Do you have any class? The class discussion thread (Paladins and Warlocks and Clerics, OH MY!!

[Oofta]

The only way a gnomish paladin could be the life of the party is if you stuffed him with candy and made him the pinata.

Yeah, I said it.

Maybe in your campaign. At least it would be AWESOME candy!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

While "champion" is not a bad term, but it's already used as a fighter subclass.

That could revert to Slayer, like it was in Essentials. Basically the same sub-class, anyway.

 

[Oofta]

That could revert to Slayer, like it was in Essentials. Basically the same sub-class, anyway.

Well, when you're given carte blanche to rewrite the PHB feel free. I'd disagree with "slayer" but ... meh. This is all just semantics and things that aren't going to change. I don't have a problem with "paladin" you'd rename it if you could.

Have a good one.

 

[Kurotowa]

Yes I see them as simplified generally less flexible 4e builds...

I see 5e subclasses as mechanically a crossbreed between 4e builds and 2e kits with a heavy dose of flavor from their godparent the 3e prestige class. They really are trying to steal the best ideas from all the previous editions and combine them together.

Does 5e pull it off without a hitch? Obviously not. New design tools never work perfectly the first time. Different classes skew the power budget allotment between class and subclass differently, and the ones that favor base class features leave the subclasses little space to work with. But overall I think the subclass design model works well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd disagree with "slayer" but ... meh. This is all just semantics ...

Slayer seems to fit the DPR-focused fighter sub-class better than Champion (champion of/to what/whom? How?). While Champion would fit pally archetypes pretty well. But, yeah, purely hypothetical & semantic.

 

[Garthanos]

I see 5e subclasses as mechanically a crossbreed between 4e builds and 2e kits with a heavy dose of flavor from their godparent the 3e prestige class. They really are trying to steal the best ideas from all the previous editions and combine them together.

Yeh the lack of flexibility means they can make "more" of them I suppose....
The starting after the initial training stage I took as a side effect of the fact that the training levels are inserted in front of the 4e actual builds. Not exactly prestige like. Themes (I was not actually thinking Themes worked but yeh not only are themes part of the 4e over complex multi-class system - the 5e subclasses do similar) and Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies seem to be evocative of those Prestiges. But then I am not familiar with kits. Themes were however fairly optional with only a minor capability enhancement

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Slayer seems to fit a young lady vampire killer.
In every generation, there is a chosen one ...

There's an article difference, though, in Essentials you could be a Slayer, she was the Slayer.

The more generic, equally accurate, 'Killer' doesn't seem too heroic, either.

And, actually, the archetype in question is as good at demolishing non-living foes, like constructs (or, y'know, doors, I guess), as it as at killing, damage being pretty fungible. So 'Destroyer' wouldn't be far off, either.

But then I am not familiar with kits. Themes were however fairly optional with only a minor capability enhancement

Kits were optional with only a minor capability enhancement (actually, the enhancement varied wildly from cosmetic to pretty significant).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*