How many "subclasses"/builds per class?

[Nellisir]

I dunno. I don't mind more, if the classes are fewer. It seems to me that if a class can be modeled with a build (specialty, background, whathaveyou), then it should be. Or if a class can be modeled with multi-classing (however that will work), then it should be. I look at the sorcerer, and see something that might make a decent paladin with a little flavor rewrite.

I guess classes should express some kind of clear mechanical difference that is distinct from any other.

 

[Minigiant]

True. And if you'd like, I could make a great big long list for everyone/each class...maybe tomorrow.

I was working on one myself.
Wonder if they match.

 

[steeldragons]

Well, to your original question of this thread, Minigiant, I am inclined to say a nice round number per base class, like 10 each. But then, once you get out of the big 4, there are those specialized classes that get more "niche-y" as you break them down...and so coming up with 10 different ways to "Build-a-Bard" or "Build-a-Warlock" gets a little more challenging.

Then, of course, there is the consideration of page count and just how much space does each class warrant...which would stem a fairly silly argument with no right answers, and thus why I would like to see them simply do X "specialties" across the board for the appearance of fairness so people can't (or at least be less likely to) complain.

So maybe, say, 10 for each of the "Big 4" and 3 for everyone else. You'll have an example of what, mechanically, goes into each of those 3 builds, and so if you want an "Astral Sight Warlock Swashbuckler" you just take the "Fey Pact" and adjust a few of the abilities to suit the flavor of the build you want and tack on one of the "Fighter" themes that Warlock wouldn't normally have access to.

Now, does this mean certain people will not get their specific desired build in the book...yes. Yes it does. The possibility to incorporate all class permutations and character concepts that people might want to see, quite simply, is "0". (and I have no doubt in the following list there will be SOMEthing that SOMEone SOMEwhere just has to have in their game and thus, when it comes out, "5e sucks cuz they didn't include my..." ). Recognize it, prepare for it, accept it and/or get over it. There is simply zero percent chance of there being everything you want...especially in the initial release.

Ok, so all of that out of the way/off my chest...I have packing to do to get to the airport later, so le's get on with this...

Fighter "Styles"
-Slayer: whatever it is/does now
-Guardian: whatever it does now.
-Archer: bow specialist
-Dual-wielder: use 2 single-handed weapons at once
-Weapon Specialist: Use any sort of hand-held weapon extra well and do a few tricks with your weapon of choice. I see little reason, especially with the self-imposed space constraint of 10 options, to make two-handed weapons its own thing, though I'm sure this will raise righteous fury from the peanut galleries.
-Mounted Combatant: use weapons while mounted, extra damage with lances?, a charging feat, riding tricks/using your mount in combat, etc...
-Sword n' Board a.k.a. Shield-basher: Use of a shield, not just to add to AC but as a weapon and increase combat effectiveness when fighting with a shield (some of the Guardian's shtick?)
-Sniper/Sharpshooter: some of the archer's tricks with a bit of stealth and sneaky thrown in. "Ranger- or Assassin-lite" if you will. Also can apply to other missile and thrown weapons besides a bow.
-Berserker: Rage mechanic: deal extra damage, extra/temp HP, temp resist spells and damage/increase AC and saves, ye olde Barbarian rage stuff, ri'cheeah.
-Commander: Warlord stuff. Imbue temp HP, resist fear/confusion effects, interaction bonuses (either through intimidation or inspiration) maybe a movement bonus for organizing troops in difficult terrain, etc.

I do not think, necessarily these last two should be "Fighter only", and frankly probably none of them should be class specific at all,
That's enough toys to start play with (or at least get through 10 levels)

Cleric "Domains"
-Sun/Day
-War
-Moon/Night
-Healing/Peace
-Animals
-Plants (either as wild/forests or cultivated/harvest, Artemis v. Demeter, Elhonna v. Yondalla, etc...or all together, but essentially presented with the same powers and control over green growing things you can flavor however you like)
-Magic/Knowledge
-Justice/Balance
-Death
-Undeath/Disease

Rogue "Schemes"
-Thief
-Thug
-Charlatan
-Spy
-Acrobat
-Jester
-Minstrel/Performer (if you want a thesbian or some other type of performer)
-Swashbuckler
-Explorer/Jack of all trades
-Guildmaster/Politician: interactive bonuses, commanding, intimidating, mega-bluff, throw in a few Followers

