D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[Falling Icicle]

The way I see it, something should be a subclass when it is just a minor variant of the main class and still shares the basic features of that class. A specialist wizard is still a wizard, as is a wizard of high sorcery, a dark sun defiler, etc. A shaman is just a variant druid. A totem barbarian is still a barbarian. A blackguard is just a paladin that serves dark powers. But is a warlock or psion really just a slightly different wizard? Hardly. You could say that about sorcerers, but not warlocks and especially not psions. They have pretty much nothing in common except that they use magic. A druid and cleric have far more in common than a wizard and psion do!

The main thing that should determine whether or not something should be a class or subclass is whether or not its concept is broad enough that it could have subclasses of its own. Warlocks and Psions clearly fit into that category. Warlocks have a variety of pacts, and as in 4e, they could include the binder as well. Psions have a variety of disciplines, not unlike specialty schools for wizards, plus the wilder and the other psionic classes introduced in 4e, like the ardent. Even sorcerers could very easily be their own class, with a variety of different bloodlines. Just because they were effectively just wizards that didn't prepare spells before doesn't mean they couldn't be designed well as their own class now.

 

[Li Shenron]

The way I see it, something should be a subclass when it is just a minor variant of the main class and still shares the basic features of that class. A specialist wizard is still a wizard, as is a wizard of high sorcery, a dark sun defiler, etc. A shaman is just a variant druid. A totem barbarian is still a barbarian. A blackguard is just a paladin that serves dark powers. But is a warlock or psion really just a slightly different wizard? Hardly. You could say that about sorcerers, but not warlocks and especially not psions. They have pretty much nothing in common except that they use magic. A druid and cleric have far more in common than a wizard and psion do!

The main thing that should determine whether or not something should be a class or subclass is whether or not its concept is broad enough that it could have subclasses of its own. Warlocks and Psions clearly fit into that category. Warlocks have a variety of pacts, and as in 4e, they could include the binder as well. Psions have a variety of disciplines, not unlike specialty schools for wizards, plus the wilder and the other psionic classes introduced in 4e, like the ardent. Even sorcerers could very easily be their own class, with a variety of different bloodlines. Just because they were effectively just wizards that didn't prepare spells before doesn't mean they couldn't be designed well as their own class now.

I agree with everything.

I think eventually the problem is that each of us has a different image of these classes, what they truly are.

For example, sometimes I feel like a Druid could really be a specialist Cleric of an old faith that doesn't worship gods. That could be the case IF you don't frame all Clerics to be "deity servants". But if you frame the Cleric class to be "she who gets magic powers from a deity" then Druid doesn't fit. I would be totally fine if Cleric was rebranded more generically as "religious figure with mystical powers" and then it would include the traditional single-deity cleric, the druid, servants of a whole pantheon, saints/mystics who serve a philosophical concept and new things. That superclass could also possibly include the Warlock, with which it would have in common the outside source of magic power (i.e. both Clerics and Warlocks don't study/understand their spells, and get them because of a "do-ut-des" with some otherwordly power); the difference is in the spell list and the old arcane/divine distinction that can be always argued*. The Cleric superclass could also have a feature similar to Mage Wizardry/Sorcery at 1st level, that would change the basic assumptions on how and why you get your powers, how they work, and what spell list you follow.

There are many ways to implement these kind of stuff, and there is always benefits and downsides, hence criticism, no matter what WotC does, but they have to pick something...

*some people see Arcane & Divine as very different things, some people see them as a feeble distinction because after all they are both magic, and besides traditionally having very different spell lists, always used the same mechanic (except details like armor interference); the same thing happens with Arcane & Psionics, there are gamers who strongly feel they are the same thing, and others who can't tolerate mixing them up

Anyway, the point you make about "concept breadth" is quite important. They definitely hinted that they want to make several Sorcerer Bloodlines at least, and Wizard subclasses (Arcane Traditions) are undoubtedly easier to proliferate than martial classes subclasses, so I would expect that even just the Wizard version of Mage will spawn the largest number of subclasses (or contend the record with Cleric domains).

