Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 08, 2022, 04:25:04 PM
I do agree they need SOMETHING in most versions of D&D.

Easiest way I can think:

A) When you attack and kill, attack again, "ad infinitum".
B) When you attack and the enemy is still standing, name one effect. Enemy must save vs paralysis or be disarmed, tripped, unable to cast spells for a round, etc. If the enemy is already exposed, double damage.
C) Extra attacks starting at level 5.

EDIT: if necessary, add +10 damage if you beat AC by 10 or more.

EDIT 2. Scratch that. Even easier:

- Make multiple attacks by subtracting the enemies' HD each attack (e.g, 4 attacks against 2 HD monsters at level 8 ). *
- Alternatively, one single attack with a bonus to damage equal to your BAB.
- Maneuvers as described above.

*See https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2022/03/multiple-fighter-attacks-revisited-for.html

Greetings!

Some nice ideas there, Eric Diaz!

It's always fun to tinker around with classes and explore different abilities, different sets of strengths and weaknesses.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

After playing around with various things since 2008 I came out for the following for my Majestic Fantasy RPG which is based on the original edition plus supplements.

• Fighters get a bonus to initiative equal to their to-hit bonus from their class. For editions with charts, the difference between what they can AC 10/9 at first level and and what they can hit for at their current level.
• Fighters can attack a number of hit dice equal to their level per round. For editions with multiple attacks at higher levels then they get that plus extra attacks equal to their # attacks - 1
• If any attack that rolls a nat 20 you get max damage plus another roll. If you hit you get double max damage. If you miss you roll damage and add in your max damage, if you roll another max 20 you repeat the process again adding in your max damage each time.

I found these three additions work well for making the fighter more capable at higher levels without the extreme results that the unearthed arcana approach takes. Without AD&D style multiple attack this gives a lesser boost to OD&D. Which is good because I like the more grounded approach of OD&D over AD&D.

Quote from: SHARK on April 07, 2022, 11:27:34 PMthe DM can do a few things to provide Warriors, Fighters, the Soldiers and rough-handed mercenaries of the game world with a few extra tricks and abilities to make them shine

The same people who will shit down your neck for not knowing exactly what kind of equipment you need for jungle exploration are going to "provide" characters with "a few extra tricks" to "make them shine?"

Fucking hilarious.

If a class is so piss-poor that the DM has to coddle it to make it competitive, maybe that's because the class is trash.

That out of the way, to address the actual point: the conclusion I have reached in my setting is that while regular dudes with swords absolutely exist, they don't typically adventure very long: whether due to retiring early because what the fuck are you going to do to dragons, really; or they died because trying to poke fire-breathing adamantine-scaled monsters the size of houses with nothing more than a sharp metal stick is a stupid idea. Instead, each of the various power sources has a fighter-adjacent class that is "fighter, but taps into a power source and so can actually do useful things on their own without having to rely on outside assistance," which allows folks who want to play a combat-centric character the option while trying to minimize LFQW concerns.

And sure, that kind of screws over the John McClane types. But once you reach certain levels in D&D and your adventuring locations start getting more fantastical, vanilla action heroes don't really have a whole lot going for them anyroad. By which I mean that the real problem with fighters isn't that they're sort of silly in terms of expected combat outcomes, but instead there is the environment to consider. If your adventure location is underwater or in the clouds, most other classes either have direct mechanics or abilities implied by their class narrative that might allow them to get to the location and possibly even function within it reliably. Fighters and their ilk are shit outta luck.

The only people who screech Fighters in D&D are weak are sub-morons with worse math skills than me. And thats a fucking accomplishment.

Its been shown time and again that Fighters in D&D have across editions tended to out-DPS the wizards. But the whining never ends. Of course.

Yes its a simple class. Why does it NEEEEEEEEED to be complex and overwrought like every other design "improvement"?

Quote from: Omega on April 09, 2022, 09:45:57 PM
Yes its a simple class. Why does it NEEEEEEEEED to be complex and overwrought like every other design "improvement"?

Indeed, the simplicity of the fighter is a huge part of the draw for me, allowing me to focus on aspects of the game other than ability-based strategies -- role-playing, environmental interaction, cooperative planning, etc.

Likewise, it is the magic-user's complexity I find compelling, for a different mood.

Having both options is a nice way to attract twice as many players.

