D&D 5E What I Don't Like About Subclasses, and Potential Solutions.

[rmcoen]

I get that a 5e design goal was to make it easy for a new player to "just get started". Hence start at 1st, play a few sessions, okay, now make a new decision (subclass). Oh, and one more level (or so), get a new choice: feat or ASI (and if ASI, which one(s)?). But.... I would prefer if they had continued the idea. 6th level or 10th - like 4e's Paragon Path or 3e's PRestige Class (more 4e, you mostly can't lock yourself out of choices) - you get a new path choices. Maybe you double-down into your first subclass. Maybe you can branch into another subclass. Maybe there's an "advanced" version of the basic class (i.e. not "more Champion-y", but "more Fighter-y").

Instead - and I confess, I skipped 9 pages of text to quickly post a thought - we have Multiclassing. If you decide you wand your Rogue -> Arcane Trickster to be more magic-y... take wizard or sorcerer levels. If you want your Ranger -> Hunter to be more martial, take Fighter levels (or maybe, like a PC in my game, Barbarian levels). [Side note, martial levels should "multiclass stack" like caster levels. F*ck "worthless Extra Attack a second time", get something for it!]

This way you essentially are getting to build your own custom character class. IF you're a new player, and not handy with the rules, stay in the comfortable box of the class+subclass. Or ask the mimaxer at your table, you know the one...

Which brings me back to the only point this "idea" hasn't addressed from the OP, which is the "why are we waiting until 3rd level". To that, I just throw up my hands and say "5e design goal, oh well". There have been many good alternate suggestions in this thread for options - I liked the example of "take Champion crit range at 2nd instead of Action surge" - and I have nothing new to add to that. I will just point out that the same "benefit" multiclassing brings to the table also makes a good gatekeeper to "balance" [wherever you think that line sits] that the 1-level dip your Ranger took in Fighter for reasons, didn't also give you Runes or Fireball or Maneuvers or whatever.

 

[CapnZapp]

I have never liked the subclass system in 5E, but it has taken me a while to really understand why. Specifically, it has taken me running Pathfinder 2E to help me to understand why. So there is going to be some comparison in this post. But I am not also just saying "play PF2!" There are a lot of things I do like about 5E, and so it is an interesting design challenge to look for an alternative to subclasses that fits into the overall design ethos of 5E. And that is true even if I never go farther with any design other than this post.

A Note: This is not a + thread because I don't want to give the impression that I want to shut down discussion. However, if your point of view is that the existing subclass system is not only good but the right way to do things, I am not sure there is much for us to discuss. You might be happier in another thread.

The first, biggest problem with subclass in 5E is that you are forced to choose it and have it define your character ever forward, but you explicitly don't get to do that at 1st level. So, what? You just build plan to 3rd instead? It is a very strange choice that does not seem to have much of an upside. It simply locks you out of your defining features until you have bypassed the "squishy" phase of the game. Folks who paid attention during the Next playtest might be able to shed some light on the design intent here, but I haven't read anything that makes it make sense.

One solution to this is to have players pick subclass at 1st level and provide something -- a class feature or whatever -- at first level. And that's fine, but it only solves one aspect of the problem.

Another problem with subclass in 5E is that they are generally pretty rigid. For most of them, you pick it at 2nd or 3rd and them make few choices going forward besides your ASIs or spells. Some, like the Warlock, are better than others, with lots of choices in the form of invocations. But the Warlock is a design outlier (and actually one of the best designed classes in the game; but that's another discussion) and most players won't have too many chances to make development choices over the next year or 18 months of play. That feels bad to me.

So what do we do about that? This is where my comparison to Pathfinder 2E comes to the fore. Classes should have lots of options in a few different archetypical paths. PF2 does this through Class Feats, but that isn't the only solution. I think something like Diablo style talent trees is another viable system. Some players will diversify and pick up a lot of different "initial" talents, while others will be happy to hyper focus and follow the tree all the way to the fruit (as it were). As long as there are no traps or taxes, this works fine.

