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

[ThingsForThinkers]

I think a lot of the issue comes from D&D being both a system and a setting. People who want a system want it simple and flexible: 3-4 base character types and rules for how to extend them. A lot of experienced RPG players and particularly referees are looking for a way to make the rules match their preconceived character ideas or settings. On the other hand, D&D needs to come with some flavor baked in in order to be commercially viable. All the awesome new people discovering the hobby need to be able to pick up the starter set and have a fun time doing something cool, like raging through a pack of goblins or fighting with the might of a god on your side. So we get a certain set of customizations built into the system.

I think one thing WOTC could do in 6e, or even now would be to come out with a pared down base system and guidelines. The mechanics are all there - you can see with each class that characters get bonus abilities at pre-determined levels. They have a pretty flexible base system that they've already padded in, and if they wanted to they could publish the codified underlying parameters for how to create a balanced set of abilities.

 

[Remathilis]

Honestly, I think D&D's tropes are fairly set in stone these days...

I mean, the cultural ziegiest of the game (and by that, I mean things that gamers and increasingly nongamers get as D&D references) are pretty much locked in; 9 alignments, saving throws, +1 swords, and a variety of classes. Paladins, barbarians, bards, and clerics are central to the identity of the game, even if they weren't always nor are they completely unremovable. 4e, for example, paired the game down to 5 alignments and removed saving throws (except in one unique usage) in favor of static defenses. Both of these ideas, in a vacuum, are good changes, but it changed the identity of the game. Quick; how many t-shirts/memes/funny internet slogans reference the 9 alignments when discussing a piece of fiction? Or how many coffee mugs and t-shirts reference "failing a saving throw vs X"? A lot, too many to count in fact. The idea that D&D has certain classes (and the identity of those specific classes) are part of the D&D mythos and even though it might be possible (and even preferable) to move towards a limited or even no-class system, the identity of D&D at this point demands stuffy paladins, raging barbarians, floofy bards, and rogues "who do it from behind".

Moral of the story: I think we're stuck with a multitude of classes, for good or ill.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Quick; how many t-shirts/memes/funny internet slogans reference the 9 alignments when discussing a piece of fiction? Or how many coffee mugs and t-shirts reference "failing a saving throw vs X"? A lot, too many to count in fact. The idea that D&D has certain classes (and the identity of those specific classes) are part of the D&D mythos and even though it might be possible (and even preferable) to move towards a limited or even no-class system, the identity of D&D at this point demands stuffy paladins, raging barbarians, floofy bards, and rogues "who do it from behind".

Just because it's part of the mythos, that doesn't mean it has to be part of the actual game. The idea that Paladins must always be Lawful Good (and played poorly) is gone, even though it remains in pop culture.

The mythos also includes things that have never been part of the game, like critical fumbles on a skill check.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Having clear archetypes is a good idea.

Agreed. I've played a lot of classless RPGS and the analysis-paralysis in those can be immense.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't know that I'm a proponent, but I can see the appeal. There's a reason why most video game RPGs only have a few classes, and the huge selections of AD&D class kits in Baldur's Gate can feel overwhelming, even for an experienced D&D-er. When players don't come in with a clearly defined character concept, trying to choose between a dozen (or more!) classes can feel overwhelming.

This is something 5e does well with subclasses — you can start with a broad archetype and refine that archetype after getting a little experience in play.

That said, the Wizard/Cleric/Rogue/Fighter configuration ends up feeling a little limiting when you know there are other options out there.

Even most CRPGs have specialisations within those classes that are basically more classes.

And most of the time it feels kludgey when compared to making those things into full classes you can take at level 1.

Take Dragon Age. A good portion into the game you can specialize. I mostly play rogues in DA, bc I don’t enjoy the play style of the other two classes, so I’ll stick with that for examples.

If you want to play a ranger, you play as a rogue for most of the first half of the game, and then all of a sudden get a pet and some rangery stuff. It’s weird. And the character is still 70% or more rogue. It isn’t even successful in the goal of specialitions meaning anything about your character.


On the other hand, you’ve got games like Star Wars Saga Edition, where you have five classes, and most talents to choose from than you could use over the course of a hundred characters, and th classes have essentially no identity. There is no real reason to not multiclass, everyone falls into habits of starting classes for the skills and MC a couple levels of Soldier or Jedi to make up the BAB and HP while grabbing combat feats and a talent or two, unless the weird PrC requirements take up all your talents and feats from levels 1-7.

I love that system, but it has some major flaws that mostly flow out the interaction of dnd sacred cows and the idea that a small number of classes is inherently simpler and easier to use. Trying to put that sort of philosophy into a structure like DnD, without having something like talents or powers and every class having the same basic structure (which people despised in 4e because it wasn’t DnDing correctly or whatever), just won’t work.

Subclasses are bad enough. It’s super weird and kludgy that I go from being a magic nerd to a graceful sword dancing barefoot goddess of war at level 2. It’s even weirder that I suddenly have a pet at level 3 when player a ranger. Or am able to be a ritualistic scholar with a Fey mentor and a magic book at level 3, but I can’t start out that way. It means I basically can’t make that my character concept unless we start at 3, or I have to find an excuse to not...have my magic book or know anything about ritual magic.

