Too many casters?


Tweets:
@redcometcasval what led to Sorc being a sub, but other limited scope classes like Barbarian being full classes?
@mikemearls it's very common for D&D settings to introduce new casters, not so much with warrior-types
@mikemearls we can cover setting-specific options with subclasses for most classes


I wanted to go through all the classes that are are introduced by setting, and get a break down, of which classes they could be a sublcass for, given the current list of 10.  However, it's way too overwhelming for me.  Perhaps we can do it as a group?

Here are the lists I have found:

www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alternativ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_class_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)


And I'm certain that Wikipedia doesn't have the complete lists...

Eyeballing it however, it seems that the number of classes that are not some form of Mage is about 20, while mage like classes are closer to 60.  I could be missing something though. 
In eberon, mages are artificers, clerics worship the silver flame, and fighters are fighters.
In darksun, mages are defilers, clerics don't have anyone to worship, and fighters are fighters. 
In forgotten realms mages are red wizards, clerics worship Lord Ao, and fighters are fighters.
ect...

"Hit it with a stick" is pretty universal across the settings.  That's based in reality, so you can't do more then jackie chan can.

"Magic", however, is not based in reality.  It can do anything, in any way.



Still, i'd prefer an at-will caster.  To cover warlocks, binders, blue mages, hexblades, and even cover divine at-will caster (invoker?) too.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Also remember D&D has a dungeoneering tradition.

You had fighters, rogues, the 8 classes for the 8 types of magic, and all hybrids of the above.

But D&D heavily shys away from any nondungeoneering occupation. Every noncaster gets boiled down to a fighter or rogue with some skill. It really support being a plain old doctor or scientist as a PC due to its settings. The most that was really supported was tracking in the form of the ranger. And even there the ranger became a superwarrior or battlemystic in order to make his contribution worth it.

But magic has no reality to compete with and can be done in tons of methods.

No noncaster tend to require the setting to make them needed. Like a helmsman class in a setting with ship combat. Or a merchant class in a game where money is very important.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!


I often house-rule versions of "half-caster" classes to offer non-casting options, mainly because I tend to DM low-magic campaigns and I think those classes can offer interesting options without relying on casting. Those include: Ranger, Bard, Paladin...

I've also toyed with a subclass/archetype system a few times where one of your choices would be to get spellcasting with one such class, but you had at least 1 or 2 more options instead that were also interesting, so that all rangers and bards, etc, in the world wouldn't have to be necessarily casters. That way if players wanted the "caster" aspect in the class they could have it, but I could still have my rangers, bards, etc NPCs around the world that weren't magic users.

Maybe the casting element of those classes could be what you gain from one subclass choice?
Not a good excuse in my opinion.

So this way if you do want to introduce a new warrior type, you're SOL.
Conversely - part of the problem is this:  People will generally accept the argument that "You only understand this magic, not that magic.  And thus don't resist multiple types of caster (although there are always those who try to merge the various divine/arcane/etc. branches of magic into a single discipline.)


But present many of those same players with multiple flavors of non-caster - and tell them "I'm sorry.  Your character only knows how to do these martial actions, not those marital actions."  And they scream "Unfair.  It's all just physcial actons anyone can do!  So my fighter can do all of that too!"

Subclasses only exist and make sense where divisions within the type 'make sense' to the players.  And the prevailign wisdom often seems to be "if anyone can do [given martial action], than everyone can do [given martial action].  And thus you have very few martial classes.



Carl
What would a "new warrior type" even be? What concept for a non-magical warrior cannot be covered with an existing class?

The metagame is not the game.

What would a "new warrior type" even be? What concept for a non-magical warrior cannot be covered with an existing class?

Just about every charachter in Soul Caliber.  They each specialize in a specific weapon, which gives them very unique attacks, that only make sense with that weapon.

So you get:  Spearman, Halberdier, Glaive master, Sai Assasin, etc. 
Also remember D&D has a dungeoneering tradition. You had fighters, rogues, the 8 classes for the 8 types of magic, and all hybrids of the above. But D&D heavily shys away from any nondungeoneering occupation. Every noncaster gets boiled down to a fighter or rogue with some skill. It really support being a plain old doctor or scientist as a PC due to its settings. The most that was really supported was tracking in the form of the ranger. And even there the ranger became a superwarrior or battlemystic in order to make his contribution worth it. But magic has no reality to compete with and can be done in tons of methods. No noncaster tend to require the setting to make them needed. Like a helmsman class in a setting with ship combat. Or a merchant class in a game where money is very important.



