Basically, I want to know whether or not this is on the roadmap.
My concern is that WotC is going in the direction of shoehorning every new concept into a background or subclass, which IMO is not the right direction for some concepts (i.e. shaman, witch, warlord/marshal, arcane half-caster, etc.).
I feel the need to be able to create my own new classes as well as editing official classes, so if this isn't a planned feature, I'll never be able to fully invest in D&D Beyond.
To clarify the previous answers, I believe the stance is more "Not now, and not on the roadmap, but maybe someday." Given how classes interact, and are constructed, designing the tools to do that is complicated, way more complicated than designing a subclass.
I would also argue that the archetypes the OP gave as examples of things that couldn't/shouldn't be implemented as subclasses contained mostly examples of things perfect as subclasses. The Warlock class itself is built on the classic conception of witches. Shamans can be designed as a subclass for several different classes depending on what direction you want to go with them.
To clarify the previous answers, I believe the stance is more "Not now, and not on the roadmap, but maybe someday." Given how classes interact, and are constructed, designing the tools to do that is complicated, way more complicated than designing a subclass.
I would also argue that the archetypes the OP gave as examples of things that couldn't/shouldn't be implemented as subclasses contained mostly examples of things perfect as subclasses. The Warlock class itself is built on the classic conception of witches. Shamans can be designed as a subclass for several different classes depending on what direction you want to go with them.
Thanks for the info, but I don't agree with regard to those concepts being best as subclasses, and you are very, very unlikely to change my mind. If shamans work best as a subclass, then warlocks, druids, paladins and most of the other classes should have been subclasses as well.
Of course your right all the classes other than fighter/thief/cleric & MU are subclass of those class but the ranger, bard etc have had 40 years of development and history. Even the newer subclass like sorcerer and warlock have roots as NPC classes and experimental PC classes that were spread through Dragon magazine in first and second editions.The sorcerer did not spring forth full formed with the release of the Darksun campaign setting. Rather it was simply brought into the core rules after being kicked around and redesigned for years.
Of course your right all the classes other than fighter/thief/cleric & MU are subclass of those class but the ranger, bard etc have had 40 years of development and history. Even the newer subclass like sorcerer and warlock have roots as NPC classes and experimental PC classes that were spread through Dragon magazine in first and second editions.The sorcerer did not spring forth full formed with the release of the Darksun campaign setting. Rather it was simply brought into the core rules after being kicked around and redesigned for years.
My favorite thing about posting on forums is how everyone tries to convince you your opinion is wrong and nitpick your concepts. Sorry, but no. Shaman as a subclass for another class makes no sense whatsoever, and if a concept like "Druid" deserves to exist as its own base class, then so do every one of the concepts I mentioned above, no matter what WoTC or anyone else says.
My point was that you are right in your assessment that all but the big 4 classe are "subclass". Where we differ is that after 6 editions of D&D, dozens & dozens of others RPG's and countless hours of gaming I'm of the opinion that most gamer should not mess with game mechanics. Now I'm not saying that you arent the exception but the only way to know that is referred to as peer review, so write it up and get it in to the hands of as many gamers as possible. If the people like it then maybe it will end up on D&D Beyond and 6th ed for everyone to enjoy, all the best of luck.
Whilst each person is free to disagree with another person's perspective, please do not allow this thread to become an attack on individuals. Let's try to keep it friendly.
My personal view is that in the case of 5th Edition, the game was changed to bring in the concept of subclasses - this wasn't the case in earlier editions (instead either Kits or Prestige classes were how you narrowed down your focus). The overall design principles behind 5e are to keep the game simple, which I think has been achieved compared to 3.5 and 4e.
There is both pros and cons to either way, whether making a 'Shaman' it's own class or a subclass of one of the 12 core classes. However in the spirit of the design principles of 5e, if I was the one creating it, it would be a subclass (as would majority of the examples provided so far). If I wanted to go a full class route, I actually wouldn't be looking at 5th edition, instead either a 4th or 3.5 edition class.
