Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Q&A: More Classes/Subclasses, Retraining & Playing Without Subclasses
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6178914" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>I don't think that's it. "Assassin" and "illusionist" and "knight" and "Holy Liberator of Arborea" and "Dwarf" aren't classes, and people absolutely do want to call their characters that....</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>...except, Wizards are under the umbrella of "Mage," and "Barbarian" and "Druid" aren't under an umbrella, so why is it OK for one class to have a super-broad, meaningless, milquetoast name and force the subclass to carry the weight of archetype, and it's not OK for other classes? If Wizard gets lumped under Mage, shouldn't Barbarian get lumped under Fighter(/warrior)? And maybe lump druid under Cleric(/priest)?</p><p></p><p>There's no consistency here. That feels like a problem to me. Admittedly, it might not be as big of a problem as I feel it is, but it seems like this disorganization might just confuse newbies. I can make one choice to be a character like Conan, but I have to make two choices to be Harry Potter or Gandalf? Why is one up front and the other behind a decision-point wall?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>...I actually think that makes quite a bit <em>less</em> sense. They're already on record as rejecting explicit and mandatory class roles, and power sources are mentioned as something decoupled from class with things like the shadowdancer rogue and the hexblade fighter. So why isn't Paladin just an option for a fighter who wants a bit of Divine spark to their class, like Hexblade is an option for a fighter who wants a bit of Arcane knowledge?</p><p></p><p>There's a whole bucket of problems in defining class by combat role that I'm really hoping 5e has learned enough about to avoid. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, this is where I am. I just want to know what I should be thinking of a "class" as, since as far as I can tell, most of the load that was born by the "class" concept (ie: the character's fictional archetype and the conflicts they are meant to solve) seems to now be sometimes a class and sometimes a subclass and sometimes even a feat, so why the class? Why not just ditch the unnecessary silo and have Shadowdancers and Hexblades and Assassins and Thieves and Knights and Gladiators and Wizards and Sorcerers and Psionicists all be different?</p><p></p><p>I don't get what purpose a "class" serves right now in 5e. Right now, I'd just as soon get rid of the concept of Class and turn all subclasses into their own Class, because that defines more what kind of archetype your character is. </p><p></p><p>I imagine it's <em>trying</em> to serve the purpose of "a group for abilities that are common to all subclasses underneath the class, and not part of other subclasses" but in that case, Barbarian and Ranger and Paladin probably should be under the Fighter umbrella, because there's not a whole lot those guys can do that a Fighter shouldn't be able to do. It works for the level of Mage subclasses, though, if you imagine that a telepath and an enchanter and an artificer should all probably be able to access an effect like <em>charm person</em>, even if one gains it through studying tomes, one gains it through psychic training, and one gains it through love potions. </p><p></p><p>Though if you apply that logic globally, I don't see any reason why fighters and rogues and bards and all the rest shouldn't be able to access an effect like <em>charm person</em>. As a memorized well of power, a telepathic coercion, a love potion, or just a diplomatic turn of phrase or a rakish charisma, the story is dramatically different, but the effects are largely similar, if that's what you're thinking about for exclusive abilities...</p><p></p><p>...yeah, there's basically just a lot of confusion over what they're trying to do here.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6178914, member: 2067"] I don't think that's it. "Assassin" and "illusionist" and "knight" and "Holy Liberator of Arborea" and "Dwarf" aren't classes, and people absolutely do want to call their characters that.... ...except, Wizards are under the umbrella of "Mage," and "Barbarian" and "Druid" aren't under an umbrella, so why is it OK for one class to have a super-broad, meaningless, milquetoast name and force the subclass to carry the weight of archetype, and it's not OK for other classes? If Wizard gets lumped under Mage, shouldn't Barbarian get lumped under Fighter(/warrior)? And maybe lump druid under Cleric(/priest)? There's no consistency here. That feels like a problem to me. Admittedly, it might not be as big of a problem as I feel it is, but it seems like this disorganization might just confuse newbies. I can make one choice to be a character like Conan, but I have to make two choices to be Harry Potter or Gandalf? Why is one up front and the other behind a decision-point wall? ...I actually think that makes quite a bit [I]less[/I] sense. They're already on record as rejecting explicit and mandatory class roles, and power sources are mentioned as something decoupled from class with things like the shadowdancer rogue and the hexblade fighter. So why isn't Paladin just an option for a fighter who wants a bit of Divine spark to their class, like Hexblade is an option for a fighter who wants a bit of Arcane knowledge? There's a whole bucket of problems in defining class by combat role that I'm really hoping 5e has learned enough about to avoid. Yeah, this is where I am. I just want to know what I should be thinking of a "class" as, since as far as I can tell, most of the load that was born by the "class" concept (ie: the character's fictional archetype and the conflicts they are meant to solve) seems to now be sometimes a class and sometimes a subclass and sometimes even a feat, so why the class? Why not just ditch the unnecessary silo and have Shadowdancers and Hexblades and Assassins and Thieves and Knights and Gladiators and Wizards and Sorcerers and Psionicists all be different? I don't get what purpose a "class" serves right now in 5e. Right now, I'd just as soon get rid of the concept of Class and turn all subclasses into their own Class, because that defines more what kind of archetype your character is. I imagine it's [I]trying[/I] to serve the purpose of "a group for abilities that are common to all subclasses underneath the class, and not part of other subclasses" but in that case, Barbarian and Ranger and Paladin probably should be under the Fighter umbrella, because there's not a whole lot those guys can do that a Fighter shouldn't be able to do. It works for the level of Mage subclasses, though, if you imagine that a telepath and an enchanter and an artificer should all probably be able to access an effect like [I]charm person[/I], even if one gains it through studying tomes, one gains it through psychic training, and one gains it through love potions. Though if you apply that logic globally, I don't see any reason why fighters and rogues and bards and all the rest shouldn't be able to access an effect like [I]charm person[/I]. As a memorized well of power, a telepathic coercion, a love potion, or just a diplomatic turn of phrase or a rakish charisma, the story is dramatically different, but the effects are largely similar, if that's what you're thinking about for exclusive abilities... ...yeah, there's basically just a lot of confusion over what they're trying to do here. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Q&A: More Classes/Subclasses, Retraining & Playing Without Subclasses
Top