Is it time for D&D to ditch classes?

[Crl1981]

I ask the question due to the popularity of multiclassing. The push for players looking for more utility or to get the right “aspects” they are looking for.

I have played a number of other systems including games like Shadowrun. After playing those I feel as though I get pigeon holed into characteristics simply because of the class/classes I chose.

Thoughts?

[Mikal]

Nope, sorry. Plenty of systems are out there for classless play. D&D isn't one of them.

[Rhedyn]

I personally prefer classless and I think it is more efficient under the design philosophy of "Rules for things good, complexity bad"

But that's not Mearl's design philosophy. If the rules are only meant to set the theme and be exciting with complexity being treated as bad and comprehensiveness being treated as irrelevant because the DM can make rulings, then I am not sure if you want to drop classes. Because classes are both exciting and thematic.

[MilkmanDanimal]

No, D&D is the proverbial granddaddy of the class-based RPG system, and it should stay that way. There are plenty of other options for classless. Having classes is an easy way to build characters, and, while I played loads of HERO and loved the customizability of it, it added loads of complexity. D&D keeps it simple, and it works great that way.

[bc56]

It will never be time for D&D to drop classes
They're one of the most central parts of the game, and have been since it was released. If D&D stopped having classes, then it would no longer really be D&D in more than name, the style would be totally different.

[KorvinStarmast]

Nope, sorry. Plenty of systems are out there for classless play. D&D isn't one of them. Additional vote for this PoV.

[Pelle]

No, classes is a good way to quickly and easily create strong archetype characters, without players having to make a lot of decisions first.

However, I do think that a lot of people playing D&D would be better suited with a point buy system. For example, the whole 3.5 player base is people who mainly enjoy concept character building. Though I guess it's boring for them if they easily can pick the abilities they want, instead of it being a puzzle.

[Mr.Spastic]

Yeah, if you want classless D&D, just play something else. Not to sound rude, but D&D is built on classes. If you want something different, maybe you should create your own system?

[iTreeby]

They got rid of feat chains to give classes more design room. Classes are important to dnd's identity and they are not going anywhere. There are lots of fun games that work well without classes and if you can convince your table to give them a try, you might be suprised how well they work.

[Eragon123]

Also I feel that the popularity of multiclassing is more due to lack of compelling upper level features and how most campaigns end before the shortfalls of multiclassing are made manifest.

I don't allow multiclassing at my table and instead try to make small QOL changes to some of the more dipped classes to try and make them more satisfying to play.

[Unoriginal]

No, it's not. Even the designers wanted to do it for some reasons, 4 years into an edition is hardly the time for such a change.

[Contrast]

I ask the question due to the popularity of multiclassing.

I'd be interested to know how true this actually is.

They're popular in theorycrafting discussions because 'just be straight class' is boring and when theorycrafting you're often optimising for a specific goal at a specific level. When actually playing* you're usually either playing a short low level game where its usually just better to single class or a long campaign where dipping may be a months long investment that you might never see the pay off on.

In actual gameplay I've probably seen 100+ characters and only a couple of multiclassed ones.


*Warning - personal experience of the poster incoming, your experience may differ.

[Spiritchaser]

The main draw for me of a classless system is more power to build exactly what you want, either mechanically or conceptually.

As 5e adds more subclasses this becomes less and less important. Odds are one can build more or less what one wants, and fill in the gaps with multiclass options.

I still feel there are a few pieces missing, including a few more Druid options, paladin oaths, and there really need to be fey and fiend sorcerers... mechanically we would still benefit from an arcane half caster...

But... these feel like pretty small gaps. Sure you could fill these gaps with a classless system, but it’d be easier to add a few more subclasses and call it good enough.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd be interested to know how true this actually is.

They're popular in theorycrafting discussions because 'just be straight class' is boring and when theorycrafting you're often optimising for a specific goal at a specific level. When actually playing* you're usually either playing a short low level game where its usually just better to single class or a long campaign where dipping may be a months long investment that you might never see the pay off on.

In actual gameplay I've probably seen 100+ characters and only a couple of multiclassed ones.


*Warning - personal experience of the poster incoming, your experience may differ.

In my experience, only those who have long experience with 3e or PF (or those who enjoy experimenting with mechanics) multiclass. I remember (but can't quote) market research from WoTC saying that only a small minority ever multiclass, and those that do only dip a single level (or 2).

Multiclassing isn't a straight upgrade. For most cases it's a side-grade. We theorycraft at level 20, but most games never get there.

[Dudu]

Actually multiclassing in a campaign can be more complicated.

Sure, a Cleric 17/Wizard 3 is likely stronger than a Cleric 20. But when should you drop? Probably later rather than sooner, and a lot of campaigns won't get far enough.

[GlenSmash!]

I'd prefer a re-work of the 6 ability scores before dropping classes.

But neither is going to happen.

[Rhedyn]

Actually multiclassing in a campaign can be more complicated.

Sure, a Cleric 17/Wizard 3 is likely stronger than a Cleric 20. But when should you drop? Probably later rather than sooner, and a lot of campaigns won't get far enough.
Fighter 1/Wizard 18/Fighter 1 is a really optimal build.

Being a level behind is totally worth being able to have a mundane 21 AC and con save proficiency. Action surge makes for one of the best capstones in the game.

[Willie the Duck]

I ask the question due to the popularity of multiclassing. The push for players looking for more utility or to get the right “aspects” they are looking for.

I have played a number of other systems including games like Shadowrun. After playing those I feel as though I get pigeon holed into characteristics simply because of the class/classes I chose.

Every time someone suggest a radical change to D&D, I try to ask something along the lines of, "if D&D made this change, would there be a reason to play this new D&D, rather than a system designed around this gaming philosophy?"

D&D is a kluged-together, mongrel beast of a system made up of things that made absolute sense at one point in time, and are now considered vital because something else feeds off of it, but the original reasoning is long gone. Kind of like a jalopy that gets converted into a pickup which gets repurposed as an ambulance which sits stationary until it is effectively a hospital but then they built a new wing on it so the original is now a billings department (or any other over-the-top Rube Goldberg train of thought). And people like it that way. As both you and others have stated, there are plenty of other systems out there purpose built to 'solve' this or that bugfeature of D&D.

Obviously this philosophy can't be taken to its logical extreme, or else we'd still be playing oD&D from the little brown books. However, when we suggest change, one has to consider exactly how many people are actually champing at the bit to play 'D&D, but with ____' rather than finding other D&D players who dislike x, y, or z about the game, and convince them to try Shadowrun, Fate, GURPS, or what-have-you. D&D is a great intro into the hobby, but people invested enough in the hobby to say, "I like it, but..." usually are okay with going outside the realm of the hegemon and find what works for them.


Edit/P.S.: D&D has been both more multiclass crazy (with 3e, if you consider prestige classes to be multiclassing), and less (4e had thematic pseudo-multiclassing, but it was a completely different mechanism).

[Amdy_vill]

I ask the question due to the popularity of multiclassing. The push for players looking for more utility or to get the right “aspects” they are looking for.

I have played a number of other systems including games like Shadowrun. After playing those I feel as though I get pigeon holed into characteristics simply because of the class/classes I chose.

Thoughts?

I think it would be a fun idea for 6th or 7th edition to play with. I don't think i will happen though

Edit: the closes thing I could see them going for is making more classes like warlock and mystic were you have a larger verity in choices.

[Rhedyn]

Every time someone suggest a radical change to D&D, I try to ask something along the lines of, "if D&D made this change, would there be a reason to play this new D&D, rather than a system designed around this gaming philosophy?"

D&D is a kluged-together, mongrel beast of a system made up of things that made absolute sense at one point in time, and are now considered vital because something else feeds off of it, but the original reasoning is long gone. Kind of like a jalopy that gets converted into a pickup which gets repurposed as an ambulance which sits stationary until it is effectively a hospital but then they built a new wing on it so the original is now a billings department (or any other over-the-top Rube Goldberg train of thought). And people like it that way. As both you and others have stated, there are plenty of other systems out there purpose built to 'solve' this or that bugfeature of D&D.

Obviously this philosophy can't be taken to its logical extreme, or else we'd still be playing oD&D from the little brown books. However, when we suggest change, one has to consider exactly how many people are actually champing at the bit to play 'D&D, but with ____' rather than finding other D&D players who dislike x, y, or z about the game, and convince them to try Shadowrun, Fate, GURPS, or what-have-you. D&D is a great intro into the hobby, but people invested enough in the hobby to say, "I like it, but..." usually are okay with going outside the realm of the hegemon and find what works for them.


Edit/P.S.: D&D has been both more multiclass crazy (with 3e, if you consider prestige classes to be multiclassing), and less (4e had thematic pseudo-multiclassing, but it was a completely different mechanism).
WotC could totally drop a RDG (Rules Developer Guide) that included something like a custom class maker and no-one would bat an eye.

Such a thing would be equivalent to having a classless system (though more complicated than most classless systems are willing to be). It's not incompatible with D&D until you also demand that classes be removed rather than just asking for a classless system to be added.

[Gryndle]

Nope, sorry. Plenty of systems are out there for classless play. D&D isn't one of them.

Absolutely agree here. A classless system wouldn't feel like DND at all to me. Classes are so hardwired into the history and structure (both mechanical and social) of Dungeons and Dragons that removing them would just be too far for me.

That doesn't mean I don't like classless systems, I've played quite a few, and enjoyed most of them. Even created one of my own that my players enjoyed, just never got it beyond the bare-bones testing phase.

[Cynthaer]

They're popular in theorycrafting discussions because 'just be straight class' is boring and when theorycrafting you're often optimising for a specific goal at a specific level. When actually playing* you're usually either playing a short low level game where its usually just better to single class or a long campaign where dipping may be a months long investment that you might never see the pay off on.

In actual gameplay I've probably seen 100+ characters and only a couple of multiclassed ones.


*Warning - personal experience of the poster incoming, your experience may differ.

This is my experience with Adventures League games. As you said, multiclassing is overrepresented in forum discussions because there's not much to discuss back and forth about single-class builds.

First, there are all of the builds that don't get asked about because they're so obvious: If I want to play a necromancer, I just make a Necromancer Wizard . Girl who sold her soul for incredible power? Fiend Warlock. Swordsman who wields a blade in one hand and shoots fire from the other? Eldritch Knight. Witch of the forest? Circle of Land Druid or Nature Cleric. Thief with a heart of gold? Thief Rogue.

You rarely see threads about these concepts (except from the occasional brand new player) because they're already baked right into the class/subclass options.

Second, when a character concept can be covered without multiclassing, the discussion is usually short:

OP: "Hey, I want to play a scout/lookout type, but I don't really want the magical aspects of being a ranger. I'd rather be purely mundane. Suggestions?"

Someone: "Try the Scout subclass for Rogue; they added it in Xanathar's."

OP: "Sounds perfect, thanks!"

Third, a lot of times people start discussing multiclassing for the sake of multiclassing, precisely because it's the only remaining way to continue a discussion. For instance, the exchange above could easily keep going if people start weighing the pros and cons of a two-level dip into Fighter for Action Surge, and so on. The single class discussion is one post, while the multiclassing discussion can go on for pages.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it drastically skews the perception of how relevant multiclassing is to the average player.

[Pex]

No. If you want a classless game play a classless game. They exist. There's no need to ruin D&D for the rest of us who like the classes even when multiclassing.

[intregus]

WotC could totally drop a RDG (Rules Developer Guide) that included something like a custom class maker and no-one would bat an eye.

Such a thing would be equivalent to having a classless system (though more complicated than most classless systems are willing to be). It's not incompatible with D&D until you also demand that classes be removed rather than just asking for a classless system to be added.

Yup.

D&D at its core should keep classes. It makes it easier for new people to jump in and go, but why not have classless rules released in something like the DMG or a later book?

Pre Xanathers my table played through princes of the apocalypse with a classless system. Pretty much reducing every class feature and subclass feature into a level range that echoed the 5e tier system. It worked well, and there were some strong combinations but nothing seemed broken or challenging for me as the DM to deal with. Then again my table likes to be a bit stronger so my idea of broken might be different than someone else's.

Anyway 5e classless was a ton of fun and my only regret was that I wasn't one of the players. So I'd love to see a classless rules variant for 5e.

[Xetheral]

I'd be interested to know how true this actually is.

They're popular in theorycrafting discussions because 'just be straight class' is boring and when theorycrafting you're often optimising for a specific goal at a specific level. When actually playing* you're usually either playing a short low level game where its usually just better to single class or a long campaign where dipping may be a months long investment that you might never see the pay off on.

In actual gameplay I've probably seen 100+ characters and only a couple of multiclassed ones.


*Warning - personal experience of the poster incoming, your experience may differ.

