You really had lots of control more often than not. Simply leveling up got you larger dice which meant less probability of it rolling bust, and Replenishment was fine. I went all night long once and then rolled bust on my very last two rolls of the knight and still had my d4 and an unused Replenishment. It was not a problem. The only real problem was needing to take three feats just to give me enough things to use it for. It was awesome. But I am not the most risk averse individual. I’ll risk it on a roll of the dice, it’s D&D, not craps.
Yeah, the probabilities are solidly against ruin. By control, I don't necessarily mean losing the die, I just mean that the feeling of a psion, to me, would be a fellow who chooses when to overextend their power, rather than having it happen randomly. On the other hand something like a wilder or ardent would have less control and be more subject to random surges.
As to the "what can you not play with what's available" open question, there are a few loose concepts that I can easily throw up, but I don't know if there's enough to really make them their own base classes. Some of them could be subclasses for things that already exist, and some of them might be more do-able when the CVFs come out in Tasha's Caldron. Anyway...
Witch Doctor/Voodoo
Shaman (building off the flavor of the Orc Shaman caster unit from WC3) -- I think there's a Barb subclass that tries to do this...
a martial class that has wide ranging battlefield control, rather than damage output or AC tanking
Psionics
some kind of summoner, doesn't do much themselves other than summon minions, the minions do the fighting
a class that more effectively captures the idea of being a bender from Avatar (Way of 4 Elements attempts to do this, but can't do it well)
a support caster that themselves can't really use more than cantrips, but their abilities allow them to enhance the spells of other casters
That's what I've got off the top of my head...
[1]Yeah, don't just say "shaman" or "witch doctor." That doesn't really tell anyone what you mean. You've got to define what such a character is and how they work. What exactly do they do that sets them apart from existing classes, and why isn't it something that can be accomplished via subclass?
[2]A class that focuses on summoning? I think the best you can hope for is just better summoning spells like what we've seen in Unearthed Arcana.
[3]A class that simulates being a bender is tricky. I doubt we'd see one that gets closer than the Way of 4 Elements does. Getting something that simulates a character who's basically a demigod and doesn't have to deal with the limitations of a Vancian spellcasting system or burning through ki points to fuel their abilities is always going to fall short.
[4]Finally, a class that revolves around buffing other people's spells while having little to no things that they can do on their own. I can tell you right away that such a class would be DOA.
[1] Well, I guess you didn't even read the first sentence of what I wrote, and jumped straight to the list. I literally said they were loose concepts.
[2] There are a lot more things you can do with "summoner" than just the act of summoning itself. The character could have a blunt force approach, and summon combat creatures that are raw expressions of force, aggressive combative creatures. Or it could be more of a splinter-the-soul thing, and they have to position their critters carefully in order to unleash some ability of their own. Lots of room to do all kinds of things with that.
[3] I didn't say create a class that recreates The Avatar, Master of all 4 Elements. I said create a class that recreates being a bender. Like, there are your 4 subclasses right there, level 1 choice: Air, Earth, Water, Fire. You pick 1, not getting all 4. This is part of why Way of 4 Elements is bad -- because all the different abilities at each level tier can be chosen freely, and reselected whenever you gain a new one, all of the individual effects have to be watered down to prevent some combination of them being too powerful. There's also no inherent mechanical cohesion between the choices, even if you pick all the same element. They don't build together in any way, and frankly half of them aren't even relevant to the fantasy.
[4] I didn't say that there was nothing they could do personally. I said there was not a lot they could do personally. There's a difference.
Once Tasha’s comes out there will be (unless I miscounted) 112 subclass options. Considering most classes are front loaded, when you start multiclassing the options get pretty extensive. That isn’t to say I wouldn’t welcome a well thought out new class, I am playing a Battle Smith Artificer that I love, but I also can’t think of what I would add.
Honestly, if you feel too limited by 5e, take a look at Pathfinder 2e. You’re basically guaranteed to not build the same character as anyone else.
The thing is the subclasses are honestly pretty minor, and don't really change how the classes play with the odd exception.
