Class Design Philosophy: Unique Cool Things

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that classes need two main things, really.

1. A thematic niche, aka a strong class fiction. When you read a class description, you should have a clear picture in your head of someone of that class. This doesn't mean no choices at all, but it should scream of who it is. Leave Build-a-Bear, muddled, broad, incoherent, thematically empty "classes" for point-buy (ie non-class-based). But that's a subject for a different thread.
2. (and the subject of this particular thread), 1-2 Unique Cool Things, hereafter UCTs. Another phrase might be "Signature Move" These should be mechanical abilities that reinforce and implement the theme. If your concept is "guy who jumps real high to spear dragons out of the sky" (aka the FF Dragoon) and he can't jump better than just about everyone else and really hurt someone with that...you've missed the mark.

Everything beyond that is book-keeping--making sure the numbers work out, making sure the action economy and resource economy function and that they play nice in a party game.

Unique: UCTs should be unique to the class. Other people can do sorta-similar things, if you abstract out a ways, but the UCT should act as a nearly flawless mechanical sign of a member of that class. This means they need to start early. No waiting until T3 or even T2 to get your UCT--you should have it by level 2 at the latest, at least in some form. It can evolve with you, but it should be clear early on.

Uniqueness rules out the more boring things like "Casting Spells" or even "casting arcane spells." Or even ability recovery mechanics, since they're not outwardly visible. A class's UCTs should ideally include at least one big active ability. Passives are ok, but they have to be visible on the outside. Someone should be able to say "But I have <UCT>, so I can do <X>". Skills and other proficiencies (including weapons) don't count--they're too widely shared. And too cheap to get.

Resources are a good starting point, but by themselves lacking in Cool.

Cool: This should be obvious. When someone busts out their UCT, it should matter. Small numbers boosts, things people forget to use? Not good candidates. This should be a "You activated my Trap Card" moment. A way to grab the spotlight and say "look at me". Doesn't mean they have to be flashy in-universe (that depends on the concept), but they should be meaningful.

Once you have your UCTs, much of the rest of the class and subclasses should reinforce these or play off of them. That could either be vertical (making your UCT cooler or even more unique or more powerful) or horizontal (giving you the versatility to employ your UCT in more circumstances or different ways to use it). But everything should reinforce itself.

Existing classes

Bards are both good and bad examples--they have Bardic Inspiration, which is mostly Unique and relatively Cool. But they also steal other classes thunder with Magical Secrets.

Barbarians should be good examples with Rage and Reckless Attack...but Rage doesn't really have the Cool factor it should and Reckless Attack is drowned under a sea of ways to get Advantage. So much thematic potential in Rage, especially with subclasses...and it's mostly wasted in patching numbers and giving boring bonuses.

Clerics...well...Channel Divinity is ok? Subclasses play off it well, but paladins steal it whole. So minus points on Uniqueness. Divine Intervention is nice...but comes on way too late.

Druids have Wild Shape (and the other ways to use it). Other than that, they are just nature-themed clerics. So...at least they have one? Even though polymorph steals some of the thunder and does the "transform into beasts for combat" thing better in some ways.

Fighters--Action Surge is both unique and fairly cool. But doesn't really compensate for a bland, empty theme. And the only subclass that really plays off of Action Surge, the PDK, is...well...not so good.

Monks -- they've got the theme. And in Ki they've got something that has the potential to be a good UCT. But as is so usual for WotC, doesn't quite close the loop. It ends up lacking on the Cool in a lot of ways.

Paladins are the ur-example of a class that does this well. At least before Hexblade came along and stole Smite's uniqueness. Their UCTs are Divine Smite and the Auras. One's a big active ability you get early on and packs a punch and screams "I'm a divine warrior, begone evil!". The other is passive but has massive, visible effects. And plays really nicely into the Holy Protector theme. And the subclasses all play on that differently, giving additional auras.

Rangers almost entirely lack a UCT. Their CTs aren't U, and their U things aren't C.

Rogues really only have Sneak Attack as a UCT...and that's fairly crappy. Yay, more damage. And only a few things in the rest of the class actually build on it.

Sorcerers have Metamagic. Which is U (until feats) and relatively C. Decent job on that front. Pity so much of their budget went to spellcasting, which is the opposite of Unique (especially when it shares almost all the spells with wizards) and only situationally Cool (there are cool spells, but also lots of duds and no interplay among them).

Warlocks have meta UCTs. They have things that are unique and cool at build time. Lotsa potential though.

Wizards...everyone knows my opinion on wizards.

[OldTrees1]

Rogues really only have Sneak Attack as a UCT...and that's fairly crappy. Yay, more damage. And only a few things in the rest of the class actually build on it.

Cunning Action

Although I do think that Cunning Action could have been a cooler "Rogue does interesting stuff during combat" series of UTCs if 5E did not dramatically reduce build points per class.

[Rukelnikov]

I'd Argue Warlocks UCT is Eldritch Blast, I disagree with the idea that a class' claim to fame needs to be something that's used sparingly, and also disagree that it needs to be very visual.

In an arena that was scrutinized by Detect Magic so there was no outside help to either participant, I could cheer for my party members as a bard in order to cheat and help anyway, and distract his opponent by irritating them with Cutting Words. The fact that its "subtle" (no flashy or magical in nature) is what made that possible.

SOME archetypes benefit from having "a strong ulti", but not all need it.

[kazaryu]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that classes need two main things, really.... i agree with you in principle, although i'd make one alteration. i don't think it *needs* to be up to class design to provide UCT's exclusively. like, looking at it through the lense of 5e, im ok with a class being fairly bland, so long as it has very flavorful subclasses. Meaning that what i care about is that a PC gets UCT's. I also don't have a problem with spells being part of making a class unique. because, yes, both wizards and clerics have a feature called 'spellcasting' in reality the two classes spells tend to be very different. Now, obviously as it currently stands clerics share way too much (imo) of their spell list with paladins, druids, rangers, and bards. So i'd like to see there be more class exclusive spells. i don't actually have a problem with magical secrets. although i'd be ok with them being a bit more. Paladins, for example, have several class exclusive spells (so long as you don't use Tasha's alternate spell lists). So i'd actually consider paladin spell casting to be a part of their uniqueness.





Fighters--Action Surge is both unique and fairly cool. But doesn't really compensate for a bland, empty theme. And the only subclass that really plays off of Action Surge, the PDK, is...well...not so good.
i don't really have a problem with fighters having a bland theme. in fact i think its good to have a few blank slate type classes. to allow for the ideas that aren't already captured elsewhere.



Rangers almost entirely lack a UCT. Their CTs aren't U, and their U things aren't C.
I completely disagree with you on the problem with the ranger. i think that natural explorer and favored enemy are both really cool in concept, and largely unique. On to of that i think they paint a very strong narrative picture. The problem is that the abilities don't have the mechanical umph to deliver on the promise. favored enemy needs a direct combat aspect to it, something that actually shows that you are an expert at fighting...whatever type of creature. even primevil awareness is cool in concept...but lacks that mechanical umph. of course, the ways its designed, its hard to buff without making it way too good for what its meant to do. So i think it needs a rework.

Rogues really only have Sneak Attack as a UCT...and that's fairly crappy. Yay, more damage. And only a few things in the rest of the class actually build on it. alongside paladins i think rogues actually are in one of the better positions here. SA and cunning action are both unique abilities that help to deliver on a specific concept. the opportunist. then on top of that they get the most, and freest skill proficiencies and expertises. then as they level they get 2 defensive options that are almost entirely unique (evasion and uncanny dodge) and then at level 11 they get huge payoff. they're not the best for combat, but i really don't think that every class needs to be equal in combat. and rogues actually get a lot more in terms of uniqueness than a lot of the other classes.

[Rukelnikov]

i don't really have a problem with fighters having a bland theme. in fact i think its good to have a few blank slate type classes. to allow for the ideas that aren't already captured elsewhere.

Blank slates for the most building of classes is not only good but desirable- However, Phoenix doesn't see it that way.

[Goobahfish]

Lolz, I posted something similar in the other thread before reading this one.

I think I agree whole-heartedly with this assessment, including the explicit examples.

Of course, I always think of it the other way around. Can I find a cool mechanic and then strap a theme to it? Otherwise you end up with Rangers... (where the theme is a sacred cow and the mechanics an afterthought).

A few explicit changes I would make:

Bard
I would probably go whole-sale in on the singing stuff and have spell slots augment it (if spells are necessary at all). The kind of thing would be 'use Bardic inspiration' when you cast a spell that Charms/Dominates whatever to target an additional/all creatures within range etc etc.

Druid
Wild-shape becomes "Nature's Blessing" or some other cute name. You can use "Nature's Blessing" to replicate a better Find Familiar or Wildshape. Depending on subclass, this can be added upon (Like Moon druids) or augmented to a different ability. For example for Land Druids, they would be cooler for me if you expend your "Nature's Blessing" when you cast a spell to influence the terrain around you as well as casting the spell. Like making difficult terrain in some radius, or making it hot/cold, light fog or some-such. The druid isn't just doing their normal schtick, they are channeling the elements and the 'side-effect' of the spell is changing the battlefield.

Fighter
Superiority Dice. While a resource isn't really UCT, the maneuvers are. Getting some bonus damage and shunting someone off a walkway has lots of 'Epic' potential. The goal would be to lean into this more.

Rogue
... I don't like rogues. Why can't I play an 'expert' without being either an 'assassin-lite' or singer. A bit like if Cunning Action was what gave you the sneak attack, but you could use it for all kinds of wacky shenanigans instead.

Sorcerer
I feel like Sorcerers could be 'the boring archetype'. It is sort of where 'I cast a giant, super, flaming ball of death fireball', but don't know how to open locks. Or the leaves a giant trail of fire-fireball. Or blasts everyone out of the way fireball. A sorcerer should be wedded to their go-to spells but get an extra couple of inches out of them each time. Honestly, it surprises me that the Warlock got Pact Magic when it seems to me to suit the Sorcerer so much better. Pact Magic + more interesting Metamagic (bloodline related) would make the Sorcerer a go-to for me.

Warlock
I wish the patron had more of a battlefield presence. Like not just a 'I use a cosmic demon as my spellbook'. Leaning heavily into the Cantrip King (Eldritch Blast) and a more active version of the Pact/Invocations would be where I go with this. Stuff where the Warlock is constantly 'trading' favours for penalties on an encounter-to-encounter level. A bit like 'the dark side of the force'.

Ranger
Assuming Druid gets a "Nature's Blessing", then Ranger could get a lesser version that does completely different things (just same resource name). A good example would be 'Show me the way' which facilitates tracking in a natural environment or animals guiding the ranger etc. Or a marked target could instead by 'harried' by nature etc etc, or basically supernatural hiding (big stealth bonus + some active advantage etc).

It still needs a smite-equivalent though. Not smite, but something that fulfils the same basic function as a damage boost that synergises with (but isn't) spell slots.

Monk
Monk is broken. Until there are more eastern-inspired base-classes I don't think it will ever really work because it is trying to do too much (all of eastern tropes) in a single class. Break Monk into a Kensei-style character, a Rogue-Monk style character and a Wu-jen/Shugenja/Inkyo/Majin/Wu-ren style character and work from there.

[stoutstien]

To some degree you could even carry this over to race/ancestry any explicit "picking this mean you can never have that"

[kazaryu]

Blank slates for the most building of classes is not only good but desirable- However, Phoenix doesn't see it that way.

i disagree. while its certainly doable to have all classes be blank slates, and its as viable as having classes with strong thematic elements, i don't think its any more desirable. I think it comes down to taste, and personally, I like the way DnD has those strong themes built into a lot of classes. In fact i wish they'd lean more into them for most of the classes. But having a few 'generic ones mixed in is also good, to help capture all of the things that you couldn't account for in dedicated themes.

[Rukelnikov]

i disagree. while its certainly doable to have all classes be blank slates, and its as viable as having classes with strong thematic elements, i don't think its any more desirable. I think it comes down to taste, and personally, I like the way DnD has those strong themes built into a lot of classes. In fact i wish they'd lean more into them for most of the classes. But having a few 'generic ones mixed in is also good, to help capture all of the things that you couldn't account for in dedicated themes.

That's why I said the most building classes, which for me are Fighter, Wizard and Rogue.

[stoutstien]

I think a better statement would be that generic classes are fine but they should be generic in a unique way.

[KorvinStarmast]

Bards are both good and bad examples--they have Bardic Inspiration, which is mostly Unique and relatively Cool. But they also steal other classes thunder with Magical Secrets. OK, what would you sub in for magical secrets that is music themed?
I have an idea: you can cast any ritual spell from any class of "X" level by using music so sing/chant/harmonize ... something something. (But that would require some rethinking of which spells ought to be rituals and which should not ...).

Barbarians should be good examples with Rage and Reckless Attack...but Rage doesn't really have the Cool factor it should and Reckless Attack is drowned under a sea of ways to get Advantage. So much thematic potential in Rage, especially with subclasses...and it's mostly wasted in patching numbers and giving boring bonuses. Yeah, there's some almost good stuff.

Clerics...well...Channel Divinity is ok? Subclasses play off it well, but paladins steal it whole. So minus points on Uniqueness. Divine Intervention is nice...but comes on way too late.OK, what do you put back into Paladin if you take CD away? That is the only SR thing Paladins have, by the way. :smalltongue:

Druids have Wild Shape (and the other ways to use it). Other than that, they are just nature-themed clerics. So...at least they have one? Even though polymorph steals some of the thunder and does the "transform into beasts for combat" thing better in some ways. Make druid a sub class of cleric and this goes away. Make their sub class abilities and Domain Spells their unique things ...

Fighters--Action Surge is both unique and fairly cool. But doesn't really compensate for a bland, empty theme. And the only subclass that really plays off of Action Surge, the PDK, is...well...not so good. There are a bunch of things I'd like to mess about with as regards fighters, but honestly I like where Rune Knight went and I really like Battle Master.

Monks -- they've got the theme. And in Ki they've got something that has the potential to be a good UCT. But as is so usual for WotC, doesn't quite close the loop. It ends up lacking on the Cool in a lot of ways. Do not concur. Deflect missiles, slow fall, diamond mind, and a whole bunch of other stuff all add up to horizontal expansion. I think they got the themes right. Four Elements could use a tweak.

