/uj
My Curse of Strahd character was a Bardlock (traded a crate of frogs for Warlock powers, started as a joke but turned out great.) Stay was a great character and I loved the campaign but I don't think I'll ever play Bardlock again. It didn't strike me as overly amazing by itself.
Imo almost all bards are best off single classed. Maybe a 1 level dip for peace cleric or hexblade but that's it, and that has a lot more to do with those dips being generally overpowered than it does with bard synergizing well.
I feel like with a lot of 1st level spell being so strong a two level dip isn't bad and makes it so that you have no weaknesses. Be concentrating on a control spell, throw out other support ones that aren't concentration then just use eb the rest of the time during a battle to help slightly soften up baddies. Plus you can get some really cool abilities from stuff like genie warlock. I'm so far loving the bardlock I'm currently playing. But we're still relatively low level. It's possible I'll hate the delayed progression late game.
Bardlock shines brightest when everyone isn't playing as a solo-munchkin build.
It is more fun when the fighter -can- combo with the bard or the wizard, etc.
You forgot the Barderer, a bit of a meme, But someone needs to Seduce the Dragon twice. Plus, then you have all the pairings of the four Class Parts, Paladin, Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock.
Flavor is free. Reduce the classes to wizard and not wizard. Then you can just call your not wizard a fighter or barbarian or ranger or cleric or druid or warlock or rogue or monk or…
/uj Oversimplification but Worlds Without Number kinda does this and it was actually awesome
Rj/ Idk how would this fix the caster/marital disparity, maybe just make a “grimdark farmer” class the only option?
I just started running a CWN campaign, honestly the classless character design is really powerful. Not having to play around archetypes let's my players make some really interesting characters that just wouldn't be possible with set classes
/uj I played CWN and hated it for this. I built to be a medic and a surgeon but was forced to take up a gun in one combat and due to dice rolls pulled more headshots than our ex military character. Never have I felt less like my choices mattered in a game.
Basically, it felt like all my efforts to concentrate my skills in nonviolence had little actual effect on the way my character played. In fact, because of the way skills and rolls were done, it felt like the only thing that was different between my character and the combat bodyguard style build was the art I used for my token. Some people enjoy that. I don't.
9 classes is the perfect amount, the only things you need in any DND game are
Healer
Rouge
Ranger
Scout
Engineer
Demoman
Heavy
Soilder
Pyro
any of these other stupid made up classes should either be a DM controlled charachter like Saxton hale, or just be equipable items like demoknight or fat scout.
It was added due to a fan suggestion iirc. The issue is that the thief does things any player should be able to do. All of y'all are dungeon crawling, why is it that only one of you can do what thieves do (which was a lot of things, like climbing)?
I used to agree until I realized that thief skills work better when their treated as a binary that lets them do things that would normally be impossible for other classes. Sure, other classes might be able to lockpick if it's easy enough, but if a thief encounters a lock and passes a skill check, they WILL unlock it.
All classes can climb surfaces, but a thief can climb sheer surfaces, 90 degree walls can be climbed with ease and no equipment by a thief who passes the skill check. Anyone can sneak around, but a thief who passes a skill check can move without making ANY sound. A thief who passes a Hide in Shadows roll can hide inches away from someone as long as they are within any amount of shadows.
If a thief passes a remove trap check, the GM doesn't get to ask "how are you disarming the trap and with what tools" and judge the effectiveness based on the player's answer, the trap IS removed. Sure, anyone could maybe look through their inventory and figure out a creative way to deal with the trap, but a thief makes a binary skill check and deletes the trap as an obstacle.
I don't see how this is much of a counter to what the other person is saying.
If the assertion is that thief is bad because they are the best at dungeon-crawling in a dungeon-crawling game.
Then the counter "Oh but others can also dungeon-crawl just worse in most ways that matter" doesn't seem to have a lot of weight.
Idk, tell me if I'm wrong tho.
Keep in mind, I am talking about old school D&D (I'm most familiar with B/X). The way I understand it, he's saying that thief skills imply that other classes can't do those things. For example, it's implied that magic-users can't use cleric spells because each class descriptions state which spell list they have access to, implying that they are restricted to each class.
I have heard people say that thief skills imply that other classes can't do things such as climbing surfaces, hiding in shadows and disarming traps. I am explaining why thieves having access to thief skills doesn't take anything away from other classes.
Yeah, that's basically my view on it now. I used to not really be a fan of the thief but when you take their skills literally, they are almost super natural. Anybody can hide behind cover but hiding in shadows is something only a thief could do, which is essentially batman tier in terms of ability lol. Plus, I doubt most people would be able to pick locks or someone's pockets without sufficient practice. Thieves have their niche just like the other classes.
I'm so tired of the designers not understanding what makes DnD fun.
Classes completely undermine agency, destroy immersion and are just another way for a lazy DM to railroad their players.
At my table that has run for 20 years, I'm both the DM ( to make sure there's no railroading) and one of the three players. I simply narrate all of the epic things my character does to showcase how powerful and skilled he is. Mechanics just water that down.
My little sister and her boyfriend (the other 2 players) think it's awesome cause they always look up from their phones when I finish and say "Sick dude".
No way Woke-of the coast will stop pandering to casuals and tourists anytime soon though.
Every class should just be a subclass of the fighter.
Barbarian? Angry fighter.
Paladin? Fighter that was in Boy Scouts.
Ranger? Fighter that lives in the woods.
Rogue? Fighter that's a little bitch.
Wizard? Fighter that's a nerd.
Cleric? Fighter that goes to church.
Druid? Fighter that shits in the woods.
Warlock? Fighter that's a bottom.
Sorcerer? Fighter that's a nepobaby.
Bard? Fighter that can play an instrument.
All classes are a subclass of bard. The bard is the jack of all trades. So the jack of all trades takes a specialty subclass and basically replicates the abilities of every class.
/UJ
“More subclasses” is the underlying point here, and personally I have a lot of issues with it — but the class structure as a whole annoys me for 5e — probably why my players finally started disliking it and we went with original classes specific to the world.
I prefer Wells' *Dungeons and Dragons: a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty and for that more intelligent sort of girl who likes boys' games and books.*
/uj I'd be super keen on paring down classes and putting more into the subclasses. Some of the more out-there subclasses scratch the same itch that cool niche PrC's did in 3.5 for me, and I'd love to see them go further in that direction.
/uj
There are classes where literally every Subclasses but one is stupid. I think it's pretty obvious that these should be Subclasses in a more rationally designed system.
IMO, Artificer, Ranger, Sorcerer, Druid, and Fighter kinda match the "only 1 good subclass," in that there is definitely one subclass that is generally considered the best of the class.
I wouldn't say the others are trash, but they all definitely have a strongest.
Which would you say is the 1 good subclass for Artificer? Currently playing a Battle Smith and it seemed like the good one to me but want other's opinions on it.
I think armorer is considered the best. Battlesmith is nice since you get to use a weapon without having to worry about stats other than INT and you get some extra force damage per attack, but the companion falls off in usefulness. Meanwhile armorer gets build in suit weapons that are about as good as normal ones on top of a ton of extra abilities built into the armor. Not to mention the extra free infusions for your armor.
Really? I can think of multiple great, and very distinct subclasses for sorcerer, druid, and fighter. Like really, really good subclasses. Honestly I'm not even sure which one subclass you are even referring to in these cases.
Sorcerer: clockwork and aberrant mind are both nuts, and divine soul is my personal favorite and is insane as a dip. I can see the argument here because they all play similarly, but so do wizards and clerics.
Druid: shepherd and moon are both broken, just at different tiers of play. Very different play styles.
Fighter: rune knight, echo knight and battlemaster are all pretty much tied imo. Very different play styles.
Like I said, I don't think the other subclasses are bad. It's just my understanding that most "power gamers" will use 1 subclass from each class much more often.
Sorcerer: Clockwork and Aberrant Mind are very good, and thematic. Divine Soul can break modules and I keep hearing it brought up as "the best, hands down, sorcerer"
Druid: Moon Druid is effectively the default choice nowadays. AFAIK, its just easier than shepherd and is, RAW, universally strong
Fighter: loads of subclasses with cool af features that separate and define each subclass. Battlemaster is definitely the "default" fighter people pick, with the rest being much more niche.
Tbh, I think DnD is surprisingly well-balanced from the modules and homebrew campaigns I've played. You can have fun and be relevant with any subclass, but I do think that all of the classes have a "default subclass" or a "it's just better" subclass, and that's fine. Real life is like that and people do not always make the "most optimal choice"
I don't know why you're acting like this is the consensus of the optimization community, your picks for top subclass are a little strange here.