To the original question - Homebrew classes in full is not something on the roadmap to be released to end users. The backend behind the builder that everything gets added to is a complex system - I already foresee a learning curve for people that wish to homebrew sub classes and even races/sub races. There may be times when staff will release a full class (as an example, the Blood Hunter from the Critical Role campaign guide, or if the Mystic/Artificer get another release via UA, etc.), however these would be added by the team. Later this could change, however at the moment the only other homebrew pieces that are next for delivery are homebrew races and homebrew subclasses.
Well said, and I could have expressed my intent better. It is a design choice, I suppose I was a bit irked with the implication that it is a bad design choice or somehow "wrong", as opposed to just different. We are all free to like what we like. Like you I prefer the streamlined approach that 5e has taken in this regard.
There's nothing automatically "streamlined" about shoehorning full class concepts into subclasses just because the subclass concept exists now. We got new classes in previous editions because there were concepts that warranted it, regardless of the fact that we had kits and prestige classes.
There's also nothing inherently more complex (for players) about adding new classes as opposed to new subclasses. In fact, it's very easy to make the opposite argument, because as you shoehorn everything into more and more subclasses, you increase the complexity of each individual class, potentially overwhelming players with options after they've made their class choice. And if that was the direction WoTC wanted to go, they should have consolidated some of the 12 base classes we have now and made many of them into subclasses. "But history" is not a good enough counter-argument.
Look, I like subclasses - even though I think WoTC screwed up in not making them more modular and versatile, they're actually one of my favorite things about 5e, and I want to continue seeing more of them. But it's not an appropriate way to handle every new concept, and the fact that we have a lot of people acting like it is is pretty frustrating. Lots of people want to see new classes (see the recent poll on ENWorld if you "disagree"). And I would tell Mike Mearls that if I was speaking with him in person. Stop shutting them down.
Suggesting that I go play a different edition instead of making homebrew classes is absurd, and not going to happen.
I'll agree that I would love to see subclasses be more modular and versatile. I love for instance the Path system that Shadow of the Demon Lord uses. It is very flexible. Or how multiclassing works in 13th Age, where I can gain different bits and peices from my different classes.
It's cool to disagree and have different preferences. Making homebrew clases for different concepts is fun, and clearly a lot of people like to do it. Sometimes well, sometimes terribly. My contention though is that when you use language like "shoehorn in as a subclass" you're implying, whether intentionally or not, that that subclass design is somehow wrong. Not a different direction than you would like, or prefer, but wrong. Obviously not everything can be a subclass, Mystic is a perfect example of something that would be incredibly difficult to make a subclass versus a class. There are plenty of concepts that can be equally well designed as a class or as a subclass, it would be appropriate to do either. It would merely be a design choice.
Ok, It might have been designed to keep it simple, but for classic players this is a rip at our ability as dms to homebrew our games, I was hoping to bring back the classic 2e multiclass for all but humans, making the current multiclass a replacement for dualclass of 2e and before. The way I was going to utilize the 2e multiclass was to make a new class based on the 2e multiclass.
I do love the hole concept of 5e, but I thought it was designed so the game could be modified even in the digital set.
To simplify an advanced system is kind of an oxymoron.
If you want simple use the basic rules only, do not limit the complexity of the full system.
My understanding is (and Mods/Devs please correct me if I am wrong) that the tools that we (users) currently utilise to create homebrew races/subclasses/items etc are the same tools that the Devs use to generate content, however (due to their complexity), actual classes are done in the backend without the benefit of a builder/wizard. Until they are at a point that they have a builder/wizard flexible enough for all the myriad possibilities that can go into a complete class, they are not willing/able to make this feature available to us.
In time this may change (as they roll out other features/content), however it is not on the short term (actively worked on) plan or the long term (early planning stages) plan - it's more of a "nice to have" feature which will/may be looked at in the future.