Paladins are the ur-example of a class that does this well. At least before Hexblade came along and stole Smite's uniqueness. Their UCTs are Divine Smite and the Auras. One's a big active ability you get early on and packs a punch and screams "I'm a divine warrior, begone evil!". The other is passive but has massive, visible effects. And plays really nicely into the Holy Protector theme. And the subclasses all play on that differently, giving additional auras. Concur.

Rangers almost entirely lack a UCT. Their CTs aren't U, and their U things aren't C. The lack of a damage bonus for favored enemy strikes me as a screw up. Even so, Hunter is a solid chassis.

Rogues really only have Sneak Attack as a UCT...and that's fairly crappy. Yay, more damage. And only a few things in the rest of the class actually build on it. Disagree.
Cunning action. Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Reliable talent. But I think that the Assassin could use a slight overhaul. From the rogues I have played, AT hits a nice sweet spot. I like Thief, but UMD comes on line far too late. Needs to be a level 9 or 10 ability.

Sorcerers have Metamagic. Which is U (until feats) and relatively C. Decent job on that front. Pity so much of their budget went to spellcasting, which is the opposite of Unique (especially when it shares almost all the spells with wizards) and only situationally Cool (there are cool spells, but also lots of duds and no interplay among them). Sorcerers ought to be a sub class of Wizard. :smalltongue:

Warlocks have meta UCTs. They have things that are unique and cool at build time. Lotsa potential though. I would like to see Mystic Arcanum behave a bit more like Magical Secrets, since Warlocks in fiction are the seekers of secrets.

[Slingbow]

Rogues really only have Sneak Attack as a UCT...and that's fairly crappy. Yay, more damage. And only a few things in the rest of the class actually build on it.


Rogues were unique and cool until almost everything they offered could be had with new feats and new races. Want a wizard with invisible mage Hand and bonus action disengage? No Rogue necessary. Just get a Telepathic goblin.

Oh and thanks a lot WotC for that stupid feat! Now there is literally no reason for anyone to play a GOO lock again! Hail Tharizdun!!!

[animorte]

I think a better statement would be that generic classes are fine but they should be generic in a unique way.
We've al seen the format for base class vs subclass and how many of the concepts should be base class (battlemaster maneuvers). I have worked on my own format to create that generic base class in which things like BM and Champion are worked into the base class itself. Once you determine subclass (if at all) you would instead gain the subclass features. I may have explained that poorly.


Sorcerers ought to be a sub class of Wizard. :smalltongue:
Wizards ought to be a sub class of Sorcerer. :smalltongue:


Rogues were unique and cool until almost everything they offered could be had with new feats and new races.
I feel like that's a good explanation for many classes. "It was unique until it wasn't."

[Amnestic]

OK, what would you sub in for magical secrets that is music themed?

Nothing at all. As full casters, bards are still perfectly adequate - excellent, even - without magical secrets, and Bardic Inspiration satisfies a UCT.

Steal from the Pillars of Eternity Chanter for short duration buffs or debuffs that last a round, either as its own separate thing or as an expansion of Bardic Inspiration. They could have a list of core 'chants' and some extras based off of subclass. Gives them an extra way to smash that bonus action button each turn.

Or go back to 3.PF and steal the songs of courage/inspiration/greatness/heroism/etc. as party wide buffs you activate - I'm not as much a fan of this for a few reasons.

[Oramac]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that classes need two main things, really.

2. (and the subject of this particular thread), 1-2 Unique Cool Things, hereafter UCTs. Another phrase might be "Signature Move" These should be mechanical abilities that reinforce and implement the theme. If your concept is "guy who jumps real high to spear dragons out of the sky" (aka the FF Dragoon) and he can't jump better than just about everyone else and really hurt someone with that...you've missed the mark.

snip

I agree, though often it's difficult to figure out what that UCT should be. Mind if I DM you about this regarding a specific 'brew I'm working on?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Blank slates for the most building of classes is not only good but desirable- However, Phoenix doesn't see it that way.


i disagree. while its certainly doable to have all classes be blank slates, and its as viable as having classes with strong thematic elements, i don't think its any more desirable. I think it comes down to taste, and personally, I like the way DnD has those strong themes built into a lot of classes. In fact i wish they'd lean more into them for most of the classes. But having a few 'generic ones mixed in is also good, to help capture all of the things that you couldn't account for in dedicated themes.

The big problem with generic classes is that they require generic Cool Things. Which either makes everyone else less Unique or sucks up all the room in the class. You can't have meaningfully flavorful subclasses with a powerful generic base, so to have good subclasses you need an anemic base. At which point...why have that be a base class at all? They also tend to stomp all over everyone else's Cool Things, making them less Unique. Plus, even with a powerful sub class, you can't properly build on a Unique Cool Thing because there just isn't enough room in 4-5 features, some of which need to be ribbons.

Class/subclass combinations should have a 1-2 sentence, non-mechanical "here's who I am" statement. Generic classes can't, because they don't have definition at all. They're entirely build time meta constructs, really only meaningful if you have multiclassing and other build-a-bear things. But build-a-bear and strong class fictions don't behave well together.

I think a lot of the difference is that I care very little for build-time uniqueness and variety. Being able to choose from lots of options that nonetheless end up playing very similarly (ie PF2e) is, to me, a negative. Only play time matters.

Generic features (like spellcasting and proficiencies) also cause issues because they're fungible. Build-a-bear classes with big lists of things to pick from at each level (aka wizards with their spell list) mean you can't have thematicity and now everything is directly comparable. So you encourage people to take the strongest option, disregarding any thematic constraints. In fact, accepting thematic constraints means hobbling yourself against available opportunities every time you level up, which is bad design. It also means that most of those options are just wastes of space because they don't ever get picked. Classes and features fail when they try to have something for everyone.

To a lesser degree, most of the "modern" subclasses fall into this trap. The Beast barbarian can't lean into the theme, because it can't decide what it wants to be. So it tries to be something for everyone and ends up being a mechanical shell without a soul.

I strongly prefer lots of narrow, thematically coherent classes with a couple sub-classes taken 1-20 over a few bloated, generic classes with a million sub-classes. I want to be a <class> from level 1. For me, front-loading is good--it gets me into my class fiction sooner. But in a build-a-bear world where you cobble together your character from a bunch of different pieces, frontloading is a problem.

I also want building a new class to be fairly easy and straightforward. If someone has an idea that doesn't quite fit an existing class/subclass combination, I want them to go to their DM and say "hey, can we put something together for this" instead of trying to cobble stuff together from a bunch of different classes--the latter ends up with dangling features, janky combinations, and the necessity to ignore half of the class's inbuilt thematics.


Rogues were unique and cool until almost everything they offered could be had with new feats and new races. Want a wizard with invisible mage Hand and bonus action disengage? No Rogue necessary. Just get a Telepathic goblin.

Oh and thanks a lot WotC for that stupid feat! Now there is literally no reason for anyone to play a GOO lock again! Hail Tharizdun!!!

I agree. WotC has gotten really lazy about stealing class's UCTs (and other features) and turning them into build-a-bear feats and racial features instead of trying to actually be creative. It's one of the reasons I've stopped caring about OneD&D--they've doubled down on it. Now much less is really unique, it's all just a bland mush of reskinned features.


I agree, though often it's difficult to figure out what that UCT should be. Mind if I DM you about this regarding a specific 'brew I'm working on?

Sure. Fair warning--I'm much more of an ideas/theme person than a mechanical genius.

[Dienekes]

Keystone feature, is what I've heard these called. Or at least a roughly close concept.

Now, that said, reading through your class descriptions I think one of the core points I have with thinking of things as Unique Cool Things is the emphasis on the cool as opposed to the unique. I like my class mechanics to fit the theme, obviously, but I think the mechanics are at their best when they reinforce that a class should be played in specific unique ways.

Let's take the Fighter and Action Surge. It is the Unique Cool Thing. Personally, I love the Fighter's theme, or at least what it's supposed to be. Mundane warriors being badass in a magical world are the best. But Action Surge is unique in the design space: No one else can take two actions at least not until magic shenanigans at later level come into place. But the problem comes that it does not actually reinforce uniqueness in gameplay. You take two great weapon wielding frontliners one is a Barbarian and one is a Fighter. They're both going to be doing the same thing, basically. The Barbarian will take a Bonus Action to Rage at the start of the encounter. The Fighter may use their Action Surge when they have to burst down an opponent. But at the end of the day, they're just moving and taking the attack action. A lot.

In fact the same can be said for the Rogue and the Monk, though to lesser degrees. They both have unique features, but, the round per round gameplay will mostly be moving and then making attack rolls. The amount of attacks and dice rolled is a difference, but not a particularly relevant one.

Now, how can we fix this. Well, I honestly think working within these mechanics to help funnel the classes into different gameplay patterns and decision points is the way to go. If, for example, a Rogue gets one Sneak Attack per encounter, but it deals MASSIVE DAMAGE with the caveat that the target must not even know that they're there when the attack hits. Then suddenly the Rogue's gameplay pattern becomes sneaking around, figuring out a means to get to the target, staying in the shadows. And if the class is well designed, a means of interacting with the combat scenario in ways that are not directly going to reveal its position. Things like laying traps or disrupting the environment.

If the Fighter instead becomes a class that focuses on weaving through maneuvers and stances and their effects and powers can vary dramatically based on if they got the flow of combat right. Then, they become different and unique feeling to play. When compared to, say, the Barbarian who still gets angry and smashes things.

[Snails]

The big problem with generic classes is that they require generic Cool Things. Which either makes everyone else less Unique or sucks up all the room in the class. You can't have meaningfully flavorful subclasses with a powerful generic base, so to have good subclasses you need an anemic base. At which point...why have that be a base class at all? They also tend to stomp all over everyone else's Cool Things, making them less Unique. Plus, even with a powerful sub class, you can't properly build on a Unique Cool Thing because there just isn't enough room in 4-5 features, some of which need to be ribbons.

For the sake of discussion, how do people perceive the Cleric class here? The chassis has a whole lot of solid value there, but I am not sure I would call it exactly cool. A success? A failure?

FWIW, I think the subclasses could use a bit more souping up to get more flavorful, but I do not think the base class is implemented wrong in any big way.

[Amnestic]

For the sake of discussion, how do people perceive the Cleric class here? The chassis has a whole lot of solid value there, but I am not sure I would call it exactly cool. A success? A failure?

FWIW, I think the subclasses could use a bit more souping up to get more flavorful, but I do not think the base class is implemented wrong in any big way.

Personally I think the cleric is absolutely solid performance wise. You're basically never sad about having a cleric - regardless of subclass - in your party for what they can bring to the table.

So that's good! But the assertion that channel divinity isn't super exciting is a fair one. Turn Undead is (deliberately) limited in scope, and some channel divinity subclass options may never see play. There will be some clerics where their channel divinity is burned solely on Harness Divine Power from Tasha's, and while that's mechanically solid it's not very interesting.

I'm also not the biggest fan of how they lack any thematic or cool subclass features between 6th and 17th level - they do get domain spells until 9th, but the 8th level subclass feature is generally just divine strikes/blessed strikes/potent cantrip which is fine but not very cool.

There's things you could do to change it - expand their domain spells all the way to 9th level spells, or add another subclass-specific channel divinity use at maybe 13th or 14th level, but obviously that brings up all clerics when they're already a perfectly viable+solid class, so how do you drop them elsewhere for power level? I dunno.

Channel Divinity being the Cleric's UCT is probably fine. The class doesn't need the 'unique' feature if all the subclasses give the thematic cool stuff. It's just tweaking the power level so it's useful but not twilight cleric overpowered.

[BRC]

The big problem with generic classes is that they require generic Cool Things. Which either makes everyone else less Unique or sucks up all the room in the class. You can't have meaningfully flavorful subclasses with a powerful generic base, so to have good subclasses you need an anemic base. At which point...why have that be a base class at all? They also tend to stomp all over everyone else's Cool Things, making them less Unique. Plus, even with a powerful sub class, you can't properly build on a Unique Cool Thing because there just isn't enough room in 4-5 features, some of which need to be ribbons.

Class/subclass combinations should have a 1-2 sentence, non-mechanical "here's who I am" statement. Generic classes can't, because they don't have definition at all. They're entirely build time meta constructs, really only meaningful if you have multiclassing and other build-a-bear things. But build-a-bear and strong class fictions don't behave well together.

I think a lot of the difference is that I care very little for build-time uniqueness and variety. Being able to choose from lots of options that nonetheless end up playing very similarly (ie PF2e) is, to me, a negative. Only play time matters.

Generic features (like spellcasting and proficiencies) also cause issues because they're fungible. Build-a-bear classes with big lists of things to pick from at each level (aka wizards with their spell list) mean you can't have thematicity and now everything is directly comparable. So you encourage people to take the strongest option, disregarding any thematic constraints. In fact, accepting thematic constraints means hobbling yourself against available opportunities every time you level up, which is bad design. It also means that most of those options are just wastes of space because they don't ever get picked. Classes and features fail when they try to have something for everyone.

To a lesser degree, most of the "modern" subclasses fall into this trap. The Beast barbarian can't lean into the theme, because it can't decide what it wants to be. So it tries to be something for everyone and ends up being a mechanical shell without a soul.

I strongly prefer lots of narrow, thematically coherent classes with a couple sub-classes taken 1-20 over a few bloated, generic classes with a million sub-classes. I want to be a <class> from level 1. For me, front-loading is good--it gets me into my class fiction sooner. But in a build-a-bear world where you cobble together your character from a bunch of different pieces, frontloading is a problem.

I also want building a new class to be fairly easy and straightforward. If someone has an idea that doesn't quite fit an existing class/subclass combination, I want them to go to their DM and say "hey, can we put something together for this" instead of trying to cobble stuff together from a bunch of different classes--the latter ends up with dangling features, janky combinations, and the necessity to ignore half of the class's inbuilt thematics.


I'm going to step in here and say that there IS a way to do theming AND build-a-bear, it just needs to be built into the system from the start, and done well. The answer, is something akin to Spell Schools.

Journey with me here as we rebuild the fighter, specifically around the UTC of Superiority Dice. In my opinion, the Battlemaster is a great take on a "Generic" fighter, and Superiority Dice work very well as a mechanic that is versatile from a design standpoint, feels good to use, and gives the fighter a unique MECHANICAL feel, despite them having the generic theming of "Good at Fights".


In my rebuild of the fighter, Maneuvers are a core feature, they're the UTC.

Maneuvers are also split into, let's call them Groups because I can't think of a better name right now. These groups are, let's say, Duelist, Brute, Tactician, and Guardian.

