On the mechanical homogeneity of the Subclass System

[noce]

Hello.
I don't know if it has been discussed previously (if so please link to the threads), but I feel that 5e builds of a given class are pretty much similar one another, and this is mostly due to the subclass system.

For example, let's say I play a rogue in a lvl 1-10 game, there's only one distinguishing feature of my subclass until level 8, and another one at 9. To me this means that whatever subclass I pick my options and my gameplay will be mostly the same.

Other classes have the same problem: a sorcerer has only two defining features at level 13, since the third is at level 14. It's true that in this case you can customize your spell list, so a divine soul will obviously feel different from a draconic sorcerer, but it's also true that there's often a list of best picks you're going to derail from just not to feel identical to every other sorcerer you've seen played before.

Another problem is when different subclasses give similar features: for example most ranger sublcasses give you a "deal more damage" feature at level 3, with just some fluff attached (that could be made up or changed by a player even without their suggestion).

I could go on, even for classes with a lot of features: the cleric Divine Strike / Potent Spellcasting feature is literally identical for half the subclasses, and mostly identical for the other half, and guess what? With Blessed Strikes it's not even linked to the subclass.

I must admit I play 3.5e, but I don't want to compare the editions.
It's obviously intended that 5e doesn't have the customization options of 3.5e, but am I the only one that doesn't have that "I feel I'm special" feeling when playing a single classed character in 5e?
(And, on the contrary, feels something more akin to "There isn't much I can do to feel more special than that")

[Kane0]

For example, let's say I play a rogue in a lvl 1-10 game, there's only one distinguishing feature of my subclass until level 8, and another one at 9. To me this means that whatever subclass I pick my options and my gameplay will be mostly the same.


Mostly true, though for some classes that put more weight on subclass that first breakpoint at level 3(ish) will be more heavily frontloaded.

Of course you can male the argument that you have race, background and ASIs to differentiate too but yeah if your reference point is 3.5 then the number of variables is (intentionally) lessened.



Another problem is when different subclasses give similar features: for example most ranger sublcasses give you a "deal more damage" feature at level 3, with just some fluff attached (that could be made up or changed by a player even without their suggestion).

I could go on, even for classes with a lot of features: the cleric Divine Strike / Potent Spellcasting feature is literally identical for half the subclasses, and mostly identical for the other half, and guess what? With Blessed Strikes it's not even linked to the subclass.

This however is a slightly different issue and can be labelled as lazy or uninspired game design (I wouldnt be so harsh on the devs personally but I can see the argument). Quite often UA and homebrew will address this sort of thing.

[MoiMagnus]

For example, let's say I play a rogue in a lvl 1-10 game, there's only one distinguishing feature of my subclass until level 8, and another one at 9. To me this means that whatever subclass I pick my options and my gameplay will be mostly the same.

Not exactly. What it means is that whatever subclass you pick, the set of available gameplay are mostly the same, and the optimal gameplay (if any) is the same. But the gameplay you chose can be different. You can play a coward that run away at the first danger, or someone who pushes his luck much more than reasonable.

In particular, spell list (and Fighter manoeuvres) contains a lot of opportunity for customization, especially if you play in a low/mid optimisation group where there is no spell that are considered "must have". So what is remaining are:
(1) Rogue, which still has some customization from his chosen skill set (and also has spells in one subclass)
(2) Champion Fighter, but why would you ever take this subclass if you want customization while you have two other very interesting subclasses?
(3) Barbarians, which are a pretty sad class to play in my experience, but other might differ
(4) Monk, which I have no experience with so I can't really criticise.

Part of the design philosophy of 5e is also that you should not be looking at your class features to feel special. There is an entire chapter of the PHB, 20 page long, about having a background, some character flaws, some character bonds, etc. This chapter is significantly longer than the chapter about equipment. In other words, one could argue you are using a bow or a sword is intended to be less relevant to the game than whether you are a noble or a travelling merchant.

I don't think 5e succeeded at it as much as it wanted (the background can easily feel disjointed from the class you chose, instead of complementing each others), but it definitely pushes toward putting an emphasis of the fluff over the mechanics.


