The Design Choice of Targeted Utility

[Asisreo1]

Have you ever played a class in the game and went:
"I'm not having fun in this class. Its not necessarily weak, but the hoops or burdens I have to take in order to be effective is too boring."

That may not be unintentional. A common design philosophy in this edition is that the class must appeal to the players that enjoy the class.

For an easy example, the Fighter class is a class for players that enjoy fighting. That's what they opt into. You purposely forgo the opportunity to have a spell for every occasion and instead lean into having resourceless resilience and strength. You can help with physical activities but you're fine letting the Wizard cast Banishment on the BBEG knowing that if he fails, you're able to reliably stand toe-to-toe with it and keep the enemy at bay.

Some players feel like they should have the opportunity to raze hell with a single all-or-nothing attack that can decidedly end it all in one turn. WoTC sees this and instead of saying "Here's a fighter subclass that fits this archetype," they say "Have you considered the Paladin?"

A sorcerer who wants to have ritual spells and a bigger spell list instead of Font of Magic and Metamagic gets told to play a Wizard or Bard.

The Main Idea is that this design choice can lead to an isolated experience from players. Someone might want to branch out from their favorite class only to be stuck in a class that plays to their fun antithesis.

Is this a bad thing, though?

WoTC have limited time and resources. They must playtest everything they push out and understand the implications of any additions or changes. Was it wise to focus their efforts on making the classes distinct and fun for those that would enjoy the class regardless? Or should they have cut off whole classes like the Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, Warlock, and Bard to have well-rounded subclass of Rogues, Fighters, Wizards, and Clerics so that no matter what class a player tries, there's a subclass or archetype that appeases them somehow?

I'm interested in the community's answers.

[Silly Name]

Is this a bad thing, though?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: if every class were able, through some combination of subclass and feats (plus or minus multiclassing), to do everything that any other class could, then they'd rapidly lose meaning as distinct game constructs. While we can debate all day about why we have character classes, I don't think there's any disagreement that Paladins should play differently from Wizards and so on.

There is, currently, enough variety in the system that I doubt you could pigeon-hole yourself in a completely unfun role unless you were actively trying to, or were forced by the other players (in which case it's a table problem, not a game design problem). If you don't like being expected to heal and patch up your fellow players, you can either take the path of least resistance and play anything but a Cleric, or make it clear that your Cleric will not be a healbot.

Wizards don't get to wear armor (well, ok, they can snatch proficiency with feats, but it's hardly worth it unless that's a specific concept you're working towards). Fighters don't cast fireballs, Rogues don't wield two-handed greataxes and unleash primal fury on their enemies. That's ok, that's more than ok, it's good for the class system to have every class be mechanically (and narratively) distinct enough that you don't feel like your idea of playing a mighty paladin would have been better modeled by going pure Cleric, or that your wily rogue should have been a high-INT Bard.

Now, if you play long enough, there's probably a few characters you haven't enjoyed playing. Reasons may vary, but focusing on those that you would have found mechanically unsatisfying, I tend to look at them as learning experiences: I learnt I strongly dislike summoners because all the added creatures bog down combat; I eventually figured out that playing either pure casters or pure melee is a bit boring to me and that I love gishes, regardless of power or optimisation.

And, hey, if I find a character I've made to be boring or miserable to play? If it's not a one-shot, I can always change it. Talk with the DM and, unless they're unreasonable or you're suggesting something game or immersion breaking, they'll almost certainly let you switch characters.

[Pex]

It's not a problem classes do some things well and other things not well. It's not the fighter's fault he's not a sorcerer. It's not the warlock's fault he's not a bard. Those who want a bit more variety in their character can multiclass. Those who absolutely need more freedom to choose whatever abliity they want anytime to do anything should look at other game systems, usually a build points system. They're entitled to prefer such systems. They don't have to like D&D for this very reason, but D&D is not wrong to have a class system and need not apologize for it.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd be inclined to agree if either:

1. Playstyles were less redundant between the classes
2. There was more definition on what those spheres of gameplay was for each class as opposed to defining their themes (which is officially irrelevant)

On #1, there's not really that much difference between Dexterity Fighters, Rangers, or Rogues. Sure, there's a little bit of focus on nature in the Ranger, and the Rogue gets a bit more emphasis on skills, but those can all be covered with feats, subclasses, racial powers, etc., which is why you end up with issues like how the Ranger feels generic (despite having some of the most unique powers).

Between a Strength Fighter and a Strength Barbarian, there isn't enough of a playstyle difference to really say that they fulfill different niches. Not in the same way that swapping your party's Cleric for a Rogue would do. Mentally, I just clump anything with either a 1d10 Hit Die or a shield into the same "Meatstick" category and they all fulfill the same jobs. Even a difference of "Well, I use Dexterity instead of Strength, so that's interesting" really doesn't matter when you consider how often Strength checks come up or how often something further than throwing range becomes a problem. That guy is going to deal a bunch of damage, absorb damage so I don't have to, do some random flashy stuff that doesn't matter to me or my strategy, exactly like the meatstick before him.

Not to mention that all of the martial classes rely on the same mechanic: The Attack Action. This is so true that the Fighter has 25% of his levels devoted to enhancing the Attack Action in some way. There generally is very little modification to the rolls related to the Attack Action throughout those levels, other than just increasing beneficial numbers and decreasing bad numbers.

Had they done something akin to "Rangers get a Hunter die each time they hit a target that's isolated to spend on a Ranger power in the same encounter", or "Barbarians move targets they hit by 5 feet", I'd agree.

But the ceiling between "Extremely stale and overdone" and "The weirdest stuff you've ever considered" is dreadfully shallow. Even Divine Smite, one of the coolest attack modifiers in the game, is nothing more than "Add damage to something that was already doing damage".


Ignoring theme, people care about:
Complexity vs. Simplicity, Melee vs. Range, Combat vs. Worldbuilding. That's a pretty easy formula that would need a max of 8 classes to make, yet we have 13 and still don't have a complex melee combatant that rivals anything close to a full caster.

[EDIT]: Thinking about it, some of the recent updates to the Artificer may pull off "Complex Melee Combatant" well, but that's more of a subclass thing than a class thing. It's not like we have "The Simple Fighter and Difficult Barbarian", for instance.

[heavyfuel]

I'd be inclined to agree if either:

1. Playstyles were less redundant between the classes

Couldn't agree more here. At the end of the day, the Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin are all rolling an attack roll against AC and then dealing damage if they hit. Yeah, one might have a slightly different bonus here and there, but they're not significantly different. Hell, even Warlocks and Monks also do exactly this to different extends. The Monk at least has Stunning Strike and the Warlock has powerful spells (though almost no slots).

However, a Cleric and Sorcerer play completely different.

[MrStabby]

Have you ever played a class in the game and went:
"I'm not having fun in this class. Its not necessarily weak, but the hoops or burdens I have to take in order to be effective is too boring."

That may not be unintentional. A common design philosophy in this edition is that the class must appeal to the players that enjoy the class.

