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

[Branduil]

If this could work, ALL subclasses must have same "power" budget and that seems like lot's of work to do.

might be better jut to ditch sub-classes completely and turn their features into feats that all can pick(with prerequirements and level limits) and just add more feats at levels 2,3,6,10,14 and 18.

I would honestly be okay with that. While the concerns about overpowered combos is valid, I would counter with 2 points:

1. This would also make it easier for devs to identify overly good or bad subclasses, since now every class would have access to the good ones.
2. It would be a buff for classes which are currently stuck with poor subclasses.

 

[Olrox17]

I think opening subclasses like that would be a fine house rule, or even a good official variant, but I wouldn’t want it to be the default.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I think opening subclasses like that would be a fine house rule, or even a good official variant, but I wouldn’t want it to be the default.

Yes -- I'm not suggesting it is the default (that would require intentional design from the outset). But if you accept the premise of the experiment, are there opportunities/liabilities that you see?

 

[Kobold Stew]

Hexblade seems like a no-brainer for Paladins, Bards, and Sorcerers.

Well, we've not seen the Hexblade yet, and so we don't know. Using the patterns that we have seen, however, and including the structural assumptions we've got here, each of those classes might only get 1 use per rest. At that point, it remains powerful but is fundamentally about a single combat. And maybe that's balanced.

Obviously, we can update it when we see more subclasses. at the moment we've only got drafts of 1/8th of what will be in the new PHB. For the most part, though, they are behaving similarly (Moon druid being the biggest outlier).

 

[Parmandur]

If this could work, ALL subclasses must have same "power" budget and that seems like lot's of work to do.

might be better jut to ditch sub-classes completely and turn their features into feats that all can pick(with prerequirements and level limits) and just add more feats at levels 2,3,6,10,14 and 18.

In OneD&D, the Subclasses all have the same budget: that's a big patt of the point of the stabdardization.

 

[Parmandur]

One of the great advantages of establishing a standard progression for subclasses (abilities at level 3, 6, 10, and 14) is that in theory subclasses could be more flexible, and applied not only to the intended class but also used by others. Sure Life Clerics are the best healers, but what does it mean to have a Life Paladin or a Life Bard?

The purpose of this thread is to think about this. It won’t be for everyone – I get that (and if so , feel free to move on). But the questions I want to think about are:

1. What changes to the current (playtest) designs would be needed to make a given subclass flexible?
2. Do interesting builds emerge that might be fun to play, and are they not-obviously-underpowered?
3. Are there any combinations that are OP or otherwise “break” the game?

One way to think about this is to test the robustness of the subclasses as they are developing. And to think about how rulesets might interact.

A few initial assumptions:

• Since some of the abilities key of a resource pool from the primary class, we’ll grant access to a minimum of one use per long rest for classes without that ability. This does not grant the benefits of that ability, though.
• If an ability keys off of “cleric level”, then we’ll use the level of the class for which Life has become a subclass.

In the next post, I’ve put these in tiers of robustness/flexibility. Not necessarily power, fun potential, etc. I accept that none of the pairings are going to be as effective as they would with their intended class, but the discussion below suggests that it could remain a desirable choice for some players in any case.

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

• Life Bard.
• Thief Barbarian
• Hunter Druid

Very interesting thought experiment. I could foresee Group based Subclasses actually getting published by WotC, like that apply to all Experts or Mages.

 

[mellored]

Yes -- I'm not suggesting it is the default (that would require intentional design from the outset). But if you accept the premise of the experiment, are there opportunities/liabilities that you see?

Eldritch Archer would need to be designed differently for a fighter, wizard, or rogue.
Trying to design it to be balanced with multiple attack, high level slots, and Sneak Attack all at the same time would be tricky.

As a variant, sure.
A DM may allow you to take a subclass from another class. Though different combinations may be more or less powerful than expected. As always you are free to modify the game.

 they certainly could design some general, or even campaign specific sub-classes. Baulder Gate guard for instance.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

So I've been making a 5e clone game of my own that also uses a standard subclass progression, which due largely to chance (and where one can fit these things), happened to end up almost the same as WotC's for OneD&D.

In any case I did have a breakthrough in terms of realizing that I could have some subclasses be interchangeable between several classes. It opened up a lot of design space to support incorporating versions of standard D&D classes alongside my own custom classes, since coming up with a bunch of new Rogue archetypes not covered by the subclasses for my Knave class was pretty difficult, but rewriting a couple of the Knave subclasses to work with the Rogue was pretty trivial. And in doing this I realized I had a variety of subclasses that only really lived with the class for thematic reasons rather than building off of core class mechanics. My Astrologer subclass was designed for my Arcanist class, but the abilities, which are a little like Diviner Wizard mechanics with more star themes, could theoretically be plopped onto any of my classes without much trouble if someone wanted to make an astrology focused character. A few of WotC's classes (Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock) use their subclasses in key class lore ways that don't work with such an approach, but none of my classes really do that.

I think there is a lot of room for class-flexible subclasses in a 5e-based game. I think committing to making all or most subclasses work like that is a mistake, because there should also be subclasses that build off the unique features of their base class, but committing to making all subclasses tie mechanically to a specific class is also a mistake, as it leads to lots of perfunctory or obligatory tying of subclass to class mechanics rather than letting such things be organic to what thematic idea the subclass is evoking.

In any case at this point in developing my game my approach is just to pick certain subclasses that don't integrate particularly deeply with their classes, rewrite them for compatibility with other classes (often this just means replacing the words "Charisma modifier" with "Spellcasting modifier" and the like), and leave them appended to the class they are written for but with a note at the top of their entries about what other classes you could potentially use them with. If I end up with enough ideas for subclasses that could literally pair with any class, I might create a separate section for those.

 

[Vael]

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?

 

[Horwath]

In OneD&D, the Subclasses all have the same budget: that's a big patt of the point of the stabdardization.

they are set at the same class level for improvements.(3,6,10,14)
i'm not sure it's the same "power budget".