D&D 1E Conspiracy theorists: do the core classes represent "primary" classes from 1E?

[Emirikol]

This is a half-humorous post. I get the feeling that the upcoming core classes are set up the way they are so that each one can get it's "own" subclasses akin to what we had in 1E. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd get the impression that the Warlord is only there because..... (complete this sentence) whereas the sorcerer is simply the parasitic twin of the wizard...

[edit: add: in 3.5 it seems that classes like druids and sorcerers still felt like subclasses..and I don't expect that to change)

 

[Scribble]

This is a half-humorous post. I get the feeling that the upcoming core classes are set up the way they are so that each one can get it's "own" subclasses akin to what we had in 1E. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd get the impression that the Warlord is only there because..... (complete this sentence) whereas the sorcerer is simply the parasitic twin of the wizard...

[edit: add: in 3.5 it seems that classes like druids and sorcerers still felt like subclasses..and I don't expect that to change)

Hrmmm I get the feeling it's kind of the opposite really. I think they're striving to get rid of the "sub class" feeling of certain classes, and give them a specific place in the game.

Hence the Power Source, and Role ideas...

Druids will tap a different source then Cleric. They won't just be Divine Magic casters with a different set of clothes.

 

[KingCrab]

[edit: add: in 3.5 it seems that classes like druids and sorcerers still felt like subclasses..and I don't expect that to change)

Druids never felt like a subclass in 3.5. With the best summoning and summoning feats, great tanking ability in wildshape, being able to out sneak and climb rogues (in animal form), and great blasting spells, if anything they felt like the best of too many different classes put together.