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

[Reynard]

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.

You could reflavor any class as anything. I could play a cleric, but call it a "white mage" or whatever and it would make no difference, mechanically. And that is fine, but it is also why I think it is better to have a few classes with a lot of customization options than to try and come up with classes like Paladin that are at once very specific archetypes but also must be free of being constrained to said archetype. A player that wants to play a paladin but doesn't want to have a vow or other paladin flavor just wants a smite ability. Let them buy it for their fighter.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

If the limitations of the oath make sense to the player, sure.

Though having one class that works that way amongst a dozen classes that don’t is bad design IMO.

And happily, the Paladin doesn’t work that way. Easy as that!

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.

“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.

Now, boosting the “epic mundane” stuff like has been discussed so much lately gives the class more identity IMO, but it’s still a class that gets by far most of its flavor from the subclass, but most of its power from the fairly flavorless base class features.

So if I were on a team restructuring classes, I’d split fighter up before I’d put any existing class inside the fighter’s umbrella. Give Ranger and Barbarian Second Wind, give Rogue and Monk Action Surge, make additional extra attacks a level 10+ feat that requires Extra Attack, give Indomitable to Paladin, and off the top of my head I can’t think anything else unique to the fighter base class.

That, or make those core features work like expertise and be available to several classes not just one or two, and split the mundane fighter into Knight, Duelist, and Archer, put brute type subclasses in Barbarian, share space between the fighter classes and the Monk who is acts a lot like a mystical, but not necessarily magical as such, warrior, and make limited forms of those core “warrior” abilities available as feats.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You could reflavor any class as anything. I could play a cleric, but call it a "white mage" or whatever and it would make no difference, mechanically. And that is fine, but it is also why I think it is better to have a few classes with a lot of customization options than to try and come up with classes like Paladin that are at once very specific archetypes but also must be free of being constrained to said archetype. A player that wants to play a paladin but doesn't want to have a vow or other paladin flavor just wants a smite ability. Let them buy it for their fighter.

That’s not generally true, though. There is a lot more to the Paladin that smite and oath.

I’ve got players whose Paladins only use Smite when they really feel like it’s necessary or narratively juicy, and don’t honk about the path all that much. They’re playing Paladins because they want to play The Holy Knight, or The Green Knight, or The Black Knight, and Paladin does those exceptionally well

 

[Reynard]

That’s not generally true, though. There is a lot more to the Paladin that smite and oath.

I’ve got players whose Paladins only use Smite when they really feel like it’s necessary or narratively juicy, and don’t honk about the path all that much. They’re playing Paladins because they want to play The Holy Knight, or The Green Knight, or The Black Knight, and Paladin does those exceptionally well

If you say so.

It was just an example. My point is mostly that "flavorful" classes are kind of pointless when players reject the flavor. But if you build broad classes with lots of options, where you can build a master swordsman, a paladin, a barbarian or a monk all from the same chassis, then the flavor is automatically up to the player. Of course you can have "builds" that give examples of "talent tree" choices that let players make some of the more common themes.

 

[CreamCloud0]

“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.

Fighter 'armed combat specialist' is distinct from other classes who use weapons in the same way that an olympic level distance runner is distinct from someone who regularly does the local fun-run marathon.

edit: i think we need so go back to some older design where the fighter is the only class who has full martial weapon mastery and other classes only have a specific subset of thematically apropriate proficiencies, like the cleric only having bludgeoning weapons, a barbarian having big brutish weapons like battleaxes and greatswords.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

edit: i think we need so go back to some older design where the fighter is the only class who has full martial weapon mastery and other classes only have a specific subset of thematically apropriate proficiencies, like the cleric only having bludgeoning weapons, a barbarian having big brutish weapons like battleaxes and greatswords.

I actually disagree here. I think that there being multiple ways to build a single character is a good thing, and it means that if a player wants to build along a theme but hates a particular class, they have other options. Classes being really broad is something I love about 5e.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I actually disagree here. I think that there being multiple ways to build a single character is a good thing, and it means that if a player wants to build along a theme but hates a particular class, they have other options. Classes being really broad is something I love about 5e.

that's fair, i realise it's not a design choice to everyone's tastes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Fighter 'armed combat specialist' is distinct from other classes who use weapons in the same way that an olympic level distance runner is distinct from someone who regularly does the local fun-run marathon.

We must be playing different games. The fighter is at best a little better with weapons than any other warrior.

If the fighter is the Olympian, then the comparison is to a collegiate star athlete. Both are competitive runners, not someone who runs sometimes.

But the fighter isn’t a Runner. They’re a “fit athlete” in a game with classes that are as specific as Runner.

If you say so.

It was just an example. My point is mostly that "flavorful" classes are kind of pointless when players reject the flavor. But if you build broad classes with lots of options, where you can build a master swordsman, a paladin, a barbarian or a monk all from the same chassis, then the flavor is automatically up to the player. Of course you can have "builds" that give examples of "talent tree" choices that let players make some of the more common themes.

I agree with most of this. It’s just the first point I completely disagree with. The Warlock class has just as much mechanical distinction as thematic. If someone wants to play a Mage, but the Wizard just doesn’t feel like what they want from a Mage, and Tome Warlock does, I’m gonna let them use Int and flavor the abilities however they want, ya know? Why not?

 

[CreamCloud0]

We must be playing different games. The fighter is at best a little better with weapons than any other warrior.

If the fighter is the Olympian, then the comparison is to a collegiate star athlete. Both are competitive runners, not someone who runs sometimes.

But the fighter isn’t a Runner. They’re a “fit athlete” in a game with classes that are as specific as Runner.

i was talking on a thematic level rather than actual mechanical execution, you asked how 'specialising in armed combat' was it's own class concept and how it differs from the other classes who also use martial weapons and i was trying to emphasise how the fighter archetype is on their own level of mastery when it comes to martial combat.

the other classes have their own specialties in the world and are 'competent' in combat, the druid knows nature, the bard is a charismatic performer, the rogue knows stealth but the fighter's specialty IS combat, they're the master of arms, the military general, the battle strategist.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

i was talking on a thematic level rather than actual mechanical execution, you asked how 'specialising in armed combat' was it's own class concept and how it differs from the other classes who also use martial weapons and i was trying to emphasise how the fighter archetype is on their own level of mastery when it comes to martial combat.

the other classes have their own specialties in the world and are 'competent' in combat, the druid knows nature, the bard is a charismatic performer, the rogue knows stealth but the fighter's specialty IS combat, they're the master of arms, the military general, the battle strategist.

Okay but thematically I don’t think it holds up. The Paladin, the holy knight, is absolutely comparable to the fighter in weapon mastery. The Barbarian depends on the subclass and the specific character concept. Rangers are right behind Paladins.

Like I’m all for just adding more flavor to the fighter with stuff like just being harder to make spells stick to, and being able to deflect spells with a weapon, not bc they are doing a magical defense trick but just through a level of armed skill that others can’t match. I just don’t honk the fighter actually meets that in flavor text or mechanics.

And again, the thing I brought up the fighters lacking identity for was talking about whether classes should get put under the fighter umbrella as subclasses, and my response was that it would be better to go the other way. I stand by that, not least of which because the fighter is much more bland than the other classes.