D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: More Classes/Subclasses, Retraining & Playing Without Subclasses

[Li Shenron]

And you know what, I'm not the only person that has posted in those threads and I'm not the only person that has repeated similar arguments.

For what it's worth, I'm one of them too.

I don't hate the new system, I did have a "WTF?" reaction on the first day, but then I cooled down. I can accept this system if most gamers want it. But at the same time I don't like being silenced on a place the whole purpose of which is sharing opinions.

And when I read a sentence that says "And in every single one of those threads, you got intelligent, thoughtful, comprehensive, detailed answers to your questions about why this type of system has advantages", I want to be able to say that none of those responses have proved to me that this system does something that separate classes can't do, or can't do just as well. Those answers only told me things that are indeed good per se, but are just as good as with separate classes, which means I still see no strict advantage of one over the other. And I am roughly as intelligent and thoughtful as them, I guess...

It seems to me that the only undeniable advantage of having less base classes is having less base classes But then try to ask why don't we do the same with other classes, why don't we group e.g. martial classes into a superclass, and the same people who are in favor of merging the Mage give you as arguments the same reasons they deny for the Mage.

 

[Jester David]

First off, what is so wrong with having more classes in the future? Why is subclass "bloat" okay but new classes something to be avoided like the plague?

Fewer classes are better for a few reasons.

First, it prevents unfamiliar ideas from taking over the table. No matter how many splatbooks are released the classes will have some familiar elements, the warblade will still do something fightery, the shugenja will do wizardly things, and the like. This makes the subclasses feel familiar while being easier for the DM to remember what the class does, and easier to learn.
As a related point, it prevents classic classes being made redundant from a story perspective. So many 3e classes were variants on the core classes with a slight, slight story tweak. And many 4e classes were established classes with a role tweak. To make room for the invoker, you had to narrow what it means to be a cleric. When you describe a "heavily armoured warrior skilled with a sword" or "arcane spellcaster in robes" only one class should print to mind.
It also makes new options easier to describe. Rather than having to start from scratch describing what a "dragonfire adept" or "archivist" is, you just need to mention it's a subclass of ______ and half the work is done.

Second, it's also good for balance. It prevents future options from becoming too overpowered, as they're not making an entire new class from scratch.
And it prevents new options from making old ones redundant. Pathfinder has that with the ninja being a better rogue than the rougue, and 4e had this with all the second gen controllers being better at controlling than the PHB1 wizards. Instead, if a class is underperforming, they can release better subclasses keeping a core option relevant.

Third, it allows for better support. Everyone remembers the classes that saw no options in 3e beyond their one source book. 4e tried to counter this by declaring "everything is core" and thus worthy of support in future accessories. But there were quickly too many classes for equal coverage.
Subclasses mean all future books have a finite number of classes to generate content for. Every feat, magic item, or spell aimed at a wizards applies to almost all versions of the wizard.

Fourth, it takes less space. 5e classes can take less room than a 4e class, but they're still not light on the page count. You get more diverse content if you diversify via subclasses. You can have three or four subclasses in the space it takes to have a single class. Even if you keep the same fluff:crunch ratio as the late 4e books, you'll effectively get more options though subclasses.

 

[Mistwell]

When the same subject matters keeps coming up over and over again in different threads, obviously I'm going to make similar points.

Why? You think something is depending on you getting your position out every time? What's driving you to make the same point over and over again? You know, there's no vote being counted here with each new thread.

And you know what, I'm not the only person that has posted in those threads and I'm not the only person that has repeated similar arguments.

And?

Some people have even given me experience point awards for the exact same posts you're complaining about.

You're doing it repeatedly, for compliments? Others have said they've slapped you on their ignore list over it. Were the compliments worth losing all communications with multiple people over you doing this?

Other people may have offered thoughtful responses but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to accept their answers and just be quiet.

