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

[Frozen_Heart]

I do wonder if the 'class groups' idea from 1dnd could be a potential way to bring the 'more classes' and the 'less classes' people together. Currently the two positions seem completely incompatible with each other.

Class groups essentially adds another layer above classes, with shared mechanics between them. And that can be split into classes below that. (and then subclasses).

 

[Hriston]

Not wearing heavy armour seems to me like big part of the imagery of both the ranger and the barbarian. Hell, if was up to me I’d design those classes to function without medium armour either.

I think it depends on what's appropriate for the particular character and the situation. Barbarians I can see as being associated with material cultures that may lack heavy armor. The archetype also heavily emulates berserkers who go into battle unarmored, so there should be a feature that enables that, as there is in 5E. Of course the base fighter would already include options for lightly armored warriors. The woodland warrior, as rangers are frequently imagined, would likely wear light armor.

I think the exclusion, in 5E, of heavy armor from the barbarian and ranger is about pushing those characters towards valuing Dexterity and, for the barbarian, Constitution in order to synergize with other class features. Both archetypes I could see donning heavy armor in the right situation. I think both Conan and Aragorn wore heavy armor when it was feasible. Both archetypes also wield martial weapons which I think suggests inclusion in a common "fighter" class.

 

[Hriston]

Subclasses are a 5E thing, so when discussing subclasses of course we'll discuss 5E's percularities. Likewise if discussing Kits I'd be talking 2E, or Prestige classes would be 3E and 3.5E

Subclasses are also in OD&D and AD&D 1E. In 1E, in which ranger is a subclass of fighter, I believe it has access to all armor.

 

[TwoSix]

I do wonder if the 'class groups' idea from 1dnd could be a potential way to bring the 'more classes' and the 'less classes' people together. Currently the two positions seem completely incompatible with each other.

Class groups essentially adds another layer above classes, with shared mechanics between them. And that can be split into classes below that. (and then subclasses).

Well, "more classes" and "less classes" is probably pretty incompatible, yes.

The question is whether the desires that drive people towards the options can both be satisfied via some hybrid or compromise option.

People who like "more classes" generally like how the specificity and embodied mechanics strengthen the ability to visualize the character and class concept. Mechanically inclined players also generally like the complexity behind making a choice between myriad, constrained options.

People who like "less classes" generally prefer less complex character creation, and also generally prefer to be able to embody distinctions of character within the fiction, rather than by making decisions at a metagame layer. Gamers who prefer mechanical complexity sometimes prefer less classes because each class can then hold a larger amount of bespoke choices within them, but still prevent the complex synergies and "sameyness" that pure point-buy can allow.

Note that a preference for mechanical complexity and orientation towards "more classes" or "less classes" are pretty orthogonal preferences. You can like low complexity and quick character building and still prefer a high number of classes, especially if that high number of classes is one of the few choices and calculations that need to be made at character creation.

 

[Mind of tempest]

To explain my reasoning:

Bards are already a full caster with a history of subclasses that just straight steal capabilities of other casters. So why not just make those classes into bardic subclasses? College of Tomes for a book nerd with a huge spell list, college of ancestors for someone focused on awakening their bloodline, College of Shapes for shapeshifting, College of Nature for primal magic.

Servitors for power is the warlock thing and also what the cleric is. Add a Devotion pact for that situation where you serve your patron because you believe in them. Take that and blade and some sort of save boosters, you get Paladin, Pact bow and a nature patron, and you get a Better Ranger.

Warlord and Fighter. We've already proven you can't just combine them and call it a day. Actually design the fighter to be a fighter in a fantasy world and they can cover everything Monk Barbarian and Ranger do mundanely (hand to hand fighting, brute, archer and TWF) while warlock and bard shoulder the magical stuff.

The Warlord is the Teamwork class, something that's only happened once in the history of the game and never should have gone away.

Rogue is simply the class that deserves to exist the most. They actually use skills and get to be good at them, actually interact with combat, social and the decayed, rotting husk of exploration equally and competently, and get good amounts of attention from development.

Summoner.