I am sorry to unload here but I actually am beyond impatient with wizards of the coast slow to do anything attitude, 4th and 5th editions of d&d promised a quick to full access digital tool kit. I am extremely happy with what d&d beyond is doing. Wizards really makes it very hard on all digital toolset companies that we as DMs and players alike have actually lost a lot of faith in them, I have waited 10 long years for full access digital toolsets.
I do feel cheated by wizards on several things, first off they made 3rd (good system), improved it with 3.5 (great work), then tried to fix it with 4th (they went against the "if it isn't broken don't fix it), then fixed that with 5e but then took away the Gygax attitude of "these are merely guidelines, not rules." If you want simple use a system that is not advanced! Originally, D&D was a basic system, I thought Advanced ment to make it more complex, not to simplify it. All they did when making 3rd and beyond is dropped the word Advanced from the title. So simplifying would take away it being an Advanced system.
From what I understand, while 4th Edition promised a full first-party digital toolset, 5th did not. And, because it bears repeating. D&D Beyond is not Wizards of the Coast. In terms of making custom classes, it is purely a decision by the design team with D&D Beyond in terms of what they can develop and offer to users as workable tools. Wizards has zero involvement in that, and it isn't that D&D Beyond doesn't want you to make custom classes. They just can't offer it right now.
I'm going to disagree on your opinion on 5e in terms of guidelines vs rules, but this really isn't the thread or forum for that discussion.
Depending on the DM homebrew is allowed. There are sections in the DMG specifically about making your own homebrew and passages of both PHB and DMG state that what is written are guidelines and DMs make change what they need. It's right there in the books.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Yes, the original creators (Gygax and his partner) said that the manuals should be seen as guidelines not rules, if you want a game aimed at rules not guidelines, play palladium! If you want to play D&D, remember it was never designed to be set rules! I used to be a "Rules Lawyer". Rules Lawyers are the players that can't understand there is room for rules/guidelines being changed.
I never said I blame dnd beyond, I specifically stated that I blamed Wizards, and yes wizards has full rights to anything that specifically is aimed at anything that blatantly calls itself D&D. If you don't believe me about Wizards having full rights to anything D&D, just look up the OGL, If it is called D&D, Wizards and Hasbro owns anypart of it that is called D&D and any Intellectual property therein. I am not using Oppinion at this point, I am using fact.
Basically, I want to know whether or not this is on the roadmap.
My concern is that WotC is going in the direction of shoehorning every new concept into a background or subclass, which IMO is not the right direction for some concepts (i.e. shaman, witch, warlord/marshal, arcane half-caster, etc.).
I feel the need to be able to create my own new classes as well as editing official classes, so if this isn't a planned feature, I'll never be able to fully invest in D&D Beyond.
Not a planned feature for D&D Beyond, I'm afraid, but we might be able to talk them into trying it in a few years.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
I believe the latest stance is no homebrew classes, only subclasses. The reason given was that HB classes would be to hard to implement into the site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
twitch.tv/PGKarieo
To clarify the previous answers, I believe the stance is more "Not now, and not on the roadmap, but maybe someday." Given how classes interact, and are constructed, designing the tools to do that is complicated, way more complicated than designing a subclass.
I would also argue that the archetypes the OP gave as examples of things that couldn't/shouldn't be implemented as subclasses contained mostly examples of things perfect as subclasses. The Warlock class itself is built on the classic conception of witches. Shamans can be designed as a subclass for several different classes depending on what direction you want to go with them.
Of course your right all the classes other than fighter/thief/cleric & MU are subclass of those class but the ranger, bard etc have had 40 years of development and history. Even the newer subclass like sorcerer and warlock have roots as NPC classes and experimental PC classes that were spread through Dragon magazine in first and second editions.The sorcerer did not spring forth full formed with the release of the Darksun campaign setting. Rather it was simply brought into the core rules after being kicked around and redesigned for years.
