Specific versus General (classes)

[TopCheese]

I've been thinking recently about how classes are designed. You have some clases that rely a lot on their subclass (fighter) while you have others that could have no subclass and you would barely notice at all (wizard).

This got me thinking about something else too, something a few classes have in common that other do not. Something I would like to see thrown out the door for 5.5/6e.

We have specific classes and general classes in the same game and I don't like it all that much. Balance issues aside, they just don't really fit together that well and I think this is why you do have issues with subclass levels, reliance on subclasses, and other issues (like number of subclass options).

General Classes: These are classes that start out vague and then have options to make them specific. You could probabaly find other classes that could be part of these classes (druid and paladins could be subclasses of clerics... And kinda are with nature and war domains). These classes don't have a hardline specific fluff either, you could be a lot more broad when talking about these classes relative to other classes.

Cleric
Fighter
Wizard

These are our generic classes. Classes that we are told to make up our own fluff about. Not just our character or background fluff but our specific class fluff. You have divine caster, fighting man, and magic user.

Barbarian
Bard
Druid
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Warlock

These are our specific classes, or at the very least, more specific classes. When describing these classes you don't have a lot of options. These are classes that have a specific role or class design that, without a major overhaul, you need to stick with. If you take one feature out of these classes then they no longer are that class. A Warlock without a pact? A sorcerer without inate magic flowing through them? A Paladin that isn't an (un)holy champion for a deity (or deity level creature)? A druid or ranger that isn't connected to nature (for good or bad, can't wait for the blighter)? A Rogue without sneak attack? A Barbarian without Rage? What do you get when you take away these specific feature of these classes?

You get a Cleric, Fighter, or Wizard depending on what you take away.

I'm not suggesting anything or pushing any agenda, I've just had this on my mind and figured I would chat about it and see what others think.

There are some exceptions sure, but generally, the classes line up in these two groups.

I do think that I won't be allowing Clerics, Fighters, or Wizards in my (Non-AL) games anymore.

I hope, though I'm sure it won't happen, that future editions of D&D will go forward and get rid of the generic classes and go with specific classes.

Replace cleric with specific classes like the druid, invoker, and paladin.

Replace the fighter with swordmage, barbarian, rogue, ranger and warlord.

Replace the Wizard with beguiler, dread necromancer, warmage, sorcerer, and warlock.

/shrug :)


Edit: though would be open to a Cleric/Fighter/Wizard game if I ever come up with a class feature grab up system.

[Fighting_Ferret]

The traditional 4 classes in AD&D are Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard. From there everything else has evolved. The thief later became the rogue, and even later editions got rid of their primary function of trap detection/removal taking them from the skill monkey to an effective combatant.

I don't see them going anywhere do to their history in the game, also sometimes a general tool is better than a specific tool. If they aren't for you, then there are a lot of other options, as you have stated. Choice is always a great thing. I wouldn't take away those options, but rather steer players to a class that best suits their envisioned character.

[TopCheese]

The traditional 4 classes in AD&D are Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard. From there everything else has evolved. The thief later became the rogue, and even later editions got rid of their primary function of trap detection/removal taking them from the skill monkey to an effective combatant.

I don't see them going anywhere do to their history in the game, also sometimes a general tool is better than a specific tool. If they aren't for you, then there are a lot of other options, as you have stated. Choice is always a great thing. I wouldn't take away those options, but rather steer players to a class that best suits their envisioned character.

I think they could at least split the classes up. Iconic classes and *insert cool name* classes.

But I'm not too worried about that, as long as they stay General/generic classes in going to split them up front the specific classes.

[Sigreid]

I like the cleric, fighter and wizard. I think the biggest thing I disliked about 4e when I read it was it felt very pigeon holed to me. You're suggestion seems the same way. It's fine if that's the way you and your friends want to run your games. Doesn't affect me at all. It's just not what I want out of the system.

Admittedly, I have a good group to play with that I like a lot. My enjoyment of any given game is influenced far more by those fine people than the system we are playing.

[Kane0]

Origin classes and evolved classes?

Interesting concept for another edition: have only the original four, and they each have subclasses that turn them into specific classes (much like AD&D kits). Then those specific classes get the choice of a subclass, a prestige class or multiclassing.
Like skill trees, only they're classes.

