Barbarians and Fighters: Same Thing

[Easy_Lee]

Barbarians and Fighters fill basically the same role in parties. They're tanky, high damage, melee combatants. Aside from taking different approaches, they pretty much achieve the same thing. Worse, the barbarian actually fills the role better than a fighter does, in some ways. The fighter *can* be an archer, while the barbarian pretty much can't, but that role is honestly better filled by a ranger.

Why are these separate classes? I get that it's a sacred cow thing, but barbarian could have very easily been a fighter archetype (berserker).

[BurchardOfEn]

If we did that, we'd have 11 classes in the PHB instead of 12, and that'd just be silly. Besides, don't you know that only Clerics and Wizards are permitted to have more than three subclass options in the main book? I swear there was some fine print in the contract about that.

[LaserFace]

Probably same reason you have Sorcerer / Wizard, Druid / Cleric, or anything other than generic classes of Warrior, Thief and Magic-User.

We don't even need classes. D&D just has them and this is a thing people like being different.

[Sir cryosin]

Barbarians and Fighters fill basically the same role in parties. They're tanky, high damage, melee combatants. Aside from taking different approaches, they pretty much achieve the same thing. Worse, the barbarian actually fills the role better than a fighter does, in some ways. The fighter *can* be an archer, while the barbarian pretty much can't, but that role is honestly better filled by a ranger.

Why are these separate classes? I get that it's a sacred cow thing, but barbarian could have very easily been a fighter archetype (berserker).

That's like saying all spellcasters should just be wizard schools.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I have long thought that barbarian could be a fighter with special tinsel, but then I've also long thought that druids, monks, warlocks, gnomes, tieflings and dragonhalves should not be core, so basically no one should listen to me probably.

[Easy_Lee]

That's like saying all spellcasters should just be wizard schools.

Actually, I could much more easily argue for splitting the wizard just based on the sheer number of features it has. You're talking over 100 features for wizards (spells), spread over multiple schools of magic, vs less than half that for fighters and barbarians combined.

[BurchardOfEn]

gnomes,

Most of those I get(although I kinda disagree with Druid), but I don't get why Gnomes shouldn't be in the Core book.

In truth, though, Barbarian and Fighter are separate because they go about their roles in rather distinct ways. Sure, you could slap the Rage feature onto the Fighter, but the Barbarian has a lot more going into keeping that Rage up in addition to having more Rages than the hypothetical Berserker archetype. There's also the problem of that a Fighter with Rage could have some pretty ridiculous nova capability in addition to the tankiness of being in a Rage that probably kept Wizards from wanting to make that a thing.

[Cazero]

Same can be said of both warlock and bard classes. They are sorcerers. They use the same casting stat, they have the same base fluff of "innate magic user" and fit perfectly in subclasses as thoses are used to say where said magic come from.

[Easy_Lee]

Same can be said of both warlock and bard classes. They are sorcerers. They use the same casting stat, they have the same base fluff of "innate magic user" and fit perfectly in subclasses as thoses are used to say where said magic come from.

That's not really an argument, though. "Where I get my magic," is fluff, not a role. Bards are skill monkeys and versatile casters, sorcerers have metamagic and fewer spells, and warlocks cast few spells more often and have invocations and better damage (more like a dps - wizard hybrid).

[Sir cryosin]

Actually, I could much more easily argue for splitting the wizard just based on the sheer number of features it has. You're talking over 100 features for wizards (spells), spread over multiple schools of magic, vs less than half that for fighters and barbarians combined.

We can just say cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, warlock, bard, who cares how you got your magic your a magic user. A barbarian maybe a fightet but a fightet is not a barbarian. Yes both use melee weapons but how and his abilitys are to much different to a fighter.

[BurgerBeast]

Yeah, I completely agree, but how far do you take it?

Barbarians are just fighters.
Bards are just wizards.
Clerics are just wizards that wear armour and get their magic from a god.
Druids are just clerics.
Monks are just clerics or fighters, as the case may be.
Paladins are just clerics.
Rangers are just fighters.
Rogues are just fighters.
Sorcerers are just wizards.
Warlocks are just clerics with patrons that are not gods.

This leaves us with wizards and fighters.

But fighters and rogues have always been weird, in my opinion. They are not defined by any flavour but instead by their function. As a result they fill a gajillion archetypes. There is an internal inconsistency to defining druids and rangers on being nature based (theme), but fighters as people who fight (function).

I have been working on a home-brew game in which your theme determines your power source, and your abilities determine your function. So if you are a druid, you might be:

Strength: A warden (or an OoTA pally) - a wilderness tank.
Dexterity: A ranger or hunter (wilderness based marksman).
Constitution: A shapeshifter.
Intelligence: A stormcaller (like a balance druid from warcraft)
Wisdom: A chloromancer (plant themed healer/controller)
Charisma: An animal summoner and handler.

So you choose to be a Druid as your class, and you get abilities for all archetypes, but you are just better at some and worse at others, as dictated by your abilities, and this determines your party "role."

So far I have these "classes" and their associated sources of power:

Bard (power comes from training and technique/physical self mastery)
Druid (power from nature and its related affinities)
Paladin (power from the divine - clerics generally fit here)
Priest (power from mental discipline, with monks and psions fitting here)
Shaman (power the primal elements - barbarians and WOW style shamans)
Warlock (power from the shadow and demons - this may also include assassins and death knights/reavers)

For me, "fighters" can't fit into a framework based on power source, so fighters instead come from every source, as do rogues and as do wizards.

If I could ever get this fleshed out, you could then consider creating alternate classes based on function, so that a mage focusses his life on learning all of the six power-based spells, and a fighter learns the fighting styles of all six power sources, etc. I haven't decided on this yet, but if it was done properly it would be quite tidy and internally consistent. I care too much about this crap.

[Cazero]

That's not really an argument, though. "Where I get my magic," is fluff, not a role. Bards are skill monkeys and versatile casters, sorcerers have metamagic and fewer spells, and warlocks cast few spells more often and have invocations and better damage (more like a dps - wizard hybrid).
Sorry, I don't quite get your point. If the fluff part is irrelevant, how are those arbitrary mechanical differences any more important that those between the Fighter and Barbarian classes?

[Coffee_Dragon]

Most of those I get(although I kinda disagree with Druid), but I don't get why Gnomes shouldn't be in the Core book.

I see them as kind of a gimmicky transition space between halflings and dwarves, but I realize I left out half-orcs from my list, so they can have the gnome spot instead. Baldur's Gate 2 turnip jokes yay.

Oh, and half-elves being the only halfbreed before half-orcs and their unfortunate implications is racist.

And...

[SharkForce]

i'm not at all certain that the ranger is a better archer than the fighter.

and i'm even less certain that you could really have barbarian as a fighter archetype and not lose anything.

[Belac93]

Well, theoretically, if we're going in that deep, we would only need 5 classes for theme.

1: Fighter: Includes fighter, barbarian, monk, and ranger. Fighter gets more fighting styles, barbarian gets rage, monk gets unarmed fighting, and ranger gets spellcasting/exploration abilities. These are linked in that they are all get extra attack, but are not devoted to patrons.
2: Cleric: Includes cleric, druid, paladin, and warlock. Cleric gets healing, druid gets wildshape, paladin gets heavy armour, and warlock gets different spells. These are linked in that they all have a patron.
3: Sorcerer: Includes sorcerer and bard. Sorcerer gets blasting, bard gets healing. They get their magic from themselves, and are spontaneous casters.
4: Rogue: Includes rogue. Same as before.
5: Wizard: Includes wizard. Same as before.

So, if we are going to bother getting rid of barbarian, lets get rid of some other things as well.

Also, rangers are not better archers than fighters. Fighters get action surge, and probably either extra criticals or maneuvers. Rangers get spellcasting and exploration.

[Easy_Lee]

i'm not at all certain that the ranger is a better archer than the fighter.

and i'm even less certain that you could really have barbarian as a fighter archetype and not lose anything.

Ranger has more archery focused abilities, via spells, and is better at finding targets and getting unto position. Figure does more damage after certain levels.

Thing to do with barbarians would be to add some of their features onto the base fighter, and put the others in an archetype.

