D&D 5E Understanding WOTC's class design guidelines and subclass acquisition

[Greg K]

In various episodes of Mike Mearls's Happy Fun Hour, he revealed WOTC's class guidelines including the level of subclass acquisition. Below I have listed key episodes (for those that want to watch the episodes) and summarized key points. Also, in the Kraken Sorcerer episode, he reveals that some classes break these guidelines, because they were completed before the guidelines were finalized.

1/30/18 Kraken Sorcerer
2/16/18 Rogue Acrobat
3/16/18 Fighter Warlord
4/4/18 Thief Acrobat (at the start) and Barbarian Maurader see approx 24:02
9/11/18 Ranger Vigilante (Urban Ranger)

Key Points
1. Players should be playing the character they want to play at first level (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 19:58). "We don't want you want you to feel like you have to wait to play the character that you want to play. We want you to feel you are playing the character as early as possible,preferably, 1st level. Then, as you gain levels, you gain more fun stuff to add to that character You are already playing what you want to play and then you just get more toys to play with as your character gets more abilities" (Happy Fun Hour 4/4/18 24:02-24:25).

2. Core class abilities should be something that all character of the class would want. The core class should allow you to portray the character you want "without gaining abilities that you stop using, feel are irrelevant, or go against what your character is" (Happy Fun Hour: Fighter Warlord 3/16/18 11:50).

3. A core class with a subclass at 3rd level means that "the core class identity is much more distinct, much stronger, and impactful on the character" ("Acrobat Rogue". Happy Fun Hour 2/6/18) which was also stated in Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18 (18:58). For example, all rogues pretty much use the same armor, similar weapons. They look the same and are good with skills, but the subclass is how they specialize ("Acrobat Rogue". Happy Fun Hour 2/6/18).

In contrast, a core class with a subclass at first level is "defined by the subclass and is driven by it"- a god of time and a god of war are very distinct and do very different things ("Acrobat Rogue". Happy Fun Hour 2/6/18). Having your class grant a subclass at first level means this how you want to present your self from the start (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 18:48)

4. Taking a subclass should not "fundamentally change your character in a seemingly non-sensical way when you gain your subclass" (Happy Fun Hour 4/4 about 23:20), but further augment the concept. For example, when taking your subclass, you should not be changing your equipment (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 19:22). The Valor Bard breaks this and Mike said that the Bard should have had its subclass at first level (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 22:10).

5. Given the above, core classes that receive their subclass at 3rd level should be "seeded with enough options at first and second level" to avoid an "awkward transformation" (Happy Fun Hour Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18 21:16).

When coming up with his Vigilante (a.k.a Urban Ranger) subclass (Happy Hour 9/11/18), Mike ran into the problem that the Ranger class itself had no features or options supporting an urban environment. This meant that a player wanting the subclass would be stuck with wilderness abilities that did not fit the concept before finally acquiring the subclass. This meant that the player did not get to play the character concept from the beginning and would then be stuck with unwanted features. Therefore, it broke 1 and 2 in my accumulated list. It would would lead to an "awkward transformation". To rectify the issue, he created new options and a variant feature.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

All this tells us is WotC ignores it's own rules.

4. Taking a subclass should not "fundamentally change your character in a seemingly non-sensical way when you gain your subclass"

The UA Revived rogue doesn't just break the rule, it annihilates it, by transforming into something completely different at third level.

Now, my feeling is the Revived Rogue will never make it into print, but the rule is also broken by the already in print Artificer. Just like the Valour Bard the Battlesmith gains martial weapons proficiency at 3rd level.

 

[cbwjm]

I believe he said something about how these guidelines weren't in place right off the bat which is why they have valor bard feeling a little off by suddenly gaining better armour and weapon proficiencies at level 3.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I believe he said something about how these guidelines weren't in place right off the bat which is why they have valor bard feeling a little off by suddenly gaining better armour and weapon proficiencies at level 3.

They where certainly "in place" when the Artificer and Revived where designed.

Unless they have already been discarded - all those references are from 2018.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

All this tells us is WotC ignores it's own rules.

The UA Revived rogue doesn't just break the rule, it annihilates it, by transforming into something completely different at third level.

Now, my feeling is the Revived Rogue will never make it into print, but the rule is also broken by the already in print Artificer. Just like the Valour Bard the Battlesmith gains martial weapons proficiency at 3rd level.

Although it is broken, the artificer class has enough options at first level and is designed in a way, that such a transformation is not completely unjustified.
I think adding weapons is a lot less problematic than adding armor. Every weapon concept can be done with simple weapons and martial weapons are just a small upgrade.
Heavy armor and light armor use fundamentally different stats.

