In general, I have several problems with the way subclasses work in DnD, and spent quite some time thinking about a solutions.
Problem 1: some classes' subclasses are too similar or formulaic. Worst offender: barbarian. All of barbarian subclasses are basically about doing additional damage during rage in a slightly different way, they don't offer any deviation from the basic damager role. The only exception is totemic warrior (bear) and ancestral guardian, for they at least offer tanking mechanics to somehow change your behavior in battle. In contrast to this, an example of good variation in subclasses is monk. Way of Shadow turns a monk into a stealthy, elusive ninja, while Way of Mercy turns him into a healer. These subclasses have drastically different features that core class does not possess, stirring the character into entirely different directions while still being true to the idea of a monk.
Problem 2: multi-subclassing. It doesn't exist. While you can multiclass to get access to other class' features, choosing a subclass locks you out of other subclasses' features forever, which doesn't always makes sense. Assassin rogue has features that help impersonate people, but why wouldn't a mastermind rogue have that?
Problem 3: many subclasses, little features. Some classes have a lot of subclasses, especially cleric and wizard. But each subclass only consists of roughly 4 features, one or several of them being the same "you add your spellcasting ability modifier to damage done by cantrips" or "you gain proficiency in armor/weapons", thus reducing a subclass to mere 2-3 features, which are sometimes further tied into one or two mechanics.
The solution:
Melee
Ranged
Support/Social
Healing
Pet
Infiltrator
Utility/Magic
Artificer
Armorer
Artillerist
Alchemist
Machinist
Barbarian
Berserker
Warlord
Beastmaster
Totemic warrior
Bard
Swashbuckler
Wit
Mesmer
Glamour
Cleric
Chaplain
Augur
Preacher
Healer
Druid
Shapeshifter
Witch doctor
Shepherd
Geomancer
Fighter
Arms master
Arcane archer
Commander
Spellblade
Monk
Open hand
Mercy
Shadow
Elements
Paladin
Crusader
Inquisitor
Chaplain
Exorcist
Ranger
Slayer
Arcane archer
Beastmaster
Stalker
Rogue
Swashbuckler
Mastermind
Thief
Arcane trickster
Sorcerer
Warped
Wild magic
Divine soul
Plane touched
Warlock
Eld.Knight
Witch
Summoner
Occultist
Wizard
Spellblade
War mage
Mesmer
Necromancer
Now, allow me to explain the design.
No more than 4 subclasses per class
Each subclass has a clear role, a direction that is different from the other subclasses
Each subclass has a pool of features to choose from (like warlock's invocations), rather than a small fixed set
Each subclass' pool of features can be further expanded in new sourcebooks
Several features can be tied into a chain by one being an upgrade for another
Some features are shared among several subclasses, but the further you go, the more specialized in your chosen role you become
You might also notice that some subclasses are shared by two classes. I call it bridge subclasses. In essence, if you mutliclass and choose the same subclass for both classes where that's possible, both of your classes count towards the progression of your subclass features. If you are a fighter/wizard spellblade, you get to choose the optimal ratio of fighter and wizard levels, while the bridge subclass reinforces the synergy between the two, letting you access the subclass capstone feature.
So, what do you think? I understand I'm getting a little ahead of myself and the playtest documents, but this playtest is the perfect time to present new ideas that might make the game better in 2024. Any criticism is welcome. It's still a very rough draft, too heavy to fit into homebrew.
I like the idea but why not take it a step further, have no subclasses but instead optional features that are composed along themes, so you can pick and choose how you want your character to develop.
brancukng features could keep it from being a free for all but overall that would be neat
"utility/magic" should just be utility. Magic isn't necessary for utility and some of these other roles are clearly magic, like war mage, I assume that range is magic. Overall if a class is physical or magic is irrelevant to their role.
I'd rename infiltrator to espionage, infiltration might be one way one commits espionage but it isn't the only way and then also covers the more board area of scouting.
I don't think the "bridge" feature is good, it preferences certain multiclass set-ups over others. We already have that in 5E based on ASI, with classes that use Charisma generally multi-classing too well together too well, such as Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock and Bard.
I think 4 choices is too much to start with, assuming all classes are being re-worked, 3 would be more likely, more can always be added later and that is a thing WotC would want since they want to sell more material later on, it's still a business at the end of the day.