Quote from: Zalman on April 10, 2022, 11:42:23 AM

Indeed, the simplicity of the fighter is a huge part of the draw for me, allowing me to focus on aspects of the game other than ability-based strategies -- role-playing, environmental interaction, cooperative planning, etc.

Likewise, it is the magic-user's complexity I find compelling, for a different mood.

Having both options is a nice way to attract twice as many players.

Yes, which is why some hooks to keep the fighter doing his thing without making it complicated is part of the goal.  That would be distinct from providing a warrior type class that is specifically targeted for people who want to play with the complex side.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 10, 2022, 11:47:48 AM

Quote from: Zalman on April 10, 2022, 11:42:23 AM

Indeed, the simplicity of the fighter is a huge part of the draw for me, allowing me to focus on aspects of the game other than ability-based strategies -- role-playing, environmental interaction, cooperative planning, etc.

Likewise, it is the magic-user's complexity I find compelling, for a different mood.

Having both options is a nice way to attract twice as many players.

Yes, which is why some hooks to keep the fighter doing his thing without making it complicated is part of the goal.  That would be distinct from providing a warrior type class that is specifically targeted for people who want to play with the complex side.

So you're saying there's room for both the original fighting-man, and the classes from The Book of Nine Swords? 

Though one of the problems with allowing both is that the more fiddly version will inevitably be easier to optimize. With more moving parts and more options, a gamist player will be able to find more synergies or creative applications. So even if you set the baseline power of a complex martial class a bit below that of a simple martial class, the complex marital class will end up more powerful in the hands of a player with a head for mechanics. And the more options the complex class has, the more difficult it will be to keep the classes balanced. We can see this with the classic magic-user, where the gradual agglomeration of new spells and the loosening of the boundaries on what could be cast effectively turned into a huge power boost.

Quote from: Omega on April 09, 2022, 09:45:57 PMThe only people who screech Fighters in D&D are weak are sub-morons with worse math skills than me. And thats a fucking accomplishment.

Whether or not they hold their own in terms of DPS is irrelevant, because that's not the real problem with the class.

To quote myself from a couple years back:

Quote from: GnomeWorks on January 05, 2020, 10:59:50 PMOnce you get to the point where adventures are in fantastical places, the fighter is fucked, full stop.

Underwater adventure in a sunken ship at the bottom of the ocean: how does the fighter get there? Does he hold his breath the entire time? Meanwhile the cleric is casting water breathing and the druid turns into a dolphin.

Princess was captured by giants who took her to their castle in the clouds: how does the fighter get there? Flap his arms a whole lot? The ranger uses his animal friendship powers to get a hippogryph buddy and the monk can walk on clouds.

Fighters absolutely are limited, and that's the problem. In terms of D&D progression, the character concept of "dude who is good with swords" keeps until maybe like 5th level or so, and then it tanks. Pretty much every other character class in the game has ways of getting outside assistance or supernatural power that lets them do crazy - dare I say heroic - things. Meanwhile the fighter gets... better at swording things to death?

The concept is just too narrow and has too short of a shelf-life for D&D. Now if you don't go past 5th level or all your adventures are of the variety that can be solved by "has thumbs," then sure, fighters are great.

John McClane is a fighter. Inventive, determined, hardcore, good in a fight. All that jazz. And for the kinds of threats that a vanilla action hero faces, he's definitely a dude you could bring along. But if you're going to go fight aboleths at the bottom of the ocean along with their sahuagin minions? He either needs to be kitted out in some hardcore equipment (which is at the whim of the DM, mind, not something he inherently has), or the character can't even participate, he can't even get to where the adventure is.

And rogues have the same problem.

The core issue with fighters isn't their mechanical complexity or simplicity, or their damage output or lack of combat utility. It's the limitations of the archetypal concept that are the problem that limit the ways fighters can interact with the world on their own terms. Rangers and monks may not be explicitly capable of the examples I used above, but if not they're in a better place to make those arguments because they can ride on the story of their class's narrative and archetype. Fighters get no such benefit of the doubt because they're fairly generic in flavor and background, and while that means that the class can support a wider variety of concepts than other classes, it undermines their ability to interact with the world outside of their mechanically-defined abilities because they have fewer narrative hooks into the world.

