Is it just me, or do most of these subclasses seem really odd thematically/flavor-wise?
A Bard subclass that sounds a lot like a Lore Bard but with a nature theme instead of an art-theme.
A Fighter subclass that sounds so confused between upholding Paladin-esque ideals like it's Good aligned while having a Ranger-esque companionship with an Amethyst Dragon that's known to be Neutral aligned.
The Paladin is pretending to be a Genie Warlock when the flavoring could be on the actual elements itself instead of the type of creature with no issue.
The Rogue seems to be an Assassin with a heavier enthesis on wanton murder with a semi-deity focus while using Intelligence instead of Wisdom.
The Sorcerer is tied to the Weave like literally all Arcane Casters are while somehow having a Spell List that practically the Celestial Warlock, I:E Divine magic turned Arcane.
Seriously, what is this? I could barely look into the actual mechanics of these in the document because the theme and flavoring was so odd.
Agreed, I looked through the mechanics and it's a great big "What?" from me.
Bard is basically Starry Druid, but you're a bard.
Fighter is Drakewarden Ranger but you're a fighter, and the dragon is dunamancy-ish rather than elemental (and also weaker in everyway than beastmaster ranger / drakewarden because...?).
Paladin is genie warlock but you're a paladin, and it gets a cantrip.. because? reasons? and can be unarmoured? what???
Cleric for some reason now has 3 bonus spells per spell level instead of 2 and is stealing from Aberrant mind sorcerer for the rest of it.
Ranger is winter themed, but then suddenly gets a Song of Rest feature at 7th level, and become a ghost at level 15?
Sorcerer is Wildfire Druid but it's a sorcerer but also gets a counterspell abjuration-y feature, and a spell-specific version of Evasion.
Rogue is the only one that's thematically consistent but basically all their features are just "deal more damage" but they randomly get 1 cantrip??
Oh and Bladesinger, it's bladesinger but now you don't need to invest it Dexterity at all, and you can use STR-weapons with your INT so feel free to make a Bladesinger that goes around smashing faces with a warhammer.
I don't get why Paladins get an Oath of all Genies (sort of) but the Warlock of Genies is still a legacy option and there you had to pick one genie (which I thought sensible).
The Winter Ranger is a bit random, why not any other terrain?
No Barbarian or Warlock option
I personally don't like the rogue, but that's my playing preference
It all feels a little underbaked (like the PHB 2024). Hopefully new feats / backgrounds will be better. Yes, I'm that naive!
It appears that what they are doing is going back to the old 2e approach to classes: they are being structured to match the setting.
While they can be used in any campaign, they ae designed to work and based on Archetypes from the Forgotten Realms, so the classes are an insight into some of the changes they will be making to FR.
I am in favor of this -- Classes should be specific to the setting, in my opinion. One of the most common criticisms of FR is that it is a "world for everything in the game" -- it has no unique character of its own. The classes will give that feel, as well as guide some of the ways of thinking about FR, because they are going to become canon (for this edition at least).
My overall gloss will have to wait, but if they make this a start to a re-release of other settings, that would be an interesting shift in focus -- people forget or do not know that all the old settings had their own unique classes, not just their own take on species.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
They trying to be area proper for these subclasses in the FR settings. Which brings out the nostalgia of first playing 2e DnD in the FR settings. I’m surprised they didn’t add something for the Dale lands, Maybe in the campaign settings release in November they’ll surprise me. I think they just tried way too hard for this concept even with the FR settings in mind. A Bladesinger cleric, with a free TWF feat built in would have been nice, sorry that was my cleric back in 2e
It appears that what they are doing is going back to the old 2e approach to classes: they are being structured to match the setting.
While they can be used in any campaign, they ae designed to work and based on Archetypes from the Forgotten Realms, so the classes are an insight into some of the changes they will be making to FR.
