D&D 5E Class power and Subclass design space: a discussion

[Shiroiken]

This is a fairly accurate assessment. Some base classes are more powerful than others, but in general those have moderately weak sub-classes. I've had a paladin player try to decide what oath to take, because he really didn't care about any of them (except maybe RP reasons). Sorcerers are greatly dependent on their sub-class however, like the ranger, since the base class if somewhat limited (although not as bad as the ranger).

 

[Olrox17]

Variant class features. These need more testing. And more of these need to be written.

That UA really was a breath of fresh air.

 

[Xenonnonex]

That UA really was a breath of fresh air.

Word.

 

[the Jester]

TL;DR:
So, here's the thing. I know 5e is not going to redesign its basic components and mechanics. A 5.5 edition, however, might happen in the future, who knows. And if it happens, I strongly think that WotC should go with a less is more approach to base class features, and allow subclasses to do much more of the heavy lifting. I really think such a design direction would benefit the game.

First, I really don't see, or want, a 5.5e. I might buy into it if it happened, but it would have to be so significantly different as to be incompatible with 5e as it stands, and I don't want that.

Second, I agree that the base classes largely do the heavy lifting in 5e, but I think this is a good thing. I think rather than moving that heavy lifting into subclasses, which requires a new edition of semi-edition, a possible way to open up some design space would be to reintroduce variant level types. I'm not sure how popular they were, but in late 3e, WotC published a number of these- for instance, at certain levels, you could take an "elven fighter" or "dwarven fighter" (etc) level that replaced the standard fighter benefits of that level with benefits themed and tied to the race. Instead of getting fighter feature x, you would get "fighter feature y that makes you more elfy or dwarfy (or whatever-y)."

Another approach I would be down with would be a return of prestige classes (or something like them). Maybe, to build the swordmage, you take some fighter levels and then shoot off at an angle into a prestige class-like subclass that takes over and replaces your base class. So instead of getting fighter feature x at level y, you get "prestige subclass feature x" that replaces your fighter features. Or maybe a subclass could open up special 'feat replacements' that nobody else gets access to, abilities that are tied to the subclass identity.

Looking at the swordmage specifically, I see what you're saying. No 5e equivalent exists that really captures what a swordmage was an how deeply integrated its abilities were into its core identity. But the thing is, there really isn't a solid equivalent to much that was in 4e. A 4e barbarian is wildly different than a barbarian from any other edition, for instance. The druid is another good example, probably as strong of an example as the swordmage is. I think the solution (for those who want it) is to design those equivalents from the ground up as base classes. I think we need an actual goddamn warlord, for instance, because nothing in 5e gets more than 50% of the way there, even using feats, multiclassing, etc, to do the very best you can.

Now, do I think your approach is bad or wrong? Not in principle. But I dislike the idea of revising the game to the extent that it would require. I'd rather find solutions that can be pinned on to the game as it is, instead of ripping out existing groundwork.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A moon druid is arguably OP just by virtue of its subclass features only, and then it gets full spellcasting, up to ninth level, on top of that. Not great design.

Anyone who believes Moon Druids are seriously "overpowered" past about level 8-10 needs to go into remedial math, ASAP. At level 2 they're outright broken but that fixes down to "grossly OP" at level 3 and then it just degrades from there until they're not significantly OP. But 2-6 or so they are total monsters.

However, re: your general point, which is that because classes are powerful, subclasses don't have a lot of design space, well, that's true, though it didn't have to be true. I don't think your suggestion re: Druids makes much sense. It seems to take the World of Warcraft approach that "Druids are all about shapeshifting". Making a Druids a half-caster would be terrible design, which would ruin the class, because you can't un-make something a half-caster, contrary to your assertion. It would be hideously complicated and mechanically horrible to look upon, and the opposite of 5E's accessible design. You can't fix Moon Druids that way, because D&D doesn't have a design that allows for that. If it was spellpoint based or something, you could do that, but it isn't. Yet. Instead they should have just had the Warden class, which was a half-caster, and "Moon Druid" would have been a subset of Warden, not of Druid (and called "Moon Warden" or whatever).

So I guess my point is to agree with you and not - if you want more design space, you not only have to strip features out of baseline classes, but you also have to create new classes, like if you want a half-caster baselines, you need a half-caster class.

This has always been an issue in D&D, back to 2E at least, note.

You could see it in the Complete Book of [Class]. The less features a class had, the less the Complete Book could replace or change those features. So the early books were kind of pretty sad affairs, mostly stuff that was more down to a few bonus proficiencies or whatever. But then they got to Bard, which was an extremely feature-heavy class, and they could go completely wild. And as such the Bard's Handbook was amazing, with amazing subclasses that are still around now (unlike perhaps any other Complete book), because of the huge design space.

