A warlock studies occultism for the first 2 levels, at level 3 actually makes a pact.
And this is why I really hope Warlocks use Intelligence for spellcasting in 1DD. There's an argument for both Intelligence and Charisma but I think their overall "studying the occult" and "uncovering arcane secrets" theme suits Intelligence far better. If I recall correctly, even J-Craw (or another 5e designer) said they wanted it to be Intelligence, and they chose Charisma solely because it was Charisma in 3e-4e.
Overall I like the 3rd-level subclass change. It's weird but it definitely serves to make the game more consistent.
They chose Charisma for Warlocks in 5e because player feedback told them to stay with Charisma.
So, why does the community prefer Charisma over Intelligence? Especially when I've seen the majority of people say that we need more Intelligence casters?
For reference, I know I can just allow Warlocks to use Intelligence in my games. I do allow them.
Its just a better stat. People will say oh i as the great and amazing DM I am make intelligence a great stat with history rolls etc. But for 99.99% of the games out there that is a bunch of crap. Charisma does something tangible, intelligence doesn't. There is a reason its the number one dump stat in this game.
A warlock studies occultism for the first 2 levels, at level 3 actually makes a pact.
And this is why I really hope Warlocks use Intelligence for spellcasting in 1DD. There's an argument for both Intelligence and Charisma but I think their overall "studying the occult" and "uncovering arcane secrets" theme suits Intelligence far better. If I recall correctly, even J-Craw (or another 5e designer) said they wanted it to be Intelligence, and they chose Charisma solely because it was Charisma in 3e-4e.
Overall I like the 3rd-level subclass change. It's weird but it definitely serves to make the game more consistent.
They chose Charisma for Warlocks in 5e because player feedback told them to stay with Charisma.
So, why does the community prefer Charisma over Intelligence? Especially when I've seen the majority of people say that we need more Intelligence casters?
For reference, I know I can just allow Warlocks to use Intelligence in my games. I do allow them.
Its just a better stat. People will say oh i as the great and amazing DM I am make intelligence a great stat with history rolls etc. But for 99.99% of the games out there that is a bunch of crap. Charisma does something tangible, intelligence doesn't. There is a reason its the number one dump stat in this game.
That depends on your game and your group. If you're playing a hack-and-slash Diablo-style "kill shit get loot" game, then Charisma is likely to be useless. If you're playing a roleplay-heavy mystery game, both Intelligence and Charisma are more likely to have significant uses.
Fortunately, nothing they've shown us so far is dumbing down the game at all.
Eh, I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment. There's little excuse for level-by-level recommendation of prepared spells.
I get it. Spellcasters are hard. They want more people to feel comfortable playing them, and that's a noble goal.
It's just that... I try real hard not to gatekeep at my table, but the one thing I absolutely expect from players is that they put in the effort to understand and play their characters. I dislike it when players use an obvious race-class-background synergy with no personality, I dislike it when they use the quickstart equipment rules (when we're not quickstarting), and I'm going to hate it when they roll up packing the list of spells from the Cleric description in the PHB.
Does it really impact me? No. Is it the end of the world? No. But it is disappointing. I put a lot of effort into my campaigns. It's like having a player roll up with a wood elven archery champion fighter named Legolas. Really, friend? Wood elven archery champion fighter wasn't enough, you couldn't spend 30 seconds on a baby-naming website?
Sigh.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Fortunately, nothing they've shown us so far is dumbing down the game at all.
Eh, I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment. There's little excuse for level-by-level recommendation of prepared spells.
I get it. Spellcasters are hard. They want more people to feel comfortable playing them, and that's a noble goal.
It's just that... I try real hard not to gatekeep at my table, but the one thing I absolutely expect from players is that they put in the effort to understand and play their characters. I dislike it when players use an obvious race-class-background synergy with no personality, I dislike it when they use the quickstart equipment rules (when we're not quickstarting), and I'm going to hate it when they roll up packing the list of spells from the Cleric description in the PHB.
Does it really impact me? No. Is it the end of the world? No. But it is disappointing. I put a lot of effort into my campaigns. It's like having a player roll up with a wood elven archery champion fighter named Legolas. Really, friend? Wood elven archery champion fighter wasn't enough, you couldn't spend 30 seconds on a baby-naming website?
Sigh.
Gotta say, this is a complaint I could have never imagined anyone would ever have.
