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

[variant]

The concept of subclasses are a good design because it allows players with a flexible DM to have a variety of choices and it allows DMs with specific designs of their game world to decide what exactly that class represents in their game world without having to just throw the entire class out. There are always multiple archetypes that each class seems to represent, that is why alternative versions like the spell-less ranger became popular in 3e and there were a lot of classes that were basically copy and pastes of other classes but with minor things changed to represent another archetype. The subclass system would simply bake the option and the design concept for other archetypes into the class itself.

 

[Dausuul]

I think stats + race + class + subclass + class options* + background + skills + feats might be a couple layers too many, but we'll see how it plays out. It may well be that they're trying them all out to see which one is the weakest and cut it.

[SIZE=-2]*That is, selectable class abilities like spells and fighter maneuvers.[/SIZE]

 

[Ratskinner]

I think stats + race + class + subclass + class options* + background + skills + feats might be a couple layers too many, but we'll see how it plays out. It may well be that they're trying them all out to see which one is the weakest and cut it.

[SIZE=-2]*That is, selectable class abilities like spells and fighter maneuvers.[/SIZE]

I tend to agree. I'm holding out hope that something gets cut or simplified away.

 

[Weather Report]

They have stated that Feats and Skills are strictly optional, right?

 

[Li Shenron]

Not really, now they are your "job" in the world as well. If I want to play a half-n-half MC, I would think my "job" should reflect that as well, rather than just two jobs or half-jobs.

Not that I think this is some kind of insurmountable game-design dilemma, I just think its something that needs to be considered and hashed out well. If the guidelines provided for creating your own subclasses are successful that may be enough.

Ok, first one clarification on my previous post. I wrote I don't see any problem to multiclassing coming from subclasses, in the sense that they don't change anything IMHO when multiclassing compared to how it already is with just classes (without subclasses), i.e. subclasses will have the same problems as classes when multiclassing, thus if there is no problem with MCing classes there is also no problem with MCing subclasses.

Now as for "jobs", my opinion is that 5e started off with the great idea of using Backgrounds to separate your "job" in the fantasy world from your "role" in adventuring. This way, your class doesn't define what you do when living in Waterdeep, it defines what tools you use when adventuring (after all, you advance in your class by gaining XP, and you gain XP while adventuring, not while teaching magic in the Arcane Order Academy!).

That said, if you want (especially in a high-fantasy setting such as FR), "Wizard" can also be a job even if you have Backgrounds. All you have to do is pick a Background that either reinforces the image of a Wizard (e.g. Sage) or at least that doesn't imply another job (even if it implies another job, you can still treat the Background as representing strictly your past, and you're fine).

Unfortunately, the announced changes to Fighter's subclasses (although they sound nice ideas by themselves) actually break that division, because "Gladiator" is a job, and so is "Knight" (albeit debatable).

 

[Szatany]

I think stats + race + class + subclass + class options* + background + skills + feats might be a couple layers too many, but we'll see how it plays out. It may well be that they're trying them all out to see which one is the weakest and cut it.

Out of those, skills and feats are optional, for stats you can use default array, and subclass, class, and background options can be also set to default without choosing them. So if you wish, you can limit yourself to choosing only race and class, and assign stats without rolling or point-buying.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

I still very strongly disagree with your last sentence. I don't understand why this is yet; my players occasionally run into situations where they don't have their favored weapon, and they shine in that situation if they're built to be good with all weapons*. In the meantime, if the Fighter can use any weapon, but prefers one weapon, so what? Mechanically and fictionally, he's great with all weapons (expertise dice, proficiency, good attack bonus, etc.), but prefers one specific weapon. That sounds plausible enough, and seems good enough, to me. I don't see why there needs to be mechanics that press you into different weapons in order for this Fighter to be good at different weapons. As always, play what you like


*To be fair, different weapons are good at different things in my RPG, so it might be quite a bit different than D&D.

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

I honestly do appreciate the reply, but absolutely none of it is convincing to me (see my response, above). Sorry. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. As always, play what you like

 

[Nymrohd]

One way to make use of multiple weapons make sense would be to create weapon specific maneuvers. Trips can only be done well with a flail; an axe or sword is needed to sever a limb. You can get a stun or a daze off with a mace and a morningstar batters armor making subsequent attacks easier to land, a whirling quarterstaff can deflect arrows as can a spiked chain.