Now, when you build out Fighter subclasses, you give them access to multiple Groups of maneuvers. "Gladiator" subclass gets Duelist and Brute, "Warmaster" subclass Duelist and Tactician, "Dreadnought" subclass gets Brute and Guardian, ect ect. When you build your fighter, you pick your maneuvers from the groups available to your subclass. Some subclases might get a unique Manuever group all to themselves.

Some Manuevers can be listed as Generics, or exist in multiple groups if we'd like. Why not. There are no rules except the ones we make for ourselves.

This means that
1) Subclasses can carry their theming despite giving a wide range of customization options, since the customization system has built-in, thematically grouped options.

2) Building out a new subclass is as simple as following the examples and picking a few Manuever Groups to use.

3) The framework exists for both a thematically generic subclass (Like Gladiator), and a more tightly themed subclass, like Arcane Knight, if Arcane knight has it's own unique maneuver group that it uses.


Part of the issue with building too much theming into a UCT is that it eventually restricts the theming of the class. If your Druid's UCT is specifically "Turning into Animals", then every take on the druid has to be based around turning into animals (5e's solution is to turn Wildshape into a generic resource like Channel Divinity).

In my mind, the best Class/Subclass relationship is that the Class has a Mechanically Nifty UCT, and then the Subclass is built around a cool theming or implementation of that UCT. Sneak Attack is passable as a UCT, but Rogue provides some good examples of this relationship, specifically Swashbuckler and Inquisitor Rogues providing alternate routes towards getting Sneak Attack.

[Notafish]

I like this - most of my stated issues with classes has been the thematic muddiness (which to me means having a satisfying answer to e.g. "why is a Rogue a Thing in this universe?") I don't think it is independent from the UCT issue, though.

I think the UCT is a good way of presenting an answer to the question of "why do I want to play a Rogue?"
The answer "I want to be good at skills and doing damage" can work for some players, but Sneak Attack and Expertise are too vague to easily assist someone who is playing a Rogue because they want to play a master criminal - contrast Channel Divinity, which spells out that the class is intended for people interested in playing a conduit for divine power, tho the mechanical benefits may or may not be underwhelming.

The other difference is that Sneak Attack and Expertise live in the background providing ambient benefits Channel Divinity (or Rage or Wild Shape or the other more-UCT-like featuresm mentioned above) are more like a move that you can activate that reminds yourself and everyone else that you are a Cleric (or Barbarian or Druid or etc)

[Oramac]

Sure. Fair warning--I'm much more of an ideas/theme person than a mechanical genius.

Well, apparently your DMs are full. Tried to reply and got an error that you need to clear out some space. :D Regardless, thanks for your insight!! I appreciate it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, apparently your DMs are full. Tried to reply and got an error that you need to clear out some space. :D Regardless, thanks for your insight!! I appreciate it.

Cleared out some space =)

[Rukelnikov]

The big problem with generic classes is that they require generic Cool Things. Which either makes everyone else less Unique or sucks up all the room in the class. You can't have meaningfully flavorful subclasses with a powerful generic base, so to have good subclasses you need an anemic base. At which point...why have that be a base class at all? They also tend to stomp all over everyone else's Cool Things, making them less Unique.

Well, this goes on another tangent which is, I'm very much against "niche protection", I'm into character incentivation, ie in WoD any vampire can learn Protean, but if you are a Gangrel, you need no teacher* and its cheaper, everyone else needs not be forbidden to do things in order for you to be cool.

*may change depending on the edition


Plus, even with a powerful sub class, you can't properly build on a Unique Cool Thing because there just isn't enough room in 4-5 features, some of which need to be ribbons.

I don't think that's the case, a UCT can be achieved by a combination of features, as is the case with Eldritch Blast + Invocations, but it can also be had with 1 feature.

Consider Aura of Protection, its a single feature, and it definitely qualifies as a UCT.

Consider Portent, a perfect example of UCT, and its on the chassis you hate the most, but I assume you still consider Portent a UCT.


Class/subclass combinations should have a 1-2 sentence, non-mechanical "here's who I am" statement. Generic classes can't, because they don't have definition at all. They're entirely build time meta constructs, really only meaningful if you have multiclassing and other build-a-bear things. But build-a-bear and strong class fictions don't behave well together.

But they can! They have even been designed to be described in a single word! Fighter, Thief, Wizard, are descriptive in a single word, the thing is you want the classes to be nicher than that. As usual in these conversations, I still think those 3 classes are all that's really needed, not against having more, but those are the only ones I consider a must*

*A must in the sense that if we are having a class based game that tries to facilitate medieval fantasy stories, with the combinations of those 3 classes we can cover the vast majority of the archetypes.


Generic features (like spellcasting and proficiencies) also cause issues because they're fungible. Build-a-bear classes with big lists of things to pick from at each level (aka wizards with their spell list) mean you can't have thematicity and now everything is directly comparable. So you encourage people to take the strongest option, disregarding any thematic constraints.

More or less, if this was a competitive game, then sure, but its not, its a storytelling game, harsh as it may sound, the fault is in the players using a game that's designfor one thing, and complaining it doesn't work for a different thing.

People taking character creation backwards is not the fault of the system. The game expects players to conceptualize a character and then translate it to its system, as with everything in the game. Some players look at rules first and then conceptualize a character that is constrained to the rules they picked beforehand. I'm not saying its wrong to do so, but it is wrong to fault the system for the players doing something the game is not designed for, and then complaining it doesn't deliver the desired game experience.


In fact, accepting thematic constraints means hobbling yourself against available opportunities every time you level up, which is bad design.

Well, to me, that's the definition of optimizing, I'll take the Idea I have and make what best I can with it, throwing weapon are amongst the worst choices in 5e, but If you want to have a shuriken throwing ninja, you are gonna have to use throwing weapons, how can we make it work best?

I'm not saying there aren't blatantly underperforming or hard to realize concepts, there are many, but in the majority of the cases that's not a design level problem, that's an implementation level problem, which there are lots of.


It also means that most of those options are just wastes of space because they don't ever get picked.

And to contrast, that's powergaming, which IMO is not really something that can be blamed on a system, that kind of player is likely to go for "the most powerful thing" regardless of what they are playing, and pretending to have a system where every option is "equally as powerful" as every other option is only possible if there's just one option.*

*I'm not saying 5e doesn't have balance problems, but I consider that to be a separate discussion to the one of some people always going for the most powerful stuff, and, as I said above, balance issues are an implementation level problem, not a design level one.


Classes and features fail when they try to have something for everyone.

The thing is, this CANT be the case, because that's how DnD worked for most of its runtime. In 2e you picked a class and ran with it, was the game unplayable? Far from it.

Sure then came kits, and then came players options which allowed more specific stuff, but 2e + PO was basically 2.5


To a lesser degree, most of the "modern" subclasses fall into this trap. The Beast barbarian can't lean into the theme, because it can't decide what it wants to be. So it tries to be something for everyone and ends up being a mechanical shell without a soul.

Ok, I think I understand what you mean, and may even think the same as you, but could you explain what you mean?


I strongly prefer lots of narrow, thematically coherent classes with a couple sub-classes taken 1-20 over a few bloated, generic classes with a million sub-classes.

And that's perfectly fine, but that's not what DnD has ever been, Fighter, Wizard, Thief have been there in every edition and are generic by design, you want DnD to be different than what it has always been, and its fine that that's your preference, but its not fine to fault the game for being what it has always been.


I want to be a <class> from level 1. For me, front-loading is good--it gets me into my class fiction sooner. But in a build-a-bear world where you cobble together your character from a bunch of different pieces, frontloading is a problem.

Yeah, I do no't like lvl 1 characters being X, but X in training, although that is 100% a me thing, the game could work perfectly with a lvl 1 Rogue being a consumated Rogue.

It does clash with Multiclassing as you say, so the game needs to decide whether to give more freedom or not. I understand this is mostly a preference thing, but given that was my #1 complaint the 4 or 5 years I played 2e, for me its not a difficult choice. The railroad approach is just... well too railroady.


I also want building a new class to be fairly easy and straightforward. If someone has an idea that doesn't quite fit an existing class/subclass combination, I want them to go to their DM and say "hey, can we put something together for this" instead of trying to cobble stuff together from a bunch of different classes--the latter ends up with dangling features, janky combinations, and the necessity to ignore half of the class's inbuilt thematics.

I agree with this, but how do you suggest this could be done?

[Goobahfish]

Wizards ought to be a sub class of Sorcerer. :smalltongue:

Seconded


For the sake of discussion, how do people perceive the Cleric class here? The chassis has a whole lot of solid value there, but I am not sure I would call it exactly cool. A success? A failure?

FWIW, I think the subclasses could use a bit more souping up to get more flavorful, but I do not think the base class is implemented wrong in any big way.

I really like the cleric. It is certainly not perfect, but it hits a lot of what I expect from a class/subclass divide.
#1: Strong fiction. You are a cleric. It is clear that you are a 'I draw my power from gods'. I exhibit clear religious iconography. I have an external point of view which defines my character and I either abide or struggle with that.
#2: Healthy mechanics. Full caster. Limited spell list (the best way). A potentially useful Short Rest Resource.
#3: Meaningful subclass choice. When I pick a Domain, I expand my spell list thematically (feels nice). I expand my Channel Divinity Power thematically.

The only weakpoint of cleric (I think) is that it doesn't have a 'deep' feature. Divine Intervention is OK... but it is almost more a an RP ability that should be independent of class than a codified Cleric Ability. If clerics instead got a subclass 'big flashy' feature at level 10, I think it would be much cooler.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, this goes on another tangent which is, I'm very much against "niche protection", I'm into character incentivation, ie in WoD any vampire can learn Protean, but if you are a Gangrel, you need no teacher* and its cheaper, everyone else needs not be forbidden to do things in order for you to be cool.

*may change depending on the edition


Depends on what you define as a "niche". thematic niches? Yeah, those should be protected. Because otherwise there's no link. If you don't want that kind of niche protection...you want a world without classes. Or without choices in those classes.




But they can! They have even been designed to be described in a single word! Fighter, Thief, Wizard, are descriptive in a single word, the thing is you want the classes to be nicher than that. As usual in these conversations, I still think those 3 classes are all that's really needed, not against having more, but those are the only ones I consider a must*

*A must in the sense that if we are having a class based game that tries to facilitate medieval fantasy stories, with the combinations of those 3 classes we can cover the vast majority of the archetypes.



The problem with the original 3 classes is that their description doesn't actually describe anything! A fighter. THat's a guy who fights. Ok so does everyone else! Those are bad descriptors. And in the case of the Thief...not even accurate!

They're vaccuous, misleading, and innacurate. I'd say that's a problem. Classes must (to be meaningful) provide significant roleplaying constraints. Classes can't just be abstract bags of mechanics. Again, leave that for systems designed around XP-based point-buy. Hacking that onto a class/level system just makes it all a mess.



I don't think that's the case, a UCT can be achieved by a combination of features, as is the case with Eldritch Blast + Invocations, but it can also be had with 1 feature.

Consider Aura of Protection, its a single feature, and it definitely qualifies as a UCT.

Consider Portent, a perfect example of UCT, and its on the chassis you hate the most, but I assume you still consider Portent a UCT.


Portent would be a great UCT...except that it's effectively a throwaway ability. Tacked on to a class that doesn't really care about it in any way. You could build a class around Portent (or a Portent-like ability). But the wizard isn't it. And specifically, the wizard flip flops (depending on subclass) between "nothing beyond spellcasting of note" and "stupidly overpowered because you're stapling meaningful abilities onto an already pushing-the-limits chassis". And there aren't other options. That's the problem with generic classes--you either can't add meaningful abilities to thematicize them without blowing the power budget or you step on everyone else's toes. There's no other option.




More or less, if this was a competitive game, then sure, but its not, its a storytelling game, harsh as it may sound, the fault is in the players using a game that's designfor one thing, and complaining it doesn't work for a different thing.

People taking character creation backwards is not the fault of the system. The game expects players to conceptualize a character and then translate it to its system, as with everything in the game. Some players look at rules first and then conceptualize a character that is constrained to the rules they picked beforehand. I'm not saying its wrong to do so, but it is wrong to fault the system for the players doing something the game is not designed for, and then complaining it doesn't deliver the desired game experience.

Well, to me, that's the definition of optimizing, I'll take the Idea I have and make what best I can with it, throwing weapon are amongst the worst choices in 5e, but If you want to have a shuriken throwing ninja, you are gonna have to use throwing weapons, how can we make it work best?

I'm not saying there aren't blatantly underperforming or hard to realize concepts, there are many, but in the majority of the cases that's not a design level problem, that's an implementation level problem, which there are lots of.


No, the game expects you to pick a class and build your character off of that. The whole "come up with an external character concept over multiple levels and pick your mechanics to fit" idea? That's not a class/level process of thought at all. And generic classes don't help you at all. In fact, they are invitations to powergame.




And to contrast, that's powergaming, which IMO is not really something that can be blamed on a system, that kind of player is likely to go for "the most powerful thing" regardless of what they are playing, and pretending to have a system where every option is "equally as powerful" as every other option is only possible if there's just one option.*

*I'm not saying 5e doesn't have balance problems, but I consider that to be a separate discussion to the one of some people always going for the most powerful stuff, and, as I said above, that's an implementation level problem, not a design level one.


Generic classes are open invitations to powergame. In fact, they make you feel bad every time you don't, because there are blatantly better abilities sitting there staring at you. That's how you end up with the actual difference between various wizards being 1-3 spell choices.



The thing is, this CANT be the case, because that's how DnD worked for most of its runtime. In 2e you picked a class and ran with it, was the game unplayable? Far from it.

Sure then came kits, and then came players options which allowed more specific stuff, but 2e + PO was basically 2.5

Ok, I think I understand what you mean, and may even think the same as you, but could you explain what you mean?


At those particular times, you didn't have any choices. You get what you picked and you liked it. That's the exact opposite of trying to build in-class options to do anything. You picked a wizard? You got a squishy mage with very particular restraints. You picked a Fighter? No casting for you. Etc.

The Beast Barbarian (and many others) doesn't have a clear vision of what it wants to be. So it tries to sprinkle on options for all the different possibilities. And in doing so, it robs itself of any thematic coherence. It ends up without a soul.