I'd be happy with the current class numbers (or even less classes) if the subclasses provided much more meaningful change, and could completely overwrite the main classes abilities and flavors. A paladin will always be a half divine caster with some healing, divine smite, auras, etc. Several earlier edition classes could be pretty accurately recreated with these 'subclass+' features.
- Shaman was practically a cleric with a druid spell list. A subclass done like this could outright remove the cleric spell list for a shaman subclass and replace it with the druid one.
- Warlord could be a fighter subclass, with two of its extra attacks and action surge removed in exchange for its ally buffing abilities at 2nd level instead.
- Magus could be a fighter subclass, with action surge replaced with spellstrike, only two attacks, and arcane half casting from the sorcerer spell list.
- Witch as a warlock subclass, but with int casting, and hexes (there is a massive list not just one hex for those saying warlock already has hexes) replacing invocations.
Current subclasses provide too minor changes to ever feel like the old classes, while people don't feel those same old classes are unique enough to merit their own concept.
I dont think 5e needs more classes as the subclasses cover a lot of the bases you would cover with a different base class.
What I WOULD like to see them do is redo some of the bad classes like Ranger and Sorcerer, fix their core mechanics, spruce up the WEAK subclasses instead of just relying on new ones to give em some oompf and do a base class update pdf or something thats free. Know free sucks for them but.. woof they owe it to the ranger and sorcerer
Pity they refuse to fix/tweak old stuff, due to it being in printed books so they don't want to invalidate anyone's physical copies. The class variants help, but it feels like sticking a band aid on the problem without actually solving it.
As to the "what can you not play with what's available" open question, there are a few loose concepts that I can easily throw up, but I don't know if there's enough to really make them their own base classes. Some of them could be subclasses for things that already exist, and some of them might be more do-able when the CVFs come out in Tasha's Caldron. Anyway...
Witch Doctor/Voodoo
Shaman (building off the flavor of the Orc Shaman caster unit from WC3) -- I think there's a Barb subclass that tries to do this...
a martial class that has wide ranging battlefield control, rather than damage output or AC tanking
Psionics
some kind of summoner, doesn't do much themselves other than summon minions, the minions do the fighting
a class that more effectively captures the idea of being a bender from Avatar (Way of 4 Elements attempts to do this, but can't do it well)
a support caster that themselves can't really use more than cantrips, but their abilities allow them to enhance the spells of other casters
That's what I've got off the top of my head...
[1]Yeah, don't just say "shaman" or "witch doctor." That doesn't really tell anyone what you mean. You've got to define what such a character is and how they work. What exactly do they do that sets them apart from existing classes, and why isn't it something that can be accomplished via subclass?
[2]A class that focuses on summoning? I think the best you can hope for is just better summoning spells like what we've seen in Unearthed Arcana.
[3]A class that simulates being a bender is tricky. I doubt we'd see one that gets closer than the Way of 4 Elements does. Getting something that simulates a character who's basically a demigod and doesn't have to deal with the limitations of a Vancian spellcasting system or burning through ki points to fuel their abilities is always going to fall short.
[4]Finally, a class that revolves around buffing other people's spells while having little to no things that they can do on their own. I can tell you right away that such a class would be DOA.
[1] Well, I guess you didn't even read the first sentence of what I wrote, and jumped straight to the list. I literally said they were loose concepts.
[2] There are a lot more things you can do with "summoner" than just the act of summoning itself. The character could have a blunt force approach, and summon combat creatures that are raw expressions of force, aggressive combative creatures. Or it could be more of a splinter-the-soul thing, and they have to position their critters carefully in order to unleash some ability of their own. Lots of room to do all kinds of things with that.
[3] I didn't say create a class that recreates The Avatar, Master of all 4 Elements. I said create a class that recreates being a bender. Like, there are your 4 subclasses right there, level 1 choice: Air, Earth, Water, Fire. You pick 1, not getting all 4. This is part of why Way of 4 Elements is bad -- because all the different abilities at each level tier can be chosen freely, and reselected whenever you gain a new one, all of the individual effects have to be watered down to prevent some combination of them being too powerful. There's also no inherent mechanical cohesion between the choices, even if you pick all the same element. They don't build together in any way, and frankly half of them aren't even relevant to the fantasy.
