D&D 5E Making the classes more generic

Hawk Diesel said:

@Xeviat I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I always took lore as more of a recommendation than the lore being married to the mechanics.

For example, I once had a ancestral barbarian gnome. But his class abilities were flavored more like an Artificer. His unarmored movement was based on him having rocket skates, reckless attack was from having rockets attached to his elbows, his AC came from having a gadget that provided an inertial multiplier field around his body, his rage was an alchemical injection like Bane from Batman, his danger sense came from having an AI that would alert him to danger, and his ancestral guardians were trapped in a containment unit on his back like from Ghostbusters. It was really fun coming up with inventions to explain the barbarian.

Click to expand...

I actually don't really like refluffing classes to that degree. To me, classes are a real thing in the setting, not just a collection of mechanical abilities that can be reflavored. But, many people do this, and I'm glad it works for them! And you and your group!

R_J_K75 said:

D&D never was a simple game,

Click to expand...

Au contraire;
Here you go, try one of these three versions. Too simple in my opinion, but....

*This one features the familiar 9 point Alignment system. The later two reduced it to merely Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic.

ccs said:

Au contraire;
Here you go, try one of these three versions. Too simple in my opinion, but....
View attachment 124232 View attachment 124233
View attachment 124234 *This one features the familiar 9 point Alignment system. The later two reduced it to merely Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic.

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of these and have played them. Yes too simple for my tastes as well but my point was it was never simple for someone just learning with someone who already knew how to play or trying to figure it out on there own compared to a board game with 1 or 2 pages or rules.

R_J_K75 said:

I'm well aware of these and have played them. Yes too simple for my tastes as well but my point was it was never simple for someone just learning with someone who already knew how to play or trying to figure it out on there own compared to a board game with 1 or 2 pages or rules.

Click to expand...

I don't know, 3 of us, all average kids (according to our report cards) in the 9-11 year old range, had no trouble starting cold with those in 1980/81.

Myself, my brother & our cousin in the days between Christmas '80 & New Years.
0xp. Knew no one else who played. My brother & cousin had never even heard of the game. Ripped the wrapping paper off, realized there was more reading to be done than XMas day would allow for, started playing a few days later.
1 Lv0 DM, two elves & a 1/2ling + The Keep on the Borderlands.

Some weeks later we added our friend Jimmy (I'll be charitable & call him average as well). We handed him the Basic book at school so he could give it a read before coming over on Sat. He understood it. He made a fighter.
Now there was some brief confusion concerning the lack of a board.... But that seemed to be something we could work around. Eventually we figured out that we were indeed doing it right. Or right enough.

A few years later we met Aaron. He had the "Red Box" with the Elmore cover. He too started completely cold. He played the solo intro adventure & figured it out in a vacuum (his sister had 0 interest). He thought he was bringing some new game over. He discovered that we'd already deciphered 1e about a year prior. He caught on to 1e pretty quick, rolling up a Dwarf Fighter.

TaranTheWanderer said:

right but then people get bored and ask for more classes: artificer, duelist etc, etc. 3e was filled with 3rd party stuff trying to cater to niche character concepts.

Click to expand...

You know, this is the complete reverse of what should be done? We had a samurai way before the subclass was introduced as an official subclass. It was a battlemaster with flair and it was memorable. With what you have in the PHB you can make any concept that you want. Absolutely any! Even the artificer could have been done on a magic user build and it would've worked out great. Working around the classes to make interesting characters is what makes D&D so entertaining. You don't need a gazzillion of classes. The PHB is more than enough. All you need is imagination. Having modular abilities and no classes only requires the ability to min/max. Yes you can come with interesting builds, but working around a class to make your build believable requires a lot more. Sometimes, more is a lot less.

Helldritch said:

You know, this is the complete reverse of what should be done? We had a samurai way before the subclass was introduced as an official subclass. It was a battlemaster with flair and it was memorable. With what you have in the PHB you can make any concept that you want. Absolutely any! Even the artificer could have been done on a magic user build and it would've worked out great. Working around the classes to make interesting characters is what makes D&D so entertaining. You don't need a gazzillion of classes. The PHB is more than enough. All you need is imagination. Having modular abilities and no classes only requires the ability to min/max. Yes you can come with interesting builds, but working around a class to make your build believable requires a lot more. Sometimes, more is a lot less.

