Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do classes built for the 5E D&D *ENGINE* NEED sub-classes?
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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7598668" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>So, all the classes in 5e have a history in prior editions. The Warlock is the 'youngest' being introduced in 3.5 and appearing in a PH only in 4e, followed closely by the 3.0-vintage Sorcerer, and more distantly by the 1e AD&D Unearthed Arcana Barbarian. Everything else in the 5e PH goes back to the 1e PH, at least as a sub-class or proto-PrC-like-classoid. And, everything in 1e PH was introduced in some 0D&D booklet at some point.</p><p></p><p>Even so, some of them were seemingly created just to introduce mechanics - the Thief (rogue precursor) brought de-facto dungeoneering skills, labeled 'special abilities,' to the game way back in the Greyhawk supplement, the very first of the booklets to follow the original boxed set, the Illusionist introduced specialization to the Magic-User. But others were character concepts - the Ranger was Aragorn, the Monk was Quai-Chang Caine, the Paladin was Lancelot & Percival/Galahad, the Barbarian, obviously, Conan.</p><p></p><p> The Sorcerer isn't there to express the wonder of sorcery points, it's there to differentiate the sorcerer form the other spell-casting classes (which is all of them, now), mechanically. The Sorcerer's a particularly egregious example, though, because if you go back two eds to it's origin, it sure looked like it was created soley as a vehicle to introduce spontaneous casting as an alternative to the much-criticized 'Vancian' model - an alternative that wasn't as utterly broken as the popular un-official spell-point/mana variants that proliferated back in the day.</p><p></p><p>In a sense, it failed, because wizards &c never stopped memorizing/preparing spells, in another it succeeded wildly, since everyone now casts spontaneously in 5e.</p><p></p><p> It's not required, it's at worst, perhaps, expected. It's a pat sort of game-design approach. Why is character A different from character B, because it uses mechanic X instead of mechanic Y. </p><p></p><p> Prettymuch just the fact it existed in 3.0, really.</p><p></p><p>It does mean the game is more complex than it might otherwise need to be, sure. But, 5e, at least, has avoided some of the fall-out for such needless complexity by holding the line and not introducing new classes, spells, and the like at a breakneck (or even slightly neck-bending) pace. </p><p></p><p>5e isn't adding a lot of new mechanics as it goes. It kinda just dumped them all in the PH, and is letting them ride. Psionics has taken years to roll out and still hasn't appeared in print, for instance.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7598668, member: 996"] So, all the classes in 5e have a history in prior editions. The Warlock is the 'youngest' being introduced in 3.5 and appearing in a PH only in 4e, followed closely by the 3.0-vintage Sorcerer, and more distantly by the 1e AD&D Unearthed Arcana Barbarian. Everything else in the 5e PH goes back to the 1e PH, at least as a sub-class or proto-PrC-like-classoid. And, everything in 1e PH was introduced in some 0D&D booklet at some point. Even so, some of them were seemingly created just to introduce mechanics - the Thief (rogue precursor) brought de-facto dungeoneering skills, labeled 'special abilities,' to the game way back in the Greyhawk supplement, the very first of the booklets to follow the original boxed set, the Illusionist introduced specialization to the Magic-User. But others were character concepts - the Ranger was Aragorn, the Monk was Quai-Chang Caine, the Paladin was Lancelot & Percival/Galahad, the Barbarian, obviously, Conan. The Sorcerer isn't there to express the wonder of sorcery points, it's there to differentiate the sorcerer form the other spell-casting classes (which is all of them, now), mechanically. The Sorcerer's a particularly egregious example, though, because if you go back two eds to it's origin, it sure looked like it was created soley as a vehicle to introduce spontaneous casting as an alternative to the much-criticized 'Vancian' model - an alternative that wasn't as utterly broken as the popular un-official spell-point/mana variants that proliferated back in the day. In a sense, it failed, because wizards &c never stopped memorizing/preparing spells, in another it succeeded wildly, since everyone now casts spontaneously in 5e. It's not required, it's at worst, perhaps, expected. It's a pat sort of game-design approach. Why is character A different from character B, because it uses mechanic X instead of mechanic Y. Prettymuch just the fact it existed in 3.0, really. It does mean the game is more complex than it might otherwise need to be, sure. But, 5e, at least, has avoided some of the fall-out for such needless complexity by holding the line and not introducing new classes, spells, and the like at a breakneck (or even slightly neck-bending) pace. 5e isn't adding a lot of new mechanics as it goes. It kinda just dumped them all in the PH, and is letting them ride. Psionics has taken years to roll out and still hasn't appeared in print, for instance. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do classes built for the 5E D&D *ENGINE* NEED sub-classes?
Top