It does mean you're obligated to acknowledge you got those responses and stop pretending you "don't understand" any possible reasons behind this type of rule, for each fresh thread. At this point you're a friggen expert in a long series of reasons for this type of rule. That you don't think those reasons outweigh your own opposition to the rule is not the same as you constantly claiming you simply don't understand the reasons in favor of the rule.

I don't agree with them. If you really hate me that much, put me on your ignore list. Nobody is forcing you to read my posts. I'm not going to be silenced just because you don't happen to agree with what I have to say.

I don't hate you, and I don't want you to stop posting. As I said, I am trying to encourage you to find something you do like, or to seek out a way to alter this rule for your games that will make you happier.

Or in the very least I am trying to progress the debate - which requires that you not start it all over again from the beginning with each new thread. You starting each thread with a "well golly gee I just don't know why they'd do something as silly as this, it makes no sense at all!" aw shucks attitude long ago stopped being a genuine reaction, given the list of responses you've read over the past week or so.

Are you even playtesting the game to see how the rule functions at your table, and how you might improve it for your game, or is this mostly theoretical in your mind?

 

[Mistwell]

But at the same time I don't like being silenced on a place the whole purpose of which is sharing opinions.

Oh yeesh, asking you to not just repeat the same thing over and over again in different threads isn't the same as asking you to remain silent. I'm trying to move the debate forward, not restart it again 5 times in a row!

And when I read a sentence that says "And in every single one of those threads, you got intelligent, thoughtful, comprehensive, detailed answers to your questions about why this type of system has advantages", I want to be able to say that none of those responses have proved to me that this system does something that separate classes can't do, or can't do just as well.

OK cool, so say that...nobody's taking away your posting rights, I am not a moderator, this is just two guys talking. So start by acknowledging you got a long series of responses from many people, and why those reasons don't outweigh your own reasons for opposing the rule. Don't start each new thread pretending you've just got no clue at all why WOTC would come up with such a rule. All that does is reset the debate back to the beginning, with people again repeating the reasons, and you again repeating your refutation, and we get 5 nearly identical threads. All I am asking is that people pick up where things left off. It's disingenuous to pretend you're not aware of what the reasons for the rule might be - which is why I called Falling Icicle out specifically for that, as he was the one doing that the most.

 

[MoonSong]

Fewer classes are better for a few reasons.

First, it prevents unfamiliar ideas from taking over the table. No matter how many splatbooks are released the classes will have some familiar elements, the warblade will still do something fightery, the shugenja will do wizardly things, and the like. This makes the subclasses feel familiar while being easier for the DM to remember what the class does, and easier to learn.
As a related point, it prevents classic classes being made redundant from a story perspective. So many 3e classes were variants on the core classes with a slight, slight story tweak. And many 4e classes were established classes with a role tweak. To make room for the invoker, you had to narrow what it means to be a cleric. When you describe a "heavily armoured warrior skilled with a sword" or "arcane spellcaster in robes" only one class should print to mind.
It also makes new options easier to describe. Rather than having to start from scratch describing what a "dragonfire adept" or "archivist" is, you just need to mention it's a subclass of ______ and half the work is done.

Second, it's also good for balance. It prevents future options from becoming too overpowered, as they're not making an entire new class from scratch.
And it prevents new options from making old ones redundant. Pathfinder has that with the ninja being a better rogue than the rougue, and 4e had this with all the second gen controllers being better at controlling than the PHB1 wizards. Instead, if a class is underperforming, they can release better subclasses keeping a core option relevant.

Third, it allows for better support. Everyone remembers the classes that saw no options in 3e beyond their one source book. 4e tried to counter this by declaring "everything is core" and thus worthy of support in future accessories. But there were quickly too many classes for equal coverage.
Subclasses mean all future books have a finite number of classes to generate content for. Every feat, magic item, or spell aimed at a wizards applies to almost all versions of the wizard.

