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

[CleverNickName]

You can't trust people, CleverNickName.

And you especially can't trust people who tell you whom to trust.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And you especially can't trust people who tell you whom to trust.

On the other hand, there is always an implicit trust that forms when someone knows the difference between the accusative and nominative case.

Learning is far too celebrated; it is forgetting that is more valuable an asset.

 

[DeviousQuail]

I voted for "just right" but there's more to it than that. I mostly like the way 5e handles class and subclass. Your class gives you a solid foundation and subclass let's you build off of that in different ways. I find it particularly nice as a DM because it's makes it easier to adjudicate actions across games and characters. Also, it often simplifies homebrew creation because I don't need to build a full 1-20 class everytime I have a cool idea.

However, the starting levels for subclass features can be annoying. I am fine with subclass features occurring at different levels for different classes, but if they all started at level 1 that would free up design space for more subclass ideas that operate in ways counter to the class norm (like an armored monk) or better explain how you got that feature (revived rogue realizing their dead-but-not-really at 3rd is weird).

 

[Vael]

Just Right, with a caveat ... I do wish some that more subclasses offered more built in choices into their progression. But I do like that there's a mix.

In general, I'm reasonably happy with class/subclass as a choice progression.

 

[Minigiant]

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

Well thenthe bard is a 1/3 caster like the AT and their Inspiration will be weak.

And that's the problem.

You can't reduce a 12+class system to a 4 class system and pump out the same ideas at any way the same playstyle.

Think the Beastmaster sucks now? Imagine it on a Fighter base. A class with 2-4 attacks and Action surge? Your wolf would not even be able use an action.
Metamagic would be straight gone. Along with most of the specialty wizards. Because once you combine them with Warlock.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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

Assuredly, the campaign setting is a pawn shop.

 

[CleverNickName]

You can't reduce a 12+class system to a 4 class system and pump out the same ideas at any way the same playstyle.

We're gonna have to disagree on this. I think it's possible, and probably easier than I might think (but I'm not a game developer).

The more I think about it, though, I bet they would also need to make changes and expansions to those four classes as part of this process. The current versions of Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard would likely need to expand a bit to sponge up all of those bits that the other 8 classes (now subclasses) have in common. A good thing, IMO.

 

[TwoSix]

We're gonna have to disagree on this. I think it's possible, and probably easier than I might think (but I'm not a game developer).

The more I think about it, though, I bet they would also need to make changes and expansions to those four classes as part of this process. The current versions of Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard would likely need to expand a bit to sponge up all of those bits that the other 8 classes (now subclasses) have in common. A good thing, IMO.

Fighter eats Barbarian and Paladin, focus on combat expertise and physical prowess.
Rogue eats Monk and Ranger, focus on interaction, exploration, survival and noncombat prowess.
Cleric eats Druid and Warlock, focus on granted magic and extraplanar magic.
Wizard eats Bard and Sorcerer, focus on learned magic, physical and mental magic.

 

[Minigiant]

We're gonna have to disagree on this. I think it's possible, and probably easier than I might think (but I'm not a game developer).

The more I think about it, though, I bet they would also need to make changes and expansions to those four classes as part of this process. The current versions of Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard would likely need to expand a bit to sponge up all of those bits that the other 8 classes (now subclasses) have in common. A good thing, IMO.

You could reduce the 12+ classes to 4 classes and preserve the same basic playstyles.

I doubt you can could reduce the 12+ classes to 4 classes and preserve the same playstyles of the subclasses.

You could make a Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger in the same class and have them play the same as they do now.
You likely can't put the Berserker, Totem Warrior, Champion, Battlemaster, Eldritch Knight, White Knight, Green Knight, Dark Knight, Hunter, and Beastmaster in the same class and have them anyway close to how they are now.
And forget about the XGTE.

Unless the bass class is just "d10 HD, martial weaposn and medium armor"

This because the signature class features of these classes Action Surge, Rage, Divine Smite, and Favored Enemy were notdesigned to have the same importance.

That's the key point.

You have to determine the importance of key features at the start. Even classless systems do this. Different archetpes have different costs or are locked behind trees.


That's why I said both.
A Ranger's subclass is Too Open because the base ranger class features don't do anything.
whereas the Paladin's subclasses are Too Limiting because the base class provides the bulk of its story and power.

 

[Raith5]

I voted too limiting because once you choose a subclass you dont really have too many options to customize and shape your character. You could say this is problem really with the feat system that is outshined by Stat increases and gives quite a few number of feats (and doesnt really kick unto 4th level).

I also dont get the way some subclasses are about gamestyle (eg Champion) and some are culture (samurai). I prefer the way cleric and wizard subclasses are more organic choices.