D&D 5E Making the classes more generic

[Xeviat]

A thread about fighters and one about monks got me thinking that a few of D&D's classes are really specific. We might be better suited if we made tweaks to them to make them more broadly applicable.

What I'd like to accomplish here is to identify baggage that classes have that prevent them from being used more broadly. It's odd to mention things that could be taken away from classes (and moved to Subclasses) as an improvement, but I do think there are a few.

The Ranger and Paladin are both rather specific. The Paladin was shifted to being about oaths instead of just LG and instead of inherently being tied to a deity. This oath connection helps differentiate a paladin from a fighter/cleric, and that's good! The ranger is another story and is its own thread, but I'll leave things open here in case people have ideas on what might be excess baggage.

The Druid is a very specific class. Wild Shape might be over applied. Without it, other nature oriented priests/spellcasters could be emulated.

The Bard is an interesting class, but it could be so much more if it didn't have it's tight connection to music and performances. What do I mean? The bard could serve as a magical interpretation of the Warlord (just like the paladin is the fantastical knight in shining armor, and the ranger is the fantastical woodsman). As the jack of all trades, the bard can also function well as a Hero class, referencing open JRPGs and the like where the protagonist character can do a little of everything.

The Monk could be made more diverse if they had a choice of their ki abilities. Choice here would allow the Monk to range from a more grounded martial artist to wild wuxai and anime inspired stuff. Tomorrow, I'll post something I've been working on in this regard.

The Fighter has an opportunity to make their heavy armor more of an optional thing. Dex fighters don't really get the full use of it, and might not even qualify for it, so making it an option could be good (trade heavy armor for an extra skill, for instance).

Last on my list, if the Rogue didn't have their thieves' tool proficiency and thieves' cant feature, they could apply to more characters. Nobles come to mind. Swashbucklers and other rogue archtypes don't necessarily need those thief trappings as well. They could be moved to the thief subclass or be part of the criminal background, and the rogue could get something else.

 

[R_J_K75]

The class system needs to go, its limiting and boring. Just eliminate it altogether and give players the option to pick from a list of abilities.

 

[FrogReaver]

The class system needs to go, its limiting and boring. Just eliminate it altogether and give players the option to pick from a list of abilities.

NO! IMO list of options systems suck. Large sets of packaged abilities always end up better.

 

[ccs]

The class system needs to go, its limiting and boring. Just eliminate it altogether and give players the option to pick from a list of abilities.

So why are you playing D&D? You know what it is. And you know other systems exist that do what you're suggesting.
So why keep playing D&D if you don't like its core?

 

[Sadras]

The class system needs to go, its limiting and boring. Just eliminate it altogether and give players the option to pick from a list of abilities.

I see two suitable options for this:
1) Drop D&D in favour of a classless system; or
2) Play 2e's Skills and Powers or modify it for your 5e game

 

[Li Shenron]

The class system needs to go, its limiting and boring. Just eliminate it altogether and give players the option to pick from a list of abilities.

Play GURPS. Why bother with reinventing the core structure of a game if you don't like it? Class-based and class-less are fundamentally different games.

The Paladin was shifted to being about oaths instead of just LG and instead of inherently being tied to a deity. This oath connection helps differentiate a paladin from a fighter/cleric, and that's good!

The ranger is another story and is its own thread, but I'll leave things open here in case people have ideas on what might be excess baggage.

The Druid is a very specific class. Wild Shape might be over applied. Without it, other nature oriented priests/spellcasters could be emulated.

The Bard is an interesting class, but it could be so much more if it didn't have it's tight connection to music and performances. What do I mean? The bard could serve as a magical interpretation of the Warlord (just like the paladin is the fantastical knight in shining armor, and the ranger is the fantastical woodsman). As the jack of all trades, the bard can also function well as a Hero class, referencing open JRPGs and the like where the protagonist character can do a little of everything.

The Monk could be made more diverse if they had a choice of their ki abilities. Choice here would allow the Monk to range from a more grounded martial artist to wild wuxai and anime inspired stuff. Tomorrow, I'll post something I've been working on in this regard.

The Fighter has an opportunity to make their heavy armor more of an optional thing. Dex fighters don't really get the full use of it, and might not even qualify for it, so making it an option could be good (trade heavy armor for an extra skill, for instance).