I think one major thing is that each class should have a role and then subclass extends into a secondary role. So for example, Bard is a support who gets sub-classes which adds Melee, Healing or Utility. Paladin could then be a Melee that sub-classes into support, healing or utility while a Cleric would be a healer that sub-classes into melee, ranged or support. After all, if you work with a 4 person party and have 7 distinct roles it'd need each character covering two roles to make sure you have all covered.
I'd recommend one additional role which would be the "zone" role, which is about controlling the battlefield, it'd be a main role for Barbarian and subclass role choice for fighter, paladin and maybe ranger and warlock.
I like the idea but why not take it a step further, have no subclasses but instead optional features that are composed along themes, so you can pick and choose how you want your character to develop.
brancukng features could keep it from being a free for all but overall that would be neat
sounds like a certain competitors 2nd edition "Class feats", not sure if allowed to name it :p.
Each subclass has a clear role, a direction that is different from the other subclasses
When subclasses where first introduced in the DnD next (5e) playtest, the idea was that each class would get a subclass for each of the 4 character roles tat where in DnD 4e Controller, defender, Leader or striker.
I like the idea but why not take it a step further, have no subclasses but instead optional features that are composed along themes, so you can pick and choose how you want your character to develop.
brancukng features could keep it from being a free for all but overall that would be neat
I considered this, and in my opinion, there has to be a certain limitation preventing free for all and cherry-picking. One way is a system of prerequisites that will narrow down the list of available features the further you go. Another is subclasses, but with shared access to some more basic features in early and mid-tiers. I decided that the latter would be less clunky and easier to understand.
"utility/magic" should just be utility. Magic isn't necessary for utility and some of these other roles are clearly magic, like war mage, I assume that range is magic. Overall if a class is physical or magic is irrelevant to their role.
I'd rename infiltrator to espionage, infiltration might be one way one commits espionage but it isn't the only way and then also covers the more board area of scouting.
I don't think the "bridge" feature is good, it preferences certain multiclass set-ups over others. We already have that in 5E based on ASI, with classes that use Charisma generally multi-classing too well together too well, such as Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock and Bard.
I think 4 choices is too much to start with, assuming all classes are being re-worked, 3 would be more likely, more can always be added later and that is a thing WotC would want since they want to sell more material later on, it's still a business at the end of the day.
I think one major thing is that each class should have a role and then subclass extends into a secondary role. So for example, Bard is a support who gets sub-classes which adds Melee, Healing or Utility. Paladin could then be a Melee that sub-classes into support, healing or utility while a Cleric would be a healer that sub-classes into melee, ranged or support. After all, if you work with a 4 person party and have 7 distinct roles it'd need each character covering two roles to make sure you have all covered.
I'd recommend one additional role which would be the "zone" role, which is about controlling the battlefield, it'd be a main role for Barbarian and subclass role choice for fighter, paladin and maybe ranger and warlock.
I called it utility/magic as a catch-all term. Usually, adding spellcasting to a martial is the simplest way to give them utility, like with elemental monk or totemic barbarian (I'd give them far more than just one or two primal spells). I also just slapped into that category the subclasses that simply get more spells (and thus utility), like occultist warlock (based around rituals and the existing Book of Shadows invocation that I'd make a subclass feature instead), or plane touched sorcerer (choose a group of planes or an element, get associated bonus spells and features).
Regarding infiltration/espionage, well, it's just wording. Clearly the bard's approach is different from a monk's.
Regarding the bridge subclass feature, yes, it's a concern I also have, some multiclass setups will be very clearly favored that way. I just tossed the idea for possible alterations or solutions. Sometimes, like with a wizard/fighter, it's just asking to be made. Sometimes, like with barbarian/ranger beastmaster, I did it to prevent redundancy, as both classes will rely on same features and mechanics, and I wouldn't like to separate features or duplicate them for two classes, however the latter might be a lesser evil, seeing how right now things like evasion or tanking mechanic (mark the target so that it has disadvantage on attacks against anyone else but you) are identical for several classes/subclasses.
Perhaps 4 choices are too much for a start, but l tried to cover as much as possible, and like I said, later releases should just add options for existing subclasses rather than add subclasses themselves. I always prefer deepening and expanding existing stuff to just adding new stuff, because as you add new stuff, things eventually get bloated.
