I never said it was the only factor, but it is one that carries significant weight.
It does indeed. I totally agree. Maybe next time don't respond to someone merely suggesting the game could use fewer classes and a single arcane class might suffice by telling that someone that would be "the opposite of roleplaying" when it would be no such thing.
It's worth noting that from that "buffet" of spells a player playing a magic-user could well be curating their choices to fit their character and their character could well be partially inspired by a character from a book or a movie whose "role" is more either sorcerer or wizard or the player just wants to make these choices to skin the magic-use that way. Roleplaying sees a player making choices that make sense for his or her character. I'd say the opposite of roleplaying is a player making choices more dependent on how they will serve what is really powergaming more than they will roleplaying. That trend is possible with or without an array of classes and subclasses. No question. But the more and more more options have been made available has definitely seen an increase in that approach. Even as early as 2nd. Edition a bunch of superfluous splatbooks would see players caring more about how powerful they could get a character than they did how interesting that character would be.
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! :/
The short answer is no, we don't need the plethora of casters in the game. Look how many individual spells are available to ALL or a subset of the caster classes. A Fireball can be cast by at least one subclass of Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric, Warlock, and Rogue. Oh, I forgot, also Fighter, Artificer, AND Monk. It is ridiculous. Someone wants to argue for multiple spell casting classes? Fine. That person can make that argument. Many would disagree with it, but so be it. But DON"T make that argument about having multiple casters when there is massive overlap in the spells being cast by so many classes. The only way such an amount of spell casting classes can be justified is to limit many spells to a tiny subset of each class, making those spells a signature spell for that class. But that would require good game design, and actually telling players "no" when they demand of the designer "more options".
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.
This really isn't accurate. Classless systems include some of the most rules-heavy RPGs out there, because if you want to let people mechanically customize their characters exactly as they want, that leads to a lot of mechanics. (GURPS and Champions, I'm looking at you) Both classless and classed (at least if you define 'classed' as 'choosing a basic template that restricts the abilities you can have') cover the range of rules-light to rules-heavy.
Neither is better or worse for roleplaying. Experienced players can roleplay with any framework. What helps less-experienced players is having a framework where they have to make choices about their character. Classed systems make it easier to get started by constraining the choices, but can oversimplify and give you little to hang a concept on. In old AD&D, if you decided to play a paladin, there were no other choices to make. This fails to discourage people from playing "generic paladin" (this was exacerbated by the AD&D paladin class, but never mind). In 5e, you have a few more choices. You're playing a paladin, OK. What were you before? You were a sailor. You look at the subclasses, and you like the look of Oath of Vengeance. It's still not a lot of choices, but there are questions. What leads you to be seeking holy vengeance? Why did you leave the life of the sea to pursue this path? (Given these choices, there's a good chance you've got some smites set aside for pirates.)
And that's part of the value of the different caster classes. Even if they weren't as mechanically distinct, they're flavorfully distinct. Your wizard is conceptually different from your warlock; just by choosing one class over the other, you have made a decision that can inform your roleplay.
I'm at least partially inclined to agree with the original poster. It used to be that if you wanted to play an arcane caster able to cast fireball (let's say), you needed to play a wizard. Now there are actually very few 'wizard only' spells, and you can still get access to them without having to play a Wizard. Once upon a time, if a Fighter wanted to cast Wizard spells, they had to multi-class into Wizard. Now there's Eldritch Knight, or just take a feat that then gives Wizard spells.
Add to that the number of ways to get spells from other classes spell lists, and the number of species that now get spells - and it really does seem like they're trying to make every single class a spellcaster.
And the poster does have a point. Once upon a time there were pages of weapons in the game, each with their own flavor, but in the interest of 'simplicity' they reduced them to just a handful of weapons and told us to just "use the closest one to what you want and re-skin it". Yet, look at how many different types of "smite" spells there have been (could have just made one smite spell and allowed the caster to choose between different options within the same spell), did we really need a half-dozen different smite spells?
Once upon a time if you wanted to gain abilities of a different class, you could do so, by multi-classing. Now you can multi-class, choose a species that gets it for free, pick a feat (it's repeatable, take it three times), or use a sub-class that gives you access to what was once the sole realm of another class. They keep inching closer to a system where abilities are chosen ala carte instead of being 'owned' by a unique class. Just because other game systems do that, doesn't mean that D&D should do so.
I do kind of miss the days when if you wanted to be a spellcaster, you needed to multi-class. Now, there are non-wizards who actually make better wizards, than wizards do (and it's not just limited to wizards). Every class now has healing abilities, every class now has spellcasting abilities (and seriously, why are they handing out the equivalent of Misty Step to everything under the sun in the new edition?).
There isn't a single character class now that doesn't have spellcasting options. Don't get me wrong, some of them are really fun to play, but the original poster does have a point.
They really are turning every class into a spellcaster.
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! :/
I can't talk about the contents of the 2024 PHB because I really haven't been following 5.5e of late. However, I do think it's wonderful that we have such a large number of spellcasting classes because it simply allows for more variety in terms of what type of caster people get to play.
Now, Warlock is a wacky class and I've only seen it used at lower levels but it's always seemed terrible to me. That's likely because the games I've run and played in utilize long rests much more than short ones. That is precisely the opposite of what the devs wanted but unfortunately I think it's the reality of how most of us play 5e. However, I do like that Warlock has a more unique spellcasting system in the current edition and absolutely wish we saw other forms of spellcasting. I mean, I've always wanted a Witch class to be added that allows you to pick from a smaller number of curses and use them more often.