My experience is the opposite. Just over half the PC's I've DM'd for in 5th edition were multiclass.

Interestingly, the players new to D&D were more likely to multiclass than the old hands with experience in previous editions. This is possibly due to new players seeking more advice from me when building characters. I personally view multiclass characters as, in general, more realistic than single-class characters: backgrounds and certain feats (e.g. Magic Initiate) certainly help, but I find multiclassing is better at capturing the idiosyncratic combinations of skills and abilities one sees in the real world. (I realize this view puts me in a small minority.)

[ad_hoc]

I ask the question due to the popularity of multiclassing.

Begging the question.


No, classes is a good way to quickly and easily create strong archetype characters, without players having to make a lot of decisions first.

Agree



However, I do think that a lot of people playing D&D would be better suited with a point buy system. For example, the whole 3.5 player base is people who mainly enjoy concept character building. Though I guess it's boring for them if they easily can pick the abilities they want, instead of it being a puzzle.

The 3.5 player base is a minority. The 3.5 player base which actually likes 3.5 is an even smaller one (what I mean by that is that many people coming from 3.5 hated the complexity of character building and such and enjoy that 5e lacks it).

There is also already a game that the 3.5 players like, which is 3.5.

---

Multiclassing is a variant in 5e for a reason. Classes were strengthened with 5e and that direction has been well received. So no, it's actually the opposite. Strong, clear archetypes are important in a party based dungeon delving game.

5e's built in multiclassing is the subclass system (and to a lesser extent backgrounds) and it works very well.

[Mikal]

5e's built in multiclassing is the subclass system (and to a lesser extent backgrounds) and it works very well.

The subclass system helps you define your role and mechanical purpose into a specific class, i.e. Fighter Mike the Champion who likes hitting and not much else, vs. Cavalier Jim who likes protecting his friends.

Multiclassing expands this.

I also disagree that no multiclassing works very well, from a personal opinion.

[EggKookoo]

I don't allow multiclassing at my table for 5e. If you can't find something fun to play with the existing classes and subclasses (and I typically allow Xanathar's) then you're probably going to be more trouble than you're worth to DM for. At the very least you're tilting at windmills.

That said, you could try out a no-class version of the game with some basic effort. Start by letting every player pick one feature from any class (or subclass) as they level, appropriate for the level. It'll be messy and you'll have to go through iterations where you ban certain features or come up with a system where players can sometimes pick more than one, but that's the road you'd have to take.

For me, I'm a big fan of classes. I spent years playing pure skill-based systems like Chaosium's stuff and for the most part in the end everyone just picks the same 20% of the skills and ignores 80% of the rest. I won't play CoC again except as some kind of d20 class-based variant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?426567-Call-of-Cthulhu-D-amp-D-5e-Style).

[BoxANT]

I would check out OPEN LEGEND, sounds like it will scratch your itch

[Theodoric]

WotC could totally drop a RDG (Rules Developer Guide) that included something like a custom class maker and no-one would bat an eye.

Such a thing would be equivalent to having a classless system (though more complicated than most classless systems are willing to be). It's not incompatible with D&D until you also demand that classes be removed rather than just asking for a classless system to be added.
Quite, opening up classes like that could still work within the existent framework. And possibly work well, too, without throwing out everything that makes D&D itself, or at least not in one big step (incrementally, maybe?). I don't think anyone's really keen on another 4e-ish edition.

[kivzirrum]

Personally, I like classes. I mean, there are quite a few very fun classless systems out there, but D&D doesn't need to ape them unless it gets to the point where no one thinks playing a game with classes is fun anymore. Something which I don't think will happen anytime soon, if this thread is any indication. :smalltongue:


I'd prefer a re-work of the 6 ability scores before dropping classes.

But neither is going to happen.

I can agree with this. As it is now, having ability scores and modifiers is pretty pointless, since the game really only makes use of the latter.


My experience is the opposite. Just over half the PC's I've DM'd for in 5th edition were multiclass.


That's interesting! My table were all amateurs or completely inexperienced before the current campaign started up, and only one of them multiclassed. Even then, it was just a single level dip into Fighter. In my experience, most people I know like to fully embody one class, it seems, rather than optimize or branch out into new classes. But that's just my own, limited experience.

[dmteeter]

I'd prefer a re-work of the 6 ability scores before dropping classes.

But neither is going to happen.

I'm curious as to how and or why could you elaborate?

[Nifft]

D&D was your intro game because D&D is relatively easy to get into.

D&D is relatively easy to get into because D&D is class-based.

D&D is not going to abandon its position as the gateway drug of choice by dropping classes, nor should it.

There are plenty of good classless games you can play after you graduate from D&D.

[Cynthaer]

My experience is the opposite. Just over half the PC's I've DM'd for in 5th edition were multiclass.

Interestingly, the players new to D&D were more likely to multiclass than the old hands with experience in previous editions. This is possibly due to new players seeking more advice from me when building characters. I personally view multiclass characters as, in general, more realistic than single-class characters: backgrounds and certain feats (e.g. Magic Initiate) certainly help, but I find multiclassing is better at capturing the idiosyncratic combinations of skills and abilities one sees in the real world. (I realize this view puts me in a small minority.)

I mean, if you're personally suggesting multiclass builds to your own players, that's putting a pretty hefty thumb on the scale. :)

Even without your encouragement, though, I would expect the distribution of multiclassing to be very "lumpy" between groups. For one thing, people with similar playstyles are more likely to play together, and for another, I think having one player make use of multiclassing is likely to encourage other players to follow suit (either to keep up on perceived optimization level, or just because seeing someone actually do it makes it feel less like "a complicated rule that some other people use" and more like "a normal part of the game that people just use").

[EggKookoo]

That's interesting! My table were all amateurs or completely inexperienced before the current campaign started up, and only one of them multiclassed. Even then, it was just a single level dip into Fighter. In my experience, most people I know like to fully embody one class, it seems, rather than optimize or branch out into new classes. But that's just my own, limited experience.

In my experience, the few people who ever multiclassed did so out of curiosity. The novelty didn't last. Thematically, almost anything you could get by multiclassing in 5e you can get from the subclasses.

[Mikal]

In my experience, the few people who ever multiclassed did so out of curiosity. The novelty didn't last. Thematically, almost anything you could get by multiclassing in 5e you can get from the subclasses.

Eh, anecdotal evidence is worth its weight in gold. In my experience, most people multiclass. It isn't about novelty, but about the ability to be less specialized and have more options in the three pillars of play, since even with subclasses you have narrow restrictions that don't fit for all PCs.

[EggKookoo]

Out of curiosity, for those who multiclass in 5e, do you abide by the ability score restrictions?

[kivzirrum]

Out of curiosity, for those who multiclass in 5e, do you abide by the ability score restrictions?

I'm speaking as a DM, but I do ask my players to abide by the restriction. Or rather, I asked that of the single player who so far has wanted to multiclass.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Out of curiosity, for those who multiclass in 5e, do you abide by the ability score restrictions?

So far of all the groups I've been in, 2 people have multiclassed. Me (who did follow the restrictions) and one other player (of whom I don't know, but I think he did--the DM was pretty by-the-book).

[supergoji18]

It's not time to ditch classes. Its time to make better high level abilities for those classes to make single-class characters a viable and entertaining choice

[Xetheral]

I mean, if you're personally suggesting multiclass builds to your own players, that's putting a pretty hefty thumb on the scale. :)

Indeed. :) That's why I made sure to explain, so that the context of my anecdotal evidence would be apparent.


Even without your encouragement, though, I would expect the distribution of multiclassing to be very "lumpy" between groups. For one thing, people with similar playstyles are more likely to play together, and for another, I think having one player make use of multiclassing is likely to encourage other players to follow suit (either to keep up on perceived optimization level, or just because seeing someone actually do it makes it feel less like "a complicated rule that some other people use" and more like "a normal part of the game that people just use").

I don't consider 3.5/5e style multiclassing to be significantly more complicated than sticking to single-class. At every level, you pick a class--single-class characters just happen to pick the
same class every time. 5e has what, two or three pages of extra rules that apply for multiclass characters?

If it was 2e dual-classing or 4e hybrid, then I would understand people staying away due to complexity. But 5e multiclassing is dirt simple.


Out of curiosity, for those who multiclass in 5e, do you abide by the ability score restrictions?

No. My very first 5e houserule was throwing out the ability score restrictions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't consider 3.5/5e style multiclassing to be significantly more complicated than sticking to single-class. At every level, you pick a class--single-class characters just happen to pick the
same class every time. 5e has what, two or three pages of extra rules that apply for multiclass characters?

If it was 2e dual-classing or 4e hybrid, then I would understand people staying away due to complexity. But 5e multiclassing is dirt simple.


4e hybrid style multiclassing was dead simple. You picked a feat that gave you a couple abilities and let you count as that other class for Paragon classes. Nothing else.

3e-style multiclassing was a total mess to track. BAB and save progression, caster level, "this advances that but not the other" PrC abilities, cross-class skills, etc.

5e multiclassing is simpler than 3e but more complex than 4e, especially with spell progression (having to track two separate sets of spells-known/prepared, different DCs, etc).

And what does it buy you? Unless you're trying to emulate a specific character from non-D&D fiction (which, I will note, is not something any edition of D&D has handled gracefully), it's generally no stronger and often much weaker than a straight-class character. This is particularly true through the lower levels that people actually play. A build that really comes online at level 12 is a build that will always be behind for the majority of all campaigns that die by level 11. You're delaying ASIs/feats (unless you take levels in groups of 4), often increasing MAD-ness, delaying major power bumps (especially the level 5 one), flattening the progression curve, etc. It gives you breadth at the cost of depth.

[Xetheral]

4e hybrid style multiclassing was dead simple. You picked a feat that gave you a couple abilities and let you count as that other class for Paragon classes. Nothing else.

3e-style multiclassing was a total mess to track. BAB and save progression, caster level, "this advances that but not the other" PrC abilities, cross-class skills, etc.

5e multiclassing is simpler than 3e but more complex than 4e, especially with spell progression (having to track two separate sets of spells-known/prepared, different DCs, etc).

Apparently we disagree on relative complexity levels across editions.


And what does it buy you? Unless you're trying to emulate a specific character from non-D&D fiction (which, I will note, is not something any edition of D&D has handled gracefully), it's generally no stronger and often much weaker than a straight-class character. This is particularly true through the lower levels that people actually play. A build that really comes online at level 12 is a build that will always be behind for the majority of all campaigns that die by level 11. You're delaying ASIs/feats (unless you take levels in groups of 4), often increasing MAD-ness, delaying major power bumps (especially the level 5 one), flattening the progression curve, etc. It gives you breadth at the cost of depth.

I personally prefer having the option to exchange depth for breadth. I happen to find characters with broad combinations of abilities refreshingly (and realistically) idiosyncratic. I also enjoy seeing players find ways to translate their characters' breadth into creative substitutes for depth. (And I enjoying doing the same as a player.)

Also, I run games heavily slanted to the combat-as-war style, where at least some types of depth might not be as valuable as they would be in a combat-as-sport game. When the numbers on the character sheet simply don't matter as much, getting diverse abilities at the cost of lower numbers may well be a rational trade-off.

[EggKookoo]

I personally prefer having the option to exchange depth for breadth. I happen to find characters with broad combinations of abilities refreshingly (and realistically) idiosyncratic. I also enjoy seeing players find ways to translate their characters' breadth into creative substitutes for depth. (And I enjoying doing the same as a player.)

I can understand this. I'm glad the option exists for you.

For me, in the games I run, the characters are unaware of their own classes as such. Certainly a wizard knows he can cast spells and the fighter (assuming he's not an EK) knows he can't. But they don't think of it as being due to some classification they belong to. Brong just knows Gandelthar can shoot tiny bolts of light from this fingers while he himself can't. In fact I wouldn't object to the idea that after knocking a few cold ones back with Gand at his wizard tower, and being coached carefully, Brong actually could shoot off a magic missile. Maybe once, and then could never figure out how to do it again. Gand's spell slots aren't a physical feature in his brain or something -- it's a game tool to help Gand's player manage his magic.

So to me the classes aren't necessarily about what the characters can and can't physically do, but more about the way they approach life, challenges, combat, and other things. Brong is a fighter not because his hit die is d10 and he can take Action Surge. He's a fighter because the way a fighter lives speaks to him. It makes sense to him. Being a member of the fighter class isn't a thing Brong does, it, like Gand's spell slots, is a tool to help Brong's player stay focused from a roleplaying perspective.

I guess being multiclassed is like, I dunno, being multi-aligned. Like a character who is both lawful and chaotic.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Apparently we disagree on relative complexity levels across editions.


