D&D 5E Why the fixation with getting rid of everything but fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard?

[doctorbadwolf]

I think you are right about our fundamentally different baseline. This quote may be the root of our difference.

For me a class is proficiency/speciality and hd.
To me a wizard is crappy hd and spellcasting.
Spells being enough to handle without needing additional abilities. Necromancer is a wizard that usually uses necromancy spells.

What is the point of having the class, then? Especially if there are subclasses, but even if not.

Why have “Wizard” even be a thing?

During character creation, you can choose low HD and spellcasting, moderate HD and extra skills, or high HD and extra weapon and armor proficiencies. There ya go. No need to even have classes. No need to ever worry about multiclassing, you just set up abilities, additional casting levels, HD improvements, new skills, and new proficiencies as things that any character can take.

There’s a chart for casting level, that tells you what spell levels you can cast and how many spells you can cast per day, and every time you choose “Spell Level +1” as your level up benefit, you get an additional caster level.

Why bother with classes?

If you’re going to have classes, they should have an actual identity, and help define who your character is, and have a decent amount of variation within a broad theme.

 

[Wiseblood]

What is the point of having the class, then? Especially if there are subclasses, but even if not.

Why have “Wizard” even be a thing?

During character creation, you can choose low HD and spellcasting, moderate HD and extra skills, or high HD and extra weapon and armor proficiencies. There ya go. No need to even have classes. No need to ever worry about multiclassing, you just set up abilities, additional casting levels, HD improvements, new skills, and new proficiencies as things that any character can take.

There’s a chart for casting level, that tells you what spell levels you can cast and how many spells you can cast per day, and every time you choose “Spell Level +1” as your level up benefit, you get an additional caster level.

Why bother with classes?

If you’re going to have classes, they should have an actual identity, and help define who your character is, and have a decent amount of variation within a broad theme.

I always thought class was shorthand for a suite of abilities. It has come to the point where there are expectations tied to the name of a class.

I agree with your last statement above but you seem to desire codified variation within a broad theme. I would prefer to see the variation in the form of roleplaying and backstory.

Please don't take that to mean that I think you dislike role play. I only think you place higher value than I do on specific mechanics to help define your character concept. I hope that was worded respectfully.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I always thought class was shorthand for a suite of abilities. It has come to the point where there are expectations tied to the name of a class.

There are two ways that you can do a class system. One way is to have very broad classes that cover related concepts with significant room for variation. The other way is to have narrow classes which each cover a fairly specific concept.

The problem with D&D is that it does both. It has the fighter class, which can cover concepts like a wilderness scout with a bow or a knight in shining armor. But it also has the ranger, which is a wilderness scout with a bow; and the paladin, which is a knight in shining armor.

Three or four classes would be sufficient if they were each as broad as the fighter, but insufficient if they were as narrow as the paladin.

 

[BookBarbarian]

There are two ways that you can do a class system. One way is to have very broad classes that cover related concepts with significant room for variation. The other way is to have narrow classes which each cover a fairly specific concept.

The problem with D&D is that it does both. It has the fighter class, which can cover concepts like a wilderness scout with a bow or a knight in shining armor. But it also has the ranger, which is a wilderness scout with a bow; and the paladin, which is a knight in shining armor.

Three or four classes would be sufficient if they were each as broad as the fighter, but insufficient if they were as narrow as the paladin.

This is well said. Not only do I agree with you, I also wouldn't have thought of it if you hadn't brought it up.

Fighter Cavalier shares concept with Fighter Banneret and with Paladin, and Barbarian shares concept with Outlander Fighter which also shares concept with Ranger.

Of course this may very well have been by design to attract players and DMs from those who prefer broad classes and those who prefer narrow ones.

 

[Immoralkickass]

This is well said. Not only do I agree with you, I also wouldn't have thought of it if you hadn't brought it up.

Fighter Cavalier shares concept with Fighter Banneret and with Paladin, and Barbarian shares concept with Outlander Fighter which also shares concept with Ranger.

