D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[the Jester]

IDK about the witch, but I was thinking about what characters with psionic classes USED to be capable of and decided to dig out the last psionic character i ran in, which was a battlemind in 4e. For the sake of comparison, I'm looking at what she could do at level 12, which would be the equivalent of a level 8 character in 5e.

The psychic warrior in 5e is a fighter and consists mostly of fighter features, with a little bit of damage or defense at level 3 in the form of psychic armament along with mage hand, and strength of mind, which gives a ranged force attack with CC that you can use a few times a day.

My 4e psionic warrior at a similar point in character progress has around 17 powers just from class or paragon path.

Yes, but so would a 4e fighter. This isn't a really fair comparison.

I don't expect a 5e psionic class or subclass to have 17 features at level 8, and I'm not really looking to go back to that level of complexity. But, I really really would like to capture some of that flavor and a fighter subclass just doesn't have close to enough room to fit super powers in there.

Imagine a psionic fighter subclass built like the battlemaster, with maneuvers replaced by psionic abilities that you could choose from.

 

[Garthanos]

IDK about the witch, but I was thinking about what characters with psionic classes USED to be capable of and decided to dig out the last psionic character i ran in, which was a battlemind in 4e. For the sake of comparison, I'm looking at what she could do at level 12, which would be the equivalent of a level 8 character in 5e.

Hmmmm I tend to estimate conversion this way
level 1 4e character approximately analogous to a level 5, 5e character. Each 2 subsequent levels of 4e is 1 of 5e, so you can compare the level 12 4e character much better to an 11 level 5e character. This conversion is correct flavor wise and at level 5 at least kind of power wise. So I wouldn't compare to an 8th level. Not saying the specific character comparison you are doing is a ton better but a little a level 12 in 4e is in paragon tier a level 8 in 5e is still in heroic.

• Tier 1: Levels 1-4 - Local Heroes (pre-game apprentice tier )
• Tier 2: Levels 5-10 - Heroes of the Realm (Heroic tier 4e )
• Tier 3: Levels 11-16 - Masters of the Realm
  (Paragon 4e)
• Tier 4: Levels 17-20 - Masters of the World (Epic 4e)

 

[Laurefindel]

Many of the issues involving mechanics not following re-fluffing could have been solved if all subclass choices happen at level 1.

Having strong classes without much flavour until their archetypes provides it was a good idea. Delaying that choice to level 3 (for most classes) wasn’t without merits; it allowed for a progression toward spécialisation and good RP potential but in retrospect, all classes choosing their archetype from the get-go would have been more flexible. I believe many at WotC realised that too IIRC.

The psionic (or artificer for that matter) as a subset of wizard would have worked much better if that option was available from the top, and didn’t have to go through the wizard flavour before switching to something rather different at level 2

 

[Garthanos]

Well, if the current system can model the folkloric witch (e.g. fiend pact warlock for the medieval devil-worshiping trope, druid for the neopagan version, etc)- and I think it pretty well can- what are we after from a witch, if not the stuff that they've had from earlier editions of D&D?

As an aside, it seems like the witch is a great example of a concept that we can disagree over whether it should be a base class or not. I really don't see it, and obviously, some other folks really don't see it as possible to model with the current material.

Way much this... Witch is pretty damn good example of a broadly divergent archetype so broad its not at all one thing is it a druid? or warlock? or malediction invoker? (from 4e) or some wizard with a magic spell book and a familiar. ???? its a build it the way you like it character and we all know how we like it perhaps a bit different than each other.

 

[Einlanzer0]

The 4e witch was a wizard build.

It was not a wizard build. It was an alternate version of the wizard with very different flavor and features - not something that could be simulated by a subclass in 5e.

I will repeat two things I've already stated here:

"class bloat", to whatever degree it can be argued as an actual problem in 3x, is an irrational concern for 5e. The mere existence of the subclass system is enough to keep it from ever exploding out of control as, unlike 3.5 which lacked such a system, most concepts will be developed through subclasses. I would expect something like Pathfinder 1e, which periodically released new classes, but did so in a controlled way and only with concepts sufficiently broad to exist as full classes with lots of potential design space.

many class concepts work well as subclasses, but many do not and are worth developing as their own classes if they are to be developed at all for 5e. Psion is a prime example of this. If WotC wanted to do almost exclusively subclass developent, they should have done more to consolidate and redesign the base classes in the PHB than they did.

I have a list of homebrew classes that I use for my campaigns (made mostly by other people with some refinement by me), and they are all more unique and conceptually broader than the paladin and have multiple different subclasses - brawler, oracle, emergent, witch, marshal, shaman, hermetic, scholar. I'm looking forward to adding a Psion, whether official or not.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Many of the issues involving mechanics not following re-fluffing could have been solved if all subclass choices happen at level 1.