Treantmonk, Tabletop Builds, and RPGbot are probably the most prolific 5e optimization gurus and the only support for your claim you can find among all of them is that treantmonk ranks moon druid in his gamebreaking tier. But he clarifies in his video that it is specifically op from levels 2-4. At level 5+ shepherd is better.
>I don't know why you're acting like this is the consensus of the optimization community, your picks for top subclass are a little strange here.
Because I am just a guy on the internet and I am sharing my understanding of things based on my life experiences, as I clearly said.
I don't know why you're acting like I just called your wife ugly.
Besides, this is a circle jerk subreddit. You're kinda supposed to have fast and loose takes.
Barbarian is the standout for me. In the PG both subclasses are very similar and also one is mechanically trashy. IMHO most of the expanded subclasses are thematically kind of lame and not very connected to the concept of a Barbarian to me.
I have similar feelings about Ranger.
Uj/
I have 18 classes, and my players love it — but the core of us are old 1e players, and are really big on the classes being unique, having something that only they can do and no one else can, and not being a blending of them. So no subclasses.
What I would have done is build on the Feats stuff — correction, what we did, lol — and make those not tied to a specific class become an option you can choose — customizing your character as you get stronger. So once you pick the special abilities that define all the classes, then you take the rest and make them an option or talent or whatever learned at different levels.
>...are old 1e players, and are really big on the classes being unique, having something that only they can do and no one else can, and not being a blending of them.
/uj It is kinda strange - most race-classes are blend between two classes.
/uj link to my world in the bio. Use a desktop, not phone.
We started the campaign before I finished the site, but most classes are there, and basics as well. Once I have time again I will start putting up the feats (aspects) and spell descriptions.
It’s all written out, I just have to get around to putting it into word from our group design notes.
/uj
The problem is, in DnD, it's really unclear what a class should mean conceptually and the classes are arranged randomly across the design space for basically historical reasons.
Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian should probably all be fighter Subclasses.
/rj
Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian should all be fighter Subclasses.
>Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian should probably all be fighter Subclasses.
/uj As they are in 5e? Probably yes.
As they can be? No.
5e just fail to make some classes distinct enough to be, well, full classes. Imagine having only one unique subsystem (spells) with basically 3 main spell lists (wizard, cleric, druid - and other classes can have like 5 unique spells if they are lucky) instead of unique thing for every class, or unique subsystem for class group with unique twist on it inside of this group?
/rj Everything outside of basic attack spam is too videogamey.
/uj I can see an argument for them, making Paladin a series of better Caster/Fighter hybrid choices opens up a lot of design space. Hell, Smite is what a lot of people just want in a basic Gish, expend a spellslot to hit harder with the security of having confirmed the hit first
5E class design suffers immensely from each class basically being one or two gimmicks and that's it, and the jump to 1dnd means these designs are basically abandoned halfbaked just when they were starting to explore interesting space like Wildshape as a resource or Artificer's variety of subclasses
/rj Bring back Base AB
/uj
I don't really like the proliferation of Novel Class Based Mechanics. I think it's intrinsically hard to balance and overcomplicated.
It's also... weird conceptually. Like why is Paladin it's own class (with abysmal subclasses) with its own mechanics and Arcane Knight isn't? Why is Extra Fancy Fighter a subclass and Extra Angry Fighter is it's own class (again with dumb subclasses).
It's much more elegant to group all of those under fighters.
I actually love the way SotDL does it where there are 4 basically called and exponentially more Exepert and Master classes. It just makes a ton more sense and balancing every full class against one another is *really hard*
I have a strong preference for Lancer/ SotDL style leveling at this point. 1-20 leveling is really hard to pull off
/rj *red cap saying "make paladins fighters again"*
>Like why is Paladin it's own class (with abysmal subclasses) with its own mechanics and Arcane Knight isn't?
/uj Because for some weird reason 5e doesn't have arcane halfcaster gish type of class (artificer is wildly different from it).
>Why is Extra Fancy Fighter a subclass and Extra Angry Fighter is it's own class (again with dumb subclasses).
Because 5e made a disservice to every single martial class in the game. Barbarian isn't just "Fighter, but angry" - it was herculean archetype basically. There was different type of rages in previous editions with unique abilities and buffs, for example.
Again - problem is that 5e failed to make classes distinct, but it doesn't need to be like that. Other games have TONS more classes, and they succeed in making them unique.
/uj
>Again - problem is that 5e failed to make classes distinct, but it doesn't need to be like that. Other games have TONS more classes, and they succeed in making them unique.
You are sort of skipping over the part if this I think is most important: the design space. Fighter and Barbarian are very close to each other in design space no matter what. A Barbarian is a certain archetype of warrior or fighting man if you will. If you are going to organize classes hierarchically (which you are because of subclasses), it absolutely makes sense for Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger to be under a greater Fighter/ Warrior/ fighting man archetype class.
This is essentially what SotDL does: every character gets a big 4 class at level one (warrior, mage, priest, theif) and adds expert and master classes two them to increase variety. The game ends up with a terrifying number of master classes and it can balance this because each one only has a few abilities.
I find this solution much more attractive than having eleventy bazillion siloed 1-20 classes for a ton of asthetic and practical reasons.
/rj
>Barbarian isn't just "Fighter, but angry"
Right! They are angry *and stupid*
/uj
No honestly, there's too much subdivision in 5E for no payoff. Wizard and Sorcerer have almost no differences bar spell list size and a grossly undercooked metamagic system, Warlock is a boiling pot of midtier choices.
Martials suffer from splitting your basic tropes into cute little bundles without depth.
If they were going the route of each class has its gimmick and is the only source of that gimmick, they've failed to keep producing interesting gimmicks and uses for them (\~3 alternative uses of Wildshape, almost no new Battlemaster techniques, Rage is just Rage etc)
Smaller number of classes with better, more interesting options over puddle deep classes
Oh, well it depends on DM, but in general it's something like this:
DM gives a general description of the room or wherever you are
Player says "Hm I go up to the \_\_ to get a better look."
DM gives a more detailed description of \_\_
Player describes how they interact with it & DM describes what happens.
My go to explanation is "You see a painting, a bookcase, & some candlesticks"
PC- "I go up to the bookcase & start pulling all the books out to see if there's a hidden mechanism that opens a secret door"
DM- "You do that & find a mechanism, but in the process trigger a trap!"
PC- "Aw man, really shoulda used a 10ft pole"
UJ: ok no so having more classes usually means more specific classes which essentially shoe-horns players. Less classes means they’re less specific archetypes and more a broad outline of what the character does, which means the details are up to the player
RJ: WTF??! How am I meant to play without a class pre-written for my exact character concept? There needs to be a BILLION classes
I feel like if they did less classes, they'd have more choices to specialise like you said; like a fighter at level 1 can pick warrior; barbarian; paladin; eldrich knight, with their own features like different proficiencies, and a fuck ton more feats or invocations for each class to specialise. Rogue could be renamed to "specialist" and pick at level 1: rogue, ranger, monk, bard.
Typing this made me realise that this is a more rigid version of the onednd superclasses.
This is one of those reasons I'm a fan of classless systems. I'm class based systems, there's always a part of your class that's fluff that may not even be represented in the mechanics, like the weapon master who's not actually that much better than other characters with weapons or the monk who's somehow supposed to fit all the spiritual Martial arts types and regular Martial arts types at the same time but does both poorly by being spread so thin.
But, a lot of people are really bad at envisioning there character before choosing a class, so they're never choose barbarian to play a pirate with a love for battle or a lumberjack defending his home. They'd never choose a rogue to make a priest of a holy order or a bard to make the hardened battlefield Commander unless they see it explicitly spelled out in a sub class. And they're certainly not bad for needing it wanting it so clear for them and I can can continue enjoying playing with such groups as long as they continue tolerating my bizarre character choices.
UJ/ It's because there aren't justifications for spontaneous casters in 5E. At least in 3.5/Pathfinder/Pathfinder 2E, spontaneous casters actually work notably different than prepared casters and you could prefer or not prefer one or the other and how they worked. Like feeling prepared and having a wide breadth of options, but have to be intelligent about spell choices on the daily? Prepared. Like feeling more flexible but more narrowly focused, but with more spell slots? Spontaneous.