Sorry, but no. Shaman as a subclass for another class makes no sense whatsoever, and if a concept like "Druid" deserves to exist as its own base class, then so do every one of the concepts I mentioned above, no matter what WoTC or anyone else says.
My point was that you are right in your assessment that all but the big 4 classe are "subclass". Where we differ is that after 6 editions of D&D, dozens & dozens of others RPG's and countless hours of gaming I'm of the opinion that most gamer should not mess with game mechanics. Now I'm not saying that you arent the exception but the only way to know that is referred to as peer review, so write it up and get it in to the hands of as many gamers as possible. If the people like it then maybe it will end up on D&D Beyond and 6th ed for everyone to enjoy, all the best of luck.
review
Whilst each person is free to disagree with another person's perspective, please do not allow this thread to become an attack on individuals. Let's try to keep it friendly.
My personal view is that in the case of 5th Edition, the game was changed to bring in the concept of subclasses - this wasn't the case in earlier editions (instead either Kits or Prestige classes were how you narrowed down your focus). The overall design principles behind 5e are to keep the game simple, which I think has been achieved compared to 3.5 and 4e.
There is both pros and cons to either way, whether making a 'Shaman' it's own class or a subclass of one of the 12 core classes. However in the spirit of the design principles of 5e, if I was the one creating it, it would be a subclass (as would majority of the examples provided so far). If I wanted to go a full class route, I actually wouldn't be looking at 5th edition, instead either a 4th or 3.5 edition class.
To the original question - Homebrew classes in full is not something on the roadmap to be released to end users. The backend behind the builder that everything gets added to is a complex system - I already foresee a learning curve for people that wish to homebrew sub classes and even races/sub races. There may be times when staff will release a full class (as an example, the Blood Hunter from the Critical Role campaign guide, or if the Mystic/Artificer get another release via UA, etc.), however these would be added by the team. Later this could change, however at the moment the only other homebrew pieces that are next for delivery are homebrew races and homebrew subclasses.
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
Well said, and I could have expressed my intent better. It is a design choice, I suppose I was a bit irked with the implication that it is a bad design choice or somehow "wrong", as opposed to just different. We are all free to like what we like. Like you I prefer the streamlined approach that 5e has taken in this regard.
There's nothing automatically "streamlined" about shoehorning full class concepts into subclasses just because the subclass concept exists now. We got new classes in previous editions because there were concepts that warranted it, regardless of the fact that we had kits and prestige classes.
There's also nothing inherently more complex (for players) about adding new classes as opposed to new subclasses. In fact, it's very easy to make the opposite argument, because as you shoehorn everything into more and more subclasses, you increase the complexity of each individual class, potentially overwhelming players with options after they've made their class choice. And if that was the direction WoTC wanted to go, they should have consolidated some of the 12 base classes we have now and made many of them into subclasses. "But history" is not a good enough counter-argument.
Look, I like subclasses - even though I think WoTC screwed up in not making them more modular and versatile, they're actually one of my favorite things about 5e, and I want to continue seeing more of them. But it's not an appropriate way to handle every new concept, and the fact that we have a lot of people acting like it is is pretty frustrating. Lots of people want to see new classes (see the recent poll on ENWorld if you "disagree"). And I would tell Mike Mearls that if I was speaking with him in person. Stop shutting them down.
Suggesting that I go play a different edition instead of making homebrew classes is absurd, and not going to happen.
I'll agree that I would love to see subclasses be more modular and versatile. I love for instance the Path system that Shadow of the Demon Lord uses. It is very flexible. Or how multiclassing works in 13th Age, where I can gain different bits and peices from my different classes.
