Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6173709" data-attributes="member: 6689464">All 3.x wizards needed to be trained in Knowledge arcana and spellcraft in order to work at all, sorcerers and warlocks didn't but could do so if they wanted, this was good because the academic flavor was only a possibility, but your sorcerer or warlock could come from anywhere and be developped as anything, no mandatory wizard college or studying on the dark tower. 4e stuck all arcane classes with mandatory Arcana training, this wasn't so bad because like I said it wasn't only academic knowledge, but also covered some minor forms of spellcasting, and it was still completely possible to avoid it by building as an hybrid. 5e so far has gone beyond mandatory knowledge on how magic works (Esoteric Knowledge) it also assumes every sorcerer and warlock has actually trained on wizard college or studied in the dark tower  This is a misconception, the original basic booklets only had three  classes, but they quickly grow out beyond that number, by the very  first supplement there were more than 6. Then when Basic itself came out  it had seven classes, and first edition had eleven. So no, no edition  of d&d has only had 4 classes. (Second edition had 4 CLASS GROUPS  not Classes) Sublcasses in 1st edition were pretty tame, they didn't limit anything, their main use was to recycle saving throw and to-hit charts which if I have to guess were cumbersome to print over and over, so it made sense to have only five of them. (And because they were on the DMG). Likewise second edition didn't have subclasses, just class groups, those shared only saving throw, Thaco and proficiency progressions, but each class had it's own features and xp table. and it is a big lie that paladins and rangers were subclasses of fighter, they all were full classes under the WARRIOR group, just like thieves and bards were under the ROUGE group, or Druids, clerics and specialty priests under the PRIEST group   3rd edition stopped using subclasses, because they had stopped meaning anything, the simplified to hit and saving throw progressions coupled with the universal xp chart made it possible for each class to have those numbers printed on their table, suddenly the only function they had was to stop similar classes from multiclassing with each other, so doing away with them was a good measure. This isn't about being caught up with titles, but also comes from more pragmatic reasons, (like increased complexity, reduced customizability, hidnered flavor, reduced power -sorcerers and warlocks will be very weak if stuck on the same feat schedule as wizards-). It would be simpler if they just made sorcerers and warlocks their own classes with a feat progression tailored to cover their weaknesses (which the wizards don't share), features tailored to their flavor and the just use some keywords, or put a disclaimer saying that they can use all wizard magic items that work for them. (And again 3.0 wizards and sorcerers weren't the same, not quite close, they didn't even played the same, beyond they casting the same spells -and this is a stretch, because sorcerers normally refrained from highly situational spells unless they focussed all other resources into mundane utility-, stop repeating it like some kind of mantra, they weren't even the same archetype)</blockquote>

Verification