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

[Falling Icicle]

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 haven't even been that active on these boards over the last week or two. I usually make my point and then move on unless someone responds to me personally. You make it sound like I've been spamming or something.

And?

And I don't see you calling any of them out. You targeted me specifically.

You're doing it repeatedly, for compliments?

No, I'm merely pointing out that obviously there are people who aren't bothered by what I've said, but instead support it. I only brought it up to point out that there are people who have found value in what I've had to say.

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?

I haven't seen anyone say that they've put me on their ignore list. And frankly, if they did, then oh well. I haven't done anything offensive or insulting to anyone. I stand by what I've said. If they got offended over something as innocuous as making a few similar statements, that's their problem.

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.

That is a not at all a fair representation of what I've said, and you know it. I have given quite a few explanations for why I think this is a bad idea, attacking it point by point. To say that my posts have been nothing but whining and claiming it doesn't make any sense is being dishonest.

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?

What we're talking about hasn't even been implemented in the playtest yet, and since there's only going to be one more packet, it may not ever be in the playtest at all. So your question is simply irrelevant.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Fewer classes are better for a few reasons.

First, it prevents unfamiliar ideas from taking over the table.

How does this structure prevent unfamiliar ideas? A subclass can be just as new and unfamiliar as a regular class.

And what is wrong with "unfamiliar" ideas? If you don't like a new class, nothing forces you to use it.

I also want to point out that I'm fine with the whole subclass thing for the most part. I think it's fine to make assassins and shadowdancers subclasses of rogue, etc. The only thing I'm strongly against is putting every type of non-divine magic user under one class - the mage. It's just too much. All of the other classes are pretty consistent in the amount of options and concepts they cover (except for the barbarian, which IMO should be a fighter subclass). But then you have the mage, which includes every type of wizard, sorcerer, warlock, witch, artificer and even psionics all under one class, potentially making that one class as large as all of the other classes combined. It just doesn't fit with the rest of the classes in this design scheme, at all. It's like you have a lineup of meerkats, and then throw in a rhinocerous. The "mage" is just too broad a concept, and needs to be broken down. I can live with the sorcerer being together with the wizard, as they traditionally used the exact same spells anyway. But the warlock and psion would work far better as their own classes.

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.

When a subclass can have a totally different casting method than its parent class, there's not really much familiarity there. You still have to learn about the new subclass's methods, spells, etc. Saying its a class or a subclass makes no difference as far as that goes. It's merely a matter of organization. I can put the warlock in the same filing cabinet as the wizard, or a different one. But it's still a warlock.

The only way that what you're saying would be right is if every mage subclass were forced to use similar casting mechanics and spells to the regular wizard. But I would absolutely hate that because it would take away everything that made warlocks and psions special, IMO.

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.

I disagree. There's absolutely nothing preventing a subclass from being overpowered if the abilities it gets are more powerful than what other subclasses get.

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.

Again, I disagree. If something is introduced in a later book, it makes no difference whether or not its a class or subclass as far as support goes. In either case, it may never be mentioned in a future supplement ever again.

What you're saying about feats and the like is also not necessarily true. A feat designed for a vancian wizard may simply not work for an at-will warlock or a spell point psion. Metamagic type feats that require spell slots are a good example of this.

 

[Jester David]

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.
D. HOW?
Wouldn't it be easier to describe them in terms of their ability?

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?

Lumped a few thoughts together here.
In 3e, you had a lot of classes that did very simmilar things. Like the wu jen (or was it the shugenja?), which was pretty much a wizard with a couple variant powers. The changes between it and the wizard were less than you'd see in the average Pathfinder archetype. It's better to avoid the 3e design and just make classes like that into subclasses, variants on a theme.

It's simpler to define because they have a foundation in an existing class that's known. It's a known quantity. You're not playing a Adjective-Blase that has X ability and Y fluff, and you have to explain both in detail to get the basics of the class. You're a fighter who is also be an Adjective-Blade.

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

This is a little off topic.
I don't believe you can play a rogue/ninja as the ninja is an alternate class so you can't multiclass them.
But, it's been remarked there's no reason to play a bas rogue as the ninja is so much better.

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.

Good splatbooks try to provide support, but it's significantly easier if you only need to provide support for twelve classes rather than twenty or thirty. It's the difference between three feats per class or one feat per class.
And that means more choices for every player, and better odds there'll be options you can use.

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?

Subclasses do make classes longer, but you can also space out the content. And you can provide a lot of little support for multiple classes in the same space as a single full complicated class.
This is the same as archetypes in Pathfinder. You can have. Chapter of two-page spreads with a couple pages per class with two or three subclasses and have expansion material for every class in the game in under 30 pages.

