D&D 5E Class vs Subclass

[jmartkdr2]

I REALLY agree with this. PrCs made me roll my eyes. I didn't much care for Paragon Paths or Epic Destinies in 4E either, even though I'm a huge 4E fan. I kind of dislike bloat in general.

While I absolutely agree that bloat was a problem, I found that Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies were actually pretty good solutions to an issue with high level play: after a while, it stops being fun to get the same abilities but bigger. PP's and ED's gave you ways to add new toys mechanically and new paths narratively to characters who would otherwise be getting stale.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

On the original question: it's really hard to say based on the existing structure because frankly there isn't an existing structure. What a class represents varies from mostly mechanics (sorcerer) to almost pure flavor (druid) to both (done well - paladin - and done poorly - monk) to a vague collection of things that look like they should fit together but are just piled up (ranger). Without a clear delineation of what a class means (ie what it tells you abut the character) vs what a subclass means, how do you know what should be a class or subclass?

If we were to overhaul the classes, I'd make classes about the mechanical identity of the character and let subclasses provide most if not all of the flavor. But that's a big change.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It’s also not unheard of to group the classes into class umbrellas, with the actual old class names being more like subclasses. 2e did it, with fighters, rangers, and paladins all being part of the warrior class. It didn’t ruin the game to alter that sacred cow. They could have done it with 5e

 

[gyor]

It’s also not unheard of to group the classes into class umbrellas, with the actual old class names being more like subclasses. 2e did it, with fighters, rangers, and paladins all being part of the warrior class. It didn’t ruin the game to alter that sacred cow. They could have done it with 5e

Perhaps, but they stopped doing it after
2e for a reason, it was very unpopular.

 

[Undrave]

I REALLY agree with this. PrCs made me roll my eyes. I didn't much care for Paragon Paths or Epic Destinies in 4E either, even though I'm a huge 4E fan. I kind of dislike bloat in general.

I feel like the concept could work better if it just outright replaced your class. At level 10 you no longer advance as a Fighter, you advance as say a Purple Dragon Knight or some Racial Exemplar path and then you get your Epic Destiny. That way you'd have less features to build up and you could have paths and destiny that are available to various types of characters. It could be possible for a Fighter and Wizard for example to have the same Path or Epic Destiny, but two Fighters could have two different set up too.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Perhaps, but they stopped doing it after
2e for a reason, it was very unpopular.

Unpopular with who? I never heard any one complain about it...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Unpopular with who? I never heard any one complain about it...

Me either. Most complaints about 2e were the removal of the monk and assassin and half orc, and renaming devils. I can’t think I ever heard of complaints about putting fighter, ranger, and paladin under the warrior class. Most actually found it better, because it was more streamlined.

 

[gyor]

Me either. Most complaints about 2e were the removal of the monk and assassin and half orc, and renaming devils. I can’t think I ever heard of complaints about putting fighter, ranger, and paladin under the warrior class. Most actually found it better, because it was more streamlined.

The results speak for themselves, they stopped doing it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The results speak for themselves, they stopped doing it.

I think the reasons they went a different route were due to other factors than people didn’t like it. 3e was a complete redesign. I haven’t seen any evidence that putting class umbrellas was a bad thing, or lost players because of it. The design of 2e isn’t cited as a reason for the decline of TSR. Bad management decisions and sudden change in fads (Vampire rpg and MtG) are the biggest reasons. In fact, I’ve only heard good things about how they made specialty schools of magic compared to having individual magic user and illusionist classes.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I agree, 2E was the most robust in many facets. There is SO much extra material it is crazy. While I enjoy 5E, 1E/2E is still my favorite. But, we digress...

 

[Eric V]

In my opinion, no concept that can be adequately expressed as a subclass should be made into a full class, and no concept that can be adequately expressed as a feat, fighting style, background, or similar-scale option should be made into a subclass. Of course, we can debate for ever about what constitutes adequate expression of a concept, as that is largely subjective. But needless to say, I feel there are a lot of unnecessary classes and subclasses, even in the PHB.

What is the downside to "unnecessary number of (sub)classes"? What is the bad thing that happens when there are more options?