Yes, I like the idea of class having a base role and subclass adding a clear secondary role. Although sometimes players want just more of the same, so berserker is the most barbaric barbarian, and wit (I would merge wit and eloquence into it to get the ultimate inspiration user) is the bardiest bard - a choice to focus on the class default role. A certain game I would not mention, just like 2nd edition of dnd, had one default subclass for every class with the same name as the basic class. But I like your vision, too. Such features, that are basic to the class role, could be simply available to all subclasses within a class. But then again, if you only make a character only with these "neutral" features, isn't it a separate subclass already? Not sure, might be a good idea, might be a bad one.
As for the "zone" role, I'd roll it into melee, because it's mostly about a couple of basic features (like aforementioned tanking mechanic) and usually it's in the hands of melee classes/subclasses.
fair enough, yes some people just want more of the same, unfortunately that often causes imbalance since you have specialists who are very good at 1 thing and literally terrible at everything else.
fair enough, yes some people just want more of the same, unfortunately that often causes imbalance since you have specialists who are very good at 1 thing and literally terrible at everything else.
It's still a valid choice. Someone might want to be a meathead "HULK SMASH" barbarian, or a bard that is all about avoiding combat and any physical activities (except the one bards are made for) at all costs by talking their way through the game. That's why it's a team game. Someone else will cover for your weaknesses. Or help you form an ORChestra.
fair enough, yes some people just want more of the same, unfortunately that often causes imbalance since you have specialists who are very good at 1 thing and literally terrible at everything else.
It's still a valid choice. Someone might want to be a meathead "HULK SMASH" barbarian, or a bard that is all about avoiding combat and any physical activities (except the one bards are made for) at all costs by talking their way through the game. That's why it's a team game. Someone else will cover for your weaknesses. Or help you form an ORChestra.
Ah yes! The ORChestra! That wonderful band of Orc Bard Musicians, they inspire all around limitless talent for all things pertaining to Music. For their Glory is so great that the playtest could not ignore them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In general, I have several problems with the way subclasses work in DnD, and spent quite some time thinking about a solutions.
Problem 1: some classes' subclasses are too similar or formulaic. Worst offender: barbarian. All of barbarian subclasses are basically about doing additional damage during rage in a slightly different way, they don't offer any deviation from the basic damager role. The only exception is totemic warrior (bear) and ancestral guardian, for they at least offer tanking mechanics to somehow change your behavior in battle. In contrast to this, an example of good variation in subclasses is monk. Way of Shadow turns a monk into a stealthy, elusive ninja, while Way of Mercy turns him into a healer. These subclasses have drastically different features that core class does not possess, stirring the character into entirely different directions while still being true to the idea of a monk.
Problem 2: multi-subclassing. It doesn't exist. While you can multiclass to get access to other class' features, choosing a subclass locks you out of other subclasses' features forever, which doesn't always makes sense. Assassin rogue has features that help impersonate people, but why wouldn't a mastermind rogue have that?
Problem 3: many subclasses, little features. Some classes have a lot of subclasses, especially cleric and wizard. But each subclass only consists of roughly 4 features, one or several of them being the same "you add your spellcasting ability modifier to damage done by cantrips" or "you gain proficiency in armor/weapons", thus reducing a subclass to mere 2-3 features, which are sometimes further tied into one or two mechanics.
The solution:
Now, allow me to explain the design.
You might also notice that some subclasses are shared by two classes. I call it bridge subclasses. In essence, if you mutliclass and choose the same subclass for both classes where that's possible, both of your classes count towards the progression of your subclass features. If you are a fighter/wizard spellblade, you get to choose the optimal ratio of fighter and wizard levels, while the bridge subclass reinforces the synergy between the two, letting you access the subclass capstone feature.
So, what do you think? I understand I'm getting a little ahead of myself and the playtest documents, but this playtest is the perfect time to present new ideas that might make the game better in 2024. Any criticism is welcome. It's still a very rough draft, too heavy to fit into homebrew.
I like the idea but why not take it a step further, have no subclasses but instead optional features that are composed along themes, so you can pick and choose how you want your character to develop.
brancukng features could keep it from being a free for all but overall that would be neat
"utility/magic" should just be utility. Magic isn't necessary for utility and some of these other roles are clearly magic, like war mage, I assume that range is magic. Overall if a class is physical or magic is irrelevant to their role.
I'd rename infiltrator to espionage, infiltration might be one way one commits espionage but it isn't the only way and then also covers the more board area of scouting.
