D&D 5E How many classess/subclasses is too much?

[Umbran]

To a significant extent, I'm in the "go ahead and make more" camp.

My real issue, honestly, is not in their existence, but in how easy it is for a GM to sort through, pick, and choose a collection of them that they intend to use for a given game (or game-world-area, for times when you want them to be culturally-relevant). As the number of books rises, this task becomes more difficult.

 

[GlassJaw]

Frankly, existing classes fail those criteria. And classes that have been missing from the game for 5 years now, pass them easily - ironically, the most marginal of those is the next in line to see print: the Artificer. The Warlord, which had the equivalent of 7 archetypes in only 2 years, even when tightly restricted to the leader role, and the Psion, which could draw on all previous psionic classes for archetypes, both pass with flying colors.
The ranger, sorcerer, barbarian, and (it pains me to say) druid, all crash & burn by comparison.

Agree.

One of the main reasons the new class criteria should be very high is because there is already redundancy with the existing classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Agree.
One of the main reasons the new class criteria should be very high is because there is already redundancy with the existing classes.

Maybe we just need the courage to consolidate some existing classes?

Like, the Druid is my favorite class in 5e to date, not even a contest. But the point that it could have easily been handled as a Nature Cleric is both strong, and bothersome, because the religion of the RL inspirations for the Druid, even though relayed through the aggressively polytheist Roman writers, was clearly less deistic, even possibly animistic, and really /should/ contrast sharply with the Cleric, in an old-religion kinda way.
The Shaman is another missing class that has been suggested be squeezed into the Druid as a sub-class, but that's really backwards, "Shaman" is a much broader concept. The Druid - Land Druid - could've been a sub-class of a broader Shaman class in the PH, and the Moon Druid - not a druid at all - could've been a Skinwalker (or PYL, if that's misappropriation) sub-class even more focused on shapeshifting.

 

[TwoSix]

My real issue, honestly, is not in their existence, but in how easy it is for a GM to sort through, pick, and choose a collection of them that they intend to use for a given game (or game-world-area, for times when you want them to be culturally-relevant). As the number of books rises, this task becomes more difficult.

Not to sound dismissive, but isn't that something you can do in 10 minutes with a spreadsheet? It's pretty trivial to find that information already collected, and then you can just modify it as a handout for your campaign.

I already have one for my game, with all the homebrew classes and subclasses I allow and a folder with the supporting pdfs.

 

[TwoSix]

Maybe we just need the courage to consolidate some existing classes?

Like, the Druid is my favorite class in 5e to date, not even a contest. But the point that it could have easily been handled as a Nature Cleric is both strong, and bothersome, because the religion of the RL inspirations for the Druid, even though relayed through the aggressively polytheist Roman writers, was clearly less deistic, even possibly animistic, and really /should/ contrast sharply with the Cleric, in an old-religion kinda way.
The Shaman is another missing class that has been suggested be squeezed into the Druid as a sub-class, but that's really backwards, "Shaman" is a much broader concept. The Druid - Land Druid - could've been a sub-class of a broader Shaman class in the PH, and the Moon Druid - not a druid at all - could've been a Skinwalker (or PYL, if that's misappropriation) sub-class even more focused on shapeshifting.

Sure, but druid is mechanically distinct from cleric, with spell lists that have a lot of differentiation. The fact that there's trope redundancy is simply an artifact of the D&D mythos, with has nature dieties and animistic-ish druids side by side.

If there's a desire for one concept = one mechanical implementation, I'd rather have seen more specific classes, not more subclasses inside a broad class framework. Make illusionist a class again! Make priests of the war god completely distinct from priests of the healing god! "Partnered with angels" and "possessed by unknowable tentacle entities from the Far Realm" don't need to be in the same class framework!

 

[Undrave]

Sorcerer is 5 - you left out Shadow

Either way, it feels left out in the dark though I know it isn’t.

Ranger is the poor lonely soul with only 4 and only 3 optimal choices.

Thank you! I'll edit it.

Yeah the Ranger needs some love... poor guy...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure, but druid is mechanically distinct from cleric, with spell lists that have a lot of differentiation.

Is a different spell list a /mechanical/ distinction? They're both neo-Vancian casters, mechanically.

The fact that there's trope redundancy is simply an artifact of the D&D mythos, with has nature dieties and animistic-ish druids side by side.

I think the D&D mythos is more an artifact of the game's mechanics, than the other way round.

 

[Umbran]

Not to sound dismissive, but isn't that something you can do in 10 minutes with a spreadsheet?

If, as you do, you already have that set up, sure. I would guess that if you start up several campaigns a year, that'd be a good approach.

But, my campaigns run long and slow, and D&D is only one of several systems I use. Even at WotC's glacial pace, there's a stack of books that have come out since my last campaign set up, years since I last needed to consider the point in detail.

Such a spreadsheet isn't useful if it isn't maintained. And if I don't need it but every few years, I'm not going to maintain it. Which means, as a practical matter, I'm going through all the material by hand, anyway, and the spreadsheet saves me nothing.

This is one of the reasons you'll see GMs will say, "Core + Book X and Book Y" - because managing the choices is otherwise burdensome.

 

[ccs]

While I could happily drop the Sorcerer, I'm ok with the existing # of classes.
But what about the Artificer & a Psionic class?
Fine.....Add an Artificer if you must. If you need "space" exchange the Sorceror for it. Psion? It may be inevitable, but {I} don't have to support it.

Subclasses? I don't really care how many there are as long as each is interesting.

 

[Undrave]

If, as you do, you already have that set up, sure. I would guess that if you start up several campaigns a year, that'd be a good approach.

But, my campaigns run long and slow, and D&D is only one of several systems I use. Even at WotC's glacial pace, there's a stack of books that have come out since my last campaign set up, years since I last needed to consider the point in detail.

Such a spreadsheet isn't useful if it isn't maintained. And if I don't need it but every few years, I'm not going to maintain it. Which means, as a practical matter, I'm going through all the material by hand, anyway, and the spreadsheet saves me nothing.

This is one of the reasons you'll see GMs will say, "Core + Book X and Book Y" - because managing the choices is otherwise burdensome.

Is there really a Subclass that just wouldn't fit in whatever campaign? I'd think the core class would be more likely to be a problem and the subclass can just be refluffed.

You could just use the AL rule of "PHB+1".