D&D World of Warcraft subclasses will swap out classic class features for new abilities

The new Dungeon Masters series has previewed some upcoming subclass mechanics for the upcoming World of Warcraft D&D book. Last night, the first two episodes of Dungeon Masters premiered on D&D’s YouTube channel. This season focuses on the upcoming World of Warcraft book, with players using character options from that book and playing through an adventure inspired by the book. The first episodes revealed some teases as to how the upcoming WoW inspired subclasses will work, with Neil Newbon playing as an Oath of the Ebon Blade Death Knight. The Death Knight is a WoW class and appears to use the Paladin class as a base. Notably, the Oath of Ebon Blade has two features that replace core paladin features. Death Coil is a replacement for Lay on Hands and creates a dice pool of necrotic energy that players can inflict on foes. The size of the pool is based on a player’s Charisma modifier, with players spending an Action to force a creature within range to make a saving throw or be hit by necrotic energy. The Death Knight will also get a new spell called Rune Strike that acts as a counterpart to Divine Smite, with the spell dealing necrotic damage and dealing bonus damage to celestials.

Another new feature in the World of Warcraft book is a revamped pet system. This was partially shown off in the episode, with a Beast Master Ranger gaining the ability to assign weapon mastery features to their animal companion. This means that, when the animal companion makes a successful attack, they can inflict one of the weapon mastery effects chosen by the Ranger. The weapon mastery ability can also be swapped out with every long rest.

A video from the Insight Check YouTube channel confirmed that the Death Knight, Demon Hunter, and Evoker classes are “hero classes,” which are available to Level 3 characters and higher. These Hero Classes require players to choose a specific subclass that alters certain base features of their class. Only the Death Knight and Demon Hunter classes feature changes to their respective classes, while the Evoker changes the Draconic Sorcery subclass.

The new subclasses in the World of Warcraft were not publicly playtested before release. Instead, a secret playtest was held, with testers held by an NDA. The new World of Warcraft book comes out on November 17th.

 

[Milli Rabbit]

The only reason any of this matters is if there's some intrinsic value at starting all games at Level 1, rather than at Level 1 or Level 3 (or any level for that matter). What are the massive gains for having all games start at 1 instead of potentially 3? Especially if you then decide you need to have Levels -1 and Level 0 for "starting levels"?

While I personally think starting at Level 1 "looks nicer" from my own personal aesthetic... I am unconcerned if the game doesn't always start there. Just like I'm unconcerned if I need to personally adjust the aesthetics of Levels 1 and 2 so that they feel like a cohesive whole with what comes later (rather than get pissy because WotC didn't do it for me.)

You need to think bigger. The game can start at level 1 or 3 or 6 or 11 or 16 or really any level. Start where your table wants to start for the specific campaign or adventure. I have run tier 3 and 4 multiple times. Its not because I run hundreds of groups from 1-20. You can start at 11 or 16 (I like picking the start of a tier).

You can then do even more. Start at level 1 and make the game stop on an even number (this allows martials to stay relevant with casters) and then make progression primarily come through magic items and gold with no further levels. This is the concept behind E6.

When you start looking at levels 1-20 as dials to determine power level in your campaign world, you start finding a lot more potential for 5.5e.

 

[Milli Rabbit]

Oh please, can someone with the 2024 DMG on D&D Beyond confirm what the digital version says? You know, the most up to date version?

The PHB is actually where it says the recommended level is 3 for seasoned players.

The DMG gives you a bunch of options and some suggestions for implementing those options.

Neither says you must do any of this. People here are missing the implied meaning of the statement in the PHB. It doesn't really matter what level they chose EXCEPT that they didn't say level 1. Why? Because the point of the statement isn't fully to recommend a starting level. The point is to imply that level 1 doesn't have to be the default starting level. The reason they picked level 3 is you get your subclass and its roughly a safe spot to pick for various complexity levels players are comfortable with.

However, the statement isn't telling you YOU MUST START AT LEVEL 3 ONCE YOU GET THE HANG OF IT. It is simply giving the reader the possibility that it is okay to start at higher levels to avoid someone assuming you always start at level 1. This is why it is preceded by the statement "Your DM might start your group’s characters at a level higher than 1."

The result? You can start your game at any level and advance the levels however your table sees fit and fair. It can be XP, milestone, session based, training based, and story based. They give recommendations for running each but its pretty clear you can do it however you want and Chapter 1 of the DMG openly states you should use the rules as it suits your table. You can use their recommendation or you could spend 10 sessions at level 1. Whatever you want to do as long as you guys agree to it and have fun.

 

[mamba]

I disagree. Its much better to have a broad swath of levels to allow for a variety of power levels in play. If you ever get a chance, its a whole new game when you do tier-locked campaigns.

eh, they can cut off the top 10 levels and I would not care. If anything I’d welcome it, assuming they spend the effort on the first 10 rather than just reducing it.