Yeah, I remember my first character. A warlock. As the only short rest based character in the party, the hoop I had to jump through was sitting out encounters to take a short rest by myself. So yeah, the design philosophy there is that warlocks should appeal to the kind of player that wants to go away and not play D&D for half an hour whilst everyone else gets on with the game.

So yeah, I am kind of joking... a little. I get that this is somewhat more down to the DM and the table than the class design, only it isn't. It is the interaction between the class design and the way a particular table plays and it is just as true to say the problem wouldn't arrise if the class were designed differently as it would be to say that the problem wouldn't arise if the table played differently. Whilst I get your point, and whilst I somewhat agree with it I do think that a lot of the things that look like unforced design errors are in fact... errors (which isn't to have a go at the designers, getting it right is hard). Sometimes there is no deeper meaning.

[Danielqueue1]

WoTC have limited time and resources. They must playtest everything they push out and understand the implications of any additions or changes. Was it wise to focus their efforts on making the classes distinct and fun for those that would enjoy the class regardless? Or should they have cut off whole classes like the Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, Warlock, and Bard to have well-rounded subclass of Rogues, Fighters, Wizards, and Clerics so that no matter what class a player tries, there's a subclass or archetype that appeases them somehow?

I'm interested in the community's answers.

I feel like having many classes is a very good thing for reasons other than what other people have posted. People who don't like certain playstyles are still not going to like those playstyles regardless of whether they are called classes, subclasses, archetypes or any number of other words. I think there are a healthy number of classes currently.

I'd be inclined to agree if either:
[LIST=1]
Mentally, I just clump anything with either a 1d10 Hit Die or a shield into the same "Meatstick" category and they all fulfill the same jobs. ... That guy is going to deal a bunch of damage, absorb damage so I don't have to, do some random flashy stuff that doesn't matter to me or my strategy, exactly like the meatstick before him.

Wow, I now understand why many of your previous posts have made no sense to me. you choose to ignore differences and so don't see differences.

Not to mention that all of the martial classes rely on the same mechanic: The Attack Action. This is so true that the Fighter has 25% of his levels devoted to enhancing the Attack Action in some way.

Not to mention that all of the casting classes rely on the same mechanic: the Cast A Spell Action. this is so true that the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard all have 45% of their levels devoted to enhancing the Cast A spell action in some way.

seeing as there are a grand total of about 3 deciding rolls in the game,
Attack rolls,
Ability checks,
saving throws

and with Attack rolls being available to every creature in the game applied in a consistent way throughout, maybe not having multiple classes that specialize in them in different ways would be a massive gaping design hole that people would mock wizards of the coast for not including

There generally is very little modification to the rolls related to the Attack Action throughout those levels, other than just increasing beneficial numbers and decreasing bad numbers.

that does seem to apply to attack rolls, ability, checks, saving throws, and damage dice. to the whole game. This isn't a martial thing. and it isn't broken. it is a core mechanic to the entire system. and is present in every system that uses dice.

But the ceiling between "Extremely stale and overdone" and "The weirdest stuff you've ever considered" is dreadfully shallow. Even Divine Smite, one of the coolest attack modifiers in the game, is nothing more than "Add damage to something that was already doing damage".

Wait, you think that the "coolest attack modifier in the game," is Devine smite? what game are you even playing? expend a spell slot to deal more damage doesn't hold a candle even to the much maligned arcane archer's attack modifiers. let alone anything that a battlemaster can do.

Ignoring theme, people care about:
Complexity vs. Simplicity, Melee vs. Range, Combat vs. Worldbuilding. That's a pretty easy formula that would need a max of 8 classes to make, yet we have 13 and still don't have a complex melee combatant that rivals anything close to a full caster.

"a max of 8 classes to make."
you are strongly stating that all of these things are mutually exclusive. and that a class can only be one or the other with nothing in between. I think this is a very narrowminded viewpoint and I am sorry if I am misrepresenting what you meant to say, but you are totally using an argument that classes should be pigeonholed so narrowly that there would no longer be a functioning game.

Just in character survivability there is Buffer, damage resistance, damage evasion, range, mobiity, egression, speed (usually needs to be paired with range or egression to matter), buffer recovery, crowd control, and hostile elimination (killing them so they can't hurt you). all of these, can be active or passive, use resources or not, along with any number of other modifiers that I haven't thought of. Different combinations of these can make a character "tanky" in different ways, and if a character focuses on any of them they will play massively differently. And that is just in character survivability, that is before getting into any details about any other aspect of a game.

so anyone who says, that a medium sustained melee attack damage dealer with strong burst and nova capability while focusing on strong passive defenses and buffer recovery through slow recharging resources, plays exactly the same as a Strong sustained ranged attack damage dealer with minor battlefield control options and limited burst potential focusing on positioning and battlefield manipulation for survivability while still having reasonable passive defenses and full resource recovery on an accelerated rate really should just pick a different class and stop telling people on forums that there isn't any difference.

(dang that was a long sentence. also this isn't targeted at you specifically, there have been many threads that boil down to people not caring to make a distinction between martial classes and then declaring there isn't one)

Couldn't agree more here. At the end of the day, the Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin are all rolling an attack roll against AC and then dealing damage if they hit. Yeah, one might have a slightly different bonus here and there, but they're not significantly different. Hell, even Warlocks and Monks also do exactly this to different extends. The Monk at least has Stunning Strike and the Warlock has powerful spells (though almost no slots).

However, a Cleric and Sorcerer play completely different.

how so?
At the end of the day, the spellcasters are all having the enemy roll against Save DC and then having the spell go off if they fail. one might have slightly different class features, but they're not significantly different. The sorcerer at least has Metamagic to mix things up,

However an Assassin Rogue with the Skulker feat, and an eldritch knight with Sentinel play completely different.

There's a difference between not enjoying the differences between martial classes so choosing not to play them, and declaring that they are all the same. If you only care about damage dealt (in both directions) or only think about what benefit a caster gains from having a martial around, then you are missing out on a lot.

Also, a lot of players play martials in very boring ways. I could totally see a person who's only played with people who treat martial characters as attack spammers coming to the conclusion that all martial characters are attack spammers. If I played with players who insisted on only playing the "optimized" builds found on these forums I might be of that opinion too. If my first game was full of Crossbowexpert-sharpshooter fighter all attacks all day, teamed up with Sorcadin who only ever uses spell slots to smite, and a Battlemaster GWM, PAM fighter who used all of their maneuvers on precision attack to land more -5 +10 attacks, I would probably agree. but my games are full of Turbo-grapple monk-rogue, Sneaky trap-setting gloomstalkers who switch between weapons to meet the circumstances, battlemasters who use maneuvering attack to let another character charge in and attack and still getting out of range for the wizard's fireball next turn.

People on these forums generally ignore teamplay because it is difficult to quantify benefit to others, while optimizing for pure damage and tankiness is easy to put numbers on.