[Tanarii]

Mearls intentionally took 5e back to D&D's roots. That means a lot of holy cows were reintroduced. One of which is the base classes go back to being rather bland... Fighter, Cleric, Thief (aka Rogue), and Wizard. But another part of that ancient history is specific subclasses Ranger, Paladin, Illusionist, Assassin. With Bard and Monk being kinda hyper-specialized odd-balls. Not only that, but to qualify for the more specific classes, you had to roll higher ability scores ... so they were often also more powerful.

So what you're seeing is kind of like the reintroduction of 'Wizards Rule while Fighters Drool' syndrome of D&D. It's holy cows that just won't die. Given that someone already killed them once, but Mearls manage to intentionally sink that so that he could bring his Holy Cows back to life, there's not much chance of it ever happening again.

(Edit: Don't get me wrong. I love 5e. It's awesome. But I've got no respect for Mearls after what he did.)

[TopCheese]

I like the cleric, fighter and wizard. I think the biggest thing I disliked about 4e when I read it was it felt very pigeon holed to me. You're suggestion seems the same way. It's fine if that's the way you and your friends want to run your games. Doesn't affect me at all. It's just not what I want out of the system.

Admittedly, I have a good group to play with that I like a lot. My enjoyment of any given game is influenced far more by those fine people than the system we are playing.

I can understand phb1 feeling like that but once options were introduced... Roles weren't enforced all that much. Wizards especially could be really really good strikers.

I'm not really suggesting much. Instead of having both generic classes and specific classes we stick with one or the other and then go from there.

This is sort of a macro fiddly design that I don't like.


Origin classes and evolved classes?

Interesting concept for another edition: have only the original four, and they each have subclasses that turn them into specific classes (much like AD&D kits). Then those specific classes get the choice of a subclass, a prestige class or multiclassing.
Like skill trees, only they're classes.

I wouldn't even keep it at 4, the fighter and rogue are the same basic archetype of "awesome martial". You could make the fighter become more sneaky and be more of a thug, rogue, or ninja.

Arcane, Divine, Martial

Then have each class have a subclass at level 2, a feat at level 3, and a *everyone gets this feature (extra attack/cantrip boost)* at level 5.


Mearls intentionally took 5e back to D&D's roots. That means a lot of holy cows were reintroduced. One of which is the base classes go back to being rather bland... Fighter, Cleric, Thief (aka Rogue), and Wizard. But another part of that ancient history is specific subclasses Ranger, Paladin, Illusionist, Assassin. With Bard and Monk being kinda hyper-specialized odd-balls. Not only that, but to qualify for the more specific classes, you had to roll higher ability scores ... so they were often also more powerful.

So what you're seeing is kind of like the reintroduction of 'Wizards Rule while Fighters Drool' syndrome of D&D. It's holy cows that just won't die. Given that someone already killed them once, but Mearls manage to intentionally sink that so that he could bring his Holy Cows back to life, there's not much chance of it ever happening again.

(Edit: Don't get me wrong. I love 5e. It's awesome. But I've got no respect for Mearls after what he did.)

I think we would see eye to eye, I generally love 5e but specifically do not lol.

Sacred cows tend to hold things back, especially the human mind (fantasy).

With the way Hasbro takes the good designers into Magic the Gathering its no wonder Mearles was working on 5e ;) (oooo shots fired lol).

[JoeJ]

Cleric is just a variation on wizard, though; the divine/arcane division is just fluff. Mechanically, they work the same way. Really, all the various classes can be broken down into fighters, wizards, and mixtures of fighter and wizard in different proportions.

[Sigreid]

But you are suggesting a big change. Currently there are generalists and specialists. You are essentially saying that there should be only specialists.

[steeldragons]

(Edit: Don't get me wrong. I love 5e. It's awesome. But I've got no respect for Mearls after what he did.)

Sooo, for those of us not "in the know"...What was it he did, exactly, that has earned your apparent ire?

[JakOfAllTirades]

Sooo, for those of us not "in the know"...What was it he did, exactly, that has earned your apparent ire?

He changed D&D!!! (Or changed it back, whichever is worse.)

[CNagy]

Sacred cows tend to hold things back, especially the human mind (fantasy).

So the answer to prevent being held back is to have fewer options?

In the end, they are all just fighters or magic users. They live on a spectrum; Fighter on one end, Wizard on the other, and everything else falling somewhere in between.

