Archetypes and versatility in 5th Edition

[woweedd]

(Note: This is not my observations. This is stuff i've heard pointed out elsewhere. I'm just putting a topic about it, and trying to explain it in my own words.)

So...You all remember the Tier system from back in the days of 3.5, or, more recently, Pathfinder, right? Now, tiers were based on versatility: How much stuff can your character do, and how well can they do it?

Cards on the table: I don't consider differing tiers, differing levels of versatility, to necessarily be a problem, so long as the player knows what they're signing on for: Some players want to do everything, some players want to do one specific thing but unbelievably good. So long as everyone agrees as to how versatile the characters should be, it's no issue. That's basically the main benefit of having a class system to begin with.

Now, 3.5 and, to a lesser extent, PF had an issue with this: The Martial/spellcaster divide. Swordswingers were low-versatility, spellcasters were high-versatility, and never the twain shall meet. Caster Supremacy. Has 5th Edition fixed this...Kinda!

OK, so 5E had the neat idea of Archetypes: selected sub-classes, taken at 3rd level, with the first two levels being "tutorials", so to speak, that would allow you to customize your characters' versatility to whatever you wanted. Any class could now be any tier, entirely dependent on what Archetype you used. At least, that was the plan.

See, the issue is, there's still the divide. Wizards and Clerics, the primary spellcasters, pick their Archetype at level 1, and, this is crucial, don't really HAVE any low-tier options. Fighters and Rogues and the like HAVE high-tier options, but all of them function by essentially stapling half a Wizard to them. You can't be purely mundane, AND have high versatility. STill, you can be Merlin, but not Lancelot. Level 20 Wizards can call down meteors, stop time, and grant wishes: Why can't a level 20 Fighter jump across an entire canyon or hold their breath for nine days, without being part-Wizard?

[stoutstien]

Using just RAW a fighter can do some pretty extraordinary feats of strength.

At max str they can clear 20 feet gaps in full plate armor all day with no ablity checks needed. They can attempt longer jumps with checks.

Hold breath for 5 minutes...while swimming ...and fighting off troglodytes.

[Kane0]

You may not be taking into account Concentration, slot scaling instead of caster level, and some other items. You are correct in that the caster/martial gap still exists, but it's far less of an issue and much less of a barrier to entry than it used to be.

Also, formatting please!

[woweedd]

You may not be taking into account Concentration, slot scaling instead of caster level, and some other items. You are correct in that the caster/martial gap still exists, but it's far less of an issue and much less of a barrier to entry than it used to be.

Also, formatting please!
Formatting has been fixed. And, yes, i'm aware of some of the caster balancing, but, ultimately, it still feels like there's a tier system in place.

[Kane0]

The tier system was not imagined by the Devs, it was a player creation to accurately describe and classify classes. That's also why the tier system was unique to 3.X and doesn't translate well to AD&D, 4e or 5e.

This discussion has been had many, many times and i'm more of a Ranger/Sorcerer endless re-thread guy so I'll let others take it from here :smallsmile:

[PhoenixPhyre]

I thought the caster/martial disparity thread was scheduled for every other Wednesday. And it's Tuesday today...

But really, there is only one tier unless people go out of their way to let casters do more than the spells allow (often by applying some warped version of "common sense" or "science") and go out of their way to stuff non-casters in a Guy-at-the-Gym-shaped box. Differences between classes are entirely drowned out by variances in situations, parties, and players.

OP, you said that these weren't your thoughts And you were just synthesizing things you'd heard. How about you go, have some experiences with the game in actual play, and then come back with specific, focused issues. The way this is phrased sounds like trolling, even if it isn't intended to be such.

[Spriteless]

I tend to believe that if wizards can summon fireballs, fighters ought to be able to suplex a train (https://youtu.be/2u84cH_bmTA?t=20). Only time someone said yes that happens was when playing 4th ed with a Minotaur PC.

From what I've seen if 5th ed, monks seem more versitile than sorcerers, in mid to high level play. But that might just be any given sorcerer has limited spells chosen, there is a better variety of spells than monk abilities, so 2 sorcs are more versitile than 2 monks. And since storm sorcerers are good at getting out of danger, their niche is almost as useful as a monk's niche of surviving danger. Magical power creep oh no...

