D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[gyor]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130902

Interesting LL, apparently subclasses it sounds like will be a huge part of the modular approach, it makes sense actually. It will be interesting to see how it gets implimented over time.

 

[variant]

It's a good idea to a point. The problem is they are trying to jam classes under the Mage that have no business being there. The Psion should not cast from the same spell list as the Wizard, just as a Warlock shouldn't. Neither the Psion nor the Warlock should have cantrips or spells at all. The Psion uses psionics and the Warlock has spell-like abilities.

The Mage is like this overarching meta-class with its own classes and subclasses under it. It doesn't lineup with the rest of the system which is just made up of classes with subclasses underneath them.

 

[Savage Wombat]

You couldn't just say "see other thread" and been done with it?

 

[JamesonCourage]

It's a good idea to a point. The problem is they are trying to jam classes under the Mage that have no business being there. The Psion should not cast from the same spell list as the Wizard, just as a Warlock shouldn't. Neither the Psion nor the Warlock should have cantrips or spells at all. The Psion uses psionics and the Warlock has spell-like abilities.

I'm not sure you're right. I mean, the article says:

By making the wizard an option under the mage, we open up space for the warlock, sorcerer, psion, artificer, and other casters without having to reinvent the wheel for each caster. They can share spells, magic items, and feats as necessary, allowing new design to focus on the elements that make them unique and interesting.

It's important to remember that while these casters share the same base class, that doesn't mean they share the same casting mechanics. The entire point of this change is to focus on what makes those classes unique.

I'm not a huge fan of subclasses, but we might see different casting mechanics / lists for Wizards and Psions and Warlocks. We don't know yet, but it certainly sounds like a possibility. As always, play what you like

 

[Li Shenron]

Nothing new in this week's L&L article... for a moment I actually really thought I was reading a previous article.

Overall we shall prepare for the old "new prestige classes, new feats and new spells!" signature phrase of 3e supplements to be updated to "new subclasses, new feats and new spells!" for 5e supplements.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Uh, oh.

That said, subclasses also play a key role from the DM's side of things. The subclasses you allow into your campaign say a lot about your world. For that reason, we're looking at subclasses shouldering almost the entire burden in D&D Next, which were previously handled by character classes

So subclasses should handle the scaling of complexity as well as world description? If the DM doesn't want to allow the Gladiator subclass it's farewell to the complex fighter type?

This conjures the image of dozens, nay hundreds of subclasses in oh so many splatbooks.

 

[LightPhoenix]

So, what I'm getting out of this is basically subclasses are the 5E version of kits/prestige classes/paragon paths. Personally, I've been sort of on the fence as far as subclasses go, and I think this pushes me further towards not liking them.

Also, I get the idea of sharing resources to reduce duplication. For example, why duplicate Enchantment spells as Psion powers when you could just say, "You can use Enchantment spells as Psion powers." However, I'm not exactly sure how having all of these different mechanical archetypes conjoined under one class makes things less complicated. For that matter, I think it dilutes the narrative parts of the classes as well.

Personally, I just see subclasses as the clunkiest and most complicated solution to this supposed problem of needing to combine "arcane" classes. Why not make casting mechanics modular - substitute out Vancian casting for your system of choice, be it Sorcerer-like, point-based, AEDU, and so forth. Alternatively, if you want to avoid spell duplication, why not just divide spells up into discrete schools (or spheres, or whatever) and simply give classes access to schools?

 

[Falling Icicle]

There are several problems with this.

First, there's no consistency in this design. They're cramming everything from the wizard to the warlock to the psion to the artificer under the mage, but make barbarians, paladins, rangers, druids, and bards their own classes? That is just.. bizarre. There's less difference between a fighter and a barbarian than there is between a wizard and a psion that uses a totally different casting method. There are also more differences there than there are between clerics and druids. So why use this design approach for mages, but not everyone else? By treating all of the mage classes differently, it makes people that like those classes feel marginalized.

Second, this design doesn't accomplish anything. So you put warlocks under mage. But let's say you still give them a different casting method, etc. So why not just make them their own class? What does putting them under the mage label even do, aside from preventing them from ever multiclassing with other mage "subclasses"? And if that is the goal, then why? Maybe a warlock/psion wouldn't be the most popular multiclass combination. But so what? I can't see many people playing a cleric/druid either, and yet that is allowed.

Putting shadowdancers under the rogue, and stuff like that? That's fine. I don't mind them bringing back "prestige classes" this way. I even prefer it. The problem I have is that they're treating wizards, warlocks, psions and artificers just like prestige classes, when those things were main classes before. The artificer, might be okay, as it was more of a niche class to begin with, but this doesn't work well with any of the others. Each of those things have plenty of conceptual room for subclasses of their own. So then you end up with mages having this odd three tier thing, with subclasses within subclasses, something they aren't doing for any other class. It's just nonsensical. This has to be the most misguided thing that they've ever considered doing in Next, IMO.

 

[Iosue]

So subclasses should handle the scaling of complexity as well as world description? If the DM doesn't want to allow the Gladiator subclass it's farewell to the complex fighter type?

Not sure I get this. If one doesn't want gladiators in their world, what's stopping them from simply reskinning the gladiator subclass? And vice-versa, people have been using their basic AD&D fighters and fluffing them as gladiators for years.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

For those complaining about Druids, Monks, Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers and Bards not being subclasses, or going even farther and complaining about how Rogues and Clerics aren't subclasses. Remember that there needs to be a balance between "tradition" in D&D and "going forward" in D&D. If something wasn't a base class in a core product for 3 editions of the game, then it's not likely on the list of classes that are in. Keep in mind that the 1e classes Assassin and Illusionist also didn't make the list of classes that are in. But they exist as subclasses in some form.

But that being said I certainly feel that more of the former classes should be more spread out as subclasses of the classes beyond the "main 4".