D&D 5E Here's something that (to my knowledge) hasn't been brought up. About homebrew and classes.

[Evenglare]

I suppose this thread could go here or homebrew but since this isn't actually a homebrewed ...thing.... I figured that I would post it in the regular forum. Anyway, let's get on with it.

So, I have been working on a sci-fi RPG for quite a while, a few years now when I can. It started off as a 13th age game built from the ground up using their Archmage Engine. I still might go that route because I can publish it via the OGL and all of that. That being said, I have begun to try and port the various classes and races over and something occurred to me about how to actually present these classes in particular.

5e has a pretty robust class system where I can just make a subclass and call it a day..... but of course that assumes that my new class (as a 5e subclass) gets to take everything the base class offers outside of the subclass. So this won't work for me. Some things in the 5e base classes don't fit my vision of my new classes, it just doesn't mesh well with the sci-fi aspects that I want. This is absolutely fine with me because the fantastic new DM guide has a section that tells me how I can reskin a class, or swap out some abilities or change the spell list etc etc. This is GREAT! So now we get to the point of the topic. If I am going to switch out, remove or replace key features how should that be presented in the book? Should I make an entirely new class and present it as such? Or should I just make the subclass and explain what is different about the base class at the beginning of the subclass?

To my knowledge nothing has come out from wizards that presents something like this. The DM guide gives you ideas for what to do , but not actually how to present that new(or modified) class. Any thoughts? Ideally I would just like to present the new classes as subclasses and explain how it affects the base class, but there are some instances where I change a class feature before they even choose a subclass. The person might not know that fundamental properties of his class has changed in the first few levels. Which is a problem and a hassle to go back through the character sheet and erase/replace some abilities the character has used in the first couple of levels.

 

[CapnZapp]

Get a lawyer?

 

[Astrosicebear]

Being a SCIFI setting, I would do all new classes, even if they are just re-skinned 5e core classes.

 

[DMZ2112]

If I am going to switch out, remove or replace key features how should that be presented in the book? Should I make an entirely new class and present it as such? Or should I just make the subclass and explain what is different about the base class at the beginning of the subclass?

I have done this. I think it's as simple as explaining that subclass Y does not have ability Z from its parent class, or that ability Z is modified in X fashion. If you can, I do recommend couching the modification in terms of an ability from another class, or at least using the same sort of language. My Handler subclass for Dragonlance Rogues replaces sneak attack damage dice with a limited version of bardic inspiration dice.

However, while it pains me to say it, if you're inventing whole new abilities, or if you're changing very fundamental low-level abilities, I tend to agree with the other posters that you're probably better off starting from scratch.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

In the spirit of keeping the class/subclass system uniform, I would suggest making new classes. As it is, players can pour over the book looking at classes for a general idea of function, then look at subclass for a package of unique abilities. We know that all characters of the same class have the exact same abilities (or potential for abilities), but each subclass is different. If you add a subclass, but then state in the subclass that it changes out certain things from the parent class, now we have to start reading each and every subclass for a class to see if anything else has changed.

If you make it a new class, then it holds to the previous formula. Players read the class, check the core abilities, then see what packages the subclasses offer. They don't have to try and figure out all the minutiae of each subclass and how it changes the base class, every time they go to roll up a new character.

I guess I just picture all of your changes in the same book as the PHB, with your subclasses listed below the WotC ones. Now when I read Wizard, I know what the Wizard base abilities are, then I want to see what the subclasses add. If one of your subclasses actually states that it replaces Arcane Recovery with something, now I have to read each subclass and figure out how it changes the class, now how it adds to it.

Character creation in 5E is streamlined and relatively quick compared to a lot of other games out there. Too much added complexity in choice of subclass might change that. (Pathfinder Archetypes are the best example of this. Have you tried to make a level 10 character from scratch that combines two archetypes? It can be a nightmare.)

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'd go with something like "these are the classes for this campaign; they're like the core classes but with the following differences:"

 

[Chocolategravy]

WotC just gave us an example with the Artificer which many think isn't a very good interpretation of the class. It would have been much better as it's own class, but WotC made the decision to just use a subclass anyway. So it seems they would suggest only using a subclass even if it ends up with something not quite what you're after.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

I actually really like the idea of WotC only releasing subclasses in the following books they put out. It makes it very easy for players to grow comfortable with the list of classes in 5E, and helps keep things under control. Instead of 20+ different classes by the time 5E's run is over, we might end up with 6+ subclasses per class. Players will understand the core of what makes a Fighter or Monk or Warlock, and the subclasses allow extra customization.

Only problem with that style, which I admit is a big one, comes when you have a class idea that just doesn't fit in the current class structure. Such as, say, psionics. Making a specific list of spells (in this case called powers) is easy, but such a subclass would need to add quite a bit for it be model Psions, Wilders, Soulknives, etc, that just as I suggested to the OP above, it would make more sense to do them as totally new classes.

Still, I'd prefer only new subclasses in the future, as I feel like it keeps with 5E's theme of simplicity in creation, complexity in play.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think if you change core class abilities, you are really making a new class. So probably only worth it if you make significant changes, otherwise I would stick with subclass.

 

[Evenglare]

Alright guys, this has been really helpful! Thanks! I'll probably go ahead and do full new classes then. Again, I might not even do a 5e since I have a lot of the 13th stuff written out, but if I do decide to go this route I'll make new classes. Thanks! Actually looking back, it should have been obvious to use entirely new classes. Many of my classes have what would be subclasses in this edition. For instance my "Wizards" are called Ethereals, or Ethers for short, and Each ether can specialize in Quantum, Temporal, or Cosmic .. "schools". So if it was a subclass I would have to make a subclass of the subclass. Much more complex than I care to go. So full classes it is.