D&D 5E Loss of genericity

[Parmandur]

Finally someone acknowledges what I've been telling all along.







I don't know you, but if you wanted a truly generic spellcaster you were looking in the wrong place, in 3rd edition the sorcerer was the most generic spellcaster around.







I don't know the passage by heart, but I know it well enough, it is funny how people just get the most superficial details of stuff. The original sorcerer was a generic sorcerer, the origin was not explicit and could be anything you wanted. The dragon thing was either something some sorcerers would brag about, something that could or not be true for some sorcerers, or a petty rumor made up by mean jealous wizards who resented not being that special anymore.

I've played Sorcerers in both 3E and 5E; not that different...

 

[MoonSong]

I've played Sorcerers in both 3E and 5E; not that different...

3E. My sorcerer was a spear-wielding badass of any race possible who rode around on an energy disk while followed by either a cat or raven familiar. He or she would or wouldn't be exactly smart, but most of the time was a complete ignorant of arcane science, never having patience for books. This was all in the default package, without investing any character resources to expand it. Investing on something like two-weapon fighting or improved feinting completely optional, but possible at first level.

5E. My sorcerer has to stay in the sidelines, having only toy weapons to be good at it, no familiar, no access to utility that made disk riding possible, and all of that costs feats -and having to carry a spellbook around!-, which you won't have at first level unless you are human -and variant human at that-. Never mind actually having resources to spend into fancy combat styles or tricks.

Yes, no that different.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The "generic" classes are the Core Four. And that was purposeful. By taking a specific Background plus one of the Core Four classes, you could create the essence of the other classes in the game from a story perspective (without the specific mechanics.)

Champion Fighter + Outlander = barbarian
Enchanter Wizard or Arcane Trickster Rogue + Entertainer = bard
Nature Domain Cleric + Outlander = druid
War Domain Cleric (with or without Fighter multiclass) + Noble (Knight) = paladin
Archery Fighter (with or without Rogue multiclass) + Outlander = ranger

So on and so forth. This was done because of the large number of players who never saw any of the other classes as anything but the Core Four with just specific story attached. Paladins were just Fighter/Clerics that has specific roleplaying attached (oaths and whatnot).

But in order to make the second tier of classes *more* than just Core Four with attached Backgrounds... they needed to have a different story. They couldn't be "generic" because a generic paladin would indeed just *be* a Fighter/Cleric with some additional game mechanics. And the designers came to the conclusion that just adding different game mechanics to a class did not warrant making it a new class. A Wizard with a different casting mechanic did not warrant calling it a Sorcerer (a la 3E). If they were going to have a Sorcerer, it had to have something substantially different in the world of the game-- in the story of the world-- because within the game world, the mechanics don't actually exist. A Wizard with metamagic is still just a Wizard in the game world. But to have a Sorcerer... the story of them in the world has to be distinguishable. Otherwise, there's no point for them to exist.

 

[Pickles JG]

But most of the Greyhawk specific stuff in 3E was just names and fluff, not mechanics that are hardwired into classes, etc. That stuff is much easier to change.

To be honest, I haven't given the DMG a thorough read-through. Although I am aware that it has alternate rules and suggestions for changing stuff around. It just feels like with 5E we got more options, but less flexibility?

You are probably right compared to pathfinder or mature 3e (cant remember 3.0 with just PHB). Stuff comes in larger packets so you get to make a few bigger decisions, & have less tinkering available.

Really though the only classes with much fluff built in are sorcerers & warlocks - wizards & clerics too but that's ancient & fairly vanilla considering. You might like to ban certain subclasses or class/race combinations - loads of people hate this but I think it is good for setting the feel of a world. Also reskinning like Mistwell's great effort above or small changes to options available to better reflect your world.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But they're not options. Like with the sorcerer, you have to choose one. You can't just have a sorcerer without a draconic or wild origin. Same with the bard schools, druid circles, etc. It's all built into the class.

This feels like talking past each other because of definitions. Subclasses as a whole are not "options" in the sense that all characters need one in order to not fall vastly behind everyone else. Individual subclasses are "options" because you can choose among those available.

