D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[Sadrik]

There are a couple of things in the design that I am having a hard time with.

* The inclusion of the barbarian and monk as full classes and not backgrounds and or subclasses
* Too many class features
* Too granular of feats
* Subclasses, I conceptually like but I am not sure they are being consistent through all classes

So the inclusion of the barbarian and monk as full classes… 2nd edition got this right, they turned them into kits. I feel the same thing should happen here too. There is no need to separate out a barbarian from a fighter. There just is not. Both are trying to do virtually the same thing. The monk is just a fighter who can punch instead of use a weapon or if you wanted to make them more mystical you could make them a caster, and even best have a monk casting methodology (see my thoughts below on this).

For class features and feats I want them to swap their plans for each because I think it goes counter to their design parameters. Let me explain. Feats are like triple sized buckets of abilities that you can swap for an ability boost. Class features are small abilities that come each level and add a little ability. People who are looking for a simple game will just gain the ability boosts. Players who want to dive in to the character building complexity will want the feats. The problem is I think people who are looking for the simplicity do not want a class feature every level they want the triple sized buckets as their class feature, the player who wants the feat complexity wants the smaller tidbits that they can manage, so would enjoy selecting more feats. So triple sized class features and mini feats (and pair feats with say a +1 to a stat, for those looking for simplicity).

Subclasses, it has been stated that hexblades might be a fighter subclass and shadowdancers might be a rogue subclass. The only problem I see is that they already have arcane caster / warrior type class the bard. I don’t see how they intend on balancing the caster non-caster stuff. If you can just plug in the casting… what is the difference between a paladin and a fighter then? Also is the difference between a Mage/warlock and a Cleric/death domain are these subclasses equally scaled in their overall effect on the root class? Right now, I think, they are not.

I actually like putting in all of the different specialty casters under one roof (mage). To make it work though, it needs to use one casting methodology across all classes and subclasses. This may be what they have in mind already, I don’t know. I think the vancian methodology would be the best implementation for all casters; it’s simple and its classic. Then in the DMG provide alternate casting methods that could either be allowed on a character by character basis, or the DM says in this campaign setting all casters cast this way. This actually gives the most ability of customization and the most ability to keep it simple too. Examples: you might want a ranger with spell points, because you like the idea. You might like a druid with artificer methodology (hopefully this is what they do with the artificer) so you make items/runes/sigils/glyphs to manifest your magic. You might want a cleric with at-will magic because you like that. Also the DM might say in this setting everyone uses at-will magic, period or vancian or whatever. Lots of options.

Fighter (warrior extra feats/ability boosts)
Rogue (warrior special extra background)
Ranger (warrior / natural caster)
Paladin (warrior / divine caster)
Bard (warrior / arcane caster)
Mage (arcane caster)
Cleric (divine caster)
Druid (natural caster)

Barbarian (warrior ???)
Monk (warrior ???)

Note I am using the term warrior for non-caster, realizing there are differences in type. Those differences as I see them are Fighter more Str based and front line and Rogue more Dex based special tricks but not front line.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm with ya on the barbarian moreso than the monk. But I see your point.

There was quite the hullabaloo about the idea of a barbarian being a Fighter with a Berserker fighting style or theme/specialty. And the abilities to make different kinds of barbarians through Fighter with different themes/specialties. The pervading view being that Barbarians are a cultural background, not a class...and if they were to make the traditional D&D style Barbarian, whose defining feature/mechanic is the Rage thing, then a class called the Berserker is more appropriate...with a barbarian background/theme tacked on. I still think this is a better/more elegant and consistant way of doing it. However, the tradition/legacy of Barbarian as class in D&D can not be denied and seems to have won out.

Monk, on the other hand, I can see as a Fighter with an "Unarmed" or "Martial Artist" theme/specialty. But the D&D monk has always had the wuxia/mystical powers thing tacked on from its inception. So, to my mind, it might actually make more sense to use "Monk" as it traditionally in the real world is/has been viewed. Which is to say as sub-class of Cleric as opposed to fighter. The spiritual/divine/mystic powers thing built in, no "casting" per se, but perhaps some "channeling" of their personal energies/focus to elicit various "powers" (to explain things like "fast healing" or bursts of speed/flurry of blows, resistance/immunity to charms or poison, etc...), but eschewing armor and most weapons in lieu of unarmed combat...also implies the ascetic lifestyle which is also a traditional trait. Give them fighting style/potential that can compete with a Fighter (which clerics are already pretty good for), more Dex based than strength (and/with options for stength-based martial arts styles for those that want that kind of monk).

Could easily be done. But, again, it seems that legacy is going to win out over elegance or sticking to a simplicity of design...and all in all, I can't really argue with that as most of what I want out of 5e is to harken back to earlier (pre-3e) editions for flavor and "default" style. So if monk and barbarian are their own classes, which seems obvious at this point they will be, I can deal as I always have.

