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

[Reynard]

Which is why I enjoy tacos?

Not sure your point. I like prestige classes. Some aren't written well.

I was agreeing with you by way of being "clever."

 

[Baron Opal II]

Ah, excellent!

Forgive me, I am sometimes humor impaired when not face to face.

 

[Reynard]

Ah, excellent!

Forgive me, I am sometimes humor impaired when not face to face.

It's also possible that I am not as witty as I imagine.

No. It must be you.

 

[Maxperson]

It is the sorcerer and the wizard that are redundant. The sorcerer is just a wizard with a cool twist. Not worth a class. And if the bard is a full caster, it is just a flavored wizard. If it isn't, then it is a flavored rogue.

I think that there is a very distinct difference between the intuitive/inborn arcane caster and the learned external arcane caster. The current incarnation of sorcerer is just not the best way to institute the intuitive/inborn version.

 

[Reynard]

I think that there is a very distinct difference between the intuitive/inborn arcane caster and the learned external arcane caster. The current incarnation of sorcerer is just not the best way to institute the intuitive/inborn version.

I can't think of a single literary source that makes the distinction. If anything, the arguably most well known source on the subject posits that they are the same thing, and the only difference is whether you manage to get invited to boarding school.

 

[bloodtide]

I like the idea of "focus" for a character....but it has not really been done well ruleswise. They never really feel unique enough.

I see it so often. A new player plays the game, and their character gets a couple levels. Now they can pick something...but it just falls flat. There might be a good pure combat pick...but anything else is vague as best....and has no rule support.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Interesting. How does the system balance that?

Well, since each moving part is smaller (the games goes to 10th level), there's no real trap option. You can be ultra focused, or be an all-rounder, but in the end it all balances out.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I've played wizards, warlocks and sorcerers that were sufficiently distinct that having individual classes made the experience worthwhile. You combine them and you lose that granularity. Better to provide all three classes and let the game table/GM decide if he wants to limit one or more in the setting.

The thing here is that I've played warlocks and sorcerers that were very distinct from other warlocks and sorcerers. With wizards by swapping just one piece of equipment (their spellbook) they almost entirely blur together.

 

[Charlaquin]

you can have the bar low and still be able to give give complexity to starting characters.

just have an offering of 2 characters per class on how to build it at 1st level with simplest of options.

I.E:
cleric:
abilities:
STR: 15+1
DEX: 8
CON: 15
INT: 8
WIS: 15+2
CHA: 8

FEAT: resilient CON
BONUS FEAT: WARCASTER
BONUS-BONUS FEAT: TOUGH
SPELLS: Cure, healing word, bless

subclass: Life or War


I.E2:
fighter
STR: 10 or 15+2
DEX: 15+2 or 10
CON: 15+1
INT: 8
WIS: 14
CHA: 8

FEAT: GWM or SS
BONUS FEAT: PAM or Piercer
BONUS-BONUS FEAT: Heavy armor mastery or Skill Expert

Fighting style: +1 AC or +2 ranged attack
Subclass; champion or battlemaster

I mean, I'm a fan of pregens, but most players I have introduced to the game are not. And regardless, those players will still eventually have to make their own character for the first time.

 

[Quickleaf]

Except casters somehow...

I think the faulty logic here is twofold.

First is the err that because some (maybe more than half?) players like playing casters, therefor all players enjoy caster-level complexity.

Second is the err that because no simple(r) caster class exists in D&D, therefor there are no players who would enjoy playing a simple caster.

Everyone’s experience will differ, but I can report anecdotal experience that neither of those have been true at multiple tables I’ve gamed with - on the contrary, they were proven false. So IME they are fallacies.