D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[Sadrik]

There were several barbarian kits in 2e and the berserker was only a better "Barbarian" if one automatically equates barbarian with berserker. Personally, I am not a fan of that approach that became official with WOTC.

I agree with you. Berserker should not be synonymous with barbarian.

Give the fighter the d12 HD and bring in the barbarian. Let the paladin and ranger have the d10 with their spellcasting... give the rogue a d8 too...

 

[Dausuul]

I do believe that we differ quite a bit on this point. I do not believe rogues are toe to toe hacking machines, I believe that is the role of the fighter (and barbarian, lol). I believe that rogues are melee combatants who specialize in tricks to gain an advantage. I also strongly believe that each class should overlap somewhat into combat and somewhat into exploration and somewhat into social stuff. I think if they do not, you run the risk of people sitting back and feeling useless in certain areas. Rogues for instance should not cede combat to other classes. That is a poor option.

Whereas I believe that "combatant" is a poor way to describe a rogue. Rogues are tricksters, skill monkeys, infiltrators. Some of their tricks can be adapted to combat--they should not be useless in a fight, certainly--but it isn't their primary focus any more than a fighter's primary focus is social interaction. And they shouldn't be melee specialists either. In fact, I would say that a rogue forced into a slugfest should favor ranged attacks. Melee is what rogues do when they have a chance to sneak up on the target and knife it in the kidney.

The only thing rogues have in common with fighters is that neither one is a spellcaster.

 

[Weather Report]

A druid and cleric have far more in common than a wizard and psion do!

The 3rd Ed Wizard and Psion are very similar; after reading your posts on this topic, it seems to boil down to you having a Psion and Warlock fetish, you just really want those two concepts to be stand alone classes, I can, however, live without them.

I really like the 10 classes, with subclasses setup, sort of a cross between 2nd Ed (groupings) and 3rd Ed, which is kind of how 5th Ed looks to be shaping up anyway (I'm hoping for the 2.5 I always wanted).

 

[Weather Report]

I agree with you. Berserker should not be synonymous with barbarian.

Give the fighter the d12 HD and bring in the barbarian. Let the paladin and ranger have the d10 with their spellcasting... give the rogue a d8 too...

I would prefer they reduce the Mage back d4, and leave the Rogue at d6.

 

[Dausuul]

The 3rd Ed Wizard and Psion are very similar...

That was a quirk of 3E. In every other edition, psionics and arcane magic have been quite distinct. Furthermore, the lore of D&D is extremely firm that magic and psionics are Not The Same. As I've said before, there is one setting in D&D--Dark Sun--where psionics plays a big role, and in that setting it would be absurd to claim that psionics was a different form of arcane magic.

The warlock and sorceror, those I could see being merged into mage. I still think it's silly to have an empty shell of a class whose entire functionality is provided by subclasses, but eh, whatever. My question then is, what the heck are barbarian, ranger, druid, and paladin doing with their own classes? Whose fetish are we catering to there?

 

[Weather Report]

1) That was a quirk of 3E. In every other edition, psionics and arcane magic have been quite distinct. Furthermore, the lore of D&D is extremely firm that magic and psionics are Not The Same. As I've said before, there is one setting in D&D--Dark Sun--where psionics plays a big role, and in that setting it would be absurd to claim that psionics was a different form of arcane magic.


2) My question then is, what the heck are barbarian, ranger, druid, and paladin doing with their own classes?

1) Yes, I am well aware of 2nd Ed Dark Sun, the only real Dark Sun, I DMed a Cleric/Mage/Psionicist back in the day. The problem with psionics is they have always felt tacked on.

2) Because they have always had their own class, Psion has only been in 2nd and 3rd Ed, and the Warlock is a 3rd Ed optional construct (and a very weird interpretation of a "Warlock", I have no idea why someone decided it's a blaster dude with pseudo-spells, and leather armour, etc).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The warlock and sorceror, those I could see being merged into mage. I still think it's silly to have an empty shell of a class whose entire functionality is provided by subclasses, but eh, whatever. My question then is, what the heck are barbarian, ranger, druid, and paladin doing with their own classes? Whose fetish are we catering to there?

2) Because they have always had their own class, Psion has only been in 2nd and 3rd Ed, and the Warlock is a 3rd Ed optional construct (and a very weird interpretation of a "Warlock", I have no idea why someone decided it's a blaster dude with pseudo-spells, and leather armour, etc).

Actually, the Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin were subclasses of Fighter in AD&D (and 2Ed, as I recall), and the Druid was a Cleric subclass.

(And while we're at it, in AD&D, the Illusionist was a Magic-User subclass, and the Assassin and Thief-Acrobat were subclasses of Thief; the AD&D Bard was the end result of a human or half-elf dual-classing Ftr, then Th, then Druid; the only psionic characters were technically "wild talents", not a true class.)

 

[Weather Report]

Actually, the Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin were subclasses of Fighter in AD&D (and 2Ed, as I recall), and the Druid was a Cleric subclass.

2nd Ed had Groupings:

Priest (cleric, druid, specialist)
Rogue (bard, thief)
Warrior (fighter, paladin, ranger)
Wizard (mage, specialist)

And in 1st Ed, though they had subclasses, they all had their own tables, XP, rates of attacks per round, etc.

 

[gyor]

Psionics in D&D is very much magic, its just not Arcane magic its Psionic Magic. In the fiction its not unusual to see a Psion refered to as a Mind Mage.

The way they are designing the Mage the Psion is going to basically be a class anyways with its own subclasses, with just a few symbollic geastures towards class unity so I really don't mind.

I'm not saying I'd do things this way, but I won't get bent over it either. I'm going to give Mike his chance to show me it can work.

 

[steeldragons]

1) ...and the Warlock is a 3rd Ed optional construct (and a very weird interpretation of a "Warlock", I have no idea why someone decided it's a blaster dude with pseudo-spells, and leather armour, etc).

D&D has always, to a certain extent, "borrowed" from popular culture. The introduction of the monk in 1e because someone was enamored with the kung-fu genre of the time the game was being created was the first as far as I can tell. WotC seems to do this to a much greater extent.

I am fairly certain that by the time 3e was coming out, Charmed was on the air. It doesn't seem like a stretch to see the demonic-bounty/witch-hunter "warlocks" (who were almost always in some kinda leather getup and most had "at will" blasty magic) from the tv show in the D&D incarnation. Not saying it's a good/"right" incarnation, but that's where/how I think it came into being.