[MeeposFire]

i'm not at all certain that the ranger is a better archer than the fighter.

and i'm even less certain that you could really have barbarian as a fighter archetype and not lose anything.

Well most of what really makes it tick is rage and reckless attack. Not exactly all that special mechanically.


Barbarians could have been made just a sub class and that has been a common issue if you go back into the history of the game. You also hear similar things about paladins and rangers. Of the three barbs probably have the least forcing their own class.

However I will say that they are popular so I do not see why they cannot exist.

I do think actually if anything the sorc is the one that really does not need to exist. Essentially the sorc existed to explain a novel change to the magic system in 3e but when they changed how wizard casting worked in 5e that reason was mostly eliminated so they gave them metamagic as an attempt to give them a reason to exist. One could just modify metamagic as a subclass and get all of the mechanical benefit and create a fluff based alternitve to give the blood based casters a bone and call it a day.

[R.Shackleford]

Barbarians and Fighters fill basically the same role in parties. They're tanky, high damage, melee combatants. Aside from taking different approaches, they pretty much achieve the same thing. Worse, the barbarian actually fills the role better than a fighter does, in some ways. The fighter *can* be an archer, while the barbarian pretty much can't, but that role is honestly better filled by a ranger.

Why are these separate classes? I get that it's a sacred cow thing, but barbarian could have very easily been a fighter archetype (berserker).

In all honnesty I see where you are coming from, however I see Rogues and Fighters as the same thing moreso than Fighters and Barbarians.

Rogues and Fighters are about using your brain and destroying your enemies with weapons. They are also about versatility as you can choose to be melee or ranged and your class features support either.

Barbarians are about brawns over brains. They can be built to go Dex, however their class features don't support this style fully.

There is no reason to have Rogues and Fighters be separate. I would just make a new class, the Sellswords, Warrior, or whatever and go with it.

[Tanarii]

I see them as kind of a gimmicky transition space between halflings and dwarves,
Gnomes are the gimmicky magical transition space between Elves and Dwarves. Gygax made them to fill a more Magical role than Halflings, who Tolkien used to fill the gimmicky physical transition space between Elves and Dwarves and Men. Sorta kinda.

--------------

On topic, Barbarians are like all the races except Dragonborn & Tiefling, and all the classes except Sorcerer & Warlock: Sacred Cows. It's hardly surprising they're included in 5e, which is in many ways a "return to Legacy D&D" edition. Just be glad they didn't bring back THAC0 and Dual-Classing. :smallamused:

[Sigreid]

I disagree. The barbarian is pretty exclusively the unstoppable juggernaut whose weakness is meant to be ranged battle. The Ranger is really primarily a scout/support/utility class. The fighter has the specific role of general purpose combatant that doesn't operate at a lower effectiveness regardless of the range or circumstances of the battle, or what has happened earlier in the day. I see them as very, very different.

[SharkForce]

Ranger has more archery focused abilities, via spells, and is better at finding targets and getting unto position. Figure does more damage after certain levels.

Thing to do with barbarians would be to add some of their features onto the base fighter, and put the others in an archetype.

EK and BM both have excellent synergy with archery (with either spells or maneuvers, respectively). getting into position is largely a matter of skill proficiencies, which fighter can get. neither are really inherently superior at finding targets, unless you mean tracking, which is something the ranger is better at but it isn't archery. it's tracking. ranger is certainly different when it comes to archery, but not really definitively better.

and you can try to jam any class into any other class. that doesn't mean it's a reasonable solution. anything you take from barbarian (which is clearly the "brute force" warrior to the fighter's technique-oriented fighting style, and represents a different approach to a fairly similar role) has to replace fighter features, at which point the fighter no longer looks like the fighter. or, alternately, it doesn't start looking like a barbarian until midway through the teens, since fighter 12-16 are about as exciting as doing laundry and you could pretty much remove those levels without noticing much of a difference.

[Tanarii]

I disagree. The barbarian is pretty exclusively the unstoppable juggernaut whose weakness is meant to be ranged battle.how is a Barbarian going to be worse at ranged battle than a Str-based Fighter? They're the best of the three basic Str-build classes (Barb, Fighter, Paladin), since they'll almost certainly have a higher Dex.


The Ranger is really primarily a scout/support/utility class.Agreed. They don't really belong in comparisons with the Fighter, Barbarian or Paladin. They're in the same 'category' as the Rogue & Monk IMO, and have been ever since 3.5. That edition is the one that made Rangers stop being a 'Fighter' subclass with Druid/Rogue abilities, and instead moved them into a 'Rogue/Skirmisher' subclass with Druid/Fighter abilities.

[Easy_Lee]

anything you take from barbarian (which is clearly the "brute force" warrior to the fighter's technique-oriented fighting style, and represents a different approach to a fairly similar role) has to replace fighter features, at which point the fighter no longer looks like the fighter. or, alternately, it doesn't start looking like a barbarian until midway through the teens, since fighter 12-16 are about as exciting as doing laundry and you could pretty much remove those levels without noticing much of a difference.

That observation is what led me to this ultimate conclusion. Most fighter "feature" levels are just extensions of their existing features. Indomitable shows up three times, Action Surge shows up twice, and Extra Attack shows up three times. That's 3 features taking the place of what should be eight features. And unlike with rogue gaining extra expertise, these features don't do anything that the feature the fighter already had didn't do.

And don't even get me started on comparisons. Action surge and extra attack are fine, but all three ranks of indomitable are less useful than either Diamond Soul or the feat Lucky.

[Sigreid]

how is a Barbarian going to be worse at ranged battle than a Str-based Fighter? They're the best of the three basic Str-build classes (Barb, Fighter, Paladin), since they'll almost certainly have a higher Dex.


I think the additional multiple attacks flatten the curve over the barbarian when it comes to hit and damage with ranged weapons. Rage bonuses and reckless attack smooth the curve for the barbarian in melee.

[SharkForce]

That observation is what led me to this ultimate conclusion. Most fighter "feature" levels are just extensions of their existing features. Indomitable shows up three times, Action Surge shows up twice, and Extra Attack shows up three times. That's 3 features taking the place of what should be eight features. And unlike with rogue gaining extra expertise, these features don't do anything that the feature the fighter already had didn't do.

And don't even get me started on comparisons. Action surge and extra attack are fine, but all three ranks of indomitable are less useful than either Diamond Soul or the feat Lucky.

the problem there is that a lot of people really *like* those aspects of the fighter.

one thing i've learned with trying to suggest changes to the fighter is that a lot of people really really like the fighter the way it is (and also, those people are the ones that play fighters, so their opinions on the fighter kinda hold more weight than those of people who aren't drawn to the class. like me).

i mean, no one really seems to care about indomitable. but everything else they really seem to like. and the one thing you shouldn't do is take something that works well enough (and it does, people are having fun and don't feel useless) and which everyone who likes the idea of the class likes the mechanics, and then proceed to start breaking that. whatever you (or i) think about the fighter, there are a lot of people playing it and loving it. likewise with the barbarian.

[Tanarii]

I think the additional multiple attacks flatten the curve over the barbarian when it comes to hit and damage with ranged weapons. Rage bonuses and reckless attack smooth the curve for the barbarian in melee.
*grumble grumble* don't mind me just forgetting the game goes past level 10 again.

[R.Shackleford]

*grumble grumble* don't mind me just forgetting the game goes past level 10 again.

Don't worry, the game only pretend to go past level 8.

[8wGremlin]

From a concept for a game we're creating, you could further break this down into:

Pick a Focus:
Combat: AC boost, Weapon boost
Skills: Skill boost, Stealth boost
Spellcaster: Spell boost

Pick a power source:
Devotional: - gain power from a devotional source (divine, infernal, fae, far-realm)
Arcane: - gain power from arcane study
Nature: - gain power from nature
Psionic: - gain power from mental discipline
Technology: - gain power from devices

Pick a couple of styles:
Ranged, Melee, Support (buffs), Stealth, Interference (de-buff), Summon, Shapechange

I think that covers most bases, with each power source and style giving special boosts.






