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

[Micah Sweet]

That may be true but "the rules" aren't the sum total of the interaction between characters and the world.

They shouldn't be, but if going beyond them makes things harder for the PCs IME most players will balk. Strenuously.

 

[Stormonu]

eh, it was just an attempt to group things. No need to get into an existential argument over the Warlock. There's plenty of different ways to try to rationalize grouping classes.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I liked that PF 1e went all out on the variety of Druids and Rangers.... Although I always wondered if that would be very limiting for PCs who travelled to different places.

The solution here is to let terrain druids attune to the local area on a long rest.

Rangers should just be good everywhere.

 

[Reynard]

They shouldn't be, but if going beyond them makes things harder for the PCs IME most players will balk. Strenuously.

I don't know how true that is. I have only every encountered a few players that felt like roleplaying limitations were onerous or bad.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't know how true that is. I have only every encountered a few players that felt like roleplaying limitations were onerous or bad.

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Shadowdark and The Monster Overhaul were both purchases that were largely driven by the quality and style of their art, for me. They both happen to be very good, too, of course, but the art is inspiring.

Absolutely makes sense. The art drew me to The One Ring, years ago, and turned me off the new version more recently. Art is one of the most important parts of a product for me.

It was based on the idea that the Warlock's spell comes from a Patron, like a cleric's spells come from a god.

I guess I don’t see that as a thematic element in the game world. I also don’t ever treat anything for the warlock as being granted to them like a cleric, but that’s a whole conversation.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

It’s like drawbacks. They only feel right if they make sense to the player. Otherwise they can easily be nails on a chalkboard.

 

[Reynard]

It’s like drawbacks. They only feel right if they make sense to the player. Otherwise they can easily be nails on a chalkboard.

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

 

[Dyson Logos]

One of my favourite D&D5e campaigns that I've EVER played in had three classes - Fighter, Rogue, Warlock.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know how true that is. I have only every encountered a few players that felt like roleplaying limitations were onerous or bad.

I have seen the opposite. The difference to me is, the player has to decide they want limitations for roleplay, and wants to ignore them if they're cramping their style. Make those restrictions mandatory, even if they might have chosen it, and they will balk. Most warlock and cleric players I've met want their pacts and oaths skin deep at best.