As someone who seldom plays casters (and on the rare occasions I do, it's invariably a cleric), they all seem to blend together in my mind. They don't really feel functionally all that distinct from one another, especially in the case of Wizards vs. Sorcerers and Clerics vs. Druids. Thematically and aesthetically distinct, sure, but I feel like that could have been handled by making the Sorcerer a subclass of Wizard and Druid a subclass of Cleric.
And what's the point of the Warlock at all? What historical/mythical/fictional archetype is this class trying to emulate? I find them confusing and unnecessary, and while I've never felt like I need to ban their use at my games, I've also never had a player actually want to play one either; I don't see their point or their appeal. Can someone explain it to me?
Modern D&D feels very spellcaster-focused compared to BECMI and AD&D; it's clear that the designers heavily favor casters and that really shows in the rules they've produced for us. It still rankles that the new PHB continues to have hundreds of pages focused on spells and magic, but only four or five pages devoted to the tools of the non-magical physical combatant classes. I want to see dozens of pages of mechanically distinct armour and weapons! I mean, why not? I contend that many of the spells aren't really that mechanically distinct from one another, differing primarily in terms of flavor text. Why, then, would it be so bad to lavish equal attention on the armour and weapons? They even removed the armour and weapon descriptions from the latest PHB! :/
My opinion is if I am going to roleplay a character, I would rather to be from a different urban tribe with their own clothing style and marks of identity.
You can't ask eveybody to wear the same hats and dresses.
The wizard is the mastermind who studies, the socerer is the artist who trains to improve her talent, and the warlock is the trader who hope a better future thanks knocking the right doors. The wizard is the street vigilante choosing the gadgets for the next mission, the sorcerer is the martial artist who trains her special attacks and the warlock is the ganst who is calling everytime because there is a new work to be done by the guild.
I kind of see modern D&D like a buffet, whereas in that analogy old school games like BECMI are an ordered meal.
What I mean is that, in BECMI I got a very specific D&D. There were no "options", the choices were extremely limited and you basically played with everything because it was already quite minimalist. Its a sort of D&D I liked, sometimes, but often times I wanted to do something more and whatever I wanted to do, because the system offered nothing extra, I had to make it up myself.
Modern D&D on the flip side is buffet, there are more options than I would ever use in a single game, but, its nice to have options. So when I start a campaign in modern games like 5e, I usually "cut" a lot of stuff, make various reductions and limitations from the buffet of options.
Between the choices.. having options, or having a very specific thing, to be honest, even as an old-school gamer, I want lots and lots of options.
I think the only bad thing about modern D&D is modern D&D culture in which players look at the Players Handbook and assume every word written in that book is "official cannon in every game" and any DM that cuts any fat off, is not just a bad DM, but quite literally a bad person.
The beauty of that however is that I give ZERO f***s about what players think, I do what I want, so it works out quite perfect :)
Suffice it to say I have NEVER run a game of 5e with all the options available, in fact most of the time less than 30-50% of what is in the book is allowed. It depends mostly on the setting I'm using or have created for a particular campaign, that is almost always the driving force behind what is and isn't in.
While in reality/historically there are pages and pages of weapons and their variations, for purposes of the game, there isn't that much difference between them. I don't know about the current PHB but the 2014 book specifically said use the stats of a weapon that is close enough or reflavor one depending on the stats of the weapon. We don't need 5 different kinds of short bladed weapons when they are all essentially shortswords.
Regarding armor, again, use what is presented or flavor it to your liking.
You cannot do the same thing with spells. There are so many spells because there are so many different effects that should be represented.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
As someone who seldom plays casters (and on the rare occasions I do, it's invariably a cleric), they all seem to blend together in my mind. They don't really feel functionally all that distinct from one another, especially in the case of Wizards vs. Sorcerers and Clerics vs. Druids. Thematically and aesthetically distinct, sure, but I feel like that could have been handled by making the Sorcerer a subclass of Wizard and Druid a subclass of Cleric.
The problem with subclasses is that you can't turn a broad archetype into one, because they're very narrow.