Having strong classes without much flavour until their archetypes provides it was a good idea. Delaying that choice to level 3 (for most classes) wasn’t without merits; it allowed for a progression toward spécialisation and good RP potential but in retrospect, all classes choosing their archetype from the get-go would have been more flexible. I believe many at WotC realised that too IIRC.

The psionic (or artificer for that matter) as a subset of wizard would have worked much better if that option was available from the top, and didn’t have to go through the wizard flavour before switching to something rather different at level 2

Sort of true, but it's not just a matter of when you select your subclass but also a matter of what features are part of the core class and what features are part of the subclass - which is kind of all over the place from class to class, with some classes getting more of their identity from their subclass (fighter, rogue) and some getting more of it from the parent class (wizard, cleric).

 

[the Jester]

It was not a wizard build. It was an alternate version of the wizard with very different flavor and features - not something that could be simulated by a subclass in 5e.

It absolutely was a wizard build. From Heroes of the Feywild:

The following section presents new powers for wizards with a strong Feywild theme, as well as a new wizard subclass, the witch.... A witch is a type of wizard, a class introduced in the Players Handbook.

Sure, they had some variant features and abilities, but their actual powers were all wizard powers, available to other wizards as well; and they could take existing wizard powers just like any other wizard could. Even some of the abilities that were built into the witch were available to other wizards- coven abilities, for example.

As to whether it could be simulated by a 5e subclass, I guess we have to disagree. I'm really not sure what you think they got that other wizards couldn't. Their starting class features included a familiar (check), cantrips (check), and a coven ability that any other wizard could choose if they desired.

They did get augury, I guess. But that is literally the only thing that they got that other wizards didn't. If you can't fit a single feature into a subclass, I don't even know what a subclass is for.

"class bloat", to whatever degree it can be argued as an actual problem in 3x, is an irrational concern for 5e. The mere existence of the subclass system is enough to keep it from ever exploding out of control as, unlike 3.5 which lacked such a system, most concepts will be developed through subclasses.

I answered this upthread already. I disagree strongly with the assumption that focusing on subclasses automatically prevents class bloat. It has so far, yes. I'd like to keep it that way, personally.

I would expect something like Pathfinder 1e, which periodically released new classes, but did so in a controlled way and only with concepts sufficiently broad to exist as full classes with lots of potential design space.

When I look over a list of the base classes in PF 1e, I have to say, a ton of those don't even come close to what I consider to be "concepts sufficiently broad to exist as full classes" that can't easily fit inside of existing base classes.

Alchemist? Sounds like an artificer subclass. Cavalier? Fighter. Gunslinger? Fighter, or possibly multiple subclasses for different classes. Inquisitor? Sounds like a cleric or paladin with an attitude. Magus? Really? Omdura? Isn't a divine warrior a paladin or maybe war cleric? Oracle? We have a divination wizard and knowledge priest already. Etcetera.

Now the shifter is a concept I can see as a base class. But that's the only one I am aware of that really fits my criteria for a base class. It's something that truly can't be done with existing classes.

many class concepts work well as subclasses, but many do not and are worth developing as their own classes if they are to be developed at all for 5e. Psion is a prime example of this.

I think the primary point of disagreement is that you think many concepts need or deserve development as base classes, while I think very few do.

That said, I'll repeat that I agree that the psion/psionicist needs and deserves a full class, but I also think that psionic subclasses will do the job for psychic warrior, soulknife, etc- in fact, I have had both of those built as fighter and monk subclasses for my campaign for a couple of years now.

If WotC wanted to do almost exclusively subclass development, they should have given that treatment to several of the base classes that would work as subclasses for the primary four.

Clearly, given the existence of the artificer and the UA mystic, they don't want to exclusively develop subclasses. But they definitely want to avoid class bloat, as evidenced by the fact that we've only seen one new full class since 5e launched.

I do agree that there are a couple of base classes that could easily be subclasses (especially the paladin and ranger). But tradition carried a lot of weight during the design process and playtest of 5e, and one of the lessons learned from 4e was, "Don't make the player base wait for a year or more to have the stuff that they're used to seeing in the Players Handbook." I think that the fact that e.g. rangers have been a base class in every edition of the game since 1e made it inevitable that it would see use as a base class in 5e. The witch, psion, shifter, etc. just didn't have that level of cachet.

 

[Einlanzer0]

I think the primary point of disagreement is that you think many concepts need or deserve development as base classes, while I think very few do.

I'm not even sure how true this is. It's not like I would care to have a list of 100 classes. In fact - I specifically pursued homebrew classes for concepts where I thought it was warranted - those listed in my edited post above. I doubt I'd ever care to have that many more. Although I kinda like the idea of at least 1 class unique to each campaign setting.

