D&D 5E New D&D WotC survey! On classes.

[Undrave]

I agree with the basic point, though I really, really don't think Necromancer should be its own class. There are already too many caster classes and their fluff keeps getting thinner and thinner. Instead there just should be wizard subclasses that are good. If they redo PHB they can do this.

The Wizard's spell list was a mistake. It's too wide and gives all Wizard access to everything so it's super easy to just end up with two Wizards with the same spell list despite having two different subclass.

Having a slightly more curated base list with subclass based addition would have been way better. But then all the Wizard players (who are VIP in the eyes of WOTC apparently) would have probably went on a tantrum "WAAAH! MY MAGICAL BATMAN! WAAAH!"

 

[Mind of tempest]

The Wizard's spell list was a mistake. It's too wide and gives all Wizard access to everything so it's super easy to just end up with two Wizards with the same spell list despite having two different subclass.

Having a slightly more curated base list with subclass based addition would have been way better. But then all the Wizard players (who are VIP in the eyes of WOTC apparently) would have probably went on a tantrum "WAAAH! MY MAGICAL BATMAN! WAAAH!"

so way to lock most of the spells away without making it totally impossible to get them?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I agree with the basic point, though I really, really don't think Necromancer should be its own class. There are already too many caster classes and their fluff keeps getting thinner and thinner. Instead there just should be wizard subclasses that are good. If they redo PHB they can do this.

Whilst I sort of agree, the reason I don't suggest that is design space.

See here's the problem with the Wizard in D&D (all editions except 4E) - the design-space of the Wizard is taken up almost entirely by two things:

1) They can learn all the spells (you know what I mean)

2) They can memorize and cast a lot of spells

They've never really had any other abilities than spells, spells, spells and more spells. They've got nothing to replace with abilities, except spells, and if you replace their spells with abilities, well, you basically got the other caster classes lol.

This is why you need a separate class for Necromancer, because you need the design-space to have, say, at least one permanent undead who does your bidding, and probably the ability to summon (on a temporary basis at least) quite a lot of other ones. You also want some spells/abilities with really strong necromantic flavour that might not fit with the general "arcane magic" vibe of a Wizard/Sorcerer/etc.

So I think unless they also dial back the default features of the Wizard - including spellcasting - there's no way to find enough space to make an actual Necromancer, particularly not without creating a situation where every Wizard is going to want a ton of Necromancy spells. Ironically there was kind of more design space in 2E because it did that - a specialist couldn't even cast certain colleges of spell (I forget how it was in 3E).

There are other classes with "design space" issues - Monks, for example, are overloaded with abilities that are default and basically make all monks into Shaolin monks specifically, whatever the theme of their subclass. Rangers needed Tashas to solve their design-space issue, by giving them abilities to replace the abilities taking up design-space. Sorcerers kind of have limited design space because all Sorcerers have to use metamagic and spell-points, even though it might be better if metamagic at least was optional.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There are other classes with "design space" issues - Monks, for example, are overloaded with abilities that are default and basically make all monks into Shaolin monks specifically, whatever the theme of their subclass. Rangers needed Tashas to solve their design-space issue, by giving them abilities to replace the abilities taking up design-space. Sorcerers kind of have limited design space because all Sorcerers have to use metamagic and spell-points, even though it might be better if metamagic at least was optional.

So ... is it possible that all classes have a fairly limited design space, because the whole subclass system provides for very little differentiation?

While there are a few counter-examples-
A. Warlocks, because they have the whole pact/boon and genuinely different flavors (all of which taste like PEW PEW PEW).
B. Subclasses that grant spellcasting, such as EK for Fighter and AT for Rogue.

...for the most part, there's almost no differentiation in subclasses as compared to the class itself. IMO, etc.

TLDR; the subclass system in 5e provides very, very little differentiation.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So ... is it possible that all classes have a fairly limited design space, because the whole subclass system provides for very little differentiation?