[steeldragons]

He changed D&D!!! (Or changed it back, whichever is worse.)

lol.

-ehem-

Ah. I see. Thanks for clearing that up.:smallwink:

[TopCheese]

But you are suggesting a big change. Currently there are generalists and specialists. You are essentially saying that there should be only specialists.

My initial post is just thoughts put out there. The initial list wasn't meant to be a call to action or a plea to change stuff. Just more of an"huh, interesting, hmmm".

So I think we should break up specific and general classes? Yeah now I do but the initial post was more ramblings than anything else


So the answer to prevent being held back is to have fewer options?

In the end, they are all just fighters or magic users. They live on a spectrum; Fighter on one end, Wizard on the other, and everything else falling somewhere in between.

You don't have fewer options when you get rid of the sacred cows, you have more. When you have a sacred cow you are stuck with option x, y, and won't look outside those options or try to expand because in doing so, you kill that sacred cow, something that you don't/won't want to do... See the issue?

Where they fall in a spectrum doesn't matter. What matters is that you have two types of classes in the game which causes inconsistencies. The big new kick with D&D is simplicity and getting rid of fiddly rules, well, this is the biggest fiddly rule there is. The notion that some classes can be specific but others must be general is a macro fiddly rule that needs to be turned into a sacred cheeseburger.

Edit: You don't have to go all specific classes, you could go all general classes, but either way be a bit consistent.

[Sigreid]

Still not with your reasoning. Different people prefer different playstyles. Some want to excel at an actuvity. Some want to be the party swiss army knife. There is no reason for the game to not accommodate both.

I think defining strikers, controllers etc. was one of the harmful things 4e did as it got people into the mindset of you have one job.

[TopCheese]

Still not with your reasoning. Different people prefer different playstyles. Some want to excel at an actuvity. Some want to be the party swiss army knife. There is no reason for the game to not accommodate both.

I think defining strikers, controllers etc. was one of the harmful things 4e did as it got people into the mindset of you have one job.

Those mindsets were part of D&D way before 4e came around. Go look into 3e handbooks, they were called different things, but they were there. I'm not saying that each class needs a specific role, a Paladin could be a striker, controller, or leader of you want.

Glass Cannon, The Face, The Heal Bot, The Skillmonkey, The Tank, and The Waste of Space. 4e just took these common types and made most of them useful and removed the waste of space. 3e and 5e has these same type of roles, some classes have access to more of them than others (magic has more effective acess to more of them than martials).

All classes either need a specific focus on who they are OR be generalist and let players build their own class.

You can still have a swiss army knife with a specific class, look at the bard or rogue. They have specific fluff and mechanics needed for their class to be that class, but they are swiss army knife type. Specific characters doesn't mean that they are restricted characters.

The issue is that the wizard and cleric have so many options that not only do they step on others toes, they gain a lot of power from those options. The fighter is so general that it actually hurts the class, yeah they can do one thing well, but fall short in other areas.

The most balanced classes in 5e are the specific classes when you compare them to other specific classes. When you add in general classes, you throw a wrench into the mix. These specific classes have one thing they are great at but can dabble in other areas based on what the player wants them to do but can't really be great at everything. Fighters are so general and good at one thing that they can't be decent at anything else or it can unbalance their class more than others.

But this really isn't about balance at this point. Its about consistency and removing weird ideoglogies when they aren't needed since they cause different sorts of problems.

You don't have to completely remove these classes, just separate the two types and take the fact that the two groups are different into account when you make new options. What's good or bad for the Cleric, Fighter, and Wizard is not always going to be good or bad for the other classes.

[Sigreid]

Well, we've hit on why we can't agree. I don't worship at the alter of balance. Each character should be important, but unless everyone is essentially the same balance is a questing beast.

And the barbarian is the one trick pony. The fighter has the resources to be a very versitile character.

[TopCheese]

Well, we've hit on why we can't agree. I don't worship at the alter of balance. Each character should be important, but unless everyone is essentially the same balance is a questing beast.

And the barbarian is the one trick pony. The fighter has the resources to be a very versitile character.

It isn't just balance though, balance is more of after thought. Balance would probabaly come from this change but it isn't guaranteed.

The Barbarian class being a specific class isn't what causes it to be a one trick pony. The fact that martials and casters are unbalanced is what causes the Barbarian to be a one trick pony. The fighter is a one trick pony (damage, everything else isn't that effective as they level up) but it is a general class. The fighter's versatility is reliant on DM fiat more so than their class itelf.

