Decoupling of main and subclasses - would it be a good thing?

[Wasp]

Hi there

so after the nixed Strixhaven subclasses that could have been taken by multiple main classes - do you think it would be a viable or even good idea to decouple main classes and sub classes completely in future editions? And in a way go more in the direction of prestige classes from previous editions where you maybe just have to fulfill certain requirements like spellcasting ability to take a certain sub class but are not bound to be a certain class to become an Arcane Archer? So the idea wouzld there would be for example a Gloomstalker option that all classes could take or a Divination class that would be viable for all kinds of spellcasters.

Of course the main classes would need to be rejiggered so that all classes get features at the same levels etc - but I think this could be a fun thing.

On the other hand I don't know if D&D would become too generic this way and also tooo complicated for new players having too many options?
And maybe it would ruin the flavor of certain classes like Wizards and Clerics where the subclasses have an immense impact right from the start?

What do you think?

[Amnestic]

Yes...and no. But mostly no.

Classes as they are now are (supposed to be) balanced at different points for getting subclass features, some get more than others, etc. and changing that around would be a not insignificant effort. There's also a number of subclasses which directly refer to class features - thinks like barbarian rage, bardic inspiration, ki, sorcery points, etc. which would have to be rewritten and arguably 'defanged' in order to make them universal. Not to mention that some subclasses - patrons, oaths - are far more inherently connected to a class than some others.

But there are some subclasses where they can slot fairly nicely onto another class or two. Beastmaster copies onto a druid well enough (perhaps too well...). Arcane Archer probably works on a rogue.

I don't think subclasses which share the same name and similar (if not totally identical) mechanics for two different classes should be given up on, but neither do I think that the existing ones should be totally rejigged.

[Saelethil]

I think yes, to a degree. I think there are some subclasses that would work on more than one class, both mechanically and thematically, but I don’t necessarily want it to be a free for all. For example, I could see swashbuckler being a great fit for fighter as well as rogue and champion working very well on a barbarian but subclasses should be allowed to interact with class abilities so those ones shouldn’t be available for everyone. There are some that could be adjusted minimally to fit more generically but I would especially expect to be keeping the caster/martial split for the most part.
I guess what I’m getting at is having the subclass levels more homogenized but having which classes each subclass can fit onto be on more of a case by case basis.

[Dienekes]

It depends on how classes and subclasses are balanced mechanically, but honestly I’d generally lean toward no.

Part of the problem is there are really two types of classes. Those which get most of their flavor and abilities through their subclass and those that get most of their flavor and abilities through their class.

The best way to represent this is with the example of the Fighter and the Barbarian.

The base Fighter has little in the way of mechanics. It attacks. Once per short rest it attacks a lot. That’s it. So the subclasses can basically do what they want with it. Staple on whole additional mechanics, some of these ended up good, others did not.

The base Barbarian already has the core of its mechanics in the base class. Rage is pretty central to what a Barbarian can do. And a fair few of their subclasses revolve around tweaking and amplifying that core mechanic. You can’t really graft a Barbarian subclass onto the Fighter even if the abilities meshed, because the Barbarians subclass was about turning the Barbarian’s Rage into lycanthropy and the Fighter doesn’t even have the Rage ability. A Wizard taking a Monk subclass would be confused when it asked for Ki points or talked about how the subclass triggers off of Flurry of Blows.

Now there are ways around this, but none of them are particularly satisfactory. Personally, I actually prefer when the subclasses do fit in and adjust the the base class to create a more tailored experience. Which is not to say it cannot go wrong, Four Elements Monk ties it’s casting in to the Monk’s mechanics very directly, but it’s worse for it. But in general I think it’s a good idea.


What I really think is the issue this is trying to solve is simply that there are a few generic archetypes that got placed in specific classes subclass list when other classes have just as much a reason to fit that archetype as any other. Now this could be solved with releasing more subclasses, to fill these issues. But that hasn’t happened yet.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I wouldn't mind if subclasses are standardized enough to allow for some to be taken by multiple classes (particularly across martial/arcane/divine lines), but some abilities which make a flavorful or viable character on one class become busted on another. For example, let's say we have something akin to the Eldritch Knight. Balanced on a Fighter, could even be balanced on a Monk, Rogue, or Barbarian. But if put on a Sorcerer or Wizard, are we going to let them get even more arcane power from it and bust the power curve or decide they can't get any and thus it's a trap option? Do we let Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers do it to pick up new options or new power? And Warlock opens up *lots* of questions, narratively as well as class identity issues.