But a lot of this is just about self-limiting. For example, a lot of people think warlord is best as a subclass (at best), but there are numerous homebrew versions of it for 5e that show how easily it can be adapted into a full class that feels as different from the fighter or any other class as it did in 4e.

One of the questions I like to ask myself is "is this concept adapatable to different cultural environments across different campaign settings while still remaining conceptually unique among the existing classes." If the answer to that is yes, then it's easy to justify as a full class whether or not you care to see it as one. The Warlord is a good example of this. Some of the homebrew classes fit this notion better than some of the standard classes (such as brawler vs monk)

 

[Shardstone]

I agree that a lot of ideas can be developed really well as full base classes instead of sub-classes.

I do not agree that every class that can be developed well into a base class still shouldn't be a sub-class.

I think I could make compelling norse-inspired Rune cast with a skald, rune warrior, rune priest/enscriber sub-classes as a Wisdom-based gish half-caster. But I could also just make those into three different sub-classes and package them that way.

I'm blessed that I have the desire to make my own classes and sub-classes. Its a lot of work but I enjoy it (this is the blessing), so I keep making them. But not everyone has the desire to create game material that may or may not ever be used for free. On top of this is the stigma that unless WotC makes something, what I feel is about 70% of the gaming population will never play it. 3rd Party/Indie material and homebrew are both treated as "bad until proven otherwise" and are rarely used. So, I empathize with why people want more base classes. For some tables, I imagine its the only way certain ideas will ever get made.

But there is something nice about 5E and that is how curated it is. I like how sub-classes and classes require 70% approval or else face the axe. And I won't lie - there have been UA's before I wish made it. The Sorcerer UA's, the archivist, the Mystic, weapon feats, and more. But ultimately, a curated game is a higher quality game in my eyes. As long as everything meets the 70% requirement, I'm ok with it.

That doesn't mean I like everything that's been released. The alchemist is a very unfun to me and is not at all what I want an alchemist to do. But its been curated in, and the wider audience will like it, and so I begrudgingly come to accept it.

All this to say: what ultimately sucks the most is the attitude stated above that people just don't like non-WotC stuff added to the game.

People will tell you not to make a Witch class in a 3rd party or homebrew, it seems, just because it can, in theory, already be replicated. People will make sure that you know that your ideas don't deserve to be in the game, even if it is just for your table. Its weird to me because a lot of the arguments don't hold up under scrutiny.

For example, the Psion. Yes, it can be a <Insert class of choice here>. But a Ranger can be a Fighter. A Paladin can be a Fighter. A rogue, really, can be a Fighter too. As can a Monk. A Battle Smith. A Bladesinger.

But these things aren't fighters. They were given space to grow for two reasons:

1. They are compelling fantasy archetypes, making them perfect to explore in a Fantasy game.
2. They have a legacy rooted in older editions, thus making D&D self-referential.

The 2nd point is arguably more important to me. And because of that point, it proves that some classes deserve to be made into full-classes.

The Psion is one of those. It has a legacy. It has a shaky legacy, yes, and one that shows that clear improvement can be made, but it has a legacy as a standalone class just as the Ranger, Barbarian, Bard, and Paladin do. Just as the Sorcerer and Warlock and Monk and Druid. Always has the Psion been seen to stand alongside these things, more so than even the artificer. Because of that, and that alone, does the Psion deserve its own class.

The Witch? Maybe. I will admit the 5E Warlock has cannibalized a lot of the old witch class stuff from the 3.5/X era. But I've made my own Witch class, and I think the Witch can be a great addition, but is more likely to be seen in a 3rd party supplement, as will Shamans.

 

[the Jester]

But a lot of this is just about self-limiting. For example, a lot of people think warlord is best as a subclass (at best), but there are numerous homebrew versions of it for 5e that show how easily it can be adapted into a full class that feels as different from the fighter or any other class as it did in 4e.

Oh, the warlord! That's another example of what I think deserves to be a full class- in this case, because making it a subclass of fighter fails to allow the types of warlords that 4e enabled (specifically the archetype of the leader who doesn't use attacks himself but instead gives them all away- you really can't do that as a first level fighter).

One of the questions I like to ask myself is "is this concept adapatable to different cultural environments across different campaign settings while still remaining conceptually unique among the existing classes." If the answer to that is yes, then it's easy to justify as a full class whether or not you care to see it as one. The Warlord is a good example of this. Some of the homebrew classes fit this notion better than some of the standard classes (such as brawler vs monk)

See, and the brawler doesn't seem conceptually unique at all to me. It's a guy who fights unarmed- either a monk or a fighter or a multiclass of the two. I just don't think it's distinct enough. I think that your criteria for justifying a full class is far... looser?... than mine. Mine would require that it not be achievable with the existing classes and that it not be able to fit as a subclass under one or more of the existing classes. (And/or feats.)

So again, I think the difference in our perspective is one of degree.

This is a great discussion, by the way!