You say you don't subscribe to balance but the fact that you don't like that one trick pony setup shows that you do subscribe to balance, you either don't want to admit it or you don't see what is causing the unbalance classes. Pathfinder and 5e Barbarian have the same set up and could be very similar. Striker base and have subclasses/archetype options that add on versatility and other options. The Barbarian specific class nature isn't what causes the Barbarian to not be versitile, the lack of Wotc options for the Barbarian is what causes that. If martials were given the same love as casters then you can have a barbarian that is just as or more so versitile than the fighter (fighter has false versatility, versatility without effectiveness isn't versatility).

But making all classes specific or general won't automatically balance the game. Fighters won't be balanced with Wizards by getting rid of the specific classes.

[Sigreid]

I'll try one last time. Most of my group likes being a specialist. Doing a primary thing and being a flat out superstar at it. I like being the guy who doesn't have a specific role in the group, but fills in around the edges.

And a fighter is by default an all situations weapons platform. But he has the resources to be the social expert, mr. Know it all, or the party expert in ungentlemanly warfare.

[TopCheese]

I'll try one last time. Most of my group likes being a specialist. Doing a primary thing and being a flat out superstar at it. I like being the guy who doesn't have a specific role in the group, but fills in around the edges.

And a fighter is by default an all situations weapons platform. But he has the resources to be the social expert, mr. Know it all, or the party expert in ungentlemanly warfare.

You are confusing a specific type class with being a specialist.

A Bard shows that being a specific class can be a specialist or a generalist character. The class is *specific* but the character can still be specific or general with what they can do. The Bard could specialist when it comes to being an archer or could be a swiss army knife. That part of the game is up to the player.

There is a difference between the class and the character. A class with specific fluff and mechanics can still be a specialist character or a generalist character.

The problem is when you mix specific classes with general classes you get a weird interaction with the rules and game play. The fighter having more attacks than anyone else throws a wrench into the game and you have to account for that huge difference when you make later supplements or rules.

You can have that same specific class Bard, not have a specific role to cover. They can cover two or three roles quite easily.

When you have only specific classes to design you can make each specific class cover different aspect of the game and make it where the character can be a specialist or generalist.

When you mix generic classes with specific classes you have to make stuff for two very different types of classes which can cause issues when you try to make characters be on equal grounds.

[Sigreid]

We're just talking in circles now and are too far off in our perspectives to come together.

[CNagy]

You don't have fewer options when you get rid of the sacred cows, you have more. When you have a sacred cow you are stuck with option x, y, and won't look outside those options or try to expand because in doing so, you kill that sacred cow, something that you don't/won't want to do... See the issue?

Where they fall in a spectrum doesn't matter. What matters is that you have two types of classes in the game which causes inconsistencies. The big new kick with D&D is simplicity and getting rid of fiddly rules, well, this is the biggest fiddly rule there is. The notion that some classes can be specific but others must be general is a macro fiddly rule that needs to be turned into a sacred cheeseburger.

Edit: You don't have to go all specific classes, you could go all general classes, but either way be a bit consistent.

I've yet to see a compelling explanation about how having fewer choices gives you more options. I've never seen any indication that without the Fighter, we would have 20 more martial classes covering professional soldiers, knights errant, sellswords, fencing instructors, etc, etc. I've no reason to believe that without Wizards, we would instead get Necromancers, Evokers, Transmuters, etc, as their own classes, or Hedge Wizards, Mystic Sages, or whatever else you might come up with as "like a Wizard but..." If I'm reading your statement on sacred cows and more options correctly, that is. If I'm not reading it correctly, then I have no idea what you mean.

As for the inconsistency between general and specific classes, it seems like an arbitrary classification. I imagine fully half of the board would take issue with the Rogue being a "specific class"--if D&D weren't so combat focused, the Rogue would turn the spectrum into a triad, the Skill to the Fighter's Martial and the Wizard's Caster. What makes the Bard a specific character where the Wizard is not? What makes the Sorcerer a specific character where the Wizard is not?

I'm trying to not be dismissive of what you've put forward, but try to understand it from my point of view: you posit there is a fundamental unbalance and inconsistency in the game. I've played and DMed a lot of this game (and previous editions not including 4e,) in parties of all sorts of different class makeups, and have not seen anything to suggest the balance or inconsistency problems are anywhere near as severe or ever-present as your argument seems to suggest.

