D&D 5E L&L: Subclasses

[I'm A Banana]

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.

The meaning depends on the table. Design is local. Maybe IMC there's a group of enslaved sea elves who are forced into gladiatorial combat against their kith and kin, made to fight magical battles for the amusement of the spectators above, and given the very weapons used against the wildlife of their world to beat each other to death with when their magic runs out.

Maybe at my table, there's just one guy who wants to play an elf wizard who used to be a gladiator, but won his freedom.

The game and the designers don't need to dictate the way my table plays, and by making the pieces modular, I can add what's right for me without having to add everything that's wrong. Gladiators in my world are enslaved sea-elf wizards who fight with fishing implements. Do I need to redesign a whole class, or can I just get a specialty I can add onto them?

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.)

Why force the false choice? What's the up-side? You typically gain very little from one-true-wayism in a game as broad as D&D, and elegance is only a tool, not an end in and of itself.

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.

Being a marksman and being a slayer aren't mutually exclusive, though. "I'm a warrior who kills monsters with my arrows!" Similarly reaper and sharpshooter: "My strength is such that I can pull this heavy bowstring and launch arrows the size of small ballisatae bolts!"

I buy that the specialties need a better grounding in the fiction to make this distinction more clear and meaningful, and it sounds a bit like the super-feats we're getting might cover that.

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.

All lemonade is local. Each of these questions will be answered by the individuals who have cause to ask them as they create their characters. The game doesn't need to lay down the law about it.

For the vampire specifically, I understood it as "My people are vampires" (Vryloka), "I'm a bit vampiric" (feats) and "I've decided to focus on my vampire abilities" (class), but the flexibility of these things is a great asset.

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.

This is just getting hung up on terminology, here. You define these things at your own table. Maybe my games have a different meaning for the word "Gladiator" (Entraped magical sea-elf!) than, say, Dark Sun, which is going to have a different meaning for the word than a game based on ancient Rome.

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.

Whenever you describe someone in the fluff at your table as a gladiator, it should mean something in the story of the game, and the mechanics of the character should line up with that story.

If, on his character sheet, it says "Ranger," and he was an enslaved ranger who fights in an arena, and maybe has a "Gladiator Training" background...what's the problem?

 

[Szatany]

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.

I'm sorry if I offend you but it's one of most amusing (to not say silly) things I read here.
It's like saying having both fighter, barbarian, paladin and samurai classes (in 3e) is inelegant and sloppy because I can use any of those to play a sword wielding melee oriented character. I guess in your mind the good way to do it was to design only one class that does a good job at portraying that kind of character?
I'm just trying to show you an example of what you're proposing. I hope you're starting to realize that in fact the opposite is true. Multiple routes to the same destination is elegant and preffered. People will use that they need or what they can get. What if there's gladiator feat, gladiator fighter subclass and gladiator background. Someone who's not a fighter can be a dedicated gladiator by picking up the feat and getting bonuses similar to the fighter's, but on smaller scale. Even a figher might take it if he wants to have one true speciality (say, knight) and one semi-speciality (gladiator through a feat). Or another player might not have either a class or feat to spare but still wants to play gladiator-flavored character, so he opts for the background.

How about we apply your way of thinking into adventure design? It means straight railroading is good and sandbox is bad. Can't disagree more.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

That's not elegance, that's the Force.

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.

The directing hand is supposed to be the DM, not James Wyatt and Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford. Those guys don't know my group like I do.

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.

I don't follow how having the designer do more work tracks as lazy. Or, even if it did, why that would be a negative thing, given the interests of diversity.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I'm sorry if I offend you but it's one of most amusing (to not say silly) things I read here.

...and we disagree; and I can say so without offending you at all.

Your counter example is working on one level of design. Classes. Straightforward and simple, and (for some) elegant. As a counter-example, it is not relevant to my proposal in any way.

A better example (from 3e) would be if there were a Samurai class and a Samurai prestige class and a feat called "Samurai powers". All in the PHB, out of the gate.

The difference between these two cases is (for me) significant. If you don't perceive the difference, that's fine, but it means we are unlikely to have a productive discussion.

I believe I am actively encouraging a more open-ended ("sandbox" rather than "railroading")-approach that affords players dynamic innovative choices while still allowing straightforward ("basic") choices to work side by side one another. I want clean, clear options for players and a flexible elegant system that encourages creativity and rewards lateral thinking and system mastery, while not drowning new players in having to make choices the design team was unwilling to make.

Others will want different things -- and that's fine. But it serves no one to mischaracterize each another and very nearly to call another person silly.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The meaning depends on the table. Design is local. Maybe IMC there's a group of enslaved sea elves who are forced into gladiatorial combat against their kith and kin, made to fight magical battles for the amusement of the spectators above, and given the very weapons used against the wildlife of their world to beat each other to death with when their magic runs out.

This is mainly my point... that we should try to avoid using fluff that often to designate who characters are, because that fluff means many different things in many different games.

