D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[Remathilis]

For those complaining about Druids, Monks, Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers and Bards not being subclasses, or going even farther and complaining about how Rogues and Clerics aren't subclasses. Remember that there needs to be a balance between "tradition" in D&D and "going forward" in D&D. If something wasn't a base class in a core product for 3 editions of the game, then it's not likely on the list of classes that are in. Keep in mind that the 1e classes Assassin and Illusionist also didn't make the list of classes that are in. But they exist as subclasses in some form.

But that being said I certainly feel that more of the former classes should be more spread out as subclasses of the classes beyond the "main 4".

I've had a lurking fear that since its inception, the "FOUR CLASSES AND NO MORE" proponents were going to eat all the classes in the name of "simplicity". They've already eaten the sorcerer, warlock, warlord, assassin, and specialist wizard/specialty priest, and I'm suspecting the "mage/wizardry/illusionist" method of constructing classes might not be a test balloon for a fighter/paladin/cavalier or a rogue/thief/burglar.

I really wonder if we won't lose paladin, druid, bard, ranger, monk, and barbarian as separate classes after all...

 

[Savage Wombat]

I've been wondering if, at this point, Ranger shouldn't be moved to a rogue subclass. It's skill and agility based, right?

 

[Warbringer]

I really wonder if we won't lose paladin, druid, bard, ranger, monk, and barbarian as separate classes after all...

If sub-classes are to carry the load (or carry the baggage as the case may be), keeping this legacy classes as classes is redundant,

No?

 

[Kobold Avenger]

If sub-classes are to carry the load (or carry the baggage as the case may be), keeping this legacy classes as classes is redundant,

No?

Wrong, there's a point where tradition and moving on are balanced. 10 classes is fine enough.

 

[Weather Report]

Seems like a cross between 2nd (groupings) and 3rd Ed (separate classes); great.

 

[Warbringer]

Wrong, there's a point where tradition and moving on are balanced. 10 classes is fine enough.

At this stage, they seem to be surviving only because of legacy, and compromising decent game design.

But, I think you're right we may not see class compression beyond what we have.

-------------------------
(Note the post started "If" which is designed to engage conversation... not "I'm right, You'r wrong" statements)

 

[Warbringer]

Seems like a cross between 2nd (groupings) and 3rd Ed (separate classes); great.

How did the "groupings" work. Where these different from "kits"?

 

[MarkB]

I've been wondering if, at this point, Ranger shouldn't be moved to a rogue subclass. It's skill and agility based, right?

Sure, but it's traditionally also been a frontline fighting class, and had some spellcasting capability. It could as easily be a Fighter subclass alongside Paladin.

 

[Atomo]

How did the "groupings" work. Where these different from "kits"?

In the second edition, fighter, pally, and rangers were warriors. Mage, illusionist, evoker, abjurer, etc... were wizards. Clerics, specialist priests, druids (and later monks, shamans, and crusaders) were priests. Thieves and bards were rogues.

Each grouping followed similar mechanics: THAC0 (which in later editions would be attack bonus), type of items could use, saving throw values (later editions = save bonuses), attracted followers, hit points per level, etc... But each class inside a group had special considerations, more-or-less as subclasses have now in 5e.

 

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=60918]Atomo[/MENTION]

Thanks... We played 1e AD&D through most of the 2e period when we played D&D

So I see the similarities (apart from the martial crowd); I wonder why no return to this big 4.... Do you remember where psionics fell?