D&D 5E Subclasses not tied to a class?

[cbwjm]

A couple of other ways I have thought of:
Substitution levels: Discrete abilities that represent a concept which replace an ability of X level or higher. This could mean that a wizard who chooses the illusionist tradition would have all of the illusionist tradition abilities, but at 6th level he gained the Ninja base subclass abilities instead of the 6th level illusionist ability.

Feat chains: Every class gains ASIs at the same rate (with the fighter and rogue gaining a couple extras) so it could be a good place add general subclass abilities. The problem would be balancing them with the concept and the power level of a feat. It also cuts into a player's ASIs which may not be preferable, and as always, not all games use feats.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Intriging. I think the substitution levels is similar to what DRBadwolf was mentioning, if I'm understanding correctly. Where you start getting into a pool of abilties to choose from. Maybe we could call them "Alt-feats"

 

[DEFCON 1]

The only conceptual issue I see is that if you were to do this, you aren't actually creating subclasses. You aren't creating a flavorful offshoot of a class, you are creating a whole new flavor that you're tacking on to any number of actual classes.

The subclasses of the Rogue have been flavorfully made to be rogues. That's what they are. They aren't fighters, they aren't barbarians, they aren't rangers, they are rogues. And that's true across the board. Hunters are rangers. Berzerkers are barbarians. If you take an Oath of the Ancients you are a paladin. But to then to try and create a subclass that's isn't actually a sub OF that class (because you're suggesting it's a sub of multiple classes), you really aren't designing what you're supposed to be.

Really, [MENTION=6801554]discosoc[/MENTION] has the right of it, in my opinion. You aren't creating a true subclass... instead you're creating a whole new flavorful class in itself that you just want to attach onto another class to get that class's extra mechanics. If you think a Ninja can be thought of as possibly a fighter or a rogue or a monk or a sorcerer... then it isn't a subclass, it is its own thing entirely. And in that regard, a Prestige Class is really what it is.

Now of course you can work it out for yourself however you want... if you want to make these "prestigelike" classes that get snapped onto existing ones because you don't want to lose the features of the classes you were in, then more power to you. But I just don't think you're really staying true to what the concept of a subclass is really meant to be. But hey! To each their own!

 

[Lanliss]

My concept is much more free-form. When my players gain a level they will be getting points equal to their level.

They can spend those points on any ability in the book for their level or lower, with some having requirements (Can't get 3 attacks unless you have 2 already). If my players are ever in the mood to actually try the system out I will be able to balance things around with regards to Expertise, or things like the Champion expanded crit. For the most part though, it should work out alright, and allow 100% flexibility. No worries of getting class features that don't help your concept.

EDIT: Forgot to mention pricing, everything has a price equal to the level you would normally get it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The only conceptual issue I see is that if you were to do this, you aren't actually creating subclasses. You aren't creating a flavorful offshoot of a class, you are creating a whole new flavor that you're tacking on to any number of actual classes.

The subclasses of the Rogue have been flavorfully made to be rogues. That's what they are. They aren't fighters, they aren't barbarians, they aren't rangers, they are rogues. And that's true across the board. Hunters are rangers. Berzerkers are barbarians. If you take an Oath of the Ancients you are a paladin. But to then to try and create a subclass that's isn't actually a sub OF that class (because you're suggesting it's a sub of multiple classes), you really aren't designing what you're supposed to be.

Really, [MENTION=6801554]discosoc[/MENTION] has the right of it, in my opinion. You aren't creating a true subclass... instead you're creating a whole new flavorful class in itself that you just want to attach onto another class to get that class's extra mechanics. If you think a Ninja can be thought of as possibly a fighter or a rogue or a monk or a sorcerer... then it isn't a subclass, it is its own thing entirely. And in that regard, a Prestige Class is really what it is.

Now of course you can work it out for yourself however you want... if you want to make these "prestigelike" classes that get snapped onto existing ones because you don't want to lose the features of the classes you were in, then more power to you. But I just don't think you're really staying true to what the concept of a subclass is really meant to be. But hey! To each their own!

Well yeah, I don't think I'm creating a subclass in the definition of the word (and I said as much in my OP). But I don't know if I agree with the rest of your post. Prestige classes are just multi-classing, which not only defeats the point, but also misses the objective (by making things more complicated and introducing another set of mechanics into the game).

I also don't agree with the identity thing you are talking about. Archetypes cross classes all the time. It's one of the reasons we have multiclassing to begin with. So no, hunters aren't all just rangers. why can't a hunter be a fighter, or a rogue, or even a wizard? Why can't an assassin be a fighter or monk? To continue to use the ninja example, we have the assassin and shadow monk--both subclasses that can be considered to replicate ninjas, but clearly if a ninja assassin IS a rogue, then they can't also be a monk, which is what you're arguing if a subclass archetype MUST belong to a defined class. Additionally, look at the eldritch knight. Basically it's a fighter magic user. So why have it as a subclass? Because maybe that character wants to maintain the fighting abilities of a fighter, but have some spell casting to augment that without needing to multiclass (and therefore lose fighting functionality). That "half caster" archetype doesn't belong to just one class. We have paladins, rangers, and arcane tricksters that are all also just half casters. So instead of making all the work to have a half caster subclass for all of these classes, why not just have a half caster generic subclass that can be use with many of the other main classes? So what I'm presenting already exists and has some sort of precedence in that context.