Another idea is to pair class feats/talent trees with a reintroduction of prestige classes (and whatever they were called in 4E). Let players who want to decide on a very focused thing with in-fiction ramifications. Prestige classes are kind of a fraught subject, of course, but to be clear I am mostly talking about those that tie the PC to the world with some cool mechanical bits and bobs. I am not talking about combat monster hyper-specialization prestige classes like the chain fighter or whatever.

In the end, the goal is to allow players to both create the character they want and to let the character develop throughout the campaign informed by the campaign. I don't think subclasses are a good way to achieve that goal.

What do you think?

I think we should definitely not follow Paizo's example. Class-based feats in itself could work, but PF2's implementation is horrible - those class feats nickle and dime you things you should just get, for free. At every step Paizo has taken itemization to extremes. When I played the game, I was almost waiting for the microtransactions to drop, where every damn little inconsequential choice costs you.

Other than that, yes, 5E subclasses are simplistic and rigid.

That they don't start at 1st level, however, that's intentionally meant as a feature. You may not like it, but the game was designed this way to delay the choice point, primarily for the benefit of new and unsure players.

That not all classes have this choice point at the same level, however, that's an inexcusable flaw.

Much better would be to...
# split them up into at least two halves - one low level subclass, and one high level prestige class.
# adding a second choice point, say at level 12, would greatly help shift some sorely needed focus onto the mid- and high levels
# make everyone choose at the same level. All subclasses and prestige classes have the same number of levels in them
# make subclasses generally interchangeable, at least within the martial/arcane/divine split of classes.

If a Ranger and a Rogue could both choose the same Fighter subclass, this would drastically and wonderfully increase player choice with little added system complexity for newcomers (since they would be recommended to "just choose one for your class").

Of course, some subclasses can be class-specific. That's okay, just as long as some aren't. There should even be a couple of primarily prestige classes open to every character (regardless of class).

I sincerely believe class feats or talent trees is... too much for a game of 5E's complexity. That is, 5E isn't complex, and keeping the subclass idea (just splitting it into two and adding interchangeability) would go a very long way of fixing the worst issues without drastically changing the game.

 

[rmcoen]

And the funny thing is... WotC could capitalize more on having an "advance subclass at 12th level" -- that's a minimum of 3 more class options, per class... what a great set of splatbooks (like 2e, and 3e) we would all buy, because yay more options!

 

[MGibster]

I liked the idea of prestige classes but grew to hate the execution and of course some were inferior while others quite powerful. I really disliked how they encouraged players to map out their progress in advanced to make sure they qualified for the PRC they wanted.

I’m okay with subclssses for the most part. Some do seem better than others of course. My biggest problem with them is that I don’t want to wait until level 3 before I can start doing interesting things with my class abilities. Is this a way to avoid multiclass dipping into a single level?

 

[rmcoen]

I liked the idea of prestige classes but grew to hate the execution and of course some were inferior while others quite powerful. I really disliked how they encouraged players to map out their progress in advanced to make sure they qualified for the PRC they wanted.

I think the name "Prestige Class" couldn't be used because of 3e trauma of this kind, but the concept is valid, right? (I totally agree, hard to be excited about your metamagic candle when the Oracle is scry-and-die-ing across the multiverse with no chance of failure.)

I’m okay with subclssses for the most part. Some do seem better than others of course. My biggest problem with them is that I don’t want to wait until level 3 before I can start doing interesting things with my class abilities. Is this a way to avoid multiclass dipping into a single level?

In short, yes. If you could be, say, an Arcane Trickster at Rogue1, what's the likelihood you stay to Rogue 3? Or a Bladesinger at Wizard1, wouldn't that make an amazing dip for any INT build (esp. Artificer), without having to devore extra levels to it? I know my Paladin7/Warlock-3 wouldn't have devoted 3 levels of Warlock if he could have gotten Book of Ancient Secrets (extra cantrips + all rituals) with just a single level! [Yes, I know the smite-adin-lock is a thing, it wasn't my thing this time.]