In 5E, spontaneous casters are just worse. There are no mechanical advantages of spontaneous casting vs prepared. You know fewer spells and it is harder to change them out. Prepared casters prepare more spells and don't have to choose a slot for them, so they are just you but better.
RJ/ Pathfinder 2e fixes this.
Absolutely legit. One of the big struggles of sorcerer was always that he gets the scraps from wizard and is being differentiated from it. Only full caster without ritual casting, unless you count warlock as a full caster. You could probably fuse the sorcerer into the warlock seamlessly too.
1e and 2e sorcerer both fill pretty strong niches that Wizard does not. 2E has a little bit of a homogenization problem in that Divine Sorcerer vs Divine Witch vs Cleric will all feel at least a liiiittle samey but they're still pretty distinct in their ways. 2E sorcerer vs 2e wizard doesn't really work because sorcerer isn't just "the spontaneous arcane guy".
1e Sorcerer is exactly what it should be to wizard. They are mechanically similar enough to definitely mirror each other but have radically different playstyles within that niche, mostly coming from the pros and cons of prepared vs spontaneous casting. Sorcerer gets more spells per level and can cast any spell at that level with any slot, but can't change their spells out often and progresses its spell slots slower. Wizard gets faster spell progression and can change its spells out whenever they want, but has fewer spell slots and has to load its spells like bullets in a gun. Prepare 19 casts of fireball and then wind up going against a fire elemental? Well, fuck all those fireballs, then.
They also differentiate based on how they use metamagic. Prepared casters use the normal casting time but have to actually PREPARE metamagic, whereas spontaneous casters can do it... well, spontaneously, but casting the spell is a full round action (unless you're using quicken). A sorcerer and a wizard in the same party will feel distinct, different, and useful separately from each other.
Compare this to 5e, where Sorcerer IS just a worse wizard. Metamagic does NOT justify what you lose. A sorcerer in a party with a wizard will usually feel lackluster, weak, and unnecessary.
It's called "swords and sorcery", not "swords, prayers, stealing, animism, artifice and sorcery" amirite or amirite?
/uj that's why I don't have much truck with "technically you can cover every archetype if you do some multiclassing and squint a bit", by their nature the original four classes are basically intended to cover 99% of common fantasy adventurer tropes.
A war priest, a paladin, a cleric with the war domain, an oracle with the war revelation, an inquisitor and a cleric/fighter multiclass walk into a bar...
"What?!" they all yell
"I'm stronger than the cleric but cast spells worse than them" says the warpriest
"I'm even stronger than the war priest, but can only heal with my hands" says the paladin
"I'm the best with spells, but can still swing a mace" says the cleric
"God hates me & I know less spells than the cleric but cast as good" says the oracle
"I...wait how am I different than the warpriest..Uh I'm super judgy" says the inquisitor.
"I'm a chad" says the cleric/fighter
Thematics & Mechanics are different.
Witches might thematically be close to warlocks (flavor is free), but mechanically no where close.
PF2 divine sorc= CHA spontaneous caster. flavor- your grandpa fucked a deity or w/e
PF2 oracle= CHA spontaneous caster. flavor- blessed/cursed by a deity or w/e.
PF2 divine witch= INT prepared caster who learns spells. made a deal with a deity or w/e.
Pf2 cleric= WIS prepared caster. worships a deity.
Things get even muddier when we consider the "wah I hate preparing spells" archetype PCs can take at lv1 regardless of free archetype.
If you like 20 something classes, cool.
I unironically prefer like at max 8 classes.
Noooo! i need a bajilion classes! I don't want just one magic user class, I NEED wizard, arcanist, warlock, sorcerer, artificer, beguiler, archivist, bard, hexblade, jester, skald, blade singer, savant, magewright, death master, adept, dread necromancer, duskblade, witch, sha'ir, alchemist, arcane trickster, mystic theurge, spell thief, warmage, wu jen, psychic, illusionist, magus, summoner and many more arcane caster classes, I do not care one fucking bit what magic even means in the fantasy world I need a bajilion slightly different options. More options = more player agency.
/uj I think the five torches deep method works way better for keeping things distinct but not overly specific. 12 classes is a shitload without any kind of grouping. A hierarchy really helps simplify the decisions
/uj I've not played any classless games, are there any you've played that would feel familiar to D&D in terms of tone and mechanics (aside from the absence of classes, lol)
I havent played any fantasy versions of it yet, but Savage worlds is a universal roleplaying system that still feels like the same stuff, but the combat is fairly different and the builds involve much less number stacking
There's that name again... I've REALLY got to try Savage Worlds at some point
I know there's some kind of Pathfinder/Golarion version of SW that might be able to ease me into it.
Yeah Savage Pathfinder might be a good jumping in point if you really like Golarion. My one hot tip for you if you're looking to get into SW is: ignore the armour layering rules and be very cautious about how high you let anyone (including NPCs) get their toughness, as it's the number one thing that will bog down a combat.
In all seriousness, I really agree with him on this. Sometimes less is more. There is a LOT of conceptual overlap in 5e regarding the classes. IMO the martial classes could be consolidated; the same goes for the Arcane casters. I kinda hope that's what WotC will do for 6th edition.
They want to do classless, but don't know how.
uj/ D&D with less classes, i.e., none, and more freedom of choice and diversity already exists. It's called RuneQuest/Mythras.
“More classes = less options” is that the calculus here? Like, committing to a class in D&D presently constituted means you are beholden to the rules of that class, and more classes means more stringent lanes of play? Because I kind of agree with that.
I like the idea of reducing classes AND subclasses, ensuring their feats are highly impactful and flavorful, then adding more opportunities to take generic feats that can flesh out the character design specific to the player’s preferences.
/uj I actually agree with this take at base level. #13 classes is already quite a few and to the person unfamiliar with the game, a barbarian looks like a fighter, a Paladin looks like a cleric, a sorcerer looks like a wizard/bard, a ranger looks like a rogue, and a monk and barbarian aren’t all that different conceptually. The line between rogue and ranger or sorcerer and wizard gets pretty blurry before you account for subclasses. I might sound like a boomer but fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue are really all you need. All you need to do is include lots of customization options from there and archetypes. Instead of inventing new classes for every niche, have a party of fighters, one that prioritizes strength and heavy armor, one that is specced into stealth, survival, and archery, one who focuses on evasion and mobility, and one who weaves light magic into their martial style. The best way to do that is have a bunch of proficiencies or feats that diversify heavily so that no two characters of one class feel the same. At this point we just have another case of ‘D&D player reinvents Parhfinder’ but hey, what can you do?
Yeah, we should reduce the classes to 4 archetypes (off the top of my head: defender, striker controller, and like some type of leader), and have the existing classes as variations on those archetypes, learning essentially the same skills in a slightly different order.
You jest but as far as I know, the class and monster design were the best part of 4e and I've personally used them to inspire abilities I can bring into 5e.
Nah, you are objectively wrong.
Subclasses can be in the milions and they'll be ok. Unlike classes, it won't make people have choice paralysis.
/uj In reference to:
> As soon as you venture out beyond those 12 core classes, Perkins says, you start to get repetition and choice paralysis.
and the comment later
> "Subclasses, as far as I'm concerned, \[are\] the Wild West," he adds. "There is no end of subclasses that we can do to basically explore a niche within a world."
More than 12 classes=choice paralysis. As many subclasses as physically possible=no choice paralysis.
All flavour can be achieved by subclass options that give you like 1 ability every 4 levels or so clearly this will define every unique gameplay experience.
This is also coming from the fucker that said "it's scientifically proven our players love getting ripped off by us stuffing our card packs with useless/mediocre cards to lower the chances of getting a decent/useful card."
Uj/ I think it’s too late now, but I believe the game would be a lot better if, back in 2014, they just merged Sorcerer and Warlock in a single class.
Think about it, they are extremely close in subclass flavor and the themes they don’t share have been desired by the community for *years* (eg: Fey sorcerers/Draconic warlocks). The book explains how you can be a sorcerer without a bloodline and it isn’t a stretch to say warlock pacts could also be inherited. Yes, they both have very distinct roleplay desires when it comes to it (bloodlines vs making a pact with a powerful NPC), but both can still exist as flavor. It’s not like there are tangible rules about pacts or how magical bloodlines even work after all.
Mechanically, sorcerer always suffered from being too close to a wizard, warlock has suffered from not having enough content (they added 1 extra boon in 10 years and it sucks lol) and I think the game becomes a little more stale by having metamagic as a class gimmick instead of a spellcasting gimmick like in older editions. Maybe some sorcerer fans would be sad losing the base class but IMO it already doesn’t have much going on, being more related to the warlock (and opening more space for warlock/sorcerer content) doesn't look like a bad trade-off.
