Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xeviat" data-source="post: 7862750" data-attributes="member: 57494">The recent Psionics UA (Fighter as Psychic Warrior, Rogue as Soul Knife, Wizard as Psion) has got me thinking a lot about the nature of classes and subclasses. When should a new character idea be a class? When should it be a subclass of an existing class?I have long questioned the differentiation between the Sorcerer and the Warlock. They serve similar party roles. They use basically the same tools (spells, which tend to be offensive or be self-only defenses). The thematic difference between bloodline and pact is a flavor difference, but these differences could have been cooked into a single class (we don't need a separate class for philosophy clerics and God worshiping clerics, for instance). "Where does your magic come from" could have been part of the Sorcerer flavor text; I feel the only thing we would have lost was the pact magic mechanics (which the sorcerer could use IMHO). The warlock lost curse as it's core ability and doesn't have a general reward for sending souls to their pact master, so why not mix them?I've asked the question "What is a Ranger" before. And that question will crop up here again.So, what is a class? What is a subclass? I think a class needs to be broad enough that there will be multiple versions, archetypes, and interpretations of members of that class. A class needs to have subclasses. Notice, that many classes from 4E became subclasses in 5E (Avenger became a paladin, Invoker became some of the cleric subclasses).A class also needs to be thematically and mechanically different from other similar classes. If it's not distinct enough, then make it a subclass of that similar thing. The recent Psionics UA asks this question and answers with an attempt. Above, I ask if the sorcerer and warlock could be mixed. They're thematically different, and they are mechanically different. But that mechanical differences might be difference for difference sake (like the 3E sorcerer, whom most seem to consider was there just for the spontaneous casting mechanic).The class as subclass approach does bring up class baggage. Classes themselves bring abilities of their own to a concept, so if your character idea doesn't fit that, it might be a bad way to build it.So that brings us to the new UA. I won't discuss the implementation here (I'll join in another thread later), but is like to look at them through this light.Should the Psion just be part of the Wizard? Personally, I don't think so. There are enough kinds of psions that Psion probably needs subclasses of its own (but those differences could just be spell choice, I devil's advocate myself). The psychic warrior and soul knife feel better as subclasses, but they could be subclasses of the Psion itself, or of the Fighter and Rogue as they're presented this time.They tried this with the artificer a couple of times before settling on a class, and I think it worked out. There are enough character types that fall under the Artificer umbrella that having them just be a wizard subclass.So, what so you think differentiates a class from a subclass? Do you think the paladin should just be a fighter/cleric? Do you think the sorcerer and warlock are distinct enough? Do you want psions to be their own class. Is Warlord distinct enough to be a whole class, or should it just be a fighter subclass (as it kinda is now)?</blockquote>

Verification