Streamlining classes

[paladinn]

Contemplating streamlining the 5e class system into something like 1/2e for my next campaign. There would be 4 main classes (fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard) with subclasses/archetypes beneath. Fighter, ranger and barbarians (if I use em) would become fighter subclasses (again). Bards would be either rogue or cleric subs. Druids would be nature clerics. Sorcerers and warlocks would likely go away, since wizards are spontaneous casters now. The fighter subs specifically would benefit from some of the "generic" fighter abilities.

I think that it could be easily done using existing subclasses as templates. Paladins could be EKs with cleric spells and some different class features. Maybe paladins could choose a domain (looking at you, Ancients). Druids are mostly there as nature clerics.

I'm trying to think through some of the class features. I definitely want to retain divine smite for paladins, as it is The defining feature in 5e. I see wildshape becoming a nature cleric class feature or even a spell. In BECMI, bards (from VotPA) has charm as a class feature, so I'd likely grab that. Eldritch blast cantrip could be available for any arcane caster, maybe in exchange for sacrificing spell slots (ala divine smite).

Any thoughts in all this?

Gratzi in advance!

Michael

[nickl_2000]

My first question is:
Why?

[Vogie]

I mean, you can use the UA sidekick classes as a guide - They burn everything down to Warrior, Expert or Spellcaster, and then you can incorporate whatever features you want from there.

[paladinn]

I mean, you can use the UA sidekick classes as a guide - They burn everything down to Warrior, Expert or Spellcaster, and then you can incorporate whatever features you want from there.

Baby steps.. that might be my next adventure

I could see that being a "replacement"/upgrade for True20

[Man_Over_Game]

Contemplating streamlining the 5e class system into something like 1/2e for my next campaign. There would be 4 main classes (fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard) with subclasses/archetypes beneath. Fighter, ranger and barbarians (if I use em) would become fighter subclasses (again). Bards would be either rogue or cleric subs. Druids would be nature clerics. Sorcerers and warlocks would likely go away, since wizards are spontaneous casters now. The fighter subs specifically would benefit from some of the "generic" fighter abilities.

I think that it could be easily done using existing subclasses as templates. Paladins could be EKs with cleric spells and some different class features. Maybe paladins could choose a domain (looking at you, Ancients). Druids are mostly there as nature clerics.

I'm trying to think through some of the class features. I definitely want to retain divine smite for paladins, as it is The defining feature in 5e. I see wildshape becoming a nature cleric class feature or even a spell. In BECMI, bards (from VotPA) has charm as a class feature, so I'd likely grab that. Eldritch blast cantrip could be available for any arcane caster, maybe in exchange for sacrificing spell slots (ala divine smite).

Any thoughts in all this?

Gratzi in advance!

Michael

I think that merging them would end up with a lot of lost content, with a lot of balance concerns. What will you gain out of all of this when it's done? Would the game be better? Sure, it might be more streamlined if the game was designed around that concept, but...it'd have a long way to go before it'd ever reach there.

I think a better way of doing it would be to divide the classes into 3 different types (Fighting, Cunning, Casting), that each class belonged to. Then have some abilities/magic items only work for characters of that superclass.

For example,

Fighting characters would be Barbarians, Paladins, Fighters and Monks.
Cunning characters would be Rogues, Rangers, Bards and Warlocks.
Casting Characters are Sorcerers, Druids, Wizards, and Clerics.

And maybe all Cunning Characters have Insight as a skill, and can interact with magic that deals with deception. Or something along those lines. I think it'd be better to add categories to what's already there, rather than trying to mash them together and end up with a bowl of suck pudding. The difference between a "Double Layer Pizza" and a "Pizza Smoothie".

[paladinn]

In OD&D, Classic, 1e and 2e, characters were primarily defined by their main class. If you were a paladin, you were a fighter first and foremost. A druid was basically a cleric with limits and perks (and in BECMI, you actually had to start as a cleric). 2e introduced MU schools, which were really cool; but the character was still mainly a MU/"wizard". I think a lot of this has been lost in 3.x and especially in 5e.

I'm thinking of my concept as a way to recapture that legacy, and likely to be an easier step up from the basic/beginner/starter rules. If you start off with the freebie "basic" rules, this could let you pick from a wider ranger of archetypes when you hit level 3-ish.

