Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 GhostStepper Jul 07, 2014 22:38:42	I'm looking at the Basic PDF and the last playtest while pondering what subclasses and alternate class features could be added to flesh out different concepts. It seems that delaying subclasses until level 3 going to be a huge hinderance to future customization unless they do some awkward workarounds.   For example, years ago i made a Grappler class for 3.5 that was based on a Heracles or Samson sort of archetype. The class represented a strong, unarmored fist fighter who punched things hard like the monk, had special grappling options like throws and relied on Str and Con. You'd think that with a full fledged subclass system, the Grappler could easily slide into an existing class but looking at the options, it just isn't going to fit that way. My options seem to be:   Fighter: Seems logical, but the heavy armor and martial weapon prof doesn't fit. The fighting style bonus is way, way too minor to add in an entire unarmed and unarmored class feature to sit next to what is already there. If you wait till level 3 for a subclass, you wind up with a completely different character out of the blue after playing an armored weapon user.   Barbarian: Unarmored, and Strength based. Seems good. But then there's Rage that doesn't really fit. There's nowhere to fit unarmed fighting right off the bat unless you swap out what's there and then you've essentially remade a subclass system just to start at level one. If you wait till level 3 for a proper subclass, you're stuck with features that don't necessarily fit your concept (Rageeee!)   Monk: Unarmed melee fighter seems perfect, right? It's Dex based. You'd have to redo the subclass concept to overwrite 1st level features to make it work.   The subclass idea seems great in abstract. Theoretically, you could fit almost any of the other niche classes into a subclass underneath one of the base classes. The problem is that subclasses alone don't allow you to swap out starting features, severely hampering what you can fit into the system. They can always decided to make alternate class features that swap in right at level one but then at that point you have 2 different subclass systems that needlessly confuse the design.   It anyone seeing an elegant way around this issue?
#2 LFK Jul 07, 2014 22:58:58	The relationship between Class and Subclass is pretty muddy, and already in 5e we have classes that change dramatically once they take their subclass. Warlords, for example, have nothing warlord-y until level 3, same with Eldrich Knights. It seems that the "cooked in" answer that Mearls is passing out is "start at level 3" which... yeah.   In your specific case I'd say build the subclass AND a new Fighting Style for unarmed strikes. I don't really have a good idea for how to deal with the unarmoured thing beyond baking some incentive to wear nothing into the subclass features.
#3 GhostStepper Jul 07, 2014 23:03:20	It's also problematic for other concepts too. Swordmage, for example. You're not really a swordmage until the subclass hits unless you redefine subclass and actually swap out features at level one.   Essentially, any new concept that could have easily been rolled into a class: Battlemind, Totemist, Artificer, etc, has the huge problem of feature baggage from apprentice levels AND the fact that the concept doesn't really play that way you'd want until level 3 at the earliest.
#4 LFK Jul 07, 2014 23:26:02	Well, Swordmage and Artificer I would like to see return as full-blooded classes. I really enjoyed my poor, woefully-under-supported 4e Artificer, kinks and all, and Swordmage was easily one of 4e's best new additions along side Warlords. That said, Warlord got cannibalized, and Eldritch Knight is "the new Swordmage", so weep a little.   Still, even the oldest of oldie fans love them some splat, so I'd be shocked if that moratorium lasts more than a year before we get a full blooded Warlord (martial healing and all) and Swordmage.   Case in point: Sorcerer and Warlock both got fragmented off into their own classes, and they're a least as distinct relative to Wizards.
#5 Prism Jul 07, 2014 23:44:04	GhostStepper wrote:
#6 The_Jester Jul 07, 2014 23:59:04	GhostStepper wrote:
#7 masterfat78 Jul 08, 2014 0:06:57	The_Jester wrote:
#8 Hebitsuikaza Jul 08, 2014 1:57:08	masterfat78 wrote:
#9 GhostStepper Jul 08, 2014 6:37:47	I used the Grappler as an example but, really, the main issue is that no matter what new subclass you try to fit into an existing class you're saddled with all the of the starting features unless you allow swapping at 1st level and then you're essentially inventing a competing subclass system. The subclass idea was a great concept to decrease class bloat since you can use the frame of something in existance and swap in the features you want but pushing it back to 3rd level seems to kill that potential utility.   I'm sure if  i homebrewed the monk i could make the class but my general concern is to how the design team has painted themselves into a corner when they had a perfectly good concept that would have allowed them prevent class bloat. Now, they're either stuck cranking out dozens of classes like before or sort of reneging on the subclass design and starting over at level 1.    The_Jester wrote:
#10 mellored Jul 08, 2014 6:55:32	What's wrong with the fighter?   Additional Fighting Style:    Unarmed Combatant *You can use a free hand as a 1d6 light, finess, bludgoning weapon.  In addition, when you would normally make an attack, you can make a grapple check instead.   Brawler Subclass. - Level 3:  You gain your proficency bonus on grapple, drag, and bull rush attempts. - Level 7: When you have someone grabbed, you can throw them as an attack.  On a failed Dex save they take 1d10 falling damage. - Level 10: Deal 1d4+Str bludgoning damage to any creature that you have gabbed at the end of their turn. - Level 15: You can grab big creatuers.  Or 2 smaller creatures in 1 hand. - Level 18: Count a roll of 9 or less on a d20 as a 10 when making any strength check.
