D&D 5E L&L: Subclasses

[Ajar]

I remember when Essentials came out and introduced subclasses to 4E that were very different from the build options we'd had before, some people (myself included) complained. WotC responded that their data showed that the overwhelming majority of players (IIRC) wanted to play one of the "core four" classes, so rather than continue to make new classes with new mechanics (a la PHB2-3), they instead stuffed most of the Essentials material into a small subset of the existing classes.

With this approach in Next, though, whole swaths of design space are just gone. The 4E warlord is a good example. So is the 4E warden. It's definitely disappointing to me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The big issue I think WotC is running into is that the two buckets that Clerics and Wizards have to pull from to create their "subclasses" (the Deity and the Tradition) are different than the buckets Fighters and Rogue are currently pulling from.

The sub-classes of the Cleric are not "types" of Cleric. We're not seeing the "Priest", or "Templar" or "Archivist" or "Mystic" or "Evangelist" etc. Those types of sub-classes are hypothesizing the different ways Clerics are seen in the world... the "fluffy", "story-based" identities a Cleric might have. Instead... we have this completely separate game-world concept (the Gods of the World), and the sub-classes of Cleric are all based upon how they relate to that game-world concept. So if you worship the Reaper deity for example... you can be a Priest Reaper, a Templar Reaper, an Archivist Reaper etc. Your sub-class is not telling you how your PC behaves in the game world... but rather what is important to him as he behaves in the game world.

The sub-classes of the Wizard are also not "types" of Wizard. We're not yet seeing the "Warlock" or "Sorcerer" or "Thaumaturge" or "Wild Mage" or "Binder" or "Witch Doctor" etc. Those types of sub-classes are hypothesizing the different ways Wizards are seen in the world... the "fluffy", "story-based" identities a Wizard might have. Instead... we have this completely separate game-world concept (the schools of magic), and the sub-classes of Wizard (thus far) are all based upon how they relate to that game-world concept. So if you specialized or were focused on Necromancy for example... you can be a Sorcerer Necromancer, a Wild Mage Necromancer, a Witch Doctor Necromancer etc. Your sub-class is not telling you how your PC uses magic in the game world... but rather what is important to him as he uses magic in the game world.

But this is not the case for the Fighter, and slightly less than the Rogue. Right now, the Fighter sub-classes are entirely "fluffy" and "story-based". You are a Samurai. You are a Gladiator. You are a Scout. You're not using a particular facet of the game-world to facilitate being a samurai, gladiator or scout... you ARE those things. Which, to me, is where the issue with this is coming up.

Mike made it clear that archer and two-weapon fighter are currently remaining in the realm of feats. Presumably this is because (as he states) he wants use to be able to make archer Rangers or two-weapon Barbarians. Which I can kind of understand... but I don't think makes for a very strong case. For my money... while I think anyone can use archery... only Fighters should be Archers. While anyone can fight wielding two weapons... only Fighters should be Two-Weapon Fighters. While anyone can defend themselves with a shield... only Fighters should be Defenders. Reason being... because other classes already have other abilities and stuff that makes them those classes. They don't need to be Archers or Defenders ON TOP of it.

THOSE are the game-world concepts that should be in the bucket that the Fighter draws his sub-classes from. The different schools of fighting and weaponry. Being an Archer should get you something as a Fighter when specializing in loaded ranged weapons, the same way being an Evoker gets you something as a Wizard when specializing in evocation spells. Being a Duelist should get you something as a Fighter when specializing in light armor and a one-handed finesse weapon, the same way being an Pyromancer gets you something as a Wizard when specializing in fire-based spells.

But when you push all these different weapon style concepts over into the Feats bucket and give every other class the same opportunity to take these concepts... you have no choice but to use Fluff to distinguish different types of Fighters. Which I think is too limiting, and ends up treading too much upon what Backgrounds are meant to achieve. Why is Samurai a type of Fighter and not a Background? Seems to me it should be. Why is Gladiator a type of Fighter and not a Background? And if you need further proof... the Knight already *is* a Background, so why should it now be pigeonholed into just something a Fighter is?