Add to that several monsters with resist slashing, piercing or bludgeoning (not many but enough that the fighter wants to be good with both e.g. an axe and a warhammer) or special situations like grapples (you can only use small weapons in a grapple) and the fighter has every reason to want to be good at a bazillion weapons. I mean if his trusted weapon fails, a ranger or paladin have spells. A fighter has nothing ergo his weapon should never fail since he doesn't have just one.

 

[Gorgoroth]

I loved pathfinder archetypes, as a quick and effective way to hone in on specific, evocative characters, so this is terrific news IMO.

Being able to pick and chose specific components of the archetypes, however, led to many OP and broken characters, due to the difficulty in balancing all the options vs each other. There were some barbarian and summoner ones that were just clearly waaaaaaay better when pick can pick ala carte, and they seemed to have missed that aspect of balance in their compatibility matrix. The easy way to fix that is to, as they say, go "whole hog". I'm totally down with fighters going down different archetype paths though, but they should really put a limit on ala carte multiclassing like 3 max (or even two! that'd work), I agree 3e was somewhat ridiculous and I don't want to spend 18 hours finding OP / optimal combos between classes where you can exploit their sub-classes fiddly / broken bits (where they might not be broken when taken on their own, but in conjunction were).

The big cheese with 3e/PF was taking class combos that made no sense in the story, or you really had to contort one into existence to justify it to your DM (or to yourself) merely because you wanted some uber powergaming combo. As a powergamer myself, I want sticking to one archetype to be by default the best option. I don't want my Barbarian, like in PF to have little point in levelling up more in Barbarian levels past 11 because fighter gave you more power, or you got your pounce beast raging ability and took your one level of Horizon Walker or the ridiculous crippled Oracle that can't be fatigued. You will inevitably, with splat books, go back to these same broken combos, so best to simply put the default max # of classes to 2-3, and on a dial so that DMs can restrict it less or more, according to taste. What I'd much rather is a game where the core class, if it has drawbacks such as the barbarian rage mechanic in DDN granting advantage to your foes, to not result in everyone taking two levels of Lame Oracle or its equivalent to overcome that. The default class should work, and work well all the way up to the top. You need fun abilities throughout the levels to look forward to, other than your big jump at level 9 and your capstone. Many of the other levels seemed like filler and you were like 5x more damaging once you could "pounce", thus full attacking every round. Sure, they killed the full attack nonsense in DDN, but you see what I mean. I could see some combinations of subclasses and prestige classes between wizard, sorcerer, and cleric giving you uber spontaenous casting with all your spells, possibly happening. And then, of course, everyone will take that.

If it's too easy to cast your spells in full plate, people will take that feat or one level of fighter to gain the proficiency. Is that a bad thing? I'm not sure. A level 1 wizard / 1 fighter is much tougher than a level 2 wizard, and then keep continuing in wizard would be pretty cool too. I can't wait to see how they do this.

They said that two weapon fighting would be independent of class and hopefully independent of subclass (which in Pathfinder, for example, they had similar archetypes for fighter AND ranger, and the fighter one had this ability to get his "twin strike" with two longswords, but it never benefitted from all his other feats...sucked). So anything that you want any fighter type or rogue type such as dual wielding to be able to do, shouldn't be really made uber good via an archetype, to avoid duplication. I want there to be MadMartigan-esque and Conan-esque warriors who, once they get good enough, would wield two battle axes or longswords or bastard swords, but not at level 1. In 3.x and PF, the default feats never made it worthwhile to trade off so many to-hit penalties to use two medium weapons for an extra +1 to damage on average. With deadly strike, there's a good reason to use a higher die weapon now, so hopefully there'll be some graceful way to split deadly strike between your attacks. Evenly, is probably best / easiest. I.e. if you hit with one or the other hand, you get 1/2 your deadly strike, but if you hit with both you get both, which means you'd have a higher average DPR but not a greater maximum, and that only comes into play when you have a lot of deadly strike die to spread around. If you divide by two rounding down, most levels you'd have a higher max damage but lower average wielding a single weapon, which is good. I want the super strong guy, with a good to-hit bonus, to want to take that -2 / -2 to be able to plough through tons of mooks.

 

[Ratskinner]

They have stated that Feats and Skills are strictly optional, right?

Not so much as seems to be "choosing Feats and Skills in order to customize your character", IMO. Although it seems that they are still playing with the basics of the system much more than I would have anticipated, given some of their other comments.