D&D 5E What does 5E NEED

[Sacrosanct]

I'm not conflating anything. One of my exemples out of three was not a D&D archetype but literature character (arguably 2 out of 3). How could you have missed that? If you don't read the posts and assume things, it's going to be difficult having a conversation. But I don't think you're here to have a conversation. You seem more interested in picking a fight with anyone that wants more options in the game.

Um dude? You didn't bring up literature personalities until just recently. First you said you wanted more options to flesh out "common archetypes'. Then you followed that up with two examples of D&D characters you had. This is a D&D thread. Therefore, I can't be blamed for assuming you're talking about D&D archetypes. Especially since you didn't bring up literary characters until after my responses. If there's something prohibiting discussion in this thread, it's you shifting the goal posts constantly. I can only go by what you actually type.

But either way, I still stand my post that if you're wanting a specific subclass for every literary character that you or someone can come up with, you won't find it in D&D 5e. That's an impossible task that would cause so much bloat that 5e would need a buttload ton of Imodium.

 

[Gnarl45]

Um dude? You didn't bring up literature personalities until just recently. First you said you wanted more options to flesh out "common archetypes'. Then you followed that up with two examples of D&D characters you had. This is a D&D thread. Therefore, I can't be blamed for assuming you're talking about D&D archetypes. Especially since you didn't bring up literary characters until after my responses. If there's something prohibiting discussion in this thread, it's you shifting the goal posts constantly. I can only go by what you actually type.

Post #25: Lord of the Rings Hobbit. That's the first of my posts you answered to. Tell me again, how did you misunderstand what I was saying when the post you answered to already had a literary reference?

But even then, you actually told me that a ranger without spells, a generalist wizard, a leader, and a non-assassin skill monkeys are niche/specialized . They're not only common literary archetypes but most of them are also common D&D archetypes. You had rangers without spells in 2e and 3e. In 4e, it was the default ranger. And the generalist wizard has been the default at least in BECMI, 2e, 3e, and 4e. That's every edition I played except 5e. In 3e, you had the marshal and in 4e, the warlord was a core class. How are leaders not common? And characters that are good at fighting and good at skills without being backstabbers exist in every fantasy world except D&D.

But either way, I still stand my post that if you're wanting a specific subclass for every literary character that you or someone can come up with, you won't find it in D&D 5e. That's an impossible task that would cause so much bloat that 5e would need a buttload ton of Imodium.

I agree with this. And that's why I said the common ones (post #21). What made you think that I wanted to have a buttload of options such as imodium or drunken master?

In any event, how does a couple of generic character of options and a dozen feats/subclasses to better support the common fantasy archetypes qualify as bloat? Why is it so hard for some of you to accept that all common character concepts aren't supported in the core 5e book? It's not like any other edition did it...

 

[Bugleyman]

Dungeon. A return to the the good old days of 2003-2008 Dungeon.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm a huge fan of the spell-less ranger. I created my own for 3E, and I really liked the ranger in 4E.

That said, I don't really see the spell-less ranger as being absent from 5E. What do I mean? Well, at each level of ranger spells, there's at least one or two that could easily be described in non-magical ability/feat terms. Area attacks with bow and arrow, extra attacks, natural skills such as pass without trace, and of course hunter's mark (which was essentially a class ability in 4E)... Choose these spells, call them heavily trained physical abilities you can only maintain for so long because of the physical strain and/or concentration required, and boom. You basically have the 4E ranger.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Post #25: Lord of the Rings Hobbit. That's the first of my posts you answered to. Tell me again, how did you misunderstand what I was saying when the post you answered to already had a literary reference?

Ah, you mean the part that I said didn't make sense at all because...well..."one of these doesn't look like the others." I.e., it didn't make sense in the context of everything else you had been saying. It seemed to me like a random bit thrown against the wall that I couldn't make heads or tails of in how it related to everything else. Unless you're talking Basic, the hobbit, or halfling, isn't a class. What does that have to do with classes and subclasses? And even it if was, what does that look like mechanically? What in 5e prevents you from playing one? Seems to me it's 99% fluff.

And I still don't have any idea what this means:

There aren't any classes that aren't monsters in combat.

Monsters as PCs have always been an outlier.

But even then, you actually told me that a ranger without spells, a generalist wizard, a leader, and a non-assassin skill monkeys are niche/specialized ..

No I didn't. What I said was this:

"I really don't think that rangers who can't cast spells, or rogues that don't have sneak attack are common. I think they are very much in the minority. And I don't think this is a subjective thing like you're claiming. I think it's very objective by looking at the history and default builds of both classes over the past several decades."

Clearly I'm still talking within the context of D&D there. And I never said that generalist wizards, leaders, or non assassins were never the norm. For someone who accused me of not trying to have an honest discussion, it strikes me odd that you were resort to attacking strawman arguments. I would never say that. Generalist wizards, non assassin thieves, and leaders were the default classes for decades (well, leader isn't a class, but every party had a leader). Why would I make that claim? What I said, (non spell casting rangers and rogues without sneak attacks) is very much true. And I'll repeat it again. Just go look at the history of D&D and you'll see this is objectively true.

