D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[Atomo]

Psionics were a totally different kind of creature, heheheeh... They appeared on 2e on the Complete Psionic Handbook, which described a new class (just one class) with exclusive mechanics. However, almost every race had a raw chance (in a d%) to have a latent psychic power, regardless class. Usually the chance was very low, so no lucky player gained that on the years we played 2e here

 

[Remathilis]

If sub-classes are to carry the load (or carry the baggage as the case may be), keeping this legacy classes as classes is redundant,

No?

Once upon a time, I'd say that each class would have unique enough roles and abilities to be different, such as bards differing from rogues because of spellcasting and paladins from fighters because of divine powers. However, if mage can be several very different types of casters using the same shell, it does call into question where a class ends and subclass begins.

However, if there is going to six different types of caster all running around calling themselves "mage" with unique hd, spells, casting methods, and proficiencies, then why have an over-arching class in the first place?

 

[MarkB]

Psionics were a totally different kind of creature, heheheeh... They appeared on 2e on the Complete Psionic Handbook, which described a new class (just one class) with exclusive mechanics. However, almost every race had a raw chance (in a d%) to have a latent psychic power, regardless class. Usually the chance was very low, so no lucky player gained that on the years we played 2e here

One time I actually lucked out on that roll, and got a character with the psychic ability to transmute metals. This was back in school and we were mostly just throwing characters through dungeon crawls during lunch breaks, so he never used it to get rich - but I did once manage to convince a DM that I could kill an orc shaman by transmuting all his gold jewellery to mercury and giving him mercury poisoning.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Well, I'm left understanding what subclasses are and why they exist, but I'm wondering what role classes play? They sound like they might be effectively 4E's "roles", or maybe more like "Power source" (as in Arcane, Divine, Martial, etc.). Worst case I can think of is that they end up a sort of bastard child of both of these - with no-one really knowing what it is they are supposed to be there for...

I think this notion of "class" is a pretty good compromise between the legacy classes and the stated desire to have classes be defined by story. Each class defines what power source or sources a character has.

Fighter: weaponry
Cleric: prayer
Mage: (arcane) magic
Rogue: skill
Druid: nature
Paladin: weaponry/religion
Barbarian: weaponry/nature
Ranger: weaponry/skill/nature
Bard: magic/skill
Monk: weaponry/skill

Classes beyond the core four (five if you count druids) are essentially hybrids in the 4e sense.

Corollary: I believe psions should be a base class for the pure psionic power source. Some class should serve as the baseline weaponry/magic hybrid. Something broad enough to include both hexblades and bladesingers beneath its umbrella.

 

[Elodan]

...
However, if there is going to six different types of caster all running around calling themselves "mage" with unique hd, spells, casting methods, and proficiencies, then why have an over-arching class in the first place?

I would expect anything in the class table to be shared across all subclasses. So mage and warlocks would both have the same HD and attack bonus but differ on such things as casting method, spell lists and special abilities (i.e. mage = cantrips; warlock = eldritch blast).

Subclasses might need to have more generic names if they're going to be used as something that can be excluded from the table.

I'll reserve judgement until I see a little more of subclasses in action. Although, I don't think Psion belongs with the other arcane casters.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So we're at the point where a "class" represents only nearly-meaninglessly broad ideas like "Mostly uses spells"?

...they're probably better off just making each "subclass" a normal class.

 

[gyor]

I believe that barring a Giant back lash, not just concern, that the ten classes have been choosen and the list is set in stone and so is the idea of subclasses.

I do agree that the classes need a distint core that unites subclasses but I think its more then just power source related.

After all many classes will get Shadow Magic, such as Rogues with Shadow Dancer, Fighters with Hexblade, possibly Paladin's with Blackguard, Mage with Shadowcaster/Nethermancer that either mix power sources or replace a power source with another as I doubt Psion will use any arcane magic.

So when they discribe classes in the finally draft of classes it has to be clear what seperates a class from the other classe, but also what unites the subclasses within a class.

 

[KidSnide]

This seems like one of those situations where the designers have discovered a useful tool but are applying it too broadly. (i.e. "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...")

Using sub-classes to provide different versions of the same class that have different complexity is a good idea, and the fighter is a fine example. Yes, many characters will want to separate story and mechanics for some of the subclasses (e.g. a knight that uses gladiator mechanics), but that's the sort of table customization that has always been a part of the game. The underlying idea of providing different flavors of fighter is strong.

Likewise, allowing a given class to use multiple spellcasting mechanics is also reasonable. Yes, some games have had significant story differences between Sorcerers and Wizards, but they ultimately use the same type of magic. Sure, specializations (effectively sub-subclasses) for sorcerers could be different than specializations for wizards, but these two classes are lot more similar than they are different. If sorcerers are wizards are both mage sub-classes, that doesn't seem too strange.

Where this goes too far is in bringing warlocks and psions into the mage bailiwick. Other than being primarily casters, these classes have little in common with wizards or sorcerers. The story connections are weak and, I strongly suspect, the mechanics are almost completely different. If the only thing these classes have in common with mages is a hit die and the ability to use certain magic items, then what is the value in making them subclasses of the same parent class? If there's a good answer to that question, this L&L doesn't provide it.

-KS

 

[Stalker0]

This seems like one of those situations where the designers have discovered a useful tool but are applying it too broadly. (i.e. "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...")

Completely agree here.

The idea of the shadow dancer being a subclass of the rogue makes a lot of sense, as the shadowdancer is basically a rogue like character with some supernatural abilities.

But the idea of merging all of the casters seems like more of a shoehorn.

If a wizard and a psion are similar enough that they can effectively be merged as subclasses....then i think people will say that the psion is way too similar to the wizard. Same with the artificer, etc.

A casting style is not a subtle difference, it is the foundation of a class imo. I just don't see the need in this case to merge them together.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I refuse to get hung up on any of this Mage nonsense until I actually SEE some of the other Mage sub-classes besides the Wizard.

There's a lot of wind blowing about something that nobody actually knows yet. Everyone's just guessing what they think the Warlock, Sorcerer & Psion are going to be like and going off the rails based on their own flights of fancy.

Show me something concrete and then I'll complain about it. But not before. It's a waste of energy.