D&D (2024) Playing with Subclasses: how flexible is subclass design in the playtest so far?

[Horwath]

Certainly an interesting idea. TBH, I had thought seeing the return of prestige classes as "class-neutral subclasses" ... things like the Runecrafter that any class could access, but just allowing any class to use any subclass?

Class neutral features?
Might those be called... Feats?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Class neutral features?
Might those be called... Feats?

Heh heh, yep!

I always found it funny that people would constantly go on and on about how the Fighter was so bad outside of combat because they got so few Skills... and yet the idea of their 6th level Fighter class feature being a "free feat" that would allow them to take the Skilled feat and get four more skills to cover whatever gaps they felt their character had never seemed to cross their minds.

Nope... apparently that doesn't count. Apparently Fighters need to have written down in their chart at 6th level "You get four of the following skills from this list..." for it to actually be something that counts as Fighters getting something for out-of-combat. Can't use a ASI/Feat slot... that has to be used to once again raise one of their ability scores 2 points like they do with every other ASI/feat gain, and then complain their Fighter is crap outside of fighting.

 

[Horwath]

Heh heh, yep!

I always found it funny that people would constantly go on and on about how the Fighter was so bad outside of combat because they got so few Skills... and yet the idea of their 6th level Fighter class feature being a "free feat" that would allow them to take the Skilled feat and get four more skills to cover whatever gaps they felt their character had never seemed to cross their minds.

Nope... apparently that doesn't count. Apparently Fighters need to have written down in their chart at 6th level "You get four of the following skills from this list..." for it to actually be something that counts as Fighters getting something for out-of-combat. Can't use a ASI/Feat slot... that has to be used to once again raise one of their ability scores 2 points like they do with every other ASI/feat gain, and then complain their Fighter is crap outside of fighting.

well, Skilled is really bad feat. Maybe if it gave 4 or even 5 skills. Maybe

But, I have seen few fighters with Skill expert feat. 1 Skill, 1 Expertise and +1 to primary ability. That +1 to STR/DEX/CON goes a long way to pick a "non-combat" feat.

If every feat gets reworked as "half-feat" with floating +1 ASI, that will open many feats to many characters.
Like, I dont mind non-optional feat for combat as long as my primary is closing on to "20".

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, Skilled is really bad feat. Maybe if it gave 4 or even 5 skills. Maybe

Not for a Fighter's free 6th level class feature.

If the game just made the 6th level Fighter feature "Gain 2 skills from this list..." people would have been fine with that, and even that would stop people from complaining that the Fighter doesn't get enough out-of-combat stuff to do. But the feat gives you THREE skills... which means the Fighter at that point now has seven skills at a minimum-- 2 from Background, 2 from Class, and 3 from the 6th level "class feature". And maybe even an 8th skill depending on your subclass. So that Skilled feat is still a better class feature than probably anything the Fighter would have gotten otherwise had WotC just made something up to stick there and not given just a free ASI/feat.

So a person can't compare Skilled to other feats a Fighter could otherwise take and think "Well, Skilled isn't as good as that" but then complain the Fighter doesn't have enough skills. If (general) your Fighter doesn't have enough skills, it's because (general) you chose to make your Fighter low on skills. Just don't bump your DEX by 2 points if having better out-of-combat abilities matters that much to you.

 

[Horwath]

Not for a Fighter's free 6th level class feature.

If the game just made the 6th level Fighter feature "Gain 2 skills from this list..." people would have been fine with that, and even that would stop people from complaining that the Fighter doesn't get enough out-of-combat stuff to do. But the feat gives you THREE skills... which means the Fighter at that point now has seven skills at a minimum-- 2 from Background, 2 from Class, and 3 from the 6th level "class feature". And maybe even an 8th skill depending on your subclass. So that Skilled feat is still a better class feature than probably anything the Fighter would have gotten otherwise had WotC just made something up to stick there and not given just a free ASI/feat.

So a person can't compare Skilled to other feats a Fighter could otherwise take and think "Well, Skilled isn't as good as that" but then complain the Fighter doesn't have enough skills. If (general) your Fighter doesn't have enough skills, it's because (general) you chose to make your Fighter low on skills. Just don't bump your DEX by 2 points if having better out-of-combat abilities matters that much to you.

well, fighter gets more feat to be better at, well, fighting than everybody else.
what's the point otherwise?

Problem with 5E is that ASIs, combat feats, magic feats and non-combat feats are all in same resource pool.

