D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[TwoSix]

It's probably just me, but if I squint really hard, I see the outlines of a structure where the 10 5e "classes" are a restatement of 4e's "roles". The move to make power source specific subclasses underneath the top level classes brought the point home for me.

You need to not use the core 4 roles from 4e, as much as the 4e monster roles, combined with some role hybridization and non-combat roles added.

The Barbarian is the Brute.
The Rogue is the Lurker.
The Fighter is the Soldier/Brute.
The Paladin is the Soldier/Leader.
The Cleric and Druid are both Leaders, but tend towards different subroles.
The Bard is the Interaction class.
The Ranger is the Exploration class, with Skirmisher/Artillery tendencies.
The Monk is the Skirmisher.
The Wizard is the Controller/Artillery.

Now, these roles are certainly nowhere defined in the system, and I'm assuming subclasses will have a substantial amount of role switching, much more than would be acceptable in 4e. But I think that particularly for power source defined subclasses, you'll see subclasses being designed to fit the natural role tendencies of the class. A psychic barbarian will be brute-y, for example, while a psychic paladin will be both tank-y and heal-y.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's true that sometimes the psion and the wizard have been nearly indistinguishable except for some fluff and the points vs. slots mechanics. You can say the same thing for the Sorcerer: some fluff and spontaneous vs. prepared mechanics.

I guess there's two camps: the camp that says "well, just make 'em a wizard-with-variant-mechanics, since they're so similar" and the camp that says "maybe they shouldn't be so similar...let them be more diverse!"

The Mage might be a good start to a solution for the first camp, actually...though it doesn't solve the "does my Hexblade use points or slots or spontaneous or prepared casting?" question so much...and I'm not so sure that it's a great start for the second, who consider the narrative distance between "academic book-based casters" and "yogic psychic masters" to be no smaller a distance than "wild, savage warrior" and "disciplined, skilled warrior."

The Barbarian is the Brute.
The Rogue is the Lurker.
The Fighter is the Soldier/Brute.
The Paladin is the Soldier/Leader.
The Cleric and Druid are both Leaders, but tend towards different subroles.
The Bard is the Interaction class.
The Ranger is the Exploration class, with Skirmisher/Artillery tendencies.
The Monk is the Skirmisher.
The Wizard is the Controller/Artillery

Speaking personally, blech. Way too narrow. I want my Paladin to be able to be a brute, my Druid to be able to be a soldier, my Ranger to be able to be the Controller...and I also want my classes to not be defined primarily by how they affect the flow of combat encounters, which are only one part of the adventure.

I mean, not that it shouldn't be possible to make a skirmisher-style monk, sure. Just that "Monk = Skirmisher" is a weak sauce principle to perch a class on.

 

[TwoSix]

Speaking personally, blech. Way too narrow. I want my Paladin to be able to be a brute, my Druid to be able to be a soldier, my Ranger to be able to be the Controller...and I also want my classes to not be defined primarily by how they affect the flow of combat encounters, which are only one part of the adventure.

I mean, not that it shouldn't be possible to make a skirmisher-style monk, sure. Just that "Monk = Skirmisher" is a weak sauce principle to perch a class on.

I would not be surprised if Blackguard Paladins are primarily brutes, although I don't think they'll have low defenses. I also think some of the classes beyond the ones i mentioned will have abilities that lend greater support to the interaction and exploration pillars (the mage, certainly!). But I'm betting whatever the core "inheritable" features of the class are, they'll be in support of the basic tendencies I've listed.

And I also agree that monk=skirmisher is weaksauce for a class, but less so for an overarching container for related subclasses, which is all a 5e class is.

 

[Weather Report]

No, they haven't. 2E implemented the barbarian as a fighter kit.

Barbarian is a class in 2nd Ed.

Barbarian has been a class in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Ed (as has Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger).

 

[Weather Report]

4e has psions.

Total, 2nd Ed has Psionicists, 3rd Ed has Psions, which are a point using wizard, and 4h Ed has Psions, which are a point using version of every other class (...goes both ways...).

 

[TwoSix]

No, they haven't. 2E implemented the barbarian as a fighter kit.

It was initially a fighter kit, but it was also a stand-alone class in the Complete Barbarian's Handbook. It was a very late 2e product.

 

[Weather Report]

It was initially a fighter kit, but it was also a stand-alone class in the Complete Barbarian's Handbook. It was a very late 2e product.

Not very late.

 

[TwoSix]

Not very late.

1995. The 2nd to last Complete book, and about a year and a half before TSR stopped publishing.

 

[Weather Report]

1995. The 2nd to last Complete book, and about a year and a half before TSR stopped publishing.

That's not true.

 

[TwoSix]

That's not true.

Pics or it didn't happen.