Let us assume...(More/'Nuthuh Class talk)

[steeldragons]

This should probably be a poll...but I can't really be bothered to figure out how to make one...or one that would be simple...so if someone wants to try to fork this thread/take that on, feel free!

Let us assume, for the purposes of this thread, that the makers of 5e/Next/Dnd:TNG have decided, that for the sake of page space, limiting option bloat, starter simplicity, etc...they are going with the "tiered" model of books (or boxed sets).

A Beginner/Adventuer, Expert/Champion, Master/Hero.

Let us also assume, that for the same reasons listed above, it is set in stone that there will be EIGHT (8) classes presented in the Beginner/Initially released material for the game.

Four of them are no-brainers and I wager would not warrant any argument:
Class (Prime Ability, "Power Base/Category", Caster or Non-caster, Warrior-combat strong/leaning or Expert-knowledge strong/leaning)

Fighter (Strength-based, "Martial", Non-caster, Warrior)
Thief (Dex-based, "Stealth", Non-caster, Expert)
Cleric (Wisdom-based, "Divine", Caster, Warrior)
Mage (Int-based, "Arcane", Caster, Expert)

Ok?...Ok.

What ONE (1) sub-class for each of these would you say make the cut?

Not to worry, all of your other options are coming out in the next installment/expert set/whatever you want to call it.

But what single sub-class for each of these 4 bases would you want to include/are the most archetypical to fill out the other 4 spaces?

The fighter seems, to me, to be the most problematic, since there are so many varying types of fantasy warrior. On the flip side, Druid seems the "no-brainer" for the cleric-sub.

I think I might go with something like the following:

Barbarian (as a nod to Conan's original impact/influence on the game: Str. & Con. Prime abilities, "Primal", Non-caster, Warrior)
Avenger (a less-evil sounding assassin/thug/batman-esque rogue: Str. & Dex. Prime abilities, "Martial", Non-caster, Expert)
Druid (Wis. & Con. Prime abilities, "Nature", Caster, Warrior)
Witch (Int. & Con. Prime abilities, "Nature", Caster, Expert)

End up with 4 distinct non-casting classes, 4 casting classes, and a taste of various different "power bases" (again assuming such a thing is to be incorporated in distinguishing class flavor).

Then the Expert level set can get into: Paladins (Divine), Rangers (Nature), Bards (also Nature, I hope), Theurgists (Divine), Shamans (Primal), Illustionists/Necromancers/etc...(Arcane), Warlords (Martial, I'm going to hope), etc. etc.

I think 8 at a time seems like a nice array of choices without getting too bogged down in options.

But what would you all think?

1 sub-class for each of the base 4. Go!

--SD

 

[Tallifer]

I do not think your prediction of the division of the books is likely.

Mearls has said very recently that the Wizards are very happy with their Starter Box for the Fourth Edition.

I think therefore that the Fifth Edition will open up with two opening books, just like Pathfinder: 1. a Starter Box with the minimal core of Essential Fighter, Vancian Wizard, AD&D Cleric and Essential Thief; 2. a huge Players' Handbook with several classes and several different kinds of class design.

The Players' Handbook could contain some mix like the following:

AEDU Fighter
AD&D Paladin
Essential Primal Ranger
Partly Essential Sorcerer
AEDU Wizard
Essential Barbarian
Bard
Druid
AEDU Warlord
Warlock
Shaman
Twin-weapon Drizzt (just call the class after him heh)

Edit: I misread your post. I thought you meant Tiers as in Heroic, Paragon, Epic. I think now you mean different tiers of complexity/different modules of rules expansions?

 

[steeldragons]

Twin-weapon Drizzt (just call the class after him heh)

Hahaha. Sure, why not. I'll play a "Drizzt" before a "Gish."

Edit: I misread your post. I thought you meant Tiers as in Heroic, Paragon, Epic. I think now you mean different tiers of complexity/different modules of rules expansions?

Yes. ...the latter, I mean. Like a BECM kind of set up. Here's how you get your foot in the door...now that you know what you're doing, you can add this and that...or that and this...and then you can include XYZ.

But the real point was what 4, and only 4, sub-classes to each of the 4 base would you want to see?

I suppose it doesn't have to be 1 for each base/classic class, though that makes logical, "balanced", easily packaged/presented sense to me...but no more than 4 all together.
--SD

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'll bite.

The problem as it stands right now is that there are NO applicable single "sub-classes", based upon how you've set up the four primary classes. You've selected four properties to distinguish those four primary classes (prime attribute, power source, caster/noncaster, warrior/expert) but left no spaces within the "grid" where an actual single sub-class makes sense.

