D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: More Classes/Subclasses, Retraining & Playing Without Subclasses

[Mistwell]

First off, what is so wrong with having more classes in the future? Why is subclass "bloat" okay but new classes something to be avoided like the plague?

Second...but it was certainly never true of psions and warlocks (in comparison to wizards). They really didn't have much in common at all...

Falling Icicle, you've made your position clear, and had tons of responses.

You said this same thing in the "Psionic Mages?" thread.

You said the same thing in the "Do you want the Sorcerer, Warlock, Psion, and Artificer separate from the Mage class?" thread.

You said the same thing in the "Mage: Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Artificers, Psions, oh my." thread.

You said the same thing in the "LL- Subclasses and Complexity" thread.

And now you've said the same thing in this, the "D&D Next Q&A: More Classes/Subclasses, Retraining & Playing Without Subclasses" thread.

And in every single one of those threads, you got intelligent, thoughtful, comprehensive, detailed answers to your questions about why this type of system has advantages.

And then every time, in the next thread, you simply restate your claim, and act like you don't understand why this is being done despite all those explanations from so many others as to why this is being done.

It's OK that you don't like this. It's obvious to everyone you don't like this part of 5e. OK, we get it, you don't like it.

But why keep repeating yourself without any variation, and why do you keep pretending you don't have an answer to your question of "why?". You don't like the answer, but you've definitely gotten your answer repeatedly. It's not like the answers are going to change at this point. It's just that you're not going to like that part of the game.

OK, so you don't like the system. Find something you do like, or ask people how you can change it to make it something you might like. But this repeating it endlessly...that can't change anything, and it's not bringing anything constructive to the table anymore.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

I can see a lot of campaigns starting at third level rather than first level

Yep, and this is a little annoying, because although I've done it at times over the years it's never been the default approach to D&D. It feels as though the old zero-level start is being forced into the game at level 1 and level 2 whether you like it or not. Was there some great outcry in the feedback they've received to cover that niche?

First off, what is so wrong with having more classes in the future? Why is subclass "bloat" okay but new classes something to be avoided like the plague?

Second, you talk about the unchanging portion of classes and how in previous iterations of the game many classes shared a lot of stuff with previous classes. This may be true of some of them, but it was certainly never true of psions and warlocks (in comparison to wizards). They really didn't have much in common at all. They had totally different casting mechanics, radically different spell/power/invocation lists, etc. If you guys really feel you must put the wizard and sorcerer together, fine. I can stomach that. They were, after all, extremely similar, even sharing the same spell lists. But psions and warlocks? Hell no. Those should be separate classes from the mage. You already have 10 classes. What would be so terrible about having 12?

This gets into the whole "what should be a class" debate and they are stuck between "efficiency" and "D&D Tradition". Paladin is a class because it's been a class for a long time. Warlock is a subclass because it has a lot less tradition behind it.

What I would rather see, if they insist on doing it this way, is the classic four as classes - Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Thief and then the in-between roles as classes - Paladin between Fighter and Cleric, etc. The use subclasses to flavor to taste: Wizard/Sorcerer, Knight/Gladiator, etc.

The problem is that the traditional powers of certain classes don't really slot neatly into those roles. A non-spellcasting ranger could slot in between Fighter and Thief but rangers have always had spells, but they aren't fighter mages either. Classes like Druids don't fit in anywhere neatly either.

So if you can't come up with some balanced mechanical basis for it you're left with something background related. As someone else mentioned above I think 4E's power source approach makes some sense, but they don't seem to be particularly interested in using a lot of 4E concepts in next, at least not by name. So we're back to why not just make each class its own class? What problem do subclasses solve that separate base classes do not?

If every subclass would start at level 3, where does that leave the Mage and every subclass under it? The idea that you play a general Mage and then decide if you want to be a Warlock, Wizard, Sorcerer, Artificer, Psion, etc at level 3 would be the stupidest idea in the history of RPG design.

