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

MoonSong · Jan 22, 2018

I mean this idea keeps resurfacing over and over. It seems a sizable portion players just plain want to fold all classes into just fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue. I don't really get the appeal or even the potential advantages of this.

I mean I could understand it if it was about nostalgia, but no edition of D&D has ever had just four classes, the original booklet had just three, the Greyhawk supplement added two -not just rogue-, AD&D had about nine I think?, Basic included racial classes, 2nd edition had druid, bard, paladin and ranger, everything after 3rd edition has had more than 10 in core.

Doing something like this would severely water down many of the character concepts, like paladins and rangers. It would also be problematic, where do you place bards and monks? and it would basically erase sorcerers and warlocks completely from the game -wizards are extremely specific as spellcasters, part of the appeal of the warlock and sorcerer is that they aren't booklearned, specially with the sorcerer-. Also it is all a contradiction as many of the same people want a psionic class that would expand the rooster anyway.

But basically I really want to know why so many posters here desire this. Can you explain your reasoning? Why is it so desirable to you?

FrogReaver · Jan 22, 2018

MoonSong said:
I mean this idea keeps resurfacing over and over. It seems a sizable portion players just plain want to fold all classes into just fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue. I don't really get the appeal or even the potential advantages of this.

I mean I could understand it if it was about nostalgia, but no edition of D&D has ever had just four classes, the original booklet had just three, the Greyhawk supplement added two -not just rogue-, AD&D had about nine I think?, Basic included racial classes, 2nd edition had druid, bard, paladin and ranger, everything after 3rd edition has had more than 10 in core.

Doing something like this would severely water down many of the character concepts, like paladins and rangers. It would also be problematic, where do you place bards and monks? and it would basically erase sorcerers and warlocks completely from the game -wizards are extremely specific as spellcasters, part of the appeal of the warlock and sorcerer is that they aren't booklearned, specially with the sorcerer-. Also it is all a contradiction as many of the same people want a psionic class that would expand the rooster anyway.

But basically I really want to know why so many posters here desire this. Can you explain your reasoning? Why is it so desirable to you?

I don't know for sure but I think there's a few people that really want distinct class roles which I can't really say the newer editions supply. I get the appeal there. I also get why such systems seem to be going away. Because it's hard to game when you are an adult and are playing a game with very rigid player and party requirements. Oh look the cleric didn't show up today? What are we going to do instead? Oh look the wizard had real life today and I was really planning on a fireball taking out 3/4's of the goblins that attack you.

Slit518 · Jan 22, 2018

Honestly, I think it should be something even simpler, such as:

Combat, Magic, Specialist.

And then from there you can tailor the character how you want.

redrick · Jan 22, 2018

I don't know that I'm a proponent, but I can see the appeal. There's a reason why most video game RPGs only have a few classes, and the huge selections of AD&D class kits in Baldur's Gate can feel overwhelming, even for an experienced D&D-er. When players don't come in with a clearly defined character concept, trying to choose between a dozen (or more!) classes can feel overwhelming.

This is something 5e does well with subclasses — you can start with a broad archetype and refine that archetype after getting a little experience in play.

That said, the Wizard/Cleric/Rogue/Fighter configuration ends up feeling a little limiting when you know there are other options out there.

Guest 6801328 · Jan 22, 2018

redrick said:
I don't know that I'm a proponent, but I can see the appeal. There's a reason why most video game RPGs only have a few classes, and the huge selections of AD&D class kits in Baldur's Gate can feel overwhelming, even for an experienced D&D-er. When players don't come in with a clearly defined character concept, trying to choose between a dozen (or more!) classes can feel overwhelming.

I often see this assumption that a desire for fewer classes is to reduce complexity and make the game easier to understand. Maybe that's a goal for WotC, but I for one lean toward fewer classes and it has nothing to do with making the choices less "overwhelming".

I just don't find the aesthetics of class proliferation very appealing. I find many of the class concepts to be, frankly, kinda dumb and genre inappropriate.

Too many classes (as well as too many other options in general) tend to shift the emphasis to rules rather than storytelling. Yeah, yeah, yeah..."Stormwind Fallacy" etc. (Which itself is a fallacy, by the way.) But just because two things aren't strictly mutually exclusive doesn't mean they don't tend to counteract each other. It's like the saying, "Put two boats in the water and it's a race." Well, put too many character options in the book and it encourages powergaming. At the very least it attracts more powergamers. At least partly because it becomes exponentially more challenging to make sure there aren't unintended exploitive combinations.

I don't buy the argument that few classes/sub-classes "restrict character concept". They restrict mechanical choices, but not concepts. You can build any concept you want using existing classes. Sure, it may not have every goody and ability your heart could desire, but that's what I meant by my previous post: you're focusing on the mechanics defining your character, instead of the way you play/narrate it.

Also, "games" are about achieving goals within artificial constraints. Games become less fun without the constraints (which is why cheat codes on video games typically spoil the fun. At least for me.) One of those constraints in D&D is making a class choice that comes with trade-offs: pros and cons. Class proliferation is about creating choices without trade-offs (in the sense that the things you give up are the things you didn't want anyway.)

