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

[gyor]

Subclasses I would like are Kara Tur themed ones like Shuneja, and Soehi, Wu Jen, Clock Work Mage, Shi'ar, Moon Wizards of Dragonlance, Chameleon from Eberron, a Dr. Frakenstien subclass for Artificer, Planar and Urban Druids, Holy Liberator for Paladin, Circle of Lycanthropy, Horse/Camel Archer Ranger, Modron Pact Warlock, a Divine version of Arcane Trickster (perhaps called Relic Hunter or Holy Slayer), Oath of the Glorious Servitor, College of Spellsinger Bard, Passion Domain Cleric, Travel Domain Cleric, Arcivist (Artificer version), the UA sorcerers.

And for new classes Psion, Artificer, and Binder (I did not like the 4e Warlock version, it didn't have any of the flavour of the original Binder class), Cancer Mage wizard, Beguiler Sorcerer.

 

[pkt77242]

I really wanted an arcane half caster class as well. The bladesinger would have fit much better as a half caster instead of a full caster.

There are a few classes that I still want added, I'm somewhat ambivalent about the artificer but I would like a psion class at some point. I'd also like an arcane halfcaster. A few more subclasses I think need to be added, or at least I'd like to be added. Most of these are clerical domains that I feel are needed to help differentiate the portfolios of the gods a little more.

More than subclasses, I'd actually like to see the addition of themes to help customise characters. They were pretty cool additions in 4e and I think they could easily be added for 5e.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

That sounds like very setting focused subclasses, which I think is most of the outstanding subclass gaps, but not all.

Yep. Dragonlance in particular could use its own specific subclasses. I'd say most of the setting focused ones are more thematically broad. D&D did create specific Asian and Middle-Eastern fantasy, but their rules and classes are genre-based rather than setting specific, and that's what makes it annoying that they haven't produced them yet. There is no need to make the cool Dragonlance subclasses until we get Dragonlance, but I have to house rule a shaman/shugenja and wu jen to join the already ready samurai and ninja for a wuxia adventuring party.

 

[Wiseblood]

I don't count any UA option older than a year or that has appeared in a book as a viable sub-class to pick for one reason or another, so I don't subscribe your "well over 100" count.

That being said, there is a lot of room in 5E to expand both mechanically and narratively. I am very anti-conservative when it comes to what should be in Fantasy. Fantasy means fantastical, and just because something was in Tolkien or was in old school D&D doesn't mean that's all there can ever be. The idea of Barbarians having Wild Surges, Rogues being revived from the dead, and Warlocks making pacts with krakens all highly interest me. I want to see fantasy expand further, faster, and to reaches hitherto now never seen.

So yes, I want more. I've homebrewed my own options, and playtested them for years now. I've made some classes just for fun (Shinobi), to remix a common idea (Necromancer, Warlord), and to come up with entirely new concepts (Flesh-Eater). I plan on making more classes, and more sub-classes too. I've made Fighter archetypes (Veteran being my favorite), Sorcerers, Warlocks, Bards, and more. Though a lot of this stuff will never be published, I try my best to put it out there so that people will see that 5E need not be limited to Battlemasters and Thieves, and that the sky is the limit for classes and class ideas.

Of course, there is a limit for any system officially. The 3.5/PF era proved that no system is immune to the danger of buckling under its own weight. But 5E is not even close to that limit yet; not even half-way there

A multitude of subclasses does not equate a broadening of fantasy. Also, the asymmetrical power and utility of classes attracts attention of many players and IMO detracts from actual play time by extending character generation.

 

[TwoSix]

A multitude of subclasses does not equate a broadening of fantasy. Also, the asymmetrical power and utility of classes attracts attention of many players and IMO detracts from actual play time by extending character generation.

Why is character generation happening at the table? That should be done away from table or at a dedicated session zero.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why is character generation happening at the table? That should be done away from table or at a dedicated session zero.

Why, because back in the day we could roll up a character in 5 minutes, of course.

 

[Shardstone]

A multitude of subclasses does not equate a broadening of fantasy. Also, the asymmetrical power and utility of classes attracts attention of many players and IMO detracts from actual play time by extending character generation.

It doesn't always, but these latest UA--the barbarian, the revived, etc--show a broadening. I'm uninterested in talking about "It isn't always this" and more interested in talking about what we are directly seeing, which is this.

 

[cbwjm]

For dragonlance, I'm not sure I'd actually want to add in much of the way of subclasses, rather I'd use the various faction rules. A wizard on Krynn joining the wizards of High Sorcery would gain access to moon magic and could be any wizard subclass (though some subclasses would be restricted from joining the various orders, you wouldn't find a necromancer in the white robes for instance). As they climb higher in the ranks of the high sorcerers they might gain additional ways to harness the power of the moons or items of power related to the orders.

The Knights of Solamnia could also be a faction that allows you to join different orders as you gain reknown (from memory, something like that was a requirement in previous editions). Knights of Takhisis/Neraka would have special ranks for characters focused on martial, arcane, or divine power.

 

[Undrave]

Why, because back in the day we could roll up a character in 5 minutes, of course.

Then, they would die in 10 because we rolled poorly and didn't bother being careful and WE LIKED IT THAT!

 

[bedir than]

I would love a 5e Sha'ir and the Barber