D&D 5E Optional Rule: Subclass Gestalt

[jmartkdr2]

I don't have a firm grasp of class balance in 5e because it's not my cup of tea... but I see some non-mechanical problems.

Some classes (Fighter, Rogue, Bard) have subclasses that are generally very much thematically compatible with eachother. Some classes (Sorcerer, Warlock, Paladin) have subclasses that are generally very much not. Others have mentioned that classes vary considerably in how much they get from the base class and how much they get from the subclass-- and this isn't merely a balance problem, it's a thematic problem as well.

It would require considerable reworking of classes and subclasses, but I'd like to see how it turns out-- I'd also like to see this system implemented (without multiclassing) where characters could take one class with two subclasses, or two classes with no subclass or the bare minimum subclass(es) for their classes.

I dunno, a warlock hexblade/interesting patron should work fine.

And most of the sorcerer blends actually sound kinda interesting (storm dragon, divine wild magic, shadow dragon or shadow storm...)

But yeah, paladin oaths would get wonky.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think a better idea my be to allow subclasses to choose features from other subclasses in the same class when they reach the next award.

For example, a Fighter might begin with BM at level 3, but decide Know Your Enemy doesn't fit the concept as well as Remarkable Athlete would, so they take Remarkable Athlete at level 7 instead.

The ease of just swapping features is the exact reason why I don't allow 1 level multiclass dips either. Instead I just ask the player what mechanic from the new class they wanted and then do a feature swap so they can get it.

Usually its things like all the non-Fighter/Rangers that want to dual-wield and would like the fighting style to make it worthwhile to do that are the reason for a 1 fighter level dip... so I just let them get the fighting style for a trade of some other feature (or just give it to the player for free if it's not going to unbalance anything or step on any other PC's toes.)

Unless your group is so deep into the D&D combat mini-game that class balance is balanced on a razor's edge... no swap is going to make an appreciable difference. So just let the player tale what they want and save yourselves the trouble.

 

[Guest 6801328]

What's the goal here? Is there a problem you're trying to fix? A playstyle you're trying to achieve? Or is this change for the sake of change?

I would suspect...and maybe I'm just projecting...that the "problem" is that it's hard to give up options. I love subclass A and subclass B, so I want both of them.

Any argument made for this house rule could also be applied to granting twice as many Feats. More options to realize character concepts, etc.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would suspect...and maybe I'm just projecting...that the "problem" is that it's hard to give up options. I love subclass A and subclass B, so I want both of them.

Any argument made for this house rule could also be applied to granting twice as many Feats. More options to realize character concepts, etc.

While I can appreciate this view, it is one of the things I dislike the most about later editions. I just don't see how you need bells and whistles to realize a character concept, but that is just my experience.

I would probably never advocate giving PCs in 5E more features, but exchanging one feature for another is reasonable IMO.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I would suspect...and maybe I'm just projecting...that the "problem" is that it's hard to give up options. I love subclass A and subclass B, so I want both of them.

Any argument made for this house rule could also be applied to granting twice as many Feats. More options to realize character concepts, etc.

Another aspect: you want the pc's to look and feel like really powerful characters sooner than the normal progression allows, especially if you can do so in ways that doesn't make CR any less useful - like horizontal growth.

For a high-powered game, more features is better than just bigger numbers, because then you can just use more monsters to maintain some semblance of challenge. (obviously we're not going for Dark Souls here) And I will happily project that the dm considering this rule isn't worried about the pc's being strong. They're asking to make sure there aren't any unseen issues beyond "they have more toys to play with."

Aside from this benefiting classes unevenly (although I think it favors the weaker ones for the most part), this shouldn't do anything but make everyone cooler. If you wouldn't like the changes this makes, you probably had a knee-jerk 'heck no' in the first place.

 

[TwoSix]

While I can appreciate this view, it is one of the things I dislike the most about later editions. I just don't see how you need bells and whistles to realize a character concept, but that is just my experience.

