I still can't help but find it really weird that the decision was made to try to give all of the classes involved in these crossclass subclasses the same treatment rather than putting them under general thematic umbrellas to experiment with individually. Like, if we're talking about thematic concepts and classes, take the idea of undeath and necromancy for example; you have subclasses in Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Rogue, Warlock, and Wizard even when roughly half of those classes aren't even full casters, but they're all given equal love and attention to how their class features might interact with those themes (i.e. a Zealot Barbarian ain't flavored for raising the dead, but gets a lotta mileage out of the idea of fighting past death).
Emphasis mine.
I think this was less about why other classes aren't in this UA, but why the classes that are present are all thrown in the same bag. Of course, being magic colleges this makes sense to some extent, as they're following the same curriculum. It's just really not lending itself well to the idea of individuality of a class. Therefore it makes sense to question the why.
Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard. If we do each of those for each college, that's still 30. Oh man, what if I could make these subs cross-class?! That would cut it down considerably. [...] Like...I genuinely don't understand why so many people are confused or upset about the shape of the subs in this UA. Those made instant sense to me, given the setting and overall intent of the upcoming book. I wish we could get a lot more discussion about what is actually there than kvetching about a class that absolutely makes sense to leave out being left out.
I'm assuming you mean crossclassing as 'shape' here?
It's hard to discuss the content for the subclasses without critizicing the - Imo lackluster - shape. Crossclass Subclasses have inherent flaws. One which you have been stating yourself, that the Bard gets less features. And it makes a lot of sense that work is cut down considerably if we're just turning two blind eyes over the individual needs of each base class and give them an approximation of 'one-size-fits-all' subclass. On the other hand, implementing a subclass for each class in a college would leave us 13 subclasses. Which I agree is a lot. Still, these subclasses need an overhaul to make them truly fair. Giving more base features to pick from might be a good start. It's also a mystery to me why some classes are locked out from some colleges when no college is really giving any thought to what their base class needs and offers. It feels a lot like they just went with what they thought would be flavourful.
As for discussing the content of a subclass, they're not really something we haven't seen yet. Most of it is an amalgamation of old mechanics given a new spin. What's truly surprising is Vulnerability being handed out twice already. With quite a lot of spamming potential. That's worrying.
Y'know, I actually wholeheartedly agree on that- the idea of "well, if we're going to tackle the size of this concept, might as well try to get the most done in the least amount possible." But I agree too with seeing how some things might have been cut down a little too short, especially for Bard and whatnot. The idea of making more relevant "skill trees" for features and abilities to choose between seems like it would make a lot more sense to fit to the themes of the different classes, and then you could also still encourage players who want to think outside of the box to take unconventional picks anyhow. Or even just taking a second to properly think about what things might be missed out on and making sure that those mechanics aren't anything major for that class. Say with Bard, it seems really shocking that they have to choose between the two strongest subclass features for both Lorehold (War Echoes and History's Whims) and Silverquill (Infusion of Eloquence and Word of Power) while the other classes just... get them for no apparent reason. It'd be different if those exact features weren't so potent, but the fact that they are basically says "everybody gets two cookies- except for Bard, who only gets one, because they only deserve one.
I'm also really interested to see how the community moves forward in playtesting these. I'd like to look for more opportunities to really see how these stack up against existing subclasses and seeing how they might fare with and against each other. I really do hope that this concept can be made to work out, but I just hope that none of it is biting off more than can be chewed.
I still can't help but find it really weird that the decision was made to try to give all of the classes involved in these crossclass subclasses the same treatment rather than putting them under general thematic umbrellas to experiment with individually. Like, if we're talking about thematic concepts and classes, take the idea of undeath and necromancy for example; you have subclasses in Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Rogue, Warlock, and Wizard even when roughly half of those classes aren't even full casters, but they're all given equal love and attention to how their class features might interact with those themes (i.e. a Zealot Barbarian ain't flavored for raising the dead, but gets a lotta mileage out of the idea of fighting past death).
Emphasis mine.
I think this was less about why other classes aren't in this UA, but why the classes that are present are all thrown in the same bag. Of course, being magic colleges this makes sense to some extent, as they're following the same curriculum. It's just really not lending itself well to the idea of individuality of a class. Therefore it makes sense to question the why.
Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard. If we do each of those for each college, that's still 30. Oh man, what if I could make these subs cross-class?! That would cut it down considerably. [...] Like...I genuinely don't understand why so many people are confused or upset about the shape of the subs in this UA. Those made instant sense to me, given the setting and overall intent of the upcoming book. I wish we could get a lot more discussion about what is actually there than kvetching about a class that absolutely makes sense to leave out being left out.
I'm assuming you mean crossclassing as 'shape' here?
It's hard to discuss the content for the subclasses without critizicing the - Imo lackluster - shape. Crossclass Subclasses have inherent flaws. One which you have been stating yourself, that the Bard gets less features. And it makes a lot of sense that work is cut down considerably if we're just turning two blind eyes over the individual needs of each base class and give them an approximation of 'one-size-fits-all' subclass. On the other hand, implementing a subclass for each class in a college would leave us 13 subclasses. Which I agree is a lot. Still, these subclasses need an overhaul to make them truly fair. Giving more base features to pick from might be a good start. It's also a mystery to me why some classes are locked out from some colleges when no college is really giving any thought to what their base class needs and offers. It feels a lot like they just went with what they thought would be flavourful.
As for discussing the content of a subclass, they're not really something we haven't seen yet. Most of it is an amalgamation of old mechanics given a new spin. What's truly surprising is Vulnerability being handed out twice already. With quite a lot of spamming potential. That's worrying.
The whole thing seems odd to me. The premise is that all these classes can go to this school and learn the same or similar things, yet each subclass is still limited to a select set of classes which is counter to the original premise. The more I look at it the more I think it is just lazy on the part of WotC. They wanted to do "Hogwarts" but didn't want to have to put in the effort to actually do it.
As far as what each subclass can do, well, they are not very well balanced to work evenly between the classes they have been assigned to. The resources and class abilities aren't the same so the results of adding these subclasses varies too widely to keep in line with each other, let alone with existing subclasses.
It is kind of a hot mess that doesn't really add anything to the game. I am all for new mechanics and introducing new rules, but not all ideas are good ideas.
In response to Bleikopf as well: I do wonder if it would have been better to just give each subclass a core approach rather than trying to spread them across classes. As in, rather than picking out a handful of classes to try to tailor a subclass to, why not just pick out the most apparent ones? Lorehold Bard for the concept of lorekeeping, Prismari Sorcerer for the mix of elements and artistic flair/charm, Quandrix Wizard for the knowledge of science and mathematics, Silverquill Warlock for the twisting and conniving, Witherbloom Druid for the natural play on life and death- if you asked me, wouldn't those be the most fitting? Why lump 1-2 more classes into each of those anyhow besides to try to "make more content out of less?"
Despite how baffled I still am, I agree- there are a lot of powerful features here that seem tailored to fighting other caster enemies. I almost feel like having a more clear idea of seeing what the enemies might look like in this expansion might help to inform what abilities are more valid. For example, what's the fun in fighting a caster if so many of these abilities offer options to impose vulnerability just to oneshot the poor buggers? The slew of abilities related to improved saving throws leads me to believe that these classes are built to deal with caster effects at least, so I think that's a fair thing to argue for- I'd just wish to see that concept being tested in the content they intend this for.
There is actually one thing that I'm missing in this UA: Strixhaven in MtG introduced a new mechanic called 'learn'. To break it down, any card you played that could 'learn' would let you choose to pick up a card from outside the game that had the 'lesson' subtype. Apart from being very flavourful it also allowed a lot of flexibility.
I might stray a bit too far from the basic design ideas of dnd here, making things too complicated or smth. We might see something like this in the settings book, a mechanic where you can actually learn new lessons. I imagine something that allows you to pick up new features, a bit similar to boons but more fleshed out. Which brings me to question if this couldn't have been a better approach?