And I believe that there must be a place for simplicity among both casters and Warriors and most spellslingers are too overcomplicated to appeal to newer players. However, I do agree that there should be more complex Martials and it is quite bothersome to me that the vast majority of complexity in the Player's Handbook always seems to be relegated to casters while there doesn't seem to be any Warrior class for advanced and highly strategic players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
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! :/
I can't talk about the contents of the 2024 PHB because I really haven't been following 5.5e of late. However, I do think it's wonderful that we have such a large number of spellcasting classes because it simply allows for more variety in terms of what type of caster people get to play.
Now, Warlock is a wacky class and I've only seen it used at lower levels but it's always seemed terrible to me. That's likely because the games I've run and played in utilize long rests much more than short ones. That is precisely the opposite of what the devs wanted but unfortunately I think it's the reality of how most of us play 5e. However, I do like that Warlock has a more unique spellcasting system in the current edition and absolutely wish we saw other forms of spellcasting. I mean, I've always wanted a Witch class to be added that allows you to pick from a smaller number of curses and use them more often.
And I believe that there must be a place for simplicity among both casters and Warriors and most spellslingers are too overcomplicated to appeal to newer players. However, I do agree that there should be more complex Martials and it is quite bothersome to me that the vast majority of complexity in the Player's Handbook always seems to be relegated to casters while there doesn't seem to be any Warrior class for advanced and highly strategic players.
Welcome back, BB! It's been a while.
The variety of spell lists (Vs a common one) makes it easier for beginner players to have a variety of options. It makes a more meaningful choice for class choice - because choosing a Wizard gives you one list, while choosing a Cleric nets you a different one. However, once you're more experienced, it very much constrains you. You can't build a Wizard that heals (other than using a subclass that gets it for you and that specific set of spells at that), or a Cleric that Fireballs. A common spell list would provide much more variety.
The decision to differentiate Classes by their spell list furthers one of the main issues I have with 5e - the majority of your agency that you get to express is not "in-game" or even at one of your twenty potential level-ups, but in the first three levels, or in the first 15% of your game experience with that character. Compare that to STA or TOR where you're actively making decisions about your character's build at the end of each adventure (around three sessions). Spellcasters ameliorate this to an extent, allowing you to make small and temporary changes quite frequently via spell selection, but the spell lists dampen this.
I like the idea of spell lists because because it allows control of flavour - Wizards cast wizardy spells and Bards cast bardy spells - but it does constrain variety. I prefer how they differentiate Warlocks (I was glad to read that they'd ditched their reformation of their spellcasting) because it genuinely makes the class different to the others. I feel like an even better thing to do would be to create a more unique spellcasting system for each class - rather than how their focus is flavoured or the spell list.
I think the game is headed more towards pushing short rests (Wizards now work on short rests, for example). Hopefully that will make Warlocks more viable.
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.
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! :/
I can't talk about the contents of the 2024 PHB because I really haven't been following 5.5e of late. However, I do think it's wonderful that we have such a large number of spellcasting classes because it simply allows for more variety in terms of what type of caster people get to play.
Now, Warlock is a wacky class and I've only seen it used at lower levels but it's always seemed terrible to me. That's likely because the games I've run and played in utilize long rests much more than short ones. That is precisely the opposite of what the devs wanted but unfortunately I think it's the reality of how most of us play 5e. However, I do like that Warlock has a more unique spellcasting system in the current edition and absolutely wish we saw other forms of spellcasting. I mean, I've always wanted a Witch class to be added that allows you to pick from a smaller number of curses and use them more often.
And I believe that there must be a place for simplicity among both casters and Warriors and most spellslingers are too overcomplicated to appeal to newer players. However, I do agree that there should be more complex Martials and it is quite bothersome to me that the vast majority of complexity in the Player's Handbook always seems to be relegated to casters while there doesn't seem to be any Warrior class for advanced and highly strategic players.
Welcome back, BB! It's been a while.
The variety of spell lists (Vs a common one) makes it easier for beginner players to have a variety of options. It makes a more meaningful choice for class choice - because choosing a Wizard gives you one list, while choosing a Cleric nets you a different one. However, once you're more experienced, it very much constrains you. You can't build a Wizard that heals (other than using a subclass that gets it for you and that specific set of spells at that), or a Cleric that Fireballs. A common spell list would provide much more variety.
The decision to differentiate Classes by their spell list furthers one of the main issues I have with 5e - the majority of your agency that you get to express is not "in-game" or even at one of your twenty potential level-ups, but in the first three levels, or in the first 15% of your game experience with that character. Compare that to STA or TOR where you're actively making decisions about your character's build at the end of each adventure (around three sessions). Spellcasters ameliorate this to an extent, allowing you to make small and temporary changes quite frequently via spell selection, but the spell lists dampen this.
I like the idea of spell lists because because it allows control of flavour - Wizards cast wizardy spells and Bards cast bardy spells - but it does constrain variety. I prefer how they differentiate Warlocks (I was glad to read that they'd ditched their reformation of their spellcasting) because it genuinely makes the class different to the others. I feel like an even better thing to do would be to create a more unique spellcasting system for each class - rather than how their focus is flavoured or the spell list.
I think the game is headed more towards pushing short rests (Wizards now work on short rests, for example). Hopefully that will make Warlocks more viable.
You say Wizards now work on short rests. I don't know that mechanic change? What is it, precisely?
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! :/
I can't talk about the contents of the 2024 PHB because I really haven't been following 5.5e of late. However, I do think it's wonderful that we have such a large number of spellcasting classes because it simply allows for more variety in terms of what type of caster people get to play.
