D&D 5E Q&A: Basic Subclass, Can Subclasses Change the class, Non-Vancian Subclasses

[I'm A Banana]

You're a Bounty Hunter and you're a Gladiator? You go out on the road earning a living tracking down people... while at the same time remaining at the gladiatorial arena learning all about how to fight. Sure. Those slavers always let their gladiators go out on vacation for a couple days to go do their "other job". That makes perfect sense.

You're an gladiator who has become a bounty hunter after being freed, using your gladiator skill to take down your prey.

Or, you're a bounty hunter who takes down enemies in a city where gladitorial combat is a form of execution.

Or, you're a gladiator who fights with a style honed from your life bringing down criminals.

Or whatever.

You're a Samurai and a Guild Thief? You are a noble warrior who upholds the Code of Bushido... but also currently works in a Thieve's Guild on your day off. Uh huh. That's a perfectly logical combination of two jobs you are currently doing and constantly learning.

You're a member of a guild of retainers to the True Emperor who have resorted to less-than-legal means in this dark age of warlord rule.

Or, you're a thief who has wormed your way into the corrupt nobility here in order to find your next mark.

Or whatever.

It becomes a dissonant soup that becomes as difficult to justify and explain as the 3E Fighter 5 / Rogue 5 / Ranger 3 / Wizard 2 / Arcane Archer 3 / Shadowdancer 2 character.

We've been over this in the last thread on subclasses.

The flaw in your assumption is that there is no rhyme or reason here.

Since such characters are made by actual human players, there is presumably a reason for each of those choices because humans do things for reasons. There's no cause to assume that a player with this character doesn't have a strong and consistent character concept that unifies these elements.

That 3e character might be a bow-wielding magical assassin, lurking in the shadows and sniping with arrows woven with subtle magicks. It's not a dissonant or watered-down character at all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

We've been over this in the last thread on subclasses.

The flaw in your assumption is that there is no rhyme or reason here.

Nope, I understand exactly the reasons why they do it.

My assumption is merely that I think it's ugly game design and that WotC can do better.

And I have every confidence that enough people are going to react negatively to subclasses trying to overlay on top of backgrounds that the idea's going to die on the vine in a couple months.

 

[Li Shenron]

And this is precisely why I don't like the Fighter subclasses as presented. Because these fluffy subclasses are basically overlaying on the backgrounds, which will cause no end to ridiculous combinations that can be chosen that make no actual in-game fiction sense, but get selected purely because of mechanical viability.

You are right.

Wizard's traditions, Cleric's deities, Paladin's oaths, Monk's traditions, Ranger's favored enemies, Druid's circles, Warlock's pacts and Sorcerer's bloodlines do not define who you are or what role you have in society, or how you make your living.

Fighter's choice points do.

Rogue's schemes are a mixed bag: "Treasure hunter" specifically says this is your profession, "Thief" implies you are a criminal; but "Assassin" and "Trickster" only hint that you might life off it, or you might not; and "Rake" and "Acrobat" are not professions at all.

Notice that you can have a fantasy setting where "Wizard" implies who you are in the world, if "Wizard" is a job, and so "Cleric" and even "Fighter". However this is not where 5e started off with the idea of backgrounds. Their starting idea was specifically to separate the class from the "job" in fact we got "Priest" VS "Cleric". I think it was a great idea... if you still want to say "I make my living as a Wizard, teaching spells and crafting magic items" you just select a background that does not imply another job ("Sage"), or as a Cleric you just choose "Priest".

I don't like this... once again it seems to me that WotC design team gets stuff right at the first attempt, then they start to think too much or they listen too much to "fashion feedback" i.e. mass feedback repeating common views and expecting the game to be exactly as before. "Fighting Styles" were perfectly in line with all the other classes' choice points. A minimum adjustment to Rogue Schemes fluff would also put it in line (it'd be enough to delete expressions like "you are a professional treasure hunter" or "you are a criminal", and substitute them with "you might even make a profession out of it").

 

[Ratskinner]

I don't see any problem here. Subclasses are just containers for some features that could have been class features instead.

Not really, now they are your "job" in the world as well. If I want to play a half-n-half MC, I would think my "job" should reflect that as well, rather than just two jobs or half-jobs.

Not that I think this is some kind of insurmountable game-design dilemma, I just think its something that needs to be considered and hashed out well. If the guidelines provided for creating your own subclasses are successful that may be enough.

 

[Ratskinner]

You're an gladiator who has become a bounty hunter after being freed, using your gladiator skill to take down your prey.

Or, you're a bounty hunter who takes down enemies in a city where gladitorial combat is a form of execution.

Or, you're a gladiator who fights with a style honed from your life bringing down criminals.

Or whatever.

That works for serial MCing just fine. The problem comes when you look at concurrent MC characters (or every-other-level for 3e style). If I'm a freed gladiator, why do I keep getting better at gladiatorial stuff while I hunt bounties?

 

[I'm A Banana]

That works for serial MCing just fine. The problem comes when you look at concurrent MC characters (or every-other-level for 3e style). If I'm a freed gladiator, why do I keep getting better at gladiatorial stuff while I hunt bounties?

You fight your bounties like you're in the area.

Nope, I understand exactly the reasons why they do it.

My assumption is merely that I think it's ugly game design and that WotC can do better.

