D&D 5E 2 types of warrior and 2 types of spellcaster and a perspective

[Sadrik]

Ok you know how everybody like to break things down and put things in little boxes and sort it out and make patterns, yes this is human nature. Well lets take this down to the core elements, we have two warrior classes, in two shades, the quick skilled guy (rogue), and the tough strong guy (fighter), then you have the spellcasters, the smart arcane guy (wizard), and the wise divine guy (cleric). Everything else is a subclass or variation of those 4 basic classes. Ok we are already on that page you say, yes. But here is why I make the distinction, Warriors (Fighters and Rogues) should have similar mechanics and spellcasters (Wizards and Clerics) should too. Spellcasters have spells already and already work the same, basically. Fighters and rogues need to work more similar is what my overarching point is here. Sure we have seen an attempt at making a uniform mechanic, combat expertise, but what I am looking at is why can't the fighter be the guy with similar options to the rogue and the rogue with similar options to the fighter? So this is a pretty fine point I realize but I think the perspective in game design is tremendous. Spellcasters have spell lists and spell charts and so on and warriors should also have a unifying mechanic unto themselves. This mechanic should be simple and trickled into the monsters just like spells are.

My second point on this is multiclassing. This needs to be considered in any design. 3e had a problem with spellcasters and how multiclassing worked, if warriors are being looked at with a level progressing mechanic then how will hybrid warrior/spellcaster work? Warrior mechanics were not level based for the most part, multiple attacks and sneak attack damage progression being the biggest exception but there were also level requirements for some rogue features and some feats... If the warrior feature is a more level based progression of damage like combat expertise, it will require some thought on how it will work as a multiclass option. Hopefully they are considering this holistically in the overall design...

 

[Li Shenron]

Exactly as you mention, multiclassing will be a huge problem if two classes share one mechanic and two other classes share another. 3ed multiclassing was very convenient (more convenient than being single-class) for martial characters, and very inconvenient for spellcasters because their shared mechanic (spells) was not meant to stack, while martial mechanic (BAB, and then feats and class special abilities) naturally stacked perfectly, with BAB stacking "vertically" and feats/abilities stacking "horizontally". But spells stacked only "horizontally" while at the same time taking levels in another class would have a serious "vertical" cost (sorry for the silly jargon here ).

So yes, multiclassing should be designed at the same time to ensure it works fairly for everyone. But I have to say that even before that, a game must make a clear decision on whether multiclassing will be an important feature of the game or not. Let's be frank, it's been a HUGE feature in 3ed but it doesn't have to be in every RPG. Some games don't have multiclassing at all, and they're fine. Once this is decided, it will have effects on the design of each class separately, and obviously if a game just doesn't even allow multiclassing, the designers then have much more freedom therefore it is more likely that each class will be designed better. Also, 3ed introduced very flexible level-based multiclassing, but it's not the only option.

That said, I totally don't see the Rogue as a martial character concept. It's only "martial" in the sense that it's not magical. But to me it's not, and will never be, a warrior character. Quite the opposite, it will always be the guy who doesn't have any fighting training, and just manages to survive combat by being smart. Unfortunately the original D&D Thief/Rogue concept has been abandoned in favor of the idea that Zorro is the archetypal rogue, so that swashbucklers and thugs should be rogue because they are not "cleanly trained" or "academic" warriors. Which incidentally does a very bad favor to the Fighter class, who is narrowed down a lot (see what 4e has done by identifying it with the "tank" role).

Obviously I'm too old fashinoned, but if it was up to me, I would design the Rogue to be as far as possible in mechanics from the Fighter.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Well they've taken a step towards compatible spellcasters already with the current iteration of how spells are prepared and cast. Imagine there is a single spell progression chart for all classes. Now consider that the number of spells you can prepare is 1 + your class level. If you are an 18th level Wizard you prepare 19 spells and can cast according to row 18 of the chart. If you are an 18th level Cleric then you do the same. If you are 9th/9th split between the two, you only get 10 Wizard spells and 10 Cleric spells, but you cast according to the single unified chart. Caster level becomes additive, similar to attack bonus. If you want to mix in a 3E Sorcerer, they would need to use the same chart, but they might prepare only 1 + 1/2 level spells for Src levels, and in recompense get additional casting slots according to the unified chart for the Src levels. So an 18th level Src has twice as many spells as a standard caster, but half the variety. A 9th/9th Src/Wiz has 5 Src spells, 10 Wiz spells prepared, slots according to the 18th row of the chart PLUS slots according to the 9th row of the chart. (Note my Src is overpowered - can be adjusted to taste).

 

[Sadrik]

That said, I totally don't see the Rogue as a martial character concept. It's only "martial" in the sense that it's not magical. But to me it's not, and will never be, a warrior character. Quite the opposite, it will always be the guy who doesn't have any fighting training, and just manages to survive combat by being smart. Unfortunately the original D&D Thief/Rogue concept has been abandoned in favor of the idea that Zorro is the archetypal rogue, so that swashbucklers and thugs should be rogue because they are not "cleanly trained" or "academic" warriors. Which incidentally does a very bad favor to the Fighter class, who is narrowed down a lot (see what 4e has done by identifying it with the "tank" role).

