Like all Star Wars saga edition classes, it's pretty versatile, but it manages what the warlord does, what a scholar would do, and adds a bit of non magical bard in for good measure. In a direct port, I would probably call it the Captain. It doesn't do the "almost a fighter" thing the warlord does, though. Mostly bc that is what multiclassing is for in saga. A class with a few subclasses could easily do it full justice
Sounds pretty reasonable.
Also, I still disagree with the idea of a subclass that replaces magic. IMO, it's much better done as a variant option that is separate from any other choice point, for most cases.
Just the opposite side of the coin we see with the EK & AT. We've already seen a spell-less ranger, a non-magical Paladin, devoted to a temporal cause like a king or nation or even philosophy could be an example. A Wizard Tradition that doesn't actually use magic would clearly be going too far, outside of an April Fool Stunt (Today, on UA, the Charlatan Tradition...)
I think you mean "multiclassed first level characters" as in a 1st level character that's half fighter, half rogue
Yes.
; but really, the notion that you're a full adventurer at level three fixes all that.
That's what I thought when the idea was floated during the playtest. 3rd is the new 1st, so you can have your classic fighter/cleric/magic-user at the start, you just 'start' at 3rd. Thing is, I've seen no real acceptance of the idea, and apprentice tier being 1-4 doesn't really point strongly to it, either. 3e had a variation that allowed you to be multiclassed even at 1st level, it wouldn't be too hard to come up with something to enhance the already-optional 5e MC rules to allow something of the kind.
Wild talents: should be possible on par with Magic Initiate. That is, way less powerful.
Yep.
Custom Priesthoods: Not sure they're ever going back to that idea. Choosing one god over another because the first one gives you a better weapon or spell sucks. Domains offer a bit of customization without having to deal with that, and way more customization in 5E than 3E after all.
Choose one domain sub-class vs choose 2 domains is less customization, IMHO, but not really the crux of the matter, which was a level of DM-driven customization possible in 2e. The DM could design priesthoods in considerable detail. This could be along the lines of a Sorcerer Origin that can be customized or the existing advice on creating custom backgrounds, a fill-in-the-blanks sub-class the DM uses as a Template for custom priesthoods. It was a very cool bit that 2e provided that we have only seen vestiges of since.
Fighters: Not sure 5E will ever go down the WoW path of separating "tank" and "dps".
For the most part, 5e doesn't pin down classes into any sort of strict combat function like that. For the most part. But it
does put fighters, barbarians & rogues squarely in the DPR box.
Thematic Sorcerers: I still have hope. I want metamagic free sorcerers but there I am not holding my breath.
I'm not sure what alternative would fill in for such a substantial chunk of sorcerer differentiation and capability.
Prestige Classes: I'm really wary against this. I just think the risks of imbalance makes it not worth it.
Imbalance is a non-issue in 5e, if you want balance in your campaign, you're going to have to use the available DM tools to impose it, whether you opt into an existing optional rule like feats, or a hypothetical one like PrCs.
The advantage of PrCs is that they can be setting-specific and tight concept, so it's easy for the DM to pick & choose and only bring in those that support the campaign.
I, too, would be wary of PrCs that exist only to fill in mechanical gaps, like flaws in MCing, as happened in 3e.
Are there really any prestige class concepts that can't be implemented through a subclass (with feat support)?
Of course. There are also some existing sub-classes, like the PDK, that would have made /more/ sense as PrCs.
Warlord: I'm certainly not on the Warlord barricades, but I don't see why it would break the game to have a Fighter who can hand out his attacks to others pretty much at will.
It'd be hard to break the fighter in any way other than pouring gasoline on it's DPR fire, at this point, sure. But, that's one notorious little thing the Warlord could do, you could also build a Warlord that never granted actions.
Complex Fighter: Not sure I see the point here. I mean, I understand some people want it, but I'm not sure it can or should be done (other than the "support fighter") within the paradigm of 5E.
'Complex fighter' is a bad shorthand, since the point isn't complexity, but the customization and flexibility that can be bought with even slightly increased complexity. The BM is an example of a 'more complex' fighter - more complex than the Champion, less complex than almost any other sub-class.
Construction & Siege: I definitely hope this becomes a book of its own, since I am generally not interested in downtime activities.
A big book of downtime activities would be kinda awesome, really.
High magic: please elaborate for us unfamiliar with what 1E considers high magic
5e calls back 1e magic items, a little, in the way that magic items make a character 'just better,' but it doesn't go so far in how common or arbitrarily powerful they could be - and it doesn't build in a need for them, like 'magic weapons to hit.' I was thinking a 'module' to go there, for DMs who wanted to.
Commoditized magic: do you mean Eberron take?
I suppose, since Eberron came out in the 3e era, but I mean the whole 3e take of expected wealth/level and making/buying magic items freely. It's kinda the opposite direction of the 1e version of high magic, in one way, in that items are not meant to be arbitrarily unique/powerful and entirely DM-bestowed, but primarily a player resource.
Epic level play: let me just say they need a high level play book (PC levels 15-20; CR levels 15-30) book first...
Fair 'nuff.
NPC classes: did you see Volo contains more of these?
Those are NPCs. NPC classes were a 3e thang that a DM could use to build somewhat less crazy complicated, and/or less adventure-oriented NPCs, or that players could use to give a PC some less-adventuring-oriented abilities. Backgrounds really kinda obviate the second use.
I just wish they took a leaf of that guy who made one-stop stat blocks. That is, if a monster has a spell, that spell is reproduced as a monster ability right there on the page. (Sorry can't remember the thread or the OP) An NPC like Archmage is way less useful unless you know all his spells by heart. And I don't.
That would be nice.
