Lyxen, when I mentioned advantage/disadvantage I should have said bounded accuracy, that is indeed a larger change. That said I consider that a huge improvement, but that may be because I like my games more Game of Thronesy than Lord of the Ringsy and bounded accuracy makes sure a 10 000 man army beats any single toon (at least 99,9%). It also prevented number-bloating, making every bonus count.
I really think that half casters get overlooked when it comes to the 'back to basics' approach of fighting, skills, caster.
Well, in this case, the Wizard would have zero martial skills. If they want to learn how to fight with a dagger or a staff, they can take a couple of levels of Fighter. If they want skills, take levels of Rogue. Otherwise, stick with cantrips.
I really think that half casters get overlooked when it comes to the 'back to basics' approach of fighting, skills, caster.
Well, in this case, the Wizard would have zero martial skills. If they want to learn how to fight with a dagger or a staff, they can take a couple of levels of Fighter. If they want skills, take levels of Rogue. Otherwise, stick with cantrips.
But in this case a cleric taking fighter levels doesn't work like a paladin. They just fight badly one turn and heal badly the next turn. A wizard with fighter levels just casts badly one turn and fights badly the next turn.
If you're taking it all the way back to the basic 3 or 4 classes, there should be a dedicated half caster class simply due to them playing completely different to a multiclassed character.
I'd argue that paladin has more of a place than cleric. As a cleric can just be a wizard who selects healing spells and follows a god. A paladin isn't just half a cleric and half a fighter.
I really think that half casters get overlooked when it comes to the 'back to basics' approach of fighting, skills, caster.
Well, in this case, the Wizard would have zero martial skills. If they want to learn how to fight with a dagger or a staff, they can take a couple of levels of Fighter. If they want skills, take levels of Rogue. Otherwise, stick with cantrips.
But in this case a cleric taking fighter levels doesn't work like a paladin. They just fight badly one turn and heal badly the next turn. A wizard with fighter levels just casts badly one turn and fights badly the next turn.
If you're taking it all the way back to the basic 3 or 4 classes, there should be a dedicated half caster class simply due to them playing completely different to a multiclassed character.
I'd argue that paladin has more of a place than cleric. As a cleric can just be a wizard who selects healing spells and follows a god. A paladin isn't just half a cleric and half a fighter.
It depends on how the system is designed. If it is designed in such a way that a MC like that can still lead to a Paladin, then you don’t need a 1/2 caster class.
And many, many people reject a Cleric being a “caster” just like a Wizard because they want a more sharply delineated line between Arcane and Divine Magic.
I like the idea of doing away with half casters and making them subclasses only. I feel like a noncaster Paladin and Ranger would be cooler and potentially have better balancing all around. in a new edition i would want a much more obvious difference between Arcane, Divine and Psionic magic (maybe even crafted magic), but also not so different that they require completely different rules systems. i want All classes to be near equally viable, so if that means 2 phbs that come out a yearish apart so be it. i dont want to lose anything i only want to gain stuff
I really think that half casters get overlooked when it comes to the 'back to basics' approach of fighting, skills, caster.
Simply multiclassing together a full caster a martial doesn't make a class which behaves like a half caster should, and you simply end up with a character who fights bad one turn and casts bad the next turn. A 'half caster' class should definitely be included in few classes approach as they play in a fundamentally different way to a multiclassed character, mixing magic into their other skills as a single ability, rather than being able to do them both separately but badly.
A paladins divine smite and smite spells, or a swordmages spellstrike are both good examples of this.
That rather depends on implementation. 5E's action + bonus action (+ move) system easily allows both attacking and casting in the same turn, possibly in a synergistic way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Honestly, I see a lot value in each existing class individually, because these classes represent, above all else, character story archetypes. For me, I like that Sorcerers and Wizards exist in the same universe. I like that Paladins and Clerics are two branches of one single trope (Holy Warrior). What I don't like is the way a lot of these classes are expressed. Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Ranger are all very, very specific character tropes, while the Fighter, Wizard, and Rogue (and I think Monk? But I haven't studied monk much) subclasses do a LOT of heavy lifting when it comes to different expressions of one concept. If it were me, I'd probably split Rogue into two classes, and same for Fighter. Or alternatively, do a lot of merging of other classes into their general concepts and moving the expressions into subclasses (Oh you're magic? Okay your class is magic, now are you divine, arcane, or spirit-binding?)