I am in favor of this -- Classes should be specific to the setting, in my opinion. One of the most common criticisms of FR is that it is a "world for everything in the game" -- it has no unique character of its own. The classes will give that feel, as well as guide some of the ways of thinking about FR, because they are going to become canon (for this edition at least).
My overall gloss will have to wait, but if they make this a start to a re-release of other settings, that would be an interesting shift in focus -- people forget or do not know that all the old settings had their own unique classes, not just their own take on species.
Unless they pull a "Banneret serves as the generic name for the Purple Dragon Knight archetype" type of deal including renaming mechanical features, then I am most certainly not in favor of this. This might've been the design philosophy of 2e, but that's so long ago and outside of the 5e norm that it is just completely irrational and alien today.
People want to play whatever subclass appeals to them to the point that D&D for the most part has done away with Setting Locked subclasses, either re-releasing them in expanded rules like XGtE or having sections for how the subclasses might work in other settings if your DM allow it such as the SCAG subclasses. Even when they haven't, they have still made the subclass theme and flavor general enough to be applicable in wide swaths of settings, typically with secondary line of flavor text that details how the subclass uniquely correspond with the setting it is meant for such as with the Lunar Sorcerer or indeed the Banneret/Purple Dragon Knight.
This generic subclass theming is far better since it's the best of both worlds. You have something that is wide enough that Players and DMs can personalize the base to fit what they want, while also having the option of specifying it further for the intended setting. Doing this the other way around would result in a lot of unnecessary extra work to generalize content which will just be annoying and put many people off from allowing it. Heck, even from a business perspective it makes sense to make subclasses more generally applicable so that more people will want to get it.
Moon Bard gets three(!) Bardic options to everyone else's one (and the ability to use 2/3 of them for free) and a token "spell as feature".
Knowledge Cleric gets more combat spells because the creators don't get why people choose a utility subclass, a feature that doesn't give you a new feature, a guaranteed 18 in Intelligence checks at level 6(!), and lazy advantage.
Purple Dragon Knight is a hack-job of the Drakewarden, except the drake requires investing in Intelligence when nothing else in the subclass expects such.
Genie Paladin has a glaring overreach of options, a broken feature that gives absurd AC to any Charisma build off of a three-level dip, and a "anything succeeds" reaction at Level 20.
Winter Walker continues the terrible obsession with Hunter's Mark, forcing you to use the spell to use most of your features instead of using actual high-level spells, and a mediocre one-short-rest boon.
Scion Rogue gets an absurd off-turn Sneak Attack tool, a choice of boons where Bhaal is wildly better than the other choices (Chill Touch is near-worthless for a Rogue), and is just way better damage than any other Rogue.
Spellfire Sorcery gets a boon to slow down the game every time they use Sorcery Points, a feature that lets them refund spell slots used for Counter Spell, and another busted capstone.
It's amazing when Bladesinger is somehow the least busted subclass in this entire thing, even with buffs.
It took literally one release after the core books for power creep to set in. This is a very bad omen.
I haven’t had the chance to look over the document for the mechanics but I agree with AEDorsay and like the setting specific themes. And while setting specific, other than the rogue tied the the Dead Three, are pretty generic enough to be used in other settings. And even the rogue could just be a generic rogue that follows a death god in a homebrew setting.
I do think the pet class, Purple Dragon Knight, might be a bit of a miss. Would have preferred more focused around battlefield leader. But I guess when you have dragon in your name it’s kind of expected? But the alternate Banneret name in SCAG I’m hoping will carry over to the official release, though then the dragon pet fits less. Will see.
It appears that what they are doing is going back to the old 2e approach to classes: they are being structured to match the setting.
While they can be used in any campaign, they ae designed to work and based on Archetypes from the Forgotten Realms, so the classes are an insight into some of the changes they will be making to FR.
I am in favor of this -- Classes should be specific to the setting, in my opinion. One of the most common criticisms of FR is that it is a "world for everything in the game" -- it has no unique character of its own. The classes will give that feel, as well as guide some of the ways of thinking about FR, because they are going to become canon (for this edition at least).