Just having suggestions for new players doesn't dumb down the rules in any way. They still have to learn them all eventually. I honestly don't know how you can tell when a player is using suggested equipment, and when they are just picking the same items because they want them. But I suppose you can just tell them not to use suggested spells either. Though they would be missing out on some real important ones.
Gotta say, this is a complaint I could have never imagined anyone would ever have.
Just having suggestions for new players doesn't dumb down the rules in any way. They still have to learn them all eventually. I honestly don't know how you can tell when a player is using suggested equipment, and when they are just picking the same items because they want them. But I suppose you can just tell them not to use suggested spells either. Though they would be missing out on some real important ones.
Honestly I don't know what to say...
I feel like my last post was enough of a departure from the purpose of the thread, so I don't want to go into this in too much detail, but I guess I should've been clearer about what about this bugs me.
All character creation is just picking crap off a list, when it comes right down to it. What makes it something special that people get excited about is the feeling of ownership that making a choice between options gives them. Players who don't feel that make me sad.
I don't care that someone has taken chain mail and a longsword because that's what the Fighter description told them to do, I care that they don't have enough investment in their character to look at the available options and choose chain mail and a longsword because it is what they want. That absence of... I dunno... self-actualization? --is absolutely readily visible in play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Gotta say, this is a complaint I could have never imagined anyone would ever have.
Just having suggestions for new players doesn't dumb down the rules in any way. They still have to learn them all eventually. I honestly don't know how you can tell when a player is using suggested equipment, and when they are just picking the same items because they want them. But I suppose you can just tell them not to use suggested spells either. Though they would be missing out on some real important ones.
Honestly I don't know what to say...
I feel like my last post was enough of a departure from the purpose of the thread, so I don't want to go into this in too much detail, but I guess I should've been clearer about what about this bugs me.
All character creation is just picking crap off a list, when it comes right down to it. What makes it something special that people get excited about is the feeling of ownership that making a choice between options gives them. Players who don't feel that make me sad.
I don't care that someone has taken chain mail and a longsword because that's what the Fighter description told them to do, I care that they don't have enough investment in their character to look at the available options and choose chain mail and a longsword because it is what they want. That absence of... I dunno... self-actualization? --is absolutely readily visible in play.
I don't think it really counts as 'gatekeeping' either. Think of it like, I dunno, LoL (it's been, like, a decade since I played a lot so forgive me if this analogy is bad). There's a bunch of champions like Ashe who are relatively easy and straight-forwards to play making them ideal for newcomers. There's also champions like Lulu who are more complicated and more difficult to play. If you're new to the game you want to avoid playing Lulu and, instead, play as Ashe. That doesn't mean Lulu's better or worse than Ashe; but the way she functions allows for people to do abnormal things they normally couldn't. But in order to really take advantage of those things they need to understand the game mechanics a lot better than what a newbie could be realistically expected to do.
In D&D we may want more newbies playing casters but what actually makes for a good caster? It's not just laying down fireballs or throwing a cure wounds up every once in a while. If you really want to be a good caster you need to know and understand the game a lot better than what any newbie could be realistically expected to know. Even if your character is identical on paper to another character knowing where and when to use your abilities is a massive difference. I don't feel it's wrong to try and tell newcomers that they should stick to something like a fighter or rogue or, if they do go caster, provide them with a list of suggested spells. But it is wrong to rob a class of depth and diversity in an attempt to make it more appealing to newcomers.
And, honestly, what does making them all similar really accomplish in regards to making them 'newbie friendly'? It's not going to teach you stuff like 'if you are restrained but have subtle-spell you can keep casting so long as you don't use spells that require ingrediants or somehow get your components/spell focus' or the like. Not saying 'OMG CASTERS ARE SOOO HARD AND REQUIRE SO MUCH SKILL' but rather that 'the things that make a caster truely effective are learned through experience and no amount of simplification can change that'.
My biggest concern with 3rd level subclass choices for the casters is how it impacts multi class roleplay.
If you're starting from level 1, fine I can get behind the apprentice stage of not having a Patron or Domain. However, I've got a moment that's just occurred in my campaign in which my pirate/ranger player beseeched the God of storms and shipwrecks to save their companion at level up.
In 5e they could take a level of warlock or cleric and straight away get a thematic subclass that ties to the situation. Under the 1D&D it would take 3 levels of generic warlock/cleric.
Yes I know that can always be skinned as such, however, it won't be the same and if everyone will play it that way... why have it different?
