The first, biggest problem with subclass in 5E is that you are forced to choose it and have it define your character ever forward,
This is, to me, a core problem with trying to roleplay in both D&D 5e and in TSR-era D&D. You are forced to choose your character early and after that advancement is on rails and not reflective of what you actually do.
but you explicitly don't get to do that at 1st level. So, what? You just build plan to 3rd instead?
To me this
isn't a problem. Defining your character at first level and so they shall be ever more, only ever growing in one direction is the problem. Having a split point lessens the problem, especially as almost all classes have subclasses that flow out of how you play naturally (e.g. Champion and Battlemaster fighters).
Your defining features come from your class, and your subclass adds detail and variation to that. And in some cases there is fun narrative potential ("I summoned an entity and signed a pact with them. I have magic - but they used a fake name? Who's my patron?")
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.
And it creates two problems:
- It locks your advancement in at first level. This is IMO bad.
- It provides an overwhelming number of options for new players rather than picking one of the dozen classes then after that one of the half dozen subclasses.
Now I fully accept that you can go too far in the opposite direction - and
too many options on level up are overwhelming and don't add to roleplaying. I fully accept that D&D 3.X, D&D 4e, and Pathfinder 2E have all hugged the rocks close to Scylla -but 5e already risks sailing down Charybdis' throat with the character advancement railroad. Subclass at 3rd level and feats (especially OneD&D feats) both move at least a little further from that whirlpool.
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.
This is not a problem with subclasses. This is a problem with 5e (and TSR) design which subclass at third level only does a little to offset. We're on the same page about warlocks.
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.
For
non-divine casters in D&D we normally call these "Spells" (divine/druidic casters getting their entire spell list is something I've long found a Problem). And I've long been an advocate for "Pure martials" having a "Second Subclass" at level 10 or so to say how they keep up.
I think something like Diablo style talent trees is another viable system.
Not Newbie Friendly. Which is what 5e focuses on. And "builds" are toxic for casual fans (besides, you can play the build-game better in a MOBA, a CRPG, or even a roguelite).
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 subclasses are a decent compromise that focuses on accessibility.