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

[TwoSix]

There aren't any that I know of. If Class Variants ever see the light of day (and given the overwhelmingly good response that UA got, they probably will), those might be the way to do it. Class variants linked to subclass choice, basically.
Personally, I think we might need a 5.5 (or a new AD&D, if you prefer), to really pursue this kind of design choice in a satisfying manner. Assuming WotC agrees with the basic premise, ofc.

Certainly for spellcasting, I think it would require a revised edition. We might understand that spellcasting progression is a fixed progression that's a function of class levels and their spellcasting "modifier" (0, 1/3, 1/2, 1), but that's just something we're extrapolating from the multiclass rules. There's no core rules terminology that supports changing a spellcasting progression.

 

[NotAYakk]

You are right. But it feels weird that at lvl 20 all other druids would start spend their time continuously changing to beast form just for the damage sponge while it was only and exploration/roleplay feature most of the time for them for 19 levels. Its not a bad capstone mechanically, but in terms of story-telling and character development it feels a little unfitting. Mind you, its not like I play at 20th level anyway, so its more of a whiteroom/flavor thing than a real problem .

Ensuring every single subclass has something to spend wildshape uses on should be enough to make 20th level capstone worthwhile.

 

[Minigiant]

The Ranger is a fascinating example of the opposite. The ranger's base class features are subpar, the player base and WotC agree on this. So how did WotC tackle that? They tried a few class redesigns that didn't quite pan out in testing, and then they released the Xanathar subclasses. Those subclasses were stronger than average, and actually kind of fun to play! Wotc realized that, with the Ranger chassis being subpar, their only current option was to fill that design gap with solid, fun, flavorful, stronger than average subclasses. Not a bad idea! Yes, it's technically power creep, so it isn't an ideal solution, but it's something.

The issue isn't that the Ranger is weak.

It is that the player base and WOTC culd not agree towhat the Ranger was. It was the most heavily changed class in all of D&D. 5e wasto bring back old feeling of D&D but anger was all over the place. So WOTC just jammed class features that everyone agreed on for names then put the power in Subclass and Spells. This made the Ranger the only Ribbon and Subclass class. It is a archetype focused spell casting warrior who focused on the exploration pillar. Ranger was more or less purposely designed to have its strengths not in the Class Features section. Ranger power is placed in the Subclass, Spells, and Exploration sections.

There might be a reason for this approach. Past Ranger class features have always been in 3 camps:

1. Situational flavor abilities
2. Overpowered general features with meaningless restrictions or drawbacks
3. Tamer versions of other classes' features

So it is possible that the design team attempted to avoid this probblem again by downplaying the traditional expected aspects of the class. They might have decided the base class features focus on the flavor and put the power in the part of the class players have choice in: subclasses skills, and spells.

WOTC however were to conservative on the first subclasses. Spells were heavily tilted to wizards. And the exploration pillar was poorly handled as well. This is why when XGTE entered the fray, the Ranger suddenly grew in popularity. After the playerbase complained and aired their greivances. WOTC just upped the combat strength of the class and shrugged it off. The Ranger shows the danger of making classes focused on their subclass for strength.

TLDR: Rangers is the only class that is based on it's subclasses, skills, and spells and not base class features. This is because the playerbase cannot agree to what a Ranger is and the designers didn't want to take a stand in a nostalgic edition. Unfortunately the designers screwed up the Ranger's subclasses and spells at release..

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Shape changing on the base druid chassis is little more than a ribbon ability that doesn't take up much design room at all. It's like non-combat cantrips - it's something you can do frequently, has situational and/or RP implications, but not a large impact on the power of the class.

Its more or less a ribbon for non-moon druids, but the high level features of the druid are all connected to it in someway or another.

Ensuring every single subclass has something to spend wildshape uses on should be enough to make 20th level capstone worthwhile.

