Bro, if you want simple, play shadow dark. This is not. Suggestion, this is you complaining and being crazy. It's fine if you want simple gameplay, but complexity is what makes DND fun for me and others. Simply, just play mouse guard or shadowdark if you want simple and intuitive gameplay, this is not the system for it.
Have they said whether they plan on adding more subclasses in the future?
A FR book is due out in September with a few new subclasses. Also an eberron book is coming with an updated artificer, along with its subclasses, and potentially a new artificer subclass.
It is important for everybody in this thread to remember that one of their primary goals for specifically the classes/subclasses included in the PHB was to recreate everything in the 2014 PHB first and then round out the subclasses with the most iconic subclasses available. The only classes with missing 2014 PHB options were the ones which had more than four subclasses (cleric, wizard). Artificer and other subclasses were not included because 1, you have to draw the line on scope somewhere and 2, they were not in the original 2014 PHB. We are very likely to get a lot of the "old" subclasses back in a new 2024 sourcebook similar to Xanathar's Guide to Everything. I, for one, hope whenever they release core books, they stick to the idea of keeping the number of subclasses even for all classes (i.e. right now we have 4 subclasses per class, I hope a new book brings us to either 5 or 6 subclasses per class).
seams like they could of made the book right though i see the frustration we shouldnt have keep the old phb for cross refranceing our favorite sub classes a small sultion could be a 30$ hard back or a papper back that had updated sub classes from the 2014 line in 1 book and artficer class phbe (player hand book excessory)so all releases after that are new things
redemption maybe a goody goody two shoes paladin but they have more depth then a glory one does (ya i know it depends on the player and all) but redemption feels like the good side of oathbreaker. oathbreak has an evil feel to it were redemption could have been the good side
1) I kinda hope we DON'T get Oathbreaker back, at least not under that name. Now that Paladins can be any alignment, it doesn't make sense for every paladin who breaks their Oath to end up in one specific evil subclass. A Vengeance Paladin could break their oath by choosing to show mercy for example. Oathbreaker should just be Oath of Corruption or something.
Seriously? Does somebody read anything about the Oathbreaker other than the name? A Vengeance Paladin who shows mercy does not become an Oathbreaker, that's not what an Oathbreaker is.
An oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks their sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin's heart been extinguished. Only darkness remains.
Far far far too many classes and subclasses. The game would be infinitely better if there were 4 classes, and a max of 3 subclasses in each.
Fighter would subsume Paladin and Ranger as subclasses
Cleric would absorb Druid as a subclass.
Bard become a subclass of Rogue.
Barbarians, Monks, Sorcerers, and Warlocks are consigned to the dustbin of history. The game becomes simpler, yet still provides players with far more combinations and permutations of PC's that a player can run through in a lifetime. And yes, simpler is better. DM's are happier, and a happy DM is a happy table.
You know, even in AD&D, we had lot of classes xD
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that every table is different.
I can sort of see an argument for Ranger being its own class but IMNSHO, Paladin should be a subclass of Fighter.
I also think we have too many subclasses - and that the subclasses we have aren't distinct enough. Way too many neo-cleric subclasses for my taste, for instance.
I can sort of see an argument for Ranger being its own class but IMNSHO, Paladin should be a subclass of Fighter.
The problem with doing it that way is that the system doesn't have subclasses of subclasses, so you end up with only one flavor of paladin, which means either everybody has to roll their own code, or you get the old-school weirdness of paladins of the god of peace being supposed to act identically to paladins of the god of war.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Bro, if you want simple, play shadow dark. This is not. Suggestion, this is you complaining and being crazy. It's fine if you want simple gameplay, but complexity is what makes DND fun for me and others. Simply, just play mouse guard or shadowdark if you want simple and intuitive gameplay, this is not the system for it.
So you like the AD&D 1e classes style.
Have they said whether they plan on adding more subclasses in the future?
Not sure if they've explicitly said so, but it's safe to assume that they are adding more subclasses. The recent Forgotten Realms UA https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/ua/forgotten-realms-subclasses included several.
A FR book is due out in September with a few new subclasses. Also an eberron book is coming with an updated artificer, along with its subclasses, and potentially a new artificer subclass.
Awesome, thank you
It is important for everybody in this thread to remember that one of their primary goals for specifically the classes/subclasses included in the PHB was to recreate everything in the 2014 PHB first and then round out the subclasses with the most iconic subclasses available. The only classes with missing 2014 PHB options were the ones which had more than four subclasses (cleric, wizard). Artificer and other subclasses were not included because 1, you have to draw the line on scope somewhere and 2, they were not in the original 2014 PHB. We are very likely to get a lot of the "old" subclasses back in a new 2024 sourcebook similar to Xanathar's Guide to Everything. I, for one, hope whenever they release core books, they stick to the idea of keeping the number of subclasses even for all classes (i.e. right now we have 4 subclasses per class, I hope a new book brings us to either 5 or 6 subclasses per class).
seams like they could of made the book right though i see the frustration we shouldnt have keep the old phb for cross refranceing our favorite sub classes a small sultion could be a 30$ hard back or a papper back that had updated sub classes from the 2014 line in 1 book and artficer class phbe (player hand book excessory)so all releases after that are new things
Seriously? Does somebody read anything about the Oathbreaker other than the name? A Vengeance Paladin who shows mercy does not become an Oathbreaker, that's not what an Oathbreaker is.
An oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks their sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin's heart been extinguished. Only darkness remains.
That's actually AD&D 2e. AD&D 1e had:
Fighter- Subs Ranger, Paladin
Thief- Sub Assassin
Cleric- Sub Druid
Magic user- sub Illusionist
Monk
Optional: Bard
Psionics was not a class, but rare extra ability that a PC could have based on 00% percentile minus an ability score's modifiers.
I can sort of see an argument for Ranger being its own class but IMNSHO, Paladin should be a subclass of Fighter.
I also think we have too many subclasses - and that the subclasses we have aren't distinct enough. Way too many neo-cleric subclasses for my taste, for instance.
The problem with doing it that way is that the system doesn't have subclasses of subclasses, so you end up with only one flavor of paladin, which means either everybody has to roll their own code, or you get the old-school weirdness of paladins of the god of peace being supposed to act identically to paladins of the god of war.