Fourth, it takes less space. 5e classes can take less room than a 4e class, but they're still not light on the page count. You get more diverse content if you diversify via subclasses. You can have three or four subclasses in the space it takes to have a single class. Even if you keep the same fluff:crunch ratio as the late 4e books, you'll effectively get more options though subclasses.

I don't know, but the sorcerer in 3.x was never hurt from using items initially targeted at wizards, there was nothing to prevent them use of most of them except the ones that specifically did non-sorcery things (like pearls of power and super spellbooks and stuff) and in 4e they could pick training with wizard implements and use some their things inititally aimed at them too (like the staff of Ruin), yet what little specific support they received was good, very good for them. (Some weapon powers, superior daggers, storm magic, etc).

But you know what will happne when sorcerers are "only a mage subclass" they will receive zero sorcery support, all items, spells and stuff will be designed with an scholarly caster in mind and nothing else. If they were a class the designers of supplements would eventually notice "hey this core class hasn't recieved much support of late, lets write something for them", but if they are only a subclass they won't notice all they will see will be "oh but we already have written loads and loads of support for the Mage class, it doesn't needs more" without noticing they are severely neglecting two or more subclasses. Heck they are doing that already with this "all sorcerers are students of arcane magic, it is ok for all of them to write scrolls, have lots of oscure knowledge and brew potions"

And the magic item thing is only a problemin Next because the designers took a very fetishistic approach in creating magic items, they are no longer "this is for arcane casters" they are "this is for wizards" and while I haven't checked the magic item section recently I bet there are magic weapons that are "this is only for fighters" or "this is only for paladins" .

 

[bogmad]

But you know what will happne when sorcerers are "only a mage subclass" they will receive zero sorcery support, all items, spells and stuff will be designed with an scholarly caster in mind and nothing else. If they were a class the designers of supplements would eventually notice "hey this core class hasn't recieved much support of late, lets write something for them", but if they are only a subclass they won't notice all they will see will be "oh but we already have written loads and loads of support for the Mage class, it doesn't needs more" without noticing they are severely neglecting two or more subclasses. Heck they are doing that already with this "all sorcerers are students of arcane magic, it is ok for all of them to write scrolls, have lots of oscure knowledge and brew potions"

And the magic item thing is only a problemin Next because the designers took a very fetishistic approach in creating magic items, they are no longer "this is for arcane casters" they are "this is for wizards" and while I haven't checked the magic item section recently I bet there are magic weapons that are "this is only for fighters" or "this is only for paladins" .

I don't know it's for certain things will play out the way you say. I imagine that wizards will have some way of gauging support for subclasses the same way they have for classes in previous editions and then build some support for them. It may be surveys, playtesting, or some form of character builder stats, but they'll pay attention to what people are playing.

I do share some concern though about how they'll differentiate between what works for the wizard version of the mage vs what works for the sorcerer, warlock, psion, etc. Writing scrolls and brewing potions are not going to be things everyone wants their subclass to do. I'm willing to wager that the whole "brew potions/write scrolls" feature is going to work a little different next packet. Hopefully they'll also have some ways to make subclasses not mimic the wizard in all they ways we're worried about.

I haven't really paid attention to the magic item section recently either, but this doesn't seem a concern. There may be weapons that are "this is only for fighters/paladins" and items that say "this is only for wizards." So what? There aren't any magic items listed for other mage subclasses yet... because we haven't seen any of the other subclasses in recent packets. In fact, having magic items specifically for mage subclasses like the wizard, and others for say the warlock seems the way to go. Otherwise we get "all mages" including the psion and the sorcerer using the same "super-spellbook"

 

[I'm A Banana]

As far as I can tell, classes are what people want to be able to call their characters and subclasses are what they want characters called that to be able to do.

I don't think that's it. "Assassin" and "illusionist" and "knight" and "Holy Liberator of Arborea" and "Dwarf" aren't classes, and people absolutely do want to call their characters that....