Look. It's about time D&D gets a summoner that isn't a sad afterthought that's badly designed and makes the action economy explode. No, pumping out spells that summon monsters isn't enough. You need a class to let you customize and have fun with your summons. This also give you the necromancer people actually want instead of the chump who commands wild skeletons and can cast a hurty spell like everyone else.

In conclusion, delete the Wizard. Good night, and good luck.

making every caster a bard subclass makes it an even worse wizard and the jokes from it will be so horrible I would rather have an Eldrich horror grudge match happen in every area of mid or above-scale habitation as a palet cleanser.

To be honest, designing for "the modern game" is not an argument likely to win me over. Neither is niche protection or brevity in rules or options for its own sake. Put in the options you want, add the rules you need to get the experience you want. Tweak for elegance afterward.

one can't ever have the past back only move forward we just got to make it better than what is behind us.

View attachment 306909

Really, elegance as a design ideal is something that comes from the core/root of the design. But, then again, it's a pretty rarefied, elusive, ideal. It's probably very hard to design in, even if it can be easy to see, or find lacking, in a finished product.

IDK for sure what "modern game" is supposed to mean in reference to D&D. 5e is on par with a run of the mill game from the late 80s, traditional, but polished. 4e might have stood out as innovative in the early 90s. Systems the equal of d20/3.0 were being designed at the end of the 70s or codified as core systems a few years later, 1e was behind the times when its DMG hit the shelves in '79, and D&D basically spun it's wheels for the next 20 years. Nothing about D&D seems modern, to me. D&D shouts "Tradition!" to the heavens.

elegance is a long-term refinement it is better to make it work properly first the first of every breed of thing tends to be odd around the edges.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Well, "more classes" and "less classes" is probably pretty incompatible, yes.

The question is whether the desires that drive people towards the options can both be satisfied via some hybrid or compromise option.

People who like "more classes" generally like how the specificity and embodied mechanics strengthen the ability to visualize the character and class concept. Mechanically inclined players also generally like the complexity behind making a choice between myriad, constrained options.

People who like "less classes" generally prefer less complex character creation, and also generally prefer to be able to embody distinctions of character within the fiction, rather than by making decisions at a metagame layer. Gamers who prefer mechanical complexity sometimes prefer less classes because each class can then hold a larger amount of bespoke choices within them, but still prevent the complex synergies and "sameyness" that pure point-buy can allow.

Note that a preference for mechanical complexity and orientation towards "more classes" or "less classes" are pretty orthogonal preferences. You can like low complexity and quick character building and still prefer a high number of classes, especially if that high number of classes is one of the few choices and calculations that need to be made at character creation.

Surely you could solve that by presenting clear and simple options for the people who want something as streamlined as possible, while providing more complex options and build paths for those wanting complexity?

For example you could have an overarching class group (e.g. warrior) which has a full set of features 1-20 without having to pick a class or subclass. A player can pick that and nothing else, and have something super easy to play.

Meanwhile a different player could pick the 'warrior' class group, and then pick the 'barbarian' class within that, and get a chunk of their 'warrior' features replaced by their 'barbarian' features. And they could play like that if they wanted.

But they if they wanted even more customisation, they could then pick the 'zealot' subclass. And get a further chunk of their 'warrior' features replaced by the 'zealot' subclass features.

Such a system provides different levels of complexity for people who want different things from the game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

making every caster a bard subclass makes it an even worse wizard

good. We need less wizards.

 

[TwoSix]

Surely you could solve that by presenting clear and simple options for the people who want something as streamlined as possible, while providing more complex options and build paths for those wanting complexity?

For example you could have an overarching class group (e.g. warrior) which has a full set of features 1-20 without having to pick a class or subclass. A player can pick that and nothing else, and have something super easy to play.

Meanwhile a different player could pick the 'warrior' class group, and then pick the 'barbarian' class within that, and get a chunk of their 'warrior' features replaced by their 'barbarian' features. And they could play like that if they wanted.

But they if they wanted even more customisation, they could then pick the 'zealot' subclass. And get a further chunk of their 'warrior' features replaced by the 'zealot' subclass features.

Such a system provides different levels of complexity for people who want different things from the game.