Look... I get it. Mike is desperate to make the idea of Feats work. But let's just face facts... many of the "fighting style" feat packages should really be just Fighter options in order to MAKE FIGHTERS DISTINCT FROM OTHER CLASSES. Paladins get a whole bunch of abilities from spellcasting and their oath... they don't need fighting styles TOO. They absolutely can and should be able to wield a sword and shield... but they don't need special abilities when using them... not when they have their spells and their oath.

Leave the special abilities you get for wielding a sword and shield to the one class WHO NEEDS that sort of distinguishing game-world concept. The Fighter.

Sword 'n Board Style - The Defender
One handed finese Style - The Duelist
Dual-wield Style - The Tempest
Heavy weapon Style - The Slayer
Loaded ranged weapon Style - The Marksman
Thrown weapon Style - The Hurler
Improvised and unarmed Style - The Brawler

Those are some sub-classes I can get behind for the Fighter.

And as for the Rogue? That's really a whole different ball of wax.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm being driven a little bonkers by all the "Archetype X should be a Y!" stuff.

Three types of vampires, people. There's more than one way to realize an archetype. There's no reason Gladiator can't also be a background and a feat chain or whatever.

"Fighter" serves as a useful term even if it doesn't specifically reference any specific mechanics: "Fighters are the best at fighting!" can be true even if the different subclasses ("builds"?) use different methods to get there. Choosing a fighter is choosing a playstyle: I want to solve my problems with stabbing.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The trick will be making subclasses work without negatively impacting the effect of backgrounds and specialties and straightforward class features.

It's interesting that the article singles out fighters, because the fighter was getting to a pretty good place: both with the maneuvers (last packet) and the choice offered by the class abilities like Death Dealer (in this packet), there was a fair degree of freedom to specialize in sword-and-board or ranged or whatever, or to dabble, and take one ranged ability, one shield ability, etc. For the fighter, subclasses would be more constraining.

Another example: Necromancer (present as a specialty in the very first test packet, and not seen since, IIRC). This is ideal as a specialty, since it gives players options: cleric necromancer will have a different feel than a wizard necromancer or even (dare we think it) a Paladin necromancer. This was an example of the best kind of modularity, in my opinion, allowing combinations that players want and not forcing or pre-judging anything.

Similar to this would be gladiator. That, to me is an ideal background (though I could see it working as a specialty as well), but it'd be great if one could be a cleric (lightbringer) gladiator, or a wizard gladiator, even if the combination is optimized for a fighter gladiator.

Of course, it is always possible to provide more than one way to achieve a given end. The problem with this is that it sacrifices elegance in design. If there are three different ways to achieve a nearly-similar end result, then the sweetness of good design has been sacrificed to a nuts-and-olts toolkit, in the worst sense of that phrase.

Where we're seeing this most (in my view) is with the rogue: the rogue was in a real sweet spot two test packs ago, with flexibility and diversity coming from the availability of multiple backgrounds, combined with cool tricks that could build an assassin or a charmer. I like the thought of building a rogue with almost any ability as primary (i.e. not just dex or str but cha or int as well). They seem to be moving away from that, and the hints in this column about the future of rogues doesn't look like they will be returning to that.

 

[Dragoslav]

This seems a little...arbitrary. Subclass = OK! But Background or Specialty package = Those BASTARDS!

And from what I've seen, it does seem a subclass will be a specific set of extra abilities...which will likely include some feats...so what's the problem?

It's not arbitrary because I'm assuming that a subclass is going to be mechanically different than feats.

If you can only make a Warlord using the Fighter class and picking certain feats every time you can choose one + a specific background.

If Warlord is a subclass, then you have a Warlord from level one and then are free to take any feats or backgrounds that you want.

With the former, all of your decision points are taken up by just trying to make a Warlord. Every Warlord is going to look the same, and you can't actually *be* a Warlord until you've invested several feats into doing something similar to what a Warlord does.