Another good point. I had a paladin take a level of sorc and it wouldn't have been anywhere near as fun if I had just been a ****** spellcaster in plate armor if I had to wait till level 3.
My biggest concern with 3rd level subclass choices for the casters is how it impacts multi class roleplay.
If you're starting from level 1, fine I can get behind the apprentice stage of not having a Patron or Domain. However, I've got a moment that's just occurred in my campaign in which my pirate/ranger player beseeched the God of storms and shipwrecks to save their companion at level up.
In 5e they could take a level of warlock or cleric and straight away get a thematic subclass that ties to the situation. Under the 1D&D it would take 3 levels of generic warlock/cleric.
Yes I know that can always be skinned as such, however, it won't be the same and if everyone will play it that way... why have it different?
That sounds a lot like you're talking about Divine Intervention, which is only available to 10th level+ cleric. DM's are of course free to run the game how they like but under 5E RAW, you'd need to be a 10th level Cleric or higher for this type of thing; Way way higher than the subclass choice. So on a pure RAW discussion 5E already had a mechanic for this and it was limited to a specific class at a specific level.
Personally, as a person who has mainly played Paladin, I have no issue with subclass coming in at 3rd level, it's not been a real issue. A paladin can still be faithful before their oath, just like a cleric can.
My biggest concern with 3rd level subclass choices for the casters is how it impacts multi class roleplay.
If you're starting from level 1, fine I can get behind the apprentice stage of not having a Patron or Domain. However, I've got a moment that's just occurred in my campaign in which my pirate/ranger player beseeched the God of storms and shipwrecks to save their companion at level up.
In 5e they could take a level of warlock or cleric and straight away get a thematic subclass that ties to the situation. Under the 1D&D it would take 3 levels of generic warlock/cleric.
Yes I know that can always be skinned as such, however, it won't be the same and if everyone will play it that way... why have it different?
I think the unfortunate situation perhaps is that at many tables, it is not a strong story-related event that causes players to multiclass their characters, but mechanical advantages. The Warlock, Cleric, and Sorcerer classes are perhaps the greatest tempters and culprits of this because of how their mechanics work in 5e.
For your example, I would still argue that a level of Warlock or Cleric still can quite effectively reflect the character's special new relationship with a patron or god. I wouldn't necessarily expect a powerful being such as that to start providing truly unique, thematic abilities (beyond the fact that the player does have the ability to choose spells that fit the theme) until the character had proven themselves. If that is not enough, even outside of homebrewing some special added feature if it seems justified, a DM always does have the ability to have the patron/god give the character an appropriate magic item to emphasize the new bond.
On another point related to people arguing the necessity of Sorcerers in particular needing their subclass at first level because the class must have a source of their innate magic that is apparent from the beginning, what do you do when a player starts off in a different class and then wants to multiclass into Sorcerer? Would that be forbidden because, if they really are a Sorcerer with innate magic, that only can be true from level one? If not, then why is it so hard to imagine that the specific "flavor" of their innate magic takes longer to manifest than just the first inklings of their inherent magical nature (reflected in the ability to cast cantrips and first level spells)?
My paladin got hit with wild magic which gave her her sorc powers.
A while back I had a sorcerer change from wild magic to divine soul because, not only did it play into the overall story better, but the GM wasn't really doing the surges or anything meaning they basically got one free advantage and then that was it. It was played out by a goddess coming down and bestowing her favor directly on my sorc.
I also feel there's a big difference between a power being latent and manifesting later on in life, and a power already being manifested yet for some reason not actually being manifested until later. Like, if I find out I had dragonsblood in me why has it suddenly allowed me to cast magic and spells and everything but I have to wait for a notably lesser aspect to physically manifest; especially if I could already potentially manifest it in some form via magic (like dragons breath)? I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm saying it's stupid to delay us getting anything, especially since that would make us just weaker casters and meta-magic is dumb for level 1 and makes far less sense both thematically and mechanically.
What? You want to make it more open to newbies so you throw them into metamagic instead of maybe 1 abilities and a spell or two?
It was not Divine Intervention I was referring to. They just sought power (leveling up) from a patron that tied into their story (domain subclass very thematic).
Works better in 5e than in 1D&D. Not world ending, just less thematic and satisfying.
Also, it definitely feels different for the half-casters as it doesn't define them in the same way (although you could argue it both ways with the paladin).