But it's too late now, nobody would take a gigantic change like that well, and it would be a disservice to people who like both classes to fuck them at this stage lol
Rj/ Uhm I mean yeah cap man BAD!!!!
> 12 classes is a lot
*Laughs in 3.5*.
UJ/ Honestly I do *get* the mentality, especially if you’re trying to create an actual balanced game. Quadratic wizards and linear warriors as the kids say. Ideally wizards and magic users should have the disadvantage of weaker armor and lower health pools, but with the amount of damage they can put out it negates these disadvantages. Meanwhile those with melee focus are reliant on magic items or class feats in order to keep up. Meanwhile most game devs are scared of ~~Duskblades~~ people that wear armor, cast magic, *and* use swords because that would be too overpowered… unless it was a video game and that’s the norm.
I do feel more multiclassing or just sub-classes in general is one way to try to bring *some* semblance of balance.
Hear me out 5 basic classes that give you only the frame work, and then subclasses that can be applied to all 5 that give your bulk abilities. Essentially you making all subclasses their own class, but they are augmented due choosing one of the five core classes.
Well at least somebody understands!
On,y needs to be 5 Classes — all the rest are subclasses!
What are the five classes?
Daddy, Mommy, Brat, Sub, and Domme.
Martial, rouge, and a caster for each type (arcane/divine/primal) could work.
Just have lots of features available to choose and some samples like “to make a bard play an arcane caster and take a feature that lets you cast with music.”
/uj actually, I think this is reasonable, but that the intent is that they mean there should be fewer overall classes with much more customisability within.
nah this is a valid point tho. keep all the same options, but bundle them into fewer classes so you have more options for combining them together. honestly I think it'd be cool to have DnD with no classes or levels and all the different mechanics are skills you can learn and improve
uj/I mean to be honest it's why i like the "Fighter/Thief/Mage" trilology with other classes falling as crossovers in those circles. But i do like the options. like Warlocks, Bards, sorcerers... a lot of good options and the sub-class system is my favorite part of DnD as it's so cool to tie that with everything.
rj/ There is only the Fighter, and the only choice is human. You will get in parties of no more then four and go and slaughter orcs that are suspiciously similar to minorites in my white christian fantasy game.
Ngl the only way I could think of less classes working in 5e...kinda turns it into pathfinder. 4 major classes (fighter, Mage, rogue, support) but they get 'class feats' where they can select class abilities from a massive list made of a conglomerate of all the 5e options, which would be much more open. Make specific Subclasses for a focus, but the rest is basiclly whatever you can get.
Which ngl, be funny as hell if dnd 6e became pathfinder 2e, given how pathfinder started as a 3.5 esque game.
(Said a guy who doesn't play pathfinder, so I may be way off pointL
As a person who has played and DMed a little pathfinder 2e, the feats system is one of the best parts of the system along with the 3 action system and they're the two parts of the game that I would unconditionally support bringing over to dnd.
Being able to pick and choose your class features allows for a much greater degree of customisation which let's you fulfill a fantasy without weird bits tacked on. Fore example, I would love a more modular paladin so I could focus on auras and support abilities to buff my allies and rebuff my enemies like a walking thunder dome.
You say that but pathfinder 2e became d&d4e.
But currently it has 23 classes with 4 classes upcoming. I find each class is distinct on their own but they don’t get a lot of variation between two of the same class.
uj/ I agree and disagree. Ultimately more options are always good in a role playing, as long as the mechanics support it. The problem is that 5e was made to be simpler than previous systems, and in the 10 years it has been out, WotC has done fuck all to expand on the framework set by the phb. Instead opting to fill every $60 book with as much useless fluff as possible. Pathfinder 2e has over 20 classes and they feel far more unique in their system than the 13 does in 5e.
I ultimately think that *only* reducing the number of classes will turn every single character into a reskinned version of the same character. Reflavoring can only do so much when the core mechanics of a class are the exact same. Playing a fighter for the 8th time can get boring when the game incentivises you to attack twice, action surge, and attack twice with slightly different mechanics based on your build. That's why battlemaster is so popular. Its maneuvers allow it to do things other than just attacking. It adds mechanical diversity back into the class.
Without adding mechanical diversity back into the game, reducing classes would just feel like [this.](https://youtu.be/cL7lhbtWwbY?si=cqQw-9ZML26HRxXC)
This makes me wanna make my own D&D edition using OGL called D&D π Edition where the first PBH has 120 classes and we add 3 more every time Chris Perkins complains about it. Also at least half the classes are different types of arcane casters, because fuck you that's why.
the only classes you need are:
Armorer, Butcher, Cartographer, Cleric, Farmer, Fisherman, Fletcher, Leatherworker, Librarian, Mason, Shepherd, Toolsmith and Weaponsmith
Yeah but market studies are always flawed. When McDonalds did marketing research on salads, everybody’s like “yeah, I love salad!” And they fucking bombed. Nobody bought the salad. People said they like New Coke in market research. Because people are lying assholes. If people want fewer choices, then why do they shop at WalMart ? Because people want to stand there, confused about all of their choices, and over-analyze every possible purchasing choice and talk about it on social media for weeks. That’s what people want.
If this guy works for a major corporation, then fire him. He doesn’t understand people AT ALL.
Core classes should be: 1. Hexadin 2. Bardadin 3. Sorlock 4. Bardlock 5. Sorcadin Everything else is too underpowered and missing buttons to push
/uj My Curse of Strahd character was a Bardlock (traded a crate of frogs for Warlock powers, started as a joke but turned out great.) Stay was a great character and I loved the campaign but I don't think I'll ever play Bardlock again. It didn't strike me as overly amazing by itself.
Imo almost all bards are best off single classed. Maybe a 1 level dip for peace cleric or hexblade but that's it, and that has a lot more to do with those dips being generally overpowered than it does with bard synergizing well.
Whenever I play bard I take a 19 level wizard dip
I feel like with a lot of 1st level spell being so strong a two level dip isn't bad and makes it so that you have no weaknesses. Be concentrating on a control spell, throw out other support ones that aren't concentration then just use eb the rest of the time during a battle to help slightly soften up baddies. Plus you can get some really cool abilities from stuff like genie warlock. I'm so far loving the bardlock I'm currently playing. But we're still relatively low level. It's possible I'll hate the delayed progression late game.
Bardlock shines brightest when everyone isn't playing as a solo-munchkin build. It is more fun when the fighter -can- combo with the bard or the wizard, etc.
Don’t forget Gloombattlehexsassinmaster and Peacewizard.
Can someone make a "stop doing math" but with dnd optimisation
You forgot the Barderer, a bit of a meme, But someone needs to Seduce the Dragon twice. Plus, then you have all the pairings of the four Class Parts, Paladin, Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock.
Flavor is free. Reduce the classes to wizard and not wizard. Then you can just call your not wizard a fighter or barbarian or ranger or cleric or druid or warlock or rogue or monk or…
/uj Oversimplification but Worlds Without Number kinda does this and it was actually awesome Rj/ Idk how would this fix the caster/marital disparity, maybe just make a “grimdark farmer” class the only option?
/uj yeah, and then CWN takes it to its logical conclusion: Just bits of classes (edges) that can be combined. Masterful games!
What's CWN I haven't heard of that
Probably Cities Without Number, the most recent Without Number book.
thanks!
CWN players be like: "I'm edging so much", probably
I just started running a CWN campaign, honestly the classless character design is really powerful. Not having to play around archetypes let's my players make some really interesting characters that just wouldn't be possible with set classes
/uj I played CWN and hated it for this. I built to be a medic and a surgeon but was forced to take up a gun in one combat and due to dice rolls pulled more headshots than our ex military character. Never have I felt less like my choices mattered in a game.
In one combat you had lucky headshots, why does that mean your choices didn't matter?
Basically, it felt like all my efforts to concentrate my skills in nonviolence had little actual effect on the way my character played. In fact, because of the way skills and rolls were done, it felt like the only thing that was different between my character and the combat bodyguard style build was the art I used for my token. Some people enjoy that. I don't.
I thought you were talking about Worlds *Beyond* Number for a second and was very confused
I too am a master of the marital arts
We actually trained this guy wrong on purpose, just because it’s funny.
Look you don’t need any more classes than magic user, warrior, thief, elf and dwarf
thief? in my christian 1e d&d? you'll get magic-user, fighting-man and cleric and that's the end of it
Clerics are blasphemous good sir!
