HYPERBOREA » When can you take a subclass?

Spellbinder · 4/07/2019 2:27 pm

For subclasses in ASSH, do you have to be a certain level to take a subclass or can you take it in place of a regular class, like Fighter, for example?

Chainsaw · 4/07/2019 3:41 pm

Spellbinder wrote:
For subclasses in ASSH, do you have to be a certain level to take a subclass or can you take it in place of a regular class, like Fighter, for example?

At level one, as long as the PC meets the minimum attribute and alignment requirements.

Spellbinder · 4/07/2019 4:40 pm

So, instead of a lvl 1 Fighter, I could play a lvl 1 Barbarian instead.

Iron Ranger · 4/07/2019 4:44 pm

Spellbinder wrote:
So, instead of a lvl 1 Fighter, I could play a lvl 1 Barbarian instead.

If your rolls qualify, you should play a lvl 1 Barbarian instead, but always a good idea to check with your DM to see if Barbarians frequent the environs or one can be worked into the game.

Q-sub · 4/11/2019 7:42 pm

Iron Ranger wrote:
Spellbinder wrote:
So, instead of a lvl 1 Fighter, I could play a lvl 1 Barbarian instead.
If your rolls qualify, you should play a lvl 1 Barbarian instead, but always a good idea to check with your DM to see if Barbarians frequent the environs or one can be worked into the game.

And if the Referee says "no" to a Barbarian, I question whether he can even call his game AS&SH... =D

Blackadder23 · 4/11/2019 11:19 pm

Iron Ranger wrote:
Spellbinder wrote:
So, instead of a lvl 1 Fighter, I could play a lvl 1 Barbarian instead.
If your rolls qualify, you should play a lvl 1 Barbarian instead, but always a good idea to check with your DM to see if Barbarians frequent the environs or one can be worked into the game.

As a brief counterpoint to this, most of the subclasses have a lot of "moving parts" in the form of skills, special abilities, and the like. This is potentially a double-edged sword, because it's not always obvious how to get the most out of a subclass and all of those bonus abilities could end up wasted. If all a player wants to do is fight in a straightforward manner, it might be wiser to just play a fighter.

It really depends on what a particular player wants to get out of the game. I would think that over carefully and then make a choice of class or subclass (always subject to DM approval, of course).

Blackadder23 · 4/11/2019 11:23 pm

The term "subclass" in Old School games is a bit of a misnomer. A more accurate term might be something like "associated class". There's no requirement to advance through the nominal "parent class" first*. You just pick a class or subclass at first level, and that's what you remain until the ghouls pick your bones**.
* - Except for the 1e bard, about which the less said the better, and it doesn't apply to AS&SH anyway.

** - Except for the 1e "character with two classes", about which the less said et cetera.

mavfire · 4/15/2019 11:16 am

Q-sub wrote:
Iron Ranger wrote:
Spellbinder wrote:
So, instead of a lvl 1 Fighter, I could play a lvl 1 Barbarian instead.
If your rolls qualify, you should play a lvl 1 Barbarian instead, but always a good idea to check with your DM to see if Barbarians frequent the environs or one can be worked into the game.
And if the Referee says "no" to a Barbarian, I question whether he can even call his game AS&SH... =D

Ha! totally agree here... if the GM says no to any of the (sub)classes I would suspect they ARE NOT running AS&SH! and just using the pretty books to cover up what they are really playing!

Jimm.Iblis · 4/15/2019 11:56 am

mavfire wrote:
if the GM says no to any of the (sub)classes I would suspect they ARE NOT running AS&SH!

I think paladin can be safely omitted. Depending on your preferred level of dystopia (what the kids are calling grim-dark these days), it might not be appropriate for guys to get special powers because they do "good." That said, I've reskinned them to be more like sikhs, or to represent modern Earth transplants ala sword & planet. The latter always seem to want to make these worlds better and seem blessed with the power to do so.

Handy Haversack · 4/16/2019 9:21 am

Jimm.Iblis wrote:
mavfire wrote:
if the GM says no to any of the (sub)classes I would suspect they ARE NOT running AS&SH!
I think paladin can be safely omitted. Depending on your preferred level of dystopia (what the kids are calling grim-dark these days), it might not be appropriate for guys to get special powers because they do "good." That said, I've reskinned them to be more like sikhs, or to represent modern Earth transplants ala sword & planet. The latter always seem to want to make these worlds better and seem blessed with the power to do so.

We pretty roundly say no to paladins, priests, and hunters as PCs. I might redo paladins at some point to make them fit Myperborea. I have a priest replacement I like a lot more, though it could use a little refining. My players got pretty frustrated with the hunters that have been in the group, so those probably won't make a return unless we figure out some mods we like.

These are all fine for NPCs, too. Just not what we're looking for in PC experience.

I don't think there's anything wrong with not using some of the subclasses or with adding freely to them. As the Dread Necromancer says, do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

But, yeah, you should probably have barbarians!

Spellbinder · 4/16/2019 10:54 am

What is wrong with Hunters for PCs?

Handy Haversack · 4/16/2019 12:32 pm

Spellbinder wrote:
What is wrong with Hunters for PCs?

My players didn't find it any fun at low levels. The animal-mastery ability is rather fiddly -- lots of rolls that can spell failure along the way but that don't seem to come with many ways for player cleverness to influence them -- and really unlikely at low levels, which is where our game tends to dwell. And I think the anti-werewolf power might be a little lore-heavy or campaign-specific (i.e., in five years of playing in Hyperborea, I think there's been one werewolf in my game).

We have some thoughts on adjusting in a way we'd like more, but I haven't written them out or tested them.

And to be clear, not that there's anything *wrong* with them.

Handy Haversack wrote:
Just not what we're looking for in PC experience.

They just don't fit our style.