D&D General Universal Subclasses

[Scott Christian]

Connecting the subclass to the setting/campaign seems like an intriguing idea to me though.

I agree. However, you can key the characters into the setting/campaign in many ways, not just subclasses. You can do it through divine boons, curses, magic items, rituals, etc.

 

[CleverNickName]

I have been designing universal subclasses for my current campaign world. These are subclasses that any base class can choose. In many cases, these are organizations that a classes can join and these organizations train the members in specific methods, tools etc.

How do folks feel about such a concept?

I've been allowing it on a case-by-case basis in my campaign, and it actually works really well.

I've got a Rogue that chose the Battle Master subclass, and the player absolutely loves it. The addition of maneuvers really dovetails nicely with his character's suite of nimble, skillful actions.

I can't see every subclass working out for every class, but if you and the player are both willing to work together and make adjustments? It can be really good.

 

[Kurotowa]

Or, in the other direction: the subclass needs to be able to vary its presentation based on the base class.

It's not just the presentation. Different classes split the power budget between base class and subclass differently. It's anything but standardized. Which is absolutely intentional, to provide greater class differentiation and flavor, but does make any sort of universal subclass much harder to balance right. The same subclass can be overpowered for one class and underpowered for another.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The thing about "universal" subclasses is that if it's going to be just for your table... chances are possible only one player is going to want to take it. At which time it ceases to be a "universal" subclass and instead just becomes a subclass for the class of the player who ultimately took it.

Which of course is fine! If the subclass is written not for the class it subs for but instead is directed to an organization or something... if it makes sense for your campaign then it's good to go. You just no longer need to worry about trying to categorize it (as a "universal subclass" or a "prestige class" or whatever.) It's a specific descriptor for the PC that has it. At the end of the day that's all that matters-- what it does for the character. The out-of-game meta designation of what one calls it doesn't matter.

 

[cbwjm]

I have been designing universal subclasses for my current campaign world. These are subclasses that any base class can choose. In many cases, these are organizations that a classes can join and these organizations train the members in specific methods, tools etc.

It was be similar to anyone being able to become a Knight of the Rose, for example.

How do folks feel about such a concept?

I love the concept which was why I also loved that they were thinking of aligning the levels that each class gained their subclasses as it would have made this sort of concept work so much more easily and we may have seen those universal Strixhaven subclasses in the final product. I was sad when they rolled it back to the current state of things.

 

[Horwath]

I have been designing universal subclasses for my current campaign world. These are subclasses that any base class can choose. In many cases, these are organizations that a classes can join and these organizations train the members in specific methods, tools etc.

It was be similar to anyone being able to become a Knight of the Rose, for example.

How do folks feel about such a concept?

I like the general idea, and it might have worked if they kept the playtest idea of universal subclass levels(3,6,10,14), but they didn't because reasons...
also subclasses should start at 1st level but that is another topic.

but if you want universal subclasses then best route is making those features into feats that anyone can take, some level or other prerequirements may apply.

 

[Chaltab]

I could perhaps see this working with Tales of the Valiant because it standardized subclass levels, to 3rd, 7th, 11th, and 15th, but every other version of 5E has too much variance.

 

[Shardstone]

I have a system for this. Features at level 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 19. Replace basic ASI.

 

[Horwath]

I have a system for this. Features at level 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 19. Replace basic ASI.

add levels 3(1 or 2), 6(7), 10(11), 14(15) and 18 to the list.

 

[Shardstone]

add levels 3(1 or 2), 6(7), 10(11), 14(15) and 18 to the list.

If only vanilla was designed so, brother.