And yes, Sorcerers really do feel like they could be a subclass of wizard; WotC didn't do a very good job of differentiating the two in 5e. That's not the case for druids and clerics, and it shouldn't have been so for sorcerers.
And what's the point of the Warlock at all? What historical/mythical/fictional archetype is this class trying to emulate?
They don't actually need an extant archetype to make a class, as long as they can make them mechanically and flavorfully distinct, which they did with Warlocks.
Nonetheless, the archetype of somebody who gets power from bargains with other entities is one that exists. Elric of Melnibone is probably a major influence, but deals with the devil are a very common one, too. The ones in fiction are usually more volatile and limited, but that's because they don't have to be balanced against the other classes.
I find them confusing and unnecessary, and while I've never felt like I need to ban their use at my games, I've also never had a player actually want to play one either; I don't see their point or their appeal. Can someone explain it to me?
Modern D&D feels very spellcaster-focused compared to BECMI and AD&D;
It's really about the same proportion.
AD&D: Fighter, thief, assassin, monk, vs magic-user, illusionist, cleric, druid, ranger, paladin. (The mix was different in 2e, but I don't remember it. I don't think it was that different.)
Basic had different proportions, but its weird species/class thing distorts things a lot: Fighter, thief, dwarf, halfling vs magic-user, cleric, elf.
(I argue that in Basic, Fighter, Thief, Cleric, and Magic-User are also separate species. :)
it's clear that the designers heavily favor casters and that really shows in the rules they've produced for us.
There's a limit to what you can give a class before it starts getting into the realm of "these are just magic powers", and D&D mostly does magic powers by spells. (It could stretch out to other systems, but they choose not to.) There's just not a huge amount of design space that doesn't stray too far into the territory of the extant classes.
Also, they're probably still overly twitchy about the reaction 4e got.
Depressingly, the new PHB did not include a sidebar to affirm that weapon forms are fluid relative to a specific entry. It's a part of a very disappointing general trend of the book lacking more than a flyby on anything but technical details, which imo hurts new players' accessibility to roleplay prompts to help them flesh a concept out in different directions.
When building a caster, I try to lean into the subclass features. My diviner’s spell selection is influenced by portent because I know that I can generally force a spell save failure when I need to or force a ranged attack when I need to. My abjurer’s spell selection is influenced by the fact that I’ll probably be in melee next to the barbarian. My illusionist’s spell selection is influenced by malleable illusion.
Class-wise, my prime attribute and the skills built off of it play a bigger role, but the different spell lists are still a factor.
I do agree that there isn't enough daylight between some of the classes. That's why I liked the old Warlock, because its spellcasting system was substantially different from everyone else's.
However, I'm questioning Druids being the same as Clerics. Like, the big thing about Druids is Wildshaping, which Clerics can't do. Likewise, Clerics are great against undead and demons, which Druids aren't. They are more substantively different than most other classes.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I honestly don't see why the Magic-user Class was deleted from D&D. You didn't pick Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock or whatever. You just picked Magic-User. And then you picked your spells. Done.
Why WotC decided you can't choose your own spells anymore is a real head scratcher to be honest. But whatever.
Edit: I don't mean you can't choose any spells. What I mean is that a Magic-user has access to any spell from any "school." So I could have a mix of Necromancy, Evocation, Conjuration and Cleric if I wanted to. No rule to say I can't.
Well, that's in some ways the opposite of "roleplaying" if you just have a whole buffet of every spell effect to pick from rather than different classes that specialize in different areas.
I honestly don't see why the Magic-user Class was deleted from D&D.
It didn't get deleted. It just got renamed as wizard. The magic-user class had the same spell list as the modern wizard, it had no ability to pick spells from the cleric or druid lists (in very early D&D you also didn't pick your spells, you rolled randomly for which spells you knew).
Well, that's in some ways the opposite of "roleplaying" if you just have a whole buffet of every spell effect to pick from rather than different classes that specialize in different areas.
It isn't the "opposite of roleplaying" at all because roleplaying doesn't even require the selection of an archetype. Many are the table-top role-playing games that are entirely classless least of all games that lack the options in that regard made available to players in modern D&D.
Do you honestly believe a character's "role" in a game like Call of Cthulhu is the character's "occupation"? It isn't. In case you're wondering.