 

[Jester David]

How does this structure prevent unfamiliar ideas? A subclass can be just as new and unfamiliar as a regular class.

It's a matter of degree. If you have five characters who are all fighters but different subclasses they will be more alike than unalike.
If they were all martial melee classes they'll be almost completely unlike. (Or the classes will be redundant.) So describing the classes takes more effort.

And what is wrong with "unfamiliar" ideas? If you don't like a new class, nothing forces you to use it.

And nothing is forcing you to use subclasses.

But this actually highlights another benefit of subclasses. New classes mean adding something to the game. New mechanics to learn, new content to add to the world, etc. More work for the DM. If not buying a new book means you don't need to add things, it's easier to skip the book. If the options just expand on content you're already using, classes and races that are already a part of the game, it's easier to work into the game. Which makes Accessories more attractive, as their expansions not ad-ons.

I also want to point out that I'm fine with the whole subclass thing for the most part. I think it's fine to make assassins and shadowdancers subclasses of rogue, etc. The only thing I'm strongly against is putting every type of non-divine magic user under one class - the mage. It's just too much. All of the other classes are pretty consistent in the amount of options and concepts they cover (except for the barbarian, which IMO should be a fighter subclass). But then you have the mage, which includes every type of wizard, sorcerer, warlock, witch, artificer and even psionics all under one class, potentially making that one class as large as all of the other classes combined. It just doesn't fit with the rest of the classes in this design scheme, at all. It's like you have a lineup of meerkats, and then throw in a rhinocerous. The "mage" is just too broad a concept, and needs to be broken down. I can live with the sorcerer being together with the wizard, as they traditionally used the exact same spells anyway. But the warlock and psion would work far better as their own classes.

The Mage Issue is non-representational of this issue. That's a whole other discussion. The Mage Issue is really about turning formerly core classes into subclasses, while much of this subclass discussion focuses on reducing splatbooks classes into subclasses.

This isn't an either/or issue. You're allowed to like the idea and focus on subclasses over new classes and still think they're going too far. Personally, I think adding psions to the mix is too much. But I still like the focus on fewer classes.

When a subclass can have a totally different casting method than its parent class, there's not really much familiarity there. You still have to learn about the new subclass's methods, spells, etc. Saying its a class or a subclass makes no difference as far as that goes. It's merely a matter of organization. I can put the warlock in the same filing cabinet as the wizard, or a different one. But it's still a warlock.

The only way that what you're saying would be right is if every mage subclass were forced to use similar casting mechanics and spells to the regular wizard. But I would absolutely hate that because it would take away everything that made warlocks and psions special, IMO.

This is irrelevant.
They've already said (multiple times over the past year) that they will have alternate spellcasting. So, regardless of class, you can use Vancian or spell points, or powers. So if someone wants to play an arcane caster they don't have to pick a side class if they hate Vancian casting.

What will seperate the warlock subclass from the wizard subclass will likely be mechanics unrelated to casting.

I disagree. There's absolutely nothing preventing a subclass from being overpowered if the abilities it gets are more powerful than what other subclasses get.

True, there's nothing stopping a subclass from being OP. But that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that it's easier to balance a subclass than a full class. Because it's simply less work to balance abilities gained over 3-6 levels rather than powers gained over 20 levels.
In addition to having fewer powers, you can also compare it to other subclasses, rather than trying to balance against every class in the game. As you already have the relative power of the class balanced.

Again, I disagree. If something is introduced in a later book, it makes no difference whether or not its a class or subclass as far as support goes. In either case, it may never be mentioned in a future supplement ever again.

Actually, it does.
If it's a class then you either have support or not. However, if it's a subclass then a lot of the content created for other subclasses might apply.
If there's a separate shadowdancer you might not see feats, items, and the like that works with that class. If the shadowdancer is a rogue subclass then options for the rogue -both past and future- might work for the subclass. And content that is created with the shadowdancer in mind might still work with other rogue subclasses.

What you're saying about feats and the like is also not necessarily true. A feat designed for a vancian wizard may simply not work for an at-will warlock or a spell point psion. Metamagic type feats that require spell slots are a good example of this.

Again, with alternate spell systems this is moot. You could okay a wizard with powers or a warlock with Vancian spells.
The trick is phrasing the rules module to work with feats.

 

[FireLance]

In my own, most likely biased and completely unsubstantiated, opinion, subclasses are just a terminological sleight-of-hand so that WotC can sidestep the issues that arose with calling certain concepts "classes" in 4e. I mean how is "remove the warlord sub-class" functionally different from "remove the warlord class"? Still, if it serves to get the complainers to shut up, it might not be entirely a bad thing.

 

[tuxgeo]

< vast snippage >
Again, with alternate spell systems this is moot. You could okay a wizard with powers or a warlock with Vancian spells.
The trick is phrasing the rules module to work with feats.

If the point of using Super-classes is to permit future content, especially feats, to apply equally to old and new classes, wouldn't keywords do as well?

Try this new keyword: "Spellarc" (an abbreviation of Arcane Spellcaster): Give the Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Artificer, and Psion that keyword.

Then they don't have to be subclasses of "Mage," because any new content could be made to apply to anything with the "Spellarc" keyword, instead of applying to any member of the "Mage" class.

That's a simple alternative. If it would accomplish the same thing, then it partly shows that the "Mage" Super-class might not be necessary.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Because it's against the rules here at EW to bash people directly using the XP system. We have no negrep here, only posirep. You give XP to show "appreciation for their post", and that's all. So all XP is supposed to be positive comments. If you look at the XP I got for responding to him, you will see people saying "yeah I agree, I put him on ignore over stuff like this", and "I agree [with your post asking him to stop repeating himself]" more than once.

Which is one reason I was trying to turn him to be more constructive, and focus on what he does like, or asking how he can alter the system to make it more like what he'd like, or at least to pick up where it last left off instead of resetting every time.

 

[Li Shenron]

...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?

Yeah, that's the same I've been saying, I don't like the unequal treatment. I'd be completely fine with 4 superclasses (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Mage) and then a 3-layer system of superclass-class-subclass. I'd be also completely fine with 12 classes and a 2-layer system of class-subclass. The different approach for different classes in the same book gives me the feeling of a half-done design job.

OTOH, there is also a possibility that Sorcerer and Warlock are going to be severely downsized in importance in 5e. If the core books only have one Sorcerer (no alternative bloodlines) and one Warlock (no alternative pacts), this can make the core version of the Mage class feel equal to the other classes (maybe if also they removed the weakest schools specialist concepts like Conjurer and Abjurer). Then it might be up to supplements to expand Sorcerer and Warlock into their subclasses.

That would look fine to me, and easier for newbies (although we're talking about newbies who are confident enough to start from the standard game, not uber-newbies who buy Basic, since those will only have one fixed Mage).

 

[Weather Report]

there is also a possibility that Sorcerer and Warlock are going to be severely downsized in importance in 5e.

As they should be (and they were never important), both are Johnny-come-lately classes and synonyms for Wizard, the other classes have been classes for 4 editions now.

And I have never liked the interpretation of the Warlock as a guy in leather who blasts stuff and has variant spells, just weird and arbitrary made-up malarkey.

5th Ed is going for a 2nd Ed/3rd Ed combo.

 

[Dalamar]

This is irrelevant.
They've already said (multiple times over the past year) that they will have alternate spellcasting. So, regardless of class, you can use Vancian or spell points, or powers. So if someone wants to play an arcane caster they don't have to pick a side class if they hate Vancian casting.

What will seperate the warlock subclass from the wizard subclass will likely be mechanics unrelated to casting.

...

Again, with alternate spell systems this is moot. You could okay a wizard with powers or a warlock with Vancian spells.
The trick is phrasing the rules module to work with feats.

Except that that's not what Mearls said in the latest L&L. I'll quote, and bold the parts that I'm focusing on.

This line of thinking illustrates the principles behind the design of the mage class in D&D Next. By making the wizard an option under the mage, we open up space for the warlock, sorcerer, psion, artificer, and other casters without having to reinvent the wheel for each caster. They can share spells, magic items, and feats as necessary, allowing new design to focus on the elements that make them unique and interesting.

It's important to remember that while these casters share the same base class, that doesn't mean they share the same casting mechanics. The entire point of this change is to focus on what makes those classes unique. The same goes for subclasses. Although the hexblade might be a fighter subclass, it can still gain access to spellcasting. The shadow dancer as rogue can still teleport between shadows and use overt magic.

Mearls is saying the exact opposite. He's saying that not all Mage classes will share the default casting mechanic, that some sub classes will directly hook into variant casting mechanics. And if all subclasses don't have to necessarily share the same spell list, the limited lists either can't be centered around some themes (such as curses) without having a specific spell list in which case it would never benefit from further spells added to the general mage list, just as if it were a separate class, or the divisions will have to be very broad (this class can't cast divination spells). If I recall correctly, the last time he has talked about variant spellcasting mechanics being independent of the spellcasting classes in the game has been several playtest packages ago.

Really, I think that most of the time when people on here are against the idea of the class-subclass structure, it comes from the fact that not each class sounds like it will carry even remotely the same kind of weight relative to its subclass. And the main culprit with this is the mage. For most other classes, the subclass is more of a specialization, but for the mage it really can be a subclass with very little in common between the subclasses.