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

[dd.stevenson]

This Q&A looks like a L&L published under a different name.

I'm a fan of 2E kits and pathfinder archetypes, so naturally I'm happy with this design vision.

 

[Ratskinner]

Okay so this part:

Right now, we are designing the subclasses as a complete package that you buy into completely or not at all.

Seems to be treating subclasses like superkits/subclasses from 2e, while peeling off a bit into Background. Which, I think, is okay.

However, they seem to be wanting 3e-style multiclassing, and I don't see how those work together. Do you have to pick a MC-friendly subclass before you know you're going to MC (like 2e MC kits)? Do you get a subclass for each MC? That seems a bit...awkward. Maybe not though.

I can't say I'm happy about having both subclasses and feats lying around. It just seems like a bit of redundancy. Yay additional decisions of limited return!

What we plan to do, instead of treating the features like interchangeable parts, is provide information for Dungeon Masters to work with players to design their own subclasses, using the same kinds of guidelines we are using for designing them internally.

Sounds good, but it I fear those guidelines may be too vague for some.

 

[Philousk]

I especially liked this part:

"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."

It gives hope that the two others pillars (exploration and interaction) of the game will have a treatment less poor that I predicted up to now despite the fact that we don't know yet exactly what it will really mean. For example, nobility and etiquette will interact how (mechanically) in the game? One thing is certain: these two pillars have greatly need to be vitamin to be at least a pale copy of that battle, because for the moment, IMO, they are not even that...

 

[variant]

I hope backgrounds become more like actual backgrounds. Knight was never really a proper background. A squire would be a more appropriate background name. That way if you are a knight, you might have the squire background, or maybe even just a blacksmith or a noble.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's good that they are going to experiment with non-Vancian* wizard subclasses, but IMO they will still end up with non-Vancian arcane classes instead.

*although the Wizard class itself is not really Vancian anymore

I hope backgrounds become more like actual backgrounds. Knight was never really a proper background. A squire would be a more appropriate background name. That way if you are a knight, you might have the squire background, or maybe even just a blacksmith or a noble.

I disagree with this. Backgrounds perfectly represented "your role in the world", aka as your JOB i.e. how to make your living.

A Commoner or Artisan works, a Thief steals, a Bounty Hunter collects rewards, a Jester gets tips, an Aristocrat just has some revenue from property and so on... I wrote somewhere that a glaring miss was a Merchant background, but other new backgrounds could be Servant (your master provides for you) and Monk/Friar (your monastery provides for you).

The idea is that backgrounds aren't just what you were before you became a Fighter or Wizard, but also what you still are when you come back from the dungeon: this was in fact the reason why your background gave you skills which you still improved at by level... because you didn't stop being a Bounty Hunter or an Artisan (even tho the exact activities didn't need to be told at the game table).

However, the WotC designers themselves are confused by their own ideas, or seem to forget about them. "Knight" was a perfectly valid background because e.g. a Knight makes his living from property (you are assigned lands when granted knighthood). Of course this is not the only possible Knight, there is also the Knight-errand archetype, but the background was a good start.

I'm not against Knight turn into a Fighter's subclass, after all Fighter was going to be the most common class using this background, but this change does lose support for some interesting characters.

When I say that designers get confused, I have in mind that they probably just thought "but adventurers make more money from treasure after all!". This actually means we don't really need backgrounds in the game after all. This is absolutely true, in fact we didn't have them in past editions... But the point is that backgrounds aren't there because we NEED them, they are there because we LIKE them, and those who don't like them they don't have to use them. This is not yet the case because skills are linked to backgrounds, but it will be the case starting from next packet.

However, they seem to be wanting 3e-style multiclassing, and I don't see how those work together. Do you have to pick a MC-friendly subclass before you know you're going to MC (like 2e MC kits)? Do you get a subclass for each MC? That seems a bit...awkward. Maybe not though.

I don't see any problem here. Subclasses are just containers for some features that could have been class features instead. If you are at level N in your class, you also are level N in your subclass. There is no option not to get a subclass (although there will be one suggested "Basic" subclass for each class) or to get it at a certain level, therefore it doesn't have any consequence on multiclassing at all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I disagree with this. Backgrounds perfectly represented "your role in the world", aka as your JOB i.e. how to make your living.

A Commoner or Artisan works, a Thief steals, a Bounty Hunter collects rewards, a Jester gets tips, an Aristocrat just has some revenue from property and so on... I wrote somewhere that a glaring miss was a Merchant background, but other new backgrounds could be Servant (your master provides for you) and Monk/Friar (your monastery provides for you).

And this is precisely why I don't like the Fighter subclasses as presented. Because these fluffy subclasses are basically overlaying on the backgrounds, which will cause no end to ridiculous combinations that can be chosen that make no actual in-game fiction sense, but get selected purely because of mechanical viability.

You're a Bounty Hunter and you're a Gladiator? You go out on the road earning a living tracking down people... while at the same time remaining at the gladiatorial arena learning all about how to fight. Sure. Those slavers always let their gladiators go out on vacation for a couple days to go do their "other job". That makes perfect sense.

You're a Samurai and a Guild Thief? You are a noble warrior who upholds the Code of Bushido... but also currently works in a Thieve's Guild on your day off. Uh huh. That's a perfectly logical combination of two jobs you are currently doing and constantly learning.

My feeling has not changed. Too many character choices that have "fluffy" backstory to them just water ALL your choices down. It becomes a dissonant soup that becomes as difficult to justify and explain as the 3E Fighter 5 / Rogue 5 / Ranger 3 / Wizard 2 / Arcane Archer 3 / Shadowdancer 2 character.

It used to be so simple... your race was who you were born as. Your class was how you fought and adventured. Your kit/theme/prestige class was the fluffy descriptive twist to your class that basically just put a name and a mechanical benefit to the invented backstory of your character. You were a Minstrel. Or you were a Gladiator. Or you were a Dwarven Defender. Simple, descriptive, clean.

But now with subclasses overlaying backgrounds overlapping specialties possibly overlapping prestige classes... it's a whole mess of fluff whose combinations can run completely counter to each other.

I like clean. I like clear. And these fighter subclasses when overlayed on everything else we're now choosing from for character creation to me seems anything but.

 

[Iosue]

You're a Bounty Hunter and you're a Gladiator? You go out on the road earning a living tracking down people... while at the same time remaining at the gladiatorial arena learning all about how to fight. Sure. Those slavers always let their gladiators go out on vacation for a couple days to go do their "other job". That makes perfect sense.

Actually it does, because not all gladiators were slaves. Some were volunteers doing it for the rush and/or adulation and/or money. Some were even Emperors.

You're a Samurai and a Guild Thief? You are a noble warrior who upholds the Code of Bushido... but also currently works in a Thieve's Guild on your day off. Uh huh. That's a perfectly logical combination of two jobs you are currently doing and constantly learning.

Actually, this is exactly the description of the real historical ninja. You would be samurai with a position in the government of your lord. At the same time, you would get training in weapons and other skills through ryuha, which functioned much like guilds. Among the ryuha were ones that included, or specialized in, ninjutsu. Namely, scouting and infiltration, as well as defenses against them.

 

[gyor]

You could be a former Gladiator who keeps up his skills, and has found a use for them as a bounty hunter.

 

[Dausuul]

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

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

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.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The non-vancian wizard subclass really worries me. I thought that was going to be at the system level! I thought any class would be able to be non-vancian without sacrificing build options! I thought that was the overwhelming feedback from the sorcerer and warlock thing!