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

[cbwjm]

You want to overburden new players by forcing more build decisions before they even play?

You want to alienate old schoolers by implying level one isn't just a regular person who hadn't yet earned class features or whatever?

You want to punish free formers by hanging more mechanical junk around their necks they have to manage?

I've never considered level one to be just a regular person, for that, the old school gamers have normal human.

New players are easily handled, you can start them with pregen, or walk them through building their PC until they get the hang of the system.

I don't know what you mean by free formers so I'm fine with them being punished.

 

[aco175]

I do not have a problem waiting until 3rd level to get a sub-class. You do get cool powers at 1st and 2nd level, just in your class. I would wrap multiclassing in with the sub-class system, so that you could take the same class as your sub-class and just be a better fighter or whatever, or just add another class and be a fighter/wizard. The 2nd class could be an abridged class based on the main class.

 

[Vael]

I dislike Prestige classes because I'm not a fan of a la carte style multiclassing.

I'm generally happy with subclasses ... for the set of Core classes. But it's one thing to package all the planned mechanics for a "Oath of Vengeance" Paladin ... but try to make subclasses for a Vampire class? That makes one cordon off different parts of the Vampire into different subclasses.

In other words, I think subclasses are a piece of tech that works with broader class archetypes, but not a universal part of class design.

 

[Mephista]

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.

And this is where I'm going to stop. The lack of choice is a design decision in a large part of the game, making it simpler and more accessible. Which has worked REALLY well for 5e.

Sorry if its not for you, but this feels like you're trying to challenge one of the underlying fundamental design decisions of the game, not just subclasses.

Personally, for more modularity, I've just been making custom magic items for my players. Letting them have some input on things that let them change stuff around.

 

[Reynard]

Are you being serious? I honestly can't tell.

You want to overburden new players by forcing more build decisions before they even play?

No, they get to make choices throughout play.

You want to alienate old schoolers by implying level one isn't just a regular person who hadn't yet earned class features or whatever?

I don't care.

You want to punish free formers by hanging more mechanical junk around their necks they have to manage?

Lol. D&D is probably not the game for those folks.

 

[Reynard]

Personally, for more modularity, I've just been making custom magic items for my players. Letting them have some input on things that let them change stuff around.

Because in 5E the only thing allowed to be interesting is magic.

 

[Shardstone]

On his Patreon, @mearls dsicusses how Class + Subclass is just one simple method of designing a class. There are many methods to do class beyond this; one of his which inspired his Psyker design. This is a class where every so often, the player chooses from a menu of features tied to both narrative and mechanical aspects of the class. Sometimes, your choices might impact other features you get later on. In this way, you can essentially work in "mini-subclasses" to every class that could be for just one level (your Psionic Path) or across several levels. You could have a class with 10 mini-subclasses or one with 3. By putting them at different levels, and staying cognizant of 5E's math for traditional classes, you can create veeeery unique and original class structures that work alongside, say, a traditional Ranger or Fighter.

I find my problem with the traditional setup is that it's used for every class but isn't always the best design option for every class. A Warlock that could have multiple Otherworldly Patrons, or a Cleric who has a second subclass in T3 that reflects their increasing spiritual reputation (becoming a Saint or a Pontiff, etc). This kind of design creates what I believe to be a more interesting and engaging game.

 

[Reynard]

I didn't mention before: one of the things I especially like about Prestige classes is that they aren't the evolution of a class. They are broader than that. of course, they aren't usually universal, but your Guardian of the Slumbering King (or whatever) could just as easily be a fighter, ranger, paladin, monk or cleric, and with some effort a few other classes.

 

[J-H]

5e's subclasses make the system much more customizable than 1e/2e, but less than 3/3.5. I have no experience with 4e.

The forum population doesn't represent typical players. I have an 8th level storm cleric (playing from level 1) who doesn't remember most of his class powers. My wife is playing (with our two kids) in a game I'm running for them, and is very happy with her Banneret Fighter because she has a very limited number of choices to make. Barbarian was actually too complicated to be fun for her (rage/no rage? Reckless/no reckless? you have to decide every turn).

Not everyone has the level of engagement with the rules to handle picking between 5 options at every level-up, especially on the casual/limited time side of things.

Subclasses aren't perfect, but they are definitely Good Enough and for most people likely better than what came before.

 

[Mephista]

Because in 5E the only thing allowed to be interesting is magic.

You asked for thoughts about class design, and I gave it, and the only response is to nit over some unrelated detail?

Well, have a good game and enjoy PF2, since it seems clear that you're not happy with 5e. I'm out. Tata,