D&D General Which of these should be core classes for D&D?

[TwoSix]

If you really wanted both in the same system, you could have generic/customizable classes, and specific 3e style prestige classes representing in-world orders, positions, etc. Or, the division could be generic classes/in-world sub-classes. Or whatever.
The nice thing about that would be you could have a clear dividing line between purely player-resource options (generic classes), and options the DM could include, or not, to define the setting/campaign as desired.

That can definitely work. I’d say the only concern would be representing orders or groups that would narratively require long periods of time, unless the division was something along the lines of a 1st level diegetic subclass.

You could always simply not do those kinds of groups, of course. Or just ignore the training time.

 

[TwoSix]

You can have both - but the class descriptions need to also spell it out. A paladin isn't just a guy who fights and casts some spells - they're a very specific kind of character both narratively and diagetically. People in Faerun knw what a paladin is (or at least think they do.)

The generic classes are a catch-all for valid concepts that don't yet have a specific class or are too narrow/uncommon/whatever to get one, like a rogue is a catch-all for "good at stuff expressed through the skill system" rather than an in-universe idea (although the word rogue exists it doesn't have a distinct diegetic meaning). They're the backup customize-you-own-class option.

Yes, but the problem of defining what exactly the fighter “is” flows out from the basic problem that it’s a catch-all class in a game that doesn’t have many of those. We wouldn’t be having the arguments we do in a game where every class had paladin level specific fiction, OR in game with 3 classes and it was assumed narrative had to be built into every character.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Are you proposing that fighters should be superlative warriors beyond even other classes, or that they are, despite the massive ludonarrative dissonance that statement creates?

I am saying that is what I believe the core idea of the unique class fantasy and the themes of what it wants to present itself as, despite mechanically falling short, so ‘should be’

 

[Lanefan]

Fighter 'armed combat specialist' is distinct from other classes who use weapons in the same way that an olympic level distance runner is distinct from someone who regularly does the local fun-run marathon.

edit: i think we need so go back to some older design where the fighter is the only class who has full martial weapon mastery and other classes only have a specific subset of thematically apropriate proficiencies, like the cleric only having bludgeoning weapons, a barbarian having big brutish weapons like battleaxes and greatswords.

Much as I like my martials, I could get behind dropping Barbarian completely as a class. I've never quite seen the point of it.

Edited to remove a "non-" that wasn't supposed to be there.

 

[Lanefan]

Are you proposing that fighters should be superlative warriors beyond even other classes, or that they are, despite the massive ludonarrative dissonance that statement creates?

Fighters should be able to do things in combat that no other class can.

Where the disagreement will come is how this can be achieved, as my way would mostly be to gently dial back on what other classes can do* while leaving the Fighter as is.

* - e.g. the only class whose BAB (equivalent) matches its level is the Fighter (and a very few all-combat subclasses e.g. Cavalier); with almost every other class at least one point behind.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

once again, i am stating this is THE PREMISE of the fighter not THE EXECUTION and considering the following is part of the fighter's class description i am very much in question about 'not even thematically'

That is a far cry from your description.

i am saying that classes like paladin, ranger and barbarian are classes of 'someone who fights', i am saying that for fighters fighting is a way of being, the argument i think is happening is that you are focusing too much on the mechanical capabilities of the fighter being so similar in comparison to the mechanical capabilities of other classes rather than the conceptual essence of the fighter where they should be far superior at combat.

Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian, are Warriors. The fight is the point of them. Literally the point of Paladins is the fight against “evil” or the enemies of thier god, the point of Rangers is the fight to keep civilization from getting eaten by dragons or whatever, the Barbarians point is just to fight. It’s the whole identity of the class, they’re The Primal Warrior, to the Fighter’s The Civilized Warrior.

As for the mechanics, this whole exchange is about the classes as they are. I’ll ignore execution issues, but they didn’t even actually try to make the fighter a totally different category of thing from other warriors.

If you can put a divine knight subclass on the fighter and do the Paladin’s thing without issues, that is a fault in the Fighter class, not the Paladin. The Fighter should have enough identity that it interferes, at least a little, in modeling another classes tropes.

I objected to the notion that you could just dump all the other warriors into the fighter and have a class worth playing, saying that instead I think better outcome would be to split up the fighter and let it’s features be used by different classes.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Yes, but the problem of defining what exactly the fighter “is” flows out from the basic problem that it’s a catch-all class in a game that doesn’t have many of those. We wouldn’t be having the arguments we do in a game where every class had paladin level specific fiction, OR in game with 3 classes and it was assumed narrative had to be built into every character.

“Fighter” is still too broad in a game that’s - let’s face it - mostly about fighting. Everyone fights, or at least participates in combat, so “fights” isn’t a niche any more than “roleplays.”

But just one level down we get three good options for broad, flexible, catch-the-odd-idea classes: champion (needs more skills), weapon master, and gish. Ranger is a specific type of champion and paladin is a specific type of gish (and done correctly assassin is a specific type of weapon master).

I’d make the specialist full classes to use the full available design space, but I also like some crunch in my DnD.

 

[Mecheon]

Much as I like my martials, I could get behind dropping Barbarian completely as a class. I've never quite seen the point of it.

The idea of the barbarian. Its your berserkers, your viking, someone from a bit more of a wilder place with both the skill of the wild and terrifying fighting skill, but very much not up to date with the ways of the city. Its a thematic option and its generally well received on that front.

Far more close-knit idea than the fighter, but the issue is the fighter is probably way too broad as presented and needs to be torn apart and compartmentalised into more options like this

 

[Reynard]

The idea of the barbarian. Its your berserkers, your viking, someone from a bit more of a wilder place with both the skill of the wild and terrifying fighting skill, but very much not up to date with the ways of the city. Its a thematic option and its generally well received on that front.

Far more close-knit idea than the fighter, but the issue is the fighter is probably way too broad as presented and needs to be torn apart and compartmentalised into more options like this

Barbarian is a background or heritage, not a class. There are tons of "battle madness" type tropes throughout the world and inspirational materials that we could just make it a path or talent tree or whatever without any reference to "civilization."

 

[Scribe]

Barbarian is a background or heritage, not a class. There are tons of "battle madness" type tropes throughout the world and inspirational materials that we could just make it a path or talent tree or whatever without any reference to "civilization."

No way, it's very much a class.