#11 ChrisTheS Jul 08, 2014 6:59:59	Thematically speaking, both Heracles and Samson had serious self-control issues, so for your iconic examples at least, barbarian wouldn't be inappropriate.
#12 GhostStepper Jul 08, 2014 7:03:35	mellored wrote:
#13 mellored Jul 08, 2014 7:28:28	GhostStepper wrote:
#14 Arithezoo Jul 08, 2014 7:42:06	GhostStepper wrote:
#15 Hebitsuikaza Jul 08, 2014 7:56:37	GhostStepper wrote:
#16 Pyromantic Jul 08, 2014 7:57:35	I just don't see the issue here.  If you want a character design that doesn't use existing class features then you need to come up with a new class, but that has always been true.  Without subclasses it would just be happening a lot more often.  Subclasses allow you to use an existing chassis for a character option when appropriate without having to reinvent the wheel.  If you didn't have any assumed features at all there would be no point to subclasses because you'd be creating a new class each time anyway.
#17 The_Jester Jul 08, 2014 8:18:54	masterfat78 wrote:
#18 Tony_Vargas Jul 08, 2014 8:42:16	GhostStepper wrote:
#19 GhostStepper Jul 08, 2014 9:25:09	mellored wrote:
#20 GhostStepper Jul 08, 2014 9:18:35	I guess another way to put it is: WotC has already instituted subclasses as a way of fitting different archetypes into existing classes. Are they going to be compelled to build full-on sets of alternate class features (ala Pathfinder) as a sort of competing subclass paradigm?
(Reply to #19) ChrisTheS	GhostStepper wrote:
#22 mellored Jul 08, 2014 10:27:43	GhostStepper wrote:
#23 GhostStepper Jul 08, 2014 12:16:20	mellored wrote:
#24 Brock_Landers Jul 08, 2014 11:48:31	The Monk in that 5th Ed Necromancer Games adventure is Str-based, and its Save Proficiencies are Str and Dex.
#25 MechaPilot Jul 08, 2014 12:04:19	GhostStepper wrote:
#26 mellored Jul 08, 2014 12:27:00	GhostStepper wrote:
#27 Brock_Landers Jul 08, 2014 12:43:58	Kits are groovy, that could be an "advanced" option.   They have also talked about Prestige Classes, but more role-playing based, like a specific organisation ,etc, not. look at this new PrC that helps my ill build, yadda, yadda-crapola.
#28 FFSAA Jul 08, 2014 14:38:14	Subclasses aren't sub classes, they're feat lists.  They don't act like classes or prestiege classes and they don't fill the role of multi-classing, dual-classing, gestalts, paragons or hybrid classes.   Rather than give you a feat every 3 levels and end up with some levels giving characters multiple abilities and some levels being "dead levels" with no abilities, they built them right into the classes.   Mechancially they're ugly.  Like in many other places in the system they've sacrificed role-play for no discernable reason.  It makes no sense from an RP perspective that it is possible, even easy, to MC rogue and take the assassin subclass, but completely impossible for an evoker wizard to take any enchanter subclass abilities.  That is like saying science - physicist can never ever take chemistry, but has no problem taking drama - stand up comedy.
#29 LFK Jul 08, 2014 15:53:07	GhostStepper wrote:
#30 Saelorn Jul 08, 2014 16:24:22	FFSAA wrote:
#31 Tony_Vargas Jul 08, 2014 20:05:19	I would be surprised if the MC rules /let/ you be a wizard/wizard/wizard like that, I mean, we haven't seen the whole MC rule set up, I'd be surprised if you could 'loop' back into a class you already have.    Though, depending on just /how/ different sub-classes turn out to be, I suppose it could make sense....  It would also make sense for such levels to 'stack' in things both sub-classes have in common...  :shrug:   3e-style MCing is an elegant idea, but the implementation always turns messy - because we've yet to get a D&D where the classes are as elegant as the idea...
#32 Arithezoo Jul 08, 2014 18:26:11	GhostStepper wrote: