Mind of tempest
(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
sure if it is cool and works.
So, if a setting were written really well, AND the class/sub-class specifics fit really well AND maintained balance for my play style, then I would be all in. But I just haven't seen it yet.
Well, it depends on the class. Bards, Paladins, Monks, and Rogues are all pretty strong with core class only. Barbarian, Ranger (maybe), Warlock are decently strong in core class only. The rest really rely on subclasses for more power (if any) as well as flavor IMO.I find that to be a rather strange assertion.
Anybody else have an opinion on that? Am I being blind?
It depends on the overall design & intent of the product.There are numerous settings, some from WotC but many more from other authors/publishers. I have a bunch of them and some are really cool.
But…standard D&D classes often feel like an awkward fit. Many of the settings include new subclasses, but since most of a class’s power is built into the base class, that doesn’t change much.
Would you like to see settings come with custom-designed classes, not as additions to the standard list but as replacements? (Two examples are Adventures in Middle-Earth from Cubicle 7 and Beowulf from Handiwork.)
And the follow-up question is whether subclasses are really needed if such classes have such a narrow intended use.
Thoughts?
I don’t know how extensive the play testing was (Scholar?) but I think your second point is important: it should only be done if existing classes just don’t work/fit with the setting. If it’s a gratuitous vanity project (“While I’m at it I’ll redesign the classes the way they should have been! Mwuhahahaha!”) it will be obvious.It depends on the overall design & intent of the product.
Where AiME succeeds is (a) they did the substantial playtesting required to publish a new class, (b) there's a substantial well of lore they're writing from, and (c) the existing classes would not quite fit the tone of Middle Earth.