It's cool to disagree and have different preferences. Making homebrew clases for different concepts is fun, and clearly a lot of people like to do it. Sometimes well, sometimes terribly. My contention though is that when you use language like "shoehorn in as a subclass" you're implying, whether intentionally or not, that that subclass design is somehow wrong. Not a different direction than you would like, or prefer, but wrong. Obviously not everything can be a subclass, Mystic is a perfect example of something that would be incredibly difficult to make a subclass versus a class. There are plenty of concepts that can be equally well designed as a class or as a subclass, it would be appropriate to do either. It would merely be a design choice.
Ok, It might have been designed to keep it simple, but for classic players this is a rip at our ability as dms to homebrew our games, I was hoping to bring back the classic 2e multiclass for all but humans, making the current multiclass a replacement for dualclass of 2e and before. The way I was going to utilize the 2e multiclass was to make a new class based on the 2e multiclass.
I do love the hole concept of 5e, but I thought it was designed so the game could be modified even in the digital set.
To simplify an advanced system is kind of an oxymoron.
If you want simple use the basic rules only, do not limit the complexity of the full system.
My understanding is (and Mods/Devs please correct me if I am wrong) that the tools that we (users) currently utilise to create homebrew races/subclasses/items etc are the same tools that the Devs use to generate content, however (due to their complexity), actual classes are done in the backend without the benefit of a builder/wizard. Until they are at a point that they have a builder/wizard flexible enough for all the myriad possibilities that can go into a complete class, they are not willing/able to make this feature available to us.
In time this may change (as they roll out other features/content), however it is not on the short term (actively worked on) plan or the long term (early planning stages) plan - it's more of a "nice to have" feature which will/may be looked at in the future.
How to add Tooltips
I am sorry to unload here but I actually am beyond impatient with wizards of the coast slow to do anything attitude, 4th and 5th editions of d&d promised a quick to full access digital tool kit. I am extremely happy with what d&d beyond is doing. Wizards really makes it very hard on all digital toolset companies that we as DMs and players alike have actually lost a lot of faith in them, I have waited 10 long years for full access digital toolsets.
I do feel cheated by wizards on several things, first off they made 3rd (good system), improved it with 3.5 (great work), then tried to fix it with 4th (they went against the "if it isn't broken don't fix it), then fixed that with 5e but then took away the Gygax attitude of "these are merely guidelines, not rules." If you want simple use a system that is not advanced! Originally, D&D was a basic system, I thought Advanced ment to make it more complex, not to simplify it. All they did when making 3rd and beyond is dropped the word Advanced from the title. So simplifying would take away it being an Advanced system.
From what I understand, while 4th Edition promised a full first-party digital toolset, 5th did not. And, because it bears repeating. D&D Beyond is not Wizards of the Coast. In terms of making custom classes, it is purely a decision by the design team with D&D Beyond in terms of what they can develop and offer to users as workable tools. Wizards has zero involvement in that, and it isn't that D&D Beyond doesn't want you to make custom classes. They just can't offer it right now.
I'm going to disagree on your opinion on 5e in terms of guidelines vs rules, but this really isn't the thread or forum for that discussion.
If the are rules that means NO homebrew aloud.
Depending on the DM homebrew is allowed. There are sections in the DMG specifically about making your own homebrew and passages of both PHB and DMG state that what is written are guidelines and DMs make change what they need. It's right there in the books.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Yes, the original creators (Gygax and his partner) said that the manuals should be seen as guidelines not rules, if you want a game aimed at rules not guidelines, play palladium! If you want to play D&D, remember it was never designed to be set rules! I used to be a "Rules Lawyer". Rules Lawyers are the players that can't understand there is room for rules/guidelines being changed.
I never said I blame dnd beyond, I specifically stated that I blamed Wizards, and yes wizards has full rights to anything that specifically is aimed at anything that blatantly calls itself D&D. If you don't believe me about Wizards having full rights to anything D&D, just look up the OGL, If it is called D&D, Wizards and Hasbro owns anypart of it that is called D&D and any Intellectual property therein. I am not using Oppinion at this point, I am using fact.