To be an actual "sub-class"... there has to be a direct parent/child relationship between the primary class and sub-class beneath it. If there isn't a direct relationship... then what you have isn't really a "sub-class", but rather just another random primary class. Thus we have to ask ourselves, "Which of the four properties you've established for the primary classes are considered to be a true 'parent' of whatever sub-class is underneath it"?

I would suggest that the only two properties that 'parent' property could be are prime attribute or power source. The reason being... if you used caster/noncaster and warrior/expert as the 'parent' ability (as you did with your selection of sub-classes)... there are so many alternate options for power source that we'd go way beyond 1 sub-class each. For example:

Your Fighter's "parent properties" were 'Non-caster' and 'Warrior'. Your sub-class selection also was a 'non-caster' and 'warrior'. It stands to reason that any valid sub-classes should therefore be:

'Stealth' 'non-caster' 'warrior'
'Divine' 'non-caster' 'warrior' or
'Arcane' 'non-caster' 'warrior'

However, you weren't even able to do that... you ended up creating an entirely new fifth power source for your selection. Thus... using caster/noncaster and warrior/expert as parent properties are not effective. You are leaving too many logical sub-classes wide open.


The next option is to turn it around and use as a 'parent property' for your sub-class selection, just Power Source. Anything else does not make logical sense from a "sub-class" perspective. So in this regard... your property choices for the Fighter sub-class would be as follows:

Fighter - 'Martial' 'non-caster' 'warrior'
Sub-class - 'Martial' 'caster' 'warrior' or 'Martial' 'non-caster' 'expert'

This is much easier to choose. Of those two options... the most applicable choices would be Monk ('Martial' 'caster' 'warrior') or Warlord ('Martial' 'non-caster' 'expert').

To continue down the line:

Thief - 'Stealth' 'non-caster' 'expert'
Sub-class - 'Stealth' 'caster' 'expert' or 'Stealth' 'non-caster' 'warrior'

I would choose Assassin and Ranger for them.

Cleric - 'Divine' 'caster' 'warrior'
Sub-class - 'Divine' 'non-caster' 'warrior' or 'Divine' 'caster' 'expert'

I would choose Paladin and Invoker.

Mage - 'Arcane' 'caster' 'expert'
Sub-class - 'Arcane' 'non-caster' 'expert' or 'Arcane' 'caster' 'warrior'

I would choose Artificer and Swordmage.


But even at this point... we're still left with two sub-classes per power source... PLUS we're ignoring the entire fifth power source of Primal. What does that mean? It means that using the definition of "sub-class" to select the four remaining classes for the first book is a fool's errand. It doesn't work and doesn't make sense. Whatever you choose, they aren't "sub-classes". Not in any traditional or logical sense. Better to just choose eight popular classes randomly without categorizing them, because you're less apt to make illogical connections that way.

 

[Umbran]

I'm going to worry less about the specifics of your classification, and just suggest some classics:

Fighter - subclass either Paladin or Ranger
Thief - this is the difficult one. What sub-class to use depends on how they structure and focus the original class.
Cleric - subclass druid.
Mage - Subclass illusionist (and thus model other school-specializations)

Call me a traditionalist, I guess....

 

[TerraDave]

I am pretty sure...

There will be a PHB, a DMG, and a MM. They will have both the core, but also a lot of the key options. The hard call will be the "starter" set. Is it just that, or a fuller presentation of the core for those who only want that. (Note, there can still be more in the PHB on lower levels then higher levels, with higher level stuff later).

The classes in the PHB will be: Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard. Maybe Bard, and maybe specialist wizard or "priest". Assassin will probably come in through some other mechanic. Barbarians and Monks may, may be upfront, but if not, they will be classes later. Sorcerer or even Warlock could also be there, depending on how they do magic and present options for it.

 

[steeldragons]

I am pretty sure...

There will be a PHB, a DMG, and a MM. They will have both the core, but also a lot of the key options. The hard call will be the "starter" set. Is it just that, or a fuller presentation of the core for those who only want that. (Note, there can still be more in the PHB on lower levels then higher levels, with higher level stuff later).

Right....Which is why allll of this is, as stipulated in the beginnign post, but applicable to every 5e post, speculative.

The classes in the PHB will be: Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard. Maybe Bard, and maybe specialist wizard or "priest". Assassin will probably come in through some other mechanic. Barbarians and Monks may, may be upfront, but if not, they will be classes later. Sorcerer or even Warlock could also be there, depending on how they do magic and present options for it.

