Here is something I've just realized...
There are many ways to divide D&D classes into small groups; in D&D 2e, for example, you had Warriors (fighter, paladin and ranger), Wizards (Mage and Illusionist), Priests (Cleric and Druid) and Rogue (Thief and Bard).
It made plenty of sense to me at the time. In fact, I like a four-way division for all kinds of D&D (see here). My take on it would be something like warrior/wizard/leader/specialist. But that's the subject for another post.
D&D 5e has twelve classes: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard.
The "groups" are not exactly clear-cut. There are plenty with sub-classes with spells, for example, and there is a "war cleric" that resembles a fighter (and even a "valor bard"), etc. However...
You can notice that five classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger) get a second attack at 5th level.
You could call these "warriors". Notice that they take different paths in other levels (the fighter gets a third attack at level 11, while the barbarian gets tougher, etc.).
Conversely, there are six classes (Cleric, Druid, Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard) that get 3rd levels spells at 5th level. These are our "magic-users" (yes, I know that the Bard is a bit "hybrid").
In 5e, this is intentional; 3rd level spells (like fireball) represent a "jump" in power that is comparable with an extra attack (while the difference between 3rd and 4th level spells, for example, is not that significant).
And that leaves us with the rogue... that gets "uncanny dodge" ("Starting at 5th level, when an attacker that you can see hits you with an attack, you can use your reaction to halve the attack’s damage against you".), in addition to a few bonuses (sneak attack, proficiency bonus raise - which counts a bit more because of expertise, etc.)
 |
| Art: Human/Shifter Rogue (detail) by Brandon Chang - source. |
The rogue is not a bad class in 5e, on the contrary; I've had several rogues in my games and they always worked well (unlike, maybe, warlocks and rangers).
But I've found this distinction curious. You could divided 11 classes between warriors and spell-casters, leaving the rogue as a (very important) odd duck.
This is probably a direction I'm pursuing in my minimalist 5e.
The Rogue gets Sneak Attack whose damage increase every other level, and the system is fine with him spamming it every single combat round. IIRC, it doesn't scale as well as some other class damage sources, but that's his thing, nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteYeah, and I kinda like how it works. It gives the Rogue a distinct niche. I just find it curious that it makes the rogue so different form other classes.
DeleteSince this is on the subject of the 4 class idea (even if what's below is probably more of a departure than you wouuld want to go at this point) here ae some musings I have:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading some other writing on OSR classeslike Delta's D&D Hotspot, I wonder if the break down similar to your previous work could go something more like:
1) Warrior: All about physical combat. Every physical combat skill is tied to this archetype. They don't get any skill boosts, but instead get features that emphasise raw Power and ability like the Bear Totems "floor of strength checks is STR score".
2) Mage: This is almost all "spellcasting" as far as the D&D spell casting feature goes. Take the 5e warlock of having two parts to deciding your class theme and you have a large variety of mix an match. You can still do a generalist spell caster, but there are different rewards for specialising. This covers everything from your bloodline casters, to your wandering scholar.
Expert: This is where all the Talent effects such as Reliable Talent, Expertise, and more skills come into play. While others still have skills that they use, these experts seem to have this ineffable luck that allows them to figure out the right solutions, find hidden weaknesses, etc. This feeds into the idea of 'Sneak Attack' as a analytical solution where you study the opponent to set up an attack. The difference is that it can be you _or_ another player triggering the sneak attack, and they are a declare before an attack system.
Priest/Mystic: Instead of the spellcasting mace swinger, this class is more distilled down to a "person of faith/conviction". This combines the Paladin's auras/lay on hands, with the monk's supernatural talents, a Clerics channel divinity/Turn Undead, and the Bard's Inspiration dice. I would also throw in Wildshape as well for completion. So you have this individual who walks around with minimal armour (Monk's Wisdom to AC), but still aids the party in support/defense, and depending on the cleric's path perhaps some offensive capabilities. I think of the 5e Monk ki system, but merged with the Paladin Lay on hand feature for a single resource to cover a variety of supernatural effects. The mystic can also have access to rituals/prayers that just cost time to have additional effects.
Where this system gives more complexity is that you have backgrounds to round out skills and capabilities, and a more dual class approach to leveling systems (if I am remembering dual classing appropriately where you start advancing in two classes simultaneously). If you start as a Fighter for 5 levels, then take on a role as a Priest, you can then become a Paladin. Alternatively, this same path could be taken to become a Totem Barbarian who channels animal spirits to eventually Wildshape in a rage. A Bard is someone who weaves through all of these 4 spheres.
Long story short, I think the above groups the _systems_ of 5e into the distinct 4 groupings. But I don't know if many people outside myself would be happy with following through with making this grouping the actual system. I would be delighted to do this, but I read a lot of fantasy where you had your 4 sort of archetypes (the divide between mage/evil cleric is always difficult) that all had these sorts of niches. I think what would ultimately kill this sort of system is the fact that to do it properly you would probably end up with a Level Adjustment system (essentially bring back the different experience tables) and that does not seem to be a popular design choice anymore.
Yes, I do like this idea (of four classes), and it is probably something I want to pursue later on, especially in an OSR context.
DeleteFor "minimalist 5e", I'm probably sticking to the existing framework (warriors, spellcasters and rogues).
I do love the idea of being able to pick features freely between classes, and it is something I want to implement (I think it is doable within the 5e mindset).
The most important aspect of this "fourth class", IMO, is support/defense, like you've mentioned. These are the "team players".
5e does not have an specific niche for them... but if you combine some paladin, battlemaster, bard andd cleric, you can certainly build something interesting...
Just thinking about possible implementation a bit more.
DeleteYou had a previous article discussing being able to 'multiclass' into different subclasses.
If you planned out these 4 classes to have different lanes of abilities that have level prerequisites and subclass prerequisites, you could probably fit all of these concepts into different paths that players can pick and chose from. Ideally, you don't have any ability that requires two paths to unlock, just 'emergent abilities' from combinations. I don't know how one would scale XP, or if it's better to just have an added XP table (so if 2nd level costs 300 XP and 5th level 2,000 XP to reach a combined 5/2 is 2,300.). Otherwise, you have XP points that you spend as a 'cost' for unlocking a class feature. In this case, I would readjust numbers so that they are not so astronomical to track.
As for the 'leader' class, I am basically combining support with the 'mystical' abilities found on other classes. It also does nice things such as druids not needing a spell to understand plants and animals. It's a class with a lot of potential by itself, that can get _terrifying_ when combined with a more direct class.
I like clerics, but I've yet to come across anything in modern D&D that captures the dread of a high level evil cleric.
I will note that while the 4 classes are fairly isolated in terms of mechanics they interact with, I would still give them morale boosts in their sphere of expertise. So a fighter on the front lines will have allies fight to the last man. A priest on the front line will keep that same line standing longer (defensive + healing + morale). A Paladin is almost impossible to move without overwhelming firepower.
i liked the way the first Dragon Age game split up classes and subclasses. You had 3 core classes (Warriors, Mages, Rogues) and then they split into sub-variants you could combine together.
ReplyDeleteRogues are skill based: Ranger (survival, animals) Assassin (infiltration, stabbing) Bard (boosts, control)
Warriors are fighting focused: Champion (morale, diverse arms) Berserker (frenzy, high damage low defense) Templar (high defense, magic resist)
Mages are spell focused: Healer (divine, cleric type) Shapeshifter (nature magic, druid type) Blood Mage (arcane magic, sorcerer/warlock type)
Yes, I like this method too; 5e does this with "sidekicks"... something I want to tackle soon.
Delete