# Change to Basic Class / Subclass design?



## ClaytonCross (Apr 13, 2021)

So looing at the fighter/ranger/paladin material style options, warlock invocation, and artificer infusions ... I can't help but think that subclasses might not be a thing in 6E. That sub-classes would fall away for adding level based options with prerequisites which adds more class flexibility than subclasses. You could also roll feats into a general feature list which could substitute class features. Then if an idea is found that can't be built they release more class feature options under a theme like they do subclasses now, but if your have a feature you don't like in a bundle, you just replace it with one you do want which will add to your character uniqueness.


----------



## Nefermandias (Apr 13, 2021)

It sounds almost like 4e powers.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Apr 13, 2021)

Nefermandias said:


> It sounds almost like 4e powers.



I never played 4e, I played a lot of 5e, 3e, and 3.5e. But the selectable features are highly used in 5e and well liked. Totem Barbarians, Rune Knights, etc more and more selective features like the artificer and warlock have. I would not mind if the classes were all rebuilt under that design. Even 3e / 3.5e had a lot of feature choices which is how I ended up with duel wielding ranger I loved, while my brother had an ranger archer who also carried a katana.  I heard 4e sucked, but I also know some loved it. Did they implement like artificers and warlocks? Its not new to D&D at any rate.

I like the idea of making feats general level feature selections that can replace class feature you don't like. I also like warlock invocations being specific to that class, and other invocations being restricted to the warlocks pact. I am just suggesting one step further and make the subclass features also selectable. So you could still have a "subclass category" but it would just let you choose features with the subclass as a prerequisite. This would mean you could take a "feat", warlock invocation, or "subclass category" invocation. I currently end up with features that don't fit my character concept or that I just don't like because I want the rest of the subclass bundle.


----------



## cbwjm (Apr 13, 2021)

I feel like subclasses will stay as a way to define the type of class you are, I'd hope they redo the subclass structure though to make an allowance for cross-class subclasses which can be picked up by anyone. That or bring back themes from 4e as a further method of customisation.


----------



## Raith5 (Apr 13, 2021)

I agree that subclasses do need a bit of a rethinking going forward. 

I feel that subclasses carry a lot of a classes feel and fit too many different game design elements . In some cases it works great (cleric domains or warlock domains come to mind) but in some cases it is messy (ie in the fighter there is the basic or complicated fighter - in the PHB, the fighting style fighter, even the cultural fighter - ie samurai). I feel that fighters and melee types should be shaped more by fighting style than anything.

I am in favour of more customization - but maybe more feats may be the better way to go.


----------



## Dragonsbane (Apr 13, 2021)

In switching from 5E to Cypher System for our fantasy games, I discovered a great feature - subclasses that have no parent class. Your focus in Cypher System is a subclass, but it can apply to any class. Rides the Lightning gives electric powers, and can be chosen by the Warrior, Adept, or any other class. It's amazing. Something to consider.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Apr 13, 2021)

Dragonsbane777 said:


> In switching from 5E to Cypher System for our fantasy games, I discovered a great feature - subclasses that have no parent class. Your focus in Cypher System is a subclass, but it can apply to any class. Rides the Lightning gives electric powers, and can be chosen by the Warrior, Adept, or any other class. It's amazing. Something to consider.



Agreed. I often suggest something like Shadow of the Demon Lord that does essentially the same thing. For 6e, I'd have characters that go up to 20 level, but not 20 ''class levels''. The 20 steps of progression would be composed of Background/Ancestry/Class/Archetype/Skills, which would be mix-match-able. 

Ex:

Lvl 0: Background Feature, Ancestry Feature
lvl 1: Class feature 
lvl 2: Class feature, Archetype feature
lvl 3: Skill Utility feature (something akin to Feats for Skills from UA)
lvl 4: ASI
lvl 5: Class feature
lvl 6: Archetype feature, Skill utility feature
Lvl 7: Ancestry feature
lvl 8: ASI
Lvl 9: Class feature, Background Feature
lvl 10: Archetype feature
lvl 11: Class feature, Ancestry feature
lvl 12: ASI

and so on. 

