D&D 5E Q&A: Basic Subclass, Can Subclasses Change the class, Non-Vancian Subclasses

[gyor]

http://community.wizards.com/dndnex...ass_customizing__non-vancian_subclass_options


As it says in the title. I have more feed back when I've finished digesting it.

 

[Manbearcat]

Sounds like the design vision behind Pathfinder Archetypes. I like the idea and hopefully they can pull it off in a balanced, precise way such that each subclass is legitimized. They will, of course have to deal with micro-balance functionality with respect to sub-class features given the potential interactions with a la carte multiclassing. Their statement of

"buy into completely or not at all"

may be difficult to square depending on how the multiclass system works itself out. Further, if you buy into a subclass "not at all", what does that mean...a stock feature instead?

I do particularly like their rendering of the "essential Fighter" as

"For example, we know we want Fighters to be extremely good with weapons of all kinds; we know they should be versatile in combat, and they should be among the most resilient and defensive of the classes."

However, for this to be legitimized, you're going to have to have Fighters either actually have a reason to use multiple weapons (a la carte effects/riders triggered upon weapon used) or the ability to leverage multiple styles/martial arts rather than just one; eg extreme mobility/skirmishing coupled with heavy melee control and (rather than vs) AoE berserking and (rather than vs) defensive stalwart who is a wall unto himself. This is one thing I loved about the 4e fighter in play. He defaulted to a focused chassis, but one that was "and" with respect to all of the above rather than "vs" and could be specialized or broadened further to your taste.

The reinforcement of the necessary non-combat functionality (skills or proficiencies) of the Fighter is heartening; eg more than "press attack buttan and then press drink, wench and crush tankard buttan".

If you can truly insert a considerable number of subclass features onto each the chassis of each class, then they should be able to realize many of the classes with an intensely robust subclass system. If its "unplug horsie mount and plug in stag" and "unplug divine spells and plug in druid spells" to get a Warden out of a Paladin, then there will assuredly be something rotten in Denmark.

 

[JamesonCourage]

That’s why we want to look at things like “Knight” for a subclass, not “Defender;” the word “Knight” puts a face on the subclass and describes its place in the world.

When you look at a knight, for example, you’d expect the knight to have those things…and also a number of social features that tie into the knowledge of courtly manner, etiquette, royalty and nobility.

I really, really dislike this. And knights that are different in other campaign worlds? Non-Fighter Knights aren't possible, or are we having a "Fighter Knight" and a "Paladin Knight" and a "Cleric Knight" and so on?

I'd much rather subclasses be built around how you act ("skirmisher") than what you are (though with examples of what the subclass might be used for), since that's much too campaign-specific, and the subclasses will either be excluded from those campaigns, or else changed to "how you act" to fit the new campaign.

However, for this to be legitimized, you're going to have to have Fighters either actually have a reason to use multiple weapons

Can you explain why this needs to be the case? I saw you're "here's how you can do it", but I think I missed why this needs to be true, in your opinion. I ask because, at face value, I'd disagree, but I'm not sure why you think that yet, so I can't say for sure. As always, play what you like

 

[Gadget]

I must say that I am pleased that they are going for evocative, 'archetype' subclasses rather than the more generic names. I think this is a step in the right direction, though I know there were others here arguing against this method. I kind of thought themes should have been done the same way, all are nothing, to get the full mileage out of the concept rather than break it up into discrete chunks through feats. Come to think of it, they haven't mentioned themes in a while (or whatever they re-named them to), I wonder if they are backing off of the whole concept, though obviously feats are still in.

 

[Manbearcat]

Can you explain why this needs to be the case? I saw you're "here's how you can do it", but I think I missed why this needs to be true, in your opinion. I ask because, at face value, I'd disagree, but I'm not sure why you think that yet, so I can't say for sure. As always, play what you like

Ok. We've got "Essential, Stock Fighter" design vision as:

1) extremely good with weapons of all kinds
2) versatile in combat
3) among the most resilient and defensive of the classes

Typically, Fighters in play specialize in a weapon (Flail) or a martial art style (Trip Build) and press this button repeatedly and their fictional positioning is represented by this; guy who has mastered flail and trips people over and over. For their vision above to overturn that and be legitimately actualized in play then players are going to have to have the potency, with respect to breadth and scope, of mechanical tools to incentivize a Fighter's fictional positioning as outlined in 1-3. Hence:

1) either actually have a reason to use multiple weapons (a la carte effects/riders triggered upon weapon used)

or

2) the ability to leverage multiple styles/martial arts rather than just one; eg extreme mobility/skirmishing coupled with heavy melee control and (rather than vs) AoE berserking and (rather than vs) defensive stalwart who is a wall unto himself.

