Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
Feat progression? Hit Dice? Base Proficiencies? A convenient way to say "you can't fully multiclass between Wizard and Psion?" That's all that I can think of.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity
- Thread starter gyor
- Start date
Feat progression? Hit Dice? Base Proficiencies? A convenient way to say "you can't fully multiclass between Wizard and Psion?" That's all that I can think of.
sidonunspa
First Post
Umm Looking at the current playtest packet it's not..
the character would still be a fighter (gladiator) as far as stats and advancement.. but RP wise the player played it as a duelist and the GM understands that character never fought in the games.
Li Shenron
Legend
To me these don't sound like reasonable game design targets. Why would the designers want two characters to have the same feats progression? Should we merge all d10 classes into one?
Feat progressions by the way they are an aftermath. The designers are not really wanting one class to get 4 feats and another to get 5, the resulting progressions are such because first they set the key class features (e.g. spellcasting progression), then they add some cool unique single-level features, and only after doing this they look at the results and think "hey the Paladin needs a little boost, let's give her 1-2 more feats" or "there's a blank level here and we're out of good ideas, so feat!".
Hit dice and base proficiencies don't even have to be the same for different arcane casters. They can be, but don't have to. In 3e there were groups house ruling the Sorcerer to d6 HD because they pictured them being tougher that wizards. The designers instead opted for giving them more proficiencies, for some reason.
I'm not saying that these should be different, but neither they should be the same. There is no "should". Framing them all under the same class, freezes some design options. OTOH I have the feeling that there will be Mage subclasses granting a larger HD or more proficiencies (other classes subclasses do that).
Round and around, it always goes back to the original point, that making a single arcane class only to use subclasses to differentiate is just pointless. It doesn't change anything. I can live with this, but it yields this squinted perspective of having a giant Mage class and 9 narrow classes. At which point, I almost hope they remove the 8 schools, leave just a couple of them, so that the Mage class shrinks down a bit.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
HD
Hit Points
Attack Bonus
Casting DC formula
Weapon Proficiencies
Armor Proficiencies
Ability/Feat increases
Levels at which you get a new class ability
Probably implement rules
Multiclassing Restrictions
I am probably forgetting a few things, but that seems like plenty to justify a category. And as I posted earlier with the Psion point system, you could even use the main Mage spell slot chart for all sorts of things which multiply or add off that chart, which provides a certain balance and organizational benefit.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
All I meant was that there aren't as many....flavorful(?) names to remember to re-skin on the fly, or recall their "real" names to look up. Or maybe its just that the names don't seem as flavor-connected as the other WotC editions (They still have time to change that, though.) "Combat Superiority" brings with it a lot more stuff with a lot less fluff baggage than the "Five Winds Sweeping Leap of the Cloud Dragon Temple" kind of thing we saw from 3e's Tome of Battle through 4e. Additionally, its (so far) organized in a way that is easy enough to reference without constantly smacking you with fluff that may not be "real" in your game. (I suppose they still have time to change that, too.) That's all.
I'm all in favor of re-fluffing and re-skinning.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
Subclasses are predefined specialties for characters, PCs and NPCs. Of course Classes are too. Think of a million years ago. There were probably no tribal classes to be in. Most members learned what everyone else did. There was a lot to learn, but most people could focus on it all. Later we had a few classes: hunter, gatherer, farmer? medicine man? chief? fire bearer? And so classes grew, but there was still a good bit of overlap.
Class overlap allows the game to be playable as a team game, electively cooperative while not requiring everyone to be the same. Classes are specialties already existent in the starting culture; subclasses are highly specialized classes. Core classes allow for far greater customization by the player through play. A subclass allows for less, it's part of being so specialized. However, even a subclass of a core class typically has abilities better than those from a completely different core class. Think of an osteopath and an architect tending to sword wounds after a battle. She might be all about bones, but it's still in her wheelhouse. The architect would be better at designing a wheelhouse.
At some point in history it became possible for a select group of people to be trained warriors. Knowledge and practices were collected, shared, tested and tried and the most successful won out. In the standard D&D setting, groups of warriors past specialized and began training unique types of warriors: Paladins and Rangers. Are these the only types possible? No. Can you stop being a Ranger or a Paladin and become a Fighter again? Of course. Can you specialize while playing a Fighter? Try not to.
At higher level, perhaps after enough divergence, can you declare yourself a specialist type, an Outrider or Cavalier or whatever and train the specialty to others? I'd say that's why you have henchman following you.
Class overlap allows the game to be playable as a team game, electively cooperative while not requiring everyone to be the same. Classes are specialties already existent in the starting culture; subclasses are highly specialized classes. Core classes allow for far greater customization by the player through play. A subclass allows for less, it's part of being so specialized. However, even a subclass of a core class typically has abilities better than those from a completely different core class. Think of an osteopath and an architect tending to sword wounds after a battle. She might be all about bones, but it's still in her wheelhouse. The architect would be better at designing a wheelhouse.
At some point in history it became possible for a select group of people to be trained warriors. Knowledge and practices were collected, shared, tested and tried and the most successful won out. In the standard D&D setting, groups of warriors past specialized and began training unique types of warriors: Paladins and Rangers. Are these the only types possible? No. Can you stop being a Ranger or a Paladin and become a Fighter again? Of course. Can you specialize while playing a Fighter? Try not to.
At higher level, perhaps after enough divergence, can you declare yourself a specialist type, an Outrider or Cavalier or whatever and train the specialty to others? I'd say that's why you have henchman following you.
Jan van Leyden
Adventurer
Well, when did the necessity for such changes become a hallmark of good game design? As long as this question isn't answered, I stand by my assessment.
And please refrain from shedding doubt on my creativity, especially when discussing game design decisions.
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
In regard to flavorful titles and generic titles for subclasses, I'm not sure we need a strict adherence to one or the other. I'll agree that Gladiator isn't a good name for the complex fighter option, because it's too narrow. A gladiator subclass should focus on showmanship alongside combat prowess. The complex fighter should be a student of forms, stances, and maneuvers. The correct term is martial artist, but that has eastern connotations.
Remathilis
Legend
Tactician? Myrmidon?
tuxgeo
Adventurer
. . . for a "complex fighter" subclass:
Erm. "Tactician" is close, but "Myrmidon" is too ethnically Greek for general applicability.
I'm also afraid that "Champion" and "Stalwart" are too general for that usage.
I hope WotC manages to come up with something applicable in this regard. I'm not holding my breath about that, because sometimes it can take decades for these cross-cultural influences to sort themselves out.
(I'm thinking particularly about music here, where the traditional Greek bouzouki started replacing the Spanish guitar in Irish music in the 1960's, and still is keeping hold in the 2010's; but it's still not an inevitable replacement in all cases.)
Erm. "Tactician" is close, but "Myrmidon" is too ethnically Greek for general applicability.
I'm also afraid that "Champion" and "Stalwart" are too general for that usage.
I hope WotC manages to come up with something applicable in this regard. I'm not holding my breath about that, because sometimes it can take decades for these cross-cultural influences to sort themselves out.
(I'm thinking particularly about music here, where the traditional Greek bouzouki started replacing the Spanish guitar in Irish music in the 1960's, and still is keeping hold in the 2010's; but it's still not an inevitable replacement in all cases.)
Similar Threads
