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

[Stormonu]

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

It is annoying this is generally lacking in 5E, not just for paladins but for clerics (including druids) as well. I think pacts could also benefit from stipulations in creating more roleplaying opportunities and giving unique character to the classes.

I suspect it would have a lot more attraction if there was more carrot that stick (say, invoking them gives you Inspiration or the like), but the constant erosion of drawbacks in the game sometimes annoys me. I have seen, and myself been guilty of approving of drawbacks when making a character, but then grumbling/grinding teeth when they end up coming up in play (at the worst possible moment).

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

but they're not comparable, yes, the paladin is a holy knight, but the point of a paladin is they're a champion of a cause, they fight and are good at fighting but fighting isn't the point of a paladin, the barbarian is a brute they rely on pure strength and primal instincts to outlast and overwhelm their opponents, the ranger is a survivalist and tracker and expert of their chosen terrain and foes but relys on stealth and tricks and exploiting advantages rather than direct combat.

the entire existence of fighter revolves around battle, in a way above and beyond the others, master of a thousand weapons, a historian of all the great generals and wars, student of any fighting style that they come across, directing the strategy and tactics of their troops like a maestro of an orchestra conducts their musicians.

a fighter is not merely 'someone who fights.'

 

[Tony Vargas]

the entire existence of fighter revolves around battle, in a way above and beyond the others, master of a thousand weapons, a historian of all the great generals and wars, student of any fighting style that they come across, directing the strategy and tactics of their troops like a maestro of an orchestra conducts their musicians.

a fighter is not merely 'someone who fights.'

And when has the D&D fighter lived up to all of that? There aren't 1k of weapons to master in D&D, at all. Fighting styles? 5e has 6, some sub classes let you take a 2nd; weapon masteries promise to be similarly meager. history/strategy/tactics? the 4e Warlord could be exceptional at that (actually having a use for INT, even), not the fighter. D&D has often talked up the fighter more than it's been willing to put up fighter class abilities.

The fighter has always fallen far short, in D&D.

 

[CreamCloud0]

And when has the D&D fighter lived up to all of that? There aren't 1k of weapons to master in D&D, at all. Fighting styles? 5e has 6, some sub classes let you take a 2nd; weapon masteries promise to be similarly meager. history/strategy/tactics? the 4e Warlord could be exceptional at that (actually having a use for INT, even), not the fighter. D&D has often talked up the fighter more than it's been willing to put up fighter class abilities.

The fighter has always fallen far short, in D&D.

see my previous comment

i was talking on a thematic level rather than actual mechanical execution

 

[doctorbadwolf]

but they're not comparable, yes, the paladin is a holy knight, but the point of a paladin is they're a champion of a cause, they fight and are good at fighting but fighting isn't the point of a paladin, the barbarian is a brute they rely on pure strength and primal instincts to outlast and overwhelm their opponents, the ranger is a survivalist and tracker and expert of their chosen terrain and foes but relys on stealth and tricks and exploiting advantages rather than direct combat.

And they all get extra attack, all weapons, and most get fighting styles, and thier descriptions and tropes make them warriors, experts in combat.

Maybe you have a very different definition of comparable, but two warriors trained in basically any weapon, both specialized in a style of fighting…they’re comparable.

Like, a very solid pro hockey player who is in the hall of fame is comparable to Gretzsky. Like if you’re talking skill level, you’re the only one doing so, and that’s the only context I can see claiming that Paladin isn’t comparable to fighter as a weapons specialist.

The fighter isn’t doing a whole different type of thing. They’re just getting thier secondary bit from subclass rather than as part of the class, with a more thematically blank core.

the entire existence of fighter revolves around battle, in a way above and beyond the others, master of a thousand weapons, a historian of all the great generals and wars, student of any fighting style that they come across, directing the strategy and tactics of their troops like a maestro of an orchestra conducts their musicians.

None of that is supported by the actual class, my dude. Not even thematically.

a fighter is not merely 'someone who fights.'

Who said they are?

What argument do you think is happening here?

 

[CreamCloud0]

And they all get extra attack, all weapons, and most get fighting styles, and thier descriptions and tropes make them warriors, experts in combat.

Maybe you have a very different definition of comparable, but two warriors trained in basically any weapon, both specialized in a style of fighting…they’re comparable.