Click to expand...

That’s my point so I guess we agree.

I don’t think it would hurt If they could make classes a bit more generalized and let people make what they want.

I tend to play the 4 core classes. There is lots you can do

Helldritch said:

You know, this is the complete reverse of what should be done? We had a samurai way before the subclass was introduced as an official subclass. It was a battlemaster with flair and it was memorable. With what you have in the PHB you can make any concept that you want. Absolutely any! Even the artificer could have been done on a magic user build and it would've worked out great. Working around the classes to make interesting characters is what makes D&D so entertaining. You don't need a gazzillion of classes. The PHB is more than enough. All you need is imagination. Having modular abilities and no classes only requires the ability to min/max. Yes you can come with interesting builds, but working around a class to make your build believable requires a lot more. Sometimes, more is a lot less.

Click to expand...

The part about Battlemasters getting an artisan's tool proficiency made me think about the fantasy ideal of the samurai, where they learn an art like calligraphy as part of their training. I thought the Battlemaster was great and deserved expansion, it could have covered so many fighter archetypes. More fighter Subclasses should have just used the superiority dice as their structure.

Xeviat said:

The part about Battlemasters getting an artisan's tool proficiency made me think about the fantasy ideal of the samurai, where they learn an art like calligraphy as part of their training. I thought the Battlemaster was great and deserved expansion, it could have covered so many fighter archetypes. More fighter Subclasses should have just used the superiority dice as their structure.

Click to expand...

If we're going to make classes more generic, I think that there should be three kinds of subclasses:

1. The vanilla subclass, that gets at the heart of the concept as simply as possible. This should also be the entry-level option (but still effective, just easier to use). IE thr Champion fighter, Hunter Ranger, Berzerker Barbarian. The wizard class really needs one of these.

2. The customizable subclass, that doesn't add a lot of flavor but gives the players a toolkit for building a wide array of concepts that fit in the classes design space: IE the Battlemaster, Totem Barbarian, any warlock but especially Hexblade. Done right this means that you can technically play anything within the class's range out the gate, with refluffing and feature choice.

3. The bespoke subclass that goes for a specific archetype and drills in on it by providing custom mechanics for that one idea. IE Samurai, Cavalier, Rune Knight, Horizon Walker, Zealot Barbarian. This is a great place for things like setting-specific subclasses.

The first two give you coverage for all ideas, the later ones can be about really narrow ideas as needed / as the muse strikes you.

To the first post: we have generic classes. Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard.

To the discussion: I'm also of the idea that the game would be improved by, under the hood, being classless, with the classes being specific progressions and flavoring. You still keep the class fantasy that's iconic to D&D, but the underlying system is more friendly to people creating more nuanced concepts.

As to why someone would play D&D if they would prefer a classless system? That's easy: it's what the group is playing. As a GM or player, I have my preferences, but I'm not the only one at the table. So while I'd prefer to change things about the system, it's still a "good enough" choice. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and all that jazz.

EscherEnigma said:

To the first post: we have generic classes. Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard.

To the discussion: I'm also of the idea that the game would be improved by, under the hood, being classless, with the classes being specific progressions and flavoring. You still keep the class fantasy that's iconic to D&D, but the underlying system is more friendly to people creating more nuanced concepts.

As to why someone would play D&D if they would prefer a classless system? That's easy: it's what the group is playing. As a GM or player, I have my preferences, but I'm not the only one at the table. So while I'd prefer to change things about the system, it's still a "good enough" choice. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and all that jazz.

Click to expand...

I don't think all of the non-core four suffer the problem of being too specific. Heck, I was calling out an issue with the rogue being too specific, with all rogues getting thieves' tools and thieves' cant. Moving those over to the Thief, and giving the base Rogue a variable tool proficiency, would allow the Rogue to take on more character types without having the odd baggage of thief stuff. I think a noble archetype, for instance, would fit in really well with the rogue as a lead from the rear type (who could maybe grant their sneak attack to others through giving commands).