You saw it again in 2E with the later books that let you redesign classes in a points-based way. The more features a class had, the more you could redesign it.

So yeah if classes in 5E had less, we could redesign them a lot more via subclasses. You might even get to the dangerous realm where we're asking why do we even have Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Bards, and Sorcerers, when we could really just have "full caster". At a dead minimum we could cut it down to Divine Caster, Wizard, Spontaneous Arcane Caster.

 

[Olrox17]

Anyone who believes Moon Druids are seriously "overpowered" past about level 8-10 needs to go into remedial math, ASAP. At level 2 they're outright broken but that fixes down to "grossly OP" at level 3 and then it just degrades from there until they're not significantly OP. But 2-6 or so they are total monsters.

Yeah, sure, the moon druid loses steam at high-late mid levels, and goes back to god tier at very high levels, when they get the ability to cast in beast form and unlimited beast form uses. I would still call a subclass that is a total monster at level 2-6 a failure in design. After all, that's the most played level range, by far.

Making a Druids a half-caster would be terrible design, which would ruin the class, because you can't un-make something a half-caster, contrary to your assertion. It would be hideously complicated and mechanically horrible to look upon, and the opposite of 5E's accessible design. You can't fix Moon Druids that way, because D&D doesn't have a design that allows for that.

I'm not sure about that. I mean, we have subclasses like the EK, that turns non-casters into casters. The subclass gets its own little spell slot table, and all. Why can't a half caster class get a full caster subclass? Just give the subclass its own spell slots table. Sure, it hasn't been done before, but if we can live with the 5e multiclassing rules, and how hideously they interact with spell casting classes, why not this?

This has always been an issue in D&D, back to 2E at least, note.

You could see it in the Complete Book of [Class]. The less features a class had, the less the Complete Book could replace or change those features. So the early books were kind of pretty sad affairs, mostly stuff that was more down to a few bonus proficiencies or whatever. But then they got to Bard, which was an extremely feature-heavy class, and they could go completely wild. And as such the Bard's Handbook was amazing, with amazing subclasses that are still around now (unlike perhaps any other Complete book), because of the huge design space.

You saw it again in 2E with the later books that let you redesign classes in a points-based way. The more features a class had, the more you could redesign it.

The 2E parallel is interesting to me, mostly because I know very little about 2e, my only exposure to it being Baldur's Gate 2. Cool stuff to know.

So yeah if classes in 5E had less, we could redesign them a lot more via subclasses. You might even get to the dangerous realm where we're asking why do we even have Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Bards, and Sorcerers, when we could really just have "full caster". At a dead minimum we could cut it down to Divine Caster, Wizard, Spontaneous Arcane Caster.

Heh, let's not get crazy here. Yeah, we could cut down classes like that, and it'd probably be a more efficient and clean system, but I'm not sure people would appreciate that kind of radical change. What I'm advocating for is more subtle, I'm not trying to slay any sacred cows.

 

[TwoSix]

TL;DR:
So, here's the thing. I know 5e is not going to redesign its basic components and mechanics. A 5.5 edition, however, might happen in the future, who knows. And if it happens, I strongly think that WotC should go with a less is more approach to base class features, and allow subclasses to do much more of the heavy lifting. I really think such a design direction would benefit the game.

Or if you keep pushing in the subclass direction, you go far enough to my preferred design, which is a large number of specifically designed narrow classes.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, it hasn't been done before, but if we can live with the 5e multiclassing rules, and how hideously they interact with spell casting classes, why not this?

If you think the 5e multiclass rules for spellcasters are hideous, you must have skipped 3E.

 

[Olrox17]

If you think the 5e multiclass rules for spellcasters are hideous, you must have skipped 3E.

No, I didn't . I DMed third edition for what, 10 years? Never again. Totally up for playing it with a good DM though, never had a chance to play a ToB character!

 

[Blue]

Variant class features. These need more testing. And more of these need to be written.

When class features can get swapped out, your are creating exponential more combinations. And looking historically, it's combinations that gave the real power moves - no single feature or set fo features designed to work together makes a broken character.

I would detest 5e turning into a "well, if I take three levels of this to get this subclass, and four levels of that but swap out these features, what I have is a lot more powerful than a single classed 7th level character". Like happened with 3.5.

I really like subclasses plus feats as a happy medium - subclasses not just thematically tie together, but because you can't mix and match from different subclasses in the same class, it's easy to see the total package and evaluate in a holistic context. And then feats take you already double branching path (first picking class then picking subclass) and add in personalized customization.