For example, let's say I play a rogue in a lvl 1-10 game

Coming back on this, I'd like to note that something very common in 5e is for table to start at higher level (usually 3, 4 or even 5) in order to skip the "tutorial levels" and reach quicker the levels in which everyone is mechanically different. As you can see on the thread on favourite levels to play, a significant portion of the players have their favourite level around 10, where you already have your second subclass feature.

[MrStabby]

Whilst I would largely agree with the OP I would say there are a few exceptions.

Artificers feel different between subclasses.

Clerics are pretty similar other than domain spells, but these actually make a big difference in play.

Valor/swords bards feel different from the non martial bards.

Moon druids, play very differently to land druids at some levels... other levels less so.

Barbarians feel similar, but ancestral is different to most.

[Droppeddead]

For example, let's say I play a rogue in a lvl 1-10 game, there's only one distinguishing feature of my subclass until level 8, and another one at 9. To me this means that whatever subclass I pick my options and my gameplay will be mostly the same.

Well, no. Since your character isn't (or at least shouldn't) just be the numbers written on your character sheet and there are hundreds of different options and combinations that can help you play in different ways. Just because you have the same subclass doesn't mean you have to have the same race, stats, bonds, flaws, ideals, background and everything else that makes a character a character and not just a bunch of numbers and abilities. It's the roleplaying part of the game. Is your cleric a firebrand preacher or more of a hippie college professor? Is your Samurai a gung ho frontline fighter or more a social person who likes to solve disputes with duels? Are you playing an Elf Swashbuckling gladiator show fighter or a dwarf swashbuckler pirate? Is your thief stealing to feed their starving family or do they work for a government agency as a spy?

There are, quite literally, countless ways to play the same subclass. Heck, even if you play the same subclass with the same race and the same stats and background there are still numerous ways to make the character different. You just need to focus less on the numbers and more on the other aspects of the game. :)

[JellyPooga]

Well, no. Since your character isn't (or at least shouldn't) just be the numbers written on your character sheet and there are hundreds of different options and combinations that can help you play in different ways. Just because you have the same subclass doesn't mean you have to have the same race, stats, bonds, flaws, ideals, background and everything else that makes a character a character and not just a bunch of numbers and abilities. It's the roleplaying part of the game. Is your cleric a firebrand preacher or more of a hippie college professor? Is your Samurai a gung ho frontline fighter or more a social person who likes to solve disputes with duels? Are you playing an Elf Swashbuckling gladiator show fighter or a dwarf swashbuckler pirate? Is your thief stealing to feed their starving family or do they work for a government agency as a spy?

There are, quite literally, countless ways to play the same subclass. Heck, even if you play the same subclass with the same race and the same stats and background there are still numerous ways to make the character different. You just need to focus less on the numbers and more on the other aspects of the game. :)

I'm going to second this pretty hard.

Before we even look at subclass, there's already several distinguishing features. For the sake of example, let's take the OP's picked-upon example of a Rogue;
- Do you want to play melee, ranged or a mix of both?
- What skills are you going to choose as your Proficiencies and (perhaps more importantly) Expertise?
- What Ability Score(s) are you going to focus on, how are you going to capitalise on those scores and why?
- What Feats do you want, if any?
- What equipment are you using?
- What's your characters personality like?

All of the above will change your play style dramatically. Then there's the Subclass itself to consider. Which one you're picking is the first and most obvious question, but there are variables within each one;
- If there are multiple features to pick from, which will you choose? For the Rogue, this is primarily looking at Arcane Trickster here; spell choices are a big deal. Picking different Cantrips, alone, will dramatically influence your play style.
- How will your features leverage, or conflict with, your core chassis features? For example; are you using the Thiefs Fast Hands to use equipment, manipulate terrain or to pick pockets? How are your skill Expertise synergising with this, if at all? A Strength focused Thief Rogue with Expertise in Athletics and Acrobatics is likely to play very differently to a Dex focused Thief Rogue with Expertise in Thieves Tools and Sleight of Hand.

