Playing with Subclasses: how flexible is subclass design in the playtest so far?

[James Gasik]

Theoretically, you could get Elven Accuracy on a Champion Rogue for a 38.6% chance to crit. So the crit feature is giving you another 24% chance or so to crit (the base chance to crit with Elven Accuracy is 14.3%).

24% chance to do 35 more damage (at max level) is about a 8.7 DPR increase. It's in a weird position where it certainly isn't game breaking but is enough that it might overshadow other possible subclass choices for Rogues, specifically.

Couldn't be any worse than Elves overshadowing other racial choices then.

 

[Amrûnril]

I still feel some people in the internet focus too much on the negative implications.
Here is also a video that showcases the advantage of shared spell lists.


We will see, that consolidated rules will actually result in a boost of creativity.
If you don't have to worry about too much exceptions, you can go nuts like shared subclasses, easily adding spell schools, create new classes.

I'm still convinced these benefits are mostly illusory. Suppose a Mystic class is released in 2026. Under a class-based spell system, a player who wants to know what spells their Mystic can learn will need to check the list published with the Mystic class, and then the lists of spells in any post-2026 sourcebooks. Under the Arcane/Divine/Primal system, the player will have to check for spells of the appropriate source/school combinations in every sourcebook. The Arcane/Divine/Primal system may clean up the spell lists aesthetically, but in terms of the actual player experience, the complexity is a consequence of having spells and classes in multiple sourcebooks, not of using a class-based system.

 

[cbwjm]

I'm still convinced these benefits are mostly illusory. Suppose a Mystic class is released in 2026. Under a class-based spell system, a player who wants to know what spells their Mystic can learn will need to check the list published with the Mystic class, and then the lists of spells in any post-2026 sourcebooks. Under the Arcane/Divine/Primal system, the player will have to check for spells of the appropriate source/school combinations in every sourcebook. The Arcane/Divine/Primal system may clean up the spell lists aesthetically, but in terms of the actual player experience, the complexity is a consequence of having spells and classes in multiple sourcebooks, not of using a class-based system.

Sounds like you're making it more complicatedthan it really is. With the new system, the player can check every other source book, but in reality they'll only need to check the phb and, I guess, the book the mystic is published in. Besides, it's pretty easy to find consolidated spell lists online.

This new method makes things much easier for home-brew. I created a shaman class loosely based on the WoW shaman and went through every spell checking if it should be on their spell list, and I'd have to do that every time a new book comes out if I want to keep it updated. Now I just say that they can cast primal spells, if a player picks up the class to play they can look through up any primal spell they want and prepare it, much easier.

 

[Amrûnril]

Sounds like you're making it more complicatedthan it really is. With the new system, the player can check every other source book, but in reality they'll only need to check the phb and, I guess, the book the mystic is published in. Besides, it's pretty easy to find consolidated spell lists online.

This new method makes things much easier for home-brew. I created a shaman class loosely based on the WoW shaman and went through every spell checking if it should be on their spell list, and I'd have to do that every time a new book comes out if I want to keep it updated. Now I just say that they can cast primal spells, if a player picks up the class to play they can look through up any primal spell they want and prepare it, much easier.

If you don't want to check additional sourcebooks, using a unique spell list published with the class still seems easier than checking source/school combinations in the PHB. As for homebrew, you're free to use existing spell lists in either system, but the class-based system gives you more lists to choose from.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you don't want to check additional sourcebooks, using a unique spell list published with the class still seems easier than checking source/school combinations in the PHB. As for homebrew, you're free to use existing spell lists in either system, but the class-based system gives you more lists to choose from.

You are free to have your opinion. But the advantage is not illusory. Or you have not seen the video, where trentmonk explains the advantage.

It is not about the ease of use. It is about the ease of editing the different books. It is a hurdle that makes WotC think twice about introducing a new spellcasting class, because after a few new classes, the books become cluttered with references.

Actually it would even better if class based extra spells would also not be handpicked, but also standarsized.

Clerics with the fire domain should have access to all arcane (fire) spells, conveniently listed in that class, but if a new arcane spell with the fire descriptor appears it is also added to the list.

LevelUP does it with nongstandard schools. (Except for conveniently listing them anywhere...).

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I'm still convinced these benefits are mostly illusory. Suppose a Mystic class is released in 2026. Under a class-based spell system, a player who wants to know what spells their Mystic can learn will need to check the list published with the Mystic class, and then the lists of spells in any post-2026 sourcebooks. Under the Arcane/Divine/Primal system, the player will have to check for spells of the appropriate source/school combinations in every sourcebook. The Arcane/Divine/Primal system may clean up the spell lists aesthetically, but in terms of the actual player experience, the complexity is a consequence of having spells and classes in multiple sourcebooks, not of using a class-based system.