Mage "Traditions"
-Alchemist
-Conjurer: expert at summonings and abjurations to hold and command what is summoned.
-Illusionist
-Necromancer
-Diviner
-Ceremonial Magician: ritual specialist, can duplicate/cast ANY spell (not just Arcane), given time and materials.
-Battle-/Sword-mage: using magic through your armor and/or weapons (essentially anything beyond cantrips, you need your sword/weapon of choice).
-Thaumaturgist: may choose arcane or divine spells (not any more per day! just can work/choose from either list), good with rituals also, a bit or prophecy maybe, religious/secret order types, hidden/secret/forgotten lore stuff.
-Sorcerer: (I'm sorry, I just don't like it as it's own class, so consider this "Sorc-lite") Add in spontaneous casting for lower level spells as higher level ones are gained. Also, perhaps, a weapon or two (no armor though! But your Gandalf-wizard-with-a-sword-type could be this guy instead of a full blown "Swordmage").
-Evoker/Elementalist: though I am not a fan of the "Blaster mage" and think there's a lot more to having a magic-using character than this, I know it is a HUGE fan-favorite to simply be a wizard/use spells to make things go boom. So, number 10, last one, here you go.

-------------

Sorcerer "Origins" ("Heritages" just doesn't sit well with me)
-Dragon
-Arcane
-Elemental

Warlock "Pacts"
-Diabolic/Infernal
-Fey
-Celestial: though I STRONGLY disagree with the flavor that good (or even neutral) patrons would exist, a case can be made, I suppose, and the precedent is established so there it is. Wouldn't/won't find them in my game.

Druid "Circles"
-Beastmaster: animal companion/summoner/charmer
-Wildshaper: shape shifting specialist
-"Warden": heavy warrior [less magic] druid

Bard "Colleges" -may also choose from any "Big 4" class options
-Skald: heavy warrior bard
-Loremaster: knowledge and magic-heavy bard
-Wanderer: explorer/skill heavy bard

Assassin "Techniques" -may also choose from Fighter or Rogue options
-Poisoner
-Shadow-walker/-caster
-Strangler

Ranger "Squads" -may also choose from Fighter or Druid options
-Beastmaster: like the druid but without the summoning spells (or very MINOR summoning abilities, like being able to call upon whatever's in the area, not "*POOF* here's a creature to fight for you under your control").
-"X-Adept": minor magic spell use: choose Arcane or Druid
-"X-Slayer": tracking, attack, damage, possibly defense bonuses against X, where X = Dragons, Giants, Demons, Orcs, Goblinoids, etc...

Paladin "Orders" -may also choose from Fighter or Cleric options
-Crusader: Paladin with a cause or ideal, not necessarily a deity/religious base. Maybe some kind of "favored enemy-lite" against those he is crusading?
-Honor and/or Valor: a lil' samurai-ish, a lil' cavalier-ish
-Justicar: roving judge, jury and executioner (which I suppose all paladins are to some extent, but this guy's a league all his own).

Monk "Vows" -may also choose from Rogue or Cleric options.
-Ninja: get ninja tricks
-Mystic: get mental/psionic/astral tricks
-Ki-Warrior: get super-mega-kung-fu grip tricks.

Is that everyone? Oh wait! ummmm....

Psion "Disciplines"
-Telepath
-Telekinetic
-Psychic Warrior: more armor, more weapons, Jedi-ish.

Did I miss anything that [I think] could/should/would be in the 5e PHB?

You might notice that "caster classes" (including the Psion) do not get to choose from any other list but their own. Somehow, this makes sense to me though I doubt I could explain/justify it in "crunchy/number bits." Maybe someone else a bit more concerned with that sorta thing can.

--SD

 

[Animal]

I would love to see three core classes (magic user, martial adept, skill-monkey) or maybe more (for example i can see why clerics could be separated from other magic users, but sorcerers and warlocks seem an unnecesary bloat). Then i want to see some customization tools (cool multiclass rules, background/specialty stuff, paths, special abilities, etc.) and guidelines on how to create, use and adjudicate them. Could use a few example customized subclasses of each core class for reference (and lazy DMs). And that's it.
I really like modularity that DDN promises and if we receive cool, well-thought out and balanced tools for creating custom subclasses from the scratch, i don't even need any written for me by designers. Yay for creativity and customization.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]

