Yes, by "replicate" I mean "create characters similar to older edition classes." A "barbarian" subclass for the fighter should feel like its trying to be the same barbarian from 3e-5e with rage, agility, brutal strike, etc. A fighter who has a "monk" subclass should be able to go around doing kung-fu acrobatics and using spirit power.
Cool. It sounds like we're on the same page.
Well, that begs the question of how big or important a subclass should be. Currently, a subclass holds about four abilities (give or take). Is four abilities enough to define a barbarian? a paladin? a monk? Even if you somehow fit the core class concept into four abilities, we are surrendering further specialties. What do we do with the Oath of the Ancients Paladin, the Warrior of Shadow Monk, or the Path of the Storm Herald Barbarian?
Right, in the current 5E design 4-5 is basically it. When you consider few games reach higher levels at all, that number is really just 2-3 in reality.
If I went with the few core classes, obviously the subclasses would have to carry the bulk of the features.
If four cannot replicate a druid, let alone a Circle of Dreams Druid, how many abilities will? 8? 10? 12? At what point is the subclass basically just being the class?
Sure, it is a balancing act between the two. We know you can go overboard in either direction. Frankly, every subclass
could be its own class, but there would be a ton of overlap so that isn't advisable IMO.
They will have to be watered down to be balanced. The Druid was build around wild shape being a primary feature of the class; you can't just give it to cleric and expect it to work. The same thing with rage, or unarmed combat, or paladin smite. They would all end up being toned down to fit within the chassis of the parent class.
With the current system, I get that. But I don't really think things need to be nerfed that much.
Barbarian the class and barbaric backgrounds are again two different ways to expressing the same concept. 5e currently lets us do that because 5e allows for a lot of redundancy in builds. Stripping that away doesn't make thing larger, it forces the options to fall into specific niches.
But if you had a better barbarian background, used it with a Warrior (class) and "Brute/Berserker/etc." subclass, I think it would work well.
And then it offers greater flexibility because background can become a more meaninfgul decision point. You could make a Barbarian (background)/ Warrior (class)/ Scout (subclass) or a Barbarian/ Priest/ Druid combo.
A very important design rule of thumb is that for most players, if there isn't a mechanical expression, it doesn't exist. There is a large swath of players who do not (for a variety of reasons) refluff things. For example, the lack of a "witch" in D&D means most people don't believe a witch character is playable in D&D despite Tasha being RIGHT THERE! There is no mechanical support of the concept (be it class, subclass, feat, or background) and therefore, a person who might have wanted to play a witch if the option is presented won't because the option isn't presented, and the player can't or won't "make one".
Unfortunately, this is true. I has long bothered me and most of the people I play with. You don't
need mechanics to play a particular concept, just
play your PC that way. In 1E, for example, if you wanted to play a Pirate, you took either the Fighter or Thief, choose appropriate armor, weapons, and proficiencies to finish the look, and then PLAY your PC as you imagine your pirate would act.
Now, with the idea of reskinning existing options, it is even easier. Showing how this is possible in the PHB would have helped a lot of players IMO.
That isn't an excuse to make a class (or other mechanic) for every concept under the sun, but it does show that a concept that isn't represented in the rules somewhere is a concept that doesn't exist in the game for lots of players. We should be careful when assuming a player will look at a fighter class and say "hmmmm... how and I make this into a barbarian?" Because for many, it will never cross their mind to do, it, they won't know how to do it, or the DM won't allow them the leeway needed to do it.
Yeah, you aren't wrong. But again by reinforcing it as an option, demonstrating how it works by examples, etc. I think more players might embrace it now they are aware of it, see how it is done, and can hopefully work with their DM to achieve it.
5E made a big mistake similarly with backgrounds.
SO many times I've had new players think they have to choose a background presented, not realizing that customizing backgrounds should really be the norm, and all the backgrounds shown are simply examples.
In the game we're developing as a 5E-related RPG, currently backgrounds comprise of a skill proficiency and two tools (includes languages and others) which the player can pick as they choose, along with two +1 attribute (i.e. ability) increases, also choosen to taste.
