D&D 5E How many classess/subclasses is too much?

[Sacrosanct]

Discounting UA only subclasses drop it to 80.

With the slow release schedule as an intentional part of their business model, I'm 100% positive that we'd see a lot more of those UA subclasses in splatbooks if they released splatbooks like they did with previous editions. It seems pretty clear to me that since they are going with a slow release schedule of actual books, that UA was meant for people to play those subclasses without waiting for several more months (or years) to play the archetype they want. That's why for purposes of this discussion, any subclass released by WoTC design team is counted.

 

[TwoSix]

Homebrewer gonna home-brew, not all of them are good quality stuff tho.

WotC certainly has a higher floor (even their worst material is readable and playable), but the best homebrew is more innovative and interesting than even the most recent WotC releases. When looking through homebrew, you simply need a good filter to find the best material.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I have absolutely no opinion either way. If the game adds more classes, fine. If at some point I run a campaign that I decide only uses the Basic Rules (which means only four classes), also fine. When I choose to run a new campaign and only want to allow certain subclasses, then I will pick and choose the ones I will use and allow... and the total number that has been created can be as large as it wants to be.

This all goes back to the old complaint we heard years ago, which was "Well, if it's in the game then my players will expect to be able to use it!" Basically as a reason for not having new things created. "I can't say no to my players, so I don't want new stuff made so that I don't have to."

I said that was a ridiculously lame attitude then, and I agree it is the same now. The game can be the game in whatever form it is or becomes. And I can then adapt and change it to my needs, not expect WotC to change it for me.

 

[Shiroiken]

I noticed the post stated classes, but the poll was for sub-classes. To me there's a HUGE difference. I think the number of classes we have is about right (I'd be find losing a few, but that's preference), with maybe only the Psion and setting specific classes being added. Any new class, IMO, needs to fit both a mechanical need and a style need, and it's going to be hard to pull that off.

Sub-classes, however, can fill in either need, not both. A new mechanical concept can be used via a sub-class, with only a little theme added on. A new character concept (like a witch hunter) could be done with only a little modification of existing mechanics to fit the role.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Discounting UA only subclasses drop it to 80.

40 of those are in the PH, so doubled in 5 years. That's a 15% annual growth rate. Not that 'slow' a pace.

 

[cbwjm]

There are a few classes that I still want added, I'm somewhat ambivalent about the artificer but I would like a psion class at some point. I'd also like an arcane halfcaster. A few more subclasses I think need to be added, or at least I'd like to be added. Most of these are clerical domains that I feel are needed to help differentiate the portfolios of the gods a little more.

More than subclasses, I'd actually like to see the addition of themes to help customise characters. They were pretty cool additions in 4e and I think they could easily be added for 5e.

 

[dave2008]

I think this is an important point. Some of them that may have been meant to fill a role were designed pretty poorly (like the PDK and Samurai) and people won't really use them. But then whenever someone says they want to play a warlord or a samurai, they're told to play the PDK or Samurai subclass. Kind of a catch-22

We have a samurai in our group (we don't call it that though) and he likes it quite a bit. Just remember, because you think it is poorly design doesn't meant it feels that way for others.

 

[gyor]

40 of those are in the PH, so doubled in 5 years. That's a 15% annual growth rate. Not that 'slow' a pace.

Slow is an understandment.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I can't really answer that question, because what the subclasses are is as important as how many of them there are. For instance, I think we already have too many subclasses, but we are still missing sha'ir, shaman/shugenja, wu jen, and other AD&D classics, and I really want those. Heck, I wouldn't even begrudge 4e fans their unique themes as subclasses along with that. I don't mind D&D innovation, but I believe strongly that you need to update the classic stuff to your new edition before you do that.

 

[gyor]

I can't really answer that question, because what the subclasses are is as important as how many of them there are. For instance, I think we already have too many subclasses, but we are still missing sha'ir, shaman/shugenja, wu jen, and other AD&D classics, and I really want those. Heck, I wouldn't even begrudge 4e fans their unique themes as subclasses along with that. I don't mind D&D innovation, but I believe strongly that you need to update the classic stuff to your new edition before you do that.

That sounds like very setting focused subclasses, which I think is most of the outstanding subclass gaps, but not all.