So more movable parts, but each part is smaller than in 5e.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 13, 2021)

vincegetorix said:


> Agreed. I often suggest something like Shadow of the Demon Lord that does essentially the same thing. For 6e, I'd have characters that go up to 20 level, but not 20 ''class levels''. The 20 steps of progression would be composed of Background/Ancestry/Class/Archetype/Skills, which would be mix-match-able.
> 
> Ex:
> 
> ...



I would love a D&D that shared more DNA with SotDL.


----------



## ART! (Apr 13, 2021)

As long as we can avoid class feature trees, I'd be okay with that.


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Apr 13, 2021)

I definitely hope they generally move more design space to the subclass. It would increase page count, but it would make it easier to expand options. "Pick a feature" options like invocations are also generally good.

IE: if rangers had more room in the subclass (and no casting in the core), they could do a lot more with animal companions or specialist rangers. Monks could really open up to a lot more fictional archetypes, fighters could learn differnt kinds of magic, etc.

But I would not want to see subclasses go away entirely. Being relatively easy to get into (at least, for a game with this much crunch and variety) is a major benefit of 5e. Subclasses make it simple to figure out what the most important choices are for making the character you want. I wouldn't like it if that was removed.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Apr 13, 2021)

jmartkdr2 said:


> I definitely hope they generally move more design space to the subclass. It would increase page count, but it would make it easier to expand options. "Pick a feature" options like invocations are also generally good.
> 
> IE: if rangers had more room in the subclass (and no casting in the core), they could do a lot more with animal companions or specialist rangers. Monks could really open up to a lot more fictional archetypes, fighters could learn differnt kinds of magic, etc.
> 
> But I would not want to see subclasses go away entirely. Being relatively easy to get into (at least, for a game with this much crunch and variety) is a major benefit of 5e. Subclasses make it simple to figure out what the most important choices are for making the character you want. I wouldn't like it if that was removed.




If I'm understanding you correctly, I kind of agree with this. To be honest I think this is something that could have been handled much better in 5e. They weren't bold enough in committing to cleaning up the base class options by reducing the # and backing out features to give more design space to subclasses, and they simultaneously want to control the number of classes and pigeonhole all new concepts as subclasses into existing classes even when it's a significant thematic stretch to do so (i.e. psion or shaman.) So we're left underexploring a lot of those class concepts and getting a lot of unclean bloat in subclass options that don't leave a ton of customization room and can't be MC'd effectively.

I arguably think that 3e's prestige classes worked better as a concept, but that they needed to do the same approach and pare back or simplify what was offered through base classes.


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 13, 2021)

I want four basic core classes like 2E (warrior, rogue, priest, wizard) and everything else be subclasses.


----------



## auburn2 (Apr 13, 2021)

ClaytonCross said:


> So looing at the fighter/ranger/paladin material style options, warlock invocation, and artificer infusions ... I can't help but think that subclasses might not be a thing in 6E. That sub-classes would fall away for adding level based options with prerequisites which adds more class flexibility than subclasses. You could also roll feats into a general feature list which could substitute class features. Then if an idea is found that can't be built they release more class feature options under a theme like they do subclasses now, but if your have a feature you don't like in a bundle, you just replace it with one you do want which will add to your character uniqueness.



As others have said, I think this sounds a lot like 4E and i don't think wizards wants to go that direction.

I think a major problem with this is that it is difficult to make options that are good at low level and also good at high level.  This means you typically have to have prerequisites, and a skill tree and it railroads your build at a very low level.  I want to get feature C at 12th level so I need to take A at 4th and B at 8th because they are prerequisites to C.  Once you have taken B you  are locked in to C and you I can't ever take F because that requires D and E and you will never get those.