My overall gloss will have to wait, but if they make this a start to a re-release of other settings, that would be an interesting shift in focus -- people forget or do not know that all the old settings had their own unique classes, not just their own take on species.
Unless they pull a "Banneret serves as the generic name for the Purple Dragon Knight archetype" type of deal including renaming mechanical features, then I am most certainly not in favor of this. This might've been the design philosophy of 2e, but that's so long ago and outside of the 5e norm that it is just completely irrational and alien today.
People want to play whatever subclass appeals to them to the point that D&D for the most part has done away with Setting Locked subclasses, either re-releasing them in expanded rules like XGtE or having sections for how the subclasses might work in other settings if your DM allow it such as the SCAG subclasses. Even when they haven't, they have still made the subclass theme and flavor general enough to be applicable in wide swaths of settings, typically with secondary line of flavor text that details how the subclass uniquely correspond with the setting it is meant for such as with the Lunar Sorcerer or indeed the Banneret/Purple Dragon Knight.
This generic subclass theming is far better since it's the best of both worlds. You have something that is wide enough that Players and DMs can personalize the base to fit what they want, while also having the option of specifying it further for the intended setting. Doing this the other way around would result in a lot of unnecessary extra work to generalize content which will just be annoying and put many people off from allowing it. Heck, even from a business perspective it makes sense to make subclasses more generally applicable so that more people will want to get it.
My only point of contention is that none of these classes have ever been setting locked, with the sole exception of Athas.
Even these classes aren't setting locked -- and they tell you that straight up.
I also see them as what they are: examples of how to do a subclass for one's own campaign setting. Since 60% of all games are in original settings, more examples and guidance would be good.
The pair of us have different ideas, approaches, and needs -- I had to create all new classes for my games because none of the classes as they are currently described can even be used in my setting. That applies to all of 5e -- though, in your favor, more heavily for 2014 because they were so damned flavored around FR (like these are).
But even the more bland ones can't be used because they break the premise of the setting. So it isn't a design issue on their side, it is a matter of the setting itself. But the same applies to a world like Athas, or Kara-tur, or whatever. there's nothing that stops a Krynn wizard class from being used in an FR game -- except the DM deciding they don't fit. That's not a "locked class", that's a DM decision. That's not a design issue, that's a Table issue.
there are going to be folks who will allow any class, any species, any kind of things fro the books intot heir games -- but that just loses some of the stuff that makes a setting attractive and interesting -- and makes the classes feel like they aren't part of that setting, and instead just something that is boring.
A lot of folks complained about the lore being stripped out of the classes in the PHB -- and, in that case, I absolutely agree with your position, and in regards to those classes. Those are the baselines, the defaults. They should not have lore in them because they are supposed to work with any world created by anyone that at least has the same underlying conceptualization (that is any inspiration or influence that shaped D&D).
FR is a setting -- not the default setting, either. All that lore should be in the setting materials for the classes of that setting.
they can't possibly create it for the vast majority of players who use their own worlds and settings -- but they can show how they would do it using the worlds they already have.
And that's the value in doing that, both as a business model and a design goal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I really like the Spellfire Sorcerer. It's a thematic subclass I've wanted them to make for years. Is it perfect, no it isn't, but it's pretty decent and definitely playable. I look forward to testing with my playtest group. The bladsinger's power creep is a bit much, but needs to be dialed back. The other subclasses really have 0 appeal to me and fill niches that really don't need to be filled.
Level 3 features are mostly okay, though tale of mirth might be problematic and is a very weird effect for its name.
Level 6 feature is fine at level 6, but doesn't scale.
Level 14 features are likely fine.
Knowledge Domain
Knowledge domain gives way too many bonus spells prepared.
Mind Magic is ridiculously busted.
Unfettered Mind giving you a minimum result of Wisdom on any Intelligence check is nuts.