Now, Warlock is a wacky class and I've only seen it used at lower levels but it's always seemed terrible to me. That's likely because the games I've run and played in utilize long rests much more than short ones. That is precisely the opposite of what the devs wanted but unfortunately I think it's the reality of how most of us play 5e. However, I do like that Warlock has a more unique spellcasting system in the current edition and absolutely wish we saw other forms of spellcasting. I mean, I've always wanted a Witch class to be added that allows you to pick from a smaller number of curses and use them more often.
And I believe that there must be a place for simplicity among both casters and Warriors and most spellslingers are too overcomplicated to appeal to newer players. However, I do agree that there should be more complex Martials and it is quite bothersome to me that the vast majority of complexity in the Player's Handbook always seems to be relegated to casters while there doesn't seem to be any Warrior class for advanced and highly strategic players.
Welcome back, BB! It's been a while.
The variety of spell lists (Vs a common one) makes it easier for beginner players to have a variety of options. It makes a more meaningful choice for class choice - because choosing a Wizard gives you one list, while choosing a Cleric nets you a different one. However, once you're more experienced, it very much constrains you. You can't build a Wizard that heals (other than using a subclass that gets it for you and that specific set of spells at that), or a Cleric that Fireballs. A common spell list would provide much more variety.
The decision to differentiate Classes by their spell list furthers one of the main issues I have with 5e - the majority of your agency that you get to express is not "in-game" or even at one of your twenty potential level-ups, but in the first three levels, or in the first 15% of your game experience with that character. Compare that to STA or TOR where you're actively making decisions about your character's build at the end of each adventure (around three sessions). Spellcasters ameliorate this to an extent, allowing you to make small and temporary changes quite frequently via spell selection, but the spell lists dampen this.
I like the idea of spell lists because because it allows control of flavour - Wizards cast wizardy spells and Bards cast bardy spells - but it does constrain variety. I prefer how they differentiate Warlocks (I was glad to read that they'd ditched their reformation of their spellcasting) because it genuinely makes the class different to the others. I feel like an even better thing to do would be to create a more unique spellcasting system for each class - rather than how their focus is flavoured or the spell list.
I think the game is headed more towards pushing short rests (Wizards now work on short rests, for example). Hopefully that will make Warlocks more viable.
You say Wizards now work on short rests. I don't know that mechanic change? What is it, precisely?
I was wrong. They changed the wording so it sounded like Arcane Recovery worked on every Short Rest (instead of one Short Rest per day), but they just put it as footnote instead.
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.
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! :/
I can't talk about the contents of the 2024 PHB because I really haven't been following 5.5e of late. However, I do think it's wonderful that we have such a large number of spellcasting classes because it simply allows for more variety in terms of what type of caster people get to play.
Now, Warlock is a wacky class and I've only seen it used at lower levels but it's always seemed terrible to me. That's likely because the games I've run and played in utilize long rests much more than short ones. That is precisely the opposite of what the devs wanted but unfortunately I think it's the reality of how most of us play 5e. However, I do like that Warlock has a more unique spellcasting system in the current edition and absolutely wish we saw other forms of spellcasting. I mean, I've always wanted a Witch class to be added that allows you to pick from a smaller number of curses and use them more often.
And I believe that there must be a place for simplicity among both casters and Warriors and most spellslingers are too overcomplicated to appeal to newer players. However, I do agree that there should be more complex Martials and it is quite bothersome to me that the vast majority of complexity in the Player's Handbook always seems to be relegated to casters while there doesn't seem to be any Warrior class for advanced and highly strategic players.
Welcome back, BB! It's been a while.
The variety of spell lists (Vs a common one) makes it easier for beginner players to have a variety of options. It makes a more meaningful choice for class choice - because choosing a Wizard gives you one list, while choosing a Cleric nets you a different one. However, once you're more experienced, it very much constrains you. You can't build a Wizard that heals (other than using a subclass that gets it for you and that specific set of spells at that), or a Cleric that Fireballs. A common spell list would provide much more variety.
The decision to differentiate Classes by their spell list furthers one of the main issues I have with 5e - the majority of your agency that you get to express is not "in-game" or even at one of your twenty potential level-ups, but in the first three levels, or in the first 15% of your game experience with that character. Compare that to STA or TOR where you're actively making decisions about your character's build at the end of each adventure (around three sessions). Spellcasters ameliorate this to an extent, allowing you to make small and temporary changes quite frequently via spell selection, but the spell lists dampen this.
I like the idea of spell lists because because it allows control of flavour - Wizards cast wizardy spells and Bards cast bardy spells - but it does constrain variety. I prefer how they differentiate Warlocks (I was glad to read that they'd ditched their reformation of their spellcasting) because it genuinely makes the class different to the others. I feel like an even better thing to do would be to create a more unique spellcasting system for each class - rather than how their focus is flavoured or the spell list.
I think the game is headed more towards pushing short rests (Wizards now work on short rests, for example). Hopefully that will make Warlocks more viable.
You say Wizards now work on short rests. I don't know that mechanic change? What is it, precisely?
I was wrong. They changed the wording so it sounded like Arcane Recovery worked on every Short Rest (instead of one Short Rest per day), but they just put it as footnote instead.
There is Memorize Spell at 5th level though; swap one leveled spell per SR. Gives some additional flexibility to tag in more situational spells based on what's expected in the next encounter.
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?
I came back to playing DnD in 5e after many, many years of being on hiatus, even though I did keep reading up on it. I started in Basic DnD, and then progessed to ADnD 1st and 2nd Edition. The highlighted is something that was new to me playing with the current generation of players. They built their characters going by the "Holy Trinity" concept, which was weird for me for DnD. Yes back in the day, we ensured we had a healer and damage dealers, but it wasn't as pronounced as it is now where the people I played with mainly saw their characters as those roles, not by the personality of who the character is. For me when I build characters, I choose classes and subclasses that match what his/her background story is and how I perceive the character. Not by what is the "meta" of how to get the maximum output of their classes.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just different for someone like me who played from way back in the day. But I do agree with you that it seems like the current iteration of DnD players seem more geared towards seeing their characters as DD, Tank, Healer archetypes. And to reiterate, that is just from my experience with current players.