My paladin got hit with wild magic which gave her her sorc powers.
A while back I had a sorcerer change from wild magic to divine soul because, not only did it play into the overall story better, but the GM wasn't really doing the surges or anything meaning they basically got one free advantage and then that was it. It was played out by a goddess coming down and bestowing her favor directly on my sorc.
I also feel there's a big difference between a power being latent and manifesting later on in life, and a power already being manifested yet for some reason not actually being manifested until later. Like, if I find out I had dragonsblood in me why has it suddenly allowed me to cast magic and spells and everything but I have to wait for a notably lesser aspect to physically manifest; especially if I could already potentially manifest it in some form via magic (like dragons breath)? I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm saying it's stupid to delay us getting anything, especially since that would make us just weaker casters and meta-magic is dumb for level 1 and makes far less sense both thematically and mechanically.
What? You want to make it more open to newbies so you throw them into metamagic instead of maybe 1 abilities and a spell or two?
More and more I see the problems around wotc being hesitant to say to dms(and players to a lesser extent)this is how you should balance around our(dnd) play, if you want to adjust via homebrew know that your changes will have a ripple effect. So many options are ruined by dms not following expectations acting as king of the castle and making bad choices (intentional or not). Wotc needs start being an advisor for the rules they give. When they do it mostly works (sage advice) when they don't it falls flat ( ranger, Wildwater ect)
Dnd has always had its brand established by its archetypes. The simple solution was we match this universes narrative( forgotten Realms archetypes) and if you change universes expect slighly different homebrew fixes.
The archetypes for sorcerer and warlock basically have shifted pacing but it still can work. More than once I have multi-classed sorcerer and usually just talking it out with the dm will let me find an open place to justify any narrative forward. Any instance of odd exposure could be a new change or an activation of a dormant ability.( see superheroe comics for possible framework concepts)
Another good point. I had a paladin take a level of sorc and it wouldn't have been anywhere near as fun if I had just been a ****** spellcaster in plate armor if I had to wait till level 3.
I’m confused why this is the mountain many are wanting to stand on. I’m laughing at everyone who uses rp elements to explain why a subclass has to be at level 1. Whether or not you get your subclass abilities at 1 or 3 you can still rp how you got them. A lot of people want to disguise their min/max behavior as rp choices. Admit what you are and live with it. It’s actually okay. Being powerful is part of the game. Just don’t lie about why at level 7 or 9 your Paladin is suddenly taking levels in some Cha caster.
Also someone said metamagic at 1 on sorcerer would just be another reason to dip. Well this wasn’t well thought out. Lvl 1 Sorcerer feature has to be font of magic. You can’t get metamagics without having sorcery points. Even that is weird since there isn’t anything you could do with 1 sorcery point until you have metamagic. Sorcerers will either gain new options with metamagics though font of magic, or the 1 sorcerer feature is something new.
I’m confused why this is the mountain many are wanting to stand on. I’m laughing at everyone who uses rp elements to explain why a subclass has to be at level 1. Whether or not you get your subclass abilities at 1 or 3 you can still rp how you got them. A lot of people want to disguise their min/max behavior as rp choices. Admit what you are and live with it. It’s actually okay. Being powerful is part of the game. Just don’t lie about why at level 7 or 9 your Paladin is suddenly taking levels in some Cha caster.
Also someone said metamagic at 1 on sorcerer would just be another reason to dip. Well this wasn’t well thought out. Lvl 1 Sorcerer feature has to be font of magic. You can’t get metamagics without having sorcery points. Even that is weird since there isn’t anything you could do with 1 sorcery point until you have metamagic. Sorcerers will either gain new options with metamagics though font of magic, or the 1 sorcerer feature is something new.
To be fair no one here has any idea what Sorcerer or Warlock will look like, and we won't for at least 3 or 4 months.
I’m confused why this is the mountain many are wanting to stand on. I’m laughing at everyone who uses rp elements to explain why a subclass has to be at level 1. Whether or not you get your subclass abilities at 1 or 3 you can still rp how you got them. A lot of people want to disguise their min/max behavior as rp choices. Admit what you are and live with it. It’s actually okay. Being powerful is part of the game. Just don’t lie about why at level 7 or 9 your Paladin is suddenly taking levels in some Cha caster.