Now that I understand what you want--archetypes that have all the work already done for you in the representation of feats and/or subclasses that emulate the commonly known* characters in literature--I still say it's not going to happen in D&D. Why? Because 2 reasons:

1. D&D isn't built that way, and never has been (class based system and all)
2. It would require a TON of bloat to cover every single "commonly known" archetype.

Honestly, that's one of the great things I like about 5e. It's more of a toolkit that is super easy to use, rather than wasting a ton of paper space just listing out a million different combinations. I LOVE AD&D, and always will, but that's one thing I like so much better in 5e. I don't need a subclass or class for every concept (like the fifty million ones in AD&D that showed up in all the dragon magazines). The class, subclass, background, and feat tools allow me to emulate just about anything I want. Heck, I don't even feel the need to multiclass to get there either. For a class based system, I don't see how you can ask for anything more in that regard, realistically. WoTC certainly won't put out a book of a bunch of subclasses to fit every literary archetype when not many people would end up buying or using it.


* what is "common archetype" from literature anyway? Conan, Aragorn? Sure. Flew Fleuder Flam, Walker Boh, Binabik , Rand al'Thor? Who knows.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And that's just rangers and rogues. Mike Mearls himself qualifies the D&D fighter as the 100% combat class. Think about all your fantasy fighter references, how many of them can do more than just fighting? There is simply no way in 5e to trade some of that combat percentage for non-combat without getting spells or sneak attack or some other flavor-inducing mechanic.

There is the Background option. Though I guess it's flavor-inducing, by design.

One thing that 5e could use would be more support for the interaction and exploration pillars that isn't tied to class. Admittedly, casters already have all the non-combat goodies they need in spells, especially those that can be cast as rituals. But, for the few archetypes that can't cast - all, what, 8 of them? - something more would be nice. Maybe tied to Backgrounds. Maybe by introducing some new option or mechanic.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm a huge fan of the spell-less ranger. I created my own for 3E, and I really liked the ranger in 4E.

That said, I don't really see the spell-less ranger as being absent from 5E. What do I mean? Well, at each level of ranger spells, there's at least one or two that could easily be described in non-magical ability/feat terms. Area attacks with bow and arrow, extra attacks, natural skills such as pass without trace, and of course hunter's mark (which was essentially a class ability in 4E)... Choose these spells, call them heavily trained physical abilities you can only maintain for so long because of the physical strain and/or concentration required, and boom. You basically have the 4E ranger.

So when people say they want a spellless ranger, what they mean is they want a ranger that does all the things his or her spells do, just don't call them spells? That seem....odd.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There is the Background option. Though I guess it's flavor-inducing, by design.

One thing that 5e could use would be more support for the interaction and exploration pillars that isn't tied to class. Admittedly, casters already have all the non-combat goodies they need in spells, especially those that can be cast as rituals. But, for the few archetypes that can't cast - all, what, 8 of them? - something more would be nice. Maybe tied to Backgrounds. Maybe by introducing some new option or mechanic.

Yeah, there's no need to put all that in a fighter class because it's already there in other places. Backgrounds, skills, ability checks, etc. It's also in the name: "fighter". Seems odd to me that someone would choose a "fighter" class and want it to add more to the other two pillars more than the....er...."fighting" pillar.

I mentioned my halfling fighter earlier with the street urchin background. When not in combat, I role play him exactly like I roleplayed a thief for years, and the mechanics in 5e help support that. That is a huge win in my book.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Not "all the things," no. But prior nonmagical rangers have had the ability to mark targets, to make quick area attacks or extra attacks with their archery, to move undetected through the wilderness, and so forth. Hence my suggestion to specifically take those spells that make sense as nonmagical or pseudo-magical abilities.

Is it exactly the same as an entire non-magical archetype? No, but I feel it's close enough as to make no real difference.

 

[Cernor]

But even then, you actually told me that a ranger without spells, a generalist wizard, a leader, and a non-assassin skill monkeys are niche/specialized . They're not only common literary archetypes but most of them are also common D&D archetypes. You had rangers without spells in 2e and 3e. In 4e, it was the default ranger. And the generalist wizard has been the default at least in BECMI, 2e, 3e, and 4e. That's every edition I played except 5e. In 3e, you had the marshal and in 4e, the warlord was a core class. How are leaders not common? And characters that are good at fighting and good at skills without being backstabbers exist in every fantasy world except D&D.

I have a great solution to your "problem" (quotation marks because it's a ridiculously simple fix). If you want to play a generalist wizard, a spell-less ranger, or a non-assassin-esque rogue... Make a Wizard, Ranger, or Rogue, and don't use the Arcane Tradition features, spells, or sneak attack!

For a wizard, if you're in the School of Enchantment, your only non-active feature is your level 2 one that halves the time and gold cost to copy an Enchantment spell into your spellbook. To make a Generalist, go Enchantment and say that he simply doesn't have a tradition! For a spell-less ranger, simply make a ranger and don't use the spells! There you go, all the fluff of a ranger but with none of the pesky spellcasting that ruins the flavour of your character. For a rogue, seeing as sneak attack is an optional ability when you hit, you can make a non-backstabbing rogue by simply never activating sneak attack. If your DM's feeling nice, they hay even give you other benefits to make up for the fact that you're playing a less effective character than you would be otherwise.