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

[Guest 7037866]

If they were, they wouldn't be much of a need to homebrew any new material.

Don't say that! What would I do with all my free time!?!

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

If they were terrible, they either would look for alternatives or drop out of the hobby. Neither of which appears to be happening.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

If they weren't content, they would move to other games - maybe not other ttrpgs, but other genres entirely.

But people stick around. So subclasses as a system aren't ruinous. Which is about as much as I can prove; but I think any more positive descriptor is subjective anyways.

 

[Reynard]

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.

I was answering the specific assertion that subclasses must be good because no one has pushed for a change.

Look, I know I am in the minority here. I'm not proselytizing. Nor am I being coy. My opinion is in the thread title. The only reason I resurrected thee thread was because I didn't want to derail the Ranger thread.

 

[Reynard]

If they were terrible, they either would look for alternatives or drop out of the hobby. Neither of which appears to be happening.

It is way too early to know whether the pandemic era influx has legs.

 

[Reynard]

. So subclasses as a system aren't ruinous.

"Aren't ruinous" isn't what was asserted.

 

[jmartkdr2]

"Aren't ruinous" isn't what was asserted.

You're right: I asserted they weren't "horrible" which is a totally different thing.

 

[jmartkdr2]

It is way too early to know whether the pandemic era influx has legs.

The pandemic happened after six years of DnD going off the charts with sales.

Is your assertation that for six years millions of players were hating the game and continuing to play it anyways? Or just that they didn't understand that they hated it because they have no sense of what entertains them?

 

[Aldarc]

If they weren't content, they would move to other games - maybe not other ttrpgs, but other genres entirely.

But people stick around. So subclasses as a system aren't ruinous.

This is a fallacious syllogism. The inferences being made here do not logically follow. It's once again unsound reasoning. I am fine with you arguing a general opinion that most people are likely content with 5e subclasses. I would agree with that. My problem, however, lies with your argumentative reasoning that surrounds that point. It is reducing a complex choice composed of many constituent parts (i.e., reasons to choose a TTRPG) to a sign of satisfaction with a single factor (i.e., subclasses). We could basically substitute any given mechanic or aspect of 5e into where you have "subclasses" above, and the argument would be just as fallacious.

There are a variety of reasons why people are primarily sticking with 5e D&D that has nothing to do with their overall satisfaction with subclasses. They may be staying despite their negative opinions on subclasses. They may like subclasses or they may prefer other class structures, but they may not be moving to these other systems because they dislike other game mechanics involved in those games. For example, I think that DCC has too many polyhedrals, and I loathe magical physical corruption, magical mishap, and character funnels. So DCC may not have subclasses, but subclasses aren't pertinent to my decision-making process for why I don't play DCC.

You may then conclude that this means that subclasses "aren't ruinous." But let's understand that there is a lot of space for nuance and complex opinions between setting a low bar of "aren't ruinous" and "I love 5e subclasses as they are!"

For example, some of past players that I have gamed with didn't like that there was very little decision-making or character building when it came to subclasses. They picked their subclass, and that was essentially the last decision they made for building their character. (I am fully aware that this is also a feature and not a flaw for some players.) Some of these players tended to gravitate then to options that were more open to building your own character as you leveled: i.e., the Warlock. If you made all classes structured more like the Warlock, these players would absolutely love it! 5e style subclasses "aren't ruinous" for these players, but I can also tell you that they weren't all that happy with them either.

 

[deadman1204]

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 people staying with the dnd product vs something else is ALOT more complicated than dnd is the best one.
There is the money buy in part, you play the game you own the material for.
Then this is the game other people play, so you play it cause its what other people do. There is almost certainly a vastly better system out there that would appeal any everyone's wishes, but it doesn't get traction because:
1. It doesn't have a gigantic wotc marketing budget
2. Everyone plays this game, so thats what we are stuck with.

Thats not to say dnd is "bad", just that people don't idly switch systems as much as is sometimes suggested. Some talbes do play alot of systems, but the majority do not.