D&D 5E L&L: Subclasses

[Kobold Stew]

The design choices need to be made to enable DMs to make their own design choices.

You use the phrase "design choices" to mean two different things in the same sentence. That's no longer a conversation.

It's a lot less work to write a novel with one plot than to write a novel with seven.

I'm not sure that's true.

What I do know is that it's a lot less work to write a whole bunch of sentences and expect the reader to make choices that produce a coherent plot than it is to write a (good) novel.

A novel has been written and re-written, and well edited, and reflects its author's unique understanding and creativity and perspective on a compelling world. It invites the reader to share that perspective, and to bring her own imagination to the world created on the page.

And that's what I'm asking in a game as well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You use the phrase "design choices" to mean two different things in the same sentence. That's no longer a conversation.

No, it means the same thing. The scope is different, but the meaning is the same.

I'm not sure that's true.

I don't think I'd call Rashomon lazy.

What I do know is that it's a lot less work to write a whole bunch of sentences and expect the reader to make choices that produce a coherent plot than it is to write a (good) novel.

I don't think I'd call House of Leaves lazy, either.

A novel has been written and re-written, and well edited, and reflects its author's unique understanding and creativity and perspective on the world. It invites the reader to share that perspective, and to bring her own imagination to the world created on the page.

And that's what I'm asking in a game as well.

The perspective I'm asking for in 5e D&D is the perspective that the game is what the players make of it (including the DM in that group of "players").

Because that's already what the audience does with it, and to specify otherwise is to declare oneself the gatekeeper of their experiences.

I'd have different expectations for an indie game from a single author, or a more tightly focused game, but D&D is not and has never been any of those things.

 

[Klaus]

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).

As the one responsible for the vryloka, I can tell you this is exactly the rationale.

 

[Klaus]

Agreed. Multiple routes to the same destination is inelegant and sloppy. It's the lazy solution for a designer who is unwilling to make a choice.

No, it's about multiplying the ammount of archetypes you can cover without having a One True Way of playing said archetypes.

 

[steeldragons]

That's not "multiplying archetypes"...it's creating a bunch of different ways to get to the same place...which, to many, appears to be unnecessary, repetitious and, for new (and some old) players, needlessly complicated.

No thanks.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I don't think I'd call Rashomon lazy.

I don't think I'd call House of Leaves lazy, either.

I don't think I did call either of these lazy, so we're safe.

The perspective I'm asking for in 5e D&D is the perspective that the game is what the players make of it (including the DM in that group of "players").

Because that's already what the audience does with it, and to specify otherwise is to declare oneself the gatekeeper of their experiences.

I'd have different expectations for an indie game from a single author, or a more tightly focused game, but D&D is not and has never been any of those things.

Again: after publication, this is all true. Before publication, I have expectations of the design team that you do not.

 

[gyor]

No, it's about multiplying the ammount of archetypes you can cover without having a One True Way of playing said archetypes.

I never really thought of the Vryloka as true vampires or even Dampyrs, but rather something more akin to self sustaining Ghoul Family (not d&d ghouls), but rather Vampire: Requim style Ghouls, beings that make deals or are forced into service with vampires and gain a portion of thier power while remaining alive.

In other words, I see the Vryloka as described as more Renfield then Dracula, or Micheal from Lost Boys minus the fangs.

Vryloka have key differences from Vampires and Dampyr's that makes them compelling.

Unlike Vampires the Vryloka can go out in the sun, produce body fluids other then blood like tears, don't have to fear crossing running water, can feel thier emotions passionately instead of as a hollow echo. Vryloka also don't have to feed on the living to sustain themselves although some can.

Unlike Dampyrs it appears Vryloka breed true, have thier own culture, can use old fashion sexual reproduction or shadow magic to reproduce new Vryloka, and don't have fangs and don't have to drink blood or equivant to feed on an enemies life force, they don't even have to grapple.

I also liked the culture and flavour I'm guessing you gave them?

I really liked the Vryloka and see them as more then just vampires.

 

[Klaus]

That's not "multiplying archetypes"...it's creating a bunch of different ways to get to the same place...which, to many, appears to be unnecessary, repetitious and, for new (and some old) players, needlessly complicated.

No thanks.

You can also get to the number 4 through various combinations of the numbers 1, 2 and 3.

 

[Klaus]

I really liked the Vryloka and see them as more then just vampires.

Thanks. They have a lot in common with vampires in the Underworld series. But they can be made as different or as similar to regular vampires as the player and DM wish.

 

[Sadrik]

Why can't specialties and sub-classes occupy the same design space?

I mean really, both offer little packets of abilities, call them feats or class features. Write up specialties with enough interesting fluff and you basically have sub-classes. In fact they have stated that PrCs/Paragon paths are doing this anyway. Why not do it like that anyway for the specialties.

I like the idea of a fighter selecting a deity or a cleric selecting an oath or even a ranger selecting a circle. Why not? If a sub-class is just a specialty these kinds of things could happen and it would be very cool.

The fighter with 2 specialties and the rogue with 2 backgrounds! I thought this was simple and a very attractive way of handling the two classes. Sub-classes have apparently reared up because of the optional feat issue. But honestly why? Because Fighters and Rogues would look pretty plain without using backgrounds and specialties. In a game without specialties and backgrounds, why not say a fighter gets one anyway and a rogue gets a background anyway. This gels with some peoples argument that they want the fighter to have unique abilities and it could be true for the rogue with backgrounds.