D&D General Which of these should be core classes for D&D?

[Micah Sweet]

It seems simple: if you don't want to adhere to a vow, for example, don't play a paladin.

A good idea, except vows have no teeth in 5e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the majority of players are quite alright with the concept of roleplaying limitations in general, but when you start imposing specifics you often get resistence.

My personal solution is to let players pick their own limitations - if they're playing in good faith they'll pick reasonable ones that they'll have fun with.

IME if the player finds themselves in a situation where they are worse off abiding by restrictions, and they aren't required to do so, most simply won't, and the other players who might suffer if those restrictions are kept will be fine with that.

This is why themed mechanical packages where the theme is voluntary are so difficult to implement. The temptation to go off theme is very strong, because there will always be something you want to do but can't because of a voluntary restriction you could ignore at any time, with no mechanical consequence.

 

[Hriston]

Better to cannibalize the fighter for the benefit of actual class concepts like Paladin, Ranger, Monk, and new focused class options with some degree of identity.

I get the preference for more focused designs but disagree with the implication that the fighter is not an actual class concept and has no degree of identity. I think armed combat specialist is a fine concept and identity for a character.

 

[jmartkdr2]

It seems simple: if you don't want to adhere to a vow, for example, don't play a paladin.

What if I want to adhere to a slightly different vow than the ones the designers came up with? What if the terms of the vow are vague and I don't know how to adhere to them because the dm will make up an answer on the spot after I've chosen? What if the vow doesn't make sense for the character I want to play, even though they're obviously a paladin? What if I want to play Sir Bors, who isn't available as an option in DnD because none of the vows fit him?

All of these questions could be easily answered by "well then, customize the vow."

 

[jmartkdr2]

I get the preference for more focused designs but disagree with the implication that the fighter is not an actual class concept and has no degree of identity. I think armed combat specialist is a fine concept and identity for a character.

I disagree in that I find it's not specific enough to be a class concept. I myself think it needs to be split into at least two classes (broadly competent warrior and weapon specialist) but could easily think of several more (swordmage, many kinds of specialist fighters) that could support their own full class.

Trying to make all armed combatants one class hasn't been a thing since the thief was added to OD&D, and several more have been split out since (barbarian, monk, paladin, ranger) and that still leaves the fighter overloaded in 5e. IMO.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I disagree in that I find it's not specific enough to be a class concept. I myself think it needs to be split into at least two classes (broadly competent warrior and weapon specialist) but could easily think of several more (swordmage, many kinds of specialist fighters) that could support their own full class.

Trying to make all armed combatants one class hasn't been a thing since the thief was added to OD&D, and several more have been split out since (barbarian, monk, paladin, ranger) and that still leaves the fighter overloaded in 5e. IMO.

I think having each figthing style be its own class could be cool.

Or at least:

• Defender (knight, swordmage, spear marshal, duelist)
• Archer (avalanche hurler, peerless archer, zen archery)
• Slayer (tempest, juggernaut)

 

[CreamCloud0]

I disagree in that I find it's not specific enough to be a class concept. I myself think it needs to be split into at least two classes (broadly competent warrior and weapon specialist) but could easily think of several more (swordmage, many kinds of specialist fighters) that could support their own full class.

Trying to make all armed combatants one class hasn't been a thing since the thief was added to OD&D, and several more have been split out since (barbarian, monk, paladin, ranger) and that still leaves the fighter overloaded in 5e. IMO.

I think having each figthing style be its own class could be cool.

Or at least:

• Defender (knight, swordmage, spear marshal, duelist)
• Archer (avalanche hurler, peerless archer, zen archery)
• Slayer (tempest, juggernaut)

i could vibe with splitting the fighter into a martial version and a half-caster 'magic' fighter,

the martial fighter's subclasses are all specialised into various fighting styles: this is the subclass for defending, this is the subclass for archery, this is the subclass for high damage

the magic fighter actually has very few spells, maybe a few relevant ones but mostly they spend their slots to power a list of inherent subclass abilities, in the same way a paladin burns slots to divine smite.

 

[Reynard]

What if I want to adhere to a slightly different vow than the ones the designers came up with? What if the terms of the vow are vague and I don't know how to adhere to them because the dm will make up an answer on the spot after I've chosen? What if the vow doesn't make sense for the character I want to play, even though they're obviously a paladin? What if I want to play Sir Bors, who isn't available as an option in DnD because none of the vows fit him?

All of these questions could be easily answered by "well then, customize the vow."

I am not sure what you are arguing with me about here. I did not say anything about having to choose the vows in the PHB or not being able to make up the vows. I said, if you don't want to have to adhere to a vow AT ALL, don't play a class that requires it.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think having each figthing style be its own class could be cool.

Or at least:

• Defender (knight, swordmage, spear marshal, duelist)
• Archer (avalanche hurler, peerless archer, zen archery)
• Slayer (tempest, juggernaut)

My Unlikely To Happen Heartbreaker (Oct 2023 Edition) splits martials thusly:

Specialist martials for specific styles: including berserker (big weapons), assassin (daggers), swashbuckler (rapiers), cavalier (knight in shining armor), archer (bows) and more as I think of them. Each is custom built to really express the tropes of the style, but not designed to work outside of their style.

General martials in three classes: fighter (broadly competent warrior who's good with all weapons and has plenty of skills), weapon master (pick one weapon and be superhuman with it), and rogue (who's frankly not great in a fight but is very good at a lot of skills and has ways to exploit them in combat) Swordmage falls under my caster categories.

But I'm very much in the "more classes that do one thing well" camp and not in the "a few classes that are highly customizable" camp.

 

[Amrûnril]

It seems simple: if you don't want to adhere to a vow, for example, don't play a paladin.

Roleplaying limitations can add add a lot to the game, and suggested limitations can be a good source of character building inspiration. However, I strongly disagree with the philosophy that a given set of abilities must always be tied to a specific type of narrative constraint. Players who want narrative constraints on their abilities shouldn't be pigeonholed into playing Clerics, Paladins and Warlocks, and players who want their abilities to be independent of pre-set narrative constraints shouldn't have to rule out these classes.

There are an essentially infinite number of narratives that can be tied to the Paladin's abilities. Those focused on oaths are a great starting point, but treating them as the only valid narratives means closing off a vast array of compelling possibilities.