"Ugly game design?" You personally think it's aesthetically unpleasant? And so the real utility it offers to players during actual play is irrelevant in the face of your affronted sense of harmony? This is not very persuasive, man. Unpack it a bit for me, let me see why you think the way you do, it might show me why I should agree with you.

Wizard's traditions, Cleric's deities, Paladin's oaths, Monk's traditions, Ranger's favored enemies, Druid's circles, Warlock's pacts and Sorcerer's bloodlines do not define who you are or what role you have in society, or how you make your living.

I don't know what game you're playing where a paladin's oath doesn't bind her to something in the world, or where the church of a god is irrelevant for how a cleric acts amongst NPC's....

Their starting idea was specifically to separate the class from the "job" in fact we got "Priest" VS "Cleric". I think it was a great idea... if you still want to say "I make my living as a Wizard, teaching spells and crafting magic items" you just select a background that does not imply another job ("Sage"), or as a Cleric you just choose "Priest".

How do you imagine that this subclass thing will stop you from doing this?

 

[Blackbrrd]

I actually liked the multiclassing in 3e. It created a mechanical reason for me to continually build on my characters story. Remember in 3e, many of the prestige classes had some role-playing requirements.

I think [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] says it perfectly when he sums up the Fighter 5 / Rogue 5 / Ranger 3 / Wizard 2 / Arcane Archer 3 / Shadowdancer 2 character as a "bow-wielding magical assassin, lurking in the shadows and sniping with arrows woven with subtle magicks."

At the time you have multiclassed through 3 classes and two prestige classes you will no longer think of your character as a Fighter or a Rogue. You will think of the character as something you created, probably together with the other player characters and the dungeon master.

I played a Fighter/Rogue/Shadowdancer once and he was a free spirit, very shady, but never evil. He would bargain strike a bargain with a demon (or goblin) and use his skills of shadow and backstabbing to survive. As you layer on with the classes and prestige classes at least I added depth to the character as well, and not just mechanical.

I think 4e was quite boring in comparison - until they added the hybrids. I helped a friend of mine create a Paladin/Sorcerer in full plate the other day. Squishy, hard to hit and hard-hitting. Noble, devious and manipulating. I feel it gets easier making something your own if you can tinker enough with it to go outside of the default archetypes.

 

[DEFCON 1]

"Ugly game design?" You personally think it's aesthetically unpleasant? And so the real utility it offers to players during actual play is irrelevant in the face of your affronted sense of harmony? This is not very persuasive, man. Unpack it a bit for me, let me see why you think the way you do, it might show me why I should agree with you.

If you haven't gotten it by now after I've explained my feelings umpteen times already... I don't think there's any point.

But for the last time...

I think using two different character generation aspects to illustrate the same thing is ugly design. It's unnecessary and it creates disparate combinations that water a character's story down.

Having a Fighting Style and a Specialty to both attempt to illustrate that you are an archer is pointless and ugly design. You only need one. One works fine. Choose one and then redesign the other one to give you something different and unique for your character.

Having a Subclass and a Background to both attempt to illustrate what you did prior to being an adventurer is pointless and ugly design. You only need one. One works fine. Choose one and then redesign the other one to give you something different and unique for your character.

You don't agree with me and I'm not going to convince you otherwise. I got that. And that's fine.

 

[Blackbrrd]

If you haven't gotten it by now after I've explained my feelings umpteen times already... I don't think there's any point.

But for the last time...

I think using two different character generation aspects to illustrate the same thing is ugly design. It's unnecessary and it creates disparate combinations that water a character's story down.

Having a Fighting Style and a Specialty to both attempt to illustrate that you are an archer is pointless and ugly design. You only need one. One works fine. Choose one and then redesign the other one to give you something different and unique for your character.

Having a Subclass and a Background to both attempt to illustrate what you did prior to being an adventurer is pointless and ugly design. You only need one. One works fine. Choose one and then redesign the other one to give you something different and unique for your character.

You don't agree with me and I'm not going to convince you otherwise. I got that. And that's fine.

Now (not having bothered with actually reading the rules) what if the Fighting Style, Speciality, Subclass and background are seens as multiple layers that portray your character? Like the above example you can have a bunch of classes help tell the story of your character. I do see background of something that's a bit in the past, while subclass is where you want your character to go. I am not sure if that's how it will pan out though.

I do like the 3e idea of prestige classes where you add on complexity as you go and where the rules quite clearly state that you for instance have to enter a knighthood to gain the prestige class. For some games this will be what your character is centered around, while others ignore the rule and just let you pick whatever classes you want without looking at role-playing requirements.

Btw, we aren't necessarily disagreeing here, I am just coming with another point of view. I did read the background/speciality stuff a few months back and at the time it just felt like a kludge. Awkward, boring and complex at the same time while achieving little of what I wanted when I sat down to create a character.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think using two different character generation aspects to illustrate the same thing is ugly design.

Why should anyone else care about what you think is "ugly design"?

It's unnecessary and it creates disparate combinations that water a character's story down.

All rules are unnecessary and I've shown ("umpteen" times) that none of this waters a character's story down at all in actual practice.

If all that's at work here is your personal aesthetic preference and a lack of understanding about the purpose flavorful character options perform, it's not enough to persuade me that it's a good idea to drop these useful elements. Which is fine, but if you're going to stick to your guns on this and insist that it is a good idea, it might be worth considering that you're not actually demonstrating why that is for anyone else. Or at least, not for this random internet message board jerk. I might be too obtuse to grasp your message, though.