Last on my list, if the Rogue didn't have their thieves' tool proficiency and thieves' cant feature, they could apply to more characters. Nobles come to mind. Swashbucklers and other rogue archtypes don't necessarily need those thief trappings as well. They could be moved to the thief subclass or be part of the criminal background, and the rogue could get something else.

Your idea is not that different from alternate class features. By offering options to replace some of the fixed class abilities, you free the class from the assumption that all members have them. Although so far WotC has shown willingness to offer only ONE alternative to each replaceable class ability (and seems more often concerned with replacing the mechanic without changing the concept), it is the easiest way to work towards your purpose.

For Rangers, the usual idea is wanting to make them non-magical, but I am not a fan. I think they are a key distinguishing feature from other martial classes. No Ranger magic means it's almost just a wilderness warrior or a rage-less barbarian.

For Paladins, two possibilities that would not jeopardize the core "LG-ish warrior-saint" nature of the class would be to remove the healing abilities (freeing the class from its support duties), or to remove the smiting abilities (opening up less combat-oriented concepts), but the latter might be difficult to pull off. Again many people want non-magical Paladins but that just makes them goody-good fighters.

Wildshape could be removed from Druids. Notice that it is already significantly diminished in 5e to being mostly for scouting, so it is much less invasive and limiting that it was in previous editions. But it can be removed completely for sure.

Your mention of Fighter's heavy armor is interesting... yes sure not every Fighter uses heavy armor, but did you notice that armors are designed so that it (almost) doesn't matter which category you choose? If your Fighter has low dex and chooses heavy armor she gets at most base AC 18; if she has mid dex and chooses medium armor she gets AC 17; if the she has high dex and chooses light armor she gets max AC 17. So there is really a maximum deviation of 1 in case of full plate (with that ~1k higher price tag, which may or may not be a big deal depending on the game). Thus for a specific Fighter that doesn't have good Dex, the armor proficiencies can be a big deal, but from the point of view of the whole population of Fighters, it doesn't justify granting a bonus to a Fighter that gives up heavy or even medium armor prof. The way it is designed already takes into account the concept of a lightly/medium armored Fighter. What it doesn't take into account is a completely armor-less fighter! In which case, you might want to consider granting something equivalent to the barbarian's and monk's Unarmored Defense.

That could also apply for example to Clerics, why not eschewing armor proficiencies in exchange for a sort of holy Unarmored Defense, and be a robe-wearing priest?

I agree on Rogues, Thieves' Tools could be optional (the obvious replacement is any other tool proficiency) and Thieves' Cant I honestly can't explain why it was made a base class feature rather than a Thief subclass feature, as it is even more narrow... I would just replace it with any other language proficiency.

Monk basic abilities could be easily replaced in terms of mechanics, but in concept? They are after all fairly generic: attack, defense, movement. I can imagine someone would want to open up for a "slow, less mobile, more sturdy" Monk. Well maybe, but one problem is that Martial Arts and secondarily Flurry of Blows are designed to let the Monk keep up with other melee warriors, so they are hard to remove, although I would like a shuriken-based more ranged Monk option.

Bard is the most difficult of all, because it's characterized by a lot of features together... you can maybe remove each one, but if you remove too many at once it's not a Bard anymore.

In addition to your list, I would like to explore the possibility of a Wizard without a Spellbook. It may not even make that much of a difference, but it would remove a capability and a limitation at the same time.

 

[R_J_K75]

So why are you playing D&D? You know what it is. And you know other systems exist that do what you're suggesting.
So why keep playing D&D if you don't like its core?

Not sure why my post or the fact that I play D&D upset you so much but, I dont feel like investing in another game system. Just because I dont like the class system doesnt mean there arent other things I do like about the game. I think the class system could be removed without upending the entire core rules.

 

[R_J_K75]

NO! IMO list of options systems suck. Large sets of packaged abilities always end up better.

Yes

 

[R_J_K75]

2) Play 2e's Skills and Powers or modify it for your 5e game

I did and I quite liked it but Im not going back to 2E nor am I converting the 5E rules.

 

[ccs]

Not sure why my post or the fact that I play D&D upset you so much but, I dont feel like investing in another game system. Just because I dont like the class system doesnt mean there arent other things I do like about the game. I think the class system could be removed without upending the entire core rules.

Not upset, just curious.
If you house rule it (and can talk your group into playing that), no harm done.
But your preference made standard? It would destroy it for the majority of the rest of us who do like D&D for what it is.