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

[Charlaquin]

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

That’s terrible advice. If game designers followed this heuristic, there would be no feats and no subclasses. Literally everything can be padded out into a full class. But a good game designer understands that options that don’t add anything meaningful to the game are bad for the game. A good game designer has clear design rationale, and writes options to satisfy that design rationale in the most efficient way possible. A good game designer constantly fights with Tyler Durden and doesn’t put a new element in the game unless he wins.

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.

What is the design rationale for this class? What does it add to the game? If the only answer is “it lets someone play a character built around fighting with guns,” then it’s not worth a full class writeup, because you can do that in a simpler way. 80% of what’s going into making “guy who’s Defining Thing is using guns” is worthless filler.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That’s terrible advice. If game designers followed this heuristic, there would be no feats and no subclasses. Literally everything can be padded out into a full class. But a good game designer understands that options that don’t add anything meaningful to the game are bad for the game. A good game designer has clear design rationale, and writes options to satisfy that design rationale in the most efficient way possible. A good game designer constantly fights with Tyler Durden and doesn’t put a new element in the game unless he wins.

Any very simple advice is bad advice, if taken at face value. Simplicity is a myth.

What is the design rationale for this class? What does it add to the game? If the only answer is “it lets someone play a character built around fighting with guns,” then it’s not worth a full class writeup, because you can do that in a simpler way. 80% of what’s going into making “guy who’s Defining Thing is using guns” is worthless filler.

You’ve either missed or ignored the part where a gunslinger is more than just a gun fighter. I even made it super clear by pointing out that gun proficiency should just be a simple thing, and that there should be feats and such related to it just like other weapons. (In my games I avoid extra design work by using Crossbow Expert as a gun feat, and then all the other ranger weapon options work fine for guns)

But the gunslinger needs to be tough as hell, fast, able to dodge, good at lying and survival, and has a bunch of variations on the theme that work fine as subclasses. You could instead do subclasses for multiple classes, but most people who want to play a Gunslinger don’t want to have a bunch of irrelevant class features that have nothing to do with the arghetype they are trying to play.

Better to risk “filler” features in a class (it would actually be stuff like getting evasion and extra attack, ie features that multiple classes share) than to have it be impossible to play an archetype without being 3/4 a completely different archetype.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Funny aside; my warlock isn’t a trickster, has no proficiency in any deceptive skills, etc. well, one of my warlocks. Another is basically a magical Theif, who hacked arcane rituals to steal power.

But heck, even one of my rogues isn’t a trickster. It just wasn’t a great name for a generic over-class.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Funny aside; my warlock isn’t a trickster, has no proficiency in any deceptive skills, etc. well, one of my warlocks. Another is basically a magical Theif, who hacked arcane rituals to steal power.

But heck, even one of my rogues isn’t a trickster. It just wasn’t a great name for a generic over-class.

According to Jeremy Crawford:

"In its inspirations, the warlock is cunning, even deceptive. Disguise self is thematically nondisruptive for it" (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/11/__trashed-4/).

Sounds pretty trickster to me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

According to Jeremy Crawford:

"In its inspirations, the warlock is cunning, even deceptive. Disguise self is thematically nondisruptive for it" (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/11/__trashed-4/).

Sounds pretty trickster to me.

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.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

I don't see why the title of "rogue" could not have been applied to warlocks rather than "trickster." Part of the class fantasy of warlocks does entail going outside the bounds of typical routes of magic for their power. In that respect, yes, "rogue" could have worked.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In the "How would you handle subclasses in 6e" thread, I noted how I am a proponent of the core 4. But let me step back a second and address the OP on a point:

While true B/X had race as class, it's not realistic nor desirable to do a modification that went back to that, because the vast majority would rather not have all dwarves be fighters, etc. So in that case, the core 4 have existed, and for the longest running period of any other edition. The precedence is there. "The core four" is also a well established concept in D&D that most people understand what you're talking about. it's more about roles than an actual class.

Now, as to why I support it.