But clerics and wizards are more versitile than other classes, I think they should castfewer spells per day than they do, but those who play them have been playing to support the other PCs so it never seemed like a problem. Everyone likes it when the wizard makes Leomund's Tiny Hut for them amirite?

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I thought the caster/martial disparity thread was scheduled for every other Wednesday. And it's Tuesday today...


No, WotC sent a memo to all 5e Forum Users last Wednesday about the need to reschedule from now on so as not to cause the middle of the work week to be any harder on us. Something about how Wednesday is becoming the new Monday or some such. I'll make sure to CC you so everyone is on the same page again and we can get back into a rhythm.

[Kane0]

No, WotC sent a memo to all 5e Forum Users last Wednesday about the need to reschedule from now on so as not to cause the middle of the work week to be any harder on us. Something about how Wednesday is becoming the new Monday or some such. I'll make sure to CC you so everyone is on the same page again and we can get back into a rhythm.

Said memo also switched UA to Valve Time™ just FYI.

[Fable Wright]

My Athletics Expertise fighter can...

1. Lock down enemies without a save via grapple
2. Effectively Restrain them without a save via Shove while they're grappled
3. Maneuver around the battlefield with the harpoons he's using as javelins
3a. Carry party members with him to act as transport
4. Seriously outclass anyone else in the party when it comes to damage
5. Open locks better than the Knock spell
6. Hire minions for less than the cost of Planar Binding
7. Handle transportation to unknown vistas with Sailor proficiencies
8. Use Knowledge checks like information gathering spells

Spellcasters have four niches I can't outclass as of level 8:

1. Disabling multiple enemies at long range
2. AoE damage
3. Gathering information from animals and plants and such
4. Healing allies in combat

Honestly it's not a bad divide. The arithmetic could change at level 11, but I've felt far more useful than our Sorcerers.

My level 1 gnome wizard also feels like a power trip between the power of cantrips, Unseen Servant, a Familiar, and a racial Speak with Animals, but not really moreso than Athletics Expertise was.

[Waazraath]

No, WotC sent a memo to all 5e Forum Users last Wednesday about the need to reschedule from now on so as not to cause the middle of the work week to be any harder on us. Something about how Wednesday is becoming the new Monday or some such. I'll make sure to CC you so everyone is on the same page again and we can get back into a rhythm.

Bloody hell! And when am I supposed to schedule my bLAdElOCk WarLOcKs ArE unDeRpoWerD!!1! thread?



But really, there is only one tier unless people go out of their way to let casters do more than the spells allow (often by applying some warped version of "common sense" or "science") and go out of their way to stuff non-casters in a Guy-at-the-Gym-shaped box. Differences between classes are entirely drowned out by variances in situations, parties, and players.


Amen. There is only one tier (and if you want to translate it to the 3.5 tier system, it's about tier 3 - nothing truely broken*, nothing unable to contribute).
*bar wish/simulacrum, but nobody allows.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Said memo also switched UA to Valve Time™ just FYI.

Sorry, I knew I forgot to mention something!


Bloody hell! And when am I supposed to schedule my bLAdElOCk WarLOcKs ArE unDeRpoWerD!!1! thread?


Unlike the Field of Dreams if you post it, no one will come.

[JackPhoenix]

Wizards don't get their school at 1st level.

[Man_Over_Game]

If I understand correctly, the concern here is that a "Fighter" is always just a "Fighter", and doesn't really perform superhuman feats on the ludicrous level of things. Which is fair.

A Barbarian, for instance, can't grapple a Giant without some form of magic. We've had talks about it before, but it basically boils down to this:

In order to have classes have specialized awesomeness, you'd either need to create a new system (where each class has special, ritual-esc properties) or tie it into the Skill system.
Assuming we're using the Skill system, a character is expected to increase the value of their skills by about +6 over the course of levels 1 to 20 (that is, a level 20 has roughly +6 more of a bonus than a level 1).
That last bullet is relevant. If you make "superhuman" actions using skills, you're stuck with very little growth. A level 1 is almost as superhuman as a level 20, in terms of using skills. If you're boring at level 1, you're slightly more interesting at level 20 (which is how the game does it now). If you're superhuman at level 20, you were almost always superhuman from the getgo.


