D&D (2024) Change to Basic Class / Subclass design?

[ClaytonCross]

So looing at the fighter/ranger/paladin material style options, warlock invocation, and artificer infusions ... I can't help but think that subclasses might not be a thing in 6E. That sub-classes would fall away for adding level based options with prerequisites which adds more class flexibility than subclasses. You could also roll feats into a general feature list which could substitute class features. Then if an idea is found that can't be built they release more class feature options under a theme like they do subclasses now, but if your have a feature you don't like in a bundle, you just replace it with one you do want which will add to your character uniqueness.

 

[Nefermandias]

It sounds almost like 4e powers.

 

[ClaytonCross]

It sounds almost like 4e powers.

I never played 4e, I played a lot of 5e, 3e, and 3.5e. But the selectable features are highly used in 5e and well liked. Totem Barbarians, Rune Knights, etc more and more selective features like the artificer and warlock have. I would not mind if the classes were all rebuilt under that design. Even 3e / 3.5e had a lot of feature choices which is how I ended up with duel wielding ranger I loved, while my brother had an ranger archer who also carried a katana. I heard 4e sucked, but I also know some loved it. Did they implement like artificers and warlocks? Its not new to D&D at any rate.

I like the idea of making feats general level feature selections that can replace class feature you don't like. I also like warlock invocations being specific to that class, and other invocations being restricted to the warlocks pact. I am just suggesting one step further and make the subclass features also selectable. So you could still have a "subclass category" but it would just let you choose features with the subclass as a prerequisite. This would mean you could take a "feat", warlock invocation, or "subclass category" invocation. I currently end up with features that don't fit my character concept or that I just don't like because I want the rest of the subclass bundle.

 

[cbwjm]

I feel like subclasses will stay as a way to define the type of class you are, I'd hope they redo the subclass structure though to make an allowance for cross-class subclasses which can be picked up by anyone. That or bring back themes from 4e as a further method of customisation.

 

[Raith5]

I agree that subclasses do need a bit of a rethinking going forward.

I feel that subclasses carry a lot of a classes feel and fit too many different game design elements . In some cases it works great (cleric domains or warlock domains come to mind) but in some cases it is messy (ie in the fighter there is the basic or complicated fighter - in the PHB, the fighting style fighter, even the cultural fighter - ie samurai). I feel that fighters and melee types should be shaped more by fighting style than anything.

I am in favour of more customization - but maybe more feats may be the better way to go.

 

[Dragonsbane]

In switching from 5E to Cypher System for our fantasy games, I discovered a great feature - subclasses that have no parent class. Your focus in Cypher System is a subclass, but it can apply to any class. Rides the Lightning gives electric powers, and can be chosen by the Warrior, Adept, or any other class. It's amazing. Something to consider.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

In switching from 5E to Cypher System for our fantasy games, I discovered a great feature - subclasses that have no parent class. Your focus in Cypher System is a subclass, but it can apply to any class. Rides the Lightning gives electric powers, and can be chosen by the Warrior, Adept, or any other class. It's amazing. Something to consider.

Agreed. I often suggest something like Shadow of the Demon Lord that does essentially the same thing. For 6e, I'd have characters that go up to 20 level, but not 20 ''class levels''. The 20 steps of progression would be composed of Background/Ancestry/Class/Archetype/Skills, which would be mix-match-able.

Ex:

Lvl 0: Background Feature, Ancestry Feature
lvl 1: Class feature
lvl 2: Class feature, Archetype feature
lvl 3: Skill Utility feature (something akin to Feats for Skills from UA)
lvl 4: ASI
lvl 5: Class feature
lvl 6: Archetype feature, Skill utility feature
Lvl 7: Ancestry feature
lvl 8: ASI
Lvl 9: Class feature, Background Feature
lvl 10: Archetype feature
lvl 11: Class feature, Ancestry feature
lvl 12: ASI

and so on.

So more movable parts, but each part is smaller than in 5e.

 

[TwoSix]

Agreed. I often suggest something like Shadow of the Demon Lord that does essentially the same thing. For 6e, I'd have characters that go up to 20 level, but not 20 ''class levels''. The 20 steps of progression would be composed of Background/Ancestry/Class/Archetype/Skills, which would be mix-match-able.

Ex:

Lvl 0: Background Feature, Ancestry Feature
lvl 1: Class feature
lvl 2: Class feature, Archetype feature
lvl 3: Skill Utility feature (something akin to Feats for Skills from UA)
lvl 4: ASI
lvl 5: Class feature
lvl 6: Archetype feature, Skill utility feature
Lvl 7: Ancestry feature
lvl 8: ASI
Lvl 9: Class feature, Background Feature
lvl 10: Archetype feature
lvl 11: Class feature, Ancestry feature
lvl 12: ASI

and so on.

So more movable parts, but each part is smaller than in 5e.

I would love a D&D that shared more DNA with SotDL.

 

[ART!]

As long as we can avoid class feature trees, I'd be okay with that.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I definitely hope they generally move more design space to the subclass. It would increase page count, but it would make it easier to expand options. "Pick a feature" options like invocations are also generally good.

IE: if rangers had more room in the subclass (and no casting in the core), they could do a lot more with animal companions or specialist rangers. Monks could really open up to a lot more fictional archetypes, fighters could learn differnt kinds of magic, etc.

But I would not want to see subclasses go away entirely. Being relatively easy to get into (at least, for a game with this much crunch and variety) is a major benefit of 5e. Subclasses make it simple to figure out what the most important choices are for making the character you want. I wouldn't like it if that was removed.