Sub Levels -> Alternate Class Features

[Cam Banks]

I'm not seeing why the alternate class abilities is in any way a simplification of substitution levels. They are the same thing. It's just that substitution levels plug into the existing structure and (perhaps more importantly), they are associated into sets allowing a DM to better define what is permissible or desirable in a campaign. SLs are easier to manage AFAIAC.

I think the greater long term benefits of the alternate class features lies in their broader use. A substitution level is a fixed point in a level progression for a specific class, while an alternate class feature is a replacement for a class feature that may be shared by a number of classes.

In addition, the simplicity is fairly obvious - all you're doing is replacing an existing class feature with another. You're not concerned with a table, class skills, hit dice, skill points, saving throws, etc. It's a more straighfoward presentation of the same basic idea.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Psion]

In addition, the simplicity is fairly obvious - all you're doing is replacing an existing class feature with another. You're not concerned with a table, class skills, hit dice, skill points, saving throws, etc. It's a more straighfoward presentation of the same basic idea.

Of those "additional things" you listed, the only one that is really different is class skills -- and that's a desirable difference.

Grouping them is a good thing, because as I said before, it makes the GM easier to manage them according to concept.

 

[GreatLemur]

Lol sure sounds like D&D needs to just give up on all the individual class abilities and suit up with class talent trees instead ala d20modern already heh. Just introduce new talent trees, would be alot tidier...

Better yet, reduce it all to a handful of generic classes, with a giant pile of feats and feat trees to customize the hell out of them.

Of those "additional things" you listed, the only one that is really different is class skills -- and that's a desirable difference.

A separate skill list for maybe three levels at most? I'd call that an unecessary fiddly bit that doesn't really add anything. And the very fact that substitution level listings do include a bunch of "additional things" that aren't really different is a major point against them.

Substitution levels always struck me as kludgey and annoying, while alternate class features are cool, simple, and flexible. Why make up what's essentially a whole new class just to swap out one class ability?

 

[Gold Roger]

While I completely abhor the notion of throwing out specific classes for generic ones with talent trees, I do think that alternate class features should be more hard coded into the system.

Thing is, class features can be over varying power levels in a way feats and talents could never properly manage. Also, alternate class features tend to still be sollidly connected to the classes theme, but gives that hard coded basic role more flexibility. That's why I think Core classes should always present multiple options for each feature.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Part of the problem with substitution levels as well is that they are designed to typically be 3-4 levels. So you have to be sure to replace that many items when you may only want to replace one (depending on the class).

Sub levels, to me, came across as a great way to tailor-make your character. With the addition of skills, you had, in effect, the 3e version of the 2e kit – even moreso than a PrC. How many PrCs have we seen that really just sort of overdid a concept that could have been simplified with sub levels?

So yeah, alternate class features seems like the next step in this particular evolution. I’m definitely going to look into them more.

 

[jameswilliamogle]

I like both Sub levels and alt. class features. I think the racial sub levels should be more powerful, though: a half-orc should be the best barbarian, a halfling should make the best rogue, a gnome should make the best bard, etc etc (not sure about humans or halfelfs). Other than the gnome bard (and illusionist) and elf wizard sub levels, though, I don't think many of the sub levels make that big of a difference. The alternative features should remain little trinkets to customize the character.

I'd prefer text next to the racial description simply giving bonuses to race-class matches, instead of giving races favored classes.

 

[GreatLemur]

I think the racial sub levels should be more powerful, though: a half-orc should be the best barbarian, a halfling should make the best rogue, a gnome should make the best bard, etc etc (not sure about humans or halfelfs).

Are you kidding? Favored classes are bad enough. The last thing we need is more archetype reinforcement.

 

[Voadam]

I don't have any of the books with substitution levels, but I love the alt class feature options from UA and PHII. I even like to a lesser extent the spell-less paladin and ranger options from Complete Warrior.

 

[Psion]

A separate skill list for maybe three levels at most? I'd call that an unecessary fiddly bit that doesn't really add anything.

So, giving planar classes access to knowledge planes "doesn't really add anything"? I beg to differ. It makes the character class fit the setting concept, which I consider somewhat important.

Substitution levels always struck me as kludgey and annoying, while alternate class features are cool, simple, and flexible. Why make up what's essentially a whole new class just to swap out one class ability?

See the part of my post you didn't quote for why. I could really care less for the "table of unchanged values". The functional bit is that you have multiple abilities collected as part of the conceptual variant -- thus it makes it easy to allow or exclude sets of variants based on campaign appropriateness, instead of just giving players a flurry of unrelated and less conceptually grounded concepts to cherry pick from, which is more in favor of "power builders" instead of those interested in what the package brings to the campaign as a whole.

 

[Gold Roger]

Are you kidding? Favored classes are bad enough. The last thing we need is more archetype reinforcement.

Hmm, I like convincing archetypes and sterotypes. They are great playhelps, design simplifications and actually help versimilitude.

I hate he approach, where all races are everywhere, have the same personalities and fill the same roles and are basically just weird costumes and stats.