Level Up (A5E) Classes: Winner and Losers

[LionheadGaming]

I think this is a common debate point. At what point is an archetype worthy of its own class structure, versus just being an add on to an existing class? There is no single answer.

I think the Paladin is the OG marshall....the high charisma leader that heals and inspires his fellows. That "niche" was already covered, but just as people enjoy spell-less rangers, people like to have that leader type without holy or magical baggage.

Could the fighter have taken on this role?.... honestly, yes I agree they could. Give them a Marshall subclass to handle some of the bigger stuff, and I think the rest of the class could absolutely cover it. Frankly I also think the flavor of that makes more sense than the Marshall class. Having a "general" at 1st level doesn't really make sense....leadership is not something you just have its something you grow into. Having it be a fighter subclass better mirrors the "got some military experience and then took on a leader role".

Should that have been the case? I think tradition is why it didn't happen. A lot of people enjoy the 4e Warlord concept. Just as the ranger and paladin before them....you could do those classes as fighters....but tradition gave those ideas their own class, and once done, its hard to go back. So I think the momentum of the people's desire is what crystallized the Marshall class.

Yeah I get you 100% and having played the 4E Warlord for 30 levels I just am let down by this take on one of the best things that wonderful edition had going for it. The are some bright points that some people have pointed out like Mark Foe and Rallying Surge. I really like those abilities. Warlords can shout you back to consciousness you have to have it.

I think if you could give out all of your attacks and Commanding Presence had a line saying "an ally can make this attack or cast a cantrip no action required and can only be targeted by any Commanding Presence once per round" I would love it so much more.

You can go full lazylord and it doesn't have the potential to be a burden. You are cutting off Shield, Counterspell, Uncanny Dodge and countless Reaction speed manuvers to do one of your iconic components of the character. You can use it to go full Lazylord if you want or you can charge in with your own sword or whatever.

Now I just need to do some reworking on Sanguine Knot and the subclasses.

 

[Rant]

The layout means each class takes a lot of pages, so it’s slow going to give them a proper analysis but I have to second that the Rogue is a real winner. Good design overall and some bumps in power, yes, which taken from the single class perspective are fine, though it raises some red flags for multiclass potential.
The d8 sneak attack with certain melee weapons vs adding proficiency bonus to damage with ranged attacks melee/ranged trade off is really interesting. I think the class shines more if it existed in original D&D rules, however. The proficiency to damage with ranged attacks is just better, broadly speaking, but original D&D did not multiply static modifiers so it put the two choices on a more level footing.

 

[lichmaster]

It's all a matter of taste.

At one end of the scale you can have two classes -- Fighty and Magicy, and everything is a point between those two things with an archetype. A cleric is a fighty/magicy with a holy archetype. A bard is a fighty/magicy with a music archetype. A rogue is a fighty with a sneaking archetype while a warlock is a magicy with a patron archetype.

At the other end of the scale you can have infinite classes, with every possible concept explored in the glorious detail and nuance that only a full class can.

Most people fall between those two points. I lean more towards the latter, personally, but that's just me. Plenty of people would disagree.

I agree with you, and that's why i LOVE WOIN so much.
Sometimes I'm just wondering how awesome a new iteration of it would be, with a similar scale and team size as Level Up got.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

Ok here is what murders me about A5E sorcerers, and this is such a weird gripe:

this sorcerer is designed to feel like the ultimate elementalist: built in abilities to master fire cold thunder lightning poison. Yeah! Love it!

why is the only real elemental subclass given to Wizards? I don’t know why this frustrates me so much, but it’s like the sorcerer was right there with being able to be that master but then the presented subclasses sort of just fall short or don’t make an attempt to lean into that change.

again, a minor petty gripe.

 

[tetrasodium]

Ok here is what murders me about A5E sorcerers, and this is such a weird gripe:

this sorcerer is designed to feel like the ultimate elementalist: built in abilities to master fire cold thunder lightning poison. Yeah! Love it!

why is the only real elemental subclass given to Wizards? I don’t know why this frustrates me so much, but it’s like the sorcerer was right there with being able to be that master but then the presented subclasses sort of just fall short or don’t make an attempt to lean into that change.

again, a minor petty gripe.

It's more like being born seven foot eight and being good at basketball. The sorcerer archetypes lean into their exploration of why they are seven food eigh & dealing out every last drop of it.

The wizard arch is five foot three sure but they study lots... no like all the time their whole life lots... the wizard class & archetypes reflect the directions taken by that study despite being one foot three inches shorter than the sorcerer.

 

[Stalker0]

Ok here is what murders me about A5E sorcerers, and this is such a weird gripe:

this sorcerer is designed to feel like the ultimate elementalist: built in abilities to master fire cold thunder lightning poison. Yeah! Love it!

why is the only real elemental subclass given to Wizards? I don’t know why this frustrates me so much, but it’s like the sorcerer was right there with being able to be that master but then the presented subclasses sort of just fall short or don’t make an attempt to lean into that change.

again, a minor petty gripe.

I'm with you though, again this stems back to my original criticism above. Its not that the sorc got no improvements, if I were wanting to play a sorc, I certainly would rather play the LU version.

Its just that, considering some of the love that other classes got in LU (including the wizard and warlock), it does feel like the Sorc just missed out somehow. It got a cookie, while other classes got a cake.

 

[WanderingMystic]

As far as sorcerers go I was left wanting for more archetypes. I want elemental options, I want to see what a psionic or a necromantic one would look like.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

As far as sorcerers go I was left wanting for more archetypes. I want elemental options, I want to see what a psionic or a necromantic one would look like.

And would a fiend blooded option kill anyone?

I mean yes. But what I mean is….

 

[Timespike]

Generally-speaking, you won't get every archetype you can think of or want in core rules. That's what supplements are for.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

Generally-speaking, you won't get every archetype you can think of or want in core rules. That's what supplements are for.

No, no, no. All games are specifically to be designed with my wants and needs in mind. Get with the program, world!