Do classes built for the 5E D&D *ENGINE* NEED sub-classes?

[TheSword]

I see the sub classes fulfilling very similar roles to the kits of earlier editions. They allow for powerful themes to come through.

I don’t think the game needs more classes personally. Even speciality worlds classes like defilers and artificers are probably best developed through sub-classes, with maybe the exception of the psionicist.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nice to have but not needed.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In hindsight, subclasses at level 3 have some problems as do subclasses at level 1.
Maybe the Idea of one choice at level 1, a second one at level 3 like the warlock class would have been a great idea. Then every subclass has a feature at a certain level.
Paladin, fighter and ranger could have been a subclass of the same warrior archetype. At level 3 everyone of them could chose a pet. Beastmaster, cavallier, paladin steed could all be the same speciality of a warrior class. Eldritch knight, spellcasting ranger and paladin could be the magical option.
Maybe there would be a different way to do it. But I think that would have been a slightly superior approach.
Maybe there could have been a choice at level 2 too.
Level 1 needs to give you all proficiencies you need and main class features like spellcasting or weapon training.
Level 2 and level 3 should only add to that.
That said, I still think most conceptd can be done with fewer classes and the right subclass so I think they are needed in 5e because we don't want too many classes.

 

[Blue]

"Need" is such a loaded term. We don't "need" more than a single class much less subclasses, if you want to be technical.

Do subclasses give us a design space that makes it easy to balance and expand? Yes. Do we "need" that? No - we could easily play a worse game or a game that's more expensive because it needed more playtest time.

 

[TwoSix]

However, whether you actually deliver the mechanics for the "subclass concept" as an actual subclass or as some other kind of mechanics, depends on the class and your goals for it and the context in which it's presented. For example, both my dragon class and my vampire class had subclasses in their first iterations, but I removed them for the second versions. In the case of dragons, the dragon species fulfills much the same role as a subclass. For vampires, the class is already flexible enough to support several different "subclass concepts."

Both are very good classes, BTW.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I need subclasses because all the classes that are currently in the game use them. And if you don't use a subclass for one of those classes, you are down 3-5 levels worth of features that other PCs who have taken subclasses will have.

Now if you are asking if a newly-created third party class needs to have subclasses as part of the class design (of if the class can just be it itself), my answer would be "I don't even want or need your new class being designed, so that goes double for the potential subclasses for it."

 

[Myzzrym]

I mean... I feel like sub-classes kind of fill the role of the old Prestige Classes. Often you wonder what your character will look like at higher levels, and I remember in 3.5 scouring the multiple books for cool Prestige Classes, but then you'd have to look at all the requirements and plan accordingly, which could be a huge pain in the butt.

In 5e, sub-classes fill that roll in a much simpler fashion - at level 2 (or 3) of most classes, you get your sub-class with its own set of cool abilities but with a shared common tree (which, if we're to be totally honest, was often what Prestige Classes would do in 3.5 - have a lot in common in a few other classes, but with a few special features on top of it).

So do we need Sub-classes? Not necessarily in that particular form. But we do need what they represent - customisation and specialisation (since one could argue customisation could simply be achieved through multiclassing).

 

[Dausuul]

However, whether you actually deliver the mechanics for the "subclass concept" as an actual subclass or as some other kind of mechanics, depends on the class and your goals for it and the context in which it's presented. For example, both my dragon class and my vampire class had subclasses in their first iterations, but I removed them for the second versions. In the case of dragons, the dragon species fulfills much the same role as a subclass. For vampires, the class is already flexible enough to support several different "subclass concepts."

XP and mad props for the dragon class, which is really well done. (Haven't looked at the vampire class yet.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

ANYWAY: it strikes me that the more classes become available, the LESS NECESSARY sub-classes become, as the point of sub-classes was to allow for ample character differentiation in a game with relatively few classes. Thus: poll.

Sub-classes make up for 5e's relative (to 3e & 4e, which is maybe not that fair a comparison) lack of player-side options, especially if the DM isn't using any optional rules. Heck, without optional MC rules, sub-classes backfill classic D&D character types like the elf fighter/magic-user (Eldritch Knight or Bladesinger).
A sub-class is a package-concept that gets close to what you might have done with feats, multi-classing, PrCs, backgrounds, themes, PP/EDs, hybrids, gestalts, or whatevertheheckelse was (and still is, thanks PF) available at the height of D&D's player entitlement phase.

The more you homebrew & 3pp in player side options, the less the few-sizes-fit-enough model of the sub-class matters. You can't get rid of it, per se, because it's integral to the 5e class designs, but you could overwhelm it pretty completely.

 

[the Jester]

ANYWAY: it strikes me that the more classes become available, the LESS NECESSARY sub-classes become, as the point of sub-classes was to allow for ample character differentiation in a game with relatively few classes. Thus: poll.

Just because some guy on the Internet publishes a class doesn't mean I'm letting it into my game.

In my opinion, to justify adding a full class, it has to have a strong, coherent identity that can't be properly created with existing options. It has to be a big concept, too- big enough to contain subclasses. If it isn't, it's better designed as a feat or subclass.

Not every concept deserves or needs a full class.