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

[Wiseblood]

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?

What I mean by sub-subclass is this you describe a tough guy that is good with weapons (iirc) that is a fighter(class). A gunslinger to me is a narrowly defined fighter(subclass). Rifleman a further narrowing of a subclass(sub-subclass).

The existence of the fighter class eliminates the need for swordsman(class) and the subclass flamberge swordsman. Gunslinger and pistolier are exactly as superfluous to me.

Special ribbons I thought was pretty clear. I will ry to sort that out tomorrow.

MoonSong, I don't quite understand. It is late as I type this. I will try to answer you tomorrow as well.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

In what way is it more complex to have the broadest features coming from the broadest element of character customization and the most specific features coming form the most specific elements? That's less complex in my book, and the reduced complexity is the primary design rationale for dividing classes in that way.

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

I mean, I'd love if D&D ditched the concept of classes, but I know that's not going to happen. Organizing what features come from Class, Subclass, and specific build choices is making the most of Class-based design though. There's a reason every video game with classes does it this way.

 

[cbwjm]

Making everything a class is actually why I like the build system in ACKs. There are already a large amount of classes to choose from but if none of them are quite right then it has a decent class builder. Since it is an an osr clone the classes may not be as exciting as in 5e where you always gain some kind of feature at every level but I still find it a good system.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[cbwjm]

I accidentally clicked on one of the other threads advertised in the app and that had me looking at the basic fantasy RPG website. They have a good idea with quasi-classes, additional abilities that fit a concept that can be layered on any other class. Want to be an archer, add the archer quasi-class to your rogue or fighter or even wizard if he wants to be ridiculously good at throwing darts or using a light crossbow. The addition isn't free as it adds additional experience per level to the base class but I still think it is an interesting idea, kind of like the old 2e kits but to a higher degree.

 

[Ratskinner]

FWIW, I like 5e. I think it plays very well and is a very good representation of what the heart of D&D is...but if it was perfect they would shut down sites like ENWorld!

My biggest itch about 5e isn't the # of classes per se. I can live with a game with a zillion classes or a handful....

...but only because I think there are currently too many Layers to mechanically customize your character. You Choose: Ability Scores, Background, Race(and subrace), Class (and subclass), and the Class choices keep on giving each level, when you choose class features, ASIs, spells, etc. Additionally, many of these choices provide hidden layers of sub-choice for proficiencies, weapons, companions, etc. Do we really need to have so many layers of "customization"? Especially since some design artifacts like Ability Score Dependence make some of the choices redundant. And if we must have all these layers....can't we trim the large number of choices within some of these?*

You want to have 105 classes, each with their own special abilities, but without having to constantly choose feats, proficiencies, etc., because they are baked-in...I'm in. If you'd rather have 3 classes (or even possibly two) but have something like subclasses or feats that have a lot of baked-in goodness as well, I'm in. But this zillion classes and a zillion customization layers is just tedious. Wrap ability scores into Class/Race/Background and I'm feeling even better.

Going along with this...I must admit I am eternally baffled by folks arguing that So-and-so needs to be a full class in order to ...what? I dunno. I can't comprehend why a Ranger or Paladin as a subclass of Fighter would be such a big "insult" to the class or its fans. (How can a class be insulted?) ::shrug::

*
13 Backgrounds
15 (sub)Races
38 (sub)Classes, not counting things like Fighting Style, Favored Enemy, and Spell Choice, etc.
Makes for 7,410 combinations, without even counting all the options that might drive it into the millions....Are there really 7,410 fantasy "archetypes" that need to be represented? How about 38?

Anyway, that's just my $.02

 

[Aldarc]

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

I don't, and that is why I would probably be reluctant to sign up for any system that did so. I know that 4th Edition D&D did, but there I appreciated how that permitted me to remove the divine power source derived classes without worrying about the loss of alternative support roles. But for "simplicity and flexibility," I would not create a difference between arcane and divine magic, though as a D&Dism, I get why the urge for that distinction would be there.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Tough guy is the wrong starting point, I think.

Gunslinger could be easily folded into a ranged weapons class (Archer?), just by focusing on a different set of weapons - in this case guns rather than bows. There's not enough in it to even be a class of its own, never mind with a collection of subclasses under it.

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.

Gah! This is far too complex and mechanical.

A Gunslinger uses guns. All kinds of guns, more or less well (though could focus on one or two types in particular, maybe). After that it's down to how the player wants to characterize the PC - there's nothing at all wrong with them being on the same mechanical chassis.

Lan-"though bringing guns into D&D opens up lots of other cans o' worms"-efan

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In what way is it more complex to have the broadest features coming from the broadest element of character customization and the most specific features coming form the most specific elements? That's less complex in my book, and the reduced complexity is the primary design rationale for dividing classes in that way.


I mean, I'd love if D&D ditched the concept of classes, but I know that's not going to happen. Organizing what features come from Class, Subclass, and specific build choices is making the most of Class-based design though. There's a reason every video game with classes does it this way.

Eh, no offense, but I just don’t care enough about this to continue. I disagree on all points, but it really doesn’t matter. We have fundamentally different baseline assumptions about design priorities, and even what sort of design is more complex. IMO, what you propose is more complex, and leads to less ability to meaningfully represent diverse character concepts. Things like Monks, Bards, Warlocks, Paladins, Rangers, should be the overwhelming majority of what a character does, which means they cannot satisfyingly be feats, they have to be classes.

Beyond that, I’m gonna just move on.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Tough guy is the wrong starting point, I think.

Gunslinger could be easily folded into a ranged weapons class (Archer?), just by focusing on a different set of weapons - in this case guns rather than bows. There's not enough in it to even be a class of its own, never mind with a collection of subclasses under it.

Gah! This is far too complex and mechanical.

A Gunslinger uses guns. All kinds of guns, more or less well (though could focus on one or two types in particular, maybe). After that it's down to how the player wants to characterize the PC - there's nothing at all wrong with them being on the same mechanical chassis.

Lan-"though bringing guns into D&D opens up lots of other cans o' worms"-efan

Lol it’s no more complex than most 5e classes. About as complex as the battle master fighter, with the Eldritch one being a bit more complex.

It’s less mechanically driven ban having a ranged class that any ranged weapon used falls under. What would that class be? Just proficiency with ranged weapons, hit die...what else? What else do “ranged weapon users” *all* have in common, conceptually? How is that a class?

 

[Wiseblood]

Lol it’s no more complex than most 5e classes. About as complex as the battle Just proficiency with ranged weapons, hit die...what else? What else do “ranged weapon users” *all* have in common, conceptually? How is that a class?

I think you are right about our fundamentally different baseline. This quote may be the root of our difference.

For me a class is proficiency/speciality and hd.
To me a wizard is crappy hd and spellcasting.
Spells being enough to handle without needing additional abilities. Necromancer is a wizard that usually uses necromancy spells.