D&D 5E D&D needs to let go of the 'all classes are equal' concept

[payn]

Well, you would need high Wisdom and charisma, for a start. Those are generally not preferred stats for those two classes.

My point however, is that D&D ought to be more concerned with offering real class options, rather than just a selection of 'how do you want to kill things'.

This is just more confusing. So its ok for the fighter to just be a combatant, but other classes should not be at all. I mean lets think about this in a party sense. Why would a lawyer need a guy thats only good at killing things? The lawyer needs a secretary and a paralegal. Why would a solider need a PR specialist on the combat field? They need combat specialist to survive!

Every character should have combat ability. They should also have role play options too. I dont understand how the one or the other determined by class is an original idea or good planning for design.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Not everyone uses milestone leveling, and despite being in favor in the printed adventures, it's not the default.

Like a few others, I run mixed level groups with an "Everyone Starts at First Level" (ES@1) approach.

Me, too.

 

[commandercrud]

Not everyone uses milestone leveling, and despite being in favor in the printed adventures, it's not the default.

Like a few others, I run mixed level groups with an "Everyone Starts at First Level" (ES@1) approach.

So do I. But there's clearly a shift going on.

 

[Jd Smith1]

This is just more confusing. So its ok for the fighter to just be a combatant, but other classes should not be at all. I mean lets think about this in a party sense. Why would a lawyer need a guy thats only good at killing things? The lawyer needs a secretary and a paralegal. Why would a solider need a PR specialist on the combat field? They need combat specialist to survive!

Every character should have combat ability. They should also have role play options too. I dont understand how the one or the other determined by class is an original idea or good planning for design.

It's confusing to you, because you're bring up points that are not in the basic position. TRy re-reading the thread; you're missing the point by a very wide margin.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well, you would need high Wisdom and charisma, for a start. Those are generally not preferred stats for those two classes.

My point however, is that D&D ought to be more concerned with offering real class options, rather than just a selection of 'how do you want to kill things'.

I think the primary issues are a little more broad than just "all classes equal," although that does capture some of it.

Broken down, I would say that you could categorize it as:

1. Niche protection. If all (or most) classes are supposed to shine in combat, have access to spells, and be roughly equivalent at all tasks at any given level, then there is no niche protection (or very limited niche protection) for a particular class.

2. What is balance? The nature of balance is highly constrained in 5e; in other words, it is very much a "everyone share the spotlight equally at all times" type of balance. That isn't necessarily bad, but there are other types of balance as well. Whether it's "powerful early, weaker later" or "much more oriented toward non-combat pillars" or even the old "gains levels faster" there are multiple ways to achieve balance. Then again, I am not sure that all those ways would be equally popular with players.

 

[payn]

It's confusing to you, because you're bring up points that are not in the basic position. TRy re-reading the thread; you're missing the point by a very wide mar

Im pretty dumb, perhaps you could explain it better?

 

[TwoSix]

I never suggested that the bard be a non-combatant, only that the focus on the class not be one of equal firepower to others, but rather a focus on roleplay.

I don't know what your gaming experience is, but it is very easy to have a campaign that incorporates both combat and non-combat activity.

Since 1979 I've never run a group of 'heroic adventurers'; what I have run are groups of PCs out for personal gain or personal causes. Again, D&D does not have to be a bland sameness where cookie-cutter PCs mechanically murder, rob, and repeat. It can also have depth and color, and the system should support both styles of play.

I feel more like you're arguing for class defining specific narrative elements, rather than about combat or non-combat. Your primary concern seems to be "roleplaying" as inhabitation of the setting and playing the proper setting roles.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Im pretty dumb, perhaps you could explain it better?

OK: 5e has made all classes in the PHB to be roughly the same combat capability; in the process, they have changed the very nature of the classes.

While I applaud them clearing up the earlier edition problem of spell casters eclipsing warriors at higher levels, my point was that they should have let some classes which are better-suited for role-play focus be included. I used bards as an example, because historically bards/skalds were lawyers, face men, PR specialists, and entertainers all rolled into one. Whereas in 5e they are just a support spellcaster.

I never suggested non-combat characters. I simply said that by making every class combat-equal, they had made a mistake.

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[payn]

OK: 5e has made all classes in the PHB to be roughly the same combat capability; in the process, they have changed the very nature of the classes.

While I applaud them clearing up the earlier edition problem of spell casters eclipsing warriors at higher levels, my point was that they should have let some classes which are better-suited for role-play focus be included. I used bards as an example, because historically bards/skalds were lawyers, face men, PR specialists, and entertainers all rolled into one. Whereas in 5e they are just a support spellcaster.

I never suggested non-combat characters. I simply said that by making every class combat-equal, they had made a mistake.

What changes turned the Bard from lawyer/face/PR/entertainer and into a support caster? Is it in the descriptions and identity of the class? The mechanical features? The 5E gutting of the skill system?