Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Big J Money" data-source="post: 7869748" data-attributes="member: 70533">I strongly disagree with the implication in your comment, here.  One does not need to like all of a brand's line of products in order for that game to be a good fit for them, nor does a DM need to "be on board" with every product or piece of officially licensed content in order to run a fun game session.  If I'm moderately happy with subclasses in the PHBook and don't wish to explore more of Wizards' subclasses in further products, that is an absolutely valid way to approach 5E or any pen and paper RPG.I'll unpack it a little, since it was hastily made.  It's actually not a controversial stance.  All I'm saying is that one of the pillars of the subclass system is to add tactical combat depth to each of the classes (strategic choice), much like the levelling mechanics in a CRPG (I used the CRPG analogy since CRPGs are all game with no back and forth roleplaying between DM and players, making them a "pure" example of this design principle at work).I was more intentionally hasty here because the OP already made this point.  What's lost is control over the campaign fiction, and this is where my comparison to 3rd edition comes in.  I recall the Arcane Archer.  Just like regular classes, subclasses add to the fiction of the setting's world.  In the era of 2E and before, typically what classes are represented in the Setting was a mix of the DMs creting their own settings or using a published Setting (ex. Forgotten Realms).  In 3rd edition Wizards changed that and started putting out these prestige classes that force a DM to decide whether to allow or forbid them.  What does a DM do when a player with a halfling comes to them telling them they have gained the Arcane Archer prestige class when they already have a culture in their campaign (let's say a special tribe of Wood Elves) that are reknown for casting magical effects on their arrows?  This isn't a prime example, because it could actually be worked out with planning.  Perhaps the halfling lived with these wood elves for a long period earlier in their life, or completed a major quest for them and earned a reward in terms of exclusive knowledge and training.  But for many DMs and players who take their campaigns seriously, when one of the players at the table wants to just "take the arcane archer prestige class" just because it's an option in their rulebook and they don't care about the fiction, this is a frustrating position to be in.From this position I see each subclass as being more or less a problem from this perspective, but the overall problem I have with the entire system is that it encourages (in my mind) players to go out and buy books because of these new shinies, without a care for how they might fit in a campaign.  Or maybe they do actually want to be one of these characters, but they don't really care that it makes no sense in the fiction already established in the campaign for their character to suddenly be a part of this new culture / organization / whatever.  Or, just as bad in my opinion, to not even care that classes and subclasses have an impact on the fiction and to pretend like it doesn't matter.I won't only be critical, here.  Subclasses "done right" in my eyes would look like this:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Any subclasses in more generic products would only map to already existing genre conventions in D&D, or be more generic fantasy archetypes that could reasonably fit into fantasy fiction anywhere (ex. gladiator)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Other more specialized fictional / cultural subclasses would be found in setting books</li> </ul>Fair point.  This is a case where coming into 5E from a long hiatus,  I have some assumptions from the past that sound they no longer hold.</blockquote>

Verification