It wasn't until Wizards of the Coast realized they had generations of video game players they might capture and when we started to see the game look and feel more and more like a video game with players choosing whether or not they'd be one of the the party's "tanks" or whatever that "roleplaying" was even conceived of as being reducible to a character's "role"—or function—in the party.
Previously the "role" in "roleplaying" was not at all thought of as being the "function" of the character. It was the "role"—or part—played by the player in what is a game that it many ways is a sort of theater.
Two different magic-users using an earlier edition of D&D could be far more distinct from one another than two characters of two completely different arcane classes in modern D&D based on how they were roleplayed. If anything the philosophy of less is more signifies here. Because we see far too often people get stuck so rigidly in what their idea is of one of these subclasses instead of focusing more on character. Carbon copy character after character is what we see more of when it is more about options and less about actually roleplaying.
Two different magic-users using an earlier edition of D&D could be far more distinct from one another than two characters of two completely different arcane classes in modern D&D based on how they were roleplayed. If anything the philosophy of less is more signifies here. Because we see far too often people get stuck so rigidly in what their idea is of one of these subclasses instead of focusing more on character. Carbon copy character after character is what we see more of when it is more about options and less about actually roleplaying.
Once again, the new account whose only raison d’êtra on this forum is making gatekeeping “modern players don’t know how to play” posts is making a nonsense gatekeeping “modern players don’t know how to play” post.
Here’s the reality for those who are on this forum in good faith: A good roleplayer can make a complex character with a symple system or a complex one. A bad roleplayer can make a simple character with either system. Roleplaying, and the desire to interact with it, is an internal player decision. The old school players who were good at roleplaying can make just as interesting characters under the new system as they could the old. And the players who struggle to make complex characters in the current system? They also struggle when you put them in more mechanically simple systems. Mechanics do not change that - the player deciding to change themselves does.
Of course, “good role players and bad role players have always and will always exist” doesn’t fit the “I hate modern players and want to make their game experience as miserable as possible” endgame of this person.
Two different magic-users using an earlier edition of D&D could be far more distinct from one another than two characters of two completely different arcane classes in modern D&D based on how they were roleplayed. If anything the philosophy of less is more signifies here. Because we see far too often people get stuck so rigidly in what their idea is of one of these subclasses instead of focusing more on character. Carbon copy character after character is what we see more of when it is more about options and less about actually roleplaying.
Once again, the new account whose only raison d’êtra on this forum is making gatekeeping “modern players don’t know how to play” posts is making a nonsense gatekeeping “modern players don’t know how to play” post.
Here’s the reality for those who are on this forum in good faith: A good roleplayer can make a complex character with a symple system or a complex one. A bad roleplayer can make a simple character with either system. Roleplaying, and the desire to interact with it, is an internal player decision. The old school players who were good at roleplaying can make just as interesting characters under the new system as they could the old. And the players who struggle to make complex characters in the current system? They also struggle when you put them in more mechanically simple systems. Mechanics do not change that - the player deciding to change themselves does.
Of course, “good role players and bad role players have always and will always exist” doesn’t fit the “I hate modern players and want to make their game experience as miserable as possible” endgame of this person.
And on top of that, does it really matter if someone else is a bad roleplayer or not as long as they're having fun and aren't being disruptive? The only wrong way to roleplay is if you're stomping on the fun of everyone else at the table. If someone isn't getting into character the same way you would, that's a "you" problem, not a "them" problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Two different magic-users using an earlier edition of D&D could be far more distinct from one another than two characters of two completely different arcane classes in modern D&D based on how they were roleplayed. If anything the philosophy of less is more signifies here. Because we see far too often people get stuck so rigidly in what their idea is of one of these subclasses instead of focusing more on character. Carbon copy character after character is what we see more of when it is more about options and less about actually roleplaying.
Once again, the new account whose only raison d’êtra on this forum is making gatekeeping “modern players don’t know how to play” posts is making a nonsense gatekeeping “modern players don’t know how to play” post.