If we want 'gladiator' to be more usable to a wider group of players at a wider group of tables... we shouldn't see it assigned to so many things within the game. Instead, it should be up to the players themselves to say "My character is a gladiator."

We don't assign what it is Clerics do. Their sub-classes are not "Missionaries" or "Evangelists", or "Priests" or "Templars". Instead... Clerics can be any of those things, and instead can help define how they behave as those things by choosing a god to follow. The gods do not define the types of Clerics out there, they tell us what their focus or specialization is. Likewise, the Traditions don't define the types of Wizards out there, they tell us what those Wizards' focus or specialization is. And I think the same should hold true for the Fighter.

You are a Cleric who focuses on the god of death or the god of light. You are a Wizard who specializes in conjuration or transmutation. You are a Fighter who focuses on gladiator or specializes in scout.

To me... there is a marked difference there on that third thing. One that I don't think just looks or works very well. Not when you could just as easily change it to "focuses on dual weapons" and "specializes in commando fighting."

 

[GX.Sigma]

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.

I think that's the whole idea of the basic box. It will probably say something like:

Fighting Style
The most basic fighting style, Warrior, is presented here. More advanced options can be found in the Player's Handbook.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The directing hand is supposed to be the DM, not James Wyatt and Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford. Those guys don't know my group like I do.

Once the game is published, I agree with you.

At this point, though? Design choices are being made (or not being made), and that's going to shape the way every DM and Player eventually plays DDN.

I don't follow how having the designer do more work tracks as lazy. Or, even if it did, why that would be a negative thing, given the interests of diversity.

You are equating "do more work" with "not make choices". I don't understand that, but that's okay. It's clear at least where we differ.

 

[GSHamster]

The issue with Gladiator is that we often use the same word for different concepts, and then that makes life complicated when we try to create mechanics for those concepts.

For example, can a wizard be a Knight?

Yes, if Knight refers to the social rank, granted by the Queen. No, if Knight refers to being able to fight with a lance on horseback.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is mainly my point... that we should try to avoid using fluff that often to designate who characters are, because that fluff means many different things in many different games.

If we want 'gladiator' to be more usable to a wider group of players at a wider group of tables... we shouldn't see it assigned to so many things within the game. Instead, it should be up to the players themselves to say "My character is a gladiator."

There's a bit of a give-and-take here, with regards to the titles we put on bags of mechanics, though. We do need to signal to people interested in being a archetypal gladiator (for the same values of "archetypal" as any class in D&D) that this is something they'd be interested in, because that's what it's designed to be.

It's sort of the "assassin" problem. Anyone can be paid money to kill someone, but an "assassin" is a D&D archetype to track towards, too: a poison-using silent killer who murders people before they're even aware that there is anyone there. We can have lots of mechanics that get at that, though, from a background that gives one proficiency in poison use to a specialty that focuses on stealth to a subclass that maximizes damage during a surprise round. We don't need one thing bearing the weight of all of that, and making it interchangeable makes it able to be disassembled by people who want just a bit of A or B.

We don't assign what it is Clerics do. Their sub-classes are not "Missionaries" or "Evangelists", or "Priests" or "Templars". Instead... Clerics can be any of those things, and instead can help define how they behave as those things by choosing a god to follow. The gods do not define the types of Clerics out there, they tell us what their focus or specialization is. Likewise, the Traditions don't define the types of Wizards out there, they tell us what those Wizards' focus or specialization is. And I think the same should hold true for the Fighter.

You are a Cleric who focuses on the god of death or the god of light. You are a Wizard who specializes in conjuration or transmutation. You are a Fighter who focuses on gladiator or specializes in scout.

With you so far.

To me... there is a marked difference there on that third thing. One that I don't think just looks or works very well. Not when you could just as easily change it to "focuses on dual weapons" and "specializes in commando fighting."

...and you've lost me. That third thing isn't dramatically different than those first things.

At this point, though? Design choices are being made (or not being made), and that's going to shape the way every DM eventually plays DDN.

The design choices need to be made to enable DMs to make their own design choices. Every DM who plays 5e should be playing their own version of the game. To use the CRPG analogy, 5e needs to be the hardware, not the software.

You are equating "do more work" with "not make choices".

It's a lot less work to write a novel with one plot than to write a novel with seven.

 

[Quickleaf]

I think that's the whole idea of the basic box. It will probably say something like:

Fighting Style
The most basic fighting style, Warrior, is presented here. More advanced options can be found in the Player's Handbook.

Right, the problem with the basic box as it has been done is the limited level coverage, with the assumption that players will "graduate" to more complex classes. IMO that assumption is wrong. I think there are (to simplify things) two styles of D&D that appeal to two adult player types: one likes simple characters, the other complex characters. I don't "graduate" from simple to complex, as an adult, rather I have one or the other that I lean toward given my preferences.

Also, I think this adult - for lack of a better word - "casual" player needs guidelines in the books about not getting in over their head when creating a character (especially in regard to feats). In 4e I've seen it happen so many times that a casual player starts with a relatively simple class and, through accident or a well-intentioned experienced player helping, they end up with a far more complex build that overwhelms them.