Also someone said metamagic at 1 on sorcerer would just be another reason to dip. Well this wasn’t well thought out. Lvl 1 Sorcerer feature has to be font of magic. You can’t get metamagics without having sorcery points. Even that is weird since there isn’t anything you could do with 1 sorcery point until you have metamagic. Sorcerers will either gain new options with metamagics though font of magic, or the 1 sorcerer feature is something new.
To be fair no one here has any idea what Sorcerer or Warlock will look like, and we won't for at least 3 or 4 months.
I tried to say that earlier in this thread, and I was just basically ignored.
We like to speculate and have thought experiments. We have some idea. Sorcerers will at least resemble their 5e counterparts. Also metamagic and font of magic can’t become lvl 1 features as they currently are designed. So we know it won’t be as simple as moving one of those to lvl 1 and subclass to 3. Now as far as what they will do is speculation. They could create new features like they did for clerics. Metamagics could be feats that any mage could take sorcerers just get some free like fighting styles. Sorcerers might have restricted schools like bards. With speculation all our wildest dreams and worse nightmares are possible.
We also know that either wizards or sorcerers need to break the everyone is a prepared caster and prepares exactly the number of spells per spell level spells in some way or they will be extremely similar.
It was not Divine Intervention I was referring to. They just sought power (leveling up) from a patron that tied into their story (domain subclass very thematic).
Works better in 5e than in 1D&D. Not world ending, just less thematic and satisfying.
Also, it definitely feels different for the half-casters as it doesn't define them in the same way (although you could argue it both ways with the paladin).
If you're talking about how they unlocked cleric as a multiclass, nothing about changing the subclass to 3rd level prevents what you're saying, altho I'd usually want to see more than just seeking power from a patron, that is more the kind of thing that Warlocks do than Clerics, Clerics are blessed as chosen of their gods who get their power from fervent devotion while understanding and carrying out the will of their god.
But again, Gods generally don't intervene or grant power just because somebody asks really really loudly, heck most devoted followers of a god never get to become clerics even if they spend their whole serving as a priest for that god. I am gunna give the benefit of keeping things small for the forum post so a lot of not included details on this one. However, it would actually work better with 1D&D than 5E, from the details you have given since you can have that essentially apprentice stage where you start to get the powers whereas you're talking about getting full blown cleric powers granted in a single level, which is actually weird when thought about from the perspective of multi-classing into cleric.
The only issue that holding subclasses to level 3 has is when it shifts a character's entire role, but given that level 3 usually doesn't take too too long to hit, it's not a major issue. An example of this however, might be a Circle of the Moon Druid, who usually are going to be more tanky with wildshape than caster but druids already need to wait til level 2 for that in 5E anyways.
Another good point. I had a paladin take a level of sorc and it wouldn't have been anywhere near as fun if I had just been a ****** spellcaster in plate armor if I had to wait till level 3.
Looks like someone just wants an imba pwn build.
To be fair, a huge fun of the sorcerer dip are those initial bloodline abilities. It may be optimized, but that doesn't mean it isn't fun. People can make the same build for different reasons. Though generally the reasons coincide since making a mechanically strong character tends to be fun.
Personally, I can understand not wanting dips. On the other hand, dips made multiclassing viable in lower level campaigns. My personal favorite multiclass builds tend to take multiple levels of each class, my favorite AL character is Paladin 6/Warlock 5/Sorcerer 9 for example, but I personally have the benefit of being able to find campaigns that reach into T3 and T4, which is not the norm.
I feel like a good compromise for if they want to shift more features down to avoid dips would be to have some shared features be based on a collective level. For example, Extra attack could be gained by having 5 levels of any warrior class and/or ranger+paladin; just the basic extra attack, still would need fighter 11 if you wanted 3 attacks. Not sure what else, but Extra Attack was the first thing that came to my mind.
There are Feats/ASI, but then the 20th level epic boon comes into question; plus I can see people already lining up their multiclasses to gain a Feat at 20th level in order to take an epic boon.
To be fair no one here has any idea what Sorcerer or Warlock will look like, and we won't for at least 3 or 4 months.
I tried to say that earlier in this thread, and I was just basically ignored.
In addition to the first draft of the Cleric getting its subclass at 3rd level, this thread does also draw on (unclear and non-binding) statements that folks at Wizards have made around the idea that standardizing subclasses would be desirable.
I seem to remember that back during the D&D Next playtest in 2013, 'class archetypes' were more standardized (at one point they were independent of class entirely), and this was eventually abandoned for the D&D5 release because it didn't work. I don't expect them to be any more successful this time, but that doesn't render speculation invalid.