Quote from: GnomeWorks on April 10, 2022, 03:21:51 PM
The core issue with fighters isn't their mechanical complexity or simplicity, or their damage output or lack of combat utility. It's the limitations of the archetypal concept that are the problem that limit the ways fighters can interact with the world on their own terms.

Since we are talking archetypal here not just mechanical benefit the problem with fighter isn't with the class it is fact that the other class are not roleplayed properly.

Assume we are talking about the classic edition versions then let's examine this list

QuoteCleric
Druid
==============
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
==============
Magic User
Illusionist
==============
Thief
Assassin
==============
Monk

Clerics are not free agents as a result of being a servant of their religion
Druids are not free agents as a result of being a servant of nature.
Rangers are not free agents as a result of being servants of good.
Paladins are not free agents as a result of being divine champions for good

Assassins and Monks are not generally expected to serve however it is explicitly stated that they are part of a larger organization. And advancement at the highest levels depends on dealing with these organizations.

Magic-Users and Illusionists are free agents. However, as a scholarly profession, they are dependent on others for support while training. This limits their numbers and impact on society as a whole.

Of all the classes only Fighter and Thieves are truly free agents. Free to pursue whatever opportunities without the burden of a creed, service, an organization, or devote time to scholarly pursuits.

If a D&D campaign doesn't incorporate this then of course it not going to work out. There is no competition between those with extraordinary powers and those who do not. Without the above, there is no downside as well.

So how is a Fighter or a Thief supposed to make their way amid all those with extraordinary abilities? How is the poor fighter supposed to breathe underwater? With magic items of course either commissioned or found.

As D&D edition developed people forgot that the original method of "advancement" incorporated the acquisition and use of magical items. Yes, it is not wise to go overboard but it shouldn't be ignored either. 

It is baked into the various classic editions as well. A party consisting of nothing but fighters will kill monsters and acquire their treasure which includes a certain number of magic items. These items can be employed to expand the capabilities of the characters.








Rangers and monks may not be explicitly capable of the examples I used above, but if not they're in a better place to make those arguments because they can ride on the story of their class's narrative and archetype. Fighters get no such benefit of the doubt because they're fairly generic in flavor and background, and while that means that the class can support a wider variety of concepts than other classes, it undermines their ability to interact with the world outside of their mechanically-defined abilities because they have fewer narrative hooks into the world.
[/quote]

Quote from: GnomeWorks on April 10, 2022, 03:21:51 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 09, 2022, 09:45:57 PMThe only people who screech Fighters in D&D are weak are sub-morons with worse math skills than me. And thats a fucking accomplishment.

Whether or not they hold their own in terms of DPS is irrelevant, because that's not the real problem with the class.

To quote myself from a couple years back:

Quote from: GnomeWorks on January 05, 2020, 10:59:50 PMOnce you get to the point where adventures are in fantastical places, the fighter is fucked, full stop.

Underwater adventure in a sunken ship at the bottom of the ocean: how does the fighter get there? Does he hold his breath the entire time? Meanwhile the cleric is casting water breathing and the druid turns into a dolphin.

Princess was captured by giants who took her to their castle in the clouds: how does the fighter get there? Flap his arms a whole lot? The ranger uses his animal friendship powers to get a hippogryph buddy and the monk can walk on clouds.

Fighters absolutely are limited, and that's the problem. In terms of D&D progression, the character concept of "dude who is good with swords" keeps until maybe like 5th level or so, and then it tanks. Pretty much every other character class in the game has ways of getting outside assistance or supernatural power that lets them do crazy - dare I say heroic - things. Meanwhile the fighter gets... better at swording things to death?

The concept is just too narrow and has too short of a shelf-life for D&D. Now if you don't go past 5th level or all your adventures are of the variety that can be solved by "has thumbs," then sure, fighters are great.

John McClane is a fighter. Inventive, determined, hardcore, good in a fight. All that jazz. And for the kinds of threats that a vanilla action hero faces, he's definitely a dude you could bring along. But if you're going to go fight aboleths at the bottom of the ocean along with their sahuagin minions? He either needs to be kitted out in some hardcore equipment (which is at the whim of the DM, mind, not something he inherently has), or the character can't even participate, he can't even get to where the adventure is.

And rogues have the same problem.