Here’s the reality for those who are on this forum in good faith: A good roleplayer can make a complex character with a symple system or a complex one. A bad roleplayer can make a simple character with either system. Roleplaying, and the desire to interact with it, is an internal player decision. The old school players who were good at roleplaying can make just as interesting characters under the new system as they could the old. And the players who struggle to make complex characters in the current system? They also struggle when you put them in more mechanically simple systems. Mechanics do not change that - the player deciding to change themselves does.
Of course, “good role players and bad role players have always and will always exist” doesn’t fit the “I hate modern players and want to make their game experience as miserable as possible” endgame of this person.
Someone else insisted that "roleplaying" was having a character that serves some "role" or "function." That this is why class is "necessary."
I pointed out how there are classless role-playing games. How the roles we play are the "parts" we play in the stories we tell together at our tables. Would you not agree?
You even suggested yourself that it is about character.
Yes. You are right. Whether a system has a billion options or not doesn't mean a player can't make a complex character. I never said otherwise other than to say we do see a lot of characters who are reducible to their archetypes. Which is essentially what the other poster insisted was what made roleplaying roleplaying.
You are basically agreeing with me but finding a reason to get upset because I pointed out how a lot of people who came to D&D after years of playing video games are committed to that other poster's definition of roleplaying.
Are you unaware that was one of the biggest criticisms of 4th. Edition?
Two different magic-users using an earlier edition of D&D could be far more distinct from one another than two characters of two completely different arcane classes in modern D&D based on how they were roleplayed. If anything the philosophy of less is more signifies here. Because we see far too often people get stuck so rigidly in what their idea is of one of these subclasses instead of focusing more on character. Carbon copy character after character is what we see more of when it is more about options and less about actually roleplaying.
Once again, the new account whose only raison d’êtra on this forum is making gatekeeping “modern players don’t know how to play” posts is making a nonsense gatekeeping “modern players don’t know how to play” post.
Here’s the reality for those who are on this forum in good faith: A good roleplayer can make a complex character with a symple system or a complex one. A bad roleplayer can make a simple character with either system. Roleplaying, and the desire to interact with it, is an internal player decision. The old school players who were good at roleplaying can make just as interesting characters under the new system as they could the old. And the players who struggle to make complex characters in the current system? They also struggle when you put them in more mechanically simple systems. Mechanics do not change that - the player deciding to change themselves does.
Of course, “good role players and bad role players have always and will always exist” doesn’t fit the “I hate modern players and want to make their game experience as miserable as possible” endgame of this person.
And on top of that, does it really matter if someone else is a bad roleplayer or not as long as they're having fun and aren't being disruptive? The only wrong way to roleplay is if you're stomping on the fun of everyone else at the table. If someone isn't getting into character the same way you would, that's a "you" problem, not a "them" problem.
I did not say anything about "getting into character."
I am talking about character. As in what we get when at least some degree of characterization is given consideration. When a character is a history and a personality say and not just numbers brought about by the rules.
I would agree that it doesn't really matter how people play. Just as long as they are having fun. But it's not as if when roleplaying games were first being developed we did not see the development of ideas about what does and what does not constitute a roleplaying game. Would it be a roleplaying game if the characters were completely drained of any sense of character? If it was basically just a combat game? People sitting around with "characters" and just resolving combat after combat? No story? No real roles played at all? I don't think so. it would still be a game. But not a roleplaying game.
Regardless of whether or not a person cares to roleplay, a Bard has an extremely different suite of capabilities from a Wizard, even with the change to Magic Secrets. Warlocks of course handle completely differently from any other caster, and while Sorcerers have the least differences in general spellcasting, they also have stronger features for interacting with their spellcasting in unique ways. And all of these create different roles in a party's larger dynamic, therefore altering the way they are played. "Roleplay" does not only mean "acting out a character", it also refers to how a character's features influence the way they engage with the game.
Two different magic-users using an earlier edition of D&D could be far more distinct from one another than two characters of two completely different arcane classes in modern D&D based on how they were roleplayed. If anything the philosophy of less is more signifies here. Because we see far too often people get stuck so rigidly in what their idea is of one of these subclasses instead of focusing more on character. Carbon copy character after character is what we see more of when it is more about options and less about actually roleplaying.
