D&D 5E (2024) Class and Subclass Design: What Works

[Chaltab]

The line really depends on what you consider to warrant a full class or a subclass.

Psionics is a good example. The PHB has four "psionic" subclasses (a warrior, an expert and two different types of spellcaster) and for some, that's enough psionics for the game. Obviously, not everyone agrees as we just tested a base class psion with it's own subclasses and unique spells. Even further back, they tried a all-in-one psionic class with it's own system and everything. The general consensus though is that no one can agree exactly how best to represent the idea: for some a sorcerer with ten bonus spells is enough. Others want a full class. Others still want a whole different magic system.

I get that. My point is that I think the existing system in 5E allows for that flexibility so that you don't try and make things like 'Assassin' or 'Illusionist' a full class as past editions have, to sometimes... mixed results.

 

[Remathilis]

with this much overlap, I do not think that we need more than ONE caster class.

Have every spell available, but spell known to level of 2014 sorcerer.
As is, you can get ANY spell, but you cannot have EVERY spell.

Then you will create a meta where the best spells are the no brainer choices and, unless you want to play a suboptimal lulz character, most magic will be ignored. No one will pick flame strike over fireball, flame bolt over eldritch blast, shillelagh over true strike. You'd be insane to not take wish no matter what style caster you are. Every caster would look the same. The staples (shield, misty step, dispel magic, etc) would fill the list of every caster and you might get a few slots left to pick a flavorful choice.

While the current system isn't perfect, it at least slows down the ability to pick all the best spells from the jump. There is still a paper-thin wall keeping a bard, cleric and wizard feeling different. You make one spell list, you get exactly one type of caster. Period.

 

[TwoSix]

Then you will create a meta where the best spells are the no brainer choices and, unless you want to play a suboptimal lulz character, most magic will be ignored. No one will pick flame strike over fireball, flame bolt over eldritch blast, shillelagh over true strike. You'd be insane to not take wish no matter what style caster you are. Every caster would look the same. The staples (shield, misty step, dispel magic, etc) would fill the list of every caster and you might get a few slots left to pick a flavorful choice.

While the current system isn't perfect, it at least slows down the ability to pick all the best spells from the jump. There is still a paper-thin wall keeping a bard, cleric and wizard feeling different. You make one spell list, you get exactly one type of caster. Period.

Agreed. My personal preference for casters would be to be more similar to the 3.5 "fixed list" casters like dread necromancer and beguiler, where the caster has access to a moderately-sized array of specific thematic effects. Class features can give something like bardic magical secrets or warlock invocations to allow for some customization.

D&D works better with more specific classes like paladin and druid, rather than generic classes like fighter and sorcerer.

 

[Remathilis]

Agreed. My personal preference for casters would be to be more similar to the 3.5 "fixed list" casters like dread necromancer and beguiler, where the caster has access to a moderately-sized array of specific thematic effects. Class features can give something like bardic magical secrets or warlock invocations to allow for some customization.

D&D works better with more specific classes like paladin and druid, rather than generic classes like fighter and sorcerer.

I tend to agree, as long as they are sufficient enough role coverage. There should be a fighter that is diverse enough to be a gladiator, knight or soldier, but it shouldn't try to encompass everything that makes attack rolls for a living.

 

[Horwath]

Then you will create a meta where the best spells are the no brainer choices and, unless you want to play a suboptimal lulz character, most magic will be ignored. No one will pick flame strike over fireball, flame bolt over eldritch blast, shillelagh over true strike. You'd be insane to not take wish no matter what style caster you are. Every caster would look the same. The staples (shield, misty step, dispel magic, etc) would fill the list of every caster and you might get a few slots left to pick a flavorful choice.

While the current system isn't perfect, it at least slows down the ability to pick all the best spells from the jump. There is still a paper-thin wall keeping a bard, cleric and wizard feeling different. You make one spell list, you get exactly one type of caster. Period.

well, I guess then the designers will actually have to make some effort to make all spells interesting and useful for certain character build.

also it's not that bad to have staple spells, to expect what an average mage is capable of.
and is it good design now that druids and clerics have for 9th level? well, we cant get wish so we have to pick what is rest of 9th level.
maybe Wish needs to be removed from the game or make 10th level spell slots(at 19th level): for Wish, Time stop and True resurrection.

 

[NotAYakk]

I like class and subclass abilities that:
A) are reasonably straightforward without being overly fiddly or confusing (ie: user friendly); B) are powerful enough to be worth keeping track of but not game breakingly powerful (so: worthwhile in a balanced way); and C) are evocative of the character, class, or subclass's narrative. I also really like abilities that D) lend themself to creative play or have outside the obvious usage, but don't expect every ability to do so (at least not within a 5e+ framework). A good class or subclass feature fulfills at least the first three criteria reasonably well, though being weak on one point can be made up for on others.