Combat

Skills

Spellcaster



Devotional

Paladin

Avenger

Cleric



Arcane

Eldritch knight

Trickster

Wizard

[Slipperychicken]

Barbarians and Fighters fill basically the same role in parties. They're tanky, high damage, melee combatants. Aside from taking different approaches, they pretty much achieve the same thing. Worse, the barbarian actually fills the role better than a fighter does, in some ways. The fighter *can* be an archer, while the barbarian pretty much can't, but that role is honestly better filled by a ranger.

Why are these separate classes? I get that it's a sacred cow thing, but barbarian could have very easily been a fighter archetype (berserker).

Barbarians in dnd originated as a fighter variant (or was it still "fighting man" back then?), but then got their own base class because of how popular they were.


A number of classes came to be that way, ascending from an alternate character option to one of the core ones. For two more examples, you have paladins and bards, which were sort of like prestige classes, but then evolved into base classes of their own. Paladins had to be fighters and maintain their alignment for a number of levels before becoming paladins, while aspiring bards had to take certain numbers of fighter, thief, and druid levels before they could properly become bards.

[djreynolds]

Barbarians and Fighters fill basically the same role in parties. They're tanky, high damage, melee combatants. Aside from taking different approaches, they pretty much achieve the same thing. Worse, the barbarian actually fills the role better than a fighter does, in some ways. The fighter *can* be an archer, while the barbarian pretty much can't, but that role is honestly better filled by a ranger.

Why are these separate classes? I get that it's a sacred cow thing, but barbarian could have very easily been a fighter archetype (berserker).

You are exactly right.

In 1st edition, you had to roll well to be barbarian, ranger, or paladin... all of which we subsets of the fighter, who only needed a 9 in strength.

A fighter needed less xp to advance, so on and so forth.

Then in 2nd edition they ditched the barbarian, and fighter got spruced up a bit. And then 3rd edition came into being.

For me the fighter has always been my go to standard, I think it may be an age thing and that in previous editions I never rolled well enough to play paladin who needed a 17 charisma, and then became a subset of the cavalier and it became impossible to play one, check it out you needed awesome stats to play one.

What I would like to see are team feats only for fighters, a fighter really depends on his team mates for healing, spells, stealth, etc.

The other issue for the fighter is other than skill bonuses and multiclassing and better saving throws they do not get anything for having a higher intelligence or charisma or wisdom and I would like to see anything.

It could be even a bonus for a higher intelligence,

So at 4th level say you have an intelligence of 12, +1 modifier you would get an extra reaction or bonus action including the one you already get. And at 8th level, you have a 14 intelligence and +2 modifier you would get 2 more, and 12 level if you had a 16 in intelligence you would get three plus your initial.

[BurchardOfEn]

The other issue for the fighter is other than skill bonuses and multiclassing and better saving throws they do not get anything for having a higher intelligence or charisma or wisdom and I would like to see anything.

Usually this is considered one of the "best" things about Fighter is that it is very much so SAD rather than MAD, but D&D is set up in such a way that being SAD is just superior than being MAD at all times.


There is no reason to have Rogues and Fighters be separate. I would just make a new class, the Sellswords, Warrior, or whatever and go with it.

You're looking more at mechanical "fluff"(a contradiction, I know) rather than the function of the mechanics of the classes. AKA the input not the output. Easy_Lee was looking at the output of the Barbarian and the Fighter and wondering "Why are these made distinct classes?"

[Madbox]

If you get rid of one, you'd have to ditch the fighter. Otherwise, the d12 becomes useless:smalltongue:

[Zalabim]

I do think actually if anything the sorc is the one that really does not need to exist. Essentially the sorc existed to explain a novel change to the magic system in 3e but when they changed how wizard casting worked in 5e that reason was mostly eliminated so they gave them metamagic as an attempt to give them a reason to exist. One could just modify metamagic as a subclass and get all of the mechanical benefit and create a fluff based alternitve to give the blood based casters a bone and call it a day.

Sorcerers use spell points now. It's just called Font of Power and weak. You can have them use DMG spell points instead. This way they can still exist to explain a novel change in the magic system.

[Anonymouswizard]

*grumble grumble* don't mind me just forgetting the game goes past level 10 again.

Let's be honest, the game really doesn't. By those levels Spellcasters just begin to outstrip everyone in power. I have a feeling the game only goes to level 20 for sacred cow reasons, with 12 being considered a good 'end point' by WotC. It at least gives a decent reason as to why so many capstones are lacluster.

[bionicleFanatic]

Sorcerers and wizards are *technically* the same thing with different approaches, so... *shrug*

[smcmike]

I'd just like to commend the OP on the clickbait title and premise of this thread.

[TheFlyingCleric]

Actually, I could much more easily argue for splitting the wizard just based on the sheer number of features it has. You're talking over 100 features for wizards (spells), spread over multiple schools of magic, vs less than half that for fighters and barbarians combined.

This peeves me. You're making an unsupported assumption that Wizards are the most versatile spellcasters, when the Cleric is arguably more so:

A wizard can only prepare the spells in their spell book. At level 1 that's 6 spells. At level 20 they still only have 44 spells, unless the DM gives them more spells. Compare that to a Cleric, who can consider their entire spell list to be their spell book for the purpose of preparing spells
Then there's preparation. They both use the formula of Casting stat + Level, but the Cleric also gets domain spells. Thus they have 6 spells at level 1.

Result: at levels 1 & 3 through 11, Clerics have equal or more spells in their head than a Wizard has in their entire spellbook!

Additionally, Wizards may have access to 100 different spells, but not a single one below wish can heal hitpoints. Which is pretty important, being as it is the only real way at early levels to wake up someone who's unconscious.

[Specter]

Considering the actual play experience, not at all.

A fighter can be the 'hithithit' guy, but he benefits from more tactical approaches. Even if you're playing a champion, which is as 'hithithit' as a fighter gets. Battlemaster and Eldritch Knight are a whole new ballgame, since they get reaction and bonus action uses that totally change their approach.

And then again, archers. Because even if (not assuming it's true) rangers are better archers, barbarians can't be archers. And don't even bring up DEX barbarians.

[Tanarii]

Let's be honest, the game really doesn't. By those levels Spellcasters just begin to outstrip everyone in power. I have a feeling the game only goes to level 10 for sacred cow reasons, with 12 being considered a good 'end point' by WotC. It at least gives a decent reason as to why so many capstones are lacluster.That's my experience in all editions of D&D. The only time I've ever played a serious on-going game with characters past level 12 that weren't retired, was the one time I was 14 y.o. and I gave my friends a dragon horde in BECMI that sent them straight from level 9 to level 30. (Pretty sure that latter broke a rule about how many levels you can gain at once too.) That game continued for a while until they got annihilated during the quest to become Immortals.

Other than that, it's always been from starting at higher level. Despite my D&D elders and mentors having drilled in to me that this was 'cheating', I've still done it for one-shots here and there.

But ... my experience can't speak for other people's experiences.

[Easy_Lee]

The other part that irritates me is that, by separating barbarian and fighter, they took many things fighters should have had and gave them only to barbarians.

Brutal critical and reckless attack are both good examples. If fighters had these features, no one would bat an eye. But the fighter itself would be a stronger and more rewarding class.

[LaserFace]

The other part that irritates me is that, by separating barbarian and fighter, they took many things fighters should have had and gave them only to barbarians.

Brutal critical and reckless attack are both good examples. If fighters had these features, no one would bat an eye. But the fighter itself would be a stronger and more rewarding class.

If you feel Fighters and Barbarians each individually lack class features and want to merge them to match your perception of the capacity of spellcasters, you should probably have made your opening post more along the lines of that argument, instead of making commentary on why Fighters and Barbarians exist as separate entities. Because, it was definitely done as a means to make distinct aesthetic differences, which doesn't really have much to do with what you're talking about.

[R.Shackleford]

The other part that irritates me is that, by separating barbarian and fighter, they took many things fighters should have had and gave them only to barbarians.

Brutal critical and reckless attack are both good examples. If fighters had these features, no one would bat an eye. But the fighter itself would be a stronger and more rewarding class.

Even without the barbarian, do you really think the Fighter would gain actual class features?

Nah, that isn't how 5e rolls.

[Easy_Lee]

If you feel Fighters and Barbarians each individually lack class features and want to merge them to match your perception of the capacity of spellcasters, you should probably have made your opening post more along the lines of that argument, instead of making commentary on why Fighters and Barbarians exist as separate entities. Because, it was definitely done as a means to make distinct aesthetic differences, which doesn't really have much to do with what you're talking about.