Sure, you could start throwing in 25 DC checks to accomplish superhuman things, but the chance of accomplishing those things is so oppressive, so unrealistic, that it's better just to not try (A DC 25 often has high penalties for failure).

My recommendation to accomplish something like this is to go from the opposite direction. Lots of small DCs. The biggest difference between a high level character and a low level character, in terms of skills, is that the low level character hits low DCs half of the time, but a high level character makes low DCs almost all of the time. There's a massive difference between a level 1 attempting a 10 DC and a level 20 doing the same.

For example, make a DC 10-15 that you repeatedly attempt until you fail. Every success on a Jumping attempt is another 10 feet you can jump. Every attempt for holding your breath is another minute of time. Those kinds of things. A high level character might succeed 10 times, where a low level character succeeds twice.

[stoutstien]

If I understand correctly, the concern here is that a "Fighter" is always just a "Fighter", and doesn't really perform superhuman feats on the ludicrous level of things. Which is fair.

A Barbarian, for instance, can't grapple a Giant without some form of magic. We've had talks about it before, but it basically boils down to this:

In order to have classes have specialized awesomeness, you'd either need to create a new system (where each class has special properties) or tie it into the Skill system.
Assuming we're using the Skill system, a character is expected to increase the value of their skills by about +6 over the course of levels 1 to 20 (that is, a level 20 has roughly +6 more of a bonus than a level 1).
That last bullet is relevant. If you make "superhuman" actions using skills, you're stuck with very little growth. A level 1 is as superhuman as a level 20, in terms of using skills.


Sure, you could start throwing in 25 DC checks to accomplish superhuman things, but the chance of accomplishing those things is so oppressive, so unrealistic, that it's better just to not try (A DC 25 often has high penalties for failure).

My recommendation to accomplish something like this is to go from the opposite direction. Lots of small DCs. The biggest difference between a high level character and a low level character, in terms of skills, is that the low level character hits low DCs half of the time, but a high level character makes low DCs almost all of the time. There's a massive difference between a level 1 attempting a 10 DC and a level 20 doing the same.

The best solution I've come up with is creating multiple low level DCs, as this makes that +6 difference between a level 1 and a level 20 much more dramatic. For example, make a DC 10 that you repeatedly attempt until you fail. Every success on a Jumping attempt is another 10 feet you can jump. Every attempt for holding your breath is another minute of time. Those kinds of things. A high level character might succeed 10 times, where a low level character succeeds twice.

I do like the idea of multiple medium difficulty ability checks versus one super high one. Works well with the advantage/disadvantage system which increases the probability of a good role but doesn't actually increase the ceiling of the total roll. Prevents unnecessary DC inflation and rewarding to players because they can access it progress through the multiple checks. Probably could do all the rolls at once with color-coded dice

[Man_Over_Game]

I do like the idea of multiple medium difficulty ability checks versus one super high one. Works well with the advantage/disadvantage system which increases the probability of a good role but doesn't actually increase the ceiling of the total roll. Prevents unnecessary DC inflation and rewarding to players because they can access it progress through the multiple checks. Probably could do all the rolls at once with color-coded dice

The concern I've had with it is the number of dice you'd need to throw to make it work. High levels would need to throw lots of dice in order to make something happen. 10 dice rolls in a row? Doesn't sound like fun.

I haven't come up with a method yet to mitigate the number of rolls while also making sure that low levels and high levels stand out against each other. All of the methods I've come up with seem to fall short as soon as numbers stop being a thing (for example, what's the difference between a level 20 using Insight and a level 1?). But I'm working on it.

[Brookshw]

3. Maneuver around the battlefield with the harpoons he's using as javelins


Can you please clarify how this works for me (due to my lack of familiarity with this edition), it sounds like Batman's grappling hook or some similar thing.

[stoutstien]

The concern I've had with it is the number of dice you'd need to throw to make it work. High levels would need to throw lots of dice in order to make something happen. 10 dice rolls in a row? Doesn't sound like fun.

