D&D 5E (2024) A critical analysis of 2024's revised classes

[Minigiant]

It wouldn't be the IP holder who would have the problem of there being two different classes for these two different types of warrior... it'd be half of all the fans of the "Fighter" class that would be pissed off if their side of the class was the one that got made into a new class that was given a different class name and no longer called the "Fighter".

I dunno.

I doubt those fans would be upset if the Battlemaster subclass became a Battlemaster class. Or Warlord fans getting a Warlord, Warblade or Marshal class.

See: All those Fighter fans that could not accept in 4E that the "ranged fighter" concept was now meant to be done by taking the Ranger class, and that the "Fighter" was now only meant to be the 'tank' concept

That was a different issue. That's splitting via fighting style not source.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yep. And in truth for me, none of that has ever bothered me at all. But we hear all the time from people here on the boards that the game needs more "mundane classes" and that the game has "too much magic"... so I'm just trying to figure out how that kind of thing could actually occur?

Yeah, there's a need there. That assumption in D&D that your character is not normal has not always been a comfortable fit, especially since AD&D had a slightly different assumption. Even if D&D is explicitly magical, there's a lot of folks who would rather it be less so. I think it's the other side of the coin from a "high level" module.

What both share in common is that D&D's level system changes genre as you move through tiers, and that change isn't always welcome. Maybe we should instead separate genre from level advancement so that, for instance, your proficiency bonus doesn't automatically increase, and you don't automatically get more HP or advance in spell level. Maybe we don't assume more damage at higher levels. Maybe levels become "more options" rather than "more power," or we at least give tables ways to pause that "more power" advancement without losing the appeal of character advancement entirely.

Not even sure this is THAT hard to implement given how the principles of something like E6 can still be used in D&D today pretty well.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Ding!

For some reason in the conversations regarding what martial and caster characters can and can't do... the ability of the players to come up with ideas gets discounted. People talk about how Fighters can't "change the campaign" like Wizards can-- which maybe might be true "in-world" based on narratively what spells can and can't accomplish... but the Fighter player has just as much agency and ability to come up with campaign-altering ideas at the table as anyone else. The Fighter player can just say "Hey Bob! Why don't you have your Marko The Magnificent do X, Y, and Z to get us out of this situation?" At which point Bob says "Good idea!" and then tells the DM that Marko The Magnificent does X, Y, and Z. The Fighter player solved the problem, got to use their noggin to come up with something cool, saw their cool thing actually work... but yet somehow some people think that "doesn't count" for the Fighter player because it wasn't their PC specifically that did it.

To me, that's just silly. Yeah, I have my PC and the other players have their PCs... but I've always felt that all of us are actually just working together as part of a group, and that we all can and should be throwing out ideas for what all the characters can be doing, as though we all control all of them together. And thus it doesn't actually matter if it was "my PC" that accomplished "in-game" whatever it was I came up with... I was still the one who came up with the idea.

because that's an entirely null argument to change the imbalance between the two, everything a fighter player can come up with to narrativity influence things, well guess what? the caster can come up with and do exactly all of the same narrative influence and then have spells on top of that, it's like saying 'a fighter isn't disadvantaged, they have two arms, two legs a head and whatever they can think to do with them!' yeah and? a wizard has two arms, two legs, a head, whatever they can think to do with them AND a big bag of tricks that does a bunch of stuff the fighter could come up with but better and more

 

[DEFCON 1]

I dunno.

I doubt those fans would be upset if the Battlemaster subclass became a Battlemaster class. Or Warlord fans getting a Warlord, Warblade or Marshal class.

So long as there was a "mundane warrior" class whose high-level abilities were mechanically and narratively balanced against high-level spellcasters... I personally believe people would complain--even if there was a second warrior class alongside it whose high-level abilities were defined as preternatural or supernatural.

Because a lot of people just refuse to buy a "highly-trained but normal person" being able to do the sorts of things in-world that would be balanced against high-level casters. They won't accept the narrative justification of it. A normal, mundane person (even if highly-trained) cannot take on a 50-ton ancient dragon, and it would be stupid to think otherwise. To them, by definition, the warrior has to have abilities that are preter or supernatural

That has always been the argument. And the people making those arguments are not doing it out of maintaining "wizard supremacy" because the Wizard class has nothing to do with the argument.

