|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 9:47AM
#1
|
|
|
So, some L&L feedback to us showed that they want to give some more unique things to the Fighter and the Rogue. My initial thought was that Fighting Styles and Schemes would get unique traits (similar to the Tradition and Domain traits of the other classes.) However, I have not seen any discussion on sub-classes in a while, so I’m curious as to what players want to see. Here are my questions: 1) Are sub-class systems a good way to add variety to overall classes? 2) Do Monks (and other future classes like the Ranger, Bard and Paladin) need a sub-class systems? Or do those classes fill such a specific niche that they don’t? 3) Would you like specific sub-class boons to make your character unique and highlight your style of play, OR would you rather have a list of spells/maneuvers and bonuses that you can choose from as you level? IE would you rather have all classes with the current Wizard/Cleric sub-classes or the Fighter/Rogue ‘pick it yourself’ sub-classes’
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 10:24AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2008
|
I love the Pathfinder model of subclasses where a Monk can be a Zen Archer, an elementalist, etc. I think that a large combination of feats available to the entire class and maybe one to two "class features" of the subclass to differentiate it would be a fun way to go. Make the class features strong too, but only accessible by being a member of the sub class so as not to combine overly powerful effects.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 10:45AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
Are sub-class systems a good way to add variety to overall classes?
Yes. They let you vary a class's powers in a balanced set of changes. It avoids the complexity of a pick your own power setup, while still allowing for more variation then feats or specialties would allow.
Do Monks (and other future classes like the Ranger, Bard and Paladin) need a sub-class systems? Or do those classes fill such a specific niche that they don’t?
The possibility should be allowed for, but those classes are specific enough that they don't need to start with a bunch of sub classes to work or be interesting.
3) Would you like specific sub-class boons to make your character unique and highlight your style of play, OR would you rather have a list of spells/maneuvers and bonuses that you can choose from as you level? (IE would you rather have all classes with the current Wizard/Cleric sub-classes or the Fighter/Rogue ‘pick it yourself’ sub-classes&rsquo
Ultimately, I would like a bit of both. Fixed sub-classes with balanced sets of powers and abilities, along with some degree of customization for standard abilities.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 11:43AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jul 19, 2012
|
With all the backgrounds, skills and feats and the multi classing option, I fail to see what could be the point of having sub classes ?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 1:36PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2008
|
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by sub-classes. If you are speaking of something similiar to the Battle Mage tradition then I would have to agree with JayM. They allow a single class to be more flavorful if implemented, but the problem I have with the current traditions is that they feel "cookie-cutter". On the opposite side though, the specialties are set-up in such a way as to make themselves obsolete. Why bother following the
investigation specialist when you can just mix-and match whatever you want? If there is no added value other than a meanignless title then it is simply a way of organization, like "weapon proficiencies" then listing all the weapon proficiency feats. A balance between the two extreme would be ideal. Give players flavor chooses, then allow minor tweaking within that choice so you are not locked into a single path.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 1:41PM
#6
|
|
|
My personal opinion is that classes should support multiple play styles, and sub-classes are a great way to do that. However, choosing from a handful of maneuvers is not enough to justify a ‘sub-class’. Having both pre-determined bonuses and some unique ability choice built into the class is the way to go. I agree JayM, something maybe like fighters get a specific Style boon and a Style related maneuver at level 1, then get to choose a second maneuver of their choice from the list. Interestingly enough, because Monks get the static bonuses as they level, they actually have the least amount of choice in how they are played. I very much hope they add sub-classes to each of the classes, though I have no idea what the Monk’s might be aside from different martial arts…
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 17, 2012 - 3:27PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2012
|
Phawskin, Swordsage.
Just give monk "Way of the Sword". Allow them to use unarmed maneuvers w/ finesse blades and make FoB be fire elemental. A few maneuves could be added (Salamander Charge, anyone?) and it's good.
To be truly hilarious, Grammaton cleric w/ Way of the Gun (or gun-kata) in a dystopian futuristic campaign.
There could be shugenja who could eschew expertise dice for more ki abilities/spells?
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning."
-Mike Mearls
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 17, 2012 - 4:56PM
#8
|
|
|
Rofl Gun-Monk... actually has some place in fantasy...