[4] I didn't say that there was nothing they could do personally. I said there was not a lot they could do personally. There's a difference.
The problem is that when you just throw out a name, you're not providing a concept, loose or otherwise. It's like saying you want a pink class or a spiral class.
Yeah, not seeing how that class would actually differentiate itself from just playing a Conjurer wizard.
That still sounds more like the solution is fixing the Way of Four Elements subclass than inventing a new class.
Irrelevant. Wizards would never make a class that's primary ability was buffing the effectiveness of other characters' spells. It throws off the balance that they tried to get with spellcasting in 5E and it's seriously overspecialized.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
One issue with "Solve everything with subclasses!" is that subclasses come with all the baggage from the core class they're subbing for. Much of which will often dilute, pollute, or even outright destroy the particular aesthetic one is shooting for.
A lot of folks want a Shaman class, for example. A primal spellcaster bound to the land that consorts with spirits and directs nature's fury against enemies of the wilds. Pretty much everyone has, at some point, said "why aren't you just, y'know...playing a Druid?"
Answer: **** WILD SHAPE FOREVER. I absolutely detest that ability because it has poisoned the well on what people think 'druids' are for decades. Druids are not "primal spellcasters that consort with spirits and direct nature's fury" to a classic D&D player. Druids are nothing but closet furries whose entire purpose in life is to let people play out their damned werewolf fantasies without having to deal with actual lycanthropy. Nobody is ALLOWED to play a druid that doesn't Wild Shape, because every goddamned jackass in the world thinks that stupid ability is the only reason druids exist. I hate Wild Shape. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, and it absolutely interferes with me playing druids because a druid that does not use Wild Shape is much akin to a cleric that does not use Channel Divinity, or a paladin that doesn't Smite. You can absolutely play that way, but you're foregoing a huge chunk of your class' intended strength and you'll always know it.
A 'Shaman' subclass bolted onto the Druid chassis, the way so many people think it should be, would have to deal with the fact that it's a druid and thus expected to turn into bears at a moment's notice. Never mind that the player cannot reconcile why their 'Shaman' is turning into a bear despite that making absolutely no god damned sense - they'll do it and like it or they can just not play D&D.
Does that mean Wizards should build a 'Shaman' class for those folks who might want to be druid-adjacent but cannot stand ******* Wild Shape? Probably not - but it does mean "just make a subclass, idiot" doesn't work for those who actively dis-want the baggage from an existing core class.
@Yurei1453: Ohhhh, that hit harder than I thought it would...
"You're a bard, why aren't you using your inspiration to buff everyone else? That's a selfish way of playing!" (Because it's mine, mother****er, now piss off!)
Hueh. I.e. literally everybody when they hear somebody in their campaign is playing a Sword bard. Admittedly, I prefer Valor bards to Sword bards for reasons related to issues with Flourishes...but yeah. Man, wouldn't it be nice for some of these really cool character ideas to not be saddled with shitty baggage from a core class everybody assumes has to play a specific, aggravating way?
Does that mean Wizards should build a 'Shaman' class for those folks who might want to be druid-adjacent but cannot stand ****ing Wild Shape? Probably not - but it does mean "just make a subclass, idiot" doesn't work for those who actively dis-want the baggage from an existing core class.
Eh, "You replace <class feature X> with <subclass feature Y>" is not forbidden in subclass design, though I think it would cause D&Dbeyond to suffer a serious case of the hives.
Heh. I tried to do a Way of the Spiral Arms Monk once. Change their Munk Shit save and their Unarmored Defense from DEX/WIS to DEX/CHA, played around with features. Think my favorite ability was 'Beyond the Impossible!" - when you rolled an attack, ability check, or saving throw and had disadvantage on the roll, you could spend a ki point to roll it with advantage, instead. Sadly, completely nonfunctional in DDB, of course. Can't be having any of that creativity junk in our online tool. Sadness.