My first post addressed role. The one you quoted addressed balance. Neither has much to do with aesthetic, which is fluff.

[LaserFace]

My first post addressed role. The one you quoted addressed balance. Neither has much to do with aesthetic, which is fluff.

Yeah, I get that you made an argument about role. I was refuting the argument by saying the distinction isn't made by role, but aesthetic.

And then I was trying to determine if you really wanted to talk about balance. It's unclear to me what your aim is, because your discussion points seem to bounce around.

[Shaofoo]

Fighter is Captain America and Barbarian is Hulk.

[Battlebooze]

Yeah, I completely agree, but how far do you take it?

Barbarians are just fighters.
Bards are just wizards.
Clerics are just wizards that wear armour and get their magic from a god.
Druids are just clerics.
Monks are just clerics or fighters, as the case may be.
Paladins are just clerics.
Rangers are just fighters.
Rogues are just fighters.
Sorcerers are just wizards.
Warlocks are just clerics with patrons that are not gods.

This leaves us with wizards and fighters.



Actually...

Fighters are just non musical Bards with less magic.
Wizards are just non musical Bards with equal magic.

Therefore, all classes are Bards with different degrees of spell casting and music.

[smcmike]

Actually...

Fighters are just non musical Bards with less magic.
Wizards are just non musical Bards with equal magic.

Therefore, all classes are Bards with different degrees of spell casting and music.

Non-musical my foot. My barbarian can belch the entire alphabet song.

[LaserFace]

Actually...

Fighters are just non musical Bards with less magic.
Wizards are just non musical Bards with equal magic.

Therefore, all classes are Bards with different degrees of spell casting and music.

As it turns out, this extends to things beyond classes. The world is made of Bards propped up on the shoulders of yet more Bards. It's just Bards, all the way down.

[Ralanr]

Fighter is Captain America and Barbarian is Hulk.

A hulk who is still bound to mortal status half to the time.

Barbarians are suppose to get away with being a more primal and savage archetype of warrior, one that I wish wow had because sometimes I didn't want to play a heavily armored guy with a two handed axe that kills people.

And last I checked, enhancement shamans pretty much stick to duel wielding now.

Honestly the barbarian could be a subclass of fighter, but it's been a class stable for years now and won't go anywhere. It's just one of those many things in D&D that are just there because they are D&D, like rangers casting spells and wizards carrying books.

[Anonymouswizard]

As it turns out, this extends to things beyond classes. The world is made of Bards propped up on the shoulders of yet more Bards. It's just Bards, all the way down.

Right, that's it, this thread is now Bard from humour! :smalltongue:

[2D8HP]

Non-musical my foot. My barbarian can belch the entire alphabet song.


Right, that's it, this thread is now Bard from humour! :smalltongue:
:biggrin:


In all honnesty I see where you are coming from, however I see Rogues and Fighters as the same thing moreso than Fighters and Barbarians.

Rogues and Fighters are about using your brain and destroying your enemies with weapons. They are also about versatility as you can choose to be melee or ranged and your class features support either.

Barbarians are about brawns over brains. They can be built to go Dex, however their class features don't support this style fully.

There is no reason to have Rogues and Fighters be separate. I would just make a new class, the Sellswords, Warrior, or whatever and go with it.Most of my PC''s are either Fighters, Rogue's or both, so I'm on board for combining them!
In fact I think you could have just two classes, call them:

Martials and Magic-Users,

Skilled and Spell-casters, or

Warriors and Wizards?

[R.Shackleford]

:biggrin:

Most of my PC''s are either Fighters, Rogue's or both, so I'm on board for combining them!
In fact I think you could have just two classes, call them:

Martials and Magic-Users,

Skilled and Spell-casters, or

Warriors and Wizards?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20677189&postcount=4

I picked up this that I was working on before and changed some stuff around.

Cleric, Fighter, and Sorcerer.

[georgie_leech]

I disagree that classes should be divided based on mechanical role. There's room for different takes on the same concept with very different fluff behind them.

[Vogonjeltz]

Barbarians and Fighters fill basically the same role in parties. They're tanky, high damage, melee combatants. Aside from taking different approaches, they pretty much achieve the same thing. Worse, the barbarian actually fills the role better than a fighter does, in some ways. The fighter *can* be an archer, while the barbarian pretty much can't, but that role is honestly better filled by a ranger.

Why are these separate classes? I get that it's a sacred cow thing, but barbarian could have very easily been a fighter archetype (berserker).

If it were an archetype you'd lose out on the Barbarian archetypes, as well as many of the barbarian features.

All the unique abilities is the basic answer.

[R.Shackleford]

I disagree that classes should be divided based on mechanical role. There's room for different takes on the same concept with very different fluff behind them.

The problem is that then you get some classes that become "haves" and others that are "have nots".

[Pex]

D&D is a class-based system. No justification is needed on why there's a fighter and a barbarian other than they just are. Their particular game mechanics have been grouped together into distinct classes just because. There are other game systems that aren't class-based. You can pick and choose which abilities you want. D&D does not need to defend itself for its way of doing things. Choose which ever system you prefer. There's no point to griping one is not like the other.

[2D8HP]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20677189&postcount=4

I picked up this that I was working on before and changed some stuff around.

Cleric, Fighter, and Sorcerer.

I like it! :biggrin:

But it reminds me of something......

http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/original_dungeons_and_dragons_dd_men_and_magic_cov er.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C494

[Kane0]

Class: Type (Subtype)

Barbarian: Warrior (Angry)
Bard: Caster (Musical)
Cleric: Caster (Priest)
Druid: Caster (Hippy)
Fighter: Warrior (Vanilla)
Monk: Warrior (Oriental)
Paladin: Warrior (Knightly)
Ranger: Warrior (Bushman)
Rogue: Warrior (Knave)
Sorcerer: Caster (Snowflake)
Warlock: Caster (Contractor)
Wizard: Caster (Bookworm)

It's only a matter of time until someone makes an E6 or .5 version of 5e and cuts down a lot of classes into subclasses.

[R.Shackleford]

I like it! :biggrin:

But it reminds me of something......

http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/original_dungeons_and_dragons_dd_men_and_magic_cov er.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C494

Wasn't my original plan but I'll need to start pretending like it was, you know, to win over more people :smalltongue:


Class: Type (Subtype)

Barbarian: Warrior (Angry)
Bard: Caster (Musical)
Cleric: Caster (Priest)
Druid: Caster (Hippy)
Fighter: Warrior (Vanilla)
Monk: Warrior (Oriental)
Paladin: Warrior (Knightly)
Ranger: Warrior (Bushman)
Rogue: Warrior (Knave)
Sorcerer: Caster (Snowflake)
Warlock: Caster (Contractor)
Wizard: Caster (Bookworm)

It's only a matter of time until someone makes an E6 or .5 version of 5e and cuts down a lot of classes into subclasses.

Cough

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?485171-D-amp-D-5e-e5-(D-amp-D-5e-Epic-5)&p=20677189

Cough

Tho I'm working on fixing a few rules and making things more streamlined (rage gets the bonus with any strength attack, i mean, if a barbarian throws a table they should get a bonus to damage with said table).

I took a break from it and just changed quite a bit of it, I'm still working on it.

Need to add some more sub-classes but I'll get there eventually.

[Strill]

That's not really an argument, though. "Where I get my magic," is fluff, not a role.Classes aren't designed to fulfill a unique role. They're designed to match an archetype. If you want classes that are based around a role, go play 4e.


That observation is what led me to this ultimate conclusion. Most fighter "feature" levels are just extensions of their existing features. Indomitable shows up three times, Action Surge shows up twice, and Extra Attack shows up three times. That's 3 features taking the place of what should be eight features. And unlike with rogue gaining extra expertise, these features don't do anything that the feature the fighter already had didn't do.

And don't even get me started on comparisons. Action surge and extra attack are fine, but all three ranks of indomitable are less useful than either Diamond Soul or the feat Lucky.

Are you seriously arguing that quantity of features is all that matters? WotC only assigned a feature to each level because it feels good to get a new toy every level, not because of balance concerns.