---

I've said before that IMHO lumping all arcane casters under one class accomplishes nothing, it has no benefit. It's almost exclusively a different presentation of the same thing. Now they have to really think of what the two alternative presentations will deliver in terms of feeling, when someone cracks the PHB open...

1) Separate classes would look like each of them (Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock) gets an equal entry in the PHB, a picture, an iconic character (with the Basic game default subclass, e.g. Generalist Wizard, Draconic Sorcerer...), and a character advancement table that includes spells per day just like for the Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger.

2) One class to rule them all would look like its entry takes 3 times larger space in the PHB compared to other base classes, requires multiple iconic characters OR alternatively forgoes everybody except an iconic Wizard. The player will have to look at 2 character advancement tables simultaneously, one for the non-spells part, and another which is different each variant and has slots per level per day for Wizards, spell points for Sorcerers etc.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

In previous editions, have you ever considered why most DMs ban psionics for completely non-story, non-flavour mechanical reasons?

I'm pretty sure the most common excuse would be "Psionics are too complicated" along with "It's another system to learn, that I just don't want to look up all the time".

Somehow I think a Psion that uses telekinesis with access to reflavoured spells like Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Shield, Telekinesis and Wall of Force, with only a few new unique "spells" in some other books is probably something that's a lot easier for those DMs.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Also the differences from the 3e Sorcerer and the 3e Wizard aren't much beyond a slightly different spellcasting system. The similarity between 3e Sorcerer and 3e Wizard is far more narrow, than the similarity between 3e Barbarian and 3e Fighter.

 

[Sadrik]

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.

Rage came in 3e, Conan did not have rage. I agree with you that the two 2nd edition kits were not very good at all. For instance the berserker was a better "Barbarian" than the barbarian. This however does not speak to how it could be implemented as a subclass today in 5e. Your argument seems to be, because they made two poorly conceived kits in 2e, that informs any other implementations of the barbarian as a subclass or any other implementations of a monk.

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.

I think you have blinded yourself to the reality, they occupy similar design space in all editions. They mostly fight with weapons in combat and they use skills outside combat. This is the same thing a fighter does, it is just remixed differently.

 

[Gilbetron]

I think you have blinded yourself to the reality, they occupy similar design space in all editions. They mostly fight with weapons in combat and they use skills outside combat. This is the same thing a fighter does, it is just remixed differently.

Blinkblink ... what?

Create an AD&D fighter and thief, compare them, then get back to me. Even in 3E where the rogue has 4x, at least, the skill points of a fighter, this isn't the case. Only if you squint until your vision blurs out nearly to blindness can you say that. Even in 4E, where everyone was made to be a combatant, it's not the case. Just because you can make a fighter-ish Rogue or a rogue-ish Fighter doesn't mean they occupy the same design space, just that the system is nice and flexible.

 

[Remathilis]

Rage came in 3e, Conan did not have rage. I agree with you that the two 2nd edition kits were not very good at all. For instance the berserker was a better "Barbarian" than the barbarian. This however does not speak to how it could be implemented as a subclass today in 5e. Your argument seems to be, because they made two poorly conceived kits in 2e, that informs any other implementations of the barbarian as a subclass or any other implementations of a monk.

No. My argument is that both classes have unique mechanics that require careful balance to work or else they end up either broken or weak. Rather than trying to cram them into Fighter or Cleric, they can be best realized with specially balanced classes and their own subclasses. That said, I might be able to see a rageless barbarian-like subclass for fighter.

I think you have blinded yourself to the reality, they occupy similar design space in all editions. They mostly fight with weapons in combat and they use skills outside combat. This is the same thing a fighter does, it is just remixed differently.

What. What! WHAT!?!?

I guess if you play them as toe-to-toe hacking machines whose only goal is to deliver 2-6 sneak attacks per round, then yes they are the same design space. Thankfully, D&D has never treated the rogue as a fighter. Rogues have lower HD, slower attack bonus, lighter armor and smaller weapons, and 4 times as many skill points and 1/3 as many feats. Before that, thieves had 8 unique skills fighters could not replicate including the use of magic scrolls. Totally the same.

