I call it cynical when someone says that they want a new edition of D&D but think that the Fighter class (the Fighter class!) needs to be kicked to the curb in favor of well, something that sounds like an almost unplayable and unbalancable mess of self-contridictory viewpoints.
My viewpoints are not self-contradictory, thank you very much.
And yes, I dislike the Fighter class. I don't think its cynical. After all, it has historically been both a very problematic class (it was terribly underpowered in 3E, in particular) and is very broadly designed to embody simply too many incompatible ideas. It leads directly to the frustrating issue where people will both say "Why do you want that class? Isn't that just the Fighter?" and turn around and say the next minute "I don't want my Fighter doing THAT!" especially in terms of the kinds of stuff I like to see in D&D.
Feel free then to explain them.
Put simply, it's because different archetypes should have different strengths, weaknesses, and focuses, and it is pretty much impossible to have a single class that can be easily customized to match any of those strengths and weaknesses without a lot of headaches. No matter what, characters of the same class tend to have the same basic strengths and weaknesses. They tend to have the same basic "chassis" of things like proficiencies, skills, and hitpoints. There is a clear limit on how much you can change such things within a class to the extent that I want to see them changed, unless you introduce extremely complex and bloated class specialization systems (even worse than Feats or D20 Modern Talents), which I'd rather not see.
Of course not. If it could be done better with lots of class variations, then I'd support it. Problem is, we have examples of that in 3.5e, 4e and Pathfinder and it made things worse and not better.
Large numbers of classes are elegant? So, you consider late 3.5 to be mechanically elegant?
These statements of yours show exaclty how different we are. Yes, I consider many of the late 3.5E classes to be elegant, or at least more so than the 3E PHB classes. My 3.5E group completely replaced the Fighter with the three Tome of Battle classes, and it made our campaign a lot more fun. I also have no complaints about the quantity or degree of focus seen in 4E classes. I've got lots of problems with both systems, but quantity of classes is not an issue for me in the least, and I've never agreed with those who complain about an excessive number of classes.
The addition of new classes in 3E and 4E
was an improvement over just having the Fighter in the PHB, no question.
Must we know have separate classes for wizards up close, and wizards at a distance, and wizards that do different things entirely?
Why not? A lot of what I've said about Fighters is also true for the generalized Wizard. I'm a big fan of the idea of creating a variety of different Wizard classes specialized in different styles, rather than a catch-all do-anything wizard. Close-combat wizard would be a great example of this.
And for that matter, why can't the Paladin or the Barbarian be ranged combatants? Do we need mini-classes for the elven Paladin that hits hard with bows? For the Barbarian archer, or rock throwing warrior based off of a Polynessian archetype? Or for that matter, why should we assume 'Viking beserker' is archetype Barbarian? What about native American aboriginals mounted on horseback? Not barbarians? And for that matter, why should we assume that all warriors who channel their rage and emotion into ferocity are rural illiterates from more primative cultures? Why not elite nationalist units, or sworn temple gaurdians? Do we need separate mini classes with their own subsystems for those concepts as welll?
I'm fine with the Paladin and Barbarian exactly because they are not trying to be generalists. They've also established themselves fairly well as iconic classes in most of the fantasy stuff videogames, comics, and anime I'm familiar with. I see Paladins with bows as unnecessary (it is a fair disadvantage, and I see little pressure to create a class with an alternative). Also, I really like the Berserker class type, but I'm fine with dropping pointless fluff like assumptions of a different culture and illiteracy (not that 4E didn't already do that...).
I don't see why we need to either artificially generalize classes that are already solid archetypes (solid archetypes that don't infringe much on others), nor do I see the need to create whole new classes for every little tiny variation.
Just know that, if you are fine with the Barbarian and Paladin as they are, then understand that I'd simply like to see more classes that function with the clear role they do.
So, what about gladiators, axe wielders, lancers, crossbowmen, flail specialists, whip wielders, wrestlers, martial artists, blowgun wielders, boxers, knife fighters, peltasts, mounted archers, pirates, halbred wielders, fencers, sword and board, legionares, slingers, hoplites, pirates, muskateers, men-at-arms, ninjas, samuarii, knights, florentine style fencers, sumo wrestlers, charioteers, and so on and so forth.
gladiators-> profession, not fighting style or class (for me, at least)
axe wielders -> You'd need to be clearer. Axes are valid weapons for a lot of classes.
lancers -> Same as Axe above.
crossbowmen -> An Archer class would be nice. Useful secondary weapon for a lot of classes.
flail specialists -> Same as Axe or Lance
whip wielders -> You know, I'd like to see decent support for whips as a fighting weapon...
wrestlers -> Monk
martial artists -> Monk
blowgun wielders -> Meh, kinda non-iconic. Random option, maybe?
boxers -> Monk
knife fighters -> Rogue, at least
peltasts -> Had to look this one up... Obsucre name for a concept I want as a class, actually. Light skirmishing non-Rogue warriors is a good concept.
mounted archers -> Archer with a horse or Cavalier with a bow. Take you pick.
pirates -> Profession, not class. You can have a Pirate with the Ninja class and I'd be fine with it.
halbred wielders -> Same as Axe, Lance, etc...
fencers -> Lightly armored melee weapon specialists.
sword and board -> Same as Axe, Lance, etc...
legionares -> Pretty much just your typical soldier... Solid Defender type, I guess.
slingers -> Archer
hoplites -> Same class as Legionnaires. Defender, then, I guess.
pirates -> You said this already.
muskateers -> If you mean musket-user? Archer. If you mean D'Artagnan? Same as fencer.
men-at-arms -> Too vague a concept to mention.
ninjas, -> Its own sneaky magic-using class.
samuarii -> Depending on what you mean, either a Knight or the same class as the fencer.
knights -> Defenders, same as Legionanaires, though a more Cavalier-style approach also works.
florentine style fencers -> Same as normal fencer.
sumo wrestlers -> Monk, if you absolutely have to...
charioteers -> Cavalier
Should we have a mini-class for each concept and style?
