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="Tovec" data-source="post: 6178985" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>This will be fun to dispute. Okay....</p><p></p><p></p><p>A. Part of the problem is how you define "wizardly things". Also, why should the "shugenja" do "wizardly things" in the first place?</p><p>B. How does it make things "feel similar"? Consider 3e's run, you had all the classes in the splatbooks, say Complete Arcane, and they all followed the 3e math for casters. But those splatbook casters did not receive the same amount of attention nor were they very good. Having "similar feel" in math for the system didn't help me get into psionics even if the spells/powers were very similar in power.</p><p></p><p></p><p>C. You don't need a class/subclass system to achieve your second paragraph. Name all casters "casters". Name all who use weapons or skill [monkeys] such. How does a class/subclass system help here?</p><p></p><p></p><p>D. HOW?</p><p>Wouldn't it be easier to describe them in terms of their ability? Dragonfire adepts (from experience) are going to be relatively terrible wizards. They are not scholarly. They don't brew potions very well. They are much closer to warlocks and while warlocks have some wizardy (technically sorcerous) ability they are not the same basic archetype. Archivist fits much better as a wizard type, but from play experience I would guess their supertype would be priest? Why are you defining the characteristics (NOTE: "Character") of the class by the mechanics of the class in a roleplaying game? If the dragonfire adept happened to channel white magic/divine magic as opposed to dark/arcane, how would you define it then? That could be an easy change as far as "subclasses" goes. A VERY easy one that might have huge impact, or very little. A psion is a very different creature in terms of power structure, power manifestation, background/description and general mood of the character; when defined along with a wizard, or sorcerer, or even dragonfire adept.</p><p></p><p>As (I think KM) said: What makes subclasses BETTER at doing this as opposed to just different at doing it? If you are going to end up with the same giant lists of subclasses/classes why is it better in this format?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Except I play pathfinder. Do you know what happens when you play a ninja/rogue?</p><p></p><p>E. You lose something, you lose basic powers that (if you were a straight rogue) you would have otherwise kept. That happens with all the pathfinder substitutions. If an option were to be the other way around, the option being better than the default, then no one would take the default. So either make the subclass weaker or stronger, and invalidate whichever option is weaker. There may be some who will pick the weaker version for RP, but they will immediately recognize that. They would have also done it if it was its own class.</p><p>F. It hurts you to multiclass. It isn't a big thing by itself, but often times if you want to multiclass into several different classes (not talking between rogue and ninja) you lose something or are set further back than if they were different classes.</p><p>G. You can't level dip to pick up normal rogue abilities. It is simple. If the ninja loses.. let's say evasion or trapfinding that the rogue gets at low levels then you might want to dip and pick those abilities up. You can't when they're subclasses because you can't dip into the class you are already in.</p><p>H. It is another choice point that you have to make. Meaning that if you are playing a ninja you are going to be as similar to ninjas as every other ninja. If you could normally be a rogue (bland, regular), rogue-thug, rogue-ninja; and you choose rogue-ninja, so does every other rogue-ninja. You are then the same as ever other rogue-ninja because everyone had to make that choice point. You lose something there, you can't be a ninja-thug, or whatever the ninja variants are. That is a choicepoint you lose with a subclass you don't lose with a CLASS.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually it is the same problem. Good splatbooks in this way will always try to support characters or provide backward compabability. Bad systems/splatbooks won't. The problem with the binder wasn't that it wasn't a wizard subclass, it was that it sucked and that it never got any further support. Making it part of the mage superclass will only drive the people who play a binder crazy, as it never gets further support down the line either way.</p><p></p><p>While this is nice and what should hopefully happen it isn't realistic. Just like already shown, first DMG has pearl of power/boccobs blessed book. Those items are exclusionary to sorcerers. I know you said almost but that is what we're talking about here. Wizard/Sorcerer were about as close as we can hope to get in terms of power aligning with spells and even then items can only be made for one or the other. I guess I just want more idea what you are expecting to happen or how they stop this kind of thing from happening outside of saying "subclasses" will fix the problem.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I've seen entire systems shorter than the classes for 4e. Being short has little to do with the subclasses. If anything putting subclasses under the base class section will increase the length. I think you are over attributing one aspect of 5e with one part of it. 5e is shorter.. because of subclasses? Are subclasses also responsible for the way spells are worded?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't know why I'm injecting myself into this conversation. But here goes.</p><p></p><p>I went and looked at those threads. His arguments were similar. But they were hardly the same. They addressed the topic of the conversation. I guess part of me wants to know, in that case, why YOU look restating your position every time. You are frequently the first response after FI and say very nearly the same thing ever time. Yes we know Mage is an organizational thing. (Except it may not be, we don't really know what it will look like yet.) So.. "<em>What's driving you to make the same point over and over again? You know, there's no vote being counted here with each new thread.</em>"</p><p></p><p></p><p>Have you looked at the XP he (yes, I'm assuming FI is a he, even if he isn't) has? They're pretty universally "hey good job/+1 for insight" kind of stuff. No one saying "ignore now". Not one.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed. I think the problem here is that ANY subclass could be under-supported. It might be under supported because the overclass might focus on one branch or another. If Sorcerers become the most exciting class at release then it is quite possible wizard, or psion or any other subclass might get ignored to the detriment of that subclass. There are certainly more suppliments for Barbarian or Paladin in 3e splatbooks than for Fighter or Ranger that I ever saw. That is the problem when all four classes become a single class. Then add in that the game designers may look at the stats for "warrior" created stuff and say "yep, there's already a lot out there, job's done" so that fighter, or whatever, gets ignored <em>because</em> the superclass isn't. I think that was @<strong>KaiiLurker</strong> 's point.