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

[ClaytonCross]

As others have said, I think this sounds a lot like 4E and i don't think wizards wants to go that direction.

I think a major problem with this is that it is difficult to make options that are good at low level and also good at high level. This means you typically have to have prerequisites, and a skill tree and it railroads your build at a very low level. I want to get feature C at 12th level so I need to take A at 4th and B at 8th because they are prerequisites to C. Once you have taken B you are locked in to C and you I can't ever take F because that requires D and E and you will never get those.

I think with Tasha's, the current system is very good at offering a mix of class features that can't be changed, subclass features that can be swapped out en masse with an entirely different subclass, and feats which are open and arbitrary.

That does sound like a problem with design but of a player wanting to change characters design without changing character in the same campaign. This can be fixed with a story mission and GM letting them rebuild their character as a result of completing it.

Your argument against is MORE true in 5e than what you describe in 4e. In 5e You pick a class and your locked into a set of class features, you pick subclasses and your locked into those subclass features. This is the problem you describe magnified many times. Not only are you locked into an early level feature that prevents other options, but your locked into middle and later features you may not have even considered because you were only looking at 1st level features at character creation. The artificer and warlock however are very popular based on their drastically greater flexibility in class features because of how invocations and infusions work. I know I love them.

 

[ClaytonCross]

That would be cool.

I'm not sure it would be worth the cost, but the baatezu are in the details here. It might just be easier to make a ranger pet sub, a barbarian pet sub, and a druid pet sub. Depending on how the details shake out. My biggest worry would be with full casters - they already get so much power from spells, and so much customization form spell selection, that subclasses can't add much without making the already-powerful full casters way more powerful. And trying to give the core fighter enough power to keep up with the core wizard, while allowing for fun, evocation, transformative subclasses like the Rune Knight or Echo Knight, would result in characters with so much going on they'll blow past 4e in terms of character power.

The solution to that is investment. Just like a pact of the chain warlock you need to invest more to get more out of your pet. Wizards already have "find familiar" which is a starting pet level. You could break casting down as something you buy in stages so at level 1 you get 1/3 caster. At level 9 you can choose the feature for 1/2 caster, at level 11 you choose the feature for full caster. Then have to choose caster feature or pet features. Every other class scales this way, why not full casters? You just front load the spells at the same rate as full casters that stop growing if you don't invest more into them.

Then you start with a Arcana Wizard apprentice 1/3 caster as an (no different than full caster wizard until level 9)
At level 9 you choose a new major feature. You become a Full Wizard 1/2 caster, Pick up Martial combat (Eldritch Knight), Stealth/Slight of hand (Arcane Trickster), or enhanced pet (Magical Pet Master) ... etc.

 

[ClaytonCross]

It’s a main feature of the early 4ed.
Interchangeable power, same resting pace, same feat progression,
it has been a source of dissatisfaction, the feeling that all classes look the same.
they did the opposite in 5ed and still got whim that class don’t get feature a same level, don’t have same resting pace.
6ed if any, could bounce either side.

I think you can make for base classes Warrior, Cleric, Wizard, and Sorcerer. Then give them different option points, like how the 5e Fighter gets more ASI/Feat options, Clerics pick there subclass option at level 1, Wizards select there subclass option at level 2, Sorcerers/Warlocks choose a patron/origin of there magic at level 1, invocations at level 2, and a pact at level 3. I think you could come very close to 5e as a model, but then allow more flexibility of features with more substitutions. They only way classes look the same then is if people have the same interests. That happens already, I showed up to a game with no 0 session and not discussion of character concepts and we ended up with 3 stealthy, ranged fighting, lockpicking, survivalists', scouts... one rogue crossbowmen, one shortbow ranger, and one eldritch blasting Warlock (with urchin background, observant feat from human variant, devils sight invocation, investigation, and perception from human variant). We were stepping all over each others toes. Two of use found a way to share jobs, the third player re-rolled there character.

I really think a mid ground between 5e and 4e but leaning to 5e a little would work better than eather.

 

[Minigiant]

Don't think it's possible.

Why?

In D&D, some classes (mostly casters) get 80-90% of it's power from their base class or primary class feature. Whereas some classes (warriors mostly) get 50-70% of their power and flavor from their base class or primary class feature. Then you have the rogue.

Last time we tried to normalize this, half the community freaked out.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Don't think it's possible.

Why?

In D&D, some classes (mostly casters) get 80-90% of it's power from their base class or primary class feature. Whereas some classes (warriors mostly) get 50-70% of their power and flavor from their base class or primary class feature. Then you have the rogue.

Last time we tried to normalize this, half the community freaked out.

I don't see that as impossible. You just use different base class templates the way 5e does, but you don't like all the features in place. You Select a class opening up abilities with the class as prerequisite but allowing you to also chose from a general list. Its similar to the combination, of back ground, subclass, and the multiple subclasses with level dependent choices like the Rune Knight, Artificers, and warlock. That is completely possible. Rogue, In my opinion, should not be a full class, but a set of features you can select from. There is no reason you couldn't have a wizard thief (arcane trickster who is based on a wizard) or a warrior thief (thug, assassin)...etc.