(ironically mystic may have been a bad example here).

In 5e, maybe it could have been done with spells, as you could cherrypick all the spells which suited a mystic/psion to replicate its abilities. But when limited to arcane/divine/primal lists, none of those suit a mystic/psion at all. Bard being forced into the arcane list and then having to use a class feature to duct tape healing spells on is bad enough. With a mystic it's even worse. So I suspect if that class got added, it would be using entirely class features and no spells.

I do wish they would add a 4th power source (pathfinder has occult). It would also help split the arcane list up as it's extremely bloated currently.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I still feel some people in the internet focus too much on the negative implications.
Here is also a video that showcases the advantage of shared spell lists.

The only advantage is that it is slightly easier to create a new class. There is precisely nothing that shared spell lists give that can't be solved by a bit of elbow grease on behalf of the single person creating the class.

Meanwhile the disadvantages include that all existing classes are made meaningfully less thematic - and that every single player of the class needs to put in more elbow grease.

Transferring the work from the developers to every single player is not a win in any way, shape, or form even if it doesn't also come with significant downsides (as it does).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The only advantage is that it is slightly easier to create a new class. There is precisely nothing that shared spell lists give that can't be solved by a bit of elbow grease on behalf of the single person creating the class.

Meanwhile the disadvantages include that all existing classes are made meaningfully less thematic - and that every single player of the class needs to put in more elbow grease.

Transferring the work from the developers to every single player is not a win in any way, shape, or form even if it doesn't also come with significant downsides (as it does).

I see it differently. If it is organized well, I could definitely see advantages.

First thing would be organizing spells by lists, then schools, then name, not name first. That way finding spells is way more easy.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I see it differently. If it is organized well, I could definitely see advantages.

First thing would be organizing spells by lists, then schools, then name, not name first. That way finding spells is way more easy.

Organising by name first is just weird. But there is absolutely no reason to not maintain dynamic lists and links on D&D Beyond and in other places. So the designers have all the advantages here anyway.

And you can't organise by lists without duplicating unless you make sure that there are zero spells on more than one list.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Organising by name first is just weird. But there is absolutely no reason to not maintain dynamic lists and links on D&D Beyond and in other places. So the designers have all the advantages here anyway.

And you can't organise by lists without duplicating unless you make sure that there are zero spells on more than one list.

Look at AD&D. No problems listing spells more than once... and then having them at different levels and with slightly different effects...

Maybe organize by level and school then?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Look at AD&D. No problems listing spells more than once... and then having them at different levels and with slightly different effects...

Exactly. Look at AD&D...

Maybe organize by level and school then?

I do not, in play, want to give a damn about what school is 90% of the time. It is just an abstract tag with no direct effect on play. It makes more sense to organise spells by saving throw than it does to organise them by school. Because my game is made meaningfully better if I can remember which saving throws are used for the given spell, but schools are of interest in play only to the subclass that specialises in that school - and in general the only class that cares in the slightest about spell schools is the wizard.

Seriously the less I have to memorize to play the game the better, and in order to be able to look up spells the assumption should be that I do not already know what they say.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Exactly. Look at AD&D...

I do not, in play, want to give a damn about what school is 90% of the time. It is just an abstract tag with no direct effect on play. It makes more sense to organise spells by saving throw than it does to organise them by school. Because my game is made meaningfully better if I can remember which saving throws are used for the given spell, but schools are of interest in play only to the subclass that specialises in that school - and in general the only class that cares in the slightest about spell schools is the wizard.

Seriously the less I have to memorize to play the game the better, and in order to be able to look up spells the assumption should be that I do not already know what they say.

I see the problems. But I have a soft spot in my heart for AD&D and the organization by name rubs me the wrong way for 23 years now.

I would not mind cass spell lists. But I do like overaching spell lists more. Although I would love more creativity. See bard and primal + arcane.

I also liked cleric spell organization by spheres.
LevelUP has minor schools (fire, ice, etc) also a good idea. But there you see the problem you speak of. Nowere is the fire school listed in its entirety. I see that as a problem too.

What Jeremy Crawford already told us is, that organizing by schools does not prevent them from also printing a class spell list that summarizes all available spells.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What Jeremy Crawford already told us is, that organizing by schools does not prevent them from also printing a class spell list that summarizes all available spells.

So what Jeremy Crawford is telling us is that there's no actual design benefit to almost entirely shared spell lists.

If Crawford were working on a "core and supplementary" model I might have some time for it. For example about 75 core arcane spells shared by all wizards, warlocks, bards, sorcerers, and artificers would be fine. But some spells (e.g. smites) should be kept within the paladin domain. Or the bard domain (bards absolutely should be able to cast heroism but there's no reason wizards should).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So what Jeremy Crawford is telling us is that there's no actual design benefit to almost entirely shared spell lists.