It's so much cleaner to just confine it to martial-only. That's what I think can work, allowing some subclasses to be built to function with multiple classes, but not assuming all subclasses to work for all classes as a design paradigm.

[Brookshw]

Pass, I prefer the subclass system currently in place and find it helps keep the game better balanced.

[Yora]

This idea sounds to me like a return of prestige classes, but with easier entry requirements.
I think they were a mistake back in 3rd edition and an idea that doesn't need to come back.

[Rukelnikov]

I like the idea, but I think it need to come with a rework in the base classes.

I'd do something similar to what we have now, but where you are not forced to take the full subclass. Imagine, whenever you gain "subclass feature" in your class you can take the next feature available from any sub.

So a Fighter at 3 could take the lvl 3 Rune Knight features, and at 7 the lvl 7 features, but then at 10 takes Battle Masters level 3 features, and at 15 gets level 10 RK's.

This would obiously need rescaling of both classes and subclasses.

Its the direction I hope they go for in 5.5

[Gtdead]

Yes in a sense. I'd love to see the subclasses decoupled because I want more customization options, similar to the prestige class system of 3.5e, or even more radical, like breaking up subclass features and buying them with a pointbuy system. However calling them subclasses at this point would be kind of pointless, because the redesign efforts would be too great and the end result would probably have no similarities to the current system.

[Angelalex242]

My ideal Paladin has Devotion 3, Ancients 7, Devotion 15, Ancients 20.

Sadly I can't do that. Wish I could.

[Sorinth]

Yes and no. There are certainly times where I would like to do something like that, but I'm not sure having flexible subclasses is actually the answer instead of just having a separate subclass that share the same subclass theme/principle. For example, Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster share the same theme of giving wizard spellcasting, so you could've had 1 subclass that did that and have that subclass be something that a Fighter/Rogue/Monk could take, but it's probably better that Fighter and Rogue got "unique" subclasses with tailored abilities even though it left out the Monk (4E is something else). Simiarly Beast Master would be cool on many different classes, and pretty much every gish wishes they had access to Bladesinger abilities.

[Composer99]

I would say not in 5e as it is. The game would have to be seriously retrofit to make something like that work.

What I could see working is something akin to what PF2 does, where you get perks at select levels that you can use to choose archetype features from your own class, from a set of generally-available archetypes, or from a set of multiclass-style archetypes.

So if you're a barbarian and you want to lean into the theme of being a "totem barbarian", you could pick up the entire chain of archetype features for your perks, but if you want to do other stuff, you could choose alternate features - maybe perks from other barbarian archetypes, generic archetypes, or what-have-you.

I could see a third-party product line marketed as a "super-advanced 5e" (a PF2/5e hack, maybe?) rolling something out like that.

[Kane0]

Would only work of done well, and would likely need rewrites to the classes to work at a broader level. Some subclasses can work well across multiple classes but others wouldnt. You need classes that have subclass breakpoints at the same or similar levels, and the same power of subclasses, and a thematic or mechanical link that works across those classes.

[loki_ragnarock]

I'm going to have to thumbs down that particular angle.

Mostly because they *basically* already executed that exact idea for Cypher. And while that's a great/good/initially overwhelming system, aping it seems a little... outside of the spirit of D&D.

[Psyren]

I wouldn't mind this as an option, so long as the original subclass system remained intact.

So they might print a "Nature Warden" subclass that could slot into Ranger, Druid, Paladin and Cleric for instance, and grants features to each of them at different levels based on when they'd normally get a subclass feature. Or a "Shadow Agent" subclass that works with Rogue, Monk, Ranger or Bard.

But in all cases, they wouldn't get rid of any of the existing subclasses to do it.

[Chronic]

In my games I allow the genie subclass of the warlock to be used on sorcerer if my players want to. It fit perfectly, both mechanically and thematically. It's basically at the same power level than the other sorcerer subclass from tasha's, and since I use additional spell list for every sorcerer subclass, it's also not far from the other subclasses. Suffice to say I'm not against the idea, but it has to be in line with the power level of the rest of the subclasses.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No. I want classes and subclasses to be even more tightly bound and less generic. D&D is not a "generic fantasy character builder" game. And shouldn't try to do point-buy in a class-level game. That never works out.

[rlc]

Maybe?
5e obviously isn’t set up like that, but there’s no reason why they couldn’t make a 6e or 7e where that makes sense and isn’t needlessly complicated.

[Mastikator]

I think the current sub classes can't be decoupled without overhauling literally everything, it's impossible to say if it would be a good or bad thing.

