Do classes built for the 5E D&D ENGINE NEED sub-classes?

The Crimson Binome · Apr 24, 2019

the Jester said:
In my opinion, to justify adding a full class, it has to have a strong, coherent identity that can't be properly created with existing options. It has to be a big concept, too- big enough to contain subclasses. If it isn't, it's better designed as a feat or subclass.

Not every concept deserves or needs a full class.

How do you reconcile that with something like the druid, though, whose identity is easily replicated with a nature cleric? Do you not use them in your game? Or is it grandfathered in, even though it shouldn't rightfully qualify?

CleverNickName · Apr 24, 2019

I remember when Bard, Paladin, and Druid were all subclasses. So...yes? apparently?

FlyingChihuahua · Apr 24, 2019

Bard should go back to being *the* prestige class, where you had to have a least 5 levels in every single class in order to play as them. Fit's the flavor a lot more.

what, it bars concepts that people have? get out of here with that, it's just a bard.

the Jester · Apr 24, 2019

Saelorn said:
How do you reconcile that with something like the druid, though, whose identity is easily replicated with a nature cleric? Do you not use them in your game? Or is it grandfathered in, even though it shouldn't rightfully qualify?

It's grandfathered in. Same as the ranger and paladin. But if I were designing the game today myself, I don't know that any of those would get the full class treatment.

Sacrosanct · Apr 24, 2019

In the current design, they fit well. However, if they expanded backgrounds (sort of like in early playtest versions), then no, they wouldn't need subclasses at all. Pretty much every archetype could be a combination of a base core class plus an expansive background and/or feat package.

Tony Vargas · Apr 25, 2019

the Jester said:
It's grandfathered in. Same as the ranger and paladin. But if I were designing the game today myself, I don't know that any of those would get the full class treatment.

Only the ranger is really lacking of the three.
Both the Druid & Paladin have strong identities from myth/legend/history that a 'mere' nature-priest or fighter/cleric wouldn't do justice too (if you even accept that the current classes do them justice).

(And the Barbarian is also pretty tenuous as a class - could be a Background. And the Sorcerer is a pretty weak effort, too, not doing the 3e vision of the class at all well, thanks to Spontaneous casting being ubiquitous in 5e.)

Monayuris · Apr 26, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Only the ranger is really lacking of the three.
Both the Druid & Paladin have strong identities from myth/legend/history that a 'mere' nature-priest or fighter/cleric wouldn't do justice too (if you even accept that the current classes do them justice).

(And the Barbarian is also pretty tenuous as a class - could be a Background. And the Sorcerer is a pretty weak effort, too, not doing the 3e vision of the class at all well, thanks to Spontaneous casting being ubiquitous in 5e.)

Your comment about the Sorcerer brings up a thought I've had regarding classes in 5E (and modern D&D).

I kind of feel like a lot of classes in 5E exist solely as a means to express a unique mechanic in the game.

I wonder if there is a chicken and the egg thing going on?

The Sorcerer is no longer necessary as Wizards get to spontaneously cast from their prepared spells. So they invent sorcery points to justify the existence of the Sorcerer as a class. Did the existence of the Sorcerer class force the creation of the sorcery point mechanic? Or was the sorcery point mechanic something that they wanted to be put in the game, hence it got stuck on the Sorcerer class?

Is this a situation like the board game Root, where there needs to be different mechanical interactions for each class? Why is this required?

What drives the need for a Sorcerer to exist when the Wizard class handles the magic spell-caster with tremendous versatility, already?

I'm ok with just the magic-user, but I do see why people want a little more differentiation. But why does the differentiation have to be so strongly expressed mechanically? Why does a warlock need a completely different mechanic to 'feel like a warlock' instead of a wizard?

Proliferation of classes, to me, really means proliferation of mechanics.

I often wonder what is the point? Why does D&D need to constantly add new mechanics? Isn't the idea of playing in an unlimited fantastic world of magic, monsters, treasures, and the unknown enough?

FlyingChihuahua · Apr 26, 2019

Monayuris said:
I often wonder what is the point? Why does D&D need to constantly add new mechanics? Isn't the idea of playing in an unlimited fantastic world of magic, monsters, treasures, and the unknown enough?

Well, for one thing, it's a roleplaying game. I've seen a lot of people talk about the roleplaying part of it, but the game part is just as important. Sometimes you come up with cool mechanics, so you have to come up with a story for it so you can roleplay, (For example, I think the design of a Druid type begins with Wildshape, and you come up with the story of someone/thing that can turn into animals) and other times you get the story first, and you need to come up with some mechanics to tie into that story. (even though it isn't out yet, I feel this is where the Artificer got it's start.)

Neither are bad ways to come up with... anything really. I've come up with characters using both ways, and it works out well for me.

Coroc · Apr 26, 2019

As long as you are dm ing some sort of homebrew or official product not AL do not forget you are the absolute and undisputed overlord in your campaign. Feel free to restrict the players from any class /subclass or race that you see unfit for your world.
There, I did it again, eat my old school mentality you modern anything goes halfling mutant ninja pirate turtle goliath players

Other than that subclass are a built-into with 5e.
You even can emulate basic d&d stuff like elf class with 5e mechanics:
Just use an elven eldritch knight

Umbran · Apr 26, 2019

I'm not much of a "must/must-not" kind of guy. I will say that I think the system will work best for the players when the classes are general enough that they really call for sub-classes. If you've created a class that "doesn't need" subclasses, you should probably look at it like it was a class that had a subclass applied, pull it apart into its actual base and subclass, and see if you can add another subclass.

All my humble opinion.