Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
One thing I hate about the Sorcerer
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9302108" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Alright. What are the pros and cons of each approach?</p><p></p><p>Your few-but-broad-and-customizable path has as its main pro that it's <em>simple</em> (but there's a catch--more on that later). It keeps things constrained. Other benefits are a reduction of potential multiclass cheese, since you can't MC with a class you already have; efficiency of page space, and in general an economy of rules text (the amount of text required for a single class is usually far more than for multiple subclasses); and in particularly good implementations, a sort of common "language" of design.</p><p></p><p>What are the cons? Well, for one, as we've seen with 5e itself, classes tend to get flattened pretty dang hard because they can't pre-invest too much, otherwise they'd be stepping on subclass toes. This means classes tend to get stuck with really generic features, reducing the distinctive flavor of each class in most cases (Warlocks being a major exception): Action Surge, Arcane Recovery, Sneak Attack, etc. Conversely, subclasses are <em>really damn small</em>. As in, rarely more than 4-5 features in absolute sum, all of which must be small enough and light enough to fit within the chassis established by the overall class.</p><p></p><p>And that's where the "it's simple" has its catch: for it to really be customizable with meaningful depth, you have to smuggle back in the complexity <em>somewhere</em>. Otherwise, as [USER=63508]@Minigiant[/USER] just put it, you end up having to strip out the elements that make the things meaningfully distinct.</p><p></p><p>The main con that everyone and their brother brings up with having multiple classes, which you mocked with overweening hyperbole, is that having more basal classes means more stuff to learn. DMs have to learn more, players will feel they need to learn more in order to make a meaningful choice, designers need to factor in the combinatorial explosion of <em>à la carte</em> multiclassing, etc.</p><p></p><p>But if <em>slightly</em> more complexity is the price paid for having classes that are actually weighty, that actually <em>support</em> the flavor and gameplay-experience they're billed as offering, then I'm absolutely willing to pay it. And that's why I keep saying things like "an Eldritch Knight isn't a swordmage. It's a Fighter who moonlights as a weak Wizard." It doesn't deliver on the concept; at best, it weakly imitates it. And that's why we <em>keep getting</em> more "it's a spellcaster...who uses swords!" and "it's a fighter...who uses spells!" subclasses--because the fundamental, underlying desire is <em>not satisfied</em> by these weaksauce, inadequate echoes of the class concept folks want to see come to life.</p><p></p><p>And, to your "seven thousand different classes" hyperbole: I've already gone through and pared things down to a realistic number. I think D&D has in it somewhere between 18 and 24 distinct classes--generally falling closer to the middle of that range unless you get real particular, or start adding more obscure options like "monster" classes or similar. Not even double the number of classes present in 5e as it currently exists, at the absolute most--and possibly not even 50% more.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9302108, member: 6790260"] Alright. What are the pros and cons of each approach? Your few-but-broad-and-customizable path has as its main pro that it's [I]simple[/I] (but there's a catch--more on that later). It keeps things constrained. Other benefits are a reduction of potential multiclass cheese, since you can't MC with a class you already have; efficiency of page space, and in general an economy of rules text (the amount of text required for a single class is usually far more than for multiple subclasses); and in particularly good implementations, a sort of common "language" of design. What are the cons? Well, for one, as we've seen with 5e itself, classes tend to get flattened pretty dang hard because they can't pre-invest too much, otherwise they'd be stepping on subclass toes. This means classes tend to get stuck with really generic features, reducing the distinctive flavor of each class in most cases (Warlocks being a major exception): Action Surge, Arcane Recovery, Sneak Attack, etc. Conversely, subclasses are [I]really damn small[/I]. As in, rarely more than 4-5 features in absolute sum, all of which must be small enough and light enough to fit within the chassis established by the overall class. And that's where the "it's simple" has its catch: for it to really be customizable with meaningful depth, you have to smuggle back in the complexity [I]somewhere[/I]. Otherwise, as [USER=63508]@Minigiant[/USER] just put it, you end up having to strip out the elements that make the things meaningfully distinct. The main con that everyone and their brother brings up with having multiple classes, which you mocked with overweening hyperbole, is that having more basal classes means more stuff to learn. DMs have to learn more, players will feel they need to learn more in order to make a meaningful choice, designers need to factor in the combinatorial explosion of [I]à la carte[/I] multiclassing, etc. But if [I]slightly[/I] more complexity is the price paid for having classes that are actually weighty, that actually [I]support[/I] the flavor and gameplay-experience they're billed as offering, then I'm absolutely willing to pay it. And that's why I keep saying things like "an Eldritch Knight isn't a swordmage. It's a Fighter who moonlights as a weak Wizard." It doesn't deliver on the concept; at best, it weakly imitates it. And that's why we [I]keep getting[/I] more "it's a spellcaster...who uses swords!" and "it's a fighter...who uses spells!" subclasses--because the fundamental, underlying desire is [I]not satisfied[/I] by these weaksauce, inadequate echoes of the class concept folks want to see come to life. And, to your "seven thousand different classes" hyperbole: I've already gone through and pared things down to a realistic number. I think D&D has in it somewhere between 18 and 24 distinct classes--generally falling closer to the middle of that range unless you get real particular, or start adding more obscure options like "monster" classes or similar. Not even double the number of classes present in 5e as it currently exists, at the absolute most--and possibly not even 50% more. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
One thing I hate about the Sorcerer
Top