The core issue with fighters isn't their mechanical complexity or simplicity, or their damage output or lack of combat utility. It's the limitations of the archetypal concept that are the problem that limit the ways fighters can interact with the world on their own terms. Rangers and monks may not be explicitly capable of the examples I used above, but if not they're in a better place to make those arguments because they can ride on the story of their class's narrative and archetype. Fighters get no such benefit of the doubt because they're fairly generic in flavor and background, and while that means that the class can support a wider variety of concepts than other classes, it undermines their ability to interact with the world outside of their mechanically-defined abilities because they have fewer narrative hooks into the world.

Meh, how often do D&D parties go into adventures at the bottom of the ocean or high up in the clouds? I'm not sure I've ever been to one. These are all edge cases, and undermined by the fact that mages and clerics can also cast water breathing on everyone else, even if they had to get there.

And as much as magical items imparting such abilities are at the whims of the DM, no DM who goes through the trouble of planing such adventures will deny characters a means to get there after spending hours writing the whole thing and planning the encounters. Even if it's just some limited charge item, you can bet your ass that characters will somehow find a means to go on this one off adventure this one time.

In the vast majority of cases the real problem with fighters (to the degree there arguably even is one) is that spellcasters eventually outstrip them in terms of raw power, and all that fighters get (at least in earlier editions) is continued combat progression, even after they can already hit everything on a natural 2. And don't get even a basic damage bonus as they go up in level (which shouldn't be too difficult to handle by people bothered by class complexity), other than some crappy +2 bonus if they invest on weapon specialization, which applies only to a chosen weapon.

And IMO, fighters should still get access to a bunch of combat tricks (even if people whine about complexity), or at least be better at them if everyone gets access to them (which they probably should in some cases), cuz they kinda do in real life. So it's ridiculous that they don't in a freaking fantasy game.

Quote from: Pat on April 10, 2022, 12:26:04 PM
So you're saying there's room for both the original fighting-man, and the classes from The Book of Nine Swords? 

Though one of the problems with allowing both is that the more fiddly version will inevitably be easier to optimize. With more moving parts and more options, a gamist player will be able to find more synergies or creative applications. So even if you set the baseline power of a complex martial class a bit below that of a simple martial class, the complex marital class will end up more powerful in the hands of a player with a head for mechanics. And the more options the complex class has, the more difficult it will be to keep the classes balanced. We can see this with the classic magic-user, where the gradual agglomeration of new spells and the loosening of the boundaries on what could be cast effectively turned into a huge power boost.

If the designer wants to go there, yes.  But lets cast back to my original point, which was conditional.  The classes, whatever they are, need some kind of rough equality--within the context of that game design and its intended type of settings.  Take a game that has that rough equality, then to change one aspect is to require changes elsewhere.  That includes changing the intended setting.  If you don't want to see that, say, an AD&D 1E fighter gets plenty of items within the context of the implied setting, then you need to change the fighter to get something else to compensate.  Play with magic items skewed towards fighters or toss them in favor of more inherent capabilities of the fighters.  Make fighting lords matter in the context of the setting or give fighters some alternative means to interact with the settings.  Skew the rules or skew the setting or play a different game, maybe not even one with classes.  Keep niche protection to some degree or don't.  Those are all good. 

Intended setting(s) supported feeds design and back again.  One character type's design feeds all the rest.  They all feed into mechanics and back again.   

You want a complex fighter class?  That has consequences for the design.  You want a simple fighter class?  That has consequences for the design.  You want both?  Ditto!  You don't want to deal with some consequences?  Then your design doesn't support the thing that caused it, and some people won't like it on that account.

What is not good at all is using a game outside its intended design with no changes and then complaining that it doesn't work.  Or arguments that near as I can tell seem to be some kind of weird power dynamic where the argument seems to be that if only "D&D" was designed this or that way to support this particular play style desired, then lots of people would want to play that way, thus given the arguer what they want--more people primed to play they want.  This latter is utterly bizarre me.  It seems to be a desire to have a large pool of players so vapid that they will only go with whatever is superficially popular.  Especially when its easy to find players for a good game of any type, even if that easy set of players is a subset of those around.  I can kind of see it for a player wanting a GM to run the game they want (or think they want), but the answer to that has always been to put on adult pants and run the game yourself, if a particular style is that important to you. 