The other thing that I don't like is Martial character customization. Sure you could say "weapons" and "feats", but casters get those anyway, just slightly more limited. Martials get their class, subclass, fighting form, feats/ASIs, magic items, and gear for their customization. Casters have their class, their subclass, their cantrips, their 1st level spells, 2nd level spells... ... 9th level spells, feats/ASIs, magic items, and their gear. Might be a big part of why everyone wants to "fix martials".
Rasmus was talking about a feat-tree system, and I think that that'd be excellent when applied to martial customization. New abilities to choose from at certain levels, unique to each subclass, with like four or five choices to pick from every four levels. It'd be more fun in my mind to be playing as a fighter, rogue, or similar non-caster if I had a myriad of ways to customize their abilities, rather than making my decisions in the first three levels and then having no choice but to either walk my railroad to its destination, or multiclass.
I like the idea that there would be different play styles for martial classes with different weapons. So your choices wouldn't be limited to essentially one-handed / two-handed / versatile / finesse / ranged. Like a greatsword and great axe would actually use different battle tactics, not just have two different dice choices that roll to almost the same average.
I really think that half casters get overlooked when it comes to the 'back to basics' approach of fighting, skills, caster.
Simply multiclassing together a full caster a martial doesn't make a class which behaves like a half caster should, and you simply end up with a character who fights bad one turn and casts bad the next turn. A 'half caster' class should definitely be included in few classes approach as they play in a fundamentally different way to a multiclassed character, mixing magic into their other skills as a single ability, rather than being able to do them both separately but badly.
A paladins divine smite and smite spells, or a swordmages spellstrike are both good examples of this.
That rather depends on implementation. 5E's action + bonus action (+ move) system easily allows both attacking and casting in the same turn, possibly in a synergistic way.
Imo that's still a cop out way of making a half caster. Yeah they can attack once and cast a cantrip in the same turn. But there is nothing unique about that and they're still just borrowing mechanics can other classes, rather than having their own unique abilities and mechanics.
A fighter should attack twice. A wizard should fireball. A swordmage or paladin should set their sword on fire and attack. That is a unique mechanic no other class can replicate.
A swordmage or paladin should not just cantrip once then attack once, as that's just borrowing from other classes without any identity of their own, and is better suited for just a multiclass.
I'm actually really happy with the six fighting classes - fighter (I'd make it into a dedicated weaponsmaster), Paladin, berserker, monk, ranger, rogue. They're iconic archetypes found across all fantasy mediums, from D&D to books to anime to xianxia stories. I wouldn't even mind getting rid of half-caster-ness, and go with something like how Arcane Archer works, but with smite, auras, etc.
The magic classes.... I would actually take a hatchet to. The modern sorcerer and warlock live in the wizards shadow. Druid and bard, while iconic class archetypes, are forced to model themselves after the cleric in 5e, and lose some of their identity in the process. Instead of a cleric / wizard divide.... I would make a Caster / Worker divide. Casters would include the Wizard, the Cleric, and some dedicated pet class (devil summoner, necromancer, beast master, witch, etc). Then, I would make the Druid, Bard and Artificer into half-caster classes with a focus on their special abilities instead of spell slots. Shapeshifting, Songs / Inspirations, Magic Items.
Variations would be accomplished through feats and kits. Multiclassing.... I'd like to divide into two groups. Dips, hybrids, and and changers. Dips can work like it does in 3e and 5e. That system is terrible for hybrid classes, though, actually feeling like a half-fighter, half-wizard, so there should be something for that. Changes... well, sometimes you make career changes, so how you deal with that is a good idea.
I disagree about warlock living in the wizard's shadow. Warlock is by far the best designed class in 5e, and is the only class with actual choice in how you progress, with the pact boons providing almost a second subclass.