Because when I want to play a game where I use the same general mechanics for everything, and character differentiation is based on just describing things differently, I play Dungeon World or some other PbtA game.

When I play a D&D character, I want them to be able to DO things differently, things reflected in the mechanics.

Lots of systems do the talking/exploration/character description parts of the game better than D&D; I play D&D because I want the crunch and mechanics to be a lot more detailed than those other systems.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Because when I want to play a game where I use the same general mechanics for everything, and character differentiation is based on just describing things differently, I play Dungeon World or some other PbtA game.

When I play a D&D character, I want them to be able to DO things differently, things reflected in the mechanics.

Lots of systems do the talking/exploration/character description parts of the game better than D&D; I play D&D because I want the crunch and mechanics to be a lot more detailed than those other systems.

I guess it is a power issue. I can do whatever I want in D&D without all the fluff and features simply by telling my DM what I want to do and using the systems that exist to do it. I will never understand it. A lot of people seem to keep adding more and more junk to the game while I keep trying to reign it back.

It is like taking a trip in two cars. One car is simpler but will get you where you need to go, the other has all the stuff like luxury or whatever. If you are paying that much attention to the car, you aren't paying as much attention to the journey.

 

[TwoSix]

I guess it is a power issue. I can do whatever I want in D&D without all the fluff and features simply by telling my DM what I want to do and using the systems that exist to do it. I will never understand it. A lot of people seem to keep adding more and more junk to the game while I keep trying to reign it back.

It is like taking a trip in two cars. One car is simpler but will get you where you need to go, the other has all the stuff like luxury or whatever. If you are paying that much attention to the car, you aren't paying as much attention to the journey.

It's not a power issue, it's an issue of what kind of experiences you prioritize. It's like the difference between poker and Magic. Both might be card games, and you might prefer poker because you can just sit down with a deck of cards and get to the point, which is sitting down with your friends and having a good experience. But that doesn't mean the people who enjoy the collecting and strategizing portions of Magic are missing the point, they're simply enjoying an aspect of gaming that doesn't appeal to you.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's not a power issue, it's an issue of what kind of experiences you prioritize. It's like the difference between poker and Magic. Both might be card games, and you might prefer poker because you can just sit down with a deck of cards and get to the point, which is sitting down with your friends and having a good experience. But that doesn't mean the people who enjoy the collecting and strategizing portions of Magic are missing the point, they're simply enjoying an aspect of gaming that doesn't appeal to you.

It isn't quite the same though, is it. If you are sitting down and playing poker, you are playing the game. If you are collecting and strategizing Magic cards, you aren't playing.

Let me ask you this: what is it you want to do in D&D that requires the bells and whistles? All the base mechanics are there: use a skill, cast a spell, make an attack, and so on. Anything beyond those is about getting more out of those mechanics. In other words, it is about power.

Just to be clear, if that is the game you want to play, more power to you (all puns intended! ). As I said earlier, for myself I just never felt the need. I can do what I need to do without having to be better or awesome at it compared to the base mechanic. Now, certain things make some sense and add the variety or differentiation in character, but IME people seem to keep wanting more and more differentiation "mechanically" instead of just role-playing it. That's all.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I ran into this idea on the internet and I was wondering what folks thought of it?

Basically when a character gets a subclass instead of picking just one, they pick two subclasses getting the features of both.

So a Sorcerer might pick both Divine Soul and Shadow Magic, a Bard might pick both College of Lore and the College of Whispers, a Ranger might pick both Beastmaster and Gloomstalker, a Druid might pick Circle of the Shepherd and Circle of the Stars, a Fighter might pick both Battlemaster and Eldritch Knight for examples.

What are your thought?

One other idea I didn't mention before is the multipathing sort of stuff.

We have accepted the idea that if you are in a class, say Fighter, and get your first subclass feature (ex. BM manuevers), when you get your next subclass feature, you can choose the first feature of a different subclass (ec. Champion improved critical) instead. It gets a bit complicated when you combined things like EK, but it keeps things generally in balance.