Once again, the new account whose only raison d’êtra on this forum is making gatekeeping “modern players don’t know how to play” posts is making a nonsense gatekeeping “modern players don’t know how to play” post.
Here’s the reality for those who are on this forum in good faith: A good roleplayer can make a complex character with a symple system or a complex one. A bad roleplayer can make a simple character with either system. Roleplaying, and the desire to interact with it, is an internal player decision. The old school players who were good at roleplaying can make just as interesting characters under the new system as they could the old. And the players who struggle to make complex characters in the current system? They also struggle when you put them in more mechanically simple systems. Mechanics do not change that - the player deciding to change themselves does.
Of course, “good role players and bad role players have always and will always exist” doesn’t fit the “I hate modern players and want to make their game experience as miserable as possible” endgame of this person.
Someone else insisted that "roleplaying" was having a character that serves some "role" or "function." That this is why class is "necessary."
I pointed out how there are classless role-playing games. How the roles we play are the "parts" we play in the stories we tell together at our tables. Would you not agree?
The existence of one form of RPG does not mean every RPG must hew to that model. Classless RPGs tend far towards the soft end of the spectrum, whereas D&D is well into the hard end. Ergo, a point made comparing the two is of rather limited value, given that in many ways you're comparing apples to oranges.
Two different magic-users using an earlier edition of D&D could be far more distinct from one another than two characters of two completely different arcane classes in modern D&D based on how they were roleplayed. If anything the philosophy of less is more signifies here. Because we see far too often people get stuck so rigidly in what their idea is of one of these subclasses instead of focusing more on character. Carbon copy character after character is what we see more of when it is more about options and less about actually roleplaying.
Once again, the new account whose only raison d’êtra on this forum is making gatekeeping “modern players don’t know how to play” posts is making a nonsense gatekeeping “modern players don’t know how to play” post.
Here’s the reality for those who are on this forum in good faith: A good roleplayer can make a complex character with a symple system or a complex one. A bad roleplayer can make a simple character with either system. Roleplaying, and the desire to interact with it, is an internal player decision. The old school players who were good at roleplaying can make just as interesting characters under the new system as they could the old. And the players who struggle to make complex characters in the current system? They also struggle when you put them in more mechanically simple systems. Mechanics do not change that - the player deciding to change themselves does.
Of course, “good role players and bad role players have always and will always exist” doesn’t fit the “I hate modern players and want to make their game experience as miserable as possible” endgame of this person.
Someone else insisted that "roleplaying" was having a character that serves some "role" or "function." That this is why class is "necessary."
I pointed out how there are classless role-playing games. How the roles we play are the "parts" we play in the stories we tell together at our tables. Would you not agree?
The existence of one form of RPG does not mean every RPG must hew to that model. Classless RPGs tend far towards the soft end of the spectrum, whereas D&D is well into the hard end. Ergo, a point made comparing the two is of rather limited value, given that in many ways you're comparing apples to oranges.
I never said every game must "hew to" the same model. I simply pointed out the existence of classless systems to make clear how preposterous it is to suggest that what makes roleplaying roleplaying is characters belonging to archetypes that serve a mechanical function. Which is what you implied. Not even throughout D&D's history until the arrival of 4th. Edition was the "role" in "roleplaying" even thought of as whether you were going to be a fighter or a cleric or whatever. It was about the "part" played. In a game that is a form of theater. One of the major criticisms against 4th. Edition was that having players decide whether they were going to occupy this or that function in the party—be a "tank" say—instead of thinking more about a character's character made it look and feel more like a video game than a roleplaying game.
Classless role-playing games include things like Chaosium's line of games and other games that are skills based.
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying has careers. But is classless.
These games aren't towards the "soft end" of some spectrum you have conjured up just to assert the illusion I am comparing apples to oranges when what I am doing is making clear that roleplaying is defined as assuming the role of a character in a game of fiction. Not whether you are a wizard or a sorcerer.
EDIT: Can you point me in the direction of text in a published 5th. Edition book that says by roleplaying one is choosing which function one will serve in the party? What class? Not that it is playing the role of a character?