Here's mine

ASSASSIN
Lurker
Shadowcaster
Poisoner
Explosives expert

BARBARIAN
Strong and tough rage
Strong and fast rage
Magical animal form rage
Magical elemental form rage

BARD
Scald (warrior)
Bardic Sage
Bardic Priest
Traveller (roguish)
Bladedancer

CLERIC
Offensive Laser domains (air, alignment, destruction, earth, fire, sun, water)
Defensive & Healer domains (healing, protection, travel, trickery)
Weapon user domains (war, strength)
Utility and Skill domains (knowledge, magic, trickery)
Summoner domains (animal, death, plant)

DRUID
Beastmaster
Wildshaper
Elementalist
Spirittalker

FIGHTER
Battlerager
Battery (rapid attack archery)
Brawler
Cavalier
Defender (weapon and shield)
Duelist
Protector
Sharpshooter (sniper archer)
Tempest (dual wielder)

MONK
Unarmed mystic
Armed mystic
Psychic Warrior
Soulknife/bow

PALADIN
Avenger
Crusader (classic)
Justicar (unstoppable offensive divine warrior)
Hospitalar (supportive defensive divine warrior)

RANGER
Slayer (favored enemy)
Survivor (favored terrain)
Scout
Warden
Seeker

ROGUE
Acrobat
Charlatan/item user
Diplomat
Spy
Thief
Thug

SORCERER
Arcane
Celestial
Favored Soul
Cosmic/Sign
Dragon
Demonic
Elemental
Shaman

WARLOCK
Fey
Star
Infernal
Archonic
Binder

WARLORD
Tactical
Inspirational
Logistics/Resourceful
Bravura/Lead by Example/Leeroy Jenkins

WIZARD
School specialist
Element specialist
Battlemage
Artificer
Alchemist
Trickster

 

[The Shadow]

I'm a little worried about the impact of all these options on new players.

At first it looked like putting feats into theme/specialty containers would help a lot. But it's starting to seem that we're cancelling out that gain with complexity in class builds.

Fighting styles don't seem so bad, as they're fairly intuitive. Rogue schemes seem to me a shade harder to get a handle on because of their interaction with backgrounds, but at least they have recognizable names.

But when you factor in the sheer number of plausible cleric domains, sorcerer origins, warlock pacts, and so on, it could get very confusing to the newcomer.

I think it's very important for each class to have a 'suggested build' along with a suggested background and specialty. And for it to be a fairly simple one to get a handle on. For the fighter, I'd pick Slayer. For rogue, Thief. (Which means it'll need a different suggested background.) We haven't seen any wizard traditions yet, but I suspect there'll be an easy-enough one to work with. Cleric domains are a bit of a puzzler... though perhaps the War domain would be a nod to tradition?

Perhaps the classes outside the core 4 don't need simple options? Since they're considered more outliers storywise anyway?

 

[steeldragons]

I'm a little worried about the impact of all these options on new players.

Oh. Absolutely. It'll become a mire before it's a bridge VERY quickly.

Which is why I'm even a little wary of 10 options per Big 4 classes (Ftr/Cle/Rog/Mag). But you need at LEAST that many to make the Fighter folks not scream bloody murder about their lack of options "the fighter has nothing to do!!! Why's there an archer but I can't specialize with my guisarme?!? How come the guy with a longsword gets a bonus but I can't use two short swords as well?!" etc...etc...

At first it looked like putting feats into theme/specialty containers would help a lot. But it's starting to seem that we're cancelling out that gain with complexity in class builds.

Fighting styles don't seem so bad, as they're fairly intuitive. Rogue schemes seem to me a shade harder to get a handle on because of their interaction with backgrounds, but at least they have recognizable names.

But when you factor in the sheer number of plausible cleric domains, sorcerer origins, warlock pacts, and so on, it could get very confusing to the newcomer.

I absolutely agree.

I think it's very important for each class to have a 'suggested build' along with a suggested background and specialty. And for it to be a fairly simple one to get a handle on. For the fighter, I'd pick Slayer. For rogue, Thief. (Which means it'll need a different suggested background.) We haven't seen any wizard traditions yet, but I suspect there'll be an easy-enough one to work with. Cleric domains are a bit of a puzzler... though perhaps the War domain would be a nod to tradition?

i could certainly get behind that...but also wasn't the whole specialties/backgrounds/schemes/etc... supposed to be optional? Wasn't there a 'default"/simple/"Basic" game that wouldn't include any of those things? If they've canned that, then absolutely YES! Include a deafulat "build" for the "basic X class".