It's really just archetypes at the end. People want to play a Wizard or a Barbarian or a Druid, although each has different expectations, a lot of them coming from fiction (books, movies, PC games...).

...except, Wizards are under the umbrella of "Mage," and "Barbarian" and "Druid" aren't under an umbrella, so why is it OK for one class to have a super-broad, meaningless, milquetoast name and force the subclass to carry the weight of archetype, and it's not OK for other classes? If Wizard gets lumped under Mage, shouldn't Barbarian get lumped under Fighter(/warrior)? And maybe lump druid under Cleric(/priest)?

There's no consistency here. That feels like a problem to me. Admittedly, it might not be as big of a problem as I feel it is, but it seems like this disorganization might just confuse newbies. I can make one choice to be a character like Conan, but I have to make two choices to be Harry Potter or Gandalf? Why is one up front and the other behind a decision-point wall?

If you look at Fighter as "Martial Tank" and Paladin as "Divine Tank" then it makes some sense.

...I actually think that makes quite a bit less sense. They're already on record as rejecting explicit and mandatory class roles, and power sources are mentioned as something decoupled from class with things like the shadowdancer rogue and the hexblade fighter. So why isn't Paladin just an option for a fighter who wants a bit of Divine spark to their class, like Hexblade is an option for a fighter who wants a bit of Arcane knowledge?

There's a whole bucket of problems in defining class by combat role that I'm really hoping 5e has learned enough about to avoid.

Some kind of framework from WOTC would be nice though.

Yeah, this is where I am. I just want to know what I should be thinking of a "class" as, since as far as I can tell, most of the load that was born by the "class" concept (ie: the character's fictional archetype and the conflicts they are meant to solve) seems to now be sometimes a class and sometimes a subclass and sometimes even a feat, so why the class? Why not just ditch the unnecessary silo and have Shadowdancers and Hexblades and Assassins and Thieves and Knights and Gladiators and Wizards and Sorcerers and Psionicists all be different?

I don't get what purpose a "class" serves right now in 5e. Right now, I'd just as soon get rid of the concept of Class and turn all subclasses into their own Class, because that defines more what kind of archetype your character is.

I imagine it's trying to serve the purpose of "a group for abilities that are common to all subclasses underneath the class, and not part of other subclasses" but in that case, Barbarian and Ranger and Paladin probably should be under the Fighter umbrella, because there's not a whole lot those guys can do that a Fighter shouldn't be able to do. It works for the level of Mage subclasses, though, if you imagine that a telepath and an enchanter and an artificer should all probably be able to access an effect like charm person, even if one gains it through studying tomes, one gains it through psychic training, and one gains it through love potions.

Though if you apply that logic globally, I don't see any reason why fighters and rogues and bards and all the rest shouldn't be able to access an effect like charm person. As a memorized well of power, a telepathic coercion, a love potion, or just a diplomatic turn of phrase or a rakish charisma, the story is dramatically different, but the effects are largely similar, if that's what you're thinking about for exclusive abilities...

...yeah, there's basically just a lot of confusion over what they're trying to do here.

 

[Jester David]

I don't know, but the sorcerer in 3.x was never hurt from using items initially targeted at wizards, there was nothing to prevent them use of most of them except the ones that specifically did non-sorcery things (like pearls of power and super spellbooks and stuff) and in 4e they could pick training with wizard implements and use some their things inititally aimed at them too (like the staff of Ruin), yet what little specific support they received was good, very good for them. (Some weapon powers, superior daggers, storm magic, etc).

The sorcerer is not the best example of this, as they were so similar to the wizard.
But what about the wu jen? The shugenja? The warmage, or beguiler, duskblade, or spellthief?
Even with the close overlap between the sorcerer and wizard there are examples. Pearls of power for one, as the sorcerer had to wait some time to get an equivalent. And there were a number of metamagic feats and prestige classes that didn't work well between the two.

