Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Subclass System in 5e- Too Much, Too Little, or Just Right (GOLDILOCKS POLL!)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8057921" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>I went with too limiting, but I would say it's quite a complex issue. Different classes give over different amounts of power to the subclasses in a way that feels clumsy and inconsistent, rather than highly intentional. Base classes vary a bit in how solidly-designed they are, too, without the subclasses.</p><p></p><p>Cleric is the outright worst design re: subclasses, not because it's too weak overall, but because it's remarkably both bland and inconsistent (always hard to combine those two but they managed it), and the entire concept of Clerics is messed-up by making the subclass "be" one of the aspects of a god, chosen from a ridiculously tiny list. And there's not much to work with, either.</p><p></p><p>I agree with people saying this was probably to stop the Cleric being a monster, but it's not a good design, and definitely too limiting in a bad way.</p><p></p><p>A lot of other classes it feels like because subclasses exist, they didn't actually build the base class in an interesting way, which isn't great.</p><p></p><p>There's also a big issue where you're kind of supposed to pick the subclass that fits the story/tone of the character you want to roleplay, but the very limited number of subclasses, combined with the wild variance in how powerful they are creates a double-sided problem. Some people pick a very weak or very boring subclass, mechanics-wise, because it's thematically right, and have less fun and feel less effective. Others pick a subclass that might not be a great match thematically, but is mechanically not rubbish, which can be uncomfortable (but is probably less bad than for the game than the inverse at least).</p><p></p><p>They also bring back the PrC problem, in that some of them are really specific, in a generic game. You can get around this, but it's weird and unnecessary. At least they lowered the specificity early on in 5E.</p><p></p><p>I think if I was wanting to maintain subclasses in a 6E, I'd want to move more power to them, but also make sure they were more generic, and much more tightly balanced, mechanically. I'd also take the Arcana Unearthed (i.e. Monte Cook d20 book) approach and design all the subclasses for all classes, based on what players wanted, re: archetypes/playstyles. That is very clearly NOT the approach taken with 5E, which has instead been a weird mix of that (in a few cases), tradition (taken to mindless lengths), whimsy (in the bad sense), simulation (which is terrible in this context), just outright arbitrary-ness.</p><p></p><p>For ultra-specific stuff I'd want another layer of mechanics of some kind, one which was more a matter of flavouring.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've seen similar, even with the less mechanically-inclined players, which surprised me. I think it was the final straw for the player who usually plays Rogues - he loved 4E and picking his precise abilities and so on (despite never having really done that before) - and with 5E he's now clearly having more fun with classes that have actual choices (like Warlock, particularly).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8057921, member: 18"] I went with too limiting, but I would say it's quite a complex issue. Different classes give over different amounts of power to the subclasses in a way that feels clumsy and inconsistent, rather than highly intentional. Base classes vary a bit in how solidly-designed they are, too, without the subclasses. Cleric is the outright worst design re: subclasses, not because it's too weak overall, but because it's remarkably both bland and inconsistent (always hard to combine those two but they managed it), and the entire concept of Clerics is messed-up by making the subclass "be" one of the aspects of a god, chosen from a ridiculously tiny list. And there's not much to work with, either. I agree with people saying this was probably to stop the Cleric being a monster, but it's not a good design, and definitely too limiting in a bad way. A lot of other classes it feels like because subclasses exist, they didn't actually build the base class in an interesting way, which isn't great. There's also a big issue where you're kind of supposed to pick the subclass that fits the story/tone of the character you want to roleplay, but the very limited number of subclasses, combined with the wild variance in how powerful they are creates a double-sided problem. Some people pick a very weak or very boring subclass, mechanics-wise, because it's thematically right, and have less fun and feel less effective. Others pick a subclass that might not be a great match thematically, but is mechanically not rubbish, which can be uncomfortable (but is probably less bad than for the game than the inverse at least). They also bring back the PrC problem, in that some of them are really specific, in a generic game. You can get around this, but it's weird and unnecessary. At least they lowered the specificity early on in 5E. I think if I was wanting to maintain subclasses in a 6E, I'd want to move more power to them, but also make sure they were more generic, and much more tightly balanced, mechanically. I'd also take the Arcana Unearthed (i.e. Monte Cook d20 book) approach and design all the subclasses for all classes, based on what players wanted, re: archetypes/playstyles. That is very clearly NOT the approach taken with 5E, which has instead been a weird mix of that (in a few cases), tradition (taken to mindless lengths), whimsy (in the bad sense), simulation (which is terrible in this context), just outright arbitrary-ness. For ultra-specific stuff I'd want another layer of mechanics of some kind, one which was more a matter of flavouring. I've seen similar, even with the less mechanically-inclined players, which surprised me. I think it was the final straw for the player who usually plays Rogues - he loved 4E and picking his precise abilities and so on (despite never having really done that before) - and with 5E he's now clearly having more fun with classes that have actual choices (like Warlock, particularly). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Subclass System in 5e- Too Much, Too Little, or Just Right (GOLDILOCKS POLL!)
Top