Yeah, I remember my first character. A warlock. As the only short rest based character in the party, the hoop I had to jump through was sitting out encounters to take a short rest by myself. So yeah, the design philosophy there is that warlocks should appeal to the kind of player that wants to go away and not play D&D for half an hour whilst everyone else gets on with the game.

Sorry MrStabby, your group sounded rather terrible in that regards.

I do think it kind of interesting the polarizing effect of short rests have on forum members, it seems like some people say that 5e is poorly designed because short rest hit-dice are such an easy way to recover HP that healing spells are a waste for anything other than getting an unconscious character back up, while others say that 5e is poorly designed because no one ever takes short rests so classes that recover resources on short rests are hampered. I guess it is just a matter of what the player's current games are like.



In the end, to the OP, I think having classes play differently to the point that some people don't like them while others do is a sign of GOOD game design. and don't take what you find on the forums at face value, people have opinions based on their own experiences. a person who finds the most fun playing casters may have their view of the game warped by only thinking about what benefit their caster gets by having a "meatstick" around, and only play one if they are pushed into it. In the same way that some people feel forced to play a healer for the party despite the many, many options to have healing abilities without being a dedicated healer.

I love the martial classes. I love making interesting combos that are more about battlefield control than damage. but I do admit, if your game's combats are against a bunch of set-piece encounters, with no way to prep, no rhyme or reason, and the NPCs/monsters are just sacks of HP and damage that attack blindly until they or you are dead, then Yeah, Martials can get rather repetitive. (and based on my reading of these forums, A lot of people play those kinds of games so I can understand why people form those opinions)

[Man_Over_Game]

so anyone who says, that a medium sustained melee attack damage dealer with strong burst and nova capability while focusing on strong passive defenses and buffer recovery through slow recharging resources, plays exactly the same as a Strong sustained ranged attack damage dealer with minor battlefield control options and limited burst potential focusing on positioning and battlefield manipulation for survivability while still having reasonable passive defenses and full resource recovery on an accelerated rate really should just pick a different class and stop telling people on forums that there isn't any difference.

(dang that was a long sentence. also this isn't targeted at you specifically, there have been many threads that boil down to people not caring to make a distinction between martial classes and then declaring there isn't one)

I mean, kinda, yeah.

So you deal more damage as a melee character, but does it outdamage the plausible 1st round where a ranged character gets an extra round of attacks in? My numbers say...they are about even.

So you are a bit squishier as a ranged character and suffer a bit in melee, yet your Hit Die is about on par with several melee characters (Monk has a 1d8), have a fairly comparable AC to a melee combatant due to a Dex focus, and you can pull out a Rapier and deal one less damage than a melee combatant. So since you're probably not getting hit in the first volley against your team (due to a range focus), do you still fall that much faster? My numbers say...they are about even.

We are nitpicking the differences between the Champion and the Battlemaster in a simultaneous thread, and the only real consensus that folks can agree on is "They're too damn similar to matter", despite being polar opposite Fighter playstyles.

A Barbarian inherently does better against bosses than swarms, due to the fact that they're easier to hit (when bosses always hit anyone they want) but still halve their damage, while Fighters are best suited for the opposite due to their higher AC. Yet, a Barbarian would not avoid a swarm and a Fighter would not avoid a boss. Make a similar comparison with Wizards or Sorcerers against melee combatants, Beholders, Antimagic Zones, swarms, etc. and it's not even.

Most of the battlefield effects or utility that martials have are fairly limited. Even a big bomb dropped by the Eldritch Knight is something he can only do once or twice a day. There are exceptions (like the Ancestral Guardian), but even those revolve around adjusting your plans around that one character, not the entire map. Yet, an entire encounter can change just because a caster decided to prepare Featherfall that day, or Wall of Force, or basically any Wall/group utility spell. Even the best martial zoning specialist is limited to protecting a 5x5 area from a single enemy at the cost of a shield and two feats.

I'm not trying to say that one is better than another. But I am saying that, if a ranged Ranger tried really hard, he could serve as a melee combatant, and you can rely on him for that position. You cannot rely on a Wizard for healing, where you could have relied on a Cleric. A Cleric doesn't have the manipulation powers a Bard has. A Bard can't kill an army the way a Wizard does.

But if a Barbarian needed to start making ranged attacks compared to a specialist, he basically loses like 30% of his DPS and is limited to 30 feet of range while he spends a round running (and how often do you hear about a target over 60 feet away?).



So, no, what kind of martial you are doesn't really matter too much, as I know you can find a way to improvise enough to do most stuff any other martial can do until you get into an advantageous position, while a caster in a less-than-ideal position panics. Even doing nothing (the Dodge Action) is more efficient with martials, due to the synergy between Disadvantage and a higher AC, while also being better adapted for Opportunity Attacks (not to mention other benefits related to Dodge, like with Monks, the Dwarvish Racial Feat, or grappling).

So you plan around your casters, trust the martials to do "martial things", and it works.

Not to mention that all of the casting classes rely on the same mechanic: the Cast A Spell Action. this is so true that the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard all have 45% of their levels devoted to enhancing the Cast A spell action in some way.

I think that's a little bit pedantic. An encounter doesn't really change much if a Barbarian hit for 15 damage while a Ranger shot for 12. But there is a great deal of difference between whether Darkness or Heat Metal is cast, despite being of equal power. Positioning matters for martials, that is true, but it's not exactly unique to just them.



I want to iterate, this is something I'm not happy with, and it's why I promote the Echo Knight any chance I get (as it basically gives martials the same combat utility as casters). But even the Echo Knight is pretty rigid in the fact that it's a poor defender at its base and it's basically only good at leveraging any other on-hit utility you might already have (which I feel is already lacking). Without utility, it's just a fancy way of saying "Melee Attacks with 30ft range" (and that's the most complicated martial subclass in the game, made by a 3rd party).

What martials need are more things like a Warlock: Something that can be something simple and predictable, or can still be something incredibly strange that everyone has to adapt to. Right now, martials have a ton of Eldritch Blast builds when we only needed the one.

[Asisreo1]

I mean, kinda, yeah.

So you deal more damage as a melee character, but does it outdamage the plausible 1st round where a ranged character gets an extra round of attacks in? My numbers say...they are about even.

So you are a bit squishier as a ranged character and suffer a bit in melee, yet your Hit Die is about on par with several melee characters (Monk has a 1d8), have a fairly comparable AC to a melee combatant due to a Dex focus, and you can pull out a Rapier and deal one less damage than a melee combatant. So since you're probably not getting hit in the first volley against your team (due to a range focus), do you still fall that much faster? My numbers say...they are about even.

We are nitpicking the differences between the Champion and the Battlemaster in a simultaneous thread, and the only real consensus that folks can agree on is "They're too damn similar to matter", despite being polar opposite Fighter playstyles.

A Barbarian inherently does better against bosses than swarms, due to the fact that they're easier to hit (when bosses always hit anyone they want) but still halve their damage, while Fighters are best suited for the opposite due to their higher AC. Yet, a Barbarian would not avoid a swarm and a Fighter would not avoid a boss. Make a similar comparison with Wizards or Sorcerers against melee combatants, Beholders, Antimagic Zones, swarms, etc. and it's not even.

