D&D 5E (2014) Do you like Subsubclasses?

[Greg K]

Edit: delete
I misread it as subclasses not subsubclasses

 

[cbwjm]

I've used this sub-subclasses in some of my homebrew, primarily elemental subclasses which can choose between elements.

 

[mellored]

Considering that casters get to choose from 10+ spells each level, giving the totem barbarian a choice of 3 is hardly an overload of options.

 

[Ashkelon]

I like the concept but not the implementation.

I would have preferred if subclasses were all obtained at the same level for each class and were interchangeable between classes.

A fighter with the crusader subclass makes for a good paladin. A fighter with the arcanist subclass makes an eldritch Knight and so on. This would allow for much more character customization.

 

[flametitan]

It's kind of neat. It allows for a little more customization in classes that are otherwise fairly basic, and can be used to expand the options of a subclass without having to build an entirely new one (see Barbarians getting new totems)

I think more of the nonmagical classes (specifically Rogue) should get a subclass with sub options; It'll help reduce the disparity of choice between them and casters (though it might not make them more flexible on the table, just in terms of build)

EDIT: The one downside I can see is how they can end up overdone, and leave players with situations like the earlier fighter playtest, wherein the use of superiority dice meant that people were questioning why they'd take the specialized subclasses when the Battlemaster could do much of the same thing.

 

[Sunseeker]

Sorta. I wish they were a little more free-form with "Pick this feature at X level" instead of "pick this whole shebang early on and be barred from these other options for the rest of the game. Like, what if I pick Fighter - Champion because initially I want to keep it simple, but then I want more? There's no way to pick up more complex elements from the other Fighter subclasses. I think balancing out when a class gets features and how often a class gets features and thus, letting us choose between them as we level up, would lead to more balanced class features on the whole.

Some subclasses have too little to make them worthy of a whole subclass (the Druid IMO) while other subclasses would, I think, be better off all on their own (like Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster/Four Elements Monk) I think conceptually some ideas would be better served to be more fleshed out. I think Sorcerer Bloodlines and Wizard Schools are great examples of subclasses. They have excellent in-class flavor on why you cannot be A over B, but simultaneously do not deny you from the other aspects of the class, they just improve or reduce your capacity or add thematic elements. Other classes, like Cleric, I couldn't even tell you what their subclasses are...since they are so vague that I don't recall they exist.

In short: I tend to prefer subclasses as a system to provide a platter of interesting choices to choose from throughout the leveling process that are unified by a common theme. I dislike subclasses that are early-game permanent choices that must be taken before a player may know if they actually enjoy the class.

 

[Alexemplar]

Some subclasses have too little to make them worthy of a whole subclass (the Druid IMO) while other subclasses would, I think, be better off all on their own (like Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster/Four Elements Monk) I think conceptually some ideas would be better served to be more fleshed out. I think Sorcerer Bloodlines and Wizard Schools are great examples of subclasses. They have excellent in-class flavor on why you cannot be A over B, but simultaneously do not deny you from the other aspects of the class, they just improve or reduce your capacity or add thematic elements. Other classes, like Cleric, I couldn't even tell you what their subclasses are...since they are so vague that I don't recall they exist.

I greatly prefer Cleric domains/Warlock patrons to Wizard schools because when I imagine my caster character, I tend to think of them in terms of "They wield elemental/divination/mental/healing/nature themed powers" as opposed to "They cast spells from the transmutation/abjuration/evocation/conjuration school."

 

[Li Shenron]

Absolutely yes! Also subclasses with flexible choices such as Four Elements Monk and Hunter Ranger are great. Subsubclasses are less flexible than that but still multiply your options. Perhaps my favourites are those which allow both, such as Totem Barbarian where you can choose ALL the feature of ONE single totem animal, or mix them up (like you know... a totem!), and the Four Elements Monk which you can use to be e.g. a Fire Monk as well as a generic Elemental Monk.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Most subclasses add unnecessary complexity already, so adding further levels of mechanical distinction is really missing the point about what a class is supposed to be in a class-based game. Barbarian and Paladin should be subclasses of Fighter. It should be sufficient to say that a character is a Paladin, in order to understand who that character is and what they're about.

Mechanical options add to the pre-game character construction side-game, but they don't really improve the game itself in any meaningful way. That fact that you could have chosen to be a frenzied berserker rather than a totem barbarian doesn't change anything about who your totem barbarian is.

It also establishes an extremely bizarre setting, by saying that characters who possess these amazing skills are so common that they've fractured into different factions, and that's... unnecessarily complicated. I don't need a world that has paladins and nature clerics and druids and nature paladins and nature warlocks. It's just overkill. Paladins and druids and warlocks are more useful from a setting-design standpoint if they remain distinct from each other.

Dragon sorcerers should be fire-based, because they have some evil red dragon in their ancestry. I don't want to play in a world where blue dragons and white dragons and copper dragons also have romantic relationships with humanoid races. That's too much.

 

[gyor]

Most subclasses add unnecessary complexity already, so adding further levels of mechanical distinction is really missing the point about what a class is supposed to be in a class-based game. Barbarian and Paladin should be subclasses of Fighter. It should be sufficient to say that a character is a Paladin, in order to understand who that character is and what they're about.

Mechanical options add to the pre-game character construction side-game, but they don't really improve the game itself in any meaningful way. That fact that you could have chosen to be a frenzied berserker rather than a totem barbarian doesn't change anything about who your totem barbarian is.

It also establishes an extremely bizarre setting, by saying that characters who possess these amazing skills are so common that they've fractured into different factions, and that's... unnecessarily complicated. I don't need a world that has paladins and nature clerics and druids and nature paladins and nature warlocks. It's just overkill. Paladins and druids and warlocks are more useful from a setting-design standpoint if they remain distinct from each other.

Dragon sorcerers should be fire-based, because they have some evil red dragon in their ancestry. I don't want to play in a world where blue dragons and white dragons and copper dragons also have romantic relationships with humanoid races. That's too much.

I couldn't disagree with you more.