I came back to playing DnD in 5e after many, many years of being on hiatus, even though I did keep reading up on it. I started in Basic DnD, and then progessed to ADnD 1st and 2nd Edition. The highlighted is something that was new to me playing with the current generation of players. They built their characters going by the "Holy Trinity" concept, which was weird for me for DnD. Yes back in the day, we ensured we had a healer and damage dealers, but it wasn't as pronounced as it is now where the people I played with mainly saw their characters as those roles, not by the personality of who the character is. For me when I build characters, I choose classes and subclasses that match what his/her background story is and how I perceive the character. Not by what is the "meta" of how to get the maximum output of their classes.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just different for someone like me who played from way back in the day. But I do agree with you that it seems like the current iteration of DnD players seem more geared towards seeing their characters as DD, Tank, Healer archetypes. And to reiterate, that is just from my experience with current players.
My experience was the exact opposite: I've played every edition since 2E, and 5th Edition is the first time where I've regularly seen groups that didn't have groups that stuck hard to making sure that there was at least one cleric, one fighter, one wizard, and one thief/rogue per party. Self-healing is now sufficient that healing magic is no longer essential, nor is having a rogue/thief around because traps don't require a class-specific ability to find or disarm. That's left significantly more leeway when it comes to party composition.
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.
I came back to playing DnD in 5e after many, many years of being on hiatus, even though I did keep reading up on it. I started in Basic DnD, and then progessed to ADnD 1st and 2nd Edition. The highlighted is something that was new to me playing with the current generation of players. They built their characters going by the "Holy Trinity" concept, which was weird for me for DnD. Yes back in the day, we ensured we had a healer and damage dealers, but it wasn't as pronounced as it is now where the people I played with mainly saw their characters as those roles, not by the personality of who the character is. For me when I build characters, I choose classes and subclasses that match what his/her background story is and how I perceive the character. Not by what is the "meta" of how to get the maximum output of their classes.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just different for someone like me who played from way back in the day. But I do agree with you that it seems like the current iteration of DnD players seem more geared towards seeing their characters as DD, Tank, Healer archetypes. And to reiterate, that is just from my experience with current players.
My experience was the exact opposite: I've played every edition since 2E, and 5th Edition is the first time where I've regularly seen groups that didn't have groups that stuck hard to making sure that there was at least one cleric, one fighter, one wizard, and one thief/rogue per party. Self-healing is now sufficient that healing magic is no longer essential, nor is having a rogue/thief around because traps don't require a class-specific ability to find or disarm. That's left significantly more leeway when it comes to party composition.
Well. I'm glad your experience has been better than mine. And I do agree with the highlighted part, though.
The thing is that the original design behind classes, in fact, the whole point of the class/level system was very specifically to create archetypes with varied progressions to support the core playstyle of the game. Without archetypes and without the concentrated effort to support the dungeon crawl-survival game that D&D was, there really is no point to classes, you might as well modularize all the abilities and simply create a point value for each and allow players to mix and match however they want.
Don't get me wrong, I mean I liked 3e, I liked 4e, I liked 5e, and I'm sure I will like the next one but these games are so far removed from the original playstyle, a playstyle that is not even supported or possible with the current editions of the game unless you make extreme changes to the point of redesign that its silly to continue to pretend like these games have anything to do with the classic game of D&D. These are fantasy games and they have their own playstyles and that's fine, but for some reason these modern fantasy games that we are still calling D&D are hanging to these old design concepts that haven't served a purpose in the game since 3rd edition and you have to wonder... why? What is the point of them?
I mean, new players coming into D&D who never played the game have no such attachments to these sacred cows so you have to wonder, who are they for?
My experience was the exact opposite: I've played every edition since 2E, and 5th Edition is the first time where I've regularly seen groups that didn't have groups that stuck hard to making sure that there was at least one cleric, one fighter, one wizard, and one thief/rogue per party. Self-healing is now sufficient that healing magic is no longer essential, nor is having a rogue/thief around because traps don't require a class-specific ability to find or disarm. That's left significantly more leeway when it comes to party composition.
Healing, Traps, magic.. all of these things were part of a game that had defined strategies built around a core playstyle and premise. If healing is not special or unique to any class, if magic is not special or unique to any class, if anyone can fight in a melee as good as anyone else, if traps can be circumvented by anyone.. etc..etc.. the game becomes a blob of nothing special. Again, I have to ask, what is the point of classes if every class can do everything and no class needs any other class? Why have a class system at that point?
I mean even the video game archetypes don't actually exist, any class can be a tank, any class can be a DPS, any class can be a healer.. I mean.. none of these things have any value in the game anymore beyond the mathematical optimization. So far as I can see every balance issue the game has stems from the fact that there is no attempt to balance anything. The game can be summed up as any Character can do X damage and we just put a lot of adjectives on what that X damage represents. Its actually pretty lifeless and meangless.
I'm at least partially inclined to agree with the original poster. It used to be that if you wanted to play an arcane caster able to cast fireball (let's say), you needed to play a wizard. Now there are actually very few 'wizard only' spells, and you can still get access to them without having to play a Wizard. Once upon a time, if a Fighter wanted to cast Wizard spells, they had to multi-class into Wizard. Now there's Eldritch Knight, or just take a feat that then gives Wizard spells.