Without going too far into further detail, in short, 5e has plenty of moving parts and while it can be argued that there is an "optimal" play-style, in actual practice that rarely comes to the surface in my experience. Individual players and their characters will simply do things because they want to, despite being less than perfect. This gives you a lot of variety in style of play, even if on the surface the mechanical aspects of it appear to be quite similar.

[noce]

It's the roleplaying part of the game.
You just need to focus less on the numbers and more on the other aspects of the game. :)

I'm not saying I want to play hack and slash videogame-style skipping dialogues. I fully consider roleplay the most important part of the game.
That's why I did put "mechanical" in the thread title.

The reason why I'd like to have more variety between subclasses, is that I like to customize the mechanical options of the game to better reflect the character concept I have in mind. And the game rules are telling me that at character levels 1 and 2 every rogue is exactly the same apart from the fact that some can jump, some can do a backflip and some can find traps.

This bothers me. And backgrounds don't address this apart from the "you can hide and seek too" part.

Again, I'm not saying 3.5 was good, it was not in many aspects. But you had feats, variant classes, racial classes, alternative class features and prestige classes.
In 5e you have feats as a optional rule, that compete with ability boosts, a background that is just "bonus proficiencies with fluff" (one could make up the fluff without them), and a couple subclass features. That's it.

Wouldn't it be better if every class had a subclass feature at first level? You'd feel different from the start I guess?
Wouldn't it be better if every class had the same number of subclass features? There a lot of disparity between certain classes.
I'm asking this kind of questions here.

[stoutstien]

I'm not saying I want to play hack and slash videogame-style skipping dialogues. I fully consider roleplay the most important part of the game.
That's why I did put "mechanical" in the thread title.

The reason why I'd like to have more variety between subclasses, is that I like to customize the mechanical options of the game to better reflect the character concept I have in mind. And the game rules are telling me that at character levels 1 and 2 every rogue is exactly the same apart from the fact that some can jump, some can do a backflip and some can find traps. This bothers me.

The rogue has freedom of customization via an open action economy rather than specific subclass
mechanical options.
They have steady damage and defensive tools baked in so realistically players are left with more room for making a rogue their own than something like barbarians that have almost mandatory ASI and, if used, feat taxes.

Mechanically speaking, rogues are actually sitting better than half the classes as far as customization goes because of this. I can make a grappling rogue that can match a big strong PC with the low cost of a single expertise pick and just not dumping str.


Different classes have different emphasis on their subclasses just like some classes are focused on long rest compared to short rest or even a mix of the two for resource management.

Would the game benefit from more front loading of classes is hotly debated. Multi-classing is a big curve ball in that debate that either means moving features closer to lower levels will have to either exclude that optional rule or be balanced around it. The free feat at level one is a popular quick fix for tables looking for a little bit more customization right off the bat without completely throwing the game as written put the window. Or even better just skip the lower levels and start at 3 when everyone has something to play with if no one is enjoying those first few levels.

[KorvinStarmast]

Other classes have the same problem: Assassin plays quite a bit differently from Arcane Trickster (Up through level 12, haven't seen them higher than that) as a counterpoint. But sub classes are variations on a theme. The theme is the class itself.

[Segev]

For rogue, I think subclass informs a lot. Yes, two level 2 rogues will look similar, though with how many skill proficiencies they have even that can provide some distinct differences, provided you choose to vary your play style to reflect their skill strengths. It is, admittedly, expected that rogues will be proficient in Stealth, so "the sneaky guy" is going to be your role. You will be hiding as a bonus action to get Advantage on attacks a lot.

But even there, weapon choice can change things up: do you fight from range, and if so, do you use a hand crossbow (or two) or a short bow? With a short bow, you're probably hiding or dashing every round; with a hand crossbow, you're probably trying to get an off-hand attack on any round your primary attack missed. Similar for any other dual-wielding build vs. one that doesn't (though most rogues probably should be dual-wielding, even if they don't use the off-hand weapon very often, just so they have the option to do so to try one more time for that sneak attack damage).

Out of combat, though, are you a survivalist? A smarmy fast-talker? A sharp-eyed investigator? An expert in something seemingly unrelated to rogue-ness entirely?

