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

[DEFCON 1]

If half the power and most of the flavor are in the subclass and not the class.. the class doesn't matter and the subclass should be the class.

The Fighter, Rogue, and Sorcerer are the three "generic" classes as far as flavor are concerned. They don't have individual narratives for what kind of person they are... that comes out of their subclasses. But why does that actually matter? Why does it matter where their unique "identity" comes from? Now sure, one could make a dozen "new" classes that are merely the subclass identity given a larger Heading in the Classes chapter in the book... but does that necessarily gain one anything? So we have a Thief class, a Samurai class, a Storm Sorcerer, a Swashbuckler, Cavalier, Draconic Sorcerer etc. etc. and the "Fighter", "Rogue", and "Sorcerer" no longer exist. Okay. Our "Class List" is now bigger even though all the concepts are actually the same.

So what's actually been gained? Anything? I personally don't see it. Now I'm sure one might argue that making these things now true "Classes" would probably imply that the designers would most likely make new and different mechanics for these "classes" to make them more unique... and "new mechanics" are always good for a certain subset of the gaming populace who want new mechanics all the time. But that's not actually guaranteed, plus there would be an equal subset of players annoyed by all of at that. After all.. we still have that group of players out there still whining that the Ranger and Paladin are still classes and that what they truly want are just the Core Four with everything else subclasses for whatever reason.

So making changes like this does not ultimately solve anything. Some would love the changes, some would hate it. And NO ONE can claim that their side of the issue is objectively "correct".

 

[Minigiant]

This problem was addressed in Level Up when each of the classes was given features to cover each of the pillars in the game. They also became a little more customizable than their counterparts in 5e by having features that gave the player more than one option to choose from.

Kinda

The Subclass Heavy class like Fighter and Ranger in 2014 and 2024 are really each 3 classes mashed together because WOTC didn't want to add new classes unless forced and they didn't want ruffle grognard feathers

Champion, Battlemaster, and Eldritch/Rune/Psi Knight should be their own classes because they invoke too much mechanical and flavor distinction.

Same with Hunter/Monster Hunter, Beast Master/Drakewarden, and GS/FW/HW.

 

[Reynard]

The question here isn't really about how to fix the class/subclass system of 5E 2024, but how to use it within its design parameters.

 

[Corinnguard]

Kinda

The Subclass Heavy class like Fighter and Ranger in 2014 and 2024 are really each 3 classes mashed together because WOTC didn't want to add new classes unless forced and they didn't want ruffle grognard feathers

Champion, Battlemaster, and Eldritch/Rune/Psi Knight should be their own classes because they invoke too much mechanical and flavor distinction.

Same with Hunter/Monster Hunter, Beast Master/Drakewarden, and GS/FW/HW.

As @DEFCON 1 pointed out in their post, what would be gained if you made each of the Fighter and Ranger subclasses into their own classes. Aside from the features that were originally subclass features, you would have to add in new base class features for each one to make them visually distinct and appealing. Plus, these new classes would have to come with their own subclasses. It's best to Keep It Short and Simple.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't consider this a bad thing though. Fighter itself means nothing and your subclass should really be defining the type of fighter you are (knight, arcane archer, gladiator, etc). Casters on the other hand have huge amounts of baked in flavor just by their spell selection alone. You can't reflavor a bard as a different type of caster without major revisions to the spell list, and 10 spells in a subclass ain't always enough.

i won't deny i've actually desired even tighter focuses on baseclass caster spell lists with bigger expanded spell lists for their subclasses, because honestly even with the current lists there's still a ton of overlap in spell selection.

 

[Minigiant]

The question here isn't really about how to fix the class/subclass system of 5E 2024, but how to use it within its design parameters.

Agreed.

And thus we must categorize the Class heavy, Subclass Heavy, and Balanced Influence classes.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Agreed.

And thus we must categorize the Class heavy, Subclass Heavy, and Balanced Influence classes.

i mean, i'm not sure we really actually NEED to do that to talk about what works and what doesn't.

 

[Minigiant]

For example, some things can't be subclasses for Class Heavy classes.

This is 100% the problem with conjurers and necromancers.

The design space for Subclasses are not big enough to give those classes such major change in subclasses. You would have to design within the wizard class to create a necromancer or conjurer feel.

This means you would have to design wizard spells that do what people want.

 

[DEFCON 1]

What works about the class and subclass system is that it gives players a pre-designed narrative for their characters, rather than asking the players to invent their own.

If the game had just the flavorless Warrior / Expert / Spellcaster as their three "classes"... a player could decide that their "warrior's story" is one of a bare-chested, angry sod who wields a two-handed axe and goes crazy on the battlefield, killing everything in its path. And none of that requires any game mechanics... it just be purely how the player chooses to run their warrior.

On top of that... that same player might decide that the reason their "bare-chested, angry sod who wields a two-handed axe and goes crazy on the battlefield" is killing everything in its path is because their warrior is insanely devoted to the God of War in the setting. They will try and emulate their god with every action they take. And again... none of this requires game mechanics, it's also just the story the player has decided on in their head for why their character does what it does.

But this player is not all players. Not all players will necessarily have the desire or creativity to come up with a story like this. So to allow for those players to have something different each time they play... the game creates a certain number of Classes that gives the players those stories. And then on top of that... the game further creates a certain number of Subclasses that gives those players even more detail to those stories.

The more Classes the game has, the more diverse types of character stories the game is giving players to play without them needing to think them up themselves (and in addition, gives them new and different game mechanics they might not otherwise get to use.) And the more Subclasses the game has... the more detail the world and its inhabitants have. So there's nothing inherently wrong with having more Classes and more Subclasses because that just gives us all more stories to play. But it does mean it also gives us more game mechanics to have to learn, and for the designers to have to try and balance. But that balancing can be a pain in the freaking butt. And is usually the biggest thing that players will complain and whine incessantly about moreso than any other thing in the game-- that so-and-so ability or feature isn't "balanced".

Why else do the designers make almost any new supernatural feature a "spell"? Because they know how to balance spells. Balanced enough not to piss off the "balance police" part of the gaming populace. And better that than trying to create entirely new game systems (like say for psionics) that are somehow different but also equal (and balanced) to the stuff the game already has.

 

[Remathilis]

It's bad because Fighter means nothing.

Fighter shouldn't mean nothing.

If half the power and most of the flavor are in the subclass and not the class.. the class doesn't matter and the subclass should be the class.

You're not going to find a lot of consensus here. Half the community wants bland flavorless piles of mechanics they can describe however they want and the other wants a separate unique class for swashbucklers, knights, samurai, gladiators, gishes, etc.

Part of the design issue is that the fighter alone doesn't mean anything: a fighter represents any adventurer who can swing a sword. The wizard represents a specific type of person: someone who learned a specific type of magic via a specific method. And too many people want the fighter to be that generic "fill in the blank" class for them to change it.