I also believe, the next book will contain options for all classes.
It is easy to make an urban ranger just allowing "city" as favoured terrain.
An eldritch knight could have a spellcasting fighting style. A warlord a warlordy one.
A bard could be allowed to chose int over cha as spellcasting attribute.

 

[Greg K]

All this tells us is WotC ignores it's own rules.

The UA Revived rogue doesn't just break the rule, it annihilates it, by transforming into something completely different at third level.

Now, my feeling is the Revived Rogue will never make it into print, but the rule is also broken by the already in print Artificer. Just like the Valour Bard the Battlesmith gains martial weapons proficiency at 3rd level.

You are not going to get any argument from me about them ignoring their own guidelines. In my opinion, they also ignored 2 and 5 on my list with the Scout Rogue when they decided it is the non-spellcasting ranger. They also did it again with the Swashbuckler Rogue.
From what I recall, part of the reason for assigning those subclasses to the rogue had to do with the rogue being the light armored skilled class while the Fighter is the heavy armor class and trained in a wider variety of weapons. However, in doing so and not providing new options variants for the base class, they stuck those archetypes with Thieves Cant and Thieves Tools which do not fit the archetypes for many wilderness specialist warrior types or swashbucklers in film or literature. For the Scout, they should have also provided official suggestions to swap some skills (Yes, a DM can house rule this, but many new DMs, in my experience, don't feel comfortable making such changes. Also, from my understanding Adventures League players would need official options).
Then again, as far back as the playtest, I have found the class design of the design team to be short-sighted and kind of "sloppy" (for the lack of a better term at 2;15 am).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Although it is broken, the artificer class has enough options at first level and is designed in a way, that such a transformation is not completely unjustified.
I think adding weapons is a lot less problematic than adding armor. Every weapon concept can be done with simple weapons and martial weapons are just a small upgrade.
Heavy armor and light armor use fundamentally different stats.

I also believe, the next book will contain options for all classes.
It is easy to make an urban ranger just allowing "city" as favoured terrain.
An eldritch knight could have a spellcasting fighting style. A warlord a warlordy one.
A bard could be allowed to chose int over cha as spellcasting attribute.

True, I don't think the artificer is "wrong". I'm suggesting that the idea that WotC has these pinned up on a wall somewhere is wrong. It seems more like Mearls' personal philosophy.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Fighter is the heavy armor class

This is itself a potential rule-breaker, since a dex fighter has no need of the Heavy Armour proficiency they gain at first level, and there are subclasses (e.g. Arcane Archer) that pretty much require a Dex build.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No. Not really.
You can have both heavy armor and a bow.
Actually 15 Str, 16 Dex works pretty well.
You have a higher armor class at every stage of the game.

 

[tetrasodium]

3. A core class with a subclass at 3rd level means that "the core class identity is much more distinct, much stronger, and impactful on the character" ("Acrobat Rogue". Happy Fun Hour 2/6/18) which was also stated in Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18 (18:58). For example, all rogues pretty much use the same armor, similar weapons. They look the same and are good with skills, but the subclass is how they specialize ("Acrobat Rogue". Happy Fun Hour 2/
In contrast, a core class with a subclass at first level is "defined by the subclass and is driven by it"- a god of time and a god of war are very distinct and do very different things ("Acrobat Rogue". Happy Fun Hour 2/6/18). Having your class grant a subclass at first level means this how you want to present your self from the start (Happy Fun Hour: Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18; 18:48)

5. Given the above, core classes that receive their subclass at 3rd level should be "seeded with enough options at first and second level" to avoid an "awkward transformation" (Happy Fun Hour Kraken Sorcerer 1/30/18 21:16).

When coming up with his Vigilante (a.k.a Urban Ranger) subclass (Happy Hour 9/11/18), Mike ran into the problem that the Ranger class itself had no features or options supporting an urban environment. This meant that a player wanting the subclass would be stuck with wilderness abilities that did not fit the concept before finally acquiring the subclass. This meant that the player did not get to play the character concept from the beginning and would then be stuck with unwanted features. Therefore, it broke 1 and 2 in my accumulated list. It would would lead to an "awkward transformation". To rectify the issue, he created new options and a variant feature.

3&5 are a mess as applied to wizard since it pretty much* has no core class abilities but a spell list largely shared by the core class and archetype feature loaded sorcerer and 5 tries to avoid changing that oversight when they reach third and higher.

*sure they have a nice ritual mechanic but it's largely unfinished after third level spells, pretty niche even if maybe useful before, and if you take out detect magic/tiny hut it would be not that unusual to come across wizards who consider it something they never really use because too niche &those niche edge cases are infrequent or they didn't have the right tiny niche rituals when the party hit an edge case and the niche came up.