Divine Foreknowledge gives you advantage on all attacks, saves, and checks for an hour? Without concentration? It's almost foresight, and it's free.
Purple Dragon Knight
The purple dragon is pretty marginal in actual utility, 1d6+int damage is not exactly exciting. Also, riding around on a Medium size dragon just sounds silly looking. Gravity breath is situational, requires damaging zones or using it to pull people up into the air, otherwise pretty meh.
Rallying Surge is potentially pretty good but rather party-dependent.
Being able to actually fly is nice. Tandem attack, however, falls in the category of "why on earth do I want to do that?"
Resistance to force damage, given new paradigms for high CR monster design, is quite strong.
Genie Paladin
Elemental Smite is a quite good bonus... to a spell that isn't great to start with. It should probably actually change the damage type of the smite, though.
Genie spells gives an annoyingly large number of extra spells prepared.
Genie's Splendor means you can have your dex/cha paladin setup with ac 21 (16 dex, 16 cha, studded leather, shield, defense fighting style) at level 3, and it just goes up from there. It should be an unarmored defense ability (like barbarians and monks) giving you an AC of 10 + Dex Modifier + Cha modifier.
Aura of Elemental Protection is completely nuts.
Elemental Rebuke is also nuts.
Noble Scion gives 'succeed at any roll as a reaction' with unlimited uses? (well, not more than 100...).
Winter Ranger
The level 3 features are fine.
Fortifying Soul is fine.
Chilling Retribution is... weird? You get hit by an attack and apply frightened so they have disadvantage on their subsequent attacks (if they have any) and can't move (assuming they want to), and it wears off before their next turn.
Frozen haunt grants damage immunity, which is nearly always a bad idea. Otherwise no big deal.
Scion of the Three
Bloodthirst is a bit much for a level 3 feature, either the damage bonus or the teleport would be fine.
Dread Allegiance is mostly a way to get damage resistance. It's not something that should be a level 3 feature.
Strike Fear is fine.
Aura of Malevolence is kind of annoying; at level 15 I don't really want to be dealing with 1-5 point hits. Power-wise I don't think it's a problem.
Dread Incarnate is an average of +0.5 damage per sneak attack die (4.5 damage at level 17) and level 17 characters probably have other ways of getting advantage.
Spellfire Sorcerer
Yet another feature that gives a ridiculously large number of extra prepared spells.
Radiant Fire would be super annoying in play (let's add another save for a 1d6 damage effect). Fortunately, you're never going to use it because bolstering flames is better.
Absorb Spells is probably fine, with the oddity that you can counterspell a cantrip and gain slots.
Honed Spellfire continues the pattern of bolstering flames being better.
Crown of Spellfire makes for a tank-sorcerer, that's a lot of damage mitigation.
Bladesinger Wizard
The AC bonus from bladesinging should be an unarmored defense ability (AC 10 + Dex Mod + Int Mod)
In general this is just a lot of features for level 3.
So I'm just curious if the interpretation of the Bladesinger and Genie Paladins AC bump is intentional... I can't tell if they wrote them this way on purpose, for the purpose of stacking Int AC bonuses with other Unarmored Defenses, or it was some interns oversight...
Genie's splender is already kind of crazy as it works with light armor and a shield... but it seems like it's almost intended to stack ontop of a monk or barbarian (if you were MAD) Unarmored Defense due how it's written
There's a lot to be said about just how bad the flavoring of these subclasses are.
Moon Bard? Another fey-themed Bard when Glamour is already in the PHB.
Knowledge Cleric? Give them more combat spells/focus, because surely they can't pick any such options from their regular spell list.
Purple Dragon Knight? Your defining feature and nothing else expects Intelligence, and the subclass description explicitly states that your Purple Dragon Knight PC goes against existing lore on favor of the Drakewarden ripoff.
Genie Paladin? All other oaths are to virtues or ideals. How is "genie" an ideal?
