoonSong]

Of course. The only reason that those four classes are presented with as much detail as they are in 5E is because they're trying to hold up against the narrower classes. Once you ditch the sorcerer and warlock, you don't need detailed class features in order to make the wizard class distinct.

I digress -sorry, am I using this correctly?-. The wizard/Mage/MU has always been that narrow, in fact I think 5e's wizard is the broadest it has ever been. The W/M/MU has always been a smart person that gained magic by study, which means he/she had to desire it in the first place and could somehow procure the means to do it. This is true of every edition to date. The apparition of warlock and sorcerer in 3rd edition didn't make it more narrow overnight, it has always been that way.

The sorcerer on the other hand just has personal magic somehow, in one of a multitude of ways that could or could not be explored (even a scholarly origin would be possible). Nothing on the sorcerer means getting the magic was a voluntary act (but it could), and there are no backstory requirements to be fulfilled (so it can be anything you want, there is no checklist for backstory you could even do the wealthy bookworm that just wanted to be special). Again how is the sorcerer somehow more narrow and the W/M/MU broader?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I digress -sorry, am I using this correctly?-. The wizard/Mage/MU has always been that narrow, in fact I think 5e's wizard is the broadest it has ever been. The W/M/MU has always been a smart person that gained magic by study, which means he/she had to desire it in the first place and could somehow procure the means to do it. This is true of every edition to date. The apparition of warlock and sorcerer in 3rd edition didn't make it more narrow overnight, it has always been that way.

I was mostly talking about the mechanical class features here - things like the Evoker's spell sculpting, or the Conjurer's minor creation. If the wizard was the only class that could cast magic missile or fireball or teleport, then you could literally remove everything from the class features (aside from the spellcasting), and the one class (with no sub-class) would cover that entire role. If you have fiendlocks and draconic sorcerers and evoker wizards, then those three sub-classes all share the tiny design space of blowing stuff up; but if all you have is wizard, then that one wizard covers the entire design space for blowing stuff up and summoning elementals and teleporting and transmuting. It becomes a broader class, when there's nothing nearby to compare it against.

It's kind of like the difference between reading an X-Men comic, and reading Howard the Duck or Patsy Walker. When you're reading a comic about X-Men, all of the heroes and villains will be mutants, so the role of mutants within that world is expanded to cover everything we care about. When you're reading a comic that simply takes place in the greater Marvel universe, the 616 has to spread the super-power spotlight between mutants and Inhumans and aliens and wizards, so mutants become a much narrower category since they're no longer monopolizing the talent pool.

Additionally, though it might be a bit topic-adjacent, if there's only one magic class then you can use it to model other concepts that don't exist. I recall a story from... I don't remember whether it was 4E or 5E... but one of the designers wanted to play a Psion character, which didn't exist, so they just took the Wizard class and just changed some of the names and descriptions. If you really want to play a Sorcerer or Warlock, and the only arcane spellcaster you have is the Wizard, then your DM may give you permission to use the Wizard rules for a spellcaster that could cast innately or through some pact or something. Even if the class concept had always been as narrow - which is a fair point - it could easily be expanded as necessary for the setting.

 

[MoonSong]

Additionally, though it might be a bit topic-adjacent, if there's only one magic class then you can use it to model other concepts that don't exist. I recall a story from... I don't remember whether it was 4E or 5E... but one of the designers wanted to play a Psion character, which didn't exist, so they just took the Wizard class and just changed some of the names and descriptions. If you really want to play a Sorcerer or Warlock, and the only arcane spellcaster you have is the Wizard, then your DM may give you permission to use the Wizard rules for a spellcaster that could cast innately or through some pact or something. Even if the class concept had always been as narrow - which is a fair point - it could easily be expanded as necessary for the setting.

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.