Most of the battlefield effects or utility that martials have are fairly limited. Even a big bomb dropped by the Eldritch Knight is something he can only do once or twice a day. There are exceptions (like the Ancestral Guardian), but even those revolve around adjusting your plans around that one character, not the entire map. Yet, an entire encounter can change just because a caster decided to prepare Featherfall that day, or Wall of Force, or basically any Wall/group utility spell. Even the best martial zoning specialist is limited to protecting a 5x5 area from a single enemy at the cost of a shield and two feats.

I'm not trying to say that one is better than another. But I am saying that, if a ranged Ranger tried really hard, he could serve as a melee combatant, and you can rely on him for that position. You cannot rely on a Wizard for healing, where you could have relied on a Cleric. A Cleric doesn't have the manipulation powers a Bard has. A Bard can't kill an army the way a Wizard does.

But if a Barbarian needed to start making ranged attacks compared to a specialist, he basically loses like 30% of his DPS and is limited to 30 feet of range while he spends a round running (and how often do you hear about a target over 60 feet away?).



So, no, what kind of martial you are doesn't really matter too much, as I know you can find a way to improvise enough to do most stuff any other martial can do until you get into an advantageous position, while a caster in a less-than-ideal position panics. Even doing nothing (the Dodge Action) is more efficient with martials, due to the synergy between Disadvantage and a higher AC, while also being better adapted for Opportunity Attacks (not to mention other benefits related to Dodge, like with Monks, the Dwarvish Racial Feat, or grappling).

So you plan around your casters, trust the martials to do "martial things", and it works.


I think that's a little bit pedantic. An encounter doesn't really change much if a Barbarian hit for 15 damage while a Ranger shot for 12. But there is a great deal of difference between whether Darkness or Heat Metal is cast, despite being of equal power. Positioning matters for martials, that is true, but it's not exactly unique to just them.



I want to iterate, this is something I'm not happy with, and it's why I promote the Echo Knight any chance I get (as it basically gives martials the same combat utility as casters). But even the Echo Knight is pretty rigid in the fact that it's a poor defender at its base and it's basically only good at leveraging any other on-hit utility you might already have (which I feel is already lacking). Without utility, it's just a fancy way of saying "Melee Attacks with 30ft range" (and that's the most complicated martial subclass in the game, made by a 3rd party).

What martials need are more things like a Warlock: Something that can be something simple and predictable, or can still be something incredibly strange that everyone has to adapt to. Right now, martials have a ton of Eldritch Blast builds when we only needed the one.

I've touched on the whole Martial v Caster thing for quite a bit but essentially:

Why? Why are we separating "Martial" to "Caster" when they're fairly mixed already. Sure, there's "fullcaster, half-caster, and third-caster" but why are those all just considered "Caster" and why don't we consider Paladins and Rangers "Half-Martials" and AT/EK as "Two-Third Martials?"

I think it shouldn't be this "one-side or another" type of discussion but understand there's a spectrum of martial<-> caster.

Martial, Third-Caster, Half-Caster, Spells Known, Spell Prepared.


That is a spectrum of known terms that refer to the classes in the game.

Martial: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Monk
Third-Caster: Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Four Elements
Half-Caster: Ranger, Paladin
Spells Known: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock
Spells Prepared: Clerics, Druids, Wizards

If you notice, martial classes are only a third of the entire class list and 3/4 martial classes have spell-options. You don't have to play a Barbarian if you want to be a frontliner who also has the capability to teleport or cast a Wall of Force. So you don't have to wait for such a class to exist.

If you like the concept of having multiple situational spells for any circumstance, you want to be further on the spectrum. If you like the concept of reliable and consistent results, you want to be closer on the spectrum.

Why are we gating magic as this cursed mechanic that, once introduced, reigns supreme when really it only adds the variety so many people want on their "Barbarians and Fighters?" Really, its not "magic" that breaks anything. Its a few choice spells that really only appear in the wizard spell list anyways. Outside of Wish, Simulacrum, and Forcecage, the other spells have uses but aren't without an equal cost.

I just don't understand why any character that has access to any amount of spells are automatically excluded from the "Martial" category despite their roles or abilities.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I just don't understand why any character that has access to any amount of spells are automatically excluded from the "Martial" category despite their roles or abilities.

Generally, issues with martial vs caster boil down to

* Schrodinger's Wizards (and wizards specifically, although occasionally bards) who have exactly the right ability set (including things set at character creation) for whatever task is proposed, disregarding the remaining 99.9999% of the game.
* Wizards (again) abusing things like simulacrum.
* People letting spells (specifically a few of them) do way more than they're written to do.
* People demanding realism (and a particularly cramped version that doesn't even line up with real reality) from "martials" (by which they generally mean "sub-class-less fighters and barbarians who don't actually do anything")
* Ignoring the vast majority of characters who don't fit into any of those boxes.
* All of this in white room environments designed as edge cases.
* Oh, and most important: 3.5e envy. Assuming that everything is the same and the game is designed to be played in the same way as that was. Which is rather a bad assumption.

[heavyfuel]

Not to mention that all of the casting classes rely on the same mechanic: the Cast A Spell Action. this is so true that the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard all have 45% of their levels devoted to enhancing the Cast A spell action in some way.

This quote shows a deep misunderstanding of the game's mechanics.

Yes, the Attack action does have some variety to it, but it's not even in the same ballpark as the variety spells present. To claim otherwise is just ludicrous.

[Man_Over_Game]

I just don't understand why any character that has access to any amount of spells are automatically excluded from the "Martial" category despite their roles or abilities.

issues with martial vs caster

The original point of the topic was regarding how simplicity can be a good thing, and so it's likely intentional.

The point I was trying to make is that the playstyles that the game rewards are so similar between Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, Fighters, that it doesn't really seem correct. Barbarian, as a class, is incredibly simple, and it has simple subclasses. Same with the Fighter, with Rangers and Paladins being slightly higher up on that scale (but not enough to stop you from contributing in the same primary categories that all of these classes succeed at: Making hits, taking damage).

Simplicity, as an option, is great. Simplicity, as a requirement, is not.

I can make a brain-dead Warlock that invests heavily into Eldritch Blast, and I'd still have more tactical utility and choices than most Barbarians (when you consider the options to push or pull for each attack, that Charisma checks are more likely to be used than Strength checks, the fact that I don't need a weapon, and this is before including any other Warlock shenanigans like big spells, pact boons, or spare invocations). How does a Barbarian get utility from his attacks? Through feats, which are a resource that everyone gets. Casters do not need to spend a feat to do more than X amount of damage with their Action, they can do that with cantrips.

Or, from another angle, just ignore the term "martials" and "casters" for a moment. Instead, any time that an entire class's identity revolves around doing the same thing they did the last two rounds, or hell, the last two encounters, that's a failure of a class, especially if it's present in more than one subclass. And I'm not referring to the one time that somebody decided to spend their Action Surge to pick up a downed NPC or something like that, you know what I'm talking about.