[Malifice]

This was raised recently in regards to the Fighter not being specific enough.

I find it a feature, not a bug. A 'Fighter' can be a Hoplite, Centurion, Knight, Bounty Hunter, Mercenary, Gladiator, Sword master, Archer etc etc. The lack of specific identity opens the fighter up to so any identity that fights.

[VoxRationis]

This was raised recently in regards to the Fighter not being specific enough.

I find it a feature, not a bug. A 'Fighter' can be a Hoplite, Centurion, Knight, Bounty Hunter, Mercenary, Gladiator, Sword master, Archer etc etc. The lack of specific identity opens the fighter up to so any identity that fights.

I agree wholeheartedly. It wastes design space to needlessly divide what can be very easily summed up as the same profession. (Now, it used to be that "fencer" was poorly represented, because in the early days, only Strength could ever apply to melee accuracy, and there was no rapier, and even as far as 3rd edition, rogues had a lower attack bonus, so going for a Dex-and-rapier build would make you sacrifice hit chance against high-AC monsters, but that's long gone now.)

[Sigreid]

Well, I'm glad I'm not alone in my perspective.

[Vogonjeltz]

I've been thinking recently about how classes are designed. You have some clases that rely a lot on their subclass (fighter) while you have others that could have no subclass and you would barely notice at all (wizard).

I guess I don't see it that way. Once a character enters into their archetype, I tend to think of them 'as' that.

i.e. a Moon Druid is very distinct from a Land Druid. Yes, they're both Druids, but they have very different foci and they are very likely to play differently.

Same thing for a Berserker vs a Totem Warrior, a Beastmaster vs a Hunter, a Necromancer vs an Illusionist or Evoker, a Green Knight vs a Cavalier, each has some similar abilities, but the same could technically be said in that spellcasters and melee characters (anyone with extra attack) share similarities.

There's room for distinguishing two characters with the exact same class levels in every class (even same subclass). Employing different fighting styles, arms, feats, spells known allows for drastic differences.


I'm not suggesting anything or pushing any agenda, I've just had this on my mind and figured I would chat about it and see what others think.

There's more to each class than core features (although you can certainly point out a core low level feature for each class that is, in a sense, defining for that class: action surge, sneak attack, rage, favored enemy, wild shape, bardic inspiration, channel divinity, martial arts, divine smite, font of magic, pact boon, arcane recovery). I think you're focusing too much on those core features, rather than the distinctions made through subclass.


This was raised recently in regards to the Fighter not being specific enough.

I find it a feature, not a bug. A 'Fighter' can be a Hoplite, Centurion, Knight, Bounty Hunter, Mercenary, Gladiator, Sword master, Archer etc etc. The lack of specific identity opens the fighter up to so any identity that fights.

The same can easily be said for every class, they all represent a spectrum of concepts:

Barbarian - Uncivilized
Bard - Entertaining Lore Seeker
Cleric - Fights for a religion
Druid - Cares about nature
Fighter - Mastery of combat
Monk - Ascetic
Paladin - Champion of a cause
Ranger - Operates on the borders of civilization
Rogue - Uses their Wits
Sorcerer - Innately Magical
Warlock - Pacts to gain Power
Wizard - Student of Magic

[TheTeaMustFlow]

I really wouldn't consider rogue a `specific` class, considering it covers every non-magic using character whose primary purpose in life is not to kill things (and some non-magic using characters whose primary purpose in life is to kill things). That's about as generic as you get.

[Tanarii]

Sooo, for those of us not "in the know"...What was it he did, exactly, that has earned your apparent ire?He sank an edition he personally didn't like, and that was quite popular and still selling well, before it needed to be specifically so he could release one he personally liked. He said as much in several interviews when he was releasing Essentials, although he tried to frame it as a 'good' thing.

Killing off something that's doing quite well and is popular to push your own personal preferences, vision, and advance your career is a **** move.

[steeldragons]

He sank an edition he personally didn't like, and that was quite popular and still selling well, before it needed to be specifically so he could release one he personally liked. He said as much in several interviews when he was releasing Essentials, although he tried to frame it as a 'good' thing.

Killing off something that's doing quite well and is popular to push your own personal preferences, vision, and advance your career is a **** move.