Indeed. The new druids archetypes tackles this problem heads on when you look at the spore druid's poison aura, the star druid's celestial form and the wildfire druid's pet. Sadly, the ones released before that (Land, Dream and Shepherd) are still stuck with the base wildshape uses. I'm sure the alternate feature will add something for those circles; they already playtested the ''call familiar with wildshape'' in the Variant Features UA.
I personally go with something like this:

Land: can spend wilshape to gain resistance to one damage type based on terrain for the duration.
Dream: enter a 1 HP dreamshape/etheral/invisible form with no attack to scout while sleeping.
Shepherd: Boost all summons on the map for 10 minutes. (gain 5 thp, increases one size, deal +1d4 damage).

 

[NotAYakk]

The issue isn't that the Ranger is weak.

It is that the player base and WOTC culd not agree towhat the Ranger was. It was the most heavily changed class in all of D&D. 5e wasto bring back old feeling of D&D but anger was all over the place. So WOTC just jammed class features that everyone agreed on for names then put the power in Subclass and Spells. This made the Ranger the only Ribbon and Subclass class. It is a archetype focused spell casting warrior who focused on the exploration pillar. Ranger was more or less purposely designed to have its strengths not in the Class Features section. Ranger power is placed in the Subclass, Spells, and Exploration sections.

There might be a reason for this approach. Past Ranger class features have always been in 3 camps:

1. Situational flavor abilities
2. Overpowered general features with meaningless restrictions or drawbacks
3. Tamer versions of other classes' features

So it is possible that the design team attempted to avoid this probblem again by downplaying the traditional expected aspects of the class. They might have decided the base class features focus on the flavor and put the power in the part of the class players have choice in: subclasses skills, and spells.

WOTC however were to conservative on the first subclasses. Spells were heavily tilted to wizards. And the exploration pillar was poorly handled as well. This is why when XGTE entered the fray, the Ranger suddenly grew in popularity. After the playerbase complained and aired their greivances. WOTC just upped the combat strength of the class and shrugged it off. The Ranger shows the danger of making classes focused on their subclass for strength.

TLDR: Rangers is the only class that is based on it's subclasses, skills, and spells and not base class features. This is because the playerbase cannot agree to what a Ranger is and the designers didn't want to take a stand in a nostalgic edition. Unfortunately the designers screwed up the Ranger's subclasses and spells at release..

But Ranger subclasses where not super strong either. And neither are its spells; I'd argue they come a bit short of Paladin spells, another half caster.

One thing I'm playing with is a Ranger smite-like ability. Not a +XdY ability, but a way to burn spells to get a boost.

For Rangers, I'm thinking "burn a level X spell slot for a +X to an ability check or attack roll" as a reaction. They can burn spell slots for (A) initiative, (B) to land a blow that would otherwise miss, (C) skill checks. Then at high levels (because I like doing this for all non-full casters) they can add it to a saving throw.

 

[NotAYakk]

You can poach existing abilities.
Land: As a reaction and expending a wild shape slot, extend Nature’s Ward to an ally within 60' against one effect.
Dreams: Hidden Paths
Twilight: Paths of the Dead
Shepard: Totems (max 1 at a time)

Having unlimited of any of those is really nice at 20.

 

[Minigiant]

But Ranger subclasses where not super strong either. And neither are its spells; I'd argue they come a bit short of Paladin spells, another half caster.

One thing I'm playing with is a Ranger smite-like ability. Not a +XdY ability, but a way to burn spells to get a boost.

For Rangers, I'm thinking "burn a level X spell slot for a +X to an ability check or attack roll" as a reaction. They can burn spell slots for (A) initiative, (B) to land a blow that would otherwise miss, (C) skill checks. Then at high levels (because I like doing this for all non-full casters) they can add it to a saving throw.

That's basically what I said.
All the Ranger's power is in sublcasses, skills, and spells. And in the PHB, the Ranger suclasses and spells are too weak. They "fixed" Ranger subclasses in XGTE and UA.
However the base class is weak. So much so that it has to bee on purpose. I don't know what Primeeval Awareness is and how it made it to the PHB. If anything it should have been getting a temporary FE/FT or a nature "minifeat" for X hours or something.