Players should be reacting to what is currently going on. It's how they stay engaged, make mistakes or surprises, and otherwise contribute to the experience that's more than just being another Meatstick.

Or you're having to rely on the player to do the work (to be reactive and interesting) from scratch, and that shouldn't be what a game is for. If the best content is the stuff that isn't in the book, why bother with the book?

I'm not saying "Hit It Very Hard" is a wrong way to play the game, but does it have to be every Barbarian's/Fighter's/Ranger's/Paladin's/Monk's? Why should it be so difficult to do otherwise?

[Asisreo1]

The original point of the topic was regarding how simplicity can be a good thing, and so it's likely intentional.

The point I was trying to make is that the playstyles that the game rewards are so similar between Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, Fighters, that it doesn't really seem correct. Barbarian, as a class, is incredibly simple, and it has simple subclasses. Same with the Fighter, with Rangers and Paladins being slightly higher up on that scale (but not enough to stop you from contributing in the same primary categories that all of these classes succeed at).

Simplicity, as an option, is great. Simplicity, as a requirement, is not.

I can make a brain-dead Warlock that invests heavily into Eldritch Blast, and I'd still have more tactical utility and choices than most Barbarians (when you consider the options to push or pull for each attack, that Charisma checks are more likely to be used than Strength checks, the fact that I don't need a weapon, and this is before including any other Warlock shenanigans like big spells, pact boons, or spare invocations). How does a Barbarian get utility from his attacks? Through feats, which are a resource that everyone gets. Casters do not need to spend a feat to do more than X amount of damage with their Action, they can do that with cantrips.

Or, just ignore the term "martials" and "casters" for a moment. Any time that a class's identity revolves around doing the same thing they did the last two rounds, or hell, the last two encounters, that's a failure of a class. And I'm not talking about the one time that somebody decided to spend their Action Surge to pick up a downed NPC or something like that, you know what I'm talking about. Players should be reacting to what is currently going on. It's how they stay engaged, make mistakes or surprises, and otherwise contribute in a way that's more than just another Meatstick.

Or you're having to rely on the player to do the work (to be interesting) from scratch, and that shouldn't be what a game is for. If the best content is the stuff that isn't in the book, why have the book?

I'm not saying "Hit It Very Hard" is a wrong way to play the game, but does it have to be every Barbarian's/Fighter's/Ranger's/Paladin's? Why is it so difficult to do otherwise?

I want to first discuss the options a "martial" character actually has, then I'll discuss the main point further.


Martials can have great variety in their action/attack. Firstly and most obviously, they have grapple and shove which allows them to control spacing. This could be useful for an obvious Prone->Grapple combo to force advantage until they use their action to escape or force movement somehow. But it can also be used to move characters into AoE spell effects, stop characters from approaching more vulnerable party members, or push them off of you so you can move away without costing an action or taking an AoO.

Secondly, Martials have the option to change their weapons. The obvious use is going from Main Weapon to Magic Weapon to bypass resistance/immunity or Melee to Ranged to attack flying/kiting enemies. They can also completely change their attack strategy by changing melee weapons or using Improvised Weapons (which do usually drop off at higher levels tbf). For example, they can go from Greatsword to Glaive to have the ability to Kite slower enemies like Oozes. Versatile weapons let you go from 2-handed to 1-handed while still applying damage, which is good for characters that want to grapple but want to deal good damage in the meantime.

Thirdly, every martial has some form of choice between last round and the next. Barbarians can either Rage, Reckless, or both. Fighters can Action Surge, Second Wind, or both. Monks can use their Ki-abilities, save Ki but BA-unarmed, or both. Rogues can either Dash, Disengage, Hide, or all three. But none of this interrupts their ability to attack as their main source of contribution. In fact, most enhance their ability to do damage or defend against enemies.

Next, why is it bad to have a character do the same thing every turn, objectively. I can understand if your opinion is that repeated actions are boring, but how can you say its bad if someone else would prefer doing a single thing very well and not having to be relied on in any other mechanical sense? Also, not every Monk, Rogue, Fighter, and Barbarian only has "Hit it very hard" strategies.

4-element monks has a cantrip-like ability. Rogues and Fighters have actual spellcasting abilities that let them control the battlefield in some ways. Barbarians have the totem subclass for decent OoC support while their frenzy subclass has a niche but effective-when-capable battlefield control ability which uses absolutely no resources other than an action.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I think the biggest issue within the walls of the class system is classes or options that can, somehow or way, "do it all" at once. Even the "do-everything wizard" is too much for me imo compared to the more specialist casters of other games (though this is baked into the 5e game at such a high level that i don't go crazy with houserules, even though i dislike it). In my ideal set of "tweaks" for the game (which again, i don't fully actually play with), classes and sub-classes would have a lot of options, but would have to choose to specialize, so that it was always impossible to be "good at everything".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the biggest issue within the walls of the class system is classes or options that can, somehow or way, "do it all" at once. Even the "do-everything wizard" is too much for me imo compared to the more specialist casters of other games (though this is baked into the 5e game at such a high level that i don't go crazy with houserules, even though i dislike it). In my ideal set of "tweaks" for the game (which again, i don't fully actually play with), classes and sub-classes would have a lot of options, but would have to choose to specialize, so that it was always impossible to be "good at everything".

I've rarely found that classes/builds can "do it all" unless they're playing shenanigan games. Yes, even wizards[1]. But I agree that wizards (in particular) are way too broad. They can't do it all, but they can do way too darn much and have way too little in the way of opportunity cost for doing so. Their spell lists need to drop (roughly by half) and the class needs some real identity other than "books and all the spells!" "Big spell list, the class" is bad design. I have multiple methods for doing this, but haven't finalized any of them.

[Man_Over_Game]

why is it bad to have a character do the same thing every turn, objectively. I can understand if your opinion is that repeated actions are boring, but how can you say its bad if someone else would prefer doing a single thing very well and not having to be relied on in any other mechanical sense?

If there's only one really valid option, amidst a million other options, it gives the illusion of choice. It's railroading, but on the meta level.

Having a dozen ways to say "I deal 10-20 damage to this thing" adds bad complexity to the game, when memorizing a single method would have served just as well and would cut down on information overload (Arcane Archer vs. Ranger vs. Battlemaster).

Lastly, I mentioned it earlier, but forcing players to adapt keeps them aware of everything that's going on at all times. Why should they care about what's going on around them when it doesn't matter?

And I want to reiterate, I'm not saying that casters can do everything while guys with swords can do one thing. Both you and PhoenixPhyre are taking that to extremes. I'm talking about how martial classes need more valid competition with their action resources. Yes, a Barbarian can Rage, but what else is he doing with his Bonus Action? Yes, a Fighter can Action Surge, but what percentage of the time is he spending it on something other than moar damage? Having resources doesn't quite mean the same as having options, those resources must be limited and varied enough that another valid choice must be lost in order for the decision to carry weight, because otherwise what the hell are you deciding?