Unless you mean the hybrid classes from 4e, I can't understand how you think picking a feat that gives you a couple weak abilities but otherwise doesn't cost much is anything as complicated as balancing multiple whole sets of resources and calculations and restrictions. And if you do mean the PHB III hybrid classes, those aren't multiclassing at all. They're much closer to 3e's gestalt system, a completely different (and not-well received in 4e) system.



I personally prefer having the option to exchange depth for breadth. I happen to find characters with broad combinations of abilities refreshingly (and realistically) idiosyncratic. I also enjoy seeing players find ways to translate their characters' breadth into creative substitutes for depth. (And I enjoying doing the same as a player.)

Also, I run games heavily slanted to the combat-as-war style, where at least some types of depth might not be as valuable as they would be in a combat-as-sport game. When the numbers on the character sheet simply don't matter as much, getting diverse abilities at the cost of lower numbers may well be a rational trade-off.

It's not about numbers primarily. Numbers handle themselves unless you anti-synergize. It's about having the big, versatile abilities. This is especially true for those that can actually get wide versatility by multiclassing (casters). Multiclassing between martials mostly gives you combat numbers--you don't get extra skills or proficiencies, so only class features count.

Consider the following characters.

Bob the Wizard is a straight Level 10 wizard with maxed INT. He can:

+ Prepare 15 (5 + 10) spells of levels 5 and below.
+ Knows 24 minimum (6 + 9x2) wizard spells and 5 cantrips, all with DC 17 and +9 ATK.
+ Has sub-class features at 2nd, 6th, and 10th levels.
+ Has full spell slots (4/3/3/3/2) and can recover a 5th-level slot once/day (Arcane Recovery).
- No armor proficiencies (although mountain dwarf can fix that)
- 10d6 hit die

now consider Mike the Wizard 9/ Knowledge Cleric 1 (one of the better multiclasses)
Comparatively, he has
+ 9d6 + 1d8 HD (at most 2 extra HP)
+ Medium armor (if he started as cleric)
+ Access to 2 expertise skills (any of Arcana, History, Nature, or Religion). The value of these vary dramatically by campaign. Arcana's pretty good, but the rest are situational.
+ Can prepare 1 + WIS 1st-level cleric spells + command & identify & 3 cantrips (most of the good ones overlap, though). Command is good, identify...not so much in most cases (unless variant rules are in play).
= Has full spell slots (4/3/3/3/2) and 5 spell-levels of Arcane Recovery (rounds up wizard level)
- Misses out on a 10th level sub-class feature, which could be pretty good depending on the sub-class.
- Cleric spells key off of WIS, not INT. This means you need at least 4 decent stats. Yes, you can just cast bless, but all the good spells compete for concentration already.
- Only 22 wizard spells, of which at most 2 can be 5th level (instead of 4).
- Only 14 wizard spells prepared.
- Delayed ASI (character level 5, rather than character level 4).
- Delayed progression (3rd level spells at character level 6, which is a huge XP jump from level 5).

Overall, this isn't a bad trade. For a wizard, knowledge cleric is about the best dip. But it's not a slam dunk--it requires a significantly increased amount of system mastery and knowledge to play compared to Bob.

Now consider a more even split: Kaleb the wizard 6/knowledge cleric 4. Comparing to Bob,
= Same spell slots (both are full casters).
= No missed ASIs
- Only 3 spell levels recovered/day
- Only has 3rd level spells (even with 5th level slots).
- Only 16 wizard spells
+ Can prepare 4 + WIS 1st/2nd level cleric spells + command/identify/augury/suggestion
+ Floating proficiency for 10 min/SR
- Very delayed progression depending on specific level choices.

You get a bunch more breadth, but at the cost of the power bump of 5th level spells Most of the utility spells don't really benefit from upcasting, so you mostly have wasted 4th and 5th level slots for CAW games.
---------------
Multiclassing is always a tradeoff in this edition. Its the easiest way to make a more difficult-to-play character, especially for new players who may not understand the complexities inherent in the system. It may seem easy to you because you're a veteran. Most of the new players I play with (which is 99% of my players) take 3-5 levels to figure out exactly what options they have. Throwing more at them to suit a personal style is unhelpful at best in my opinion.

Glad it works for you, but you're a strong outlier. Most people in most games do not multiclass from all the data I've seen. Those that do, rarely go more than a single level dip, and that mostly because they read a guide that suggested it.

[JBPuffin]

Firstly - I loved 4e hybrids and wouldn’t mind them coming back for 5e in some form. With that said:

No one in the games I’ve played has multiclassed during the game except myself once to follow through on a trend (built a rogue who dreamed of being a wizard, at level 5 started being an actual wizard rather than an AT with a spell fetish). Most of the time we pick a class at the start we want to play all the way through - I’m the bard, she’s the barbarian, he’s the monk, let’s go smash - rather than by role. The game I multiclassed in had a large party (6-7 players at one point) and my character’s main role was actually his out of combat role as combination lore monkey and RP-Diplomancer (using logic rather than a Charisma stat to defuse situations), and in-play I never notice a power drop because the levels come in one at a time, you know? I have a player who wants to multiclass in our current game for mostly mechanical reasons (Sorcerer doesn’t have a lot of necromancy spells, whereas an Undying patron Warlock can pick up quite a few), but because I did give him a Patron without realizing what he was thinking, it’ll probably work out just fine. But yeah, IME, single-classing is the norm.

[Mikal]

Out of curiosity, for those who multiclass in 5e, do you abide by the ability score restrictions?

Yes. Always. Restrictions are there to help keep things in check

[djreynolds]

I ask the question due to the popularity of multiclassing. The push for players looking for more utility or to get the right “aspects” they are looking for.

I have played a number of other systems including games like Shadowrun. After playing those I feel as though I get pigeon holed into characteristics simply because of the class/classes I chose.

Thoughts?

I understand the dilemma, with the ease to obtain armor and weapon proficiency, and everyone getting the same proficiency to attack rolls, classes being played can look very similar from table to table but remember there is a sacrifice for a wizard to get armor.

Its your table, and multiclassing and feats are optional, you can just play with feats and no MC, or with MC and no feats.

But the key is in your post, to get the right "aspect" or for utility.

IMO, multiclassing due to in game issues is the best. For instance I had a mountain dwarf champion with a maxed out strength, our bard and cleric left for college, and I decided to add cleric to my fighter.... but I took nature cleric because our monk was a worshipper of Silvanus and it fit it game, it was the influence of the monk and the need of the party that made me change... not very optimal, shillelagh wasn't selected.

On the other hand, if a player has a idea for a character, say from novel, its fun bring it to life

But yes in 5E, characters are really adventures first, before their class. Even the wizard needs to get dirty, thought they can prestidigitation, if they took the spell

As a DM you must push character concept and make players give a reason why

[Xetheral]

I can understand this. I'm glad the option exists for you.

Yay! That's a much better reaction than my pro-multiclassing approach sometimes receives, so I'll take it. :)


For me, in the games I run, the characters are unaware of their own classes as such. Certainly a wizard knows he can cast spells and the fighter (assuming he's not an EK) knows he can't. But they don't think of it as being due to some classification they belong to. Brong just knows Gandelthar can shoot tiny bolts of light from this fingers while he himself can't. In fact I wouldn't object to the idea that after knocking a few cold ones back with Gand at his wizard tower, and being coached carefully, Brong actually could shoot off a magic missile. Maybe once, and then could never figure out how to do it again. Gand's spell slots aren't a physical feature in his brain or something -- it's a game tool to help Gand's player manage his magic.

So to me the classes aren't necessarily about what the characters can and can't physically do, but more about the way they approach life, challenges, combat, and other things. Brong is a fighter not because his hit die is d10 and he can take Action Surge. He's a fighter because the way a fighter lives speaks to him. It makes sense to him. Being a member of the fighter class isn't a thing Brong does, it, like Gand's spell slots, is a tool to help Brong's player stay focused from a roleplaying perspective.

I guess being multiclassed is like, I dunno, being multi-aligned. Like a character who is both lawful and chaotic.

Characters are also unaware of their classes in my games. It goes even further than that actually--class has zero impact at my table on the "way [characters] approach life, challenges, combat, and other things". You refer to the "way a fighter lives", but that's not a meaningful concept at my table.

I get what you're saying though, and I'm thrilled that 5e manages to meet both of our needs and preferences, despite how different they are.


Unless you mean the hybrid classes from 4e, I can't understand how you think picking a feat that gives you a couple weak abilities but otherwise doesn't cost much is anything as complicated as balancing multiple whole sets of resources and calculations and restrictions. And if you do mean the PHB III hybrid classes, those aren't multiclassing at all. They're much closer to 3e's gestalt system, a completely different (and not-well received in 4e) system.

I do mean the hybrid classes. I personally considered it a form of multiclassing, and although I've dismissed it as more complicated than 3.5e and 5e, it was still my favorite part of 4e! :)


It's not about numbers primarily. Numbers handle themselves unless you anti-synergize. It's about having the big, versatile abilities. This is especially true for those that can actually get wide versatility by multiclassing (casters). Multiclassing between martials mostly gives you combat numbers--you don't get extra skills or proficiencies, so only class features count.

Consider the following characters.

Bob the Wizard is a straight Level 10 wizard with maxed INT. He can:

+ Prepare 15 (5 + 10) spells of levels 5 and below.
+ Knows 24 minimum (6 + 9x2) wizard spells and 5 cantrips, all with DC 17 and +9 ATK.
+ Has sub-class features at 2nd, 6th, and 10th levels.
+ Has full spell slots (4/3/3/3/2) and can recover a 5th-level slot once/day (Arcane Recovery).
- No armor proficiencies (although mountain dwarf can fix that)
- 10d6 hit die

now consider Mike the Wizard 9/ Knowledge Cleric 1 (one of the better multiclasses)
Comparatively, he has
+ 9d6 + 1d8 HD (at most 2 extra HP)
+ Medium armor (if he started as cleric)
+ Access to 2 expertise skills (any of Arcana, History, Nature, or Religion). The value of these vary dramatically by campaign. Arcana's pretty good, but the rest are situational.
+ Can prepare 1 + WIS 1st-level cleric spells + command & identify & 3 cantrips (most of the good ones overlap, though). Command is good, identify...not so much in most cases (unless variant rules are in play).
= Has full spell slots (4/3/3/3/2) and 5 spell-levels of Arcane Recovery (rounds up wizard level)
- Misses out on a 10th level sub-class feature, which could be pretty good depending on the sub-class.
- Cleric spells key off of WIS, not INT. This means you need at least 4 decent stats. Yes, you can just cast bless, but all the good spells compete for concentration already.
- Only 22 wizard spells, of which at most 2 can be 5th level (instead of 4).
- Only 14 wizard spells prepared.
- Delayed ASI (character level 5, rather than character level 4).
- Delayed progression (3rd level spells at character level 6, which is a huge XP jump from level 5).

Overall, this isn't a bad trade. For a wizard, knowledge cleric is about the best dip. But it's not a slam dunk--it requires a significantly increased amount of system mastery and knowledge to play compared to Bob.

Now consider a more even split: Kaleb the wizard 6/knowledge cleric 4. Comparing to Bob,
= Same spell slots (both are full casters).
= No missed ASIs
- Only 3 spell levels recovered/day
- Only has 3rd level spells (even with 5th level slots).
- Only 16 wizard spells
+ Can prepare 4 + WIS 1st/2nd level cleric spells + command/identify/augury/suggestion
+ Floating proficiency for 10 min/SR
- Very delayed progression depending on specific level choices.

You get a bunch more breadth, but at the cost of the power bump of 5th level spells Most of the utility spells don't really benefit from upcasting, so you mostly have wasted 4th and 5th level slots for CAW games.

The same way that a game isn't necessarily more fun at higher level than it is at lower level, using a 5th level spell creatively isn't necessarily more fun than using a 2nd level spell creatively. Accordingly, the tradeoffs you discuss don't matter very much to me, either as a DM or as a player. What does matter to me is that a character's abilities reinforce the character's concept (notes: I like multifacted concepts, and I don't require that concept comes before mechanics--I prefer an iterative process where the concept and mechanics become a better fit with each pass).

For example, a player might start with the idea of playing a socially-savy character who gains respect and admiration (and thus political capital) through conspicuous bravery and risk-taking. Such a character might be modelled as a Barbarian/Bard: Barbarian gives abilities to visibly take (and survive!) risks, while Lore Bard gives expertise in social skills, the very apropos Cutting Words, and eventually the all-important (for a character who relies on social influence as an off-sheet resource in a CAW game) Sending spell. Knowing spells higher level than Sending is great, but for this particular character isn't so important. So, as the character gains levels, maybe the character takes a third class that makes the Barbarian/Bard combo work better, rather than just getting more powerful Bard spells. Sorcerer, for Subtle Sendings and Quicken to let the character cast as bonus action when they aren't raging. Or Fighter, for Action Surge, to let the character cast a (non-concentration) spell, rage, and attack all in the same turn. Is such a character optimal? Not in the conventional sense. But it can hold its own in tactical combat and has immense potential at the strategic level via allies and prestation. That makes it pretty close to optimal at reinforcing the original concept.


