D&D 5E What I Don't Like About Subclasses, and Potential Solutions.

[Vaalingrade]

I think the faulty logic here is twofold.

First is the err that because some (maybe more than half?) players like playing casters, therefor all players enjoy caster-level complexity.

Second is the err that because no simple(r) caster class exists in D&D, therefor there are no players who would enjoy playing a simple caster.

Everyone’s experience will differ, but I can report anecdotal experience that neither of those have been true at multiple tables I’ve gamed with - on the contrary, they were proven false. So IME they are fallacies.

Is it really even that deep?

It feels more like 'this class can't have complexity because simplicity good. Pay no attention to the vast majority of the classes that get some level of complexity options. We're talking about your thing, after all, not ours.'

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think the faulty logic here is twofold.

First is the err that because some (maybe more than half?) players like playing casters, therefor all players enjoy caster-level complexity.

Second is the err that because no simple(r) caster class exists in D&D, therefor there are no players who would enjoy playing a simple caster.

Everyone’s experience will differ, but I can report anecdotal experience that neither of those have been true at multiple tables I’ve gamed with - on the contrary, they were proven false. So IME they are fallacies.

And I can report that there's a reason I bring up the 4e Elementalist (generally a Pyromancer) on a regular basis. It was a caster with a simple "I burn it" approach and about the complexity of a 5e fighter. And with at least two of my players it was exactly what they had been looking for literal years.

 

[Quickleaf]

Is it really even that deep?

It feels more like 'this class can't have complexity because simplicity good. Pay no attention to the vast majority of the classes that get some level of complexity options. We're talking about your thing, after all, not ours.'

There might be context I'm missing.

Because it sounds like you're obliquely arguing against someone saying "The Fighter doesn't need complexity"? I'm not sure. I didn't see anyone say that. But I didn't think this conversation or the post you responded to from @J-H was about singling out a particular class?

Not everyone has the level of engagement with the rules to handle picking between 5 options at every level-up, especially on the casual/limited time side of things.

Except casters somehow...

 

[Sulicius]

A lot of this talk is just an ideate phase of game design. Throw in lots of ideas, nothing is bad. Already we are seeing people disagree on how to do it.

I want to see people do the harder work: build a prototype. Figure out what goes where.

And then? TEST IT! Give it to your players. Give it to people who never played D&D before. Give it to people you don’t know on the other side of the country. Get their feedback. Film them while reading and using your prototype. Work through the data and get clear results.

Then go back, solve issues, build a new prototype. Do the whole thing all over again. Repeat this until you run out of time and money.

You will find that you have to design in a more general way. Dumb things down to speed up play. Clarify things, cut things. Kill your darlings.

At that point you might have solved your subclass issues for the world.

If you don’t want to do this, don’t complain and just make your own game better for you.

 

[Maxperson]

I can't think of a single literary source that makes the distinction. If anything, the arguably most well known source on the subject posits that they are the same thing, and the only difference is whether you manage to get invited to boarding school.

The distinction is all over literary sources. They just conflate sorcerer and wizard as D&D uses the terms. The different kinds of casters, though, are present in movies, books, TV shows, comic books, etc. Some have inborn magic and others book learned.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I can't think of a single literary source that makes the distinction. If anything, the arguably most well known source on the subject posits that they are the same thing, and the only difference is whether you manage to get invited to boarding school.

I thought the distinction was down to headgear.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I can't think of a single literary source that makes the distinction. If anything, the arguably most well known source on the subject posits that they are the same thing, and the only difference is whether you manage to get invited to boarding school.

The Marvel and DC universes. In the Marvel universe most of the X-men (starting with Prof X, Jean Grey, Storm, and the Scarlet Witch) would be on the inherent side of the fence while Dr Strange would be a wizard.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The Marvel and DC universes. In the Marvel universe most of the X-men (starting with Prof X, Jean Grey, Storm, and the Scarlet Witch) would be on the inherent side of the fence while Dr Strange would be a wizard.

Indeed, the problem isn't that the concept isn't sufficiently distinct, it's that the name isn't sufficiently distinct, sorcerer being an exact synonym for wizard in standard usage. If the class had been called Mutant it's inspiration and nature would have been far clearer, and would have lead to more mechanical distinction once spell memorisation was axed.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Indeed, the problem isn't that the concept isn't sufficiently distinct, it's that the name isn't sufficiently distinct, sorcerer being an exact synonym for wizard in standard usage. If the class had been called Mutant it's inspiration and nature would have been far clearer, and would have lead to more mechanical distinction once spell memorisation was axed.

Of course the reason for the existence of the sorcerer was literally to give an excuse to include more wizard spells in the PHB. The fact that over 4e and 5e the sorcerer has developed into a much more interesting class than the class it was supposed to be the servant of (to the point you'd lose almost nothing by making the wizard a sorcerer subclass) was never really planned, it's just where it ended up.

 

[Reynard]

A lot of this talk is just an ideate phase of game design. Throw in lots of ideas, nothing is bad. Already we are seeing people disagree on how to do it.

I want to see people do the harder work: build a prototype. Figure out what goes where.

And then? TEST IT! Give it to your players. Give it to people who never played D&D before. Give it to people you don’t know on the other side of the country. Get their feedback. Film them while reading and using your prototype. Work through the data and get clear results.

Then go back, solve issues, build a new prototype. Do the whole thing all over again. Repeat this until you run out of time and money.

You will find that you have to design in a more general way. Dumb things down to speed up play. Clarify things, cut things. Kill your darlings.

At that point you might have solved your subclass issues for the world.

If you don’t want to do this, don’t complain and just make your own game better for you.

"If you aren't willing to conduct extensive organized design and testing, sit down and shut up."

Lol. Okay.