Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6055714" data-attributes="member: 1465">...or make them "fighter specializations" like there are wizard specializations.The original Fighter class of early D&D created a bunch of spin-offs, the problem being that each of them is always quite rigidly defined, with several "signature" abilities (not normally available to others) but then only little flexibility. It is the same as if there was an Illusionist class, an Evoker class, a Diviner class etc. and illusion spells were available only to the Illusionist, energy spells to the Evoker and so on. And the Wizard class had access to just the generic spells like Detect Magic, Dispel Magic and other spells that don't fit strongly into one category, but then again making all this generic stuff also available to the spin-off specialists, with the only difference that the Wizard would have more of them.This is more or less what arcane spellcasters would be if their classes were treated like the Fighter and its spin-offs are treated in design. The the Wizard would be in the same position as the Fighter, no schtik of his own.But playing a "versatile" Wizard is an absolutely valid choice, and in fact it's possibly been the most wanted type of Wizard PC in D&D, hence we rather get a Wizard class that has access to ALL arcane spells, and specialists are in-class options (like schools or traditions) plus occasionally also a spin-off class but only a few years after the core is published.One way to deal with this problem, is to just have one Fighter class in the game, and make Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, Swashbuckler into subclasses/specialists based on "feats" or "manuvers" (or else, doesn't matter at this point) that the Fighter can anyway access. There can be exceptions such as feats/maneuvers exclusive to one of those subclasses, but not many just as there aren't normally many (in fact, any!) spells unavailable to the generalist Wizard. Or there can be unique features associated to each subclass just like there are now for each wizard tradition.Another way to deal with this problem is how 3e (accidentally...) did: by making multiclassing work for martial classes but not for spellcasters, but I really don't think anybody considers this a very elegant solution <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification