D&D 5E All classes should be broad enough to be split into subclasses

[Drowdruid]

IMHO All classes should be broad enough to be split into subclasses (ie: fighter actually is split by fighting style into duelist, protector, sharpshooter, slayer and veteran subclasses). If proposed class isn't able to cover multiple styles it should not be a class. Some classes are little more narrow and incite discussions if it should be a class or specialty like warlord, barbarian or assassin.
IMO all these 3 classes could be split into styles as follows:
Warlord = Leadership (ie: Leadership By Inspiration, By Tactics, By Bravery, By Management, By Terror etc.)
Barbarian = Wild Temperament (ie: Frenzy Of The Berserker, Might Of The Hulk, Grit Of The Juggernaut, Madness Of The Maniac, Wanderlust Of The Nomad, Bloodlust Of The Werebeast)
Wild Temperament indicates type of rage (ie. Hulk increases its Size, Strength and Constitution, and Juggernaut ignore pain)
Assassin = Assassin's Guild (ie: Snake Guild, Scorpion Guild, Spider Guild)
Guild indicates type of style of assassination (ie. Snake rely on Backstabbing from shadows, Scorpion rely on poisons, Spider rely on social intrigue and arranged accidents)

What are your examples of splitting classes into subclasses and by which feature will you done that (please give name of that feature and examples)?
(sorry for my language)
Edit:
I also think that some classes may overlap each other as long as their main shtick dividing it into subclasses is fundamentally different (ie: old rangeresque fighting style should be now obsolete as it is a shtick of the fighter, but although ranger could be considered lightly armored fighter it deserve to be its own class, but all his features should be arranged by Favored Enemy/Environment.

 

[kerleth]

I agree with the majority of what you said. (But not all, I've got to be contrary).
My example class would be the magi. It would be split by having a character focus on casting spells with either intelligence, wisdom, charisma, or constitution. So....
Methodology (names could all use some work)
Knowledge is Power: This would use intelligence and would have the widest range of spells and the most control over them. They really had to work to understand magic, but now that they do they can do things noone else can.
Mysticism: This would use wisdom and would be more freeform and spontaneous. The character would have a natural sense for the energies flowing around them and could shape them to their liking. It would overall have less spells and tricks known than intelligence but would have more control and ease of use with those that they do have.
Force of Will: This would use charisma and would have a small spell list with little or no ability to tweak each individual spell. They would probably have more raw power and/or more ease of casting than the previous two.
Channeling: This would use constitution. They would have a limited spell list like charisma and would run the risk of weakening themselves by using their magic too much. However, they would also be able to siphon off their own life force/channel to much energy too increase the power of their spells past their normal limits.

You might have been asking for more classical dnd classes, but this is what came to my mind.

 

[Drowdruid]

The problem i see with your example is too much overlap with existing classes.
The concept is good but almost too broad because Knowledge Is Power is practically a Wizard now, Mysticism a Cleric, Channeling could be Elementalist.
Overall I like your example but i have in mind classes little more classic (ie: ranger, paladin, warlord, barbarian but also little more narrow like soulknife which could be considered one trick pony although interresting BTW.

I think we could discuss here which class concept are viable in context of thread title and which must be scrapped as a one trick ponies.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The design team's philosophy is that the core 4 classes should be broad enough to describe pretty much any character, so the other classes can represent a specific archetype. e.g., a Druid is a member of specific order of priests who believe in true neutrality, turn into bears, and can't wear metal.

I prefer this to the trend of the last few editions, which was to make the non-core-4 classes as generic as possible. I believe a Paladin should be a Paladin--If you want to be a Fighter/Cleric, you should be a Fighter/Cleric (or a fighter with the Divine Magic specialty). If you want to be a Paladin, that means something special about your place in the world.

In other words: some classes should be broad, others should be narrow.

 

[Szatany]

IMHO All classes should be broad enough to be split into subclasses

Is the reverse also true? By that I mean:
All subclasses that are broad enough to be split further should be classes instead.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yechhh ... no sub-classes, please. If you want that kind of differentiation, put it into Specialties.

 

[Drowdruid]

I agree. Some concepts naturally will be more narrow but i think we have avoid situation when we make a class that is one trick pony (ie. avenger in 4e although have their censure feature it make its build barely different than the others)

@Olgar: We already have subclasses in all core classes: Fighter is split by Fighting Style, Rogue by Scheme, Cleric by Deity, Wizard by Tradition.
[MENTION=21178]Szatany[/MENTION]: I think in some cases it is true and in some is not. Division into subclasses or builds if you prefer this name should be guideline not dogma IMHO.

 

[Drowdruid]

I have to go to sleep

But at good bye I wish to say I want constructive propositions of subclasses and their defining features and also I wish to represent my ideas:
Ranger: Favored Enemy/Environment
Paladin: Divine Virtue (Sacrifice, Valor, Honor, Justice, Revenge etc.)
Barbarian: as in OP or by Totem (Bear Totem - Berserker, Wolf Totem - Feralen, etc.)
Warlord: as in OP but also could be Commanding Style (Coordinator, Leader, Commander, Mastermind) as in homebrew Warlord that someone placed in WotC forums.
Monk: Disciple Of The Fist (Desert Wind, Iron Soul, Stone Fist, Centered Breath, Shadow Hand etc. or Monastic Way (Way Of Ancient Mountain, Way Of Crashing Sea, Way Of Crimson Flame, Way Of Whispering Wind etc.)
Wilder: Passion (Anger, Love, Excitement, Sorrow, Hope etc.)
Psion: Psionic Discipline (Psychometabolism, Telepathy, Clairsentience, Psychoportation, Metacreativity, Psychokinesis etc.)
Soulknife (renamed as Shaper): Energy Blade (Blade Of Reason (psi), Blade Of Light (psi), Blade Of Frost (elemental), Blade Of Flame (elemental), Blade Of Storm (elemental), Blade Of Force (elemental or psi) etc) or Energetical Manifestation ( Energy Blade, Energy Bow, Energy Shield etc.)
Warlock: Eldritch Pact as it is now
Sorcerer: Eldritch Heritage a.k.a Sorcerous Origin as it is now
Assassin: as in OP
and maybe it is all for now
Good Bye
Edit:
I changed entry in monk because i found oryginal names used in homebrew monk from WotC forum which i didn't remember correctly earlier.

 

[Nellisir]

I agree. Some concepts naturally will be more narrow but i think we have avoid situation when we make a class that is one trick pony (ie. avenger in 4e although have their censure feature it make its build barely different than the others)

@Olgar: We already have subclasses in all core classes: Fighter is split by Fighting Style, Rogue by Scheme, Cleric by Deity, Wizard by Tradition.

CAUTION: IDLE MUSING AHEAD!
The existence of "Arcane Magic" and "Divine Magic" suggest to me that spellcasting classes might also be able to be split (at least in house rules) along types of magic. Give a cleric "Arcane Magic" to create a more monastic priest. Give a wizard "Divine Magic" to create a white wizard. My campaign uses "Occult Magic" to signify casters that gain power through bargaining or pacts (shamans, sorcerers, and cultists IMC). Psionics is an obvious variant.

 

[ren1999]

I agree as long as each of the classes is divided into 4 main groups.

Fighter and Rogue types should have the most armor, weapons and hit points.
Wizard types should have area spells.
Clerics should be like multi-class. They should have mid-range armor and weapons and have weaker spells than the wizard.

If you follow those basic ideas, subclasses shouldn't be that difficult.