If you're seriously going to make an argument that Fighters are underpowered, it's going to have to be a hell of a lot more comprehensive than just pointing to some trivial little asymmetries.

[R.Shackleford]

Classes aren't designed to fulfill a unique role. They're designed to match an archetype.

Archetype = a very typical example of a certain person or thing.

Role = the function assumed or part played by a person or thing in a particular situation.

Not seeing a huge difference here.

[georgie_leech]

Archetype = a very typical example of a certain person or thing.

Role = the function assumed or part played by a person or thing in a particular situation.

Not seeing a huge difference here.

The role Luke plays in Star Wars is that of the classic Hero that appears in many other stories. His archetype is a s
Space Samurai with telekinesis. There's quite a bit of difference between the job a character has in a party, and the sort of character you imagine when you hear the words 'Barabarian' or 'Monk.'

[Strill]

Archetype = a very typical example of a certain person or thing.

Role = the function assumed or part played by a person or thing in a particular situation.

Not seeing a huge difference here.

A role defines what you do. An archetype defines what you are.

For example, the Paladin is designed to emulate the archetype of a holy knight, bound by a code of honor. It's inspired by St. George (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_George_and_the_Dragon), the Knights of Charlemagne, and the Knights of the Round Table. That a Paladin is a warrior is obvious, but beyond that, the tactics and methods that define his role in combat are completely unrelated to his archetype. Whether a Paladin fights defensively or aggressively, and whether he fights alone or with a group is all completely irrelevant, because the archetype is concerned not with how he fights, but whether he upholds his code of honor.

[R.Shackleford]

A role defines what you do. An archetype defines what you are.

For example, the Paladin is designed to emulate the archetype of a holy knight, bound by a code of honor. It's inspired by St. George (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_George_and_the_Dragon), the Knights of Charlemagne, and the Knights of the Round Table. That a Paladin is a warrior is obvious, but beyond that, the tactics and methods that define his role in combat are completely unrelated to his archetype. Whether a Paladin fights defensively or aggressively, and whether he fights alone or with a group is all completely irrelevant, because the archetype is concerned not with how he fights, but whether he upholds his code of honor.

No difference.

What you do is who you are and who you are is what you do.

I can call my character a wizard all I want, even an evoker, but if I'm swinging my sword and have not the ability to cast wizard spells (much less evocation spells) then I'm not an evoker or a wizard.

Don't get me wrong, I love playing the Barbarian who thinks he is a cleric or wizard or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm a striker who deals direct weapon damage and rages and unleashes my inner bear.

[Strill]

No difference.

What you do is who you are and who you are is what you do.

That's not true at all. Two people can do the same thing for completely different reasons, in pursuit of completely different goals, and sometimes even end up with the same result.


I can call my character a wizard all I want, even an evoker, but if I'm swinging my sword and have not the ability to cast wizard spells (much less evocation spells) then I'm not an evoker or a wizard.

Don't get me wrong, I love playing the Barbarian who thinks he is a cleric or wizard or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm a striker who deals direct weapon damage and rages and unleashes my inner bear.
I'm not talking about characters that are deluded.

Your role is what you do to contribute in combat. Whether you focus on offense or defense or whatever. It has no relevance outside of combat.

"Archetype" means "Original pattern from which copies are made". Archetype refers to what historical or mythological figure or concept you emulate. For example, Loki, Coyote, and Puck are examples of the Trickster archetype. It especially refers to the Jungian idea of the collective unconscious and the Platonic theory of pure forms which embody a thing's fundamental essence.

Archetypes are a storytelling tool which allow the audience to immediately recognize familiar aspects of a character. Combat roles are simply a part of the combat system.

A Paladin could be realized in many different combat roles. What's important to the archetype is not that he fights in one way or another, but simply that he fights and follows a code of honor.

[R.Shackleford]

That's not true at all. Two people can do the same thing for completely different reasons, in pursuit of completely different goals, and sometimes even end up with the same result.


I'm not talking about characters that are deluded.

Your role is what you do to contribute in combat. Whether you focus on offense or defense or whatever. It has no relevance outside of combat.

"Archetype" means "Original pattern from which copies are made". Archetype refers to what historical or mythological figure or concept you emulate. For example, Loki, Coyote, and Puck are examples of the Trickster archetype. It especially refers to the Jungian idea of the collective unconscious and the Platonic theory of pure forms which embody a thing's fundamental essence.

Archetypes are a storytelling tool which allow the audience to immediately recognize familiar aspects of a character. Combat roles are simply a part of the combat system.

Everything you are saying about archetypes can be applied to roles.

The two terms are way to broad, my role in the party is my archetype because my archetype is what I do.

You are just trying to make a distinction between two things where one is not needed.

[Strill]

Everything you are saying about archetypes can be applied to roles.

The two terms are way to broad, my role in the party is my archetype because my archetype is what I do.

You are just trying to make a distinction between two things where one is not needed.

"My role in the party is Paladin because Paladin is what I do".

What is it that an archetypical Paladin does that defines his role in a party?

An archetypical Paladin protects the innocent. He draws strength from his purity, morals, and code of honor. That doesn't tell us anything about how he contributes to the party though. Just what kind of person he is.

Does he fight aggressively? Maybe. Maybe not. Does he fight defensively? Maybe. Maybe not. Does he incapacitate his enemies? Maybe. Maybe not. Does he command others in battle and lend them his strength? Maybe. Maybe not.

None of D&D 4e's roles are a fundamental part of the Paladin archetype. They're completely separate. An archetypical Paladin could fit any or all of those roles, or none of them.

My good blade carves the casques of men,
My tough lance thrusteth sure,
My strength is as the strength of ten,
Because my heart is pure.
— Lord Alfred Tennyson, "Sir Galahad"

[toapat]

A hulk who is still bound to mortal status half to the time.

Barbarians are suppose to get away with being a more primal and savage archetype of warrior, one that I wish wow had because sometimes I didn't want to play a heavily armored guy with a two handed axe that kills people.

And last I checked, enhancement shamans pretty much stick to duel wielding now.

Have you played Fury in the last month? the spec literally is a suicidal Death comet which engages entire zones at a time to see how much blood they can drink before they die. And Armor really doesnt work in any way in WoW for any meaningful purpose.


As for the current discussion:

A Role as DnD is concerned is the set of functions a character can perform.

An Archetype is the Design and feel of the character in question, and influences the character's abilities because of the construction of the mechanisms of the game.

[Ralanr]

Have you played Fury in the last month? the spec literally is a suicidal Death comet which engages entire zones at a time to see how much blood they can drink before they die. And Armor really doesnt work in any way in WoW for any meaningful purpose.


As for the current discussion:

A Role as DnD is concerned is the set of functions a character can perform.

An Archetype is the Design and feel of the character in question, and influences the character's abilities because of the construction of the mechanisms of the game.

Isn't fury also best used with duel wielding?

Sorry but I just wanted to use a two hander.

[Logosloki]

There is only need for three classes: Fighting Man, Magic User, and Priest. In fact there is only need for what was contained in the woodgrain box and all else is but hearsay, tomfoolery and impure in that order. If the texts in the woodgrain box direct you to a resource, that resource is true and correct.

As such the following is not a true and correct resource, this is not an exhaustive list. Anything produced after the fifth (5th) printing.

[Theodoxus]

I'm in agreement with Pex. Sure, you could condense the classes down to their core functions: Fightyman, sneakyman and castyman (or holycasty and arcaneycasty, if you need that granularity) - but there are other game systems that do that - so why try to reinvent the wheel.

There are scores, if not hundreds, of homebrew classes, some just new archetypes, some full on new classes - if you want to go in the other direction.

If you don't like multiclassing, condensation is preferable. If you never want your ragey-fightyman to also have battle manuevers or eldritch knight spells or smiting, that's a way to do that, without simply not allowing MC (which, imo, is a much easier to do than trying to balance three generic classes)...

If you want more granularity, opening up new classes is preferred. Maybe there's a new class that utilizes and expands on a specific thing you like from your primary class that isn't just another archetype to your class... Like if you're a battlemaster and want ALL the options, you decide to MC into spellless ranger for even more maneuver goodness, and pick up the Martial Adept feat.