I think that you might be missing some of the potential of the way this could be designed. This would in effect recapture some of your lost fighter that you lament for. It would also would allow the rogue to fulfill more roles. I think this is the part where we might disagree, I think you want the rogue to be a non-combatant or only a combatant of opportunity, I do not see them that way at all. Rogues to me are not only burglars and thieves but also ninja, yakuza, and yes swashbucklers, scouts, and even into the highly skilled warrior types like investigators, and slayers like van helsing etc. That is a lot of ground for one concept but a system that could accommodate all of this could be developed fairly easily and they have a great start. So it would be how you design your character that tells if he will be a combatant of opportunity or a lithe swashbuckler who wades in. I am not going to say they cannot be "cleanly trained" or "academic" warrior types, I will let the player decide that for their character concept.

Putting this together with what I was saying earlier, warriors (Rogues and Fighters) do not need to be the same, they need to share a unifying mechanic with all warrior types though. To draw parallel cleric and wizard spells are similar, and some are even shared but they have different spell lists. This is how I see warriors and how any potential design should go with them.

Obviously I'm too old fashinoned, but if it was up to me, I would design the Rogue to be as far as possible in mechanics from the Fighter.

I would not. Warrior types should share similar framework.

So yes, multiclassing should be designed at the same time to ensure it works fairly for everyone. But I have to say that even before that, a game must make a clear decision on whether multiclassing will be an important feature of the game or not. Let's be frank, it's been a HUGE feature in 3ed but it doesn't have to be in every RPG. Some games don't have multiclassing at all, and they're fine.

Fair enough, there is a discussion to be had about if multiclassing should exist. I think it will be a fairly short discussion though. lol. By looking through the editions it has existed from 1e on and was a fairly large component of the game at that time. In fact it has been a large component of the game 1e through 3e. 4e used a different system to merge classes. It felt different. 4e multiclassing left me a little wanton for it and was one of my turn offs to the game. I think this may be true for more than just me. I dont think that the player base would be happy if it was not a component of 5e. There is definitely more than one way to handle it but it will be handled.

Once this is decided, it will have effects on the design of each class separately, and obviously if a game just doesn't even allow multiclassing, the designers then have much more freedom therefore it is more likely that each class will be designed better. Also, 3ed introduced very flexible level-based multiclassing, but it's not the only option.

Yes this is the heart of the argument for and against multiclassing, do you want the designers to design your class and hence character concept and feel? Without multiclassing there will be a myriad of classes and hybrid classes scripted to a theme and feel. You will be stuck if you do not like something about a class. Or do you want to be able to mix it up yourself and design your character based on your own concepts. You would pick out modular components (not just feats and skills, but class features) and plug them in. I think there are two minds on this clearly. Personally, a highly scripted character is not what I look for in D&D. I want to dig in a bit and design my PC as a player, if I am playing a leveling up game I want options to exist at each level up (or nearly so) and multiclassing is an option that I want available (either 1e style or 3e style, I dont care which, or heck both).

 

[LightPhoenix]

Well lets take this down to the core elements, we have two warrior classes, in two shades, the quick skilled guy (rogue), and the tough strong guy (fighter)
...
Fighters and rogues need to work more similar is what my overarching point is here. Sure we have seen an attempt at making a uniform mechanic, combat expertise, but what I am looking at is why can't the fighter be the guy with similar options to the rogue and the rogue with similar options to the fighter?

By that point then there's really no point in having two classes. Just have Fighter, with options for Strength and options for Dexterity. To borrow some 4E parlance, the roles of the Wizard and Cleric were more defined, and so they remained separated.

The root of the problem is the breakdown of the Thief/Rogue concept over the decades. The Rogue has basically been reduced to "tactical/mobile fighter" instead of focusing on the pieces of the concept that made Rogue unique (sneakiness, harassment, adventuring, and skills).

 

[Li Shenron]

I think that you might be missing some of the potential of the way this could be designed. This would in effect recapture some of your lost fighter that you lament for. It would also would allow the rogue to fulfill more roles.

...

I feel quite the other way around, that changing the Rogue concept to be combat-centric diminishes its potential, and diminishes the potential of the Fighter as well. Even a Wizard class designed to be combat-centric loses its potential.

Perhaps when you're talking about fulfilling more roles you have tactical roles in combat in mind? I am more interested in strategic roles in the game, thus making the classes more and more combat centric, equally good in combat etc, IMHO reduces their strategic variety, since they're all doing more often the same thing just with different weapons. The 4 original classes of D&D IMHO covered different strategic archetypes, not just tactical differences.

But I know very well that "everybody equally good at everything all the time" is what everybody likes nowadays, so I don't expect to find many around who would see my point or agree with my preferences. It's just that to me the more they go into this direction, with all class kickass in combat, all good at exploration and skills, all can heal, all can do supernatural tricks... well they are almost all already multiclassed fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard then.

By that point then there's really no point in having two classes. Just have Fighter, with options for Strength and options for Dexterity. To borrow some 4E parlance, the roles of the Wizard and Cleric were more defined, and so they remained separated.

