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

[Aldarc]

Why should anyone else care about what you think is "ugly design"?

This does not strike me as very respectful. It's his gaming preference, just like Third Edition's multiclassing options are apparently yours. "Ugly," from what I gather of his argument, should not be suggestive of aesthetics, but of cumbersomeness and redundancy in the rules.

If all that's at work here is your personal aesthetic preference and a lack of understanding about the purpose flavorful character options perform, it's not enough to persuade me that it's a good idea to drop these useful elements. Which is fine, but if you're going to stick to your guns on this and insist that it is a good idea, it might be worth considering that you're not actually demonstrating why that is for anyone but you.

You are using some heavy-handed language. They are useful elements for you, but not necessarily for others or as a universal. His point is that he thinks that it can be done better and that it's almost redundant complexity.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why should anyone else care about what you think is "ugly design"?

Hey... you're the one who keeps responding to ME.

That's what happened in the other thread, and that's what happened here. I went first and gave my opinions, and you then responded back with all these explanations why you didn't think they were right. The fact that you did it twice now tells us that the answer is... apparently you care.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Hey... you're the one who keeps responding to ME.

That's what happened in the other thread, and that's what happened here. I went first and gave my opinions, and you then responded back with all these explanations why you didn't think they were right. The fact that you did it twice now tells us that the answer is... apparently you care.

Is your point that you think the design is clumsy and overly complicated and could probably have been done in another way while achiving the same amount of options and detail?

 

[I'm A Banana]

This does not strike me as very respectful. It's his gaming preference, just like Third Edition's multiclassing options are apparently yours. "Ugly," from what I gather of his argument, should not be suggestive of aesthetics, but of cumbersomeness and redundancy in the rules.

That's what happened in the other thread, and that's what happened here. I went first and gave my opinions, and you then responded back with all these explanations why you didn't think they were right. The fact that you did it twice now tells us that the answer is... apparently you care

I do care, because I want to find out what underpins this, because I'm a big dork about RPG's, so I try to understand that which I do not.

Apologies if it comes off as harsh. That's not my intent. In questioning why anyone else should care, I'm trying to get at why what is being called "ugly game design" is relevant. What bad things happen at the table because of it? "Ugly" is very subjective and thus fairly useless in understanding why it's actually a functional problem.

If the actual complaints are cumbersome and redundant, those are less subjective and more understandable.

So...

Cumbersome isn't a major problem for opt-in complexity during character creation (typically, you've got time to make your character however you want, and they've been pretty explicit that there's an on-rails mode for those who don't want to make those choices).

Some redundancy in character creation is actually a strength, as it allows similar character types to be approached in different ways (a la the three kinds of vampire in 4e). Without redundancy, we have only one way to make a given character, which isn't useful for a broad audience.

You are using some heavy-handed language. They are useful elements for you, but not necessarily for others or as a universal. His point is that he thinks that it can be done better and that it's almost redundant complexity.

Not particularly for me (I've got no pressing desire to play a Guild Thief Samurai), but for the target audience of the game, they're useful elements.

It probably could be done "better," but that's true about pretty much everything, and the dissociated, mechanistic changes that have been mentioned actually remove some of the strengths from the system. It may be redundant complexity, but the redundancy is a strength and the complexity is optional.

So you're doing a better job of helping me understand the criticisms, and I appreciate that. Lets keep going. If redundancy is a positive and complexity/cumbersome-osity isn't necessarily true, are these still a bad idea?

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Being in a testy mood lately, the thing that jumped out at me was the assumption that gladiators needed to be versatile with all weapons. The Romans often (usually?) trained theirs in one style of fighting, with specific types of weapons and armor. So this strikes me as being a little too 'do as I say, and never mind the facts' to me.

 

[Aldarc]

Apologies if it comes off as harsh. That's not my intent. In questioning why anyone else should care, I'm trying to get at why what is being called "ugly game design" is relevant. What bad things happen at the table because of it? "Ugly" is very subjective and thus fairly useless in understanding why it's actually a functional problem.

