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

[Reynard]

that is because we cannot have feats to choose from, but class features, which are just in general a n00b guide to picking a series of feats so we need to have Bard, Cleric, Druid, Warlock, Sorcerer and Wizards instead of just Mage class with feat slots.

I think a class should be distinct in both mechanics and fiction. So, I would get rid of the sorcerer entirely but keep the Warlock. The Bard is either a rogue with spell progression or a dedicated spellsinging wizard. The druid is just a cleric, but I think there is a place for the primal shapeshifter in the barbarian and ranger space (which should also be consolidated). I think the monk is just a specialized fighter, as is a paladin and probably the berserker/barbarian.

In any case, I would use talent trees to differentiate archetypes

 

[Horwath]

I think a class should be distinct in both mechanics and fiction. So, I would get rid of the sorcerer entirely but keep the Warlock. The Bard is either a rogue with spell progression or a dedicated spellsinging wizard. The druid is just a cleric, but I think there is a place for the primal shapeshifter in the barbarian and ranger space (which should also be consolidated). I think the monk is just a specialized fighter, as is a paladin and probably the berserker/barbarian.

In any case, I would use talent trees to differentiate archetypes

So you need a fighter: with d12 and extra attack every 4 levels and mage with d6, full casting and no extra attack.

then for some combos, you might get 2 more classes with some amount of spellcasting and some amount of extra attacks.

or you just multiclass fighter and mage and that is it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

 

[Reynard]

I think subclasses are a decent compromise that focuses on accessibility.

I don't think accessibility should be a design driver past Tier 1.

 

[Vaalingrade]

As of level 8...
The sorcerer has swapped out 1 cantrip.
The cleric has changed a prepared spell twice, and otherwise just added something on top of his existing list.
The Arcane Trickster has changed out one cantrip, finally, for Booming Blade.

All they're doing at levelup is picking (typically) one additional spell to know/prepare, and leaving it at that.

So... they're picking a new option from a pool every level then? The thing you said shouldn't be done?

 

[MoonSong]

Well, I do rather like -and prefer- subclass choice at first level. First, because subclass doesn't add that much new powers/options to be "overwhelming", and second because subclasses aren't only defining to character, they also enable characters to be played. For example, there are maybe enough battlemaster maneuvers to have a passable lazylord if you squint, but even if the resulting character was fun to play, having to go through two levels of "killing machine" to "helpess cheerleader" is too abrupt of a departure.

Similarly, you currently can have a celestial warlock or divine sorcerer be a party's primary healer, because it is a choice you get at first level, and moving that to third level means you cannot be that, because then you need the party to either go two levels without a primary healer or then to force someone else to do it for two levels only for them to relinquish the role to you. Or maybe you have to play a boring cleric for these two levels and then retire the character once the party reaches the required level. (Which might be off the table if the group is into "all new PCs need to start at first level")

Also, remember the scout and how it could be a passable spellless Ranger if not for the fact that you suddenly shift from thief to naturey warrior in the middle of the campaign?

Yes, some classes have lame almost imperceptible subclasses, and in that case delaying the choice is fine, but for some classes, subclass is a beefy part of the character and it alters the way you play that PC. In these cases, it is a bummer having to wait to play the character you actually want to play. And as mentioned, it isn't a matter of power, but of theme. Heck, having the choice delayed might actually remove the possibility of you actually geting to play the character at all, because party logistics and dynamics need to be established from day one, and not being able to have your character perform the role from day one means you miss out on it entirely.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think 3/4 of potential character options being casters is ideal at all.

Or reducing the class list to dull generalities that can't even provide for the current selection of classes. Clerics and druids are full casters who are not mages.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't think accessibility should be a design driver past Tier 1.

I definitely do in Tier 2

Well, I do rather like -and prefer- subclass choice at first level. First, because subclass doesn't add that much new powers/options to be "overwhelming",

Says a veteran player. And it's the overwhelmed by options.

and second because subclasses aren't only defining to character, they also enable characters to be played.

Very occasionally. Even your examples don't really work.

For example, there are maybe enough battlemaster maneuvers to have a passable lazylord if you squint, but even if the resulting character was fun to play, having to go through two levels of "killing machine" to "helpess cheerleader" is too abrupt of a departure.

If you're willing to squint hard enough to use the battlemaster as a lazylord I don't see this as any more of a reach. Honestly I think you need to squint harder to use the battlemaster as a lazylord than you do to use the bard as one.

Similarly, you currently can have a celestial warlock or divine sorcerer be a party's primary healer, because it is a choice you get at first level, and moving that to third level means you cannot be that, because then you need the party to either go two levels without a primary healer or then to force someone else to do it for two levels only for them to relinquish the role to you. Or maybe you have to play a boring cleric for these two levels and then retire the character once the party reaches the required level. (Which might be off the table if the group is into "all new PCs need to start at first level")

Or you take the Magic Initiate feat at first level if you're using the One D&D rules. And then either switch out the spells or respec the feat. This can be done even if it's fractionally harder.

Also, remember the scout and how it could be a passable spellless Ranger if not for the fact that you suddenly shift from thief to naturey warrior in the middle of the campaign?

The only problem with the scout is bad writing - in that you are actively incentivised not to have nature or survival trained before level 3. Other, better written subclasses have "pick another skill if you have that trained" which would fix the problem for the scout.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think a class should be distinct in both mechanics and fiction. So, I would get rid of the sorcerer entirely but keep the Warlock.

Why? The sorcerer and warlock are distinct in both mechanics and fiction. If we're cleaning out the redundant spellcasters then the wizard should be a sorcerer subclass. It doesn't really have distinctive mechanics other than its spell book (which is a fine foundation for a sorcerer subclass) and doesn't really have distinctive fiction other than "guy who casts spells out of book" which is sorcerer with the "out of book" subclass.

The Bard is either a rogue with spell progression or a dedicated spellsinging wizard.

Nope. And certainly not a wizard; they'd be a sorcerer if anything.

 

[Reynard]

I definitely do in Tier 2

I believe in really good onboarding material. i came in with the 1983 Basic set, which has still never been equaled for getting 10 year olds capable of playing and GMing in short order. 2014 5E has some good starter stuff, and one assumes that will continue in 2024 5E.

But the actual game should be written for general users, neither beginners nor masters. Filling rule books and adventures with handholding content makes those books less useful even after a very short period of time. Trust people to be able to figure it out. they will.