D&D 5E Subclass System in 5e- Too Much, Too Little, or Just Right (GOLDILOCKS POLL!)

[Sacrosanct]

I voted too many at first, but that was under the impression that the question was "are there too many subclasses in general". Which I kinda think there are, but not so simple. I think there are too many subclasses in that some really overstep over other classes/subclasses, while there are also archetypes not really represented.

But I changed it to just right when I got to the bottom of the wall of text and read the actual question

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I maintain that the subclass system should be condensed and reorganized to make a little more sense (to me). I think that:

Barbarian, Monk, and Ranger should all be subclasses of Fighter.​

Bard should be a subclass of Rogue​

Druid and Paladin should both be subclasses of Cleric.​

Artificer, Sorcerer, and Warlock should all be subclasses of Wizard.​

I don't understand this really tbh.

If you just make Barbarian a subclass of Fighter, then it's just gonna be "Rage" with nothing interesting added onto it. You aren't gonna rage and get a damage aura like you would for Storm Herald, you're just gonna get a basic Rage when there is so much you can add onto the rage. Same with Monk, there is so much stuff you can add on to using fisticuffs. You can add so much more to the "Druid" idea than just "turning into animals", so much more you can add to Artificer than just "I make magic items good", so much more to add to Warlock than just "I made a pact to get my magic", and so on and so forth.

I do agree that we should pare down classes as much as possible, but if you get a feature that can define a class (Rage, Martial Arts, Wild Shape, Smite, Eldritch Invocations, Metamagic, Bardic Inspiration, etc.) you make a class with that feature. You don't just pare it off into other classes.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Essentially I would remove a lot of the classes in the game and condense the list. Why would I do such a thing? Because I would rather have fewer choices that feel significant, than more choices that don't feel significant. This is a personal hangup of mine, and I realize not everyone will feel this way, and I know a lot of people will suggest ways I should feel differently, but there it is.

Or, as @commandercrud says:
Pretty much, yeah.

Anyways. In my mind, the best way to do it is to just be selective of which subclasses you want/need in the game, or maybe combine the best features of the subclasses into a single one, and use it. Take the Rogue for example: you would just pick the variety of "bard" that best fits the campaign and setting, and make it a subclass of the rogue.

Rogue

• Arcane Trickster
• Assassin
• Your favorite kind of Bard, or a FrankenBard
• Thief

Or maybe like this, if you prefer long lists, or if you want more than one flavor of bard in the game:

Rogue

• Arcane Trickster
• Assassin
• Favorite kind of Bard
• Second-favorite kind of Bard
• Third-favorite kind of Bard
• Another Bard
• Yet another Bard
• Bard II: Bard Harder
• Bard III: Live Free or Die Bard
• Thief

But it would not look like this, unless you are trying to make a mess:

Rogue

• Arcane Trickster
• Assassin
• Bard
  • Bard
  • Bard
  • Bard
• Thief

Okay, the third is what I'm usually thinking of, because that's the only way to do it that doesn't involve either a) reducing choices or b) adding complexity.

For example, if all bard concepts need to fit into a single subclass of rogue, we need either a huge list of bardic inspiration options for the bard to choose from (at least a dozen), which is going to make playing a bard even harder. As well as making it harder to balance, since now we need to worry about every possible combination of bard features, not just the subclasses overall. There are already classless games and they don't play the same as DnD. And you'd still either get sneak attack as a bard or not get sneak attack as a rogue, and if you don't get sneak attack why call all the ideas rogues? What do they all share beyond the skill system that every class uses?

If you need a dozen or more subclasses for four classes to not lose variety (without adding a huge amount of complexity), then you're just moving the decision point form 12 classes x 5 subclasses to 4 classes x 15 subclasses, which is at best a wash in terms of overall gameplay.

And no, 'just refluff the same mechanic over and over' isn't an answer. If I wanted a dramatically less mechanically deep game, I would play another game. There are a lot of options for such a thing. Making DnD yet another rules-lite game isn't going to work for me. If it did, I would be playing Fate already.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Why not just roll stats and roleplay the character you want?

Because that would be a disaster of Biblical proportions. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies!
Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Is that what you want? The unbridled anarchy of a shiver class-less fantasy RPG?

At long last, have you no class? HAVE. YOU. NO. CLASS, SIR?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I'd argue that any class distinction is inherently pigeonholing. Why not just roll stats and roleplay the character you want?

I played a classless system before.

Did not like it at all. Other people might, and more power to them, but I don't like classless systems.

 

[Undrave]

Most subclasses can be replaced with roleplay.

That's dumb.

You don't need D&D for that.

 

[TwoSix]

At long last, have you no class? HAVE. YOU. NO. CLASS, SIR?

I play in a one class system, and that class is katana.

 

[CleverNickName]

Because that would be a disaster of Biblical proportions. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies!
Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Is that what you want? The unbridled anarchy of a shiver class-less fantasy RPG?

But I rather enjoyed Skyrim. It seems like a lot of other people did, too.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But I rather enjoyed Skyrim. It seems like a lot of other people did, too.

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis.

You can't trust people, CleverNickName.

 

[CleverNickName]

If you need a dozen or more subclasses for four classes to not lose variety (without adding a huge amount of complexity), then you're just moving the decision point form 12 classes x 5 subclasses to 4 classes x 15 subclasses, which is at best a wash in terms of overall gameplay.

And that's why I wouldn't go with the second option...it's too muddled.

Personally, I'd go with the first option. I'd make the "bard" into a subclass of Rogue, and make all of the different bardic abilities of all of the different colleges into a single list of "talents" (or whatever we decide to call them). If the player chooses the Bard subclass, they can choose their bardic talents from a list, in the same way that the Battle Master does with its "maneuvers." Want some College of Whispers mixed into your College of Swords? Sure thing, just pick whatever talents you like.

My two cents, anyway.