If the actual complaints are cumbersome and redundant, those are less subjective and more understandable.

Excellent.

So...

Cumbersome isn't a major problem for opt-in complexity during character creation (typically, you've got time to make your character however you want, and they've been pretty explicit that there's an on-rails mode for those who don't want to make those choices).

Some redundancy in character creation is actually a strength, as it allows similar character types to be approached in different ways (a la the three kinds of vampire in 4e). Without redundancy, we have only one way to make a given character, which isn't useful for a broad audience.

So you're doing a better job of helping me understand the criticisms, and I appreciate that. Lets keep going. If redundancy is a positive and complexity/cumbersome-osity isn't necessarily true, are these still a bad idea?

Sorry for this almost non-answer, but it depends on what you want and hope to achieve through this system. I personally see this more as a matter of preference over whether or not it's inherently a 'bad idea.' Where I would push back on Defcon1 is that these rules strike me as being optional and it would not be challenging to remove or streamline these elements in the system if he does view them as impediments to a more elegant game design.

 

[DEFCON 1]

EWhere I would push back on Defcon1 is that these rules strike me as being optional and it would not be challenging to remove or streamline these elements in the system if he does view them as impediments to a more elegant game design.

Yes, they are optional, but at the same time... if you are going to have several systems in place for character generation and they all create unique situations for certain classes, but are redundant systems for others... I think that is not very good design.

Here was the point I made in the other thread...

The cleric's subclasses are not "kits" or "jobs" or assign a background story. Instead... the point of the cleric class is that they worship a god, and thus the subclasses are the different gods they worship. Those gods have nothing to do with the cleric's "job" or "story" in the world. The cleric might be a cloistered cleric and remain in the temple... he might be a missionary who goes out trying to exemplify what his deity stands for... he might be a templar or crusader fighting against those who stand against his god. And it doesn't matter what god he worships... his "job" or "story" in the world can still be any and all of those things-- cloistered cleric, templar, missionary, evangelist, priest etc. etc. The god merely COLORS what his job is and how he does it.

THAT is what I think a subclass should be.

By the same token... the wizard (for the most part right now) is the same way. His subclasses are not wizardly "jobs"-- its not "witch" or "mystic theurge" or "sorcerer" or "archmage" or "spellsword"... instead, they are all based around the types of spells he chooses to specialize in. Illusions, evocations, necromances, enchantments etc. Within the fiction, the player can decide he wants to be a witch, and then select any subclass he wants to help exemplify that. He can choose to be a war mage and then again, select any subclass he wants.

And in no case does the player have to "refluff" or ignore anything, because the subclass isn't giving him a background or job that runs counter to what he want his character to be. Instead, he's just getting mechanical bonuses and advantages to just isolating himself to a smaller segment of what the class on a whole can do.

I prefer this system of subclasses for the cleric and wizard, because it gives a whole heap of story onto the cleric and wizard (what deity he worships or what school of spells he casts)... but they don't impact whatever the player wants his cleric or wizard to do in the world. He is free and clear to make his cleric or wizard whatever he wants... with no refluffing or changing or ignore of pre-written fluff required.

Now here's the question...

What is the equivalent to this for the fighter and rogue? What do the fighter and rogue have that aren't "jobs", but rather are things they do that COLOR how they do their job? What do they have that is the equivalent to the cleric's circle of gods, and the wizard's spell schools?

In my other thread I went over the fighter, but why not this time I talk about the rogue? What is the circle of "things" that impact and color what the rogue's job does? Well, he's mainly a skill guy. His main focus is using his abilities to accomplish things. His brains, his brawn, his presence, his speed, his agility, his willpower. Does he fight? Occasionally. But that's not his focus. His focus is using his talents and abilities to do stuff.

So to me... his circle of "things" that he uses to do his job are his abilities. And as an extension of that... his skills. So in my opinion... his subclasses should all be focused around that-- selecting a small segment of ability and skill use that he focuses on, the same way the wizard selects and specializes in a small segment of the available spells at his disposal.