Winter Ranger? An overly-specific terrain for a class, to the point where its own features have to ignore resistance for the subclass to be viable.
Scion Rogue? A subclass that's explicitly evil-aligned, which limits role-playing and turns off players. (It also raises the risk of making various canon derailments from BG3 the new canon, seeing as they're trying to pander to that crowd.)
Spellfire Sorcerer? Your power comes from the source of arcane magic. Wow! Why does that dictate your personality or make you a person of interest as per the description?
It appears that what they are doing is going back to the old 2e approach to classes: they are being structured to match the setting.
While they can be used in any campaign, they ae designed to work and based on Archetypes from the Forgotten Realms, so the classes are an insight into some of the changes they will be making to FR.
I am in favor of this -- Classes should be specific to the setting, in my opinion. One of the most common criticisms of FR is that it is a "world for everything in the game" -- it has no unique character of its own. The classes will give that feel, as well as guide some of the ways of thinking about FR, because they are going to become canon (for this edition at least).
My overall gloss will have to wait, but if they make this a start to a re-release of other settings, that would be an interesting shift in focus -- people forget or do not know that all the old settings had their own unique classes, not just their own take on species.
Unless they pull a "Banneret serves as the generic name for the Purple Dragon Knight archetype" type of deal including renaming mechanical features, then I am most certainly not in favor of this. This might've been the design philosophy of 2e, but that's so long ago and outside of the 5e norm that it is just completely irrational and alien today.
People want to play whatever subclass appeals to them to the point that D&D for the most part has done away with Setting Locked subclasses, either re-releasing them in expanded rules like XGtE or having sections for how the subclasses might work in other settings if your DM allow it such as the SCAG subclasses. Even when they haven't, they have still made the subclass theme and flavor general enough to be applicable in wide swaths of settings, typically with secondary line of flavor text that details how the subclass uniquely correspond with the setting it is meant for such as with the Lunar Sorcerer or indeed the Banneret/Purple Dragon Knight.
This generic subclass theming is far better since it's the best of both worlds. You have something that is wide enough that Players and DMs can personalize the base to fit what they want, while also having the option of specifying it further for the intended setting. Doing this the other way around would result in a lot of unnecessary extra work to generalize content which will just be annoying and put many people off from allowing it. Heck, even from a business perspective it makes sense to make subclasses more generally applicable so that more people will want to get it.
strictly speaking banneret is not replaced by purple dragon knight. Only things with the same names are over written. They could easily be two types of entities from the same group. And by raw players could still use banneret if the DM doesnt exclude it.
So I'm just curious if the interpretation of the Bladesinger and Genie Paladins AC bump is intentional... I can't tell if they wrote them this way on purpose, for the purpose of stacking Int AC bonuses with other Unarmored Defenses, or it was some interns oversight...
Genie's splender is already kind of crazy as it works with light armor and a shield... but it seems like it's almost intended to stack ontop of a monk or barbarian (if you were MAD) Unarmored Defense due how it's written
its not an oversight, but i dont think they expect tons of people to multiclass just to get it.
getting decent AC from any unarmored defense features requires a huge investment they almost never have enough attributes to have 4 stats above 10.
monk would be 10 17 14 16 9 8. unless you want to give up something the only ones that might benefit are draconic sorcerer and dancer, and that would require a huge investment. 3 levels behind in class features.
the best use of the feature, is to pump dex and charisma and wear light armor.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think it's completely MAD to get INT or CHR buffes up, but I can definitely see Monks put levels into a half caster to get some spell casting abilities (and Weapon Masteries). I'm just surprised that the option is now on the table. Doesn't make a lot of sense to go 3 levels in, but I've see stranger builds.
people roll for stats sometimes as well, which makes it possible, even if it's still MAD
Some folks had complained Unearthed Arcana was too boring lately. This is spicy. In a confusing way.
