D&D 5E Do you like Subsubclasses?

Saelorn said:

And I'm sure you're not alone on that, either. Lots of people like having options, or at least don't see the harm.

Click to expand...

I agree with you -- in part. Too many options drive the focus too much to character creation/management and overly reward game mastery.

My personal belief is that a certain amount of options improve the game but that there's a breaking point where the brain can't appropriately process them. Different people will, of course, have different caps. The rules should tend toward the mode.

For top-level classes, I think the sweet spot is in the 12-15 range, with an absolute max in the 18-20 range.

Sub-classes allow a "funnel" approach, but I don't think it's appropriate to have quite so wide of a pipe. Maybe a half-dozen sub-classes per class. There are some exceptions, like Cleric domains, say.

From a certain perspective, you can't get away from sub-sub-classes. Rogue Expertise or a Fighter's Style are sub-menus. A Sorcerer's spells definitely qualify as added fidgetyness well beyond a Totem Warrior has to deal with. There's actually a pretty good argument that the Eldritch Knight selecting spells is exactly the same sort of added complexity as the Totem Warrior has, just substituting spells for rage, as would be the Battle Master's Maneuvers. The only difference is that the Totem Warrior is flavored as a vertical slice, rather than a pick list (which it actually is).

If the sub-sub-class is fairly tight and well defined, I don't have an issue with it. There's a line, somewhere, but I'm not entirely sure where.

Take specialist Wizards, as an example. I'm not exactly enamored of the current setup. It makes too many sub-classes, for my comfort. It also makes things like Bladesinger feel somewhat mismatched. I'd rather see sub-classes like School Specialist, Warmage, Bladesinger, and Hedge Mage.

In that model, just taking the current Specialist abilities and moving them to a sub-sub-class would be way too complex -- it's no longer a refinement. On the other hand, a reasonably unified list of abilities would make a ton of sense.

For example (and train of thought, so don't be too harsh):
* Each school has an opposition school (check 2E for a list).
* Cast spells of your school as if they were one level higher (or +1 to save DC/attacks -- not both).
* Cannot learn opposition spell schools.
* Every level, you gain an extra spell from your school.

Alexemplar said:

Yes. I love them so much that I wish they had made fewer base classes with general progression (Warrior, Rogue, Mage, Priest) and expanded on the subclasses even further. Kind of a more extreme version of 2e.

Click to expand...

I would even merge mage and priest into mage.

Dragon age style.

Warrior(Totem barbarian, beserker, knight, paladin, battlemaster, monk)

Rogue(assassin, scout, thief, trickster, hunter, beastmaster, spy)

Mage(white mage-healer, black mage-necromancer, green mage-druid, red mage-elementalist, loremaster, mindbender, demon binder)

I think more choices make the game better because there is a higher chance that the class mechanics will fit the character's backstory. And yes, Pathfinder has a ridiculous number of feats and class archetypes, but I have made a lot of interesting characters by flipping through the books and putting disparate pieces together. Other times, I just want to make a human fighter. A myriad of choices let me do either one.

Like 'em in the sense that 5e would be worse without them, don't like 'em so much in the sense that something else might have been much better...

...but then the same could be said of classes, in the first place.

Saelorn said:

Are you just asking about subclasses? Or are subsubclasses somehow a thing?

I don't like the warlock thing, where they have two subclasses, if that's what you're asking (though I don't think you are).

Click to expand...

Right, I like the idea of getting 1 aspect of your class at level 1, then getting another important choice later. The patron/pact combo makes for interesting warlock combos (even if most patrons don't make a big difference).

shidaku said:

Sure, too many choices can lead to "choice lock", but I don't see how that causes players to focus on the character-creation minigame instead of the game in front of them. Typically the minigame is completed before you actually start playing.

Click to expand...

Most often, it manifests at the table in the form of players simply not caring about their character, because they know they'll get to make a new character if this one dies.

To a lesser extent, you also get players who can't appreciate what their character can do now because they're obsessed with the next cool ability they'll get. If there were only four classes, and the only cool new things you might get were unpredictable and placed by the DM (as with old D&D), then players would focus more on what they have rather than what they want.

Li Shenron said:

If you don't like all the options, don't use them all. What's the problem?

Click to expand...

People don't think that way. Or at least, a lot of people I have played with do not think that way. Options mean decisions, and decisions deserve to be optimized. Just because I don't want to spend ten hours building a Pathfinder character for the appropriate levels of synergy, that doesn't mean I won't; I don't want to move forward with a half-hearted attempt that I will later regret, after all.

Li Shenron said:

My typical approach is to let the players choose what they want (at least from the PHB), and then decide that their choice is what exists in the world. So if they pick up "red dragon sorcerer" that means it exists, but it doesn't imply the existance of dragon sorcerers of any other color.

Click to expand...

That definitely sounds like a good sanity-saving measure, although it comes at the expense of not being able to design the world until you know what the players are going to make.

gyor said:

Like Totem Barbarian can choose between Eagle, Elk, Tiger, Wolf, Bear totems.

Click to expand...

RulesLawyerMe wants to nitpick here. The totem barbarian isn't choosing between his totems the way a Land Druid picks a land. That is, choosing an eagle totem power at 3rd level doesn't lock him in to picking only eagle stuff later on. It's more like the way the hunter ranger works.

Saelorn said:

Most often, it manifests at the table in the form of players simply not caring about their character, because they know they'll get to make a new character if this one dies.

Click to expand...

I don't see how that it the fault of more options. That sounds like a player-specific issue. IMO yeah I've always got a million ideas in my head, but the fact that I could replace my character doesn't mean I want to. Liking the character I play depends more on how much well...I like that character! That may seem rhetorical but honestly that's about all there is to it.

To a lesser extent, you also get players who can't appreciate what their character can do now because they're obsessed with the next cool ability they'll get. If there were only four classes, and the only cool new things you might get were unpredictable and placed by the DM (as with old D&D), then players would focus more on what they have rather than what they want.

Click to expand...

Personally I hate those sorts of games because it takes away the ability of the player to drive the growth and direction of their character.

But I disagree. Some folks just have a natural wanderlust when it comes to characters. Some don't. Even if there were only 4 classes, some folks would be dreaming about how the other 3 feel, regardless of which one they're playing. They may dream of different characters in the same class. I know I've certainly thought my character may have turned out better if it was a female half-elf instead of a male half-orc or whatever.

Li Shenron said:

My typical approach is to let the players choose what they want (at least from the PHB), and then decide that their choice is what exists in the world. So if they pick up "red dragon sorcerer" that means it exists, but it doesn't imply the existance of dragon sorcerers of any other color.

Click to expand...

Likewise. Right up until, say, the initial round of PCs is all vaguely Oriental, so I build a local setting around that, leaving out elves, dwarves, and orcs intentionally because how often do you see a setting without those? Then, one player decides, two months in, that he doesn't like his Druid and wants to play a half-elf Rogue.

Sorry, man. I built a setting around Session 0. You were there. I tried.