It's definitely doable, but making it feel right can be tricky. Ideally, you want to be able present a slimmed-down, easy to navigate core to those who favor simplicity, but make sure that the more complex options offered separately don't trigger any FOMO feelings or cause the simpler characters to feel overshadowed.

Ideally, your player who makes a core fighter and decides to roleplay them as a savage berserker doesn't feel like the existence of an option to sub in some "barbarian" features makes their roleplaying choices invalid. Gamer psychology being a tricky thing, this is easier said than done.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The tricky bit there is to make a "Teamwork" class functional while at the same time not having it become one (or both) of:

a) the Support class, whose primary role is to stand to the side and do nothing but help the other characters shine. Those have never been popular player choices - example: the 1e Cleric or the 3e buff-monkey.

That was problem with the Cleric for decades, yes.
One 4e solved with the Warlord, and also for the Cleric and every other healer (and there was a 'leader for every source).

b) the Tell-People-What-To-Do class, who becomes effective only when the other characters fall into line. Those have never been popular among other characters - example: Paladins (though they're more Tell-People-How-To-Behave) - and only serve to cause in-party fights.

Now, there was a very notorious, initially seemingly unintended Warlord build, that specialized in giving it's actions to other characters, the flavor text of the premier exploit for that build was giving a command, even though the actual mechanic was the Warlord giving his action to an ally, and, ironically, standing to the side and doing nothing but helping the other character shine. Thing is, there were not enough such exploits until a later supplement intentionally added support for the build, so it was under-performing as it would have to take at least powers that didn't work with it's schtick that it would be really bad at. And, you had to very specifically build for that, so, presumably, that's what you were going for (I've done it, with a warlord, and with a Warlord|Shaman and it's more fun than you might think). The other 7 or so official warlord builds were very clearly fighting, themselves, too.

So (b) really only exists if you both don't understand that 'leader' was 4e jargon for 'support/healer,' and that 4e flavor text did not have the force of rules and could be freely changed by the player. (a) has been a very real problem with the Cleric in the past, but was not a problem with any 4e leader, and it is also something people want, and that one very outre Warlord build could be designed to do, as could a Cleric build in both 3.5 and 4e, the "Pacifist"

 

[Mind of tempest]

Well, "more classes" and "less classes" is probably pretty incompatible, yes.

The question is whether the desires that drive people towards the options can both be satisfied via some hybrid or compromise option.

People who like "more classes" generally like how the specificity and embodied mechanics strengthen the ability to visualize the character and class concept. Mechanically inclined players also generally like the complexity behind making a choice between myriad, constrained options.

People who like "less classes" generally prefer less complex character creation, and also generally prefer to be able to embody distinctions of character within the fiction, rather than by making decisions at a metagame layer. Gamers who prefer mechanical complexity sometimes prefer less classes because each class can then hold a larger amount of bespoke choices within them, but still prevent the complex synergies and "sameyness" that pure point-buy can allow.

Note that a preference for mechanical complexity and orientation towards "more classes" or "less classes" are pretty orthogonal preferences. You can like low complexity and quick character building and still prefer a high number of classes, especially if that high number of classes is one of the few choices and calculations that need to be made at character creation.

I find it easier to declare a class being needed when making it a mechanical subclass is either not practical to make into one for mechanical reasoning such as it either not doing its concept well or making the base class broken or when the thematics are too different that a new thing is just needed

Man moves books like no one else and is unquestionably the most well known pop-culture example of "The Dungeons and Dragons class, Ranger". He gave 'wanna-be Aragorn' more of an identity.

Regardless though, the skirmisher who learns about his targets, discovers their weak points and strikes them down, that concept which is absolutely the Ranger isn't one that clanks about in full plate armor

I honestly feel like Ranger is several subclasses bolted together and declared a class it does not flow properly like gnomes its core spark seems opaque.

Inertia.

more a certain degree of utility which is kind of what 4e saw in the part functions.

should a what a paladin is to fight but for the rogue exist assuming it could be made reasonably balanced?

good. We need less wizards.

you would be shuffling around the problem not fixing the problem and you do not want the bard to become the problem child as that would mean people would argue for its removal.