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

[Sadras]

How can I call myself a true paladin if a filthy peasant infected me with some terrible disease simply by being near me? And how can I be the shining light of justice if people cannot feel the awesomeness of my presence?

The player might have to select between progressing with the Action Point mechanic or gaining an Aura, or there could be a Paladin feat or you could tie the Paladin powers into a Piety mechanic. Plenty options exist.

 

[jasper]

Because we are tired of the whining. Tired of people wanting a specific OFFICAL crunch class that matches their favorite movie, video game, other rpg, book, old edition, etc.
I want a wizard like Gandolf so he has to martial weapons, and epic knowledge, and a free raise.
I want a swashy buckler like Johnny depp, So I need a automatic flint lock pistol that does 10d10 damage.
I want Barry Potter, Harry's long lost cousin. So he gets wand as a focus item but I don't want to pay the time or money for making potions because in the books price was never mentioned.
I want Mr. Spock and since he an alien He gets ranks in gun powder, advance science and is resistance to psychic.
I want..
Were most of this could be handed in homebrew. Ok Jasper pick you can have long sword proficiency.

 

[Arilyn]

DnD is a class based system. This means players are relying heavily on the designers for their character concepts. If 5e were to pare down classes to the basic four, there better be lots of choice within those four classes. The current archetype system is not up to the task.

Since DnD is a game about heroes doing over the top and amazing feats, players should have these feats match their character. A ranger as a fighter who takes the archery fighting style, and the outlander background is not as fully conceived, from a DnD point of view as the rogue.

Classes make no sense, but are fun. I'm not against the idea, but if I'm letting the designers pick out the scope of my career, mechanically speaking, I prefer lots of choice. And no, this does not mean that I'm more interested in mechanics over roleplaying.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Conservation of design space. Never do with a class what could be done with a subclass; never do with a subclass what could be done with a feat.

This is it for me.

You could group a lot of classes together and have the differences be part of the subclass. The Barbarian Warrior gets Rage and a d12 hit die, the Paladin warrior gets Lay on hands and Divine Smite, while the Battlemaster Warrior Superiority dice and Action surge.

Ultimate they would play the same, but the reduced complexity removes a barrier to new players stuck in decision paralysis.

 

[MoonSong]

This is it for me.

You could group a lot of classes together and have the differences be part of the subclass. The Barbarian Warrior gets Rage and a d12 hit die, the Paladin warrior gets Lay on hands and Divine Smite, while the Battlemaster Warrior Superiority dice and Action surge.

Ultimate they would play the same, but the reduced complexity removes a barrier to new players stuck in decision paralysis.

How is having more moving parts less complexity?

 

[redrick]

This is it for me.

You could group a lot of classes together and have the differences be part of the subclass. The Barbarian Warrior gets Rage and a d12 hit die, the Paladin warrior gets Lay on hands and Divine Smite, while the Battlemaster Warrior Superiority dice and Action surge.

Ultimate they would play the same, but the reduced complexity removes a barrier to new players stuck in decision paralysis.

But at some point, doesn't creating lots of subclasses just overload the subclass design space instead of the class design space? We've reduced the options at character creation, but now a player has just as many options once they reach the subclass level. And do we now have subclasses of subclasses? This feels like it forces players to look ahead further to the subclass options when they choose their base class. As it is currently, I choose my base class without knowing which subclass I will take, because the subclass doesn't fundamentally alter the character concept.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But at some point, doesn't creating lots of subclasses just overload the subclass design space instead of the class design space? We've reduced the options at character creation, but now a player has just as many options once they reach the subclass level. And do we now have subclasses of subclasses? This feels like it forces players to look ahead further to the subclass options when they choose their base class. As it is currently, I choose my base class without knowing which subclass I will take, because the subclass doesn't fundamentally alter the character concept.

If the subclass doesn't fundamentally alter the character concept, then that's a strong argument against needing that level of mechanical distinction in the first place. If a totem barbarian and a berserker are fundamentally both just barbarians, then you should only need one mechanical package for barbarian, and you can use it to represent both types.

And since you only have one package, without further sub-packages, you don't lose anything by making that package into a sub-class of fighter.

 

[redrick]

If the subclass doesn't fundamentally alter the character concept, then that's a strong argument against needing that level of mechanical distinction in the first place. If a totem barbarian and a berserker are fundamentally both just barbarians, then you should only need one mechanical package for barbarian, and you can use it to represent both types.

And since you only have one package, without further sub-packages, you don't lose anything by making that package into a sub-class of fighter.

But I do have one package. It's called a Barbarian.

I can then customize that package at the subclass level. For some classes, those distinctions can make a big difference in how I approach the character. (Think Thief vs Assassin vs Arcane Trickster.) For other classes, less so. (In my mind, I'm doing basically the same thing with my Totem Barbarian and my Beserker Barbarian, I just swap out a few moves. On the other hand, the Totem can add a lot of flavor if I really want to lean into the Barbarian's connection to the animal world.)

 

[BookBarbarian]

How is having more moving parts less complexity?

Complexity might not have been the correct word. To me it flows better when groups core concepts together. I'll explain further down below the next quote.

But at some point, doesn't creating lots of subclasses just overload the subclass design space instead of the class design space? We've reduced the options at character creation, but now a player has just as many options once they reach the subclass level. And do we now have subclasses of subclasses? This feels like it forces players to look ahead further to the subclass options when they choose their base class. As it is currently, I choose my base class without knowing which subclass I will take, because the subclass doesn't fundamentally alter the character concept.

You bring up a good point. Though I do think some subclasses do alter character concept. A Wild Magic Sorcerer and a Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer seem very different in concept to me, as do Totem Warriors and Zealots.

Here is a scenario I face. For me it's something I see pretty often but for others that may not be so. I present the game to a new player, and show them the list of available classes, and they get overwhelmed.

"I just want to hit stuff" "I just want to kill stuff with magic" are some of the responses I get. With the current system, I say "Do you want to get mad and Hit stuff? Do you want hit stuff with Divine Power? Do you want to hit stuff with Technique gained through training?" or "Do you want to use Magic gained form Study? from Prayer? from a bargain with a questionable being? from an inherited genetic trait?". I often get the response "Can you just pick for me" so I do and that has had wildly varying results.

With concepts grouped together I can say "here's the Warrior class," or "here's the Mage class." This gives them a place to start. They can start thinking "My character is this." Which for some may make answering questions like "Where did you get your power from?" a little easier.

It has now occurred to me that I can present the classes to the players as The Warrior Classes, the Mage Classes, etc and have perhaps the same effect.

I'll try it and see how it works out.

 

[BookBarbarian]

But I do have one package. It's called a Barbarian.

I can then customize that package at the subclass level. For some classes, those distinctions can make a big difference in how I approach the character. (Think Thief vs Assassin vs Arcane Trickster.) For other classes, less so. (In my mind, I'm doing basically the same thing with my Totem Barbarian and my Beserker Barbarian, I just swap out a few moves. On the other hand, the Totem can add a lot of flavor if I really want to lean into the Barbarian's connection to the animal world.)

And here I have a problem as I don't think the Totem Warrior and Ancestral Guardian belong in the package as the Berserker. The former two seem more appropriate to a "Shaman" to me perhaps even Ranger, while the later is fundamentally different in character. At a concept level I think a Berserker shares more in common with a Champion than a Totem Warrior.