D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[Weather Report]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Ha, nope, I do not keep using the word "fetish", but nice try at trying to apply the cliched, overused Inigo Montoya line...embarrassing...

You insult the glory that is The Princes Bride with your defensiveness.

 

[Dausuul]

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).

It seems you have a Warlock fetish...

Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger have all been classes in a PHB, Warlock has been a class in one PHB, deal with it (it may be rough at first, but I think you will eventually come to acceptance).

Admittedly, it's only two uses, but the first usage was dubious and the second made no sense at all, which seemed to call for a snarky reply. Perhaps I should have said something about whips and leather instead.

 

[Savage Wombat]

fetish

Syllabification: (fet·ish)

Pronunciation: /ˈfetiSH/

an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit.


... sounds a little like a warlock I guess ...

 

[Mistwell]

Admittedly, it's only two uses, but the first usage was dubious and the second made no sense at all, which seemed to call for a snarky reply. Perhaps I should have said something about whips and leather instead.

"fet·ish·ize :have an excessive and irrational commitment to or obsession with (something)."

Seems like an appropriate use of the word.

 

[Dausuul]

"fet·ish·ize :have an excessive and irrational commitment to or obsession with (something)."

Seems like an appropriate use of the word.

There are four classes being merged into the Mage uber-class: Wizard, sorceror, warlock, and psion. I listed off all four and gave the same weight to each. My previous posts have focused mainly on the psion (as the class least appropriate to merge into a general-purpose "arcane caster class") and the sorceror (as the class most appropriate for such merging, having about the same relationship to the wizard that the barbarian does to the fighter). So where is this "warlock fetish" thing coming from?

And for the record, just to restate my earlier point--I have no problem with wizard, sorceror, and warlock being merged into a single arcane caster class*, but I do object to having four classes offering slightly different variations on "guy who swings a sword around" while everyone wanting to use non-divine magic is crammed into a single class. If barbarian deserves its own class, then so does sorceror.

Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, no designer has yet said that barbarian won't be merged into fighter. For all we know, the next playtest package will have the Core 4 only, and everything else as a subclass. I'll be highly amused if that's the case.

[SIZE=-2]*I still think that if psion is going to be merged into anything, it should be monk. In fact, this would be a nice opportunity to overhaul the monk, which is currently underwhelming to say the least.[/SIZE]

 

[Mistwell]

There are four classes being merged into the Mage uber-class: Wizard, sorceror, warlock, and psion. I listed off all four and gave the same weight to each. My previous posts have focused mainly on the psion (as the class least appropriate to merge into a general-purpose "arcane caster class") and the sorceror (as the class most appropriate for such merging, having about the same relationship to the wizard that the barbarian does to the fighter). So where is this "warlock fetish" thing coming from?

And for the record, just to restate my earlier point--I have no problem with wizard, sorceror, and warlock being merged into a single arcane caster class*, but I do object to having four classes offering slightly different variations on "guy who swings a sword around" while everyone wanting to use non-divine magic is crammed into a single class. If barbarian deserves its own class, then so does sorceror.

Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, no designer has yet said that barbarian won't be merged into fighter. For all we know, the next playtest package will have the Core 4 only, and everything else as a subclass. I'll be highly amused if that's the case.

[SIZE=-2]*I still think that if psion is going to be merged into anything, it should be monk. In fact, this would be a nice opportunity to overhaul the monk, which is currently underwhelming to say the least.[/SIZE]

You mistake me - I think he's using the word correctly, he just might be wrong in his judgement of you concerning the Warlock (for what it is worth, I do think someone is obsessed with the Warlock, but it's not you). But, it's the right word for him to be using, given his judgement of you right now.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Ha, nope, I do not keep using the word "fetish", but nice try at trying to apply the cliched, overused Inigo Montoya line...embarrassing...

You insult the glory that is The Princes Bride with your defensiveness.

I love it when posters get all personal and insulting!

Wait, no. What's the other thing?

Hate. I hate it when posters get all personal and insulting.

So I am not very fond, as you can likely guess, of what you're doing here. If you can see your way back to following our posting guidelines, it'd make my job a lot easier. So please do that.

 

[Weather Report]

For all we know, the next playtest package will have the Core 4 only, and everything else as a subclass. I'll be highly amused if that's the case.

I could totally go for that.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, but... there was a very well-received base class bard that made it into Best of Dragon vol. 2 and saw pretty widespread use (at least in my area). Obviously, that's not quite the same as an official bard base class, but it's a reasonably close facsimile.

Said BoDv2 also had a superior alternate version of the monk in it that also seemed to get a lot of use in my area.

I think it was BoDv3. (Otherwise agreed, although was the alternative monk perhaps a little too good relative to its revised XP values?)

 

[the Jester]

I think it was BoDv3. (Otherwise agreed, although was the alternative monk perhaps a little too good relative to its revised XP values?)

My groups didn't think so, and all used it once we had access to it.

The OG 1e monk was just too weak overall; it was that d4 HD IMHO. Even with 2 HD at level 1... the monk just couldn't hang on the front lines.