Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Einlanzer0" data-source="post: 7860705" data-attributes="member: 6788934">So.... I've been feeling this for a while. While, granted, we got the Artificer in the Eberron book, there's been a long term dearth of new classes for 5e. Especially in light of the new UA, it really worries me that it appears to be because WotC thinks they can/should simply turn every new class concept into a subclass for one of the existing classes.I love subclasses, but I think that's a terrible approach, and it really needs to get called out as a problem IMO.First, it attempts to solve the (hypothetical) problem of class bloat by adding clutter within classes, which really doesn't make much sense. 5e already addresses class bloat as a potential problem by having subclasses at all, but when the theme or fantasy represented within a class starts to take you all over the place with subclass options, that's an indicator we've departed from "elegant" and landed at "sloppy". As a practical concern, this makes it more difficult for players to digest what their options really are. They have to reverse engineer a concept or go through a layered path-choosing process.Second, subclasses aren't multi-class friendly, so tying more and more class options to them inhibits the leveraging of multi-class rules to create a unique class concept. In other words, they result in less customization, not more.Third, there are numerous areas where it just doesn't really make thematic sense, either in terms of edition history/lore or in terms of verisimilitude. In these cases, what happens is the idea gets trapped into a set of existing class mechanics & flavor that feels arbitrary at best and cognitive dissonance causing at worst. I can easily get on board with Psychic Warrior being a subclass for Fighter - because it's a perfect use of the subclass system to expand options without class bloat. I cannot get on board with the base Psion being a "Wizarding tradition" because it is not. One of many reasons for this is the thematic need for psionics to exist as a full-enough system to potentially replace traditional magic in a more sci-fi setting based on precedents established in previous editions.Fourth, it just feels like a lazy way to develop the system that players have weirdly adopted as a good approach when it isn't (sort of a rationalizing-the-status-quo bias). If they had started with only 4 or 5 classes, this approach might have made the most sense, but they didn't & that ship has sailed. So drawing a line now and de-emphasizing classes in favor of subclasses is starting to make the whole edition feel sloppily executed.The bottom line is that if the concept that you're imagining is a.) very interesting, and b.) broad enough that you can easily mentally conjure many different subtypes within that class, there is no reason to not take the time to develop it into a full class instead of band-aiding it as a nonsensical subclass tacked on to an arbitrarily chosen class. My personal favorite examples of this are the witch and the shaman, but there are tons of others.</blockquote>

Verification