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

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
I have never liked the subclass system in 5E, but it has taken me a while to really understand why. Specifically, it has taken me running Pathfinder 2E to help me to understand why. So there is going to be some comparison in this post. But I am not also just saying "play PF2!" There are a lot of things I do like about 5E, and so it is an interesting design challenge to look for an alternative to subclasses that fits into the overall design ethos of 5E. And that is true even if I never go farther with any design other than this post.

A Note: This is not a + thread because I don't want to give the impression that I want to shut down discussion. However, if your point of view is that the existing subclass system is not only good but the right way to do things, I am not sure there is much for us to discuss. You might be happier in another thread.

The first, biggest problem with subclass in 5E is that you are forced to choose it and have it define your character ever forward, but you explicitly don't get to do that at 1st level. So, what? You just build plan to 3rd instead? It is a very strange choice that does not seem to have much of an upside. It simply locks you out of your defining features until you have bypassed the "squishy" phase of the game. Folks who paid attention during the Next playtest might be able to shed some light on the design intent here, but I haven't read anything that makes it make sense.

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.

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.

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. PF2 does this through Class Feats, but that isn't the only solution. I think something like Diablo style talent trees is another viable system. Some players will diversify and pick up a lot of different "initial" talents, while others will be happy to hyper focus and follow the tree all the way to the fruit (as it were). As long as there are no traps or taxes, this works fine.

Another idea is to pair class feats/talent trees with a reintroduction of prestige classes (and whatever they were called in 4E). Let players who want to decide on a very focused thing with in-fiction ramifications. Prestige classes are kind of a fraught subject, of course, but to be clear I am mostly talking about those that tie the PC to the world with some cool mechanical bits and bobs. I am not talking about combat monster hyper-specialization prestige classes like the chain fighter or whatever.

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?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I have never liked the subclass system in 5E, but it has taken me a while to really understand why. Specifically, it has taken me running Pathfinder 2E to help me to understand why. So there is going to be some comparison in this post. But I am not also just saying "play PF2!" There are a lot of things I do like about 5E, and so it is an interesting design challenge to look for an alternative to subclasses that fits into the overall design ethos of 5E. And that is true even if I never go farther with any design other than this post.

A Note: This is not a + thread because I don't want to give the impression that I want to shut down discussion. However, if your point of view is that the existing subclass system is not only good but the right way to do things, I am not sure there is much for us to discuss. You might be happier in another thread.

The first, biggest problem with subclass in 5E is that you are forced to choose it and have it define your character ever forward, but you explicitly don't get to do that at 1st level. So, what? You just build plan to 3rd instead? It is a very strange choice that does not seem to have much of an upside. It simply locks you out of your defining features until you have bypassed the "squishy" phase of the game. Folks who paid attention during the Next playtest might be able to shed some light on the design intent here, but I haven't read anything that makes it make sense.

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.
I don't have an issue with subclass being at 3rd, because you fly through the first two levels if you even play them. They divided level 1 up into 3 levels, so almost everyone I know just starts at 3rd anyway.
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.

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. PF2 does this through Class Feats, but that isn't the only solution. I think something like Diablo style talent trees is another viable system. Some players will diversify and pick up a lot of different "initial" talents, while others will be happy to hyper focus and follow the tree all the way to the fruit (as it were). As long as there are no traps or taxes, this works fine.

Another idea is to pair class feats/talent trees with a reintroduction of prestige classes (and whatever they were called in 4E). Let players who want to decide on a very focused thing with in-fiction ramifications. Prestige classes are kind of a fraught subject, of course, but to be clear I am mostly talking about those that tie the PC to the world with some cool mechanical bits and bobs. I am not talking about combat monster hyper-specialization prestige classes like the chain fighter or whatever.

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 vastly preferred prestige classes to subclasses. Subclass has to share the primary class as well, so it doesn't have as much of an impact as many prestige classes, which took over the class and moved the character in a different direction.

You could also pick multiple prestige classes and classes, all of which added together, so you could be a Ranger 4/Blood Hound 6/Order of the Bow Initiate 10 and have a fantastic tracker/archer/bounty hunter that brings in his quarry dead or alive and the dead may never see him coming before being pincushioned.

You could much better achieve concepts that way. As you say, the class/subclass combination is very rigid.
 