I think with Tasha's, the current system is very good at offering a mix of class features that can't be changed, subclass features that can be swapped out en masse with an entirely different subclass, and feats which are open and arbitrary.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Apr 13, 2021)

Raith5 said:


> I agree that subclasses do need a bit of a rethinking going forward.
> 
> I feel that subclasses carry a lot of a classes feel and fit too many different game design elements . In some cases it works great (cleric domains or warlock domains come to mind) but in some cases it is messy (ie in the fighter there is the basic or complicated fighter - in the PHB, the fighting style fighter, even the cultural fighter - ie samurai). I feel that fighters and melee types should be shaped more by fighting style than anything.
> 
> I am in favour of more customization - but maybe more feats may be the better way to go.



I have been considering something like that for the monk but it could really work for all non-casters.


----------



## Blue (Apr 13, 2021)

jmartkdr2 said:


> I definitely hope they generally move more design space to the subclass. It would increase page count, but it would make it easier to expand options. "Pick a feature" options like invocations are also generally good.
> 
> IE: if rangers had more room in the subclass (and no casting in the core), they could do a lot more with animal companions or specialist rangers. Monks could really open up to a lot more fictional archetypes, fighters could learn differnt kinds of magic, etc.



And with the idea of open subclasses instead of class specific ones, we can have a "pet" subclass that's a beast for a ranger or druid, an undead thrall for a necromancer, a steed for a paladin, an elemental for an elementalist, a construct for an artificer, or whatever else makes sense.


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Apr 13, 2021)

Blue said:


> And with the idea of open subclasses instead of class specific ones, we can have a "pet" subclass that's a beast for a ranger or druid, an undead thrall for a necromancer, a steed for a paladin, an elemental for an elementalist, a construct for an artificer, or whatever else makes sense.



That would be cool.

I'm not sure it would be worth the cost, but the baatezu are in the details here. It might just be easier to make a ranger pet sub, a barbarian pet sub, and a druid pet sub. Depending on how the details shake out. My biggest worry would be with full casters - they already get so much power from spells, and so much customization form spell selection, that subclasses can't add much without making the already-powerful full casters way more powerful. And trying to give the core fighter enough power to keep up with the core wizard, _while_ allowing for fun, evocation, transformative subclasses like the Rune Knight or Echo Knight, would result in characters with so much going on they'll blow past 4e in terms of character power.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Apr 13, 2021)

ART! said:


> As long as we can avoid class feature trees, I'd be okay with that.



I actually like "class feature trees" way better than static linear classes/subclasses. Then "sub classes" are build names or prerequisite limit options you select as a feature. That could mean 2 subclasses are allows but you would have to spend a feature to buy each subclass so people would generally not do it unless they needed it to fill a character concept since the more you have the less features you  have so its inefficient.


----------



## Krachek (Apr 13, 2021)

It’s a main feature of the early 4ed.
Interchangeable power, same resting pace, same feat progression, 
it has been a source of dissatisfaction, the feeling that all classes look the same.
they did the opposite in 5ed and still got whim that class don’t get feature a same level, don’t have same resting pace. 
6ed if any, could bounce either side.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Apr 13, 2021)

el-remmen said:


> I want four basic core classes like 2E (warrior, rogue, priest, wizard) and everything else be subclasses.



That is feasible with with a more modular design. I actually think you could reduce it to 3. Rogue is not necessary as its only class but as a tagged skill set. For example, you could take the "thieves guild" back ground for stealth, slight of hand, and thieves can't. Then Sneak attack could be an option you can replace one major class feature with if you have 13 Dex and Stealth proficiency. Doing it like this means you could have a rogue warrior, rogue priest, and rogue wizard. This was a complaint from many player who played before rogues were a class were annoyed that they were expected to play a specific class to be a thieving scoundrel. You can play around that in 5e and I did, but I also got flack for it until I proved my warlock worked as a thief scout, then they accursed me of being a "munchkin" stealing other classes feature. If Warlock was a subclass of wizard and rogue was a group of feature you could add to any character in place of other feature then you end up with way more options to be rogues, scouts, assassins'.