Create 5 basic subclasses: Bard of Strixhaven, Druid of Strixhaven, Sorcerer of Strixhaven, Warlock of Strixhaven and Wizard of Strixhaven. When choosing their subclass they choose a specific college, at subclass level get a Lesson, a pool of features that each college possesses. Mostly working like Invocations in my mind. Add in a Feat maybe that allows you to pick up another lesson. Meanwhile allow the class subclasses themselves to straighten out the differences. Bard gets something like 'get two lessons at level x' or 'you can choose a lesson instead of a magical secret'.
We're still down to 5 subclasses, but each one has more customization. You could even add in Cleric with this design, as the Cleric specific Devotions etc. would be handled in the Cleric of Strixhaven subclass.
Witherbloom bothers me, a lot. Reading it feels like I'm reading a version of School of Necromancy Wizard with feats that actually have like...synergy or promote a common theme.
Necromancer Wizard is supposed to be about manipulating the forces of life and death, and this subclass actually does that.
The Witherbloom spell list providing Inflict Wounds, Cure Wounds, and Spare the Dying right off the bat makes it better at manipulating life energy than School of Necromancy.
Essence Tap feels like it what Grim Harvest should have been. It lets you on demand manipulate latent life energy to heal, or sap an opponent's life force with necrotic damage. It's a feat that a player can actually engage with, that they can plan and play around, something that gives them options, and has broad use. It's not just a stupid passive that only works in niche scenarios by restoring a small amount of health whose effect can only be fully utilized by 8 spells.
Witherbloom Adept, again, feels like a more thematically appropriate thing for "manipulating the forces of life and death" than School of Necromancy. You've gotten better at manipulating the forces of life and death and can inflict greater wounds on your enemies' vital energy or restore more of it. School of Necromancy just cant have its max HP reduced and gets necrotic damage resistance, something that has nothing to do with any of its subclass feats.
Withering Vortex. Man, what an interesting feat. When you deal necrotic damage, you can "manipulate the forces of life and death" to drain and redistribute life energy. That sure does seem thematically appropriate for someone who "manipulates the forces of life and death", as opposed to...being able to order an undead creature to be your pet.
I'm livid.
The School of Necromancy explores the cosmic forces of life, death, and undeath. As you focus your studies in this tradition, you learn to manipulate the energy that animates all living things. As you progress, you learn to sap the life force from a creature as your magic destroys its body, transforming that vital energy into magical power you can manipulate.
Witherbloom Subclass, does a better job of actually living up to the description of School of Necromancy, than the actual School of Necromancy. This is ridiculous.
Witherbloom bothers me, a lot. Reading it feels like I'm reading a version of School of Necromancy Wizard with feats that actually have like...synergy or promote a common theme.
[...]
Witherbloom Subclass, does a better job of actually living up to the description of School of Necromancy, than the actual School of Necromancy. This is ridiculous.
It's also more morally grey than School of Necromancy, which makes it more attractive to people who want to be necromancers without the baggage of literally animating corpses, which is an inherently evil act.
I look forward to these. As a Software Developer Quandrix is in my wheelhouse.
I see a lot of people bring up clerics not being a part of this. Maybe its just my way of looking at the casting for that class but does a cleric study to be able to cast or is it just they essentially pray to their deity for help or guidance. For me personally a school wouldn't quite fit the Cleric feel. The other classes seam to have some type of learning needed to some extent. A bard learns to use music to weave magic, a warlock studies the occult, druids learn to connect with nature, and well wizards are wizards.
The Quandrix Sorcerer is the one that seams the most out of place to me, unless maybe it was a computer turned warforged ... hmmm.
Considering the issues that DnDBeyond has with anything that doesn't work well within the standard rule set, I would guess that these will never be available in the character builder, at least not in any complete sense.
Considering the issues that DnDBeyond has with anything that doesn't work well within the standard rule set, I would guess that these will never be available in the character builder, at least not in any complete sense.
I think that's frightfully pessimistic, given that the only thing these UA do that's unusual is the cross-class aspect, which isn't hard to implement, just time-consuming. All they have to do is create each sub (Lorehold, Silverquill, et al.) multiple times, once for each base class (Bard, Warlock, et al.) for a total of 10-15 different sub "entries" instead of the 5 listed exactly on the UA document. I could probably do it in a day or two if I didn't have a full-time job and kids.
