D&D 5E Strixhaven: Curriculum of Chaos No Subclasses Confirmed by James Crawford

[PsyzhranV2]

Or its intended that all races can be used at Strixhaven, so no Ravnica or Theros style restrictions, including usually D&D only races like Tieflings, Halflings, Aasimar, Genasi, Yuan Ti, Tabaxi, Firbolgs, Warforged, Goliaths, Kenku, Hexbloods, etc...

Um, Arcavios already has a list of races that live in it:

• Archaics (Avatars)
• Aven - Owlin
• Bear-folk
• Burrogs
• Demons
• Djinni
• Dryads
• Dwarves
• Efreeti
• Elder Dragons
• Elves
• Giants
• Goblins
• Humans
• Kor
• Leonin
• Lizard-folk
• Loxodons
• Merfolk
• Minotaurs
• Ogres
• Orcs
• Rhox
• Sphinx
• Treefolk
• Trolls
• Turtle-folk
• Vampires

They take students from other planes. Since D&D and MtG settings share a multiverse, anything that is in either could be a student at Stryxhaven.

Where did they say that? I'm pretty sure that with the exception of Liliana Vess (using the false identity of Serafina Onyx), everybody at Strixhaven is native to Arcavios.

 

[Parmandur]

If WotC named the cross-class subclasses "prestige classes", I wonder if they would have gotten more support?

Prestige Classes were pretty flatly rejected in UA years ago, when they tested them for Sky Kings Thunder.

 

[Gradine]

What we need is an additional layer of design space for character building. Where is the 5e version of Themes from 4e Dark Sun?

Power creep be damned; more modular opportunities for characters above and beyond the slow trickle (if used at all) of feats would provide a space for a more unique character concepts and class-agnostic setting tropes (Dragonmarks, Guilds, Magic Schools, Knightly Orders, etc.)

 

[Yaarel]

Prestige Classes were pretty flatly rejected in UA years ago, when they tested them for Sky Kings Thunder.

I myself flatly rejected 3e-style prestige class multiclassing, because they were unbalanced, with obscure requirements and overpowered features.

But these 5e cross-class subclasses were balanced. They expanded flavor without a power upgrade. There were normal subclasses, except that more than one class could choose it.

 

[Charlaquin]

What we need is an additional layer of design space for character building. Where is the 5e version of Themes from 4e Dark Sun?

Power creep be damned; more modular opportunities for characters above and beyond the slow trickle (if used at all) of feats would provide a space for a more unique character concepts and class-agnostic setting tropes (Dragonmarks, Guilds, Magic Schools, Knightly Orders, etc.)

You could do it through backgrounds. Sure, the existing backgrounds are pretty standardized, but there’s no particular reason a background couldn’t provide more than just two skill proficiencies, two languages/tools, a fluff feature, and some gear. And, heck, if we’ve got race-specific feats, why not background-specific ones too?

 

[Parmandur]

You could do it through backgrounds. Sure, the existing backgrounds are pretty standardized, but there’s no particular reason a background couldn’t provide more than just two skill proficiencies, two languages/tools, a fluff feature, and some gear. And, heck, if we’ve got race-specific feats, why not background-specific ones too?

They do in Ravnica, to the point that the Ravnica Bacmgrounda can only be used with each other. And Theros adds a Piety power-up track.

 

[dave2008]

What we need is an additional layer of design space for character building. Where is the 5e version of Themes from 4e Dark Sun?

Power creep be damned; more modular opportunities for characters above and beyond the slow trickle (if used at all) of feats would provide a space for a more unique character concepts and class-agnostic setting tropes (Dragonmarks, Guilds, Magic Schools, Knightly Orders, etc.)

They have already created a framework for this in Theros and the deity champion/piety system to gave you benefits based on your chosen god and your piety score (at 3, 10, 25, & 50). I think this type of system could be modified for different types of "themes."

 

[Yaarel]

Regarding subclass archetypes, it can organize by tier. Every tier has a subclass archetype slot. So, an archetype can plug into more than one class.

(A D&D class at Level 1 is a bit front loaded, but here Level 0 (0a and 0c) helps unpack it for a smoother advancement.)

Level	TIER	Prof	RACE	FEAT	BACKGROUND	CLASS FEATURE
0​		+0	Race
0a​	ZERO	+1				Subclass Archetype
0b​		+1		Feat
0c​		+1				Class Base
0d​		+1			Background
1​	BASIC	+2				Subclass Archetype
2​		+2		Feat
3​		+2				Class Base
4​		+2	Race
5​	EXPERT	+3				Subclass Archetype
6​		+3		Feat
7​		+3				Class Base
8​		+3			Background
9​	MASTER	+4				Subclass Archetype
10​		+4		Feat
11​		+4				Class Base
12​		+4	Race
13​	CHAMPION	+5				Subclass Archetype
14​		+5		Feat
15​		+5				Class Base
16​		+5			Background
17​	LEADER	+6				Subclass Archetype
18​		+6		Feat
19​		+6				Class Base
20​		+6	Race
21​	IMMORTAL	+7				Subclass Archetype
22​		+7		Feat
23​		+7				Class Base
24​		+7			Background

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If WotC named the cross-class subclasses "prestige classes", I wonder if they would have gotten more support?

Prestige Classes were pretty flatly rejected in UA years ago, when they tested them for Sky Kings Thunder.

Goes well beyond that. I floated a trial balloon for a PrC design, and....yeah. 5e in general has both encouraged and been pushed into taking the most conservative stances on mechanical changes or expansions of any kind.* People talk a lot about how much "freedom" the game offers DMs, how it's "empowered" them. But as soon as you even consider having an official book with something diverging from the current structure, people get immediately super negative and critical and reject it. It's not everyone, but it's either a slim majority or a VERY vocal minority that absolutely will not brook any "official" mechanical innovations, no matter how well-made.

Of course, if it's more spells, well, that's totally fine, because spells are always fine! (Warning: salt levels approaching the Dead Sea.)

*Honestly, it both encourages and has been pushed into taking highly conservative stances on nearly all parts of game design and the way games are run and such. It's making strides on the representation front though, which is nice.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

If WotC named the cross-class subclasses "prestige classes", I wonder if they would have gotten more support?

That's not a bad idea
They might have worked well as "prestige classes"
That design didn't work in 3rd Ed but they could do it better now. It was rejected several years ago, but that was before the audience shifted

What we need is an additional layer of design space for character building. Where is the 5e version of Themes from 4e Dark Sun?

Power creep be damned; more modular opportunities for characters above and beyond the slow trickle (if used at all) of feats would provide a space for a more unique character concepts and class-agnostic setting tropes (Dragonmarks, Guilds, Magic Schools, Knightly Orders, etc.)

There's the faction bonuses in Ravnica, Dark Gifts in Ravenloft, piety and heroic boons in Theros