Can core classes be made into archetypes? Sure. Berzerker at 3rd, gain 4 hit points, your HD increases to d12 for any level in fighter upon taking the Berserker archetype, you have access to Rage and Rage Damage, get a totem, reckless attack, whatever...

Just don't really see the need for it...

Of course, you could just give Fighters Rage from first level, let it fuel all their things... At 1st level, they spend it on Second Wind. At 2nd level, add Action Surge to the mix. This gives Fighters a bit of a WoW Warrior feel, though the non-Barbarian abilities would need to be rebalanced towards Long Rest (for Rage) or Rage would need to be rebalanced as a Short Rest mechanic (I'd go with cutting it in half - 1 Rage from 1st -> 5th, 2 from 6th->16th and 3 from 17th-20th (removing the unlimited capstone, because unlimited action surges is insane) but I would give fighters the Barb capstone of boosted physical stat caps)... Of course, giving Barbarians 4 attacks by 20th level (with 2 Action Surges) would be kinda scary... but then again, if you're reducing Rage to a short rest mechanic, you might only have 3 by 20th level... so 1 normal Rage and 2 spent of Action Surges... and a desire to take a short rest =D

[Arkhios]

A hulk who is still bound to mortal status half to the time.

Barbarians are suppose to get away with being a more primal and savage archetype of warrior, one that I wish wow had because sometimes I didn't want to play a heavily armored guy with a two handed axe that kills people.

And last I checked, enhancement shamans pretty much stick to duel wielding now.

Honestly the barbarian could be a subclass of fighter, but it's been a class stable for years now and won't go anywhere. It's just one of those many things in D&D that are just there because they are D&D, like rangers casting spells and wizards carrying books.
Have you played Fury in the last month? the spec literally is a suicidal Death comet which engages entire zones at a time to see how much blood they can drink before they die. And Armor really doesnt work in any way in WoW for any meaningful purpose.


As for the current discussion:

A Role as DnD is concerned is the set of functions a character can perform.

An Archetype is the Design and feel of the character in question, and influences the character's abilities because of the construction of the mechanisms of the game.
Isn't fury also best used with duel dual wielding?

Sorry but I just wanted to use a two hander.

Sorry for derailing the thread even further, but as a over 10-year-gamer I couldn't resist chiming in... (and fixing duel to dual for you. Seriously, get your stuff right...)

Yes, fury is a dual wielding specialization. Now, with 2 two-handers. You like two-handers? What's there not to like if you can dual wield two-handers?! :D

Now, back on topic.

The reason why there are more than just one warrior type with several sub-classes is not only because they've been around for years. it's also because each one fills a specific niche.
Niches too big for a single class to fill with only a few levels' worth of sub-class features.

It's true, you could combine half of the classes with each other, like this, if you wished:

Fighter and Barbarian are similar. Both are warriors. However, their iconic differences are: Disciplined and undisciplined warriors.

Cleric and Druid are similar. Both are divine casters. However, their iconic differences are: Servant of a God and Servant of the Nature.

Sorcerer and Wizard are similar. Both are arcane casters. However, their iconic differences are: Student of Magic and Born with Magic.

Bard and Warlock are similar. Both are versatile casters and combatants. However, their iconic differences are: Selfless group support and Selfish Powerjunkie.

Paladin and Ranger are similar. Both are half divine casters and half warriors. However, their iconic differences are: warrior of god and warrior of nature.

Rogue and Monk are similar. Both are subtle specialists. Monks specialize in honing their own strengths and weaknesses. Rogues specialize in exploiting the strengths and weaknesses of others.

[toapat]

Isn't fury also best used with duel wielding?

Sorry but I just wanted to use a two hander.

fury dual wields 2H weapons/

[Ralanr]

fury dual wields 2H weapons/

You see, that just feels like overcompensating.

And I am really bad at spelling sometimes.

[toapat]

Fighter and Barbarian are similar. Both are warriors. However, their iconic differences are: Disciplined and undisciplined warriors.

Cleric and Druid are similar. Both are divine casters. However, their iconic differences are: Servant of a God and Servant of the Nature.

Sorcerer and Wizard are similar. Both are arcane casters. However, their iconic differences are: Student of Magic and Born with Magic.

Bard and Warlock are similar. Both are versatile casters and combatants. However, their iconic differences are: Selfless group support and Selfish Powerjunkie.

Paladin and Ranger are similar. Both are half divine casters and half warriors. However, their iconic differences are: warrior of god and warrior of nature.

Rogue and Monk are similar. Both are subtle specialists. Monks specialize in honing their own strengths and weaknesses. Rogues specialize in exploiting the strengths and weaknesses of others.

Really, when it comes down to it, Cleric and Druid are the classes which shouldnt exist as separate and disparate forms. Both are adherents of a form of divinity, and their existence takes away from eachother, and from the paladin, ranger, and gish specs, although Eldrich Knight takes more away from.

The Fighter and Monk also take away from eachother, as both classes are disciplined combatants who mechanically are intended to maximize the effectiveness of their economy in combat.

Barbarian: Primal Combatant
Bard: Battlesinger, spoony
Cleric: Adherent of a Diety
Druid: Adherent of nature
Fighter: Master at Self, Arms and Disciplined combat
Monk: Master of Self and Disciplined combat
Paladin: Blade of the Righteous
Ranger: Huntsmaster
Rogue: Streetwise combatant
Sorcerer: Innate Improv magus
Warlock: Scumbag wizard
Wizard: Educated Magus.

[R.Shackleford]

Really, when it comes down to it, Cleric and Druid are the classes which shouldnt exist as separate and disparate forms. Both are adherents of a form of divinity, and their existence takes away from eachother, and from the paladin, ranger, and gish specs, although Eldrich Knight takes more away from.

The Fighter and Monk also take away from eachother, as both classes are disciplined combatants who mechanically are intended to maximize the effectiveness of their economy in combat.

Barbarian: Primal Combatant
Bard: Battlesinger, spoony
Cleric: Adherent of a Diety
Druid: Adherent of nature
Fighter: Master at Self, Arms and Disciplined combat
Monk: Master of Self and Disciplined combat
Paladin: Blade of the Righteous
Ranger: Huntsmaster
Rogue: Streetwise combatant
Sorcerer: Innate Improv magus
Warlock: Scumbag wizard
Wizard: Educated Magus.

I view Sorcerer as the base class for Arcane Casters, they are the bare bones of that set. If you have some talent for arcane magic you can then expand upon that little bit of talent you may have by either continuing to try really hard (pure Sorcerer), bargaining for power (Warlock), or through education (wizard).



Arcane Source

Choose a source of your arcane power. Is your arcane power the result of a Gift, Natural Talent, or from Study? Depending on your Arcane Source the type of sorcerer you are is changed slightly.

Gift: You are considered a Warlock. You have made a deal, or someone in your family made it for you, and now you are bestowed the gift of arcane power. Your Spell-casting ability score is Intelligence or Charisma.

Natural Talent: You are considered a "pure" Sorcerer. You just have natural talent and don't really need to figure out why you can do what you do, you just do it. Your Spell-casting ability score is Wisdom or Charisma.

Study: You are called a Wizard. You may not have been given much, you may not have natural talent, but through study you have learned to harness and control the arcane energies around you. Your Spell-casting ability score is Intelligence.



Really you could make a specific group of hybrids and put Bard (Primary Arcane), Paladin (Primary Divine), Ranger (Primary Martial) and Monk (Primary Martial) in that group... However they each fall under other umbrellas.

Druids and Clerics are the same thing, druids are just a specialized cleric.

[Tanarii]

I view Sorcerer as the base class for Arcane Casters, they are the bare bones of that set.I would, except they're super specialized and niche origins make them completely not bare bones at all.

[R.Shackleford]

I would, except they're super specialized and niche origins make them completely not bare bones at all.

The sorcerer, not the subclasses.

By learning your abilities you unlock whatever natural talent you have. Maybe you have dragon blood or maybe you are just able to imitate dragon features.

The sorcerer could unlock their blood (pure sorcerer), focus on their gift (warlock), or study arcane knowledge (wizard). Everyone has a different potential.

