D&D 5E Really concerned about class design

[dave2008]

I see no legitimate reason whatsoever to just draw a line now and refuse to build on it. It really feels like a lazy "just because" that players have mindlessly adopted.

They haven't - they just released a new class. So the door is still opne; however, I think they will look to subclasses first.

 

[Shardstone]

Mearls laid out the standard that for WotC, the standard is about ten possible Subclasses at minimum (not that all the PHB Classes are there yet).

Source?

 

[Mistwell]

I love subclasses, but I think that's a terrible approach, and it really needs to get called out as a problem IMO.

Can you describe actual experience you've had with this being a problem in games you've played, without using any theory about it being a problem?

 

[Parmandur]

Source?

When Mearls spent 4 weeks working on a Warlord Subclass draft for the Fighter, he went over why WotC didn't see Class potential in the Warlord. This was the first week, not sure which episode exactly he said that:

 

[Einlanzer0]

Can you describe actual experience you've had with this being a problem in games you've played, without using any theory about it being a problem?

Sure. Just two weeks ago I had a new player rolling up a monk. She knew she wanted a monk but was overwhelmed by subclass options. Keep in mind that I really like subclasses. I just think there are appropriate and inappropriate uses of them.

Regardless, I could easily turn this around and ask you the same question about classes.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure. Just two weeks ago I had a new player rolling up a monk. She knew she wanted a monk but was overwhelmed by subclass options. Keep in mind that I really like subclasses. I just think there are appropriate and inappropriate uses of them.

Regardless, I could easily turn this around and ask you the same question about classes.

I started playing during the 3E era, so yes, I have seen Class bloat cause huge problems.

 

[Einlanzer0]

I started playing during the 3E era, so yes, I have seen Class bloat cause huge problems.

I started playing during 2e, and I never have. I also don't know that I would call it bloat. 20 or so class options /= 11 different class options with 60 or 70 subclass options between them. Although I actually do agree that we ended up with too many classes in 3.5 due to subclasses not being a thing. That's why I want this done right in 5e.

 

[gyor]

So.... I've been feeling this for a while. While, granted, we got the Artificer in the Eberron book, there's been a long term dearth of new classes for 5e. Especially in light of the new UA, it really worries me that it appears to be because WotC thinks they can/should they can simply turn every new class concept into a subclass for one of the existing classes.

I love subclasses, but I think that's a terrible approach, and it really needs to get called out as a problem IMO.

First, it attempts to solve clutter across classes by creating more clutter within classes, which doesn't really make much sense - especially when the themes representing a particular fantasy within a class get really diluted, random, or incoherent, as they are at this point. As a practical concern, this makes it more difficult for players to digest what their options really are. They have to reverse engineer a concept or go through a layered path-choosing process.

Second, subclasses aren't multi-class friendly, so tying more and more class options to them inhibits the leveraging of multi-class rules to create a unique class concept. In other words, they result in less customization, not more.

Third, there are numerous areas where it just doesn't really make thematic sense, either in terms of edition history/lore or in terms of verisimilitude. I can get on board with Psychic Warrior being a subclass for Fighter. I cannot get on board with the base Psion being a "Wizarding tradition". One of many reasons for this is the thematic need for psionics to exist as a full-enough system to potentially replace traditional magic in a more sci-fi setting based on precedents established in previous editions.

Fourth, it just feels like a lazy way to develop the system that players have weirdly adopted as a good approach when it isn't (sort of a rationalizing-the-status-quo bias). If they had started with only 4 or 5 classes, this approach might have made the most sense, but they didn't & that ship has sailed. So drawing a line now and de-emphasizing classes in favor of subclasses is starting to make the whole edition feel sloppily executed.

The bottom line is that if the concept that you're imagining is a.) very interesting, and b.) broad enough that you can easily mentally conjure many different subtypes within that class, there is no reason to not take the time to develop it into a full class instead of band-aiding it as a nonsensical subclass tacked on to an arbitrarily chosen class. My personal favorite examples of this are the witch and the shaman, but there are tons of others.

Honestly it's just starting to feel like once again WotC is being lazy, taking the easy way to solve and issue, instead of doing the work to do it right. WotC does good stuff when they put the effort in, but they take a lot of short cuts.

Why is it the 3rd party publishers with a fraction of the resources of WotC can put the effort into putting together a good Psion Class, but WotC just gives up and shoves into the Wizard?

 

[gyor]

I started playing during the 3E era, so yes, I have seen Class bloat cause huge problems.

Class bloat was never a thing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Again, what about the witch is something that can't be represented?

The point is almost never whether it can be represented. You’re working form an entirely different premise.

The opposing premise is that “if it CAN be done as a full class with several subclass concepts, it should be.” Whether it also could be represented as a subclass is irrelevant to that.