D&D 5E LL- Subclasses and Complexity

[steeldragons]

Nothing egregious here. Sounds to me like a perfectly natural and relatively simple way of doing things. Yes, organizationally and traditionally things might get moved around a bit...but that's organizational. Everything people want.reember and love will be in there someplace. Mission accomplished.

 

[MarkB]

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.

I'm not talking about multiclassing between two subclasses within the same class, though - I'm talking about multiclassing between, say, Cleric and Mage. As I understand it, you still have to choose a subclass for each of those classes.

 

[Greg K]

So subclasses should handle the scaling of complexity as well as world description? If the DM doesn't want to allow the Gladiator subclass it's farewell to the complex fighter type?

I just want a more fitting name than Gladiator for the complex option and free the term up for a background or option that is more appropriate.

 

[Balesir]

Well, I'm left understanding what subclasses are and why they exist, but I'm wondering what role classes play? They sound like they might be effectively 4E's "roles", or maybe more like "Power source" (as in Arcane, Divine, Martial, etc.). Worst case I can think of is that they end up a sort of bastard child of both of these - with no-one really knowing what it is they are supposed to be there for...

 

[Savage Wombat]

Well, I'm left understanding what subclasses are and why they exist, but I'm wondering what role classes play? They sound like they might be effectively 4E's "roles", or maybe more like "Power source" (as in Arcane, Divine, Martial, etc.). Worst case I can think of is that they end up a sort of bastard child of both of these - with no-one really knowing what it is they are supposed to be there for...

This was the impression I got. I'm not sure it's the impression he meant to give, but it's what I got.

 

[gyor]

Classes are there to minimize dupication and to provide a very basic flavour that is universal to the subclasses. All fighter classes from Warrior to Knight to hexblade to whatever will be really good at fighting.

All Monk Subclasses will be good with unarmed attacks.

All Cleric subclasses will have powerful divine magic.

All Paladins will have oaths that they draw power from and that provide meaning to the character.

All Rangers will have nature skills.

All Bards will have music

All druids will have nature magic

All Mages with have strange knowledge and powerful castings of magic.

This is a simplified example, and hopefully the defining themes of each class will be clear.

 

[tuxgeo]

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.

Then they can take it even farther by only having 4 top-level classes: Soldier, Priest, Rogue, and Magic-User. All clerics and druids can be priests, all thieves and bards can be rogues, all fighters and paladins can be soldiers, and so on. This greatly simplifies level-by-level multiclassing, because there are only six (6) possible two-class combinations: S-P, S-R, S-M, P-R, P-M, and R-M.

Once WotC balances those six combinations adequately, they can let the rest of the weight of class-mixing fall upon the feats -- which are an option that fans of a simpler game won't bother to use, but are also an option that such fans won't ever need, precisely because those fans do want a simpler game.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

What [MENTION=40176]MarkB[/MENTION] said, the problem is rather in multiclassing between non-Wizard Mages and other spellcasting classes. There is no simple rule yet for mixing two different spellcasting methods besides just keeping them separate like in 3e. Maybe they just leave this like that, maybe they come up with something...

Anyway, even tho I dislike the choice of lumping all arcane casters under one (empty) class, what is true in one direction i.e. that this solution doesn't really offer any benefits, is true in the other direction i.e. that this multiclassing problem would be the same even if arcane casters were separate classes.

BTW about subclass-dipping, IMHO feats just generally allow to obtain someone else's features without taking levels in that class (like the current Initiate feat chains which grant limited vancian spellcasting), and that there will be feats eventually to grant limited spell point spellcasting etc, and they will be open to everyone, so "multisubclassing" through feats will be a special case if you just happen to be e.g. a Mage/Wizard taking feats for psionic powers (which technically aren't even subclasses). There will still be rules/guidelines to mix actual subclasses benefits, and since these are basically all one-shot features, my guess is that these rules can be really really simple.

All in all, plenty of ways to multi-dip-merge-mix yourself to your wanted character concept, more than ever before... although I guess we'll still complain that we can't really nail that one dental-floss-width concept we're after

 

[Atomo]

T[...] 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?

Think that the first two levels are the basic training your shadowdancer must have inside the organization before the true secrets are teach to him.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, I'm left understanding what subclasses are and why they exist, but I'm wondering what role classes play? They sound like they might be effectively 4E's "roles", or maybe more like "Power source" (as in Arcane, Divine, Martial, etc.). Worst case I can think of is that they end up a sort of bastard child of both of these - with no-one really knowing what it is they are supposed to be there for...

"Power source" is I think precisely what "classes" are equivalent of. The "class" tells you the type of power and ability your character has and can wield. And it's the Sub-class that gives the flavor to the type of power and ability you wield. So it's "Here are your different types of Fighters..." instead of "Here are your different types of Martial characters..."

The class name is the definition of what type of character you are. Which let's be honest... has always been what the class name was. It always was that you would choose a Fighter for example... and then as you came up with your character's history, you'd say things like he was a orphan who became a soldier and then was knighted by the king. In editions past... none of that history stuff had any actual impact mechanically on your character. But now we see it exemplified in mechanics via Sub-classes and Backgrounds.