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.

 

[SkidAce]

Official recommended starting level in 5.5 is level 3 anyway. So its not a problem, unless some adversial GMs force level 1 and 2 on players.

This makes it sound like those of us who like starting at level 1 are bad DMs?

 

[Kobold Avenger]

"Oh, we have to limit level 1 power so people don't splash multiple classes for power! And also level 1 is irrelevant. And so is level 2. Unless you're a JERK of a DM who hates their players!!!"

Just design the game to work from level 1. Or make "Level 3" into level 1 and have a 17 level game.

They outright say in the DMG that the PCs shouldn't be level 1 or level 2 longer than 1 game session for each of those levels.

 

[Tigris]

Yes. It is. Which is really bad game design.

Having tutorial levels for beginners / bad players is not bad gamedesign. They just did underestimate how stubborn GMs are about having to start at level 1...

"Oh, we have to limit level 1 power so people don't splash multiple classes for power! And also level 1 is irrelevant. And so is level 2. Unless you're a JERK of a DM who hates their players!!!"

Just design the game to work from level 1. Or make "Level 3" into level 1 and have a 17 level game.

I really dont see this as an issue, telling levels 1 and 2 are just tutorials, but yeah they overestimated the willingness of GMs to adapt.

It makes the game even harder for new players. People complained Warlocks got "Too Much to Choose" at level 1, and now to make a starting character you have to choose all of that AND MORE. Pick a struggle, WotC.

No it does not make it harder for new players, because new players can start at level 1, no one else should. These tutorial levels are for new players specifically.

I don't think it opens up anything. Druid archetypes were already giving alternate expenditures for Wild Shape, Paladin and Cleric archetypes were already giving alternative expenditures for Channel Divinity.

Ok and here you are mathematically just wrong.

There is a huge difference between giving "alternative uses" for a feature, and by replacing a feature.

1. Adding an alternative use adds power by having flexibility, so its always just more power than the original feature
2. You can replace a feature even with a weaker feature, so taking power away from it, which allows to add power to different parts of the subclass

This opens up the possibility to have way stronger subclasses than currently are possible for some of the classes, because some classes have really small power budgets for subclasses.

The only thing it "Opens Up" is the ability to say "You lose this class functionality entirely". And at that point why not just present it as a new class with a similar structure?

Because that causes lots of duplicity. Thats why Pathfinder 1 did not just create even more classes, but archetypes which work quite well.

At least that way you could have Blood, Frost, and Unholy as entirely separate archetypes, rather than presumably the Oath of the Ebon Blade either trying to embody one of the three, blend the three, or provide a separate in-archetype-archetype like Totem Barbarian.

Is it more work? Yes. But it opens up WAY more design choices.

There WAS already the possibility of making new classes, so this adds nothing. There are literally 1000s of homemade (often bad) 5e classes.

This here adds the possibility for making stronger subclasses, without having to create a lot more work and even more overlap.

5e already has the problem for having too much overlap between classes, like sorcerer and wizard. We dont need another "samesame but slightly different" class.

This makes it sound like those of us who like starting at level 1 are bad DMs?

Most GMs in my oppinion are bad GMs. And many GMs like to do things which players dont like, which for me makes them bad GMs

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Ort he DM just allows people to swap level 1 and 2 features before chosing the death knight archetype.

It’s covered in the text shown on the preview video. You can play a death knight from level 1, but you have to take oath of the ebon blade at level 3.

It wouldn’t make much sense to have the DK options with a different subclass: you are Undead, your smite does necrotic damage and your Lay on Hands is Death Coil (a life drain ability).

Having a paladin “fall” to this as an oathbreaker would seem to work at any level.

It’s less clear if Oath of the Ebon Blade is compatible with a non-DK paladin.

 

[Mark Craddock]

Official recommended starting level in 5.5 is level 3 anyway. So its not a problem, unless some adversial GMs force level 1 and 2 on players.

Sometimes, with brand new players, I've found starting at level 1 is less "stress" and some players want to start at level 1. Its not always about being adversarial.

 

[Corinnguard]

Official recommended starting level in 5.5 is level 3 anyway. So its not a problem, unless some adversial GMs force level 1 and 2 on players.

They might as well say that level 3 is the new level 1.

 

[saviirkad]

Yeah, as a DM, I'm fine skipping to lvl 3 if the table would rather not play lvls 1 and 2. As a player though, I'd much rather play those levels. Both because I do enjoy D&D at those levels, and because I enjoy lvl 3+  less if I didn't play up to it.

 

[Corinnguard]

Sometimes, with brand new players, I've found starting at level 1 is less "stress" and some players want to start at level 1. Its not always about being adversarial.

Especially if you are trying out a new class for the very first time and you want to get a feel of it before you pick up a subclass.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sometimes, with brand new players, I've found starting at level 1 is less "stress" and some players want to start at level 1. Its not always about being adversarial.

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

 

[Tigris]

They might as well say that level 3 is the new level 1.

Absolutely for a DnD 6 if they want "training levels" they need to name them level -1 and level -2 (or 0) or something and have the level 3 be named level 1.


Some people are reluctant to start at any level but level 1 as we can see.