It's sad how my favourite classes are all ones people want gone. Swordmage, warlord, warlock, sorcerer, or any half caster.
I find the archtypical fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric about as interesting as drying paint.
I really think that half casters get overlooked when it comes to the 'back to basics' approach of fighting, skills, caster.
Simply multiclassing together a full caster a martial doesn't make a class which behaves like a half caster should, and you simply end up with a character who fights bad one turn and casts bad the next turn. A 'half caster' class should definitely be included in few classes approach as they play in a fundamentally different way to a multiclassed character, mixing magic into their other skills as a single ability, rather than being able to do them both separately but badly.
A paladins divine smite and smite spells, or a swordmages spellstrike are both good examples of this.
That rather depends on implementation. 5E's action + bonus action (+ move) system easily allows both attacking and casting in the same turn, possibly in a synergistic way.
Imo that's still a cop out way of making a half caster. Yeah they can attack once and cast a cantrip in the same turn. But there is nothing unique about that and they're still just borrowing mechanics can other classes, rather than having their own unique abilities and mechanics.
A fighter should attack twice. A wizard should fireball. A swordmage or paladin should set their sword on fire and attack. That is a unique mechanic no other class can replicate.
A swordmage or paladin should not just cantrip once then attack once, as that's just borrowing from other classes without any identity of their own, and is better suited for just a multiclass.
Setting your sword on fire couldn’t be a cantrip? Invoking smite couldn’t be a spell with a bonus action casting time?
I get that you would prefer more unique mechanics. I play half-casters more often than not (when I get to play). I’d want them to be done right too. I’m just saying, multiclassing a fighter and a caster doesn’t mean they couldn’t blend magic and martial prowess in a single turn. If there’s a problem, it’s more likely that they’d lose out on higher level abilities and synergy between their classes probably can’t make up for that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The other thing that I don't like is Martial character customization. Sure you could say "weapons" and "feats", but casters get those anyway, just slightly more limited. Martials get their class, subclass, fighting form, feats/ASIs, magic items, and gear for their customization. Casters have their class, their subclass, their cantrips, their 1st level spells, 2nd level spells... ... 9th level spells, feats/ASIs, magic items, and their gear. Might be a big part of why everyone wants to "fix martials".
Rasmus was talking about a feat-tree system, and I think that that'd be excellent when applied to martial customization. New abilities to choose from at certain levels, unique to each subclass, with like four or five choices to pick from every four levels. It'd be more fun in my mind to be playing as a fighter, rogue, or similar non-caster if I had a myriad of ways to customize their abilities, rather than making my decisions in the first three levels and then having no choice but to either walk my railroad to its destination, or multiclass.
Hmmm..... You know, I kind of feel like "feat tree" is basically how the Fighter is meant to be customized, but not the others. I mean, everyone takes the occasional feat, but Fighters are the ones who customize their battle experience through collecting feats. Chaining Polearm Mastery with Sentinel and Great Weapon Mastery. Heavy Armor Mastery and Shield Mastery and Crusher. And so on.
I kind of like that, in a real way. It really works for the fighter, and enhances their whole weapons-master stick. No one uses weapon techniques better than the fighter. It has a solid history of working for them. Well, two editions, but I think that the success stands on its own. Just need to add some exploration and social stuff to the base chasis that people can build off of too, or make the feat chains include those stuff, either of which could work. A lot of people do complain about the fighter's lack of ability, but then ignore those options as feats, when picking multiple feats is the
But I'm not sure if I would like feat trees for everyone martial. That would effectively give everyone just... the warlock's invocation list. Certainly, paladin feat trees would include smites, auras, lay-on-hand stuff. Which their spell list kind of does already.
I mean, I really like how each class is somehow distinct from any other class. I really don't like seeing smites and auras on people other than paladins. I don't like seeing Rage-like mechanics on classes other than the barbarian.