There are comment boxes in the playtest surveys for a reason.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Its just a better stat. People will say oh i as the great and amazing DM I am make intelligence a great stat with history rolls etc. But for 99.99% of the games out there that is a bunch of crap. Charisma does something tangible, intelligence doesn't. There is a reason its the number one dump stat in this game.
That depends on your game and your group. If you're playing a hack-and-slash Diablo-style "kill shit get loot" game, then Charisma is likely to be useless. If you're playing a roleplay-heavy mystery game, both Intelligence and Charisma are more likely to have significant uses.
[REDACTED]
Eh, I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment. There's little excuse for level-by-level recommendation of prepared spells.
I get it. Spellcasters are hard. They want more people to feel comfortable playing them, and that's a noble goal.
It's just that... I try real hard not to gatekeep at my table, but the one thing I absolutely expect from players is that they put in the effort to understand and play their characters. I dislike it when players use an obvious race-class-background synergy with no personality, I dislike it when they use the quickstart equipment rules (when we're not quickstarting), and I'm going to hate it when they roll up packing the list of spells from the Cleric description in the PHB.
Does it really impact me? No. Is it the end of the world? No. But it is disappointing. I put a lot of effort into my campaigns. It's like having a player roll up with a wood elven archery champion fighter named Legolas. Really, friend? Wood elven archery champion fighter wasn't enough, you couldn't spend 30 seconds on a baby-naming website?
Sigh.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Gotta say, this is a complaint I could have never imagined anyone would ever have.
Just having suggestions for new players doesn't dumb down the rules in any way. They still have to learn them all eventually. I honestly don't know how you can tell when a player is using suggested equipment, and when they are just picking the same items because they want them. But I suppose you can just tell them not to use suggested spells either. Though they would be missing out on some real important ones.
Honestly I don't know what to say...
I feel like my last post was enough of a departure from the purpose of the thread, so I don't want to go into this in too much detail, but I guess I should've been clearer about what about this bugs me.
All character creation is just picking crap off a list, when it comes right down to it. What makes it something special that people get excited about is the feeling of ownership that making a choice between options gives them. Players who don't feel that make me sad.
I don't care that someone has taken chain mail and a longsword because that's what the Fighter description told them to do, I care that they don't have enough investment in their character to look at the available options and choose chain mail and a longsword because it is what they want. That absence of... I dunno... self-actualization? --is absolutely readily visible in play.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
I don't think it really counts as 'gatekeeping' either. Think of it like, I dunno, LoL (it's been, like, a decade since I played a lot so forgive me if this analogy is bad). There's a bunch of champions like Ashe who are relatively easy and straight-forwards to play making them ideal for newcomers. There's also champions like Lulu who are more complicated and more difficult to play. If you're new to the game you want to avoid playing Lulu and, instead, play as Ashe. That doesn't mean Lulu's better or worse than Ashe; but the way she functions allows for people to do abnormal things they normally couldn't. But in order to really take advantage of those things they need to understand the game mechanics a lot better than what a newbie could be realistically expected to do.
In D&D we may want more newbies playing casters but what actually makes for a good caster? It's not just laying down fireballs or throwing a cure wounds up every once in a while. If you really want to be a good caster you need to know and understand the game a lot better than what any newbie could be realistically expected to know. Even if your character is identical on paper to another character knowing where and when to use your abilities is a massive difference. I don't feel it's wrong to try and tell newcomers that they should stick to something like a fighter or rogue or, if they do go caster, provide them with a list of suggested spells. But it is wrong to rob a class of depth and diversity in an attempt to make it more appealing to newcomers.
And, honestly, what does making them all similar really accomplish in regards to making them 'newbie friendly'? It's not going to teach you stuff like 'if you are restrained but have subtle-spell you can keep casting so long as you don't use spells that require ingrediants or somehow get your components/spell focus' or the like. Not saying 'OMG CASTERS ARE SOOO HARD AND REQUIRE SO MUCH SKILL' but rather that 'the things that make a caster truely effective are learned through experience and no amount of simplification can change that'.
My biggest concern with 3rd level subclass choices for the casters is how it impacts multi class roleplay.
If you're starting from level 1, fine I can get behind the apprentice stage of not having a Patron or Domain. However, I've got a moment that's just occurred in my campaign in which my pirate/ranger player beseeched the God of storms and shipwrecks to save their companion at level up.
