D&D General Class or Subclass importance

[Minigiant]

And to go further... for all the people who want more "Non-magical" classes... what kind of Parent/Child separation would be there? Right now the way we determine Parent classes for non-magical people is to only ever say "Combat-focused" and "Non-combat-focused". So it's no wonder we never see other Parent classes (or even Child classes for that matter) because our method for categorizing them is stupidly small. You either fight really well, or you fight less well but can have more skills. That's it. That's all we've come up with for the divisions between non-magical classes in all these years. So if that's all we have... what other Parent or Child classes do we need? Move the game into so-called Parent classes for Combat, Exploration, and Social, and maybe we could then get a third non-magical division? Warriors, Scouts, and Communicators I guess.

Well they are classes. The parent classes would be based on the parent class' class features.

I've long been a proponent for the skill/talent/borrow divide for warriors. The Warrior of Skill vs the Warrior of might. Then you have the tamer I mentioned before for Beastmasters. Then if the Rogue of the Underworld is tradition, there could be a parent class for the Sage of the Overworld. Instead of Magic as Science, Science as Science

• Brute
  • Avenger
    • Fanatic
    • Flagellent
    • Zealot
  • Barbarian
    • Berserker
    • Stormborn
    • Totem Warrior
  • Brawler
    • Pugilist
    • Scrapper
    • Thug
• Robber
  • Rogue
    • Assassin
    • Thief
    • Trickster
  • Swashbuckler
    • Duelist
    • Mastermind
• Sage
  • Scholar
    • Gadgeteer
    • Gunsmith
    • Tinker
  • Warlord
    • Captain
    • Gangboss
    • Marshal
• Tamer
  • Beastmaster
    • Houndmaster
    • Lion Tamer
    • Swarmkeeper
  • Summoner
    • Celsetials
    • Fey
    • Fiends
• Warrior
  • Fighter
    • Champion
    • Battlemaster
    • Rune Knight
  • Paladin
    • Ancients
    • Devotion
    • Vengence
  • Ranger
    • Gloom Stalker
    • Horizon Walker
    • Hunter

It could be done. The choice is where the design space and power goes.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm more in favor of strong, well-defined classes at one level of taxonomy, and then enough of those to cover all concepts. Subclasses should be narrow refinements. Overclasses (warrior, etc) are pointless additional taxonomy. Paladin is a good example of what I mean: all paladins work mostly the same, with some variation based on Oath and Fighting Style and other choices.

This would mean about 20 base classes to cover all the major tropes, but I'm okay with this and prefer it to a pyramid taxonomy that obscures concepts behind class-feature trees.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well they are classes. The parent classes would be based on the parent class' class features.

I've long been a proponent for the skill/talent/borrow divide for warriors. The Warrior of Skill vs the Warrior of might. Then you have the tamer I mentioned before for Beastmasters. Then if the Rogue of the Underworld is tradition, there could be a parent class for the Sage of the Overworld. Instead of Magic as Science, Science as Science

• Brute
  • Avenger
    • Fanatic
    • Flagellent
    • Zealot
  • Barbarian
    • Berserker
    • Stormborn
    • Totem Warrior
  • Brawler
    • Pugilist
    • Scrapper
    • Thug
• Robber
  • Rogue
    • Assassin
    • Thief
    • Trickster
  • Swashbuckler
    • Duelist
    • Mastermind
• Sage
  • Scholar
    • Gadgeteer
    • Gunsmith
    • Tinker
  • Warlord
    • Captain
    • Gangboss
    • Marshal
• Tamer
  • Beastmaster
    • Houndmaster
    • Lion Tamer
    • Swarmkeeper
  • Summoner
    • Celsetials
    • Fey
    • Fiends
• Warrior
  • Fighter
    • Champion
    • Battlemaster
    • Rune Knight
  • Paladin
    • Ancients
    • Devotion
    • Vengence
  • Ranger
    • Gloom Stalker
    • Horizon Walker
    • Hunter

It could be done. The choice is where the design space and power goes.

* Shrug * Yeah, I guess it could be done... but I really don't see any reason for those Parent groupings you came up with to be a thing. I don't see the point of them. What is gained by putting Scholars and Warlords together under one heading of Sages? I mean I suppose you could do so, but if someone said "What do you think Sages do?"... the stuff the Warlord does in no way would ever come to my mind. And I see little connection between religious Avengers, wilderness Barbarians, and hand-to-hand Brawlers that they all need to be placed under one category.

So at least in these cases... I would be very curious as to what you thought the mechanics would be for every single Parent grouping to give to the Child classes beneath them? Do all the Brutes use the Rage mechanic, all the Robbers have Sneak Attack, all the Sages give Sage-ic Inspiration, all the Tamers give extra creatures, and all the Warriors give Combat Maneuvers? Because I imagine that these Parent groupings have to give something to the classes underneath them to warrant binding them together in the first place.

 

[overgeeked]

The parent class is the only one that matters. The rest are just details. You could have three classes in D&D, fighter, caster, thief, and most people wouldn't notice a change. Instead of designing an infinite number of child or grandchild classes, they should build three solid parent classes and leave the rest up to the table. Child and grandchild classes could easily be covered in a similar light-weight and modular fashion as backgrounds or lineages/races are as of Tasha's.