This is why Rebel Sky's point is both somewhat correct but insufficient and dismissive.  Yes, sometimes it is easier to just play something else.  Sometimes the play experience desired is close enough to thing to make tweaking it desirable but far enough that tweaks are necessary to get there.  How the heck does anyone think those "something else" games got made in the first place?

Quote from: RebelSky on April 08, 2022, 06:09:11 PM
Or, just play something that already fixes the problem and not play D&D. Seems to be the easiest solution.

heh, I'm one of the big Fantasy Craft Evangelists on this forum. I fully support this idea - and for more reasons than just "not playing D&D." I'm not a fan of WotC writ-large.

But Savage Worlds does 95% of what I want and does it extremely well, so yep. I'm with you.

Quote from: estar on April 10, 2022, 03:56:01 PM

Quote from: GnomeWorks on April 10, 2022, 03:21:51 PM
The core issue with fighters isn't their mechanical complexity or simplicity, or their damage output or lack of combat utility. It's the limitations of the archetypal concept that are the problem that limit the ways fighters can interact with the world on their own terms.

Since we are talking archetypal here not just mechanical benefit the problem with fighter isn't with the class it is fact that the other class are not roleplayed properly.

Assume we are talking about the classic edition versions then let's examine this list

QuoteCleric
Druid
==============
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
==============
Magic User
Illusionist
==============
Thief
Assassin
==============
Monk

Clerics are not free agents as a result of being a servant of their religion
Druids are not free agents as a result of being a servant of nature.
Rangers are not free agents as a result of being servants of good.
Paladins are not free agents as a result of being divine champions for good

Assassins and Monks are not generally expected to serve however it is explicitly stated that they are part of a larger organization. And advancement at the highest levels depends on dealing with these organizations.

Magic-Users and Illusionists are free agents. However, as a scholarly profession, they are dependent on others for support while training. This limits their numbers and impact on society as a whole.

Of all the classes only Fighter and Thieves are truly free agents. Free to pursue whatever opportunities without the burden of a creed, service, an organization, or devote time to scholarly pursuits.

If a D&D campaign doesn't incorporate this then of course it not going to work out. There is no competition between those with extraordinary powers and those who do not. Without the above, there is no downside as well.

So how is a Fighter or a Thief supposed to make their way amid all those with extraordinary abilities? How is the poor fighter supposed to breathe underwater? With magic items of course either commissioned or found.

As D&D edition developed people forgot that the original method of "advancement" incorporated the acquisition and use of magical items. Yes, it is not wise to go overboard but it shouldn't be ignored either. 

It is baked into the various classic editions as well. A party consisting of nothing but fighters will kill monsters and acquire their treasure which includes a certain number of magic items. These items can be employed to expand the capabilities of the characters.








Rangers and monks may not be explicitly capable of the examples I used above, but if not they're in a better place to make those arguments because they can ride on the story of their class's narrative and archetype. Fighters get no such benefit of the doubt because they're fairly generic in flavor and background, and while that means that the class can support a wider variety of concepts than other classes, it undermines their ability to interact with the world outside of their mechanically-defined abilities because they have fewer narrative hooks into the world.

This is am mic-drop. As usual, well said Estar.

All the discussion of Warriors as a "class" is irrelevant for the most part without considering setting/genre/etc. The usual non-contextual edition warring is here, with people speaking past the very conceits of what causes people to like/dislike something.

It's not about DPS/round - yes, Fights can potentially out DPS casters. But Caster can end entire fights, or mitigate entire encounters with a single cast from a clever players. The sheer utility of casters, in general, vs. Non-casters *is* a thing if not handled properly.

And Estar did a perfect starting point of a real discussion on that, rather than broadly comparing one person's conception of what edition did what better.

I've been thinking about this for a while and have an idea (ever playtested since I never get to play on the regular) of not requiring strength to be the main stat for fighters. Let them use any of the abilities in combat. Say using Int starts them off at -2 to hit in the first round but increases by 1 every round they fight the same opponent as the character learns about the opponent's fighting style and defences. Or have the character not deal out killing damage but use their charisma bonus to charm those watching the fight, like Robin Hood taking on the Prince's men as a way to flirt with Marion. Dexterity could be used to have greater mobility by jumping on tables to get the high ground, and kicking cooked pheasants at approaching soldiers. All that sort of swash-buckling stuff instead of making it all separate feats, they could be free for the fighter class as long as they have the ability scores for it.

