D&D 5E Mage: Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Artificers, Psions, oh my.

[variant]

Ok, so now the personal attacks. Whatever.

Is the two-weapon fighter a sub-class of the fighter? Or is it an option?

Traditions for Mages (the core class) are an option for the class, not a sub-class. Sorcerers will have their option of bloodlines, but the bloodlines are not subclasses. Warlocks will have their option of Witchcraft, etc.

Telling you that you have no clue what you are talking about when you clearly do not is not insulting you. It is stating a fact.

Now I can't tell if you are just being obtuse or trolling.

 

[variant]

Yes. Though again, not sure what you mean by "system", other than mostly a fluff role playing explanation of how it is done and what it looks like, rather than a mechanical difference.

Nevertheless, this is how it's been done in almost all forms of D&D, each sub-class gets it's own spell access list.

A system meaning an entire mechanical system. Psions are going to have a power point system, Sorcerers a spell known system, the Artificer is going to have an artifice system, and the warlock is going to have some sort of at-will system. This is known by anyone who has watched the GenCon footage. The whole point of this setup is for them to modularize different spellcasting systems.

 

[Raunalyn]

Telling you that you have no clue what you are talking about when you clearly do not is not insulting you. It is stating a fact.

Now I can't tell if you are just being obtuse or trolling.

Once again, whatever. Potato, potahto. You call them sub-sub-classes, I call them options (and so does WoTC).

How about this? Let's boil things down again. I get that you're upset about the changes (that aren't really changes). I get that you don't think it's D&D. Fine.

But what you've failed to do (and miserably, I might add) is clarify why it isn't D&D when you have been given numerous examples from previous editions where they do the same thing.

 

[Raunalyn]

A system meaning an entire mechanical system. Psions are going to have a power point system, Sorcerers a spell known system, the Artificer is going to have an artifice system, and the warlock is going to have some sort of at-will system. This is known by anyone who has watched the GenCon footage. The whole point of this setup is for them to modularize different spellcasting systems.

Paladins were completely different mechanically from fighters in previous editions, even though they were a sub-class. Druid were completely different from Clerics, even though they were a sub-class. Illusionists in 1e were completely different mechanically from Wizards, even though they were a subclass.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Telling you that you have no clue what you are talking about when you clearly do not is not insulting you. It is stating a fact.

Now I can't tell if you are just being obtuse or trolling.

Actually, telling someone that they're ignorant IS insulting, and furthermore, so is saying that someone is "obtuse or trolling." This is far, far, far, far from constructive conversation, so this line of personal attacks needs to stop.

 

[n00bdragon]

They had their own class progression. Rogues received certain abilities at certain levels. Their abilities progressed and were gained differently for each class and sub class.

How am I being obtuse? I've presented well reasoned arguments that show that the changes being presented are really not that much different than they were in previous editions. I even boiled down your essential argument to the core of what you were arguing; that you didn't like what they were doing with the mage, therefore you didn't think it was D&D.

That was pretty much what you said, correct?

No one is saying subclasses can't have different abilities and the like. The point is the core material of "How tough of a dude are you and how well do you hit people"? stay the same. In 2e it didn't matter if you were a fighter, a ranger, or a paladin you used the exact same hit die, THAC0 table, and saving throw table. For priests it didn't matter if you were a cleric or a druid you use the same spell progression table. Etc and so on. That's what's being done here. They are saving "Okay, so here's the empty shell, the skeleton of a class if you will that has the hit points, attack bonuses, and spells per day of Squishy Man With Mystical Powers". What type of Squishy Man With Mystical Powers you are depends on what subclass you play. The default subclass is Wizard but they've neatly portioned off what parts of the overall Wizard belong to the Squishy Man With Mystical Powers skeleton and which come from him being a wizard specifically. The spell selection, methods of casting, stuff like that all comes from being a wizard. This is how every edition except 3e has done things and they do it for a good reason. It gives future designers something to build off of, a base point to jump from. If you balance the skeleton with the rest of the game and the skeleton is 50% of the character that means you've balanced 50% of the game before you even add in the rest of the class. I don't see why this is such a point of contention.

 

[Raunalyn]

No one is saying subclasses can't have different abilities and the like. The point is the core material of "How tough of a dude are you and how well do you hit people"? stay the same. In 2e it didn't matter if you were a fighter, a ranger, or a paladin you used the exact same hit die, THAC0 table, and saving throw table. For priests it didn't matter if you were a cleric or a druid you use the same spell progression table. Etc and so on. That's what's being done here. They are saving "Okay, so here's the empty shell, the skeleton of a class if you will that has the hit points, attack bonuses, and spells per day of Squishy Man With Mystical Powers". What type of Squishy Man With Mystical Powers you are depends on what subclass you play. The default subclass is Wizard but they've neatly portioned off what parts of the overall Wizard belong to the Squishy Man With Mystical Powers skeleton and which come from him being a wizard specifically. The spell selection, methods of casting, stuff like that all comes from being a wizard. This is how every edition except 3e has done things and they do it for a good reason. It gives future designers something to build off of, a base point to jump from. If you balance the skeleton with the rest of the game and the skeleton is 50% of the character that means you've balanced 50% of the game before you even add in the rest of the class. I don't see why this is such a point of contention.

I agree, I don't see why this is being contested. What you said is essentially the core of what I've been talking about. How is what they are wanting to do with the mages, fighters, rogues and clerics any different than what they were trying to do in previous editions? I'm trying to understand why someone would say that this isn't D&D.

 

[variant]

Once again, whatever. Potato, potahto. You call them sub-sub-classes, I call them options (and so does WoTC).

How about this? Let's boil things down again. I get that you're upset about the changes (that aren't really changes). I get that you don't think it's D&D. Fine.

But what you've failed to do (and miserably, I might add) is clarify why it isn't D&D when you have been given numerous examples from previous editions where they do the same thing.

I never once said subclasses weren't D&D. What you did was pick up on my reply to someone that was talking about grouping classes based on roles. That isn't D&D. I have been trying to ignore your harping on it because I have been trying to avoid an outright edition war in my thread.

 

[Raunalyn]

I never once said subclasses weren't D&D. What you did was pick up on my reply to someone that was talking about grouping classes based on roles. That isn't D&D. I have been trying to ignore your harping on it because I have been trying to avoid an outright edition war in my thread.

And you ignored how I said that roles are an essential core of D&D and how it was in previous editions. It was prevalent in 1e, 2e, not so much 3e (but it was there), and 4e. So, again, how is this not D&D?

 

[variant]

And you ignored how I said that roles are an essential core of D&D and how it was in previous editions. It was prevalent in 1e, 2e, not so much 3e (but it was there), and 4e. So, again, how is this not D&D?

Roles are not essential to the core of D&D at all. These 'roles' didn't exist until 4e.