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
L&L: 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="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6126342" data-attributes="member: 6688937"><p>I totally understand. I would point out that gamers have been successfully dealing with this kind of ambiguity for a long time. I don't think it was a big deal for people in 3rd to understand that the Wizard is an expert at arcane matters while not being an "Expert" class member, and I don't think it would present much trouble for future gamers. Nor am I particularly wedded to these names that I came up with off the top of my head.</p><p></p><p>Your last paragraph strikes upon the heart of the matter. If "Necromancer" is a wizard subclass, then it tells me "who I am" as well as "what my tactics are". Which, I think, rather limits Necromancers for in-world concepts, and forces a lot of "re-flavoring" on a lot of groups. I don't think there's any particular problem with letting mechanic A tell me "who I am" and mechanic B tell me "about my tactics". The Basic game, for those easily confused newbies, doesn't need to consider any of these as choices. </p><p></p><p>Personally, I'm not a big fan of all these predefined fiddly bits anyway, in part because this very problem is unavoidable when you create lists of pre-defined fiddly bits. I'm okay with a system that had open-ended descriptors adjudicated at-table. Then we skip the whole business. Unfortunately, I figure we are doomed to lists of fiddly bits because:</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">WotC/D&D needs to sell splat, which is hard(er) to do with an freeform system.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Organized (and possibly Computerized) play requires a more pre-defined uniform system.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Its harder to consistently convey a world to inexperienced players (which ties into the other two.)</li> </ul><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />I'm not sure what you're trying to say here vis-a-vis the naming of subclasses.</p><p></p><p>However, IMO, an optimal D&D system would handle a Necromancer Fighter and a Gladiator Wizard by putting the "Necromancer" and "Gladiator" parts in the Background. The player can then choose how much to weight the "Necromancer" vs "Fighter" parts through multiclassing. If all they want is come dark boney flavor, leave it at Necromancer background and get some bonuses on ability checks about Undead. If they want some actual wizardly ability, take a level or two of Wizard and the associated magical tricks. This works especially well with the "apprentice" levels as discussed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 6126342, member: 6688937"] I totally understand. I would point out that gamers have been successfully dealing with this kind of ambiguity for a long time. I don't think it was a big deal for people in 3rd to understand that the Wizard is an expert at arcane matters while not being an "Expert" class member, and I don't think it would present much trouble for future gamers. Nor am I particularly wedded to these names that I came up with off the top of my head. Your last paragraph strikes upon the heart of the matter. If "Necromancer" is a wizard subclass, then it tells me "who I am" as well as "what my tactics are". Which, I think, rather limits Necromancers for in-world concepts, and forces a lot of "re-flavoring" on a lot of groups. I don't think there's any particular problem with letting mechanic A tell me "who I am" and mechanic B tell me "about my tactics". The Basic game, for those easily confused newbies, doesn't need to consider any of these as choices. Personally, I'm not a big fan of all these predefined fiddly bits anyway, in part because this very problem is unavoidable when you create lists of pre-defined fiddly bits. I'm okay with a system that had open-ended descriptors adjudicated at-table. Then we skip the whole business. Unfortunately, I figure we are doomed to lists of fiddly bits because: [LIST] [*]WotC/D&D needs to sell splat, which is hard(er) to do with an freeform system. [*]Organized (and possibly Computerized) play requires a more pre-defined uniform system. [*]Its harder to consistently convey a world to inexperienced players (which ties into the other two.) [/LIST] :confused:I'm not sure what you're trying to say here vis-a-vis the naming of subclasses. However, IMO, an optimal D&D system would handle a Necromancer Fighter and a Gladiator Wizard by putting the "Necromancer" and "Gladiator" parts in the Background. The player can then choose how much to weight the "Necromancer" vs "Fighter" parts through multiclassing. If all they want is come dark boney flavor, leave it at Necromancer background and get some bonuses on ability checks about Undead. If they want some actual wizardly ability, take a level or two of Wizard and the associated magical tricks. This works especially well with the "apprentice" levels as discussed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
L&L: Subclasses
Top