D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[Mistwell]

4e has psions.

But it's not really a different class from the 3E wizard.

Well I could have commented on all the things in the world it's not much different from...but he asked me to compare a magic-user specially to a 4e wizard, and that's what I addressed. For the thing he specifically asked about, they're not that similar.

 

[Mistwell]

Barbarian is a class in 2nd Ed.

Barbarian has been a class in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Ed (as has Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger).

Wasn't bard in the appendix in the back of the PHB for 1e?

 

[Dausuul]

It was initially a fighter kit, but it was also a stand-alone class in the Complete Barbarian's Handbook. It was a very late 2e product.

Ah, my mistake. Even so, the fact that its first 2E incarnation was a fighter kit means there is precedent for making it a fighter variant instead of a stand-alone class.

Barbarian has been a class in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Ed (as has Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger).

But not in BD&D--people always seem to forget BD&D. And bard in 1E was not a stand-alone class; it was the equivalent of a prestige class.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Ah, my mistake. Even so, the fact that its first 2E incarnation was a fighter kit means there is precedent for making it a fighter variant instead of a stand-alone class.

I talk about this a bit in my article from last week, and about the tension overall in D&D between defining "class" as something purely mechanical, or as something more narrative. And the 2e movement from "it's a part of the Fighter class!" to "Okay, it's a variant fighter" to "Fine, it's its own class" mirrors the development of pretty much every other class, at one point or another.

It can be argued that in OD&D, if you wanted to play a barbarian, you ALSO played a Fighting-Man. At least until 1e introduced it as a class.

The thing I note in the article is that ultimately, I believe that the mechanics should support the story, which means that a class defined by story (and conflict) is going to be more useful than a class defined by a mechanical trick or broad rules similarity.

Which means that in my book, the Sorcerer and the Warlock and the Artificer should actually all be different classes, and have rules elements that support their different stories, rather than being lumped into Mage just because they all can use some version of charm person. The rogue and the bard and the paladin all can use SOME version of charm person (a skill check to make someone your friend isn't a dramatically different result than consuming a daily resource to make someone your friend or spending power points to make someone your friend), so the Mage "class" doesn't seem to be doing its job that well.

 

[steeldragons]

 

[I'm A Banana]

I love that visual!

My only question would be: what is the point of the four groups at the top? They're not equipment, or mechanics, or spellcasting, or role (adventure or combat), or "story"....they're sort of D&D tradition, which I guess might be enough?

Certainly paladins and bards and clerics and enchanters should all be able to access the same suite of abilities, even if some do it via skill checks and some do it via resource-spending and some do it via points and some do it via slots and some do it via building storehouses, or...

And why is the Barbarian at the same level as a "Fighter Style," and why is the Enchanter at one level higher than the Feylock? And where's my Assassin schemes and where's my Cavalier who focuses on archery from horseback?

...yeah, cool visual, but it points out the fact that this all seems really arbitrary.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

View attachment 58875

I could get behind this. It may not be perfect, but I like how it flows.

 

[steeldragons]

I love that visual!

My only question would be: what is the point of the four groups at the top? They're not equipment, or mechanics, or spellcasting, or role (adventure or combat), or "story"....they're sort of D&D tradition, which I guess might be enough?

I tend to think so.

Certainly paladins and bards and clerics and enchanters should all be able to access the same suite of abilities, even if some do it via skill checks and some do it via resource-spending and some do it via points and some do it via slots and some do it via building storehouses, or...

And why is the Barbarian at the same level as a "Fighter Style,"

?? It's not. It's its own class...with variant versions that are en par with a Fighter of a particular style. Or, there's "the default Barbarian" which is not the variant...is "within" the Fighter, but not a Fighter per se. See?

and why is the Enchanter at one level higher than the Feylock?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. An Enchanter would a Wizard Specialist with the Enchantment. A "Feylock" would be a Warlock with a Fairie Pact (I am assuming). So...they're pretty much at the same tier.

And where's my Assassin schemes

Well, since to be an Assassin would would be the assassin variant of the Rogue "meta-class", you get any of the schemes listed as Rogue schemes.

and where's my Cavalier who focuses on archery from horseback?

hmmm. Well, if I were writing this all up I would be permitting any of the classes beneath the traditional "Big 4" to choose from their own boxes or that of their "parent" class group. So you could be a Cavalier Paladin and take the Archer style. Or you could be Fighter and take the Mounted Expert (which presumably gives you your bonuses from horseback, regardless of what the weapon is). Or you could be a "Warrior Fighter" with the Knight style (let's say that's Style III on the above chart], put a lot of points into a Riding skill and Noble background...There's a buncha ways.

...yeah, cool visual, but it points out the fact that this all seems really arbitrary.

*shrug* I suppose it is...D&D kinda always has been...So it's giving the "legacy" and some way, or in certain cases multiple ways, to get to just about any concept they might want.

Now...if someone can't find something that they'd want to play or would rather argue about what's put where in connection to who with all of the possibilities on that page, then...I don't know what else to try to offer folks...cuz, really, some folks just like to hear themselves whine...and WotC shouldn't bother either.

 

[Remathilis]

Neat Graphic [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION], but I almost feel obligated to ask: to what purpose?

For a class to be a subclass of a core class, it has to share some common features. Lets just look at the current "Fighter" subclasses in your graphic.

A Fighter gets 3 attacks, d10 HD, All Weapons and Armor, and combat maneuvers.
A Barbarian gets 2 attacks, d12 HD, All Weapons but no heavy armor, and rage mechanics.
A Ranger gets 2 attacks, d10 HD, All Weapons and but no heavy armor, Spells, and Favored Enemy mechanics.
A Paladin gets 2 attacks, d10 HD, All Weapons and Armor, spells, and Holy Powers/Oaths.
A Monk gets 2 attacks, d8 HD, Limited Weapons, No Armor, and UNarmed/Ki abilities.

What, exactly, links these classes together aside from the fact they hit things with weapons? Not a whole lot. Different proficiencies, HD, abilities, and attacks. At least in the mage -> Wizard/sorcerer/warlock/psion area, they have the same HD, same weapons/armor, same class abilities etc. There is even less overlap between Cleric/Druid and Rogue/Bard; aside from some legacy issues, there is no need for these classes to silo back into the core four.

UNLESS

You plan on wildly gutting them to fit nicely into the skin of their parent class. For example, getting rid of paladin/ranger spells and giving them 3 attacks, or making monk and barbarian d10 HD classes. Likewise, if you're going to druids into just a Nature domain variant cleric (with shapechange their channel divinity) then I see little value in this.

Really, its just a burning desire to categorize everything. To say make Druids, Barbarians, and Bards into Clerics, Fighters, and Rogues of a different stripe. To be honest, I could even see Sorcerer and Warlock stand on their own as well. However, I cannot fathom the rationale to try and cram the other six classes into the remaining three classes.

 

[pemerton]

I believe that the mechanics should support the story

I don't think anyone would disagree with this, but I'm not sure what it means as a design principle. Eg suppose I'm designing a Glorantha game, does this slogan tell me I should aim for Runequest, or HeroWars?

What's an example of a mechanic that doesn't support the story?

where's my Cavalier who focuses on archery from horseback?

What does cavalier mean here, other than mounted warrior? In which case why is your guy who focuses on archery from horseback not an archer-ranger with a riding skill/feat?