D&D 5E The Fighter/Martial Problem (In Depth Ponderings)

[Micah Sweet]

Are you sure these are the same people? Like I don't want new martial classes (subclasses sure, if they actually can come up with something) but I also think there are too many caster classes and subclasses.

How can there be too many classes? Who's forcing you to use content you don't want? Let me know and I'll give them a talking to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think most people are ok with more martial subclasses, and some recent books have introduced more martial/half-caster subclasses, without introducing more full caster subclasses.

People are not ok with more classes, but I think that goes for both casters and non-casters.

What people? As far as I can see, the only people who seem strongly against new classes are WotC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I know you do, but I think the community is overwhelmingly against these kinds of things. They are not against more spells I don't think.

What makes you think that? Seriously, is this coming from anywhere except this board?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How can there be too many classes? Who's forcing you to use content you don't want? Let me know and I'll give them a talking to.

Dividing concepts among too many classes makes each too thin and reduces the support each class can get. I combined sorcerer and warlock into one class, and I think the resulting gestalt is mechanically and thematically more solid than either on the classes were on their own.

It is the same reason I don't want "military leader" concept to be siloed into its own class, as I want that aspect to be part of the fighter. Granted, they have not done terribly good job with supporting it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Dividing concepts among too many classes makes each too thin and reduces the support each class can get. I combined sorcerer and warlock into one class, and I think the resulting gestalt is mechanically and thematically more solid than either on the classes were on their own.

It is the same reason I don't want "military leader" concept to be siloed into its own class, as I want that aspect to be part of the fighter. Granted, they have not done terribly good job with supporting it.

Then make ongoing support useful for multiple classes, like the spell lists, or Level Up's Combat Maneuvers. Classes are mostly defined by class features anyway, and you can never have too many packages of class features. What exactly are you looking for in the way of support?

 

[Minigiant]

I know you do, but I think the community is overwhelmingly against these kinds of things. They are not against more spells I don't think.

I don't think so.

I've seen a lot of unfortunately bad fighter fix PDFs with 1 of the 3. And LevelUP has advanced manevuers.

WotC just wont do it because of the Champion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think so.

I've seen a lot of unfortunately bad fighter fix PDFs with 1 of the 3. And LevelUP has advanced manevuers.

WotC just wont do it because of the Champion.

Which is why in this area (at least), aid from WotC is not forthcoming. You'll have to light the beacons leading somewhere else.

 

[Minigiant]

Dividing concepts among too many classes makes each too thin and reduces the support each class can get.

It's only gets thin because the people who work at WOTC aren't broad in their consumption of fantasy.

They literally could only think of 3 monk subclasses and 2 ranger subclasses and 2 barbarians subclasses in the PHB.

 

[FrogReaver]

Dividing concepts among too many classes makes each too thin and reduces the support each class can get. I combined sorcerer and warlock into one class, and I think the resulting gestalt is mechanically and thematically more solid than either on the classes were on their own.

I'm wondering what support classes get currently. Besides new spells or new subclasses and a few variant features sprinkled in, is there anything else?

It is the same reason I don't want "military leader" concept to be siloed into its own class, as I want that aspect to be part of the fighter. Granted, they have not done terribly good job with supporting it.

I either want fewer more customizable classes, or many super specialized classes.

As it stands, 5e's current design methodology means that if they botch the execution of any given concept (that's beyond spell caster or sword wielder) there's nothing remotely close to fall back to.

 

[Oofta]

How can there be too many classes? Who's forcing you to use content you don't want? Let me know and I'll give them a talking to.

They had multiple classes in 3.x, it was confusing and there was a ton of overlap. After a while they were making variations that were just flat out better than what had come before because there are only so many variations on the theme. It was difficult to keep track of all the different options and the core concepts were often much the same, subclasses achieve much the same results of flexibility without the complexity, overhead and confusion. People likely rejected adding more classes when they floated the idea early on because they remembered what a mess it was.

It is, of course, just an option chosen because there will always be compromises and limitations to what any one game can do. If you want more options there's always 3PP.