Add to that the number of ways to get spells from other classes spell lists, and the number of species that now get spells - and it really does seem like they're trying to make every single class a spellcaster.
And the poster does have a point. Once upon a time there were pages of weapons in the game, each with their own flavor, but in the interest of 'simplicity' they reduced them to just a handful of weapons and told us to just "use the closest one to what you want and re-skin it". Yet, look at how many different types of "smite" spells there have been (could have just made one smite spell and allowed the caster to choose between different options within the same spell), did we really need a half-dozen different smite spells?
Once upon a time if you wanted to gain abilities of a different class, you could do so, by multi-classing. Now you can multi-class, choose a species that gets it for free, pick a feat (it's repeatable, take it three times), or use a sub-class that gives you access to what was once the sole realm of another class. They keep inching closer to a system where abilities are chosen ala carte instead of being 'owned' by a unique class. Just because other game systems do that, doesn't mean that D&D should do so.
I do kind of miss the days when if you wanted to be a spellcaster, you needed to multi-class. Now, there are non-wizards who actually make better wizards, than wizards do (and it's not just limited to wizards). Every class now has healing abilities, every class now has spellcasting abilities (and seriously, why are they handing out the equivalent of Misty Step to everything under the sun in the new edition?).
There isn't a single character class now that doesn't have spellcasting options. Don't get me wrong, some of them are really fun to play, but the original poster does have a point.
They really are turning every class into a spellcaster.
I agree with this.
Gone is content that once provided us with more options for weapons. There used to be about five times as many types of polearms for example. The medievalists among us appreciated this sort of content but more to the point melee and ranged now take a back seat to magic. I mean we have had several subsets of rules to determine how magic functions for different casters but little to no real content for melee and ranged combat in years.
Even the new rules for Weapons Mastery are light and rather vanilla.
Magic is front and center when it used to be a bit more of a less is more approach that made it more flavorful.
And where is the official content for domain-level play?
If critics say 5th. Edition feels a bit more like the Avengers than it does a fantasy role-playing game its giving little to no consideration to what characters might do beyond their forming teams consisting of practically unkillable entities who mostly have access to powers of some kind and their not and maybe never leading armies or schooling others in wizardry or running guilds you can't really blame them.
My experience was the exact opposite: I've played every edition since 2E, and 5th Edition is the first time where I've regularly seen groups that didn't have groups that stuck hard to making sure that there was at least one cleric, one fighter, one wizard, and one thief/rogue per party. Self-healing is now sufficient that healing magic is no longer essential, nor is having a rogue/thief around because traps don't require a class-specific ability to find or disarm. That's left significantly more leeway when it comes to party composition.
Healing, Traps, magic.. all of these things were part of a game that had defined strategies built around a core playstyle and premise. If healing is not special or unique to any class, if magic is not special or unique to any class, if anyone can fight in a melee as good as anyone else, if traps can be circumvented by anyone.. etc..etc.. the game becomes a blob of nothing special. Again, I have to ask, what is the point of classes if every class can do everything and no class needs any other class? Why have a class system at that point?
I mean even the video game archetypes don't actually exist, any class can be a tank, any class can be a DPS, any class can be a healer.. I mean.. none of these things have any value in the game anymore beyond the mathematical optimization. So far as I can see every balance issue the game has stems from the fact that there is no attempt to balance anything. The game can be summed up as any Character can do X damage and we just put a lot of adjectives on what that X damage represents. Its actually pretty lifeless and meangless.
D&D should never be a video game, where each PC is locked into a specific role like WoW.....however, in old school D&D that kind of is where it went. But I agree with you overall. If a Thief can do as much damage as a Fighter, and a Wizard can stand in the front lines, there is something wrong with the game design.
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?
I came back to playing DnD in 5e after many, many years of being on hiatus, even though I did keep reading up on it. I started in Basic DnD, and then progessed to ADnD 1st and 2nd Edition. The highlighted is something that was new to me playing with the current generation of players. They built their characters going by the "Holy Trinity" concept, which was weird for me for DnD. Yes back in the day, we ensured we had a healer and damage dealers, but it wasn't as pronounced as it is now where the people I played with mainly saw their characters as those roles, not by the personality of who the character is. For me when I build characters, I choose classes and subclasses that match what his/her background story is and how I perceive the character. Not by what is the "meta" of how to get the maximum output of their classes.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just different for someone like me who played from way back in the day. But I do agree with you that it seems like the current iteration of DnD players seem more geared towards seeing their characters as DD, Tank, Healer archetypes. And to reiterate, that is just from my experience with current players.
I hear you. I started in '83 with BECMI. Played through the '80s and '90s. Similarly having progressed to 1st. and 2nd. Experienced a bit of a hiatus after a big move. Got back into it briefly during 3rd. When 4th. arrived I would instead run AD&D games. Now 5th. I think has many great things about it and it has brought a lot of people back to the table after many years of playing other games or not at all. It'a a good game. And I wouldn't necessarily blame the system for what we are seeing. This meta approach of "building" a character instead of allowing the story to determine the direction a character might take feels to me as if the actual game is being replaced with a whole other: one more about the process of character creation and of "builds." As you said it's not right or wrong. People can play however they want. But I do think there is an irony to this as D&D has seen such a surge in popularity with no small thanks to nostalgia pieces like Stranger Things but so many aren't playing how it was once played.
A party of adventurers does't really need one of every core archetype. It helps. And for the most part we would if perhaps less consciously tend towards having at least a cleric and a mage and some frontline fighters. But I mean I have fond memories of playing in one campaign in which everyone in the party was a thief belonging to either the same or a rival guild. Yeah we wished we had a cleric in our ranks. But it was fun and what came together was a great story.