Options for secondary subclass that everyone gets and have choices in could be a good thing but may drastically increase the power of certain already too powerful classes and do little for other weaker classes. I think that would be bad, so it's very likely to just have a negative effect.

[Sigreid]

The issue is that some classes have most of their power rooted in their core class while others have much more of their power rooted in their subclass. So, short answer; without carefully rebalancing everything it wouldn't be a good move.

[Pildion]

I don't see decoupling of main and subclasses as viable like Dienekes said, a Wizard taking a Monk subclass would be confused when it asked for Ki points or talked about how the subclass triggers off of Flurry of Blows.

But you could decouple the different subclasses without game play issues, as Angelalex242 shows taking Devotion 3, Ancients 7, Devotion 15, Ancients 20 as a Paladin. Doing this though would probably just end up making some very META builds.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Thinking it over, I think what I'd prefer to see is having a "theme", something class-agnostic that grant you abilities at specific levels, like a guaranteed every three levels even if you multiclassed. Preferably things that aren't combat geared. Think like a dedicated utility/ribbon choice that can help you feel more like a desert nomad, or a wary watchman, or an intrepid explorer. Basically, backgrounds expanded to cover your whole leveling career instead of only character creation.

I could really get behind something like that.

[Sigreid]

Thinking it over, I think what I'd prefer to see is having a "theme", something class-agnostic that grant you abilities at specific levels, like a guaranteed every three levels even if you multiclassed. Preferably things that aren't combat geared. Think like a dedicated utility/ribbon choice that can help you feel more like a desert nomad, or a wary watchman, or an intrepid explorer. Basically, backgrounds expanded to cover your whole leveling career instead of only character creation.

I could really get behind something like that.

This could easily be done by having religion take a bigger role in your game and joining a cult letting you earn deeper mysteries (powers/training).

[JonBeowulf]

No. I want classes and subclasses to be even more tightly bound and less generic. D&D is not a "generic fantasy character builder" game. And shouldn't try to do point-buy in a class-level game. That never works out.

This. So much this.

I don't want even more metagamey character-building silliness that rewards people who study the books to create some thing that isn't even useful to anyone for several levels.

I could get behind a system that defines characters in a hierarchy (like Martial/Divine/Arcane mentioned somewhere up there in the thread). Start with the most basic description, attach some classes under each of them, then attach some sub-classes to each of the classes. You overlap the sub-classes where it makes sense but keep the rest rigid. Multiclass can still be a thing as long as you keep some sort of minimum requirements.

It needs to be built from the ground-up, though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This could easily be done by having religion take a bigger role in your game and joining a cult letting you earn deeper mysteries (powers/training).

Or other setting-specific things. Factions, for example.

[loki_ragnarock]

Thinking it over, I think what I'd prefer to see is having a "theme", something class-agnostic that grant you abilities at specific levels, like a guaranteed every three levels even if you multiclassed. Preferably things that aren't combat geared. Think like a dedicated utility/ribbon choice that can help you feel more like a desert nomad, or a wary watchman, or an intrepid explorer. Basically, backgrounds expanded to cover your whole leveling career instead of only character creation.

I could really get behind something like that.

... seriously, look into the Cypher system.

[Psyren]

I don't want even more metagamey character-building silliness that rewards people who study the books to create some thing that isn't even useful to anyone for several levels.

FYI, three classes get subclass features at 1st level, so those classes at least would see an effect from this immediately.

Actually that might be a design principle for this - have at least the first couple only be available to a cluster of classes whose subclass features come online at the same levels as each other. Personally though I think the Martial/Divine/Arcane split probably works better.


Or other setting-specific things. Factions, for example.

Yeah this would be a good way to simulate an order of some kind that includes only {Class A, B, and C} in its membership and gets special perks relative to non-members - kind of like some PrCs did in 3e and PF.

Being setting-specific also gives the GM added covering fire for saying no if they don't want to use the material - "we're not playing there."

The main issue I have though is that 3e Prestige Classes tend to come online in Tier 2+, to simulate the idea that PrCs are typically aimed towards at least somewhat seasoned adventurers, and subclasses don't really fit with that - especially the ones that come online before 3rd level.

[Waterdeep Merch]

... seriously, look into the Cypher system.

That's probably why it sounded like it would work to me. Numenera is on my short list of TTRPG's I want to force on my players the moment they want something different.

[KorvinStarmast]

This idea sounds to me like a return of prestige classes, but with easier entry requirements.
I think they were a mistake back in 3rd edition and an idea that doesn't need to come back. +10.

