D&D 5E All classes should be broad enough to be split into subclasses

[Remathilis]

IMHO All classes should be broad enough to be split into subclasses (ie: fighter actually is split by fighting style into duelist, protector, sharpshooter, slayer and veteran subclasses). If proposed class isn't able to cover multiple styles it should not be a class. Some classes are little more narrow and incite discussions if it should be a class or specialty like warlord, barbarian or assassin.

No.

Classes can share common traits (HD, spell progression) but each class should be its own unique shtick.

I cannot fathom why people keep trying to cram dozens of interesting archetypes into the same four jars time after time...

 

[Nellisir]

I cannot fathom why people keep trying to cram dozens of interesting archetypes into the same four jars time after time...

Reinventing the wheel. And because, more often than not, they fit. Often the ones that don't fit don't because of something non-essential to the class, or because the designer was hell-bent on starting from scratch, rather than evaluating both options.
Those four jars can accomodate 60-80% of the class archtypes out there. The archtypes that can't be accomodated can have their own classes, sure. But mandating a class for every archtype is confusing and wasteful.

Much of it is also perception and comfort zone. A druid built off the cleric, losing Turn Undead and Deity in exchange for druidic stuff, is fine with me as a subclass. Other people might prefer it be its own class.

 

[Drowdruid]

Should be class or not

Because discussion is little sluggish in my thread i want add oil to the fire:
Should Avenger, Runepriest or Seeker be a class in new edition? If so what feature should be defining them and dividing them into subclasses? I wish you add examples of subclasses and to which archetype it is related (if obvious name it with one word and if less obvious please give me short description).

 

[Li Shenron]

IMHO All classes should be broad enough to be split into subclasses (ie: fighter actually is split by fighting style into duelist, protector, sharpshooter, slayer and veteran subclasses). If proposed class isn't able to cover multiple styles it should not be a class. Some classes are little more narrow and incite discussions if it should be a class or specialty like warlord, barbarian or assassin.

I think it's a good principle, but then I can see enough breadth in the Paladin (based on different virtues, as you also suggest) and Ranger (based on different terrains) but not enough in the Assassin (enough to have it as a Rogue scheme), the Barbarian (I would like it best as a Human subrace) and the Warlord (should be at most a specialty available to high-Cha PC of every class).

Yechhh ... no sub-classes, please. If you want that kind of differentiation, put it into Specialties.

Yes and no, why not having both? I don't necessarily like a clear distinction into "subclasses", I think Fighter's styles are the best case because they're fluid, you can mix them.

I think there is room for both because Specialties can be used for concepts that should better be allowed to all classes, while "subclasses" (but I think the term sucks... best for each class to have its own name and implementation, like currently!) can be used for in-class differentiation.

Of course this might be a bit fuzzy... but let's take a couple of example from our current classes:

a) Fighter's Fighting Styles: the "concepts" of a duelist, sharpshooter, protector etc. are not to be restricted to a fighter. But here we have to understand that having these as Fighter's own "schtik" does not, in fact, prevent any other character to be a duelist etc. It just prevents other classes to get these specific mechanical benefits. You may call it "niche protection" or "class protection" but it is a good thing, because it makes single-class Fighters an attractive option. THEN there can be ALSO some duelist feats, sharpshooter feats etc. for other characters, but it's good that the Fighter gets additional mechanical benefits, which in fact use a Fighter's unique mechanics (which really should be unique, not spread over to other classes, or it spoils everything!).

b) Cleric's Domains/Deities OR Wizard's Traditions: these work directly on these classes' spellcasting mechanics (plus some general stuff like proficiencies, resistances, spare bonuses...). So the spellcasting benefits wouldn't even apply to other classes, and the other benefits are so generic that they are useful but not necessary to represent the concept (thus they don't restrict the concept to this class only).

Specialties instead can be very useful when they give totally additional features that are not bound to a single class' specific mechanic (see especially the Themes in older packets such as the Necromancer specialty, the Arcane Dabbler etc.) or they are too important/defining for a concept that we really want available to all, such as archery feats or leadership feats (hence my view on Warlord as a Specialty).

So the CONCLUSION is that there can be both archery feats AND archery Fighter-only maneuvers, and this is the best we can get. If we only have feats (for every concept, not just archery), then we quickly lose the chance to make each class unique and attractive on its own as a single-class. If we only have maneuvers (or class-specific features) we lose the chance for some concepts to be available to others.

 

[Li Shenron]

Because discussion is little sluggish in my thread i want add oil to the fire:
Should Avenger, Runepriest or Seeker be a class in new edition?

I don't really think so. Not only they are very narrow, but some like the Runepriest are also very setting-dependent IMHO. They might be classes in a campaign setting rulebook of course, esp. said Runepriest could be a key central figure in some setting, even replacing the Cleric and the Wizard as main caster.

 

[Drowdruid]

Re: Runepriest too specific

I don't agree with you Li Shenron I think runes are common form of magic and I personally am dividing class accordingly to racial alphabets. And so Dwarven Runes are protective buffs, Elven are offensive buffs, Draconic are lets say aggressive (damage dealing), Gnomish are placed on the ground as glyphs etc.
Edit:
But Avenger and Seeker are really to narrow IMHO.

 

[Szatany]

Drowdruid:
Because I admire your Ultimate Classes

Wow, someone still remembers those

I agree. Some concepts naturally will be more narrow but i think we have avoid situation when we make a class that is one trick pony (ie. avenger in 4e although have their censure feature it make its build barely different than the others)

Agreed. One trick ponies might look ok on paper, but they are no fun to play after a few sessions. (unless you're mostly into role playing and not into tactical combat/system mastery).

[MENTION=21178]Szatany[/MENTION]: I think in some cases it is true and in some is not. Division into subclasses or builds if you prefer this name should be guideline not dogma IMHO.

TO be honest...I don't know. I love subclasses/class ability trees/etc. but I understand that not everybody else does.
I think in the end it boils down to a question: how do you categorize and divide the entirety of material you have prepared for a class.

Yechhh ... no sub-classes, please. If you want that kind of differentiation, put it into Specialties.

But specialities are supposed to be largely class-independed, are they not?

 

[Drowdruid]

Re: Ultimate Classes

Of course i remember! For those who say that Barbarian should be specialty or should be renamed as Berserker (because its main shtick is rage) i recommend Barbarian from Ultimate Classes, which main shtick called Savagery is divided into Blood Bond, Fetish, Frenzy, Rage, Shouts and Tattoos. All these categories are related to barbaric customs and only two of them could be considered as type of Rage.

 

[Drowdruid]

Please post in this thread your concepts of classes and its subclasses in following form:
Name Of Class: Defining Feature
1. Example No 1: Name Of Archetype or Short Description Of Archetype
2. Example No 2: Name Of Archetype or Short Description Of Archetype
etc.

As a reward I will give experience points to genuine and well thought concepts

 

[Derren]

If you insist on having classes at all make them so general and give players so many options that they can fit many different archetypes (or something completely unique) depending on the players wishes.

No need to make a extra class for every slight difference in behavior/equipment.
Fighter (combat), adventurer (skill) and mage (magic, including arcane and divine)