[Tanarii]

The sorcerer, not the subclasses.I understand. But compared to Warlocks (Pact with a powerful being) and Wizard (Study), Sorcerers sub-classes *detract* from the feeling of a unified concept for the class, as opposed to add to it. They feel like a bunch of unrelated separate ideas losely tied together under a single heading, as opposed to a unified concept that then specializes into a specific focus. The fluff prevents me from seeing them as a single class that can be a baseline for anything. Even Warlocks get a touch of that feeling, but the Patrons are variations on a theme, as opposed to unrelated themes cobbled together under a single heading.

So yeah, I still see Wizards as the baseline for Arcane Casting. Sorcerers and Warlocks are (fairly rare) alternate paths to access the power. Sufficiently different to warrant separate archetypes though.

Of course, this is all very very IMO.

[Theodoxus]

I still think this whole discussion becomes moot if you simply disallow multiclassing, or at the very least, disallow multiclassing within the same subgroups (however you want to divide them).

My typical subdivisions are:
Adept: Cleric, Druid, Paladin
Arcane: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Scoundrel: Bard, Monk, Rogue
Warrior: Barbarian, Ranger, Fighter

It doesn't resolve every powerful MC option, but it does restore some semblance of balance while still allowing for multiclassing.

[R.Shackleford]

I understand. But compared to Warlocks (Pact with a powerful being) and Wizard (Study), Sorcerers sub-classes *detract* from the feeling of a unified concept for the class, as opposed to add to it. They feel like a bunch of unrelated separate ideas losely tied together under a single heading, as opposed to a unified concept that then specializes into a specific focus. The fluff prevents me from seeing them as a single class that can be a baseline for anything. Even Warlocks get a touch of that feeling, but the Patrons are variations on a theme, as opposed to unrelated themes cobbled together under a single heading.

So yeah, I still see Wizards as the baseline for Arcane Casting. Sorcerers and Warlocks are (fairly rare) alternate paths to access the power. Sufficiently different to warrant separate archetypes though.

Of course, this is all very very IMO.

I see it this way.

To become a wizard you would need to show some promise in the arts. Not everyone Intelligent is going to have the ability to cast arcane spells. Sure you may get the basics down but you wouldn't have any real potential. There are multiple types of intelligence too.

So how do you pick out who can use arcane magic? The kids born with magic part of them. This could be because of blood, the weave choosing them, or luck. The kid shows promise of arcane ability and is sent off to school. Now the kid may not want to focus on school or whatever and may prefer to work on their natural talent (blood is just a fantasy word for natural talent or DNA) and get things done a different way.

Sometimes these kids don't have access to schools. Much like how some athletes don't have access to their preferred sport so they pick up another sport (Tim Duncan was a swimmer).

Some kids/teens/adults (or perhaps you fluff it as their parents) make a deal with devils, feys, or old ones for power. They don't grow their natural talent.

Perhaps the structured order of wizardry suppresses the blood's magic (order versus chaos). Perhaps the past suppresses the blood magic. Perhaps the kid just doesn't have that much natural potential but can use what they have to expand in a different way (wiz or war).

[Theodoxus]

That's all well and good, except how do you encapsulate that into a level one of a singular class?

It's not like a Domain, each alters the way you actually gain spells, abilities and powers.

Fluffwise, sure, in your world, all mages of all stripes can go to Hogwarts and they then differentiate into bards/sorcerers/wizards/warlocks whatever. But for the mechanics of the actual game? No can do.

Having them be different classes with different origins and progressions is far simpler and easier to maintain than your weird hybrid amalgam of arcane gibberish.

[Tanarii]

My typical subdivisions are:
Adept: Cleric, Druid, Paladin
Arcane: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Scoundrel: Bard, Monk, Rogue
Warrior: Barbarian, Ranger, Fighter

Interesting. I subdivide by role:
Warrior / Tank: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin
Scout / Skirmisher: Monk, Ranger, Rogue
Artillery: Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Support / back-up to primary: Bard, Cleric, Druid

Your dividing by something closer to archetype from what I can see.

Note: I'll freely admit my divisions are very combat oriented. Non-combat divisions are really flexible in 5e because Backgrounds allow anyone to take any two skills. Although obviously some classes do better than others at certain things due to class features, spells, and/or primary stats required.

[Tanarii]

To become a wizard you would need to show some promise in the arts. Not everyone Intelligent is going to have the ability to cast arcane spells. Sure you may get the basics down but you wouldn't have any real potential. There are multiple types of intelligence too.
That's the exact opposite of how I see it. Anyone can learn to be a Wizard. They don't even need Intelligence. Obviously they'll absolutely suck at certain kinds of spells (any with an attack roll or saving throw) if they aren't particularly Intelligent, but anyone can do it, given sufficient access to the ability to study.

Whereas Sorcerers require a spark of innate magic from an origin source, and therefore are particularly rare.

I think my view comes from staring playing with AD&D 1e / BECMI. Magic-users only required an Int 9. So I was very used to seeing low Int Magic-users, low Str Fighters, low Dex Thieves, and low Wis Clerics. The four basic classes were the baseline because almost anyone could become them. It wasn't until 3e that having a high Intelligence became a necessity, as opposed to a nice boost. Edit: And of course Sorcerers (along with Warlocks) are a new class. All the other classes, including Wizards, are O.G.

[SmokingSkull]

This thread reminds me of my current character: my fighter/barb. He's overall level 10, I got a +1 greataxe and a ring of jumping as far as magic items go. Otherwise I'm just working with what I have, using the system as is if your group allows it does make this particular MC fairly powerful (7 F/ 3B, I went Champion and Totem Warrior (Bear) as my choices for subclass). But I did have to wait for almost a year for this to become reality. More to the point his combat capacity is not only effective but it reinforces the theme. I'm playing a warrior that is both disciplined yet savage, it reminds me of the Paragon Path for Barbarians in 4th: Calm Fury.

Essentially a Barbarian that has mastered their rage to the point of not frothing at the mouth when they let loose, but unleashing terrible destruction upon their foolish foes when they do. I suppose the only difference may be fluff, but to be fair my character's backstory set up for this before I even realized it. Also of note my MC happened very naturally, it wasn't forced and context wise it made a lot of sense. Mechanically the experience is exquisite, and is definitely worth it imo. But this is just my two copper.

[djreynolds]

Great thread first off.

I would like it if the fighter could give up an attack to take the Dodge action in place of it.

Say 11th level, swing, swing, then dodge. Could be cool.

Or instead of reckless attack, defensive attack where a fighter could swing his attacks at disadvantage but all attacks versus him were made at disadvantage.

Then we would begin to see a real difference in tactics between the two warriors. One of destruction and one of attrition.

[R.Shackleford]

That's the exact opposite of how I see it. Anyone can learn to be a Wizard. They don't even need Intelligence. Obviously they'll absolutely suck at certain kinds of spells (any with an attack roll or saving throw) if they aren't particularly Intelligent, but anyone can do it, given sufficient access to the ability to study.

Whereas Sorcerers require a spark of innate magic from an origin source, and therefore are particularly rare.

I think my view comes from staring playing with AD&D 1e / BECMI. Magic-users only required an Int 9. So I was very used to seeing low Int Magic-users, low Str Fighters, low Dex Thieves, and low Wis Clerics. The four basic classes were the baseline because almost anyone could become them. It wasn't until 3e that having a high Intelligence became a necessity, as opposed to a nice boost. Edit: And of course Sorcerers (along with Warlocks) are a new class. All the other classes, including Wizards, are O.G.


I wanted to add..

If anyone smart could learn spells then magic wouldn't be as rare or special. Also with how magic works in 5e... You can have an 8 Int and still be a level 20 wizard.

I like to think 5e (3e and 4e base setting) magic is special typically. Not on a PC v PC mode but on a setting scale.


Great thread first off.

I would like it if the fighter could give up an attack to take the Dodge action in place of it.

Say 11th level, swing, swing, then dodge. Could be cool.

Or instead of reckless attack, defensive attack where a fighter could swing his attacks at disadvantage but all attacks versus him were made at disadvantage.

Then we would begin to see a real difference in tactics between the two warriors. One of destruction and one of attrition.

Defensive Attack would be interesting but the Fighter would need more class features, core class features, to compliment the style.

[Tanarii]

I wanted to add..