I haven't come up with a method yet to mitigate the number of rolls while also making sure that low levels and high levels stand out against each other. All of the methods I've come up with seem to fall short as soon as numbers stop being a thing (for example, what's the difference between a level 20 using Insight and a level 1?). But I'm working on it.

Aye. The constant struggle of striking the balance between simplicity and good mechanics. I hate Pathfinders idea of increasing DC's as the characters level up but I do love their ideas of degrees in success or failures.

Allowing players to fail forward is a good base to work with.

is there a name for people who obsessively tinker with game mechanics?

[Man_Over_Game]

is there a name for people who obsessively tinker with game mechanics?

True Nerds, I guess?

I mean, you can be a nerd, with "Man, check out my amazing Divine Smite Hexblade Crit Build that has a 47% crit chance per turn at level 6! Suck it, DMs!"

But it's another level when you're "D***it, I've been stuck comparing chance ratios using three different formulas on Anydice to determine the differences of possible dice mechanics to ensure dramatic and equal growth between all of the classes, because mages are cool but BARBARIANS ARE PEOPLE TOO".


Aye. The constant struggle of striking the balance between simplicity and good mechanics. I hate Pathfinders idea of increasing DC's as the characters level up but I do love their ideas of degrees in success or failures.

The whole 'DC scales with level" was something I even considered as a solution. Maybe something like having the base DC increase based on your "passive" score (of your bonus +10), and then having benefits scale based on how high you set your natural DC, but it seems to fall short from there.

[Mercurias]

Level 20 Wizards can call down meteors, stop time, and grant wishes: Why can't a level 20 Fighter jump across an entire canyon or hold their breath for nine days, without being part-Wizard?

With respect, your question could be rephrased as "Why can a master Wizard use her magic to bend reality while a master Swordfighter can only be incredibly good at using swords?"

The answer is that the master Wizard spent her life studying how to bend reality, while the master Swordfighter spent her life becoming the best at using a blade. A Wizard is manipulating arcane forces beyond anything a mortal form could contain, while a Fighter only has their body, their training, and grit.

You're always going to run into this problem in most any tabletop game or fantasy genre. It's a matter of taking into account where the character's strengths come from and what those limitations should be, even with stretched as far as they can go.

To be fair to all Fighters, they're far from a weak class in the game. They have more ASIs than any other class, and if you single-class them all the way to 20 you'll be able to attack four times in a row with a single action, repeatedly, without using any resources (aside from ammunition, if they're at range). They can also take a second action whenever they feel like it so long as they take a breather between body-wrenching feats of power and skill.

Yes, a Wizard is going to be able lift more with a telekinesis spell than a Fighter can ever realistically expect to with a natural 20 on their athletics check, but the fighter can always be the first into the breach, sprinting across a pool of acid thanks to her Ring of Water Walking, and crash headlong into the melee with her weapon carving through the limbs and bodies of her enemies.

It might not be a Wish spell, and sometimes she has to spring along the edge or leap the pool or acid, but that imagery is still outstanding.

That's a big part of the Fighter's appeal. You look around a world full of demigods, demons, angels, and eldritch horrors with nothing but the sword on your back and the steel in your spine, and you make that world flinch.

[Man_Over_Game]

With respect, your question could be rephrased as "Why can a master Wizard use her magic to bend reality while a master Swordfighter can only be incredibly good at using swords?"

The answer is that the master Wizard spent her life studying how to bend reality, while the master Swordfighter spent her life becoming the best at using a blade. A Wizard is manipulating arcane forces beyond anything a mortal form could contain, while a Fighter only has their body, their training, and grit.

You're always going to run into this problem in most any tabletop game or fantasy genre. It's a matter of taking into account where the character's strengths come from and what those limitations should be, even with stretched as far as they can go.

To be fair to all Fighters, they're far from a weak class in the game. They have more ASIs than any other class, and if you single-class them all the way to 20 you'll be able to attack four times in a row with a single action, repeatedly, without using any resources (aside from ammunition, if they're at range). They can also take a second action whenever they feel like it so long as they take a breather between body-wrenching feats of power and skill.