Nope.
I'd break up the Fighter into only a few others. A low-mobility, defense-focused heavy armor class that doesn't specialize in a certain weapon types and has no ranged weapons, a high-mobility, lightly armored melee class built around mobility that does specialize in particular weapon types, a low-mobility lightly armored class that specializes in ranged weapons, and a moderately armored and mobile cavalry class. Other classes, like the Monk, Barbarian (I'd prefer Berserker), and Rogue all help fill out archetypes too.
Up front it takes much less effort than creating a unified class. The problem with a new class for each problem is that its lazy design. It's like solving a coding problem with a new batch of in line in place fall through code. It's simple in the short run and fixes a specific problem, but in the end it leaves you with an inelegant mess because you only fixed that one problem.
Pardon me for not understanding your coding analogy (I could't code if my life depended on it), but I disagree with your reasoning. It is not lazy design at all. I merely want classes to cover reasonable archetypes and to avoid creating classes that are more generic than the norm. Many classes, like the Paladin, Barbarian, or Druid, cover a reasonable amount of ground and embody strong archetypes without crowding out others. Others, like the Fighter and Wizard, cover overly broad archetypes and do crowd out others.
No, it doesn't. It only does so in your experience because the attempts to solve the problem by Pazio and WotC and others have been poorly implemented. Take the example of the archer versus heavy armor close combat specialist you are focused on. A lot of the distinction between the two can be defined very simply - one is focused on traditional dexterity roles and the other is focused on traditional constitution roles. One is mobile by virtue of light armor, and the other is hard to take down by virtue of heavy armor. We have major distinctions between the two using nothing more complex than what was available in 1e. There are plenty of tools for providing for extremely high distinction between the two even if they have a unified class.
The problem with saying "focused on traditional constitution roles" is that creating mechanics designed to actually implement what you are talking about is far more complicated than you are admitting. And no, the solutions implemented by some of those others are not poorly implemented. Many are actually quite good.
Did I suggest that it should? Tactical subsystems can be quite complex without depending on the sort of limited access balancing or point expenditure balancing that is associated with powers and manuevers. And limited access balancing which is grounded primarily in metagame needs is basicly a magic subsystem. In particular, one of the problems with associating maneuvers with a class or power, is that if this subsystem covers a set of actions that are not meant to be supernatural, there is a question of why access to the subsytem is restricted. For example, if I have manuever that is 'Judo throw foe', the question becomes "Why can't anyone pick up something and throw it? Sure, maybe he's better at it, but any 5 year old can body slam something his size." "Why can't I pick up a handful of sand and toss it in the foes eyes? Sure, he may be better at it, but can't I try?" You'll run into the problem of, "Well, you can't do that because its not a power on your class list." really really quickly if you try to address the problem through numerous classes and subsystems.
I'm actually not a fan of codifying ever last little thing as a power or such. That said, such things do go a long way towards enabling effects that are much more interesting than "Judo Throw Foe". For example, "Slash Every Foe Within 30ft to Bits Without Taking a Step" is not at all something you can say "anyone can try", but it is a very cool and fun kind of effect that deserves a spot in the game.
Also, keep in mind that most of this is your reacting to my suggestion of a system where the main impressive physical feats and effects are
not class based, and are instead open for people of any class to use depending on requirements.
Powers are spells by a different name. While I'm inclined to agree with you about the utility of separate subsystems to a certain extent, at some point power subsystems are just generic magic subsystems in thin disguise.
Nonsense. There is no natural association between complex power-style systems and magic at all. Something can use a power-style implementation and not be magical just as easily as something can use a simple attack-style implementation and still be magical. You are presuming things that are not true.
Again, we disagree not about the end goal, but about the utility of having a Cavalier class be the means to get there. Let me put it this way, do you agree that a mounted warrior that rides a horse, and one that rides a gryphon, and one that rides a shark, can be bundled into the same class?
Of course.
Or would you prefer separate subsystems for land based mounts, air based mounts, and sea based mounts?
Nope.
And, if you do prefer that, then what are you going to do when those subsystems are tied to a class (rather than to the environment) and a member of another class wants to interface with them?
Where does this come from? I asked for a decent mounted combat mechanic, and I asked for a decent Cavalier class to take advantage of that mechanic. I did not ask for a Cavalier who is the sole thing tied to a mounted combat mechanic which would cause problems otherwise. Where did you get this line of questioning from?
I never said it needs to be. But I'm equally not a fan of creating a class specificly because some campaign might occur entirely in the ocean.
Why not? If there is demand for it (and I know there are people here who love oceanic campaigns), then why should there not be supply? Knowing full well that no one is forced to use every class in a campaign (it is, in fact, the easiest thing to exclude from any ruleset), then what does it hurt? Why should it be omitted?
