D&D 5E L&L: Subclasses

[dd.stevenson]

So I read this L&L and I got that 2E kits are back as an advanced option. Which is good by me.

I also got that these kits will somehow move martial characters out of the spellcaster shadow. How is not made clear: I suspect he's saying that more specialized classes will be more powerful within their field of expertise and thus specialization is the key to improved martial mechanical power. Either that or he's saying that the shadow thing came about because spellcasters got more deeply flavored class options. Either interpretation is good by me, but then I'm not one of the people he's trying to please with with the balance spiel.

 

[Warbringer]

Why can't specialties and sub-classes occupy the same design space?

Because if they occupy the same design space then we don't need two design elements. Have one design element with a choice of two. Further, at higher level let the character select an "advanced" design element that fills the paragon path design space. (At this point its starting to look like WHFP)

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

Having fluff connecting to your character should mean something.

I think you are running two things together here. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it's worth being clear about.

KM (as best I understand him) is not saying that flavour is irrelevant. He's saying that there is more than one path by which to use the PC-build mechanics to deliver a certain sort of flavour. So, conversely, when you are saying that "fluff should mean something" you're not just insisting that PC-build mechanics should deliver an outcome that has an ingame meaning, you're saying that there should be no more than one PC-build route to a given ingame destination.

That is a hugely strong constraint that even points-buy systems have trouble delivering on, and that a class + race + feats system almost certainly can't unless - like classic D&D - we are utterly committed to strictly limiting the possible ingame destinations.

KM has made his point with reference to vampires, but I can equally make it with reference to paladins - in my game one of the paladins is built as a paladin/Questing Knight/Marshal of Letherna; the other is built as a fighter multi-class cleric/Warpriest/Eternal Defender. These different mechanical paths produce different suites of mechanical capabilities reflecting the two players' different preferences - but each corresponds, in game, to a heavy armour, hard-hitting divinely-empowered defender.

Another example from my game is the PC who started as a human wizard multi-class cleric, then retrained to multi-class invoker so he could pick up the Divine Philosopher paragon path, and then - after an ingame resurrection experience - rebuilt as a deva invoker multi-class wizard, who is still a Divine Philosopher and also a Sage of Ages. Some of the skills that the PC originally got from being a human, he now gests from feats. He use to have Thudnerwave as a wizard at-will power, but now has it as a multi-class wizard encounter power. But the PC concept in the fiction hasn't changed; it's just mixing and matching different mechanical elements to best express that fictional concept in a way that best fits with what the player wants to do with the PC.

Again, I'm not saying that this sort of flexibility is the only way to go - and of course it requires good design so that a Reaper/Slayer is not landed with redundant and mutually excluding powers, but rather becomes utterly all about reaping and slaying (a bit like KM's Elvira). I just want to emphasise how much of a constraint is placed on both the game and the underlying fiction that it will have room for if you go down the path of insisting on no more than one mechanical path to a given fictional destination.

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.

<snip>

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

Until you tell me more about your design goals and design criteria - in particular in respect of how mechanics and fiction are meant to touch one another - I can't tell what is or isn't lazy.

For instance, in the Basic rulebook for Marvel Heroic RP, Spiderman has two power-sets - a spidery one and a web-shooting one. In Civil War, though, which has Spidey in his Stark armouor, the spidery and web-shooting abilities are rolled into a single power set, and a second armour power set is added. Mechanically, this makes Spidey's iconic abilities less important - because on a single roll you can only use one item from a given powerset: so Basic Spidey can use both Wall-Crawling and Webs in the same action, whereas Civil War armoured Spidey has to choose one or the other, but can then also use a Stark armour ability.

This isn't lazy design, though - allowing Spidey's abilities to be represented and used mechanically in different ways. It's good design, because it allows the character to be powered up with Stark armour in the fiction without leading to the game breaking mechanically in play.

Letting "gladiator" be a single feat for PC A, but a whole suite of class abilities for PC B, is a way of achieving that same sort of thing in D&D.

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.

<snip>

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.

Unless I've badly misunderstood you we're in agreement, and (hopefully) I've elaborated on your reasoning a bit above.

 

[pemerton]

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 believe it might help reduce the problem of 8-minute turns!

 

[Connorsrpg]

I am more than happy with several avenues to a concept, each with different levels of immersion into that concept, especially if they can be combined. I do not see anything lazy or inelegant about it.

 

[variant]

Shouldn't 'scout' fit better with either the Ranger or Rogue?

I like the basic idea of subclasses, though I think it would better if they were represented as trait lines so you could delve into the different trait trees similar to D20 Modern.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Shouldn't 'scout' fit better with either the Ranger or Rogue?

My hunch is that Scout, is the non-mystical alternative to the Ranger.

I don't have a problem with certain archetypes being expressed different ways. I could imagine a "Ninja" subclass for the Rogue, and a "Shinobi" subclass for the Monk. Mundane shadow warrior versus mystic shadow warrior.

 

[Szatany]

...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.

I already shown it works in classes,backgrounds, feats, adventures....

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

This is a very good observation, and a well-chosen example.

In lieu of my previous post, "assassin" could be a job and therefore be well represented by a background. As such it would probably involve poison use as you say, but perhaps more the type of poison that is applied to food/drink or objects as a trap for the victim, with possibly some fringe requirements related to sneaking, disguise, concealing objects etc to deliver the poison, rather than the type of poison applied to weapons. It doesn't have to be entirely limited to poisons, but as long as it is restricted to downtime benefits, it would match all other backgrounds. This because an assassin's "job" is not really about being paid to wage into a battle or a duel... it's just about eliminating a specific target so that your customer doesn't have to do it himself, and an assassin's interest is also not getting caught.

But "assassin" could also be more like a slayer-type (such as the Assassin character in Diablo II), and poison use in this case would be related to coating bladed weapons to deal more damage quickly. That's clearly a combat strategy, and this type of benefit would not fit in the current mechanics & concept of a background. It would fit much better to either a (sub)class feature or to non-class features (i.e. feats). IMHO both of them could be designed and work well, but (a) feats (and eventually a specialty) would be the best to represent simply poison use in combat, which is a tactic or strategy that could be easily ported to any character whether a Fighter, Rogue, Blackguard, Ranger... at which point let's just make it feats available to anybody interested; (b) a whole class or subclass can hardly hold on poison use in combat only, so it would probably hold much better on its own if the archetype included more assassination-based technique than just poison use, and some support abilities as well. There could be for example a Rogue's Assassin scheme, but why not also a Monk's Ninja monastic tradition?

 

[Warbringer]

I'm not saying that this sort of flexibility is the only way to go - and of course it requires good design so that a Reaper/Slayer is not landed with redundant and mutually excluding powers, but rather becomes utterly all about reaping and slaying .

The issue is, as the rules/communication currenlty stands, this is not what we are getting. instead we are looking at non-additive paths to the concept.

Of course this is playtest, and hopefully we get to a place where taking sub-class, background and key feats (specialty), gives you the Archetype of Assassin (for example) while taking the just some of the pieces allows you to be "assassiny".