* 5e has backgrounds and feat packages. IMO, a natural progression is to expand feat packages to actually be more like subclass packages, but not restricted to any particular class. So you have the core four classes: fighter, rogue, cleric, magic user. From there you could have a bard subclass package, but could be a fighter bard, or a rogue bard.
* By doing the packages in this manner, you can achieve a wide variety of archetypes without running into class bloat. What I mean by this is...
*...With so many individual classes, there is a lot of overlap and not enough distinction to make them an individual class. The difference between class A and class B might only be a few minor things. And in my opinion, minor differences are better handled by feats and packages, not by core classes.

Also, passive aggressive comments taking digs at "grognards" and saying how we just want a time machine show that you don't understand the point at all (nor want to), and aren't helpful to the discussion at all. I kindly ask you that if you have nothing of value to add, please refrain from insulting other people or their ideas.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't see why the title of "rogue" could not have been applied to warlocks rather than "trickster." Part of the class fantasy of warlocks does entail going outside the bounds of typical routes of magic for their power. In that respect, yes, "rogue" could have worked.

I never liked “rogue”, either, but it’s better than trickster.

 

[Charlaquin]

Any very simple advice is bad advice, if taken at face value. Simplicity is a myth.

Ok...? Doesn’t change the fact that padding out anemic concepts to make them into full classes is a bad policy, whereas designing to satisfy their design rationale in the simplest way possible is a good one.

You’ve either missed or ignored the part where a gunslinger is more than just a gun fighter. I even made it super clear by pointing out that gun proficiency should just be a simple thing, and that there should be feats and such related to it just like other weapons.

I didn’t ignore anything, you neglected to explain what about a gunslinger is more than just a gun fighter? What, beyond being a gunfighter, is the design rationale for this class? What, besides being a gunfighter, makes the design worthy of a full class treatment?

(In my games I avoid extra design work by using Crossbow Expert as a gun feat, and then all the other ranger weapon options work fine for guns)

Makes sense.

But the gunslinger needs to be tough as hell, fast, able to dodge, good at lying and survival, and has a bunch of variations on the theme that work fine as subclasses. You could instead do subclasses for multiple classes, but most people who want to play a Gunslinger don’t want to have a bunch of irrelevant class features that have nothing to do with the arghetype they are trying to play.

Better to risk “filler” features in a class (it would actually be stuff like getting evasion and extra attack, ie features that multiple classes share) than to have it be impossible to play an archetype without being 3/4 a completely different archetype.

Of course, if classes had clearer design rationale, this wouldn’t be an issue. If classes were only the broadest possible archetypes, then their features wouldn’t interfere with more specific concepts under their umbrella. Gunslinger could be a specific expression of a boroader tough guy archetype, as opppsed to needing a tough guy variant of the more specific gunslinger chassis.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ok...? Doesn’t change the fact that padding out anemic concepts to make them into full classes is a bad policy, whereas designing to satisfy their design rationale in the simplest way possible is a good one.


I didn’t ignore anything, you neglected to explain what about a gunslinger is more than just a gun fighter? What, beyond being a gunfighter, is the design rationale for this class? What, besides being a gunfighter, makes the design worthy of a full class treatment?


Makes sense.


Of course, if classes had clearer design rationale, this wouldn’t be an issue. If classes were only the broadest possible archetypes, then their features wouldn’t interfere with more specific concepts under their umbrella. Gunslinger could be a specific expression of a boroader tough guy archetype, as opppsed to needing a tough guy variant of the more specific gunslinger chassis.

Nearly every class based game puts the bulk of what the character does in the class. You’d have to go the opposite route to make Gunslinger work as a type of tough guy. The tough guy base class would have to be nothing more than higher than average HD and a feature like Second Wind. At that point, that “class” is pointless, and it’s “subclasses” are actually the classes of the game.

The character should be 100% Gunslinger, with subclasses covering some different types, like pistolier (two pistol shooter, faster than the others, even acrobatic, can reload without a free hand), rifleman (able to make decent melee attacks with the rifle stock, good at long range and close up though not as deadly close up as the pistolier, tougher than other gunslingers), and sniper (stealthy, ambush benefits, crit benefits, perhaps ability to move and hide after attacking while hidden, eventually), as well as something oddball like an Eldritch Gunfighter (Pact magic, Pact boon, magic gun as a class feature, etc).

The core class would have stuff like trick shots and quick draw, prof in con saves, evasion, and fighting style with a couple new fighting style options to make them better with guns than a Fighter with proficiency.