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

[Wiseblood]

Nearly every class based game puts the bulk of what the character does in the class. You’d have to go the opposite route to make Gunslinger work as a type of tough guy. The tough guy base class would have to be nothing more than higher than average HD and a feature like Second Wind. At that point, that “class” is pointless, and it’s “subclasses” are actually the classes of the game.

The character should be 100% Gunslinger, with subclasses covering some different types, like pistolier (two pistol shooter, faster than the others, even acrobatic, can reload without a free hand), rifleman (able to make decent melee attacks with the rifle stock, good at long range and close up though not as deadly close up as the pistolier, tougher than other gunslingers), and sniper (stealthy, ambush benefits, crit benefits, perhaps ability to move and hide after attacking while hidden, eventually), as well as something oddball like an Eldritch Gunfighter (Pact magic, Pact boon, magic gun as a class feature, etc).

The core class would have stuff like trick shots and quick draw, prof in con saves, evasion, and fighting style with a couple new fighting style options to make them better with guns than a Fighter with proficiency.

Doctorbadwolf I thought I posted a response but I guess not.

Four sub-subclasses based on a category of weapon would be my nightmare scanario.

I would like to see specialization for warriors.
Weapon specialization = hit more often or harder.
Style specialization = learn tricks.

Creating a class to support a narrowly defined gimmick that in almost every way mimics a simpler mechanic but with special ribbons drives me crazy.


It may be why I don't want or need warlord, scorcerer, scout, duelist or the hundreds of other full classes based on a slight variation of an existing fighter, rogue, wizard or cleric.

I could be persuaded to add to my four classes.
A beastmaster or some such pet owner.
A gish or wizardy fighter like a bard.
But they are kinda pushing it.

Or eliminate rogue and roll it into fighter.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Doctorbadwolf I thought I posted a response but I guess not.

Four sub-subclasses based on a category of weapon would be my nightmare scanario.

I would like to see specialization for warriors.
Weapon specialization = hit more often or harder.
Style specialization = learn tricks.

Creating a class to support a narrowly defined gimmick that in almost every way mimics a simpler mechanic but with special ribbons drives me crazy.


It may be why I don't want or need warlord, scorcerer, scout, duelist or the hundreds of other full classes based on a slight variation of an existing fighter, rogue, wizard or cleric.

I could be persuaded to add to my four classes.
A beastmaster or some such pet owner.
A gish or wizardy fighter like a bard.
But they are kinda pushing it.

Or eliminate rogue and roll it into fighter.

I don’t know what a “sub subclass” is supposed to be in this case. What I described was a basic outline of subclasses for a gunslinger base class.

Weapon specialization doesn’t cover it. Matt Mercer’s Gunslinger Fighter subclass hits the high notes, but is a some what shallow, and quite narrow, version of the archetype.

The idea that it all works fine in 4 (or 3 lol) classes with minor features to represent actual archetypes is, to me, patently absurd.

Also, I don’t know aabout you, but I’m talking about 5e. I don’t care about pathfinder or 3.5 or wherever there is a duelist class.

maybe other systems are why you’re imagining “special ribbons”, whatever that even means?

 

[Saeviomagy]

Gunslinger is a hell of a lot more than just a person who can shoot guns proficiently. It is absolutely the sort of concept that, assuming it fits the campaign, should be able to be the primary defining focus of a character. Feat chains don’t do that sort of thing well at all. Feats are awful at primary defining focus. Especially feat chains.

Every implementation of a gunslinger I've seen (and indeed your own descriptions) makes them part of a very generic group of heroes that have nothing more in common than that they happen to choose guns as their weapon of choice.

Fundamentally a class asks the question "how do you solve problems", which is why I think 5e's classes are a bit confusing: they don't answer the question in as straightforward a way as prior editions have. Wizards are pretty straightforward: the answer is "with magic". If you ask someone if they want to play a wizard, then they typically get it. Most other classes are pretty murky: they don't even routinely solve the problems within a single pillar in a consistent way.

Which is why the concept of a gunslinger ends up so vague: "with guns" is only a partial answer to "how does this character solve the combat pillar". It says very little about anything else. And part of a single pillar is not enough to hang a class on when there's already multiple classes that cover that pillar amply, and could add "with guns" to their repertoire with minimal effort.

