D&D 5E Would Sub-class Feats Solve a Problem? (Is there a problem?)

[Guest 6801328]

Again I'd like an actual example of two subclasses that aren't differentiated by subclass... im trying to get a picture of the actual issue and a concrete example would help.

The reason I haven't offered any examples is because it's entirely subjective, and I really don't feel like being attacked for my opinion. You apparently feel they are strongly differentiated; I do not.

 

[Imaro]

The reason I haven't offered any examples is because it's entirely subjective, and I really don't feel like being attacked for my opinion. You apparently feel they are strongly differentiated; I do not.

Then why ask "if there is a problem" in the thread title... it kind of implies that the question of whether this is a problem or not is open to discussion...

 

[Guest 6801328]

Then why ask "if there is a problem" in the thread title... it kind of implies that the question of whether this is a problem or not is open to discussion...

Maybe you're not being disingenuous, so I'll answer: clearly some of the posters in this thread thinks the sub-classes are not sufficiently differentiated, while others think they are just fine. If you are in the latter camp, any specific example will seem to you like a bad example because you have already said you think they are sufficiently differentiated.

I see the conversation going this way:
"I don't like cake."
"What? I love cake. Can you give me an example?"
"Chocolate cake."
"Well, see, that's where you're wrong, because chocolate cake is simply wonderful..."

Etc.

See what I mean?

 

[Imaro]

Not particularly. What's an EK? Just a Fighter that casts the Shield spell a couple times a day. Big deal. What's a Battlemaster? A Fighter with some extremely underwhelming special maneuvers. These subclasses would be transformative if the EK actually had access to a decent spell list, or if Battlemaster maneuvers were more impressive.

The subclasses don't go far enough in my personal opinion, so what's left is a character that does one thing different than the base class. Meh, I don't see the point.

Well the low-level EK in my game has a familiar for scouting, reconnaissance and aiding him or one of his companions in battle... he also can create minor illusions, cast shield, ward his camp and/or inn room from intrusion with Alarm and use booming blade to attack multiple enemies with a single attack. He's used Shield but it's in no way the extent of what he can do and not the most common spell he casts. These are totally different capabilities than the Battlemaster in our group who uses Trip attack against solos so the whole party can get advantage, Maneuvering Attack to help get wounded or weaker part members out of jams and Menacing Attack for protecting other members in the party. Outside of the fighter chasis these characters interact with the gameworld in totally different ways.

 

[Imaro]

Maybe you're not being disingenuous, so I'll answer: clearly some of the posters in this thread thinks the sub-classes are not sufficiently differentiated, while others think they are just fine. If you are in the latter camp, any specific example will seem to you like a bad example because you have already said you think they are sufficiently differentiated.

I see the conversation going this way:
"I don't like cake."
"What? I love cake. Can you give me an example?"
"Chocolate cake."
"Well, see, that's where you're wrong, because chocolate cake is simply wonderful..."

Etc.

See what I mean?

Not really no. I believe if you have an opinion it should still be possible to explain or show why you have that opinion, if not it would seem to be a weak opinion and possibly unfounded. But I realize this thread is apparently only for those who agree that sub-classes don't differentiate enough and since I don't believe that and haven't seen a single example of it presented or the opinion elaborated on I doubt I'll be swayed to change my mind. So, I'll step away from the thread.

 

[Aldarc]

Well the low-level EK in my game has a familiar for scouting, reconnaissance and aiding him or one of his companions in battle... he also can create minor illusions, cast shield, ward his camp and/or inn room from intrusion with Alarm and use booming blade to attack multiple enemies with a single attack. He's used Shield but it's in no way the extent of what he can do and not the most common spell he casts. These are totally different capabilities than the Battlemaster in our group who uses Trip attack against solos so the whole party can get advantage, Maneuvering Attack to help get wounded or weaker part members out of jams and Menacing Attack for protecting other members in the party. Outside of the fighter chasis these characters interact with the gameworld in totally different ways.

I am not fundamentally disagreeing with you here, but that may have something to do with how magic and spell options often serve as the greatest customization options for classes, particularly when comparing a subclass that has access to spells and one who does not. Spells provide a lot of options. In some respects, maneuevers act as a spell-like system for martial classes from the heydays of 4E.

 

[Imaro]

I am not fundamentally disagreeing with you here, but that may have something to do with how magic and spell options often serve as the greatest customization options for classes, particularly when comparing a subclass that has access to spells and one who does not. Spells provide a lot of options. In some respects, maneuevers act as a spell-like system for martial classes from the heydays of 4E.

I don't disagree here and recognize spellcaster vs. not spellcaster is probably one of the major ways of differentiation in the game... But then I wasn't the one who claimed an EK wasn't differentiated from a BM (which in and of itself without some type of explanation besides blatant dismissal makes me even less willing to accept the premise)... I'm arguing the opposite and asking for an example of two subclasses that aren't really differentiated. The issue seems to be this was never a thread to discuss the actual assertion but instead one where the assumption is already assumed to be true.

