Core Classes: More magic or more abilities?

[JoeGKushner]

When looking at the core 3.5 PHB, I think there are WAY too many core classes that have spellcasting ability.

I have no problem with a class having some innatie cool abilities like the monk or some of the variants of the ranger or paladin, but one of the reasons why I think D&D drifted so far from it's core roots, is that once the ability score requirements were taken out for the 'elite' classes, and they retained spellcasting ablities, it became in essence a party of four 'normal' characters (barbarian, monk, rogue and fighter) in a world of magic wielding well, freaks.

If one of D&D's goals is to reduce the reliance on magic items and perhaps to capture some of the old 'S&S' feel, reduce the amount of spellcasting and spellcasters in the core book.

 

[WarlockLord]

That'd be good. Leave spellcasting to the full casters and gish, not your mother-in-law, your grandma, and your dog.

Please, no more spellcasting rangers!!!!

 

[Wik]

I agree fully. 4 level spell progressions are awful, and they just don't work that well (our paladin uses the spells, but only because he got a feat that lets him cast spells as a swift action).

Using just the PHB, there are relatively few non-magic characters. Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, and Monks. And that's pretty lame.

 

[hong]

3E spellcasting classes: cleric, druid, wizard, sorcerer, bard, ranger, paladin

1E spellcasting classes: cleric, druid, magic-user, illusionist, ranger, paladin

3E nonspellcasting classes: fighter, rogue, barbarian, monk

1E nonspellcasting classes: fighter, thief, assassin, monk

Now if they just get rid of cruft like VSM components for all except specifically ritualistic spells, I'd be a happy camper.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Please, no more spellcasting rangers!!!!

I agree, and now that he's ganked the scout and pilfered his goodies, he won't need talk to shrubbery, right?

 

[Jhaelen]

I'd like to see the opposite:
Give every class spellcasting ability - or rather some magical abilities - it doesn't have to be spells.

 

[Baby Samurai]

I'd like to see the opposite:
Give every class spellcasting ability - or rather some magical abilities - it doesn't have to be spells.

Well, it does sound like all characters classes will have special abilities/manoeuvres etc per day, per encounter and at will.

 

[The Souljourner]

I agree wholeheartedly about paladins & rangers not getting spells. They were crap, and the "space" they took up could have been put to much more interesting uses.

I don't think we need to get rid of VSM, though... maybe get rid of material costs that don't cost money, since everyone ignores those anyway. At least they are getting rid of XP costs for spells (finally).

-Nate

 

[an_idol_mind]

While I personally would prefer less magic use in classes, D&D has always had 50% or more of its core classes as spellcasters.

oD&D had two of the three classes able to cast spells.

bD&D has 50% of the classes able to cast spells.

1st and 2nd edition AD&D both had a majority of its classes capable of casting spells. Historically, only the fighter and thief tend to be spell-less.

I don't see how 3rd edition "drifted so far from its core roots."

 

[SSquirrel]

Please, no more spellcasting rangers!!!!

Hear hear! I've always hated the spellcasting Ranger, always seemed pointless to me.