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

[Shardstone]

okay in order
1 how do they differ both mechanically and thematically from other bards?
2 this one is a no brainer and should be there already.
3 how do you make it not teifling default or hell warlock is the real question.
4 a that would make the monk even more MAD as abyss also why are all monk subclasses pure fighting styles it is kinda dull but could work would need some offence abilities to not be dull playing them.
5 how would they not just overlap with the necromancer or the two undead warlocks?
6 okay the thematic could work but what does it bring to the druid not presently there?
7 would be MAD as anything also other than stat change what does it bring?
8 that would need lots of spells being made first.
9 how would that even play?
10 overlaps a lot with the new barbarian subclass also how do we deal with it being unusable by phb races?
11 we have too many magic fighter subclasses as there are at this point we need the arcane gish just so people stop cluttering up the fighter.
12 okay but mechanically what does it add also we lack sufficient plant monster for that to work right now.
13 we already have it was in swords coast adventure guide.

define setting specific that is not just a slight variation of a present subclass?
psionics needs a full class first before we really make subclasses as at present they will just end up with more quarter casters.

consider both mechanical and thematic.

You didn't refute anything in their post, you just asked them to design 13+ sub-classes. This isn't an argument. This is barely even a response.

 

[Parmandur]

Correction.

People didn't want to learn a new power system. Especially the mystic's complicated and unbalanced mess of a power system.

That's the issue. The example given was a mess and too focused on a single lore concept for it. Much like Strixhaven's subclasses.

Distinction without a difference. People want a unified Spell Slot system, to ease play.

 

[Parmandur]

Only options that get playtested even have a chance to be "rejected", and when they are "rejected" or "approved", WotC's reaction is inconsistent. In some cases they vanish never to return, in others, they come back immediately for another playtest, slightly modified, in others still, they go in, regardless of the testing results.

They have been consistent since late 2017, when they began testing for Xanathar's Guide. The only untested Race/Class options since that time were for licensed properties where the IP holders (Penny Arcade & Critical Role) wanted the options to represent their brand: and those options have not been reprinted in other books.

The last point, there's really no evidence for: remember that forum chatter ≠ survey results. I see no reason to believe that they put in anything in spite of feedback: do you have a specific example where you believe that to be the case?

In terms of an example of an Option that received mixed feedback and another go around, the Genie Warlock: surveys said that people liked the concept, but not certain elements. So they did another approach. That's different than an option which was broadly rejected, like the Truenamer Wizard. It. So, yes, it's not black and white, there is a grey shade in the middle. These options, intriguing as they are, did not fall in that grey area.

 

[Parmandur]

What he isn't saying is the so called "contingency plans" where always Plan A.
Now we hear the real reason for the UA.

I think they really wanted to know if people would go for this option now: the audience is different now than during the Next playtest, and this approachis a bit different than the Themes that became Subclasses. So I don't think it is a given that this would have been rejected. But clearly they were prepared for that, and this probably cements the 5E approach to Subclasses for 6E when the time comes.

 

[Faolyn]

Again, just a reminder that I'm not saying that these archetypes must be included--I'm just showing how they could be done.

1 then it would ideally be made for whenever they make a better system for social areas of the game.

You have to start somewhere. Imagine if this were included in a book that focused on social RPing or had a more social kind of setting--like Strixhaven. (Not Strixhaven because that's a university, of course, but like that.)

2 have you seen how easy it is to mix those three things up? it would just be generic fiend if it was made.

Then you do it by what the fiend is built around. Fiends, regardless of their plane of origin, typically rely on one of fire, poison, or acid. In addition, some fiends are brute strength, some rely on cunning and deception, some rely on contracts, some rely on mind-control, etc. All of those could be emphasized by different lists of bonus spells, in the same way that the genielock grants bonus spells depending on the element of the genie. Right now, the fiendlock is almost entirely fire-based, which sucks if you want to say your patron is, I dunno, Zuggtmoy or Levestus.

3 monks get a subclass at level 3 so for two levels it would just be terrible also its ac would be worse from the lack of the all-powerful dex (stats and abilities really need to be rebalanced at some point.)

Fair enough. That is a perfectly decent reason to dismiss an archetype.

6 just the basic point of what would have to be done.

I do wish you'd intersperse your replies because I have no idea what this is in reference to.

7 we do not seem to get more none-magic fighters and honestly the lack of them is what disturbs me more.
plus why would they not make the arcane half caster they make one late every edition?

I honestly think that, like the psion/mystic, there isn't ever going to be enough agreement as to how a gish should be done. Eldritch knights, paladins, rangers, hexblades, and those bladesingers or whatever they're called, I forget, are all gishes but clearly aren't gish-y enough for people (and those reasons may be perfectly sound). Yes, WotC could just produce a psion and a gish class, but they'd inevitably cause half the players to complain that it's not done the right way, and I'm starting to think that they simply won't include it this edition.

With luck, they'd include those classes in the 6e PH so they can be properly integrated right from the start.

8 okay but other than being a plant what does the druid get to do that is different?

This is in large part thematic. Druids are all about nature but are almost entirely focused on animals or elements. Plus, you can give the druid abilities and say they come from plants, in the same way that Shepherd druids gain abilities but say they come from spirits. Possible examples: the druid can sprout vines, giving them extended reach, or they can turn into a mobile tree and gain damage resistance and extra smacking damage., or they can create blights or (temporarily) awaken trees as allies/pets.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Am I the only one who prefers feats over subclasses?

Anyways will Arcavios, Domains of Delight, and maybe Council of Wyrms and/or Tarkir get added to dmsguild with the release of these books?

 

[Minigiant]

Difference without a distinction. People want a unified Spell Slot system, to ease play.

There is a distinction. The option given by them was panned. People preferred a unified system over the mess given to them.

Clearly because later subclasses and subsystems with their own mechanics that were later lauded, the issue was the examples given but not the ideas behind them

 

[Rikka66]

Am I the only one who prefers feats over subclasses?

Anyways will Arcavios, Domains of Delight, and maybe Council of Wyrms and/or Tarkir get added to dmsguild with the release of these books?

Council of Wyrms/Tarkir are not.

 

[Parmandur]

There is a distinction. The option given by them was panned. People preferred a unified system over the mess given to them.

Clearly because later subclasses and subsystems with their own mechanics that were later lauded, the issue was the examples given but not the ideas behind them

Right, latter Classes and Subclasses that worked within the existing system worked for people.

 

[ECMO3]

People have been wanting a Strength-based pugilist for some time. Flavor it as a boxer and it would work quite well

Fighter with unarmed fighting style already makes for a pretty darn good strength-based pugilist. It is 1d8 +strength right off the bat.

At 6th level with tavern brawler and grappler, when you consider advantage, you will be putting out damage pretty close to someone with a greatsword + GWM while also controlling the enemy with your grapple.