And as you said:

But none of this interrupts their ability to attack as their main source of contribution. In fact, most enhance their ability to do damage or defend against enemies.

I realized you were talking about the same thing, but as a positive. I think having to make hard decisions is a good thing, as it means your choices have more consequences than your actions. Which is a similar comparison to saying that the way someone roleplays is more important than their stats, which should be true even when it isn't.

A Wizard can choose to slow something down with Ray of Frost, or deal extra damage with Firebolt, and both can be equally valid, despite different consequences, and are both useful in many circumstances. Grappling or Shoving, however, are a lot more niche - either they're the best choice of action or the worst - and so aren't great examples of options that add depth or sacrifice.

[Asisreo1]

And as you said:
I realized you were talking about the same thing, but as a positive. I think having to make hard decisions is a good thing, as it means your choices have more consequences than your actions. Which is a similar comparison to saying that the way someone roleplays is more important than their stats, which should be true even when it isn't.

Well, I guess the real question would be: Do you think someone who would rather have easy decision basically cherry-picked for them is playing poorly?

If a player just doesn't care at all about having impactful decisions but want to be impactful, should they not play the game? Or is their playstyle a bad thing? I've always preferred a simpler and limited number of choices in my actions because I find long lists of spells boring and frustrating, like I'm playing Descriptions and Decks of Cards.

A Wizard can choose to slow something down with Ray of Frost, or deal extra damage with Firebolt, and both can be equally valid, despite different consequences, and are both useful in many circumstances. Grappling or Shoving, however, are a lot more niche - either they're the best choice of action or the worst - and so aren't great examples of options that add depth or sacrifice.

Its alot more complex than grappling being the best choice or the worst choice especially with limited information.

The enemy is in melee distance and he's targetting the wizard. If he is stopped by a grapple, he'll simply target you. But you're low HP. If he is attacked, he might die but if not, he'll continue to the wizard and break their important concentration spell. You have ways to tactically consider how you'll engage in this fight and there's no clear winner.

If a creature grapples you, you could use your action to escape or you could grapple it back. Or you could attempt to shove it if you think you can beat its contest.

[Dienekes]

Well, I guess the real question would be: Do you think someone who would rather have easy decision basically cherry-picked for them is playing poorly?

If a player just doesn't care at all about having impactful decisions but want to be impactful, should they not play the game? Or is their playstyle a bad thing? I've always preferred a simpler and limited number of choices in my actions because I find long lists of spells boring and frustrating, like I'm playing Descriptions and Decks of Cards.

I think the more relevant question would be: Should all players who wish a certain level of decisions be forced into the same type of characters? Should there be no way to play a caster that is as simple as a barbarian? Should there be no way to play a mundane as complex as a druid?

Because as of now, it's decision complexity is a pretty linear line from has no magic at the bottom to has all the magic at the top.

[strangebloke]

The only thing I would add in defense of the various martial archetypes is that at least two of them (fighter and rogue) are intentionally designed as basic classes that are hyper-accessible and flexible for everyone. They don't have any interesting class features and that's sort of the point. Note that Fighters and Rogues are overwhelmingly the most popular classes in the game.

Rangers are outright poorly designed, with many dead levels. Its also arguable that conceptually they're not broad enough to make dozens of subclasses but I don't really agree with that. TCE made things better, but they still feel weird, even if they're not weak.

Barbarians don't have class features after eighth level. Up to that point they're somewhat interesting, with their fast movement and hyper-reckless playstyle, so I think they work well early on.

Monks probably get the closest to being the 'clever' martial as outlined by Man_Over_Game. They start out promising with their BA ki options and reliance on mobility, but as the game goes on they lose a lot of their distinctive quality, turning into "speedy fighter." I also have a separate problem with them, that they're far too prescripted and always end up the same even if you're nominally trying to go for something weird.

Paladins are the only 'martial' that I think really ends up with a high level of complexity and a good overall theme.

---

To answer OP: Character Customization is what drives DND to a far greater degree than optimization, and its important that players can build simple characters as well as complex ones.

[Asisreo1]

I think the more relevant question would be: Should all players who wish a certain level of decisions be forced into the same type of characters? Should there be no way to play a caster that is as simple as a barbarian? Should there be no way to play a mundane as complex as a druid?

A rose by any other name is just as sweet.

What is the difference, other than namesake of abilities, is there between a caster with only one action ability, high HD, high consistent damage, and low complexity with a Barbarian?

Nothing is tied to classes other than mechanics. You can easily be a Barbarian who graduated from Super Prestigious Wizard College and is known as one of the best wizards ever because of his revolutionary spells that buff his survivability and allows him the ability to boost his physical prowess without needing to expend spell slots, using components, or concentrate.

Your War Cleric could easily be "The Commander Knight" who specializes in giving boosts to their allies or themselves while being able to quickly bandage them or give them the spirit to stand with a rousing speech.

Because as of now, it's decision complexity is a pretty linear line from has no magic at the bottom to has all the magic at the top.

But why is this bad? Why is it a problem? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind such a class to exist. Just as I wouldn't mind a class which expends HP to enhance their abilities, but does that mean 5e is broken or problematic or does that mean I didn't get exactly what I wanted?

You may want 5e to separate magic from complexity, and you are free to want as you may. But when do we just take a design decision like "HP exists" and make it a problem?

Because it seems arbitrary. From my point of view, "5e is broken because martials have no options." Is the same as saying "Tekken 7 is broken because you can't tag out to a different character." Its not "broken," its a design choice that you may or may not like personally.

[Dienekes]

A rose by any other name is just as sweet.

What is the difference, other than namesake of abilities, is there between a caster with only one action ability, high HD, high consistent damage, and low complexity with a Barbarian?

The use of magic. That seems a pretty blatantly obvious answer. And who said anything about the caster having high HD or even consistent damage? All I said was low complexity. Could be a class that only gets 1 real spell chosen with the subclass. One of which may be damage, but it could just as easily be healing. Hell, it could even be something like summoning.

But why is this bad? Why is it a problem? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind such a class to exist. Just as I wouldn't mind a class which expends HP to enhance their abilities, but does that mean 5e is broken or problematic or does that mean I didn't get exactly what I wanted?

You may want 5e to separate magic from complexity, and you are free to want as you may. But when do we just take a design decision like "HP exists" and make it a problem?

Because it seems arbitrary. From my point of view, "5e is broken because martials have no options." Is the same as saying "Tekken 7 is broken because you can't tag out to a different character." Its not "broken," its a design choice that you may or may not like personally.

The only one who mentions 5e being broken in this thread has been you. Man_Over_Game has pointed out why 5e is not as pleasurable a game as it could be for him and explained why. I could go on a fair few rants if you want about my own issues with the system. But we're not saying it's broken. The game functions. It clearly does at the very least the minimum acceptable amount to be considered a functional game. If it did not then it would not have become so popular. I would argue it does quite a lot of things fairly well.