Classes and subclasses should, IMO, have a very clear and articulated "this is who I am. If you pick me, you're picking THIS SPECIFIC THING (thematically)" vision. Within those you can have choices, but they should be between things that are equally on-brand for the class vision.



And that's perfectly fine, but that's not what DnD has ever been, Fighter, Wizard, Thief have been there in every edition and are generic by design, you want DnD to be different than what it has always been, and its fine that that's your preference, but its not fine to fault the game for being what it has always been.


Appeals to history have no weight for me. Those are relics of the past design that don't work in the modern system and cause troubles for everyone else. As long as D&D is shackled to those, it can't actually be what it wants to be.

And we've thrown away lots of other things of that same weight--meaningful alignment for one.



Yeah, I do no't like lvl 1 characters being X, but X in trainig, although that is 100% a me thing, the game could work perfectly with a lvl 1 Rogue being a consumated Rogue, it does clash with Multiclassing as you say, so the game needs to decide whether to give more freedom or not. I understand this is mostly a preference thing, but given that was my #1 complaint the 4 or 5 years I played 2e, for me its not a difficult choice. The railroad approach is just... well too railroady.


I don't care if my abilities aren't full strength yet, but by level 3 you should be a fully functioning <character> with at least one of your UCTs online and functional. And you should be distinctly <class/subclass X> at that point. Visibly (to the players) different than anyone else.

Multiclassing should be either
* a variant, use at your own risk, some assembly required system
* rigorous about exactly what you get when you multiclass into a class. You should get specific versions of things, more feat style than anything else.



I agree with this, but how do you suggest this could be done?

One of the benefits of standardizing on narrow classes is that it simplifies matters a lot. And since you're building for one specific person, you only need one subclass. And you could present a skeleton framework in the DMG, something along the lines of

* <Tables of "normal" values for various parameters>
* Choose a form of spellcasting (0, 1/3, 1/2, Pact, full)
* Choose a primary ability score and a spellcasting score (if necessary).
* Choose a primary role (back, mid, front-line) --> that sets your HD size
* Here's a template table with certain things filled in (ASIs, Extra Attack for 1/2 and below casters, Subclass feature levels)
* Here are suggested proficiency groups for each of the prime ability scores
* Here are the boilerplate for various common features.
* Here's some discussion on ribbons vs UCTs and guidance on picking a UCT.

[KorvinStarmast]

People taking character creation backwards is not the fault of the system. The game expects players to conceptualize a character and then translate it to its system, as with everything in the game. Some players look at rules first and then conceptualize a character that is constrained to the rules they picked beforehand. I'm not saying its wrong to do so, but it is wrong to fault the system for the players doing something the game is not designed for, and then complaining it doesn't deliver the desired game experience. The kindest way of framing "munchkins are bad for the game" I've seen in a while. :smallsmile:

And that's perfectly fine, but that's not what DnD has ever been, Fighter, Wizard, Thief have been there in every edition and are generic by design, You forgot Cleric, who preceded Thief.

Seconded Reality called, and she told me that it's Wizards of the Coast, not Sorcerers of the Coast. :smallwink:


Cleric is one of the best class designs in this edition.

[animorte]

Reality called, and she told me that it's Wizards of the Coast, not Sorcerers of the Coast. :smallwink:
I've made that same statement so many times. Even though I don't much care for them, they're not going anywhere.

Cleric is one of the best class designs in this edition.
Agreed.

[Bosh]

I think "unique cool things" is a fine way of organizing classes. I just think that in a lot of cases being a full caster is so powerful that if you hang a big shiny unique cool thing on top of that, it just gets a bit much.

So if you want to give classes a big shiny UCT ON TOP OF casting you should knock them down to half caster (probably a good idea for bards) or just have their UCT be their casting. I mean, being able to cast a **** ton of powerful spells is pretty badass by itself, I'm not sure why full casters need a bunch of bells and whistles layered on on top of that, just make their casting unique enough that they don't feel samey for example:

Wizards: bring back full-on Vancian casting.

Sorcerers: as they are in 5e.

Warlocks: already fairly unique in their casting.

Clerics: something along the lines of 2e spheres.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think "unique cool things" is a fine way of organizing classes. I just think that in a lot of cases being a full caster is so powerful that if you hang a big shiny unique cool thing on top of that, it just gets a bit much.

So if you want to give classes a big shiny UCT ON TOP OF casting you should knock them down to half caster (probably a good idea for bards) or just have their UCT be their casting. I mean, being able to cast a **** ton of powerful spells is pretty badass by itself, I'm not sure why full casters need a bunch of bells and whistles layered on on top of that, just make their casting unique enough that they don't feel samey for example:

Wizards: bring back full-on Vancian casting.

Sorcerers: as they are in 5e.

Warlocks: already fairly unique in their casting.

Clerics: something along the lines of 2e spheres.

Or maybe "I cast spells" shouldn't be such a big thing? Since it's unavoidably generic and non-unique, no amount of "oh, I recharge it differently" is going to matter. Because moment to moment...you're just saying "I cast a spell".

Spells shouldn't be the (sole) conduit to supreme power. They should be an auxiliary thing that some people can do. Other people do other auxiliary things. But that's secondary, not 90+% of their power budget.

/rant

[Kane0]

Not directly related, but thinking of different mini-systems so not everyone ends up with the same magic spellcasting.

- Spellcasting (Slots)
- Spellcasting (Points)
- Pact Magic
- Invocations
- Channel X
- Infusions
- Magic Auras
- Ki Powers
- Supernatural Maneuvers (super superiority!)
- Shapeshifting
- Magic Rituals

Actually, that's already 11 different things, throw in just a few more and there's one for each class even before we add in singular keystone class features.

[Goobahfish]

Not directly related, but thinking of different mini-systems so not everyone ends up with the same magic spellcasting.

- Spellcasting (Slots)
- Spellcasting (Points)
- Pact Magic
- Invocations
- Channel X
- Infusions
- Magic Auras
- Ki Powers
- Supernatural Maneuvers (super superiority!)
- Shapeshifting
- Magic Rituals

Actually, that's already 11 different things, throw in just a few more and there's one for each class even before we add in singular keystone class features.

Hmmmm... but how different are those things (other than the name and aesthetic?).

Slots vs Points is a pretty nebulous difference for example.

I always think of these things in terms of mechanics and worry about fluffy stuff second.

E.g. Abilities that provide riders to existing attacks (Smite, Superiority Dice)
Passive abilities which augment existing attacks (Sneak Attack)
Passive abilities disguised as active abilities (rage)
Passive abilities that have a range component (Auras)
Resources which are always available (cantrips)
Resources which recharge very slowly but generate powerful effects (???)
Resources that have flexible uses (Sorcerer 3.5)
Resources that have pre-defined 'planned uses' (Wizards 3.5)

The goal is to recreate a play-style, a theme etc.

For a quick example, my 'music rules work thusly'.
You have songs. Then you have melodies. You start a song (like rage). You can change the melody (the bonus it gives). You can layer your song, building up multiple melodies (i.e., gives a few bonuses) or just one and attack etc.

It basically mechanically reflects a kind of versatile bonus granting class (which suits bards pretty well). The bard chooses on each turn, which melody suits the current circumstances, but at the same time chooses when using a song at all is worthwhile. All the abilities are enchantment-style so it feels 'bardish'. You aren't just a Wizard with a fiddle.

[Bosh]

Or maybe "I cast spells" shouldn't be such a big thing? Since it's unavoidably generic and non-unique, no amount of "oh, I recharge it differently" is going to matter. Because moment to moment...you're just saying "I cast a spell".

Spells shouldn't be the (sole) conduit to supreme power. They should be an auxiliary thing that some people can do. Other people do other auxiliary things. But that's secondary, not 90+% of their power budget.

/rant

Well for a wizard "I cast spells" is basically their whole schtick. If any other class can cast spells as well as a wizard (i.e. be a full caster) then that should be their whole schtick too. Being a full caster (i.e. getting a MASSIVE amount of power from your spells) and then getting a whole 'nother thing on top of that just seems like overkill to me. Any class for which casting is auxiliary to the conception of the class *waves at bards* has no business being a full caster.

For other classes I always found it strange that, say, clerics get a whole bunch of spells as blessings from your god that you can manifest as a random magical effect and then you ALSO get channel divinity which is a blessing from your god that you can manifest as a random magical effect but which TOTALLY isn't a spell. Just seems needlessly redundant to me.

As far as spells being generic, well spells are just an enormous umbrella mechanically that can cover nearly everything and which have traditionally taken up a HUGE chunk of player facing . If that's not enough, then what is?

5e (and old editions where everyone was Vancian) don't really do enough to make different casting systems feel distinct on top of different spell lists being distinct. If you want to layer sub-class stuff on top of that then give them something like Order Cleric that modifies their spells, not a whole 'nother thing. "I have ultimate cosmic power at my beck and call" should be enough for a class.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

Neat, Rhythm-magic sounds cool too.

Oh and then you have all those extraneous systems from older editions like Meldshaping, Binding, Shadowcasting and Truenaming. Psionics too of course.

But yeah, even if a few classes just cast spells with some minor differences that's fine as long as those other forms of magic are well distributed amongst other classes and are on an even playing field rather than always coming back to mimicking or poor-manning spells.

[Captain Cap]

Reality called, and she told me that it's Wizards of the Coast, not Sorcerers of the Coast. :smallwink:
I've never and probably will never really understand this attachment to Sorcerers. I mean, apparently the only thing that makes them thematically distinct is a thing Wizards have always been better at than them in previous editions.


Spells shouldn't be the (sole) conduit to supreme power. They should be an auxiliary thing that some people can do. Other people do other auxiliary things. But that's secondary, not 90+% of their power budget.
I'd say it depends on the spells: as long as a class has particularly flashy, varied and slightly more powerful options, that no other caster has access to, I think Spellcasting can make a perfectly fine and distinctive feature on its own.

[Kane0]

I've never and probably will never really understand this attachment to Sorcerers. I mean, apparently the only thing that makes them thematically distinct is a thing Wizards have always been better at than them in previous editions.


It can be a lot of fun to play someone that doesnt just ask for magic, doesnt learn or study magic, but *is* magic. Its something that is a part of them, flowing through their veins with every breath. It is a part of their being, a defining aspect of who and what they are, taking it away would ruin and very possibly kill them.

Like, a wizard might use mage hand and prestidigitation because theyre feeling lazy or pressed for time, or a bard to show off and impress people, or a warlock because it brings a sense of validation to their life choices. A sorcerer might use them because it isn't even a decision, its just how they live. Them choosing not to would be like deciding to tie their left hand to their back for the day.

[Lucas Yew]

I've never and probably will never really understand this attachment to Sorcerers. I mean, apparently the only thing that makes them thematically distinct is a thing Wizards have always been better at than them in previous editions.

It's the ages old distinction of natural talent and learned studies, and the conflict of those who prefer one concept over the other to be the superior one.

----

I'd say starting with the current SRD as a base, if Wizards could only prepare WizardLevel/2 + IntMod spells per day AND Sorcerers automatically knowing an additional 2 thematic spells of SL 0~5 per bloodline, only then they can start discussing "balance". The current 25 Wiz vs 12 Sorc is a sheer felony of blatant favoritism by itself...

----

OTOH I'm also pissed that Sorcs STILL are bound to artificial languages (V) and specific limb anatomies (S). It clashes with other in-universe creatures who can cast spells by birthright, wihout any silly restrictions like components...

[Dienekes]

Or maybe "I cast spells" shouldn't be such a big thing? Since it's unavoidably generic and non-unique, no amount of "oh, I recharge it differently" is going to matter. Because moment to moment...you're just saying "I cast a spell".

Spells shouldn't be the (sole) conduit to supreme power. They should be an auxiliary thing that some people can do. Other people do other auxiliary things. But that's secondary, not 90+% of their power budget.

/rant

I think this really depends on the spells. You're combining framework and effect.

For example, let's take two different caster classes with very different spell lists. Sure, they both going to say "I cast a spell" every single round.

But if one class only has area damage and defensive features, and the other class only has ally buffs and crowd control then both classes will end up playing very differently.

The issue becomes that D&D made big expansive largely nonrestrictive spell lists with very vague rules on what effect fits in each group.

[ahyangyi]

Or maybe "I cast spells" shouldn't be such a big thing? Since it's unavoidably generic and non-unique, no amount of "oh, I recharge it differently" is going to matter. Because moment to moment...you're just saying "I cast a spell".

Spells shouldn't be the (sole) conduit to supreme power. They should be an auxiliary thing that some people can do. Other people do other auxiliary things. But that's secondary, not 90+% of their power budget.

/rant

Problem with D&D wizards are different with problem with spellcasting in general. Wizards are defined by the lack of flavor, and the access to most spells every printed, and the mechanics really wants you to use the best spell for the moment, instead of sticking to a theme. But not all spellcasters need to work that way.

Also, the 5e-style blandness has something to do with 5e-style multiclass friendliness. In 3e, sorcerers are defined by spontaneous casting, and clerics and druids have their own hybrid approach between prepared casting and spontaneous casting, but the price is that you can't multiclass them effectively.


OTOH I'm also pissed that Sorcs STILL are bound to artificial languages (V) and specific limb anatomies (S). It clashes with other in-universe creatures who can cast spells by birthright, wihout any silly restrictions like components...

I'm OK with V and S for the kind of the "arcane" sorcerers. But perhaps sorcerers should be more varied in how they cast their spells.

[Psyren]

I agree with the overarching point (to an extent*), but not so much the specific examples. There are some UCTs I feel you've overlooked and/or are discounting too far.

- Bard's Magical Secrets is definitely a UCT. There are some spell combinations you can only pull off in this game as a bard (solo, anyway) - like the Druid Grove + Counterspell combo that one group around here used to trivialize Vecna. Other than low level spells, 5e in general has a notable lack of ways to "theurge" or grab goodies from other lists like we could in prior editions, and it's missing things like Limited Wish and Anyspell too at mid-levels too.

- Barbarian's Reckless Attack doesn't stop being a UCT just because there are other ways to get advantage, imo. While advantage on a single attack is indeed easy to get, advantage on multiple attacks per round including bonus and reaction attacks for an entire combat is a lot harder for most classes. When most Barbarians are making 3 attacks per round if not more, AND can translate their advantage into a big DPR increase on top of that, RA does a noteworthy amount of work. (As for Rage not being cool, I suspect we may have to simply disagree there.)

