D&D (2024) Introducing back 2/3 casters and leaving clerics and wizards as only "full" casters?

[delericho]

We always have to have one basic mundane class.

That is the fighter in 5E.

And I have nothing against having just natural abilities in fighter, even if they are at the farthest possible peak of natural abilities.
So fighter has to be fastest in combat(most attacks with extra attack feature), best training(several fighting styles), battlemaster a core concept of class and thoughest(d12 HD).

My issue with most of these classes isn't with what they can do in combat - it's their ability to interface with the other two tiers. The Rogue isn't too bad, I guess, but the Fighter and Barbarian need more skills, at the very least.

(Actually, I made a joke in another thread about "Supplement I: Greyhawk" ruining everything... and it's kind of true. That was when the thief class was introduced, at which point a load of non-combat stuff was very clearly siloed away from the Fighter to another class. Part of me thinks the Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, and Rogue should all be one class that can be built a number of different ways... but which has quite a lot of the powers of all these classes.)

 

[Laurefindel]

My take?

I'd move cleric and druids back to 7th level spells. Warlock would be as-is. Bards at 1/2 caster. Paladin and Ranger at 1/3 (my version with a little more casting).

Boost the power-level to balance the spell lost.
Rebalance the spell list so that the divine spells are attainable within 7th level.

Yeah, if casters are being redefined that would me my preference as well, but I'm not sure about redistributing the current 9 levels of cleric spells on a 7-level base. In other words, what change would it make if 7th-level cleric spells are equivalent to 9th-level wizard spells in power? The only thing I can see is that clerics being granted (traditionally) wizard spells will get them slightly delayed from wizards, but any wizards getting access to cleric spells would get them before the clerics. It would also upsets the currently simultaneous access to spells shared on most spell lists, which can be interesting if we define the wizard as the class with the quickest access to spells...

But ultimately I'm not sure if that's desirable.

 

[Baumi]

I remember how horrible that was in the 3.x days. Nearly no difference at early levels and massive power drop in the higher levels.

Also spells would have to be rebalanced to be usefull at higher character levels, multiclassing will become even more of a mess, spellists will be hard to make, balance between classes much harder to see,..

 

[Horwath]

My issue with most of these classes isn't with what they can do in combat - it's their ability to interface with the other two tiers. The Rogue isn't too bad, I guess, but the Fighter and Barbarian need more skills, at the very least.

(Actually, I made a joke in another thread about "Supplement I: Greyhawk" ruining everything... and it's kind of true. That was when the thief class was introduced, at which point a load of non-combat stuff was very clearly siloed away from the Fighter to another class. Part of me thinks the Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, and Rogue should all be one class that can be built a number of different ways... but which has quite a lot of the powers of all these classes.)

barbarian got a hot fix in tasha's with extra skill at 3rd and 10th(little late...) level.
also Totem can take the Tiger aspect at 6th level for 2 more skills
That is 2+1+2, that is 5 skills at 6th level without race/background

rogue can get Scout subclass for lots of skills/expertise,

we only need some kind of skilled subclass for fighter.

Also, option that on 1st level you can exchange heavy armor for extra skill would be nice for those classes.

 

[delericho]

barbarian got a hot fix in tasha's with extra skill at 3rd and 10th(little late...) level.

The problem isn't just the number of skills available, but also the choices. The Barbarian, for instance, still can't select most of the 'knowledge' or 'social' skills - it's still a narrow range.

also Totem can take the Tiger aspect at 6th level for 2 more skills
rogue can get Scout subclass for lots of skills/expertise,
we only need some kind of skilled subclass for fighter.

I don't think a subclass is an adequate solution here. All Barbarians, Fighters, and Monks are short on breadth.

Also, option that on 1st level you can exchange heavy armor for extra skill would be nice for those classes.

As long as it's "any skill of your choice", that could be okay. Though you then risk making the balance between Dex-based and Str-based Fighters worse than it already is.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Gut feeling: it's not for me. I actually like the casters that we have - my issues are mostly that non-casters don't have a diverse enough skillset, and we're missing an arcane half-caster class (a Blademage or similar).

I mean artificer counts (though WotC likes to pretend they don't exist and so they feel like an abandoned class)

But yeah artificer has an extremely different theme and role compared to an arcane half caster swordmage type class, so I'd love to see that get added.

 

[Baumi]

But with backgrounds you already have any two skills (+2 tools/languages) you need for your concept. If you don't need any skill from your class, then maybee you should take something that fit better or play human (or other race) that give you an addition skill (human give you even a feat that you couls use to learn even more).

Also you can learn try any skill you haven't learned (yet). I have never had the problem to play my concepts even if they don't fit the class I play.

 

[Jer]

The problem isn't just the number of skills available, but also the choices. The Barbarian, for instance, still can't select most of the 'knowledge' or 'social' skills - it's still a narrow range.

One of the things I would change about the current skill system is that I'd move all of the "knowledge" skills into being "lore proficiencies" that work more like languages or tool proficiencies than skills. In the sense that they'd be outside of the usual limited number of skill system choices and could be trained with gold and training time like a tool proficiency or a language rather than only being granted by a class, background or feat. And that the proficiency bonus granted by the lore would operate more like a tool proficiency and not be tied to a single ability score.

This would also allow the game to have a lot more flexibility in the number of "knowledges" available so that you reintroduce a mechanical way to represent things like local history or architecture or other fiddly bits of knowledge that a character might have without blowing up the skill list the way 3e did but also allow for the lore proficiencies available to be more tuned to a particular setting. And by moving them outside of the regular skill system you open them up to the martial types who might not have access to them at all.

 

[Malmuria]

1st level; 1st level spells
4th level; 2nd level spells
7th level; 3rd level spells
10th level; 4th level spells
13th level; 5th level spells
16th level; 6th level spells
19th level; 7th level spells

3rd level; 1st level spells
6th level; 2nd level spells
11th level; 3rd level spells
16th level; 4th level spells

I’d rather non-full casters get access to the same level spells but just have fewer slots.

 

[tetrasodium]

in 3.5e/PF1 we had category of 2/3rd casters and they filled a nice role.

if wotc return that level of spellcasting, would it be good if bards, druids, sorcerers and warlocks fall into that category?

with less spellcasting, there would be more class resources to spend on special features and still be balanced.

Druids could focus more on wildshaping and animal/elemental companios,

bards could have more leader features,

sorcerers could have more and powerful metamagic and origin features

warlocks could have more invocations, and I guess that short rest mechanics are going bye-bye for the most part, so would go warlock as short rest spellcasting class.


New spell levels would be acquired at class levels:

1st level; 1st level spells
4th level; 2nd level spells
7th level; 3rd level spells
10th level; 4th level spells
13th level; 5th level spells
16th level; 6th level spells
19th level; 7th level spells


while we are at this, 1/3 casters could get a little bump in spell levels speed:
from 1/3 to 2/5 casting, that is new spell level every 5 levels instead of 6,
they would still cap at 4th level spells, but few levels earlier;

3rd level; 1st level spells
6th level; 2nd level spells
11th level; 3rd level spells
16th level; 4th level spells

Different classes got a given spell as a different level spell back then, that's no longer the case. A two thirds scaling is still effectively full till very high levels because it's just not a significant delay to get say fireball at six instead of five unless the game end at five

Edit: back then spells were prepared vsncian ahead of time or known & spells scales by caster level. The slower caster level scaling had more impact than what level x class got y spell