I'll look at another 2 subclasses up to level 13 that are non-magical... Thief vs. Assassin

The thief can disarm traps, use sleight of hand, open a lock or interact with an object at a much greater speed than other Rogue subclasses.
The thief becomes an expert climber... climbing costs no extra movement and his Dex increases his running jumps
The thief gains advantage on stealth checks when only using half movement
The thief can use any magic item

The assasin is proficient in the disguise kit and poisoners kit
The assasin gains advantage on attacks vs. creatures who haven't taken a turn yet and attacks with surprise are auto-crits
The assasin can, using time and money, create disguises and identities that do not fail
The assasin can unerringly mimic the speech wirting and behavior of another person

I'm not seeing how these two aren't differentiated, one is clearly better at avoiding traps, breaking into places, using the strange artifacts he may find and getting into or away from a heist... and the other deals in murder by surprise, catching victims unaware, and social deception. I guess what I am saying is I can understand if you want more subclass abilities, that's a preference thing (like wanting more classes, or monsters, or feats) and not a "problem" with the game... but the stance that the subclasses don't server to differentiate and it is an actual problem with the game doesn't seem, at least IMO, to be supportable or true..

 

[Guest 6801328]

But I realize this thread is apparently only for those who agree that sub-classes don't differentiate enough

Not at all! You chimed in and said you don't see a problem. That's a good data point; it's interesting to know how many people don't think this is an issue. So thanks for that input.

And I'm not going to try to persuade you otherwise.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't disagree here and recognize spellcaster vs. not spellcaster is probably one of the major ways of differentiation in the game... But then I wasn't the one who claimed an EK wasn't differentiated from a BM (which in and of itself without some type of explanation besides blatant dismissal makes me even less willing to accept the premise)... I'm arguing the opposite and asking for an example of two subclasses that aren't really differentiated. The issue seems to be this was never a thread to discuss the actual assertion but instead one where the assumption is already assumed to be true.

I'll look at another 2 subclasses up to level 13 that are non-magical... Thief vs. Assassin

The thief can disarm traps, use sleight of hand, open a lock or interact with an object at a much greater speed than other Rogue subclasses.
The thief becomes an expert climber... climbing costs no extra movement and his Dex increases his running jumps
The thief gains advantage on stealth checks when only using half movement
The thief can use any magic item

The assasin is proficient in the disguise kit and poisoners kit
The assasin gains advantage on attacks vs. creatures who haven't taken a turn yet and attacks with surprise are auto-crits
The assasin can, using time and money, create disguises and identities that do not fail
The assasin can unerringly mimic the speech wirting and behavior of another person

I'm not seeing how these two aren't differentiated, one is clearly better at avoiding traps, breaking into places, using the strange artifacts he may find and getting into or away from a heist... and the other deals in murder by surprise, catching victims unaware, and social deception. I guess what I am saying is I can understand if you want more subclass abilities, that's a preference thing (like wanting more classes, or monsters, or feats) and not a "problem" with the game... but the stance that the subclasses don't server to differentiate and it is an actual problem with the game doesn't seem, at least IMO, to be supportable or true..

Ok, since you want to pick an example, I'll ignore my better judgment and bite.

In my experience Thief abilities hardly ever get used (unless and until they get a magic item they wouldn't otherwise be able to use), and when they do get used the differences don't really change playstyle. Non-thieves still climb and stealth and open locks; the Thief just gets some better rolls or and sometimes gets to do it without sacrificing an Action. Those are nice things and help statistically, but they are not qualitatively different. It is very rare (again, in my experience) that a Thief attempts something an Assassin wouldn't also try.

The Assassin has some nifty abilities for RP and interaction, but the right confluence of factors certainly don't arise every play session. And of course the Assassination ability is great statistically and gives Assassins extra incentive to get surprise and win initiative, but non-Assassins also want to get surprise and win initiative, so again it's a matter of quantity not quality.

And, again, I'm not arguing they are un-differentiated, just that I'd like to see more.

 

[Aldarc]

but the stance that the subclasses don't server to differentiate and it is an actual problem with the game doesn't seem, at least IMO, to be supportable or true..

They are certainly differentiated, but I wonder if it's a matter of people having different expectations regarding how much is enough differentiation between subclasses to be meaningful? For example, I do think that wizard traditions do play differently, but at the same time I recall one GM I had who complained how 5E got rid of school spell restrictions. In our discussions, he felt that although wizards somewhat play differently via their traditions, they also nevertheless have access to the same unrestricted spell list, which he felt produced more homogenous spells chosen for wizards at his table.