So a pair of examples that come to mind for me from the Hunter Ranger subclass (because their names are, for little good reason, linked):
-A feature I mostly Like: Hunter's Prey. Extra damage to an injured enemy or an extra attack against an enemy next to another. Either option you can pick with it easily satisfies criterion A of being easy enough to understand, track, impliment, etc. and criterion B of being worthwhile but balanced, since both options are pretty powerful, especially at 3rd level, but they are also likely to only work in a few rounds per combat if you're lucky. The abilities themselves are great for criterion C, with Colossus Slayer going right to the whole hunter thing and Horde Breaker always making me think of Aragorn outnumbered by the Uruk-Hai, but the concept that you can switch options on a short rest makes no sense. This switching also makes it more complicated, and frankly wastes half the ability because unless you know you're to be up against a lot of melee weenies you probably never pick Horde Breaker (mileage may vary if your DM is always clumping enemies together, the point is that almost every combat has Colossus Slayer opportunities and many have no Horde Breaker ones). The switching is better perhaps on this front of seeing both get use than the old 5e version where you just picked one forever, but this improvement has come at the cost of making no damned ludo-narrative sense. My main design suggestion would be to simply allow either to be used on a per turn basis, or just make them separate abilities.

So, I dislike Hunter's Prey.

Colossus Slayer is an ability that is ok at level 3, but quickly falls off to irrelevancy. Tracking that 1d8 remains the same work at every level, yet becomes less and less important.

Horder Breaker is a "DM may I"; having foes be within 5' is almost always a tactical decision by the DM; do they want you to use such abilites or not? Tightly packed hordes aren't really well handled by the 5e engine either. If you removed the 5' restriction? Sure, great ability. Even if you made it 15', it would be quite usable. As is, it is an ability that doesn't see play.

Neither really make you play your character differently; maybe a melee PC with Horde Breaker might move to a different spot 1 fight in 20. So it has no impact on the character's combat loop.

The level 7 abilities aren't much better. Escape the Horde is an ability that makes a situation you should avoid being in a tiny bit less worse, and Multiattack Defence makes combat for the DM annoying (but only when they attack you with a boss type; which, I guess, is a kind of defence?)

Superior Hunter's Prey is, I agree, poorly designed. Magical what damage goes where?

The entire subclass is just "I fight good" and then doesn't really deliver. Even Hunter's Lore is a combat ability; it has the only real flavour of the subclass.

Hunter's Prey:
Collossus Slayer: At the start of your turn, you can increase the damage of your Hunter's Marks on a creature by 1d6 on one creature who is not at maximum HP you can see. You can only increase the damage to 2d6.

When you reach 7th, 11th and 15th level in this class, the max number of 1d6s your Hunter's Mark can be increased to goes up by 1d6 (up to 3d6, 4d6 and 5d6).

Break the Horde: When you use Hunter's Mark, you can place it on up to two creatures. Once per turn, when you attack a different creature within 15' of a creature you have Marked, you can make a weapon attack on the creature you have Marked.

When you reach 7th, 11th and 15th level in this class, the number of creatures you can place your Hunter's Mark on increases to 3, 4 and 5. In addition, you can make the extra attack twice per turn starting at level 11.

Level 7: Defensive Tactics
Escape the Horde: When a creature subject to your Hunter's Mark makes an opportunity attack on you, you can expend your reaction to make a weapon attack on it first (if this is a ranged weapon attack, it doesn't have disadvantage for beign adjacent to foes). If your attack hits, the triggering creature's opportunity attack misses, and all other opportunity attacks made on you until the end of your turn are at disadvantage.

Multiattack Defence: When a creature subject to your Hunter's Mark damages you the 2nd time on a turn, you can expend a reaction to make a weapon attack on the creature; if a ranged weapon attack, it is not subject to disadvatange from being within 5' of a foe. If you hit the creature with this reaction, the damage from your attack reduces the damage you take.

Level 11: The Hunt Eternal

Hunter's Mark no longer requires concentration. When its duration ends, the spell effect remains, except you can no longer apply it to a new creature when the creature dies.

Level 15: The Hunt Inevidible

By spending a bonus action you can learn what direction a creature subject to your Hunter's Mark is in, and optionally move up to your speed directly in that direction. Attacks you make on that creature gain advantage until the end of your next turn. Creatures subject to your Hunter's Mark do not impose disadvantage on your attacks from being unseen, nor gain advantage on attacks on you from being unseen.

I think I mixed in a bunch of flavour and non-combat utility with the hunter's mark improvements. This subclass plays differently than other ranger subclasses; it has a different combat game loop etc.

Break the Horde ends up with 5 creatures under HM per cast and 2 extra attacks per turn. Collossus Slayer ends up with a 5d6 (!) damage hunter's mark, but takes 4 turns to get there.

The level 7 features are offensive-defensive instead of pure defensive. They only apply to HM targets; one advantage of the Horde option is that more creatures are going to be subject to your HM.

The Hunt Eternal adds a pile of non-combat utility to HM. You can put it on a foe long before you fight them, or have it up on a foe that fled.

Level 15 changes the entire story dynamic, and is a fun and useful in-combat ability.