I would call wizard school specialization more like weapon specialization in earlier editions.  They really weren't different classes.
ust about every charachter in Soul Caliber.  They each specialize in a specific weapon, which gives them very unique attacks, that only make sense with that weapon.

In 3E and 4E, they would still all be part of the Fighter class. Both editions supported weapon-specific abilities (either through feats or powers). In 5E, that could easily fall to sub-class.

Ditto with every World Warrior counting as different sub-classes of Monk.

The metagame is not the game.

Hercules
Frankenstein
Warsmith
Hexblades
Soulknife

Use some imagination
Ugh, those links were missing a lot of info.

For example, in AD&D, there were tons of classes that appeared in Dragon magazine, and most of them weren't casters.

Dualist
Archer
Bounty hunter
Bandit
Samurai
Ninja (about 4 variations)
Monk
Jester
Neanderthal (yes, it was a class)
etc
etc
ust about every charachter in Soul Caliber.  They each specialize in a specific weapon, which gives them very unique attacks, that only make sense with that weapon.

In 3E and 4E, they would still all be part of the Fighter class. Both editions supported weapon-specific abilities (either through feats or powers). In 5E, that could easily fall to sub-class.




Not just 3e and 4e, but AD&D as well.  Those are all just weapon specializations.
Conversely - part of the problem is this:  People will generally accept the argument that "You only understand this magic, not that magic.  And thus don't resist multiple types of caster (although there are always those who try to merge the various divine/arcane/etc. branches of magic into a single discipline.)


But present many of those same players with multiple flavors of non-caster - and tell them "I'm sorry.  Your character only knows how to do these martial actions, not those marital actions."  And they scream "Unfair.  It's all just physcial actons anyone can do!  So my fighter can do all of that too!"

Subclasses only exist and make sense where divisions within the type 'make sense' to the players.  And the prevailign wisdom often seems to be "if anyone can do [given martial action], than everyone can do [given martial action].  And thus you have very few martial classes.




Carl


Total agreement here. There's a huge dissociative gap between what we percieve as martial and magical, and once you start throwing magic around as a term, we stop worrying about what one can and can't do. Now anyone who's studied any kind of fighting art will know that not all martial skills are created equally and it is actually totally possible to have two martial fighters who do not know the same things. The counter to that is pretty much everyone has an idea how to trip someone up and virutally all martial styles have a way to do this somewhere, and that's where the disconnect is. We can justify it 'cause we can imagine ourselves doing it in real life.

Magic not so much.

What would a "new warrior type" even be? What concept for a non-magical warrior cannot be covered with an existing class?

This is the other problem. We have a harder time inventing this stuff.
Some campaign settings might have much suits

what about magic that isn't covered by spell casting like runes or fetishes

Its wrong to say that there will be no need to have more warrior types. That's like when they said that nobody would ever need more than 24mb of memory
Hercules
Frankenstein
Warsmith
Hexblades
Soulknife

Two of those are definitionally magic-users, one is an example of a fighter (and the interesting parts are more of a racial feature than part of the class), one is a wizard specializing in constructs (or arguably a unique new type of spellcaster), and one is a fighter (possibly barbarian) with some professional crafting skills - the way it fights is still just the way a fighter fights.

The metagame is not the game.

I really hope WotC does not look at their game with as narrow of an imagination as you Saelorn, otherwise DDN is going to be very boring
I tell you up front there are massive differences between the martial styles and abilities of mundane and mythical warriors.

Example: Knight vs. Samurai, ostensibly these are both noble mounted warriors with an array of weapons and armor.

True as far as it goes but we're talkign about very different approaches to combat, dueling, and life in general.

I'm no expert but I think that the kind of riposte and parry that formed the core of the one handed blade styles in the west was unknown in Japan, possibly because I imagine even a slightly curved sword is more awkward with those kind of motions than the straight blades favored in europe. 

Really the abstraction of weaponry is part of the problem weapon skill is lumped under a single aspect (weapon attack bonus) and applied accross the board. A lot of better games either place magic/magicesque effects to the same level of abstraction, or go the other way and make a single set of weapons its own skillset, possibly with its own unique bonuses.
ust about every charachter in Soul Caliber.  They each specialize in a specific weapon, which gives them very unique attacks, that only make sense with that weapon.

In 3E and 4E, they would still all be part of the Fighter class. Both editions supported weapon-specific abilities (either through feats or powers). In 5E, that could easily fall to sub-class.




Not just 3e and 4e, but AD&D as well.  Those are all just weapon specializations.

No, a weapon specialization does not catch the flavor of a fighter whos moves all are focused around their weapon.

A fighter with a pole vault ability, can't be specialized in daggers.

I imagine if you attempted to make special maneuvers for soul caliber charachters you'd find the current list of feats and abilities just wouldn't quite give you that flavor.


And yes, ofcourse these can be 5e subclasses, since every mage can also be a subclass.  However, soul caliber types of warriors aren't going to find themselves in D&D.

I believe Frankinstein's monster would be a good sort of barbarian :P   Might as well just call the class Zombie though

One of the problems with the fighter design space, is that if you make really good alternate fighter classes, they tend to alway outshine the basic fighter class, making the fighter class a trap option in many cases.

But there are certainly plenty of fighter classes that you can create, just as tons of caster classes were created, even though you could force them all into the Wizard class if you really wanted to. 

Some campaign settings might have much suits what about magic that isn't covered by spell casting like runes or fetishes Its wrong to say that there will be no need to have more warrior types. That's like when they said that nobody would ever need more than 24mb of memory

I don't recall anyone ever saying that we wouldn't need more warrior types. What the tweets in the OP said was that it's common for casters to be added and not so much for warriors. And they said they're confident they can fill niches with campaign specific offerings.

And I think that's true. Most new classes I've seen (annecdotal) are spell casters of some kind, whether they're full or partial casters is beside the point, they usually have some kind of magic and that's usually expressed with some kind of metric similar to a spell.


And it's also true that many classes are most at home within a specific setting and often new classes or variants are brought into play because of a quirk in a campaign setting. The number of catch-all classes that fit everything is actually quite small.

There's always the pilot class.

Attack rolls with ships and mechas

Or another warror type that can attack with armies... or something.

Problem is you have to alter the genre.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

There's always the pilot class.

Attack rolls with ships and mechas

Or another warror type that can attack with armies... or something.

Problem is you have to alter the genre.

that's kinda the mounted knight class too. I could see some kind of beast lord that "pilots" their mount into combat and really the attacks are the creature they're riding.

ust about every charachter in Soul Caliber.  They each specialize in a specific weapon, which gives them very unique attacks, that only make sense with that weapon.

In 3E and 4E, they would still all be part of the Fighter class. Both editions supported weapon-specific abilities (either through feats or powers). In 5E, that could easily fall to sub-class.




Not just 3e and 4e, but AD&D as well.  Those are all just weapon specializations.

No, a weapon specialization does not catch the flavor of a fighter whos moves all are focused around their weapon.

A fighter with a pole vault ability, can't be specialized in daggers.

I imagine if you attempted to make special maneuvers for soul caliber charachters you'd find the current list of feats and abilities just wouldn't quite give you that flavor.


And yes, ofcourse these can be 5e subclasses, since every mage can also be a subclass.  However, soul caliber types of warriors aren't going to find themselves in D&D.

I believe Frankinstein's monster would be a good sort of barbarian :P   Might as well just call the class Zombie though

One of the problems with the fighter design space, is that if you make really good alternate fighter classes, they tend to alway outshine the basic fighter class, making the fighter class a trap option in many cases.

But there are certainly plenty of fighter classes that you can create, just as tons of caster classes were created, even though you could force them all into the Wizard class if you really wanted to. 



You could.  And a sizeable fraction of the community would argue that each and every ability you gave to these other martial classes ought to be possible for their fighter.


The base problem IS with the generic fighter.  That is what needs to go (although I suspect the Grognard union will come revoke my card for saying that).  


Dump the generic fighter.  Come up with interesting fighter subclasses (what would have been fightery classes in AD&D).       While you are at it - dump the generic/ scholarly wizard.  Oh wait - they did.


The 'benefit' of the generic fighter is that it is flexible (as was the case with the scholarly wizard).  This leads to them looking for ways to make the build relevant - which becomes problematic.  One lesson we've learned over and over in D&D is that specialists are almost always more powerful than the generalists.  Which means they try hard to make the generalist powerful enough to be relevant - which rarely ends well.

   But if every wizard is a specialist, you don't have to try to balance them with the generic wizard.  And if every fighter is a specialist of some type, you don't have to try to make the generic fighter both balanced AND a generalist.  


   
In short - although I firmly believe that as long as we have a generalist fighter we will never see much in the way of fighter subclasses, don't mistake that belief for my thinking that that is how it should be.


Carl
You also need to close the gap between magic and non-magic, and to do that you must start looking at what each have in common. And that approach favors magic more as science, versus just unknown and can do anything. Once you take the science appoach then magic is just a means to an end, where martial may be harder to do the same thing, and sometimes impossible like fireballs, but for other things like charming, holding, fear, etc. they share a common basis. That opens up more possibilities for martial characters, while still allowing casters to do the impossible within limits. However, you must also separate martial from the mundane, as a trained martial character can do things that appear to be like magic to the untrained.
No, a weapon specialization does not catch the flavor of a fighter whos moves all are focused around their weapon.

A fighter with a pole vault ability, can't be specialized in daggers.

I imagine if you attempted to make special maneuvers for soul caliber charachters you'd find the current list of feats and abilities just wouldn't quite give you that flavor.




Why not?  Everything you describe could easily fit into a feat package like they exist in the current iteration.

I think I really just don't understand what it is they are trying to say exactly?

They are saying that there are going to be more classes? And most of them are going to be "casters". And that is somehow why we can't have Sorcerer and Warlock?

We can't have more caster classes because there is going to be more caster classes?
Personally since magic is made up the design space is bigger.  We have a lot of possibilities in the non-magical world but it is finite.  

Since I prefer classes represent mechanics and not fluff, I prefer more magic classes that represent the casting styles.  I'm pretty happy with the martials we have except I'd put ranger and barbarian under fighter at minimum in an ideal world. 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

No, a weapon specialization does not catch the flavor of a fighter whos moves all are focused around their weapon.

A fighter with a pole vault ability, can't be specialized in daggers.

I imagine if you attempted to make special maneuvers for soul caliber charachters you'd find the current list of feats and abilities just wouldn't quite give you that flavor.




Why not?  Everything you describe could easily fit into a feat package like they exist in the current iteration.


"everything I described" was ONE example.
Play the game (soul caliber), extrapolate it out.  Sure you could use feats, but you'll start to run out of feat space, and those feats will be worth much more than a +2 in stat. 


Carl, the generic wizard is not gone.  It is still there as a subclass of the Mage class.  Just as the generic warrior is a subclass of the Fighter class.

At GenCon they expressed how they actualy have two different "fighters" and how its tough because the playerbase will not allow them to make them two seperate classes.  Each group wants their fighter to have the label fighter. 
I think the problem is too many of one kind of caster rather than too many casters in general.

Basically The cleric, wizard/mage, or artificer type classes need to be broken down into narrower focused classes that can play by the same advancement rules as everyone else (i.e. no unbounded access to an ever increasing list of abilities, no cherry picking random unrelated powers).

If this means we have evokers and transmuters as separate classes so be it, though you wouldn't have to break them down that way.
I think I really just don't understand what it is they are trying to say exactly?

They are saying that there are going to be more classes? And most of them are going to be "casters". And that is somehow why we can't have Sorcerer and Warlock?


We can't have more caster classes because there is going to be more caster classes?


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's what they're saying at all. What was said is that it's easier to devise unique caster classes than it is to devise unique martial classes. Carl's on to something when he says the generic fighter class is a huge stumbling block for that, 'cause one of the first things anyone should ask when creating a new game element is "what existing elements can do this, and how well can they do it?" If the answers are "one or more, and one does it well" then you don't really need a new thing to do it.

They're merely saying that they're focused on the martial dudes 'cause they're harder, I think.

I think I really just don't understand what it is they are trying to say exactly?

They are saying that there are going to be more classes? And most of them are going to be "casters". And that is somehow why we can't have Sorcerer and Warlock?


We can't have more caster classes because there is going to be more caster classes?


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's what they're saying at all. What was said is that it's easier to devise unique caster classes than it is to devise unique martial classes. Carl's on to something when he says the generic fighter class is a huge stumbling block for that, 'cause one of the first things anyone should ask when creating a new game element is "what existing elements can do this, and how well can they do it?" If the answers are "one or more, and one does it well" then you don't really need a new thing to do it.

They're merely saying that they're focused on the martial dudes 'cause they're harder, I think.


That's how I understand it as well.
In the 4th edition are classes are "spellcasters", even the martial ones.

A spellcaster class is more difficoult to be designed because it isn´t only a list of class features but too spells maybe they are a exclusive list (for example the wu jen).

Are "ki chanellers" classes from "Tome of Battle: book of nine swords" spellcaster?

If WotC wants more no-spellcasters it can be possible, like the return of gladiator (from Dark Sun), the knight, the swashbuckler (Savage Coast/Red Steel, Spelljammer), the samurai (Oriental Adventures), the warlord/marshall...  

Sometimes a spellcaster class really is a hybrid, for example the factotum from Duegonscape or the hexblade.  

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

In the 4th edition are classes are "spellcasters", even the martial ones.

A spellcaster class is more difficoult to be designed because it isn´t only a list of class features but too spells maybe they are a exclusive list (for example the wu jen).

Are "ki chanellers" classes from "Tome of Battle: book of nine swords" spellcaster?

If WotC wants more no-spellcasters it can be possible, like the return of gladiator (from Dark Sun), the knight, the swashbuckler (Savage Coast/Red Steel, Spelljammer), the samurai (Oriental Adventures), the warlord/marshall...  

Sometimes a spellcaster class really is a hybrid, for example the factotum from Duegonscape or the hexblade.  

I think the definition of a "caster" with regard to class design is rather confused. You could mean that they behave like we expect a caster to behave, in which case an archer that focuses on inflicting conditions with carefully aimed shots on foes at a distance could be considered a caster because they serve the same basic function, stand in the same general place in the marching order and so on. But I think many of us (myself included) think of "casters" as "spell casters," which means my archer friend isn't really a caster in the way I understand the term, even if tactically and practically they are.

The behavioural definition is problematic as well because, as you say, there are some very good examples of casters that do not behave like casters as we normally think of them. The cleric, for example (like it or lump it) and the swordsage both use spells in melee combat and act on the front line with the other warrior folk.


And then we've got the ranger and the paladin, who have spells but I don't think most folks would call them casters, so even a simple "do they have spells or don't they" definition doesn't cut it all the time.


At the end of the day, I have to go with spell access and then qualify it similarly to how Mearls & Co have: full caster, half caster, non caster. I then add a second set of definitions for what they actually do: mystic, hybrid, warrior. So the ranger could then be considered a half caster warrior because it's got spells but clearly isn't a mystic or a hybrid. Your bard might end up being a half caster hybrid, your swordsage would be a full caster warrior.


And so on.


The reason I have found out is simply because people love the fighter. Look at all the back and forth the fighter has gone through. If a new fighting class comes into the game it will immediately be measured against the fighter and if it seems better or more unique most people cry foul. Look at the newest playtest packet. Fighter gets second wind and defy death. Why? Because other fighting classes such as the paladin or barbarian (obvious poach) have similair abilities or the exact same ability. It would be like wizard players demanding at will scaling powers incorrporated into their class because an alternate mage class like the warlock might have them. That is the biggest reason you do not see as many martial classes. The fighter lobby cannot stand anything that might be new & different.
In eberon, mages are artificers, clerics worship the silver flame, and fighters are fighters.
In darksun, mages are defilers, clerics don't have anyone to worship, and fighters are fighters. 
In forgotten realms mages are red wizards, clerics worship Lord Ao, and fighters are fighters.
ect...

"Hit it with a stick" is pretty universal across the settings.  That's based in reality, so you can't do more then jackie chan can.
"Magic", however, is not based in reality.  It can do anything, in any way.

Still, i'd prefer an at-will caster.  To cover warlocks, binders, blue mages, hexblades, and even cover divine at-will caster (invoker?) too.



Well the Mage class had 2 major points variation casting style and tradition.
The fighter only has martial path as major variation point.

But i woulden't suprised if the fghter ends up with more martial paths then the Mage has traditions.

 
I think I really just don't understand what it is they are trying to say exactly?

They are saying that there are going to be more classes? And most of them are going to be "casters". And that is somehow why we can't have Sorcerer and Warlock?


We can't have more caster classes because there is going to be more caster classes?


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's what they're saying at all. What was said is that it's easier to devise unique caster classes than it is to devise unique martial classes. Carl's on to something when he says the generic fighter class is a huge stumbling block for that, 'cause one of the first things anyone should ask when creating a new game element is "what existing elements can do this, and how well can they do it?" If the answers are "one or more, and one does it well" then you don't really need a new thing to do it.

They're merely saying that they're focused on the martial dudes 'cause they're harder, I think.


That's how I understand it as well.

No I get that. But why does that mean we can't have sorcerer and warlock? because everything is going to be lumped into Fighter so they have to lump everything into mage to make everything lumpy?

why does that mean we can't have sorcerer and warlock? because everything is going to be lumped into Fighter so they have to lump everything into mage to make everything lumpy?

For a start, we can and we will. If you're skeptical about the proposed method, take a number. I think we all are to an extent. But I don't think we should assume that the proposed method can't do it.

I would keep an open mind for now. If mages pick a casting system at level 1 then I see absolutely no reason why virtually all casters couldn't be slotted into a table with the appropriate spell progression. Or any class with any spell progression, for that matter.

This is what happens when you separate classes based on their mechanics instead of thematics, consistency goes right out the window.

If they would just have a certain number of classes divided along the lines of identity that are very mechanically flexible; this would not be a problem. Any time you have a new kind of mechanic you want to add to the game you just find the class that has the same identity and swap out their mechanics for new ones, for example a Binder is similar enough to Warlock in theme that they could be treated as the same thing in game but out of game the Binder has new different mechanics.
This is what happens when you separate classes based on their mechanics instead of thematics, consistency goes right out the window.

If they would just have a certain number of classes divided along the lines of identity that are very mechanically flexible; this would not be a problem. Any time you have a new kind of mechanic you want to add to the game you just find the class that has the same identity and swap out their mechanics for new ones, for example a Binder is similar enough to Warlock in theme that they could be treated as the same thing in game but out of game the Binder has new different mechanics.

I don't fully understand. Why can't you do that with the list we've got? I want to make a quasi mystic fighter with spirit energy, I make a monk subclass. I want to make a scout that relies on ambush tactics and mobility, I make a rogue subclass. Or if my scout is more about survival behind enemy lines, it's a ranger subclass. What's wrong with saying that a mystic that relies on supernatural power above all else isn't a mage subclass? Or a caster that makes heavy use of spells but equally relies on their wits isn't a bard subclass?

Seems to me that the names of the classes are what's putting people off.

The reason I have found out is simply because people love the fighter. Look at all the back and forth the fighter has gone through. If a new fighting class comes into the game it will immediately be measured against the fighter and if it seems better or more unique most people cry foul. Look at the newest playtest packet. Fighter gets second wind and defy death. Why? Because other fighting classes such as the paladin or barbarian (obvious poach) have similair abilities or the exact same ability. It would be like wizard players demanding at will scaling powers incorrporated into their class because an alternate mage class like the warlock might have them. That is the biggest reason you do not see as many martial classes. The fighter lobby cannot stand anything that might be new & different.



I think the big 4 are considered sacrosanct territory.  If there is not some way to play a traditional game of D&D using those 4 classes then people are upset.   At least some people.   They are willing to toss the barbarian overboard because the class is not as iconic to them.   

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

At the same time they need to stop designing them in a vacuum, especially the casters. Mages, clerics, rogues, and fighters all need to take into account the existence of other classes in the design phase and not be better than said other classes at the other classes specialties, or be completely inferir to the other classes.

This means that you can't define the fighter as the guy who does nothing special, he needs to bring a unique and significant suite of abilities that set him apart from the barbarian , but keep him on par with the mage and/or cleric at the same time. 

The problem is that the mage/wizard and to a lesser extent cleric have such broad access to so many different powers and effects that they tend to overshadow more coherent classes like necromancer. 
Sign In to post comments