And actually, thats not a great point with the monk, giving some weapons or some magic are likely a really great way to express different play styles, but it brings up a good point: Do changes in Core class mechanics constitute different classes, a form of sub-classes or a different system such as PF's Archetypes? Monks are 'unarmed and unarmored', so does taking that away change the class too drastically? If you let a Wizard use Charisma rather than Intelligence, is that a sub-class, a class of its own or a different change to the Wizard?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 17, 2012 - 7:23PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2012
|
I'd put forth monks aren't explicitly unarmed. Yes, some aspects hinge... but, deadly strike on a katana wielding monk fits very well w/ an unarmoured wandering samurai. Similarly, monks are associated with staff combat and "monk weapons". I think explicitly focusing on the armed concepts may be worth subclasses.
I do like the gunmonk. Infuses bullets w/ ki. As for my shugenja idea, it depends on how subclasses work. What about a fighter who can deliver touch spells through a sword, but has a slower ED progression? Does that idea move to far away from the class? Would it be better represented by a whole new class?
I think a cha wizard is a reasonable variant. I could see a str wizard whose casting is refreshed by short term stat debuffs as a subclass/variant.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning."
-Mike Mearls
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 18, 2012 - 7:38AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Nov 12, 2012
|
I'd put forth monks aren't explicitly unarmed. Yes, some aspects hinge... but, deadly strike on a katana wielding monk fits very well w/ an unarmoured wandering samurai. Similarly, monks are associated with staff combat and "monk weapons". I think explicitly focusing on the armed concepts may be worth subclasses.
I do like the gunmonk. Infuses bullets w/ ki. As for my shugenja idea, it depends on how subclasses work. What about a fighter who can deliver touch spells through a sword, but has a slower ED progression? Does that idea move to far away from the class? Would it be better represented by a whole new class?
I think a cha wizard is a reasonable variant. I could see a str wizard whose casting is refreshed by short term stat debuffs as a subclass/variant.
To me, it felt like the Sorcerer captured the charisma based wizard with a different mechanic. A lot of what you said I have been thinking about as well, although perhaps in a different way. Back in 3rd edition when I used to play a lot more(my work schedule has been a real hassle for me more recently), the sorcerer seemed exactly like that. Can't speak of much outside the basic core books in 4th because I haven't had as much of a chance to delve into it as much as I used to.
That said, my thoughts:
In 3rd, sorcerer and wizard seemed so similar...yet different mechanically and in overall experience. That left me wondering, especially after I played shugenja, if other possibilities were possible or a good idea. Maybe a templar variation to the Paladin that played differently would be good, for example. Then when 4th came around, it did one thing that I liked that was kind of similar to that. The Cavalier, for instance, had different paths based off of virtues that played differently. This doesn't even take into consideration all the variants to base classes in other books. This is something I really hope they expand upon in some way without taking away too much freedom for a player to customize their character in 5e.
Anyways, to the heart of the matter:
There is a point where, at least I believe, a class variant deviates so far from its base class that it would be better if it were its own base class instead(gunmonk and samurai reached that point imo). A templar class that uses similar mechanics as the Paladin, but is a little more offensively oriented, and few other differences outside of perhaps alignment restrictions is better represented as a variation or subclass imo. Let's also just assume that Paladins and the Templar share a preparable spell list for now in this example above.
On the other hand, let's say the templar has an entirely different bag of tricks. Lets say that he doesn't get virtually any of the same class abilities as the Paladin. Let's say that they get a divine blade class ability that does bonus damage based on the deity they serve, but if its a certain evil deity, it may add negative energy/necrotic damage or a Templar of Kord may add storm damage. Let's say they don't get a preparable spell list and instead either can spontaneously cast from their deities domain lists a small number of times a day or select spell-like abilities from those domains. Let's also say that the Templar gets a number of other very different class features than the Paladin. In this example, it would probably be better suited as its own class.
Your strength/charisma/*insert stat other than int here* based wizard could probably still fall under the wizard template. Start changing spell casting methods and class features a bit too much and it probably deserves a class all its own
I like the idea of both actually. I liked wizard, sorcerer, and warlock existing as they did back in 3.5. I also liked the variations to classes approach that 4e took too...druids of the seasons, paladins that differed with chosen virtue, etc. I hope that they can combine the best of both worlds. Subclasses that differentiate two characters of the same class in ways other than backgrounds, feats, and skills would be great. Base classes that are a very different approach to a traditional class would be great too. Why not? Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock have done this...
|
|
|