The Acrobat? Good subclass. He focuses on his physical dexterity for movement at the expense of many others. The Charlatan? Good subclass. He focuses his charisma and intelligence towards deceiving people. The Thug? Okay subclass. He focuses on his strength to accomplish intimidation and physical abuse. The Rake? Good subclass, that focuses on physical dexterity to fight.

Now are some of these subclass names a bit too "fluffy" for my taste? Yeah, in a way... and if you could identify them more by what abilities and skills they focus on than, I think it'd be more ideal. But at least if you are a charlatan, you can still be a nobleman who deceives people, or a bounty hunter who deceives people, or a priest who deceives people, or an artisan that deceives people, and it still makes a whole heap of sense with no seemingly conflicting fluff. Your "job" is a Fence. You buy stolen goods to then sell elsewhere. And your subclass can be a charlatan Fence, or a thug Fence, or an acrobat Fence and it still makes valid sense, because those tell you HOW you behave as a Fence, not a second gig you have in addition to being a fence (like the Contract Killer Fence or the Bodyguard Fence-- to create two subclasses that are the rogue equivalent to the Samurai or Gladiator).

That's what I think makes for better subclasses. They are more open to interpretation and require no refluffing on the part of the player.

 

[Manbearcat]

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

Well, of course you can be good with all weapons and still use the same weapon over and over. But in terms of play experience, this is the same as only being good with one weapon, which you use over and over. A skill that you never use, you might as well not have.

For "fighters are good with all weapons" to be meaningful, fighters need to have reasons to use different weapons in different situations.

Gonna try one more time here and then call it a day. Dausuul has the crux of it above.

Let us say that I'm good at several, different sports; Baseball, Basketball, American Football, Wrestling, Track and Field. In the course of a 2 year period of my life, someone plays on a Baseball traveling team with me. They survey my Baseball acumen regularly through the course of those 2 years as we are together intermittently for months at a time, but our schedule is such that we are basically traveling for half a day, or more, playing tournaments that include games every day with the rare day off...strictly baseball. The "story of me" to him is "guy who is good at Baseball".

One day, he meets a friend of mine and finds out that we're all mutual acquaintances. The other guy reveals that we grew up together and that my life was very spread out on the various sports above until the last few years when I dedicated my life almost exclusively to Baseball. He also finds out that I've got lots of other interests outside of athletics; reading, RPGs, comic books, history, physics, and philosophy. He scratches his head, "huh?"

This is what happens with the Fighter in D&D. Within the fiction, no one knows (not his companions, NPCs, nor the 3rd party audience) that he is "good" (meaning proficient...which I don't consider "good") with anything beyond whatever style and weapon he invariably (with extreme anomalies for folks who have 0 interest in building their PC for relative effectiveness; with respect to the challenges before them and the acumen of the other PCs) dedicates his PC build options to.

Now this sort of guy with these Build tools would look like a "versatile fighter who is good at all weapons and styles":

[sblock]

WotC D&D 4e

Weapon Master
You gain the benefits of Weapon Focus and Weapon Expertise with all weapons you are proficient with.

COMBAT CHALLENGE
In combat, it’s dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target. The mark lasts until the end of your next turn. While a target is marked, it takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls if its attack doesn’t include you as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
In addition, you gain the Combat Challenge power.

COMBAT SUPERIORITY
You gain a bonus to the attack rolls of opportunity attacks. The bonus equals your Wisdom modifier.
An enemy hit by your opportunity attack stops moving, if a move provoked the attack. If the enemy still has actions remaining, it can use them to resume moving.