Yes, a Wizard is going to be able lift more with a telekinesis spell than a Fighter can ever realistically expect to with a natural 20 on their athletics check, but the fighter can always be the first into the breach, sprinting across a pool of acid thanks to her Ring of Water Walking, and crash headlong into the melee with her weapon carving through the limbs and bodies of her enemies.

It might not be a Wish spell, and sometimes she has to spring along the edge or leap the pool or acid, but that imagery is still outstanding.

That's a big part of the Fighter's appeal. You look around a world full of demigods, demons, angels, and eldritch horrors with nothing but the sword on your back and the steel in your spine, and you make that world flinch.

I think the bigger concern the OP has isn't necessarily about the specializations, but the fact that the Wizard can be a generalist, but the Fighter can't. A Wizard can do more than just destroy things. A Wizard can do more than just summon things. A Wizard can do more than just teleport.

Take a list of all the supernatural things a Wizard can do.

Now make a list of all the supernatural things a Fighter can do.

You'll notice that one is significantly shorter than the other. While they're both "specialized" into one sort of tool (Wizard uses magic, Fighter uses a sword), those tools are very, very different. Magic can do almost anything, but a sword, even fantastically, can only do things a sword can do.

[Fable Wright]

Can you please clarify how this works for me (due to my lack of familiarity with this edition), it sounds like Batman's grappling hook or some similar thing.

My GM ruled in favor of the Warforged with 600lb carrying capacity being able to use a heavy object with a rope attached as a thrown weapon. Since then, I've been able to make Athletics checks to replicate Batman's grappling hook. Spend an action firing two of them into the ceiling, and now I can jump from one to the other to fight over the acid pit without falling in. Hit the flying dragon, Athletics check to try and ground it (DM ruling it as a ranged Shove action to knock it prone). Are there clear rules spelling out these niche situations? No.

But they are things that I could do; the rules, unlike in 3.5e, don't hinder the attempt; and there were guidelines in the form of skill checks to let the GM adjudicate this.

Rulings over rules let our group get over Guy At The Gym Fallacy. It's not guaranteed to work for every group, but being able to hit 30+ Athletics checks now and again (and 25+ pretty regularly with Advantage) and some creativity has let me contribute a lot of flexibility to the group. And no one wants to say 'no' to watching the 15' robot wrestle a dragon like a luchador.

(Enlarge is a great spell.)

[Mercurias]

Take a list of all the supernatural things a Wizard can do.

Now make a list of all the supernatural things a Fighter can do.

You'll notice that one is significantly shorter than the other. While they're both "specialized" into one sort of tool (Wizard uses magic, Fighter uses a sword), those tools are very, very different. Magic can do almost anything, but a sword, even fantastically, can only do things a sword can do.

I got a lost in the weeds in my post, I guess, but the point I originally intended to make was that the difference in versatility is expected. A Wizard is working with the stuff of the cosmos, so they have a whole lot more resources available to be a generalist. A Fighter is working with only their body and weapons.

Alternately, you could state that a Fighter is a generalist concerning swords, sword-related matters, and things that can be solved with a liberal application of swords.

[Man_Over_Game]

I got a lost in the weeds in my post, I guess, but the point I originally intended to make was that the difference in versatility is expected. A Wizard is working with the stuff of the cosmos, so they have a whole lot more resources available to be a generalist. A Fighter is working with only their body and weapons.

Alternately, you could state that a Fighter is a generalist concerning swords, sword-related matters, and things that can be solved with a liberal application of swords.

I kinda understood what you were saying, I just don't think it's enough. A Fighter is only as relevant as HP and damage is. Sure, those are pretty universal currencies in combat, but they aren't robust, exciting or versatile. They do the same things they did from level 1 as they did at level 20. You just get more of it.

If you took away Damage and HP from both the Wizard and the Fighter, the Wizard would still have things to do, but the Fighter would be an empty husk.

[woweedd]

I got a lost in the weeds in my post, I guess, but the point I originally intended to make was that the difference in versatility is expected. A Wizard is working with the stuff of the cosmos, so they have a whole lot more resources available to be a generalist. A Fighter is working with only their body and weapons.

