D&D 5E L&L: Subclasses

[Ajar]

I dunno, having multiple ways to accomplish the same feel in a single RPG seems like it could be very confusing for new players.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I dunno, having multiple ways to accomplish the same feel in a single RPG seems like it could be very confusing for new players.

How d'ya figure?

The way I see it, having multiple "correct" answers actually helps new players get over the analysis paralysis of multiple competing options. It reduces the chance of them getting a character they didn't intend to get by basically saying: there is no ONE way to get the character you're looking for. If you want to be a Gladiator, just pick the options that look Gladiator-like to you, and BAM, you've got it!

Not to mention the ease of rolling them all together for the purposes of scaling complexity. A newbie who just wants to be a gladiator can have the background, specialty, and class (and maybe even race!) all there lined up for her, no other major decisions needed.

 

[Ajar]

That seems even less intuitive to me. Having more choices sharing the same thematic space seems like it would increase analysis paralysis, not decrease it.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Agreed. Multiple routes to the same destination is inelegant and sloppy. It's the lazy solution for a designer who is unwilling to make a choice.

 

[Li Shenron]

Maybe the Fighter-subclass-Knight moves two spaces in one direction, then another space orthogonally, jumping over any enemies in the way.

This just made me realize a missed opportunity... what if we get one Fighter subclass which counts diagonals as 1 square, and another which counts diagonals as 1.5 squares? Hiya for inclusive edition!!

 

[Zaukrie]

I like subclasses. I like feats. I like backgrounds. I hope they all work together.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That seems even less intuitive to me. Having more choices sharing the same thematic space seems like it would increase analysis paralysis, not decrease it.

How so? There are multiple right answers. You can pick option A, option B, or options A and B, and all of them get you where you want to go. Pick whatever you want. They all get you where you want to go, and in ways distinct enough to be noticeable, when silo'd well (if your vision of a gladiator is a wielder of odd weapons, get the background; if your vision of a gladiator is a net-and-trident guy, get the specialty; if your version of a gladiator is a master of showy maneuvers, get the subclass).

Agreed. Multiple routes to the same destination is inelegant and sloppy. It's the lazy solution for a designer who is unwilling to make a choice.

Elegance is not an end point, it's only a tool to be used in pursuit of another goal. Why force a false choice and act as if it must be zero sum? What's "lazy" about the game enabling the players to make choices for themselves rather than making these choices for them? There is more than one way to play this game, and there is more than one way to be a vampire or a gladiator or whatever.

 

[DEFCON 1]

A gladiator background maybe gives you proficiency with an exotic weapon. Anyone could have been a gladiator -- your elf wizard, for one. A gladiator specialty might focus on flashy combat moves, toughness, and melee tricks. Your elf wizard can still do this, though maybe it's a better choice for, say, your halfling rogue. A gladiator subclass is for those who want to define their character mostly as a gladiator. Maybe a better fit for your half-orc.

See, I find this quite inelegant (just like I do the Tri-Vampire), because I personally believe the fluff should mean something. Something specific. If you can be a "Gladiator" just by taking a feat that has you wielding a trident and net, even though you're actually an elf wizard... then no, I think then having another Gladiator being a specific type of Fighter is inelegant. Pick one or the other. But don't have both. It's my exact complaint with regards to the Fighting Styles / Specialties issues I've talked about in other threads... where you could be a Marksman *and* a Sharpshooter. Or a Reaper *and* a Slayer. Both of them fluff out the exact same way, even though they theoretically should be two different things (since one is a specific fighting style that only a trained Fighter can use... and the other is some random collection of moves that anyone with a weapon in their hand can use.)

Having fluff connecting to your character should mean something. And I don't think that occurs when one character can be a Marksman Slayer and the other is a Reaper Sharpshooter. If you look at them within the game world... there's no appreciable difference. Which I just think is rather ugly design. And the same holds true for the Three Faces Of Vampire. If you have a feat that makes you a Vampire... then are you less of a Vampire than someone who has the class of Vampire? Since you have less Vampire abilities, shouldn't you be a Lesser Vampire? And if Vampire can also be a race... then how come we no longer have the Dwarf or Elf class anymore? Shouldn't that be the case, if you can have a race and a class be the exact same thing? If we have a Vampire that can be a race or a class... then we should have the Human as a race and a class too, right? I don't see any real difference there.

I can understand why it doesn't matter to some people, like yourself. That kind of... disconnect... probably only affects certain types of people (like myself). But I can't help it. When I see the word 'Wizard' in the game... I like that it means only one thing. When I see the word 'Stealth' in the game... I like that it means only one thing. When I see the word 'Dimension Door' in the game... I like that it means only one thing. It's clear. It's understandable. It gives me a direct visualization into what we're all talking about.

But that doesn't happen when you say the word 'Gladiator' in the game... and we have no idea if you mean a class or a background or a specialty or just a random term we throw out onto an NPC because in the story he's a slave who fights in an arena. It's a Fluff term used to describe something that doesn't necessarily ADD to the fluff of who your character is. Not when there are another four to six OTHER fluff terms already layered upon your character based upon race, sub-race, class, sub-class, background, and/or specialty.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Elegance is not an end point, it's only a tool to be used in pursuit of another goal. Why force a false choice and act as if it must be zero sum? What's "lazy" about the game enabling the players to make choices for themselves rather than making these choices for them? There is more than one way to play this game, and there is more than one way to be a vampire or a gladiator or whatever.

Elegance is not a tool at all. Not everyone can pick it up and use it, or even recognize it when it's there. It is a quality that will be recognized generally when it exists.

No one here is saying there is only one right way to design the game, but there are some saying that every-option-plus-the-kitchen-sink lacks the sense of a sure confident directing hand. I want D&D to set a benchmark for game design, not to be lagging behind in what I see as a morass of indecision.

It's not a question of zero-summing, and (as you'll see upthread) I am completely in favour of "more than one way to play this game, and ... more than one way to be a vampire or a gladiator or whatever." (post 34).

But a designer not making a choice and giving multiple ways for the players to work a solution? That's the definition of lazy.

 

[Quickleaf]

One thing that bothers me about most older editions of D&D, particularly 3e & 4e, is the lack of labeling of classes/subclasses. For example, say the 4e Elementalist is designed for beginner players to play a simplified caster. I would like 5e to come out and say this directly in the class description! Something like:

"The Elementalist is a beginner class, with less to keep track of and easier to play than a wizard. If you choose this class for its simplicity, it is suggested you stay away from complex feats or specialities, which can bog down its ease of play at the table."

I know it seems ridiculously hand-holdy to seasoned gamers, but there's a lot of younger, newer, or simply time-stressed gamers who I think these sorts of explicit guidelines would be helpful for.