As someone who seldom plays casters (and on the rare occasions I do, it's invariably a cleric), they all seem to blend together in my mind. They don't really feel functionally all that distinct from one another, especially in the case of Wizards vs. Sorcerers and Clerics vs. Druids. Thematically and aesthetically distinct, sure, but I feel like that could have been handled by making the Sorcerer a subclass of Wizard and Druid a subclass of Cleric.
And what's the point of the Warlock at all? What historical/mythical/fictional archetype is this class trying to emulate? I find them confusing and unnecessary, and while I've never felt like I need to ban their use at my games, I've also never had a player actually want to play one either; I don't see their point or their appeal. Can someone explain it to me?
Modern D&D feels very spellcaster-focused compared to BECMI and AD&D; it's clear that the designers heavily favor casters and that really shows in the rules they've produced for us. It still rankles that the new PHB continues to have hundreds of pages focused on spells and magic, but only four or five pages devoted to the tools of the non-magical physical combatant classes. I want to see dozens of pages of mechanically distinct armour and weapons! I mean, why not? I contend that many of the spells aren't really that mechanically distinct from one another, differing primarily in terms of flavor text. Why, then, would it be so bad to lavish equal attention on the armour and weapons? They even removed the armour and weapon descriptions from the latest PHB! :/
That has to be choice by the players themself.
My opinion is if I am going to roleplay a character, I would rather to be from a different urban tribe with their own clothing style and marks of identity.
You can't ask eveybody to wear the same hats and dresses.
The wizard is the mastermind who studies, the socerer is the artist who trains to improve her talent, and the warlock is the trader who hope a better future thanks knocking the right doors. The wizard is the street vigilante choosing the gadgets for the next mission, the sorcerer is the martial artist who trains her special attacks and the warlock is the ganst who is calling everytime because there is a new work to be done by the guild.
I kind of see modern D&D like a buffet, whereas in that analogy old school games like BECMI are an ordered meal.
What I mean is that, in BECMI I got a very specific D&D. There were no "options", the choices were extremely limited and you basically played with everything because it was already quite minimalist. Its a sort of D&D I liked, sometimes, but often times I wanted to do something more and whatever I wanted to do, because the system offered nothing extra, I had to make it up myself.
Modern D&D on the flip side is buffet, there are more options than I would ever use in a single game, but, its nice to have options. So when I start a campaign in modern games like 5e, I usually "cut" a lot of stuff, make various reductions and limitations from the buffet of options.
Between the choices.. having options, or having a very specific thing, to be honest, even as an old-school gamer, I want lots and lots of options.
I think the only bad thing about modern D&D is modern D&D culture in which players look at the Players Handbook and assume every word written in that book is "official cannon in every game" and any DM that cuts any fat off, is not just a bad DM, but quite literally a bad person.
The beauty of that however is that I give ZERO f***s about what players think, I do what I want, so it works out quite perfect :)
Suffice it to say I have NEVER run a game of 5e with all the options available, in fact most of the time less than 30-50% of what is in the book is allowed. It depends mostly on the setting I'm using or have created for a particular campaign, that is almost always the driving force behind what is and isn't in.
While in reality/historically there are pages and pages of weapons and their variations, for purposes of the game, there isn't that much difference between them. I don't know about the current PHB but the 2014 book specifically said use the stats of a weapon that is close enough or reflavor one depending on the stats of the weapon. We don't need 5 different kinds of short bladed weapons when they are all essentially shortswords.
Regarding armor, again, use what is presented or flavor it to your liking.
You cannot do the same thing with spells. There are so many spells because there are so many different effects that should be represented.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The problem with subclasses is that you can't turn a broad archetype into one, because they're very narrow.
And yes, Sorcerers really do feel like they could be a subclass of wizard; WotC didn't do a very good job of differentiating the two in 5e. That's not the case for druids and clerics, and it shouldn't have been so for sorcerers.
They don't actually need an extant archetype to make a class, as long as they can make them mechanically and flavorfully distinct, which they did with Warlocks.
Nonetheless, the archetype of somebody who gets power from bargains with other entities is one that exists. Elric of Melnibone is probably a major influence, but deals with the devil are a very common one, too. The ones in fiction are usually more volatile and limited, but that's because they don't have to be balanced against the other classes.
