D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[DonAdam]

I'm praying to Crom for ranger subclasses without spells.

It's a legitimate concern that "class" is just an empty shell, but that depends on implementation. And I'm happy to have customization options be more lumpy rather than feat-sized, because it radically reduces search costs for things to use / allow / ban.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've had a lurking fear that since its inception, the "FOUR CLASSES AND NO MORE" proponents were going to eat all the classes in the name of "simplicity". They've already eaten the sorcerer, warlock, warlord, assassin, and specialist wizard/specialty priest, and I'm suspecting the "mage/wizardry/illusionist" method of constructing classes might not be a test balloon for a fighter/paladin/cavalier or a rogue/thief/burglar.

I really wonder if we won't lose paladin, druid, bard, ranger, monk, and barbarian as separate classes after all...

It could have been done, but IMHO it's quite too late now to totally revise 10 classes into 4 only. To me it sounds like they have frozen the current classes breakdown to 10.

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.

I agree, although I don't like the concept of "power source" so I see the distinction based more on the how than the why. OTOH "power source" still makes some sense to me as an explanation for different spellcasting.

I am not a fan of the current design choice where 9 classes are archetypes of (let's say) intermediate breadth, while 1 class is an archetype of large breadth. I would prefer more equality, so that we either had Psion, Sorcerer, Warlock as separate classes in addition to the 10 above, or otherwise have 4 core classes and everything else as subclasses, then have subsubclasses (with a better name of course).

From multiclassing point of view, I actually feel like a Wizard/Sorcerer or a Wizard/Warlock is slightly more legit than a Fighter/Barbarian or Fighter/Paladin, because in terms of core archetypes, a Barbarian and a Paladin are already a Fighter. Choosing to play a Fighter/Barbarian or Fighter/Paladin IMXP is more a matter of mechanical optimization, or otherwise used for dual-classing (i.e. first being one class then advancing in the second class, to reflect a change in character history). IMHO there is a slight more need for mixing two different narrative "power sources".

If they had gone the 3e/4e route of plenty of classes, the multiclassing default would allow mixing them freely. The Mage case is an odd exception, because otherwise the rest of the classes do work like that.

But since I'm not a fan of multiclassing for optimization, I could have actually liked the opposite approach of making 4 core classes only. No Fighter/Barbarian or Fighter/Paladin, because a Barbarian or Paladin is already a hybrid or a more specific Fighter archetype, but multiclassing only between Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard. That would have been fine for me...

[note on the Druid: in a game with plenty of classes, the Druid is an absolute essential for my tastes! I could not easily tolerate an edition where Druid isn't in the first PHB. BUT in a core-4 game, Druid could definitely be a type of Cleric. In fact, in such a game I would actually like to see Clerics that were as different from each other as a Cleric and a Druid normally are]

Think that the first two levels are the basic training your shadowdancer must have inside the organization before the true secrets are teach to him.

That's ok, but the problem I referred to was the opposite one, i.e. when you already are a Rogue of level 4 or higher, and the shadowdancers tell you "sorry Joe, we can take you in but can't teach you our tricks, you're already a Thief...".

The rules for mixing up subclasses will come in handy here. Still, for representing elite groups, feat chains might be overall a better choice.

BTW notice how feats are single features that each PC get 4-7 starting from level 4, while subclasses are made of single features that each PC get 4-6 starting at level 3. This is the strongest similarity between the 2 mechanics. It does suggest that a lot of character concepts designed as subclasses can be turned into feat chains or viceversa without too many problems!

 

[steeldragons]

The game is, primarily, a fantasy genre game. The fantasy genre is built on the foundation that there are guys (most often the "hero") with swords and guys (most often the villain, but sometimes heroes...or hero's helpers, too) with magic.

Swords and Spells. Weapons and Wizardry.That's the boiled down basic core of fantasy character types.

D&D got that. You got the Fighting Man/Fighter/Warrior and the Magic-User/Mage/Wizard.
Then came the Cleric...a fighting guy with spells, basically, who got flavored into divine/religious/spiritual powers...and a Thief/Rogue...a fighting guy who used [disreputable] "skills" and cunning more than brute strength and direct confrontation.

From there the D&D Family tree of Classes didst branch off into a veritable jungle of twisted, forked, diverging and rejoined limbs and endless leaves of special snowflake classes.

In that vein, it makes sense that the guys who are the broadest classes, in D&D terms, would be a Fighter and a Mage.
If the sub-classes for Fighter were to include "Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger" (and I don't believe they will) as a Mage includes "Sorcerer and Warlock [at least, Psion is a tougher pill, but understandable from the "squishy guy whose contribution is to know/do weird/unknown things" perspective, I wouldn't really blink twice. Your barbarian still gets your ragey and naturey stuff. Paladins are still getting their channeling/auras, special mount stuff...so, whether it sits on a list beneath or beside "Fighter" really makes no nevermind.

Of the distinctions that are being made, "different spell mechanics" are the defining crunch of the spell casters. What are we? Spell Casters. What do we do? Cast spells. How? That's what makes us different and the rest is all fluff-driven.

I'm a wizard who studies magic from books and can throw any spell I get my hands on at you. I'm a psion who focuses my mental energies to reach into and/or scramble your brain. I'm a warlock who made a deal with a wicked faye prince to have/use/work magic in my quest for vengance. I'm a sorcerer who just started making magic happen when I was a kid...now I can create and shape fire however I want and make stuff float off the ground!

This is just the same as they are differentiating the Fighter's "specialties" [or whatever in blazes they are called now]. What are you? Persons who fight. What do you do? Fight persons [of any race or species]. How? That's what makes us different and the rest is all fluff-driven.

