D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[Li Shenron]

This conjures the image of dozens, nay hundreds of subclasses in oh so many splatbooks.

So, what I'm getting out of this is basically subclasses are the 5E version of kits/prestige classes/paragon paths.

Yep... The point is, one way or the other, there would always been dozens of splatbooks, tho not necessarily in the amount of 3e era (that depends on market prospects I guess). A year ago Mearls mentioned that prestige classes were probably coming back, eventually they found an alternative, but if they didn't do subclasses they would have done prestige classes or more core classes or something else.

Currently the 2 biggest design elements to fill splatbooks with are subclasses and feats. Of course spells and magic items also (and races and backgrounds possibly on an even smaller scale) but subclasses and feats are going to be the big character-defining options.

Remains to be seen if subclasses will be so dominant as to cannibalize feats in future products...

IMHO there are good reasons for sometimes designing something as subclass and some other times designing it as a feat (or feats chain), as I explained in this thread a week ago or so:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ses-and-Paragon-Paths-to-Subclasses-and-Feats

 

[Plaguescarred]

I am okay with their direction of classes and subclasses design and the goal they can achieve with it but i fear they're tempted to shovel too many concepts as subclasses under classes that may not thematically fit. Past a mechanical standpoint, there's also the flavor issues to consider. A psionic has traditionally never been a mage. While artificer, warlock and sorcerer have always been arcane classes, the psionic never was. If all those classes share the same spell list but simply cast them thematically, then in the game world they are able to achieve the same magical feats (using different methods), which was not the case in the past.

 

[Plaguescarred]

On subclasses having different spell list, Mike Mearls said on Facebook;

Mike Mearls They'll share stuff where it's appropriate.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Not sure I get this. If one doesn't want gladiators in their world, what's stopping them from simply reskinning the gladiator subclass? And vice-versa, people have been using their basic AD&D fighters and fluffing them as gladiators for years.

Of course no one is stopping you from doing so; that's the beauty of RPGs that you can take what you want from a game and modify it for your needs. Nevertheless, mixing up game world stuff (gladiator as a type of character) and mechanical items (combat options of the gladiator subclass) in one character building block (gladiator subclass) is a bad move, IMHO.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am okay with their direction of classes and subclasses design and the goal they can achieve with it but i fear they're tempted to shovel too many concepts as subclasses under classes that may not thematically fit.

There are many character concepts that could be both implemented either as a subclass or as a feat chain. The main differences are that (a) a subclass belong to one class, while feats are available for everyone, and (b) a subclass starts at level 1-3, while a feat chain can have a prerequisite to start at any higher level.

Issue (a) means that before shoveling a concept into a subclass, they should think if it is a concept that in fact fits only for that class... See the Arcane Archer feat (which later could be extended to a whole feat chain), as a feat it can be taken by a Fighter, a Ranger, a Wizard... you need to be a spellcaster but there are also feats granting you arcane spells. They can turn the Arcane Archer into a subclass: but should it be a Wizard subclass or Fighter subclass?

They are certainly going to have issues when designing "multiclassing" subclasses, because of the inherent question of which class is the better base class for a subclass that is meant to represent 2 classes in one? IMO they will handle this issue by simply designing lots of "martial Wizard" and "arcane Fighter" subclasses in splatbooks.

Issue (b) is more tricky IMO, because it has narrative consequences. If you take a cool character concept that represents an elite group, and implement it as a subclass, then you are just forcing everyone to enter that elite group at level 3, or never again have that chance. Mearls is talking about using subclasses to define the world, but then if e.g. you want to use Shadowdancer to represent a close-knit secret elite group that a PC has to gain admission to, then how are you going to handle the fact that mechanically you can only become a Shadowdancer when you take your 3rd level of Rogue?

 

[Viking Bastard]

I've always like subclasses. Don't really know why I like them over a lot of other approaches, but I do.

But the Mage should totally be renamed to Magic-User. Wizard being a subclass of Mage instead of vice-versa also seems strange to me, although I realize it's totally arbitrary.

 

[Jester David]

This week's article was a little weak. It was the same topic as the last L&L a couple weeks back. If Mearls had actually done a good job describing the topic and what they were doing 'n' thinking we'd have a different topic this time.
And maybe we'd have avoided much of the fuss that has arisen since.

 

[Mistwell]

You know it must be a repeat article, because it elicited repeat posts from the same people, saying the same things, that were already posted in other threads.

 

[MarkB]

This article seems somewhat at odds with their plans for multiclassing.

Multiclassing with spellcasting classes is somewhat similar. Your overall levels in classes that cast spells determines how many spells you can cast. Your levels in those individual classes determine which spells you can prepare. For instance, a 3rd-level mage/3rd-level cleric casts spells per day as a 6th-level character, but can choose to prepare spells available to a 3rd-level wizard or to a 3rd-level cleric. Luckily, our scaling spells ensure that you can still get the most bang for your spells.

If subclasses can have completely different casting mechanics, how can a multiclass character combine them in any meaningful way?

If they don't have different casting mechanics, then is the current article just blowing smoke in an effort to placate fans of different magical abilities?

 

[Iosue]

This article seems somewhat at odds with their plans for multiclassing.

If subclasses can have completely different casting mechanics, how can a multiclass character combine them in any meaningful way?

If they don't have different casting mechanics, then is the current article just blowing smoke in an effort to placate fans of different magical abilities?

Mearls has noted in Twitter that you won't be able to multi-class between subclasses. Feats will provide a way to dip into another subclass. So in a sense, multi-classing between classes will be 3e style, while multi-classing between subclasses will be 4e Core style.