- Fighter's UCT isn't just Action Surge, it's bonus feats/ASIs too. Even in featless games, being able to get multiple 20s before anyone else is noticeable, and in games with feats you can build any two fighters in drastically different ways.

- Wizard's UCT is an unlisted feature, they are the masters of rituals. Being able to learn nearly every ritual in the game and not have to prepare them is very noticeable in play, and will only get moreso with OneD&D's more restrictive preparation rules and more restrictive ritual magic for noncasters.

Agree on Monk and Ranger (base in both cases) lacking UCTs currently - hopefully that changes.


*I think a subclass can let someone emulate a UCT and still have it be a UCT - sure it's not "unique" in the literal sense, but the opportunity cost of a subclass is so high that you give up a great deal to obtain that UCT.

[Snails]

I've never and probably will never really understand this attachment to Sorcerers. I mean, apparently the only thing that makes them thematically distinct is a thing Wizards have always been better at than them in previous editions.

Something like a Sorcerer is a more natural framework for most powerfully magical beings, be it a PC or NPC or Monster. We can get an easy to use and powerful amount of flexibility, while still having clear resource limitations, without tedious lists of "1 per day: X, Y; 2 per day Z, etc."

In fact, this argument was so convincing Wizards have steadily gotten closer to being Sorcerers mechanically ever since 3.0 was first released. Looking at the 5e Evocationist Wizard, for example, what we see is practically indistinguishable from a stereotypical and boring kind of Sorcerer.

In terms of feel, Cha-based is a simply a superior fit for a world of Fey and Elves and Demons, etc. For example, Drow absolutely scream "we are sorcerers who have a subclass based on which demonlord we cut a deal with". The idea of a bookworm spell caster definitely has its place, but that it an important outlier, not the cornerstone.

"I think of elves as the kind of people who hang around libraries with their nose in books to learn about magic" said no one ever.

Obviously, certain individual elves or particular tribes of elves might be into that.. But it would be contrary to the source mythology. Such things would be interesting because they go against the grain of expectations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree with the overarching point (to an extent*), but not so much the specific examples. There are some UCTs I feel you've overlooked and/or are discounting too far.

- Bard's Magical Secrets is definitely a UCT. There are some spell combinations you can only pull off in this game as a bard (solo, anyway) - like the Druid Grove + Counterspell combo that one group around here used to trivialize Vecna. Other than low level spells, 5e in general has a notable lack of ways to "theurge" or grab goodies from other lists like we could in prior editions, and it's missing things like Limited Wish and Anyspell too at mid-levels too.

- Barbarian's Reckless Attack doesn't stop being a UCT just because there are other ways to get advantage, imo. While advantage on a single attack is indeed easy to get, advantage on multiple attacks per round including bonus and reaction attacks for an entire combat is a lot harder for most classes. When most Barbarians are making 3 attacks per round if not more, AND can translate their advantage into a big DPR increase on top of that, RA does a noteworthy amount of work. (As for Rage not being cool, I suspect we may have to simply disagree there.)

- Fighter's UCT isn't just Action Surge, it's bonus feats/ASIs too. Even in featless games, being able to get multiple 20s before anyone else is noticeable, and in games with feats you can build any two fighters in drastically different ways.

- Wizard's UCT is an unlisted feature, they are the masters of rituals. Being able to learn nearly every ritual in the game and not have to prepare them is very noticeable in play, and will only get moreso with OneD&D's more restrictive preparation rules and more restrictive ritual magic for noncasters.

Agree on Monk and Ranger (base in both cases) lacking UCTs currently - hopefully that changes.


*I think a subclass can let someone emulate a UCT and still have it be a UCT - sure it's not "unique" in the literal sense, but the opportunity cost of a subclass is so high that you give up a great deal to obtain that UCT.

Magical Secrets: it's Unique and Cool...but it's build-time, not play-time. And UCTs should (IMO) be play-time. "I have different spells" is neither unique or particularly cool unless you've memorized the entire set of lists. And it also suffers from stomping on other people's unique (lowercase) things, in some cases getting their unique things before they can (cf Find (greater) Steed).

Reckless Attack/Rage: Rage isn't as cool as it could be. It's cool, but only at the kiddy-grade level (because it's mostly passive). If rage gave you a special attack that did big things, that'd make it more cool. Reckless Attack was cool, but now getting advantage on most attacks is pretty common and it has a major drawback. So it's not as Unique as it should be. Fairly cool though.

Fighters...again, that's build-time. Build time matters...but not for this. It fades into the background most of the time. It doesn't scream "I'm a fighter" every time you use it like AS does.

Wizards: again, mostly build-time. I specifically disclaimed any discussion about wizards because I might be biased there.

I'd say that being able to emulate a UCT via subclass is mostly ok...if it's a weaker version. If (hypothetically) you had a fighter subclass that got Reckless Attack straight up, I'd be not very comfortable with it. But if they got something to get advantage on one attack, maybe with a different drawback, that'd be different.


Something like a Sorcerer is a more natural framework for most powerfully magical beings, be it a PC or NPC or Monster. We can get an easy to use and powerful amount of flexibility, while still having clear resource limitations, without tedious lists of "1 per day: X, Y; 2 per day Z, etc."

In fact, this argument was so convincing Wizards have steadily gotten closer to being Sorcerers mechanically ever since 3.0 was first released. Looking at the 5e Evocationist Wizard, for example, what we see is practically indistinguishable from a stereotypical and boring kind of Sorcerer.

In terms of feel, Cha-based is a simply a superior fit for a world of Fey and Elves and Drow(!!!!) and Demons, etc. The idea of a bookworm spell caster definitely has its place, but that it an important outlier, not the cornerstone.

I agree. Personally, sorcerers (ie innate casters, CHA-based or not) should be the norm; wizards should be one particularly-weird subclass. Makes the worldbuilding way more consistent. Wizards have the total issue of "why aren't there buckets of them." If all it takes is some study, anyone with some leisure time should be able to pick up at least 1st level spells. There's no reason why "casting from a spellbook" is bound to one particular way of casting--it should be something anyone can pick up alongside whatever else they do. And there's no reason why book-based casting should have default access to 90% of the spells--there should be a lot of innate "spells" that are really really tricky to figure out how to replicate wizard-style.

But that's a lost cause, since wizard-supremacy is the one remaining acceptable form of bigotry.

[ahyangyi]

In terms of feel, Cha-based is a simply a superior fit for a world of Fey and Elves and Demons, etc. For example, Drow absolutely scream "we are sorcerers who have a subclass based on which demonlord we cut a deal with". The idea of a bookworm spell caster definitely has its place, but that it an important outlier, not the cornerstone.

And also dragons (who are mostly sorcerers in 3E, and dragonborn=cha bonus is established since 4e).


Fighters...again, that's build-time. Build time matters...but not for this. It fades into the background most of the time. It doesn't scream "I'm a fighter" every time you use it like AS does.

Wizards: again, mostly build-time. I specifically disclaimed any discussion about wizards because I might be biased there.

I understand the need for thematic classes to get their UCT, but I don't see the need for all classes to be thematic. What's wrong to have a catch-all class? Surely, not all martial character ideas fall into Monks, Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians and Rogues.

[Psyren]

Magical Secrets: it's Unique and Cool...but it's build-time, not play-time. And UCTs should (IMO) be play-time. "I have different spells" is neither unique or particularly cool unless you've memorized the entire set of lists. And it also suffers from stomping on other people's unique (lowercase) things, in some cases getting their unique things before they can (cf Find (greater) Steed).

Even if you stick to core, there are plenty of goodies right in front of the player from other lists that they can MS. I don't see that as a big ask. Sure splats increase that complexity, but by the time you have the player buying a bunch of splats to see what other cool MS there might be out there, they're invested - you've won as a designer.


Reckless Attack/Rage: Rage isn't as cool as it could be. It's cool, but only at the kiddy-grade level (because it's mostly passive). If rage gave you a special attack that did big things, that'd make it more cool. Reckless Attack was cool, but now getting advantage on most attacks is pretty common and it has a major drawback. So it's not as Unique as it should be. Fairly cool though.

I feel like your analysis isn't taking subclasses into account nearly as much as it should. Barbarian subclasses all make rage substantially more complicated, so the base ability shouldn't be.


Fighters...again, that's build-time. Build time matters...but not for this. It fades into the background most of the time. It doesn't scream "I'm a fighter" every time you use it like AS does.

Even if you somehow see "build time" as a negative, just spending the Fighter ASI on an ASI is plenty. Maxed Str and your Con is where you want it? Pump Dex for that longbow and initiative. Maxed that too? Wis so that you're harder to shut down with fear or charm. Maxed that? Int or Cha to contribute better to non-combat pillar scenes.


Wizards: again, mostly build-time. I specifically disclaimed any discussion about wizards because I might be biased there.

Finding new arcane rituals is play time, not build time. There are more in the game than most characters will ever learn in a single campaign, and every one you find is one less you need to prepare.


I'd say that being able to emulate a UCT via subclass is mostly ok...if it's a weaker version. If (hypothetically) you had a fighter subclass that got Reckless Attack straight up, I'd be not very comfortable with it. But if they got something to get advantage on one attack, maybe with a different drawback, that'd be different.

Given that Fighters don't get resistance like Barbarians do, I'd say a subclass that gives them RA would still feel very different in play. They'd be an attack magnet without having as much protection.

And again, even if they're okay with that, it's still a massive tradeoff. Getting RA on your fighter as part of a subclass means no EK, no EK, no AA, no BM etc. And getting it via multiclassing means delaying ASIs, EA, subclass etc.

[Captain Cap]

In terms of feel, Cha-based is a simply a superior fit for a world of Fey and Elves and Demons, etc. For example, Drow absolutely scream "we are sorcerers who have a subclass based on which demonlord we cut a deal with". The idea of a bookworm spell caster definitely has its place, but that it an important outlier, not the cornerstone.
Yeah, Charisma is a superior fit for inherently magical creatures. But most of the PC population (humans) is not though. Bookworm spellcasting is an outlier as much as the use of technology is in the real world, but I challenge you to find a RPG set in the modern world without some emphasis on technology.

Or more simply, you could also draw a parallel with weapons, and say that bookworm magic stands to sorcery much like manufactured weapons stand to natural ones. Both represent natural limitations overcome by ingenuity.


Wizards have the total issue of "why aren't there buckets of them." If all it takes is some study, anyone with some leisure time should be able to pick up at least 1st level spells.
That's like saying anyone with some leisure time can learn the competences equivalent to a doctorate in nuclear science.
There aren't buckets of them because it's hard and requires a lot of study.


And there's no reason why book-based casting should have default access to 90% of the spells--there should be a lot of innate "spells" that are really really tricky to figure out how to replicate wizard-style.
Unlike innate casters, a book(knowledge)-based caster wouldn't be bound to biology, heritage etc. It's only logical they would have less restrictions when it comes to spells, when they are circumventing the need of a magical affinity in the first place.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, Charisma is a superior fit for inherently magical creatures. But most of the PC population (humans) is not though. Bookworm spellcasting is an outlier as much as the use of technology is in the real world, but I challenge you to find a RPG set in the modern world without some emphasis on technology.

Or more simply, you could also draw a parallel with weapons, and say that bookworm magic stands to sorcery much like manufactured weapons stand to natural ones. Both represent natural limitations overcome by ingenuity.


Disagree. Everyone in a fantasy world has magic running through them, because magic is in and through everything. It's a fundamental part of the physics. D&D!humans have just as much "sorcerous potential" as anyone else, as evidenced by the fact that...they can become sorcerers just as anyone else can.



That's like saying anyone with some leisure time can learn the competences equivalent to a doctorate in nuclear science.
There aren't buckets of them because it's hard and requires a lot of study.


An urchin can become a level 1 wizard with no noted study requirements. So it can't be that hard. Level 1 wizards are not PhDs or even specialists. They're dabblers.

Wizards are not inherently scholars (by the fact that they can have other backgrounds). They're people who..somehow...picked up a magical book and now poof can do book magic and do magic better than anyone else. The D&D wizard class is incoherent and fatally flawed.



Unlike innate casters, a book(knowledge)-based caster wouldn't be bound to biology, heritage etc. It's only logical they would have less restrictions when it comes to spells, when they are circumventing the need of a magical affinity in the first place.

Using system-provided API calls is way easier than doing the bit-banging yourself at the hardware level to interact with a remote API. And there's a lot of things that are near-impossible to do the latter way, at least in real-time or near-real time. And that's what wizards (thematically) are doing--creating the necessary conditions, inputting all the variables, etc. Or more precisely, discovering the process for doing so. Yet wizards, without any access to the outside body of work (ie during level up when they've been out in the field for weeks) can suddenly (leveling up doesn't take very long) discover a huge range of spells that no one else can even think of doing, without needing a lab or any other tools.

D&D wizards are incoherent and fatally flawed as a class.

----

@Psyren Build-time isn't a flaw, it's just not a virtue. Build time happens at build time, not table time. And UCTs should be Unique and Cool at table time. Because almost everyone except the hard-core denizens of this forum don't really care about build time other than as an obstacle to getting to the actual game. And having bigger numbers is a background thing. It's something you really only see over a lot of combats, and it's something that everyone who wants to will have sooner or later. Feats can be cool...but they're not class features. So they don't help the class feel unique and cool (although they may help the character feel unique and cool).

UCTs should be active, discrete things that are independently noticeable, preferably every session or multiple times per session.

[Psyren]

Disagree. Everyone in a fantasy world has magic running through them, because magic is in and through everything. It's a fundamental part of the physics. D&D!humans have just as much "sorcerous potential" as anyone else, as evidenced by the fact that...they can become sorcerers just as anyone else can.



An urchin can become a level 1 wizard with no noted study requirements. So it can't be that hard. Level 1 wizards are not PhDs or even specialists. They're dabblers.

Wizards are not inherently scholars (by the fact that they can have other backgrounds). They're people who..somehow...picked up a magical book and now poof can do book magic and do magic better than anyone else. The D&D wizard class is incoherent and fatally flawed.

This logic doesn't really work for me; just because the game chooses to abstract/gloss over a study requirement doesn't mean there is none. You can become proficient in History or Medicine or Artisan's Tools or Artifice without your character needing to study in-game too, but that doesn't mean they didn't. And sure, prior editions like 3.5 gave this a bit of a nod with the starting age stuff, but ultimately that didn't matter in most campaigns either.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This logic doesn't really work for me; just because the game chooses to abstract/gloss over a study requirement doesn't mean there is none. You can become proficient in History or Medicine or Artisan's Tools or Artifice without your character needing to study in-game too, but that doesn't mean they didn't. And sure, prior editions like 3.5 gave this a bit of a nod with the starting age stuff, but ultimately that didn't matter in most campaigns either.