I despise class feats. But talent trees are nice.
An easy band aid solution: allow your players to chose their levels (in which they get a feature other than spell casting level increase) in any order for each tier. 1 to 4. 5 to 10, 11 to 16 and 17 to 20. Now you can have subclass at level 1, ability score increase at level 2 etc. Sometimes, if a class gives many features at once, some of them necessary to have at the beginning of a tier, you might get that feature and only swap tge other features vs those of a later level. Or swap these features on 1 by 1 basis.
 

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
I despise class feats. But talent trees are nice.
What is the difference in your mind? I don't ask that dismissively, just curious. To me, they are essentially the same thing.
An easy band aid solution: allow your players to chose their levels (in which they get a feature other than spell casting level increase) in any order for each tier. 1 to 4. 5 to 10, 11 to 16 and 17 to 20. Now you can have subclass at level 1, ability score increase at level 2 etc. Sometimes, if a class gives many features at once, some of them necessary to have at the beginning of a tier, you might get that feature and only swap tge other features vs those of a later level. Or swap these features on 1 by 1 basis.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.
 

ezo

Get off my lawn!
What do you think?
I'm not a huge fan of subclasses, either.

I also don't care for the "wait until 2nd or 3rd levels" thing.

There are few subclasses which appeal to me in princple, let alone in practice.

Some classes are strong, so the subclasses are lackluster. In other cases, the class is relatively bland, so they pile more into the subclass to try to make up for it---most often without success IMO.

Many subclasses have features which are either so awesome (Bear Totem) they nearly always get picked, or so lame then never do.

3-5 subclass features over 15+ levels seems fairly weak. Also, few subclasses offer choices for the features, it is always the same for each PC who takes the subclass. Which seems boring to me.

I'm not familiar with PF2 so I can speak to those options, but the loss of prestige classes from 3E is a big let down.
 

What is the difference in your mind? I don't ask that dismissively, just curious. To me, they are essentially the same thing.
I was burnt by 1000s feats with small numerical bonuses in 4e. The difference for me is that in d4, you eventually get all abilities from your tree if you wand or can focus on some for little extra effects.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.
Allow people to chose the level 3 benefits at level 2. So a fighter can either take action surge at level 2 or become a champion and get their benefit of critting at 19 and 20.

Of course you can just call all the individual class features class feats with a minimum level requirement instead.
 

Stormonu

NeoGrognard
I actually quite like the subclass system for 5E, and I hated prestige classes in 3E & 4E.

In 5E, the current subclass system keeps the option bloat down a bit. Choose a path and you're off to the races and at level up the only major choices are possibly a feat/ASI or a new spell. It helps to cut down on option paralysis. Throwing in multiclassing adds another option point, but also adds to the chance of option paralysis or option regret (and I am quite happy to nuke 5E multiclassing from orbit).

Now, many RPGs would consider D&D's class system an archetype for building a starting character, and as you get further into the game the gates are wide open from there to advance in any direction you want to go. Most other games, though, don't have as many options as D&D (GURPS being one huge exception) so that the options available aren't overwhelming.

PF2 has a bit of a middle ground, from what I've seen. It still has columns that limit some options, but they are pretty broad overall. It's fine for knowledgeable players who want a broad set of options but its horrible for newcomers to be hit with so many options and not know where to turn (it's one reason I've steered clear of it, even having played the original PF).
 


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I feel pretty much the same way. I will say, the one benefit to subclasses coming at 3rd level is that it reduces the number of options you have to choose from during character creation, which can be overwhelming to new players. Like, if you’ve never played D&D before, having to choose not only between 12 classes but also 4 or more subclasses each, before even knowing what the base classes are like to play, is not ideal. But I otherwise agree completely.
 

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
I'm definitely down for subclasses starting a 1st level for all classes.

The class feats for pf2 are interesting since it let's you build your class in various ways without locking in your build which I think is quite good. Class feats also tie into the multiclass system, or whatever they call it, allowing your entire group to pick up some pirate features or add wizard to their class. I recall one of their adventure paths even started everyone out with one of a couple specific multiclasses, either druid or wizard, which the system just allows you to tack on without too much trouble to fit the theme for the campaign. It's a good system.
 

Remove ads

Top