D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Crimson Longinus]

Seriously, if your argument about the Sorcerer is "Why not just delete it?" then you're basically saying you think your vision means more then my vision, which is the opposite of how you improve things. You improve things by polishing vision, and the sorcerer needs polish. And if you want "fewer classes" in your games, all you have to do is not offer the sorcerer at your table.

That's not how it works though. In a game with fewer classes the classes need to be designed differently than in one with many classes. You cannot get a satisfying version of the former just by omitting some of the latter set. If there are fewer classes, they need to be more broad and flexible. In the many classes paradigm classes can be more narrow and rigid. In hypothetical warlock sorcerer merger, it is not just deleting sorcerer, even though the gestalt class would end up using the warlock chassis as the basis. It would still need remodelling to allow it properly to represent the sorcerer.

I also reject the idea that wanting to combine class is somehow anti-improvement. It is about improvement, even though it is not the direction you'd personally prefer.

 

[Shardstone]

That's not how it works though. In a game with fewer classes the classes need to be designed differently than in one with many classes. You cannot get a satisfying version of the former just by omitting some of the latter set. If there are fewer classes, they need to be more broad and flexible. In the many classes paradigm classes can be more narrow and rigid. In hypothetical warlock sorcerer merger, it is not just deleting sorcerer, even though the gestalt class would end up using the warlock chassis as the basis. It would still need remodelling to allow it properly to represent the sorcerer.

I also reject the idea that wanting to combine class is somehow anti-improvement. It is about improvement, even though it is not the direction you'd personally prefer.

I'm sorry, I was speaking in regards to 5E D&D, not a hypothetical 6th Edition where suddenly there are 4-6 classes, and each class contains within it the breadth of 2-4 classes, because how could I even speak on such a wild hypothetical when there's nothing but general ideas to discuss?

In regards to current 5E, removing classes and maintaining any semblance of current class design is not an improvement. This applies to One D&D as well.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm sorry, I was speaking in regards to 5E D&D, not a hypothetical 6th Edition where suddenly there are 4-6 classes, and each class contains within it the breadth of 2-4 classes, because how could I even speak on such a wild hypothetical when there's nothing but general ideas to discuss?

In regards to current 5E, removing classes and maintaining any semblance of current class design is not an improvement. This applies to One D&D as well.

Hypothetical 6e could have one class called "adventurer" and you can use it to model a knight, a pirate a witch or a templar depending on what options you pick. Or it could have 30 plus classes each designed with its micro niche in mind and limited choice points. The problem is that both options are equally valid.

 

[Shardstone]

Hypothetical 6e could have one class called "adventurer" and you can use it to model a knight, a pirate a witch or a templar depending on what options you pick. Or it could have 30 plus classes each designed with its micro niche in mind and limited choice points. The problem is that both options are equally valid.

You're correct with everything in this post. I'm not sure why people keep telling me all these things are valid. I'm talking about 5E. Stop trying to hoist me by my own petard over things that I didn't say.

I'm talking about 5th Edition, on a post about the 5th Edition sorcerer, and saying that instead of eliminating the Sorcerer that WotC should instead make the sorcerer better, ala One D&D, since the design goals are to keep the same 12 classes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The thing is any of these changes we are talking about must assume some sort of serious edition or half edition revamp. We already know that the 5.5 sorcerer isn't substantially altered, so we realistically are probably talking about sixth edition.

Or alternatively this is just context free talk about our design preferences, as WotC is not gonna listen any of us anyway.

 

[Remathilis]

This is wrong thinking. Fighter isn't an isue. The idea Fighter needs to be a simple class for the beginners, when Barbarian exists is. Personally I would replace Fighter with a Warrior, turn Monk into a Fighter (as in, martial arts fighter) that is stripped off from all mystical trappings (we can offload those on to Ranger as far as I'm concerned) and let them both share maneuvers, jsut make more of them and avialable for the classes and all subclasses.

It's no more wrong thinking than removing the sorcerer. What is the fighters story? I hit things with a sword. I represent every person that hits things with a sword. Peasants, knights, mercenaries, bandits, soldiers, archers, samurai, etc. one class. Which worked when it's contemporaries were "class that represents all magic" and "class that represents all religious beliefs" but it's kinda a relic when D&D has gone out of its way to give us classes like ranger, paladin, barbarian, and monk to represent other warriors.

Unfortunately, people look at fighter and say, "what a bland, generic and uninspired class with almost no personality. I want the magic using classes to be like that too."

 

[TwoSix]

Hypothetical 6e could have one class called "adventurer" and you can use it to model a knight, a pirate a witch or a templar depending on what options you pick. Or it could have 30 plus classes each designed with its micro niche in mind and limited choice points. The problem is that both options are equally valid.

I mean, pie-in-the-sky hypothetical, there's nothing stopping anyone from having a 5e game with the standard PHB classes, PLUS an "adventurer" class that gets nothing but selectable powers like feats every level, PLUS dozens of extremely specific niche classes with no subclasses and limited choice points.

It's just not done because it's somewhat "messy" and would be challenging to balance. But there's nothing that stops you mechanically from implementing wildly different class variations within the same game.

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, pie-in-the-sky hypothetical, there's nothing stopping anyone from having a 5e game with the standard PHB classes, PLUS an "adventurer" class that gets nothing but selectable powers like feats every level, PLUS dozens of extremely specific niche classes with no subclasses and limited choice points.

It's just not done because it's somewhat "messy" and would be challenging to balance. But there's nothing that stops you mechanically from implementing wildly different class variations within the same game.

I’d go beyond difficult. I’d say Impossible to balance.

 

[Mecheon]

I’d go beyond difficult. I’d say Impossible to balance.

I've seen some freeform stuff done so I think its possible, just it needs to be carefully made as its incredibly easy to veer one way or the other.

But its going to be complex no matter how you do it, and probably not exactly "hey its D&D the easy RPG that everyone's heard of and you can play easily" material

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've seen some freeform stuff done so I think its possible, just it needs to be carefully made as its incredibly easy to veer one way or the other.

But its going to be complex no matter how you do it, and probably not exactly "hey its D&D the easy RPG that everyone's heard of and you can play easily" material

You absolutely could do it, but it would hit the "doesn't feel like D&D" wall harder than the 4e ever did.