D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[Mistwell]

I loved Basic D&D. It's the edition I probably played the most.

But it's not really comparable to this discussion. Elf, for example, was a class. Dwarf, Halfling, these are classes. That's cool for that game, but the class system was simply a different animal entirely.

 

[TwoSix]

Let's recall where all this started, which was the argument that if sorceror and wizard and psion and warlock are going to be a single class, there is no sane reason to keep fighter and barbarian and paladin and ranger separate, or cleric and druid, or bard and rogue. So far, the only counterargument anyone has yet mounted is "Fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger/cleric/druid/rogue/bard have always been separate classes." This is a pretty weak reed to start with. Sorceror, psion(icist), and warlock have been separate classes as long as they've existed, and each has at least two editions' worth of tradition backing it up at this point. So you're reduced to arguing that the other classes have a better claim because they've been separate classes in every edition. But that's not true either. So now it's that 3-4 editions is enough but 2-3 isn't?

I don't think it's possible (or really worthwhile) to boil this argument down to mathematical proofs and pedantic history. The design team has already decided that Next will have a small group of iconic "classes" with the mechanics and specific flavor pushed down into "subclasses." What will end up being "classes" is going to be based on their gut feeling of what gives the best spread of flavor and mechanical differentiation while still representing the iconic classes of D&D.

They've decided not to go with a core 4 arrangement, nor an arrangement of a class for every class that has been in the PHB. We don't know their rationale for not making those choices, but we have to assume they have a compelling one. (Even if we don't agree with it.) I'm assuming the reason is that they feel that the niche of paladin and ranger is farther from fighter than warlock and psion are from mage. It may even be that the long history and relative iconicness of the paladin and ranger are leading to that decision, even if it doesn't make logical sense. Or it may be that they feel paladin and ranger have more story hooks and possibility of mechanical hooks within their framework. I don't fault that decision, and I'm starting to come around to it.

 

[the Jester]

My point is that it's not a stand-alone class; every 1E bard started out as a fighter or a thief.

Yes, but... there was a very well-received base class bard that made it into Best of Dragon vol. 2 and saw pretty widespread use (at least in my area). Obviously, that's not quite the same as an official bard base class, but it's a reasonably close facsimile.

Said BoDv2 also had a superior alternate version of the monk in it that also seemed to get a lot of use in my area.

 

[Balesir]

Of course it's different. If you're going to say, "These classes have been in every edition of D&D," any counterexample must, by definition, have a different class setup. You can't just exclude it from consideration because it contradicts you.

Oh, shoot - I thought that was the whole trick of debating here on the internetz...

 

[Weather Report]

I could just as easily say that you're clinging, transparently and daftly, to the insistence that BD&D doesn't count.

Let's recall where all this started, which was the argument that if sorceror and wizard and psion and warlock are going to be a single class, there is no sane reason to keep fighter and barbarian and paladin and ranger separate, or cleric and druid, or bard and rogue. So far, the only counterargument anyone has yet mounted is "Fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger/cleric/druid/rogue/bard have always been separate classes." This is a pretty weak reed to start with. Sorceror, psion(icist), and warlock have been separate classes as long as they've existed, and each has at least two editions' worth of tradition backing it up at this point. So you're reduced to arguing that the other classes have a better claim because they've been separate classes in every edition. But that's not true either. So now it's that 3-4 editions is enough but 2-3 isn't?

It seems you have a Warlock fetish...

Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger have all been classes in a PHB, Warlock has been a class in one PHB, deal with it (it may be rough at first, but I think you will eventually come to acceptance).

Oh, and what Mistwell said.

 

[Weather Report]

I don't think it's possible (or really worthwhile) to boil this argument down to mathematical proofs and pedantic history. The design team has already decided that Next will have a small group of iconic "classes" with the mechanics and specific flavor pushed down into "subclasses." What will end up being "classes" is going to be based on their gut feeling of what gives the best spread of flavor and mechanical differentiation while still representing the iconic classes of D&D.

They've decided not to go with a core 4 arrangement, nor an arrangement of a class for every class that has been in the PHB. We don't know their rationale for not making those choices, but we have to assume they have a compelling one. (Even if we don't agree with it.) I'm assuming the reason is that they feel that the niche of paladin and ranger is farther from fighter than warlock and psion are from mage. It may even be that the long history and relative iconicness of the paladin and ranger are leading to that decision, even if it doesn't make logical sense. Or it may be that they feel paladin and ranger have more story hooks and possibility of mechanical hooks within their framework. I don't fault that decision, and I'm starting to come around to it.

Very well said, and I agree.

 

[TheWriterFantastic™]

It seems you have a Warlock fetish...

Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger have all been classes in a PHB, Warlock has been a class in one PHB, deal with it (it may be rough at first, but I think you will eventually come to acceptance).

Oh, and what Mistwell said.

In addition, there's already a precedent for Warlock just being another casting style for Mage -- Spells & Magic, from AD&D 2e.

 

[Weather Report]

In addition, there's already a precedent for Warlock just being another casting style for Mage -- Spells & Magic, from AD&D 2e.

Exactly, Necromancer, Sorcerer, Warlock, etc, are just synonyms for Wizard (and are named class levels in 1st Ed for the Magic-User).

 

[DEFCON 1]

Considering nobody has any idea what the other traditions besides Wizardry even look like under the 'Mage' class... I'm at a loss as to how anyone can still be debating it.

You're arguing for and against things that don't even exist. Wait until the new packet shows up so you can actually understand what having Wizard, Warlock, and Sorcerer under the heading of 'Mage' actually means before getting this bent out of shape over it.

 

[Dausuul]

It seems you have a Warlock fetish...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.