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

[FrogReaver]

I think this is an important point. Some of them that may have been meant to fill a role were designed pretty poorly (like the PDK and Samurai) and people won't really use them. But then whenever someone says they want to play a warlord or a samurai, they're told to play the PDK or Samurai subclass. Kind of a catch-22

I think this should say battlemaster instead of Samurai. I've never once seen a Samurai mentioned as a warlord-like class.

 

[Sacrosanct]

We have a samurai in our group (we don't call it that though) and he likes it quite a bit. Just remember, because you think it is poorly design doesn't meant it feels that way for others.

those were just generic examples to illustrate the point.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Thank you! I'll edit it.

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

Subclasses are the least of the Ranger's issues. They need fixes or replacements to certain core class features.

 

[Gladius Legis]

There's a few specific subclasses I'd definitely want to see (Oath of Liberty Paladin, Thug or Enforcer Rogue to name two), but I'm not itching for much more than that.

 

[Zardnaar]

To many stopped buying them.

I have somewhere north of 150 maybe 200-250.

3pp, EN5ider, Kobold Press, various DMGuild ones.

There's about 50 in the Midgard Heroes book.

 

[Li Shenron]

That being said, there is a lot of room in 5E to expand both mechanically and narratively.

I don't believe that anymore. Or at least I don't believe WotC designers are both capable and willing. Even the otherwise grandiose concept of "True Names" magic ended up as basically granting the usual 3 things: bonus damage, (dis)advantage on something, and healing or temporary HP. Where is the mechanical expansion?

 

[S'mon]

I'm not sure how many classess/subclasses there are for 5e now. Between the splatbooks, and UA, it seems like there are well over 100. At what point, if any, does it become just too much for you. Has it got to the point where there are so many subclasses that they are stumbling over each other in theme and function? Has niche protection essentially been lost (if that's important to you)? Can there never be enough, and any variation regardless of how slight is a good thing because choice is always good?

I voted 'about right', but I don't really care how many subclasses they make. I do love it that the number of classes stays the same while expansion work is via optional subclasses.

 

[Coroc]

The BIG problem is todays everything goes mentality as in everything HAS TO GO.
That's why I voted there are to many already.

Create as many subclasses as you like but within context. Ok for official FR products it does not matter much because FR is the new Eberron already

But for other campaigns I just do not want the would be player of an oath of furuncle on the bum paladin complaining, why I would not allow his special subclass in or could not fit it in.
People today think it cannot be diverse enough, but they do not see the forest because of to many trees.

To much choice is not helpful in any way, especially because even with the standard PHB you got myriad of options to customize characters using backgrounds feats and mc if it need be to portray anything you like.

Why does a bola swinging fighter need a bola swinger subclass?

Why do we need a parcours expert class for roof jumping rogue?

With only so many spells available why do we need additional mage subclasses?

I get it for some it seems to be fun and some feel their character concept is so special that it should get a dedicated class, but I see no advantages in that.

Rather create subclasses fitting for a campaign e.g. FR purple dragon knight that is ok for me. Unless said purple dragon knight turns up in my dragonlance/eberron/greyhawk campaign.

 

[dave2008]

those were just generic examples to illustrate the point.

My point is that what you (or anyone) find poorly designed someone else likely finds great and fun to play.

 

[gyor]

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.

Bladesinger has always been a Wizard, so it makes sense as a Wizard.

The Artificer is the Arcane half caster, for example the Battlesmith.