D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: More Classes/Subclasses, Retraining & Playing Without Subclasses

[Plaguescarred]

More Classes/Subclasses, Retraining & Playing Without Subclasses
D&D Next Q&A
By Rodney Thompson

You've got questions—we've got answers! Here's how it works—each week, our Community Manager will be scouring all available sources to find whatever D&D Next questions you're asking. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In this week's D&D Next Q&A[/FONT], Rodney talks about creating additional subclasses, retraining into a new subclass and a classic subclass for each class.

What do you think?

 

[Plaguescarred]

Sounds good. The class/subclass system start to look more and more like AD&D 2nd edition group/class organization.

I am good with retraining being something players and DMs deal with togheter. In previous edition, you couldn't retrain a class or build, and subclasses occupy a similar design space.

It make sense for Basic D&D introductory game to have locked in subclasses representing the most iconic version of a class to keep things as simple as possible. Also a DM could always also limit the number of available class/subclasses when running Standard D&D if he wish to.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Subclasses are really shaping up well, particularly when pared with explicit instruction that the DM should choose what is an isn't available in a given campaign. Also, I think building custom subclasses will be much easier than building full classes, which can be quite empowering.

 

[the Jester]

I've been liking the looks of 5e since day 1, but this continues to encourage me.

I love the idea of there being a default, classic, built-in "Basic" subclass as an option.

 

[Kinak]

As far as subclasses, the proof's in the pudding. I like that they've moved them to 3rd level to prevent an overload of choices right away, but I'm not sure how well that plays with their goal of having a ton of subclasses rather than a ton of classes.

If they come out with a cool new concept or mechanic, I'd rather start playing with it at 1st level rather than waiting for 3rd.

I guess that all comes back to not really being sold on subclasses or subraces on an organizational level. Having subclasses start at 3rd level is better, but they still seem really forced in a lot of cases.

On a separate note, it might make me a heretic, but I'd rather just have retraining options spelled out. Even if they're spelled out as "here are three options, go forth and do what you want" I really like establishing the expectation that retraining is a thing that happens.

Not because I think people who aren't allowing retraing are having badwrongfun, but because it would help my players to realize they can retrain and they're not asking me for some crazy favor.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[MarkB]

Well, I guess the third answer is one reason why they aren't amalgamating all fighting classes as Fighter subclasses, or all spiritual spellcasters as Priest subclasses, to reflect what they've done with the Mage - if they did that, then the basic game would only have four classes to choose from.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Not because I think people who aren't allowing retraing are having badwrongfun, but because it would help my players to realize they can retrain and they're not asking me for some crazy favor.

I think your players have exactly the right attitude. Retraining is a form of retcon, and should require explicit permission from the god of time and space (DM).

 

[The Shadow]

Well, I guess the third answer is one reason why they aren't amalgamating all fighting classes as Fighter subclasses, or all spiritual spellcasters as Priest subclasses, to reflect what they've done with the Mage - if they did that, then the basic game would only have four classes to choose from.

Well, he did say that they intended each class to have "at least one" iconic subclass. So there could be more than one that could presumably be frozen in to make Basic 'classes'.

In which case I'm still puzzled why some classes aren't subclasses instead.

 

[ranger69]

I can see a lot of campaigns starting at third level rather than first level

 

[sidonunspa]

Well, he did say that they intended each class to have "at least one" iconic subclass. So there could be more than one that could presumably be frozen in to make Basic 'classes'.

In which case I'm still puzzled why some classes aren't subclasses instead.

well for Barbarian.. I can invasion quite a few sub-classes.. for example an civilized rager (Porthos) and Totem Rager for example.. it's the rage ability (and all it's sub-mechanics) is what makes that class unique from the fighter