 

[MoonSong]

It may be why I don't want or need warlord, scorcerer, scout, duelist or the hundreds of other full classes based on a slight variation of an existing fighter, rogue, wizard or cleric.

I don't know, please explain to me why this:

• Just has magic, it may come from lineage, the blessing of a deity, a prophecy, a curse, a planetary alignment, simple happenstance, or not really bother with it.
• Can only use a few spells at the same time, yet is even capable of healing and rising the dead
• The caster's relationship to the magic is irrelevant. He or she doesn't even have to want it, let alone like it.
• Can come from any station in life, without any mandatory element on the backstory. Poor or rich, spoiled or destitute, literate or not.
• The main caster stat isn't tied to any personality type, and can even be dumped without contradicting any mandatory backstory.

Is just a slight narrower variation on this:

• Had to earn the magic by studying.
• Has to actively want and desire magic.
• Cannot heal nor raise the dead.
• Has to come from a background that accounts for literacy, and that somehow can cover the cost of magical training.
• The main caster stat favors a limited selection of personalities, and has a trend to produce a bunch of cold calculating Spocks. dumping it actively strains the credibility that this person could actually get magic by studying.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't know, please explain to me why this:

• Just has magic, it may come from lineage, the blessing of a deity, a prophecy, a curse, a planetary alignment, simple happenstance, or not really bother with it.
• The caster's relationship to the magic is irrelevant. He or she doesn't even have to want it, let alone like it.
• Can come from any station in life, without any mandatory element on the backstory. Poor or rich, spoiled or destitute, literate or not.
• The main caster stat isn't tied to any personality type, and can even be dumped without contradicting any mandatory backstory.

Is just a slight variation on this:

• Had to earn the magic by studying.
• Has to actively want and desire magic.
• Has to come from a background that accounts for literacy, and that somehow can cover the cost of magical training.
• The main caster stat favors a limited selection of personalities, and has a trend to produce a bunch of cold calculating Spocks. dumping it actively strains the credibility that this person could actually get magic by studying.

I'm not sure I would agree with all of your points here, but I do think it makes a good point that players look at stats and come away with completely different ideas. For instance I tend to think that a sorcerer, caster stat charisma, will tend to be a very outgoing individual filled with confidence rather than a timid, shy, or introverted character. However, I don't think that they are locked into that as their personality and I can disconnect that general idea of stats if a sorcerer wanted to be that shy introvert instead of a party face character.

I also don't think that a wizard needs to have a background that accounts for literacy or that can cover the cost of magical training, I think that is rather limiting. I can imagine a character that is illiterate and their spellbook is a bunch of knotted strings that provide memory cues to prepare a spell or it could be a primitive wizard with a spellbook of bone tablets that has an picture on each tablet for each of their spells. Not to mention that in Xanathar's we have the story of a street urchin who stole a spellbook and managed to pick up wizardry.

Also, I don't think I've ever played a wizard who was a cold calculating "Spock", in fact, they've probably been more like my idea of a sorcerer with an outgoing personality. Knowledgeable but likeable rogues using magic to solve problems.

As an aside, I'd also be happy to play a wizard like a sorcerer. No spellbook, just running off what spells I have prepared while mixing them up as I level.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nearly every class based game puts the bulk of what the character does in the class. You’d have to go the opposite route to make Gunslinger work as a type of tough guy. The tough guy base class would have to be nothing more than higher than average HD and a feature like Second Wind. At that point, that “class” is pointless, and it’s “subclasses” are actually the classes of the game.

And I’m saying that they should do that. Class is the broadest expression of character customization, it should provide the broadest mechanical benefits. Hit dice, attack bonus progression, saves, skill points, etc.

The core class would have stuff like trick shots and quick draw, prof in con saves, evasion, and fighting style with a couple new fighting style options to make them better with guns than a Fighter with proficiency.

This should be the province of subclasses. As specific expressions of the broader archetypes that class represents, subclasses should give more specific benefits. Proficiencies, fighting styles, and defining features like sneak attack and turn undead.

