D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[Einlanzer0]

The question is: What is "sensible?" What "warrants" a full class vs a subclass. We've seen WOTC struggle with these questions over the edition's life cycle through design docs and Unearthed Arcana posts. I think reasonable people can disagree on these questions, particularly without context. There's probably some business reasons why the want to keep the number of classes down as part of reducing glut and mixing up the market place.

Right. But my argument is that isn't a great idea even if it seems to be on the surface. I think exploding the # of subclasses in all kinds of thematic directions rather than approaching every new concept with a comprehensive decision tree around when it does or doesn't warrant being a full class is the wrong, lazy way to go.

They clearly are doing this because they've released dozens of subclasses and 0 new classes until literally a few days ago.

 

[Einlanzer0]

I know it boils down to a matter of expectation, or maybe preference. There's nothing wrong with the approach you outline here, it's just not my cuppa tea.

I'd prefer a design approach with fewer classes and dozens of subclasses. It feels like there is too much same-ness and overlap between the classes already, and I worry that adding even more classes would just muddy them further.

See, this is precisely what doesn't make sense to me. What you're describing as a concern is exactly the effect of adding subclasses to existing classes ad nauseum instead of diligently defining new concepts as classes or subclasses and adding both in moderation.

If this was the approach they wanted to go with, we should have had fewer than 11 base classes.

 

[Salthorae]

Prophecies, shawls, covens, charms, potions, familiars, white magic vs black magic, etc. The list is endless, which is why it doesn't already exist as a subclass.

But... none of this stuff has existed in any edition of D&D that I remember. So I'm not sure why you're surprised that any of this is missing in 5e?

2e had a Wizard kit but it didn't deal in prophecies or shawls or white/black magic.

3e had a potential "different" class as a witch in the DMG, but it was basically a lesser version of the druid/wizard mixed.

5e what you could easily do...

• Prophecies = Wizard spells. Divination Domain
• Covens = flavor
• Charms = spells
• Potions = herbalism kit, alchemist kit proficiency
• Familiars = find familiar
• White/Black Mage = .... no real analogue to this in 5e. 3.x had alignment based spells. shrug

You could do any of this as a Pact of the Tome Warlock with the find familiar spell and proficiency in the herbalism kit. Then put a shawl on.

 

[dave2008]

So.... I've been feeling this for a while. While, granted, we got the Artificer in the Ebberon book, there's been a long term dearth of new classes for 5e. Especially in light of the new UA, it really worries me that it appears to be because WotC thinks they can/should they can simply turn every new class concept into a subclass for one of the existing classes.

I think that's a terrible approach, and it really needs to get called out as a problem IMO.

For one, it clutters up the existing classes to the point of making it harder and harder for players to define a path for themselves within a given class once one is chosen. It doesn't help that subclasses aren't multiclass friendly, meaning you can't hybridize concepts between different subclasses for a given class and must choose exactly one out of a perpetually growing list of options.

For two, there are numerous areas where it just doesn't really make thematic sense, either in terms of history/lore or in terms of verisimilitude, such as psionics being an arcane tradition of wizards. I can get on board with Psychic Warrior being a subclass for Fighter. I cannot get on board with the base Psion being a "Wizarding tradition". As it has been in previous additions, psionics should be a fully fleshed out system that can replace traditional magic where appropriate.

For three, it just feels like a lazy way to develop the system. Using the Psionics UA as an example - Psionics really wants to be a complete system that, if needed, can replace magic altogether in a given campaign setting. Setting it up as merely an arcane tradition is absolutely wrong-headed given the history of psionics in D&D.

The bottom line is that if the concept that you're imagining is broad enough that you can easily mentally conjure many different subtypes within that class, then it deserves to exist as a full class and not a subclass. My personal favorite examples of this are the witch and the shaman, which would not be adequately represented by any existing class.

I am of the opposite opinion. I think there should be fewer classes. For instance i see no need for ranger or paladin. I think the can work as subclasses of the fighter and cleric respectively. In reality I would like 2 or 3 classes max. Warrior, Arcanist, & Cleric. Everything else would be archtypes, subclasses, prestige classes, etc.

 

[CleverNickName]

See, this is precisely what doesn't make sense to me. What you're describing as a concern is exactly the effect of adding subclasses to existing classes ad nauseum instead of diligently defining new concepts as classes or subclasses and adding both in moderation.

I didn't intend to describe anything as a concern, I was just sharing my own preference.

 

[Einlanzer0]

But... none of this stuff has existed in any edition of D&D that I remember. So I'm not sure why you're surprised that any of this is missing in 5e?

2e had a Wizard kit but it didn't deal in prophecies or shawls or white/black magic.

3e had a potential "different" class as a witch in the DMG, but it was basically a lesser version of the druid/wizard mixed.

5e what you could easily do...

• Prophecies = Wizard spells. Divination Domain
• Covens = flavor
• Charms = spells
• Potions = herbalism kit, alchemist kit proficiency
• Familiars = find familiar
• White/Black Mage = .... no real analogue to this in 5e. 3.x had alignment based spells. shrug

You could do any of this as a Pact of the Tome Warlock with the find familiar spell and proficiency in the herbalism kit. Then put a shawl on.

You did what I outlined above. I can literally reflavor anything as anything else. I guess that means we're done with new material of any kind, right? Yay!

No, sorry, that doesn't work. The wizard package as it exists in D&D does not at all fit into witch archetypes from common fantasy, which is why it was created as an alternate class in 4e.

Also, you're mistaking my point. I'm not surprised it doesn't exist in 5e. I'm merely using it as an example of a concept that can easily be developed as a full class and it would thematically serve the concept better than pigeonholing it into an existing class. There are numerous other examples of this, the witch just happens to be my personal favorite.

 

[Einlanzer0]

I am of the opposite opinion. I think there should be fewer classes. For instance i see no need for ranger or paladin. I think the can work as subclasses of the fighter and cleric respectively. In reality I would like 2 or 3 classes max. Warrior, Arcanist, & Cleric. Everything else would be archtypes, subclasses, prestige classes, etc.

If the system had been built that way, I would have had no problem with it. But it wasn't. We have 11 classes, some of which are tied to quite specific concepts.

I see no legitimate reason whatsoever to just draw a line now and refuse to build on it. It really feels like a lazy "just because" that players have mindlessly adopted.

 

[Salthorae]

The wizard package as it exists in D&D does not at all fit into witch archetypes from common fantasy,

A Fiend Patron Tome Pact Warlock fits the witch archetype pretty well IMO.

I'm merely using it as an example of a concept that can easily be developed as a full class

I get what you're saying, but throwing a bunch of new classes out there doesn't fit the WotC business model for this edition.

It's about accessibility for the masses, not pleasing the niche concepts.

Especially when most players are perfectly happy not having all the boxes ticked and doing a reflavor/fluff version of a wizard or a warlock to fit the concept.

If you want something different as a full class, design your own and release it on DMsGuild! I'd take a look at it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Witch is just a female warlock. There's plenty of design space left in the warlock class since it's almost a build your own class anyway.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Witch is just a female warlock. There's plenty of design space left in the warlock class since it's almost a build your own class anyway.

No. The warlock is a different concept drawing from a different part of fantasy.