D&D 5E Strip Background out of subclass

[Morrus]

A knight has to prove himself to be knighted or go through a squireship.

In some campaigns, sure. Perhaps it's hereditary? Perhaps the squireship is the early part of the Knight? It's all just labels. I mean, you could say the same about a wizard - he has to go through years of training first, so how can he be 1st level?

Someone isn't really a gladiator if he can't actually survive in the arena.

Sure he is. A crappy, inexperienced gladiator, perhaps, but a gladiator nonetheless. Every gladiator has his first fight.

 

[Kinak]

I really like backgrounds, both as describing people's places in the world and as a skill delivery mechanism.

I don't think that's a reason to strip the flavor out of classes and subclasses, though. Some of those extend into non-combat roles and those will step into background/flavor territory.

As an example, I think a "knight" subclass that granted bonuses to courtly interactions and identifying other knights/nobles by their heraldry would be great. A "knight" subclass that just gives combat benefits should probably be called something different, based on those benefits.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[the Jester]

I think the poll is poorly phrased and somewhat confusing.

Having read the thread, I get where you're coming from. Personally, I think "Knight" is better as a background than as a subclass, because it is something that ought to be available to many classes of characters. However, I don't think we ought to strip all background elements from subclasses; I'm fine with background elements specific to the class being tied to a subclass. I like the idea of being able to mix concepts with your class/subclass/background or focus in one area.

So for an example, I like the idea of a "knight" background. So you could be a knight fighter or a knight paladin, or heck, even a knight warlock or wizard. Then, if you are of a class that naturally synergizes with your knightly stuff and you want a subclass that ties you even more tightly to the knight thing, I like the idea of that being available too. So maybe you're a knight paladin (cavalier). OTOH maybe you're a weirder mix and the knight stuff is just in your background- a knight rogue (trapsmith), say.

There is no reason whatsoever not to allow a player to 'layer' his pc with knighthood in whatever degree.

The same thing applies to other background elements. Let's say I want to take the Guild Thief background. If I want to be superguildthiefman, why not play a guild thief rogue (thief)? Or if I want to play a more unusual pc, how about a guild thief wizard (enchanter)? I like the idea of being able to mix in different degrees of a given character element through applying different levels of background, class and subclass choice (and possibly feats or skills) to "dial in" your concept.

 

[Li Shenron]

Isn't it a good thing you don't pick your subclass until 3rd level, after having survived 1st and 2nd level as a squire, slave, prospective ninja, arcane initiate, altar boy of Zeus, or other "noob"?

I really like subclasses starting at 3rd level, it makes all sense if levels 1-2 are apprentice tier, in fact I'd like they do so also for Mage, Ranger and Cleric who currently get it earlier.

"Knight" however I can see being a bit controversial, depending on what it means... The most common concept is probably that of a mounted noble warrior anyway, so it's quite ok to have it as a Fighter subclass starting after apprentice tier. I have to say however that I was pleasantly surprised a year ago to see it as a background, because it could be used for all classes: a Paladin Knight is fairly obvious, but also something like a Wizard Knight was quite interesting. As a background, it meant a society role rather than a fighter specialization, and thus a role outside adventures. Maybe more simil-historical than gamist, and certainly for me this made it intriguing and refreshing. However, the knight-as-background concept is not far from noble, it's not exactly the same but we don't need both at all costs.

Eventually it's another case of my personal problems with this playtesting process, that they come up with something interesting, I make an effort to understand it, then it starts growing on me, then they change their mind and remove it... :/

 

[Starfox]

Rules can be written well or bad. I am sure that it is possible to write introductions for subclasses that do not clash with backgrounds. The other way is also doable. The important thing s that it is written well, edited well, and generally done with quality.

I really hope 5E can achieve good quality writing.

Personally, I am inclined to give short, terse introductions to subclasses. So yes to subclass texts. But as per above I voted "don't care", because the skill it is written with is much more important that the method.

 

[vagabundo]

Perhaps some of the sub-classes should be available to more than one class, and not with a feat tax.

 

[Kinak]

Perhaps some of the sub-classes should be available to more than one class, and not with a feat tax.

This actually points to a problem with how the sub-classes are structured now: because they're arranged inconsistently, they can't be used across classes. If they granted the same number of abilities at the same levels, some could easily be designated as sharable.

That said, the way the stories of the subclasses are arranged, they're not really sharable anyway. With ranger subclasses being favored enemies, for example, you couldn't easily share subclasses between rogue and ranger or fighter and ranger.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[vagabundo]

This actually points to a problem with how the sub-classes are structured now: because they're arranged inconsistently, they can't be used across classes. If they granted the same number of abilities at the same levels, some could easily be designated as sharable.

That said, the way the stories of the subclasses are arranged, they're not really sharable anyway. With ranger subclasses being favored enemies, for example, you couldn't easily share subclasses between rogue and ranger or fighter and ranger.

Cheers!
Kinak

They would need to be built with that in mind. I can see a space for both restricted and sharable sub-classes.

However, they should probably just use talent tree similar to SW Saga. The class gives you access to a certain amount of talent trees and it is easy for multiple classes to gain access. The abilities are chosen a-la Carte, so there is a great deal of flexibility in the system.

While Saga has free form multi-classing I'm not sure if that would be good for DND, maybe one class for free and more come with penalties.

 

[the Jester]

This actually points to a problem with how the sub-classes are structured now: because they're arranged inconsistently, they can't be used across classes. If they granted the same number of abilities at the same levels, some could easily be designated as sharable.

I don't see this as a problem at all. Sub-classes shouldn't be sharable, IMHO; that's what feats and backgrounds are for.

That said, the way the stories of the subclasses are arranged, they're not really sharable anyway. With ranger subclasses being favored enemies, for example, you couldn't easily share subclasses between rogue and ranger or fighter and ranger.

And that's exactly how they should work. Subclasses, by definition, are specializations within a class.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Kinak]

They would need to be built with that in mind. I can see a space for both restricted and sharable sub-classes.

Yeah, they'd need to actually settle on a consistent vision for what subclasses mean and apply that consistently.

I don't see this as a problem at all. Sub-classes shouldn't be sharable, IMHO; that's what feats and backgrounds are for.

And that's exactly how they should work. Subclasses, by definition, are specializations within a class.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

I should have probably explained myself completely. Sorry about that.

My problem with the way they have subclasses set up right now is that it's almost consistent. It looks consistent at first glance, but isn't actually consistent at all once you dig into each class.

If it were actually consistent, they could make some subclasses shared where that's appropriate (I don't see that coming up a lot, but it'd be a feature). But the real benefit would just be that they're consistent. You'd know what to expect out of subclasses, which is important when they're introducing them as a major new(ish) element to the game.

On the other hand, if they looks nothing alike and each class were just designed on its own merits, I'd also be happy with that. Way happier, in fact, than it being entirely consistent. The classes would be more distinct and probably better off.

The current design just feels like the worst kind of compromise. They don't get the consistency or the individuality, making it easy to misunderstand how different classes work in play without gaining the benefits from either extreme.

Cheers!
Kinak