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

[Crimson Longinus]

Barbarian of course could be a subclass of the fighter, and in a game with significantly fewer classes it should be. But in current style where there are crazy number of caster classes I really wouldn't want to get rid of one of the few martial ones. And also I think the distinction between a skilled warrior relying on state of the art military equipment (such as plate armour) and a primal one that relies on fury and perhaps the aid of the spirits seems like rather good way to make the split.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Someone upthread asked why I dislike subclasses so much, and it is because subclasses give the illusion of customization without actually providing it. You are just delaying the point you are locked in to someone else's character concept.

Ultimately a class based system's point is that your are choosing among readymade archetypes. Granted, mechanically characters could still be more customisable. I think totem barbarian is one of the best subclasses in the game. It has clear thematic focus, but mechanically on every time you gain new spirit power, you actually get to choose which spirit and thus which power you want. I think all subclasses should be built this way, and if they were, we would need less of them.

 

[Reynard]

Ultimately a class based system's point is that your are choosing among readymade archetypes. Granted, mechanically characters could still be more customisable. I think totem barbarian is one of the best subclasses in the game. It has clear thematic focus, but mechanically on every time you gain new spirit power, you actually get to choose which spirit and thus which power you want. I think all subclasses should be built this way, and if they were, we would need less of them.

I think the Warlock is a good model for most classes from a customization standpoint. There are lots of decision points throughout the life of the character.

But again that's a bandaid that is better solved with a core system with more flexibility built in for everyone.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But again that's a bandaid that is better solved with a core system with more flexibility built in for everyone.

It's not, you just don't like the premise of a class based system. But the whole point is to give players big thematic concepts to choose from. There are plenty of games with freeform character creation, but D&D will never be one of them.

 

[Reynard]

It's not, you just don't like the premise of a class based system.

Please don't tell me what i think. I like the premise of a flexible class based system, which i have stated repeatedly.

But the whole point is to give players big thematic concepts to choose from. There are plenty of games with freeform character creation, but D&D will never be one of them.

There is a gulf between 5e's rigid class design and point buy. The flexibility of Pathfinder is perfectly possible in 5E, for example.

 

[TwoSix]

That's five drinks @Reynard.

I'm allowed, it's kinda my thing now!

 

[CreamCloud0]

as i stated earlier in the thread, i think the mechanics/themes of the barbarian could easily be redistributed amongst the fighter, druid and monk, also a 'magic rage' piece can go to the sorcerer, a barbarian background or two would also be workable.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Someone upthread asked why I dislike subclasses so much, and it is because subclasses give the illusion of customization without actually providing it. You are just delaying the point you are locked in to someone else's character concept.

I heavily dislike how the subclass system is implemented for the same reasons. You worded it perfectly about how it provides an illusion of content without providing it.

The result has been that 5e is suffering from options bloat just like earlier editions, while at the same time is heavily lacking in any actual options.

 

[Hriston]

Trying to make all armed combatants one class hasn't been a thing since the thief was added to OD&D,

You left out "specialist". By "armed combat specialist" (not just "armed combatant"), I mean one who specializes in employing arms and armor to resolve conflicts. That's never been the thief's focus. As introduced in OD&D, the thief's combat capability is minimal, consisting of little more than the niche ability to backstab.

and several more have been split out since (barbarian, monk, paladin, ranger) and that still leaves the fighter overloaded in 5e. IMO.

The monk is explicitly not an "armed combat specialist" but is rather an unarmed combat specialist.

The barbarian, ranger, and paladin, on the other hand, were introduced as subclasses of the fighter and share its fully combat capable niche. That they retain that part of the fighter's identity indicates to me the subclass designation remains valid.

 

[Hriston]

“Armed combat specialist” is a class concept!?

How? What is the actual concept? How is it distinct from any other weapon using class? Thematically, the fighter is a class group, at best. It’s the kernel of a concept that is shared by…most classes.

No, most classes don’t have the martial weapons, variety in choice of armor, and armed combat capabilities that define the fighter. Those that do (typically barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger) are part of the “fighter core class”. I'm not sure what you mean by other weapon-using classes, I suppose you mean thief/rogue? They don’t generally have martial weapons and have a low level of raw combat capability comparable to the magic-user in early editions. They have a highly circumstantial strike ability. That’s it.