*Edit*: I was wrong, you need 4 Classes. Warrior (STR/DEX/CON), Cleric (WIZ) channeled from source, Wizard (INT) learned and triggered, and Sorcerer (CHA) innate or from being altered to be. Melee fighters can all be built with 3 stats and it works, but the 3 mental stats and how they gain and use magic need to be separated or you have to rebuild the base system. I personally like the base system and would go with separation.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Apr 13, 2021)

Blue said:


> And with the idea of open subclasses instead of class specific ones, we can have a "pet" subclass that's a beast for a ranger or druid, an undead thrall for a necromancer, a steed for a paladin, an elemental for an elementalist, a construct for an artificer, or whatever else makes sense.



OH YES! I would love it as an general use major feature "Pet Master" that tags your character for additional features with the same tag, but allow for other subclasses, so you could have a "rogue" tag feature and have for example a monkey pet who is your partner in crime or a Shadowfell tag and have a shadow mastiff. This would be capable with any class. All of your tags above would just open additional options of pets based on having prerequisites. That would mean both that if you want a pet you can half one as feature and that if you don't want a pet the subclass you want does not force it on you.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Apr 13, 2021)

auburn2 said:


> As others have said, I think this sounds a lot like 4E and i don't think wizards wants to go that direction.
> 
> I think a major problem with this is that it is difficult to make options that are good at low level and also good at high level.  This means you typically have to have prerequisites, and a skill tree and it railroads your build at a very low level.  I want to get feature C at 12th level so I need to take A at 4th and B at 8th because they are prerequisites to C.  Once you have taken B you  are locked in to C and you I can't ever take F because that requires D and E and you will never get those.
> 
> I think with Tasha's, the current system is very good at offering a mix of class features that can't be changed, subclass features that can be swapped out en masse with an entirely different subclass, and feats which are open and arbitrary.



That does sound like a problem with design but of a player wanting to change characters design without changing character in the same campaign. This can be fixed with a story mission and GM letting them rebuild their character as a result of completing it. 

*Your argument against is MORE true in 5e than what you describe in 4e. In 5e You pick a class and your locked into a set of class features, you pick subclasses and your locked into those subclass features. This is the problem you describe magnified many times*. Not only are you locked into an early level feature that prevents other options, but your locked into middle and later features you may not have even considered because you were only looking at 1st level features at character creation. The artificer and warlock however are very popular based on their drastically greater flexibility in class features because of how invocations and infusions work. I know I love them.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Apr 14, 2021)

jmartkdr2 said:


> That would be cool.
> 
> I'm not sure it would be worth the cost, but *the baatezu are in the details here*. It might just be easier to make a ranger pet sub, a barbarian pet sub, and a druid pet sub. Depending on how the details shake out. My biggest worry would be with full casters - they already get so much power from spells, and so much customization form spell selection, that subclasses can't add much without making the already-powerful full casters way more powerful. And trying to give the core fighter enough power to keep up with the core wizard, _while_ allowing for fun, evocation, transformative subclasses like the Rune Knight or Echo Knight, would result in characters with so much going on they'll blow past 4e in terms of character power.



The solution to that is investment. Just like a pact of the chain warlock you need to invest more to get more out of your pet. Wizards already have "find familiar" which is a starting pet level. You could break casting down as something you buy in stages so at level 1 you get 1/3 caster. At level 9 you can choose the feature for 1/2 caster, at level 11 you choose the feature for full caster. Then have to choose caster feature or pet features. Every other class scales this way, why not full casters? You just front load the spells at the same rate as full casters that stop growing if you don't invest more into them.

Then you start with a Arcana Wizard apprentice 1/3 caster as an  (no different than full caster wizard until level 9)
At level 9 you choose a new major feature. You become a Full Wizard 1/2 caster, Pick up Martial combat (Eldritch Knight), Stealth/Slight of hand (Arcane Trickster), or enhanced pet (Magical Pet Master) ... etc.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Apr 14, 2021)

Krachek said:


> It’s a main feature of the early 4ed.
> Interchangeable power, same resting pace, same feat progression,
> it has been a source of dissatisfaction, the feeling that all classes look the same.
> they did the opposite in 5ed and still got whim that class don’t get feature a same level, don’t have same resting pace.
> *6ed if any, could bounce either side*.



