Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8455708" data-attributes="member: 71699">Finally, sub-classes, which for me fill in the blanks.  Again, the yardstick is an ASI. Half an ASI is 1pt, a whole ASI is 2pts, and a double ASI is 4pts. Here is the table -[ATTACH=full]146651[/ATTACH]The analysis here isn't complete, but a few patterns already stand out<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The features of some classes - bard, cleric, druid, monk and ranger - can't be understood without their sub-classes, because they are entangled with them; for example, you cannot judge the full effects of bardic inspiration or ki until you read the sub-class features that draw on those pools</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Notice the bright red entries - monk and ranger get half their 11th level step from their sub-class; the design direction for monk sub-class features at that level seems to be to merge sustain with offence to try to deliver interesting ways to engage with combat, while for rangers it seems formed around an idea of attacking multiple foes, again creating (in theory) a distinct way to engage with combat</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Those 'd8-caster' classes - bard, cleric, druid and warlock - all gain a significant part of their offence through their sub-classes (druids also gain sustain, through necessary simplifications in the way wild shape works); the bard sub-classes that get extra attack at 6th level is an interesting example of how a choice can be offered</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some classes - barbarians, fighters, paladins and rogues - pretty much do what they say on the tin; much of what they do is in the class itself, and the sub-classes are largely additive (paladins are a mild exception)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Other classes - bard, cleric, druid, warlock, and I would argue monk and ranger - are much harder to assess on the surface; due to entanglements or commitments to sub-class features</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The fully committed casters - sorcerer and wizard - can't be assessed without knowing their spells, which is another dimension of the game altogether</li> </ul>Diversity abounds around a fairly small vocabulary of design patterns. One could call out battle masters as an example of fighters doing more than it says on the tin, and I would perhaps argue that battle masters are additive, and placed out in the fighter sub-class so that fighter can remain simple, while giving access to complexity for those who want it. Implying that the broader intent of fighters is the simplicity, not the complexity. I also have not done full service to features that are both sustain and offence, and especially not to control and buffing.At bottom are the total class values at 11th level - converted back to ASI. I think the intent is that classes are worth 30-40 ASIs by that point. Remember that WotC designers might have used some other yardstick, and even if they did use ASIs, they might have evaluated features differently than I (something that input could be valuable in correcting.) I can't emphasise enough that characters seldom benefit from all their features, so fighters can be as effective with 28 ASIs as bards with 41, but bards will have more options.This however probably reveals enough of the design patterns to make the next step, which is a design vocabulary for D&D classes.</blockquote>

Verification