With Warlord as a subclass, then presumably you get unique Warlord abilities in place of whatever the basic Fighter gets as class features, and you are free to take whatever feats you want when you can choose them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Three types of vampires, people. There's more than one way to realize an archetype.

Some of us might say that needing mechanics in three different sections of the game in order to create a vampire might not exactly be the most elegant solution to the problem.

 

[gyor]

There are a lot of concepts which could be both a class, subclass, background, specialty and even a race.

And in fact there will be some concepts with multiple implementation, so that something will be both a subclass and a specialty, although most likely the core books will have only one implementation per concept (makes more sense to give space to more concepts in the core rather than more versions of the the same concept).

Race, class, subclass, specialty and background represent different things and use different mechanics, and what they each represent depends on such mechanic.

For instance, a "race" is currently a package of static features so it represents what you get at birth and/or during education i.e. culture.

A "background" used to give you skills (which progress with level) and a static trait which is mostly useful during downtime. Therefore it can be used to represent what you are while not adventuring (or before adventuring), what is your role in society. (Backgrounds are changing now, but probably will retain their concept)

A "class" defines what you are during adventuring. A class is a progression of features that get better and better, and in order to get better you need to gain XP, i.e. you need to go adventuring. You can also use it to define what you are while not adventuring, but this is secondary, and always carried some traditional problems doing so (like "why does the academic wizard teaching spells and crafting magic swords in the city tower never gains levels from doing so?").

A "subclass" modifies its base class (although some subclasses are purely additive and could be even applied to a different base class) and therefore serve the purpose of creating variations in the fantasy world but provide a ready "package" that follows a concept, a certain specific type of a character of that class.

A "specialty" currently is just a suggested bunch of feats, which may or may not be available individually (this can be DM's decision, especially when creating specialties to represent prestige classes or paragon paths). As such, a "specialty" is by definition something you can take as much or as little as you want, and you can freely cherrypick from different specialties. There might be some progression, but it's not always going to be the case.

These give plenty of methods to customize your characters, in small and big ways, either using packages or cherrypicking, and in a progressive or static way.

-----------

The only thing which is still left out of the picture is, how do you represent concepts that should only be available at mid or high levels?

Imagine you have an "Order of the Archmages of XYZ", in 3e you would represent that mostly with a prestige class, in 4e with a paragon path... the only way suggested in 5e so far is to make a specialty, because class/subclass/background/race are all choices that start at level 1 with the current rules. You could make a class that can only be taken with multiclassing after a certain level, thus basically re-introducing prestige classes, but at the moment there is no such thing. You cannot make it a subclass of Wizard, unless you mess up a bit and allow to swap a previous subclass through retraining rules.

Right now, the only way to do it would be with a specialty, however it might not be always easy to do so for every concept...

Legacies, that's what they have planned for high level only concepts, which they haven't released yet.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Some of us might say that needing mechanics in three different sections of the game in order to create a vampire might not exactly be the most elegant solution to the problem.

That's not quite how that works.

4e has a series of vampire feats, a vampire class, and a "vampire" race (the vryloka). On its own, any one of those is enough to be a vampire -- you don't need all three, you just need the one that works for you. For someone who wants to be a vampire elf, pick the class. For someone who wants to be a vampire warrior, pick the race. For someone who wants to be a dwarf paladin with vampirism, pick the feats. For someone who wants to be ridiculous you can pick all three (I played a character like this for a brief period of time -- her name was Elvira, Vampire Floozy 1st Class).

A gladiator background maybe gives you proficiency with an exotic weapon. Anyone could have been a gladiator -- your elf wizard, for one. A gladiator specialty might focus on flashy combat moves, toughness, and melee tricks. Your elf wizard can still do this, though maybe it's a better choice for, say, your halfling rogue. A gladiator subclass is for those who want to define their character mostly as a gladiator. Maybe a better fit for your half-orc.

If you want to be myopic in your gladiator focus, pick all of them ("scaling complexity," boyo!). If you want to be a particular kind of gladiator, just pick one or the other.

