D&D 5E Do you like Subsubclasses?

[cbwjm]

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.


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.

This is me. If my PC dies in not worried since I always have a few more ready to go, almost always a new race/class combo.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

Nevertheless, removing the excess options also removes the problem. The same player has no issue with playing a monk for twenty levels in a 5E game with no multiclassing or feats, but can't last more than three levels with the same character in Pathfinder. It's not just that one player, either, though some other players seem to be immune to the condition.

In my experience, class-based games with fewer options tend to play better at the table. In my experience, any benefit of increased character customization options is negligible compared to the detrimental side-effects of adding those options.

 

[Sunseeker]

Nevertheless, removing the excess options also removes the problem. The same player has no issue with playing a monk for twenty levels in a 5E game with no multiclassing or feats, but can't last more than three levels with the same character in Pathfinder. It's not just that one player, either, though some other players seem to be immune to the condition.

Have you considered that the 5E Monk simply provides him a more fitting approach to the class he enjoys? There are significant differences between the 5E Monk and it's 3.X/Pathfinder predecessors. Even discounting the alternative class features and such. Iterative attacks, for example. The Monk gets his full Flurry of Blows for the same price as Pathfinder (1 Ki) but without any attack bonus loss.

In my experience, class-based games with fewer options tend to play better at the table. In my experience, any benefit of increased character customization options is negligible compared to the detrimental side-effects of adding those options.

I feel like this statement is actually two separate statements and somehow different than what we initially started talking about: player commitment to and enjoyment of the character they are playing now.

Games with fewer choices typically offer more meaningful and more balanced choices. However, they do not always offer more creative, more interesting or simply more "exciting" options. The former will naturally lead to better gameplay as each choice produces greater impact, without getting gonzo. The latter, IMO produces more diverse gameplay, but runs a significant risk of minimizing the impact of each choice and quickly turning gonzo; but I would argue that it also aids players in mechanically representing more granular RP elements of their characters. Some folks like the fact that their blind half-elf can actually take something to mechanically represent their blindness. Some folks don't need or want that. You seem like the sort of folk who doesn't need it.

This is me. If my PC dies in not worried since I always have a few more ready to go, almost always a new race/class combo.

I tend to have 2-3 characters "waiting in the wings" at all times. Usually they're other concepts I think would be fitting or interesting within the campaign. Which is of course, why I get excited when I get to play them...because I specifically made them for this game!

 

[Blue]

He's asking about sub-classes that have multiple options. Totem Warrior, for example, has 3 additional choices within the subclass. A Berserker is a Berserker, but a Wolf Totem Warrior is different than a Bear Totem Warrior, even though they have the same sub-class.

There's no such thing as a "Bear Totem Warrior" - or at least choosing one doesn't lock you in for the other choices. At each of the levels you can pick from among all of them.

With Totem Spirit at 3rd you pick one. Aspect fo the Beast at 6ths specifically says "You can choose the same animal you selected at 3rd level or a different one". Totemic Attunement at 14 again explicitly calls out you can choose the same or different.

So you could be a "Wolf Totem Spirit", "Eagle Aspect of the Beast, Bear Totemic Attunement".

 

[Arilyn]

Nevertheless, removing the excess options also removes the problem. The same player has no issue with playing a monk for twenty levels in a 5E game with no multiclassing or feats, but can't last more than three levels with the same character in Pathfinder. It's not just that one player, either, though some other players seem to be immune to the condition.

In my experience, class-based games with fewer options tend to play better at the table. In my experience, any benefit of increased character customization options is negligible compared to the detrimental side-effects of adding those options.

I have experienced the opposite. Get players engaged enough in the story and they are not at all eager to replace their characters. Sometimes, they even forget to ask about experience! I have never had players character hop as you describe, except in the old days where characters were dropping like flies, and players didn't even name then until higher level. Is this a common problem?

I would rather the game have lots of options. Even if there are players who can't settle, more choices in a game, which is after all, made up of "lego" blocks is more interesting and fun.

 

[Blue]

I thought SubSub Classes were what Ewoks got to choose from in Fantasy Flight's Edge of the Empire Star Wars RPG?

Silly DEFCON, those are NubNub Classes! Ee chee wa maa!

(Sad truth - I just looked up "Ee chee wa maa" on Wookiepedia in the Ewokese article because I thought it was spelled "Peachy wa wa!" Somehow knowing there is an Ewokese article has stolen a bit of my innocence and wonder of the world.)

 

[Mephista]

Its more that I don't have a reason to dislike it. I always say that more options are good. Like, in the case of Sorcerer. The blue and white dragons don't stop there from being Storm or eventual Frost subclasses, so we're getting lots of options.

 

[Baron Von Mandrick]

I don't use them, but I am happy to have them as options for those who enjoy the sub-sub-classes.

This echoes my exact feelings on the matter.

Sent from my SM-G920V using EN World mobile app

 

[steeldragons]

I like them in the sense that I think they are flavorful and well-used.

I do NOT like them enough to say "Every class and subclass option should have this additional layer of detail/built in flavor."

I am good with the big 4 having a "simple" option.

Then you have the "initial subclass classes": druid, paladin, ranger, illusionist, assassin, monk. [Bard and Barbarian, arguably, are tag-alongs, here]

Illusionist and assassin have already been shunted to -for lack of a better term- "1st tier" subclasses of their own.

The others -like the big 4- have some "simple/default/1st tier" subclass choices, that convey the "basic [or AD&D, really]" character archetype.

Having an option that adds that additional layer, a "subclass +1" if you will, makes for a nice/good differentiation from others of its base class. An arctic [Land] druid will be/play differently than a coastal [Land] druid than a [rather default] woodland [Land] druid.

The Totem barbarian is slightly different options, kind of a "2nd tier" subclass (as its the only one), allowing you to switch the benefits of your secondary choice between levels. Ranger's Hunter archetype had elements, though not as flexible, of this as well -choose one of these at level x, choose something else at level y, etc...- but you were still a "Hunter Ranger." And, in "un-/semi-official" terms, I recall at least one UA incarnation of the Shaman that followed this kind of structure, also.

The warlock, then is -again, making up terms here- offers a variation on the "3rd tier" subclass, distinct from the 2nd tiered ones, in addition to the most mechanically complex sort of "base class."

So now, we have the character options of:
Base + Sub.
Base + Sub. + 1 that does not change, all features are the same regardless of what "1" is.
Base + Sub +1 that does not change, some features offer choices/change at varying levels.
Base + Sub. +2 (+1 that does not change, and all features are DIFFERENT depending on what "1" is, AND +1 that also does not change, but grants distinct features depending on what this second "1" is at varying levels).

I think that is more than enough variety for a given game. Perhaps even too much/a little unnecessary complexity.

So, yes. I like them. But I don't need to see more of it. New constructs of character/class archetypes need not include "Base + Subclass +1 (or more)" more than, say, once in 10 or so subclass/archetype options.

 

[DocMindwipe]

For myself, I think Main Classes should be as per 1st/2nd Ed Advanced (Fighter, Cleric, Magic-user, Thief) which could branch out into sub classes and sub-subs from there.

That said, there is still too much choice, not enough optional, to the class system in Current D&D, would like more optional rules and less player choice

Sent from my SM-G935F using EN World mobile app