What Exactly Are You Meant To Do, Here?

[doctorbadwolf]

It's possible that I'm just being dense, but I've read and reread the instructions for using an older subclass with the new classes, and it just isn't clear, to me.

I may also be overthinking it.

Does it mean that if you are playing a swashbuckler UARogue, you would just keep gaining your second sub feature at level 9?

And for a Bard, you'd just ignore the different number of feature levels?

And for extra spice, what do we think will be the solution long term to this issue? Will Bards get a bonus feat if they are using a subclass with only 3 subclass feature levels? Perhaps, "if you reach a subclass feature level and the subclass you are using has already given you all of it's features, you may choose a feat for which you qualify instead"?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I have to wonder if player feedback has flipped over the years to a desire for normalized design, or if the team is just tired of not having any normalized guideposts and is making the game better fit what they personally want.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

my understanding is (and yeah this means no back compatible) you take them in the order but you just get them sooner pushing off the dead level to the last possible one.

 

[Li Shenron]

It simply means, you'll buy again all those previously published subclasses in updated form, like you bought again all prestige classes for 3.5e. At least this time they won't be nearly as many.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Does it mean that if you are playing a swashbuckler UARogue, you would just keep gaining your second sub feature at level 9?

Yes, that's really the only correct reading I can see for the language.

my understanding is (and yeah this means no back compatible) you take them in the order but you just get them sooner pushing off the dead level to the last possible one.

That would make sense but it's definitely not what they're saying.

If the older Subclass offers features at levels that are different from the Subclass levels in the Class, follow the older Subclass’s level progression after the Class lets you gain the Subclass.

Bold mine.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It simply means, you'll buy again all those previously published subclasses in updated form, like you bought again all prestige classes for 3.5e. At least this time they won't be nearly as many.

Leave your cynicism for someone who will take it seriously, please.

And for the record, quite a large portion of us didn't, and won't, and wotc knows that.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes, that's really the only correct reading I can see for the language.


That would make sense but it's definitely not what they're saying.



Bold mine.

maybe, I mean so they just loose all subclass features? or they loose just one that blank areas?

 

[Azzy]

This is breaking backwards-compatibility at the class/subclass level.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is breaking backwards-compatibility at the class/subclass level.

We will see. If there is a simple added rule as I suggested in the OP, I wouldn't agree.

 

[Parmandur]

It's possible that I'm just being dense, but I've read and reread the instructions for using an older subclass with the new classes, and it just isn't clear, to me.

I may also be overthinking it.

Does it mean that if you are playing a swashbuckler UARogue, you would just keep gaining your second sub feature at level 9?

And for a Bard, you'd just ignore the different number of feature levels?

And for extra spice, what do we think will be the solution long term to this issue? Will Bards get a bonus feat if they are using a subclass with only 3 subclass feature levels? Perhaps, "if you reach a subclass feature level and the subclass you are using has already given you all of it's features, you may choose a feat for which you qualify instead"?

Yeah, don't overthink it, it's pretty straightforward currently: take a 2014 Subclass, and the specific progression of the original Subclass overrides the general rule of the OneD&D test Class. Currently inelegant because of dead Levels, doubled up Levels, and a straight up missing level for Bard...but should work, particularly for now.

When they've nailed down the Core Classes, and gotten those more settled, I expect to see more explicit conversion notes ("move this Level here, take a Feat there..."), UT this will function for now...particularly starting at Level 1, most of the issues won't crop up for about a year of regular play.

 

[Parmandur]

This is breaking backwards-compatibility at the class/subclass level.

Why do you say that, it works as written now, and there is plenty of time to smooth out a conversion process.

 

[Horwath]

This is breaking backwards-compatibility at the class/subclass level.

sometime you must break something first in order to fix it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, don't overthink it, it's pretty straightforward currently: take a 2014 Subclass, and the specific progression of the original Subclass overrides the general rule of the OneD&D test Class. Currently inelegant because of dead Levels, doubled up Levels, and a straight up missing level for Bard...but should work, particularly for now.

Yeah the more I think about it the more I think that it will end up being a bonus feat.

When they've nailed down the Core Classes, and gotten those more settled, I expect to see more explicit conversion notes ("move this Level here, take a Feat there..."), UT this will function for now...particularly starting at Level 1, most of the issues won't crop up for about a year of regular play.

Nah, people are going to start at all kinds of levels to test this stuff, so the issues will crop up this week, next week, and continuing from there.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have to wonder if player feedback has flipped over the years to a desire for normalized design, or if the team is just tired of not having any normalized guideposts and is making the game better fit what they personally want.

I think part of the decision to not have normalized design was that 4e was still to close. They deviated from normalized design a bit with essentials, but they really did not want to have obvious 4e design in 5e.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think part of the decision to not have normalized design was that 4e was still to close. They deviated from normalized design a bit with essentials, but they really did not want to have obvious 4e design in 5e.

I disagree.

 

[Azzy]

Why do you say that, it works as written now, and there is plenty of time to smooth out a conversion process.

It's a kludge (at best) as written now. The old subclasses are going to need rewrites to fit the new subclass structure.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I disagree.

Ok. Maybe it was not the only reason, but 4e design was obfuscated in 2014 D&D and I think they can risk a bit more now.

 

[Azzy]

sometime you must break something first in order to fix it.

I can't deny, I'm just saying that some existing subclasses are going to require more effort to work than the kludge we've got.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah the more I think about it the more I think that it will end up being a bonus feat.

Nah, people are going to start at all kinds of levels to test this stuff, so the issues will crop up this week, next week, and continuing from there.

It may come up, but it shouldn't be a major balance concern in play. Should still be cleaned up before primitive, but it's early days yet.

 

[Parmandur]

It's a kludge (at best) as written now. The old subclasses are going to need rewrites to fit the new subclass structure.

Not really, as written these will work, and for the final version they just need to provide guidance on where you switch Levels around. The old Subclasses look to play well with the new Classes, however, and by design.