Perhaps the classes outside the core 4 don't need simple options? Since they're considered more outliers storywise anyway?

This also makes sense...and is why I started with 10 options for the core 4 and then knocked it back to 3 for everyone else...with certain/non-caster classes getting to choose their own three or from the 10 for 2 core classes each.

I very much agree though, the bugs could easily begin to outweigh the features if the PHB becomes bogged down in "let's get everything in we possibly can to start with." That's what expansion/splat books are for! The other upside of that...say, for example, I am not a "Fighter PC" kinda guy. I like my Mages. I can just get the "All-about-Mages Splat Book of Build Option Speciality Awesomeness"...vice versa, pick up the "All-About-Fighters every possible archetype who ever did damage with anything Splat book."

No class, big 4 or not, can or should get every possible specialty in the initial PHB release. They just can't. It's not possible.

I'll admit, my list is a bit long and more imposing than I ever expected it would be. But since Sorcerers need a Heritage and Warlocks need a Pact, we can't very well have Bards or Druids or Assassins not getting extra options, now could we? That would be CRAZY!
--SD

 

[howandwhy99]

I think the OP's question is really;

How many Core Classes & SubClasses should be in the Core game book?

I like 4 core with perhaps a 6-10 specialty or sub-classes in all. And even then those would simply be examples, though likely the traditional "real D&D" ones like Paladin, Druid, etc. I'm open to more though as long it the size doesn't get out of hand.

As was pointed out a lot of prior classes could be constructed via the feat & skill systems, but those aren't mandatory to play. If DMs/I drop those, subclasses built only by them are lost as well, no?

 

[gyor]

Oh. Absolutely. It'll become a mire before it's a bridge VERY quickly.

Which is why I'm even a little wary of 10 options per Big 4 classes (Ftr/Cle/Rog/Mag). But you need at LEAST that many to make the Fighter folks not scream bloody murder about their lack of options "the fighter has nothing to do!!! Why's there an archer but I can't specialize with my guisarme?!? How come the guy with a longsword gets a bonus but I can't use two short swords as well?!" etc...etc...



I absolutely agree.



i could certainly get behind that...but also wasn't the whole specialties/backgrounds/schemes/etc... supposed to be optional? Wasn't there a 'default"/simple/"Basic" game that wouldn't include any of those things? If they've canned that, then absolutely YES! Include a deafulat "build" for the "basic X class".



This also makes sense...and is why I started with 10 options for the core 4 and then knocked it back to 3 for everyone else...with certain/non-caster classes getting to choose their own three or from the 10 for 2 core classes each.

I very much agree though, the bugs could easily begin to outweigh the features if the PHB becomes bogged down in "let's get everything in we possibly can to start with." That's what expansion/splat books are for! The other upside of that...say, for example, I am not a "Fighter PC" kinda guy. I like my Mages. I can just get the "All-about-Mages Splat Book of Build Option Speciality Awesomeness"...vice versa, pick up the "All-About-Fighters every possible archetype who ever did damage with anything Splat book."

No class, big 4 or not, can or should get every possible specialty in the initial PHB release. They just can't. It's not possible.

I'll admit, my list is a bit long and more imposing than I ever expected it would be. But since Sorcerers need a Heritage and Warlocks need a Pact, we can't very well have Bards or Druids or Assassins not getting extra options, now could we? That would be CRAZY!
--SD

I don't think there will be much in the way of splat books and the like, mostly just setting books and modalar stuff. So no Divine Power ala 4 or complete Arcane ala 3.5 type stuff.

Most new specialties, Prestige Classes, and the like will come from setting books.

At least that's the impression I got. Which means the PHB 5e will need to be very inclusive with what it includes. Hence all PHB classes and Races.

 

[steeldragons]

I don't think there will be much in the way of splat books and the like, mostly just setting books and modalar stuff. So no Divine Power ala 4 or complete Arcane ala 3.5 type stuff.

Most new specialties, Prestige Classes, and the like will come from setting books.

At least that's the impression I got. Which means the PHB 5e will need to be very inclusive with what it includes. Hence all PHB classes and Races.

This very well may be the case.

But I am curious where/how/why you got this impression (that there won't be much in splat books...but then won't "modular stuff" books essentially be splat books anyway?).