That is not the point I was making though. If you design a game with levels 1 to 20 and then discourage people from playing on either end in your recommendations, then imo you should have removed those levels instead. Why include something and then recommend not using it

 

[Steampunkette]

Creating a Character

D&D Beyond - Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition Tools, Rules, Races, Classes, Items, Spells, Monsters, and More

www.dndbeyond.com

"It is particularly recommended to start at level 3 if your group is composed of seasoned D&D players."


Is it really so hard to ask an AI or use google?

The D&D Beyond Basic rules encourage you to start at level 3... neat. Wonder if maybe there's some other possible reason for D&D Beyond, specifically, to get you to start at 3rd level where you have to pick an archetype and you might want an archetype that isn't in the Basic Rules. I guess you'd have to buy that material if you wanted to use it. For D&D Beyond, specifically. Not the physical book, mind you, 'cause Owning things is so 1900s...

Nah. Probably just a coincidence.

If the DMG is not a digital tool, then its outdated the day it is printed because it cannot have errata in it, that is why books are completly unreliable. The basic rules are official rules and up to date.

You're right. The DMG can't have Errata in it.

They instead posted the Errata online in a PDF format. Have you seen the DMG Errata? I have. It contains two notes.

This concludes the errata.

Bizarrely, it doesn't include "It is particularly recommended you start at level 3." or anything about antagonistic DMs starting people at level 1 or how level 1 and 2 are tutorial levels.

But hey. At least you can use AI to gather the opinions of a bunch of websites and forums and Reddit and claim that's the real intention of WotC!

 

[Azzy]

So, when does a beginner eventually become a seasoned player?

Once you season them. It all in the seasoning.

 

[Milli Rabbit]

eh, they can cut off the top 10 levels and I would not care. If anything I’d welcome it, assuming they spend the effort on the first 10 rather than just reducing it.

That is not the point I was making though. If you design a game with levels 1 to 20 and then discourage people from playing on either end in your recommendations, then imo you should have removed those levels instead. Why include something and then recommend not using it

They don't recommend not using any levels. They said you can start at any level. The point of the start at level 3 statement in the PHB is to imply that it is okay to start at different levels, not that everyone should start at level 3 once they feel ready. You start wherever you and your table want to. This has always been true.

 

[Corinnguard]

My players objected when I suggested we start a campaign at level 3. They like starting at one, and they are experienced.

If they are trying something new like a new species or a new class they haven't tried before, an experienced player might be more likely to start at level one. And that's because while a player might have become experienced playing as a particular species and class for some time, they're still new at playing when trying out another species or class.

Playing as an elven wizard for several months or years doesn't mean that experience will carry over when your next character is a dwarven fighter. Different species, different class, different role within the new party and definitely a different way of role-playing that other character.

 

[Milli Rabbit]

If they are trying something new like a new species or a new class they haven't tried before, an experienced player might be more likely to start at level one. And that's because while a player might have become experienced playing as a particular species and class for some time, they're still new at playing when trying out another species or class.

Playing as an elven wizard for several months or years doesn't mean that experience will carry over when your next character is a dwarven fighter. Different species, different class, different role within the new party and definitely a different way of role-playing that other character.

Or it could be they just like the lower levels. I love levels 1 and 2 because of the lethality.

 

[Corinnguard]

Or it could be they just like the lower levels. I love levels 1 and 2 because of the lethality.

True. Or that they have started there every time because that's where the official, pre-made or the homebrewed adventure started at.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Where do they say that? There is a possible progress they suggest for session-based advancement but it doesn't say "they shouldn't be level 1 or level 2 longer than 1 game session for each of those levels." The entire subchapter of chapter 2 you are referencing basically is a series of suggestions for progression. None of it, except maybe XP-based since XP values are defined, has a strict leveling rate.

I believe it was indeed the XP charts from the 5E14 PHB that gave all of us the idea that Levels 1 & 2 would only last like a session or two each. Because (if I'm remembering correctly) it only took 300 XP to go from 1 to 2, and 900 XP to go from 2 to 3... and when you would calculate out a standard encounter using the DMG rules... it would only require like one or two typical combats for the PCs to gain enough XP from those fights to level up that quick. So unless a DM did milestone leveling, or they purposefully did not have any combats at all for several sessions, or didn't they design their encounters using the XP calculators given to us in the DMG... PCs should have been leveling up after a session or two for each just based on having a single fight or two in those first couple of sessions. And that doesn't even include any additional "Quest XP" a DM might have given the players for finishing the introductory quests to start the campaign, which would have sped up the leveling even more.

So getting to Level 3 after just like two sessions I don't think was ever explicitly said should be happening... but we all figured that out just based on how the XP was going to flow in those sessions and what was needed to level.