IMHO, this is what the Traditions perform. The Wizard was the ONLY class in the PHB with eight subclasses, which includes entire archetypes that could be stand-alone classes like Enchanters, Illusionists, Necromancers, Conjurers, Diviners, etc.From my perspective... for the Wizard to be Broad like the Fighter and Rogue... we would need to be able to name all manner of different types of magic-users and they should fit in nicely under the Wizard umbrella-- the same way we can name all these different thematic identities like Thief, Assassin, Mastermind, Swashbuckler, Inquisitive, Scout, etc. and they all fit under the umbrella of 'Rogue'. But if we start going through a lot of the different caster identities? The ones we already don't have full classes written up for? The thematics of the Wizard doesn't really fit them.
I haven't met a simplification to the game I wouldn't throw over a bridge in front of it's mother for more mechanical choices.I prefer classes as strong archetypes that don't allow much, if any, mechanical choices within the class itself. This speeds up character creation, avoids the issues that come with "builds" and makes it simpler to get into the game.
I didn't break rage up. A first level Combatant can have all the Rage a first level Barbarian has.So exactly like I said.
Yeah, I can see what you're saying. And I don't disagree... I just think for me personally, other than the Necromancer (which does have its own kind of "feel" of a completely different thematic identity than the traditional Wizard)... the other seven I just can't help but visualize as your traditional Wizardly guy who just focuses on a different type of magic.IMHO, this is what the Traditions perform. The Wizard was the ONLY class in the PHB with eight subclasses, which includes entire archetypes that could be stand-alone classes like Enchanters, Illusionists, Necromancers, Conjurers, Diviners, etc.
I could definitely see there being different types of wizard archetype, being analogous to the various types of researchers or academical staff,I think understand what you are saying. What I'm getting is you are thinking "Broad" in terms of what the Wizard can do-- with such a large spell list, the Wizard can cast almost anything and thus be almost anything. And I don't disagree with that necessarily. But that appears to me to be coming from a mechanical expression, rather than a thematic one.
From a thematic expression I see the Wizard to be very constrained. The class is all about bookworms. Scientists. The smartypants who has to sit in their laboratory working out formulas to figure out how this magic stuff works, and then writing it all down in their spellbooks. And even their Subclasses don't actually change this identity, all they do is tell us what Major they took when they went to school (to incorporate a metaphor.)
From my perspective... for the Wizard to be Broad like the Fighter and Rogue... we would need to be able to name all manner of different types of magic-users and they should fit in nicely under the Wizard umbrella-- the same way we can name all these different thematic identities like Thief, Assassin, Mastermind, Swashbuckler, Inquisitive, Scout, etc. and they all fit under the umbrella of 'Rogue'. But if we start going through a lot of the different caster identities? The ones we already don't have full classes written up for? The thematics of the Wizard doesn't really fit them.
And I read this and I see the 5e Necromancer as occupying a perfectly good sorcerer subclass while being a bad fit for the wizard. Far from being a generalist their entire subclass is literally centered around one single spell that they improve. That's a sorcerer. In addition because the sorcerers are now getting custom lists and wizards aren't you can add Revivify and Raise Dead to your sorcerer spells for the double edged necromancers that are far more thematic.Yeah, I can see what you're saying. And I don't disagree... I just think for me personally, other than the Necromancer (which does have its own kind of "feel" of a completely different thematic identity than the traditional Wizard)... the other seven I just can't help but visualize as your traditional Wizardly guy who just focuses on a different type of magic.
I think warlock is a better fit for "does one thing increasingly well." You could easily build a suite of invocations around animating, enthralling and communicating with the undead, along with a very focused spell list.And I read this and I see the 5e Necromancer as occupying a perfectly good sorcerer subclass while being a bad fit for the wizard. Far from being a generalist their entire subclass is literally centered around one single spell that they improve. That's a sorcerer. In addition because the sorcerers are now getting custom lists and wizards aren't you can add Revivify and Raise Dead to your sorcerer spells for the double edged necromancers that are far more thematic.
Honestly, why not both. If it was about existing necromancy spells and probably empowering them the sorcerer would be a better fit. But invocations are great for custom spells, and a couple of invocations for non-specialist necromancers to give them necromantic overtones would be excellent.I think warlock is a better fit for "does one thing increasingly well." You could easily build a suite of invocations around animating, enthralling and communicating with the undead, along with a very focused spell list.
Being perfectly frank, I find the "slot-filling" complaint to be rather flawed. The only classes most folks can point to which even remotely meet that definition are, as far as I can tell:and many do not feel truly iconic just being slot-filling, which is not bad but could be better.
Okay so...how would one fix that?The problem with 4e wasn't that the classes weren't good. It's that they were all good for the same definition of good. If you liked one 4e class (especially pre-Essentials) you'd probably like almost all of them. And if you didn't you wouldn't. The advantage of having a class system is that if you have entirely different tastes you can still each have some classes.
I think I would like to see a few broad classes with many focused subclasses. I think I would also like it if choosing a subclass were optional.When thinking about 5E in general and what you prefer and/or would like to see, do you want classes that are broad or ones that are more narrowly defined.