If Crawford were working on a "core and supplementary" model I might have some time for it. For example about 75 core arcane spells shared by all wizards, warlocks, bards, sorcerers, and artificers would be fine. But some spells (e.g. smites) should be kept within the paladin domain. Or the bard domain (bards absolutely should be able to cast heroism but there's no reason wizards should).

There is a design benefit. It is future proofing. You seem to disagree, that is fine. I could see spells outside general lists. Today I wondered how I would handle smite spells to be honest. Making smite spells paladin features also seems wrong, so a PHB class based list might work. So having wizard (arcane), cleric (divine) and druid (primal) as the core lists and then having small class specific lists you could refer to could work.

So later classes could just refer to paladin lists or introduce a new one and later classes can also refer it. Only thing you need to make sure is that all new spells also get added to one of the base spellcasters at least.

The bard could still have access to certain schools from wizard and druid lists.
Yeah. Difficult. There seems no right way to do it. I see advantages in all approaches.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There is a design benefit. It is future proofing. You seem to disagree, that is fine.

It does not future proof anything at all. It merely makes doing some things in the future very slightly easier - while making things significantly worse in the here and now. This is not an investment. It is simply sheer laziness with the excuse that if we don't do more than paint an undercoat here and now it will make things easier to redecorate if we want to do so later. And if we put out half-assed spell lists now then anything else we do that's half-assed will not look as bad by comparison.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It does not future proof anything at all. It merely makes doing some things in the future very slightly easier - while making things significantly worse in the here and now. This is not an investment. It is simply sheer laziness with the excuse that if we don't do more than paint an undercoat here and now it will make things easier to redecorate if we want to do so later. And if we put out half-assed spell lists now then anything else we do that's half-assed will not look as bad by comparison.

This is your opinion. I have a different one. I don't attribute laziness to things I don't like or want to understand.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is your opinion. I have a different one. I don't attribute laziness to things I don't like or want to understand.

I don't attribute laziness to things I don't understand. I attribute laziness to things that clearly and obviously make the current situation worse, make the current situation easier, and for which the excuse is that they will make the future situation easier. In other words I attribute it to laziness because I understand it because I have listened to the justifications and because I have looked into the consequences.

Now it's possible that it isn't laziness but bait. Seeing how much people actually care. But that's not in line with the excuses offered for an obviously poor set of design choices that undermine existing classes.

The other thing I don't do is assume that because I don't understand the downsides of something that it means that the designers are automatically doing something sensible.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't attribute laziness to things I don't understand. I attribute laziness to things that clearly and obviously make the current situation worse, make the current situation easier, and for which the excuse is that they will make the future situation easier. In other words I attribute it to laziness because I understand it because I have listened to the justifications and because I have looked into the consequences.

Now it's possible that it isn't laziness but bait. Seeing how much people actually care. But that's not in line with the excuses offered for an obviously poor set of design choices that undermine existing classes.

The other thing I don't do is assume that because I don't understand the downsides of something that it means that the designers are automatically doing something sensible.

I don't think that adressing laziness has any value. Lazy would be not trying out other designs and leaving things as they are.
Trying to consolidate rules is not lazy but ambitious.

I have seen people call design lazy often enough, to weaken the position of people argumenting for the design. It is not targeting the thing but the designers. Which is in my opinion against forum rules.

As you can read in my posts, I do see problems with that approach too.
But I think it is too early to throw it all away, because I like the idea behind it.
And I don't atteibute laziness to anyone, because I generally assume that there are underlying reasons.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't think that adressing laziness has any value. Lazy would be not trying out other designs and leaving things as they are.
Trying to consolidate rules is not lazy but ambitious.

On the other hand variety on the menu is precisely why a class system works. Even you must admit that this makes classes more similar.

As you can read in my posts, I do see problems with that approach too.
But I think it is too early to throw it all away, because I like the idea behind it.

On the other hand the implementation is obviously bad. And you suggested the approach of organizing the spells by school.

And I don't atteibute laziness to anyone, because I generally assume that there are underlying reasons.

They have said what the underlying reasons are. That it will make something that they might (or might not) do in the future very slightly easier. If Crawford hadn't said that it was to save effort in the future I would just have attributed it to a misguided desire for consistency. Crawford has, however, attributed his decision that clearly and obviously makes characters less interesting and thematic to the desire to make things easier.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

On the other hand variety on the menu is precisely why a class system works. Even you must admit that this makes classes more similar.

Emphasis mine.
I don't like the tone here. It might be that I read more into it than what was intended.
I think however that I made my stance clear and I am not willing to admit anything else.