As for the "generic"-ness, I think a portion of your problem--not all, but a solid chunk--lies in taking the book-fluff as the way it has to be. For some things, I can see that, e.g. the Chaos Sorcerer is inherently "luck-based," and I can understand someone not wanting to veer too far away from that. (For instance, I think it could make a great "action cartomancer," flinging Tarot cards or the like.) For others, like the Dragon Sorcerer example given previously, it just seems like...we all need to apply some "kid with a cardboard box" thinking. A cardboard box is a spaceship, a time machine, a cloning device, a mirror-world portal, a racecar, an airplane, a submarine...doesn't matter that it says "B&Q SHIPPING" on the side, it is what I say it is because I say it is. People throw around the word "reskinning" a lot and I've seen a lot of skepticism for the idea, but it really does seem to be something our hobby should reach for as a weapon of first resort, with these kinds of problems.

 

[Parmandur]

3E. My sorcerer was a spear-wielding badass of any race possible who rode around on an energy disk while followed by either a cat or raven familiar. He or she would or wouldn't be exactly smart, but most of the time was a complete ignorant of arcane science, never having patience for books. This was all in the default package, without investing any character resources to expand it. Investing on something like two-weapon fighting or improved feinting completely optional, but possible at first level.



5E. My sorcerer has to stay in the sidelines, having only toy weapons to be good at it, no familiar, no access to utility that made disk riding possible, and all of that costs feats -and having to carry a spellbook around!-, which you won't have at first level unless you are human -and variant human at that-. Never mind actually having resources to spend into fancy combat styles or tricks.



Yes, no that different.

Ypur 3E Sorcerer sounds kinda Wizardly to me; in both 3E and 5E, my Sorcerers have been fast-talking charmers who can set things on fire with their willpower. To be fair, the Sorcerer is the class in the book with the most obvious gaps in subclasses, and a pseudo-wizard variant, Harry Potter style, seems to be some of the missing Heritages we might see later.

 

[Parmandur]

How's this for a reskin:

Dragon Mage Sorcerer, Black Dragon specifically, reimagined as a kid who got bitten by a magical spider on a class field trip. AC bonus is Spider Sense instead of Draconic Resiliance, etc.

Using the guideline in the DMG, I would even feel fairly comfortable making entirely new Heritages for a Sorcerer, like [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] does above. Plenty if room for genre repurposing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

How's this for a reskin:

Dragon Mage Sorcerer, Black Dragon specifically, reimagined as a kid who got bitten by a magical spider on a class field trip. AC bonus is Spider Sense instead of Draconic Resiliance, etc.

Using the guideline in the DMG, I would even feel fairly comfortable making entirely new Heritages for a Sorcerer, like [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] does above. Plenty if room for genre repurposing.

Makes perfect sense to me. If you wanted to go full-bore Spiderman, you'd probably want to work out some kind of custom bloodline ability (possibly costing SP) to fling web, but otherwise this sounds great.

 

[Parmandur]

If I had a player who was keen to be Spiderman, I'd probably say throw in Misty Step (reflavored as web swinging) and Web, actually.

 

[Parmandur]

3E. My sorcerer was a spear-wielding badass of any race possible who rode around on an energy disk while followed by either a cat or raven familiar. He or she would or wouldn't be exactly smart, but most of the time was a complete ignorant of arcane science, never having patience for books. This was all in the default package, without investing any character resources to expand it. Investing on something like two-weapon fighting or improved feinting completely optional, but possible at first level.



5E. My sorcerer has to stay in the sidelines, having only toy weapons to be good at it, no familiar, no access to utility that made disk riding possible, and all of that costs feats -and having to carry a spellbook around!-, which you won't have at first level unless you are human -and variant human at that-. Never mind actually having resources to spend into fancy combat styles or tricks.



Yes, no that different.

Thinking more on your 3E build, it occurs to me that it feels more like Warlock, flavor wise, if anything. Maybe take a Warlock, remove the Patron flavor, and you seem to be mostly there...