Multiclassing is always a tradeoff in this edition. Its the easiest way to make a more difficult-to-play character, especially for new players who may not understand the complexities inherent in the system. It may seem easy to you because you're a veteran. Most of the new players I play with (which is 99% of my players) take 3-5 levels to figure out exactly what options they have. Throwing more at them to suit a personal style is unhelpful at best in my opinion.

Noted, but I certainly haven't encountered that problem so far, even with players brand new to RPGs and gaming in general.


Glad it works for you, but you're a strong outlier. Most people in most games do not multiclass from all the data I've seen. Those that do, rarely go more than a single level dip, and that mostly because they read a guide that suggested it.

I completely agree that I'm an outlier. Both as a player and as a DM. (The only single-class character I've played in 5e was as a guest NPC at another DM's table. Every other character I've played has been multiclassed.)

[Rynjin]

The interesting thing is, this isn't a zero sum game. In moving to a classless system you do not inherently have to do away with classes entirely; on the contrary, they serve an important purpose in illustrating how your class builder can be used to create iconic classes with unique abilities.

All the component parts could and should be used to make the iconic D&D classes in the book; ready to play out of the box for any player.

Really, if you look at a game like Pathfinder, it has become over the years almost a classless system. You just have to jump through hoops using Archetypes to manage it.

An Inquisitor is one class, but a Sacred Huntmaster (an Inquisitor Archetype with an Animal Companion and other nature themed goodies) is almost an entirely different experience from the base class, a hybrid of that class and Druid or Ranger.

5e's design direction lends itself even better to that kind of system, since it has trimmed down class abilities to a few (very few) core abilities and some extras from paths or what have you. It is one surprisingly small step form there to a class-less system.

[EvilAnagram]

I get what you're saying though, and I'm thrilled that 5e manages to meet both of our needs and preferences, despite how different they are.
This is probably the best sentiment I've seen exposed in this thread. The game provides classes for those of us that prefer rigid classes that inform the characterization of the PCs, and it provides ways to blend classes for those who don't consider the distinctions important. This is a major success for 5e.

[R.Shackleford]

I ask the question due to the popularity of multiclassing. The push for players looking for more utility or to get the right “aspects” they are looking for.

I have played a number of other systems including games like Shadowrun. After playing those I feel as though I get pigeon holed into characteristics simply because of the class/classes I chose.

Thoughts?

Yes.

5e is actually getting close to that now with how subclasses work, funny enough.

I mean... Look at the Cleric, Warlock, and Sorcerer. You can pretty much emulate any class with these three classes.

Cleric you can be a warrior (war/temptest), blaster (light/arcane), tank (any?), or skillful (knowledge).

Warlock and Sorcerers are both arcane blasty controller type magic classes... Who can grab divine spells... Or go weapon user...

The barbarian has a majority of their subclasses surrounded by magic.

Fighters and Rogues have their magic subclasses (which really need to be expanded on btw... Wth are they thinking!).

Oh! Bards are another patron saint of this sprt of thing. They're a full caster ish class that can go MORE caster or go into more fighter ish.

So, it's already happening but with a lot of restrictions. I think if you want more classless you would have a better system.

You could say it's Warrior and Magic-User to have some basic differential stuff... Maybe Warrior, Magic-User, and Hybrid (half martial half caster). Mean, they almost do this already so going full on would be great.

[rbstr]

I think something a bit more flexible inspired by Pathfinder 2e would be neat. Classes are more of a grab bag of level-locked "Feats" (that is: class-features). MCing is taking an MC feat at the cost of not having a base class feat at that level.

I think it's cool since it allows you to multiclass but also still get high-level stuff from your base class. Unlike current MCing where you give that high-level stuff up.
It also lets you have "mc-only" classes or roles you can add to any class in a neat way.

Not that PF2 does it perfectly, just a neat place for inspiration on a class system.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Why doesn’t D&D alter [singnature aspect of its system] to be more like [significantly less successful competitors].

Tastes vary, but D&D has an almost universal appeal that other games have not captured.

Want some evidence? Think about this. Instead of threads proposing that D&D would be better without classes, why aren’t people just playing classless games? Why the desire to change D&D to match individual tastes instead of just playing a different game built around those tastes?

[Goaty14]

It's not time to ditch classes. Its time to make better high level abilities for those classes to make single-class characters a viable and entertaining choice

Basically this. Kinda like what Paizo did when they took 3.5e to the woodshed and "made" pathfinder.

[sithlordnergal]

It's not about numbers primarily. Numbers handle themselves unless you anti-synergize. It's about having the big, versatile abilities. This is especially true for those that can actually get wide versatility by multiclassing (casters). Multiclassing between martials mostly gives you combat numbers--you don't get extra skills or proficiencies, so only class features count.

Consider the following characters.

Bob the Wizard is a straight Level 10 wizard with maxed INT. He can:

+ Prepare 15 (5 + 10) spells of levels 5 and below.
+ Knows 24 minimum (6 + 9x2) wizard spells and 5 cantrips, all with DC 17 and +9 ATK.
+ Has sub-class features at 2nd, 6th, and 10th levels.
+ Has full spell slots (4/3/3/3/2) and can recover a 5th-level slot once/day (Arcane Recovery).
- No armor proficiencies (although mountain dwarf can fix that)
- 10d6 hit die

now consider Mike the Wizard 9/ Knowledge Cleric 1 (one of the better multiclasses)
Comparatively, he has
+ 9d6 + 1d8 HD (at most 2 extra HP)
+ Medium armor (if he started as cleric)
+ Access to 2 expertise skills (any of Arcana, History, Nature, or Religion). The value of these vary dramatically by campaign. Arcana's pretty good, but the rest are situational.
+ Can prepare 1 + WIS 1st-level cleric spells + command & identify & 3 cantrips (most of the good ones overlap, though). Command is good, identify...not so much in most cases (unless variant rules are in play).
= Has full spell slots (4/3/3/3/2) and 5 spell-levels of Arcane Recovery (rounds up wizard level)
- Misses out on a 10th level sub-class feature, which could be pretty good depending on the sub-class.
- Cleric spells key off of WIS, not INT. This means you need at least 4 decent stats. Yes, you can just cast bless, but all the good spells compete for concentration already.
- Only 22 wizard spells, of which at most 2 can be 5th level (instead of 4).
- Only 14 wizard spells prepared.
- Delayed ASI (character level 5, rather than character level 4).
- Delayed progression (3rd level spells at character level 6, which is a huge XP jump from level 5).

Overall, this isn't a bad trade. For a wizard, knowledge cleric is about the best dip. But it's not a slam dunk--it requires a significantly increased amount of system mastery and knowledge to play compared to Bob.

Now consider a more even split: Kaleb the wizard 6/knowledge cleric 4. Comparing to Bob,
= Same spell slots (both are full casters).
= No missed ASIs
- Only 3 spell levels recovered/day
- Only has 3rd level spells (even with 5th level slots).
- Only 16 wizard spells
+ Can prepare 4 + WIS 1st/2nd level cleric spells + command/identify/augury/suggestion
+ Floating proficiency for 10 min/SR
- Very delayed progression depending on specific level choices.

You get a bunch more breadth, but at the cost of the power bump of 5th level spells Most of the utility spells don't really benefit from upcasting, so you mostly have wasted 4th and 5th level slots for CAW games.


I don't think you know multiclassing as well as you think you do. Cleric/Wizard isn't exactly a great choice. You never wanna have two different primary casting abilities. Unless you're doing some nutty build, like, say, a Paladin/Druid/Sorcerer, you wanna look for stuff that synergize. So, taking your idea of level 10 classes, lets take a look at some bard multiclasses. How about...Bard/Sorcerer


First up is Joey the Bard, a pure level 10 Bard with maxed Charisma:

-Has full spell slots (4/3/3/3/2)

-Has at least 14 spells and 4 cantrips. Could have more if he's a Lore Bard

- Has d10 Inspiration, and Inspiration returns at a short rest

- Has 4 Expertise skills

- Has 3rd, 6th, 10th bard college features

- Has standard Bard features from levels 1-3

- 10d8 hp

Not a bad character at all. A pure Bard is undeniably a good class, though Bards tend to have a bit of a problem with their spell list. But still, all in all a fine character


Next up is Night, he chose to die a single level into Sorcerer to become Bard 9/Sorcerer 1

- Is a full caster with full slots

- Has standard Bard stuff from levels 1-3

- Has 3rd and 6th Bardic College features

- Has 12 Bard spells known

- Has 3 Bardic cantrips

- Has 4 Sorcerer cantrips

- Has 2 first level Sorcerer spells

- Has Sorcerous Origin.

- Has 9d8+1d6 hp

Now here things get a bit interesting. Depending on the origin Night chooses, he could have access to the Cleric's spell list and a once-a-day 2d4 that he can add to an attack or save, or he could have an AC of 13+Dex mod and an extra hit point. Please note, with the Bard's proficiency with Light Armor, that AC 13+Dex Mod is essentially like having free +1 Studded Leather. Not a bad choice. And those cantrips and the two first level spells? Those just took care of one of the Bard's weaknesses, lack of damaging spells. Not only do you have Dissonant Whispers and Vicious Mockery, you now have things like Chromatic Orb, Firebolt, Chill Touch, Shocking Grasp, ect. Basically, you now have the spells you probably would have used a precious Magical Secrets on. All in all, I'd say this character is actually stronger then your standard Bard since they have reliable methods of dealing damage


Now for Falk, he went for a more balanced build. Bard 6 / Sorcerer 4

-Has the slots of a full caster

- Has standard Bard stuff from levels 1-3

- Has 3rd and 6th Bardic College features

- Still has 3 Bard cantrips, but now has 5 Sorcerer cantrips to make up for that

- Has 9 Bard spells known and 5 Sorcerer spells known

- Has Metamagic

-Has 4 Sorcery Points

Now this one is a bit trickier. Our good Bard still has up to 3rd level Bard spells, which aren't nothing. And depending on his chosen subclass, he could have two more spells from anywhere. While he lacks 4th and 5th level Bard spells...though truth be told I find those spell levels underwhelming for Bards. Now, this is my own opinion, but really you're only missing out on Polymorph, Animate Object, and Synaptic Static...Powerful spells to be sure, but you gain enough things to be fine without them. And depending on the DM Polymorph and Animate Object could be rendered useless.

So what are you getting for missing out on these? 2nd level Sorcerer spells, Metamagic, and your Origin. While I know 2nd level Sorcerer spells may not seem like much at first, keep in mind this is where spells like Mirror Image, Scorching Ray, Misty Step, Mind Spike, and Shadowblade are found. While they may not be as powerful as Fear, I wouldn't say they're nothing. And not only do you get the Origin stuff from a 1 level dip, but you are able to get Metamagic, which can be game changing for a caster.

---------

Just like your examples, you gain some more breadth, but unlike your examples, with possible the exception of Bard 6 / Sorcerer 4 you don't really lose any power. And to be honest, I'm not sure if you lose power with Bard 6 / Sorcerer 4. You lose out on 4th and 5th level bard spells, but there's not much there anyway. And in exchange you gain something I'd consider far stronger.

[EggKookoo]

Why the desire to change D&D to match individual tastes instead of just playing a different game built around those tastes?

I don't think we have to worry about WotC releasing D&D 5.5e as a classless system. I mean, they still have terms like armor class and saving throw, and still call it Wisdom when it's really better described as Awareness or Perception. They ain't big on that kind of change.

And as I said upthread, you can experiment with making 5e classless as a homebrew. It would take some work but it could be done.

[BoringInfoGuy]

I don't think we have to worry about WotC releasing D&D 5.5e as a classless system. I mean, they still have terms like armor class and saving throw, and still call it Wisdom when it's really better described as Awareness or Perception. They ain't big on that kind of change.

And as I said upthread, you can experiment with making 5e classless as a homebrew. It would take some work but it could be done.
I am certainly not worried about D&D switching to a classless system. That’s not what I was alluding to.

As you said, you can put in the effort to do your own classless D&D homebrew.

But why bother?

Why take D&D, which is a class based system down to its bones, and try to rebuild it from the skeleton up to be classless? Why is that something anyone would be considering when classless systems already exist, ready to play?

A system born classless from the start should certainly give a better gaming experience, right?

