Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7101242" data-attributes="member: 20323">[MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION] I've discussed this topic with you before, and from what I recall we have very different views about D&D and we agreed to disagree. You embrace the <s>"empty calorie"</s> "agnostically informative" subclass design / class-as-mechanics-not-identity philosophy. OTOH, I embrace the "recognizable archetype" subclass design / class-as-an-identity philosophy. So, with both of us understanding our fundamental division being what it is and unlikely to change...Either I've been unclear or you've misunderstood. The reason I think the "CORE FOUR" classes all merit more subclasses is because those classes – cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard – encompass the greatest breadth of concepts. There are many types of wizard, fighter, etc. Whereas paladin, ranger, monk, and so forth encompass a narrower band of concepts due to specific flavor in those classes. It's absolutely NOT numbers for the sake of blind numerical symmetry.What IS important to me is the radically different priority the designers gave to "many subclasses for clerics & wizards." For example, I could easily imagine a wizard with just 3 subclasses (apologies for the rudimentary names): Blaster, Controller, and Scholar. That differentiates three major ways wizards are played mechanically. Looking back to AD&D and 3e and 4e (heck the entire history of D&D), specialization was essentially a sidebar, a completely optional thing. One design choice is to make specialization mandatorily baked into the class, and that's what they did, but it's pretty clear that's not the ONLY choice they had. And when they did make that choice, they baked in plenty of flavor into how a Diviner differs from an Evoker, for example – their introductory flavor text hints at how a Diviner occupies a different societal role (vizier) than an Evoker (military). The Evoker's magic is construed toward fighting on a battlefield (Sculpt Spells), more on par with a warrior swinging a sword all day (Potent Cantrip), and as potentially dangerous to himself if pushing for maximum power (Overchannel). That is great example of a mechanics and narrative feedback loop. Compare the Diviner, whose magic is construed toward practicing in the long-term / taking long rests / making strange prognostications (Portent & Greater Portent), constantly drawing on minor divinations (Expert Divination), and seeing/understanding what isn't there or is concealed (The Third Eye).It's not just a specialization, like some throw-away sidebar. It's a very pronounced part of the character's identity.Yes, I can. You'll find the details and flavor over at <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?535057-The-Warrior" target="_blank">The Warrior</a>, but I'm just giving design snapshots here. To get into my homebrew too deeply here would be to throw this thread off track, but happy to discuss it in its dedicated thread. The specific subclasses I'm still working on – for example I'm contemplating a Swashbuckler and a Gladiator but haven't tackled those yet, and may cut the Weaponmaster and fold it into the core class. WIP, not enough time.But in brief...The Borderlands Guard is a heavily exploration focused take on the warrior. It's inspired by the Dúnedain of LotR and other non-magical ranger types like those found in The Black Company.The Cavalier is inspired by the AD&D class of the same name from Gary's original Unearthed Arcana.The Destined Hero archetype is inspired by young adult literature and is designed to be both simpler and more responsive to player creativity than the other archetypes. It’s a good fit for kids! It also draws on aspects of the 4e fighter as a defender.The Monster Slayer derives from a lot of video game archetypes ranging from Castlevania to Witcher. It also is inspired from modern fantasy roots of "man and his magic sword" stories like Elric of Melniboné, using an adaptation of legacy magic items (maybe that was 3e? can't remember edition).The Veteran is an adaptation of the original fighting-man found in Chainmail and the “little brown books” of OD&D. Inspired by early fantasy wargaming, its efficacy can be seen equally pitted against hordes or against a lone dragon.The Warlord combines aspects of the 4e Warlord and 3e Marshal with the OD&D/AD&D followers and strongholds style of play, offering a more holistic adaptation of the concept.The Weaponmaster merges the 3e feat-based customizable fighter with an adaptation of the old Weapon Specialization rules from AD&D/BD&D. Still figuring the design of this one out.Read more: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?535057-The-Warrior#ixzz4g8cyFQrT" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?535057-The-Warrior#ixzz4g8cyFQrT</a>Maybe that's another place where we differ. See, I find the distinction between Sorcerer and Wizard really weak because it's mainly mechanistic in nature. Yes, there's interesting flavor writing to the sorcerer but it barely plays out – IOW, the Sorcerer mechanics don't really evoke that flavor of "born of magic, magic in the veins" very well. I understand that players who were really into D&D during the 3e and 4e eras are more comfortable with purely mechanically differentiated classes, and there is a whole group of people who want to shift D&D towards a class-less or class-lite system. But the downside of that it creates a barrier to entry for new gamers.One of the reasons 5e has done so well with bringing new people to the game <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />, I think, is that the designers reduced many of those barriers. It's much more of a "what you see is what you get" edition focused on story first. But there are holdouts of the 3e/4e mechanistic way of thinking, and Sorcerer/Wizard & Champion/Battle Master are prime examples.I hope my example of the Diviner and Evoker above illustrated how, yes, the spell school specializations are about technique, but ALSO there is implied narrative identity attached to both the flavor text and how the subclass features express in actual play. That was a design choice they made.They could do the same for the fighter's fighting styles, for example, turning "Great Weapon Fighter" into a subclass and attaching additional flavor to it, making them sound like Gregor Clegane or The Hound from GoT. Why I think they didn't do that, as opposed to the spell schools where they did do that, is because you can more easily think of Great Weapon Fighters who don't fit the mold of The Hound...because the fighter is based in reality more, or at least something we can relate to more. That's why fighting styles don't make good sub-classes – because they are just expressions of a specialization/technique, rather than an expression of a character.You like how the PHB Fighter subclasses aren't limited in scope to specific concepts.What about other classes in the PHB? Do you like how the Rogue subclasses are more limited in scope? Do you feel there's a design mandate for some classes to have subclasses based upon specialization/technique whereas others are based on a more focused narrative concept? If so, which classes fit on which side of the equation and why?</blockquote>

Verification