@Yurei1453: Oh, yeah. It was mind-boggling the first time I heard those words. You want bardic inspiration? Play your own ****ing bard, *******!
I just hope the Bard that would say that is not looking to the Cleric for healing or being brought back from being dead.
If someone wants to play a Cleric of Death and Destruction who doesn't heal, I wouldn't expect them to heal (I think they might be disappointed with the results, but that's a separate issue). PCs should try to be an asset to the party as a whole, but as long as they succeed it doesn't mean they have to succeed in any specific way.
A character can play their class however they want to play....I agree.
What I was trying to get at (poorly) .....if I where playing in a party (as a Cleric) and the other member or members where playing as selfish as that they would soon find the Cleric could be just as selfish. I would like to see how long it would take for said player to start complaining of no Guidance, Bless, Heal, Revivify, etc.
I thought it was supposed to be the party working together.
I was thinking about this thread, and I came up with a system for creating and defining classes.
There would be five different types of classes, each lining up with an ability score. Martial (Strength based), Scoundrel (Dexterity based), Primal (Wisdom), Divine (Charisma), and Arcane (Intelligence).
Each class would be in one or two of these categories. Fighter would be Martial only*, Rogue Scoundrel, Cleric Divine**, Druid Primal, and Wizard Arcane.
Then there would be the classes that fit into two categories: Artificer would be Arcane-Scoundrel (The first type in notation is dominant over the second, meaning that Artificer is primarily arcane.), Barbarian-Martial Primal, Monk- Martial Scoundrel, Paladin-Martial Divine, Ranger-Scoundrel Primal, Sorcerer-Arcane Primal, and Warlock-Arcane Divine***.
That leaves us with a total of 13 out of 15 combinations.
Divine-Scoundrel: I'm not exactly sure what this would be.
Martial-Arcane: This would be a Magus class, with a emphasis on integrating spellcasting and weapons.
Finally, there would be one class that doesn't fit in, which would be the Psionicist. I'll leave more adept people to describe that one.
Footnotes:
*I intended martial to be a class that focuses on fighting with weapons, not necessarily with strength. A rogue is Scoundrel because it utilizes the noncombat parts of dexterity as well as the combat parts.
**Divine spellcasting is done by conviction and faith; Charisma is described as force of personality, and I believe that fits with Divine.
***Preferably, I would wish that you were able to choose what between Charisma or Intelligence for Warlocks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
A character can play their class however they want to play....I agree.
What I was trying to get at (poorly) .....if I where playing in a party (as a Cleric) and the other member or members where playing as selfish as that they would soon find the Cleric could be just as selfish. I would like to see how long it would take for said player to start complaining of no Guidance, Bless, Heal, Revivify, etc.
I thought it was supposed to be the party working together.
I think you're proving @Yurei1453's point. "The party working together" does not mean "The party working together in specific standardized ways". A sword bard using his inspiration dice for flourishes instead of inspiring other PCs does not mean he's not using teamwork, nor does a cleric using spell slots for Inflict Wounds instead of Cure Wounds.
A character can play their class however they want to play....I agree.
What I was trying to get at (poorly) .....if I where playing in a party (as a Cleric) and the other member or members where playing as selfish as that they would soon find the Cleric could be just as selfish. I would like to see how long it would take for said player to start complaining of no Guidance, Bless, Heal, Revivify, etc.
I thought it was supposed to be the party working together.
I think you're proving @Yurei1453's point. "The party working together" does not mean "The party working together in specific standardized ways". A sword bard using his inspiration dice for flourishes instead of inspiring other PCs does not mean he's not using teamwork, nor does a cleric using spell slots for Inflict Wounds instead of Cure Wounds.
Or a Whispers Bard using Psychic Blade instead of dishing out Inspiration. Or an Artificer keeping their Infusions.
One issue with "Solve everything with subclasses!" is that subclasses come with all the baggage from the core class they're subbing for. Much of which will often dilute, pollute, or even outright destroy the particular aesthetic one is shooting for.
