Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 7662490" data-attributes="member: 2067">Pretty dang far, judging by the PHB! Among the things that might've been cause for new classes in 3e and 4e that are more like subclasses in 5e include..<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Different weapon, armor, or skill proficiencies (5e example: valor bard). Just because you wear different armor or use different weapons or have slightly different skill load-out from most other members of a class doesn't mean you get your own class - these can be subclass features. In 3e, having a different "silhouette" might mean you occupy a totally different class, but in 5e, classes are broader.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Different spell list (5e examples: cleric domains, wizard spells). Just because you call up shields of defense and ability enhancements instead of balls of fire and blasts of cold doesn't mean you are a totally different class. In 4e, each class had its own unique list of powers, but in 5e, clerics can learn fireball. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Different combat or adventuring role (5e examaple: paladins). Just because you are more of a striker than a defender or more of an explorer than a speaker doesn't mean you aren't the same class. 3e and 4e (4e at a more refined level) both had concepts of the one thing a class was supposed to do well, and characters who didn't do that one thing didn't fit in that class comfortably. In 5e, there's significantly more customization within one class. </li> </ul>That's not a complete list, but it's kind of a LOT in comparison to most of D&D for the last 15 years! One of the things that does fall outside of that purview: 5e is good with making new classes for story reasons. In AD&D, if magic was in your soul or you formed a pact with a demon or learned it in an academy, you'd still be a magic-user - 5e is cool with those being separate classes. 2e explicitly called out barbarians as fighters with a particular set of arms and armor, and assassins as anyone who kills for money - 5e has a higher granularity than that. Of course, bard is a horrible fit from a story perspective. Artificers don't master the words of creation and pull magic out of beauty. They presumably learn their features as a trade, with knowledge and specialized training -- which is much closer to what the wizard does. It'd make more sense from a story perspective to just loot a few bard mechanics/spells and put 'em into the chassis of, say, the Wizard. That said, perhaps we look at this from a different angle: maybe artificers are a subclass of a general "Magewright" class. Artificers, alchemists, golem-makers, gnomish tinkers, dwarven armigers, elven arrow-fletchers...perhaps rather than a wizard subclass, we say that that "makes magic stuff" is as distinct from "learns magic in tomes" as "learns magic from a patron" is! I don't know that it is, but I think it'd be interesting to design that class and find out what that might look like. These are pretty narrow archetypes with a lot of overlap and also archetypes that wizards have comfortably held in every edition up to 4e. Heck, lots of classes in 5e can already fill this role, assuming magic item crafting is turned "on" and the DM just introduces a homunculus.</blockquote>

Verification