It does feel a bit like 3.5 edition prestige classes. They'd just throw a few in every book regardless of balance or logic just to encourage players to buy "setting" books.
its not an oversight, but i dont think they expect tons of people to multiclass just to get it.
It's general incompetence at balancing, which is the same problem as the original SCAG, just in a different direction. I'd be curious who wrote this mess, UA doesn't include author credits.
You all realise that the bladesinger didn't get an a buff right they lost their light armour proficiency. They could always add their int modifier to ac whilst in blade song
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
8 subclasses with 5 new
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Is it just me, or do most of these subclasses seem really odd thematically/flavor-wise?
Seriously, what is this? I could barely look into the actual mechanics of these in the document because the theme and flavoring was so odd.
Agreed, I looked through the mechanics and it's a great big "What?" from me.
Bard is basically Starry Druid, but you're a bard.
Fighter is Drakewarden Ranger but you're a fighter, and the dragon is dunamancy-ish rather than elemental (and also weaker in everyway than beastmaster ranger / drakewarden because...?).
Paladin is genie warlock but you're a paladin, and it gets a cantrip.. because? reasons? and can be unarmoured? what???
Cleric for some reason now has 3 bonus spells per spell level instead of 2 and is stealing from Aberrant mind sorcerer for the rest of it.
Ranger is winter themed, but then suddenly gets a Song of Rest feature at 7th level, and become a ghost at level 15?
Sorcerer is Wildfire Druid but it's a sorcerer but also gets a counterspell abjuration-y feature, and a spell-specific version of Evasion.
Rogue is the only one that's thematically consistent but basically all their features are just "deal more damage" but they randomly get 1 cantrip??
Oh and Bladesinger, it's bladesinger but now you don't need to invest it Dexterity at all, and you can use STR-weapons with your INT so feel free to make a Bladesinger that goes around smashing faces with a warhammer.
I don't get why Paladins get an Oath of all Genies (sort of) but the Warlock of Genies is still a legacy option and there you had to pick one genie (which I thought sensible).
The Winter Ranger is a bit random, why not any other terrain?
No Barbarian or Warlock option
I personally don't like the rogue, but that's my playing preference
It all feels a little underbaked (like the PHB 2024). Hopefully new feats / backgrounds will be better. Yes, I'm that naive!
It appears that what they are doing is going back to the old 2e approach to classes: they are being structured to match the setting.
While they can be used in any campaign, they ae designed to work and based on Archetypes from the Forgotten Realms, so the classes are an insight into some of the changes they will be making to FR.
I am in favor of this -- Classes should be specific to the setting, in my opinion. One of the most common criticisms of FR is that it is a "world for everything in the game" -- it has no unique character of its own. The classes will give that feel, as well as guide some of the ways of thinking about FR, because they are going to become canon (for this edition at least).
My overall gloss will have to wait, but if they make this a start to a re-release of other settings, that would be an interesting shift in focus -- people forget or do not know that all the old settings had their own unique classes, not just their own take on species.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
They trying to be area proper for these subclasses in the FR settings. Which brings out the nostalgia of first playing 2e DnD in the FR settings. I’m surprised they didn’t add something for the Dale lands, Maybe in the campaign settings release in November they’ll surprise me.
I think they just tried way too hard for this concept even with the FR settings in mind.
A Bladesinger cleric, with a free TWF feat built in would have been nice, sorry that was my cleric back in 2e
Unless they pull a "Banneret serves as the generic name for the Purple Dragon Knight archetype" type of deal including renaming mechanical features, then I am most certainly not in favor of this. This might've been the design philosophy of 2e, but that's so long ago and outside of the 5e norm that it is just completely irrational and alien today.
People want to play whatever subclass appeals to them to the point that D&D for the most part has done away with Setting Locked subclasses, either re-releasing them in expanded rules like XGtE or having sections for how the subclasses might work in other settings if your DM allow it such as the SCAG subclasses. Even when they haven't, they have still made the subclass theme and flavor general enough to be applicable in wide swaths of settings, typically with secondary line of flavor text that details how the subclass uniquely correspond with the setting it is meant for such as with the Lunar Sorcerer or indeed the Banneret/Purple Dragon Knight.
