D&D General What kind of class design do you prefer?

[Minigiant]

With this talk of too many casters, I still think the martial power source is too unnaturally crowded. It could be split.

Martial: Power through knowledge of weapons, armors, and the art of war.

• Fighters
• Warlords
• Cavaliers
• Warriors

Athletic: Power from raw strength, speed, and toughness enhanced by inner energies

• Barbarians
• Monks
• Thief-Acrobats
• Brutes

Adroit: Power through real world knowledge, skill, and social connections.

• Rogues
• Rangers
• Assassins
• Experts

Science: Power through natural science and combination of science with magic.

• Artificers
• Alchemists
• Tinkers
• Gunslingers
• Smiths

Italics for NPC and sidekick classes.

Because really. Are the Fighter and Barbarian the same power source? Isn't the barbarian a dude with basic weapons training who relies in their super strength, iron skin, and a power up to fight over deep martial training?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Nope. Not enough martial classes either.

According to the poll majority of people disagree with you.

 

[Aldarc]

Aren't there already more than enough caster classes?

But are there more because the current ones aren't built robustly enough to handle multiple archetypes?

According to the poll majority of people disagree with you.

So what? If the majority of people disagreed with you about the value of alignment in a poll, would you shut up about it and be silent in your disagreement? Or would you keep trucking and say, "Nope. Toss it"?

The poll only provides me with two options, and not a lot nuance or room for explanation. I've said before, for example, that I'm in favor of either a small number of classes (i.e., 3-4) with a lot of customization options from them or a larger amount of classes. I'm fine with either, but I find that 5e tries to do both. The poll also excludes configurations like Shadow of the Demon Lord.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I think keeping the Wizard class would work if more mechanical weight was redirected to the subclasses. Do it similar to the Cleric's domains where part of their know-spells list is determined by their chosen school. They can still have their "copy spells into spellbook" gimmick, but reducing their number of chosen known spells would make that feature more than a ribbon (and a handy goldsink for characters that normally have absolutely nothing to spend their gold on).

 

[Vaalingrade]

According to the poll majority of people disagree with you.

I'm not seeing the part where I care about that.

 

[Lanefan]

But are there more because the current ones aren't built robustly enough to handle multiple archetypes?

Maybe, but I also wonder if the designers are over-responding to - for lack of a better way to put it - demands from players that archetypes be reflected mechanically rather than just by colour.

By this I mean instead of having just a Wizard, out of which players can make any sub-archetype they choose simply via spell choice and fluff, there instead become separate class mechanics for Fire Wizard, Summoner Wizard, Transport Wizard, Illusion Wizard, and so forth down the line. That way lies bloat, over-complexity, and various other things under which - as history shows - editions eventually sink.

The only mechanical distinction that really needs separate classes to cover is whether the spells are book-learned (Wizard) or spontaneous (Sorcerer). After that, one can argue (and I would, but not strenuously and only to a point) that anything else is superfluous.

 

[payn]

Maybe, but I also wonder if the designers are over-responding to - for lack of a better way to put it - demands from players that archetypes be reflected mechanically rather than just by colour.

By this I mean instead of having just a Wizard, out of which players can make any sub-archetype they choose simply via spell choice and fluff, there instead become separate class mechanics for Fire Wizard, Summoner Wizard, Transport Wizard, Illusion Wizard, and so forth down the line. That way lies bloat, over-complexity, and various other things under which - as history shows - editions eventually sink.

The only mechanical distinction that really needs separate classes to cover is whether the spells are book-learned (Wizard) or spontaneous (Sorcerer). After that, one can argue (and I would, but not strenuously and only to a point) that anything else is superfluous.

As a big fan of archetypes, I can get behind this. Bake it into the design so they are easy to add going forward and the need for a myriad of class structures dies off.

 

[TwoSix]

By this I mean instead of having just a Wizard, out of which players can make any sub-archetype they choose simply via spell choice and fluff, there instead become separate class mechanics for Fire Wizard, Summoner Wizard, Transport Wizard, Illusion Wizard, and so forth down the line. That way lies bloat, over-complexity, and various other things under which - as history shows - editions eventually sink.

True, but some enforcement of trope needs to happen at the mechanical level to have any staying power.

There's a big difference between a Wizard who only selects blasty Evocation spells to prepare and a dedicated Warmage class that ONLY has blasty Evocation spells on their spell list. The latter can have a bunch of additional bespoke abilities because the class doesn't the bulk of its power budgeted to spell versatility it isn't actually using.

That's my general problem with broadly versatile casters; there's a broad demand to play themed casters (pyromancers, necromancers, enchanters, etc) that aren't nearly as versatile, but the class has to be balanced with the assumption that the character is the classic "answer for everything" wizard.

Playing a wizard but only picking fire spells for "flavor" is even less appetizing than playing a race with no adjustment to the primary stat of its class.

 

[Vaalingrade]

By this I mean instead of having just a Wizard, out of which players can make any sub-archetype they choose simply via spell choice and fluff, there instead become separate class mechanics for Fire Wizard, Summoner Wizard, Transport Wizard, Illusion Wizard, and so forth down the line. That way lies bloat, over-complexity, and various other things under which - as history shows - editions eventually sink.

The problem with this approach is your best option is to go all in with a robust spell list that makes designing a full character around the theme using the spells granted the class and... they don't do that. Instead, you sometimes get on on-brand spell in a level (and rarely do you get a themed cantrip) and the spell list STILL dwarfs everything else in the PH and highlights how non-casters just don't get much design love.

 

[Undrave]

According to the poll majority of people disagree with you.

The poll only provides me with two options, and not a lot nuance or room for explanation. I've said before, for example, that I'm in favor of either a small number of classes (i.e., 3-4) with a lot of customization options from them or a larger amount of classes. I'm fine with either, but I find that 5e tries to do both. The poll also excludes configurations like Shadow of the Demon Lord.

It's a simplistic poll I created to stimulate conversations (which it succeeded at, since we're over the 200 replies mark), but a scientific survey. The lack of nuances is an invitation to discussion and I don't think it's results should be taken as gospel. Especially since ENworld is just a minority of the wider community.