D&D General Universal Subclasses

[Belen]

I have been designing universal subclasses for my current campaign world. These are subclasses that any base class can choose. In many cases, these are organizations that a classes can join and these organizations train the members in specific methods, tools etc.

It was be similar to anyone being able to become a Knight of the Rose, for example.

How do folks feel about such a concept?

 

[GuardianLurker]

It can work, but you need to be careful to not dilute their original class. Plenty of organizations can support multiple classes.

Generally, though that organization will have "specialist" classes tweaked for the specific classes it can support - an organization dedicated to "aggressive" dungeon delving, for instance, might have a rogue subclass (better at dealing with taps), a wizard subclass (identifying and disabling weird magic), and a fighter subclass (protect the squishies), rather than a generic "one-size fits-all subclass" which gives the same benefits to everyone.

Another way to model this is by reputation tracking. As the party takes on tasks for the organization, their reputation grows, the tasks get harder (and more rewarding), and the aid they can gain from the organization increases.

You can find plenty of examples of both approaches.

 

[payn]

Sounds like marrying prestige classes to archetypes. I approve of this idea.

 

[Kurotowa]

WotC tried that in the run up to Strixhaven, and it really highlighted a lot of the obstacles. Different classes get their subclass features at wildly different levels. Different subclasses get different numbers of features. A non-class specific subclass can't tie into any base class features, which a lot of classes depend on. That means no expanding Channel Divinity or Cunning Action, no referencing Ki Points or Bardic Inspiration, just isolated generic options.

Now, is all of that impossibly insurmountable? Maybe not. But it's definitely a tall mountain to surpass, and a lot of issues that can't be ignored.

 

[Vael]

To be honest, I'd sooner use a renown system or something else. Maybe feats. Or to go to 4e ... something I think 5e is missing might be adding Themes as an optional add-on to PCs. Themes can be a bit more universal

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I'm personally not a fan of universal subclasses.

I feel the best subclasses are those which directly key into the main classes features and abilities. Universal subclasses basically doesn't allow that, and makes the main and subclass feel completely disconnected.

 

[payn]

I'm personally not a fan of universal subclasses.

I feel the best subclasses are those which directly key into the main classes features and abilities. Universal subclasses basically doesn't allow that, and makes the main and subclass feel completely disconnected.

Connecting the subclass to the setting/campaign seems like an intriguing idea to me though.

 

[GuardianLurker]

OH, and I feel I should add that the two approaches can (should?) be combined. That is you can have a Reputation Track for the non-specialist, and combine that with one or more specialist PrCs/subclasses. Pathfinder 2e has this kind of setup with the Pathfinder Society.

 

[Kurotowa]

Thinking about it, if it were me and I were trying to create a mechanical representation of belonging to an elite organization that came with character ability benefits, I wouldn't try to slot it as a subclass. That takes up too much room, and what do you do if the character joins up at higher level?

Instead, I'd look at a couple of system in the DMG and mash them together. Yes yes, no one reads the DMG because the layout is terrible, but there's actually some useful stuff in it. In this case, I'd take the Renown track from the Factions and Organizations section (p22), and pair it with some scaled down versions of the Epic Boons (uselessly filed under Other Rewards, p232). This would be a parallel character advancement track with their class, that would bestow a few universally useful perks themed around the specific organization.

 

[jmartkdr2]

WotC tried that in the run up to Strixhaven, and it really highlighted a lot of the obstacles. Different classes get their subclass features at wildly different levels. Different subclasses get different numbers of features. A non-class specific subclass can't tie into any base class features, which a lot of classes depend on. That means no expanding Channel Divinity or Cunning Action, no referencing Ki Points or Bardic Inspiration, just isolated generic options.

Or, in the other direction: the subclass needs to be able to vary its presentation based on the base class.

An example of something that I thought could make a decent universal subclass was beastmaster - because anyone could have a pet, especially if it doesn't need to be a beast, but it's too complex an idea for a feat.

To make it work, the pet would scale hp/ac/attacks with class levels, but would get one "pet ability" per subclass feature - that is every time your class gets a subclass feature, you get a pet feature. Some of which could reference specific class abilities, like a "pet rage" ability that give your pet some bonuses when you rage..

Still, it's a limited solution because if the subclass uses spells or weapon attacks then the base class will already have a massive impact on how that plays out, and the pet class only works because it doesn't do either of those things natively.

Now, is all of that impossibly insurmountable? Maybe not. But it's definitely a tall mountain to surpass, and a lot of issues that can't be ignored.

Agreed.