But you know what will happne when sorcerers are "only a mage subclass" they will receive zero sorcery support, all items, spells and stuff will be designed with an scholarly caster in mind and nothing else.

This is tangential to my point, as it's not specifically aimed at the sorcerer/wizard debate.
But mage =/= wizard. The scholarly caster flavour is part of the wizardry class feature not the class itself. I imagine other bits of wizardly features will be moved out as the flesh out the class.

If they were a class the designers of supplements would eventually notice "hey this core class hasn't recieved much support of late, lets write something for them", but if they are only a subclass they won't notice all they will see will be "oh but we already have written loads and loads of support for the Mage class, it doesn't needs more" without noticing they are severely neglecting two or more subclasses. Heck they are doing that already with this "all sorcerers are students of arcane magic, it is ok for all of them to write scrolls, have lots of oscure knowledge and brew potions"

Maybe. Maybe not.
But, I could make the exact same statement regarding the "wizard" which is being given equal footing as a subclass. They might easily focus on sorcerer or warlock schools and leave the wizard under supported.

And the magic item thing is only a problem in Next because the designers took a very fetishistic approach in creating magic items, they are no longer "this is for arcane casters" they are "this is for wizards" and while I haven't checked the magic item section recently I bet there are magic weapons that are "this is only for fighters" or "this is only for paladins" .

Given we've only seen a small, small fraction of the potential magic items, and they have not modified those recently to reflect the change in direction with classes it is far too early to say. But I can imagine items aimed at mages that synergize with core powers, just like one can imagine items that work off of sneak attack or channel divinity.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I do think that WotC can certainly do some revising to figure out just what is a mage subclass vs what is a school or tradition for each mage type. If everyone else picks his subclass at level 3 then maybe they should have the mage pick his subclass then as well, but let subclass not be wizard, sorcerer, psion, etc. Rename the class "magic user," let you pick what type of magic user you are at level 1, and then let you go ahead and pick subclass or school at level 3.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't this basically what they're doing?

Granted, the current package has some confusing terminology. Wizardry is the class feature you get at level one. However, the feature Arcane Tradition at level two lists wizardry as an arcane tradition, along with sorcery and witchcraft. It's like saying a bird is a type of eagle. On top of that, the three schools described are called traditions on the previous page.

I think it'd be clearer if the first level feature were called Arcane Tradition, with Wizardry being the one detailed in this document, and the second level feature were called Tradition Specialization, with Schools being the the specialization that falls under the Wizardry tradition.

Confusing text aside, I see where the playtest is going with this, and it seems to match what you're saying. We already know that Wizardry at first level is the piece that will be changed for other spell caster types. Then Arcane Tradition is where the character specializes his caster type. This is the part that corresponds to "sub-class", not wizard, psion, sorcerer, etc.

Because Mage is encompassing so many different concepts, to me it's more helpful to think of it this way:

Mage is really a super-class. This is where all the base features of the arcane spell casting types are outlined, like hit dice, magic bonus, etc. It's the template for the different spell casting types. Some of the features could be a bit more generic, like Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion, with their specifics described under each arcane spell casting type.

Wizardry is really the descriptor of your class. Many people are assuming Wizardry as a feature that will be the same for all arcane casters, but i don't think that will be the case. It will be the decision point to determine if you're a wizard, sorcerer, psion or warlock. For this reason I think they should rename the feature to Arcane Tradition.

Schools are your subclass, specifically for Wizardry. Again, renaming this Mage class feature to Tradition Specialization or something similar would add some clarity. Bloodlines, pacts and devotions would be the specializations for other traditions.

To me it makes sense that the Mage is more of a super-clas, rather than just a base class like the Fighter. The various warrior or rogue classes have never had a common to all, fundamental feature like spell casting that could be so mechanically different between classes. Not to mention the further differentiation caused by spell/power lists.

Of course, I may be basing all of this on a complete, optimistic mis-reading of the two (two!) Arcane Tradition sections and the aforementioned confusing language.