Of course this may very well have been by design to attract players and DMs from those who prefer broad classes and those who prefer narrow ones.

Yeah, don't deny me the right to choose between Arcana domain Cleric and Theurgy Wizard!

 

[QuietBrowser]

Now, I don't have any particular horses in this race, and I haven't had a chance to read through the thread yet, but here's why I suspect people are arguing for this idea, on the basis of my own opinions:

Firstly, it's a natural extension of 5e's "let's simplify everything" philosophy. I know that the original class-setup was Fighting Man/Magic User/Thief, but Fighter/Healer/Mage/Thief is a strong, archetypical quartet that neatly covers all of the essential roles - that's why 4e came up with the Roles paradigm based on Controller, Defender, Leader and Striker.

Secondly, 5e's strong subclass mechanic has earned a lot of fans, who argue that it can really work to refine broader archetypes. This leads into point #3: many people feel that certain classes just don't have the thematic and/or mechanical "gravitas" to really warrant a seperate existence.

For example, the Ranger; thematically, it's... not exactly great. It's a fighter with a particular adeptness for the wilderness; even its traditional spellcasting was intended to represent less "spells" and more "wilderness lore and herbal abilities", just piggybacking on the spell mechanics. The 5e version also isn't particularly strong, mechanically, to the point that many fans complained about the release of the Scout subclasses for Fighter & Rogue being able to do the Ranger's job far better.

Likewise, the Sorcerer; strong theme as a character "born to magic", but mechanically it's very underwhelming. When a "generalist" wizard subclass can blow you out of the water thematically without even trying, you're clearly not so well designed.

So, some might view that just officially reverting to the four "base classes" and relying on subclasses for further niches is a way to achieve greater mechanical strength.

Personally, I don't buy the argument for condensing. Do I think 5e has actually wrecked a lot of classes that were really strong in 4e? Yes, I do; the ranger and the sorcerer in particular are pathetic by comparison, and I want to rattle some skulls for the loss of the swordmage. I don't think that condensing down to four classes will solve that problem; I'd rather that classes were just built more strongly in general.

I will confess that 5e has my respect for finally doing a strong Arcane Necromancer class, though.

 

[Zardnaar]

Now, I don't have any particular horses in this race, and I haven't had a chance to read through the thread yet, but here's why I suspect people are arguing for this idea, on the basis of my own opinions:

Firstly, it's a natural extension of 5e's "let's simplify everything" philosophy. I know that the original class-setup was Fighting Man/Magic User/Thief, but Fighter/Healer/Mage/Thief is a strong, archetypical quartet that neatly covers all of the essential roles - that's why 4e came up with the Roles paradigm based on Controller, Defender, Leader and Striker.

Secondly, 5e's strong subclass mechanic has earned a lot of fans, who argue that it can really work to refine broader archetypes. This leads into point #3: many people feel that certain classes just don't have the thematic and/or mechanical "gravitas" to really warrant a seperate existence.

For example, the Ranger; thematically, it's... not exactly great. It's a fighter with a particular adeptness for the wilderness; even its traditional spellcasting was intended to represent less "spells" and more "wilderness lore and herbal abilities", just piggybacking on the spell mechanics. The 5e version also isn't particularly strong, mechanically, to the point that many fans complained about the release of the Scout subclasses for Fighter & Rogue being able to do the Ranger's job far better.

Likewise, the Sorcerer; strong theme as a character "born to magic", but mechanically it's very underwhelming. When a "generalist" wizard subclass can blow you out of the water thematically without even trying, you're clearly not so well designed.

So, some might view that just officially reverting to the four "base classes" and relying on subclasses for further niches is a way to achieve greater mechanical strength.

Personally, I don't buy the argument for condensing. Do I think 5e has actually wrecked a lot of classes that were really strong in 4e? Yes, I do; the ranger and the sorcerer in particular are pathetic by comparison, and I want to rattle some skulls for the loss of the swordmage. I don't think that condensing down to four classes will solve that problem; I'd rather that classes were just built more strongly in general.

