The problem with subclasses is two-fold: 1) it's essentially the least flexible form of customization (if you can even call it that) because a subclass is chosen from the outset, and is usually mechanically crucial to a character class even functioning, and; 2) a lot of what previously existed as archetypes really should have been subclasses. By changing these, to make them fit better, customization was lost. So I felt that more classes will need to have roles or archetypes added onto them. But I also had another piece of inspiration that I had started working from.
The Bard class previously had Archetypes (Scholar, Performer) and Roles, but also had the option to take archetypes from other classes within the same slate (i.e. the previously mentioned Sage schools, or the Spellbinder's archetypes -- which were later changed to subclasses -- of Hexblade and Swordmage.) The idea was essentially, instead of writing entirely new roles and/or archetypes for classes that needed more customization, perhaps we could take the existing ones, and allow other classes to use them. Another idea was that each slate would have one class that had some special option for their customization; for example, Druids might be able to take a Ranger or Guardian subclass as their "specialist class," while Paladins might be able to take either a Cleric Domain or a Fighter Archetype, for theirs.
What this idea led to (along with some of the redesignations, which resulted in more subclasses being used) was the decision to split specialist classes into Domains and Archetypes.
- Fighter/Martial Archetypes: Brute, Soldier
- Bard/Arcane Archetypes: Performer, Scholar
- Adventurer/Primal Archetypes: Scout, Skald
- Cleric/Divine Domains: Life, War
- Sage/Arcane Domains: Divination, Enchantment, Misdirection
- Guardian/Primal Domains: Blood, Stone
Now, this produces a couple of structural problems. Perhaps most obviously, the fact that these seem to clearly map to Power Sources but mechanically... don't. Yet. (And particularly within the Sage domains, which individually had each previously been tied to their own power source.) The other thing is the obvious lack of symmetry; what should the Shadow specialist class(es) be, if any? Thirdly, should an Adventurer be able to take a Bard archetype? Or a Fighter archetype? If so, should Scout be considered a Fighter archetype, and Skald be a Bard archetype? Maybe a Warlord should be able to take those archetypes, too; do the mechanics even work, if you're stretching these archetypes across such a wide variety of class dice?
The other big problem is the Divine Domains; the obvious thing to do was to change the effect riders for Paladin features from being tied to their (newly redefined as) subclasses, to being tied to Domains -- since Cleric features are also structured this way. But that leaves very little mechanical depth to the Paladin subclasses. And it again presents the question of "ok, but why can't any other class with the Divine power source take Divine domains?" Well, the answer to that is, because the mechanics for those haven't been written yet; the followup question being, is that even a road we want to go down, or should any other class taking the Divine power source just be a "flavour" choice?
I realize that this leaves a lot of questions unanswered, but hopefully this can be a jumping-off point for discussion. The complication of trying to make the various subtypes work across various classes and dice, also dovetails into the topic I want to cover in my next post: giving each class two dice.
Check back for that update, on March 24th
No comments:
Post a Comment