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

[steeldragons]

In my own homebrew game system, I am thinking of generating some "Sub-prestige?-classes" available only after Xlevels, but available for multiple different classes to take. Not set in stone yet, but Paladin and Necromancer are on that list, Bard comes and goes, shifting alternatively to a Rogue or Priest category class as the day's mood strikes...

I.e., to be a Paladin...
1. You need to be Lawful [Good or Neutral. I don't allow Evil PCs and a Lawful evil npc who became a "paladin" would be an anti-paladin/blackguard].
2. You need to be a minimum of 5th level [becoming a Paladin at 6th], taking on the Paladin mantle at your next level.
3. You can be a Fighter, a Knight, a Barbarian (though finding a barbarian with the Lawful criteria is very unlikely/rare), or, a Cleric or Templar of a Lawful deity.

So, that's where I am on this. Some archetype that could apply to ANY class (and I think the Warlord is a good example) will be few and far between.

There is something also to think about and be said in the acceptance of some of D&D's given conceits. One of them is that classes (and by extension, their subclasses) are at least partially defined by their flavor. Hunters are a subclass of Rangers because Hunters calls to mind a whole bunch of traditionally Ranger things. Sure, a fighter or rogue can "go hunting." That is not the same as being a Hunter...for D&D.

So, some level of presumed specific flavor, I think, is inherent into the class/subclass structure...which makes the idea of a "universal subclass" somewhat more difficult to pull off for D&D, in general, and 5e in particular.

Not saying it's not doable. Just throwing out stuff to think about as it's crossing my mind.

 

[Horwath]

What you are looking for is classless buy-in-feature for "feat points" model.

Where you get certain number of feat points per level and all features have fixed feat pt cost.

Some ofc would requier lower end features, some would require minimum level(extra attack1/2/3), some minimum ability, some trained skill(s), etc...

 

[Li Shenron]

I know it sounds contradictory on the surface. How can you have a subclass not be part of a class; it's sort of how the words are defined? Probably why "kit" is a better descriptor, even if they are designed and handled exactly like a subclass.

It's not contradictory, in fact I am sure they contemplated the idea when designing 5e.

You have to consider the bigger picture when it comes to design... They already had introduced Backgrounds which are cross-class, as well as Races. Had they chosen to design cross-class kits with levels, it would have required either for the classes to share a common level-based structure (i.e. subclass levels at the same time for all classes), or it would have lead to some classes being better than others with one kit (partly defying the purpose, and also certainly attracting the rants of many players), or it would have required the kits to work "on top" of classes (ending up with prestige classes, again attracting rants).

The first option (common structure) would not have had significant drawbacks in-game, maybe a more difficult design work. But I remember clearly how the players community swore a widespread "we don't it" when this was brought up during playtest, and so we didn't get it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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!

Fair enough. After all, this is just a throwing ideas out there discussion, so all views should be considered.