A lot of folks want a Shaman class, for example. A primal spellcaster bound to the land that consorts with spirits and directs nature's fury against enemies of the wilds. Pretty much everyone has, at some point, said "why aren't you just, y'know...playing a Druid?"
Answer: **** WILD SHAPE FOREVER. I absolutely detest that ability because it has poisoned the well on what people think 'druids' are for decades. Druids are not "primal spellcasters that consort with spirits and direct nature's fury" to a classic D&D player. Druids are nothing but closet furries whose entire purpose in life is to let people play out their damned werewolf fantasies without having to deal with actual lycanthropy. Nobody is ALLOWED to play a druid that doesn't Wild Shape, because every goddamned jackass in the world thinks that stupid ability is the only reason druids exist. I hate Wild Shape. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, and it absolutely interferes with me playing druids because a druid that does not use Wild Shape is much akin to a cleric that does not use Channel Divinity, or a paladin that doesn't Smite. You can absolutely play that way, but you're foregoing a huge chunk of your class' intended strength and you'll always know it.
A 'Shaman' subclass bolted onto the Druid chassis, the way so many people think it should be, would have to deal with the fact that it's a druid and thus expected to turn into bears at a moment's notice. Never mind that the player cannot reconcile why their 'Shaman' is turning into a bear despite that making absolutely no god damned sense - they'll do it and like it or they can just not play D&D.
Does that mean Wizards should build a 'Shaman' class for those folks who might want to be druid-adjacent but cannot stand ****ing Wild Shape? Probably not - but it does mean "just make a subclass, idiot" doesn't work for those who actively dis-want the baggage from an existing core class.
Yep this is my exact issue with subclasses. As they're so minor and don't overwrite the main classes chassis, you will always be stuck with the baggage of the main class, which then limits what can be put into the subclass for balance. Want to be an arcane ice elemental paladin? Tough. You're going to be doing healing, radiant damage, divine spells, and all that godly stuff like it or not.
It's essentially 20% subclass, 80% main class. I'd much rather it was 50:50 which would allow so much more variety without adding more clutter.
I do agree. Taking out an opponent and not buffing allies can and does work but if I where sitting at a table and someone says.....play your own ******* class. That character better not look to me to heal them when they go down....they better bring their own healing and hope someone else has brought Revivify or Raise Dead for when they go down.
edit to add: I have never told or even suggested how someone play their class and never will but, if someone 'cops' an attitude and starts cussing people even if someone does suggest a 'course of action' well then........your not the only one that can 'cop' an attitude.
Yeah, the probabilities are solidly against ruin. By control, I don't necessarily mean losing the die, I just mean that the feeling of a psion, to me, would be a fellow who chooses when to overextend their power, rather than having it happen randomly. On the other hand something like a wilder or ardent would have less control and be more subject to random surges.
[1] Well, I guess you didn't even read the first sentence of what I wrote, and jumped straight to the list. I literally said they were loose concepts.
[2] There are a lot more things you can do with "summoner" than just the act of summoning itself. The character could have a blunt force approach, and summon combat creatures that are raw expressions of force, aggressive combative creatures. Or it could be more of a splinter-the-soul thing, and they have to position their critters carefully in order to unleash some ability of their own. Lots of room to do all kinds of things with that.
[3] I didn't say create a class that recreates The Avatar, Master of all 4 Elements. I said create a class that recreates being a bender. Like, there are your 4 subclasses right there, level 1 choice: Air, Earth, Water, Fire. You pick 1, not getting all 4. This is part of why Way of 4 Elements is bad -- because all the different abilities at each level tier can be chosen freely, and reselected whenever you gain a new one, all of the individual effects have to be watered down to prevent some combination of them being too powerful. There's also no inherent mechanical cohesion between the choices, even if you pick all the same element. They don't build together in any way, and frankly half of them aren't even relevant to the fantasy.
[4] I didn't say that there was nothing they could do personally. I said there was not a lot they could do personally. There's a difference.
The thing is the subclasses are honestly pretty minor, and don't really change how the classes play with the odd exception.