Once you get your subclass, an Arcane Trickster plays very differently from an Assassin (and, in fact, I'd strongly recommend multiclassing any Assassin into Gloomstalker in order to get Wisdom to Initiative and invisibility to darkvision, not to mention an extra attack on the first round that does an extra die of damage for your Assassinate to double). And Arcane Tricksters will vary based on their free choices of spells. They'll all be mage hand virtuosos, but that will define a lot of their play vs. Assassins. In combat, you either now are doing more spell chicanery, or you're still playing similarly to before, but your approach to non-combat problems has changed significantly as an Arcane Trickster. As an Assassin, you're exploiting your Stealth to the hilt to try to get those ambush/surprise attacks off. Plus, the poison proficiency means you're likely spending time looking for interesting, exotic, and fun poisons to apply to your weapons. There's an entire rules subset you can familiarize yourself with right there.

In theory, a Thief, too, gets more interesting play because of increased mobility that the other two lack. Climbing is as easy as walking for you, and you also still have a bonus action dash or hide each round to exploit that mobility with.

[JonBeowulf]

They're subclasses, of course they're similar. Otherwise they'd be classes. Subclasses take a common chassis and attach different things to distinguish them from one another.

Similar to how car manufacturers have several models of the same vehicle.

[MrStabby]

They're subclasses, of course they're similar. Otherwise they'd be classes. Subclasses take a common chassis and attach different things to distinguish them from one another.

Similar to how car manufacturers have several models of the same vehicle.

I think you may have missed the point. The OP believes that this is the case (I think), just as you do.

I believe the point is not about what is but about what could be or indeed what should be. Just because the game treats subclasses as being similar doesn't mean it wouldn't be better if it treated them as things that were a bit more distinct.

[Waazraath]

Hello.
I don't know if it has been discussed previously (if so please link to the threads), but I feel that 5e builds of a given class are pretty much similar one another, and this is mostly due to the subclass system.

For example, let's say I play a rogue in a lvl 1-10 game, there's only one distinguishing feature of my subclass until level 8, and another one at 9. To me this means that whatever subclass I pick my options and my gameplay will be mostly the same.

Other classes have the same problem: a sorcerer has only two defining features at level 13, since the third is at level 14. It's true that in this case you can customize your spell list, so a divine soul will obviously feel different from a draconic sorcerer, but it's also true that there's often a list of best picks you're going to derail from just not to feel identical to every other sorcerer you've seen played before.

Another problem is when different subclasses give similar features: for example most ranger sublcasses give you a "deal more damage" feature at level 3, with just some fluff attached (that could be made up or changed by a player even without their suggestion).

I could go on, even for classes with a lot of features: the cleric Divine Strike / Potent Spellcasting feature is literally identical for half the subclasses, and mostly identical for the other half, and guess what? With Blessed Strikes it's not even linked to the subclass.

I must admit I play 3.5e, but I don't want to compare the editions.
It's obviously intended that 5e doesn't have the customization options of 3.5e, but am I the only one that doesn't have that "I feel I'm special" feeling when playing a single classed character in 5e?
(And, on the contrary, feels something more akin to "There isn't much I can do to feel more special than that")

Yes an no. I think you do have a point. On the other hand, weapon selection makes quite a big difference for a lot of classes; pick 3 champion fighters, one with a great weapon, one archer and one sword and board. The archer will probably be dex based, and have different skills in which (s)he's good, and (ignoring Tasha's racial rules) have different races that are appealing. And if feats get into play, also the great weapon wielder can turn out to to be very different (one just hitting as hard as possible, the other knocking over foes for a little bit of debuff & bfc, and intercepting attacks aimed at allies).

I think this is one of the reasons monks suffer a bit; at the earliest levels, all monks (bar a few niche builds and the occasional vhuman with a short sword and defensive duelist feat) have maxed out wis and dex, con as tertiary stat and are wielding a spear or staff (or versatile 1d10 weapon post tasha's). Custumization stays low even with most subclasses (only 4e monk gives a wide range of options to choose from), and with all monks more or less having the same stat array, skills will overlap as well.