Otherwise, the Fighters that will manifest in play will not resemble (1) extremely good with weapons of all kinds or (2) versatile in combat. They will resemble (1) guy who has mastered a weapon and (2) spams an ability/maneuver centered around that weapon.

 

[gyor]

I must say that I am pleased that they are going for evocative, 'archetype' subclasses rather than the more generic names. I think this is a step in the right direction, though I know there were others here arguing against this method. I kind of thought themes should have been done the same way, all are nothing, to get the full mileage out of the concept rather than break it up into discrete chunks through feats. Come to think of it, they haven't mentioned themes in a while (or whatever they re-named them to), I wonder if they are backing off of the whole concept, though obviously feats are still in.

Yeah most of 4e's paragon paths were the other way, super generic and boring as heck.Some were more interesting, but that was just a handful, most, but not all, of which were inspired by pervious pestige classes.

I do get the why a minority of players want flavours mechanics focused subclasses, they want to add thier own flavour, but unfortunate for them that's a minority of veteran players, most players want baked in flavour with mechanics that relate to flavour and that inspires thier imaginations.

Anyways as versitile fighters, how they handle weapon design and weapon traits will be important in how they handle this. Also bounded accuracy helps as you don't need a different magical weapon for each weapon you wish to use.

 

[variant]

I must say that I am pleased that they are going for evocative, 'archetype' subclasses rather than the more generic names. I think this is a step in the right direction, though I know there were others here arguing against this method. I kind of thought themes should have been done the same way, all are nothing, to get the full mileage out of the concept rather than break it up into discrete chunks through feats. Come to think of it, they haven't mentioned themes in a while (or whatever they re-named them to), I wonder if they are backing off of the whole concept, though obviously feats are still in.

I agree. This sounds like a far better concept then anything with generic labels could ever produce. I am curious what they do with specialties as well.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Ok. We've got "Essential, Stock Fighter" design vision as:

1) extremely good with weapons of all kinds
2) versatile in combat
3) among the most resilient and defensive of the classes

This is what all Fighters (and subclasses of Fighter) are according to the article, yes.

Typically, Fighters in play specialize in a weapon (Flail) or a martial art style (Trip Build) and press this button repeatedly and their fictional positioning is represented by this; guy who has mastered flail and trips people over and over. For their vision above to overturn that and be legitimately actualized in play then players are going to have to have the potency, with respect to breadth and scope, of mechanical tools to incentivize a Fighter's fictional positioning as outlined in 1-3.

I don't follow. What if they just don't specialize in anything, and get the same bonuses with everything?

Hence:

1) either actually have a reason to use multiple weapons (a la carte effects/riders triggered upon weapon used)

or

2) the ability to leverage multiple styles/martial arts rather than just one; eg extreme mobility/skirmishing coupled with heavy melee control and (rather than vs) AoE berserking and (rather than vs) defensive stalwart who is a wall unto himself.

Otherwise, the Fighters that will manifest in play will not resemble (1) extremely good with weapons of all kinds or (2) versatile in combat. They will resemble (1) guy who has mastered a weapon and (2) spams an ability/maneuver centered around that weapon.

I don't understand why normally using one weapon conflicts with being good with all kinds of weapons, or why that would necessitate the Fighter using the same ability over and over, since that depends entirely on how abilities are used (like Expertise dice being the same for all weapons, to my knowledge). Can you explain it more to me? As always, play what you like

 

[Philousk]

I really, really dislike this. And knights that are different in other campaign worlds? Non-Fighter Knights aren't possible, or are we having a "Fighter Knight" and a "Paladin Knight" and a "Cleric Knight" and so on?

He did not say they would consider providing tools for the DM is able to build its own subclasses? Thus, with these tools or guidelines in hand, you should be able to shape your altruistic or peaceful knight.

 

[JamesonCourage]

He did not say they would consider providing tools for the DM is able to build its own subclasses? Thus, with these tools or guidelines in hand, you should be able to shape your altruistic or peaceful knight.

That's little comfort to me, but it's good to include. Barring a behind-the-scenes point buy system, I don't know how much faith I have in any guidelines. But, some tools are better than none (CR in 3.X was better than nothing), for sure, and I can hope they provide great tools / guidelines.

Again, though, this does nothing to change my mind on why I don't like Knight being a type of Fighter. I'd much rather the subclass affect how the class plays in a generic way (with suggested concepts, like Knight), rather than "this is how be play a knight." I doubt I'll get what I want though, so I'm sure that's comforting to many others As always, play what you like