Then, of course, the party's adventures would need to incorporate suitable situations and environments that let the fighters shine.

Quote from: estar on April 10, 2022, 03:56:01 PM

Quote from: GnomeWorks on April 10, 2022, 03:21:51 PM
The core issue with fighters isn't their mechanical complexity or simplicity, or their damage output or lack of combat utility. It's the limitations of the archetypal concept that are the problem that limit the ways fighters can interact with the world on their own terms.

Since we are talking archetypal here not just mechanical benefit the problem with fighter isn't with the class it is fact that the other class are not roleplayed properly.

Assume we are talking about the classic edition versions then let's examine this list

QuoteCleric
Druid
==============
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
==============
Magic User
Illusionist
==============
Thief
Assassin
==============
Monk

Clerics are not free agents as a result of being a servant of their religion
Druids are not free agents as a result of being a servant of nature.
Rangers are not free agents as a result of being servants of good.
Paladins are not free agents as a result of being divine champions for good

Assassins and Monks are not generally expected to serve however it is explicitly stated that they are part of a larger organization. And advancement at the highest levels depends on dealing with these organizations.

Magic-Users and Illusionists are free agents. However, as a scholarly profession, they are dependent on others for support while training. This limits their numbers and impact on society as a whole.

Of all the classes only Fighter and Thieves are truly free agents. Free to pursue whatever opportunities without the burden of a creed, service, an organization, or devote time to scholarly pursuits.

If a D&D campaign doesn't incorporate this then of course it not going to work out. There is no competition between those with extraordinary powers and those who do not. Without the above, there is no downside as well.

So how is a Fighter or a Thief supposed to make their way amid all those with extraordinary abilities? How is the poor fighter supposed to breathe underwater? With magic items of course either commissioned or found.

As D&D edition developed people forgot that the original method of "advancement" incorporated the acquisition and use of magical items. Yes, it is not wise to go overboard but it shouldn't be ignored either. 

It is baked into the various classic editions as well. A party consisting of nothing but fighters will kill monsters and acquire their treasure which includes a certain number of magic items. These items can be employed to expand the capabilities of the characters.

IDK, IMO role-playing is not a real balancing factor because it often has no real mechanical bearing on the game, and relies entirely on it actually being enforced—with class abilities stripped, if applicable—for it to even be an issue, which can lead to friction in the game if the player thinks the DM was unfair. But if the group doesn't take RP restrictions too seriously, it's almost like they don't exist. Conversely, if they do take it seriously, but you have good players who're into the RP, it just becomes part of the fun, which again, it's almost like they aren't real restrictions either—specially if the DM hands extra XP for PCs making sacrifices as part of RP, which is how I prefer to handle RP quirks.

I've never had players going against their character's religion when playing a cleric or druid, for example. They just naturally tend to play them as priestly types. So, where they somehow being held back in play for playing their characters that way? Or where they just having fun with it?

Alignment restrictions are a bit tricky, though, cuz they open up the floor to arguments about alignment and how to RP them, etc.

And in the case of mages (which are typically regarded as the main problem class in these discussions) all the book learning happens behind the scenes, usually before they begin a life of adventure. Unless we're talking spell research, which is a whole other can of worms with rewards (learning new spells) in exchange for their efforts and expenditures. So it's not a real setback.

With regards to magic items, the problem with them is twofold. One, they aren't real character abilities. Saying that a character can just rely on an item they aren't guaranteed to get to cover some gap in their abilities doesn't mean that gap isn't there. It just means that there might be ways to fill it through some external means, IF the item is even provided by the DM.

Second, even if the game traditionally assumed characters would just get magic items as they adventure, that isn't explicitly stated or enforced in the game rules. It isn't specified how many items specifically PCs are supposed to get, minimum, or what qualities they should have. It's just assumed items will turn up, but It's not guaranteed that they will. In the case of adventure-specific stuff, like water breathing, I'm sure that the DM will provide something, like I said in my previous post. But there are no guarantees beyond that.

And requiring X amount of magic items to show up also places certain pressures on DMs that might go against the type of camping they want to run. Hell, requiring them to include organizations to boss PCs around just cuz it's an implicit class restriction does that as well, and it still doesn't change the fact that those classes still have certain capabilities others don't, which leads back to the start of my post.