 

[aco175]

I would be ok with a number of base classes and then have several subclasses for each. The base class gives you context, but the subclass is flavor. The subclass could almost be more of a multiclass as well. If you wanted a fighter/wizard concept then you could take the fighter-bladesinger, or you may want more of a wizard and go wizard-bladesinger.

I would be ok with around 10 classes and each having subclasses that go with the other classes, but there can be some that have the same subclass. I would also like to see a base/simple class you can just grow in, like fighter-champion.

Or, fix the multiclass rules.

 

[Minigiant]

* Shrug * Yeah, I guess it could be done... but I really don't see any reason for those Parent groupings you came up with to be a thing. I don't see the point of them. What is gained by putting Scholars and Warlords together under one heading of Sages? I mean I suppose you could do so, but if someone said "What do you think Sages do?"... the stuff the Warlord does in no way would ever come to my mind.

I would say All Sages have "Mind Points" or "Lores" which would fuel Warlord Tactical exploits and Scholar's item exploits. I see the Sage like the "Smart Hero" who uses tactics, gadgets, leadership, and cutting edge technology.

And I see little connection between religious Avengers, wilderness Barbarians, and hand-to-hand Brawlers that they all need to be placed under one category.

Athelicism over Martial skill. To me, In a Parent focus design all 3 would have Reckless Attack, Unarmored Defense, Increased Speed as well as a Focus mode. The Barbarian would upgrade it into Rage, the Brawler into Brawler Stance, and the Avenger into Censure.

If Child Class focused design, Rage, Censure, and Brawler Stance would be more tilted to match the fantasy and separate from each other more.

 

[Raith5]

I dont see much value in the Parent Class category but I also think the subclass contains a lot of weight in 5e. At times I think it may be too much. But I do like to see more trans-class customisation options in the form of (more) feats, prestige classes, paragon paths etc

 

[Minigiant]

The parent class is the only one that matters. The rest are just details. You could have three classes in D&D, fighter, caster, thief, and most people wouldn't notice a change. Instead of designing an infinite number of child or grandchild classes, they should build three solid parent classes and leave the rest up to the table. Child and grandchild classes could easily be covered in a similar light-weight and modular fashion as backgrounds or lineages/races are as of Tasha's.

I don't think parent classes are bad. However I don't think all the common expanded archetype in Modern D&D can fit into 3 or 4 parent classes without glut and bloat.

Monks, alchemists, tinkers, beastmasters, tacticians, scholars, jaguars, and artificers don't fit the fighter/caster/thief nor fighter/priest/mage/thief without extremely tilting the parent class and forming child and grandchild subclasses.

The "Everyone fits into these 3/4 archetypes" only works if you limit the typesof characters to very old school settings.

 

[Aldarc]

Once again... I'm going to turn back and blow the horn that I say all the time... which is that the way we come up with our Classes is entirely based on STORY. Not mechanical divisions. The reason why we have Barbarians is because we give that class a story of what they are and why/how they do what they do. The more distinct the story is... the more its importance as its own class becomes. Then once the story is decided... if you want to get more granular in particular aspects of its story and create subclasses for it, fine. But those are really just more descriptive variants, rather than important divisions. Which means they really don't need more defining features. Because if they were really that different in definition... they'd be their own classes and not just a variant of another one. Which is exactly why the Ranger and the Paladin ARE NOT merely subclasses of the Fighter... because each of them have seen their story and their definition grow beyond the mere Fighter. So trying to make the Fighter a Parent class again is useless, especially considering all Parent classes are useless as I mentioned above.

Once again... I don't entirely agree with you about this. I don't think it's simply a matter of STORY ONLY rather than mechanical divisions. The 3e Sorcerer was not designed around its story, but, rather, its mechanical division with the prepared-casting of the Wizard. It was mechanics first design rather than story first design. A story was created for the mechanical design of the class created. In truth, there wasn't much story on the Sorcerer at first. Its story was gradually refined and built on top of the class in 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder before its present fluff in 5e.

Moreover, 4e demonstrated to me was that additional stories for classes were able to open up precisely because of the mechanical divisions that they made. The Warlord is the obvious case here. For me, it was a real "where have you been all my life?" moment when I read through it in 4e. The story and concept for the Warlord was able to exist because of the mechanical-conceptual space for it: i.e., Martial Leader. Likewise, that's how I felt about a few other new classes whose stories got to emerge precisely because of the mechanical divisions: e.g., Avenger (Divine Striker), Shaman (Primal Leader), Warden (Primal Defender), etc. Moreover, 4e was really the first edition, IMHO, that really drove home the difference between being a Nature Cleric vs. being a Druid. There was both a mechanical and conceptual space created by establishing the Divine vs. Primal divide.

 

[Minigiant]

It feels like you can entertained STORY and MECHANICS.

I think the biggest display of story, mechanics and focus is the Cleric and Druid. Because Wildshape. Wildshape is such a huge class features when it shows up that it really alters a Priest based on where it appears.

1. Parent Class Focus: Life Cleric (Standard Priest)
2. Child Class Focus: Land Druid (Standard Druid)
3. Grandchild Subclass Focus: Shepard Druid (Standard Shaman)
4. Parent and Child Split: War Cleric (Typical but Specialist Cleric)
5. Child and Grand Split: Moon Druid (Typical but Specialist Druid)
6. Parent and Grand Split: Twilight Cleric (Atypical Specialist Cleric)
7. All Three: Celestial Tome Warlock (Atypical Specialist Warlock that mimics a Priest)