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

[Parmandur]

The paladin is divine. The artificer is about tinkering with magic item creation. He's not really what you consider to be a swordmage.

There really isn't a distinction between Divine & Arcane magic, and insofar as there is narratively, it can be bridged by a Subclass with a few choice Spell additions.

The Artificer has thematics related to tinkering, and mechanics related to magic items, but at core, it is a half-caster with combat abilities and access to a lot of Wizardy Spells.

I just don't see room for a half-caster, thematically and mechanically.

But I had occasionally given thought to the open design space of a two-thirds caster, and really, a Swordmage would fit that bill ..

 

[Vael]

But I had occasionally given thought to the open design space of a two-thirds caster, and really, a Swordmage would fit that bill ..

I dunno how much design space that really is. Sure, you have a class that has up to 7th level spells instead of 5th, I'd suggest maybe bumping the Artificer to that, but having 7th level spells doesn't a class make.

 

[Parmandur]

I dunno how much design space that really is. Sure, you have a class that has up to 7th level spells instead of 5th, I'd suggest maybe bumping the Artificer to that, but having 7th level spells doesn't a class make.

It's more of a starting point than another half-caster.

 

[Vael]

It's more of a starting point than another half-caster.

Sure, I'll grant that.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure, I'll grant that.

Definitely needs more of a mechanical hook to justify a whole Class, for sure.

 

[Coroc]

They didn't leave enough levers to pull in their quest for streamlining...



Why do you hate fun?

Joking aside, I still don't get how a subclass could give you trouble thematically. Most of them are pretty in line with the rest of the class and don't need anything huge to justify them. At all.

Also the PHB has plenty of jankiness. Backgrounds barely mean anything unless your DM is really into them, Feats are too few so if they impact a build it's almost jarring... for the Fighter a lot of these are basically class feature the Fighter was forced to share with the whole class (Seriously, if Polearm Master, Heavy Armor Mastery, Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter had been lv 6 'Advanced Fighting Style' nobody would have bat an eye but I bet someone would have been all "WhAt AbOut eXtrA FEATS! The FigHtEr NeEds eXtRa fEAts!!" so they did that). And then the Cleric and Bard only have ONE attack cantrip! Great for diversity >< and let's not talk about the Ranger... Is the Champion even that popular aside from Multi-class shenanigans? MC-ing is not the end-all, be-all of customization because it's actually easy to mess it up with subpar builds that don't DO anything.

I would also argue the PHB Gish options still don't feel like proper fusion of Magic and Swordplay. They're just a guy with a sword who SOMETIMES uses spell with a free hand. SCAG cantrips were a much stronger foundation for a proper Gish.

So for some classes we really needed the extra touch of additional subclass. For others, sure they could have lasted longer without extra (why did the Wizard get EIGHT of 'em?!) but then it wouldn't feel that fair.

Plus, as I said... FUN!

Well you are wrong, I absolutely love fun and humor, in context. And that is the problem context or call it fluff, many of the new subclasses bring fluff with them. Take the PDK for example, it requires you to have a knightly order of purple dragon knights. There is one in Cormyr, so no problems for FR.

There ain't none in Ansalon or Athas or Oerth. Some of these campaign worlds have different knightly orders so creating a subclass for that would be in order in my pov. Some have none so any discussion about it is pointless. Athas e.g. in my book and many of the people who are much more invested in that setting does not even have paladins.

But that was just for official worlds, you might say, what about something totally homebrewed?
It is not my understanding of fun, as a DM, to shoehorn fluff into any campaign no matter if official, official + homebrew or pure homebrew.

A subclass which requires heavy investment in fluff is only feasible if the campaign world offers this fluff per default. And maybe could be solved better by simply taking an existing subclass and add a fitting background. That is much less invasive into the game.

You might say: but you can rule it in your table like you want to, and yes that is the way I do it. I do even restrict normaly PHB races and classes sometimes and never ever you would see me tell the players: "Look up your available gear spells and starting equipment in the PHB" no way I would allow that.
But todays official products tend to pick up these new trends, leading to more necessary alteratios if you simply do not want to have them. Again, no fun in that.

If you would play a planaescape campaign, with pcs originating from different homeworlds, but never ever touching any of these primes within the campaign, well then I can imagine creating the weirdest subclasses (which have no impact on the setting) as possible fun. In every other case, just no.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like the idea behind pathfinder 2 multiclass archetype.

In a perfect world, every class could either improve an aspect to focus on its own class or take a multiclass archetype. (maybe just add half the level of the second class to your own abilities).
This way you might be a little bit less flexible but you can have a lot of combinations and some specialized subclasses like arcane trickster are not needed.
You may add some feats for abilities that were lost in that process.

Final fantasy 11 also allowed such combination of classes which was a lot of fun.

The class archetypes could add features you don't want such a multiclass build to have by default.
An example might be paladin's smite ability: too strong for a multiclass build that may instead use smite spells.

Traditional 5e style multiclass would also be allowed so you can combine 2 full classes with their respective subclasses, but at a much lower level.

 

[Coroc]

I like the idea behind pathfinder 2 multiclass archetype.

In a perfect world, every class could either improve an aspect to focus on its own class or take a multiclass archetype. (maybe just add half the level of the second class to your own abilities).
This way you might be a little bit less flexible but you can have a lot of combinations and some specialized subclasses like arcane trickster are not needed.
You may add some feats for abilities that were lost in that process.

Final fantasy 11 also allowed such combination of classes which was a lot of fun.

The class archetypes could add features you don't want such a multiclass build to have by default.
An example might be paladin's smite ability: too strong for a multiclass build that may instead use smite spells.

Traditional 5e style multiclass would also be allowed so you can combine 2 full classes with their respective subclasses, but at a much lower level.

I don't get it. is the PF2 multiclass more like 1e or 2e multiclass then? (Sorry don't know much about PF other than it is some 3.5 clone with some added and some slightly altered rules)

 

[ad_hoc]

I'm over-worked, under-appreciated, and deserve free money, IMO. Why do you ask, lol?

Acolyte or custom for "I'm on a mission from God". The blues is a music style. I'm thinking glamour if the focus is on any music but I don't know what else you want out of the bard.

You could take shadow monk with the entertainer background if you want to think outside the box.

EDIT; making a paladin or cleric with a music theme should fit this concept pretty well, tbh. Not all musicians are bards.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't get it. is the PF2 multiclass more like 1e or 2e multiclass then? (Sorry don't know much about PF other than it is some 3.5 clone with some added and some slightly altered rules)

No, it's a Feat chain, so more like 4E.