I think normalizing this is a mistake. We still need the core classes templates. I just think we only need 4 classes templates Warrior (STR/DEX/CON), Cleric (WIZ) channeled from source, Wizard (INT) learned and triggered, and Sorcerer (CHA) innate or from being altered to be. The Warrior would still have 6 feats instead of 4 and Spell caster classes would get 1/3 apprentice level caster of their type at level 1 (leveling as a full caster normally would spell progress, slots, etc). At level 9, they can pick up 1/2 caster to be fully trained wizard or they could buy other features, which would be similar to multi-classing. Alternativity, You could start with a warrior and pickup 1/3 apprentice level casting at level 9. Both could easily be an Eldritch Knight at that point but levels 1-8 lived as a worrier or as a mage. Alternatively, There might be an "Magic Initiate feat" a fighter could pickup at level 1, and a trade of that feat and the use of a level 4 feature to pick up 1/3 caster at level 4. More investment but you start the game as an weaker Eldritch Knight and progress into a full Eldritch Knight only slightly after you would get it in 5e. The same could be true with Warrior + Cleric or Cleric + Warrior = Paladin (Life Domain?) or Ranger (Nature Domain?). At the point you are "multi-classing" your switching do a different class feature set, but you still have the options of ability that you meat prerequisites Warrior, Marshal Archetype, Fighting style, Cleric, Domain. However, you don't balance primary classes skill and layout to the the other classes, you use one you switch to and the one you had simply gave you what it gave you. So you would build a 4 warrior 4 wizard, using the base class up to level 4. If you combine caster classes, then you have a similar rule for spell slots as the current 5e rule and your done.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't see that as impossible. You just use different base class templates the way 5e does, but you don't like all the features in place. You Select a class opening up abilities with the class as prerequisite but allowing you to also chose from a general list. Its similar to the combination, of back ground, subclass, and the multiple subclasses with level dependent choices like the Rune Knight, Artificers, and warlock. That is completely possible. Rogue, In my opinion, should not be a full class, but a set of features you can select from. There is no reason you couldn't have a wizard thief (arcane trickster who is based on a wizard) or a warrior thief (thug, assassin)...etc.

I think normalizing this is a mistake. We still need the core classes templates. I just think we only need 4 classes templates Warrior (STR/DEX/CON), Cleric (WIZ) channeled from source, Wizard (INT) learned and triggered, and Sorcerer (CHA) innate or from being altered to be. The Warrior would still have 6 feats instead of 4 and Spell caster classes would get 1/3 apprentice level caster of their type at level 1 (leveling as a full caster normally would spell progress, slots, etc). At level 9, they can pick up 1/2 caster to be fully trained wizard or they could buy other features, which would be similar to multi-classing. Alternativity, You could start with a warrior and pickup 1/3 apprentice level casting at level 9. Both could easily be an Eldritch Knight at that point but levels 1-8 lived as a worrier or as a mage. Alternatively, There might be an "Magic Initiate feat" a fighter could pickup at level 1, and a trade of that feat and the use of a level 4 feature to pick up 1/3 caster at level 4. More investment but you start the game as an weaker Eldritch Knight and progress into a full Eldritch Knight only slightly after you would get it in 5e. The same could be true with Warrior + Cleric or Cleric + Warrior = Paladin (Life Domain?) or Ranger (Nature Domain?). At the point you are "multi-classing" your switching do a different class feature set, but you still have the options of ability that you meat prerequisites Warrior, Marshal Archetype, Fighting style, Cleric, Domain. However, you don't balance primary classes skill and layout to the the other classes, you use one you switch to and the one you had simply gave you what it gave you. So you would build a 4 warrior 4 wizard, using the base class up to level 4. If you combine caster classes, then you have a similar rule for spell slots as the current 5e rule and your done.

Yeah you could do it.
You can do a lot of things.
But 4e told us that if you tried something that dramatic and label it D&D, you willget an internet riot. I mean what you are suggesting is more out there than 4e. No rogue? Wizards starting as 1/3rd casters? WOTC would escort you out with security and ban you from the premises.

The core issue is the way D&D fans expect their main casters leaves little wiggle room for subclasses. That's why the 5e wizard subclasses are either uninspiring or OP. The base wizard, cleric, and druid is so crazy powerful in mechanics that if you don't nerf the class to hell, you can't do much with it without breaking the game (as 3e proved).

Artificers, warlocks, sorcerers, and the warrior have a lot more mechanical design space in the base class assumption to tweak a lot with the subclasses, kits, PRCs, or whatever.