An urchin with no backstory other than "found book" is suddenly the best caster in the game. Overnight. That's not glossed over, that's actively rejected. The game is incoherent, claiming that wizards are all academics but then fully supporting and even encouraging (due to redundant proficiencies) non-Sage backgrounds. Heck, you can be a wizard from a remote barbarian (little b) tribe that doesn't do books at all and barely has a written language. Or even worse, a dude who has been a meathead fighter with no indications of ever doing any study throughout play can pick up a level in wizard overnight. Literally. The game does not support in any way the idea that wizards require significant study. In fact, it actively fights it.

D&D wizards are really magical "girls" whose item is their book.

[BRC]

An urchin with no backstory other than "found book" is suddenly the best caster in the game. Overnight. That's not glossed over, that's actively rejected. The game is incoherent, claiming that wizards are all academics but then fully supporting and even encouraging (due to redundant proficiencies) non-Sage backgrounds. Heck, you can be a wizard from a remote barbarian (little b) tribe that doesn't do books at all and barely has a written language.

D&D wizards are really magical "girls" whose item is their book.

I'm going to be controversial here and say that's fine.

I'd rather have a game that allows for the occasional "Off-brand" backstory/class combo than one that is overly zealous about locking you into a given backstory based on your class. The game is always played and experienced at an individual table level, if somebody wants to play a street urchin who found a spellbook in the gutter and ended up a 1st level wizard after a week, it's up to the table to decide if that backstory is sufficient justification for a wizard level.

You can run a game where all Wizards must complete a 4 year undergraduate program at an accredited Magic School (Or complete an equivalent apprenticeship under a Council-Certified Master Wizard) before they can cast a cantrip or wear a pointy hat, and that's fine, but I don't think forcing that into the classes identity actually improves anything. That's details that go in a setting book, not a vaguely setting agnostic system like D&D.

[Captain Cap]

Disagree. Everyone in a fantasy world has magic running through them
In fantasy worlds like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, the Magicians, Avatar etc.? Yours seems hardly a universal truth.


It's a fundamental part of the physics.
Gravity is part of real physics, but no human body has enough mass to exert an appreciable gravitational force.


humans have just as much "sorcerous potential" as anyone else, as evidenced by the fact that...they can become sorcerers just as anyone else can.
Yes, those humans who in fact have a magical heritage. Or is there somewhere a "Plain Human" origin that I missed?


An urchin can become a level 1 wizard with no noted study requirements.
For that matter, you could create a Fighter that prior to level 1 has never wielded a weapon in their entire life, or a Druid who has never stepped in the wild.


So it can't be that hard. Level 1 wizards are not PhDs or even specialists. They're dabblers.
But they needed to take that level. If someone doesn't devote that kind of effort, they're not gonna get their wizard spells.


Wizards are not inherently scholars (by the fact that they can have other backgrounds). They're people who..somehow...picked up a magical book and now poof can do book magic
After studying/practicing how to do magic, let that be on the field (Soldier, Outlander etc.) or in the library of a castle (Scholar). In any case, they'd need the book for notes, whatever complex formulas they would require and so on.


and do magic better than anyone else.
Well, they seem to understand magic better than anyone else. The amount of advantage that comes with understanding is purely on the basis of the fantasy described, if that's how it's intended, I see absolutely no problem with it.


And that's what wizards (thematically) are doing--creating the necessary conditions, inputting all the variables, etc. Or more precisely, discovering the process for doing so. Yet wizards, without any access to the outside body of work (ie during level up when they've been out in the field for weeks) can suddenly (leveling up doesn't take very long) discover a huge range of spells that no one else can even think of doing, without needing a lab or any other tools.
They have components/arcane focus with them, that could be simply all the tools they need. You just said before that magic is part of the physics, but this part of the physics has no equivalent to the real world, nor it necessarily requires the same level of setup to master.


D&D wizards are incoherent and fatally flawed as a class.
That's like your opinion, man.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In fantasy worlds like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, the Magicians, Avatar etc.? Yours seems hardly a universal truth.


Gravity is part of real physics, but no human body has enough mass to exert an appreciable gravitational force.


Yes, those humans who in fact have a magical heritage. Or is there somewhere a "Plain Human" origin that I missed?


Those settings are not D&D settings. D&D puts specific metaphysical requirements on settings, one of which (cf the Magic chapter sidebar about the Weave) is that magic is a natural part of the world's physics. D&D humans are not real-life humans. Or LotR humans. Or anything else.



For that matter, you could create a Fighter that prior to level 1 has never wielded a weapon in their entire life, or a Druid who has never stepped in the wild.


But they needed to take that level. If someone doesn't devote that kind of effort, they're not gonna get their wizard spells.


After studying/practicing how to do magic, let that be on the field (Soldier, Outlander etc.) or in the library of a castle (Scholar). In any case, they'd need the book for notes, whatever complex formulas they would require and so on.


Taking levels is a purely meta thing. Not an in-universe thing. And yes, multiclassing is inherently screwy. But wizards can't actually require a lifetime of study, because otherwise there would be requirements on it. Both in-fiction and mechanically. Wizards have notional requirements, not actual requirements.

And druids are in nature all the time, kinda necessarily. And someone can be a natural with a sword (proficiency is not training), but you can't be a natural at something that requires (by your definition) years of training.

Someone can pick up being a wizard on the fly. CF Elminster. That is incompatible with any "requires study" requirement.



Well, they seem to understand magic better than anyone else. The amount of advantage that comes with understanding is purely on the basis of the fantasy described, if that's how it's intended, I see absolutely no problem with it.


They have components/arcane focus with them, that could be simply all the tools they need. You just said before that magic is part of the physics, but this part of the physics has no equivalent to the real world, nor it necessarily requires the same level of setup to master.


Ie wizard supremacy, wizards are just better than anyone else...just because they have that label. Yay. No thanks. It's incoherent with respect to the worlds and to itself. And leads to stomping on everyone else's thematic toes and horrible class design.

If you need a PhD level of understanding (your word, not mine), that can't happen overnight or in the field. Their fiction (such as it is) is incompatible with the practice. It's like if druids wouldn't wear metal armor in the fiction, but all of their class features required wearing metal armor. The fiction and the mechanics just don't mesh at all.



That's like your opinion, man.

Right. But it's one born out of a lot of struggle to make the fiction work in a could-be-real setting.


I'm going to be controversial here and say that's fine.

I'd rather have a game that allows for the occasional "Off-brand" backstory/class combo than one that is overly zealous about locking you into a given backstory based on your class. The game is always played and experienced at an individual table level, if somebody wants to play a street urchin who found a spellbook in the gutter and ended up a 1st level wizard after a week, it's up to the table to decide if that backstory is sufficient justification for a wizard level.

You can run a game where all Wizards must complete a 4 year undergraduate program at an accredited Magic School (Or complete an equivalent apprenticeship under a Council-Certified Master Wizard) before they can cast a cantrip or wear a pointy hat, and that's fine, but I don't think forcing that into the classes identity actually improves anything. That's details that go in a setting book, not a vaguely setting agnostic system like D&D.

I don't really have a problem with it other than it's not stated (and the reverse is stated). I want them to be honest about what being a wizard is. Rebranding it as the magical girl class (maybe a subclass of warlock, really, with the patron being the book or the accumulated knowledge of ages) would make the problems go away. But you can't have

a) being a wizard means getting a PhD in magic, so it's only fair that they're the best caster ever hands down and can cast all the spells and their whole thing is casting spells and how dare you take anything away from them or not give them access to a spell
b) being a wizard is something that can happen literally overnight with no preparation and no particular aptitude or training. Just picking up a book is enough.

at the same time. The two are fictionally incompatible. I resolve it by refuting (a) in its entirety--wizards aren't experts in magic. They're rote practitioners, learning by memorization and PC wizards have a quirk that lets them pick it up real fast. All PCs have that same sort of quirk, not just wizards. Because PCs grow anomalously fast (anomalously if you want a setting worth more than cardboard).

[Captain Cap]

Those settings are not D&D settings. D&D puts specific metaphysical requirements on settings, one of which (cf the Magic chapter sidebar about the Weave) is that magic is a natural part of the world's physics. D&D humans are not real-life humans. Or LotR humans. Or anything else.
In that same sidebar it's written that magic, even if it's there all encompassing, cannot be controlled directly, but only through the Weave, which magical being, unlike mundane ones, can manipulate by intuition alone.


And druids are in nature all the time, kinda necessarily.
Where is it written in the rules? Where's the requirement?


And someone can be a natural with a sword (proficiency is not training), but you can't be a natural at something that requires (by your definition) years of training.
Let's use another example then: I create a human PC that lived all his life in a jungle in a community of gorillas. How come does he perfectly knows not only Common, but another random language too, the moment the campaign starts?


Someone can pick up being a wizard on the fly. CF Elminster. That is incompatible with any "requires study" requirement.
Some people get differential equations on the fly. In any case, some notions are needed as a starting point. Notions that are not needed by an innate caster.


Ie wizard supremacy, wizards are just better than anyone else...just because they have that label. Yay. No thanks. It's incoherent with respect to the worlds and to itself. And leads to stomping on everyone else's thematic toes and horrible class design.
Wizard do not need to be better than anyone else, and I agree it'd be better if they weren't. IMO, they should be the most versatile, but innate casters should have higher heights. But if the creators disagree with this, fair enough.


that can't happen overnight or in the field.
Who says that it happens overnight?


It's like if druids wouldn't wear metal armor in the fiction, but all of their class features required wearing metal armor. The fiction and the mechanics just don't mesh at all..
The fact is that the wizard starts with spells and formulas they himself wrote on a book. That's the tangible prior activity. Okay, it may not be the equivalent of a PHD, but there's some study/activity behind nonetheless.


a) being a wizard means getting a PhD in magic, so it's only fair that they're the best caster ever hands down and can cast all the spells and their whole thing is casting spells and how dare you take anything away from them or not give them access to a spell
b) being a wizard is something that can happen literally overnight with no preparation and no particular aptitude or training. Just picking up a book is enough.
The moment a level (in anything, let alone the Wizard) is gained, it means training and preparation have been devoted into it. That's the meaning of experience.

[BRC]

Those settings are not D&D settings. D&D puts specific metaphysical requirements on settings, one of which (cf the Magic chapter sidebar about the Weave) is that magic is a natural part of the world's physics. D&D humans are not real-life humans. Or LotR humans. Or anything else.



Taking levels is a purely meta thing. Not an in-universe thing. And yes, multiclassing is inherently screwy. But wizards can't actually require a lifetime of study, because otherwise there would be requirements on it. Both in-fiction and mechanically. Wizards have notional requirements, not actual requirements.

And druids are in nature all the time, kinda necessarily. And someone can be a natural with a sword (proficiency is not training), but you can't be a natural at something that requires (by your definition) years of training.

Someone can pick up being a wizard on the fly. CF Elminster. That is incompatible with any "requires study" requirement.



Ie wizard supremacy, wizards are just better than anyone else...just because they have that label. Yay. No thanks. It's incoherent with respect to the worlds and to itself. And leads to stomping on everyone else's thematic toes and horrible class design.

If you need a PhD level of understanding (your word, not mine), that can't happen overnight or in the field. Their fiction (such as it is) is incompatible with the practice. It's like if druids wouldn't wear metal armor in the fiction, but all of their class features required wearing metal armor. The fiction and the mechanics just don't mesh at all.



Right. But it's one born out of a lot of struggle to make the fiction work in a could-be-real setting.



I don't really have a problem with it other than it's not stated (and the reverse is stated). I want them to be honest about what being a wizard is. Rebranding it as the magical girl class (maybe a subclass of warlock, really, with the patron being the book or the accumulated knowledge of ages) would make the problems go away. But you can't have

a) being a wizard means getting a PhD in magic, so it's only fair that they're the best caster ever hands down and can cast all the spells and their whole thing is casting spells and how dare you take anything away from them or not give them access to a spell
b) being a wizard is something that can happen literally overnight with no preparation and no particular aptitude or training. Just picking up a book is enough.

at the same time. The two are fictionally incompatible. I resolve it by refuting (a) in its entirety--wizards aren't experts in magic. They're rote practitioners, learning by memorization and PC wizards have a quirk that lets them pick it up real fast. All PCs have that same sort of quirk, not just wizards. Because PCs grow anomalously fast (anomalously if you want a setting worth more than cardboard).


It seems like you're trying to find a Mechanical solution to a Worldbuilding question eg "What does it mean to take your first level of Wizard"

The answer to that question should be setting-specific, and the setting should be consistent. If a 1st level Wizard has already completed years of magical training, then there should not be multiclassing to wizard in that setting, if anybody of reasonable intelligence can read a book for a week and get 2 cantrips and 3 first level spells, then the setting should account for the idea that being a 1st level wizard is a pretty accessible thing.

I can personally think of a dozen acceptable approaches, from "no multiclassing to wizard" to "Multiclass wizard's can't go above 3 levels due to weak fundamentals unless they spend years learning the magical theory necessary to support heftier spells"


I could even come up with some lore about how being a wizard requires the ability to "Grasp the True Nature of Magic", allowing you to perceive and draw in the ambient magic around you. "Grasping the True Nature of Magic" is more akin to music than math, it's not as simple as knowing the right facts, but the more you know about the nature of magic, the easier it becomes. Some people can pick it up quickly, for most it takes years of training to reliably cast a cantrip, but picking it up quickly doesn't mean you're going to be a better wizard than somebody who needed training, it just means that you had a knack that got you over the first hurdle.


But in the end, that should be a setting detail.


Edit: If I had to pick an approach to codify, it would be that Unless your background accounts for extensive magical training (or at least Arcana proficiency), you cannot take more than 3 levels in wizard.

Basic magic, cantrips and 1st level spells, are easy enough to learn by rote. Once you get to 3rd level spells, the amount of energy being moved around requires a broad grasp of fundamental magical theory to be able to safely manage. You cannot cast "Fireball" simply by reciting the right words and making the right gestures, not if you don't want it to explode in your face.
Maybe you can rote-cast 3rd level spells in extremely controlled conditions, but for practical purposes, anything above 2nd level requires enough on-the-fly adjustment to the circumstances that knowing HOW to cast the spell isn't enough, you need to understand the underlying forces at play well enough to make adjustments. Think of it like construction. It's easy to learn to use some power tools and build a small shed, but the bigger and more complex your project is, the more background knowledge of architecture, engineering, plumbing, electricity, ect you require.