So, I ask again. Why rebuild when ready-made is available? Or if you want to make your own mark, build a new system from scratch?

Because, deep down in its marrow, the cobbled together elements of wargames, Tolkien fandom, make believe, and more created something that makes us say “I wanna play that.”

It’s not for everyone, hardly anything is.

But the draw is universal enough that just about everyone knows about it.

[Wanjigi]

I don't think so. I think it is too (https://bitsquestions.com/interesting-pick-up-lines/) late for that now.

[2D8HP]

Is it time for D&D to ditch classes?

I ask the question due to the popularity of multiclassing....


Multicasting in 5e is pretty fun.

As for "Is it time?"

Sure.

It was time in 1978 when RuneQuest came out, which was both close and different enough from D&D, I was pretty impressed by it, character creation was a chore though.

It was time in 1981 with Champions, character creation was a chore though.

It was time in 1986 with GURPS, character creation was a chore though.

It was probably time when hundreds of other games were published.


WotC could totally drop a RDG (Rules Developer Guide) that included something like a custom class maker and no-one would bat an eye.

Such a thing would be equivalent to having a classless system (though more complicated than most classless systems are willing to be). It's not incompatible with D&D until you also demand that classes be removed rather than just asking for a classless system to be added.


Not a bad idea, bit of a burden on DM's to learn new material, but I imagine it would be not that much more than when new sub-classes are introduced.


D&D was your intro game because D&D is relatively easy to get into.

D&D is relatively easy to get into because D&D is class-based.

D&D is not going to abandon its position as the gateway drug of choice by dropping classes, nor should it.

There are plenty of good classless games you can play after you graduate from D&D.


@Nifft nailed it.

[Marywn]

Also, if you want more options, try pathfinder or 3.5e.
There is so much you can do, but I find that there is often to many options.

[Tvtyrant]

I ask the question due to the popularity of multiclassing. The push for players looking for more utility or to get the right “aspects” they are looking for.

I have played a number of other systems including games like Shadowrun. After playing those I feel as though I get pigeon holed into characteristics simply because of the class/classes I chose.

Thoughts?
I think classes make it easier for new players to make characters and are very iconic.

Personally I have been slowly working my way through making a dual class system. On one side is the out of combat tropes like woods person, city thief, noble, etc. The other side is basically the controller/defender/striker/leader split from 4E. Any traditional class can be made by combining the two archetypes, so a Striker/Woodsperson is a Barbarian but a Controller/Woodsperson is a Druid.

I'm sure I will have a full version up by when 7E comes out.

[Kenny Snoggins]

Multiclassing is always a tradeoff in this edition. Its the easiest way to make a more difficult-to-play character, especially for new players who may not understand the complexities inherent in the system. It may seem easy to you because you're a veteran. Most of the new players I play with (which is 99% of my players) take 3-5 levels to figure out exactly what options they have. Throwing more at them to suit a personal style is unhelpful at best in my opinion.

Glad it works for you, but you're a strong outlier. Most people in most games do not multiclass from all the data I've seen. Those that do, rarely go more than a single level dip, and that mostly because they read a guide that suggested it.

My first DnD character was a multiclassed
Lore Bard Hexblade. Gaining the armor proficiency and a handful of great combat oriented spells (mirror image, hex, eldritch blast) not only made the PC a much more relevant force on the table, but it also made a lot more sense thematically and didn't feel as cheesy and unlikely as sometimes pure bards do to me. Like you can't wear any type of serious armor, are useless with weapons, and have only control and buffing type spells but you decide to take up dungeon crawling as a career? That always seemed vaguely ridiculous to me, RP wise.

The dip added a ton of power and converted the character from a goofy magic musician guy to a true magical generalist that seemed like the exact kind of guy who might take up adventuring. The only time it was painful was losing an ASI which kept my spell safe uncomfortably low, and waiting 3 extra levels to get my second round of magical secrets. In combat though he had a gruesome amount of short rest resources-- but it never felt overwhelming. My 2c

[Particle_Man]

FWIW, mutants and masterminds was a classless d20 game that had booklets allowing one to do comic book d20 heroic fantasy as opposed to super hero stuff.

There was also Buy the Numbers, a point based conversion of third ed.

[SociopathFriend]

Personal experience- pretty much all players I've gamed alongside, young and old, D&D veteran and newbie, meta-gamer and roleplayer, in campaigns both low-level and high, have been running single-classes.

I am perhaps the only one that has bothered trying to multiclass.

[Porcupinata]

I can offer more anecdata.

I've been playing 5e weekly since it came out (well, longer if you count the "D&D Next" playtest). I've played multiple campaigns with different groups, most of which played all the way from level one to level twenty, and I've never yet seen a multiclass character in actual play.

The people I've played with over that time have varied from never-roleplayed-before to played-ever-since-AD&D.

I think there's a huge difference between the "I created a 15th level build" type of character that you see on forums and characters who have actually been played in a campaign from first to fifteenth level. The former is pretty much by definition much more mechanics-focused and therefore much more likely to be multiclassed, because being created ex nihilo at that level means all single-class and multi-class options are on the table and equally valid conceptually; but the latter is much more likely to have started play as a first level member of class X and then as they are played from week to week and month to month "I'm playing an X" gets more and more ingrained into the player's head and the way the character is roleplayed and therefore the longer they're played for the less likely they are to even consider multiclassing to something different because that's not "who the character is".

[EggKookoo]

I can offer more anecdata.

I've been playing 5e weekly since it came out (well, longer if you count the "D&D Next" playtest). I've played multiple campaigns with different groups, most of which played all the way from level one to level twenty, and I've never yet seen a multiclass character in actual play.

My anectodal experience matches yours. Not too surprising since I've been playing D&D since the Carter administration, and multiclassing is a new kids' thing for the most part. You didn't multiclass before 3e.


I think there's a huge difference between the "I created a 15th level build" type of character that you see on forums and characters who have actually been played in a campaign from first to fifteenth level. The former is pretty much by definition much more mechanics-focused and therefore much more likely to be multiclassed, because being created ex nihilo at that level means all single-class and multi-class options are on the table and equally valid conceptually; but the latter is much more likely to have started play as a first level member of class X and then as they are played from week to week and month to month "I'm playing an X" gets more and more ingrained into the player's head and the way the character is roleplayed and therefore the longer they're played for the less likely they are to even consider multiclassing to something different because that's not "who the character is".

I think this is very true. The closest I've come to multiclassing is when I adapted a different game to 5e and set it the APL to 15. I initially created multiclass characters (and NPCs -- I originally used 3e before coming to my senses) in order to capture the flavor of the old system. When I did move it over to 5e, I ended up just making my own hybrid classes and basically bypassed the multiclassing rules. Keep in mind this was my doing in order to create a certain feel to the game, not something the players asked for.

Outside of that, when players start from lv1, they never think about multiclassing. Most players in my experience (and the same is true for me) actually kind of appreciate that they can't be all things in all situations. I like being good a certain thing that makes me stand out in the party, but the only way that works is if that thing is lacking for everyone else, or most everyone. Same thing in reverse: I don't mind saying "that's not my department" when we do have a PC in the group from that department. It makes everyone feel useful.

Regarding the OP, I don't think this is particularly likely either but I think they'd make D&D a level-less system before they made it class-less.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's not time to ditch classes. Its time to make better high level abilities for those classes to make single-class characters a viable and entertaining choice I think you are on to something here. The class features above 11 are rather uneven in how much they improve a class. We've had a lot of threads here discussing those various differences.

I think it would be a fun idea for 6th or 7th edition to play with. I don't think i will happen though I am not sure 6th edition is coming anytime soon. 5.5, maybe. Something to ponder about classless systems. Diablo I, a computer game that was very successful, began originally as a classless system when the design team got together. As it worked out, they ended up with three classes: rogue, sorcerer, warrior. Their original idea was the character would make choices and each would be custom built. For reasons, they ended up doing what they did and had a smashing success of a game. One argument I saw one of the later devs make was that if they went classless, they were worried that there would only be one optimal build / path to play the game. And that they wanted to avoid ... but that's second hand info during a casual conversation. There is something about making it easy to learn, easy to start, that can help make a game successful.

I would check out OPEN LEGEND, sounds like it will scratch your itch Sounds interesting.

That's interesting! My table were all amateurs or completely inexperienced before the current campaign started up, and only one of them multi-classed. In our original group, only my nephew has multi classed. A monk/cleric in one game, and a rogue/ranger in the current shared world. The rest of us pick a class and stick with it; my warlock was going to MC into bard if our game ever got to level 9, but that campaign died a few years ago while my nephew was in college.

IMO, multiclassing due to in game issues is the best. Yeah, making it fit the story does work out better, IMO.

But yes in 5E, characters are really adventures first, before their class. Even the wizard needs to get dirty, thought they can prestidigitation, if they took the spell Good point. Their overarching social class is 'adventurer' with all of the connotation, good and bad, that go with it. (Heroes? Murderhoboes? Mercenaries?)

As a DM you must push character concept and make players give a reason why Yes, yes, a dozen times yes. And I have found that nearly every player responds to that. (A few don't, separate topic)

ready to play out of the box for any player. Cha ching.

I am certainly not worried about D&D switching to a classless system.
Why take D&D, which is a class based system down to its bones, and try to rebuild it from the skeleton up to be classless? Why is that something anyone would be considering when classless systems already exist, ready to play?
So, I ask again. Why rebuild when ready-made is available? We are lucky, at this point in time, to be able to choose from thousands of different RPG's. Back when the hobby first got started, the selection was a bit thinner, and a lot of folks tried mightily to add their own version of RPGs with varying success. The industry, such as it was, learned together and met at cons to see what the latest new thing was. Tunnels and Trolls, according to lore, outsold most of TSR's products at the first GenCon where Ken showed up to with T&T to sell at the con. He of course sold out.

[JAL_1138]

My anectodal experience matches yours. Not too surprising since I've been playing D&D since the Carter administration, and multiclassing is a new kids' thing for the most part. You didn't multiclass before 3e.


Not my experience. Dual-classing (humans) and multiclassing (demihumans) was reasonably common in AD&D 2e, the edition I started in. The rules were different, but it was done, and not horribly infrequently. And it was certainly around in 1e—it was the only way to play a bard, for instance (if you had the stats for it).

In 2e it could produce fairly powerful characters and was one of the few answers demihumans had for sometimes quite low level caps. Dual-classing for humans was a bit harder since you had to wait until you passed your prior class in level before using your old class’ features again instead of just splitting XP between your classes, but it could also be quite powerful. A few levels of Thief, Cleric, or Mage could add quite a bit of versatility to a Fighter, and a few levels of Fighter could allow a Mage to better survive low levels. Demihuman Fighter/Clerics could be quite good, making the Cleric more formidable in melee than they usually were via extra hit points, extra attacks, and better THAC0, at the cost of somewhat slowed level progression (that could catch up quite well at certain points in the nonlinear XP progression AD&D classes had). I tended to single-class back in 2e (mainly to try and level up faster), but I certainly didn’t do so exclusively, nor did others in the groups I played in.

And let’s not forget it was the Fighter 4/ Mage 4 Githyanki in the AD&D 1e and 2e Monster Manual / Monstrous Compendium entry that gave us the now-ubiquitous term “gish.”

[KorvinStarmast]

And let’s not forget it was the Fighter 4/ Mage 4 Githyanki in the AD&D 1e and 2e Monster Manual / Monstrous Compendium entry that gave us the now-ubiquitous term “gish.” IIRC, Githyanki first arrived in the 1e Fiend Folio, though I think they were first in White Dwarf? They were those ugly mugs on the cover art. :p

[EggKookoo]

Not my experience. Dual-classing (humans) and multiclassing (demihumans) was reasonably common in AD&D 2e, the edition I started in. The rules were different, but it was done, and not horribly infrequently. And it was certainly around in 1e—it was the only way to play a bard, for instance (if you had the stats for it).

Thing is, I remember a lot of people talking about dual-classing, especially regarding the bard, but not much actual doing it at the table. Especially for campaigns that began with lv1s. The general attitude I absorbed from my DMs at the time was that it was a lot of work for not a lot of gain ("gain" meaning fun for all without risk of breaking the game). It was viewed as a form of munchkinism.

The only time I saw it in action was, strangely, with myself back in the 90s. I was given a ~12th level fighter to play as part of an ongoing campaign. I played him for a while and then he had a near-death experience, and I thought it would be fun to try to dual-class him to cleric to represent how much of a life-changing event it was. The DM actually discouraged me from doing that because the character would basically be underpowered for a long time. Plus it wasn't really clear how he'd play out once I got his cleric levels high enough to resume using his fighter levels.

