D&D 5E L&L: Subclasses

[pemerton]

There could be for example a Rogue's Assassin scheme, but why not also a Monk's Ninja monastic tradition?

I think this is what [MENTION=8547]Twiggly the Gnome[/MENTION] has in mind.

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.

For multiple paths to be work they have to be additive but independent - so if you take only one, you have a viable character element, but if you take all of them, you get a viable (if super-focused) character rather than a whole lot of mechanically conflicting redundancy.

Am I right in thinking that in an earlier package there were issues with a fighter getting essentially redundant reaction defences from Feats and Subclass? If so, that's the sort of thing that needs to be fixed.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

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

I wonder if as it comes from the fighter class it more represents the elite advance guard; medieval recon troops, mounted or on foot. Fast moving, hard hitting, but tends to avoid battles of attrition not least because they're supposed to actually deliver a report. I'd imagine they'd focus on being alert, avoiding surprise, winning initiative, striking first and bugging out before overwhelmed.

 

[TwoSix]

That's not "multiplying archetypes"...it's creating a bunch of different ways to get to the same place...which, to many, appears to be unnecessary, repetitious and, for new (and some old) players, needlessly complicated.

No thanks.

Agreed. It's so FRUSTRATING that I can go up my street to get to the supermarket, AND I can go down my street, and make a turn, and get to the EXACT SAME SUPERMARKET. What the heck, roads?!?!

 

[1of3]

There are two points. Naming and meaning. If Knight is a fighter thing, call the Background Gentry. If fighter things are ab out "how did you lesen to fight?", there can still be feats about weapons.

Those problems can be solved.

 

[steeldragons]

Quite right. Those roads will getcha to the same place, every time.

Witty as this and the math lesson may be, we're not talking about roads and we're not talking about "getting to 4"...We're talking about the character creation process for a fantasy rpg, specifically an edition of Dungeons & Dragons.

In my opinion that does not need a Class called Assassin, a sub-class called Assassin, a specialty called Assassin and then a Garotte strangle hold and Inta-Death Feats, with Poison Use and Super-stealth Skills [and don't forget the kung-fu grip!] all to make a bevy of characters who can be called "Assassin."

The designers...who get paid for this kinda thing, btw...need to make some f--n' decisions as to their opinion of the "best"/most inclusive/broadest defined way to go...and then stick to it/stand by it!

If anyone wants to deconstruct the Assassin sub-class [let's say, for the sake of example, it's a sub-class and nothing else] and use bits n' pieces to their hearts' content at their table, GO FOR IT! As KM so correctly points out, this is a game played by different groups at different tables differently. If they think a game which caters to every possible scenario is possible, then f--it! Why put out a "system" at all...just have NO rules, NO framework...You don't have to worry about ruffling any-particular-playstyle's feathers and let everyone pick to do things however they want.

I'm sure that'll make a great game for lots of people...it just won't be Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Sadrik]

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)

That is circular logic. But I get your sarcasm. The better way to approach it would be to make sub-classes into a host of specialties and backgrounds.

I know it does not readily appear so and it seems quite benign, but it really strips creativity from the players and asks the designers to hard code fluff. I want fluff so removed from the classes its not even funny. Background and class have been intertwined throughout the game but then 5e comes along and the designers say we have these little templates that you can add to your character that are called backgrounds. I was like wow this is going to be a great game. But slowly backgrounds and class assumptions are making their way back into "sub-classes". This is bad wrong fun for everyone (unless you particularly like everything they have provided).

One other aspect is the concept of multi-classing. What about sub-classes and multi-classing. I mean a gladiator/charlatan? Really? Is that how they want to do it? get the background out of the classes and get those into the background where they belong.

 

[TwoSix]

Quite right. Those roads will getcha to the same place, every time.

Witty as this and the math lesson may be, we're not talking about roads and we're not talking about "getting to 4"...We're talking about the character creation process for a fantasy rpg, specifically an edition of Dungeons & Dragons.

Psst....it's a metaphor.

In response to the rest of your point, surely you can there's a middle point between "do it this way only" and "do it anyway you want", right? It can cater to 3 or 4 different common scenarios without attempting to cater to any and all possibilities.

Some concepts are narrow, some are broad. Trying to turn a narrow concept into a class, and a subclass, and a feat chain is probably overkill. But something as broad as "fantasy gladiator" or "fantasy assassin?" Words which have both broader and narrower archetypes contained within them? Why wouldn't an inclusive version of D&D try and support them in both their broad and narrow definition?

 

[Falcon42]

...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.

I agree with Kamikaze Midget and Szatany. Elegance is giving the DMs multiple options to offer to the players to achieve their goal(s). You as DM now determine which options work best for your game and disallow the rest. Other DMs might prefer one of the options you dislike, and disallow your preferred choice.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The designers...who get paid for this kinda thing, btw...need to make some f--n' decisions as to their opinion of the "best"/most inclusive/broadest defined way to go...and then stick to it/stand by it!

This may be the best/most inclusive way to go.

I think of it like this:

Let us say that a D&D assassin has the following main archetypal abilities:

• It can sneak
• It can open locks
• It can disguise itself
• It can use poison
• It can use "good" weapons (say, a 4 on a scale of 1-5)
• It can use "light" armor (say, a 2 on a scale of 1-5)
• It can kill a creature if it hits it during a surprise round (the death attack)

This is probably debatable, but stay with me.