I'm actually really happy with the six fighting classes - fighter (I'd make it into a dedicated weaponsmaster), Paladin, berserker, monk, ranger, rogue. They're iconic archetypes found across all fantasy mediums, from D&D to books to anime to xianxia stories. I wouldn't even mind getting rid of half-caster-ness, and go with something like how Arcane Archer works, but with smite, auras, etc.
The magic classes.... I would actually take a hatchet to. The modern sorcerer and warlock live in the wizards shadow. Druid and bard, while iconic class archetypes, are forced to model themselves after the cleric in 5e, and lose some of their identity in the process. Instead of a cleric / wizard divide.... I would make a Caster / Worker divide. Casters would include the Wizard, the Cleric, and some dedicated pet class (devil summoner, necromancer, beast master, witch, etc). Then, I would make the Druid, Bard and Artificer into half-caster classes with a focus on their special abilities instead of spell slots. Shapeshifting, Songs / Inspirations, Magic Items.
Variations would be accomplished through feats and kits. Multiclassing.... I'd like to divide into two groups. Dips, hybrids, and and changers. Dips can work like it does in 3e and 5e. That system is terrible for hybrid classes, though, actually feeling like a half-fighter, half-wizard, so there should be something for that. Changes... well, sometimes you make career changes, so how you deal with that is a good idea.
What would a Berserker do? Isn't that just a barbarian? I agree that martials should be more unique, but I don't agree with your caster analysis. Artificer and Warlock are two of the best designed classes in 5e, with their modularity and intricate mechanics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I would absolutely not call Artificer one of the best designed classes. They basically said, we dont want new rules so flavorfully they dont use spells but mechanically its just spells. Warlock maybe, but it has to sacrifice so much mechanical power for customization and flavor, which i think is bad game design in general.
Yeah. Berserker is barbarian. I got the names mixed up in my head.
As for warlock... So many flaws there I couldn't call it best design at all. It's playable, sure, and different than other classes, but riddled with issues.
I'm especially annoyed at how they've effectively ignored chain familiars for undying, celestial, fathomless and genie patrons.
It's amazing how many people want a return back to just 3-4 classes.
If 6e went in that direction I'd either stick on 5e or would jump ship to pathfinder 2e. I'm in the more classes camp, and generally think 15-20 total, spread over 2-3 books is ideal. If I went to pathfinder I'd have to bite the bullet of no decent digital tool, but it would be worth it over playing a dummy game with 4 chess pieces to pick from.
It's amazing how many people want a return back to just 3-4 classes.
If 6e went in that direction I'd either stick on 5e or would jump ship to pathfinder 2e. I'm in the more classes camp, and generally think 15-20 total, spread over 2-3 books is ideal. If I went to pathfinder I'd have to bite the bullet of no decent digital tool, but it would be worth it over playing a dummy game with 4 chess pieces to pick from.
I'd have to agree here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
It's amazing how many people want a return back to just 3-4 classes.
If 6e went in that direction I'd either stick on 5e or would jump ship to pathfinder 2e. I'm in the more classes camp, and generally think 15-20 total, spread over 2-3 books is ideal. If I went to pathfinder I'd have to bite the bullet of no decent digital tool, but it would be worth it over playing a dummy game with 4 chess pieces to pick from.
Same people probably advocated for 4 classes during the 5e playtest. It's just a thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Lyxen, when I mentioned advantage/disadvantage I should have said bounded accuracy, that is indeed a larger change. That said I consider that a huge improvement, but that may be because I like my games more Game of Thronesy than Lord of the Ringsy and bounded accuracy makes sure a 10 000 man army beats any single toon (at least 99,9%). It also prevented number-bloating, making every bonus count.
Well, in this case, the Wizard would have zero martial skills. If they want to learn how to fight with a dagger or a staff, they can take a couple of levels of Fighter. If they want skills, take levels of Rogue. Otherwise, stick with cantrips.
he / him
But in this case a cleric taking fighter levels doesn't work like a paladin. They just fight badly one turn and heal badly the next turn. A wizard with fighter levels just casts badly one turn and fights badly the next turn.
If you're taking it all the way back to the basic 3 or 4 classes, there should be a dedicated half caster class simply due to them playing completely different to a multiclassed character.
I'd argue that paladin has more of a place than cleric. As a cleric can just be a wizard who selects healing spells and follows a god. A paladin isn't just half a cleric and half a fighter.
It depends on how the system is designed. If it is designed in such a way that a MC like that can still lead to a Paladin, then you don’t need a 1/2 caster class.
And many, many people reject a Cleric being a “caster” just like a Wizard because they want a more sharply delineated line between Arcane and Divine Magic.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I like the idea of doing away with half casters and making them subclasses only. I feel like a noncaster Paladin and Ranger would be cooler and potentially have better balancing all around.
in a new edition i would want a much more obvious difference between Arcane, Divine and Psionic magic (maybe even crafted magic), but also not so different that they require completely different rules systems.
i want All classes to be near equally viable, so if that means 2 phbs that come out a yearish apart so be it. i dont want to lose anything i only want to gain stuff
That rather depends on implementation. 5E's action + bonus action (+ move) system easily allows both attacking and casting in the same turn, possibly in a synergistic way.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Honestly, I see a lot value in each existing class individually, because these classes represent, above all else, character story archetypes. For me, I like that Sorcerers and Wizards exist in the same universe. I like that Paladins and Clerics are two branches of one single trope (Holy Warrior). What I don't like is the way a lot of these classes are expressed. Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Ranger are all very, very specific character tropes, while the Fighter, Wizard, and Rogue (and I think Monk? But I haven't studied monk much) subclasses do a LOT of heavy lifting when it comes to different expressions of one concept. If it were me, I'd probably split Rogue into two classes, and same for Fighter. Or alternatively, do a lot of merging of other classes into their general concepts and moving the expressions into subclasses (Oh you're magic? Okay your class is magic, now are you divine, arcane, or spirit-binding?)
The other thing that I don't like is Martial character customization. Sure you could say "weapons" and "feats", but casters get those anyway, just slightly more limited. Martials get their class, subclass, fighting form, feats/ASIs, magic items, and gear for their customization. Casters have their class, their subclass, their cantrips, their 1st level spells, 2nd level spells... ... 9th level spells, feats/ASIs, magic items, and their gear. Might be a big part of why everyone wants to "fix martials".
Rasmus was talking about a feat-tree system, and I think that that'd be excellent when applied to martial customization. New abilities to choose from at certain levels, unique to each subclass, with like four or five choices to pick from every four levels. It'd be more fun in my mind to be playing as a fighter, rogue, or similar non-caster if I had a myriad of ways to customize their abilities, rather than making my decisions in the first three levels and then having no choice but to either walk my railroad to its destination, or multiclass.
I like the idea that there would be different play styles for martial classes with different weapons. So your choices wouldn't be limited to essentially one-handed / two-handed / versatile / finesse / ranged. Like a greatsword and great axe would actually use different battle tactics, not just have two different dice choices that roll to almost the same average.
Imo that's still a cop out way of making a half caster. Yeah they can attack once and cast a cantrip in the same turn. But there is nothing unique about that and they're still just borrowing mechanics can other classes, rather than having their own unique abilities and mechanics.
A fighter should attack twice. A wizard should fireball. A swordmage or paladin should set their sword on fire and attack. That is a unique mechanic no other class can replicate.
A swordmage or paladin should not just cantrip once then attack once, as that's just borrowing from other classes without any identity of their own, and is better suited for just a multiclass.
If I could see a new game.....
I'm actually really happy with the six fighting classes - fighter (I'd make it into a dedicated weaponsmaster), Paladin, berserker, monk, ranger, rogue. They're iconic archetypes found across all fantasy mediums, from D&D to books to anime to xianxia stories. I wouldn't even mind getting rid of half-caster-ness, and go with something like how Arcane Archer works, but with smite, auras, etc.
The magic classes.... I would actually take a hatchet to. The modern sorcerer and warlock live in the wizards shadow. Druid and bard, while iconic class archetypes, are forced to model themselves after the cleric in 5e, and lose some of their identity in the process. Instead of a cleric / wizard divide.... I would make a Caster / Worker divide. Casters would include the Wizard, the Cleric, and some dedicated pet class (devil summoner, necromancer, beast master, witch, etc). Then, I would make the Druid, Bard and Artificer into half-caster classes with a focus on their special abilities instead of spell slots. Shapeshifting, Songs / Inspirations, Magic Items.
Variations would be accomplished through feats and kits. Multiclassing.... I'd like to divide into two groups. Dips, hybrids, and and changers. Dips can work like it does in 3e and 5e. That system is terrible for hybrid classes, though, actually feeling like a half-fighter, half-wizard, so there should be something for that. Changes... well, sometimes you make career changes, so how you deal with that is a good idea.
I disagree about warlock living in the wizard's shadow. Warlock is by far the best designed class in 5e, and is the only class with actual choice in how you progress, with the pact boons providing almost a second subclass.
It's sad how my favourite classes are all ones people want gone. Swordmage, warlord, warlock, sorcerer, or any half caster.
I find the archtypical fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric about as interesting as drying paint.
Nevermind. Ignore. I'd rather talk about what people would design.
Setting your sword on fire couldn’t be a cantrip? Invoking smite couldn’t be a spell with a bonus action casting time?
I get that you would prefer more unique mechanics. I play half-casters more often than not (when I get to play). I’d want them to be done right too. I’m just saying, multiclassing a fighter and a caster doesn’t mean they couldn’t blend magic and martial prowess in a single turn. If there’s a problem, it’s more likely that they’d lose out on higher level abilities and synergy between their classes probably can’t make up for that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Hmmm..... You know, I kind of feel like "feat tree" is basically how the Fighter is meant to be customized, but not the others. I mean, everyone takes the occasional feat, but Fighters are the ones who customize their battle experience through collecting feats. Chaining Polearm Mastery with Sentinel and Great Weapon Mastery. Heavy Armor Mastery and Shield Mastery and Crusher. And so on.
I kind of like that, in a real way. It really works for the fighter, and enhances their whole weapons-master stick. No one uses weapon techniques better than the fighter. It has a solid history of working for them. Well, two editions, but I think that the success stands on its own. Just need to add some exploration and social stuff to the base chasis that people can build off of too, or make the feat chains include those stuff, either of which could work. A lot of people do complain about the fighter's lack of ability, but then ignore those options as feats, when picking multiple feats is the
But I'm not sure if I would like feat trees for everyone martial. That would effectively give everyone just... the warlock's invocation list. Certainly, paladin feat trees would include smites, auras, lay-on-hand stuff. Which their spell list kind of does already.
I mean, I really like how each class is somehow distinct from any other class. I really don't like seeing smites and auras on people other than paladins. I don't like seeing Rage-like mechanics on classes other than the barbarian.
What would a Berserker do? Isn't that just a barbarian? I agree that martials should be more unique, but I don't agree with your caster analysis. Artificer and Warlock are two of the best designed classes in 5e, with their modularity and intricate mechanics.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I would absolutely not call Artificer one of the best designed classes. They basically said, we dont want new rules so flavorfully they dont use spells but mechanically its just spells.
Warlock maybe, but it has to sacrifice so much mechanical power for customization and flavor, which i think is bad game design in general.
Yeah. Berserker is barbarian. I got the names mixed up in my head.
As for warlock... So many flaws there I couldn't call it best design at all. It's playable, sure, and different than other classes, but riddled with issues.
I'm especially annoyed at how they've effectively ignored chain familiars for undying, celestial, fathomless and genie patrons.
It's amazing how many people want a return back to just 3-4 classes.
If 6e went in that direction I'd either stick on 5e or would jump ship to pathfinder 2e. I'm in the more classes camp, and generally think 15-20 total, spread over 2-3 books is ideal. If I went to pathfinder I'd have to bite the bullet of no decent digital tool, but it would be worth it over playing a dummy game with 4 chess pieces to pick from.
I'd have to agree here.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Same people probably advocated for 4 classes during the 5e playtest. It's just a thing.