Same with casters: it's an often heard complaint that casters are too much alike, cause you have huge spell lists but a limited number of often top contender spells. And especially casters with limited spells known (bard, sorcerer, warlock, ranger) shoot themselves in the foot if they pick the fun, flavorful options instead. Actually, subclasses could have helped there, if the designers limited the main lists but added thematical spells known through subclasses (like the later sorcerers and rangers, or clerics and pally's from the beginning of the edition).

[Droppeddead]

I'm not saying I want to play hack and slash videogame-style skipping dialogues. I fully consider roleplay the most important part of the game.
That's why I did put "mechanical" in the thread title.

And how you choose to roleplay dictates what mechanical options you have. Do you choose to sneak past the guard, or do you try to trick them?


The reason why I'd like to have more variety between subclasses, is that I like to customize the mechanical options of the game to better reflect the character concept I have in mind. And the game rules are telling me that at character levels 1 and 2 every rogue is exactly the same apart from the fact that some can jump, some can do a backflip and some can find traps.


Except that they're not. A human Rogue can play very different from an Elven one, if nothing else simply due to the fact that one has darkvision and the other does not. Also you are contradicting yourself a bit when you say that the two are exactly the same but then show how they differ. ;)


This bothers me. And backgrounds don't address this apart from the "you can hide and seek too" part.

Well, it kind of does. At least if it's mechanical differences you are after. A Pirate Rogue will have different mechanics from a Noble Rogue, for example.


Again, I'm not saying 3.5 was good, it was not in many aspects. But you had feats, variant classes, racial classes, alternative class features and prestige classes.
In 5e you have feats as a optional rule, that compete with ability boosts, a background that is just "bonus proficiencies with fluff" (one could make up the fluff without them), and a couple subclass features. That's it.

I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't play with Feats. That said, what exactly is it that you feel you're missing that you can't achieve with the tools already present?


Wouldn't it be better if every class had a subclass feature at first level? You'd feel different from the start I guess?

What do you need to feel different from? There is enough to make your character "different" already. If nothing else, just start playing at level 3 if you think levels 1-2 are boring.


Wouldn't it be better if every class had the same number of subclass features? There a lot of disparity between certain classes.

Probably not. I really don't see a need for a complete overhaul for this or any other reason. I honestly don't see the gain.


I'm asking this kind of questions here.

I hear you. But maybe you should ask what it is that you feel that you need that you don't already have? Everything youäve asked for is already there. It's just that the onus is more on the player to make their character "different" rather then the rules telling them they are.

[Dalinar]

I think OP would like Sorcerers and Warlocks. Wizards, too, play dramatically differently based on their subclass (comparing Abjuration, Evocation, and Bladesinger alone shows three completely different styles). Basically, casters are the answer.

As a design thing, you can't frontload subclasses *too much* because the "optional-but-everyone-uses-them" multiclassing rules exist and, well, everyone seemingly either loves or hates Hexblade for frontloading all the good stuff, right? You don't want to have multiclass builds completely outclass single-class builds, so you have to stick some good stuff at the end, but at the same time, T4 is a very small percentage of your typical campaign, so it seems like a tough balancing act!

That said, everyone gets at least one subclass feature by three, which is usually enough to differentiate things outside of a few notable losers like Champion and Berserker.

[Xervous]

5e choose to deliver consistent packaged experiences in its classes and subclasses, and apparently it succeeded. The trick is to realize how much your interests intersect with those of WotC’s target audience, how much intersect you have with your playgroup, and how much deviation you’re willing to tolerate from 5e (RAW, homebrew, other systems).

[Ignimortis]

Hello.
I don't know if it has been discussed previously (if so please link to the threads), but I feel that 5e builds of a given class are pretty much similar one another, and this is mostly due to the subclass system.

For example, let's say I play a rogue in a lvl 1-10 game, there's only one distinguishing feature of my subclass until level 8, and another one at 9. To me this means that whatever subclass I pick my options and my gameplay will be mostly the same.

