5e Without Subclasses

[Amechra]

So, this is a bit of a dumb idea, but...

If you had to pick one subclass for every class, and that was the only subclass people at your table could pick for that class from then on, which subclasses would you pick, and why? Would you try to balance out the classes in terms of power-level (so strong classes like the Bard or Wizard get a weaker default subclass, while classes like the Ranger get to be Gloomstalkers)? Would you try to stick with the most thematic subclasses for each class, even if they were terrible? Would you pick any of the subclasses that redefine the class's playstyle or thematics (like Celestial Warlocks and Ancestral Guardian Barbarians)?

For me, a rough list would be:

Path of the Ancestral Guardian Barbarian (So that there's a pretty clear "tank" class.)
College of Eloquence Bard (This feels more Bard-y to me than the College of Lore, with the added benefit of not being bonkers.)
Order Domain Cleric (I picked this one because the 1st level feature makes in-combat buffing and healing more proactive.)
Circle of the Land Druid (This could be the Castlevania Druid instead, but I decided against it because I like Wild Shape being a primarily non-combat feature.)
Battlemaster Fighter (This gives us a solid non-casting, non-magical warrior type, for when people want to play that.)
Way of Shadows Monk (This turns the Monk into a Ninja, just like my Final Fantasies! More seriously, the particular combination of spells that the Way of Shadows gives you is pretty unique as far as I can tell, and it definitely supplies some good out-of-combat utility.)
Oath of Devotion Paladin (This is, like, the most classically Paladin Paladin who ever Paladin'd.)
Thief Rogue (It was either this or Swashbuckler, and I thought leaving open the "combat medic" Rogue thing would be cool.)
Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer (Dragon Sorcerers are a pretty 3.X thing, and as a result it's kinda buried in my subconscious.)
Celestial Patron Warlock (OK, I'm a sucker for healers. I also feel like the Celestial Patron is the most versatile and well-designed Warlock Patron.)
... I dunno for the Artificer, Ranger or Wizard.

[Snowbluff]

If you're doing a demigods style game, you can have like Zealot Barbs, Celestial Warlocks, Divine Soul sorcerers and the like.

[togapika]

Way of Shadows Monk (This turns the Monk into a Ninja, just like my Final Fantasies! More seriously, the particular combination of spells that the Way of Shadows gives you is pretty unique as far as I can tell, and it definitely supplies some good out-of-combat utility.)


If you get to have a ninja, I want a Dragoon subclass!

[Sception]

What do you mean by lore bard being "bonkers"? Do you mean too powerful?
Because eloquence bard is /significantly/ stronger.

To answer the question, though, I'd either go for the most thematically broad or iconic subclass (while avoiding any known duds), or pick subclasses following a particular theme according to the desired theme of the game or setting.

For generics:

Battlesmith Artificer. A bit less thematically out-there than armorer or artillerist, more effective than the artificer, & with a neat & effective pet, easy choice.

Totem Barbarian. Effective, reasonably versatile, gets that primal animal spirit concept in. Might be cheating, though, as the different animal spirits are effectively different subclasses in their own right.

Valor Bard - the bit of extra armor proficiencies and weapon ability best reflects the 'jack of all trades' concept of the class.

order cleric

land druid

battlemaster fighter

Open Hand Monk - most thematically neutral, makes arguably the best use of unarmed combat, which is the typical core identity of the class.

Devotion Paladin, though I'd keep Oathbreaker around for antipaladin npcs & evil campaigns.

Horizon Walker Ranger - a bit less thematically specific than gloomstalker while not being as lackluster as core ranger subclasses. One of the tasha's rangers might be a better choice, I'm not super familiar with them yet.

Arcane Trickster Rogue - thief is a bit more generic and archetypical, but the extra utility of a bit of spellcasting goes a long way towards helping rogue do it's thing, and dabbling a bit in some arcane knowledge is still, imo, close enough to the core D&D rogue identity to work (reference 'use magic device' as a feature of rogues in previous editions)

Draconic sorcerer

Fey Warlock. Fey are specific enough to not feel muddled while also allowing for a wide range of patron dispositions from malevolent and possessive Fae aristocrats with strict and arbitrary rules to laid back and benevolent fairy godmother types, which lets the player and DM work together to define the patron and the character's relationship to them. A bit on the weak end, though. Genie provides a solid alternative, but fey fits more smoothly into more generic D&D settings that tend to draw more on northern european legends.

