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

[RangerWickett]

You just need three classes: the Strong Guy, the Fat Guy, and the Genius. There's nothing they can't break or eat or know. Nobody knows where they came from, and nobody knows just where they will go.

 

[Leatherhead]

I, for one, am very annoyed by the fact that every time there is something cool that Fighters could potentially do, it gets split off into it's own class.

And I blame the existence of Thieves (later Rogues) for it.

 

[Horwath]

I like the 3 class solution.

Warrior, Mage, Rogue,

Everything else can be from subclasses and/or feats.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not a fan of the Fighter/Thief/Cleric/Wizard combo, as I prefer the reduced Power Trio that has arguably become more iconic to the RPG industry as a whole: Mage, Rogue, and Warrior.

The cleric, for me at least, is the oddball as I don't particularly buy into that whole divine vs. arcane shtick. Magic is magic. And if a mage wants to heal, then that should be part of their magical abilities. Want to be a healing cleric? Then just pick the mage and focus on healing. Want to be a paladin? Then just be a Warrior. Want your paladin to have spells? Then hybridize your Warrior-Mage and focus on healing and/or other magic that could be construed as "holy." Take an appropriate background that reinforces that you are a priest, a warrior-monk, or a holy snowflake.

And even though I enjoy D&D for what it is, I often find myself repeatedly gravitating towards fantasy RPG systems that follow a similar aesthetic or sensibility.

 

[Zardnaar]

Might be an OSR thing, a few of us went there during the dark days pre 2014. 5E still has 30+ archtypes you don't really need more than 3 or 4 classes really, and even a dozen is a lot.

 

[Eubani]

Some people just need a time machine not a change in mechanics.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean this idea keeps resurfacing over and over. It seems a sizable portion players just plain want to fold all classes into just fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue.

I can easily see a system where all classes are variants or subclasses of these four.

Doing something like this would severely water down many of the character concepts, like paladins and rangers.

Hive-offs from Fighter. Simple.

It would also be problematic, where do you place bards and monks?

Yeah, these two are always outliers; though a case can be made for putting them under the Rogue (Thief) umbrella.

and it would basically erase sorcerers and warlocks completely from the game -wizards are extremely specific as spellcasters, part of the appeal of the warlock and sorcerer is that they aren't booklearned, specially with the sorcerer-.

I can live without the Warlock, and I see Sorcerers as being just as booklearned as other wizards (yes I go against the grain on this one) but using different (non-)memorization and casting mechanics.

Also it is all a contradiction as many of the same people want a psionic class that would expand the rooster anyway.

Expand the rooster? Er...what?

I don't buy the argument that few classes/sub-classes "restrict character concept". They restrict mechanical choices, but not concepts. You can build any concept you want using existing classes. Sure, it may not have every goody and ability your heart could desire, but that's what I meant by my previous post: you're focusing on the mechanics defining your character, instead of the way you play/narrate it.

Ding! We have a winner! This is exactly what I've been saying since shortly after 3e came out.

Lan-"personality first, mechanics second...or forty-seventh"-efan

 

[CubicsRube]

I haven't seen anyobe mention this, but i believe that its due to the breakdown of traditional combat roles - tank/heavy hitter, skirmisher/alpha striker, healer/buffer, and ranged aoe.

Hiwever it doesnt have to be limiting depending on how the reson of the system is implemented.

The current system im enjoying reading is shadow of the demo n lord. Initially there are just the 4 classes, but at level 3 all 4 break down inti a further 4 (and theres not restrictions so you can combine how you want to) and then at 7 into 64 master classes.

In addition, the spells lists are modular. So if you want to make a bard, you choose the song school. Valor bard? Song and battle schools. Lore bard? Song and divination schools.

But you can also make a runic warrior bard, and elemental bard, one that has curses, or any of the 30 schools in the book.


...i went off on a tangent, but you get the point! Its also about how those classes integrate into the rest of the system

 

[Aldarc]

and it would basically erase sorcerers and warlocks completely from the game -wizards are extremely specific as spellcasters, part of the appeal of the warlock and sorcerer is that they aren't booklearned, specially with the sorcerer-. Also it is all a contradiction as many of the same people want a psionic class that would expand the rooster anyway.

Yeah, I'm not sure why "book-learned" should be the default, but one could also just make a broader Mage class and then pick how you acquired powers - learned, bargained, or intuited - that comes with benefits that builds upon the base Mage.

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=6689464]MoonSong[/MENTION] it depeneds. It is back to the roots but in a different way that you and many younger Players may think.
It is one of the most Basic fundaments of the game: You got someone who is strong with one Thing and weak with another. The rogue is strong in hitting with backstab bot weak on taking damage. Your mage can cast but is not very good in melee. The cleric hits less than a fighter but he can heal all others.

Only together you can achieve things none can do on their own. With todays equality diversity theories invading RPGs These basic pricnciples which made the game real fun have become lost a bit. To those (like me) who sometimes prefer the simple approach, it has ist disadvantages also - you absolutely need a balanced Party covering all needed roles in their nuances.