D&D General Universal Subclasses

[Horwath]

If only vanilla was designed so, brother.

class feature that define class at levels:
1,2,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19,20

Feats for choice at levels:
1,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20

 

[Belen]

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.

This is true. They have mainly worked out for NPCs or enemies. This gives them a subset of powers that the players may not expect.

 

[Belen]

Sounds like marrying prestige classes to archetypes. I approve of this idea.

Yes. They are all adapted from PrCs that were part of the campaign world in 3e.

 

[Mephista]

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?

Tricky tricky. Do you assume that martials won't need Extra Attack, but casters will as part of the progression?

I'd need to see more, since the default assumptions between caster and martial would potentially make contradictory abilities.