 

[steeldragons]

Stick to the traditional D&D class origins, attaching them to ability scores (Ability scores did very well in recent polls hereabouts of the "things that are/make/must be" in a game for it "to be D&D"). Fill out the list. For the longest time, I've played along with the whole thing about "Con and Cha are important for all classes." Con, of course, effectin everyone's Hit Points (super important!) and Charisma is, shorthanded, the character's "personality." So, sure, everyone has one of those, whether or not your class (ye olde paladin, bards, the "new" casters) was dependent on it.

I say, give all 6 their own base class...or class category. I'm thinking like this...

Strength: The Warriors. Your character's dominant trait is use of weapons and combat skill.
Fighter is default.
Additional classes: Knights/Cavaliers (the charismatic fighters), Swashbucklers (the dexterous/acrobatic fighters), etc...

Intelligence: The Wizards. Your character's dominant trait is use of magic, occult/"supernatural" powers, mastered by the character (be it learning spells, figuring out innate powers, manifesting one's bizarre origins, et al.).
Mage (the proper name for a "Wizard" class, afaiac) is default.
Additional classes: Illusionists, Sorcerers (if you require that as a separate class), Psychics, etc...

Wisdom: The Mystics. Your character's dominant traits are channeling occult/"supernatural" powers from a "larger" source, beyond/"outside" themselves, combined with varying levels of armor/weapon/combat proficiency.
Cleric is default.
Additional classes: Warlocks, Shamans, Pathfinder-style "Oracle" classes, etc...

Dexterity: The Rogues. Your character's dominant traits are proficiency/expertise with predominantly non-combat skills, a preference on speed/movement and stealth in combat situations.
Thief is default.
Additional Classes: Acrobats, Rangers, Alchemists, etc...

Constitution: The Champions [? just spitballing on the name]. Your character's dominant traits are an ability to influence their own bodies, and their capacity to strive through adversity and hardship, pushing beyond the typical person's [of your species] limits, -predominantly, but not solely, of a physical nature.
Barbarian is default.
Additional classes: Monks, Druids, etc...

Charisma: The Adepts [? again, spitballing]. Your character's dominant traits are an ability to influence others and their capacity to strive through adversity and hardship, pushing beyond the typical person's [of your species] limits -predominantly, but not solely, of a mental/"inner self" nature.
Bard is default.
Additional classes: Paladins, Witches, Pathfinder-style "Magus" classes, etc...

 

[auburn2]

That does sound like a problem with design but of a player wanting to change characters design without changing character in the same campaign. This can be fixed with a story mission and GM letting them rebuild their character as a result of completing it.

Your argument against is MORE true in 5e than what you describe in 4e. In 5e You pick a class and your locked into a set of class features, you pick subclasses and your locked into those subclass features. This is the problem you describe magnified many times. Not only are you locked into an early level feature that prevents other options, but your locked into middle and later features you may not have even considered because you were only looking at 1st level features at character creation. The artificer and warlock however are very popular based on their drastically greater flexibility in class features because of how invocations and infusions work. I know I love them.

Not really because you can multiclass if you don't like being locked into a class.

I am not sure how popular Artificers are. I like Warlocks, but I like Wizards, Rogues, Fighters and Rangers more. To be honest I feel like I have a lot more role play options and variations available with those classes.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Not really because you can multiclass if you don't like being locked into a class.

I am not sure how popular Artificers are. I like Warlocks, but I like Wizards, Rogues, Fighters and Rangers more. To be honest I feel like I have a lot more role play options and variations available with those classes.

Per your earlier statement, "I want to get feature C at 12th level so I need to take A at 4th and B at 8th because they are prerequisites to C. Once you have taken B you are locked in to C and you I can't ever take F because that requires D and E and you will never get those." ... multi-classing does not fix this. If you change your mind a t level 9 about wanting that level 12 ability and now want to be a druid with 12+ to get there ability multi-classing will not let you gain enough in Druid to change. If you can't your only real solution is your character having a life changing story arch that explains the change. I have seen it done a number of times and its the only solution that works every time.

There is no role play limitation that I have found. I think your falling into a the same mental trap that had my table freak out when I showed up with a Warlock pact of the tome scout. In the end he was good at it. I have also seen some very creative artificers. Mechanically Warlocks and Artificers are more freely altered and I can't speak for all players every where but I can say at my table and point to D&D Beyond surveys that place them very high. Fighter is typically number 1 and there have been many threads talking about how fighters get 0 non-combat toys. That frees some people who suffer form choice paralysis but traps other players who like to mechanically support their ideas. If your freed my a lack of mechanical options, I get it. A lot of people feel this way. So maybe there needs to be a default list of abilities to replace for people who fall in this group.

 

[Nefermandias]

Not really because you can multiclass if you don't like being locked into a class.

I am not sure how popular Artificers are. I like Warlocks, but I like Wizards, Rogues, Fighters and Rangers more. To be honest I feel like I have a lot more role play options and variations available with those classes.

Multiclassing isn't even core.