Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Essential Classes: A Thought Experiment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 7472369" data-attributes="member: 7635"><p>The problem (as Yarael has pointed out) is that most attempts to fold classes into broader "superclasses" end up abstracting a class down to nothing. Literally every class abstracts down to "hit it with a weapon" or "hit it with a spell". So these thought experiments end up in one of two places.</p><p></p><p>1.) Bending and contorting classes to create the superclasses, often at the expense of the original feel of the class. A good example of this is trying to make Druid into a Cleric domain. It sounds good in theory (hell, the Nature domain is kinda aiming for that spot already) but once you realize how many spells a druid loses (and gains cleric spells in return for), the flavor losses (like the natural armor restriction) or the torture of trying making wild shape work as a channel divinity or similar mechanic, you realize the Druid Domain emulates the class poorly as its been known previously.</p><p></p><p>2.) The dilution of everything into a pseudo- classless "point buy" design where every ability is ala-carte and everything must be carefully watched to avoid hyperbroken specializations, degenerate combos, or characters spread so thin they can do everything poorly and nothing well. Its multi-classing on steroids, as currently even powerful combos like sor-locks or pal-locks require some trade off (often having to sink several levels into getting the good stuff). Basically, such systems usually end up with characters cherry-picking the most synergistic combos or mired in a bunch of unsynergistic abilities that means they do little well. Woe to the group that has both on the same team! </p><p></p><p>And that's even if we agree what goes where! Someone might see a monk as as akin to a fighter (multiple attacks and damaging) while others see him closer to a rogue (agile skirmisher that can't take a punch). Is a bard more of cleric (since she can heal, raise dead, and other support stuff) or a rogue (expertise, wide selection of skills) or a wizard (focus on charms, illusions, and debuffs)? What's more important to the bard? </p><p></p><p>Personally, I think the 12 PHB classes are good on their own. I think psionics needs its own class, and that artificer is just too different to cram under another class well, but I think most of the other 3.5 and 4e classes were mostly slight variants and they now work decently well as subs. YMMV and all that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 7472369, member: 7635"] The problem (as Yarael has pointed out) is that most attempts to fold classes into broader "superclasses" end up abstracting a class down to nothing. Literally every class abstracts down to "hit it with a weapon" or "hit it with a spell". So these thought experiments end up in one of two places. 1.) Bending and contorting classes to create the superclasses, often at the expense of the original feel of the class. A good example of this is trying to make Druid into a Cleric domain. It sounds good in theory (hell, the Nature domain is kinda aiming for that spot already) but once you realize how many spells a druid loses (and gains cleric spells in return for), the flavor losses (like the natural armor restriction) or the torture of trying making wild shape work as a channel divinity or similar mechanic, you realize the Druid Domain emulates the class poorly as its been known previously. 2.) The dilution of everything into a pseudo- classless "point buy" design where every ability is ala-carte and everything must be carefully watched to avoid hyperbroken specializations, degenerate combos, or characters spread so thin they can do everything poorly and nothing well. Its multi-classing on steroids, as currently even powerful combos like sor-locks or pal-locks require some trade off (often having to sink several levels into getting the good stuff). Basically, such systems usually end up with characters cherry-picking the most synergistic combos or mired in a bunch of unsynergistic abilities that means they do little well. Woe to the group that has both on the same team! And that's even if we agree what goes where! Someone might see a monk as as akin to a fighter (multiple attacks and damaging) while others see him closer to a rogue (agile skirmisher that can't take a punch). Is a bard more of cleric (since she can heal, raise dead, and other support stuff) or a rogue (expertise, wide selection of skills) or a wizard (focus on charms, illusions, and debuffs)? What's more important to the bard? Personally, I think the 12 PHB classes are good on their own. I think psionics needs its own class, and that artificer is just too different to cram under another class well, but I think most of the other 3.5 and 4e classes were mostly slight variants and they now work decently well as subs. YMMV and all that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Essential Classes: A Thought Experiment
Top