D&D 5E Races and classes

[Scott Christian]

Except that the direction they're going is ever more flexibility so I'm not sure it would fix the issues you see. Personally I have no problem saying "no" so the fact that now you can play an anthropomorphic turtle doesn't really bother me.

But I get it, bloat happens. Just not sure a new release would fix anything for more than a couple of years.

This seems so odd to me. Like they are shooting themselves in the foot. D&D is a game that is build on class development, and then attaching race/feats/background to the class. There are many options out there that are more versatile and open. It just seems like such an odd choice.

 

[zarionofarabel]

So if everything is chosen at Level One and progresses without change all the way to Level Twenty, the subclasses are actually just classes. That's hilarious! 5e has had to invent more than a hundred classes!

Maybe it's time to just ditch that super outdated concept! Hey 6e! Don't use classes!

 

[jgsugden]

If you ditch classes, or humanoid types, you're taking away the hallmarks of D&D. That was the lesson of 4E - too much change makes it a different game. It can be a good game, but without ties to the core of the prior edition, it isn't D&D.

To me, the plethora of classes and humanoid types only become a problem if there are combinations that can't be fun to play. I don't think that is the case in 5E. As such, if the only problem is that you have too many good options from which to select if you look at all options, well - not a problem at all.

 

[BookTenTiger]

So if everything is chosen at Level One and progresses without change all the way to Level Twenty, the subclasses are actually just classes. That's hilarious! 5e has had to invent more than a hundred classes!

Maybe it's time to just ditch that super outdated concept! Hey 6e! Don't use classes!

You don't really like 5e, do you?

Picking a class and race at level 1 and going with it is pretty much how D&D has always worked, right? 3rd Edition introduced about a million prestige classes, but unless you planned it out from Level 1 you couldn't access most of them. So that's basically the same as choosing a subclass.

What's great about 5e's system is that a party with 3 rogues can have 3 very different characters, flavor and mechanics wise. Many classes have subclasses that borrow from other classes, so you don't have to have a dedicated cleric in each group. You say 5e "had to invent" a ton of subclasses. It... didn't? The subclasses expand the different modes of play. Some folks, such as myself, would also enjoy those choices at higher levels too.

I think most folks in this thread have agreed that choosing a subrace and subclass is fun!

 

[zarionofarabel]

You don't really like 5e, do you?

Picking a class and race at level 1 and going with it is pretty much how D&D has always worked, right? 3rd Edition introduced about a million prestige classes, but unless you planned it out from Level 1 you couldn't access most of them. So that's basically the same as choosing a subclass.

What's great about 5e's system is that a party with 3 rogues can have 3 very different characters, flavor and mechanics wise. Many classes have subclasses that borrow from other classes, so you don't have to have a dedicated cleric in each group. You say 5e "had to invent" a ton of subclasses. It... didn't? The subclasses expand the different modes of play. Some folks, such as myself, would also enjoy those choices at higher levels too.

I think most folks in this thread have agreed that choosing a subrace and subclass is fun!

Part of the reason I gave up on D&D was 3e and it's endless additions of classes. I found classless RPGs that work better as they allow for flexible character rules without needing to continuously add more classes.

That's why I think it might be time for D&D to abandon that "sacred cow" if none of the others, simply because the player base wants flexible character rules. The continuous addition of more and more and more classes to cover the obvious drawbacks of a class system is pretty obvious. In a classless system you can have a party of 3 rogues without needing 3 different classes to do so.

It just strikes me as funny that the player base obviously wants the system to do things differently, yet I still find that many D&D players will not under any circumstances use a different system. Just strikes me as odd. To me it would be like someone that eats vanilla ice cream, complains that it's not chocolate, but refuses to just go eat chocolate because at one time in the distant past vanilla was all they could get. Yeah...weird.

 

[Blue Orange]

I'm old enough to remember 2e with the snailships in space and 1d10 points of dawizard.

The game seems to go through these cycles where options get added, nobody can keep track of them, and a new edition cuts down on them again.

Is there some reason 'if you don't like it, don't play it' doesn't work? DMs having to read up on hundreds of race and class variants?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I

Part of the reason I gave up on D&D was 3e and it's endless additions of classes. I found classless RPGs that work better as they allow for flexible character rules without needing to continuously add more classes.

That's why I think it might be time for D&D to abandon that "sacred cow" if none of the others, simply because the player base wants flexible character rules. The continuous addition of more and more and more classes to cover the obvious drawbacks of a class system is pretty obvious. In a classless system you can have a party of 3 rogues without needing 3 different classes to do so.