Like, a very solid pro hockey player who is in the hall of fame is comparable to Gretzsky. Like if you’re talking skill level, you’re the only one doing so, and that’s the only context I can see claiming that Paladin isn’t comparable to fighter as a weapons specialist.

The fighter isn’t doing a whole different type of thing. They’re just getting thier secondary bit from subclass rather than as part of the class, with a more thematically blank core.


None of that is supported by the actual class, my dude. Not even thematically.

once again, i am stating this is THE PREMISE of the fighter not THE EXECUTION and considering the following is part of the fighter's class description i am very much in question about 'not even thematically'

as fighters, they all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat. And they are well acquainted with death, both meting it out and staring it defiantly in the face.

Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles. Every fighter can swing an axe, fence with a rapier, wield a longsword or a greatsword, use a bow, and even trap foes in a net with some degree of skill. Likewise, a fighter is adept with shields and every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each fighter specializes in a certain style of combat. Some concentrate on archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad general ability and extensive specialization makes fighters superior combatants on battlefields and in dungeons alike.

---

Who said they are?

What argument do you think is happening here?

i am saying that classes like paladin, ranger and barbarian are classes of 'someone who fights', i am saying that for fighters fighting is a way of being, the argument i think is happening is that you are focusing too much on the mechanical capabilities of the fighter being so similar in comparison to the mechanical capabilities of other classes rather than the conceptual essence of the fighter where they should be far superior at combat.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I would generally agree with that. If a game has a lot of specific classes, I think they should be more strictly diegetic and less reskinnable. (Although I think my reasoning there is backwards; I'd say that IF a game is going to feature strongly diegetic classes, THEN there should be a lot of them to make them specific to the setting.)

I think where D&D has gone wrong over time is that it's bound by tradition to include nondiegetic classes like Fighter and Rogue, which including more and more strongly diegetic classes like Druids and Paladins.

Either have a few generic, reskinnable, strongly moddable classes, or have a lot of diegetic, specific classes; don't have both in the same system.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Either have a few generic, reskinnable, strongly moddable classes, or have a lot of diegetic, specific classes; don't have both in the same system.

If you really wanted both in the same system, you could have generic/customizable classes, and specific 3e style prestige classes representing in-world orders, positions, etc. Or, the division could be generic classes/in-world sub-classes. Or whatever.
The nice thing about that would be you could have a clear dividing line between purely player-resource options (generic classes), and options the DM could include, or not, to define the setting/campaign as desired.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I would generally agree with that. If a game has a lot of specific classes, I think they should be more strictly diegetic and less reskinnable. (Although I think my reasoning there is backwards; I'd say that IF a game is going to feature strongly diegetic classes, THEN there should be a lot of them to make them specific to the setting.)

I think where D&D has gone wrong over time is that it's bound by tradition to include nondiegetic classes like Fighter and Rogue, which including more and more strongly diegetic classes like Druids and Paladins.

Either have a few generic, reskinnable, strongly moddable classes, or have a lot of diegetic, specific classes; don't have both in the same system.

You can have both - but the class descriptions need to also spell it out. A paladin isn't just a guy who fights and casts some spells - they're a very specific kind of character both narratively and diagetically. People in Faerun knw what a paladin is (or at least think they do.)

The generic classes are a catch-all for valid concepts that don't yet have a specific class or are too narrow/uncommon/whatever to get one, like a rogue is a catch-all for "good at stuff expressed through the skill system" rather than an in-universe idea (although the word rogue exists it doesn't have a distinct diegetic meaning). They're the backup customize-you-own-class option.

 

[jmartkdr2]

once again, i am stating this is THE PREMISE of the fighter not THE EXECUTION and considering the following is part of the fighter's class description i am very much in question about 'not even thematically'

---

i am saying that classes like paladin, ranger and barbarian are classes of 'someone who fights', i am saying that for fighters fighting is a way of being, the argument i think is happening is that you are focusing too much on the mechanical capabilities of the fighter being so similar in comparison to the mechanical capabilities of other classes rather than the conceptual essence of the fighter where they should be far superior at combat.

Are you proposing that fighters should be superlative warriors beyond even other classes, or that they are, despite the massive ludonarrative dissonance that statement creates?