Outside of that, aside from playing around with the idea off-table, I don't think I ever saw a functioning dual class. I have vague early memories of one player maybe using the quintessential fighter/magic-user elf in 1e but I could also just be imagining it or misinterpreting what was going on. Like I said, Carter years...

[Rhedyn]

Let's be real here, a successful edition of D&D has:

1. D&D on the front
2. Pretty art and high production value (which includes good writing)
3. Low complexity

Success being 5e's current popularity. Whether or not D&D has classes has little to do with the success of D&D. Their rules only have to be written well not be good rules. As in people need to be excited as they read the stuff for the game. It doesn't matter as much if the actual game is good.

[EggKookoo]

It doesn't matter as much if the actual game is good.

I don't think it's quite that simple. It also depends on alternatives. While 4e definitely seems to have had some real problems (I've never played it so I don't know firsthand), it would have been much more successful if people didn't have 3e or Pathfinder to fall back on. A lot of 5e's success comes from it simply being "not 4e." A lot of it legitimately comes from the game itself, don't get me wrong. But people were hungry for a new thing.

The success of an eventual 6e will largely depend on how many people are frustrated with 5e. Given that 5e is a very palatable system, especially for new players, I'm not expecting a 6e for a long time. Or if there is a 6e it will be very similar to 5e in the way 2e was really just a cleaning up of 1e.

[Rhedyn]

I don't think it's quite that simple. It also depends on alternatives. While 4e definitely seems to have had some real problems (I've never played it so I don't know firsthand), it would have been much more successful if people didn't have 3e or Pathfinder to fall back on. A lot of 5e's success comes from it simply being "not 4e." A lot of it legitimately comes from the game itself, don't get me wrong. But people were hungry for a new thing.

The success of an eventual 6e will largely depend on how many people are frustrated with 5e. Given that 5e is a very palatable system, especially for new players, I'm not expecting a 6e for a long time. Or if there is a 6e it will be very similar to 5e in the way 2e was really just a cleaning up of 1e.
Neither 3e nor Pathfinder were ever as popular as 5e aside from "majority of market held".

The sheer calamity of errors surrounding 4e in combination of it being fairly complicated and being written not in an exciting way prevented a rise in popularity. 4e and Pathfinder 2e are responses to what devs think people will want based on forum traffic. People don't actually care if the "game" is good. People want exciting games. Pretty art and fancy writing accomplish that more than "math".

[JAL_1138]

IIRC, Githyanki first arrived in the 1e Fiend Folio, though I think they were first in White Dwarf? They were those ugly mugs on the cover art. :p

Might have been in the 1e Fiend Folio instead of the 1e MM; I do know the 2e MC had a very similar entry to the 1e entry, whichever 1e book it was in.

[Morty]

Regarding the OP, I don't think this is particularly likely either but I think they'd make D&D a level-less system before they made it class-less.

Ditching levels is honestly more necessary and would solve many problems that people would associate with classes.

[MilkmanDanimal]

The first character I ever played in 1e was an Elven F/Mu/T. Some friends created him for me back in . . . '80? '81? I played loads of multiclassed characters back then. In the big, shifting group I'm playing in, at least a solid third of the characters are multiclassed. Heck, I multiclassed at level two. I'm running a home game with newer players, and they're not multiclassing at all, but, the experienced players I'm playing with in that other campaign? People are multiclassing left and right.

[2D8HP]

I can offer more anecdata.

I've been playing 5e weekly since it came out (well, longer if you count the "D&D Next" playtest). I've played multiple campaigns with different groups, most of which played all the way from level one to level twenty, and I've never yet seen a multiclass character in actual play....



My anectodal experience matches yours. Not too surprising since I've been playing D&D since the Carter administration, and multiclassing is a new kids' thing for the most part. You didn't multiclass before 3e....



Not my experience. Dual-classing (humans) and multiclassing (demihumans) was reasonably common in AD&D 2e, the edition I started in. The rules were different, but it was done, and not horribly infrequently. And it was certainly around in 1e—it was the only way to play a bard, for instance (if you had the stats for it)....



I DM'd ("blue book"), and played ("LBB's" + Monster Manual + Arduin Grimoires + All the World's Monsters) a little bit in the late 1970's, and I've played some 5e after 2015 but most of my gaming was 1e AD&D (and other games) back in the 1980's.

FWLIW at most of the tables that I played TSR D&D at it was usually a conga-line of Human Fighting-men/Fighters with Dwarves a distant second but I do remember multi-classing, I played a memorable Half-Orc Cleric/Fighter (my attempt to play as a Paladin despite never rolling a 17 CHA) who kept his features hidden with a great helm.

The couple of times that I went to DunDraCon the other players were mostly Human Magic-Users in the games that I played there.

In the (sadly far too few) 5e games I've played I'd guess that about a third of the PC's were multi-classed including about half of mine who usually have some levels of Fighter and/or Rogue combined with something else.


Let's be real here, a successful edition of D&D has:

1. D&D on the front
2. Pretty art and high production value (which includes good writing)
3. Low complexity....


Well many (me) in this thread argue that a class based system lowers complexity (most "classless systems that I've played have over long character creation), and as far as I know the most selling version of D&D before 5e was "Red Box" and that one was pretty simple, but I'd argue that most "editions" of D&D are complex (full "bells & whistles" 1e and 3e certainly were), and most were successful.

As for "good writing", while re-reading '70's rules D&D still warms my heart in many cases it was only in reading later versions (the '91 Rules Cyclopedia does a good job) that I came to say "Oh that's what they meant", and I originally learned to play the game more through example and folklore more than from the texts, but that didn't hurt there success even when other games were available (@KorvinStarmast cited Tunnels & Trolls which was already a FRP game with easier to understand text in 1975, and I knew one guy in '81 who championed it in my circle, I regret that I didn't try it).

As for "production values" the earliest D&D books that I had were bound by staples, they were still successful.

[Max_Killjoy]

On one hand, I want to say yes, because I harbor a strong dislike of Classes (and Levels).

On the other hand, I think I should say no, because there are plenty of systems without classes or levels, and there are players who really enjoy Classes and Levels as D&D has them, and a system that does those things should be available for those players.

That said, I picked up a used copy of the 5e PHB to help out on a project, and so far it seems like a far less "exploding scale of silly" system than several previous editions of D&D.

[Rhedyn]

Well many (me) in this thread argue that a class based system lowers complexity (most "classless systems that I've played have over long character creation), and as far as I know the most selling version of D&D before 5e was "Red Box" and that one was pretty simple, but I'd argue that most "editions" of D&D are complex (full "bells & whistles" 1e and 3e certainly were), and most were successful.

As for "good writing", while re-reading '70's rules D&D still warms my heart in many cases it was only in reading later versions (the '91 Rules Cyclopedia does a good job) that I came to say "Oh that's what they meant", and I originally learned to play the game more through example and folklore more than from the texts, but that didn't hurt there success even when other games were available (@KorvinStarmast cited Tunnels & Trolls which was already a FRP game with easier to understand text in 1975, and I knew one guy in '81 who championed it in my circle, I regret that I didn't try it).

As for "production values" the earliest D&D books that I had were bound by staples, they were still successful.

I think it very hard to make a classless system that is both simple and exciting to read. Classes are much easier to theme.

I was talking more about current D&D popularity, where a majority of D&D fans have never played the game and will probably never play the game (but may buy books) because they watch other people play the game. Pre-5e D&D never was a spectator sport.

[EggKookoo]

I think it very hard to make a classless system that is both simple and exciting to read. Classes are much easier to theme.

I was talking more about current D&D popularity, where a majority of D&D fans have never played the game and will probably never play the game (but may buy books) because they watch other people play the game. Pre-5e D&D never was a spectator sport.

Where do you get the "majority" claim? I don't doubt many do buy the books but don't play, but a majority?

For the record, I bought the 3e books when they came out in 2000 (or whenever) but didn't actually play a 3e game in any capacity until 2015. Same year, I bought my 5e books and have been actively playing that since. I had my reasons -- mainly the difficulty in finding players in my late 20s early 30s when everyone's getting married, having kids, buying houses, etc. Now that I'm in my 40s (and *cough* almost out of them) I find many of my friends have more free time. But it doesn't change the underlying "statistic" about buying the books and not playing them.

[Nifft]

I was talking more about current D&D popularity, where a majority of D&D fans have never played the game and will probably never play the game (but may buy books) because they watch other people play the game. Pre-5e D&D never was a spectator sport.

I know people who played before buying the 5e books. (Some still haven't bought the books.)

I think more people play without buying than buy without playing, and the majority of people who buy do play.

It's only on internet forums (like this) where you'll see people with very strong opinions about things they never intend to play.

[MilkmanDanimal]

I think it very hard to make a classless system that is both simple and exciting to read. Classes are much easier to theme.

Very much this in my opinion; classes just simplify everything. I played HERO System and Champions for years, which is completely classless and point buy. It's amazingly flexible and you can build literally any concept you can think of, but it's at the cost of more math and planning than I care to do again. It's a great system for all sorts of different genres (clearly superhero in particular), but I stopped playing it just because I wanted to stop dealing with all the possibilities and play something simple. Classes give me that, and 5e's got enough subclasses and multiclassing options to where I can't customize enough for each character to feel at least a bit unique.

[Rhedyn]

Where do you get the "majority" claim? I don't doubt many do buy the books but don't play, but a majority?

For the record, I bought the 3e books when they came out in 2000 (or whenever) but didn't actually play a 3e game in any capacity until 2015. Same year, I bought my 5e books and have been actively playing that since. I had my reasons -- mainly the difficulty in finding players in my late 20s early 30s when everyone's getting married, having kids, buying houses, etc. Now that I'm in my 40s (and *cough* almost out of them) I find many of my friends have more free time. But it doesn't change the underlying "statistic" about buying the books and not playing them.
I said a majority of D&D fans not books buyers. I can only speculate to that (book buying habits).


Very much this in my opinion; classes just simplify everything. I played HERO System and Champions for years, which is completely classless and point buy. It's amazingly flexible and you can build literally any concept you can think of, but it's at the cost of more math and planning than I care to do again. It's a great system for all sorts of different genres (clearly superhero in particular), but I stopped playing it just because I wanted to stop dealing with all the possibilities and play something simple. Classes give me that, and 5e's got enough subclasses and multiclassing options to where I can't customize enough for each character to feel at least a bit unique.

Classes make designing easier. I find Savage Worlds (which is classless) to be simpler and deeper than 5e, and I think a big part of that is not having classes. Classes complicate a game and add a lot of crunch. What sometimes helps players is that Classes silo crunch, as in a player doesn't need to learn everything to play, but the GM still does and GMs drive games more than players (a driven GM can always find more players).

[EggKookoo]

Classes make designing easier. I find Savage Worlds (which is classless) to be simpler and deeper than 5e, and I think a big part of that is not having classes. Classes complicate a game and add a lot of crunch. What sometimes helps players is that Classes silo crunch, as in a player doesn't need to learn everything to play, but the GM still does and GMs drive games more than players (a driven GM can always find more players).

Generally, though, structure reduces complexity by "pre-deciding" a lot of things for you. I haven't played SW so maybe it's different, but I find the smorgasbord of skills in, say, Chaosium's games far more complicated than picking a class in D&D. It's also more unsettling -- I'm not sure if I'm picking the right skills, or making choices that will bite me later. It's easier to feel confident in a class choice as you get a better sense of what to expect and what not to. So it's less complicated in a cognitive load sense, too.

[Rhedyn]

Generally, though, structure reduces complexity by "pre-deciding" a lot of things for you. I haven't played SW so maybe it's different, but I find the smorgasbord of skills in, say, Chaosium's games far more complicated than picking a class in D&D. It's also more unsettling -- I'm not sure if I'm picking the right skills, or making choices that will bite me later. It's easier to feel confident in a class choice as you get a better sense of what to expect and what not to. So it's less complicated in a cognitive load sense, too.

Give yourself a 100% free and legal look (https://www.peginc.com/store/savage-worlds-test-drive-lankhmar/)

I've found Mid-crunch games like D&D 5e and Savage Worlds to be in short supply. More games seem to fall in either the Fudge or GURPS range of crunch and not in-between.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That said, I picked up a used copy of the 5e PHB to help out on a project, and so far it seems like a far less "exploding scale of silly" system than several previous editions of D&D.

Coming from you about anything D&D, this is truly high praise. :smallwink:

[EggKookoo]

Give yourself a 100% free and legal look (https://www.peginc.com/store/savage-worlds-test-drive-lankhmar/)

Will do, thanks!

[KorvinStarmast]

That said, I picked up a used copy of the 5e PHB to help out on a project, and so far it seems like a far less "exploding scale of silly" system than several previous editions of D&D. Yes it does Max. That was one of my initial impressions as I got into the PHB.