Beyond that knowledge, there's the skill of drawing in and channeling power. This is what ALL casting classes gain as they level up/are trained. Everybody but wizards has their magic set on Autocorrect, whether because their magic is innate, or because it's provided by an external force. Wizards need to draw in an shape magic, hence why they need this extra knowledge.

So people come out of wizard school at 1st level, not because it's the best way to become a 1st level wizard, but because it gives them the background needed to one day become a 5th level wizard. A formally trained wizard is generally just as good a wizard as somebody who just picked it up, but they've got the fundamentals needed to go a lot farther.

[JNAProductions]

Also, PCs are (in 5E at least) exceptional.

A PC can, given constant encounters, go from 1st level spells to 5th level spells in a week or two. I don't see it as contradictory to state "Being a Wizard typically requires years of study to master even a basic cantrip," and "A PC Samurai Fighter can freely multiclass into Wizard, provided they have a Strength and Intelligence or Dexterity and Intelligence of 13+."

If you phrase it as "Being a Wizard always requires years of study," then sure, they're contradictory. But I would be absolutely shocked if you haven't met anyone in your life who masters stuff faster than you do, or slower. What takes years of constant study for one person takes a month of hard work for another and is impossible for a third person without dedicating their entire life.

[Snails]

Yeah, Charisma is a superior fit for inherently magical creatures. But most of the PC population (humans) is not though. Bookworm spellcasting is an outlier as much as the use of technology is in the real world, but I challenge you to find a RPG set in the modern world without some emphasis on technology.

Or more simply, you could also draw a parallel with weapons, and say that bookworm magic stands to sorcery much like manufactured weapons stand to natural ones. Both represent natural limitations overcome by ingenuity.

Call of Cthulu. Era appropriate technology is a thing, but it is not emphasized in the manner you are suggesting. You could literally find yourself in a firefight in 'Nam, but you have guns because everyone has guns. You might be very good with guns because your particular PC is that kind of hero. But knowledge of a technology does not represent any kind of special achievement in ingenuity. All the PCs/protangonists are very good at something, and attempt to be somewhat clever in applying whatever resources are on hand.

Getting back to the original topic, the default assumption is all PC Races have plenty of potential to be magical heroes/villains via a Cha-based route: Sorcerer, Warlock, Bard, Paladin.

There is nothing at all wrong with enthusiastically wanting bookworm spell casting to be very important in your setting. But that is a setting choice, not something strongly suggested by the concept of an Int spell caster. To strongly associate Humans with Wizards is a setting choice.

[Psyren]

An urchin with no backstory other than "found book" is suddenly the best caster in the game. Overnight. That's not glossed over, that's actively rejected.

1) At first level, an urchin wizard might be the "best caster" but only compared to every other class at level one. Their actual abilities are still reasonably aligned to their experience and station. That urchin could trip over Halaster's spellbook blessed by Azuth himself, and they still will only be able to cast cantrips and small handful of 1st-level spells.

2) You appear to be assuming an urchin prodigy with high-Int here (well above that of a commoner or even expert/noble), in which case they should be good at wizardry. That's great and meritocratic. If you aren't assuming they have high Int, then they're not going to be the best simply because they attempted to become a wizard.

[Captain Cap]

Call of Cthulu. Era appropriate technology is a thing, but it is not emphasized in the manner you are suggesting. You could literally find yourself in a firefight in 'Nam, but you have guns because everyone has guns.
That's what I'm talking about: humans don't naturally shoot bullets, but they're able to do so via technology, via something that no other real living being is capable of reproducing. But just because 99.999% of all species do not develop technology, it doesn't make sense for a RPG revolving around humans not to display technology (even the most basic car, gun etc.).
At the same time, just because the majority of magical beings in D&D casts with Charisma, it doesn't mean PCs in general should too.


But knowledge of a technology does not represent any kind of special achievement in ingenuity.
Technology IS the special achievement of ingenuity. The most direct equivalent to D&D of real life tech is the magic of an Artificer: others can benefits from his inventions without particular knowledge or training, fact remains that the Artificer needs study and practice to create them.


Getting back to the original topic, the default assumption is all PC Races have plenty of potential to be magical heroes/villains via a Cha-based route
The default assumption is simply that PCs can wield magic via Wis, Cha or Int, depending on the route chosen.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) At first level, an urchin wizard might be the "best caster" but only compared to every other class at level one. Their actual abilities are still reasonably aligned to their experience and station. That urchin could trip over Halaster's spellbook blessed by Azuth himself, and they still will only be able to cast cantrips and small handful of 1st-level spells.

2) You appear to be assuming an urchin prodigy with high-Int here (well above that of a commoner or even expert/noble), in which case they should be good at wizardry. That's great and meritocratic. If you aren't assuming they have high Int, then they're not going to be the best simply because they attempted to become a wizard.

Yes, that was the comparison, with other 1st levels.

But the statement I was refuting was that being a wizard entails PhD level study. Those are incompatible statements, that you can have a 1st level urchin wizard who just picked up a book and that being a wizard is getting a PhD in magic.

The idea that all wizards are scholars and sages just doesn't hold.

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

If having the spellbook was really a UCT, I'd expect it to look a lot more like (as an example) this:

Imagine if the wizard was really a book-based caster. Literally. Their power comes from their bond with a magical grimoire, an entity (albeit one without a personality) in its own right. They bond with this book and together draw magic. The book evolves with the caster and acts as their auxiliary computational unit--the wizard offloads a lot of the computations and intricacies onto the book. But is dependent on it in two ways--they need the book nearby to cast more than cantrips AND the book's own nature limits/constrains what spells it handles best. They only know what they've figured out personally (at least by default), so they'd have limited spells known. Like...very. 1 per level or less, plus some bonus spells via subclass and access to rituals. But they could add to it in two ways: scribing scrolls (which in this model would be having the book absorb the information) and their UCT.

Then their UCT could be something like Record Dweomer: When you see a spell be cast or magical effect be created within X feet, you can use your reaction to attempt to record the pattern of the magic. Make an Intelligence (Arcana) check against a DC of Y (based on level of spell or cr/level of creature). If you succeed, you record it temporarily. You can hold up to Z effects in this way (probably scaling with level), but no effect can be higher than something you can create[1]. If you record a dweomer that would put you over the limit, you can choose to sacrifice a different one, removing it from your book. You can hold duplicates of effects you already have recorded.

Replicate Dweomer: As an action, you can bring forth one of the recorded effects that you've captured. The effect takes place as if you'd created it--if it requires a saving throw or attack roll, use your spellcasting modifier. Once you do so, that copy of the effect is removed from your book.

<At some higher level> when you Record an effect of <Q> level or lower, you can add it permanently into your spellbook. Replicating it does not remove it from your book. You can only have P spells added this way; if you want to add additional ones they must overwrite existing ones.

The end result is that you're actively seeking out magical spells and effects--if the cleric casts cure wounds, you can copy it and use it later (as if it was a scroll). If the monster uses Big Flame Burst...you can copy that as well.

Throw in some features around rituals and countering magic (because if you can record it you can scramble it better) and you've got yourself a coherent class.

[1] this requires mechanical efforts to try to pin down what that means for other magical effects, but I'd say "spells of levels you could cast" would be a starting point.

[Rukelnikov]

Technology IS the special achievement of ingenuity. The most direct equivalent to D&D of real life tech is the magic of an Artificer: others can benefits from his inventions without particular knowledge or training, fact remains that the Artificer needs study and practice to create them.

I'd say from their approaches to magic that Artificers would be like engineers, where Wizards would be Physicists with the somewhat rare Mathematician (like the Geometers)

[Captain Cap]

I'd say from their approaches to magic that Artificers would be like engineers, where Wizards would be Physicists with the somewhat rare Mathematician (like the Geometers)
Man, I wish I could shoot lightning with my knowledge of electrodynamics :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Yes, that was the comparison, with other 1st levels.

But the statement I was refuting was that being a wizard entails PhD level study. Those are incompatible statements, that you can have a 1st level urchin wizard who just picked up a book and that being a wizard is getting a PhD in magic.

The idea that all wizards are scholars and sages just doesn't hold.

Not everyone who gets an A+ in high school Biology is capable of becoming a neuroscientist either; you're railing against an argument nobody made. Low level wizards, even talented ones, don't have to be PhDs, but if you are capable of reaching high levels in the class then clearly you were one of the genius few who could be.

To the rest - sure, I wouldn't be opposed to new ways of actively tying the book into the class.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not everyone who gets an A+ in high school Biology is capable of becoming a neuroscientist either; you're railing against an argument nobody made. Low level wizards, even talented ones, don't have to be PhDs, but if you are capable of reaching high levels in the class then clearly you were one of the genius few who could be.

To the rest - sure, I wouldn't be opposed to new ways of actively tying the book into the class.

You're changing the argument. My point was that if anyone can become a wizard (even a 1st level one, which I specifically mentioned), why aren't there lots of those from anyone with free time. The rejoinder was (and this is a literal quote from upthread)



That's like saying anyone with some leisure time can learn the competences equivalent to a doctorate in nuclear science.


That is, that being a first level wizard is equivalent to having a doctorate in nuclear science. As someone with a doctorate in computational quantum chemistry, that greatly devalues that level of training.

The analogy doesn't work for a lot of other reasons, but those are separate.

[Rukelnikov]

Man, I wish I could shoot lightning with my knowledge of electrodynamics :smallbiggrin:

I think there were some weapons developments inspired by tesla coils that actually shoot lightning, so, in a way, it does allow you too.

[Captain Cap]

My point was that if anyone can become a wizard (even a 1st level one, which I specifically mentioned), why aren't there lots of those from anyone with free time.
Because they don't put enough effort in to gain a level?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think there were some weapons developments inspired by tesla coils that actually shoot lightning, so, in a way, it does allow you too.

Or anyone else who gets ahold of it.

The comparison of tech to wizardry falls flat for me--

With tech, creating it for the first time is the hard part. Once it's built, making more is generally easy and using it is even easier. Any moron can use a computer, which relies on highly arcane (pun intended) matters of material science.

With wizardry, only wizards can do it. At all. No one else can be taught to do so without them becoming a wizard themselves. It's more like building the computer from scratch every time you want to use it.

The two are very different--wizardry is an elite thing, technology is democratizing. Wizardry is esoteric (hidden, accessible only to those in the know/special people), technology is exoteric (suitable for common use).


Because they don't put enough effort in to gain a level?

As shown, that level is stupidly low. Like "urchin picks up book despite never going to school" low. So low in fact that having it be a class (ie restricted and mutually exclusive with other learning) is utter nonsense.

[Captain Cap]

With wizardry, only wizards can do it. At all. No one else can be taught to do so without them becoming a wizard themselves. It's more like building the computer from scratch every time you want to use it.

The two are very different--wizardry is an elite thing, technology is democratizing. Wizardry is esoteric (hidden, accessible only to those in the know/special people), technology is exoteric (suitable for common use).
You can say the same about math.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You can say the same about math.

Except...not. Math is just a language. It's like Arcana proficiency. Actually casting spells is very different.

[Psyren]

You're changing the argument. My point was that if anyone can become a wizard (even a 1st level one, which I specifically mentioned), why aren't there lots of those from anyone with free time. The rejoinder was (and this is a literal quote from upthread)

That is, that being a first level wizard is equivalent to having a doctorate in nuclear science. As someone with a doctorate in computational quantum chemistry, that greatly devalues that level of training.

I'm not. Not every high school student can get a A+ in Biology either. But a lot more people can do that, than can become PhDs and MDs.

In short, the conclusion you're presenting (that every level 1 wizard must be a verisimilitude-breaking genius sage or scholar regardless of background, training, or upbringing) is a false one. The HIGH-LEVEL wizards are those things, certainly, but by the time you reach those heights your background and childhood don't matter nearly as much as the events of the campaign.

[Captain Cap]

Except...not. Math is just a language. It's like Arcana proficiency. Actually casting spells is very different.
Except your average Joe doesn't know how to DO advanced math, even if he recognizes the symbols. It may very well be magic to him, unless he learns how to do advanced math and so becomes a mathematician.


As shown, that level is stupidly low. Like "urchin picks up book despite never going to school" low. So low in fact that having it be a class (ie restricted and mutually exclusive with other learning) is utter nonsense.
If the effort to gain a class is low, then why my wizard doesn't ever get proficiency in martial weapons and armors without multiclassing?

[Dienekes]

I mean back in earlier editions, wizards had some of the highest required starting ages specifically to show that the difficulty of taking the class. And if we’re going off economics just buying a wizards spellbook which you kinda need to start learning spells was something like 50 years of a peasants wages. Now admittedly that didn’t actually work out when really looking at how the profession skill used to work. But D&D has always been crap at simulationism.

Which brings us to the class. Yeah. In 5e a theoretical 5 year old Barbarian could just multi class into Wizard. But that’s the price we pay for making a simple system.

Unless we wanted to do something like: to multiclass into a wizard you must already have Proficiendy in Arcana skill, and be able to cast at least 1 arcane spells. Which would at least require a feat and some build decisions to demonstrate your character was preparing for this change in career. But I think most players would oppose such a change.

[ahyangyi]

The current multiclass system is used to support two very different kinds of concepts:

1. A fighter who attends a wizard school and learns magic (organic growth, where the order of gaining levels matter as the story)
2. A magical fighter, represented by a fighter/wizard multiclass build (gish build, where the order of gaining levels is just a mechanical detail)

While it might be interesting to have an alternative system to tell the difference between the two cases, since the end result is the same, why bother?

[Witty Username]

Metamagic isn't unique, or particularly cool beyond a couple options. It is a grab bag of features that exist on other classes, with a resource pool. There are a few options like subtle spell, but that is the only one of any merit on this front.

Wizards have the spellbook, it is unique, coolness is YMMV.
--
Fighter gets Extra Attack(2). They are the best comunicated martial in the game, they fight, better then you. Cool + unique.

[TaiLiu]

For sure. I think some Powered By the Apocalypse games tend to do both relatively well, compared to D&D 5e. In contrast, classes just kinda tend to mean very little in 5e, and optional multiclassing dilutes them even more.

