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

[Parmandur]

I voted just right, though it would be better if all Subclasses were locked in at Level 1, and the Warlock is a bit too messy.

 

[ZeshinX]

I also find there's a certain "broken record" aspect to most subclasses.

Templating is great, as it allows for easier (and possibly quicker) design...but it does show a tendency to stagnation. Not destructively necessarily, just with uninspiring results.

Take the Cleric. At 8th level, they all get either Potent Spellcasting or Divine Strike. Great abilities otherwise, but ALL Cleric subclasses do one or the other. I've not yet seen one released domain that broke from that (even the UA Blessed Strikes option practically just marries the two options into one). Templating is nice, but for a game that explores imagination, this is disappointing (and boring).

Keeping the format of subclasses gaining things at specific levels is great, but many of them already seem stagnant and repetitive.

 

[Todd Roybark]

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

I reject that position, and renounce the clear demonic influence of Grazzt that leads you to advocate it........jokes aside: I disagree...strenuously!

I find the tripartite structure of a character: Class/Subclass/Background(including Race here) is both broadly modular and capable of being further refined and defined through use of Feats, and
quotidien selections like spell selection, weapon selection, Wildshape form selection etc.

This is before localized campaign factors....things like a DM giving the role playing hook that people with the a Healer feat trained with the Maesters of Oldtown, for example, even come into play.

The system, largely, produces characters that are unique, allow the player to make meaningful choices from a manageable list of options and still retain parity with other PCs, and is, overall relatively, quick in terms of time invested.

I like that there are many different avenues to approach a design goal in 5e.

Knights of Solamnia could be represented as an organization like the Order of the Gauntlet in the Forgotten Realms, or like Guilds in Ravinica, or even as a subclass available to Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers.
One does not need to build bespoke 'classes' like in prior editions.

 

[Charlaquin]

Most classes are too limiting. Warlock is just right. Between Patron, Pact Boon, and Invocations, I feel like I can actually make warlocks that feel meaningfully different from each other. Every other class, with subclass being the only point of differentiation and subclass abilities being fixed and several levels apart, feel extremely boring.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I voted too limiting, but that's not quite the right way to phrase what I mean.

I wish they left just a bit more design space to subclasses, so that the subclass could have a little more impact. That would allow a lot more variety without a lot of added complexity, because you wouldn't need to balance individual subclass features quite so tightly.

But that's not my biggest issue with the 5e uses classes, and overall I really like the game.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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 see this suggestion a lot, but I never understood how it would improve the game to switch. To me, it looks like just adding a layer of taxonomy to the classes.

 

[Todd Roybark]

I also find there's a certain "broken record" aspect to most subclasses.

That is more an artifact of the designers and the design process, than something inherent to the system.
The Psi Die mechanic was rejected by the playtest community, in part for being different.
The published Oath of Glory Paladin subclass was rejected by some on this board as being "Weak", when the published version focused on enhancing movement and granting Temp HP,
instead of being the Oath of Elven Crit-fishing it was initially in U/A.

The loudest voices in the D&D room are often those that prefer the reassurance of an extra 5% chance to score a critical hit, or a straight damage boost, then other options. Options to boost others are routinely less well regarded then options that boost solo DPS.

The particular example here for me was the 'extra attack' option "missing" from the War Domain cleric.

As someone that remembers 2e Warpiests, (either through Kit or through the FR Warpriest of Tempus), dominated and outshone Fighters, Paladins and Rangers, I appreciate the restraint shown in 5e.

A 5e War domain cleric has two methods of securing an Extra Attack like feature: War Priest or Spiritual Weapon....both are bonus actions.

 

[ZeshinX]

That is more an artifact of the designers and the design process, than something inherent to the system.
The Psi Die mechanic was rejected by the playtest community, in part for being different.
The published Oath of Glory Paladin subclass was rejected by some on this board as being "Weak", when the published version focused on enhancing movement and granting Temp HP,
instead of being the Oath of Elven Crit-fishing it was initially in U/A.

The loudest voices in the D&D room are often those that prefer the reassurance of an extra 5% chance to score a critical hit, or a straight damage boost, then other options. Options to boost others are routinely less well regarded then options that boost solo DPS.

As someone that remembers 2e Warpiests, either through Kit or through the FR Warpriest of Tempus, dominated and outshone Fighters, Paladins and Rangers, I appreciate the restraint shown in 5e.

A 5e War domain cleric has two methods of securing an Extra Attack like feature: War Priest or Spiritual Weapon....both are bonus actions.

Oh I see (and appreciate) very much WotC designing the Cleric to avoid, I'd say almost specifically, re-creating the monster that was the 3.x cleric (earlier editions as well, to be sure, but 3.x exponentially proved that reality). They've just moved it from the cleric to the bard as I see it with 5e.

And indeed, yes, offering different designs is often lamented, as I find it is those who very much lean on the "build" mentality that shout down such different ideas, as it confounds their spreadsheets and calculations. Obviously not unique to "builders", but I dare say they are the most vocal in those situations.

Clearly I have no love for those who favour "builds", but their opinion is as valued as any others, and their feedback is just as meaningful and useful for the game.

 

[TwoSix]

I voted "Too Limiting" in regard to my own personal needs, although I'd vote either "Just Right" or "Too Open" for 5E in regard to the entire player base. (I think either the current system or a system with lots of simple classes and discussion of how to reskin them would be best for the game as a whole.)

For my own preferences, I'd rather see one of two approaches:

1) Highly customizable, front-loaded character choices. Character building is a core part of the game, and campaigns revolve around challenging your character in multiple scenarios. Almost all core abilities are available upon character creation, and leveling up just makes you tougher and gives upgraded versions of your core capabilities. Closer to a supers game in feel than a zero-to-hero.

2) Focus on character growth and development through play, not on character build. Creation choices are constrained, between 1-3 choices made at start, gated through class or race/ancestry or background concepts. Reskin as needed. Character capabilities are gained through acquisition and training; mostly discovered via chance during gameplay, not choice.

 

[commandercrud]

More subclasses doesn't give more options, it actually limits them by making each so specific that it pigeonholes the player. The original 4 classes are all you need. Want to be a ranger? Play a fighter and wear leather and carry a bow and take the Survival skill. Want to be a paladin? Play a fighter/cleric. Want to be a barbarian? Be a naked fighter and yell a lot.