Right. Appreciate this....I do! But it doesn't answer the challenge posed by this thread.

I'm going to worry less about the specifics of your classification, and just suggest some classics:

Fighter - subclass either Paladin or Ranger
Thief - this is the difficult one. What sub-class to use depends on how they structure and focus the original class.
Cleric - subclass druid.
Mage - Subclass illusionist (and thus model other school-specializations)

Call me a traditionalist, I guess....

You're a traditionalist. Thank the gods I not the only one.

Good point on making Illusionist the mage sub-class to "pave the way" how other specialist schools can be done. I hadn't thought of that. Makes sense.

I'll bite.

Please do.

The problem as it stands right now is that there are NO applicable single "sub-classes", based upon how you've set up the four primary classes.

Hence the Shall-onge (read as "challenge" with a French accent. )

You've selected four properties to distinguish those four primary classes (prime attribute, power source, caster/noncaster, warrior/expert) but left no spaces within the "grid" where an actual single sub-class makes sense.

The "grid" is that you can have ONE sub-class. I know there are others....many, in fact. That can apply. I am asking for your preferences/favorites if you HAD to choose ONE.

To be an actual "sub-class"... there has to be a direct parent/child relationship between the primary class and sub-class beneath it. If there isn't a direct relationship... then what you have isn't really a "sub-class", but rather just another random primary class. Thus we have to ask ourselves, "Which of the four properties you've established for the primary classes are considered to be a true 'parent' of whatever sub-class is underneath it"?

A valid concern/question. And one, I am hopeful, the designers are giving thought to...but, again, not my point.

I would suggest that the only two properties that 'parent' property could be are prime attribute or power source. The reason being... if you used caster/noncaster and warrior/expert as the 'parent' ability (as you did with your selection of sub-classes)... there are so many alternate options for power source that we'd go way beyond 1 sub-class each.

Of course there are...Cuz there are! I'm asking what would you make "basic" and what could you live with holding off to later expansions of the game.

For example:

Your Fighter's "parent properties" were 'Non-caster' and 'Warrior'. Your sub-class selection also was a 'non-caster' and 'warrior'. It stands to reason that any valid sub-classes should therefore be:

'Stealth' 'non-caster' 'warrior'
'Divine' 'non-caster' 'warrior' or
'Arcane' 'non-caster' 'warrior'

Quite so. And those other classes to be added would come in later edition.

To use your breakdown, actually, I would change the "Avenger" to be the "Stealth, non-caster, warrior". "Divine, non-caster, warrior" is the Monk (far as I flavor them), "Arcane, non-caster, warrior"....I dunno...what archetype would that include? A "sword-sage" perhaps. Knowledgeable in the ways of magic and the combating of them without any actual spellcasting ability....intriguing concept, for me.

However, you weren't even able to do that... you ended up creating an entirely new fifth power source for your selection.

You say that with, what reads as, a great amount of accusation. Do you mean "Nature"? Seems to me that should have been a distinction from the start....but as this is a purely speculative thread about a purely speculative system that hasn't even been developed (as far as the public knows) yet. And I'm asking you to speculate. If you'd like my/how I would break down power "source" and prime abilities I can easily do that. That's not the point of this thread.

Thus... using caster/noncaster and warrior/expert as parent properties are not effective.

You mean, you do not see these breakdowns as valid/effective. Personally, I think D&D can improve, greatly, by taking this level of "balance" into account. Assassins don't need to use magic. Warlords don't have to be "experts" (or "warriors", depending on how you flavor/fluff them)

You are leaving too many logical sub-classes wide open.

No, I'm not. I am saying those will all come and are valid!

I am saying, since this seems to be going beyond lots of heads, IF YOU HAD TO CHOOSE ONE....you could only have ONE in the starter set, which one would you choose?! THAT'S the point, question and challenge of this thread.

The next option is to turn it around and use as a 'parent property' for your sub-class selection, just Power Source. Anything else does not make logical sense from a "sub-class" perspective. So in this regard... your property choices for the Fighter sub-class would be as follows:

Fighter - 'Martial' 'non-caster' 'warrior'
Sub-class - 'Martial' 'caster' 'warrior' or 'Martial' 'non-caster' 'expert'

This is much easier to choose. Of those two options... the most applicable choices would be Monk ('Martial' 'caster' 'warrior') or Warlord ('Martial' 'non-caster' 'expert').

Ok, now we're gettign to it. I, personally, would not see a Monk as a "caster" but that's your choice.

Warlord, I pretty much agree with.