The Paladin is similar. However it works because it's gimmick is more general. The Base Paladin is a warrior who smites and heals. Whereas the Base ranger is a warrior who sneaks and does Nature/Survival. Since Nature/Survival is niche and stealth is a bit uncommon, the base ranger being sneaky warrior ends up bad. And the Ranger ends up being a subclass class.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

We might get a Warden-like subclass, hopefully for the ranger class rather than the druid. The druid might be more thematically linked to the warden, but all that spell casting prowess would leave too little design space to make a decent warden.

Unfortunately Guardian of Nature, the 4th level spell, covers the whole Warden transformation thing, so we're unlikely to see it even as a Ranger deal I think. It's a goddamn terrible spell because it's both Concentration (whilst being designed to be sustained in front-line melee), and has a crummy 1 minute duration, given the benefits and that it's 4th level. If it was not concentration, and had say a 1 hour duration, we might be talking, but it's like, the benefits look cool until you start looking at non-concentration Druid spells of lower levels and the fact that you can combine them with vastly more powerful concentration spells - also lower level - I mean, Guardian of Nature or Conjure Animals, what's going to do more damage and crowd control and have more utility? It ain't Guardian of Nature.

I'm sure the contrarian nature of RPGers will force someone to defend it - but that's a bad spell, and a bad way to block Wardens from existing ever again.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The Paladin is similar. However it works because it's gimmick is more general. The Base Paladin is a warrior who smites and heals. Whereas the Base ranger is a warrior who sneaks and does Nature/Survival. Since Nature/Survival is niche and stealth is a bit uncommon, the base ranger being sneaky warrior ends up bad. And the Ranger ends up being a subclass class.

It's not just that Nature is niche and Stealth isn't always that valuable (esp. as Rangers generally gain nothing special from being undetected), it's that the focus is on essentially enhancing skills/abilities, rather than thinking "how can we thematically enhance these skills/abilities to be relevant in combat in our deeply combat-centric RPG?". The CFV Ranger changes do that though, so they did get it eventually.

 

[Minigiant]

It's not just that Nature is niche and Stealth isn't always that valuable (esp. as Rangers generally gain nothing special from being undetected), it's that the focus is on essentially enhancing skills/abilities, rather than thinking "how can we thematically enhance these skills/abilities to be relevant in combat in our deeply combat-centric RPG?". The CFV Ranger changes do that though, so they did get it eventually.

Well not everything has to bee Combat related. The CFV Ranger in my eyes is a bit too combat based and feels more like it is hammering a nail with a wrench. The Ranger's CFV feel more like something you'd see in a video game because it can't handle anything but combat and dialogue. I'd be shocked if Baldur's Gate 3 ranger isn't full of CFVs and Revised ranger CFs.

But like you said the Ranger cannot leverage its skills unless you get to high levels or are an excellent roleplayer (and allowed by the DM to do so). All the skills classes (bard, monk, ranger, rogue) get Stealth. However Ranger gets its first Stealth feature outside of spells in Tier 3. Nature, Investigation, and Survival are purely roleplay skills and no common enough in standard D&D play to matter. And Ranger bonuses to them are even more niche. And the rest of the skills get no class feature bonuses at all.

The Revised Ranger doesn't fix any of this. It just repeated the problems of past editions to placate fans. The CFV ranger takes the "lazy" route and offers to swap the exploration class features into combat features. However the real issue is that the Ranger is so subclass focused. In the first 5 levels of it, few of it's unique class features are major. It's major features are subclass features or shared by fighters. Swaping Actions Surge and Second Wind for ribbon abiliies and a extra skill in order you boost the power of the subclass.

The subclass route is tough if you don't love the class. I hope in 6th edition, every class is designed by a person who truly cares about it.