D&D 5E L&L: Subclasses

[JasonZZ]

I'm skeptical that this can ever actually happen.

Clarity, like "elegance," is a tool, not a dogma. The only thing dictated by the game should be the measure of what is fun, and I can tell you without much market research, that gladiator pirate is a lot more fun than brawler sailor

But can't handle Bluto nearly as well.

 

[pemerton]

Assuming my thoughts above are not a load of crap

Not at all. I enjoyed the post.

They speak more to what one does than how one does it.

I don't find this particular way of distnguishing build elements helpful, mostly because nouns, verbs and adverbs can be fairly easily transformed into one another. Am I a baker who uses flour? A producer of products from flour who uses an oven? A warrior who beats people up with weapons? A weapon-wielder who fights to win?

I mean, the class which started out as magic-user (how one does things, presumably - by using magic) is now called wizard (which presumably names a profession, what it is that one does).

If we use a many-ways approach but lack a way to express whether a given element is more appropriate as a feat or a class feature (using whatever criterion) we weaken the entire structure (because what is the point of having two structures if they are indistinguishable?) even though there is greater possible richness in principle.

I feel that your post takes a very process-simulation approach to PC-build elements. But we needne't do that.

For instance, suppose the difference between "feat" and "class" is "little mechanical element" and "big bundle of mechanical elements with a whole range of sizes". Then, in choosing the "gladiator" feat I am choosing to make gladiating only a modest part of my PC's overall mechanical build. Whereas in choosing the "gladiator" sub-class I am choosing to make gladiating a very rich part of my PC's overall mechanical build.

But neither choice has necessary implications for how big gladiating is in the story of my PC. On either build it might be that gladiating is a big part of who my PC is, or a small part.

A couple of examples from my 4e game - a PC in my game started out as a wizard with a religious devotee background, at one point added a cleric multi-class feat to reflect that background, at a later point retrained that for an invoker multi-class feat to open up a particular paragon path choice, then - after dying and being resurrected - was rebuilt by the player as an invoker (with a wizard multi-class) to better give voice to what the PC was really about.

The story of the PC didn't change particularly over the course of these rebuilds (though in some ways it got richer) - rather, different mechanical elements were added and subtracted which change the way the PC is expressed in play.

Furthermore, the real character of the PC is as a sage and ritualist, even though - because the game is 4e - the single biggest area of the character sheet deals with combat-relevant abilities. So in play the PC is expressed very much via combat abilities - but this doesn't mean that the PC's background and character isn't that of a sage.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah me too. It does not mean that I will not stand up for a game that winds up not being a morass.

It's tilting at windmills if no one actually experiences a problem in practice, though. There's no point to elegance just for the sake of elegance. It's not a factor that enters in.

Very true, there is no perfect only better. It is only a suggestion. Keeping your vinaigrette salad out of your potato salad, and out of your baked beans is advisable. But you know what swirl 'em up and you might get something fantastic, but you might also get something inedible.

If someone wants to mix flavors they think are awesome, they should be encouraged to experiment. If the game is designed well, most of those combos will end up being something edible, because they build on each other or compliment each other. And there's always the cultural equivalent of jambalaya: the pot you just throw everything into.

 

[Bluenose]

This.

The evocative* nature of the game is part of what makes it fun to play: the Fluff evokes the Fantastic.

* (no, not "provocative")

Then the rules need to not make the Fantastic into something Mundane. Or more specifically, if you describe something as exciting and then make it act dull, then the description becomes meaningless. You can make as flowery a description as you like of a magical sword, telling me it's history and describing the seven different materials used in it's construction, but if it turns out that what it does is give me +1 to hit and damage, it's going on my character sheet as a +1 Longsword and I'm never going to think about the rest of it.

By contrast, The Staff of Wind Among the Flowers 9w is a magic item that one of my characters has in a Heroquest II campaign. It has a name and an ability rating. It's an interesting item because of what it does rather than because there's any particular fluff attached to it.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Then the rules need to not make the Fantastic into something Mundane. Or more specifically, if you describe something as exciting and then make it act dull, then the description becomes meaningless. You can make as flowery a description as you like of a magical sword, telling me it's history and describing the seven different materials used in it's construction, but if it turns out that what it does is give me +1 to hit and damage, it's going on my character sheet as a +1 Longsword and I'm never going to think about the rest of it.

By contrast, The Staff of Wind Among the Flowers 9w is a magic item that one of my characters has in a Heroquest II campaign. It has a name and an ability rating. It's an interesting item because of what it does rather than because there's any particular fluff attached to it.

That's really a matter of taste. You find it meaningless, but in a game that has +1 longswords it does you no harm to ignore the fluff and acknowledge only the +1 longsword portion of the write-up.

To others who prefer fluff and seek inspiration for their games in them, that fluff certainly matters. And having just a +1 longsword leaves the game feeling lifeless to them.

And I would warn you in games that I run, if the +1 longsword has a backstory, you can bet that backstory matters in-game beyond the pure mechanical bonus.

Crunch is not the only measure of interesting/boring in a roleplaying game.

 

[Sadrik]

Then the rules need to not make the Fantastic into something Mundane. Or more specifically, if you describe something as exciting and then make it act dull, then the description becomes meaningless. You can make as flowery a description as you like of a magical sword, telling me it's history and describing the seven different materials used in it's construction, but if it turns out that what it does is give me +1 to hit and damage, it's going on my character sheet as a +1 Longsword and I'm never going to think about the rest of it.

By contrast, The Staff of Wind Among the Flowers 9w is a magic item that one of my characters has in a Heroquest II campaign. It has a name and an ability rating. It's an interesting item because of what it does rather than because there's any particular fluff attached to it.

I completely agree with what you are saying. The crunch is what makes the item or ability or feat interesting the fluff should match the ability pound for pound. A triple back flip mega monster twin headed mega chop, if it is a maneuver that does 2d6 damage, it is just a maneuver that does 2d6 damage.

Using that as a springboard. How does background fluff define a character though. To take the extremes, do you need a year by year analysis of the life of the character and how it affected their adventuring life today or simply he was a trapper? Which was more adequate? It is probably dependent on the campaign, the DM and the player.

I actually think that too much description even in the fluff can be bad, when it comes to character creation. This is different than say a magic item which is very campaign/DM controlled. For an item, I want the DM to give me lots of descriptions and background and make the item unique and interesting. For character creation I want the fluff to be written very open with out an emphasis on it has to be this way. I want to be able to design what my character is like I do not want someone else to inform me on how it is like. That said I like ideas, if the gladiator sub-class comes out and says you adventure because you fight in an arena and you are awful at it and dont make enough money so you decided to take up adventuring. Without any other alternatives, you are left with this sucks! So fluff where it can be very good, it can also straight jacket something and make it uber lame.

 

[Garthanos]

Warlord isn't a class, spelled out in specific language. Guess we stick with 4E or check out 13th age or Exalted 3E.

I heard Battle Captain might be reasonable (that's to be seen in 13th age) I like Indie stuff... so there are elements I hear about 13th Age which might attract me. But I also hear it's not really a successor to 4e from other folk

 

[Ratskinner]

I heard Battle Captain might be reasonable (that's to be seen in 13th age) I like Indie stuff... so there are elements I hear about 13th Age which might attract me. But I also hear it's not really a successor to 4e from other folk

Not that I've been following it very closely, but I hadn't heard 13thAge was intended to be a successor to 4e. I thought it was supposed to be a "love letter to D&D" (whatever that means.) The little bits I saw seemed more like a trimmed and then re-worked 3e to me. (Maybe in a good way, I'm not sure.)

 

[Plaguescarred]

Subraces and subclasses seems like a good way to present options in a modular way. We'll see how this shapes up when the next packet comes out...

 

[Ainamacar]

I don't find this particular way of distnguishing build elements helpful, mostly because nouns, verbs and adverbs can be fairly easily transformed into one another. Am I a baker who uses flour? A producer of products from flour who uses an oven? A warrior who beats people up with weapons? A weapon-wielder who fights to win?

I mean, the class which started out as magic-user (how one does things, presumably - by using magic) is now called wizard (which presumably names a profession, what it is that one does).

That's true, but there is a distinction, though not a clear-cut one, between how one does things (in terms of mechanics) and what one does (in terms of the non-mechanical fiction.) I probably ought to have used the same term (how/what) for both statements so I could highlight that I meant a mechanics vs. non-mechanics distinction, and not a context-free noun vs. verb. And while in principle just about anything could have corresponding mechanics, I'm mostly talking about the mechanics that D&D has found fit to enshrine in its classes. (In more free-form systems like FATE, where the "Baker" aspect might have a gameplay significance as great as combat abilities, I readily grant your point. In fact, the FATE fractal pretty much embraces that viewpoint to its full extent.) A background like Baker could be consistent with numerous classes or no class at all, and I think it would be difficult to write a D&D class that encompasses what one might mean by Baker without setting down some pretty arbitrary restrictions on what it means, and how it meaningfully affects the outcomes of events in D&D. This is why something like an Assassin background would be so powerful -- it speaks to a non-mechanical role (or at least one with many and varied mechanical implementations) in a sufficiently generic way that almost any class could take it.

I feel that your post takes a very process-simulation approach to PC-build elements. But we needne't do that.

Heh, well, it wouldn't be the first time. My intention is not to force the mindset of simulation, however, despite my use of "represents" many times in the original post. (It's true I do want consonance between story and mechanics, but which of story or mechanics might bend to fit the other isn't my concern here.) Whether one uses simulationistic mechanics or not, the division of labor between backgrounds, classes, and feats I suggested is designed to give each element mechanical distinction since mechanical distinctions can be discerned objectively while story distinctions are subjective and often nebulous. I accept that there are many story representations of Assassin that might make sense for backgrounds, classes, feats, etc. That being the case, clear mechanical roles cannot be determined primarily on the basis of story, although the story can inform the nuances. If I were to write the post a second time I might state the mechanical bits first and say "Class typically represents the fundamental interaction with the setting's reality" and so on. Then it would more clearly function as a bit of guidance rather than proscription and the player/designer could be first inspired by a nifty mechanic or the story and go from there.

This is why I don't think the issue of fighter subclasses, for instance, has to be a decision between generic fighting styles vs. more cultural categories like samurai (although if push came to shove I'd probably choose the former.) There is room for both, but each should embrace its own approach fully. A generic style could be potentially compatible with many story identifications (including samurai) while a samurai subclass should embrace the unique characteristics of being a samurai (e.g. a bushido mechanic built on top of expertise dice) as part of its backbone. Making sure that the mechanics (and to a lesser extent the "typical story") of different game elements have a clear place supports multiple approaches in this manner. I want multiple approaches, but not if the cost is an amorphous mechanical blob.

For instance, suppose the difference between "feat" and "class" is "little mechanical element" and "big bundle of mechanical elements with a whole range of sizes". Then, in choosing the "gladiator" feat I am choosing to make gladiating only a modest part of my PC's overall mechanical build. Whereas in choosing the "gladiator" sub-class I am choosing to make gladiating a very rich part of my PC's overall mechanical build.

But neither choice has necessary implications for how big gladiating is in the story of my PC. On either build it might be that gladiating is a big part of who my PC is, or a small part.

Ahh, but if a single level of a class may also be a smallish bundle of mechanical element what distinguishes feats from self-contained single-level class features? Aside from the fundamental class mechanics like spells, the answer is probably not much unless one makes all feats significantly more or less powerful than what is gained from a class level. In fact, if 3e-style multiclassing is present (and assuming a gladiator class) we now have at least two ways to gain modest gladiatorial abilities, and the distinction between "class feature" and "feat" is particularly murky. If feats were gladiatorial breadth (independent mechanics) and class were gladiatorial depth (dependent mechanics) we could start to see a unique place again. (Note that I am not saying there can only be one way to give classes, feats, etc. this kind of structure, just that "size alone" is insufficient without other structural considerations.)

The story of the PC didn't change particularly over the course of these rebuilds (though in some ways it got richer) - rather, different mechanical elements were added and subtracted which change the way the PC is expressed in play.

Furthermore, the real character of the PC is as a sage and ritualist, even though - because the game is 4e - the single biggest area of the character sheet deals with combat-relevant abilities. So in play the PC is expressed very much via combat abilities - but this doesn't mean that the PC's background and character isn't that of a sage.

I'm not sure I consider that a counterexample to my perspective. A character need not have the (non-existent?) sage class to be considered a sage within the fictional reality, whether its class is wizard or invoker. The mechanical and role-playing decisions made at other points can certainly support that identification. Heck, in 3.5 I helped make a sage ranger for another player that was quite fun at the table. However, if the character identifies primarily as a sage, if there were a class whose combat abilities clearly had a sage-like feel, would the character not give that some consideration, perhaps just for multiclassing? In fact, I think 4e's feat-based approach to multiclassing (despite my misgivings about using feats in the first place) marvelously succeeded in giving those feats a clear relationship to class features. A person who homebrewed their own class could make a reasonable multiclass feat with very little effort because it was clear what was expected and permitted, and a player could discern this just as quickly. If 5e could approach a similar mechanical clarity of purpose (if not quite mechanical rigidity) for its various elements, I think I would find a lot to like.

As always, I have appreciated your in-depth thoughts.