How many "subclasses"/builds per class?

[shadowmane]

They did that in 2nd Ed, what about the whole non-casting thing?

Monk is my favourite class.

See my ideas about a re-tooled cleric on this forum and on the D&D Next forums at WotC. The Paladin as a Cleric makes sense in that light.

The basic idea is, clerics would no longer cast "spells". They would be given "miracles" by their deity according to the domains that deity has. Therefore, the cleric becomes more of a miracle worker than a spellcaster. I've had some push back on the idea, though, and not everyone agrees with it.

 

[Steely_Dan]

See my ideas about a re-tooled cleric on this forum and on the D&D Next forums at WotC. The Paladin as a Cleric makes sense in that light.

The basic idea is, clerics would no longer cast "spells". They would be given "miracles" by their deity according to the domains that deity has. Therefore, the cleric becomes more of a miracle worker than a spellcaster. I've had some push back on the idea, though, and not everyone agrees with it.

Miracles don't sound right for a D&D Monk (nor deities).

 

[shadowmane]

Like I said, the idea is just a work in progress thrown out there for people to chew on. I'd like to see the cleric less of a spellcaster, and more of a holy-man. That would open him up to sub-class in just about any of the other classes. If he wanted to sub-class in fighter, he would be a paladin. Priest would be the base, entire cleric. Monk would be the educated sage/bare hands fighter with ties to the deity. But they would all be clerics.

It might even allow the Warlock to be added into the Cleric class instead of the MU class, since the Warlock's spells come from a demon or fey.

Of course, I'm going on an assumption of using just the four base classes, and building all of the fluff from there. Every other class in the system is based on one of the original four anyway, with the possible exception of the druid.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Every other class in the system is based on one of the original four anyway, with the possible exception of the druid.

I can dig it, but I see the druid more closely tied to the cleric than the monk is.

 

[shadowmane]

I can dig it, but I see the druid more closely tied to the cleric than the monk is.

Yeah, the Monk is a bare-hands fighter with loose ties to the cleric class. You could almost sub-class a pugilist and martial artist in that class. Though not all Monks fight without weapons. Or dispense with the Monk and just go with the Pugilist and Martial Artist as a sub-class of fighter.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Yeah, the Monk is a bare-hands fighter with loose ties to the cleric class. You could almost sub-class a pugilist and martial artist in that class. Though not all Monks fight without weapons. Or dispense with the Monk and just go with the Pugilist and Martial Artist as a sub-class of fighter.

Not to me, I think of the 1st Ed Monk, had druidic (talk to animals and plants), roguish (stealth, etc) and psionic (resist ESP, mental attacks) qualities, plus other unique features, I don't think it has particular ties to the cleric; the fighter, some, but definitely their own deal.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the answer is ZERO.

I don't think any of the classes outside of the standard four will be subclasses of anything.

What does being a "subclass" even mean? Seems to me that unless it shares some mechanics of the 'base class', being a "subclass" is nothing more than a categorization. But what would be the point?

I do think though that we'll see a large number of 'builds' (for lack of a better term) for ALL the classes that get included in the game. So we'll see probably 6+ Fighting Styles, 6+ Schemes, 10+ Domains (one for every Greater God that is included as an example in the book, whether that be the Realms gods or the 4E pantheon) 4+ Traditions (or even more if the Spell School Specializations become Traditions in addition to being Specialties), 3+ Patrons/Pacts, 3+ Sorcerous Origins, 3+ Ranger Organizations, 3+ Paladin Codes, 3+ Druidic Sects or Wildshapes (or whatever differentiation they use to make druids different) etc. etc. etc.

Here's the thing... I think they learned during Essentials that only including a couple cleric Domains (and expecting players to invent the other ones for the other gods) and only two of the four Seasons for the druids (and expecting the players to invent the Autumn and Winter), annoyed players to no end. ESPECIALLY considering they never got around to releasing more of them in later books.

Saving character generation details and options for "later books" only works for those classes that have an open-ended amount of details. But if you have a closed set (say the four Seasons of Druids or the nine Spell Schools), you'd BETTER include all of them together from the beginning. Cause if you only have the Sun and War Domains in that first Handbook and yet include an entire pantheon of gods to choose from... you're shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Minigiant]

Oh. Builds. D'oh (facepalm)

I really should have used builds over subclasses.

I didn't mean

• Warrior
  • Fighter
  • Ranger
  • Warlord
• Expert
  • Assassin
  • Bard
  • Rogue

I meant

• Fighter
  • Duelist
  • Protector
  • Sharpshooter
  • Slayer
• Rogue
  • Charlatan
  • Spy
  • Thief
  • Thug

Here's the thing... I think they learned during Essentials that only including a couple cleric Domains (and expecting players to invent the other ones for the other gods) and only two of the four Seasons for the druids (and expecting the players to invent the Autumn and Winter), annoyed players to no end. ESPECIALLY considering they never got around to releasing more of them in later books.

Saving character generation details and options for "later books" only works for those classes that have an open-ended amount of details. But if you have a closed set (say the four Seasons of Druids or the nine Spell Schools), you'd BETTER include all of them together from the beginning. Cause if you only have the Sun and War Domains in that first Handbook and yet include an entire pantheon of gods to choose from... you're shooting yourself in the foot.

That is the thing indeed and whole point of the topic

If you don't include every common archetypical build, fans will RAGE!!
If you do include every common archetypical build, the book will be HUGE!!

 

[1of3]

There shouldn't be so many that they feel contrived. That was one problem with some of the classes in 4e. Swordmage of Shielding, Avenger of Unity, Warden of Whatever. I think these classes really suffered from the needless symmetry syndrome, which is prolific in all too many games.

A good class, and therefor a good subclass, is evocative and can rely on the consumer's prior knowledge of the genre. Therefor a good subclass is dependent on its mother class.

It's also worth noting that options for customizing a class do not have to be in the form of single subclasses. As of now, the designers got that right, when they allowed individual fighters to gain several fighting styles.

Also the authors should offer an official label for this kind of mechanic because fans will talk about it.

 

[steeldragons]

Oh. Builds. D'oh (facepalm)

I really should have used builds over subclasses.

I didn't mean
-snip-

I meant
-snip-

Ah. Well that's very different....nevermind my last post then.

That is the thing indeed and whole point of the topic

If you don't include every common archetypical build, fans will RAGE!!
If you do include every common archetypical build, the book will be HUGE!!

True. And if you'd like, I could make a great big long list for everyone/each class...maybe tomorrow.