Other classes have the same problem: a sorcerer has only two defining features at level 13, since the third is at level 14. It's true that in this case you can customize your spell list, so a divine soul will obviously feel different from a draconic sorcerer, but it's also true that there's often a list of best picks you're going to derail from just not to feel identical to every other sorcerer you've seen played before.

Another problem is when different subclasses give similar features: for example most ranger sublcasses give you a "deal more damage" feature at level 3, with just some fluff attached (that could be made up or changed by a player even without their suggestion).

I could go on, even for classes with a lot of features: the cleric Divine Strike / Potent Spellcasting feature is literally identical for half the subclasses, and mostly identical for the other half, and guess what? With Blessed Strikes it's not even linked to the subclass.

I must admit I play 3.5e, but I don't want to compare the editions.
It's obviously intended that 5e doesn't have the customization options of 3.5e, but am I the only one that doesn't have that "I feel I'm special" feeling when playing a single classed character in 5e?
(And, on the contrary, feels something more akin to "There isn't much I can do to feel more special than that")

Pretty much. Subclasses are watered-down, simplified and stripped down versions of PF1e's archetypes. Subclasses account for maybe a 20% change in your playstyle, maybe even less, unless you gain access to spellcasting through them.

[Flallen]

For rogue, I think subclass informs a lot. Yes, two level 2 rogues will look similar, though with how many skill proficiencies they have even that can provide some distinct differences, provided you choose to vary your play style to reflect their skill strengths. It is, admittedly, expected that rogues will be proficient in Stealth, so "the sneaky guy" is going to be your role. You will be hiding as a bonus action to get Advantage on attacks a lot.

But even there, weapon choice can change things up: do you fight from range, and if so, do you use a hand crossbow (or two) or a short bow? With a short bow, you're probably hiding or dashing every round; with a hand crossbow, you're probably trying to get an off-hand attack on any round your primary attack missed. Similar for any other dual-wielding build vs. one that doesn't (though most rogues probably should be dual-wielding, even if they don't use the off-hand weapon very often, just so they have the option to do so to try one more time for that sneak attack damage).

Out of combat, though, are you a survivalist? A smarmy fast-talker? A sharp-eyed investigator? An expert in something seemingly unrelated to rogue-ness entirely?

Once you get your subclass, an Arcane Trickster plays very differently from an Assassin (and, in fact, I'd strongly recommend multiclassing any Assassin into Gloomstalker in order to get Wisdom to Initiative and invisibility to darkvision, not to mention an extra attack on the first round that does an extra die of damage for your Assassinate to double). And Arcane Tricksters will vary based on their free choices of spells. They'll all be mage hand virtuosos, but that will define a lot of their play vs. Assassins. In combat, you either now are doing more spell chicanery, or you're still playing similarly to before, but your approach to non-combat problems has changed significantly as an Arcane Trickster. As an Assassin, you're exploiting your Stealth to the hilt to try to get those ambush/surprise attacks off. Plus, the poison proficiency means you're likely spending time looking for interesting, exotic, and fun poisons to apply to your weapons. There's an entire rules subset you can familiarize yourself with right there.

In theory, a Thief, too, gets more interesting play because of increased mobility that the other two lack. Climbing is as easy as walking for you, and you also still have a bonus action dash or hide each round to exploit that mobility with.

I agree that rogues can have pretty different expressions, but I don't think that is entirely from any mechanical difference. Rogue has a few very clearly expressed aesthetics going for it (i.e. the Swashbucker, Thief, Arcane Trickster) which help differentiate them. I think Cunning Action is probably the worst Rogue feature in this regard because it provides a lot of bland good value in combat. I know it isn't within the design scope of 5e, but I think cunning action should be something that is modified by each subclass to create different mechanical experiences within Rogue.


Before we even look at subclass, there's already several distinguishing features. For the sake of example, let's take the OP's picked-upon example of a Rogue;
- Do you want to play melee, ranged or a mix of both?
- What skills are you going to choose as your Proficiencies and (perhaps more importantly) Expertise?
- What Ability Score(s) are you going to focus on, how are you going to capitalise on those scores and why?
- What Feats do you want, if any?
- What equipment are you using?
- What's your characters personality like?