I will confess that 5e has my respect for finally doing a strong Arcane Necromancer class, though.

Ranger was a bit Op in 4E. The 5E one is fine except for the beast master.

Sorcerer is better than wizard IMHO except perhaps at the highest levels.

 

[Charlaquin]

Personally, I don't buy the argument for condensing. Do I think 5e has actually wrecked a lot of classes that were really strong in 4e? Yes, I do; the ranger and the sorcerer in particular are pathetic by comparison, and I want to rattle some skulls for the loss of the swordmage. I don't think that condensing down to four classes will solve that problem; I'd rather that classes were just built more strongly in general.

4e is an interesting case, because while it had a ton of classes, it avoided what I would consider class bloat by having crystal clear design rationale for every single one of them. They were able to accomplish this because of the Power Source/Role setup - every class was fully justified in having a full class dedicated to it, provided it had a unique combination of Power Source and Role (and in Essentials, secondary Power Source and secondary Role.) My ideal D&D would make Power Source and Role separate choices instead of being packaged together as a Class. However, I recognize that Classes are too much of a sacred cow in D&D, so my more realistic hope for D&D is to have sort of branching class design, where the root Class is a very broad archetype and equating roughly to Power Source (Warrior, Mage, maybe Mystic, maybe Expert), subclasses being more specific expressions of those broad archetypes and roughly equating to Role (Warrior - Knight, Skirmisher, Archer, etc. Mage - Scholar, Savant, Witch, etc. Mystic - Priest, Shaman, Spiritualist, etc. Expert - Criminal, Scout, Loremaster, etc.) and secondary sources and roles coming from specific build choices.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I mean, no where did I imply that Warlocks aren’t sometimes tricksters. I pointed out that it isn’t something so ingrained in warlocks that every warlock will be a trickster.

Holy moving the goal posts, Batman. I could play a variant human fighter who never ever uses a weapon, just eldritch blasts all day. Does that corner case mean that the Warrior was a bad overclass?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

4e is an interesting case, because while it had a ton of classes, it avoided what I would consider class bloat by having crystal clear design rationale for every single one of them. They were able to accomplish this because of the Power Source/Role setup - every class was fully justified in having a full class dedicated to it, provided it had a unique combination of Power Source and Role (and in Essentials, secondary Power Source and secondary Role.) My ideal D&D would make Power Source and Role separate choices instead of being packaged together as a Class. However, I recognize that Classes are too much of a sacred cow in D&D, so my more realistic hope for D&D is to have sort of branching class design, where the root Class is a very broad archetype and equating roughly to Power Source (Warrior, Mage, maybe Mystic, maybe Expert), subclasses being more specific expressions of those broad archetypes and roughly equating to Role (Warrior - Knight, Skirmisher, Archer, etc. Mage - Scholar, Savant, Witch, etc. Mystic - Priest, Shaman, Spiritualist, etc. Expert - Criminal, Scout, Loremaster, etc.) and secondary sources and roles coming from specific build choices.

Query, if you don’t mind. How much of that would be level 1 choices? Would you have t wait several levels to realize a specific concept like a shadow monk or an acrobatic staff fighting thief, or a warlock with a Fey patron and a pseudo dragon familiar, or would those all be level 1 choices? Or more like 4e and 5e where you get all your main stuff within the first few levels?
Or would it be like Star Wars Saga or 3e where you have to wait several levels before you’re most than just a generic fighter or “mage”? Also, would there be room for some magic users having markedly different ways of doing magic, or would they all be flavors of wizard?

Holy moving the goal posts, Batman. I could play a variant human fighter who never ever uses a weapon, just eldritch blasts all day. Does that corner case mean that the Warrior was a bad overclass?

I’m confused as to what relationship this has with anything I’ve said.