 

[sidonunspa]

For class features and feats I want them to swap their plans for each because I think it goes counter to their design parameters. Let me explain. Feats are like triple sized buckets of abilities that you can swap for an ability boost. Class features are small abilities that come each level and add a little ability. People who are looking for a simple game will just gain the ability boosts. Players who want to dive in to the character building complexity will want the feats. The problem is I think people who are looking for the simplicity do not want a class feature every level they want the triple sized buckets as their class feature, the player who wants the feat complexity wants the smaller tidbits that they can manage, so would enjoy selecting more feats. So triple sized class features and mini feats (and pair feats with say a +1 to a stat, for those looking for simplicity).
.

I think you are seeing simplicity the wrong way... if you advance in a level you have to deal with this one new thing you can do and the next level (a few games later) something else.

instead of leveling and dealing with 5 new things you can do (class ability and a super feat)

I think progressive simplicity is the best way to look at it

 

[Sadrik]

I think you are seeing simplicity the wrong way... if you advance in a level you have to deal with this one new thing you can do and the next level (a few games later) something else.

instead of leveling and dealing with 5 new things you can do (class ability and a super feat)

I think progressive simplicity is the best way to look at it

Clearly I don't agree with this. Class features are too many and too fiddly. Feats are too big and not fiddly enough. I think they misjudged on their goal. Class features should be big and not fiddly. Feats or ability boosts should be more frequent and smaller. This would tailor the game to suit both styles of play better.

 

[KidSnide]

I'll agree that Gladiator isn't a good name for the complex fighter option, because it's too narrow.

The Gladiator is not the complex fighter option. It's a complex fighter option. In one of the podcasts or streamed games (I don't recall where), Mike Mearls mentioned that the Duelist fighter subclass used the same "Combat Superiority" framework as the Gladiator, but with a different set of maneuvers.

-KS

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The Gladiator is not the complex fighter option. It's a complex fighter option. In one of the podcasts or streamed games (I don't recall where), Mike Mearls mentioned that the Duelist fighter subclass used the same "Combat Superiority" framework as the Gladiator, but with a different set of maneuvers.

-KS

Sounds like a fair solution. I look forward to seeing it.

 

[sidonunspa]

Clearly I don't agree with this. Class features are too many and too fiddly. Feats are too big and not fiddly enough. I think they misjudged on their goal. Class features should be big and not fiddly. Feats or ability boosts should be more frequent and smaller. This would tailor the game to suit both styles of play better.

I'm currently in the process of introducing 4 people to playing RPGS next week.. and trust me, you are looking at it form a players point a view.. not from a new players point of view.

I attempted to start one of these players with pathfinder.. her head exploded when she saw all the stuff she had to keep track of with a 1st level character (barbarian fighter with power attack.. she had some other feat which she kept forgetting she had.. she would forget to rage.. and so on)

she spent more time worried about her abilities then role-playing during combat

 

[ki11erDM]

I really don’t get the deal with everyone and the Mage class. Sure I can see calling it Magic-User but the rest of the arguments just sound hollow to me.


Mage = a person poorly trained in arms and armor, who is well versed in the arcane arts, and has low hit points. All the subclasses discussed fall under that umbrella with no issue.


As for the Fighter vs Barbarian thing:


Fighter = a person well versed in arms and armor, who is very skilled in a melee, and has good hit points. All subclasses must fall into this, barbarians clearly do not.

Barbarian = a person who knows how to use a few weapons with brute force and furry, his furry carries him through a melee, and he relies on adrenalin instead of armor.


As for the Monk? I would like to just delete them from the history of D&D… hehe.

 

[Sadrik]

I'm currently in the process of introducing 4 people to playing RPGS next week.. and trust me, you are looking at it form a players point a view.. not from a new players point of view.

I attempted to start one of these players with pathfinder.. her head exploded when she saw all the stuff she had to keep track of with a 1st level character (barbarian fighter with power attack.. she had some other feat which she kept forgetting she had.. she would forget to rage.. and so on)

she spent more time worried about her abilities then role-playing during combat

I am not convinced. I know a barbarian can be a chore, I am essentially an expert at the game and I find it a chore, for a new player their head could explode.

This though has very little to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about removing and or repackaging class features, in favor of giving them out every level... say at levels 1/4/7/10/13/16/19, or some such other pattern per class. These features would be imactful for the class/subclass. Then the ability boosts/feats would be +1 and smaller feats.Think about this for a moment, levels 1-9 you get 3 class features and a bunch of +1 boosts. That is a lot simpler than it is currently devised. You have very big concept feats now. I want the class features to be big concept stuff.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Barbarian = a person who knows how to use a few weapons with brute force and furry, his furry carries him through a melee, and he relies on adrenalin instead of armor.

Now I have this picture of the Barbarian riding on a hireling's shoulders whose been made to wear a bunny suit. Thanks.