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

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know what to tell you. You are imagining a full Diablo IV mess and that's not what I am saying.

I do not like subclasses. They are restrictive and turn progression into a boring treadmill, unless they are an absolute mess of sub-features. Never mind the balance. They are the last way I want character customization in D&D.

Wow. I'm sorry that you've obviously been suffering for the last ten years then.

 

[Reynard]

Those games have ways to differentiate PCs from each other too.

No one said they didn't, but it is obvious on its face that they have fewer such components than 5E and nothing like subclasses, which was the assertion.

 

[Reynard]

Wow. I'm sorry that you've obviously been suffering for the last ten years then.

I'm mostly a forever GM so it has been less of an issue on my end. I still don't like them,but they are player facing so I can mostly ignore it.

 

[jmartkdr2]

These are the sort of assertions that I could do without. It basically takes the success of 5e on the whole as a sign of the success of each individual aspect, which may or not be the case. There may be a variety other reasons apart from the given explanation of subclasses that contribute to the overwhelming success of 5e over PF2 and DCC.

Like imagine if someone said "The market seems to think that Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals are just right, otherwise PF2 or Dungeon World would be taking over." It's just nonsensically fallacious.

I think the lack of clear movement means most people aren’t horribly disappointed with subclasses as a concept. The assertion that they are requires some evidence; the assertion that subclasses are objectively terrible for dnd requires a lot of evidence.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I appreciate a game without front-loaded chargen options.

I want to play D&D. It takes a lot of time to make characters already. Spacing out that growth is smart.

And in a class-based game, the archetypes do the job of different "builds" on the class.

Not that there aren't alternatives. Like, what if we had DOZENS of classes, each one maybe only covering one tier. Or what if classes worked like magic items where you could fight well with a Sword and heal well if you equipped a Holy Symbol. Or what if the party had to choose a patron, and the patron defined the class features available, and everyone needed to pick between them.

If the most creative we can get is "more impactful subclasses with more options chosen at earlier levels," that ain't gonna do it for me, personally.

 

[MoonSong]

The 3e Sorcerer, was a good example of this. At 1st level, a 3e sorcerer got Eschew Materials and Summon Familiar in addition to their spellcasting, and that was it. There was no real incentive for someone to play a sorcerer beyond 1st-level if all they got was more spells. Then along came Pathfinder 1st edition, its' solution to getting rid some or all of the dead levels and ensuring that players stayed with a single class was to fill each level with a class feature with something appealing and a 20th-level capstone ability.

PF1 sorcerer isn't that much of a solution. The bonus feats and spells were cool in theory, but in practice they were either irrelevant or came online too late.(So, for example you could pick the bonus feat you wanted or you could pick it as soon as it was available to you, which usually was earlier. Many times you end up either having to delay getting it or having to pick an irrelevant one, not a fun choice. Characters stay more single classed in PF1, because there are way less prestige classes around)

 

[Aldarc]

I think the lack of clear movement means most people aren’t horribly disappointed with subclasses as a concept. The assertion that they are requires some evidence; the assertion that subclasses are objectively terrible for dnd requires a lot of evidence.

I think that this is spurious reasoning. I agree that I believe most people are content with subclasses but I don’t the movement or lack thereof to other systems demonstrates or somehow proves this point.

 

[Corinnguard]

PF1 sorcerer isn't that much of a solution. The bonus feats and spells were cool in theory, but in practice they were either irrelevant or came online too late.(So, for example you could pick the bonus feat you wanted or you could pick it as soon as it was available to you, which usually was earlier. Many times you end up either having to delay getting it or having to pick an irrelevant one, not a fun choice. Characters stay more single classed in PF1, because there are way less prestige classes around)

I know. And if you wanted the bloodline powers of a PF1 sorcerer without being a sorcerer, there were the Eldritch Heritage feats. True. PF1 was more interested in having you stick with a single class.

 

[Reynard]

I think the lack of clear movement means most people aren’t horribly disappointed with subclasses as a concept. The assertion that they are requires some evidence; the assertion that subclasses are objectively terrible for dnd requires a lot of evidence.

If most people playing 5E are new to RPGs, which seems to be the case, and there is a constant influx, I would contend that actual features of the 5E design are essentially irrelevant.

 

[Corinnguard]

If most people playing 5E are new to RPGs, which seems to be the case, and there is a constant influx, I would contend that actual features of the 5E design are essentially irrelevant.

And how about those of us who have spent some years playing 5e? No RPG system is perfect. If they were, they wouldn't be much of a need to homebrew any new material.