 

[billd91]

because that's an entirely null argument to change the imbalance between the two, everything a fighter player can come up with to narrativity influence things, well guess what? the caster can come up with and do exactly all of the same narrative influence and then have spells on top of that, it's like saying 'a fighter isn't disadvantaged, they have two arms, two legs a head and whatever they can think to do with them!' yeah and? a wizard has two arms, two legs, a head, whatever they can think to do with them AND a big bag of tricks

For me, it's like playing Traveller with a scout or a merchant. It generally takes being one of those two characters to muster out with a starship. But once someone in the party has one, they're all able to jump from one star system to the next. Having one of those characters opens up the option - but they're all along for the caper.

 

[I'm A Banana]

because that's an entirely null argument to change the imbalance between the two, everything a fighter player can come up with to narrativity influence things, well guess what? the caster can come up with and do exactly all of the same narrative influence and then have spells on top of that, it's like saying 'a fighter isn't disadvantaged, they have two arms, two legs a head and whatever they can think to do with them!' yeah and? a wizard has two arms, two legs, a head, whatever they can think to do with them AND a big bag of tricks

I read that as: your class is a bag of tricks shared by the party.

The use of Stealth comes to mind as an in-play example that happened in my game this weekend. Yeah, it was one character sneaking around, but the party came up with the plan, and the party helped augment the plan, and in play the party was helping the plan succeed with their own skills, so even though only one character had a good Stealth bonus, everyone was involved in that sneaking attempt.

Maybe this is a bit more of a spotlight issue than I thought it was...

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yeah, there's a need there. That assumption in D&D that your character is not normal has not always been a comfortable fit, especially since AD&D had a slightly different assumption. Even if D&D is explicitly magical, there's a lot of folks who would rather it be less so. I think it's the other side of the coin from a "high level" module.

What both share in common is that D&D's level system changes genre as you move through tiers, and that change isn't always welcome. Maybe we should instead separate genre from level advancement so that, for instance, your proficiency bonus doesn't automatically increase, and you don't automatically get more HP or advance in spell level. Maybe we don't assume more damage at higher levels. Maybe levels become "more options" rather than "more power," or we at least give tables ways to pause that "more power" advancement without losing the appeal of character advancement entirely.

Not even sure this is THAT hard to implement given how the principles of something like E6 can still be used in D&D today pretty well.

This is why I said that those players should just end their campaigns at Level 10 (or do an E6 game as you suggest.) That way they never have to really have the discussion.

 

[Pedantic]

I read that as: your class is a bag of tricks shared by the party.

The use of Stealth comes to mind as an in-play example that happened in my game this weekend. Yeah, it was one character sneaking around, but the party came up with the plan, and the party helped augment the plan, and in play the party was helping the plan succeed with their own skills, so even though only one character had a good Stealth bonus, everyone was involved in that sneaking attempt.

Maybe this is a bit more of a spotlight issue than I thought it was...

I do wonder if there is a model of RPG play in there somewhere, where we remove direct player to PC control, in favor of a more explicitly shared party. The gameplay loop underlying creating and executing a shared plan is obviously present either way, but making it much more explicitly the basis of interaction might make for better game experience.

 

[DEFCON 1]

because that's an entirely null argument to change the imbalance between the two, everything a fighter player can come up with to narrativity influence things, well guess what? the caster can come up with and do exactly all of the same narrative influence and then have spells on top of that, it's like saying 'a fighter isn't disadvantaged, they have two arms, two legs a head and whatever they can think to do with them!' yeah and? a wizard has two arms, two legs, a head, whatever they can think to do with them AND a big bag of tricks that does a bunch of stuff the fighter could come up with but better and more

That's my point. Those players should get over themselves. Those players not only got to completely come up with the idea, they convinced the other players that it was a good idea, and then they saw the idea they came up with entirely work out to a T... And yet that's not enough for them? They also need their "PC" to be the one to do it 'in-game', otherwise it doesn't count?

No thanks. I think those players might need to check their egos a bit.

 

[Minigiant]

So long as there was a "mundane warrior" class whose high-level abilities were mechanically and narratively balanced against high-level spellcasters... I personally believe people would complain--even if there was a second warrior class alongside it whose high-level abilities were defined as preternatural or supernatural

Thats a whole different problem.

There are

1. Simple superheroic warrior fans
2. Simple mundane warrior with "guaranteed" magic item kits fans
3. Battlemaster/Warblade/Weaponmaster fans
4. Warlord/Marshal fans
5. People who want 1, 2, 3, and 4 to be weaker narratively than high level spellcaster

The issue is group 5. There is enough group 5 to tank general open surveys.

I don't think anybody in groups 1 through 4 would really care if you explicitly design a class for 1 through 4 each individually.

The issue is that you pretty much have those four groups plus a couple more fighting for more slices of the pie while you have that group 5 all by themselves continuously and focus on just pouring mud on the pizza.