 

[James Gasik]

The first, biggest problem with subclass in 5E is that you are forced to choose it and have it define your character ever forward, but you explicitly don't get to do that at 1st level. So, what? You just build plan to 3rd instead? It is a very strange choice that does not seem to have much of an upside. It simply locks you out of your defining features until you have bypassed the "squishy" phase of the game. Folks who paid attention during the Next playtest might be able to shed some light on the design intent here, but I haven't read anything that makes it make sense.

I can maybe shed some light on this. WotC wanted to continue the trend they'd started with 4e of having 1st level characters be stronger and "feel" like full-fledged members of their classes, so you can just jump into adventures without the whole "a goblin killed me with a thrown knife" thing going on. But the feedback they got overwhelmingly insisted that 1st and 2nd levels needed to exist.

So 5e is actually designed around level 3 being the "true" start point, hence why most subclasses are gained at that point, but levels 1 and 2 are there if you want the "zero to hero" approach. Of course, the books don't say this, because if starting at 1st level is the most popular way to play, you don't want to tell people that what they're doing is not what's intended.

I think putting dice rolling front and center when I'm pretty certain WotC wanted us to use point buy or arrays is more of the same.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can maybe shed some light on this. WotC wanted to continue the trend they'd started with 4e of having 1st level characters be stronger and "feel" like full-fledged members of their classes, so you can just jump into adventures without the whole "a goblin killed me with a thrown knife" thing going on. But the feedback they got overwhelmingly insisted that 1st and 2nd levels needed to exist.

So 5e is actually designed around level 3 being the "true" start point, hence why most subclasses are gained at that point, but levels 1 and 2 are there if you want the "zero to hero" approach. Of course, the books don't say this, because if starting at 1st level is the most popular way to play, you don't want to tell people that what they're doing is not what's intended.

I think putting dice rolling front and center when I'm pretty certain WotC wanted us to use point buy or arrays is more of the same.

Interesting. I wonder if it occurred to anyone to just design the game around the most popular way to play, instead if hiding it.

 

[James Gasik]

Interesting. I wonder if it occurred to anyone to just design the game around the most popular way to play, instead if hiding it.

I just watched the video about the 2024 PHB, and sure enough, Crawford seemed pretty pleased to announce the book has rules for starting at level 3.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I feel the only problems with subclasses are:

1. Some, but only a few, change you to a totally different kind of character. Hexblades fix a problem, but the real problem is that Warlocks are expected to be able to handle melee some of the time. In other games, this sort of "play a different role now" switching just wouldn't happen - warlocks are blasters and that's it, there'd be a whole new class for magicized weapon user. (Or it's a subclass of something that doesn't need to shift to be that - like a fighter or paladin.)

2. Different classes need to hadle the concept very differently. Druid circles shouldn't affect how you play that much; which spells you learn should (and druids should have to learn spells.) Monks should be able to master multiple schools, rangers should have two subclasses a la warlocks, etc. The system as written works fine for other classes like clerics and rogues though.

 

[CapnZapp]

I liked the idea of prestige classes but grew to hate the execution and of course some were inferior while others quite powerful.

First off, we can expect WotC to care more for balance now. That is, we should expect 5E to be as balanced as 5E subclasses - obviously not perfect, but way better than 3E prestige classes.

The main flaw of 3E prestige classes were IIRC the notion you had to earn then was never enforced or even championed by WotC. The lesson is: never balance game content by in-game role-playing!

I really disliked how they encouraged players to map out their progress in advanced to make sure they qualified for the PRC they wanted.

Let's take a step back here, alright.

If we want something more engaging than a single decision point, we must also accept that planning for the later ones will be beneficial.

In other words, I believe you're asking for the impossible. Either don't have multiple decision points or system mastery will inevitably play a role.

---

Preemptively: the solution is not to tie prestige classes to your story. Let's even bury that term "prestige", because what's wanted is a second subclass choice.

At some level, the game asks you "are you happy with your current subclass or fo you want to switch?" except let's not kid ourselves into thinking thats what gamers is going to see. They're going to view this as first one subclass through low levels and then a second, completely separate subclass through high levels.