I think you can make for base classes Warrior, Cleric, Wizard, and Sorcerer. Then give them different option points, like how the 5e Fighter gets more ASI/Feat options, Clerics pick there subclass option at level 1, Wizards select there subclass option at level 2, Sorcerers/Warlocks choose a patron/origin of there magic at level 1, invocations at level 2, and a pact at level 3. *I think you could come very close to 5e as a model, but then allow more flexibility of features with more substitutions. They only way classes look the same then is if people have the same interests*. That happens already, I showed up to a game with no 0 session and not discussion of character concepts and we ended up with 3 stealthy, ranged fighting, lockpicking, survivalists', scouts... one rogue crossbowmen, one shortbow ranger, and one eldritch blasting Warlock (with urchin background, observant feat from human variant, devils sight invocation, investigation, and perception from human variant). We were stepping all over each others toes. Two of use found a way to share jobs, the third player re-rolled there character.

I really think a mid ground between 5e and 4e but leaning to 5e a little would work better than eather.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 14, 2021)

Don't think it's possible.

Why?

In D&D, some classes (mostly casters) get 80-90% of it's power from their base class or primary class feature. Whereas some classes (warriors mostly) get 50-70% of their power and flavor from their base class or primary class feature. Then you have the rogue.

Last time we tried to normalize this, half the community freaked out.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Apr 14, 2021)

Minigiant said:


> Don't think it's possible.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...



I don't see that as impossible. You just use different base class templates the way 5e does, but you don't like all the features in place. You Select a class opening up abilities with the class as prerequisite but allowing you to also chose from a general list. Its similar to the combination, of back ground, subclass, and the multiple subclasses with level dependent choices like the Rune Knight, Artificers, and warlock. That is completely possible. Rogue, In my opinion, should not be a full class, but a set of features you can select from. There is no reason you couldn't have a wizard thief (arcane trickster who is based on  a wizard) or a warrior thief (thug, assassin)...etc.

I think normalizing this is a mistake. We still need the core classes templates. I just think we only need 4 classes templates Warrior (STR/DEX/CON), Cleric (WIZ) channeled from source, Wizard (INT) learned and triggered, and Sorcerer (CHA) innate or from being altered to be. The Warrior would still have 6 feats instead of 4 and Spell caster classes would get 1/3 apprentice level caster of their type at level 1 (leveling as a full caster normally would spell progress, slots, etc). At level 9, they can pick up 1/2 caster to be fully trained wizard or they could buy other features, which would be similar to multi-classing. Alternativity, You could start with a warrior and pickup 1/3 apprentice level casting at level 9. Both could easily be an Eldritch Knight at that point but levels 1-8 lived as a worrier or as a mage. Alternatively, There might be an "Magic Initiate feat" a fighter could pickup at level 1, and a trade of that feat and the use of a level 4 feature to pick up 1/3 caster at level 4. More investment but you start the game as an weaker Eldritch Knight and progress into a full Eldritch Knight only slightly after you would get it in 5e. The same could be true with Warrior + Cleric or Cleric + Warrior = Paladin (Life Domain?) or Ranger (Nature Domain?). At the point you are "multi-classing" your switching do a different class feature set, but you still have the options of ability that you meat prerequisites Warrior, Marshal Archetype, Fighting style, Cleric, Domain. However, you don't balance primary classes skill and layout to the the other classes, you use one you switch to and the one you had simply gave you what it gave you. So you would build a 4 warrior 4 wizard, using the base class up to level 4. If you combine caster classes, then you have a similar rule for spell slots as the current 5e rule and your done.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 14, 2021)

ClaytonCross said:


> I don't see that as impossible. You just use different base class templates the way 5e does, but you don't like all the features in place. You Select a class opening up abilities with the class as prerequisite but allowing you to also chose from a general list. Its similar to the combination, of back ground, subclass, and the multiple subclasses with level dependent choices like the Rune Knight, Artificers, and warlock. That is completely possible. Rogue, In my opinion, should not be a full class, but a set of features you can select from. There is no reason you couldn't have a wizard thief (arcane trickster who is based on  a wizard) or a warrior thief (thug, assassin)...etc.
> 
> I think normalizing this is a mistake. We still need the core classes templates. I just think we only need 4 classes templates Warrior (STR/DEX/CON), Cleric (WIZ) channeled from source, Wizard (INT) learned and triggered, and Sorcerer (CHA) innate or from being altered to be. The Warrior would still have 6 feats instead of 4 and Spell caster classes would get 1/3 apprentice level caster of their type at level 1 (leveling as a full caster normally would spell progress, slots, etc). At level 9, they can pick up 1/2 caster to be fully trained wizard or they could buy other features, which would be similar to multi-classing. Alternativity, You could start with a warrior and pickup 1/3 apprentice level casting at level 9. Both could easily be an Eldritch Knight at that point but levels 1-8 lived as a worrier or as a mage. Alternatively, There might be an "Magic Initiate feat" a fighter could pickup at level 1, and a trade of that feat and the use of a level 4 feature to pick up 1/3 caster at level 4. More investment but you start the game as an weaker Eldritch Knight and progress into a full Eldritch Knight only slightly after you would get it in 5e. The same could be true with Warrior + Cleric or Cleric + Warrior = Paladin (Life Domain?) or Ranger (Nature Domain?). At the point you are "multi-classing" your switching do a different class feature set, but you still have the options of ability that you meat prerequisites Warrior, Marshal Archetype, Fighting style, Cleric, Domain. However, you don't balance primary classes skill and layout to the the other classes, you use one you switch to and the one you had simply gave you what it gave you. So you would build a 4 warrior 4 wizard, using the base class up to level 4. If you combine caster classes, then you have a similar rule for spell slots as the current 5e rule and your done.




Yeah you _could_ do it.
You _can_ do a lot of things.
But 4e told us that if you tried something that dramatic and label it D&D, you willget an internet riot. I mean what you are suggesting is more out there than 4e. No rogue? Wizards starting as 1/3rd casters? WOTC would escort you out with security and ban you from the premises.

The core issue is the way D&D fans expect their main casters leaves little wiggle room for subclasses. That's why the 5e wizard subclasses are either uninspiring or OP. The base wizard, cleric, and druid is so crazy powerful in mechanics that if you don't nerf the class to hell, you can't do much with it without breaking the game (as 3e proved).

Artificers, warlocks, sorcerers, and the warrior have a lot more mechanical design space in the base class assumption to tweak a lot with the subclasses, kits, PRCs, or whatever.


----------



## steeldragons (Apr 14, 2021)

Stick to the traditional D&D class origins, attaching them to ability scores (Ability scores did very well in recent polls hereabouts of the "things that are/make/must be" in a game for it "to be D&D"). Fill out the list. For the longest time, I've played along with the whole thing about "Con and Cha are important for all classes." Con, of course, effectin everyone's Hit Points (super important!) and Charisma is, shorthanded, the character's "personality." So, sure, everyone has one of those, whether or not your class (ye olde paladin, bards, the "new" casters) was dependent on it. 

I say, give all 6 their own base class...or class category. I'm thinking like this...

Strength: The Warriors. Your character's dominant trait is use of weapons and combat skill. 
Fighter is default.
Additional classes: Knights/Cavaliers (the charismatic fighters), Swashbucklers (the dexterous/acrobatic fighters), etc...

Intelligence: The Wizards. Your character's dominant trait is use of magic, occult/"supernatural" powers, mastered by the character (be it learning spells, figuring out innate powers, manifesting one's bizarre origins, et al.). 
Mage (the proper name for a "Wizard" class, afaiac) is default.
Additional classes: Illusionists, Sorcerers (if you require that as a separate class), Psychics, etc...