The root of the problem is the breakdown of the Thief/Rogue concept over the decades. The Rogue has basically been reduced to "tactical/mobile fighter" instead of focusing on the pieces of the concept that made Rogue unique (sneakiness, harassment, adventuring, and skills).

Yes, that's my feeling exactly.

Regarding having separate classes, I guess that if the game aims at being based on many classes rather than just 4 archetypes, then it's not a problem per se to have a "swashbuckler" class separate from the Fighter, just like there have been paladins and rangers before. My concern is not that, but rather the danger of the swashbuckler tactical-archetype diminishing the thief strategic-archetype of the Rogue class.

 

[Sadrik]

By that point then there's really no point in having two classes. Just have Fighter, with options for Strength and options for Dexterity. To borrow some 4E parlance, the roles of the Wizard and Cleric were more defined, and so they remained separated.

The root of the problem is the breakdown of the Thief/Rogue concept over the decades. The Rogue has basically been reduced to "tactical/mobile fighter" instead of focusing on the pieces of the concept that made Rogue unique (sneakiness, harassment, adventuring, and skills).

No, there is a clear reason to have them. Just like the cleric and wizard have their own spell list and different class features, armor selection, and weapons this is true for fighters and rogues too. They can have a different selection of maneuvers, combat feats, or whatever. Fundamentally they should work the same though. And a very important point too is that these abilities need to carry over to monsters just like spells carry over to monsters.

How I would like to see this done is by basically taking all of the combat feats and class features of the various 3e classes split them up into selectable things and apply them to class lists, carrying over some of the more universal ones. So based on the current play test pack you might have a fighter, rogue and monk list and perhaps a universal one for them all. There are many ways to accomplish this but it does show a perspective on how to accomplish this.

If a fighter can multiclass into a spellcasting class to pick up some magic a wizard could multiclass into a warrior class to pick up some fighting ability. Then of course I am sure there could be some hybrid classes too, such as bard.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I don't disagree that the basic mechanics should work the same. The mechanical concepts aren't what's wrong with the Rogue, and I've even come around somewhat on them having (specifically) ED/Maneuvers. Like you said, the fundamental mechanics should be generally interchangeable - it's (kind of) worked for Wizards and Clerics, so why not Fighters and Rogues?

The answer is that the problem (which IMO WotC has missed) isn't with the mechanics. The problem is with the fundamental identity of what a Rogue is that is different than a Fighter.

How do we define the Rogue? Especially, how do we define their role (if any) in combat? A skirmisher... a mobile combatant? A tactical combatant? Once in a while doing a lot of damage? Is there any reason that a Fighter couldn't be any of these things? The answer is that there isn't a reason for it, especially if you're billing the Fighter as the best at combat. The bleed through of common lists (be it feats, maneuvers, or whatever) further dilutes the identity of the Rogue. That's not through any fault of common lists. It's because the Rogue doesn't really have a strong identity in the first place. Go back to the Wizard and Cleric. How do we define the Wizard? Lightning Bolt, Fireball, and Wish. How do we define the Cleric? Cure Wounds, Turn Undead, and Ressurection. What defines them is what is exclusive to them. You can hardly make the Rogue exclusive at "hitting things."

Look at the design goals for the Rogue. Only one of those goals even talks about combat, and it basically says Rogues kind of suck at it. The Rogue isn't stand-out in a fight. Only one of the Schemes (Rake) even suggests a strong combat personality to me. Nothing that Next has done thus far suggests that to me. I do think Rogues need stuff to do in combat; combat is a big part of the game. However, making them Fighter-light is the wrong approach, and does a disservice to the class identity. If the Rogue is supposed to be skillful and sneaky and tactical, give them stuff that facilitates that identity.

Going back to the design goals, where would I go from that as a starting point? Why is the Rogue dancing with the enemy at all? The Rogue is there for support, using their skills to help everyone else kill faster. Sure, dart in for a backstab once in a while, when the opportunity is right. Overall, you might be better throwing down some caltrops to slow or trip an opponent. Snipe from the shadows. Play dead and hamstring someone. Distract them with some theatrics. Instead of cutting their purse, cut their sword belt. Blind them with some sand in the eyes. Don't fight fair. Let the Fighter do the heavy lifting.

 

[Tortoise]

I'll mildly disagree about rogues being warriors. I see them as sneaky skill users, a third box.

 

[Markn]

Something I've benn thinking about lately is that less may be more where d&d is concerned. DDN brought to the game the ability for everyone to split their move around their action. While I love this new innovation, what if it was the rogues domain only? I think it captures the essence of the rogue beautifully and would provide a major difference to the rogue from the fighter. With a tweak, the movement could also not provoke opportunity attacks -again, strongly supporting the sneaky elements of the class.

I think there are a lot of other examples where scaling common rules back to only certain classes may help. What if certain weapons could only do certain things? War hammers push people, axes cleave for all classes except the fighter. What if the fighter could potentially do anything with any kind of a weapon? Cleave with a war hammer, push with a sword? Maybe fighters are the only class to make opportunity attacks.