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 6178985, member: 95493"] This will be fun to dispute. Okay.... A. Part of the problem is how you define "wizardly things". Also, why should the "shugenja" do "wizardly things" in the first place? B. How does it make things "feel similar"? Consider 3e's run, you had all the classes in the splatbooks, say Complete Arcane, and they all followed the 3e math for casters. But those splatbook casters did not receive the same amount of attention nor were they very good. Having "similar feel" in math for the system didn't help me get into psionics even if the spells/powers were very similar in power. C. You don't need a class/subclass system to achieve your second paragraph. Name all casters "casters". Name all who use weapons or skill [monkeys] such. How does a class/subclass system help here? D. HOW? Wouldn't it be easier to describe them in terms of their ability? Dragonfire adepts (from experience) are going to be relatively terrible wizards. They are not scholarly. They don't brew potions very well. They are much closer to warlocks and while warlocks have some wizardy (technically sorcerous) ability they are not the same basic archetype. Archivist fits much better as a wizard type, but from play experience I would guess their supertype would be priest? Why are you defining the characteristics (NOTE: "Character") of the class by the mechanics of the class in a roleplaying game? If the dragonfire adept happened to channel white magic/divine magic as opposed to dark/arcane, how would you define it then? That could be an easy change as far as "subclasses" goes. A VERY easy one that might have huge impact, or very little. A psion is a very different creature in terms of power structure, power manifestation, background/description and general mood of the character; when defined along with a wizard, or sorcerer, or even dragonfire adept. As (I think KM) said: What makes subclasses BETTER at doing this as opposed to just different at doing it? If you are going to end up with the same giant lists of subclasses/classes why is it better in this format? Except I play pathfinder. Do you know what happens when you play a ninja/rogue? E. You lose something, you lose basic powers that (if you were a straight rogue) you would have otherwise kept. That happens with all the pathfinder substitutions. If an option were to be the other way around, the option being better than the default, then no one would take the default. So either make the subclass weaker or stronger, and invalidate whichever option is weaker. There may be some who will pick the weaker version for RP, but they will immediately recognize that. They would have also done it if it was its own class. F. It hurts you to multiclass. It isn't a big thing by itself, but often times if you want to multiclass into several different classes (not talking between rogue and ninja) you lose something or are set further back than if they were different classes. G. You can't level dip to pick up normal rogue abilities. It is simple. If the ninja loses.. let's say evasion or trapfinding that the rogue gets at low levels then you might want to dip and pick those abilities up. You can't when they're subclasses because you can't dip into the class you are already in. H. It is another choice point that you have to make. Meaning that if you are playing a ninja you are going to be as similar to ninjas as every other ninja. If you could normally be a rogue (bland, regular), rogue-thug, rogue-ninja; and you choose rogue-ninja, so does every other rogue-ninja. You are then the same as ever other rogue-ninja because everyone had to make that choice point. You lose something there, you can't be a ninja-thug, or whatever the ninja variants are. That is a choicepoint you lose with a subclass you don't lose with a CLASS. Actually it is the same problem. Good splatbooks in this way will always try to support characters or provide backward compabability. Bad systems/splatbooks won't. The problem with the binder wasn't that it wasn't a wizard subclass, it was that it sucked and that it never got any further support. Making it part of the mage superclass will only drive the people who play a binder crazy, as it never gets further support down the line either way. While this is nice and what should hopefully happen it isn't realistic. Just like already shown, first DMG has pearl of power/boccobs blessed book. Those items are exclusionary to sorcerers. I know you said almost but that is what we're talking about here. Wizard/Sorcerer were about as close as we can hope to get in terms of power aligning with spells and even then items can only be made for one or the other. I guess I just want more idea what you are expecting to happen or how they stop this kind of thing from happening outside of saying "subclasses" will fix the problem. I've seen entire systems shorter than the classes for 4e. Being short has little to do with the subclasses. If anything putting subclasses under the base class section will increase the length. I think you are over attributing one aspect of 5e with one part of it. 5e is shorter.. because of subclasses? Are subclasses also responsible for the way spells are worded? I don't know why I'm injecting myself into this conversation. But here goes. I went and looked at those threads. His arguments were similar. But they were hardly the same. They addressed the topic of the conversation. I guess part of me wants to know, in that case, why YOU look restating your position every time. You are frequently the first response after FI and say very nearly the same thing ever time. Yes we know Mage is an organizational thing. (Except it may not be, we don't really know what it will look like yet.) So.. "[I]What's driving you to make the same point over and over again? You know, there's no vote being counted here with each new thread.[/I]" Have you looked at the XP he (yes, I'm assuming FI is a he, even if he isn't) has? They're pretty universally "hey good job/+1 for insight" kind of stuff. No one saying "ignore now". Not one. Agreed. I think the problem here is that ANY subclass could be under-supported. It might be under supported because the overclass might focus on one branch or another. If Sorcerers become the most exciting class at release then it is quite possible wizard, or psion or any other subclass might get ignored to the detriment of that subclass. There are certainly more suppliments for Barbarian or Paladin in 3e splatbooks than for Fighter or Ranger that I ever saw. That is the problem when all four classes become a single class. Then add in that the game designers may look at the stats for "warrior" created stuff and say "yep, there's already a lot out there, job's done" so that fighter, or whatever, gets ignored [I]because[/I] the superclass isn't. I think that was @[B]KaiiLurker[/B] 's point. [/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