[Pleh]

I liked the 3.5 Generic Classes variant. It's ALMOST classless when the idea is to take class features A La Carte. The idea of class gets preserved in the choice between emphasizing swords, skills, or spells. Most every class is some variation or combination of these three archetypes anyway, and most forms of multiclassing are just trying to mix and match class features. Generic Classes (for some tables) is just the best of both worlds.

[Max_Killjoy]

4e hybrid style multiclassing was dead simple. You picked a feat that gave you a couple abilities and let you count as that other class for Paragon classes. Nothing else.

3e-style multiclassing was a total mess to track. BAB and save progression, caster level, "this advances that but not the other" PrC abilities, cross-class skills, etc.

5e multiclassing is simpler than 3e but more complex than 4e, especially with spell progression (having to track two separate sets of spells-known/prepared, different DCs, etc).

And what does it buy you? Unless you're trying to emulate a specific character from non-D&D fiction (which, I will note, is not something any edition of D&D has handled gracefully), it's generally no stronger and often much weaker than a straight-class character. This is particularly true through the lower levels that people actually play. A build that really comes online at level 12 is a build that will always be behind for the majority of all campaigns that die by level 11. You're delaying ASIs/feats (unless you take levels in groups of 4), often increasing MAD-ness, delaying major power bumps (especially the level 5 one), flattening the progression curve, etc. It gives you breadth at the cost of depth.

The ASI thing (by class level rather than character level), especially with Feats tied to ASI, has struck me as excessively punitive against multi-classing.

[EggKookoo]

The ASI thing (by class level rather than character level), especially with Feats tied to ASI, has struck me as excessively punitive against multi-classing.

Probably only incidentally, though. I doubt it was intended as such. ASIs being tied to class level allowed them to tweak the fighter and rogue. Feats being tied to ASIs helped with the same and also put a leash on feats. But feats are a way of "soft multiclassing" in many respects, so I guess it makes some sense that actual multiclass builds have less access to them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The ASI thing, especially with Feats tied to ASI, has struck me as excessively punitive against multi-classing.

Thing is, the game doesn't assume you max your ability scores (even your primary). The math seems to assume the following:

T1 (levels 1-4): +2 in your main stat.
T2 (levels 5-10): +3 in your main stat.
T3 (levels 11-15): +3 or +4 in your main stat.
T4 (levels 16+): +4 or +5 in your main stat.

You have ASIs at the following levels:
4: everyone
6: fighters
8: everyone
10: rogues
12: everyone
14: fighters
16: everyone
19: everyone

So if you start with a +3 in your main stat (15 + 1 or 2 racial), you're good through your level 12 ASI, giving you 2 or 3 (variant human) feats to play with early in your career.

Not to mention, most builds aren't heavily feat dependent (and feats are an optional rule, as is multiclassing). Basically the only builds that really want feats heavily are:
* Max-damage martials (who want Pole Arm Master and Great Weapon Fighting)--they rarely multiclass because the class features are worth it already.
* Combat casters (paladins, more martial clerics) want either/both Resilient: Constitution or Warcaster. Some of these are multiclass, but sorcadins are one of the most played forum-builds, so they're not hurting.
* Ranged hand-crossbow builds want Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter (many ranged builds want Sharpshooter). That can happen at level 1 with variant human, then you're set.

[Misterwhisper]

Probably only incidentally, though. I doubt it was intended as such. ASIs being tied to class level allowed them to tweak the fighter and rogue. Feats being tied to ASIs helped with the same and also put a leash on feats. But feats are a way of "soft multiclassing" in many respects, so I guess it makes some sense that actual multiclass builds have less access to them.

I find that to be a much smaller issue than the idea that caster levels all stack except warlock and that spells are based on character level not class level, or even just caster level.

A Rogue with Magic Initiate Wizard and a real wizard should not throw the same damage fire bolt at level 15.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I find that to be a much smaller issue than the idea that caster levels all stack except warlock and that spells are based on character level not class level, or even just caster level.

A Rogue with Magic Initiate Wizard and a real wizard should not throw the same damage fire bolt at level 15.

Yeah, no. Leveling cantrips and not losing caster levels makes things so much easier. And it's not a major problem anyway--cantrips are a fallback (for everyone but warlocks). At best, a cantrip-user (again, other than warlocks) is doing 50% of the steady-state damage of a same-level martial. And that doesn't count the burst potential of the martials.

For the rogue, throwing that firebolt is a major opportunity cost--they'd get much better use out of a short bow (since they can sneak attack with it). For the wizard, it replaces plinking ineffectually with a crossbow or darts while still feeling like a wizard. If cantrips didn't scale with character level, you'd be back at the "don't lose caster levels" problem of previous editions. Plus you'd have to track all the different levels of everything and where they came from. Ugh.

[Misterwhisper]

Yeah, no. Leveling cantrips and not losing caster levels makes things so much easier. And it's not a major problem anyway--cantrips are a fallback (for everyone but warlocks). At best, a cantrip-user (again, other than warlocks) is doing 50% of the steady-state damage of a same-level martial. And that doesn't count the burst potential of the martials.

For the rogue, throwing that firebolt is a major opportunity cost--they'd get much better use out of a short bow (since they can sneak attack with it). For the wizard, it replaces plinking ineffectually with a crossbow or darts while still feeling like a wizard. If cantrips didn't scale with character level, you'd be back at the "don't lose caster levels" problem of previous editions. Plus you'd have to track all the different levels of everything and where they came from. Ugh.

I didn't say that the rogue should be using the fire bolt on the regular or anything but a character who is not even a caster at all unless they took a feat to have a pair of cantrips and a single 1st level spell should not do the same damage as someone with 15 levels of an actual casting class.

How is that any different than a multi classed character having to keep track of what spell level spells they have cast of that level.

ex.

A level 10 sorcerer 10 wizard has 9th level spell slots but no spells known, some spells will use their CHA some will use their INT, some can be either if they knew it on both?

or

You have the casting of a level 10 sorcerer with it's normal level 10 rules, and the casting of a level 10 wizard with their normal casting rules.

The second way seems much simpler and gives way to many more spell slots. Single class gets bigger spell levels to use, multis get more spell slots, seems fine.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I didn't say that the rogue should be using the fire bolt on the regular or anything but a character who is not even a caster at all unless they took a feat to have a pair of cantrips and a single 1st level spell should not do the same damage as someone with 15 levels of an actual casting class.

How is that any different than a multi classed character having to keep track of what spell level spells they have cast of that level.

ex.

A level 10 sorcerer 10 wizard has 9th level spell slots but no spells known, some spells will use their CHA some will use their INT, some can be either if they knew it on both?

or

You have the casting of a level 10 sorcerer with it's normal level 10 rules, and the casting of a level 10 wizard with their normal casting rules.

The second way seems much simpler and gives way to many more spell slots. Single class gets bigger spell levels to use, multis get more spell slots, seems fine.

Your second way involves all the problems of the first plus a bunch more paperwork. You'd still have to track which spells use what abilities and which spells you know from which class (because class features frequently interact with their class spells, not all spells). Plus you'd have to track which spell slots belong to which class (can you cross-cast spells? Who knows.), their recovery (Arcane Recovery would only get to recover wizard slots), and you'd have huge balance issues (is having 2x as many low-level slots better than having bigger slots? Who knows.), plus tracking the damage-scaling of cantrips separately. All this for something that's a rarely-used (most players don't multiclass at all, let alone heavily between spellcasters), optional element. No thanks.

[Max_Killjoy]

I know I've asked this before, but... does it help to stop and ask whether the Classes are reflective of something fundamental about the character and the setting; or tools in a kit for modelling the character into the mechanics of the system?

[EggKookoo]

I know I've asked this before, but... does it help to stop and ask whether the Classes are reflective of something fundamental about the character and the setting; or tools in a kit for modelling the character into the mechanics of the system?

For me it's always the former. Characters in my games aren't aware of their class and certainly don't choose it as such. They have a way, an approach to dealing with adversity, and things they're passionate about. The game presents that as a mechanic to the player that's just as "gamey" as hit points and armor class. At least in my games.

[Tvtyrant]

I know I've asked this before, but... does it help to stop and ask whether the Classes are reflective of something fundamental about the character and the setting; or tools in a kit for modelling the character into the mechanics of the system?

Depends on the class honestly. A fighter, rogue, sorcerer, ranger or barbarian probably don't think of themselves as such. A wizard, cleric, paladin or druid probably do.

[Max_Killjoy]

Depends on the class honestly. A fighter, rogue, sorcerer, ranger or barbarian probably don't think of themselves as such. A wizard, cleric, paladin or druid probably do.

Not just how the character thinks of themselves, but how the world itself works and how the game system interacts with it.

Should every character with the Wizard class fit snugly into the entire archetype of "wizard", or do some of them just have it because it's the best (or least bad) way of representing what they're capable of within the framework of the system's mechanics / rules?

Does a Bard have to actually be musical, or can the abilities of that class be "fluffed" as something else?

[EggKookoo]

Does a Bard have to actually be musical, or can the abilities of that class be "fluffed" as something else?

Every class can be fluffed as something other than the stereotypical D&D version.

I think even wizards don't think of themselves as such. I think if you called a sorcerer a "wizard" he'd nod. If you called a cleric a "wizard" he'd probably understand why you said it. In the original Conan movie, he called Mako's character a wizard even though he more properly worked as a cleric. People in the game universe don't care what the PHB says. Again, in the games I run...

[KorvinStarmast]

The ASI thing (by class level rather than character level), especially with Feats tied to ASI, has struck me as excessively punitive against multi-classing. Not punitive. Aimed at preventing pun pun and other exploits.

[KorvinStarmast]

Does a Bard have to actually be musical, No. Wm Shakespeare, the Bard, wasn't famous for being musical. Let's look at the Entertainer background for a little context. That is a background obviously -- as in screamingly obviously -- matched up with a Bard character.


A good entertainer is versatile⁠, spicing up every Performance with a variety of different routines. Choose one to three routines or roll (1d10) on the table below to define your expertise as an entertainer.

1- Ac⁠tor
2- Dancer
3- Fire-eater
4- Jester
5- Juggle
6- Instrumentalist
7- Poet
8- Singer
9- Storyteller
10- Tumbler

PS: story teller and stand up comic match up nicely. The great comedians -- Youngman, Carson, Carlin, Dangerfield, Hope, Marx, Cosby, White, Prior, Murphy, Bruce: name your favorite ten.
They are all good story tellers.
Some in short form, some in long form.

[Max_Killjoy]

Personally I don't have a firm answer, but I do think it helps these conversations if people really stop and think about, and then discuss, what they think Class actually represents and does.

[Luccan]

Not just how the character thinks of themselves, but how the world itself works and how the game system interacts with it.

Should every character with the Wizard class fit snugly into the entire archetype of "wizard", or do some of them just have it because it's the best (or least bad) way of representing what they're capable of within the framework of the system's mechanics / rules?

Does a Bard have to actually be musical, or can the abilities of that class be "fluffed" as something else?
You might not like this answer, but I think it's "it depends". What repurcussions could your refluff have on the game? Is it just refluffing, or would it in some way require a slight restructuring of some rules? If you fluff your spellbook(s) as "memory stones" that hold your spells psychically, that might be one thing. But even stretching that a bit further to "my spellbooks are my eidetic memory" could cause issues at some tables (not all, admittedly, I rarely see spellbooks targeted these days). So, yeah, it kinda depends, on everything from how you do it, to why, to your setting, to your specific table.

[Max_Killjoy]

You might not like this answer, but I think it's "it depends". What repurcussions could your refluff have on the game? Is it just refluffing, or would it in some way require a slight restructuring of some rules? If you fluff your spellbook(s) as "memory stones" that hold your spells psychically, that might be one thing. But even stretching that a bit further to "my spellbooks are my eidetic memory" could cause issues at some tables (not all, admittedly, I rarely see spellbooks targeted these days). So, yeah, it kinda depends, on everything from how you do it, to why, to your setting, to your specific table.

Actually that's a perfectly good answer.

[EggKookoo]

You might not like this answer, but I think it's "it depends". What repurcussions could your refluff have on the game? Is it just refluffing, or would it in some way require a slight restructuring of some rules? If you fluff your spellbook(s) as "memory stones" that hold your spells psychically, that might be one thing. But even stretching that a bit further to "my spellbooks are my eidetic memory" could cause issues at some tables (not all, admittedly, I rarely see spellbooks targeted these days). So, yeah, it kinda depends, on everything from how you do it, to why, to your setting, to your specific table.