Considering the issues that DnDBeyond has with anything that doesn't work well within the standard rule set, I would guess that these will never be available in the character builder, at least not in any complete sense.
I think that's frightfully pessimistic, given that the only thing these UA do that's unusual is the cross-class aspect, which isn't hard to implement, just time-consuming. All they have to do is create each sub (Lorehold, Silverquill, et al.) multiple times, once for each base class (Bard, Warlock, et al.) for a total of 10-15 different sub "entries" instead of the 5 listed exactly on the UA document. I could probably do it in a day or two if I didn't have a full-time job and kids.
Isn't there a weird situation where you pick either the 10th or 14th level for bard? Or am I misremembering?
Considering the issues that DnDBeyond has with anything that doesn't work well within the standard rule set, I would guess that these will never be available in the character builder, at least not in any complete sense.
I think that's frightfully pessimistic, given that the only thing these UA do that's unusual is the cross-class aspect, which isn't hard to implement, just time-consuming. All they have to do is create each sub (Lorehold, Silverquill, et al.) multiple times, once for each base class (Bard, Warlock, et al.) for a total of 10-15 different sub "entries" instead of the 5 listed exactly on the UA document. I could probably do it in a day or two if I didn't have a full-time job and kids.
Isn't there a weird situation where you pick either the 10th or 14th level for bard? Or am I misremembering?
Literally only on Bard, but Bards get sub stuff at 3, 6, and 14. So 3 and 6 are still straightforward, so at 14, you just choose whether you want the 10 or the 14 offered by the sub. The homebrew tools already have options built in. Not that complicated.
Considering the issues that DnDBeyond has with anything that doesn't work well within the standard rule set, I would guess that these will never be available in the character builder, at least not in any complete sense.
I think that's frightfully pessimistic, given that the only thing these UA do that's unusual is the cross-class aspect, which isn't hard to implement, just time-consuming. All they have to do is create each sub (Lorehold, Silverquill, et al.) multiple times, once for each base class (Bard, Warlock, et al.) for a total of 10-15 different sub "entries" instead of the 5 listed exactly on the UA document. I could probably do it in a day or two if I didn't have a full-time job and kids.
Isn't there a weird situation where you pick either the 10th or 14th level for bard? Or am I misremembering?
Literally only on Bard, but Bards get sub stuff at 3, 6, and 14. So 3 and 6 are still straightforward, so at 14, you just choose whether you want the 10 or the 14 offered by the sub. The homebrew tools already have options built in. Not that complicated.
Ah ok...honestly I have no idea as I rarely use the tools but that was the only hiccup I could think of.
I've built twenty-six subclasses (twenty-seven if you count the blood hunter but who cares about blood hunters) and am familiar enough with them to pretty confidently say "these subs are not hard, just time-consuming." You've got to do some duplication, but otherwise it's pretty straightforward.
Emphasis mine.
I think this was less about why other classes aren't in this UA, but why the classes that are present are all thrown in the same bag. Of course, being magic colleges this makes sense to some extent, as they're following the same curriculum. It's just really not lending itself well to the idea of individuality of a class. Therefore it makes sense to question the why.
I'm assuming you mean crossclassing as 'shape' here?
It's hard to discuss the content for the subclasses without critizicing the - Imo lackluster - shape.
Crossclass Subclasses have inherent flaws. One which you have been stating yourself, that the Bard gets less features. And it makes a lot of sense that work is cut down considerably if we're just turning two blind eyes over the individual needs of each base class and give them an approximation of 'one-size-fits-all' subclass.
On the other hand, implementing a subclass for each class in a college would leave us 13 subclasses. Which I agree is a lot.
Still, these subclasses need an overhaul to make them truly fair. Giving more base features to pick from might be a good start. It's also a mystery to me why some classes are locked out from some colleges when no college is really giving any thought to what their base class needs and offers. It feels a lot like they just went with what they thought would be flavourful.
As for discussing the content of a subclass, they're not really something we haven't seen yet. Most of it is an amalgamation of old mechanics given a new spin.
What's truly surprising is Vulnerability being handed out twice already. With quite a lot of spamming potential. That's worrying.