Alternately, you could state that a Fighter is a generalist concerning swords, sword-related matters, and things that can be solved with a liberal application of swords.
I mean, all the stuff I listed is stuff the Knights of the Round Table were reported to do at some point. And if they aren't appropriate inspirations for a D&D fighter, then what the hell is? Now, yes, Fighter can do all the things I mentioned...By being an Eldritch Knight and taking appropriate spells, but that doesn't really fit. I want a way to do all that without having to become part-Wizard. I think the Archetypes could have been the perfect solution to this, allowing players to choose whatever "Tier" they want, as different archetypes possess different levels of versatility. The problem is, Wizards pretty much remain absurdly versatile no matter what they pick, and most of the stuff that makes Fighters/Rogues more versatile does so by making them part-Wizard. The only way for a Martial class to match a Spellcaster is versatility is to stop being entirely Martial. It wreaks havoc with the aesthetics, and still means that, if you prefer having less options, say, out of a desire to not keep track of a spellbook or the like, but also want to shoot fireballs, you're **** outta luck.

I tend to believe that if wizards can summon fireballs, fighters ought to be able to suplex a train (https://youtu.be/2u84cH_bmTA?t=20). Only time someone said yes that happens was when playing 4th ed with a Minotaur PC.

From what I've seen if 5th ed, monks seem more versitile than sorcerers, in mid to high level play. But that might just be any given sorcerer has limited spells chosen, there is a better variety of spells than monk abilities, so 2 sorcs are more versitile than 2 monks. And since storm sorcerers are good at getting out of danger, their niche is almost as useful as a monk's niche of surviving danger. Magical power creep oh no...

But clerics and wizards are more versitile than other classes, I think they should castfewer spells per day than they do, but those who play them have been playing to support the other PCs so it never seemed like a problem. Everyone likes it when the wizard makes Leomund's Tiny Hut for them amirite?
This is true. Monks have access to a lot more versatility to most other Martials, because they're "exotic", I guess. Part of what peeves me here: It's not even a consistency-applied double standard.

[Anymage]

You won't entirely break away from linear fighters/quadratic casters until you're willing to fundamentally change certain parts of the game and piss off long-term fans in the process. Casters are intrinsically generalists, and spell slots scale in ways that few other resources in D&D do. 20 vs. 20, wizards come out ahead most of the time.

Still, short of massively adjusting how classes work (something that the devs are loath to do given what happened last time they went after sacred cows), 5e does a pretty good job expanding the range where fighters and wizards can keep playing the same game. Which is the best they can do, given the circumstances.

[DrLoveMonkey]

Spell versatility goes beyond even just allowing a wizard to pick the things they want to do, I think. Jump, for example is a spell that lets a wizard jump two or three times better than the athletic character with the expenditure of what eventually becomes a trivial resource, he can choose to take that if he wants.

Then there's spells like Polymorph, which lets a wizard take the shape of any number of powerful and unique creatures for their effects, for example turning into a giant ape, getting +9 to your athletics, as well as doing things logically impossible for a 6 foot tall character to do like hold up a fifteen foot ceiling which I s collapsing. Or becoming a frog to go on an amphibious infiltration adventure.

So it is a problem, but one that's really really hard to solve, with some select spells being so powerful and diverse it's almost like sorcerers and wizards could just dip into generalist regardless of what else they were up to. Archetypes couldn't fix that, you'd have to fix spells first, or make archetypes way way more impactful.

And before anyone accuses me of not actually playing the game, I'm in a level 12 campaign as a rogue right now and I think the last time I contributed anything with my thief skills that wasn't scooped by the wizard in one way to another was level 8. Combat is fine though, as long as you don't have a ten minute adventuring day sneak attack keeps up and cunning action is super fun.

[Kane0]

Part of what peeves me here: It's not even a consistency-applied double standard.

4e is still a thing, depending on where you are you might be able to find a game.



Spell versatility goes beyond even just allowing a wizard to pick the things they want to do, I think. Jump, for example is a spell that lets a wizard jump two or three times better than the athletic character with the expenditure of what eventually becomes a trivial resource, he can choose to take that if he wants.

