D&D 5E Strixhaven: Curriculum of Chaos No Subclasses Confirmed by James Crawford

[Parmandur]

I would be happier if I thought the move was motivated by playtesting finding that cross class subclasses are mechanically messy or broken.

Before being broken matters or not, desirability has to be determined.

 

[darjr]

Look, I get it. They got pushback on the new take on subclasses and its better to yield to the audience, but the idea of cross class subclasses and the possibility that the game would require all the pcs to be full caster classes appealed to me. It was going to be a one off book and I wish they would have been braver.

I absolutely liked the idea. Though I think it's for the best.

 

[Weiley31]

Honestly, they could've kept the ideas in, but instead of being a Subclass, it should've been a Faction/Renown related thing: You still keep your subclass and its features, but you could earn an extra feature on top of what you would normally get.

Blasphemy in the eyes of 5E? Ya. Somehow crazy to understand? Maybe.

Who cares.

cue meme image with all the guns and knives circling around the smug cat, but replaced with my face.

 

[Charlaquin]

Look, I get it. They got pushback on the new take on subclasses and its better to yield to the audience, but the idea of cross class subclasses and the possibility that the game would require all the pcs to be full caster classes appealed to me. It was going to be a one off book and I wish they would have been braver.

That’s 5e for you. Bravery has never been on the table. And I can’t say I blame them, when taking risks got them a split fanbase and playing it safe got them the most financial success D&D has ever seen.

I’m personally not too disappointed in this particular case because I don’t think 5e classes are structured appropriately for cross-class subclasses to work well. But I feel your frustration about an innovative idea getting shut down because it didn’t poll well.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Honestly, they could've kept the ideas in, but instead of being a Subclass, it should've been a Faction/Renown related thing: You still keep your subclass and its features, but you could earn an extra feature on top of what you would normally get.

Blasphemy in the eyes of 5E? Ya. Somehow crazy to understand? Maybe.

Who cares.

cue meme image with all the guns and knives circling around the smug cat, but replaced with my face.

They did something like this in Theros with champions to a deity. I think they could have used that framework here

 

[Eubani]

From the beginning of 5next play test to now when ever the designers put forward something new and/or different they have folded like wet cardboard. So much looking back and so little looking forward and an unwillingness to take chances. Wake me when they are willing to show a bit of spine and creativity.

 

[Minigiant]

That’s 5e for you. Bravery has never been on the table. And I can’t say I blame them, when taking risks got them a split fanbase and playing it safe got them the most financial success D&D has ever seen.

I’m personally not too disappointed in this particular case because I don’t think 5e classes are structured appropriately for cross-class subclasses to work well. But I feel your frustration about an innovative idea getting shut down because it didn’t poll well.

Ultimately, 5e classes were built completely independently and their subclasses were designed for different purposes for each class.

So cross class subclasses would be doomed for failure without making them more complex than WOTC is worth going to. They'd need charts and tables and that level of bravery and daring is not in the 5e team's core heart.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Ultimately, 5e classes were built completely independently and their subclasses were designed for different purposes for each class.

So cross class subclasses would be doomed for failure without making them more complex than WOTC is worth going to. They'd need charts and tables and that level of bravery and daring is not in the 5e team's core heart.

I do think it points to a direction the could take in a possible 5.5e / 6e

 

[Minigiant]

I do think it points to a direction the could take in a possible 5.5e / 6e

Possibly. They would have to give subclasses at the same level, same tier, same pillar, and same purposes for each class.

Then (the second reason why it was rejected), subclasses would not be tied to specific settings.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Possibly. They would have to give subclasses at the same level, same tier, same pillar, and same purposes for each class.

That seems very doable to me.

Then (the secnd reason why it was rejected), subclasses would not be tied to specific settings.

Personally I think this should be SOP.