So, yeah, thanks for the condescension but I have the cognitive wherewithal to handle plentiful options and thick rule books just fine. I just find I never enjoy actually playing those games as much.

Eubani · Jan 22, 2018

Grognards with rose tinted memories maybe.

KirayaTiDrekan · Jan 22, 2018

While I think only four classes would be a bit constrictive, about a dozen is the sweet spot for me. A class, to me, is a fairly broad concept that can then be narrowed to specific niches with subclasses. The only reason, IMO, for a new class is if there is a broad concept (say, psionics) that the existing classes don't cover. Otherwise, make it a sub-class instead.

TwoSix · Jan 22, 2018

1) Conceptual elegance. A lower number of starting classes is easier to explain to beginners, and honestly just seems more aesthetically pleasing. (Assuming that there are plenty of opportunities within the classes for customization, of course.)

2) Less siloization of complementary powers. Assuming an equivalent numbers of possible options between a game with less classes and that with more, less classes means more options available per class, which means more possible combinations available. You don't need to justify a fighter/barbarian to get a character with dual-wielding fighting style and rage, or a wizard/sorcerer to have a caster with a school specialization and metamagic.

3) Classes don't need to tell stories. I'm a pretty big proponent for building the character you want, and then reskinning the mechanics liberally to tell the story you want to tell for the character. Generic classes, by necessity, are going to carry less narrative weight than a more specific class, which to my mind is a big feature. There are plenty of alternate options than can used to imbed narrative hooks into a character build if desired. (5e backgrounds, 4e-style themes, 3e-style prestige classes, 5e subclasses, racial and background feats all come to mind.)

Irda Ranger · Jan 22, 2018

I think of it like choice funnels. Having 20 classes to choose from is paralyzing. Having 4 classes to choose from is more manageable. Honestly, 5E is already at the number of classes where I find it hard to keep it all in my head, and I've been playing this game since AD&D.

For instance, you could pick "Warrior" from a list of 4-5 classes at 1st level, then "Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian" at 2nd level, and then your sub-class at 3rd level.

Also some people might prefer fewer classes but more modular class features at higher levels, like choosing Smite or Flurry of Blows, so you can really mix and match.

Is this better than the current set up? I don't know. Matter of taste. But I understand the desire.

redrick · Jan 22, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
I often see this assumption that a desire for fewer classes is to reduce complexity and make the game easier to understand. Maybe that's a goal for WotC, but I for one lean toward fewer classes and it has nothing to do with making the choices less "overwhelming".

I just don't find the aesthetics of class proliferation very appealing. I find many of the class concepts to be, frankly, kinda dumb and genre inappropriate.

Too many classes (as well as too many other options in general) tend to shift the emphasis to rules rather than storytelling. Yeah, yeah, yeah..."Stormwind Fallacy" etc. (Which itself is a fallacy, by the way.) But just because two things aren't strictly mutually exclusive doesn't mean they don't tend to counteract each other. It's like the saying, "Put two boats in the water and it's a race." Well, put too many character options in the book and it encourages powergaming. At the very least it attracts more powergamers. At least partly because it becomes exponentially more challenging to make sure there aren't unintended exploitive combinations.

I don't buy the argument that few classes/sub-classes "restrict character concept". They restrict mechanical choices, but not concepts. You can build any concept you want using existing classes. Sure, it may not have every goody and ability your heart could desire, but that's what I meant by my previous post: you're focusing on the mechanics defining your character, instead of the way you play/narrate it.

Also, "games" are about achieving goals within artificial constraints. Games become less fun without the constraints (which is why cheat codes on video games typically spoil the fun. At least for me.) One of those constraints in D&D is making a class choice that comes with trade-offs: pros and cons. Class proliferation is about creating choices without trade-offs (in the sense that the things you give up are the things you didn't want anyway.)

So, yeah, thanks for the condescension but I have the cognitive wherewithal to handle plentiful options and thick rule books just fine. I just find I never enjoy actually playing those games as much.

I'm not sure whose condescension you are referring to? I was speaking for myself in my own experience that large numbers of classes can be overwhelming and a hindrance. I frequently play D&D with first-time players. Having more than a half dozen classes makes creating your own character substantially more intimidating, because you need to explain more and more of the game to explain the differences between the different classes.

I'm not interested in massive number of classes. At the same time, I feel like 4 classes leaves too much out. But, I'll admit, this might be largely nostalgia — there are archetypes that existed as classes in earlier versions of D&D (Ranger, Paladin, Bard), that I have a longing for. And once you make the design space for a class that is "a Fighter but holy" or "a Fighter but Woodsy," it gets harder to say no to all the other class ideas out there.

Not sure I'd want to go too modular. It would take too long for your party to branch out. Again, playing lots of one-shots with new players, we frequently never get to 3rd level. I don't know that I feel like always doing a 6-person party with 2 fighters, 2 thieves, 1 cleric and 1 wizard or whatever.

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

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Slit518

Adventurer

redrick

First Post

Guest 6801328

Guest

Eubani

Legend

KirayaTiDrekan

Adventurer

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

Irda Ranger

First Post

redrick

First Post

Similar Threads