Legends & Lore: Subpar Classes

I am not a fan of 5th Edition’s approach to classes, even with the introduction of subclasses: you pick a class, then a few levels in pick a subclass, and aside from some stat boosts/feat choices your character is effectively on rails for the rest of the campaign.

The rationalization is that it allows a player to manage complexity in the game: if you want to play a complex fighter then you go with gladiator, and if you want to play a simple one then you go with warrior. The problem is that you cannot change your path after you choose it, and you cannot play a fighter that can use maneuvers and defend your allies.

Also, I guess all fighters capable of using maneuvers are gladiators?

Why does it have to be like that? Why let players only make a few decisions? What about a new player who starts out taking simple options, but as she becomes more used to the system wants to branch out into maneuvers? What if the character concept shifts over the course of play, like a rogue that decides later on to become a shadowdancer? Are you just supposed to just roll up a new character?

Why not give each race, class, and maybe even race/class combination access to a list of class features? You could even rank them by complexity (something that 13th Age does with classes), so that if players want to stick with the easy stuff they can without having to sift through a bunch of options. You could also provide sample archetypes with recommended features. This would make it a lot easier to accommodate organic character growth, and sounds ultimately much more satisfying than locking a concept in very early on in the character’s career.

One of the things I love about 4th Edition was how powers made classes feel and play very differently from each other: fighters did not feel like warlords, who did not feel like rogues, who did not feel like rangers (despite sharing the same power source/role combination). It is because of this that I am concerned about the warlock and sorcerer being relegated to mage subclasses: 4th Edition made them conceptually and mechanically distinct, things that 5th Edition lacks (mostly within a class, but even outside to a point). The bit about sharing spells and feats does not help.

While the article specifically mentions focusing on what makes them unique and interesting, I have not seen anything unique or interesting about magic in Next ever since they culled the sorcerer and warlock. Yeah there is probably a year or so before the game gets released, but from what we have seen I am fully expecting each subclass to have its own spellcasting mechanic, none of which will make any sense, be interesting, or really evoke the concept of the class it is being used for.

On the plus side it is good to hear that warlords will have non-magical healing. I wish the game did not require access to constant, adventure pace-destroying healing, but it is something.

No, I am not entertained.

Legends & Lore: Subclasses

The cleric deity and wizard tradition have about as much mechanical impact as, say, 3rd Edition’s cleric domains or the bonus feats that monks and rangers got, so I guess I never really considered them to be representative of what I would call a “subclass threshold”. No, these remind me more of picking an initial class feature in 4th Edition, like a fighter talent, a warlock’s pact, or a wizard’s implement.

To me a subclass was better distinguished when 4th Edition started releasing its Heroes line; for example the slayer–a subclass of the fighter–differed from her parent class in that you lost daily exploits, used stances instead of at-will exploits, and had plenty of hard-wired class
features and exploits.

Which, given that the article mentions not every subclass relying on the same mechanics, sounds closer to what it sounds like they are doing with the fighter and rogue, and something that I am mostly cool with. I like the idea of being able to determine the complexity of your class without sacrificing efficacy, something I would argue they did really well with the Essentials subclasses: you could go with the more straightforward slayer, or dial up the complexity by rolling a weaponmaster (the class formerly known as fighter).

One of the things I do not like about this approach are how some of them are geared around titles, like the knight and samurai. This is yet another area where I preferred 4th Edition, in this case themes. Sure, you could make logical combinations like the fighter and mercenary or the wizard and wizard’s apprentice, but you could also tack alchemist on to a fighter, or samurai on to a cleric.

Another thing is whether or not you will be stuck with a subclass choice. Like, if I start out as a duelist, can I pick up a “warlord” type class feature down the road (though I think that the warlord is robust enough to be its own class)? I would prefer subclasses to be themed packages that you can stick with if you like the concept, but branch out later on if you feel like changing your focus. So, for example, you could start out as a gladiator, but then switch over to warlord powers after you break out of an arena and begin to rally a bunch of slaves to help you overthrow a sorcerer-king.

Again, I think this is what they should pretty much do with every class: give you lots of class features, themed or otherwise, and decision points so that you can better customize your character as you progress. I get that some decisions, namely gods and perhaps school specialization, should be locked in, but I think most “martial” stuff should allow for some deviation. At any rate I am still at the least interested to see what these changes entail (despite no one in my current campaign playing either a fighter or rogue), as well as how they will play with feats.