 

[Tovec]

Fewer classes are better for a few reasons.

This will be fun to dispute. Okay....

First, it prevents unfamiliar ideas from taking over the table. No matter how many splatbooks are released the classes will have some familiar elements, the warblade will still do something fightery, the shugenja will do wizardly things, and the like. This makes the subclasses feel familiar while being easier for the DM to remember what the class does, and easier to learn.

A. Part of the problem is how you define "wizardly things". Also, why should the "shugenja" do "wizardly things" in the first place?
B. How does it make things "feel similar"? Consider 3e's run, you had all the classes in the splatbooks, say Complete Arcane, and they all followed the 3e math for casters. But those splatbook casters did not receive the same amount of attention nor were they very good. Having "similar feel" in math for the system didn't help me get into psionics even if the spells/powers were very similar in power.

As a related point, it prevents classic classes being made redundant from a story perspective. So many 3e classes were variants on the core classes with a slight, slight story tweak. And many 4e classes were established classes with a role tweak. To make room for the invoker, you had to narrow what it means to be a cleric. When you describe a "heavily armoured warrior skilled with a sword" or "arcane spellcaster in robes" only one class should print to mind.

C. You don't need a class/subclass system to achieve your second paragraph. Name all casters "casters". Name all who use weapons or skill [monkeys] such. How does a class/subclass system help here?

It also makes new options easier to describe. Rather than having to start from scratch describing what a "dragonfire adept" or "archivist" is, you just need to mention it's a subclass of ______ and half the work is done.

D. HOW?
Wouldn't it be easier to describe them in terms of their ability? Dragonfire adepts (from experience) are going to be relatively terrible wizards. They are not scholarly. They don't brew potions very well. They are much closer to warlocks and while warlocks have some wizardy (technically sorcerous) ability they are not the same basic archetype. Archivist fits much better as a wizard type, but from play experience I would guess their supertype would be priest? Why are you defining the characteristics (NOTE: "Character") of the class by the mechanics of the class in a roleplaying game? If the dragonfire adept happened to channel white magic/divine magic as opposed to dark/arcane, how would you define it then? That could be an easy change as far as "subclasses" goes. A VERY easy one that might have huge impact, or very little. A psion is a very different creature in terms of power structure, power manifestation, background/description and general mood of the character; when defined along with a wizard, or sorcerer, or even dragonfire adept.

As (I think KM) said: What makes subclasses BETTER at doing this as opposed to just different at doing it? If you are going to end up with the same giant lists of subclasses/classes why is it better in this format?

Second, it's also good for balance. It prevents future options from becoming too overpowered, as they're not making an entire new class from scratch.
And it prevents new options from making old ones redundant. Pathfinder has that with the ninja being a better rogue than the rougue, and 4e had this with all the second gen controllers being better at controlling than the PHB1 wizards. Instead, if a class is underperforming, they can release better subclasses keeping a core option relevant.

Except I play pathfinder. Do you know what happens when you play a ninja/rogue?

E. You lose something, you lose basic powers that (if you were a straight rogue) you would have otherwise kept. That happens with all the pathfinder substitutions. If an option were to be the other way around, the option being better than the default, then no one would take the default. So either make the subclass weaker or stronger, and invalidate whichever option is weaker. There may be some who will pick the weaker version for RP, but they will immediately recognize that. They would have also done it if it was its own class.
F. It hurts you to multiclass. It isn't a big thing by itself, but often times if you want to multiclass into several different classes (not talking between rogue and ninja) you lose something or are set further back than if they were different classes.
G. You can't level dip to pick up normal rogue abilities. It is simple. If the ninja loses.. let's say evasion or trapfinding that the rogue gets at low levels then you might want to dip and pick those abilities up. You can't when they're subclasses because you can't dip into the class you are already in.
H. It is another choice point that you have to make. Meaning that if you are playing a ninja you are going to be as similar to ninjas as every other ninja. If you could normally be a rogue (bland, regular), rogue-thug, rogue-ninja; and you choose rogue-ninja, so does every other rogue-ninja. You are then the same as ever other rogue-ninja because everyone had to make that choice point. You lose something there, you can't be a ninja-thug, or whatever the ninja variants are. That is a choicepoint you lose with a subclass you don't lose with a CLASS.