Then there's spells like Polymorph, which lets a wizard take the shape of any number of powerful and unique creatures for their effects, for example turning into a giant ape, getting +9 to your athletics, as well as doing things logically impossible for a 6 foot tall character to do like hold up a fifteen foot ceiling which I s collapsing. Or becoming a frog to go on an amphibious infiltration adventure.

So it is a problem, but one that's really really hard to solve, with some select spells being so powerful and diverse it's almost like sorcerers and wizards could just dip into generalist regardless of what else they were up to. Archetypes couldn't fix that, you'd have to fix spells first, or make archetypes way way more impactful.

Last one shot we had one of us challenged ourselves to make a level 10 Transmuter that only took Transmutation spells. Had a blast, he still felt like a wizard but not schrodinger's wizard.

[DrLoveMonkey]

Last one shot we had one of us challenged ourselves to make a level 10 Transmuter that only took Transmutation spells. Had a blast, he still felt like a wizard but not schrodinger's wizard.

Oh yeah, I love transmutation in general, and Polymorph. It's so cool to have a wizard who can become anything, who's accumulated wisdom by flocking with birds and butting horns with mountain rams. Especially with true polymorph, combined with some kind of contingency to become your old self again you could spend a season hibernating as a bear or taste the forbidden power of a devil. It's so ****ing awesome!

I just don't like how my rogue with a +10 athletics check and a minimum roll of 21 can't pull down a stone door blocking our path, and then the wizard sighs and transfigured himself into a giant ape and does it easily. It's like why did I even specialize into this then?

[Kane0]

I've often thought of breaking down the mage type classes a bit. Say for example instead of the current wizard with access to everything and a specialization in one school you had a wizard with a much more restricted stock list of 'universal' spells and their subclass option was something like:
- Beguiler (Enchantment and Illusion spells/features)
- Binder (Conjuration and Divination spells/features)
- Warmage (Abjuration and Evocation spells/features)
- Lifeshaper (Transmutation and Necromancy spells/features).

You wouldn't have all spell schools available to you by default but you wouldn't feel completely restricted either. Warlocks, Druids and Clerics already do this to an extent so you'd just have to move more spells from the core to bonus lists. Sorcerers and Bards you'd have to tweak a bit but as long as you filled things in by solid themes it should work.

[woweedd]

You won't entirely break away from linear fighters/quadratic casters until you're willing to fundamentally change certain parts of the game and piss off long-term fans in the process. Casters are intrinsically generalists, and spell slots scale in ways that few other resources in D&D do. 20 vs. 20, wizards come out ahead most of the time.

Still, short of massively adjusting how classes work (something that the devs are loath to do given what happened last time they went after sacred cows), 5e does a pretty good job expanding the range where fighters and wizards can keep playing the same game. Which is the best they can do, given the circumstances.
Well, yeah. I’m not really down with 4E, which esstinally hashed every class into the same hole. As I said, tiers are not the problem: Tiers being tied into aesthetics the problem: some times, I want to play a versatile character who has a sword, sometimes I want a narrower focus, but to shoot fireballs. Archetypes are a solution, since they should, in theory, allow any class to be any degree of versatile with smart selection: but there aren’t really any narrowly-focused archetypes for primary casters, and martial classes only become high-tier by following the Wizard framework of a Vancian magic, which isn’t what you’d want, aesthetically. Say what you will about 4th edition’s tendency to have mechanics not match flavor text, it at least made it easy to re-fluff your powers at whim . You can’t jam Arthurian-style feats of absurd physical skill into a a an Ian Magic framework without making it awkward. 4E’s solution of having every class function basically the same fixed this issue, but created the issue that, if you weren’t up for that very-specific tier, every class was now an equally bad fit.

[Kane0]

Well, yeah. I’m not really down with 4E, which esstinally hashed every class into the same hole

That may be poorly worded. 4e's AEDU system used the same underlying structure to build all classes, like how all classes had BAB and good/poor saves in 3.PF. You still had very different classes (or just roles depending on how you look at it) within that structure. In 3rd or 5th ed terms you could equate it to giving all classes spell slots, but only certain spells and features powered by slots depending on theme or function.



but there aren’t really any narrowly-focused archetypes for primary casters, and martial classes only become high-tier by following the Wizard framework of a Vancian magic

That's fair criticism.