Pistolier (two pistol shooter, faster than the others, even acrobatic, can reload without a free hand), rifleman (able to make decent melee attacks with the rifle stock, good at long range and close up though not as deadly close up as the pistolier, tougher than other gunslingers), and sniper (stealthy, ambush benefits, crit benefits, perhaps ability to move and hide after attacking while hidden, eventually), as well as something oddball like an Eldritch Gunfighter (Pact magic, Pact boon, magic gun as a class feature, etc).

Specific mechanical features like these should be delivered through a more granular level of character customization, such as Feats.

 

[MoonSong]

While true B/X had race as class, it's not realistic nor desirable to do a modification that went back to that, because the vast majority would rather not have all dwarves be fighters, etc. So in that case, the core 4 have existed, and for the longest running period of any other edition. The precedence is there. "The core four" is also a well established concept in D&D that most people understand what you're talking about. it's more about roles than an actual class.

Granted Dwarves were basically fighters, but wasn't the Elf class quite distinct on that edition? I mean with both arcane spells, armor and weapons? Doesn't that qualify as a distinct fifth class? Part of my point was that I could understand it if it was nostalgia, but the status quo of just four classes on core on a edition is something that never really existed.

Now, as to why I support it.

* 5e has backgrounds and feat packages. IMO, a natural progression is to expand feat packages to actually be more like subclass packages, but not restricted to any particular class. So you have the core four classes: fighter, rogue, cleric, magic user. From there you could have a bard subclass package, but could be a fighter bard, or a rogue bard.
* By doing the packages in this manner, you can achieve a wide variety of archetypes without running into class bloat. What I mean by this is...
*...With so many individual classes, there is a lot of overlap and not enough distinction to make them an individual class. The difference between class A and class B might only be a few minor things. And in my opinion, minor differences are better handled by feats and packages, not by core classes.

Going back to my last post, I don't see how these differences are minor. Of your so called "core four" -because again no edition had only those four in core- only fighter is truly generic and broad, all others are quite narrow and specific. Not as badly as the Wizard/Mage/MU, but rogues are all still thieves at heart and clerics are quite a idiosyncrasy of D&D. As long as these three remain that specific I don't find the idea compelling. -And most of the times I've seen this idea put forward, there is an implicit assumption that these three are the broadest and most archetypal-

Also, passive aggressive comments taking digs at "grognards" and saying how we just want a time machine show that you don't understand the point at all (nor want to), and aren't helpful to the discussion at all. I kindly ask you that if you have nothing of value to add, please refrain from insulting other people or their ideas.

Sorry, promise I'll try no to laugh with those jokes again

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, I don’t know aabout you, but I’m talking about 5e. I don’t care about pathfinder or 3.5 or wherever there is a duelist class.

That seems like a strange thing to do in a thread discussing why people want to reduce the class list to Foghter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue, considering 5e has more classes than that. That’s definitely a cause of miscommunication, as the rest of us are talking about a hypothetical evolution of D&D, like a 6th Edition.

 

[dave2008]

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?

Simplicity and flexibility. The idea is you start with a simple base and then allow multitudes of options to make any concept you want. It leans to a classless system really.

Personally I would take it down to three: Martial, Arcane, Divine. You could take it down to 2: Martial & Mage, but I like the distinction between arcane and divine magic

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And I’m saying that they should do that. Class is the broadest expression of character customization, it should provide the broadest mechanical benefits. Hit dice, attack bonus progression, saves, skill points, etc.


This should be the province of subclasses. As specific expressions of the broader archetypes that class represents, subclasses should give more specific benefits. Proficiencies, fighting styles, and defining features like sneak attack and turn undead.


Specific mechanical features like these should be delivered through a more granular level of character customization, such as Feats.

That sounds completely terrible, to me. Complexity for no reason other than to fulfil an arbitrary design goal that has nothing to do with making a fun game. Or, perhaps, just 5e but with less ability to actually meaningfully model starting character concepts at low levels.

At that point, the game is better off without classes at all. Which is fine, but don’t expect that from dnd.

That seems like a strange thing to do in a thread discussing why people want to reduce the class list to Foghter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue, considering 5e has more classes than that. That’s definitely a cause of miscommunication, as the rest of us are talking about a hypothetical evolution of D&D, like a 6th Edition.

okay.