Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8699980" data-attributes="member: 6790260">In general, I have no disagreement with this analysis, within the "there are pure classes and composite classes" assumption.But the fact that you have to be quite so handwavy with it, admitting that the fits are "more or less" but lean closer to "less than more," is what makes me not particularly enthusiastic about the pure/composite distinction.For instance, this would imply that either Barbarian is a subtype of Monk, or Monk is a subtype of Barbarian, because they share the Unarmored Defense feature, yet I don't think anyone is keen to put the two of them in the same category. You could even argue that Rage and Ki are at least conceptually similar like how FoB/Open Hand are at least conceptually similar to Sneak Attack. Further, you draw a connection (again, one I do not dispute if we assume the pure/composite distinction) between Monk and Rogue on the basis of Unarmored Defense...which is not something Rogues get, so the features don't even need to do the same thing to qualify as a connection.All of which is to say, the very idea of "composite" classes kinda starts to come apart at the seams if you analyze it, but analyzing it is necessary to give a serious answer to the thread's question.Of course, 5e was not designed with my preferred model in mind, Role+Source, so that analysis isn't super useful either in this case, but we can sort of muddle our way through nonetheless. Spoiler-blocked because kind of off topic.[SPOILER="Digression I can't bring myself to delete"]Bard, Artificer, Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock are all Arcane classes, that really hasn't changed compared to 4e (nor, indeed, to 3e.) The only 4e Arcane class that isn't present is Swordmage, and it's pretty clear the designers felt that gap, because every arcane class except Sorcerer has a sword-fighting subclass.* Likewise, Cleric and Paladin remain Divine classes, though Cleric has sort of soft-absorbed the 4e Invoker and Paladin has allegedly absorbed the Avenger (read: not actually did so at all, the Avenger has been straight-up deleted in literally all but name.) Druid is clearly still Primal, even though Primal has been nominally folded back into "divine" magic again; Barbarian is a bit of an outlier as it retains some Primal elements but not enough to have proverbially "committed to the bit." Ranger, likewise, remains in a sort of no-man's land between Primal and Martial, which is where it was back in 4e anyway so again no real change there. Monk was an odd man out among Psionic classes in 4e anyway, so the fact that it's off on its own doesn't make a difference. Fighter and Rogue are obviously still Martial, and have poorly split the desecrated corpse of the Warlord between them. (I am reminded of the Judgment of Solomon.) That more-or-less sorts things by source, not accounting for subclass:Arcane: Artificer, Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard.Divine: Cleric, PaladinMartial: Fighter, Rogue, Ranger (ish), Barbarian (mostly), Monk (ish)Primal: Druid, Ranger(ish), Barbarian (a little bit, more in specific subclasses)Psionic: Monk (ish)Now, Role is a hell of a lot more complicated because that's a thing 5e worked pretty hard to dispense with, at least at the full-class level. However, we can still make overall statements about most classes, falling into the roles of Defense, Weapon-focused, Spell-focused, Support, Offense, and Control. Going class by class, and again mostly ignoring the (sometimes significant) effect of subclasses:Artificer: Spell-focused, Support, Control, DefenseBarbarian: Weapon-focused, Offense, DefenseBard: Spell-focused, Support, ControlCleric: Spell-focused, Offense, Defense, Support, Control (because...yeah, every Cleric subclass can fill every role except "Weapon-focused")Druid: Spell-focused, Offense, Defense, Support, Control (ditto, though the "Weapon"-focused druid is Moon, using natural weapons)Fighter: Weapon-focused, Offense, DefenseMonk: Weapon-focused, Offense, Control (counting unarmed strikes as "weapons" for this purpose, as they clearly aren't spells)Ranger: Weapon-focused, Offense, ControlRogue: Weapon-focused, Offense, ControlPaladin: Weapon-focused, Offense, Defense, SupportSorcerer: Spell-focused, Offense, ControlWarlock: Spell-focused, Offense, ControlWizard: Spell-focused, Offense, Control (with a dash of Support just because of their sheer potential number of spells)*This is part of why I don't get the claim that "less is more" when it comes to archetypes like this. Clearly there is a lot of appetite for a class that blends weapon-use and arcane spellcasting. We literally got seven different subclasses for it (or maybe eight!): Hexblade+Blade Pact Warlock, Valor and Swords Bard, Bladesinger Wizard (and to a lesser extent War), Eldritch Knight Fighter, Arcane Trickster Rogue, Armorer Artificer. At this point, even if you don't count War Wizard, there have as many sword-and-spell subclasses as there are total Sorcerer subclasses (7 of each.) Would we have two different Bard subclasses aiming for essentially the same niche if we had just, y'know, actually supported the Swordmage as its own distinct class from the beginning (or added it with a supplement, as was done with Artificer)?[/SPOILER]</blockquote>

Verification