D&D General Druid vs. Paladin - March Madness 2024 - Final Round!

[CleverNickName]

i've wished for a while now that 5e's subclasses had been designed to be more class independent, to be able to mix and match them with different class bases for different resulting playstyles, your idea sounds interesting.

I've thought a lot about this, ever since I let one of my players choose a Fighter subclass (Echo Knight, from Explorer's Guide to Wildemount) for his Sorcerer. It worked surprisingly well.

 

[el-remmen]

i've wished for a while now that 5e's subclasses had been designed to be more class independent

Oh and I meant to respond to this: as I have it working right now not all subclasses (may call them paths) are available to all classes. Instead some of them have more than one way to get to them but some remain linked to the previous choices to maintain some sense of base class identity (if you want). So third level priests can become paladins, as can 3rd level warriors.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

i've wished for a while now that 5e's subclasses had been designed to be more class independent, to be able to mix and match them with different class bases for different resulting playstyles, your idea sounds interesting.

One thing they considered in the 5.5 playtest was to make all subclasses follow the same structure regarding at what levels they give features, which would have made swapping them between classes easier. Unfortunately it got abandoned, I believe.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh and I meant to respond to this: as I have it working right now not all subclasses (may call them paths) are available to all classes. Instead some of them have more than one way to get to them but some remain linked to the previous choices to maintain some sense of base class identity (if you want). So third level priests can become paladins, as can 3rd level warriors.

This sounds really interesting.

 

[ezo]

Oh and I meant to respond to this: as I have it working right now not all subclasses (may call them paths) are available to all classes. Instead some of them have more than one way to get to them but some remain linked to the previous choices to maintain some sense of base class identity (if you want). So third level priests can become paladins, as can 3rd level warriors.

I've seen a number of people take approaches similar if not identical to subclasses.

Paths, multipaths, classes as subclasses, et al. We started it when we realize the concept of "assassin" is just anyone who is good at killing and gets paid for it. A Fighter or Cleric or whatever can be an "assassin". Of course, you have to make the subclasses generic enough so that they are not class feature dependent.

 

[Gradine]

There's still quite a bit of time left, and Druids have the tie-break by virtue of being lower on the alphabet.

Come to think of it, we haven't a single tie for the entire bracket yet, at this point. Would be fitting to see one now.

 

[TwoSix]

I've seen a number of people take approaches similar if not identical to subclasses.

Paths, multipaths, classes as subclasses, et al. We started it when we realize the concept of "assassin" is just anyone who is good at killing and gets paid for it. A Fighter or Cleric or whatever can be an "assassin". Of course, you have to make the subclasses generic enough so that they are not class feature dependent.

My personal opinion is that Shadow of the Demon Lord/Weird Wizard has the best version of a path system. 4 basic classes, at level 3 you pick an expert path, and at 7 you pick a master path. You can align them (a Magician/Wizard/Abjurer) or totally mix them up (Priest/Ranger/Pyromancer).

 

[CreamCloud0]

I've seen a number of people take approaches similar if not identical to subclasses.

Paths, multipaths, classes as subclasses, et al. We started it when we realize the concept of "assassin" is just anyone who is good at killing and gets paid for it. A Fighter or Cleric or whatever can be an "assassin". Of course, you have to make the subclasses generic enough so that they are not class feature dependent.

My solution to the class feature independence issue would simply be to have a subclass give some of the class resource if it depends on having it, but designed to stack with the base class resource.

All druids get X wildshape charges per long rest, but the circle of the moon also gets one per short rest say, so if your sorcerer takes it they can wildshape a few times but a moon druid is going to be wildshaping more

a subclass with an expanded spell list applied to a class without spell slots would grant a scaling number of innate castings of each spell, or provide a stock of sorcery points to cobble together the required spell slots yourself in whatever combinations you desire.

 

[ezo]

My personal opinion is that Shadow of the Demon Lord/Weird Wizard has the best version of a path system. 4 basic classes, at level 3 you pick an expert path, and at 7 you pick a master path. You can align them (a Magician/Wizard/Abjurer) or totally mix them up (Priest/Ranger/Pyromancer).

I miss Prestige classes from 3E. With subclasses in 5E, having prestige classes for later on would have been amazing.

You could totally do a "generic" subclass system in 5E: class/ subclass/ prestige class.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A great deal of truth in that. However, Wizards are also "solution man" - or should be. While I've never met a wizard player (and character) that didn't enjoy their evocation spells ("Spell go BOOM!"), where they really shine (or should) is in their ability to solve problems ("Hold on. I've got a spell for that."). That does require wide-open access to spells, though, which is something a lot of games have trouble providing.

And unhappily with 5e's prohibition against buffs, one of the more useful problem-solving tools for the Wizard was taken away. Frankly a classic wizard complaint would be something like: "Years studying the hidden mysteries, plunging into the arcane depths of history and theory. Mastering the subtle art and science that is magic. Wrestling with the actual rules of reality - and winning! And what do you, my fellow party members, only ever want me to do? Blow up the monsters! ARGH!" {Later, in private: "Hehehe, monster go boom.")

The big problem, here, is that this is an incredibly difficult balance to strike. Fail to provide enough spells, and the "I have a solution for this" becomes "maybe I sometimes have a solution for a few things." Provide just a few too many, and it instead becomes "I definitely have a solution for almost everything."

That's...kind of the key problem with any character archetype built around the concept of "problem-solver." The whole point of the game is solving problems--it would be like someone specializing in "winning."

And I'm not really sure if there is any true solution to this. If the Wizard's niche is "I solve problems in a snap with magic," that's always going to be in fundamental tension with the game's design of putting problems in front of the players and expecting that it will be enjoyable to solve them.