My experience was the exact opposite: I've played every edition since 2E, and 5th Edition is the first time where I've regularly seen groups that didn't have groups that stuck hard to making sure that there was at least one cleric, one fighter, one wizard, and one thief/rogue per party. Self-healing is now sufficient that healing magic is no longer essential, nor is having a rogue/thief around because traps don't require a class-specific ability to find or disarm. That's left significantly more leeway when it comes to party composition.
Healing, Traps, magic.. all of these things were part of a game that had defined strategies built around a core playstyle and premise. If healing is not special or unique to any class, if magic is not special or unique to any class, if anyone can fight in a melee as good as anyone else, if traps can be circumvented by anyone.. etc..etc.. the game becomes a blob of nothing special. Again, I have to ask, what is the point of classes if every class can do everything and no class needs any other class? Why have a class system at that point?
I mean even the video game archetypes don't actually exist, any class can be a tank, any class can be a DPS, any class can be a healer.. I mean.. none of these things have any value in the game anymore beyond the mathematical optimization. So far as I can see every balance issue the game has stems from the fact that there is no attempt to balance anything. The game can be summed up as any Character can do X damage and we just put a lot of adjectives on what that X damage represents. Its actually pretty lifeless and meangless.
The number of spells that are identical in all but name and flavor ...
You know what they say: Conformity wears the mask of freedom.
My experience was the exact opposite: I've played every edition since 2E, and 5th Edition is the first time where I've regularly seen groups that didn't have groups that stuck hard to making sure that there was at least one cleric, one fighter, one wizard, and one thief/rogue per party. Self-healing is now sufficient that healing magic is no longer essential, nor is having a rogue/thief around because traps don't require a class-specific ability to find or disarm. That's left significantly more leeway when it comes to party composition.
Healing, Traps, magic.. all of these things were part of a game that had defined strategies built around a core playstyle and premise. If healing is not special or unique to any class, if magic is not special or unique to any class, if anyone can fight in a melee as good as anyone else, if traps can be circumvented by anyone.. etc..etc.. the game becomes a blob of nothing special. Again, I have to ask, what is the point of classes if every class can do everything and no class needs any other class? Why have a class system at that point?
I mean even the video game archetypes don't actually exist, any class can be a tank, any class can be a DPS, any class can be a healer.. I mean.. none of these things have any value in the game anymore beyond the mathematical optimization. So far as I can see every balance issue the game has stems from the fact that there is no attempt to balance anything. The game can be summed up as any Character can do X damage and we just put a lot of adjectives on what that X damage represents. Its actually pretty lifeless and meangless.
D&D should never be a video game, where each PC is locked into a specific role like WoW.....however, in old school D&D that kind of is where it went. But I agree with you overall. If a Thief can do as much damage as a Fighter, and a Wizard can stand in the front lines, there is something wrong with the game design.
It makes fighters practically redundant.
Personally I think fighters should be the only class who get their proficiency bonus on their attack roles.
In order to make playing a fighter even remotely attractive to most they have had to make the class more about its subclasses and what these grant. That to me is a failure in class design.
I mean even the video game archetypes don't actually exist, any class can be a tank
Citation needed.
, any class can be a DPS,
Citation needed.
any class can be a healer.
Citation needed.
. I mean.. none of these things have any value in the game anymore beyond the mathematical optimization. So far as I can see every balance issue the game has stems from the fact that there is no attempt to balance anything. The game can be summed up as any Character can do X damage and we just put a lot of adjectives on what that X damage represents. Its actually pretty lifeless and meangless.
Well, if you want to break the game down that far, it's just bedtime stories with dice.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It does indeed. I totally agree. Maybe next time don't respond to someone merely suggesting the game could use fewer classes and a single arcane class might suffice by telling that someone that would be "the opposite of roleplaying" when it would be no such thing.
It's worth noting that from that "buffet" of spells a player playing a magic-user could well be curating their choices to fit their character and their character could well be partially inspired by a character from a book or a movie whose "role" is more either sorcerer or wizard or the player just wants to make these choices to skin the magic-use that way. Roleplaying sees a player making choices that make sense for his or her character. I'd say the opposite of roleplaying is a player making choices more dependent on how they will serve what is really powergaming more than they will roleplaying. That trend is possible with or without an array of classes and subclasses. No question. But the more and more more options have been made available has definitely seen an increase in that approach. Even as early as 2nd. Edition a bunch of superfluous splatbooks would see players caring more about how powerful they could get a character than they did how interesting that character would be.
The short answer is no, we don't need the plethora of casters in the game. Look how many individual spells are available to ALL or a subset of the caster classes. A Fireball can be cast by at least one subclass of Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric, Warlock, and Rogue. Oh, I forgot, also Fighter, Artificer, AND Monk. It is ridiculous. Someone wants to argue for multiple spell casting classes? Fine. That person can make that argument. Many would disagree with it, but so be it. But DON"T make that argument about having multiple casters when there is massive overlap in the spells being cast by so many classes. The only way such an amount of spell casting classes can be justified is to limit many spells to a tiny subset of each class, making those spells a signature spell for that class. But that would require good game design, and actually telling players "no" when they demand of the designer "more options".
This really isn't accurate. Classless systems include some of the most rules-heavy RPGs out there, because if you want to let people mechanically customize their characters exactly as they want, that leads to a lot of mechanics. (GURPS and Champions, I'm looking at you) Both classless and classed (at least if you define 'classed' as 'choosing a basic template that restricts the abilities you can have') cover the range of rules-light to rules-heavy.