It just strikes me as funny that the player base obviously wants the system to do things differently, yet I still find that many D&D players will not under any circumstances use a different system. Just strikes me as odd. To me it would be like someone that eats vanilla ice cream, complains that it's not chocolate, but refuses to just go eat chocolate because at one time in the distant past vanilla was all they could get. Yeah...weird.

suspect more people still like vanilla but we hear from a subset online who complain.

I am not against a classless system but classes and archetypes is one reason I think 5e and D&D still reign supreme.

 

[Helldritch]

Part of the reason I gave up on D&D was 3e and it's endless additions of classes. I found classless RPGs that work better as they allow for flexible character rules without needing to continuously add more classes.

That's why I think it might be time for D&D to abandon that "sacred cow" if none of the others, simply because the player base wants flexible character rules. The continuous addition of more and more and more classes to cover the obvious drawbacks of a class system is pretty obvious. In a classless system you can have a party of 3 rogues without needing 3 different classes to do so.

It just strikes me as funny that the player base obviously wants the system to do things differently, yet I still find that many D&D players will not under any circumstances use a different system. Just strikes me as odd. To me it would be like someone that eats vanilla ice cream, complains that it's not chocolate, but refuses to just go eat chocolate because at one time in the distant past vanilla was all they could get. Yeah...weird.

It is not a classless system that you need. I've been there, done that many times. What we need is a system that allows flexibility through choices at key points in classes. Ideally, every levels should have a meaningful choice. And through these combinations, you can call your fighter a Battlemaster, a Samurai, a Champion, a knight, a Man at arms, a Warlord, an Archer, an Arcane Archer or whatever else you want because you had the choices open to you. But 5ed is built around fixed powers for subclasses and that is what we've got. It is still way better than a classless system but as I have warned many times over, more is not necessarily better.

 

[Charlaquin]

So if everything is chosen at Level One and progresses without change all the way to Level Twenty, the subclasses are actually just classes. That's hilarious! 5e has had to invent more than a hundred classes!

Technically some subclasses are gained at 2nd or 3rd level. Specifically, it’s 1st level for Clerics, Sorcerers, and Warlocks, 2nd level for Druids and Wizards, and 3rd level for Barbarians, Bards, Fighters, Monks, Rangers, and Rogues. But in my experience, players generally decide at character creation what subclass they plan to take when they reach the appropriate level.

I also can’t stress enough how much they aren’t classes. Your class determines your starting hit points, hit points gained at level up, weapon, armor, and saving throw proficiencies, some of your skill and tool proficiencies (with some coming from race and background as well), some of your starting equipment (with the rest coming from your background) or starting gold, what levels you get ability score increases (or feats) at*, your spell list, spellcasting ability, and any specific spellcasting rules of you’re a caster, and class features at most levels.

From your subclass, you get about 4-6 features, spread out across as many levels.

*almost every class defaults to getting these at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level, but Fighter and Rogue both grant additional ones at a few levels.

Maybe it's time to just ditch that super outdated concept! Hey 6e! Don't use classes!

Classless systems are a thing. I don’t think that would be the right choice for D&D. But I do think 6e should change the relationship between class and subclass. I would much rather class give those fundamental structural things, while more specific features came from subclass, and characters could be further differentiated based on which subclass features they chose at levels where they gain them. You see the hint of this kind of relationship in a few places, like the Battlemaster subclass for Fighter, and the Warlock class in general. But for the most part 5e squanders its own design space.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I

suspect more people still like vanilla but we hear from a subset online who complain.

I am not against a classless system but classes and archetypes is one reason I think 5e and D&D still reign supreme.

Nah. It's brand recognition at this point. That and corporate money and logistical support. The core tenets of the game are being subverted by the game itself.

Levels - Subverted by bounded accuracy. The Challenge Rating system.
Alignment - Subverted by allowing the "evil" races to be playable and outright stating that "good" and "evil" really doesn't matter anymore and cannot be applied in broad strokes or with any reliability.
Classes - Subverted by having over 100 distinct classes to allow for all of the different variations that players want that cannot be achieved in a much easier fashion because D&D is a game with classes.

To me, being not a D&D fanboy, it is probably easier to see because I read and employ many RPGs other than D&D. To me it is actually kind of funny watching it. D&D players want the system to do things the "sacred cows" cannot achieve but refuse to use systems that can do those things because then they wouldn't be playing D&D.

Like I said... weird.