If anyone smart could learn spells then magic wouldn't be as rare or special. Also with how magic works in 5e... You can have an 8 Int and still be a level 20 wizard.

I like to think 5e (3e and 4e base setting) magic is special typically. Not on a PC v PC mode but on a setting scale.I think that people with *PC classes* are rare & special. But anyone with a PC class (be they PC or NPC) will commonly be a Wizard, Fighter, or Rogue, or Cleric. And Druids, Rangers, Barbarians and Warlocks, and Sorcerers are less common. And that Bards, Monks and Paladins are vanishingly rare.

What can I say, it's a grognard bias. :smallwink:

[Specter]

I think that people with *PC classes* are rare & special. But anyone with a PC class (be they PC or NPC) will commonly be a Wizard, Fighter, or Rogue, or Cleric. And Druids, Rangers, Barbarians and Warlocks, and Sorcerers are less common. And that Bards, Monks and Paladins are vanishingly rare.

What can I say, it's a grognard bias. :smallwink:

I'd say Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Barbarians and Bards are the most common characters in a D&D setting, because their abilities can be passed on much more easily and are part of many lifestyles. Monks, Druids and Wizards, as reclusive people by nature, would be second in line. Classes who need special dispensation or special events to exist (Warlocks, Sorcerers, Clerics and Paladins) would probably be the rarest. But that depends on your world, obviously.

[R.Shackleford]

I think that people with *PC classes* are rare & special. But anyone with a PC class (be they PC or NPC) will commonly be a Wizard, Fighter, or Rogue, or Cleric. And Druids, Rangers, Barbarians and Warlocks, and Sorcerers are less common. And that Bards, Monks and Paladins are vanishingly rare.

What can I say, it's a grognard bias. :smallwink:

I read that as gonad bias and I was a bit confused... :smalleek:

The thing is that casting isn't just a PC thing, there are plenty of NPCs out there that have the connections and influence to have magic taught to them if they are smart enough to handle it (or taught to their family).

Not all wizards would be against a very nice and cushy job. Especially one that financed their research.

I think there needs to be something else that makes a magic user able to use magic other than just "I'm smart enough" because smart enough is easily attained (int is broken away from wis and cha). Intelligence is something you gain from outside yourself. Charisma, force of personality, is something that is part of you. Sure you can fake it or try to learn it, but it mostly comes from yourself.

Kinda like Harry butthole Potter, he didn't have to learn to be a chosen one, hell, he didn't learn much during his time at school. He just was the chosen one. (well, really Neville is totally also the chosen one too, but again, he didn't have to learn to be a chosen one).


Edit

I would like to see PC classes become a title within the world. The best of the best acolyte is the Cleric. The best of the best soldiers is the Fighter. And so on...

[8wGremlin]

If you were a normal dnd person.
Had 10 in every stat.
We're only ever going to be 1st level.
What class would you pick?

[R.Shackleford]

If you were a normal dnd person.
Had 10 in every stat.
We're only ever going to be 1st level.
What class would you pick?

Mountain Dwarf Outlander Cleric that gains heavy armor and neat spells.

*played in a one shot like this, totally died last*

[Tanarii]

But that depends on your world, obviously.absolutely. I didn't mean to imply that my view should apply to anyone else's campaign setting. Nor even the public ones. I was explaining my bias.


IThe thing is that casting isn't just a PC thing, there are plenty of NPCs out there that have the connections and influence to have magic taught to them if they are smart enough to handle it (or taught to their family).Sure. But they aren't wizards. The PC class. They're something else. But yes, that's why I was careful to qualify my answer.


I think there needs to be something else that makes a magic user able to use magic other than just "I'm smart enough" because smart enough is easily attained (int is broken away from wis and cha). Intelligence is something you gain from outside yourself. Charisma, force of personality, is something that is part of you. Sure you can fake it or try to learn it, but it mostly comes from yourself. First of all, I disagree, at least in 5e. All stats are both inherent and trainable. (Edit: by which I mean, they're an abstract value, that can be interpreted to be either as desired.)

But regardless, there is something other than just being smart enough: opportunity to learn. Just as sorcs have something other than just force of personality: a spark of inherent magic-y-ness

I just view the former as relatively common, and the latter as relatively rare.

[djreynolds]

Like I said I've been playing the fighter forever.

And the fighter is vanilla because we the player are supposed to add to it. The barbarian and ranger and paladin have identities.

Bu the problem with the fighter is I'm only adding feats or multiclassing to the fighter

The paladin has now 4 cool archetypes, and though MAD they get something very significant in maxing out charisma and strength and their high charisma makes investing in social skills a good idea

The barbarian is also the same and all 3 archetypes are cool, with totem being so cool of an idea, and because of the high dex and strength they can be so versatile

The ranger is a very cool class in all of the 3 pillars of the game, though

But the fighter, especially the champion who's honed to deadly perfection yet it is the barbarian who get advantage to strength checks and indomitable might and brutal criticals appears to be deadly perfect and doesn't need feats.

Though MAD a ranger and paladin are very cool and represent a ranger/agile skirmisher and a melee commander and the barbarian

The fighter gets nothing really for having high mental skills other than a meager skill bonus and save bonus and the champion and battlemaster have no other incentive to have more invested because they do not get much more

Players do not want to be an accumulation of feats. You get 2 extra feats at levels 6 and 14 and

Now perhaps this is done to have the feats define the fighter, obviously if you selecting sharpshooter you are more than likely a dexterous archer.

The issue is I want something class specific for having a higher intelligence or wisdom or charisma, that isn't feat or makes me want to multiclass

I want a team feat where my party gets a tactical advantage for having a seasoned fighter, yes I can max out charisma and take inspiring leader but that's all I get. A paladin can do the same and also gets spells and aura of protection

[Safety Sword]

So, have we decided to let D&D have classes yet?

Great.

Keep rolling everyone.

[Knaight]

D&D is a class-based system. No justification is needed on why there's a fighter and a barbarian other than they just are. Their particular game mechanics have been grouped together into distinct classes just because. There are other game systems that aren't class-based. You can pick and choose which abilities you want. D&D does not need to defend itself for its way of doing things. Choose which ever system you prefer. There's no point to griping one is not like the other.

The choice to use a class based system doesn't necessarily justify every particular grouping, whether this means overly broad classes that probably should have been split or overly narrow classes that could stand to be merged. I'd argue that 5e doesn't have any overly narrow classes yet, given how it's designed. Overly broad is trickier - the Wizard and Cleric are sacred cows, but it probably wouldn't hurt to split them up a bit.

Other class based systems do have some needlessly specific stuff. 3.5 prestige classes are a great example; most of them are nearly pointless bloat representing something ridiculously narrow.

[jaappleton]

i'm not at all certain that the ranger is a better archer than the fighter.

and i'm even less certain that you could really have barbarian as a fighter archetype and not lose anything.

As someone that's gone from Barbarian to Fighter, there is a big difference. While both were Melee frontline fighters, I had to go at both with different mindsets. Trying to play my Fighter like my Barbarian got my character killed.

And Ranger is a better Archer than Fighter... Depends on what you're trying to do besides shoot things with a bow. But the Scout fighter is arguably better, and the Ranger's spell list, while AoE centric, is garbage.

[Tanarii]

The choice to use a class based system doesn't necessarily justify every particular grouping, whether this means overly broad classes that probably should have been split or overly narrow classes that could stand to be merged. I'd argue that 5e doesn't have any overly narrow classes yet, given how it's designed. Overly broad is trickier - the Wizard and Cleric are sacred cows, but it probably wouldn't hurt to split them up a bit.All classes except the Warlock and Sorcerer are Sacred Cows. That said, I totally forgot that the Barbarian is only a semi-sacred cow. It came about in AD&D 1e Oriental Adventures & Unearthed Arcana. And then disappeared in 2e as a separate class. Then came back in 3e. So while it's got an older history than Warlock and Sorcercer, it's not got the 'in every edition since AD&D' sacredness that all the other archetypes do.

The OPs question is pretty much on par with "Why Sorcerers?" Which was a question used to get asked a lot. I still hear it from new players pretty regularly. The sentiment I usually hear: "They seem like limited Wizards with magical parents. I don't get it."