To continue down the line:

Please do!

Thief - 'Stealth' 'non-caster' 'expert'
Sub-class - 'Stealth' 'caster' 'expert' or 'Stealth' 'non-caster' 'warrior'

I would choose Assassin and Ranger for them.

Good point. I would have flavored the Ranger as "Nature" myself. But "Stealth" works too.

"Assassin", as I stated in my opening post, is better branded as "Avenger." It doesn't have the "evil" connotations from previous editions and allows one to fabricate the "oh so desireable" archetype of a "Batman" type skill-monkey and fighter.

I also believe an "assassin" has no business being a "caster", but this is your list. So, please, continue...

Cleric - 'Divine' 'caster' 'warrior'
Sub-class - 'Divine' 'non-caster' 'warrior' or 'Divine' 'caster' 'expert'

I would choose Paladin and Invoker.

The Paladin, definitely. I would LOVE to see Paladins and Rangers OUT of the "caster" line. I really don't know anything about the "Invoker" class, but it sounds right.

Mage - 'Arcane' 'caster' 'expert'
Sub-class - 'Arcane' 'non-caster' 'expert' or 'Arcane' 'caster' 'warrior'

I would choose Artificer and Swordmage.

Perfect. Makes total sense.

But even at this point... we're still left with two sub-classes per power source... PLUS we're ignoring the entire fifth power source of Primal. What does that mean?

There's room for Barbarians and Shamans?

It means that using the definition of "sub-class" to select the four remaining classes for the first book is a fool's errand.

Due respect, Defcon (and I do respect you and your opinions/posts!) But ALL of these 5e/Next/TNG threads are "fool's errands". It is ALL speculation. It is ALL "what if" and "what I'd like to see".

I understand that lots of classes are available. I know that!

I'm saying "If you had to pick ONE what would it be?" That's all.

It doesn't work and doesn't make sense.

Makes total sense if you ask me. You were able to place a full 8 classes within those criteria. I'm not askign for 8. I'm asking for 4. So...what's more important to you, out of the box?...what's the more definitive archetype? What would you want to play with?

Whatever you choose, they aren't "sub-classes". Not in any traditional or logical sense. Better to just choose eight popular classes randomly without categorizing them, because you're less apt to make illogical connections that way.

This isn't about "logic" or "tradition"...well, ok, tradition in some ways, if that's how you (any poster) thinks. It's not what I'm after.

This was an entirely "wishful thinking", "let's assume this" completely speculative thread.

But thanks for posting anyway.
--SD

 

[DEFCON 1]

I absolutely understand everything you're saying and agree with most of your own personal opinions about the classes and which ones work, which ones don't, why some would be good or not good in the "starter 8" etc. etc. But the reason why I didn't just select 4 random classes as "sub-classes" was to get at the heart of how you were breaking things down.

I believe using the term "sub-class" in the way you were speaking of it, was a misnomer. In terms of what you seem to wanted to get at, the Barbarian, Avenger, Druid, and Witch aren't really "sub-classes". They're just classes. Just as primary as Fighter, Thief, Cleric, and Mage. And when you come at it from that position... that you aren't needing to come up with applicable sub-classes of the Fighter, Thief, Cleric, and Mage (because to do so is to make jumps, assumptions, and eliminations of classes just so they fit into some type of "sub-class" classification)... the selection ends up being much different.

Eight classes in the main book? Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Druid, Cleric, Paladin, Bard, Wizard. Simple, basic, and prototypical for most D&D players and games. Four power sources with two classes each (Fighter/Rogue Martial... Ranger/Druid Primal... Cleric/Paladin Divine... Bard/Wizard Arcane) and two classes per role (Fighter/Paladin defender... Rogue/Ranger striker... Cleric/Bard leader... Druid/Wizard controller). But the reason why I didn't offer this up originally is because I worked off the original premise you offered... which was that the Thief was its own power source and the 'parent' of any sub-class underneath it, and that those four properties were the basis for your four Primary class selections.

Basically it came down to me following your guidelines, coming up with an answer, and then saying why I didn't like what I came up with.

 

[kitsune9]

My other four would be paladin, barbarian, bard, and ranger.

 

[MarkChevallier]

Fighter subclass - Barbarian
Thief subclass - Tempted to say Thief-Acrobat. But instead, I'll say Ranger.
Cleric subclass - has to be Druid.
Magic User subclass - this is amongst the toughest. Is Illusionist really a subclass? It was in 1E, but I'm not sure it merits it. I'd probably say Sorceror - it was a good idea in 3E, and just needed a slightly better implementation.