In 5e they could take a level of warlock or cleric and straight away get a thematic subclass that ties to the situation. Under the 1D&D it would take 3 levels of generic warlock/cleric.
Yes I know that can always be skinned as such, however, it won't be the same and if everyone will play it that way... why have it different?
Another good point. I had a paladin take a level of sorc and it wouldn't have been anywhere near as fun if I had just been a ****** spellcaster in plate armor if I had to wait till level 3.
That sounds a lot like you're talking about Divine Intervention, which is only available to 10th level+ cleric. DM's are of course free to run the game how they like but under 5E RAW, you'd need to be a 10th level Cleric or higher for this type of thing; Way way higher than the subclass choice. So on a pure RAW discussion 5E already had a mechanic for this and it was limited to a specific class at a specific level.
Personally, as a person who has mainly played Paladin, I have no issue with subclass coming in at 3rd level, it's not been a real issue. A paladin can still be faithful before their oath, just like a cleric can.
I think the unfortunate situation perhaps is that at many tables, it is not a strong story-related event that causes players to multiclass their characters, but mechanical advantages. The Warlock, Cleric, and Sorcerer classes are perhaps the greatest tempters and culprits of this because of how their mechanics work in 5e.
For your example, I would still argue that a level of Warlock or Cleric still can quite effectively reflect the character's special new relationship with a patron or god. I wouldn't necessarily expect a powerful being such as that to start providing truly unique, thematic abilities (beyond the fact that the player does have the ability to choose spells that fit the theme) until the character had proven themselves. If that is not enough, even outside of homebrewing some special added feature if it seems justified, a DM always does have the ability to have the patron/god give the character an appropriate magic item to emphasize the new bond.
On another point related to people arguing the necessity of Sorcerers in particular needing their subclass at first level because the class must have a source of their innate magic that is apparent from the beginning, what do you do when a player starts off in a different class and then wants to multiclass into Sorcerer? Would that be forbidden because, if they really are a Sorcerer with innate magic, that only can be true from level one? If not, then why is it so hard to imagine that the specific "flavor" of their innate magic takes longer to manifest than just the first inklings of their inherent magical nature (reflected in the ability to cast cantrips and first level spells)?
My paladin got hit with wild magic which gave her her sorc powers.
A while back I had a sorcerer change from wild magic to divine soul because, not only did it play into the overall story better, but the GM wasn't really doing the surges or anything meaning they basically got one free advantage and then that was it. It was played out by a goddess coming down and bestowing her favor directly on my sorc.
I also feel there's a big difference between a power being latent and manifesting later on in life, and a power already being manifested yet for some reason not actually being manifested until later. Like, if I find out I had dragonsblood in me why has it suddenly allowed me to cast magic and spells and everything but I have to wait for a notably lesser aspect to physically manifest; especially if I could already potentially manifest it in some form via magic (like dragons breath)? I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm saying it's stupid to delay us getting anything, especially since that would make us just weaker casters and meta-magic is dumb for level 1 and makes far less sense both thematically and mechanically.
What? You want to make it more open to newbies so you throw them into metamagic instead of maybe 1 abilities and a spell or two?
It was not Divine Intervention I was referring to. They just sought power (leveling up) from a patron that tied into their story (domain subclass very thematic).
Works better in 5e than in 1D&D. Not world ending, just less thematic and satisfying.
Also, it definitely feels different for the half-casters as it doesn't define them in the same way (although you could argue it both ways with the paladin).
More and more I see the problems around wotc being hesitant to say to dms(and players to a lesser extent)this is how you should balance around our(dnd) play, if you want to adjust via homebrew know that your changes will have a ripple effect. So many options are ruined by dms not following expectations acting as king of the castle and making bad choices (intentional or not). Wotc needs start being an advisor for the rules they give. When they do it mostly works (sage advice) when they don't it falls flat ( ranger, Wildwater ect)
Dnd has always had its brand established by its archetypes. The simple solution was we match this universes narrative( forgotten Realms archetypes) and if you change universes expect slighly different homebrew fixes.
The archetypes for sorcerer and warlock basically have shifted pacing but it still can work. More than once I have multi-classed sorcerer and usually just talking it out with the dm will let me find an open place to justify any narrative forward. Any instance of odd exposure could be a new change or an activation of a dormant ability.( see superheroe comics for possible framework concepts)
Looks like someone just wants an imba pwn build.