So multiclassing is right out (which includes prestige classes) because it means you lose functionality of your core class, which is a requirement. Also, the most obvious answer is also right out (creating a brand new class from scratch) because it's out of scope of this discussion and directly opposes the goal (making a subclass that any class can use).

 

[steeldragons]

Ah! Well then we're boiling the classes...and their subsequent subclasses down to their mechanical components.

The game would consist of:
The fully "Martial" (no magic) classes and subclasses.

The HALF-caster [ergo, half-Martial] classes and subclasses.

Per the phb, 5e would need a "Third-caster" subclass option.

I suppose a "Skills guy," non-warrior AND non-magical, classes and subclasses.

And then, naturally, the FULL MAgic/caster classes/subclasses.

So, basically, come up with a set of levels/progression that each one of those OVERarching types receive.

Then the levels the subclasses of those various types receive.

Then, you can make anything you could possibly want with any kind of names you want to give them.

So we're back to ye olde paradigm of all D&D [ever was and will be] boiling down to the "Caster," the "Warrior" Non-caster, and the "Expert" Non-caster [arguably, and mix of caster/non-caster in one].

 

[steeldragons]

i.e...
Want a Warrior Class? ALL warrior classes use mechanic A.
Warrior Subclasses then operate and differentiate themselves by subclass 1 has mechanic X, subclass 2 uses mechanic Y, subclass 3 gets mechanic Z.
So the final characters are AX, AY, or AZ, respectively.

Want a Full Caster class? ALL [full] Casters use mechanics B.
Caster subclasses 1-3, use mechanics E,F,G respectively.

and so on.

And so on.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Think of it like this. Sort of like the military. Everyone has their primary MOS (class). And everyone has their secondary MOS (in the Marines, it's always rifleman). The two don't need to overlap at all. So you have your core class, and then you have a set of specialty skills that aren't dependent on your first core class. Or heck, use real world examples. A person could have a full time job as a programmer, but work part time as a mechanic.

Or to use the dreaded warlord concept, you could create a warlord subclass (with the key features that come with that class like assisting allies and improving tactics), but could be any of the other classes? Want to be a front like warrior warlord like a great general? Fighter warlord. Skilled tactician who uses brains over direct fighting? Wizard warlord. In the military, generals came both from a history of actual front line fighting experience, and from purely scholarly accomplishments. So being an inspiring leader with great tactical skills shouldn't be limited solely to one type of job.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I also don't agree with the identity thing you are talking about. Archetypes cross classes all the time. It's one of the reasons we have multiclassing to begin with. So no, hunters aren't all just rangers. why can't a hunter be a fighter, or a rogue, or even a wizard? Why can't an assassin be a fighter or monk?

Well, it's mainly because of how I see the concepts of class and subclass are designed. You're coming at it from the angle of having the idea of a flavorful identity and then finding a class to insert it into. So for instance... you come up with an individual identity of a "ninja", and you then decide how many different ways can you make that ninja (and how many different classes can receive it.) You start at the subclass and work upwards.

Whereas I come at it from the class POV and work downwards. I start with the class. Now what are the flavorful variants of that class are there? And to me that is what the subclasses are... not flavorful identities in their own right, but absolutely part and parcel of the class they fall under. So no... to me a hunter can't be a fighter or a rogue, because I'm starting with the ranger-- I have the ranger and decide what are the facets of that ranger? And that is where the hunter falls in... directly as an offshoot of the ranger that it is a part of. The hunter isn't its own thing, it is specifically a subset of the ranger class. And that's why to me it's considered a subclass.

Truth be told... we already DO have a mechanic in the game that applies a flavorful identity across multiple classes, and that are the Backgrounds. I think that's where having a particular flavor that goes along with any or all classes really shows its head in the game. So if you thought a ninja could and should apply to multiple classes, then I'd suggest that perhaps the ninja should be a background more than anything else. And by the same token back to your point about why couldn't fighters, rogues, and wizards be hunters... in a way they already are, in that an Outlander (ie "hunter") can be any of those classes. Of course... mechanically the background grants much less to your PC than a subclass does, so I can certainly understand why that might not do it for you... but at least for me that's where the "one flavor across multiple classes" really seems to be best suited to appear.

But again... these are just my thoughts on the matter of where I think the demarcation should be between class, subclass, and background. Obviously if you don't agree, you can (and should) do whatever you'd like. And if you can get it to work for you, then that's awesome! I personally wouldn't (due to my own POV), but my opinion really shouldn't matter to you in the least. LOL! You do what you do and I hope it works well!

 

[steeldragons]

weird doable but incomplete post.