I've thought about this quite a lot for a while, and I feel like there's a pretty wide variance in the amount of design-space per class. YMMV.

 

[CleverNickName]

A wicked dumb lore bard?

thinking

Checks out!

Thanks! Coming from you, this is the highest praise that the Bard class could ever hope to achieve ("interesting"). I'm right there with you: Ivann here is my best effort at making a Bard that interesting and unique, yet still fundamentally a bard. I had to pull out all the stops to get there (up to and including a friggin' elephant), and it took all afternoon. If the Bard class were more cohesive, with better baseline abilities like better equipment proficiencies and better cantrips, my job would have been easier.

I learned a lot from this little exercise. I learned that the bard class can be versatile and malleable, and can be shaped to fit a number of character concepts and builds. It just takes a lot more effort than other character classes, and not many folks want to work that hard. Thus, the trope was born. (Or perhaps the trope came first, and the mechanics were shaped to fit it? It's one of those chicken-or-the-egg things, innit?) But I understand why so many folks play the same bard the same way.

Better to use your per diem to buy food, and to use a class that isn't a bard, than to waste such good concepts on the bard class.

Yeah, agree...sort of. Maybe Ivann here would make more sense as a Feypact Warlock, or an Oath of Ancients Paladin, or a Nature Cleric, or a Circle of the Land Druid, or a (Subclass)(Class) with the (Background). An elephant-riding warrior is going to look impressive no matter what he does for a living, so maybe that's the trick to playing an interesting bard: find an impressive gimmick and then lean in hard. Because the bard class mechanics, as written, aren't going to do you any favors in that department.

THERE WE HAVE IT! @Snarf Zagyg LOVES BARDS NOW!

The mods can close the thread, we are done here

nah, you can backtrack all you want, we have PROOF you love bards now. @CleverNickName bardevangelized you!

My goal wasn't to somehow prove that @Snarf Zagyg secretly loves bards. The goal was to explore whether or not anyone could create a bard that was fun, interesting, and effective, and wasn't the same tired "D&D Bard" trope. I figured that if I could do it, anyone could...and if it managed to impress Snarf (and others), the experiment would be a success.

So alert the presses! Inform your players! The bard doesn't have to be that same, tired, overdone, boring fop! Join me in the revolution! Down with the smarmy class-clowns and their vicious mockery cantrips, flimsy rapiers, and optimized stats! Up with elephant-riding dwarven jousters, bell-swinging battlefield necromancers, and wave-commanding naval officers! Don't let anyone tell you that you have to be a promiscuous dandy with a lute fetish and a flimsy outfit just because you're a bard!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Don't let anyone tell you that you have to be a promiscuous dandy with a lute fetish and a flimsy outfit just because you're a bard!

In fairness, the lute fetish is the Bard's only redeeming quality.

"Yep, the bard over there is ol' blind Sir Reubens of the College of Onan, master of the skin flute and purveyor of a new idea to help adventurers out. It's called, Go Fund Yourself."

 

[CleverNickName]

"Yep, the bard over there is ol' blind Sir Reubens of the College of Onan, master of the skin flute and purveyor of a new idea to help adventurers out. It's called, Go Fund Yourself."

"Hrmph. Don't care. Tell him to shut up or catch these hands."
(throws another soggy carrot at Sir Reubens)

 

[Bolares]

My goal wasn't to somehow prove that @Snarf Zagyg secretly loves bards.

That just makes you success in proving it more impressive.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This is why you need a separate class for Necromancer, because you need the design-space to have, say, at least one permanent undead who does your bidding, and probably the ability to summon (on a temporary basis at least) quite a lot of other ones. You also want some spells/abilities with really strong necromantic flavour that might not fit with the general "arcane magic" vibe of a Wizard/Sorcerer/etc.

The trouble with this bit is that it throws out the action economy. The summoned undead should be area effect debuffers or something like Spirit Guardian but not centred on the necro.