Y'know, I actually wholeheartedly agree on that- the idea of "well, if we're going to tackle the size of this concept, might as well try to get the most done in the least amount possible." But I agree too with seeing how some things might have been cut down a little too short, especially for Bard and whatnot. The idea of making more relevant "skill trees" for features and abilities to choose between seems like it would make a lot more sense to fit to the themes of the different classes, and then you could also still encourage players who want to think outside of the box to take unconventional picks anyhow. Or even just taking a second to properly think about what things might be missed out on and making sure that those mechanics aren't anything major for that class. Say with Bard, it seems really shocking that they have to choose between the two strongest subclass features for both Lorehold (War Echoes and History's Whims) and Silverquill (Infusion of Eloquence and Word of Power) while the other classes just... get them for no apparent reason. It'd be different if those exact features weren't so potent, but the fact that they are basically says "everybody gets two cookies- except for Bard, who only gets one, because they only deserve one.
I'm also really interested to see how the community moves forward in playtesting these. I'd like to look for more opportunities to really see how these stack up against existing subclasses and seeing how they might fare with and against each other. I really do hope that this concept can be made to work out, but I just hope that none of it is biting off more than can be chewed.
The whole thing seems odd to me. The premise is that all these classes can go to this school and learn the same or similar things, yet each subclass is still limited to a select set of classes which is counter to the original premise. The more I look at it the more I think it is just lazy on the part of WotC. They wanted to do "Hogwarts" but didn't want to have to put in the effort to actually do it.
As far as what each subclass can do, well, they are not very well balanced to work evenly between the classes they have been assigned to. The resources and class abilities aren't the same so the results of adding these subclasses varies too widely to keep in line with each other, let alone with existing subclasses.
It is kind of a hot mess that doesn't really add anything to the game. I am all for new mechanics and introducing new rules, but not all ideas are good ideas.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
In response to Bleikopf as well: I do wonder if it would have been better to just give each subclass a core approach rather than trying to spread them across classes. As in, rather than picking out a handful of classes to try to tailor a subclass to, why not just pick out the most apparent ones? Lorehold Bard for the concept of lorekeeping, Prismari Sorcerer for the mix of elements and artistic flair/charm, Quandrix Wizard for the knowledge of science and mathematics, Silverquill Warlock for the twisting and conniving, Witherbloom Druid for the natural play on life and death- if you asked me, wouldn't those be the most fitting? Why lump 1-2 more classes into each of those anyhow besides to try to "make more content out of less?"
Despite how baffled I still am, I agree- there are a lot of powerful features here that seem tailored to fighting other caster enemies. I almost feel like having a more clear idea of seeing what the enemies might look like in this expansion might help to inform what abilities are more valid. For example, what's the fun in fighting a caster if so many of these abilities offer options to impose vulnerability just to oneshot the poor buggers? The slew of abilities related to improved saving throws leads me to believe that these classes are built to deal with caster effects at least, so I think that's a fair thing to argue for- I'd just wish to see that concept being tested in the content they intend this for.
I want to see a 'subclasses' section in the "game rules" menu and these subclasses on D&D Beyond.
I solemnly swear that I am up to no good
There is actually one thing that I'm missing in this UA:
Strixhaven in MtG introduced a new mechanic called 'learn'. To break it down, any card you played that could 'learn' would let you choose to pick up a card from outside the game that had the 'lesson' subtype. Apart from being very flavourful it also allowed a lot of flexibility.
I might stray a bit too far from the basic design ideas of dnd here, making things too complicated or smth.
We might see something like this in the settings book, a mechanic where you can actually learn new lessons. I imagine something that allows you to pick up new features, a bit similar to boons but more fleshed out.
Which brings me to question if this couldn't have been a better approach?
Create 5 basic subclasses: Bard of Strixhaven, Druid of Strixhaven, Sorcerer of Strixhaven, Warlock of Strixhaven and Wizard of Strixhaven.
When choosing their subclass they choose a specific college, at subclass level get a Lesson, a pool of features that each college possesses. Mostly working like Invocations in my mind.
Add in a Feat maybe that allows you to pick up another lesson.
