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

[Sacrosanct]

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?

 

[ad_hoc]

I could have used fewer core classes but it's not too bad and I am okay with an Artificer class. I don't want any more classes than that though.

I like subclasses to fill the role of multiclassing/prestige classes.

That said, there are so many now. There are a good chunk that are weak so we probably won't see them in play. One downside is that those themes are now basically lost.

I don't like about half of the subclasses in XgtE and find a couple of them to be overpowered.

There is still potential for more good subclasses, I just wish there would be more care with their creation.

edit I didn't notice that you include UA in what we have. I don't think those count, they're playtest for a reason. I don't see them as any different from 3rd party products.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There are too many IMO, most are for flavor which could be accomplished just through role-playing and choices, etc. I've stated here repeatedly how when choosing subclass much of the time the decision is meh and which one is the least bad.

 

[iserith]

"There can never be enough" in my view, provided there's no trade-off on quality. DMs can then decide which of those classes and subclasses are appropriate for the sorts of adventures and campaigns they want to run. Give me options and I'll choose what's best for what I'm trying to accomplish.

 

[Shardstone]

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

 

[Sacrosanct]

That said, there are so many now. There are a good chunk that are weak so we probably won't see them in play. One downside is that those themes are now basically lost.

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

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure how many classess/subclasses there are for 5e now.

In print, the exact same number of classes as when the PH dropped. Short by at least three, IMHO (though the Artificer's finally out with Eberron).
In all official sources (shy of DMsG), OTOH, there are /tons/ of sub-classes, surely too many if a given DM were to opt-into all of them.

But, everything beyond the PH - and some of what's in it, like feats & MCing - is optional. So the thing is to only opt-in what you need for your campaign.

So "too many" only comes into it when there's so many you can't find & evaluate the ones that'd be good for your campaign. DMsG is well past that point. WotC sources if you take in UA and whatnot may be getting there, in terms of sub-classes, but not classes (even though there's several iterations of mystic/psion).

WotC-published dead-tree materials, OTOH, still plenty of room to grow.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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

That might be true for certain types of players. But I played a samurai a while back and really enjoyed the character. He was perfectly effective.

Could I have built a stronger character by choosing BM or EK? Sure. That didn't make the samurai any less fun to play. Maximal efficiency isn't my top priority.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The keys to design a class:

- Right balance of power, of course.

- Fun gameplay. The psionic wilder wasn't very popular because the class feature "psychic enervation" wasn't very interesting. Dreamscarred Press fixed it in the Pathfinder version allowing some changes.

- Interesting concept. The soulborn and the incarnate from "Magic of Incarnum" were clones of the paladin, champions with powers too linked to alignment. Each class needs its own mark of identity, like fashion/clothing styles of the urban tribes.

My opinion is when a concept is too good or popular it has to be a base class: shinobi, samurai, gladiator, swashbuckler, gunslinger, psionic ardent.

5th Ed needs more classes, although some 3rdP are showing their own ideas.

 

[Osgood]

I think we are probably at or very near having enough subclasses. It seems like the new ideas in UA are pretty specific corner case concepts rather than broad archetypes that can it any campaign.
After the Artificer, a Psion class is about all I can see for new classes. I think there are room for feats that can support concepts that can't be achieved with the current subclasses.