But this specific design decision, some of the players think has been a mistake. Or at the very least an impediment to their enjoyment of the game. And it seems increasingly odd that when some people say "These points of the game make it less fun for me." That others jump in to argue about it as though they can dictate what other people find fun.

[MrStabby]

But this specific design decision, some of the players think has been a mistake. Or at the very least an impediment to their enjoyment of the game. And it seems increasingly odd that when some people say "This points of the game make it less fun for me." That others jump in to argue about it as though they can dictate what other people find fun.

Even more weird than this is when someone say "this aspect of the design of the game makes it less pleasurable for me" and the response is "yeah, but the game was designed that way"... like yeah - were the game not to be designed that way there wouldnt have been the comment in the first place.

[Silly Name]

I think the more relevant question would be: Should all players who wish a certain level of decisions be forced into the same type of characters? Should there be no way to play a caster that is as simple as a barbarian? Should there be no way to play a mundane as complex as a druid?

Not to discount your point, because I generally agree with the idea that D&D should offer the potential for more complexity and depth to non-spellcasters, the majority of Warlocks I've seen played have been very low on the complexity scale: usually it's Hex+Eldritch Blast on turn one, and then just eldritch blast spam - very similar to how a Barbarian rages and then keeps on attacking in most encounters.

Out of combat the Warlocks have more utility powers, though, and many players find that having so few spell slots hurts a bit and suffer from indecision when choosing how to use their slots, but one of my players got very imaginative with his limited resources and he had lots of fun.

EDIT: Honestly, the modular aspect of the Warlock class is a good precedent. Invocations especially let you choose whether to simply stick to enhancing your attacks and class features, keeping it simple, or engage in expanding utility and getting new powers and abilities. I wouldn't mind seeing this design expanded to the other core classes.

[Asisreo1]

The use of magic. That seems a pretty blatantly obvious answer. And who said anything about the caster having high HD or even consistent damage? All I said was low complexity. Could be a class that only gets 1 real spell chosen with the subclass. One of which may be damage, but it could just as easily be healing. Hell, it could even be something like summoning.

Versatility is a balance trait. Imagine a wizard with d12 HD, full proficiency, extra attack, and the options to rage.

The wizard would be absolutely ridiculous because they are now not only the most versatile, but they have such good defense that they'll hardly ever be threatened.

Wizards are the most versatile class which is why they have the lowest HD, no armor proficiency, and defensive options usually come at certain expenses. Take away their versatility, they're just a 1d6 HD no proficiency martial. Terrible.

A low complexity caster needs something to balance their low complexity.

The only one who mentions 5e being broken in this thread has been you. Man_Over_Game has pointed out why 5e is not as pleasurable a game as it could be for him and explained why. I could go on a fair few rants if you want about my own issues with the system. But we're not saying it's broken. The game functions. It clearly does at the very least the minimum acceptable amount to be considered a functional game. If it did not then it would not have become so popular. I would argue it does quite a lot of things fairly well.

5e not being as pleasurable as you could want it to be because of a design decision, well, that's a natural process of any game designed without you specifically in mind.

People are just plainly going to disagree with what you or I consider good design. I think spells being the complexity scale is an elegant solution to the problem of introducing complexity and customization without confusing newer players (since I often play with newer players).

I do see how a player that craves complexity in mechanics could feel a bit stifled by this decision, but 5e had a goal of appeasing fans of the OD&D as well as newcomers that are intimidated with "feats, powers, maneuvers, spells, actions, math, traps, skills, saving throws of different names, proficiency bonuses, asymmetric leveling, etc." Cutting some of these out does wonders to ease players that aren't going to study and research their next character build but just like hopping in and enjoying their time, which 5e is peak at for players.

But this specific design decision, some of the players think has been a mistake. Or at the very least an impediment to their enjoyment of the game. And it seems increasingly odd that when some people say "These points of the game make it less fun for me." That others jump in to argue about it as though they can dictate what other people find fun.

The reason I jump is because from my perspective its the opposite. Its a defense of what I see as fun. I think its very cool that complexity is tied to classes and spellcasting for the most part because its only one system that I have to know how it works.

I find low complexity martial, high complexity caster to be a very cool and interesting design choice, so when people say that its a problem or needs to be removed, I want to slow down the conversation and let them know that you've only considered your opinion on the matter and not the opinion of those that may enjoy the design choice.

So I don't mind that you would like a different design choice at all. I do mind when its no longer a "preference" that you recognize would make the game more personally tailored and its a "problem" that WoTC needs to fix.

In my opinion, wizards made bards practically unenjoyable but I recognize that's an opinion and I don't necessarily want to remove or change the bards for the people that do enjoy them.

[Pex]

Wanting complex martials but must never use magic to do it falls closely to Guy At The Gym fallacy. I agree they're not the same thing, and I'm introducing the topic, but it's hard to distinguish. Should Paladin be dismissed as a complex martial because it has some magical ability? Nothing wrong with not wanting to use magic, but then what is magic? Is Open Hand Monk using magic? Does Totem Barbarian get dismissed as a Simple Martial because it can do a couple of animal rituals so counts as a spellcaster? If having anything "magical" is so anathema to you for a character, while you're entitled to prefer that that's your own self-inflicted restriction. If D&D can't meet that need for you that's not the game's fault. 5E can offer Fighter Battle Master as a no magic complex martial. If that's not complex enough for you then you're probably looking for a game system that has more realistic combat details. They exist. D&D might be the wrong game for you, but it's not wrong for existing.

[Dienekes]

Versatility is a balance trait. Imagine a wizard with d12 HD, full proficiency, extra attack, and the options to rage.

The wizard would be absolutely ridiculous because they are now not only the most versatile, but they have such good defense that they'll hardly ever be threatened.

Wizards are the most versatile class which is why they have the lowest HD, no armor proficiency, and defensive options usually come at certain expenses. Take away their versatility, they're just a 1d6 HD no proficiency martial. Terrible.

Which is why I did not say take the wizard and remove everything that made them a wizard. I am saying make a simple caster from the ground up. You are correct. Take a class designed to be balanced in one way remove what makes them balanced either positively or negatively would create an unbalanced class. Especially this way, which pretty much just makes Wizard a gestalt.

But even a cursory glance through other systems, editions, and games would show that this is only one way to implement magic into a class.

5e not being as pleasurable as you could want it to be because of a design decision, well, that's a natural process of any game designed without you specifically in mind.

Sure. Never said it was anything else.

People are just plainly going to disagree with what you or I consider good design. I think spells being the complexity scale is an elegant solution to the problem of introducing complexity and customization without confusing newer players (since I often play with newer players).

I do see how a player that craves complexity in mechanics could feel a bit stifled by this decision, but 5e had a goal of appeasing fans of the OD&D as well as newcomers that are intimidated with "feats, powers, maneuvers, spells, actions, math, traps, skills, saving throws of different names, proficiency bonuses, asymmetric leveling, etc." Cutting some of these out does wonders to ease players that aren't going to study and research their next character build but just like hopping in and enjoying their time, which 5e is peak at for players.