This generic subclass theming is far better since it's the best of both worlds. You have something that is wide enough that Players and DMs can personalize the base to fit what they want, while also having the option of specifying it further for the intended setting. Doing this the other way around would result in a lot of unnecessary extra work to generalize content which will just be annoying and put many people off from allowing it. Heck, even from a business perspective it makes sense to make subclasses more generally applicable so that more people will want to get it.
Yeah, these are pretty trash.
Moon Bard gets three(!) Bardic options to everyone else's one (and the ability to use 2/3 of them for free) and a token "spell as feature".
Knowledge Cleric gets more combat spells because the creators don't get why people choose a utility subclass, a feature that doesn't give you a new feature, a guaranteed 18 in Intelligence checks at level 6(!), and lazy advantage.
Purple Dragon Knight is a hack-job of the Drakewarden, except the drake requires investing in Intelligence when nothing else in the subclass expects such.
Genie Paladin has a glaring overreach of options, a broken feature that gives absurd AC to any Charisma build off of a three-level dip, and a "anything succeeds" reaction at Level 20.
Winter Walker continues the terrible obsession with Hunter's Mark, forcing you to use the spell to use most of your features instead of using actual high-level spells, and a mediocre one-short-rest boon.
Scion Rogue gets an absurd off-turn Sneak Attack tool, a choice of boons where Bhaal is wildly better than the other choices (Chill Touch is near-worthless for a Rogue), and is just way better damage than any other Rogue.
Spellfire Sorcery gets a boon to slow down the game every time they use Sorcery Points, a feature that lets them refund spell slots used for Counter Spell, and another busted capstone.
It's amazing when Bladesinger is somehow the least busted subclass in this entire thing, even with buffs.
It took literally one release after the core books for power creep to set in. This is a very bad omen.
I haven’t had the chance to look over the document for the mechanics but I agree with AEDorsay and like the setting specific themes. And while setting specific, other than the rogue tied the the Dead Three, are pretty generic enough to be used in other settings. And even the rogue could just be a generic rogue that follows a death god in a homebrew setting.
I do think the pet class, Purple Dragon Knight, might be a bit of a miss. Would have preferred more focused around battlefield leader. But I guess when you have dragon in your name it’s kind of expected? But the alternate Banneret name in SCAG I’m hoping will carry over to the official release, though then the dragon pet fits less. Will see.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
My only point of contention is that none of these classes have ever been setting locked, with the sole exception of Athas.
Even these classes aren't setting locked -- and they tell you that straight up.
I also see them as what they are: examples of how to do a subclass for one's own campaign setting. Since 60% of all games are in original settings, more examples and guidance would be good.
The pair of us have different ideas, approaches, and needs -- I had to create all new classes for my games because none of the classes as they are currently described can even be used in my setting. That applies to all of 5e -- though, in your favor, more heavily for 2014 because they were so damned flavored around FR (like these are).
But even the more bland ones can't be used because they break the premise of the setting. So it isn't a design issue on their side, it is a matter of the setting itself. But the same applies to a world like Athas, or Kara-tur, or whatever. there's nothing that stops a Krynn wizard class from being used in an FR game -- except the DM deciding they don't fit. That's not a "locked class", that's a DM decision. That's not a design issue, that's a Table issue.
there are going to be folks who will allow any class, any species, any kind of things fro the books intot heir games -- but that just loses some of the stuff that makes a setting attractive and interesting -- and makes the classes feel like they aren't part of that setting, and instead just something that is boring.
A lot of folks complained about the lore being stripped out of the classes in the PHB -- and, in that case, I absolutely agree with your position, and in regards to those classes. Those are the baselines, the defaults. They should not have lore in them because they are supposed to work with any world created by anyone that at least has the same underlying conceptualization (that is any inspiration or influence that shaped D&D).