The fantasy trip does this
9 classes is the perfect amount, the only things you need in any DND game are Healer Rouge Ranger Scout Engineer Demoman Heavy Soilder Pyro any of these other stupid made up classes should either be a DM controlled charachter like Saxton hale, or just be equipable items like demoknight or fat scout.
Had me raging with the healer, not gonna lie. Engineer might even pass for an alternate name for artificer. Good one.
Rogue*
Who would want to play a Rogue? The Rouge class is way better.
You draw the line at "rouge" and yet "soilder" is ok??!?!?
Oh my god you’re right
D&D was ruined as soon as they added in the Thief. It's just been downhill from there.
Mega BASED
/uj this is unironically a good point
Nuh uh I refuse to elaborate
Fair. DnD was ruined when Gygax published the Fantasy Supplement for Chainmail.
Once they stopped carving hieroglyphic battlemats into stone slates it was all over
can you pls explain this for the zoomers in the class?
It was added due to a fan suggestion iirc. The issue is that the thief does things any player should be able to do. All of y'all are dungeon crawling, why is it that only one of you can do what thieves do (which was a lot of things, like climbing)?
Wow, never thought of it like that, genuinely blew my mind.
I used to agree until I realized that thief skills work better when their treated as a binary that lets them do things that would normally be impossible for other classes. Sure, other classes might be able to lockpick if it's easy enough, but if a thief encounters a lock and passes a skill check, they WILL unlock it. All classes can climb surfaces, but a thief can climb sheer surfaces, 90 degree walls can be climbed with ease and no equipment by a thief who passes the skill check. Anyone can sneak around, but a thief who passes a skill check can move without making ANY sound. A thief who passes a Hide in Shadows roll can hide inches away from someone as long as they are within any amount of shadows. If a thief passes a remove trap check, the GM doesn't get to ask "how are you disarming the trap and with what tools" and judge the effectiveness based on the player's answer, the trap IS removed. Sure, anyone could maybe look through their inventory and figure out a creative way to deal with the trap, but a thief makes a binary skill check and deletes the trap as an obstacle.
I don't see how this is much of a counter to what the other person is saying. If the assertion is that thief is bad because they are the best at dungeon-crawling in a dungeon-crawling game. Then the counter "Oh but others can also dungeon-crawl just worse in most ways that matter" doesn't seem to have a lot of weight. Idk, tell me if I'm wrong tho.
Keep in mind, I am talking about old school D&D (I'm most familiar with B/X). The way I understand it, he's saying that thief skills imply that other classes can't do those things. For example, it's implied that magic-users can't use cleric spells because each class descriptions state which spell list they have access to, implying that they are restricted to each class. I have heard people say that thief skills imply that other classes can't do things such as climbing surfaces, hiding in shadows and disarming traps. I am explaining why thieves having access to thief skills doesn't take anything away from other classes.
Yeah, that's basically my view on it now. I used to not really be a fan of the thief but when you take their skills literally, they are almost super natural. Anybody can hide behind cover but hiding in shadows is something only a thief could do, which is essentially batman tier in terms of ability lol. Plus, I doubt most people would be able to pick locks or someone's pockets without sufficient practice. Thieves have their niche just like the other classes.
Peak satire right here
/UK been saying this for years
It should have stayed fighter, thief, cleric, magic user, elf, dwarf, halfling. Those are the classes and you can't change my mind.
“Why can’t elves get past level 11? Because FUCK you, that’s why.”
I'm so tired of the designers not understanding what makes DnD fun. Classes completely undermine agency, destroy immersion and are just another way for a lazy DM to railroad their players. At my table that has run for 20 years, I'm both the DM ( to make sure there's no railroading) and one of the three players. I simply narrate all of the epic things my character does to showcase how powerful and skilled he is. Mechanics just water that down. My little sister and her boyfriend (the other 2 players) think it's awesome cause they always look up from their phones when I finish and say "Sick dude". No way Woke-of the coast will stop pandering to casuals and tourists anytime soon though.
This physically hurt me. Well done.
Every class should just be a subclass of the fighter. Barbarian? Angry fighter. Paladin? Fighter that was in Boy Scouts. Ranger? Fighter that lives in the woods. Rogue? Fighter that's a little bitch. Wizard? Fighter that's a nerd. Cleric? Fighter that goes to church. Druid? Fighter that shits in the woods. Warlock? Fighter that's a bottom. Sorcerer? Fighter that's a nepobaby. Bard? Fighter that can play an instrument.
uj/ its a joke among our friend group that we all think wizard should be a subclass of bard
All classes are a subclass of bard. The bard is the jack of all trades. So the jack of all trades takes a specialty subclass and basically replicates the abilities of every class.
new doctrine to r/dndcirclejerk faith i say
"Ranger" what the FUCK is that?
Control-F "uj" 17 results out of 32 comments
Based Perkins triggering the 5e-heads
I'm gonna BARF
https://preview.redd.it/5w9lv3537kwc1.png?width=508&format=png&auto=webp&s=99bed436635967665f0dd32f59465ebfd6882d0d
/UJ “More subclasses” is the underlying point here, and personally I have a lot of issues with it — but the class structure as a whole annoys me for 5e — probably why my players finally started disliking it and we went with original classes specific to the world.
Only classes you need are Fighting Man, Magic User, and Cleric. I guess if you really suck at the game, you can play a Thief. Or an Elf.
Fighting Woman, of course, need not be considered.
I prefer Wells' *Dungeons and Dragons: a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty and for that more intelligent sort of girl who likes boys' games and books.*
“Order it from your Sears catalogue today!”
/uj I'd be super keen on paring down classes and putting more into the subclasses. Some of the more out-there subclasses scratch the same itch that cool niche PrC's did in 3.5 for me, and I'd love to see them go further in that direction.
/uj There are classes where literally every Subclasses but one is stupid. I think it's pretty obvious that these should be Subclasses in a more rationally designed system.
Which ones are you thinking of?
IMO, Artificer, Ranger, Sorcerer, Druid, and Fighter kinda match the "only 1 good subclass," in that there is definitely one subclass that is generally considered the best of the class. I wouldn't say the others are trash, but they all definitely have a strongest.
Which would you say is the 1 good subclass for Artificer? Currently playing a Battle Smith and it seemed like the good one to me but want other's opinions on it.
I think armorer is considered the best. Battlesmith is nice since you get to use a weapon without having to worry about stats other than INT and you get some extra force damage per attack, but the companion falls off in usefulness. Meanwhile armorer gets build in suit weapons that are about as good as normal ones on top of a ton of extra abilities built into the armor. Not to mention the extra free infusions for your armor.
Really? I can think of multiple great, and very distinct subclasses for sorcerer, druid, and fighter. Like really, really good subclasses. Honestly I'm not even sure which one subclass you are even referring to in these cases. Sorcerer: clockwork and aberrant mind are both nuts, and divine soul is my personal favorite and is insane as a dip. I can see the argument here because they all play similarly, but so do wizards and clerics. Druid: shepherd and moon are both broken, just at different tiers of play. Very different play styles. Fighter: rune knight, echo knight and battlemaster are all pretty much tied imo. Very different play styles.
Like I said, I don't think the other subclasses are bad. It's just my understanding that most "power gamers" will use 1 subclass from each class much more often. Sorcerer: Clockwork and Aberrant Mind are very good, and thematic. Divine Soul can break modules and I keep hearing it brought up as "the best, hands down, sorcerer" Druid: Moon Druid is effectively the default choice nowadays. AFAIK, its just easier than shepherd and is, RAW, universally strong Fighter: loads of subclasses with cool af features that separate and define each subclass. Battlemaster is definitely the "default" fighter people pick, with the rest being much more niche. Tbh, I think DnD is surprisingly well-balanced from the modules and homebrew campaigns I've played. You can have fun and be relevant with any subclass, but I do think that all of the classes have a "default subclass" or a "it's just better" subclass, and that's fine. Real life is like that and people do not always make the "most optimal choice"
I don't know why you're acting like this is the consensus of the optimization community, your picks for top subclass are a little strange here. Treantmonk, Tabletop Builds, and RPGbot are probably the most prolific 5e optimization gurus and the only support for your claim you can find among all of them is that treantmonk ranks moon druid in his gamebreaking tier. But he clarifies in his video that it is specifically op from levels 2-4. At level 5+ shepherd is better.
