Podcast: On Subclasses

Comments · 28

• DI

  @DiceAdmiral · 11 hours ago

  Love to hear your insights. A lot of the things you mention make me disappointed 5.5 because they definitely knew most of this stuff

• SA

  @SamanthaVimes177 · 3 days ago

  Enjoyed hearing your perspective. Makes me feel a lot more confident in my design.

  2

• JE

  @Jeromy1986 · 7 days ago

  The design philosophy I was seeing as 5e was emerging that was pretty cool was how you'd have a subclass for one class which gave it a bit of a different class' theme. I think that's why everyone wanted a Warlock of the dragon, but it was too close to what a Warlock already represents. So, instead you gave us dragon Rangers, and Monks, as well as giving Warlocks the Celestial option. It was nice to see the not obvious thing be in each new book.

  3

• LO

  @Lowkey-NoPressure · 3 days ago

  I feel like the real strength of subclasses is selling books because players want to feel like they’re customizing their guy. Even though I find it annoying to have a “wizard subclass for cleric” and then turn around and have a “cleric subclass for wizard.” Like, what are we doing, guys?

  2

• IA

  @iandimitri0044 · 3 weeks ago

  Great content. Like the game design talk.

  5

• JA

  @jackf4090 · 2 months ago

  I don’t mind subclasses but I think something like a skill tree or pathfinders class feats lend themselves better to making interesting and unique characters. Seems like often we have characters concepts that don’t fit into a certain subclass and we have to ignore some features or heavily reflavour others.<br>Love the videos, keep it up 😍

  4

• KE

  @KensanOni · 5 days ago

  In a way, I wish it was easier to make subclasses, and at the same time maybe not have them. I like that they riff off of 2nd edition kits, and gives your character more distinctiveness, but they don’t fill the same position as Prestige Classes, where you can customize your roles in specific ways for your game world. I mean, subclasses can do that, but it’s a lot, lot harder to hack for your home game. <br><br>5E is just so much harder to customize over previous editions. It’s a personal frustration of mine.

  3

• ZA

  @ZarbanDerek · 11 days ago (edited)

  I like OSE. It has a bunch of classes, and I&apos;ve turned dual-class characters into even more classes (fighter-thief is a swashbuckler). I think I&apos;ll also create some specific options players can choose that aren&apos;t combat-related (because that would slow down combat, and I&apos;ve already got a simple tactical combat system). They&apos;d be all about your background and skills you can use outside combat. Players love flavor and buttons they can mash, whether it&apos;s in combat or not.

  1

• DA

  @daxterflame7247 · 5 days ago

  <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkNJNfcHi5U&amp;t=41">0:41</a> This was strangely relieving to hear as a budding game designer trying to push out his first full (video) game. The year-ish I&apos;ve spent on it feels disproportionate to the breadth of the game thanks to constant reworks to keep previous content in-line with my continually rising standards. It&apos;s nice to think that it&apos;s not just a me problem----apparently even seasoned designers go through that!

• PA

  @paulbrandson6656 · 6 days ago

  I&apos;d say that subclasses could get a bigger Slice if the power budget and still be ok. Also, maybe some hyper specific feats that are only available to some subclasses.

  1

• TO

  @TOBIA_ilustra · 6 days ago

  I think a good design for classes and subclasses creates a unique win condition for a class to be actually powerfull and subclasses are different ways in which these conditions can be archived. <br><br>I&apos;ve found that DnD has no win conditions in fights often, the side that dishes more damage wins. No real counterplay there, &quot;just hit it harder than it hits you&quot;. So, players start with full power right away and monsters do the same. The players don&apos;t worry about how to actually deal with a monster and the DM doesn&apos;t have clear ways to mess with the players to challenge them other than &quot;put something stronger&quot;. <br><br>Let&apos;s say instead a win condition for a rogue is &quot;hit an isolated target&quot;. Okay, how do we do this? maybe push every enemy away from your target, maybe snach them out and drag them, maybe a trap. Hell, even reward teamwork, make the barbarian do the isolation, make the rogue do the damage. <br><br>And from the DM side, okay, protect this key monster, put barriers, make the monster harder to move against their will, make them move fast so it does not matter if they get pushed. <br><br>And there lays the game, a barbarian pushes, a monster reagrupes, a wizard cast a slowing spell to try again and the rogue atacks. That&apos;s a game, a puzzle baked into the player classes. And subclasses are just ways in which these clases work to archive or maximise that win condition. Setup and payoff. Setup and counter-setup.

• FO

  @ForeGeorgeman · 2 weeks ago

  Coming from 3e, I thought subclasses did a great job letting players create something closer to their vision of a character while avoiding multiclassing. I&apos;ve always loved playing gishes or rogues with some magic and 5e made that very straightforward and balanced. Also it limited splatbook bloat significantly. Wotc could release another subclass instead of another whole class, which was a big change from 3e.

  2