It's really about the same proportion.
AD&D: Fighter, thief, assassin, monk, vs magic-user, illusionist, cleric, druid, ranger, paladin. (The mix was different in 2e, but I don't remember it. I don't think it was that different.)
Basic had different proportions, but its weird species/class thing distorts things a lot: Fighter, thief, dwarf, halfling vs magic-user, cleric, elf.
(I argue that in Basic, Fighter, Thief, Cleric, and Magic-User are also separate species. :)
There's a limit to what you can give a class before it starts getting into the realm of "these are just magic powers", and D&D mostly does magic powers by spells. (It could stretch out to other systems, but they choose not to.) There's just not a huge amount of design space that doesn't stray too far into the territory of the extant classes.
Also, they're probably still overly twitchy about the reaction 4e got.
Depressingly, the new PHB did not include a sidebar to affirm that weapon forms are fluid relative to a specific entry. It's a part of a very disappointing general trend of the book lacking more than a flyby on anything but technical details, which imo hurts new players' accessibility to roleplay prompts to help them flesh a concept out in different directions.
When building a caster, I try to lean into the subclass features. My diviner’s spell selection is influenced by portent because I know that I can generally force a spell save failure when I need to or force a ranged attack when I need to. My abjurer’s spell selection is influenced by the fact that I’ll probably be in melee next to the barbarian. My illusionist’s spell selection is influenced by malleable illusion.
Class-wise, my prime attribute and the skills built off of it play a bigger role, but the different spell lists are still a factor.
I do agree that there isn't enough daylight between some of the classes. That's why I liked the old Warlock, because its spellcasting system was substantially different from everyone else's.
However, I'm questioning Druids being the same as Clerics. Like, the big thing about Druids is Wildshaping, which Clerics can't do. Likewise, Clerics are great against undead and demons, which Druids aren't. They are more substantively different than most other classes.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I honestly don't see why the Magic-user Class was deleted from D&D. You didn't pick Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock or whatever. You just picked Magic-User. And then you picked your spells. Done.
Why WotC decided you can't choose your own spells anymore is a real head scratcher to be honest. But whatever.
Edit: I don't mean you can't choose any spells. What I mean is that a Magic-user has access to any spell from any "school." So I could have a mix of Necromancy, Evocation, Conjuration and Cleric if I wanted to. No rule to say I can't.
Well, that's in some ways the opposite of "roleplaying" if you just have a whole buffet of every spell effect to pick from rather than different classes that specialize in different areas.
It didn't get deleted. It just got renamed as wizard. The magic-user class had the same spell list as the modern wizard, it had no ability to pick spells from the cleric or druid lists (in very early D&D you also didn't pick your spells, you rolled randomly for which spells you knew).
It isn't the "opposite of roleplaying" at all because roleplaying doesn't even require the selection of an archetype. Many are the table-top role-playing games that are entirely classless least of all games that lack the options in that regard made available to players in modern D&D.
Do you honestly believe a character's "role" in a game like Call of Cthulhu is the character's "occupation"? It isn't. In case you're wondering.
It wasn't until Wizards of the Coast realized they had generations of video game players they might capture and when we started to see the game look and feel more and more like a video game with players choosing whether or not they'd be one of the the party's "tanks" or whatever that "roleplaying" was even conceived of as being reducible to a character's "role"—or function—in the party.
Previously the "role" in "roleplaying" was not at all thought of as being the "function" of the character. It was the "role"—or part—played by the player in what is a game that it many ways is a sort of theater.
Two different magic-users using an earlier edition of D&D could be far more distinct from one another than two characters of two completely different arcane classes in modern D&D based on how they were roleplayed. If anything the philosophy of less is more signifies here. Because we see far too often people get stuck so rigidly in what their idea is of one of these subclasses instead of focusing more on character. Carbon copy character after character is what we see more of when it is more about options and less about actually roleplaying.
Once again, the new account whose only raison d’êtra on this forum is making gatekeeping “modern players don’t know how to play” posts is making a nonsense gatekeeping “modern players don’t know how to play” post.
Here’s the reality for those who are on this forum in good faith: A good roleplayer can make a complex character with a symple system or a complex one. A bad roleplayer can make a simple character with either system. Roleplaying, and the desire to interact with it, is an internal player decision. The old school players who were good at roleplaying can make just as interesting characters under the new system as they could the old. And the players who struggle to make complex characters in the current system? They also struggle when you put them in more mechanically simple systems. Mechanics do not change that - the player deciding to change themselves does.
Of course, “good role players and bad role players have always and will always exist” doesn’t fit the “I hate modern players and want to make their game experience as miserable as possible” endgame of this person.
And on top of that, does it really matter if someone else is a bad roleplayer or not as long as they're having fun and aren't being disruptive? The only wrong way to roleplay is if you're stomping on the fun of everyone else at the table. If someone isn't getting into character the same way you would, that's a "you" problem, not a "them" problem.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Someone else insisted that "roleplaying" was having a character that serves some "role" or "function." That this is why class is "necessary."
I pointed out how there are classless role-playing games. How the roles we play are the "parts" we play in the stories we tell together at our tables. Would you not agree?
You even suggested yourself that it is about character.
Yes. You are right. Whether a system has a billion options or not doesn't mean a player can't make a complex character. I never said otherwise other than to say we do see a lot of characters who are reducible to their archetypes. Which is essentially what the other poster insisted was what made roleplaying roleplaying.
You are basically agreeing with me but finding a reason to get upset because I pointed out how a lot of people who came to D&D after years of playing video games are committed to that other poster's definition of roleplaying.
Are you unaware that was one of the biggest criticisms of 4th. Edition?
I did not say anything about "getting into character."
I am talking about character. As in what we get when at least some degree of characterization is given consideration. When a character is a history and a personality say and not just numbers brought about by the rules.
I would agree that it doesn't really matter how people play. Just as long as they are having fun. But it's not as if when roleplaying games were first being developed we did not see the development of ideas about what does and what does not constitute a roleplaying game. Would it be a roleplaying game if the characters were completely drained of any sense of character? If it was basically just a combat game? People sitting around with "characters" and just resolving combat after combat? No story? No real roles played at all? I don't think so. it would still be a game. But not a roleplaying game.
Regardless of whether or not a person cares to roleplay, a Bard has an extremely different suite of capabilities from a Wizard, even with the change to Magic Secrets. Warlocks of course handle completely differently from any other caster, and while Sorcerers have the least differences in general spellcasting, they also have stronger features for interacting with their spellcasting in unique ways. And all of these create different roles in a party's larger dynamic, therefore altering the way they are played. "Roleplay" does not only mean "acting out a character", it also refers to how a character's features influence the way they engage with the game.
The existence of one form of RPG does not mean every RPG must hew to that model. Classless RPGs tend far towards the soft end of the spectrum, whereas D&D is well into the hard end. Ergo, a point made comparing the two is of rather limited value, given that in many ways you're comparing apples to oranges.
I never said every game must "hew to" the same model. I simply pointed out the existence of classless systems to make clear how preposterous it is to suggest that what makes roleplaying roleplaying is characters belonging to archetypes that serve a mechanical function. Which is what you implied. Not even throughout D&D's history until the arrival of 4th. Edition was the "role" in "roleplaying" even thought of as whether you were going to be a fighter or a cleric or whatever. It was about the "part" played. In a game that is a form of theater. One of the major criticisms against 4th. Edition was that having players decide whether they were going to occupy this or that function in the party—be a "tank" say—instead of thinking more about a character's character made it look and feel more like a video game than a roleplaying game.
Classless role-playing games include things like Chaosium's line of games and other games that are skills based.
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying has careers. But is classless.
These games aren't towards the "soft end" of some spectrum you have conjured up just to assert the illusion I am comparing apples to oranges when what I am doing is making clear that roleplaying is defined as assuming the role of a character in a game of fiction. Not whether you are a wizard or a sorcerer.
EDIT: Can you point me in the direction of text in a published 5th. Edition book that says by roleplaying one is choosing which function one will serve in the party? What class? Not that it is playing the role of a character?
I never said it was the only factor, but it is one that carries significant weight.