For the purposes of this discussion, by "broad" I mean lots of options as you create and level a character so that a single class can cover a lot of different archetypes or party roles. Note that I mean this in an ongoing way. That is, you continue to make those choices throughout character advancement and development and can always switch gears.
Conversely, by narrow I guess what I mean is "focused": fewer choices (at least after the initial ones) but a high degree of fidelity toward one particular expression of that class. Assume effectiveness and solid balance here. Presume a well designed focused archetype.
So I guess the question comes down to how much control do you want over progression? How much freedom versus focus?
This is largely a player facing question but GMs should feel free to discuss how such a choice might affect a campaign they run.
For my part, when I am a player it kind of depends on the nature of the campaign. If we are playing a canned campaign, I definitely prefer a focused character advancement track. But if it's a more open, unpredictable campaign i want the freedom to switch gears if the game goes in an unexpected direction.
As a GM I actually prefer if both options are available to players who have different preferences, and hope I can manage to juggle both.
Isn't that what we already have?I think I would like to see a few broad classes with many focused subclasses. I think I would also like it if choosing a subclass were optional.
I'm just going to say that there were several classes I didn't like in 4e. I didn't like the Rogue, for example, as so much hinged on getting combat advantage, and sometimes you can't always count on flanking or a friendly daze. You needed to generate that yourself.Being perfectly frank, I find the "slot-filling" complaint to be rather flawed. The only classes most folks can point to which even remotely meet that definition are, as far as I can tell:
Avenger
Invoker
Battlemind
And of those, only the Battlemind is even remotely lacking, because both Avenger and Invoker have some solid lore and clear mechanical niches.
I will, however, grant that Battlemind is a stupid name. But still, 1-2 rough fit classes out of 25 is not even slightly deserving of the hand-wringing and accusations 4e received on this front.
Okay so...how would one fix that?
Because I am never going to accept a game design that leaves characters with nothing constructive to do. The game needs to provide a solid starting foundation, a core that consistently works. The 5e Fighter fails on the "works" part, while the Wizard fails on the "consistently" part (that is, as mentioned up thread, a poorly-built Wizard is actually kind of weak, while a well-built one is one of the most powerful characters you can play in 5e.)
So... where's the fix? What can we do that actually delivers consistently functional, effective characters while giving people this mysterious je ne said quoi that will appeal to more people?
Isn't that what we already have?
I think the bolded part is the issue. I know there are "default" subclasses for some (maybe all?), but that isn't the same as them being optional.I think I would like to see a few broad classes with many focused subclasses. I think I would also like it if choosing a subclass were optional.
Okay so...how would one fix that?
Because I am never going to accept a game design that leaves characters with nothing constructive to do. The game needs to provide a solid starting foundation, a core that consistently works. The 5e Fighter fails on the "works" part, while the Wizard fails on the "consistently" part (that is, as mentioned up thread, a poorly-built Wizard is actually kind of weak, while a well-built one is one of the most powerful characters you can play in 5e.)
So... where's the fix? What can we do that actually delivers consistently functional, effective characters while giving people this mysterious je ne said quoi that will appeal to more people?
And to me that was a big part of what made the early 4e rogue so fun. Part of the fantasy of being a rogue, at least for me, is being outmatched and having to work for your advantages. Then doing well when you do - but with e.g. a 5e rogue it's just too easy and I feel like I'm choosing how to succeed rather than working to succeed.I'm just going to say that there were several classes I didn't like in 4e. I didn't like the Rogue, for example, as so much hinged on getting combat advantage, and sometimes you can't always count on flanking or a friendly daze. You needed to generate that yourself.
I mean, if you liked that kind of challenge, by all means. But what bothered me was that other Striker classes, like the Ranger, didn't need to jump through those kinds of hoops to deal their damage. The Rogue either relied on allies to get their damage through, or had to take utility powers that gave them combat advantage when needed (when I'd vastly prefer to take their mobility options).And to me that was a big part of what made the early 4e rogue so fun. Part of the fantasy of being a rogue, at least for me, is being outmatched and having to work for your advantages. Then doing well when you do - but with e.g. a 5e rogue it's just too easy and I feel like I'm choosing how to succeed rather than working to succeed.
However the 4e Thief did things slightly differently. If you wanted easy Combat Advantage you took Tactical Trick; the couple of times I played a rogue I didn't take one on principle and had a more fun experience because of it. But I know not everyone would agree.
Which is why you need options.
Broad, but I don’t think you need to reduce classes, just broaden what they are good at.I often see people "Broad and Reduce the Classes" but that always seemed like a pipe dream to me.
IMHO, this was a mistake. Wizards whole thing is their versatility, and all the subclasses could cast all the arcane spells.IMHO, this is what the Traditions perform. The Wizard was the ONLY class in the PHB with eight subclasses, which includes entire archetypes that could be stand-alone classes like Enchanters, Illusionists, Necromancers, Conjurers, Diviners, etc.
Just wanted to second that the Avenger and the Invoker were awesome.Being perfectly frank, I find the "slot-filling" complaint to be rather flawed. The only classes most folks can point to which even remotely meet that definition are, as far as I can tell:
Avenger
Invoker
Battlemind
And of those, only the Battlemind is even remotely lacking, because both Avenger and Invoker have some solid lore and clear mechanical niches.