As a corollary, a third principle might be: each player must play a different class. That way there's no archetype overlap and minimal cool thing overlap.

As an aside, Monster of the Week gives Use Magic to everyone, making it less of a big thing. But the feel of the game is very different from 5e.

[Rukelnikov]

That way there's no archetype overlap and minimal cool thing overlap.

Why is overlap a problem?

[Anymage]

Why is overlap a problem?

Because if my cool thing and your cool thing are the same, there'll be spotlight issues over who gets to push their cool thing button when the right circumstance arises. Although that does depend on how tightly niche and how niche protected each character class or equivalent is; warlocks have enough build diversity that multiple in the party can each have their own shtick (although in this case it's still smart to talk things over during session zero so you don't have two people independently wanting the same build), while PbtA playbooks are more tightly themed and as such mean that duplication is very likely to result in two characters who shine in the same circumstances.

[Dienekes]

Fighter gets Extra Attack(2). They are the best comunicated martial in the game, they fight, better then you. Cool + unique.

By this, Fighters do not get their cool thing until level 11. For reference polling numbers say most games end before level 7.

While I personally disagree that Extra Attack(2) is even all that cool. Even if I accept that it is, we’re stating that the majority of Fighter players never experience Fighter’s cool thing during their game.

That’s just bad design.

[Notafish]

The current multiclass system is used to support two very different kinds of concepts:

1. A fighter who attends a wizard school and learns magic (organic growth, where the order of gaining levels matter as the story)
2. A magical fighter, represented by a fighter/wizard multiclass build (gish build, where the order of gaining levels is just a mechanical detail)

While it might be interesting to have an alternative system to tell the difference between the two cases, since the end result is the same, why bother?

I think this is more of an issue of the leveling system than the class system, really. The rules don't give guidance for how leveling up should be fictionalized - whether there are interludes in which characters gain new abilities, or if they simply gain enough xp and transform into more effective combatants. Personally, I like the interlude system better for telling stories, but it slows down gameplay and doesn't fit all campaigns. If we're doing immediate advancement, I think it's a lot easier to explain it as an abstract game device, rather than something that needs to be explained in-universe.

[Rukelnikov]

By this, Fighters do not get their cool thing until level 11. For reference polling numbers say most games end before level 7.

While I personally disagree that Extra Attack(2) is even all that cool. Even if I accept that it is, we’re stating that the majority of Fighter players never experience Fighter’s cool thing during their game.

That’s just bad design.

The Fighter is the most flexible combatant, they get that by getting a Fighting Style earlier than others, by qualifying for the class with either Str or Dex, and by getting an Extra ASI at 6th.

If you wanted to name an active ability that is their trademark or special thing, in 5e it would be Action Surge.

[Dienekes]

The Fighter is the most flexible combatant, they get that by getting a Fighting Style earlier than others, by qualifying for the class with either Str or Dex, and by getting an Extra ASI at 6th.

If you wanted to name an active ability that is their trademark or special thing, in 5e it would be Action Surge.

1 level. They get fighting style 1 before the other classes. And FS is one of the most boring features in the game. I’ll admit Tasha’s helped but the majority of it are static numbers that you put on your sheet and never engage with afterwards and most of those that aren’t are somehow worse.

Now Action Surge fits, though it wasn’t what Witty Username brought up. But for me I’ll go back to where I think personal unique features is far less interesting to me than unique gameplay. I like classes where basically every round they look and feel distinct in how they’re actively participating in the game compared to everyone else. And I think that’s where a lot of D&D class design falls down. Because, yes for example the Barbarian rages and the Fighter has Action Surge. But most rounds of the game they’re not actually doing anything interesting but making the same attack rolls. One might make more the other might hit harder. But they’re both just watching hp go down. With little input otherwise or reason to behave distinctly.

[Rukelnikov]

1 level. They get fighting style 1 before the other classes. And FS is one of the most boring features in the game. I’ll admit Tasha’s helped but the majority of it are static numbers that you put on your sheet and never engage with afterwards and most of those that aren’t are somehow worse.

Now Action Surge fits, though it wasn’t what Witty Username brought up. But for me I’ll go back to where I think personal unique features is far less interesting to me than unique gameplay. I like classes where basically every round they look and feel distinct in how they’re actively participating in the game compared to everyone else. And I think that’s where a lot of D&D class design falls down. Because, yes for example the Barbarian rages and the Fighter has Action Surge. But most rounds of the game they’re not actually doing anything interesting but making the same attack rolls. One might make more the other might hit harder. But they’re both just watching hp go down. With little input otherwise or reason to behave distinctly.

I agree, that's why I think changes to weapons would be very beneficial to spice up attack action based combat, though the change to Light weapon might not have been intended given it isn't listed as a change in the changelog sidebar.

[Slingbow]

D&D wizards are really magical "girls" whose item is their book.

You're such a virgin.

[Psyren]

Wizards have the spellbook, it is unique, coolness is YMMV.

I'd say unlimited spells known, and the ability to cast any ritual you know without preparing it, are pretty cool. Not that I would be opposed to wizards getting more stuff, but those aren't nothing.


Metamagic isn't unique, or particularly cool beyond a couple options. It is a grab bag of features that exist on other classes, with a resource pool. There are a few options like subtle spell, but that is the only one of any merit on this front.

The scaling of the pool makes it unique. Any caster can get metamagic through a feat, but getting more than two points changes what you can do with the feature substantially; similarly, being able to do use it sequentially changes things too.

[TaiLiu]

Why is overlap a problem?

Because if my cool thing and your cool thing are the same, there'll be spotlight issues over who gets to push their cool thing button when the right circumstance arises. Although that does depend on how tightly niche and how niche protected each character class or equivalent is; warlocks have enough build diversity that multiple in the party can each have their own shtick (although in this case it's still smart to talk things over during session zero so you don't have two people independently wanting the same build), while PbtA playbooks are more tightly themed and as such mean that duplication is very likely to result in two characters who shine in the same circumstances.
Right, exactly! If the point of having distinct classes is to have distinct archetypes and powers, then characters shouldn't overlap, cuz then they won't be distinct anymore.

Overlap isn't necessarily a problem. There are lots of media where thematic and archetypal overlap work well. In Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra, benders of the same element often synchronize, and those scenes are really cool. In Jemisin's Broken Earth trilogy, there are places where orogenes work together to do something greater than they could do alone. More generally, there's the trope of spellcasters working together to do a magic ritual.

But, well... TV shows and books are tightly controlled by writers. TTRPGs are a lot more chaotic, and so there are a lot of places where overlap makes spotlight issues instead of creating a cool synchronized scene. You could work on mechanics and social agreements to resolve that, or you can just say no class overlap. The latter being the default makes sense to me.

[Witty Username]

The scaling of the pool makes it unique. Any caster can get metamagic through a feat, but getting more than two points changes what you can do with the feature substantially; similarly, being able to do use it sequentially changes things too.

So, something like arcane recovery would be a unique feature, as there are other ways to get spells back but not in the same way?
--
Take say Careful spell, picking a number of creatures that have a save guarantee. Mildly interesting. But it is basically the same feature as Sculpt Spells (which I personally find more interesting because it is better defined in how it is supposed to be used and what it is supposed to apply to). Neither of these things are unique it the way the OP seems to describe.

Not to mention the OP mentions that the unique thing should be gotten by level 2, which would disqualify metamagic.

[Goobahfish]

From a game design perspective, Wizards are a bit of an anomaly.

The reason I say that 'sorcerers' should be the default has nothing to do with the fluff (aesthetic description) and everything to do with the mechanics.

A character who can ably cast a few magical spells is a far more 'normal' approach to game design than a character that 'can do literally anything'. If Illusionist was a subclass of Sorcerer (you get all the Illusion spells added to your list), it would make much more sense than Illusionist wizard (you already have all Illusion spells on your list... you cast Illusion spells... slightly... the same most of the time).

From a mechanics perspective it is very strange to have a 'normal class' where players are required to consider a slew of different options literally every day. For Wizards, Clerics & Druids this seems to be the default. A far more player-friendly approach is to have them choose from a narrow list (do you want to do X or Y). For those players that want to be a 'book-wizard', having that in the area of a 'subclass' choice is far more logical mechanically as the 'bonus' is versatility.

Unfortunately, there is design baggage in D&D which means this will never change. Wizard/Cleric/Fighter were where it started and surprisingly little has changed in the Wizard space in all that time (obviously spells etc have been tweaked). It isn't going anywhere (for better or worse).

[Witty Username]

Sorcerer has all the same design problems as any other caster, with the caviot that it is at the build layer primarily. It means that mistakes made with sorcerer are much more difficult to fix at the play layer.
Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Plaladin and Artificer - the prepared casters - have much simpler play layer solutions, all implemented in game mechanics.
The other spontaneous casters, Bard, Ranger and Warlock, tend to have the solve as having regular things to do regardless of spell selection.

Sorcerer is, from observation, one of the worst casters for a new player, mechanically speaking.
Balance wise, I am not convinced sorcerer is the solution either (given something like half of the optimization build that are labeled -broken: avoid - are sorcerer multiclasses, and the other half are avoid twilight cleric and moon druid generally)

[Goobahfish]

Sorcerer has all the same design problems as any other caster, with the caviot that it is at the build layer primarily. It means that mistakes made with sorcerer are much more difficult to fix at the play layer.
Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Plaladin and Artificer - the prepared casters - have much simpler play layer solutions, all implemented in game mechanics.
The other spontaneous casters, Bard, Ranger and Warlock, tend to have the solve as having regular things to do regardless of spell selection.

Sorcerer is, from observation, one of the worst casters for a new player, mechanically speaking.
Balance wise, I am not convinced sorcerer is the solution either (given something like half of the optimization build that are labeled -broken: avoid - are sorcerer multiclasses, and the other half are avoid twilight cleric and moon druid generally)

Wizard has all the disadvantages of sorcerer given that you need to select your spell list (i.e., spells in your book) prior to play and then select from your book during play (more wasted time). I'm not seeing this as a good argument.

Sorcerer-multiclasses being broken is mostly because of bad wording which is easily fixed and hardly a reason for why sorcerer isn't a more 'basic idea for a class' than wizard.

With the way Wizards are redesigning classes (i.e., you start with these spells... unless you don't), Sorcerers (or rather limited spell selection casters) should be the easiest caster to play. You have these spells. You can cast them using these resources.

Wizards, you have this laundry list of spells which you will eventually be able to use. Decision paralysis, here we come.

[Witty Username]

Wizard has all the disadvantages of sorcerer given that you need to select your spell list (i.e., spells in your book) prior to play and then select from your book during play (more wasted time). I'm not seeing this as a good argument.


The concern is the unworkable spell list for play:
Take the wizard, the player picks spells they find interesting, this list proves problematic for gameplay, the DM provides a few spell scrolls to fill gaps and the problems disappear.
For the sorcerer, the similar problem occurs, and the player is forced to spend 2-3 levels to re order their spell list and spends multiple sessions miserable.

And poor lists are easier to make accidentally on sorcerer as their spells known is much lower. (Sorcerer and Ranger have close numbers in spells known)

Most players avoid this problem with sorcerer because of either, an experienced DM that does alot of handholding or an experienced player that understands the restrictive nature of sorcerer.

[Goobahfish]

The concern is the unworkable spell list for play:
Take the wizard, the player picks spells they find interesting, this list proves problematic for gameplay, the DM provides a few spell scrolls to fill gaps and the problems disappear.
For the sorcerer, the similar problem occurs, and the player is forced to spend 2-3 levels to re order their spell list and spends multiple sessions miserable.

And poor lists are easier to make accidentally on sorcerer as their spells known is much lower. (Sorcerer and Ranger have close numbers in spells known)

Most players avoid this problem with sorcerer because of either, an experienced DM that does alot of handholding or an experienced player that understands the restrictive nature of sorcerer.

I think I have assumed your third point so thoroughly that your perspective didn't make sense to me. It is a pretty lame DM that doesn't let you respec when your character turns out to be 'unfun' or niche-to-the-point-of-uselessness.

As I said above, I think with WOTC basically spelling out what spells you have (unless you want other ones) a lot of this issue will disappear. I still maintain that a 'small list of thematic spells' is the more 'natural' version of the spellcaster from a game design perspective (every video game and most other RPGs work this way). The same thing applies to abilities like Wildshape where the default should probably be... you pick one animal form (or maybe a handful) and there is a subclass that has 'pick them all'.

If wizard was a specialization of a different class, virtually no one would probably complain about them. It is because they are 'wizard + extra stuff' that they become really obnoxious.

[Devils_Advocate]

That is, that being a first level wizard is equivalent to having a doctorate in nuclear science. As someone with a doctorate in computational quantum chemistry, that greatly devalues that level of training.
I'll admit that I'm intrigued by the implication that the benefits of your education far exceed the ability to cast first level spells. Honestly, though, that's probably a very "apples to oranges" comparison.


With tech, creating it for the first time is the hard part. Once it's built, making more is generally easy and using it is even easier. Any moron can use a computer, which relies on highly arcane (pun intended) matters of material science.

With wizardry, only wizards can do it. At all. No one else can be taught to do so without them becoming a wizard themselves. It's more like building the computer from scratch every time you want to use it.

The two are very different--wizardry is an elite thing, technology is democratizing. Wizardry is esoteric (hidden, accessible only to those in the know/special people), technology is exoteric (suitable for common use).


As shown, that level is stupidly low. Like "urchin picks up book despite never going to school" low. So low in fact that having it be a class (ie restricted and mutually exclusive with other learning) is utter nonsense.
Wait, is wizardry as hard as building a computer or as easy as picking up a book? It feels like you're contradicting yourself here.

"Only an exceptional prodigy can become a member of this class without years of training" seems like sufficient explanation for wizards being rare that still permits the odd, y'know, prodigy. Especially when you add in that most of the lower classes don't have access to spellbooks.

Beyond that, I'm just going to echo the observation that it's not somehow part of the Wizard class that players aren't explicitly forbidden from creating characters whose abilities and backstory make no sense together. You can indeed make a character who speaks two languages despite being raised by wild animals and never having heard a language, and that doesn't technically violate any rules, but that doesn't mean that that's gonna fly with the DM and other players. Same with learning to cast spells in only a day. If that's Elminster's backstory, then Elminster has a backstory that I'd expect to be rejected at most tables (and, given what I've already heard of him, I am disappointed but not surprised).