When you have priorities with Heavy weapon mastery, polearm mastery, heavy armor mastery and 20 STR, skilled is really down on priority list.
Add in sentinel and mobile, and Skilled might get a slot at 19th level.

that is why I mentioned skilled expert, as you might sacrifice heavy armor mastery as skill expert comes with +1 STR and it will bump your 17 STR to 18.

Off-topic, might be best to remove ASIs completely from levels and "racial" bonuses to abilities, and just have modified point buy/default array.

I.E: default array: 18,16,14,14,12,10 for all.
Only ASIs can come from (powerful)magic items and possibly high level class features.

then you only have feats to balance out.

and then there is more room to split combat and non-combat feats.

 

[DEFCON 1]

well, fighter gets more feat to be better at, well, fighting than everybody else.
what's the point otherwise?

Problem with 5E is that ASIs, combat feats, magic feats and non-combat feats are all in same resource pool.

When you have priorities with Heavy weapon mastery, polearm mastery, heavy armor mastery and 20 STR, skilled is really down on priority list.
Add in sentinel and mobile, and Skilled might get a slot at 19th level.

If (general) you as a player feel as though you HAVE to have all five of those feats and a 20 STR to be effective as a Fighter... that's fine. The game allows (general) you to do that. But then don't come back and complain that WotC isn't giving (general) you any out-of-combat abilities. Because you had a chance to fill that hole on your character sheet with a simple feat selection, and you said "Nope! I needed that other-end polearm thwack more!" That's all on you and your choices... nothing that WotC did to mess up their design.

It's the same song and dance we see all over the place. People are fine when WotC says "You get X" and there are no other options. It's accepted that you get what you get and you don't get upset. But as soon as they say "You can get X OR Y"... all of sudden the additional option means WotC is screwing you over because obviously you HAVE to take the more powerful option! Why wouldn't you?!? You'd have to be an IDIOT to not optimize your character! But now whoa-as-you... you won't ever get that less powerful one, even if that less-powerful one would have actually suited your character better and been more useful. But nope... your ego wouldn't let you take something more appropriate for you because goodness-forbid you not optimize your PC across the board.

And the ultimate irony in this? We are constantly bombarded with folks here complaining that the game is too easy. That their characters can't be challenged! Well, yeah, if you keep optimizing every single option you get! If you want the game to be more challenging... how about actually TAKING that less optimal feat to give you three more skills, rather than power through a ridiculous feat chain to make you the uber-polearm wielder (and thus plowing through every encounter the DM tries to set up for you?)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'd welcome your thoughts.
Best “new” combinations from my point of view:

• Life Bard.
• Thief Barbarian
• Hunter Druid

if they keep every subclass getting abilities at the same levels, and then there are subclasses that don't key of class features, thhen I could see myself allowing the exchange of subclasses as a house rule (although I would love guidance in a DMG about it.

Having said that the thief barbarian or thief ranger BOTH sound amazing... but I will raise you
champion rouge and battle master rogue...

or a battle master monk.


Me and my buddies have been playing around with double subclasses... and I have this image in my head of a fighter eldritch knight abjur or a rouge arcane trick illusionist

 

[Kobold Stew]

if they keep every subclass getting abilities at the same levels, and then there are subclasses that don't key of class features, thhen I could see myself allowing the exchange of subclasses as a house rule (although I would love guidance in a DMG about it.

Yes - thanks. One thing I am realizing based on the powerlevels so far is that the guidance needed is not a lot -- the two assumptions need to be operationalized, but it's possible it could all be done in a page -- and that's a page of optional rules I would like.

Having said that the thief barbarian or thief ranger BOTH sound amazing... but I will raise you
champion rouge and battle master rogue...

or a battle master monk.

ha ha. We'll see if you still feel that way when we see drafts of the champion and battle master.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Would it? Tell me how, please. Using the examples we have seen (above) what can an optimizer do by borrowing a subclass and putting it in another class?

champion impoved crit range on a rouge with full sneak attack

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes - thanks. One thing I am realizing based on the powerlevels so far is that the guidance needed is not a lot -- the two assumptions need to be operationalized, but it's possible it could all be done in a page -- and that's a page of optional rules I would like.

yes this thread is an amazing idea

ha ha. We'll see if you still feel that way when we see drafts of the champion and battle master.

I mean yeah, I am assuming they stay close to what they are now if not exact