Character creation has maybe six decision points in D&D:

1. Your race/subrace
2. Your "background" (ie: skills)
3. Your "specialty" (ie: feats)
4. Your class (ie: 2e "group")
5. Your build (ie: class features)
6. Your specific powers/attacks/spells/rituals/etc.

In 5e, if you play an "Assassin" on simple mode, all of those choices will be made for you.

Oh, guess what, you're a human (race) with spy training (background giving you disguises, sneakiness, and the ability to open locks) who uses poison (Poisoner specialty) and who takes the rogue class (giving you proficiency with light armor and swords) with the Assassin build (giving you better weapon proficiency) so that you can unlock a class feature that gives you the Death Attack.

Now say you play 5e on complex mode. You could take all those same choices. Or you could change one.

You're a human with spy training who uses poison and who takes the rogue class with the Thug build and now you don't have a death attack, but you have a fairly brutal and customizable Sneak Attack class feature.

Or you could change everything BUT one:

You're a half-elf with thief training who uses poison, and who takes the fighter class with the Zweihander build that lets you use a BIG FRIGGIN SWORD, and light armor.

Or you could mix in some alternative perspectives:

You're a human with spy training who uses poison and who takes the rogue class with the Assassin build and you swap out your Death Attack for 4'e shroud mechanic.

Or you could play against type:

You're a dwarf noble who uses two weapons and you take the druid class with the Grove of the Storm build that lets you control weather. You join the Assassin's guild anyway and still kill things for money. Just with lightning.

Or maybe you are the DM:

All assassins in my games have the Poisoner specialty because all assassinations are governed by a guild with close ties to the alchemists in the city where my game is centered. It's the only organization that offers proper poison training, so if you want to take it, you've gotta belong to the guild, and if you take it you belong to the guild, no matter what your class, build, or whatever.

And lo, they were all assassins, and there was much rejoicing.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Actually... that's not completely correct. At least, that's not the real focus of my point.

My main point is not that any one "fluff" based character element should appear only once in the game... but rather that no character should need more than a couple of these elements in their character design. Because the more "fluffy" elements you keep inserting into your characters, the more watered down the fluff becomes.

We decide what our character is when we create it. If we want him or her to be a pirate... we can just say "my character's a pirate!" We've been doing it that way for decades. But now, let's start layering in the fluff. We choose race, he's now an Elf Pirate. We choose sub-race, he's now a Wood Elf pirate. We choose background, he's now a Wood Elf Commoner Pirate. We choose class, he's now a Wood Elf Commoner Fighter Pirate. Let's throw in a specialty. He's now a Wood Elf Commoner Fighter Skirmisher Pirate.

Should we keep going? How about we throw in a Fighter's subclass? He's now a Wood Elf Commoner Fighter Skirmisher Samurai Pirate.

Wait, what?

Yep. Because the game for the Fighters are assigning fluff-based sub-classes... we've now seen a new layer added to this already massive bouillabaisse of character design, and that aspect runs completely counter to the concept you are creating. Now, why did we choose Samurai? Probably because whatever the mechanics were that the samurai had made sense for our character... even though the fluff of the sub-class had nothing to do with our character. But we had to take samurai because we didn't have any non-fluffy choice. We just want our Fighter to do X, Y, and Z. But we have no need or desire for him to be a Samurai to accomplish it.

And this is completely different than the Cleric and Wizard sub-classes. The Cleric class says you gain your spells from a god. Choose who that god is. That's it. It doesn't tell you you're a Missionary for your god. It doesn't tell us you're a Templar for your god. It doesn't tell us you're a Cloistered Priest for your god. You can make that decision for yourself for whatever you want your character to be. You choose what your character does... the game's sub-class tells you what you get for doing it.

Likewise... the Wizard class says you use magic to cast spells. These spells are grouped together in "schools" based on how they do what they do. If you want to focus on just a certain group, then you can get a few extra abilities for doing so. It doesn't tell you your character's a Witch Doctor. It doesn't tell you your character's a Dragon Sorcerer. It doesn't tell you your character's an Arcane Trickster. You get to decide on any of those things yourself. You choose who you are... and the sub-class gives you stuff for how you do it.

What about the Fighter? The Fighter class seems to me to be saying that you use a myriad of weapons and combat styles to fight enemies. Doesn't it make sense that our sub-classes would therefore be weapon groups, or combat styles? The Clerics says "Choose a god. Your sub-class is the god you chose." The Wizard says "Choose a school of spells. Your sub-class is the school you chose." The Fighter says "Choose a weapon and/or combat style. Your sub-class is a fluffy job that might USE that weapon and/or combat style."

How does that make any sense? If I'm a Fighter and I want to focus on light armor, light weapons, and perhaps a bit of archery... why do I have to be assigned the JOB of "Scout"? If I want to focus on two-handed blades with the potential of a second smaller blade... why does that automatically make me a Samurai? Especially considering I had already chosen right off the top that I wanted to be a Pirate?

Too much fluff and too many jobs being assigned to characters without our choice. It waters OUR design down.