D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[Savage Wombat]

My theory is that they are trying to say "well, we couldn't balance the wizard against the fighter, but we can make sure the fighter is balanced against the paladin." So the DM is expected to balance the campaign so that all four class types participate equally, but doesn't have to worry about people saying the game favors druids over clerics.

 

[MoonSong]

There does exist at least one other possibility: they might be trying to address a compatibility issue more than a design issue.

And how removing the sorcerer social dimension and saddling him with scholarly flavor enhances compatibility?

 

[Dungeonosophy]

A list of subclasses which have appeared in WotC playtest packets, or which are mentioned in Wotc articles. Did I miss any?

Fighter
•Warrior
•Gladiator
•Hexblade
•Knight
•Samurai
•Scout
•Warlord
•Eldritch Knight
•Duelist

Cleric
•Life Domain (The Lifegiver)
•Light Domain (The Lightbringer)
•War Domain (The Warcaller)
•Death (The Reaper)
•Protection (The Protector)
•Magic (The Arcanist)
•Thunder, Lightning, and Storms (The Stormcaller)
•Trickery and Thieves (The Trickster)
•Knowledge Domain
•Nature Domain

Rogue
•Thief
•Assassin
•Shadowdancer
•Vagabond
•Treasure Hunter
•Rake

Mage
•Wizard (with specialists in each school of magic)
•Sorcerer
•Warlock
•Psion
•Artificer

Ranger
•Dragon Slayer
•Horde Breaker
•Giant Slayer
•Warden

Barbarian
•Berserker
•Totem Warrior

Druid
•Circle of the Land (Coast Druid, Desert Druid, Forest Druid, Grassland Druid, Mountain Druid, Swamp Druid, Tundra Druid)
•Circle of the Moon

Monk
•Path of Mercy
•Path of the Phoenix
•Path of Four Storms
•Path of Stone's Endurance
•Path of the Four Elements
•Path of the Open Hand

Paladin
•Oath of Devotion
•Blackguard

Bard
•College of Valour

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

Honestly, I would just prefer to have 40+ classes in core with new classes in each expansion and let customization be done through multiclassing. I know some would prefer it to be handled by feats, others want 4 main classes and some want a 10 classes with a lot of subclasses. I do think their current approach is the most likely to appeal to the broadest audience. I can live with subclasses, even if I don't get specialized Totem Warrior or Illusionist classes, it is acceptable to me.

I kind of wish there a bit of uniformity in approach, not near as standarized as 4e but the current system seems a bit haphazard. If the main class features and class math bonuses happened on odd levels with five subclass bonuses at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th and 18th level while Ability bonuses happened at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 20th level for every class, I think it would be a lot easier for the player to "eye" each class on its own merits and would help with multiclassing. I am not sure differing rates of subclass features and ability bonuses really brings anything to the table other than a lack of transparency.

 

[gyor]

A list of subclasses which have appeared in WotC playtest packets, or which are mentioned in Wotc articles. Did I miss any?

Fighter
•Warrior
•Gladiator
•Hexblade
•Knight
•Samurai
•Scout
•Warlord

Cleric
•Life Domain (The Lifegiver)
•Light Domain (The Lightbringer)
•War Domain (The Warcaller)
•Death (The Reaper)
•Protection (The Protector)
•Magic (The Arcanist)
•Thunder, Lightning, and Storms (The Stormcaller)
•Trickery and Thieves (The Trickster)
•Knowledge Domain
•Nature Domain

Rogue
•Thief
•Assassin
•Shadowdancer
•Vagabond

Mage
•Wizard (with specialists in each school of magic)
•Sorcerer
•Warlock
•Psion
•Artificer

Ranger
•Dragon Slayer
•Horde Breaker

Barbarian
•Berserker
•Totem Warrior

Druid
•Circle of the Land (CoastDruid, Desert Druid, Forest Druid, Grassland Druid, Mountain Druid,Swamp Druid, Tundra Druid)
•Circle of the Moon

Monk
•Path of Mercy
•Path of the Phoenix
•Path of Four Storms
•Path of Stone's Endurance
•Path of the Four Elements
•Path of the Open Hand (I didn't look to see if this is the new name for one of the earlier playtest paths)

Paladin
•Oath of Devotion
•others?

Bard

The Bard College of Valour

Paladin Blackguard, also had Warden, but that will shift to Ranger/Druid subclass.

Rogue had Treasure Hunter and Rake.

Ranger had Giant Slayer and will gain Warden.

 

[MarkB]

A list of subclasses which have appeared in WotC playtest packets, or which are mentioned in Wotc articles. Did I miss any?

According to the "GenCon Bound!" L&L which discusses multiclassing, there are a number of subclasses being developed for non-spellcasting classes which are designed to be used when multiclassing between them and a spellcasting class. The Eldritch Knight subclass, for the Fighter, is designed to augment a Fighter/Mage multiclass, while the Warden subclass, for the Ranger, works similarly for a Ranger/Druid multiclass.

 

[Patrick Lewis]

So i guess they'll give us the tools to create our own subclasses in a balanced way thus allowing for the most simplistic and complex styles of characters to play in the same game.....whats not to like? As this is a playtest its worth remembering that their will be alot more subclasses in the future and that those weve seen are their to test out certain ideas. Personally i like the way its going.

 

[sidonunspa]

Of course no one is stopping you from doing so; that's the beauty of RPGs that you can take what you want from a game and modify it for your needs. Nevertheless, mixing up game world stuff (gladiator as a type of character) and mechanical items (combat options of the gladiator subclass) in one character building block (gladiator subclass) is a bad move, IMHO.

Ummm you do know it's easy to ignore the gladiator name.... I can build a duelist type character using the gladiator, and say I'm a duelist...

I'm sure the GM and other players won't mind at all.

My god, when did creativity and the willingness to rename things to fit your world or character concept become such a taboo/alien concept?

 

[Ratskinner]

My god, when did creativity and the willingness to rename things to fit your world or character concept become such a taboo/alien concept?

I don't think its "taboo/alien", so much as "more difficult than it used to be." Just because of the way power/abilities etc. are organized, if nothing else. 5e may be different that way, tho.

 

[Dausuul]

If subclasses under the Mage class don't share the same casting mechanics, and I'm guessing they'll have different spell lists too, what the heck do they share? Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll? Those hardly seem like enough to hang an entire class's hat on, especially since they're poor fits for several of the proposed subclasses--they don't make a lot of sense for sorcerors or warlocks, and they don't make any sense at all for psions.

I just don't see the driving force behind this change. If they wanted to merge sorceror and wizard, I could sort of see that; the sorceror's original concept was a "natural wizard," drawing on innate power to do the same things wizards do with arcane formulae. (Or, in the words of one notable sorceror: "This magic is in my bones, not cribbed off of Magic for Dummies. And I can keep casting the same friggin' spell at you until you roll over and die.") So it would fit to have both classes under the same heading and using the same general structure... though at that point you have to wonder how barbarians, paladins, and rangers get away with having their own classes.

But warlocks? Psions? What's so all-fired important about being able to jam them into the Mage class? I see the argument for adding a hexblade subclass for fighters dabbling in pact magic, et cetera*. But these aren't the dabblers we're talking about here. These are the specialists, the guys who do nothing but draw on the power source in question. What's the point of having a class that's just an empty shell?

[SIZE=-2]*Except... wasn't multiclassing supposed to be able to do this? If you want to be a fighter who dabbles in pact magic, shouldn't you be able to do that by dipping a level in warlock? I guess we'll have to wait for the next packet to get an answer.[/SIZE]