Subclasses, Prestige Classes, or Themes?

[Knightfall]

On the thread regarding which races and classes everyone wants to see in the new version of the game, it seems a given that most want at least these four options:

• Cleric
• Fighter
• Rogue
• Wizard

Beyond those four "core" choices, it gets hard to come to a consensus. We all want something a bit different. So, it might be in the best interest of all to choose a way to expand upon thes four prime classes with one of several options:

• Subclass
• Prestige Class
• Theme

The 4E themes introduced in the Dark Sun campaign book was one of the best innovations of that system. They feel a lot like the old 2E kits but were balanced with the design of 4E. If the designers can find a way to use them in D&D Next then I think it would be a good thing.

Now, I'm also a big fan of prestige classes but I realize that a lot of people dislike or outright hate them. But, it's an option. There's also the option of creating specialized subclasses under each of the 4 prime classes.

Regardless, I think there should be at least two options under each of the 4 prime classes:

Cleric
•
•
Fighter
•
•
Rogue
•
•
Wizard
•
•
Fill them in as you see fit.

I would put Druid and Paladin under Cleric. I would put Barbarian and Ranger under Fighter. I would put Assassin and Scout under Rogue. And I would put Bard and Sorcerer under Wizard.

You could play just the prime class or choose to specialize in one of the options.

Opinions? Suggestions? Rebuttals?

KF

 

[Dire Bare]

I agree that things have gotten crazy with the different types of character "silos", not just with 4th but with other editions at times as well.

But with the modular approach that WotC is pushing, I would be happy with the four "core" classes in an intro set, but I would like to see other classic classes reintroduced in later sets.

As an option, adding balanced "themes" (or kits, or whatever) for all sorts of more specific character archetypes. Another option would be prestige classes/paragon paths/epic destinies . . . We should be able to play the basic classes without these add-ons, but I'd like to see them there as options.

What's tricky is what to make a class or theme. It makes sense to turn the "assassin" into a theme, as anyone can be trained to kill professionally, by martial training or by mystical means . . . yet "assassin" is a classic D&D class, and I'd like to see a basic class for this archetype. Of course, depending on how far they go with the modular approach, there's no reason why both options couldn't be explored . . . although that does increase the "complexity of choice".

 

[Beolveig]

I like it

On the thread regarding which races and classes everyone wants to see in the new version of the game, it seems a given that most want at least these four options:

• Cleric
• Fighter
• Rogue
• Wizard

Beyond those four "core" choices, it gets hard to come to a consensus. We all want something a bit different. So, it might be in the best interest of all to choose a way to expand upon thes four prime classes with one of several options:

• Subclass
• Prestige Class
• Theme

The 4E themes introduced in the Dark Sun campaign book was one of the best innovations of that system. They feel a lot like the old 2E kits but were balanced with the design of 4E. If the designers can find a way to use them in D&D Next then I think it would be a good thing.

Now, I'm also a big fan of prestige classes but I realize that a lot of people dislike or outright hate them. But, it's an option. There's also the option of creating specialized subclasses under each of the 4 prime classes.

Regardless, I think there should be at least two options under each of the 4 prime classes:

Cleric
•
•
Fighter
•
•
Rogue
•
•
Wizard
•
•
Fill them in as you see fit.

I would put Druid and Paladin under Cleric. I would put Barbarian and Ranger under Fighter. I would put Assassin and Scout under Rogue. And I would put Bard and Sorcerer under Wizard.

You could play just the prime class or choose to specialize in one of the options.

Opinions? Suggestions? Rebuttals?

KF

I like this idea personally...it seems simple and elegant and yet keeps the D&D flavor I have loved since the 80s. They could always come out with more options in later books and keep them that...options.

 

[foolish_mortals]

how about none of the above? I'm fine with just classes.

foolish_mortals

 

[DonTadow]

No other components. Give me ARchetypes as the other classes and have special abilities in them i can mix and match. Nothing I can't use at the next level if I am the apprioate class. No crazy prereqs.

3e had tons of books, with no way to realy use most of the material in your current campaign.

The thing is, why do you need the option if that system already exists. If you have archetypes (subclasses, kits etc). Say, like barbarian. then you include all the barbarian abilities under that class, and when i want a rage ability, i choose from that. But say i want a rage ability with some type of unarmed combat throw, i go into the monk archetype and choose there. Or, i can go with the traditional barbarian template included.

Whatever they have, they only need 1. No themes, and feats, and prestige classes, and speciala blities and combat maneuvers. From a balance point of view, you'd never hear complaint, because the monk abilities are balanced with the same leveled assassin abilities.

 

[Alzrius]

I think that a lot of problems stem from tying special abilities to specific levels of specific classes. Not only does this encourage a proliferation of classes (and class archetypes, prestige classes, etc.) as a vehicle for delivering more cool powers, but it also encourages metagame thinking rather than having in-character-oriented goals.

Having your character increase in skill/power needs to be divorced from mandating what specific powers you get and when. Unfortunately, that's difficult - though certainly not impossible - to do in a level-based game system.

 

[TerraDave]

Its a hard call...but I expect, again for unity reasons, that druids, paladins and rangers will be "core" classes. Barbarians, bards, monks, will also be there, probably as classes, but maybe in a supplement.

Otherwise, I would like to see a mix of "builds" and theme type mechanics as options.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'll be the radical smart alec and say, "all of the above", but not used anywhere they don't fit. That is, don't feel the need to abuse a mechanic in order to make everything the same.

Subclass - the essential nature of the class stays the same, but you swap out a few things for flavor. May be better implemented as options in the class than an explicit subclass, but let's face it, however you decide to do it, those are subclasses. Builds in 4E is another ways to present the exact same thing.

Prestige classes - you turn into something a bit different, typically after establishing what you were before. 4E paragon paths are near kin to prestige classes.

Themes - you extend what you already are with something else that is presumbably a good fit for the character, but not necessarily tied directly to what you already are.

 

[howandwhy99]

I do like the "all of the above" option for 5e. It's so inclusive.

Subclasses are kind of like classes for the 4 roles for 4th ed.
Prestige classes were in place with the Bard as early as OD&D.
Themes were basically what everyone one did when they varied their class. A fighter is Conan, a knight in full plate, and Robin Hood. It amounted to how you dressed him up and played him.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I really just want classes. Certainly more than just four, letting players pick from a wide variety of different possibilities without resorting to unnecessary complexity that dilutes the clarity a class system should bring.

Any system that tried to shoehorn all the variety of potential classes into variants of the Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric is going to quickly find that it isn't so easy to fit a lot of fun ideas into that limited set.