D&D 5E Sometimes Less Is More...or am I the only one who thinks so?

[Esker]

I was just going to propose that but I guess I was scooped.

Got into an argument with one once, but instead of fighting, I just left him to stew.

 

[Esker]

The ladle class is kind of a glass cannon. They can dish it out but they just can't take it.

I played with one awhile back, but found it really unbalanced. I got broth all over my pants.

 

[Hussar]

Someone seems rather intent on pouring on the puns.

 

[Ancalagon]

I swear it wasn't my intent!
(My intent was to have you look up Troika)

 

[Shardstone]

The good thing about having a lot of cool options is that people can remove them if they don't want a lot, or keep them if they like more choice.

 

[Esker]

The good thing about having a lot of cool options is that people can remove them if they don't want a lot, or keep them if they like more choice.

Uh, sorry, this isn't the thread about class options; this is the thread about ladles.

 

[coolAlias]

I agree with both the OP and Morrus.

With the OP in that I feel there are too many similar choices, but I'm fine with chopping one or two out if they don't fit my game.

With Morrus in that I feel there are not enough options to distinguish one Dwarf Fighter from the next. I appreciate the simplicity of 5e, but I miss the customization of 3e.

I guess the plethora of subclass options is the 5e of choosing feats and level up options to become an Eldritch Knight instead of a Samurai, but I'd prefer if the subclass abilities were more mix-and-match so players could create whatever they wanted.

 

[Henry]

Setting is the DM’s job. Rules are the game designer’s job. Sometimes the game designer will do the former for you, and sometimes the DM will make (house)rules, but generally the books give you the mechanics and the DM gives you the story.

I do feel it when, mechanically speaking, my cleric of Pholtus looks just like my friend Bill’s cleric of Pelor, who looks just like my friend Sue’s cleric of Lathander. Down to same Radiance of the Dawn, Fireballs, and warding flares...

 

[DEFCON 1]

Hmm... I believe we've had this argument before (many, many, many times over the last 20 years), and the full argument goes like this...

• too many unnecessary subclasses, like Samurai or Divine Soul
• too many unnecessary classes, like Ranger or Sorcerer
• you don't need more than just four classes-- fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard
• you don't need more than just three classes-- warrior, skill-using expert, spellcaster
• you don't need more than just two classes-- weapon-user, spellcaster
• you don't need more than just one class
• ladle

Did I miss any? Please feel free to insert.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I am with the OP big time. I find most of the sub-classes trivial and pointless, added fluff, and all-in-all quite a bit of wasted ink in the books. We had to make up our own Path of Devotion for the group paladin because none of those offered appealed to the player. A new player was looking over the wizard sub-classes and was so disappointed. The worst part is some classes seem to have some decent ones, but others are abysmal.