D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[MoonSong]

I really don’t get the deal with everyone and the Mage class. Sure I can see calling it Magic-User but the rest of the arguments just sound hollow to me.


Mage = a person poorly trained in arms and armor, who is well versed in the arcane arts, and has low hit points. All the subclasses discussed fall under that umbrella with no issue.

The problem is this is a good fit for THE WIZARD, and a poor one for the other two:

Sorcerer = a person with some training in arms and armor, who is despite ignorance holds arcane power, is no alien to social interaction and has average hit points.

Warlock = a person trained in arms and some armor, who has arcane power borrowed from a patron, and has medium to high hit points.

 

[sidonunspa]

The problem is this is a good fit for THE WIZARD, and a poor one for the other two:

Sorcerer = a person with some training in arms and armor, who is despite ignorance holds arcane power, is no alien to social interaction and has average hit points.

Warlock = a person trained in arms and some armor, who has arcane power borrowed from a patron, and has medium to high hit points.

Your coming at it from 4e design...look at 3.5 specs had no armor training and as I recall just simple weapons.

Adjust your expectations and stick to the general concept.

Sorc: someone who wields magic though willpower and some inborn arcane gift.

Warlock: someone who wields arcane power by making deals with powerful patrons

 

[D'karr]

Now I have this picture of the Barbarian riding on a hireling's shoulders whose been made to wear a bunny suit. Thanks.

Master / Blaster!

 

[MoonSong]

Your coming at it from 4e design...look at 3.5 specs had no armor training and as I recall just simple weapons.

Adjust your expectations and stick to the general concept.

Sorc: someone who wields magic though willpower and some inborn arcane gift.

Warlock: someone who wields arcane power by making deals with powerful patrons

I said Some training, in 3.x. the full array of simple weapons still beats the six weapons a wizard has -and their prestige class in core was Melee oriented-, and in that same edition nothing stopped a sorcerer form being a moron who could barely speak and not having any training on scholarly skills and still be competent. A wizard would be completely crippled form the get go if he neglected them or if he dared to be as low as averagely smart, and the Warlock did have light armor proficiency, so no, not just a 4eism here.

 

[the Jester]

Uhh KaiiLurker, I think you're pretty off here. Now granted, I'm talking about a thin tradition of one edition pre-4e, but still.

Sorcerer = a person with some training in arms and armor,

Traditionally- by which I mean in 3e- no armor at all and only simply weapons.

who is despite ignorance holds arcane power,

I took "well-versed in the arcane arts" to mean "able to cast spells as a primary class feature".

is no alien to social interaction

and has average hit points.

I think the social interaction thing is outside of the definition of the mage under discussion here. In 3e, sorcerers have a d4 for hit points; not average by half.

Warlock = a person trained in arms and some armor, who has arcane power borrowed from a patron, and has medium to high hit points.

Traditionally (again, in 3e), warlocks had simple weapons only. And a d6 is far from "medium to high" hit points. And again, "Well-versed in the arcane arts" may not be the most accurate description, but "casts lots of spells" works (in effect, even if the mechanism is called "evocations" instead).

 

[MoonSong]

I took "well-versed in the arcane arts" to mean "able to cast spells as a primary class feature".

Yes on an ideal world. But the choice of words is wrong and "well-versed" has strong implications of being about knowledge and study. Again on an ideal world we can trust the designers to group all of that stuff into the wizardry feature, but guess what the Mage class is focused on? on features built around knowledge and study, leaving no room for the other styles that are specifically about not being that. They will fail to capture the essence of the sorcerer if the only thing they offer will be a Cha bloodline wizard with some other casting method but still saddled with the loads and loads of knowledge focused features that cannot be overridden by writing sorcery on your character sheet.-Because if you could there would be no point on them being the same class-

 

[the Jester]

Largely agreed.

Yes on an ideal world. But the choice of words is wrong and "well-versed" has strong implications of being about knowledge and study. Again on an ideal world we can trust the designers to group all of that stuff into the wizardry feature...

Actually, I suspect we'll see a split here with options for wizardry, sorcerer, warlock pacts, etc. all being mage types, each with distinct subclasses and class charts. I bet that the current "Mage" chart is actually "Mage/Wizard", and that we'll see some variance with the other caster types.

 

[MoonSong]

Largely agreed.



Actually, I suspect we'll see a split here with options for wizardry, sorcerer, warlock pacts, etc. all being mage types, each with distinct subclasses and class charts. I bet that the current "Mage" chart is actually "Mage/Wizard", and that we'll see some variance with the other caster types.

Not much hope here, specially when Mearls has already said he was quite ok with all warlocks and sorcerers writing scrolls and making potions. It seems as if the designers haven't quite realized sorcerer and warlock are very different beasts than the wizard and their players demand a different kind of support from what wizard players want.

 

[Remathilis]

So the inclusion of the barbarian and monk as full classes… 2nd edition got this right, they turned them into kits. I feel the same thing should happen here too. There is no need to separate out a barbarian from a fighter. There just is not. Both are trying to do virtually the same thing. The monk is just a fighter who can punch instead of use a weapon or if you wanted to make them more mystical you could make them a caster, and even best have a monk casting methodology (see my thoughts below on this).

Ironically, the barbarian and monk kits are two of the WORST examples of how to build a kit in 2nd edition. They captured none of the flavor of the 1e classes nor did they actually DO anything valuable on their own right. Its no wonder the barbarian returned in the Complete Barbarian's Handbook and the monk in both Spells & Magic (as a cleric/fighter hybrid) and again in Scarlet Brotherhood (in its traditional form).

I think the problem is that rage and martial arts are very unique systems and require special balance to make it work. I might give a barbarian being a kinda fighter subclass, but monk (as its defined classically in D&D) has too many magical and unique abilities to really just a fighter type.

Fighter (warrior extra feats/ability boosts)
Rogue (warrior special extra background)
Ranger (warrior / natural caster)
Paladin (warrior / divine caster)
Bard (warrior / arcane caster)
Mage (arcane caster)
Cleric (divine caster)
Druid (natural caster)

Barbarian (warrior ???)
Monk (warrior ???)

Note I am using the term warrior for non-caster, realizing there are differences in type. Those differences as I see them are Fighter more Str based and front line and Rogue more Dex based special tricks but not front line.

I've never gotten the desire to lump rogue with fighter. They are not even remotely close in any edition of D&D. Rogues are not, nor should be, "warriors". They should be about skills and more skills, and sneak attack spike damage while being slightly squishy.

Aside from using blades and not casting the spells, rogues should have nothing in common with fighters.

 

[Dausuul]

Fighter = a person well versed in arms and armor, who is very skilled in a melee, and has good hit points. All subclasses must fall into this, barbarians clearly do not.

Barbarian = a person who knows how to use a few weapons with brute force and furry, his furry carries him through a melee, and he relies on adrenalin instead of armor.

Oh, come on. You're straining to find a sharp difference between fighter and barbarian, that sets them apart more clearly than wizard and sorceror, and there just isn't one. The differences (rage versus feats, medium versus heavy armor) are no greater than those between the sorceror and the wizard (spontaneous versus prepared casting, innate spells versus spellbook, simple weapons versus wizard weapons, Charisma versus Intelligence). If sorceror and wizard are to be the same class, fine, but then fighters and barbarians deserve the same treatment.

And nothing will ever reconcile me to psion being merged into the mage class. Psionics is not magic. If psion is going to be merged into a core class, it should become a subclass of monk.