And I can also see the reason for it. I don't agree. I think having an easy to read scalability of difficulty would have been just as effective. You can even put it into the stat block: Barbarian; Simple. Wizard: Complex.

And Hell, I can even see why they would set up the current system... 7 years ago. But we are well and away past that now. Filling out the complexity wheel as optional content is well within their wheelhouse of what can be done.

The reason I jump is because from my perspective its the opposite. Its a defense of what I see as fun. I think its very cool that complexity is tied to classes and spellcasting for the most part because its only one system that I have to know how it works.

Fine. But that isn't what you were arguing. You were arguing that "It isn't broken." You were not arguing that "I think Fighters, Barbarians, and Rogues and specifically those classes being the class that require absolutely minimal thought is a good thing for X, Y, and Z reasons." Preferably these reasons would be based on

I find low complexity martial, high complexity caster to be a very cool and interesting design choice.

Ok. That's fair. Tell me: Why is it cool? What about knowing that all casters are complex and all martials are not makes the game more enjoyable to play while sitting at the table on a round per round in the middle of actual gameplay basis?

For the record, just to head off one path that this could go. If you take the argument that this is because it makes it simple and easy to grasp for beginners. I will point out that easy to grasp for beginners is neither cool or enjoyable on a round per round play basis. It is however a potentially efficient learning tool. But that is a separate issue.

If we wish to discuss effective learning tools that's ok too. I personally don't think the current divide is necessary. Especially after 7 years and the introduction of optional content. There are other methods to get that information across, I'd argue ways that are even better and more clearly defined. I don't think a new player having no idea what they're doing is going to pick up just how complex a caster can become or just how repetitive a fighter is until they get their hands on it and play for a few levels. It requires an outside agent to tell them martials = simple, and casters = complex. Which is a role you seem to be filling in your own table.

It could just be blatantly spelled out though. With a single line of text beneath each class.

Barbarian
Complexity: Simple.

Wizard
Complexity: Hard.

That sort of thing.

[Asisreo1]

Ok. That's fair. Tell me: Why is it cool? What about knowing that all casters are complex and all martials are not makes the game more enjoyable to play while sitting at the table on a round per round in the middle of actual gameplay basis?

For the record, just to head off one path that this could go. If you take the argument that this is because it makes it simple and easy to grasp for beginners. I will point out that easy to grasp for beginners is neither cool or enjoyable on a round per round play basis. It is however a potentially efficient learning tool. But that is a separate issue.

I find it cool because they mesh so well with the idea of magic being something beyond a human's understanding while martial characters don't need to rely on it to be in the face of the most vicious of foes.

A wizard spends their time studying and crafting magic to find the right spells for common situations. They channel everything they know about spells and spellcasting to damage or disorient their enemies while boosting themselves. They have to be careful about how they approach situations because they're desperately trying to recall answers like a student taking an exam.

Fighters, though, need not the complexities of magic to push through their adversities. Weapon in-hand, they can push through the frontlines and go toe-to-toe against devils, dragons, giants, and monstrosities. Fighters don't need to have the solution to everything because they understand what it means to push forward without an answer.

Paladins rely on their sword and their faith to guide them. They support their allies and face the unholy foes with a smile. They can call favors from their deity to grant them an advantage in combat to turn the tides of the battle.

But a cleric has the absolute faith that they can almost wholly rely on their deity's guidance. Calling divine favors after divine favors and trusting the deity to protect them and their allies. Leaving themselves seemingly open, but knowing the protection of their god encases them completely.

If we wish to discuss effective learning tools that's ok too. I personally don't think the current divide is necessary. Especially after 7 years and the introduction of optional content. There are other methods to get that information across, I'd argue ways that are even better and more clearly defined. I don't think a new player having no idea what they're doing is going to pick up just how complex a caster can become or just how repetitive a fighter is until they get their hands on it and play for a few levels. It requires an outside agent to tell them martials = simple, and casters = complex. Which is a role you seem to be filling in your own table.

It could just be blatantly spelled out though. With a single line of text beneath each class.

Barbarian
Complexity: Simple.

Wizard
Complexity: Hard.

That sort of thing.

I completely agree with this. There's hints in the class descriptions but more information about the game itself should be given to players so they can make better informed decisions. (Same for the DMG).

[Snails]

I think the biggest issue within the walls of the class system is classes or options that can, somehow or way, "do it all" at once. Even the "do-everything wizard" is too much for me imo compared to the more specialist casters of other games (though this is baked into the 5e game at such a high level that i don't go crazy with houserules, even though i dislike it). In my ideal set of "tweaks" for the game (which again, i don't fully actually play with), classes and sub-classes would have a lot of options, but would have to choose to specialize, so that it was always impossible to be "good at everything".

Just looking at the Wizard class, it seems to be (IMNSHO) an unnecessary Sacred Cow that one character could be casting so many different kinds of very effective spells as baked into the base class. It is as if it would be an unforgivable design decision to not allow every Wizard to have Sleep, Invisibility, Fireball, Haste, Dimension Door, etc. prepared at once.

The general idea of 3e Psions did work, where the class had access to generally good stuff in a broad way, but you needed the right subclass to access the very very best powers. This is how Wizards should work, too.

I am not actually against having the Generalist Wizard in the game. But that should not be the starting point of the base class.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just looking at the Wizard class, it seems to be (IMNSHO) an unnecessary Sacred Cow that one character could be casting so many different kinds of very effective spells as baked into the base class. It is as if it would be an unforgivable design decision to not allow every Wizard to have Sleep, Invisibility, Fireball, Haste, Dimension Door, etc. prepared at once.

The general idea of 3e Psions did work, where the class had access to generally good stuff in a broad way, but you needed the right subclass to access the very very best powers. This is how Wizards should work, too.

I am not actually against having the Generalist Wizard in the game. But that should not be the starting point of the base class.

I agree. I think the best way would be something like inverting the usual "bonus spells" design. Instead, you'd only get access to a majority of your spells from your subclass (which wouldn't be necessarily school based). Generalist subclasses would have bits and pieces but none of the good spells. Imagine if shield were only available to abjurers and war wizards. And polymorph to the transmuters. In exchange, they could get real class features.

Plus a bunch of spells should just go off their list entirely as they step on the toes of other classes too much.

[Pex]

I agree. I think the best way would be something like inverting the usual "bonus spells" design. Instead, you'd only get access to a majority of your spells from your subclass (which wouldn't be necessarily school based). Generalist subclasses would have bits and pieces but none of the good spells. Imagine if shield were only available to abjurers and war wizards. And polymorph to the transmuters. In exchange, they could get real class features.

Plus a bunch of spells should just go off their list entirely as they step on the toes of other classes too much.

That would be a fair restriction to magic use and not a "punishing" one as I like to say. This spellcaster doesn't have nor need everything and still gets good suitable stuff for its own sake. Clerics could go back to the Sphere System of 2E. I wasn't a fan of the implementation of it, especially the Priest's Handbook, but the chasis was fitting.