I'd be happy with the current class numbers (or even less classes) if the subclasses provided much more meaningful change, and could completely overwrite the main classes abilities and flavors. A paladin will always be a half divine caster with some healing, divine smite, auras, etc. Several earlier edition classes could be pretty accurately recreated with these 'subclass+' features.
- Shaman was practically a cleric with a druid spell list. A subclass done like this could outright remove the cleric spell list for a shaman subclass and replace it with the druid one.
- Warlord could be a fighter subclass, with two of its extra attacks and action surge removed in exchange for its ally buffing abilities at 2nd level instead.
- Magus could be a fighter subclass, with action surge replaced with spellstrike, only two attacks, and arcane half casting from the sorcerer spell list.
- Witch as a warlock subclass, but with int casting, and hexes (there is a massive list not just one hex for those saying warlock already has hexes) replacing invocations.
Current subclasses provide too minor changes to ever feel like the old classes, while people don't feel those same old classes are unique enough to merit their own concept.
Pity they refuse to fix/tweak old stuff, due to it being in printed books so they don't want to invalidate anyone's physical copies. The class variants help, but it feels like sticking a band aid on the problem without actually solving it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
One issue with "Solve everything with subclasses!" is that subclasses come with all the baggage from the core class they're subbing for. Much of which will often dilute, pollute, or even outright destroy the particular aesthetic one is shooting for.
A lot of folks want a Shaman class, for example. A primal spellcaster bound to the land that consorts with spirits and directs nature's fury against enemies of the wilds. Pretty much everyone has, at some point, said "why aren't you just, y'know...playing a Druid?"
Answer: **** WILD SHAPE FOREVER. I absolutely detest that ability because it has poisoned the well on what people think 'druids' are for decades. Druids are not "primal spellcasters that consort with spirits and direct nature's fury" to a classic D&D player. Druids are nothing but closet furries whose entire purpose in life is to let people play out their damned werewolf fantasies without having to deal with actual lycanthropy. Nobody is ALLOWED to play a druid that doesn't Wild Shape, because every goddamned jackass in the world thinks that stupid ability is the only reason druids exist. I hate Wild Shape. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, and it absolutely interferes with me playing druids because a druid that does not use Wild Shape is much akin to a cleric that does not use Channel Divinity, or a paladin that doesn't Smite. You can absolutely play that way, but you're foregoing a huge chunk of your class' intended strength and you'll always know it.
A 'Shaman' subclass bolted onto the Druid chassis, the way so many people think it should be, would have to deal with the fact that it's a druid and thus expected to turn into bears at a moment's notice. Never mind that the player cannot reconcile why their 'Shaman' is turning into a bear despite that making absolutely no god damned sense - they'll do it and like it or they can just not play D&D.
Does that mean Wizards should build a 'Shaman' class for those folks who might want to be druid-adjacent but cannot stand ******* Wild Shape? Probably not - but it does mean "just make a subclass, idiot" doesn't work for those who actively dis-want the baggage from an existing core class.
Please do not contact or message me.
@Yurei1453: Ohhhh, that hit harder than I thought it would...
"You're a bard, why aren't you using your inspiration to buff everyone else? That's a selfish way of playing!" (Because it's mine, mother****er, now piss off!)
Hueh. I.e. literally everybody when they hear somebody in their campaign is playing a Sword bard. Admittedly, I prefer Valor bards to Sword bards for reasons related to issues with Flourishes...but yeah. Man, wouldn't it be nice for some of these really cool character ideas to not be saddled with shitty baggage from a core class everybody assumes has to play a specific, aggravating way?
Please do not contact or message me.
Also, I just have to add that a spiral class should be fairly self-explanatory.
Eh, "You replace <class feature X> with <subclass feature Y>" is not forbidden in subclass design, though I think it would cause D&Dbeyond to suffer a serious case of the hives.
@Yurei1453: Oh, yeah. It was mind-boggling the first time I heard those words. You want bardic inspiration? Play your own ******* bard, *******!
A man of culture, I see.