I'm a knight who skewers enemies on horseback. I'm a gladiator who does acrobatics, brawling and double/triple/sneak attacks. I'm a berserker who just barrels in, eyes wild. I'm an archer who rains pointy justice on my enemies form afar.

It makes sense. It also makes sense if Barbarian and Ranger were in there too. Paladin, with the divine magic stuff, might mandate its own class in this style/perspective...or become a branch off of the branch of "Cleric" instead of "Fighter"...or its own branch where cleric and "noble/honorable" fighter branches converge. But, I digress. The point is, they could be included under the Fighter umbrella class but they're not and I suspect that is mostly due to tradition and legacy.

I have no issue with that.

Sorcerer has been its own class for 2 editions...by far the most possibly "legitimate" magicky characters worthy of its own class...'cept its only defining mechanical feature/difference from the wizardly spell-casters is "I use my magic like this"...a.k.a. from the fighter side "I use my weapons like this."

Warlock has only been a PHB class for 1 edition. Psion has only been a PHB class for 1...and that is arguable, as it was in a 3rd PHB, not a 1st.

I get people love the classes and characters they love. I get that. But you can play an assassin without there being its own class. And if it is "under" the Rogue/Thief class, is it somehow less than it would be on its own? Is its concept somehow different? No. You can play a warlock without it being its own class. You need the "right" warlock mechanics for their magic, which is all that differentiates them from the other casters, and the rest is the "right" warlocky fluff/story bits.

So, yeah, lump some, don't lump others. Its all good and mostly makes sense. I think everyone needs to take their indignation down a few notches with this, imho.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

I am not a fan of the current design choice where 9 classes are archetypes of (let's say) intermediate breadth, while 1 class is an archetype of large breadth. I would prefer more equality, so that we either had Psion, Sorcerer, Warlock as separate classes in addition to the 10 above, or otherwise have 4 core classes and everything else as subclasses, then have subsubclasses (with a better name of course).

I agree that the "mage" umbrella seems way too large. The problem is that different varieties of arcane magic are not clearly enough defined. If a player new to D&D wants to raise the dead and repel vampires with her holy symbol, we can set her on the path of the cleric. Someone who wants to control the weather and transform into a dire wolf should look at the druid. If I want to throw fireballs and force enemies to fall asleep, should I play a wizard, a warlock, or a sorcerer? Sure, we can say that wizards study spell books, warlocks enter into pacts, and sorcerers unleash inborn arcane energy, but at the game table all three approach obstacles with arcane spells.

I think WotC is unwilling to say that wizards and sorcerers should be different classes just because they had separate game mechanics in the past (e.g. Vancian spellcasting versus spontaneous spellcasting in 3E). Especially since they will evidently offer alternate spellcasting systems that DMs can install across the board. What we're seeing now is that WotC is also unwilling to say that wizards and sorcerers should be different classes just because they have different narratives for how they obtain their spells (from the same list of possible spells). What WotC would need to do to make warlocks and wizards separate classes is give them spell lists with as little overlap as the druid and cleric spell lists, but I suspect they are simply unwilling to define across the board (across all campaign settings) how "warlock magic" differs so fundamentally in capability than "wizard magic". For better or for worse.

We already know that WotC wants each class to have a coherent narrative. What this mage superclass implies is that they care more about the narrative of the character in action ("I cast Burning Hands, and sheets of flame erupt from my outstretched fingers") than about the "background" of the character ("my magic comes from years of study / my infernal patron / my draconic bloodline"), at least when it comes to delineating base classes.

So class by "power source" isn't quite right, if you interpret "power source" as "how I obtained my power". It's more "what kind of power do I wield".

 

[Weather Report]

while subclasses are made of single features that each PC get 4-6 starting at level 3.

1st level for the Mage (Wizardry).

 

[howandwhy99]

For my thinking, D&D classes are the roles the players are performing. The classes are not defined by the powers their characters have, whatever the characters "do" isn't relevant to the players gaming anyway, but rather by the scope of the game the players explore. Different Fighter subclasses can have different abilities. Even different versions of the Fighter could be used as a campaign default core class. D&D isn't about the particular abilities, it's about the capacity of defined class abilities to enable players to succeed in the game system of choice for the class. That could be the combat system, magic system, cleric system, or simpler systems for all races. In a game it's about what players *actually* do, the rules are there to define the boundaries of play.

 

[Li Shenron]

1st level for the Mage (Wizardry).

I was only referring to actual subclasses/choice points, which is Arcane Traditions for the Wizard. Wizardry at the moment is another matter. But some classes get the subclass at level 1-2.

 

[Henry]

I think too much might be made about the Mage business here. Thinking back to 3E, Psions and wizards had the same hit dice, same attack bonuses, same saves, same power breakpoints (1st, 3rd, etc all the way to 17th level), and even got familiars! (Albeit crystal instead of flesh and blood) other than casting mechanic and spell lists, i could have levelled a psion by looking at a wizard chart, almost. Warlocks in 3e had a bit more complexity, but werent very different, being more "sorcerous" than sorcerers by casting the same stuff infinitely.

Story concerns are immaterial to me, because fluff can always be adjusted prior to print time to encompass psion, warlock, and wizard alike.


I'm with DEFCON1 -- until I see the actual implementation, i'm keeping my pitchfork, bonfire wood, and torches in the shed.

 

[Rob Blanks]

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.

+12 to pretty much all of that.
I'm not against subclasses at all, and I really, really like the complexity dial they can add. What I don't like is the dogmatic idea that DnD will only have X number of classes and everything else must be crammed in there as a subclass. It's arbitrary design and not organic.

I'm also not ever sure what design issue this is trying to address.

 

[tuxgeo]

< snip > I'm also not ever sure what design issue this is trying to address.

There does exist at least one other possibility: they might be trying to address a compatibility issue more than a design issue.