And this is the other problem you get from the current approach. If you label Mage as "Arcane caster" then that strengthens and limits the concept at the same time. Surely Psion needs to be it's own class, and probably one that comes later, not on Day 1 in Book 1.

I still don't know what "weight" a class is carrying.

It can't be equipment -- a fighter who uses a big sword should probably still be the same class as a fighter who uses a sword & board. It can't be spellcasting -- if Mages can all have different spellcasting subsystems, then the Mage can't have one. It can't be in-world archetpes, concepts like Fighter and Mage are waaaay too broad for that. Is it HD? Then why is, say the Palaidn (d10) not a Fighter (d10) subclass? And what if we want to change the Wizard subclass of Mage from d6 to d4 (or vice versa)? Attack bonuses are already decoupled from level advancement thanks to bounded accuracy.

I'm not really seeing much of a niche for "class" to fill.

If you look at Fighter as "Martial Tank" and Paladin as "Divine Tank" then it makes some sense. Under that concept maybe subclass is a further flavoring element - Gladiator is tricky/maneuver based or "offensive" subclass, while knight is mount based or "defensive" subclass.

Maybe Druid becomes "Divine Striker" and Ranger becomes "Martial Striker". Subclasses could define some mechanics and emphasize ranged over melee combat, and different types of non-combat abilities.

I'm just thinking out loud here. Some kind of framework from WOTC would be nice though.

 

[gyor]

That description is far too much of an abstraction for my comfort.

Skills decline from lack of use, and they do so slowly over time. Moreover, they usually come back quickly.

Retraining doesn't resemble this pattern. It comes across as unlearning something to learn something else.

I'd note that sometimes a feat or spell comes out that better expresses what the player sees as what thier character is doing or can do. Like Feat A really isn't what the player wants or see as an ideal expression of his characters abilities, but its the best he's got until feat B comes out which is the exact expression of his character so retaining A for B feels more like updating then retraining.

 

[bogmad]

I was pretty up in arms at first about the whole "psionic mages" thing. Hell, I started that thread, but I've come around, or a least become willing to suspend my judgement until I seem some examples to get upset about.
I don't really want only 4 classes, but I don't want unlimited classes either. Accepting the legacy and history of barbarians and monks (and especially rangers and paladins) is fine to me. The game doesn't need mathematical and perfect symmetry in class design, but some restraints on class bloat is a good idea.

I do think that WotC can certainly do some revising to figure out just what is a mage subclass vs what is a school or tradition for each mage type. If everyone else picks his subclass at level 3 then maybe they should have the mage pick his subclass then as well, but let subclass not be wizard, sorcerer, psion, etc. Rename the class "magic user," let you pick what type of magic user you are at level 1, and then let you go ahead and pick subclass or school at level 3.

I'd still put an asterisk on psion though, because I don't want him defined as a magic user. Put some fluff in there about how psions take umbrage at the "magic user" distinction that the rest of the world labels him under. Ideally I'd still like a new mechanic on how psionic effects work differently than spells, but looks like I'll just have to accept the history and legacy of past editions never getting it right.

 

[MoonSong]

It's mostly so that they can reference the classes in future supplements. For example, let's set up the following situation in a world without subclasses:

Book A: Has a class called Fighter
Book B: Has a class called Knight which is like a Fighter, but more emphasis on mounted combat.
Book C: Has a feat which is only usable by Fighters.

Can the book C feat be used by Knights? Not in this formulation.

Actually no, no need for that, the 3.5 favored souls and dragonlance mystics showed us this wasn't necessary, both of them shared a good deal of stuff from the cleric and while didn't received specific support they benefited from extra spells and domains that showed up in later supplements, How? simple, they just said "use the cleric spell list" and in the mystic case "gains one cleric domain", bingo problem solved instant access to all cleric spells, scrolls and staffs. In this particular case nothing would stop the Knight from stating "The knight can gain mount related feats that are marked as fighter-only" boom, problem solved and it still allows for some knight specific support to show up later.

