D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think anyone would disagree with this, but I'm not sure what it means as a design principle. Eg suppose I'm designing a Glorantha game, does this slogan tell me I should aim for Runequest, or HeroWars?

Depending on the features of Glorantha you'd like to highlight, you'd probably want mechanics that emphasize common magic (something like at-will spells), metaphysical "dungeons" (so, inherently magical creatures and the stats for dealing with such in whatever challenge you're looking for), monsters that represent "Chaos" in various stripes, rules for playing the various races, etc.

That is, you start with the story elements you want to play with, and bring in rules that support those story elements. RuneQuest and HeroWars might both do that -- there's not one right answer (a la the Three Kinds of Vampire). But there's probably several wrong answers (d20 Modern, for instance, would not be a great system, and any system that relies on rare magic like Call of Cthulu might not be a great fit).

What does cavalier mean here, other than mounted warrior? In which case why is your guy who focuses on archery from horseback not an archer-ranger with a riding skill/feat?

Because there's not just one way to make a mounted warrior? There should be MANY correct answers, not just one, no? These words are multivalent. That's kind of part of the problem, after all: people have different expectations about what a "wizard" should be.

 

[Greg K]

Even so, the fact that its first 2E incarnation was a fighter kit .

Small point- there were several "barbarian" kits in the Complete Fighter's Handbook(with additional ones in the Complete Barbarian): Barbarian, Beast-Rider, Berserker, Savage, Wilderness Warriors. There is even mention that the Amazon Kit in Complete Fighter's Handbook could be used female barbarians.

 

[Weather Report]

1) But not in BD&D--people always seem to forget BD&D.

2) And bard in 1E was not a stand-alone class; it was the equivalent of a prestige class.

1) No they don't, we're talking about AD&D (PHBs) here (Basic is different than 1st - 3rd/4th Ed, in many ways, hence being sold as a separate product line) .

2) It was still a class, and certain heroes (like King Arthur and Elric) could take Bard levels without the Fight/Thief dual classing shenanigans, so, the bard has been a class in every edition of AD&D so far.

 

[Dausuul]

1) No they don't, we're talking about AD&D (PHBs) here...

Since when? 3E was as much the heir to BD&D as it was to AD&D, and BD&D is a big part of the D&D tradition. When Wizards was trying to add some nostalgia appeal to 4E, they didn't reprint the old "eye of the idol" PHB cover; they reprinted the BD&D Red Box.

2) It was still a class, and certain heroes (like King Arthur and Elric) could take Bard levels without the Fight/Thief dual classing shenanigans...

"Deities and Demigods" was notorious for blatantly ignoring the chargen rules for its NPCs. Can you cite an example of where player characters in 1E could start out as a bard?

 

[Remathilis]

1) No they don't, we're talking about AD&D (PHBs) here (Basic is different than 1st - 3rd/4th Ed, in many ways, hence being sold as a separate product line) .

2) It was still a class, and certain heroes (like King Arthur and Elric) could take Bard levels without the Fight/Thief dual classing shenanigans, so, the bard has been a class in every edition of AD&D so far.

Without BD&D (the heir to OD&D), there would BE no AD&D.

And never cite D&DG as examples of the rules: Arthur is a PALADIN/BARD which isn't legal in ANY edition of D&D until 4th due to alignment restrictions.

 

[Weather Report]

1) Since when?

2) Can you cite an example of where player characters in 1E could start out as a bard?

1) Please, don't play babes-in-the-woods, the class setup of Basic is different.

2) What does that have to do with it being a class?

 

[Weather Report]

1) Without BD&D (the heir to OD&D), there would BE no AD&D.

2) And never cite D&DG as examples of the rules

1) That has nothing to do with the conversation.

2) Ha,"And never"...my, aren't we fierce, please, save it, I didn't cite it as rules, the bard is a class, that's all.

 

[Dausuul]

1) Please, don't play babes-in-the-woods, the class setup of Basic is different.

Of course it's different. If you're going to say, "These classes have been in every edition of D&D," any counterexample must, by definition, have a different class setup. You can't just exclude it from consideration because it contradicts you.

2) What does that have to do with it being a class?

My point is that it's not a stand-alone class; every 1E bard started out as a fighter or a thief. If D&D Next were to follow that tradition, it would be logical to make bard into a rogue or fighter subclass, which you choose upon reaching 4th level.

 

[Weather Report]

Of course it's different. If you're going to say, "These classes have been in every edition of D&D," any counterexample must, by definition, have a different class setup. You can't just exclude it from consideration because it contradicts you.



My point is that it's not a stand-alone class; every 1E bard started out as a fighter or a thief. If D&D Next were to follow that tradition, it would be logical to make bard into a rogue or fighter subclass, which you choose upon reaching 4th level.

So, you're clinging to Basic and the Bard deal (so transparent and daft); okay, let me make it clearer, the Bard has been a class in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Ed.

 

[Dausuul]

So, you're clinging to Basic and the Bard deal (so transparent and daft); okay, let me make it clearer, the Bard has been a class in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Ed.

I could just as easily say that you're clinging, transparently and daftly, to the insistence that BD&D doesn't count.

Let's recall where all this started, which was the argument that if sorceror and wizard and psion and warlock are going to be a single class, there is no sane reason to keep fighter and barbarian and paladin and ranger separate, or cleric and druid, or bard and rogue. So far, the only counterargument anyone has yet mounted is "Fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger/cleric/druid/rogue/bard have always been separate classes." This is a pretty weak reed to start with. Sorceror, psion(icist), and warlock have been separate classes as long as they've existed, and each has at least two editions' worth of tradition backing it up at this point. So you're reduced to arguing that the other classes have a better claim because they've been separate classes in every edition. But that's not true either. So now it's that 3-4 editions is enough but 2-3 isn't?