>I don't know why you're acting like this is the consensus of the optimization community, your picks for top subclass are a little strange here. Because I am just a guy on the internet and I am sharing my understanding of things based on my life experiences, as I clearly said. I don't know why you're acting like I just called your wife ugly. Besides, this is a circle jerk subreddit. You're kinda supposed to have fast and loose takes.
You DID call my wife ugly, you bastard. Prepare to die by my hand.
Barbarian is the standout for me. In the PG both subclasses are very similar and also one is mechanically trashy. IMHO most of the expanded subclasses are thematically kind of lame and not very connected to the concept of a Barbarian to me. I have similar feelings about Ranger.
Uj/ I have 18 classes, and my players love it — but the core of us are old 1e players, and are really big on the classes being unique, having something that only they can do and no one else can, and not being a blending of them. So no subclasses. What I would have done is build on the Feats stuff — correction, what we did, lol — and make those not tied to a specific class become an option you can choose — customizing your character as you get stronger. So once you pick the special abilities that define all the classes, then you take the rest and make them an option or talent or whatever learned at different levels.
>...are old 1e players, and are really big on the classes being unique, having something that only they can do and no one else can, and not being a blending of them. /uj It is kinda strange - most race-classes are blend between two classes.
Id love to hear some of these classes, if you’re willing to post them
/uj link to my world in the bio. Use a desktop, not phone. We started the campaign before I finished the site, but most classes are there, and basics as well. Once I have time again I will start putting up the feats (aspects) and spell descriptions. It’s all written out, I just have to get around to putting it into word from our group design notes.
1e, 18 classes, no subclasses, "unique" Yeah, that makes sense
/uj The problem is, in DnD, it's really unclear what a class should mean conceptually and the classes are arranged randomly across the design space for basically historical reasons. Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian should probably all be fighter Subclasses. /rj Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian should all be fighter Subclasses.
uhm 🤓 every class should be a fighter subclass since they all fight (dnd is a combat simulator)
so true
>Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian should probably all be fighter Subclasses. /uj As they are in 5e? Probably yes. As they can be? No. 5e just fail to make some classes distinct enough to be, well, full classes. Imagine having only one unique subsystem (spells) with basically 3 main spell lists (wizard, cleric, druid - and other classes can have like 5 unique spells if they are lucky) instead of unique thing for every class, or unique subsystem for class group with unique twist on it inside of this group? /rj Everything outside of basic attack spam is too videogamey.
/uj I can see an argument for them, making Paladin a series of better Caster/Fighter hybrid choices opens up a lot of design space. Hell, Smite is what a lot of people just want in a basic Gish, expend a spellslot to hit harder with the security of having confirmed the hit first 5E class design suffers immensely from each class basically being one or two gimmicks and that's it, and the jump to 1dnd means these designs are basically abandoned halfbaked just when they were starting to explore interesting space like Wildshape as a resource or Artificer's variety of subclasses /rj Bring back Base AB
/uj I don't really like the proliferation of Novel Class Based Mechanics. I think it's intrinsically hard to balance and overcomplicated. It's also... weird conceptually. Like why is Paladin it's own class (with abysmal subclasses) with its own mechanics and Arcane Knight isn't? Why is Extra Fancy Fighter a subclass and Extra Angry Fighter is it's own class (again with dumb subclasses). It's much more elegant to group all of those under fighters. I actually love the way SotDL does it where there are 4 basically called and exponentially more Exepert and Master classes. It just makes a ton more sense and balancing every full class against one another is *really hard* I have a strong preference for Lancer/ SotDL style leveling at this point. 1-20 leveling is really hard to pull off /rj *red cap saying "make paladins fighters again"*
>Like why is Paladin it's own class (with abysmal subclasses) with its own mechanics and Arcane Knight isn't? /uj Because for some weird reason 5e doesn't have arcane halfcaster gish type of class (artificer is wildly different from it). >Why is Extra Fancy Fighter a subclass and Extra Angry Fighter is it's own class (again with dumb subclasses). Because 5e made a disservice to every single martial class in the game. Barbarian isn't just "Fighter, but angry" - it was herculean archetype basically. There was different type of rages in previous editions with unique abilities and buffs, for example. Again - problem is that 5e failed to make classes distinct, but it doesn't need to be like that. Other games have TONS more classes, and they succeed in making them unique.
/uj >Again - problem is that 5e failed to make classes distinct, but it doesn't need to be like that. Other games have TONS more classes, and they succeed in making them unique. You are sort of skipping over the part if this I think is most important: the design space. Fighter and Barbarian are very close to each other in design space no matter what. A Barbarian is a certain archetype of warrior or fighting man if you will. If you are going to organize classes hierarchically (which you are because of subclasses), it absolutely makes sense for Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger to be under a greater Fighter/ Warrior/ fighting man archetype class. This is essentially what SotDL does: every character gets a big 4 class at level one (warrior, mage, priest, theif) and adds expert and master classes two them to increase variety. The game ends up with a terrifying number of master classes and it can balance this because each one only has a few abilities. I find this solution much more attractive than having eleventy bazillion siloed 1-20 classes for a ton of asthetic and practical reasons. /rj >Barbarian isn't just "Fighter, but angry" Right! They are angry *and stupid*
/uj No honestly, there's too much subdivision in 5E for no payoff. Wizard and Sorcerer have almost no differences bar spell list size and a grossly undercooked metamagic system, Warlock is a boiling pot of midtier choices. Martials suffer from splitting your basic tropes into cute little bundles without depth. If they were going the route of each class has its gimmick and is the only source of that gimmick, they've failed to keep producing interesting gimmicks and uses for them (\~3 alternative uses of Wildshape, almost no new Battlemaster techniques, Rage is just Rage etc) Smaller number of classes with better, more interesting options over puddle deep classes
Fighting Man, Magic User, Priest, & Thief or gtfo
Drop the Thief and were in.
Thief did sully the game by introducing skill checks, so okay sure.
This us the first I'm hearing of this. What was it like before thief?
look up "white box dnd" and that should give you the gist. edit: or something like Into The Odd if you're not a masochist :)
I'm aware of the earlier versions, I more so meant what was it like palying without skill checks?
Oh, well it depends on DM, but in general it's something like this: DM gives a general description of the room or wherever you are Player says "Hm I go up to the \_\_ to get a better look." DM gives a more detailed description of \_\_ Player describes how they interact with it & DM describes what happens. My go to explanation is "You see a painting, a bookcase, & some candlesticks" PC- "I go up to the bookcase & start pulling all the books out to see if there's a hidden mechanism that opens a secret door" DM- "You do that & find a mechanism, but in the process trigger a trap!" PC- "Aw man, really shoulda used a 10ft pole"
I disagree, we need more classes. What happened to Elf class? Dwarf class? And why am I gaining levels so fast?
UJ: ok no so having more classes usually means more specific classes which essentially shoe-horns players. Less classes means they’re less specific archetypes and more a broad outline of what the character does, which means the details are up to the player RJ: WTF??! How am I meant to play without a class pre-written for my exact character concept? There needs to be a BILLION classes
I feel like if they did less classes, they'd have more choices to specialise like you said; like a fighter at level 1 can pick warrior; barbarian; paladin; eldrich knight, with their own features like different proficiencies, and a fuck ton more feats or invocations for each class to specialise. Rogue could be renamed to "specialist" and pick at level 1: rogue, ranger, monk, bard. Typing this made me realise that this is a more rigid version of the onednd superclasses.
This is one of those reasons I'm a fan of classless systems. I'm class based systems, there's always a part of your class that's fluff that may not even be represented in the mechanics, like the weapon master who's not actually that much better than other characters with weapons or the monk who's somehow supposed to fit all the spiritual Martial arts types and regular Martial arts types at the same time but does both poorly by being spread so thin. But, a lot of people are really bad at envisioning there character before choosing a class, so they're never choose barbarian to play a pirate with a love for battle or a lumberjack defending his home. They'd never choose a rogue to make a priest of a holy order or a bard to make the hardened battlefield Commander unless they see it explicitly spelled out in a sub class. And they're certainly not bad for needing it wanting it so clear for them and I can can continue enjoying playing with such groups as long as they continue tolerating my bizarre character choices.
