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

[LuisCarlos17f]

I have said some times in the past the keys for a class should be:

- Right balance of power, of course.

- Fun gameplay. A example of bad design would the phsychic enervation by the psionic wilder. If I want one, then I would use the optional penalty, dazed for a round, from the Pathfinder version by Dreamscarred Press.

- Interesting concept, a cool mark of identity. The soulborn and the incarnate from "Magic of Incarnum" are two examples of failed ideas. They were too close to the paladins. A good concept should can be used in a fiction work without gameplay at all. If, for example, there is a totem shaman in the story, and it is work as a druid, then you are making it wrong. The player/reader/watcher public has to notice this is a totem shaman and not a druid.

---

I would rather subclasses from the 1st level to feel my PC is different.

 

[dave2008]

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.

I think it would be a mistake to categorize them as rules. They are most likely simply guidelines.

 

[dave2008]

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.
... 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.

I agree, those are good fighter and ranger archtypes if you get rid of the thieves tools and cant. Did they address this at all in the recent UA on variant features? That would be a method to solve this issue.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I agree, those are good fighter and ranger archtypes if you get rid of the thieves tools and cant. Did they address this at all in the recent UA on variant features? That would be a method to solve this issue.

No they didn't, actually. Shame this didn't crop up earlier so I could have mentioned it in the feedback.

 

[dave2008]

No they didn't, actually. Shame this didn't crop up earlier so I could have mentioned it in the feedback.

I had the same thought after I typed that response.

 

[Arilyn]

I'm not getting this much from the game. There isn't really a lot of consistency of design principles in 5e. Things are done and then justifications are created later. Mearls even came out and said they really weren't doing much math in their day to day design work. Just a lot of eyeballing and throwing things out to the community. It's why the playtest documents could change so radically between releases. Not playtest so much, as bringing the public into the whole design process.

I just get a rather arbitrary feel about subclasses. If you gathered all the classes and subclasses together, (including UA, because presumably they'd be following theses guidelines), you should see a clear pattern, with a few outliers. I have my doubts.

Now despite my above comments, 5e is a fun game. It builds on earlier systems, with its own fun tweaks. The designers already had a lot of the heavy lifting done in previous editions, so it wasn't necessary to start from scratch, and you could go to the community and mine for player preferences throughout the process. But actual guiding principles? Maybe a few rough suggestions?

 

[Charlaquin]

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).

Rogue probably should have gotten its subclass at 1st level, according to these guidelines. Give Thieves’ Tools and Thieves’ Cant to the Thief subclass, and make the base class the chassis for the lightly armored skirmisher.

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.

Bladesinger breaks it, too, and it's definitely awkward because you have to use a shortsword for a level before picking up rapier. So does Swords Bard.

I think the issue is that the guideline is correct that this should not happen, but that WotC is not going to set aside design ideas just because the core design was awkward.

 

[Greg K]

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

That is possible. In the Kraken Sorcerer episode 1/30/18, Mike said that those guidelines were supposed to be the basis for WOTC class design moving forward from the time the guidelines were finalized and those guidelines were consistent throughout his Happy Hour episodes. However, I do recall him stating in one episode that how they look at subclasses could possibly change in the future based upon audience preferences. I don't recall if that was in reference to the class design guidelines and subclass interaction. However, the class and subclass interactions for many concepts is among the reasons that I will not, currently, run/play 5e. If WOTC ever starts addressing it officially with variant class abilities and options, I may reconsider my decision.

 

[bedir than]

Basis =/= etched in stone and never changeable.