Ah. 4e sour grapes/4venger attitude... gotcha.

I am familiar with the symptoms, never quite understood the cause.

[Theodoxus]

3.5 did this, in Unearthed Arcana - generic classes: Warrior, Scoundrel and Spellcaster. It was an interesting thought experiment - though the 'bolt on the specific abilities' idea wasn't particularly fleshed out.

Going with Generic Classes in 5th, and then granting additional differentiation through subclasses, feats and decision trees would be great, but not particularly D&D. There's plenty of offerings out there that does this, and quite well, without having to revamp this game, again.

Heck, you want all specific classes, play Pathfinder. Or mod PF combat to reflect 5th idealism - it's not that hard to do.

[Tanarii]

Ah. 4e sour grapes/4venger attitude... gotcha.

I am familiar with the symptoms, never quite understood the cause.

I'm not a 4e anything. I've liked every edition of D&D, and play them as they are released. I love 5e.

But Mike Mearls pulled a **** move for his own personal preferences and advancement. That's not cool. It's not a pro-4e or anti-5e gripe, it's a specifically an anti-Mearls gripe. But I'll freely admit it's still a kinda pointless gripe, given I'm cool with 5e. ;)

[steeldragons]

I'm not a 4e anything. I've liked every edition of D&D, and play them as they are released. I love 5e.

But Mike Mearls pulled a **** move for his own personal preferences and advancement. That's not cool. It's not a pro-4e or anti-5e gripe, it's a specifically an anti-Mearls gripe. But I'll freely admit it's still a kinda pointless gripe, given I'm cool with 5e. ;)

Fair enough.

[Psyren]

I'm not a 4e anything. I've liked every edition of D&D, and play them as they are released. I love 5e.

But Mike Mearls pulled a **** move for his own personal preferences and advancement. That's not cool. It's not a pro-4e or anti-5e gripe, it's a specifically an anti-Mearls gripe. But I'll freely admit it's still a kinda pointless gripe, given I'm cool with 5e. ;)

I disagree with the notion that he did this all for himself. Just looking at this forum, one can see how quickly 5e discussion has grown to almost double the totality of 4e discussion in a fraction of the time. You say 4e was "quite popular" and "selling well," yet the guy who is much more likely to have specific data to support that belief is Mearls, rather than you. What little data we have as consumers suggests he in fact made the right call.

[bid]

I disagree with the notion that he did this all for himself. Just looking at this forum, one can see how quickly 5e discussion has grown to almost double the totality of 4e discussion in a fraction of the time. You say 4e was "quite popular" and "selling well," yet the guy who is much more likely to have specific data to support that belief is Mearls, rather than you. What little data we have as consumers suggests he in fact made the right call.
I tried 4e but it's far from my first choice for tactical combat.

[VoxRationis]

*Ahem*
Moving away from discussions of developer politics...

I'd like to forward the opinion that the general-class philosophy of early D&D is what gave us the imbalance in magic's power and versatility. Consider the following:
A fighter from most cultures is good at one general thing, using one or more weapons, and a series of related non-combat skills, which range (based on culture) from driving a car to marching in formation to scavenging food from the land around them. This is a concept, therefore, that lends itself quite well to generalization. You have a class which uses weapons more effectively (or uses more effective weapons) than the others, you give them access to noncombat skills (5e's backgrounds did this apart from classes, but still), and you're done. No need for distinguishing hoplites from samurai for most purposes.
But a magic-user (if we are to use the older name in the game's history) is a broad class as well, meant to apply to the magic-users from multiple cultures' myths and legend. This makes sense from a "I don't want to design countless magic systems based on intimate readings of different myths and literary works" perspective, as well as to mirror the generality of the fighter. But in order to display the incredibly broad range of magical abilities in different myths and literary works, using one class, there has to be (or at least, it is easiest if there is) a broad range of spells, to which the class has nearly unfettered access. And that's a lot of versatility. Most magic-users don't have that many abilities, in truth; Circe really had mostly polymorph, Merlin's abilities vary based on the telling but are often either polymorph or a smattering of divination effects, and the best the mercenary mages in one scene of the Fafhrd and Gray Mouser books is use lightning bolt even when it's failing miserably. Having one class be all the different mages from disparate sources is very unbalancing, even under the same philosophy.