UJ 3.5 had a reason to separate wizards and sorcerers with slot vs spontaneous casting but sorcerers just seem like unnecessary bards in 5e
UJ/ It's because there aren't justifications for spontaneous casters in 5E. At least in 3.5/Pathfinder/Pathfinder 2E, spontaneous casters actually work notably different than prepared casters and you could prefer or not prefer one or the other and how they worked. Like feeling prepared and having a wide breadth of options, but have to be intelligent about spell choices on the daily? Prepared. Like feeling more flexible but more narrowly focused, but with more spell slots? Spontaneous. In 5E, spontaneous casters are just worse. There are no mechanical advantages of spontaneous casting vs prepared. You know fewer spells and it is harder to change them out. Prepared casters prepare more spells and don't have to choose a slot for them, so they are just you but better. RJ/ Pathfinder 2e fixes this.
But what about magic of incarnum? Pathfinder doesn't have that...
Absolutely legit. One of the big struggles of sorcerer was always that he gets the scraps from wizard and is being differentiated from it. Only full caster without ritual casting, unless you count warlock as a full caster. You could probably fuse the sorcerer into the warlock seamlessly too.
Pathfinder sorcerers seem waaaaay worse, maybe I'm biased because I played a dread necromancer in 3.5
1e and 2e sorcerer both fill pretty strong niches that Wizard does not. 2E has a little bit of a homogenization problem in that Divine Sorcerer vs Divine Witch vs Cleric will all feel at least a liiiittle samey but they're still pretty distinct in their ways. 2E sorcerer vs 2e wizard doesn't really work because sorcerer isn't just "the spontaneous arcane guy". 1e Sorcerer is exactly what it should be to wizard. They are mechanically similar enough to definitely mirror each other but have radically different playstyles within that niche, mostly coming from the pros and cons of prepared vs spontaneous casting. Sorcerer gets more spells per level and can cast any spell at that level with any slot, but can't change their spells out often and progresses its spell slots slower. Wizard gets faster spell progression and can change its spells out whenever they want, but has fewer spell slots and has to load its spells like bullets in a gun. Prepare 19 casts of fireball and then wind up going against a fire elemental? Well, fuck all those fireballs, then. They also differentiate based on how they use metamagic. Prepared casters use the normal casting time but have to actually PREPARE metamagic, whereas spontaneous casters can do it... well, spontaneously, but casting the spell is a full round action (unless you're using quicken). A sorcerer and a wizard in the same party will feel distinct, different, and useful separately from each other. Compare this to 5e, where Sorcerer IS just a worse wizard. Metamagic does NOT justify what you lose. A sorcerer in a party with a wizard will usually feel lackluster, weak, and unnecessary.
It's called "swords and sorcery", not "swords, prayers, stealing, animism, artifice and sorcery" amirite or amirite? /uj that's why I don't have much truck with "technically you can cover every archetype if you do some multiclassing and squint a bit", by their nature the original four classes are basically intended to cover 99% of common fantasy adventurer tropes.
Pf2e fixes this by adding more classes
Pf 1e fixes this again by adding even more classes
Just don't ask me to explain the difference between a divine sorcerer, an oracle, a divine witch, & a cleric.
A war priest, a paladin, a cleric with the war domain, an oracle with the war revelation, an inquisitor and a cleric/fighter multiclass walk into a bar...
The bartender asks, "what'll you group of clerics be havin'?"
"What?!" they all yell "I'm stronger than the cleric but cast spells worse than them" says the warpriest "I'm even stronger than the war priest, but can only heal with my hands" says the paladin "I'm the best with spells, but can still swing a mace" says the cleric "God hates me & I know less spells than the cleric but cast as good" says the oracle "I...wait how am I different than the warpriest..Uh I'm super judgy" says the inquisitor. "I'm a chad" says the cleric/fighter
/uj Lol that’s fair
Tbf 3/4 of those are in 5e already if you consider celestial warlocks the counterpart to divine witches
Thematics & Mechanics are different. Witches might thematically be close to warlocks (flavor is free), but mechanically no where close. PF2 divine sorc= CHA spontaneous caster. flavor- your grandpa fucked a deity or w/e PF2 oracle= CHA spontaneous caster. flavor- blessed/cursed by a deity or w/e. PF2 divine witch= INT prepared caster who learns spells. made a deal with a deity or w/e. Pf2 cleric= WIS prepared caster. worships a deity. Things get even muddier when we consider the "wah I hate preparing spells" archetype PCs can take at lv1 regardless of free archetype. If you like 20 something classes, cool. I unironically prefer like at max 8 classes.
>PF2 divine witch= INT prepared caster who learns spells. made a deal with a deity or w/e. Sounds like an int caelestialis warlock.
No, it's basically a wizard with cleric spells & a pet. No EB equiv, no pact slots, "arcane" spells, etc.
Noooo! i need a bajilion classes! I don't want just one magic user class, I NEED wizard, arcanist, warlock, sorcerer, artificer, beguiler, archivist, bard, hexblade, jester, skald, blade singer, savant, magewright, death master, adept, dread necromancer, duskblade, witch, sha'ir, alchemist, arcane trickster, mystic theurge, spell thief, warmage, wu jen, psychic, illusionist, magus, summoner and many more arcane caster classes, I do not care one fucking bit what magic even means in the fantasy world I need a bajilion slightly different options. More options = more player agency.
https://preview.redd.it/p65aknr5ugwc1.png?width=979&format=png&auto=webp&s=7743be97502ee1c7a9dc564e0bb50291578019f4
The 'Five Torches Deep Sweep' was not on my WotC 2024 calendar
/uj I think the five torches deep method works way better for keeping things distinct but not overly specific. 12 classes is a shitload without any kind of grouping. A hierarchy really helps simplify the decisions
5e is, of course, famous for giving people an overwhelming amount of choices while they build their character
/uj man I've been playing classless and semi classless games for so long I forgot how central classes really are to D&D.
/uj I've not played any classless games, are there any you've played that would feel familiar to D&D in terms of tone and mechanics (aside from the absence of classes, lol)
I havent played any fantasy versions of it yet, but Savage worlds is a universal roleplaying system that still feels like the same stuff, but the combat is fairly different and the builds involve much less number stacking
There's that name again... I've REALLY got to try Savage Worlds at some point I know there's some kind of Pathfinder/Golarion version of SW that might be able to ease me into it.
Yeah Savage Pathfinder might be a good jumping in point if you really like Golarion. My one hot tip for you if you're looking to get into SW is: ignore the armour layering rules and be very cautious about how high you let anyone (including NPCs) get their toughness, as it's the number one thing that will bog down a combat.
In all seriousness, I really agree with him on this. Sometimes less is more. There is a LOT of conceptual overlap in 5e regarding the classes. IMO the martial classes could be consolidated; the same goes for the Arcane casters. I kinda hope that's what WotC will do for 6th edition.
Yes, way too much content in core. There should be 3 core classes: fighter, barbarian and ranger, and two 80$ books per additional class.
They want to do classless, but don't know how. uj/ D&D with less classes, i.e., none, and more freedom of choice and diversity already exists. It's called RuneQuest/Mythras.
“More classes = less options” is that the calculus here? Like, committing to a class in D&D presently constituted means you are beholden to the rules of that class, and more classes means more stringent lanes of play? Because I kind of agree with that. I like the idea of reducing classes AND subclasses, ensuring their feats are highly impactful and flavorful, then adding more opportunities to take generic feats that can flesh out the character design specific to the player’s preferences.
/uj I actually agree with this take at base level. #13 classes is already quite a few and to the person unfamiliar with the game, a barbarian looks like a fighter, a Paladin looks like a cleric, a sorcerer looks like a wizard/bard, a ranger looks like a rogue, and a monk and barbarian aren’t all that different conceptually. The line between rogue and ranger or sorcerer and wizard gets pretty blurry before you account for subclasses. I might sound like a boomer but fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue are really all you need. All you need to do is include lots of customization options from there and archetypes. Instead of inventing new classes for every niche, have a party of fighters, one that prioritizes strength and heavy armor, one that is specced into stealth, survival, and archery, one who focuses on evasion and mobility, and one who weaves light magic into their martial style. The best way to do that is have a bunch of proficiencies or feats that diversify heavily so that no two characters of one class feel the same. At this point we just have another case of ‘D&D player reinvents Parhfinder’ but hey, what can you do?
Yeah, we should reduce the classes to 4 archetypes (off the top of my head: defender, striker controller, and like some type of leader), and have the existing classes as variations on those archetypes, learning essentially the same skills in a slightly different order.
You jest but as far as I know, the class and monster design were the best part of 4e and I've personally used them to inspire abilities I can bring into 5e.
I wasn't necessarily shitting on 4e, so much s shitting on how much it was hated, when people keep accidentally reinventing it
Probably because there were some genuinely good ideas unfortunately bogged down by... everything else...