Third, it allows for better support. Everyone remembers the classes that saw no options in 3e beyond their one source book. 4e tried to counter this by declaring "everything is core" and thus worthy of support in future accessories. But there were quickly too many classes for equal coverage.

Actually it is the same problem. Good splatbooks in this way will always try to support characters or provide backward compabability. Bad systems/splatbooks won't. The problem with the binder wasn't that it wasn't a wizard subclass, it was that it sucked and that it never got any further support. Making it part of the mage superclass will only drive the people who play a binder crazy, as it never gets further support down the line either way.

Subclasses mean all future books have a finite number of classes to generate content for. Every feat, magic item, or spell aimed at a wizards applies to almost all versions of the wizard.

While this is nice and what should hopefully happen it isn't realistic. Just like already shown, first DMG has pearl of power/boccobs blessed book. Those items are exclusionary to sorcerers. I know you said almost but that is what we're talking about here. Wizard/Sorcerer were about as close as we can hope to get in terms of power aligning with spells and even then items can only be made for one or the other. I guess I just want more idea what you are expecting to happen or how they stop this kind of thing from happening outside of saying "subclasses" will fix the problem.

Fourth, it takes less space. 5e classes can take less room than a 4e class, but they're still not light on the page count. You get more diverse content if you diversify via subclasses. You can have three or four subclasses in the space it takes to have a single class. Even if you keep the same fluff:crunch ratio as the late 4e books, you'll effectively get more options though subclasses.

I've seen entire systems shorter than the classes for 4e. Being short has little to do with the subclasses. If anything putting subclasses under the base class section will increase the length. I think you are over attributing one aspect of 5e with one part of it. 5e is shorter.. because of subclasses? Are subclasses also responsible for the way spells are worded?

Why? You think something is depending on you getting your position out every time? What's driving you to make the same point over and over again? You know, there's no vote being counted here with each new thread.

I don't know why I'm injecting myself into this conversation. But here goes.

I went and looked at those threads. His arguments were similar. But they were hardly the same. They addressed the topic of the conversation. I guess part of me wants to know, in that case, why YOU look restating your position every time. You are frequently the first response after FI and say very nearly the same thing ever time. Yes we know Mage is an organizational thing. (Except it may not be, we don't really know what it will look like yet.) So.. "What's driving you to make the same point over and over again? You know, there's no vote being counted here with each new thread."

You're doing it repeatedly, for compliments? Others have said they've slapped you on their ignore list over it. Were the compliments worth losing all communications with multiple people over you doing this?

Have you looked at the XP he (yes, I'm assuming FI is a he, even if he isn't) has? They're pretty universally "hey good job/+1 for insight" kind of stuff. No one saying "ignore now". Not one.

Maybe. Maybe not.
But, I could make the exact same statement regarding the "wizard" which is being given equal footing as a subclass. They might easily focus on sorcerer or warlock schools and leave the wizard under supported.

Agreed. I think the problem here is that ANY subclass could be under-supported. It might be under supported because the overclass might focus on one branch or another. If Sorcerers become the most exciting class at release then it is quite possible wizard, or psion or any other subclass might get ignored to the detriment of that subclass. There are certainly more suppliments for Barbarian or Paladin in 3e splatbooks than for Fighter or Ranger that I ever saw. That is the problem when all four classes become a single class. Then add in that the game designers may look at the stats for "warrior" created stuff and say "yep, there's already a lot out there, job's done" so that fighter, or whatever, gets ignored because the superclass isn't. I think that was @KaiiLurker 's point.