It also depends on how literally you take the rules. I mean, we watch movies, right? There's all sort of incidental stuff like background music, framing, scene cuts. Part of the humor of Deadpool is that he's aware of this stuff, but in general we all accept that the characters in the story are unaware they're in a story. Hell, take a musical for example. Do the characters know they're singing?

So for me I view the game mechanics as this incidental stuff. As much as possible without utterly breaking credibility, I try to assume the characters are unaware of the mechanics. They don't think they hit with a sword because some "player" got a good roll on his icosahedron (did I spell that right?). I mean some might favor "dice of the gods" but most wouldn't. I'm sure someone has worked out how wizards must be aware of spell slots as such, but I try to put a fuzziness barrier between me and the fictional world.

If you're not like that -- if you view game mechanics mostly as diegetic the way many MMOs do -- then you'll end up with the opposite view.

[Luccan]

It also depends on how literally you take the rules. I mean, we watch movies, right? There's all sort of incidental stuff like background music, framing, scene cuts. Part of the humor of Deadpool is that he's aware of this stuff, but in general we all accept that the characters in the story are unaware they're in a story. Hell, take a musical for example. Do the characters know they're singing?

So for me I view the game mechanics as this incidental stuff. As much as possible without utterly breaking credibility, I try to assume the characters are unaware of the mechanics. They don't think they hit with a sword because some "player" got a good roll on his icosahedron (did I spell that right?). I mean some might favor "dice of the gods" but most wouldn't. I'm sure someone has worked out how wizards must be aware of spell slots as such, but I try to put a fuzziness barrier between me and the fictional world.

If you're not like that -- if you view game mechanics mostly as diegetic the way many MMOs do -- then you'll end up with the opposite view.

I mean, someone did. His name was Jack Vance. Admittedly, 5e moves a bit further away from true Vancian casting, so it's a bit harder to do. I would definitely say they at least know the spells theu have prepared though. And not counting casting from higher slots or metamagic (which one might fluff as "pushing yourself") I could see them having a rough idea for how many of a given spell they can cast

[JackPhoenix]

I mean, someone did. His name was Jack Vance. Admittedly, 5e moves a bit further away from true Vancian casting, so it's a bit harder to do. I would definitely say they at least know the spells theu have prepared though. And not counting casting from higher slots or metamagic (which one might fluff as "pushing yourself") I could see them having a rough idea for how many of a given spell they can cast

Funny thing is that it's the other way around than he thinks... it's not that Jack Vance came up with explanation how D&D spell slots work. Gygax and Arneson (I'm not sure which, but propably the former) cribbed the concept of spell slots from his writtings.

[EggKookoo]

Funny thing is that it's the other way around than he thinks... it's not that Jack Vance came up with explanation how D&D spell slots work. Gygax and Arneson (I'm not sure which, but propably the former) cribbed the concept of spell slots from his writtings.

Well, the concept of prepared spells rather than spell slots, but yeah on the basic statement.

I can see fluffing spell slots and spell levels as "pushing yourself." I mean it's not like a fighter is aware of the Attack Action and that he gets at most one Bonus Action per round. That's just how we see it. The fighter is just hitting things whenever it seems appropriate and he has the opportunity. Unless you feel like everyone involved in a fight patiently waits for their turn. The "reality" is, combat is a big chaotic mess with lots of things happening simultaneously. As players we kind of dissect it to work out what's happening so it functions as a game.

I can accept spellcasting working the same way. It's messy and complicated in some way that we can't experience directly, and spell slots and spell levels are just how we chop it up so we can play the game. It's just that it's harder for us to imagine what's "really" going on with magic since there's no real-world equivalent like there is with combat.

So bringing this back to the original question about classes, I see it the same way. Classes exist as a convenience for us. IMO having a character be aware of his own class is like having him be aware of his hit points. Fred (the eldritch knight) probably sees himself the same as Sue (the wizard) "but better, because I can wear armor and hit stuff too." If you pointed out that Sue can use magic more often and to greater effect, Fred might say that he could too if he needed/wanted to. He would be wrong via the rules but he doesn't know that. And really the only reason to cap leveling at 20 is, again, player convenience. You could model it as our natural tendency to resist learning new things as we get older, perhaps, but "in universe" there's really no reason Fred couldn't go on learning new magic beyond what the EK class features permit.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have a model for spell slots/spell levels that I think works great (my harmonic quantum transition model), but that's neither here nor now.

As for classes and levels, I don't think they exist in-universe. Sure, there are people who call themselves paladins. Or clerics. But they may or may not be mechanically represented by characters with levels in the Paladin class or the Cleric class, nor do they necessarily have the same abilities. However, in-fiction the classes and levels represent a few different things.

First, classes reflect the fact that characters with them have power not available to the common herd of creatures. Where does that power come from? That's part of what the class answers. Yes, it's a throw-back to the 4e "power source" idea, just stripped of the mechanical weight. Why are druids different than clerics of nature gods? Because how they cast their spells is different. One (in my setting/model) feeds small nature spirits packets of energy in exchange for magical effects; the other is a channel for their deity to act through them. Both rely on intuiting and "perceiving" the other beings' will, despite not actually talking in the normal sense to them. Barbarians are also channeling forces of nature, but internally rather than externally. Watching a barbarian Rage is to watch them literally hulk out a bit--their anger is a channel for the primal forces of reality to gather in their body. Fighters and rogues tap into these forces by training and determination. Etc.

Second, classes represent an approach to the power source and to adventuring. While bards, wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks all directly manipulate reality (the arcane power source), the methods and approaches they use differ strongly. This means that Wizardry, Sorcery, Pacts, and Harmonies are things that exist in-universe, and in-universe "bards" use those Harmonies even if they don't have the rest of the package. Wizards are intelligent and know things. Bards are good with people. Warlocks are beholden to and empowered by pacts. Paladins have Oaths that bind and empower them. Sorcerers have magic in their blood that they may not fully understand. Etc. Even though a wizard and a sorcerer are similar mechanically, they represent fundamentally different approaches (in my mind) to the fictional scenarios.

Out of universe, the classes represent packages of features and tools (in the general sense) that make for reasonably-balanced gameplay along archetypal lines. I find that the strong archetypes represented by most classes are strongly attractive to new players. They already know basically what to expect from most of them, and the rest are made clear with short, 2-3 sentence explanations. They're built for "organic" growth without major traps (unlike previous editions) and they all fit the basic premise of the game (you're heroic adventurers doing heroic things in a fantasy world) well.

Moving away from classes, in my opinion, would remove a lot of good things. Is it perfect the way it is? No. Does it work well? Yes, in my opinion.

[EggKookoo]

As for classes and levels, I don't think they exist in-universe. Sure, there are people who call themselves paladins. Or clerics. But they may or may not be mechanically represented by characters with levels in the Paladin class or the Cleric class, nor do they necessarily have the same abilities. However, in-fiction the classes and levels represent a few different things.

Going back to the original Conan movie, he's called a barbarian by the film title and referred to as a thief in dialogue (although in the context of him not being very good at it, so YMMV). But if you watch what he does in-game and apply it to 5e, he's pretty much a champion fighter.

I think there are lots of references to people in-universe that sound like class names ("Begone foul sorcerer!" "Uh, I'm a wizard, actually...") but that's something to avoid getting caught up in.


Moving away from classes, in my opinion, would remove a lot of good things. Is it perfect the way it is? No. Does it work well? Yes, in my opinion.

And "perfect" is never a realistic goal. "Better than before" is a more valuable metric.

[Max_Killjoy]

(Sorry if this has been covered and I missed it.)

Another issue I've seen with classes over the years is that some players seem to want a specific separate class for every concept, everything really.

For example, let's say that someone wants to play a "witch"... but there's no Witch character class in the current edition. So they push their DM to adapt an old edition, or homebrew something, with its own spell list and own special abilities and own everything. But is that really necessary?

But then... wizard, sorcerer, druid, warlock, or even bard... one of those should work for almost any "witch" concept from history or fiction, shouldn't it? A reasonable DM might even allow the player to swap out something in that class for a feature from another class if balanced and if necessary.

[Luccan]

(Sorry if this has been covered and I missed it.)

Another issue I've seen with classes over the years is that some players seem to want a specific separate class for every concept, everything really.

For example, let's say that someone wants to play a "witch"... but there's no Witch character class in the current edition. So they push their DM to adapt an old edition, or homebrew something, with its own spell list and own special abilities and own everything. But is that really necessary?

But then... wizard, sorcerer, druid, warlock, or even bard... one of those should work for almost any "witch" concept from history or fiction, shouldn't it? A reasonable DM might even allow the player to swap out something in that class for a feature from another class if balanced and if necessary.

In a short lived 3.5 game I played a "witch" who was just a refluffed Wu-Jen. I haven no issue with refluffing, though I sometimes do think there's a mechanical space for certain ideas to be represented as separate classes (I could see a "witch" class being very focused around their familiar). But, on the other hand, 5e has subclasses, which make it a lot easier to represent a given concept within a single class. There are several single class ways to represent a warrior-mage now, for instance, which is probably better than 3.5's "here are two base classes that aren't quite what anyone wanted from a gish".

[SleepIncarnate]

I didn't see any comments to this effect, but I would like to point out that D&D made a move toward being classless once. Not even a big move. Just a little one. It was in 4e, when they broke the classes down into roles. Tank, healer, striker, etc. It simplified the class system a great deal from what it had been previously, making all classes of the same role roughly similar. Suddenly, a bard was on par with a cleric as a healer, with only minor flavor differences.

These changes caused a HUGE backlash. A lot of players felt it was a step too far. And it looks like WotC agreed, because 5e brought back a great more differentiation between the classes.

Going fully classless would potentially destroy the D&D franchise for any future editions. The classes are a big part of the game's charm. Not to say that classless games lack charm, but they also feel different. Every game has its own feel to it, and D&D's charm and feel are in large part to the class system. Make changes to it, tweak it, try to improve or rebalance it, sure, but getting rid of it? I doubt WotC would ever go that far after how the backlash from not even going halfway there was.

[EggKookoo]

I didn't see any comments to this effect, but I would like to point out that D&D made a move toward being classless once. Not even a big move. Just a little one. It was in 4e, when they broke the classes down into roles. Tank, healer, striker, etc. It simplified the class system a great deal from what it had been previously, making all classes of the same role roughly similar. Suddenly, a bard was on par with a cleric as a healer, with only minor flavor differences.

Second edition did something similar although no one thought of it that way at the time. There were really only four 2e classes: warrior, wizard, rogue, and priest. The 2e PBH lists them as "categories" but each category defined many core class features such as hit dice, save progression, exp progression, and so on. Each class had a "standard" subclass (fighter, mage, thief, and cleric respectively) but there were other subclasses you could choose instead, such as paladin, illusionist, bard, druid, and so on. I always thought that was cool, because you could create more subclasses (what 2e actually called "classes") and because they fit into this structure there was an inherent sense of them being balanced.

One of my first disappointments upon cracking open the 3e PHB was that they did away with that in favor of just a list of classes. Happily for me, 5e kind of works back to that system with its approach to subclasses, but honestly I would have preferred fewer actual classes and more subclasses per. But in the interests of creating a witch, you could just take the warlock or sorcerer (or druid) and create a new subclass for it.

[Luccan]

Second edition did something similar although no one thought of it that way at the time. There were really only four 2e classes: warrior, wizard, rogue, and priest. The 2e PBH lists them as "categories" but each category defined many core class features such as hit dice, save progression, exp progression, and so on. Each class had a "standard" subclass (fighter, mage, thief, and cleric respectively) but there were other subclasses you could choose instead, such as paladin, illusionist, bard, druid, and so on. I always thought that was cool, because you could create more subclasses (what 2e actually called "classes") and because they fit into this structure there was an inherent sense of them being balanced.

One of my first disappointments upon cracking open the 3e PHB was that they did away with that in favor of just a list of classes. Happily for me, 5e kind of works back to that system with its approach to subclasses, but honestly I would have preferred fewer actual classes and more subclasses per. But in the interests of creating a witch, you could just take the warlock or sorcerer (or druid) and create a new subclass for it.

My understanding was that 4e's problem was that they all felt samey. Sure Water Cleric and a War Cleric share some features in 5e, but they still have a lot that separates them. Meanwhile, having druid just be a cleric with different restrictions (As it was in 1e) and a couple different spells limits both classes conceptually.

I will say that the trouble with class based systems is making them all feel like viable choices, without making them feel too similar. In 5e this isn't a problem with most base classes (barring the Ranger depending on your POV), but it certainly is with subclasses. How many times has this forum seen complaints about a new subclass being worse at its job than another (Swords Bard) or being so good as to invalidate a particular concept for all other subclasses in that class (Hexblade bladelocks, because why wouldn't you?).