Meanwhile allow the class subclasses themselves to straighten out the differences. Bard gets something like 'get two lessons at level x' or 'you can choose a lesson instead of a magical secret'.
We're still down to 5 subclasses, but each one has more customization. You could even add in Cleric with this design, as the Cleric specific Devotions etc. would be handled in the Cleric of Strixhaven subclass.
Witherbloom bothers me, a lot. Reading it feels like I'm reading a version of School of Necromancy Wizard with feats that actually have like...synergy or promote a common theme.
Necromancer Wizard is supposed to be about manipulating the forces of life and death, and this subclass actually does that.
The Witherbloom spell list providing Inflict Wounds, Cure Wounds, and Spare the Dying right off the bat makes it better at manipulating life energy than School of Necromancy.
Essence Tap feels like it what Grim Harvest should have been. It lets you on demand manipulate latent life energy to heal, or sap an opponent's life force with necrotic damage. It's a feat that a player can actually engage with, that they can plan and play around, something that gives them options, and has broad use. It's not just a stupid passive that only works in niche scenarios by restoring a small amount of health whose effect can only be fully utilized by 8 spells.
Witherbloom Adept, again, feels like a more thematically appropriate thing for "manipulating the forces of life and death" than School of Necromancy. You've gotten better at manipulating the forces of life and death and can inflict greater wounds on your enemies' vital energy or restore more of it. School of Necromancy just cant have its max HP reduced and gets necrotic damage resistance, something that has nothing to do with any of its subclass feats.
Withering Vortex. Man, what an interesting feat. When you deal necrotic damage, you can "manipulate the forces of life and death" to drain and redistribute life energy. That sure does seem thematically appropriate for someone who "manipulates the forces of life and death", as opposed to...being able to order an undead creature to be your pet.
I'm livid.
Witherbloom Subclass, does a better job of actually living up to the description of School of Necromancy, than the actual School of Necromancy. This is ridiculous.
It's also more morally grey than School of Necromancy, which makes it more attractive to people who want to be necromancers without the baggage of literally animating corpses, which is an inherently evil act.
I look forward to these. As a Software Developer Quandrix is in my wheelhouse.
I see a lot of people bring up clerics not being a part of this. Maybe its just my way of looking at the casting for that class but does a cleric study to be able to cast or is it just they essentially pray to their deity for help or guidance. For me personally a school wouldn't quite fit the Cleric feel. The other classes seam to have some type of learning needed to some extent. A bard learns to use music to weave magic, a warlock studies the occult, druids learn to connect with nature, and well wizards are wizards.
The Quandrix Sorcerer is the one that seams the most out of place to me, unless maybe it was a computer turned warforged ... hmmm.
When does this go live on Dnd beyond?
When will this ua be integrated into dnd beyond? Anyone know?
Considering the issues that DnDBeyond has with anything that doesn't work well within the standard rule set, I would guess that these will never be available in the character builder, at least not in any complete sense.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think that's frightfully pessimistic, given that the only thing these UA do that's unusual is the cross-class aspect, which isn't hard to implement, just time-consuming. All they have to do is create each sub (Lorehold, Silverquill, et al.) multiple times, once for each base class (Bard, Warlock, et al.) for a total of 10-15 different sub "entries" instead of the 5 listed exactly on the UA document. I could probably do it in a day or two if I didn't have a full-time job and kids.
Isn't there a weird situation where you pick either the 10th or 14th level for bard? Or am I misremembering?
Literally only on Bard, but Bards get sub stuff at 3, 6, and 14. So 3 and 6 are still straightforward, so at 14, you just choose whether you want the 10 or the 14 offered by the sub. The homebrew tools already have options built in. Not that complicated.
Ah ok...honestly I have no idea as I rarely use the tools but that was the only hiccup I could think of.
I've built twenty-six subclasses (twenty-seven if you count the blood hunter but who cares about blood hunters) and am familiar enough with them to pretty confidently say "these subs are not hard, just time-consuming." You've got to do some duplication, but otherwise it's pretty straightforward.
Appears as if they will not support the most recent UA....at least per the Dev Talk today.
Looks like I was right then. "Frightful pessimism" for the win.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Well that just feels lazy.