Wisdom: The Mystics. Your character's dominant traits are channeling occult/"supernatural" powers from a "larger" source, beyond/"outside" themselves, combined with varying levels of armor/weapon/combat proficiency. 
Cleric is default. 
Additional classes: Warlocks, Shamans, Pathfinder-style "Oracle" classes, etc...

Dexterity: The Rogues. Your character's dominant traits are proficiency/expertise with predominantly non-combat skills, a preference on speed/movement and stealth in combat situations. 
Thief is default.
Additional Classes: Acrobats, Rangers, Alchemists, etc...

Constitution: The Champions [? just spitballing on the name]. Your character's dominant traits are an ability to influence their own bodies, and their capacity to strive through adversity and hardship, pushing beyond the typical person's [of your species] limits, -predominantly, but not solely, of a physical nature. 
Barbarian is default.  
Additional classes: Monks, Druids, etc...  

Charisma: The Adepts [? again, spitballing]. Your character's dominant traits are an ability to influence others and their capacity to strive through adversity and hardship, pushing beyond the typical person's [of your species] limits -predominantly, but not solely, of a mental/"inner self" nature. 
Bard is default. 
Additional classes: Paladins, Witches, Pathfinder-style "Magus" classes, etc...


----------



## auburn2 (Apr 14, 2021)

ClaytonCross said:


> That does sound like a problem with design but of a player wanting to change characters design without changing character in the same campaign. This can be fixed with a story mission and GM letting them rebuild their character as a result of completing it.
> 
> *Your argument against is MORE true in 5e than what you describe in 4e. In 5e You pick a class and your locked into a set of class features, you pick subclasses and your locked into those subclass features. This is the problem you describe magnified many times*. Not only are you locked into an early level feature that prevents other options, but your locked into middle and later features you may not have even considered because you were only looking at 1st level features at character creation. The artificer and warlock however are very popular based on their drastically greater flexibility in class features because of how invocations and infusions work. I know I love them.



Not really because you can multiclass if you don't like being locked into a class.

I am not sure how popular Artificers are.  I like Warlocks, but I like Wizards, Rogues, Fighters and Rangers more.  To be honest I feel like I have a lot more role play options and variations available with those classes.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Apr 14, 2021)

auburn2 said:


> Not really because you can multiclass if you don't like being locked into a class.
> 
> I am not sure how popular Artificers are.  I like Warlocks, but I like Wizards, Rogues, Fighters and Rangers more.  To be honest I feel like I have a lot more role play options and variations available with those classes.



Per your earlier statement, "I want to get feature C at 12th level so I need to take A at 4th and B at 8th because they are prerequisites to C. Once you have taken B you are locked in to C and you I can't ever take F because that requires D and E and you will never get those." ... multi-classing does not fix this. If you change your mind a t level 9 about wanting that level 12 ability and now want to be a druid with 12+ to get there ability multi-classing will not let you gain enough in Druid to change.  If you can't your only real solution is your character having a life changing story arch that explains the change. I have seen it done a number of times and its the only solution that works every time.

*There is no role play limitation that I have found*. I think your falling into a the same mental trap that had my table freak out when I showed up with a Warlock pact of the tome scout. In the end he was good at it. I have also seen some very creative artificers. *Mechanically* Warlocks and Artificers are more freely altered and I can't speak for all players every where but I can say at my table and point to D&D Beyond surveys that place them very high. Fighter is typically number 1 and there have been many threads talking about how fighters get 0 non-combat toys. That frees some people who suffer form choice paralysis but traps other players who like to mechanically support their ideas. If your freed my a lack of mechanical options, I get it. A lot of people feel this way. So maybe there needs to be a default list of abilities to replace for people who fall in this group.


----------



## Nefermandias (Apr 14, 2021)

auburn2 said:


> Not really because you can multiclass if you don't like being locked into a class.
> 
> I am not sure how popular Artificers are.  I like Warlocks, but I like Wizards, Rogues, Fighters and Rangers more.  To be honest I feel like I have a lot more role play options and variations available with those classes.



Multiclassing isn't even core.


----------