 

[GSHamster]

Actually no, no need for that, the 3.5 favored souls and dragonlance mystics showed us this wasn't necessary, both of them shared a good deal of stuff from the cleric and while didn't received specific support they benefited from extra spells and domains that showed up in later supplements, How? simple, they just said "use the cleric spell list" and in the mystic case "gains one cleric domain", bingo problem solved instant access to all cleric spells, scrolls and staffs. In this particular case nothing would stop the Knight from stating "The knight can gain mount related feats that are marked as fighter-only" boom, problem solved and it still allows for some knight specific support to show up later.

Well, then the Knight book has to predict all possible rules that could apply to the Knight class.

Suppose a rules supplement came out with a stunt system for Fighters. Could the Knight use it? Suppose the rules were for leading an army?

It's just a lot easier for the rules to say a Knight is a Fighter. Anything which applies to Fighters also applies to Knights.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'd note that sometimes a feat or spell comes out that better expresses what the player sees as what thier character is doing or can do. Like Feat A really isn't what the player wants or see as an ideal expression of his characters abilities, but its the best he's got until feat B comes out which is the exact expression of his character so retaining A for B feels more like updating then retraining.

Sure. I still expect players to get permission from the DM. I've never denied, or been denied, a reasonable retraining.

 

[MarkB]

That description is far too much of an abstraction for my comfort.

Skills decline from lack of use, and they do so slowly over time. Moreover, they usually come back quickly.

Retraining doesn't resemble this pattern. It comes across as unlearning something to learn something else.

Skills are also acquired and honed gradually over time, rather than being instantly mastered - and yet, the levelling system in general often features such instant mastery. Instant un-mastery is no greater a break from reality.

As for unlearned skills coming back quickly, they do in this case too. If the player decides that he doesn't like the result of his retraining, and switches back to his previous set-up next level, those old skills will return instantly.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Skills are also acquired and honed gradually over time, rather than being instantly mastered - and yet, the levelling system in general often features such instant mastery. Instant un-mastery is no greater a break from reality.

As for unlearned skills coming back quickly, they do in this case too. If the player decides that he doesn't like the result of his retraining, and switches back to his previous set-up next level, those old skills will return instantly.

I already have ingrained rationalizations for skills with low-granularity. I'm not ready to make new ones for retraining. The mechanic doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Falling Icicle, you've made your position clear, and had tons of responses.

You said this same thing in the "Psionic Mages?" thread.

You said the same thing in the "Do you want the Sorcerer, Warlock, Psion, and Artificer separate from the Mage class?" thread.

You said the same thing in the "Mage: Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Artificers, Psions, oh my." thread.

You said the same thing in the "LL- Subclasses and Complexity" thread.

And now you've said the same thing in this, the "D&D Next Q&A: More Classes/Subclasses, Retraining & Playing Without Subclasses" thread.

And in every single one of those threads, you got intelligent, thoughtful, comprehensive, detailed answers to your questions about why this type of system has advantages.

And then every time, in the next thread, you simply restate your claim, and act like you don't understand why this is being done despite all those explanations from so many others as to why this is being done.

It's OK that you don't like this. It's obvious to everyone you don't like this part of 5e. OK, we get it, you don't like it.

But why keep repeating yourself without any variation, and why do you keep pretending you don't have an answer to your question of "why?". You don't like the answer, but you've definitely gotten your answer repeatedly. It's not like the answers are going to change at this point. It's just that you're not going to like that part of the game.

OK, so you don't like the system. Find something you do like, or ask people how you can change it to make it something you might like. But this repeating it endlessly...that can't change anything, and it's not bringing anything constructive to the table anymore.

When the same subject matters keeps coming up over and over again in different threads, obviously I'm going to make similar points. And you know what, I'm not the only person that has posted in those threads and I'm not the only person that has repeated similar arguments. Some people have even given me experience point awards for the exact same posts you're complaining about. Other people may have offered thoughtful responses but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to accept their answers and just be quiet. I don't agree with them. If you really hate me that much, put me on your ignore list. Nobody is forcing you to read my posts. I'm not going to be silenced just because you don't happen to agree with what I have to say.