FR is a setting -- not the default setting, either. All that lore should be in the setting materials for the classes of that setting.
they can't possibly create it for the vast majority of players who use their own worlds and settings -- but they can show how they would do it using the worlds they already have.
And that's the value in doing that, both as a business model and a design goal.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I really like the Spellfire Sorcerer. It's a thematic subclass I've wanted them to make for years. Is it perfect, no it isn't, but it's pretty decent and definitely playable. I look forward to testing with my playtest group. The bladsinger's power creep is a bit much, but needs to be dialed back. The other subclasses really have 0 appeal to me and fill niches that really don't need to be filled.
So, evaluating them
Bard of the Moon
Knowledge Domain
Purple Dragon Knight
Genie Paladin
Winter Ranger
Scion of the Three
Spellfire Sorcerer
Bladesinger Wizard
So I'm just curious if the interpretation of the Bladesinger and Genie Paladins AC bump is intentional... I can't tell if they wrote them this way on purpose, for the purpose of stacking Int AC bonuses with other Unarmored Defenses, or it was some interns oversight...
Genie's splender is already kind of crazy as it works with light armor and a shield... but it seems like it's almost intended to stack ontop of a monk or barbarian (if you were MAD) Unarmored Defense due how it's written
There's a lot to be said about just how bad the flavoring of these subclasses are.
Moon Bard? Another fey-themed Bard when Glamour is already in the PHB.
Knowledge Cleric? Give them more combat spells/focus, because surely they can't pick any such options from their regular spell list.
Purple Dragon Knight? Your defining feature and nothing else expects Intelligence, and the subclass description explicitly states that your Purple Dragon Knight PC goes against existing lore on favor of the Drakewarden ripoff.
Genie Paladin? All other oaths are to virtues or ideals. How is "genie" an ideal?
Winter Ranger? An overly-specific terrain for a class, to the point where its own features have to ignore resistance for the subclass to be viable.
Scion Rogue? A subclass that's explicitly evil-aligned, which limits role-playing and turns off players. (It also raises the risk of making various canon derailments from BG3 the new canon, seeing as they're trying to pander to that crowd.)
Spellfire Sorcerer? Your power comes from the source of arcane magic. Wow! Why does that dictate your personality or make you a person of interest as per the description?
strictly speaking banneret is not replaced by purple dragon knight. Only things with the same names are over written. They could easily be two types of entities from the same group. And by raw players could still use banneret if the DM doesnt exclude it.
its not an oversight, but i dont think they expect tons of people to multiclass just to get it.
getting decent AC from any unarmored defense features requires a huge investment they almost never have enough attributes to have 4 stats above 10.
monk would be 10 17 14 16 9 8. unless you want to give up something the only ones that might benefit are draconic sorcerer and dancer, and that would require a huge investment. 3 levels behind in class features.
the best use of the feature, is to pump dex and charisma and wear light armor.
@Gwar1
Oh don't get me wrong, I think it's completely MAD to get INT or CHR buffes up, but I can definitely see Monks put levels into a half caster to get some spell casting abilities (and Weapon Masteries). I'm just surprised that the option is now on the table. Doesn't make a lot of sense to go 3 levels in, but I've see stranger builds.
people roll for stats sometimes as well, which makes it possible, even if it's still MAD
Some folks had complained Unearthed Arcana was too boring lately. This is spicy. In a confusing way.
It does feel a bit like 3.5 edition prestige classes. They'd just throw a few in every book regardless of balance or logic just to encourage players to buy "setting" books.
It's general incompetence at balancing, which is the same problem as the original SCAG, just in a different direction. I'd be curious who wrote this mess, UA doesn't include author credits.
You all realise that the bladesinger didn't get an a buff right they lost their light armour proficiency. They could always add their int modifier to ac whilst in blade song