But at least we can just start at level 3, and most concepts that feel like starting concepts can actually be starting concepts. If I had to pick a subclass or feats or just...reflavored the whole class? To make a warlock *at all*, I’d just play a different game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry. I was more reacting to the oft-repeated assumption that people who prefer fewer classes can't handle complexity than I was to your post specifically.

I do agree that 4 feels like too few, unless there are more opportunities for specialization later.

FWIW, I'm in favor of templates (maybe prestige classes could fill this roll) that can be added to any class. For example, you don't in theory need a Ranger class if you can add "Woodsman" to a Fighter, a Rogue, or a Fighter/Rogue (or Fighter/Rogue/Wizard if you think spellcasting is important...). The combinatorics give you more possibilities with fewer pieces. A lot of current classes/sub-classes might be better as templates: Paladin, Warlock, Barbarian, etc. Won't ever happen because it's not D&D, but if I could go back in time and hijack EGG's brain...well I would do that just because, and maybe also mention the template thing while I was at it.

I don’t think any of that would be half as good as having those classes you list as unnecessary. The ranger build would require multiple levels, probably most of your character building resources (so no specialization within the ranger concept), and would probably still play like a rogue/fighter/wizard with some tracking and survival skills.

Purpose built is almost always better. The only reason to go generic is to save time and space.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Conservation of design space. Never do with a class what could be done with a subclass; never do with a subclass what could be done with a feat.

Look Pathfinder. That game is incredibly bloated with classes that exist just to express a very specific character concept or showcase a very specific mechanical gimic. Does the game really need a whole class worth of mechanics just so someone can play a Gunslinger? Why not just make a Feat Chain for gun tricks? Not only does that save on bloat, it also opens up more build possibilities - instead of gunfighting and trick shots being the province of one class, any character can tailor their build to be able to use it if they want.

Never relegate what could be a subclass to a feat, or what could be a class to a subclass.

The fact that something can be a feat, does not mean that a feat is the best way to model that thing. Gunfighting is a great example. The basic ability to shoot guns is just proficiency with a weapon type. That’s fine. Like all weapon types it should have feats and fighting styles (in 5e terms). But the Gunslinger is a hell of a lot more than just a person who can shoot guns proficiently. It is absolutely the sort of concept that, assuming it fits the campaign, should be able to be the primary defining focus of a character. Feat chains don’t do that sort of thing well at all. Feats are awful at primary defining focus. Especially feat chains.

If it’s a concept that can be a class, and that people want to make The Thing that defines their character, that weighs heavily in favor of being a class concept.

 

[Aldarc]

I think it could go even below the triumvirate of fighter/rogue/mage.

Let's face it - there are almost not examples of a fighter who only fights, or a rogue who never fights, and turning that into a class split introduces some bizarreness.

You could conceivably reduce the Triad further to Mundane/Magic. However, I suspect that the Triad has persevered because "3" is a nice number. Also, each class generally leans on different aspects of the game itself: mage on the magic system; warrior on the weapons, armor, and combat pillar; rogue on the skills (e.g., social, exploration, etc.). There are likely other reasons, but in a bit of a rush to type before work.

Agreed. I've played a lot of classless RPGS and the analysis-paralysis in those can be immense.

I agree to an extent. Analysis-paralysis can be immense, but the same is true for heavily-class based systems with an enormous breadth of options: e.g., Pathfinder. I have also played in class-less systems where people had little to no problem with analysis-paralysis: e.g., 7th Sea, Fate, etc. I think that the important thing is that the player remains focused on a basic character concept rather than become distracted by all the mechanical dials, knobs, and shiny objects that are at their disposal.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I wouldn't worry too much, back in the playtest the devs floated the idea of four overclasses (I think it was warrior, mage, trickster, and priest) that all the classes would fit into, and that didn't go over well, even though all they said they would use it for is attunement to certain magical items. Part of that was that people got obsessed over "trickster" (although if they had moved warlock into trickster and bard into mage that would reduced that issue, since "my bard's not a trickster" seemed to be the driving force behind that complaint, and "deceptive" is built into the warlock). Regardless, I haven't seen anything to suggest that they intend to revisit that idea.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Even most CRPGs have specialisations within those classes that are basically more classes.

And most of the time it feels kludgey when compared to making those things into full classes you can take at level 1.

Take Dragon Age. A good portion into the game you can specialize. I mostly play rogues in DA, bc I don’t enjoy the play style of the other two classes, so I’ll stick with that for examples.

If you want to play a ranger, you play as a rogue for most of the first half of the game, and then all of a sudden get a pet and some rangery stuff. It’s weird. And the character is still 70% or more rogue. It isn’t even successful in the goal of specialitions meaning anything about your character.

I remember starting DA:O for the first time and seeing that you could be a Ranger (Thinking I could be an Aragorn type). Then Getting to Level 7 and becoming a Ranger and finding out it was just summoning animal companions. It turned out I could just take the Nature Talents on any class for my Aragon type character.

I did like how if I had a decent Strength and Agility scores I could be a Longsword and Dagger wielding Heavy Armour wearing Rogue that used my Cunning score for Damage, and had a Longbow as his backup weapon.

I couldn't do that In DA2 or DAI. Which had more rigid Class definitions.

To this day a non-Spellcasting (or maybe low-spellcasting) Longsword and Longbow wielding Medium Armor Wearing Character that uses Cunning/Intelligence as his primary Stat would still be my favorite character in any fantasy system.