Neither is better or worse for roleplaying. Experienced players can roleplay with any framework. What helps less-experienced players is having a framework where they have to make choices about their character. Classed systems make it easier to get started by constraining the choices, but can oversimplify and give you little to hang a concept on. In old AD&D, if you decided to play a paladin, there were no other choices to make. This fails to discourage people from playing "generic paladin" (this was exacerbated by the AD&D paladin class, but never mind). In 5e, you have a few more choices. You're playing a paladin, OK. What were you before? You were a sailor. You look at the subclasses, and you like the look of Oath of Vengeance. It's still not a lot of choices, but there are questions. What leads you to be seeking holy vengeance? Why did you leave the life of the sea to pursue this path? (Given these choices, there's a good chance you've got some smites set aside for pirates.)
And that's part of the value of the different caster classes. Even if they weren't as mechanically distinct, they're flavorfully distinct. Your wizard is conceptually different from your warlock; just by choosing one class over the other, you have made a decision that can inform your roleplay.
I'm at least partially inclined to agree with the original poster. It used to be that if you wanted to play an arcane caster able to cast fireball (let's say), you needed to play a wizard. Now there are actually very few 'wizard only' spells, and you can still get access to them without having to play a Wizard. Once upon a time, if a Fighter wanted to cast Wizard spells, they had to multi-class into Wizard. Now there's Eldritch Knight, or just take a feat that then gives Wizard spells.
Add to that the number of ways to get spells from other classes spell lists, and the number of species that now get spells - and it really does seem like they're trying to make every single class a spellcaster.
And the poster does have a point. Once upon a time there were pages of weapons in the game, each with their own flavor, but in the interest of 'simplicity' they reduced them to just a handful of weapons and told us to just "use the closest one to what you want and re-skin it". Yet, look at how many different types of "smite" spells there have been (could have just made one smite spell and allowed the caster to choose between different options within the same spell), did we really need a half-dozen different smite spells?
Once upon a time if you wanted to gain abilities of a different class, you could do so, by multi-classing. Now you can multi-class, choose a species that gets it for free, pick a feat (it's repeatable, take it three times), or use a sub-class that gives you access to what was once the sole realm of another class. They keep inching closer to a system where abilities are chosen ala carte instead of being 'owned' by a unique class. Just because other game systems do that, doesn't mean that D&D should do so.
I do kind of miss the days when if you wanted to be a spellcaster, you needed to multi-class. Now, there are non-wizards who actually make better wizards, than wizards do (and it's not just limited to wizards). Every class now has healing abilities, every class now has spellcasting abilities (and seriously, why are they handing out the equivalent of Misty Step to everything under the sun in the new edition?).
There isn't a single character class now that doesn't have spellcasting options. Don't get me wrong, some of them are really fun to play, but the original poster does have a point.
They really are turning every class into a spellcaster.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
I can't talk about the contents of the 2024 PHB because I really haven't been following 5.5e of late. However, I do think it's wonderful that we have such a large number of spellcasting classes because it simply allows for more variety in terms of what type of caster people get to play.
Now, Warlock is a wacky class and I've only seen it used at lower levels but it's always seemed terrible to me. That's likely because the games I've run and played in utilize long rests much more than short ones. That is precisely the opposite of what the devs wanted but unfortunately I think it's the reality of how most of us play 5e. However, I do like that Warlock has a more unique spellcasting system in the current edition and absolutely wish we saw other forms of spellcasting. I mean, I've always wanted a Witch class to be added that allows you to pick from a smaller number of curses and use them more often.
And I believe that there must be a place for simplicity among both casters and Warriors and most spellslingers are too overcomplicated to appeal to newer players. However, I do agree that there should be more complex Martials and it is quite bothersome to me that the vast majority of complexity in the Player's Handbook always seems to be relegated to casters while there doesn't seem to be any Warrior class for advanced and highly strategic players.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Welcome back, BB! It's been a while.
The variety of spell lists (Vs a common one) makes it easier for beginner players to have a variety of options. It makes a more meaningful choice for class choice - because choosing a Wizard gives you one list, while choosing a Cleric nets you a different one. However, once you're more experienced, it very much constrains you. You can't build a Wizard that heals (other than using a subclass that gets it for you and that specific set of spells at that), or a Cleric that Fireballs. A common spell list would provide much more variety.
The decision to differentiate Classes by their spell list furthers one of the main issues I have with 5e - the majority of your agency that you get to express is not "in-game" or even at one of your twenty potential level-ups, but in the first three levels, or in the first 15% of your game experience with that character. Compare that to STA or TOR where you're actively making decisions about your character's build at the end of each adventure (around three sessions). Spellcasters ameliorate this to an extent, allowing you to make small and temporary changes quite frequently via spell selection, but the spell lists dampen this.
I like the idea of spell lists because because it allows control of flavour - Wizards cast wizardy spells and Bards cast bardy spells - but it does constrain variety. I prefer how they differentiate Warlocks (I was glad to read that they'd ditched their reformation of their spellcasting) because it genuinely makes the class different to the others. I feel like an even better thing to do would be to create a more unique spellcasting system for each class - rather than how their focus is flavoured or the spell list.
I think the game is headed more towards pushing short rests (
Wizards now work on short rests, for example). Hopefully that will make Warlocks more viable.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.
You say Wizards now work on short rests. I don't know that mechanic change? What is it, precisely?
I was wrong. They changed the wording so it sounded like Arcane Recovery worked on every Short Rest (instead of one Short Rest per day), but they just put it as footnote instead.
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.
There is Memorize Spell at 5th level though; swap one leveled spell per SR. Gives some additional flexibility to tag in more situational spells based on what's expected in the next encounter.