Would only work of done well, and would likely need rewrites to the classes to work at a broader level. Some subclasses can work well across multiple classes but others wouldnt. You need classes that have subclass breakpoints at the same or similar levels, and the same power of subclasses, and a thematic or mechanical link that works across those classes. A complete rewrite, maybe even 6th edition.

Or other setting-specific things. Factions, for example. FWIW, I have been musing over Worlds Without Number (Kevin Crawford) lately here and there; he's got a neat approach to factions.

[sithlordnergal]

All in all, I feel like this would be a bad idea. Using the current edition, it'd end up leading towards a very unbalanced bunch of characters. Think multiclassing, but turned up to 11 with a side of Gestalt thrown in for good measure. Going for a 6e, I feel like it'd end up being like 4e. Where you have a bunch of different class "features", but they all play out the same and effectively do the same thing.

That said, I've never let a bad idea stop me from theorizing. So lets theorize what we can do in 5e!

The way I see it, there are two ways we can go with decoupling class and subclass abilities. Both ways have their advantages and disadvantages, though one has more disadvantages than others.


---Method 1: Complete Decoupling---

This would involve a complete separation of Class and Subclass, and would require the greatest rewrite of the game. This would give players the most amount of freedom possible when it comes to character creation. For example, lets say you start as a Wizard at level 1. Instead of choosing your Subclass at level 2 you can choose two Subclass features from any Subclass in the game. You could take Bladesong and Battle Ready for your two features. Then, at level 6, you could snag the Bladesinger's Extra Attack, or you could take the Ancient Paladin's Aura.

But that's where the advantages end and disadvantages begin. A lot of Subclass features use specific Class features. For example, Totem Spirit is only useful if you have Rage. Sooo..do you give non-Barbarian's a use of Rage if they take Totem Spirit? If so, how many Rages per day do they get? How about Twilight Sanctuary? Do we just give every class that takes Twilight Sanctuary a single Channel Divinity per day? What of Combat Wildshape or Circle Forms? Should we give every class in the game the ability to be a Moon Druid?

The next issue is how do certain subclass features work with each other? Could you take the Eldritch Knight's spellcasting feature and mix it with Divine Magic from Divine Soul to make some sort of 1/3rd Cleric/Wizard hybrid? If so, what ability score do you use to cast your spells? Intelligence? Charisma? Both? If you're playing a full caster, like a Bard or Druid, can you still do this to gain access to three major spell lists in a limited capacity? How about Oath/Domain/Pact spells? Are those on the table to be taken?

I feel like you'd have to completely recreate 5e from scratch to fix these issues. Especially since most of the patches would just lead to more problems, and would ultimately lead to a completely broken game.



---Method 2: Partial Decoupling---

With this method, subclasses would still be restricted to certain classes, but you'd be able to choose any subclass feature you want from said class. I.E. A Wizard could take any subclass feature they want from any Wizard Subclass, but wouldn't be able to snag something from, say, a Paladin Subclass. I feel like this would be do-able with the current 5e, and you wouldn't even need to do a rewrite. This would still allow for a TON of customization, since you'd be able to have a Wizard with an Awakened Spellbook, Transmuter's Stone, Split Enchantment, and Illusory Reality. It'd also keep things somewhat sane, cause you wouldn't need to figure out how to deal with class specific abilities. No more worry about what to do with abilities that effect things like Rage, since only the Barbarian has access to those.

In fact, 5e actually has a class that already does this to an extent, the Warlock. Thanks to Otherworldly Patron, Eldritch Invocations, and Pact Boons, you can technically get a TON of customization on a Warlock, and you effectively make your own, unique subclass. And I suspect we'd see the same problems that plague the Warlock crop up with this method. Specifically, the fact that some abilities are just better than others.

For example, give me one 10th level Druid subclass ability that's as good as or better than the ability to use your Wild Shape to turn into an Elemental. Especially if you know you'll be reaching level 20. Name me a 14th level Barbarian feature better than Rage Beyond Death.

You'll end up with a ton of customization, sure, but on the flip side you'll see a TON of characters with the same features. Just like the Warlock. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of the Warlock, but I can't think of a single time I've seen a Warlock with Beguiling Influence or Bewitching Whispers. And the same would happen here, you'd never see a Barbarian with Frenzy. Why? Because Frenzy is a bad feature, the cost of using it is way too high. Beserkers make up for this by having decent subclass features later on, though it still doesn't help a ton. But if you can just pick and choose, you'll never see Frenzy used.