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

[Reynard]

In your original post, you suggested that PF2 might offer a player better opportunities via class feats. How would this be implemented within a 5e chassis?

I would break down the various subclasses into "talent trees" and make telent trees accessible to multiple classes. The idea is that you could completely re-create a particular subclass by hyper focusing your talent tree, but you could also do a little mix and match. I am inclined to want to open up all talent trees to all classes but in practice it wouldn't work because a lot of them rely on specific class features (rage, ki, etc).

 

[Doctor Futurity]

Yeah, the 5e wizard definitely needs something more than spells to define it. Are there any really good Wizard brews out there to replace the official one?

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.

 

[Reynard]

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.

Whoa, whoa whoa. You can't go about limiting player options like that. it is in the PHB ergo it is universally allowed.

/s in case that wasn't clear

 

[Charlaquin]

why do some people think that new players are complete idiots?

In most cases that we introduced new players to D&D we started at 3rd level with 1st level bonus feat as 1st level characters are boring with next to nothing to do.

hell, you can even give everyone 3 feats at 1st level and not break anything in the game. It just help people to get their character concept working sooner so they can have more fun in the game.

I don’t think new players are complete idiots, but I have had the experience of new players being overwhelmed by options when they have to choose a subclass or a feat. Different players have different levels of savvy for RPG mechanics, and keeping the bar for entry very low is beneficial for getting the largest number of players into the game.

 

[Baron Opal II]

What do you think?

I've come to dislike subclasses, but find them doable. I greatly prefer prestige classes as a way to specialize if the generalist aspects of the base class do not satisfy. I also like feat trees, but that seems to lead to 100s of feats that say either "+1 to this" or "perform this one thing from another class". I find a hundred spells or feats to be fine, but not hundreds. I also find that it can be used to show membership in guilds or fellowships where time spent (levels) is a bit more important than simply learning a specific technique (feat or "treasure").

You want to overburden new players by forcing more build decisions before they even play?

I tend to assume people are capable of making decisions and expressing concepts, especially when they have an experienced guide.

You want to alienate old schoolers by implying level one isn't just a regular person who hadn't yet earned class features or whatever?

The old level title for a first level fighter is "veteran". Old school first level characters aren't ordinary people, who sometimes have as many or less hit points than wizards.

You want to punish free formers by hanging more mechanical junk around their necks they have to manage?

See answer one.

I hate prestige classes, one of the worst things about 3.5e. It required so much system mastery to pick best(most overpowered) one.

I concur, which is why I redesigned most of them. I peeled off most of the prereqs, and condensed most of of them to 5 levels. The underlying concept, however, I find excellent.

 

[Vael]

Subclasses have to fill different roles depending on the class. For a Sorcerer or Cleric, they are defining a key element of the character, but for a Fighter or Wizard they are simply showing a specialization in training. This, to me, is a feature and why I think they work so well, it's a clear and concise way to help define one's PC.

 

[Reynard]

I concur, which is why I redesigned most of them. I peeled off most of the prereqs, and condensed most of of them to 5 levels. The underlying concept, however, I find excellent.

There are tons of really bad taco joints in the world. That doesn't mean tacos are a bad food.

 

[Maxperson]

1. I hate prestige classes, one of the worst things about 3.5e. It required so much system mastery to pick best(most overpowered) one.

That's why the solution was not to bother. Pick the one that fit your character concept and not worry about being overpowered or not.

 

[Horwath]

I don’t think new players are complete idiots, but I have had the experience of new players being overwhelmed by options when they have to choose a subclass or a feat. Different players have different levels of savvy for RPG mechanics, and keeping the bar for entry very low is beneficial for getting the largest number of players into the game.

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

 

[Baron Opal II]

There are tons of really bad taco joints in the world. That doesn't mean tacos are a bad food.

Which is why I enjoy tacos?

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