[Vogie]

Baby steps.. that might be my next adventure

I could see that being a "replacement"/upgrade for True20

There is little difference between a cleric and wizard - when it comes to spellcasters, the mechanics are largely semantic. Divine or Arcane? Prepared or Innate? Long rest vs short rest? Full, Half, or Third? All of those delineations are just variations on a theme of "spellcaster"

[paladinn]

There is little difference between a cleric and wizard - when it comes to spellcasters, the mechanics are largely semantic. Divine or Arcane? Prepared or Innate? Long rest vs short rest? Full, Half, or Third? All of those delineations are just variations on a theme of "spellcaster"

I agree, once some of the "special" class features are otherwise addressed.

I would use the names Fighter and Mystic. Spellcaster seems unwieldy. Not sold on the "Expert" label either. Somehow it would need to be stripped of it's rogue-ish trappings. Would an "Expert" specializing in some field really have evasion?

[Vogie]

I agree, once some of the "special" class features are otherwise addressed.

I would use the names Fighter and Mystic. Spellcaster seems unwieldy. Not sold on the "Expert" label either. Somehow it would need to be stripped of it's rogue-ish trappings. Would an "Expert" specializing in some field really have evasion?

Sure. Monks have it too, and they're essentially "hand-to-hand experts".

The UA is just for what are effectively secondary characters and DMPCs. What you'd need to do is then build out that mechanical skeleton to make the various "sub-base" classes. A Nature Expert could be the Ranger variant, while a brawler expert would be a monk variant, and a Subterfuge Expert would be the rogue variant.

[paladinn]

Sure. Monks have it too, and they're essentially "hand-to-hand experts".

The UA is just for what are effectively secondary characters and DMPCs. What you'd need to do is then build out that mechanical skeleton to make the various "sub-base" classes. A Nature Expert could be the Ranger variant, while a brawler expert would be a monk variant, and a Subterfuge Expert would be the rogue variant.

I think monks were originally supposed to be a cleric subclass (of course) in OD&D. Not sure how they would translate into a cleric domain in 5e. Hmmmm

[rbstr]

This seems like a great thing to do if you want to do a ton of work and receive no benefit. For example: There are only 5 Archetype features per Fighter subclass. Squishing he paladin into that either require you to remove many of the Paladins unique aspects or create something massively OP compared to the standard Fighter subclasses.

As others have said: Why? What does this do to anyone's benefit?

If what you want is a Paladin-like archetype for the Fighter...make that instead. You could certainly do that based on the EK.
Level 3, EK spellcasting with Paladin List
Level 7, smite
Level 10, Aura of Protection
Level 15, Improved Divine Smite
Level 18, Aura of Courage and improved aura radius

...That's probably a bit strong TBH. I would totally play something like that if I wanted a very martially-oriented paladin-like character...but you can also see how much has to get left behind to make it fit. You don't get to have paladin subclasses anymore and you're still leaving base-class paladin stuff, like lay on hands, on the cutting room floor.

[paladinn]

This seems like a great thing to do if you want to do a ton of work and receive no benefit. For example: There are only 5 Archetype features per Fighter subclass. Squishing he paladin into that either require you to remove many of the Paladins unique aspects or create something massively OP compared to the standard Fighter subclasses.

As others have said: Why? What does this do to anyone's benefit?

If what you want is a Paladin-like archetype for the Fighter...make that instead. You could certainly do that based on the EK.
Level 3, EK spellcasting with Paladin List
Level 7, smite
Level 10, Aura of Protection
Level 15, Improved Divine Smite
Level 18, Aura of Courage and improved aura radius

...That's probably a bit strong TBH. I would totally play something like that if I wanted a very martially-oriented paladin-like character...but you can also see how much has to get left behind to make it fit. You don't get to have paladin subclasses anymore and you're still leaving base-class paladin stuff, like lay on hands, on the cutting room floor.

You said yourself, you would "totally play something like that." I imagine that a "very martially-oriented paladin" would benefit from more of the basic fighter features.

I was actually thinking to allow access to the cleric spell list, if there was spellcasting at all. The original paladin had no spellcasting, and had a "dispel evil" ability starting at 8th level. Maybe divine smite takes that place. Then allow lay-on-hands starting at level 3.

[rbstr]

Well, it's always nice to have more options so character concepts fit better.
But adding one archetype is not what you said you wanted to do in your first post - You wanted to compress everything down to 4 classes. Is that in order to fit a certain campaign setting, or just to reduce character options and make a bunch of work for yourself? The former could be neat, the latter is just pretty dubious. What, exactly do you want to do?

[paladinn]

Well, it's always nice to have more options so character concepts fit better.
But adding one archetype is not what you said you wanted to do in your first post - You wanted to compress everything down to 4 classes. Is that in order to fit a certain campaign setting, or just to reduce character options and make a bunch of work for yourself? The former could be neat, the latter is just pretty dubious. What, exactly do you want to do?

Several things.. I know several old grognards (like me) who would like to get into 5e, but it's very different than what we used to play. If one wants to play a paladin, the class in 5e is very different than what s/he played back in the day. I love the mechanics in 5e, but there is a serious disconnect with versions past. For veterans, a paladin is a fighter, first and foremost.

I'm also looking at this for newer players who may only have played the basic/starter set. If you started as one of the 4 basic classes, when you move on to the "full game", you have to leave your character behind in order to play anything beyond the basic. Want to be a paladin? Sorry, you have to start over.

I'm not saying this model should replace anything. And you are certainly within your rights to dislike it. I just think this could open 5e to players who wouldn't otherwise consider it.

[rbstr]

Frankly, I don't think you'll have any problem if you start those kind of folks at level 1. As long as people read the rules and don't make assumptions about how the games works it will be fine.

Also, dndbeyond has rules for all the base classes along with one archetype available for free (besides that it's pretty much ALL available via a quick google-ing). I guess I wouldn't presuppose the new-fangled stuff isn't what someone wants. If someone wants the fighter-paladin instead of the one in the PhB then you can give it to them.

[Obermax]

I don't think I would enjoy or be willing to play in a campaign like that for longer than 1-3 sessions

Streamlining the mechanics just removes alot of the depth / complexity of the game and refluffing abilities all day to fit a concept always comes across as awkward or weird to me personally

This said. Some friends and I wanted to play a walking dead esque zombie campaign that started off as a joke and turned into a solid year of solid fun with the 3 of us rotating each session as the dm - the only rule we used was a coinflip heads/tails no skills no hit points nothing - it was great fun and centered around story

If your wanting to simplify your game to introduce new players I'd recommend running a quick 1e / 2e campaign but even then 5e is very easy to pick up.. all you have to do is spend an hour reading the book

My 2 cents - best of luck <.<

[NatureKing]

Next game instead needs to go classless, and have some form of passive tree with interconnected branches, similar to Path of Exile Passive Tree, or Sphere Grids from Final Fantasy X.

[Mortis_Elrod]

In OD&D, Classic, 1e and 2e, characters were primarily defined by their main class. If you were a paladin, you were a fighter first and foremost. A druid was basically a cleric with limits and perks (and in BECMI, you actually had to start as a cleric). 2e introduced MU schools, which were really cool; but the character was still mainly a MU/"wizard". I think a lot of this has been lost in 3.x and especially in 5e.

I'm thinking of my concept as a way to recapture that legacy, and likely to be an easier step up from the basic/beginner/starter rules. If you start off with the freebie "basic" rules, this could let you pick from a wider ranger of archetypes when you hit level 3-ish.

Whats wrong with actually playing those systems instead?

or something like GURPS?

I'm sorry but whenever i see something like this I'm just trying to justify the amount of work it takes to rework a system (that is perfectly fine) into a different one with different design goals, philosophy, and mechanics, while trying to maintain the systems own flavor a few choice mechanics/ideas.

In my eyes you're going about this wrong. Backwards even.

[paladinn]

Whats wrong with actually playing those systems instead?

or something like GURPS?

I'm sorry but whenever i see something like this I'm just trying to justify the amount of work it takes to rework a system (that is perfectly fine) into a different one with different design goals, philosophy, and mechanics, while trying to maintain the systems own flavor a few choice mechanics/ideas.

In my eyes you're going about this wrong. Backwards even.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion