D&D General What elements does D&D need to keep?

[Minigiant]

You're losing me. The current system already allows for farmboy fighters (folk hero), princess clerics (noble) and wanderer warlocks (outlander) thanks to the background system. Are you suggesting each background it's own class that you can multiclass into fighter, cleric or warlock from?

I meant the classes archetypes are from being combined with other classes for reasons. The Warlock being combined with the Artificer, Wizard, and Sorcerer. D&D had hard

An essential element of D&D is classes based on solid full illustrated archetypes, not generic collections of archetypes with mills similarities.

 

[Minigiant]

Isn't this a worldbuilding problem centered around the magic system though?

If wizardly magic is easy to pick up, difficult to master and the spellbooks are just rare or well-guarded, then randos becoming wizards becomes a matter of coming up with a way to explain how they got the book, yes?

Or... we could have an actually magical world as opposed to the ISO standard of the game where it's Renaissance Earth pretending to be Medieval Earth with magic haphazardly stapled on and made weirdly rare because people can't tell 'scarce' from 'special'.

Actually neither since the party wizard can't tell the party fighter to say these wacky words and wave their fingers like so and double the party's fireball output.

D&D assumed that its classes are all advanced training or special attributes that must work hard to get or be born into. Or get the DM to sign off that you are a super special unicorn.

Especially if multiclassing and feats are at the table. If the wizard must sacrifice a whole level to get a fighter aspect, it elevates the technicalness of the fighter as its skill measures somewhat with bending reality with arcane magic or the blessings of a deity.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Actually neither since the party wizard can't tell the party fighter to say these wacky words and wave their fingers like so and double the party's fireball output.

Fireball is 3rd level though. That's deep into being a wizard, not 'rando with a spellbook'.

The wizard can give the fighter some lessons and then the fighter takes the Arcane Initiate feat and gets magic.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think d&d assumed easy entrance into a class.

A blacksmith can't just become a fighter. He has to train for years to learn to.

Basic Fighter is the one class I've always seen anyone as being able to fairly easily enter without much initial training (that comes as you level) and without too much forethought.

A blacksmith cannot pick up a sword and have equal or better weapon stats than a level 1 fighter who squired under a knight for 5 years.

Agreed in principle; but that 5-year squire has probably picked up enough knowledge by now to be more than just level 1, and the blacksmith example just points out the hole where 0th level should be.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not talking about godless clerics.

I'm talking about normal folk simply becoming fighters, wizards, and clerics with no training.

I see different classes as having different requirements here. A Cleric needs a few years of training as an acolyte. A Wizard needs a lot of years of training and study, roughly equatable to a college program plus masters. A Thief needs some street training, etc. But anyone can fight.

 

[Minigiant]

Fireball is 3rd level though. That's deep into being a wizard, not 'rando with a spellbook'.

The wizard can give the fighter some lessons and then the fighter takes the Arcane Initiate feat and gets magic.

Yes, but it costs a whole feat. Which means the fighter spent time not exercising to get the +2 Strength.

And even after all of that, the fighter doesn't get a spellbook, learn to read one, or know how to advance their spellcasting. The Wizard class is a whole collection of aspects and tropes you can't get without fulling being one. And you access to it is not simple after 1st level.

Even the person who finds a spellbook to be a wizard without a teacher, the expectation is that they read that spellbook for a really long time. If not, the expectation is that the DM changes the class or introduces another one to match the new archetype.

 

[Minigiant]

Basic Fighter is the one class I've always seen anyone as being able to fairly easily enter without much initial training (that comes as you level) and without too much forethought

Well that depends. It's relative to how many advantages the low level fighter has over the other classes.

As the editions rolled on, the basic fighter has become more advanced and technical as other classes cough*CLERIC*cough has taken their once iconic aspects. The 5e fighter is a straight martial technician at low levels. You have to be a warrior sidekick to be completely basic.

Agreed in principle; but that 5-year squire has probably picked up enough knowledge by now to be more than just level 1, and the blacksmith example just points out the hole where 0th level should be.

Well that goes back to my point on tiers. D&D doesn't agree on where the tiers are or their level ranges but it agrees they exist

I see different classes as having different requirements here. A Cleric needs a few years of training as an acolyte. A Wizard needs a lot of years of training and study, roughly equatable to a college program plus masters. A Thief needs some street training, etc. But anyone can fight.

Everyone can fight but D&D says everyone isn't a fighter.

Making sense of that.. well that's the headache.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes, but it costs a whole feat. Which means the fighter spent time not exercising to get the +2 Strength.

One thing D&D should definitely not keep is the 'ASI or Feat' crap that's there just to nurture this whole 'simplified gameplay' deal. More feats, better feats. Little to no ASIs (or bounded accuracy for that matter)

And even after all of that, the fighter doesn't get a spellbook, learn to read one, or know how to advance their spellcasting. The Wizard class is a whole collection of aspects and tropes you can't get without fulling being one. And you access to it is not simple after 1st level.

Yeah, but the magic's the part people care about. Except for fans of straight wizard players, I never hear people bemoaning the fact that they don't get a built in DM's hostage.

 

[Lanefan]

One thing D&D should definitely not keep is the 'ASI or Feat' crap that's there just to nurture this whole 'simplified gameplay' deal. More feats, better feats. Little to no ASIs (or bounded accuracy for that matter)

I agree with your premise.

However, I'd far rather see feats Go Away. Bake the key elements that make a class what it is into those classes and bin the rest. ASIs, on the other hand, while somewhat unneccesary are all in all relatively harmless.

Boom. Simplified gameplay (and simplified build phase), and way fewer balance/optimize issues.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I agree with your premise.

However, I'd far rather see feats Go Away. Bake the key elements that make a class what it is into those classes and bin the rest. ASIs, on the other hand, while somewhat unneccesary are all in all relatively harmless.

Boom. Simplified gameplay (and simplified build phase), and way fewer balance/optimize issues.

Feats may be one of my few must-haves.

I much prefer customizability to simplified gameplay. I pretty much hate everything simplified gameplay has done in the field of D&D because unlike some other systems, D&D and its children can't seem to make character creation and advancement fun while doing it.