By your logic, a cleric and a wizard occupy the same design space; they use their spells primarily inside and outside of combat. They are just remixed differently.

But go ahead and believe they're the same. I'm just glad the D&D Next designers don't share your "vision."

 

[Greg K]

Rage came in 3e, Conan did not have rage. I agree with you that the two 2nd edition kits were not very good at all. For instance the berserker was a better "Barbarian" than the barbarian.

There were several barbarian kits in 2e and the berserker was only a better "Barbarian" if one automatically equates barbarian with berserker. Personally, I am not a fan of that approach that became official with WOTC.

 

[gyor]

The way I see it, something should be a subclass when it is just a minor variant of the main class and still shares the basic features of that class. A specialist wizard is still a wizard, as is a wizard of high sorcery, a dark sun defiler, etc. A shaman is just a variant druid. A totem barbarian is still a barbarian. A blackguard is just a paladin that serves dark powers. But is a warlock or psion really just a slightly different wizard? Hardly. You could say that about sorcerers, but not warlocks and especially not psions. They have pretty much nothing in common except that they use magic. A druid and cleric have far more in common than a wizard and psion do!

The main thing that should determine whether or not something should be a class or subclass is whether or not its concept is broad enough that it could have subclasses of its own. Warlocks and Psions clearly fit into that category. Warlocks have a variety of pacts, and as in 4e, they could include the binder as well. Psions have a variety of disciplines, not unlike specialty schools for wizards, plus the wilder and the other psionic classes introduced in 4e, like the ardent. Even sorcerers could very easily be their own class, with a variety of different bloodlines. Just because they were effectively just wizards that didn't prepare spells before doesn't mean they couldn't be designed well as their own class now.

I can point out that both Cavalier and Blackguard had subclasses of thier own, virtues in the case of the cavalier and vices in case of the Blackguard during 4e so by your defination they should both be classes. Not attacking or agreeing with your position, just thought I'd point that out as a point if curiousity.

 

[Sadrik]

No. My argument is that both classes have unique mechanics that require careful balance to work or else they end up either broken or weak. Rather than trying to cram them into Fighter or Cleric, they can be best realized with specially balanced classes and their own subclasses. That said, I might be able to see a rageless barbarian-like subclass for fighter.

I hear your complaint about trying to cram carefully balanced mechanics into a sub-class or class. I agree. That said though I would like the designers to holistically look at the overall system that they have built with the classes and go one way or another and not have weird exceptions. Here we have this mage class with a bunch of classes in it and we took the time to carefully balance all of the sublasses in it. Then we have this barbarian where we could not be bothered to consider all of the ramifications and decided to leave it as its own class because idk! Muti-classing... we want people to multi-class into the class as a separate and equal class. They just need to look at the big picture.

What. What! WHAT!?!?

I guess if you play them as toe-to-toe hacking machines whose only goal is to deliver 2-6 sneak attacks per round, then yes they are the same design space. Thankfully, D&D has never treated the rogue as a fighter. Rogues have lower HD, slower attack bonus, lighter armor and smaller weapons, and 4 times as many skill points and 1/3 as many feats. Before that, thieves had 8 unique skills fighters could not replicate including the use of magic scrolls. Totally the same.

By your logic, a cleric and a wizard occupy the same design space; they use their spells primarily inside and outside of combat. They are just remixed differently.

But go ahead and believe they're the same. I'm just glad the D&D Next designers don't share your "vision."

I do believe that we differ quite a bit on this point. I do not believe rogues are toe to toe hacking machines, I believe that is the role of the fighter (and barbarian, lol). I believe that rogues are melee combatants who specialize in tricks to gain an advantage. I also strongly believe that each class should overlap somewhat into combat and somewhat into exploration and somewhat into social stuff. I think if they do not, you run the risk of people sitting back and feeling useless in certain areas. Rogues for instance should not cede combat to other classes. That is a poor option.

And yes clerics and wizards do occupy the same design space...