So when I say "three kinds of vampire," what I'm referring to is the idea that there doesn't need to be just ONE TRUE WAY to realize an archetype, and that multiple different kinds of rules objects can get at the same thing. IMO, 5e shouldn't have just one kind of gladiator. It should lots of different kinds of gladiators. As many as your table might need for their beefcake-and-homoerotic-subtext Spartacus campaign (or whatever). If someone wants to make a gladiator in 5e, they should have a myriad different ways of doing that, not just one.

 

[kerleth]

+1 [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]. I agree with what you are saying. Just to play devil's advocate, however, there are some potential problems.

1)Perception: People get confused about what exactly it means to be a gladiator. Also, any rules that back reference gladiator abilities will have to be very careful to avoid possible confusion.

2) Fluffiness: Some people have a huge problem with even the smallest amount of refluffing. If they can't have all the abilities named after their concept than it isn't really their concept. There are many people who simply won't consider a spellcaster an illusionist unless he is the wizard with the illusionist tradition, and so feel that they can't make the sort of character they want. It doesn't matter if they depend almost entirely on illusion spells, they still don't have the correct job title. So if we have an "arena warrior" background or specialty, there will inevitably be a few people who say they can't play a barbarian gladiator, cause that's a fighter subclass. I personally think this is really silly, but it has come up many times in discussions about what should be classes.

3)Compatability: If someone wants to be "The Gladiator", they may be tempted to take all two, three, or four options for being so. This is logical. However, if the abilities of these don't all mesh well together, then you get feel bad moments where the abilities from your "protector fighter" overlap and don't stack with your "defender" specialty, and you are subpar. This creates pit traps in character creation that require an increased level of system mastery.

To reiterate, I completely do agree with your point kamikaze. These are just some design issues they are going to have to watch out for.

 

[I'm A Banana]

+1 [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]. I agree with what you are saying. Just to play devil's advocate, however, there are some potential problems.

Lets see if I can't lay some of these problems to rest.

1)Perception: People get confused about what exactly it means to be a gladiator. Also, any rules that back reference gladiator abilities will have to be very careful to avoid possible confusion.

I don't think that "what it means to be a gladiator" is something that the game in general needs to pin down precisely. It can mean a lot of things, depending on the campaign. And I think that back-references will necessarily not be specific to any given ability, because of modularity: we don't want someone to HAVE to use a gladiator in their games in order to use some other rules element.

2) Fluffiness: Some people have a huge problem with even the smallest amount of refluffing. If they can't have all the abilities named after their concept than it isn't really their concept. There are many people who simply won't consider a spellcaster an illusionist unless he is the wizard with the illusionist tradition, and so feel that they can't make the sort of character they want. It doesn't matter if they depend almost entirely on illusion spells, they still don't have the correct job title. So if we have an "arena warrior" background or specialty, there will inevitably be a few people who say they can't play a barbarian gladiator, cause that's a fighter subclass. I personally think this is really silly, but it has come up many times in discussions about what should be classes.

If someone wants to be that...er...Lawful Neutral about it at their own table, I'm not very interested in stopping them, and there's still the Official Gladiator Subclass for 'em. And, heck, I'm not against re-using the same name over and over again, either, perhaps with subtle variations (Background = "Trained as a Gladiator"; Specialty = "Gladiator's Fighting Style"; Subclass = "Gladiator"). But I think the DM's guide should probably be fairly explicit about how limiting that approach can be, too.

3)Compatability: If someone wants to be "The Gladiator", they may be tempted to take all two, three, or four options for being so. This is logical. However, if the abilities of these don't all mesh well together, then you get feel bad moments where the abilities from your "protector fighter" overlap and don't stack with your "defender" specialty, and you are subpar. This creates pit traps in character creation that require an increased level of system mastery.

This is something that cropped up in Elvira (how many different ways can she turn into a bat?!), but I think it's preventable when you've silo'd your rules fobs well. Backgrounds and specialties do different things than classes, so they interact with different rules bits. A background might give you proficiency; a specialty might increase your ability; but only a class will give you a maneuver (for instance).