OneDnD What form might subclasses take in 1DnD? (+)

[SakanaSensei]

The wizard subclasses won't be so different because their spell list is so big. The spell list is too powerful to allow much tweaking.

Only if wizard players agree to a smaller list could more power be put into their specialists.

In the name of variety, I pray.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm very much in the "Character development and simple starts mean that subclasses should kick in after level 1". This also helps with multiclassing not being level 1 gets ridiculous amounts of stuff.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I hope we get a few playtests to try different things...

I still like the idea of making all classes function like Warlocks currently do. 2 subclasses you can mix and match, some at will abilities, a pool of short rest powers that level up but you can only use 2 or 3 form the pool per short rest, at later levels getting big daily abilities, and having class specific mini feats.

part of me wants to see what happens if every class just gets there subclass at level 1

part of me wants to see what happens if subclasses could be mix and matched.... like I take this ability from totem barbarian and this one from frenzy bezerker...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The wizard subclasses won't be so different because their spell list is so big. The spell list is too powerful to allow much tweaking.

Only if wizard players agree to a smaller list could more power be put into their specialists.

I think we could make a bunch of classes to replace wizard... then give the subclasses for school to them

Warmage Abjuration and Evocation
Beguiler Illusion and Enchantment
summoner Transmutation and conjuration
Seer/profit Divination and Necromancy

then break up the spell list... we now have a general 'arcane list' but have each of these (and sorcerer and warlock and bard and maybe a swordmage) have a small list of add on class specific spells... with some overlap (maybe a swordmage a warmage and a summoner all get 1 spell)

 

[Vael]

I'm intrigued by a unified subclass progression. If every class had subclass features at the same level that introduces some new ideas.

But I'll fully admit I'm not completely sold on it, if because what Subclasses are is quite different between classes. For Sorcerers, Warlocks and Clerics, subclass choice is an origin story, it's a key decision, that's why it has to be at first level. For others, it's just a specialization path. Heck my Bard PC just hit third level, and I am still weighing what subclass I should be.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I hope it stays mostly the same, with one exception:
I hope the eldritch knight and arcane trickster go. Their features will go to a feat. And instead on their normal subclass levels, they gain some levels from the generic wizard class.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I hope it stays mostly the same, with one exception:
I hope the eldritch knight and arcane trickster go. Their features will go to a feat. And instead on their normal subclass levels, they gain some levels from the generic wizard class.

I want a combo of those two as a 1/2 caster class D8 hd arcane trick can be a subclass of it with more skills

 

[Aldarc]

My main beefs with 5e subclasses are 1) they don't start from 1st level, which impacts things like multiclassing, and 2) different wizard "specialists" all use the same spell list.

So my biggest hope is for subclasses from level 1 and Diviners who are distinct from Evokers in a meaningful way at the table.

Agreed on both counts.

 

[delericho]

I would like to see each class getting 3-5 really solid subclasses presented in the PHB (so more for many classes, fewer for Clerics and Wizards in particular).

I'd also like to see subclasses starting at 2nd level at minimum - let people "bed in" on their class before having to choose a subclass. That said...

Hot take to avoid frontloading the classes with too many choices at 1st level for new players:

Write the ''main'' archetype of the class as part of the main class chassis in the book, not in a different section after the class chassis. Then make archetypes who swap those class features with the ones from the new archetype.

ie: The Hunter becomes part of the base ranger chassis at level 3-7-etc
After the class write up, you have the Beastmaster archetypes, which goes like: ''A player preferring to adopt the archetype of the Beastmasters loses the X-Y-Z features of the Ranger and gain the follow A-B-C features instead.

I do really like this idea, and if something like this were adopted then my objection to subclasses being gained at level 1 no longer applies.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Hot take to avoid frontloading the classes with too many choices at 1st level for new players:

Write the ''main'' archetype of the class as part of the main class chassis in the book, not in a different section after the class chassis. Then make archetypes who swap those class features with the ones from the new archetype.

ie: The Hunter becomes part of the base ranger chassis at level 3-7-etc
After the class write up, you have the Beastmaster archetypes, which goes like: ''A player preferring to adopt the archetype of the Beastmasters loses the X-Y-Z features of the Ranger and gain the follow A-B-C features instead.

So players who are not at-ease with making a bunch of choices just pick the base ranger, already all written in the book while a more advanced player can look at the alternative archetypes features.

The more I think about this idea, the more I like it. It's a throwback to having one primary concept for each class, with variants for those who want more/different.

I guess really we could do this now; for example, take the Fighter from the Basic rules and swap in features from the other subclasses as desired. But it would be nice to see it as an intentional design rather than a cobbled-together hodgepodge.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I do really like this idea, and if something like this were adopted then my objection to subclasses being gained at level 1 no longer applies.

This is already how I do it for my more casual players since I need to accompany them at level ups. So unless specified, all classes have a pretty straight progression. Especially so when I dont play with ASI or Feats.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I guess really we could do this now; for example, take the Fighter from the Basic rules and swap in features from the other subclasses as desired. But it would be nice to see it as an intentional design rather than a cobbled-together hodgepodge.

Ideally they dont switch features individually, they switch all their ''archetypes features'' wit the ones from the desired ''variant archetype''.

But I do sometime switch some features that I find more interesting, like the Slayer's Eyes is added to the Hunter's 3rd level features because its pretty cool and thematic.

 

[the Jester]

Do subclasses really make characters feel different from one another? I.e., how much of the thematic specificity of a devotion/ancients/vengeance paladin comes from their specific channel divinity mechanics, and how much comes from their subclass tenets as a guide to roleplay?

In my experience, yes they do.

 

[delericho]

Do subclasses really make characters feel different from one another? I.e., how much of the thematic specificity of a devotion/ancients/vengeance paladin comes from their specific channel divinity mechanics, and how much comes from their subclass tenets as a guide to roleplay?

I find it varies by class. And I think that was the intent - that the earlier the subclass is chosen, the more the options diverge.

 

[Horwath]

I want a short-rest based full caster class.

sorcerer with spell point variant might be a solution for this.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

My hope is that either subclasses stay as they are, but we get some more classes in 5.5e.

or

We keep the same number of classes, and subclasses are made a lot more influential in how the class plays, with subclass abilities rather than class abilities coming more often and earlier.