[bid]

I'd like to forward the opinion that the general-class philosophy of early D&D is what gave us the imbalance in magic's power and versatility.
I admit that the main reason I don't like magic-users is the excessive spell choice they have. I'd much rather have a few generic damage spells which can be implemented with an element and its dice (psychic fireball doing 8d4 damage, hands of the grasping earth vs entangle) with a few realm-specific spells. Maybe I've been spoiled by Ars Magica, but hey!

[Kane0]

3.5 did this, in Unearthed Arcana - generic classes: Warrior, Scoundrel and Spellcaster. It was an interesting thought experiment - though the 'bolt on the specific abilities' idea wasn't particularly fleshed out.

Going with Generic Classes in 5th, and then granting additional differentiation through subclasses, feats and decision trees would be great, but not particularly D&D.

Would be a neat idea using the subclass system.

Choose your archetype (Warrior, Scoundrel, Caster).
At level 1 you choose your focus (Subclass 1). You gain focus abilities at levels 1, 5, 9, 13 and 17.
At level 3 you choose your specialty (Subclass 2). You gain specialty abilities at levels 3, 7, 11, 15 and 19
At levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 18 you get ASIs.
This leaves only levels 2, 6, 10, 14 and 20 for generic archetype class abilities (like shared mechanics or things like fighting styles and extra attack)

Warrior
Offensive (eg Barbarian, Ranger)
Defensive (eg Paladin)
Support (eg Warlord)

Scoundrel (Mechanic - Points)
Sneaky (eg Rogue)
Talented (eg Monk)
Dabbler (eg Bard)

Spellcaster (Mechanic - Casting)
Unlocked (eg Wizard, Druid)
Bestowed (eg Cleric, Warlock)
Inherent (eg Sorcerer)

Each subclass option has its own subclass options, so following a rule of 3 would yield 3x3x3 (27) base options before multiclassing, slightly less than in the current PHB.
You could differentiate each archetype by each using a subsystem (dice pool, point pool, spell slots) or just leave that for specific subclasses or sub-subclasses.
Probably would also help to follow the fighter's subclass theme for each subclass: one simple and straightforward, one with its own interesting mechanic or ability and one that dabbles in another archetype.

[VoxRationis]

I admit that the main reason I don't like magic-users is the excessive spell choice they have. I'd much rather have a few generic damage spells which can be implemented with an element and its dice (psychic fireball doing 8d4 damage, hands of the grasping earth vs entangle) with a few realm-specific spells. Maybe I've been spoiled by Ars Magica, but hey!

Well, with this idea in mind, the whole design imbalance can be fixed by retaining the wizard as is, and releasing a series of narrow, themed spell lists based on the kind of wizard it's supposed to emulate (necromancer, fire mage, fey enchantress, what have you), and having the wizard use one of those as its spell list. I started implementing that kind of idea in my most recent campaign, but I didn't fully flesh it out.

[JoeJ]

Well, with this idea in mind, the whole design imbalance can be fixed by retaining the wizard as is, and releasing a series of narrow, themed spell lists based on the kind of wizard it's supposed to emulate (necromancer, fire mage, fey enchantress, what have you), and having the wizard use one of those as its spell list. I started implementing that kind of idea in my most recent campaign, but I didn't fully flesh it out.

Giving spells prerequisites so that, for example, you have to know Burning Hands before you can learn Fireball, would help a lot in that regard. It would also require a lot of work to get it halfway balanced.

Or you could borrow the spheres idea from the 2e priest class, which would probably be less work.

[Malifice]

Giving spells prerequisites so that, for example, you have to know Burning Hands before you can learn Fireball, would help a lot in that regard. It would also require a lot of work to get it halfway balanced.

Or you could borrow the spheres idea from the 2e priest class, which would probably be less work.

My Houserule for Wizards:

You prepare the list of wizard spells that are available for you to cast. To do so, choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook equal to your Intelligence modifier + 1/2 your wizard level rounding up (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, and can come from any school.

You can also prepare an additional number of spells equal to 1/2 your wizard level (rounding down). These spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, however these spells must come from your Arcane school.

[Cybren]

Fair enough.

How is it fair enough? He didn't declare a recall on all 4E books and have them burned.
4e was not selling as well as wizards (or hasbro) wanted, they decided to retool D&D with a new edition. 4E still exists (and it's not like they were going to make more 4E books, they had moved on to Essentials)