I don't think the "bridge" feature is good, it preferences certain multiclass set-ups over others. We already have that in 5E based on ASI, with classes that use Charisma generally multi-classing too well together too well, such as Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock and Bard.
I think 4 choices is too much to start with, assuming all classes are being re-worked, 3 would be more likely, more can always be added later and that is a thing WotC would want since they want to sell more material later on, it's still a business at the end of the day.
I think one major thing is that each class should have a role and then subclass extends into a secondary role. So for example, Bard is a support who gets sub-classes which adds Melee, Healing or Utility. Paladin could then be a Melee that sub-classes into support, healing or utility while a Cleric would be a healer that sub-classes into melee, ranged or support. After all, if you work with a 4 person party and have 7 distinct roles it'd need each character covering two roles to make sure you have all covered.
I'd recommend one additional role which would be the "zone" role, which is about controlling the battlefield, it'd be a main role for Barbarian and subclass role choice for fighter, paladin and maybe ranger and warlock.
sounds like a certain competitors 2nd edition "Class feats", not sure if allowed to name it :p.
When subclasses where first introduced in the DnD next (5e) playtest, the idea was that each class would get a subclass for each of the 4 character roles tat where in DnD 4e Controller, defender, Leader or striker.
I considered this, and in my opinion, there has to be a certain limitation preventing free for all and cherry-picking. One way is a system of prerequisites that will narrow down the list of available features the further you go. Another is subclasses, but with shared access to some more basic features in early and mid-tiers. I decided that the latter would be less clunky and easier to understand.
I called it utility/magic as a catch-all term. Usually, adding spellcasting to a martial is the simplest way to give them utility, like with elemental monk or totemic barbarian (I'd give them far more than just one or two primal spells). I also just slapped into that category the subclasses that simply get more spells (and thus utility), like occultist warlock (based around rituals and the existing Book of Shadows invocation that I'd make a subclass feature instead), or plane touched sorcerer (choose a group of planes or an element, get associated bonus spells and features).
Regarding infiltration/espionage, well, it's just wording. Clearly the bard's approach is different from a monk's.
Regarding the bridge subclass feature, yes, it's a concern I also have, some multiclass setups will be very clearly favored that way. I just tossed the idea for possible alterations or solutions. Sometimes, like with a wizard/fighter, it's just asking to be made. Sometimes, like with barbarian/ranger beastmaster, I did it to prevent redundancy, as both classes will rely on same features and mechanics, and I wouldn't like to separate features or duplicate them for two classes, however the latter might be a lesser evil, seeing how right now things like evasion or tanking mechanic (mark the target so that it has disadvantage on attacks against anyone else but you) are identical for several classes/subclasses.
Perhaps 4 choices are too much for a start, but l tried to cover as much as possible, and like I said, later releases should just add options for existing subclasses rather than add subclasses themselves. I always prefer deepening and expanding existing stuff to just adding new stuff, because as you add new stuff, things eventually get bloated.
Yes, I like the idea of class having a base role and subclass adding a clear secondary role. Although sometimes players want just more of the same, so berserker is the most barbaric barbarian, and wit (I would merge wit and eloquence into it to get the ultimate inspiration user) is the bardiest bard - a choice to focus on the class default role. A certain game I would not mention, just like 2nd edition of dnd, had one default subclass for every class with the same name as the basic class. But I like your vision, too. Such features, that are basic to the class role, could be simply available to all subclasses within a class. But then again, if you only make a character only with these "neutral" features, isn't it a separate subclass already? Not sure, might be a good idea, might be a bad one.
As for the "zone" role, I'd roll it into melee, because it's mostly about a couple of basic features (like aforementioned tanking mechanic) and usually it's in the hands of melee classes/subclasses.
fair enough, yes some people just want more of the same, unfortunately that often causes imbalance since you have specialists who are very good at 1 thing and literally terrible at everything else.
It's still a valid choice. Someone might want to be a meathead "HULK SMASH" barbarian, or a bard that is all about avoiding combat and any physical activities (except the one bards are made for) at all costs by talking their way through the game. That's why it's a team game. Someone else will cover for your weaknesses. Or help you form an ORChestra.
Ah yes! The ORChestra! That wonderful band of Orc Bard Musicians, they inspire all around limitless talent for all things pertaining to Music. For their Glory is so great that the playtest could not ignore them.