D&D 5E Survey Three Subclasses

[Blue]

Would rather see it as additional Champion options (like SCAG added Totem Barb options).

I think that would undermine the idea of the Champion/Brute as "the simple one".

I think one choice every 3-5 levels is not overwhelming. Where I play, that's about one choice every six months to a year.

I have faith.

The Brute is what "fixing the Champion" looks like. Why use the same name and thereby implicitly invalidate what's printed in the PHB?

That's a valid way to look at it. My personal preference is the opposite - I've seen too many editions of D&D with option paralysis with too many choices that I'd rather keep it streamlined. For me, every design addition needs to be prefaced with "does this bring enough to the table to offset the complexity it's adding".

But, as I said, your way is valid. Keeps the existing characters happy, and gives the choice to the new folks. I can hear someone echoing back my earlier comment: "Have faith". And with that I accept it.

 

[DrunkWolf]

...

 

[Leatherhead]

I mostly told them what I said back when the article was posted.

 

[Dualazi]

Spore druid: Awesome thematic potential, but the mechanics are all over the place. Using your reaction like that is stupid and should just be assigned to a bonus action, and the range is incredibly gimped off the bat. Likewise, the symbiotic wildshape buffs your melee damage, which is still unwanted and unneeded as if I wanted to play a melee druid I'd be a moon druid. That's power that should be budgeted elsewhere and really feels like they couldn't figure out anything else and needed a ribbon ability. I'm also not digging the undead theme, I think they should ditch that for other thematic options for fungi, like poison damage that grows round after round, infected enemies that burst into spores when they die, or the ability to harvest nutrients and healing from fallen foes. The last two features are solid gold though. Overall definitely the most inspired of the trio.

Brute: Dissatisfied because they need to just admit they screwed up the fighter and do a complete overhaul when they figure out what the fighter actually is thematically and narratively. Until then, this is indeed a passable upgrade turning the champion into the premier beatstick but I wouldn't call that a good thing and it's as far away as you can get from evocative or exciting.

Inventor: Terrible across the board in every respect. It doesn't function well and only serves as yet another example of the designers trying to have wizards steal other classes' specialties, this time from the wild sorcerer and the to-be-released artificer. Wizards already have more subclasses than you can shake a stick at and they get better with every spell release, the designers need to eff off with this crap. I for one am tired of seeing ink be wasted in this regard when there are way, way better things they could be working on instead.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Dissatisfied because they need to just admit they screwed up the fighter and do a complete overhaul when they figure out what the fighter actually is thematically and narratively.

I have to say, I don't think this is in the cards. Unlike with, say, the ranger, I've seen zero indication that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the fighter or that the class is anywhere on Mearls & Co's radar as a problem in need of fixing. Except for the Champion being a little bit underpowered. Which, of course, is why we're here with the Brute.

 

[Satyrn]

I really just said the brute's Superior Critical was boring to me because it was "just more damage" . . . And I just now realized I meant to add in "and Brute Force is already providing that."