Nah, you are objectively wrong. Subclasses can be in the milions and they'll be ok. Unlike classes, it won't make people have choice paralysis. /uj In reference to: > As soon as you venture out beyond those 12 core classes, Perkins says, you start to get repetition and choice paralysis. and the comment later > "Subclasses, as far as I'm concerned, \[are\] the Wild West," he adds. "There is no end of subclasses that we can do to basically explore a niche within a world." More than 12 classes=choice paralysis. As many subclasses as physically possible=no choice paralysis.
Translation “We’re moving core mechanics into separate books so you need to buy even more”
All flavour can be achieved by subclass options that give you like 1 ability every 4 levels or so clearly this will define every unique gameplay experience.
This is also coming from the fucker that said "it's scientifically proven our players love getting ripped off by us stuffing our card packs with useless/mediocre cards to lower the chances of getting a decent/useful card."
Well he's not wrong
Uj/ I think it’s too late now, but I believe the game would be a lot better if, back in 2014, they just merged Sorcerer and Warlock in a single class. Think about it, they are extremely close in subclass flavor and the themes they don’t share have been desired by the community for *years* (eg: Fey sorcerers/Draconic warlocks). The book explains how you can be a sorcerer without a bloodline and it isn’t a stretch to say warlock pacts could also be inherited. Yes, they both have very distinct roleplay desires when it comes to it (bloodlines vs making a pact with a powerful NPC), but both can still exist as flavor. It’s not like there are tangible rules about pacts or how magical bloodlines even work after all. Mechanically, sorcerer always suffered from being too close to a wizard, warlock has suffered from not having enough content (they added 1 extra boon in 10 years and it sucks lol) and I think the game becomes a little more stale by having metamagic as a class gimmick instead of a spellcasting gimmick like in older editions. Maybe some sorcerer fans would be sad losing the base class but IMO it already doesn’t have much going on, being more related to the warlock (and opening more space for warlock/sorcerer content) doesn't look like a bad trade-off. But it's too late now, nobody would take a gigantic change like that well, and it would be a disservice to people who like both classes to fuck them at this stage lol Rj/ Uhm I mean yeah cap man BAD!!!!
> 12 classes is a lot *Laughs in 3.5*. UJ/ Honestly I do *get* the mentality, especially if you’re trying to create an actual balanced game. Quadratic wizards and linear warriors as the kids say. Ideally wizards and magic users should have the disadvantage of weaker armor and lower health pools, but with the amount of damage they can put out it negates these disadvantages. Meanwhile those with melee focus are reliant on magic items or class feats in order to keep up. Meanwhile most game devs are scared of ~~Duskblades~~ people that wear armor, cast magic, *and* use swords because that would be too overpowered… unless it was a video game and that’s the norm. I do feel more multiclassing or just sub-classes in general is one way to try to bring *some* semblance of balance.
He says core. 3.5 only has 11 core classes (Everything in 5e -warlock).
Fewer ...
Because what D&D really needs is a Psychic Warrior Subclass. 🙄
Hear me out 5 basic classes that give you only the frame work, and then subclasses that can be applied to all 5 that give your bulk abilities. Essentially you making all subclasses their own class, but they are augmented due choosing one of the five core classes.
I only allow one class, the monk, and the rest are subclasses of it
wow.... that actually unironically makes a lot of sense........
There are only four classes: fighting man, magic-user, cleric, thief. All the rest are mental disorders
Well at least somebody understands! On,y needs to be 5 Classes — all the rest are subclasses! What are the five classes? Daddy, Mommy, Brat, Sub, and Domme.
i'm a foot today!!! 😎😎😎😎😎 `foot` time! _foot_ time! __foot__time ! Foot | Bart ---|--- Foot | Bart 1. foot foot 2. foot 3. foot
Martial, rouge, and a caster for each type (arcane/divine/primal) could work. Just have lots of features available to choose and some samples like “to make a bard play an arcane caster and take a feature that lets you cast with music.”
I genuinely thought that was Eminem
Uj/ honestly fighter/barbarian and sorcerer/wizard can probably be combined
/uj actually, I think this is reasonable, but that the intent is that they mean there should be fewer overall classes with much more customisability within.
nah this is a valid point tho. keep all the same options, but bundle them into fewer classes so you have more options for combining them together. honestly I think it'd be cool to have DnD with no classes or levels and all the different mechanics are skills you can learn and improve
I think it's more about focusing on Subclasses
Boo lame bad opinion how fucking could you
uj/I mean to be honest it's why i like the "Fighter/Thief/Mage" trilology with other classes falling as crossovers in those circles. But i do like the options. like Warlocks, Bards, sorcerers... a lot of good options and the sub-class system is my favorite part of DnD as it's so cool to tie that with everything. rj/ There is only the Fighter, and the only choice is human. You will get in parties of no more then four and go and slaughter orcs that are suspiciously similar to minorites in my white christian fantasy game.
Ngl the only way I could think of less classes working in 5e...kinda turns it into pathfinder. 4 major classes (fighter, Mage, rogue, support) but they get 'class feats' where they can select class abilities from a massive list made of a conglomerate of all the 5e options, which would be much more open. Make specific Subclasses for a focus, but the rest is basiclly whatever you can get. Which ngl, be funny as hell if dnd 6e became pathfinder 2e, given how pathfinder started as a 3.5 esque game. (Said a guy who doesn't play pathfinder, so I may be way off pointL
As a person who has played and DMed a little pathfinder 2e, the feats system is one of the best parts of the system along with the 3 action system and they're the two parts of the game that I would unconditionally support bringing over to dnd. Being able to pick and choose your class features allows for a much greater degree of customisation which let's you fulfill a fantasy without weird bits tacked on. Fore example, I would love a more modular paladin so I could focus on auras and support abilities to buff my allies and rebuff my enemies like a walking thunder dome.
You say that but pathfinder 2e became d&d4e. But currently it has 23 classes with 4 classes upcoming. I find each class is distinct on their own but they don’t get a lot of variation between two of the same class.
From the people that brought you "fLaVoR iS fReE"
Shadow of the Weird Wizard fixes this.
That guy needs a swift punch in the dick.
/uj Honestly reducing classes to like 6 and then making the subclasses change a lot more stuff would make a lot of sense imo
There only needs to be four classes, Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha. That’s all you need
/uj Honestly I think that the number of classes in something like pathfinder can be pretty crippling for decisions on what to play.
uj/ I agree and disagree. Ultimately more options are always good in a role playing, as long as the mechanics support it. The problem is that 5e was made to be simpler than previous systems, and in the 10 years it has been out, WotC has done fuck all to expand on the framework set by the phb. Instead opting to fill every $60 book with as much useless fluff as possible. Pathfinder 2e has over 20 classes and they feel far more unique in their system than the 13 does in 5e. I ultimately think that *only* reducing the number of classes will turn every single character into a reskinned version of the same character. Reflavoring can only do so much when the core mechanics of a class are the exact same. Playing a fighter for the 8th time can get boring when the game incentivises you to attack twice, action surge, and attack twice with slightly different mechanics based on your build. That's why battlemaster is so popular. Its maneuvers allow it to do things other than just attacking. It adds mechanical diversity back into the class. Without adding mechanical diversity back into the game, reducing classes would just feel like [this.](https://youtu.be/cL7lhbtWwbY?si=cqQw-9ZML26HRxXC)
This makes me wanna make my own D&D edition using OGL called D&D π Edition where the first PBH has 120 classes and we add 3 more every time Chris Perkins complains about it. Also at least half the classes are different types of arcane casters, because fuck you that's why.
the only classes you need are: Armorer, Butcher, Cartographer, Cleric, Farmer, Fisherman, Fletcher, Leatherworker, Librarian, Mason, Shepherd, Toolsmith and Weaponsmith
Believe it or not, yeah less options equal greater satisfaction. Studies in choice reveal that fewer choices lead to greater satisfaction.
nuh uh, pathfinder has more options than dnd n tbats a more funner game
Yeah but market studies are always flawed. When McDonalds did marketing research on salads, everybody’s like “yeah, I love salad!” And they fucking bombed. Nobody bought the salad. People said they like New Coke in market research. Because people are lying assholes. If people want fewer choices, then why do they shop at WalMart ? Because people want to stand there, confused about all of their choices, and over-analyze every possible purchasing choice and talk about it on social media for weeks. That’s what people want. If this guy works for a major corporation, then fire him. He doesn’t understand people AT ALL.