Heh. I tried to do a Way of the Spiral Arms Monk once. Change their Munk Shit save and their Unarmored Defense from DEX/WIS to DEX/CHA, played around with features. Think my favorite ability was 'Beyond the Impossible!" - when you rolled an attack, ability check, or saving throw and had disadvantage on the roll, you could spend a ki point to roll it with advantage, instead. Sadly, completely nonfunctional in DDB, of course. Can't be having any of that creativity junk in our online tool. Sadness.
Please do not contact or message me.
I just hope the Bard that would say that is not looking to the Cleric for healing or being brought back from being dead.
If someone wants to play a Cleric of Death and Destruction who doesn't heal, I wouldn't expect them to heal (I think they might be disappointed with the results, but that's a separate issue). PCs should try to be an asset to the party as a whole, but as long as they succeed it doesn't mean they have to succeed in any specific way.
A character can play their class however they want to play....I agree.
What I was trying to get at (poorly) .....if I where playing in a party (as a Cleric) and the other member or members where playing as selfish as that they would soon find the Cleric could be just as selfish. I would like to see how long it would take for said player to start complaining of no Guidance, Bless, Heal, Revivify, etc.
I thought it was supposed to be the party working together.
I was thinking about this thread, and I came up with a system for creating and defining classes.
There would be five different types of classes, each lining up with an ability score. Martial (Strength based), Scoundrel (Dexterity based), Primal (Wisdom), Divine (Charisma), and Arcane (Intelligence).
Each class would be in one or two of these categories. Fighter would be Martial only*, Rogue Scoundrel, Cleric Divine**, Druid Primal, and Wizard Arcane.
Then there would be the classes that fit into two categories: Artificer would be Arcane-Scoundrel (The first type in notation is dominant over the second, meaning that Artificer is primarily arcane.), Barbarian-Martial Primal, Monk- Martial Scoundrel, Paladin-Martial Divine, Ranger-Scoundrel Primal, Sorcerer-Arcane Primal, and Warlock-Arcane Divine***.
That leaves us with a total of 13 out of 15 combinations.
Divine-Scoundrel: I'm not exactly sure what this would be.
Martial-Arcane: This would be a Magus class, with a emphasis on integrating spellcasting and weapons.
Finally, there would be one class that doesn't fit in, which would be the Psionicist. I'll leave more adept people to describe that one.
Footnotes:
*I intended martial to be a class that focuses on fighting with weapons, not necessarily with strength. A rogue is Scoundrel because it utilizes the noncombat parts of dexterity as well as the combat parts.
**Divine spellcasting is done by conviction and faith; Charisma is described as force of personality, and I believe that fits with Divine.
***Preferably, I would wish that you were able to choose what between Charisma or Intelligence for Warlocks.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I think you're proving @Yurei1453's point. "The party working together" does not mean "The party working together in specific standardized ways". A sword bard using his inspiration dice for flourishes instead of inspiring other PCs does not mean he's not using teamwork, nor does a cleric using spell slots for Inflict Wounds instead of Cure Wounds.
Or a Whispers Bard using Psychic Blade instead of dishing out Inspiration. Or an Artificer keeping their Infusions.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yep this is my exact issue with subclasses. As they're so minor and don't overwrite the main classes chassis, you will always be stuck with the baggage of the main class, which then limits what can be put into the subclass for balance. Want to be an arcane ice elemental paladin? Tough. You're going to be doing healing, radiant damage, divine spells, and all that godly stuff like it or not.
It's essentially 20% subclass, 80% main class. I'd much rather it was 50:50 which would allow so much more variety without adding more clutter.
I do agree. Taking out an opponent and not buffing allies can and does work but if I where sitting at a table and someone says.....play your own ******* class. That character better not look to me to heal them when they go down....they better bring their own healing and hope someone else has brought Revivify or Raise Dead for when they go down.
edit to add: I have never told or even suggested how someone play their class and never will but, if someone 'cops' an attitude and starts cussing people even if someone does suggest a 'course of action' well then........your not the only one that can 'cop' an attitude.