I’m confused why this is the mountain many are wanting to stand on. I’m laughing at everyone who uses rp elements to explain why a subclass has to be at level 1. Whether or not you get your subclass abilities at 1 or 3 you can still rp how you got them. A lot of people want to disguise their min/max behavior as rp choices. Admit what you are and live with it. It’s actually okay. Being powerful is part of the game. Just don’t lie about why at level 7 or 9 your Paladin is suddenly taking levels in some Cha caster.
Also someone said metamagic at 1 on sorcerer would just be another reason to dip. Well this wasn’t well thought out. Lvl 1 Sorcerer feature has to be font of magic. You can’t get metamagics without having sorcery points. Even that is weird since there isn’t anything you could do with 1 sorcery point until you have metamagic. Sorcerers will either gain new options with metamagics though font of magic, or the 1 sorcerer feature is something new.
To be fair no one here has any idea what Sorcerer or Warlock will look like, and we won't for at least 3 or 4 months.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
We like to speculate and have thought experiments. We have some idea. Sorcerers will at least resemble their 5e counterparts. Also metamagic and font of magic can’t become lvl 1 features as they currently are designed. So we know it won’t be as simple as moving one of those to lvl 1 and subclass to 3. Now as far as what they will do is speculation. They could create new features like they did for clerics. Metamagics could be feats that any mage could take sorcerers just get some free like fighting styles. Sorcerers might have restricted schools like bards. With speculation all our wildest dreams and worse nightmares are possible.
We also know that either wizards or sorcerers need to break the everyone is a prepared caster and prepares exactly the number of spells per spell level spells in some way or they will be extremely similar.
If you're talking about how they unlocked cleric as a multiclass, nothing about changing the subclass to 3rd level prevents what you're saying, altho I'd usually want to see more than just seeking power from a patron, that is more the kind of thing that Warlocks do than Clerics, Clerics are blessed as chosen of their gods who get their power from fervent devotion while understanding and carrying out the will of their god.
But again, Gods generally don't intervene or grant power just because somebody asks really really loudly, heck most devoted followers of a god never get to become clerics even if they spend their whole serving as a priest for that god. I am gunna give the benefit of keeping things small for the forum post so a lot of not included details on this one. However, it would actually work better with 1D&D than 5E, from the details you have given since you can have that essentially apprentice stage where you start to get the powers whereas you're talking about getting full blown cleric powers granted in a single level, which is actually weird when thought about from the perspective of multi-classing into cleric.
The only issue that holding subclasses to level 3 has is when it shifts a character's entire role, but given that level 3 usually doesn't take too too long to hit, it's not a major issue. An example of this however, might be a Circle of the Moon Druid, who usually are going to be more tanky with wildshape than caster but druids already need to wait til level 2 for that in 5E anyways.
To be fair, a huge fun of the sorcerer dip are those initial bloodline abilities. It may be optimized, but that doesn't mean it isn't fun. People can make the same build for different reasons. Though generally the reasons coincide since making a mechanically strong character tends to be fun.
Personally, I can understand not wanting dips. On the other hand, dips made multiclassing viable in lower level campaigns. My personal favorite multiclass builds tend to take multiple levels of each class, my favorite AL character is Paladin 6/Warlock 5/Sorcerer 9 for example, but I personally have the benefit of being able to find campaigns that reach into T3 and T4, which is not the norm.
I feel like a good compromise for if they want to shift more features down to avoid dips would be to have some shared features be based on a collective level. For example, Extra attack could be gained by having 5 levels of any warrior class and/or ranger+paladin; just the basic extra attack, still would need fighter 11 if you wanted 3 attacks. Not sure what else, but Extra Attack was the first thing that came to my mind.
There are Feats/ASI, but then the 20th level epic boon comes into question; plus I can see people already lining up their multiclasses to gain a Feat at 20th level in order to take an epic boon.
In addition to the first draft of the Cleric getting its subclass at 3rd level, this thread does also draw on (unclear and non-binding) statements that folks at Wizards have made around the idea that standardizing subclasses would be desirable.
I seem to remember that back during the D&D Next playtest in 2013, 'class archetypes' were more standardized (at one point they were independent of class entirely), and this was eventually abandoned for the D&D5 release because it didn't work. I don't expect them to be any more successful this time, but that doesn't render speculation invalid.
There are comment boxes in the playtest surveys for a reason.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you