Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Wow. I'm sorry that you've obviously been suffering for the last ten years then.
D&D 5E What I Don't Like About Subclasses, and Potential Solutions.
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
No one said they didn't, but it is obvious on its face that they have fewer such components than 5E and nothing like subclasses, which was the assertion.
I'm mostly a forever GM so it has been less of an issue on my end. I still don't like them,but they are player facing so I can mostly ignore it.
jmartkdr2
Hero
I think the lack of clear movement means most people aren’t horribly disappointed with subclasses as a concept. The assertion that they are requires some evidence; the assertion that subclasses are objectively terrible for dnd requires a lot of evidence.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I appreciate a game without front-loaded chargen options.
I want to play D&D. It takes a lot of time to make characters already. Spacing out that growth is smart.
And in a class-based game, the archetypes do the job of different "builds" on the class.
Not that there aren't alternatives. Like, what if we had DOZENS of classes, each one maybe only covering one tier. Or what if classes worked like magic items where you could fight well with a Sword and heal well if you equipped a Holy Symbol. Or what if the party had to choose a patron, and the patron defined the class features available, and everyone needed to pick between them.
If the most creative we can get is "more impactful subclasses with more options chosen at earlier levels," that ain't gonna do it for me, personally.
I want to play D&D. It takes a lot of time to make characters already. Spacing out that growth is smart.
And in a class-based game, the archetypes do the job of different "builds" on the class.
Not that there aren't alternatives. Like, what if we had DOZENS of classes, each one maybe only covering one tier. Or what if classes worked like magic items where you could fight well with a Sword and heal well if you equipped a Holy Symbol. Or what if the party had to choose a patron, and the patron defined the class features available, and everyone needed to pick between them.
If the most creative we can get is "more impactful subclasses with more options chosen at earlier levels," that ain't gonna do it for me, personally.
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
PF1 sorcerer isn't that much of a solution. The bonus feats and spells were cool in theory, but in practice they were either irrelevant or came online too late.(So, for example you could pick the bonus feat you wanted or you could pick it as soon as it was available to you, which usually was earlier. Many times you end up either having to delay getting it or having to pick an irrelevant one, not a fun choice. Characters stay more single classed in PF1, because there are way less prestige classes around)
Aldarc
Legend
I think that this is spurious reasoning. I agree that I believe most people are content with subclasses but I don’t the movement or lack thereof to other systems demonstrates or somehow proves this point.
Corinnguard
Hero
I know. And if you wanted the bloodline powers of a PF1 sorcerer without being a sorcerer, there were the Eldritch Heritage feats. True. PF1 was more interested in having you stick with a single class.
If most people playing 5E are new to RPGs, which seems to be the case, and there is a constant influx, I would contend that actual features of the 5E design are essentially irrelevant.
Corinnguard
Hero
And how about those of us who have spent some years playing 5e? No RPG system is perfect. If they were, they wouldn't be much of a need to homebrew any new material.
Similar Threads