Weapon Master's Strike
You shift your tactics to match your weapon’s strengths, maximizing its advantages to gain an edge against your foe.
At-Will

Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Effect: Before making this attack, you may sheathe a weapon and draw a different one as a free action.
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage. In addition, the target takes an additional effect based on the weapon you wield.
Axe: The target takes extra damage equal to your Constitution modifier.
Mace: You slide the target 1 square.
Heavy Blade: Until the end of your next turn, you gain a +1 power bonus to AC against the
target’s attacks.
Spear or Polearm: Until the end of your next turn, the target provokes opportunity attacks
from you when it shifts.


Twin Strike
If the first attack doesn't kill it, the second one might.
At-Will

Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee or Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons or a ranged weapon.
Targets: One or two creatures
Attack: Strength vs. AC (melee; main weapon and off-hand weapon) or Dexterity vs. AC (ranged), two attacks
Hit: 1[W] damage per attack.

Tide of Iron
After each swing, you use your shield to shove your foe backward, and then you surge ahead.
At-Will

Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be using a shield.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you can push the target 1 square if it is no larger than one size category larger than you. You can then shift 1 square into the space that the target left.

Weapon Master's Gambit
As a master of many weapons, you use this simple attack form as the starting point for expressing your weapon’s nature.
Encounter

Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Effect: Before making this attack, you may sheathe a weapon and draw a different one as a free action.
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage. In addition, the target takes an additional effect based on the weapon you wield.
Axe: Up to 2 creatures adjacent to the target take damage equal to your Constitution modifier.
Mace: The target is knocked prone.
Heavy Blade: You gain combat advantage against the target until the end of your next turn.
Spear or Polearm: You slide the target 2 squares and shift 2 squares to a square adjacent to
the target.


Sweeping Blow
Seeing your enemies press in, you swing your weapon in a wide arc, striking many of your foes at once.
Encounter

Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 1
Target: Each enemy you can see in the burst
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Weapon: If you’re wielding an axe, a flail, a heavy blade, or a pick, you gain a bonus to the attack roll equal to one-half your Strength modifier.
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.

Shield Block
You lunge with your shield to protect an ally from an attack.
Encounter

Martial
Immediate Interrupt Melee 1
Requirement: You must use this power with a shield.
Trigger: An attack hits or misses you or an ally adjacent to you and deals damage
Target: The character hit or missed by the triggering attack
Effect: The damage dealt to the target is reduced by 1d10 + your Constitution modifier.

[/sblock]

This is what I would expect from their description of their design vision for a 5e Fighter. He is:

- Not just proficient but "good" at all weapons. He is world-class and gains benefits from the different martial styles and techniques that come with the various weapons.
- A Skirmisher who has the ability to roam the battlefield, escaping gambits, setting them up and acquiring targets as required.
- A Defender who defends his allies and ruthlessly punishes his enemies when they ignore him, turning him into a deadly Striker by proxy.
- A Striker even without his Defender buffs to his damage by proxy of Combat Challenge violation.
- A significant melee Controller with the ability to impose his will on enemies in melee range by forcing them into catch-22, suboptimal tactics and basically lock them down/immobilize them...and do it to multiple enemies.

The character above (or one with mechanics like that) stands up to that design vision and the fiction will bear that out such that his or her allies, NPCs, and 3rd party viewers (players) will not have any "huh?" moments such as above when someone relays "oh yeah, most folks around here know him/her as nerdy mcnerderson who plays a bunch of other sports that aren't baseball...they don't know him/her as a baseball player at all". Dual-Katana-Wielding Swordmasters, Dart-throwers, Flail Trip Builds, Plate armor + Shield tanks with Combat Patrol, Archers with Manyshot don't look like look like that guy outlined above in the shared imaginary space nor out of it and the mechanics that incentivize that sort of specialization won't produce that guy.

 

[variant]

Nope, I understand exactly the reasons why they do it.

My assumption is merely that I think it's ugly game design and that WotC can do better.

And I have every confidence that enough people are going to react negatively to subclasses trying to overlay on top of backgrounds that the idea's going to die on the vine in a couple months.

This is a pretty bold statement considering you haven't even seen the actual design.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is a pretty bold statement considering you haven't even seen the actual design.

I am a bold individual.