I came back to playing DnD in 5e after many, many years of being on hiatus, even though I did keep reading up on it. I started in Basic DnD, and then progessed to ADnD 1st and 2nd Edition. The highlighted is something that was new to me playing with the current generation of players. They built their characters going by the "Holy Trinity" concept, which was weird for me for DnD. Yes back in the day, we ensured we had a healer and damage dealers, but it wasn't as pronounced as it is now where the people I played with mainly saw their characters as those roles, not by the personality of who the character is. For me when I build characters, I choose classes and subclasses that match what his/her background story is and how I perceive the character. Not by what is the "meta" of how to get the maximum output of their classes.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just different for someone like me who played from way back in the day. But I do agree with you that it seems like the current iteration of DnD players seem more geared towards seeing their characters as DD, Tank, Healer archetypes. And to reiterate, that is just from my experience with current players.
My experience was the exact opposite: I've played every edition since 2E, and 5th Edition is the first time where I've regularly seen groups that didn't have groups that stuck hard to making sure that there was at least one cleric, one fighter, one wizard, and one thief/rogue per party. Self-healing is now sufficient that healing magic is no longer essential, nor is having a rogue/thief around because traps don't require a class-specific ability to find or disarm. That's left significantly more leeway when it comes to party composition.
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.
Well. I'm glad your experience has been better than mine. And I do agree with the highlighted part, though.
The thing is that the original design behind classes, in fact, the whole point of the class/level system was very specifically to create archetypes with varied progressions to support the core playstyle of the game. Without archetypes and without the concentrated effort to support the dungeon crawl-survival game that D&D was, there really is no point to classes, you might as well modularize all the abilities and simply create a point value for each and allow players to mix and match however they want.
Don't get me wrong, I mean I liked 3e, I liked 4e, I liked 5e, and I'm sure I will like the next one but these games are so far removed from the original playstyle, a playstyle that is not even supported or possible with the current editions of the game unless you make extreme changes to the point of redesign that its silly to continue to pretend like these games have anything to do with the classic game of D&D. These are fantasy games and they have their own playstyles and that's fine, but for some reason these modern fantasy games that we are still calling D&D are hanging to these old design concepts that haven't served a purpose in the game since 3rd edition and you have to wonder... why? What is the point of them?
I mean, new players coming into D&D who never played the game have no such attachments to these sacred cows so you have to wonder, who are they for?
Healing, Traps, magic.. all of these things were part of a game that had defined strategies built around a core playstyle and premise. If healing is not special or unique to any class, if magic is not special or unique to any class, if anyone can fight in a melee as good as anyone else, if traps can be circumvented by anyone.. etc..etc.. the game becomes a blob of nothing special. Again, I have to ask, what is the point of classes if every class can do everything and no class needs any other class? Why have a class system at that point?
I mean even the video game archetypes don't actually exist, any class can be a tank, any class can be a DPS, any class can be a healer.. I mean.. none of these things have any value in the game anymore beyond the mathematical optimization. So far as I can see every balance issue the game has stems from the fact that there is no attempt to balance anything. The game can be summed up as any Character can do X damage and we just put a lot of adjectives on what that X damage represents. Its actually pretty lifeless and meangless.
I agree with this.
Gone is content that once provided us with more options for weapons. There used to be about five times as many types of polearms for example. The medievalists among us appreciated this sort of content but more to the point melee and ranged now take a back seat to magic. I mean we have had several subsets of rules to determine how magic functions for different casters but little to no real content for melee and ranged combat in years.
Even the new rules for Weapons Mastery are light and rather vanilla.
Magic is front and center when it used to be a bit more of a less is more approach that made it more flavorful.
And where is the official content for domain-level play?
If critics say 5th. Edition feels a bit more like the Avengers than it does a fantasy role-playing game its giving little to no consideration to what characters might do beyond their forming teams consisting of practically unkillable entities who mostly have access to powers of some kind and their not and maybe never leading armies or schooling others in wizardry or running guilds you can't really blame them.
D&D should never be a video game, where each PC is locked into a specific role like WoW.....however, in old school D&D that kind of is where it went. But I agree with you overall. If a Thief can do as much damage as a Fighter, and a Wizard can stand in the front lines, there is something wrong with the game design.
I hear you. I started in '83 with BECMI. Played through the '80s and '90s. Similarly having progressed to 1st. and 2nd. Experienced a bit of a hiatus after a big move. Got back into it briefly during 3rd. When 4th. arrived I would instead run AD&D games. Now 5th. I think has many great things about it and it has brought a lot of people back to the table after many years of playing other games or not at all. It'a a good game. And I wouldn't necessarily blame the system for what we are seeing. This meta approach of "building" a character instead of allowing the story to determine the direction a character might take feels to me as if the actual game is being replaced with a whole other: one more about the process of character creation and of "builds." As you said it's not right or wrong. People can play however they want. But I do think there is an irony to this as D&D has seen such a surge in popularity with no small thanks to nostalgia pieces like Stranger Things but so many aren't playing how it was once played.
A party of adventurers does't really need one of every core archetype. It helps. And for the most part we would if perhaps less consciously tend towards having at least a cleric and a mage and some frontline fighters. But I mean I have fond memories of playing in one campaign in which everyone in the party was a thief belonging to either the same or a rival guild. Yeah we wished we had a cleric in our ranks. But it was fun and what came together was a great story.
The number of spells that are identical in all but name and flavor ...
You know what they say: Conformity wears the mask of freedom.
It makes fighters practically redundant.
Personally I think fighters should be the only class who get their proficiency bonus on their attack roles.
In order to make playing a fighter even remotely attractive to most they have had to make the class more about its subclasses and what these grant. That to me is a failure in class design.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Well, if you want to break the game down that far, it's just bedtime stories with dice.
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.