Scribe Wizard's a bit strong, even in tasha's, but is also probably the most generically 'wizard' option available. Divination makes for a reasonable alternative.

...

For an example of a more theme based list, consider a game that revolves heavily around the shadow fell, with the Raven Queen acting as a group patron. The available subclasses then might be:

Artificer: not really a good shadowy option here, alchemist is probably the closest to fitting but is also kind of not very good. Might put in some houserule buffs to alchemist. Alternatively might not allow artificer altogether.

Barbarian: zealot, necrotic damage only for their bonus damage.

Bard: whispers

Cleric: twilight

Druid: dream

Fighter: echo knight, but with the echo representing the fighter's own shadow animated to fight independently of them instead of the normal fluff about alternate versions of the fighter from split timelines.

Monk: shadow

Paladin: conquest, unless the campaign was going to feature a preponderance of frighten immune or resistant enemies, in which case vengeance. Either way, their divine smite deals necrotic damage instead of radiant.

Ranger: gloomstalker

Rogue: phantom

Sorcerer: shadow

Warlock: hexblade

Wizard: illusionist


In such a campaign I might even restrict player race to only shadar-kai if the players were down for it. In that case, I would definitely allow racial stat bonus re-assignment from Tasha's so that players could reasonably play whatever class they wanted without feeling like the restricted racial choice was unduly punishing those who didn't want to play dex classes. Justify it, if anyone at the player feels the need to, by saying the Raven Queen hand crafted this particular group of shadar-kai to for their specific functions.

[Daphne]

Barb: Totem
Bard: Eloquence
Cleric: Life
Druid: Land
Fighter: Cavalier
Monk: Open Hand
Paladin: Devotion
Ranger: Hunter
Rogue: Swashbuckler
Sorcerer: Draconic
Warlock: Fiend
Wizard: War Wizard

[KorvinStarmast]

So, this is a bit of a dumb idea, but...

If you had to pick one subclass for every class, and that was the only subclass people at your table could pick for that class from then on, which subclasses would you pick, and why?
The SRD already did this.

Bard: Lore
Barbarian: Berserker (Ancestral Guardian)
Cleric: Life
Druid: Circle of Land
Fighter: Champion (Battle Master)
Monk: Open Hand
Paladin: Devotion
Ranger: Hunter
Rogue: Thief
Sorcerer: Draconic
Warlock: Fiend
Wizard: Evoker

Artificer: Banned. (OK, fine Alchemist)

[paladinn]

If you want to trim it back even more, let everyone play a Sidekick class. They are actually pretty playable and (I think) could be fun.

Personally I'd prefer the UA sidekicks to what's in Tasha's. Nerf city.. sigh.

It is kinda cool that, if you pick the Spellcaster class, and choose CHA/Prodigy, you get access to both Bard and Warlock spell lists.

[noob]

You can run 5e without subclasses: just do not give the subclass features.
The monsters are weak enough you can beat them with neither subclasses nor feats.

[WadeWay33]

You can run 5e without subclasses: just do not give the subclass features.
The monsters are weak enough you can beat them with neither subclasses nor feats.

...could you elaborate? We may just run monsters differently, but I tend to find myself running encounters with character deaths often, and I have a party of minmaxers.

[noob]

...could you elaborate? We may just run monsters differently, but I tend to find myself running encounters with character deaths often, and I have a party of minmaxers.

It is probably because your gm overshoots relatively to the suggested xp budgets of the dmg thus turning it into a race with the players.
Alternatively you have a party of min maxers that min maxes random things like nova damage in one turn while being on a flat featureless plain that extends infinitely.
The silliest min maxer I saw tried to maximise damage in one turn by interpreting the exercise in the most literal way so they assumed that each square of the featureless plain contained a monster which made the numbers go high but did not make any sense: if you chose where the monsters are then you can put an infinity of monsters in one square(there is monsters that can share the same square) then deal an infinity of total damage with any aoe attack.

As for gms not following the dmg guidelines please note that the dmg says "what makes a party nearly completely depleted of all the resources is X" and people interpret it as "the least a party should face is X" with the same X and it is from where the 6 to 8 balanced encounters a day comes from.

[Sception]

You can run 5e without subclasses: just do not give the subclass features.
The monsters are weak enough you can beat them with neither subclasses nor feats.

You /could/ do this, but I wouldn't really recommend it. Some parent classes, eg wizard, are so full of useful features that they can happily get by without subclass stuff, while others, eg artificer, put a /lot/ of weight on subclass features for their basic round-by-round competencies.