All of the above will change your play style dramatically. Then there's the Subclass itself to consider. Which one you're picking is the first and most obvious question, but there are variables within each one;
- If there are multiple features to pick from, which will you choose? For the Rogue, this is primarily looking at Arcane Trickster here; spell choices are a big deal. Picking different Cantrips, alone, will dramatically influence your play style.
- How will your features leverage, or conflict with, your core chassis features? For example; are you using the Thiefs Fast Hands to use equipment, manipulate terrain or to pick pockets? How are your skill Expertise synergising with this, if at all? A Strength focused Thief Rogue with Expertise in Athletics and Acrobatics is likely to play very differently to a Dex focused Thief Rogue with Expertise in Thieves Tools and Sleight of Hand.

Without going too far into further detail, in short, 5e has plenty of moving parts and while it can be argued that there is an "optimal" play-style, in actual practice that rarely comes to the surface in my experience. Individual players and their characters will simply do things because they want to, despite being less than perfect. This gives you a lot of variety in style of play, even if on the surface the mechanical aspects of it appear to be quite similar.

I agree with you to a point. Yes, there are many moving parts and it is hard to isolate them. Weapon choice will affect how you play to some degree for sure, but weapons are more or less the same. In most cases your basic weapon damage type won't matter because mostly monsters resist either all of them or none of them, and I think the complaint could be qualified that even if you have two rogues using melee weapons (or even the same weapons) their subclasses should have more impact on how they use their equipment (As above, I think rogues are better than average for having variety, so replace rogue with fighter if you wish). We could do an entire other thread about how many weapons don't actually get used by players because of the way the weapons are designed (but if we do, I'd rather we looked at how to make weapon choice more relevant/interesting rather than debate whether most players will choose an objectively inferior weapon for aesthetic reasons or not).

I've definitely felt the complaint that OP has though. 5e classes sometimes feel like they turn inwards rather than outwards with subclass selection. I don't love all of Pathfinder 2, but I do like their class system a lot better than 5e (with the caveat that I don't have a tonne of experience with it, so this could change). My gut says that part of the issue is that WOTC keeps releasing subclasses to drive sales and some of them are math improvements rather than good expressions of character choices in mechanics.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't see things such as the Ranger getting damage bumps or Clerics getting a bump at 8th being an issue, the overarching design of the game requires that you do more damage as the game goes up in level. Different classes achieve this in difference ways, the primary difference here is between classes, but to just label the options as different fluff would be just incorrect.

To pick on the Ranger example here, yes the level 3 usually is a damage boost but:

-Hunter alone gives you three different 'specialisations' that damage can fall in, each different in flavour

-The beast master gives you an entire animal companion, which should speak for iteself in differentiating terms

-Gloomstalker has a huge emphasis on abushes and hitting hard,with the darkvision bump, darkvision invisibility and initiative bonus all non straight damage bumps

-Swarmkeeper gives you a flavoured Mage Hand and an ability that can be damage, but can also be control

I skipped a chunk there because, well I didn't feel like writing out all of the subclasses and felt I made my point.


The Rogue is another example you used and that changes significantly based on subclass:

-Thief will have an emphasis on using equipment

-Assassin will have an emphasis on starting combats trying to leverage surprise as much as possible

-Arcane Trickster is changed pretty signifcantly by casting

-Mastermind is a support Rogue

-Swashbuckler will want to Skirmish and probably TWF

-Scout will likely be an archer

-Soul Knife is vastly different altogether

That's a lot of diversity coming from just the subclass, not to mention all of the variation others have metnioned from: Skills, ASIs, Race, other choices (maneivers, spells etc.)

Whilst I can see wanting more customisation, I think 5e is working as intended and since we just got Tasha's in the last 6 months, I think there's enough variation to keep things fresh for a while (unless of course there's some concept you're after that hasn't been covered at all, but I can't think of any you could least attempt to replicate).

[ZRN]

Again, I'm not saying 3.5 was good, it was not in many aspects. But you had feats, variant classes, racial classes, alternative class features and prestige classes.
In 5e you have feats as a optional rule, that compete with ability boosts, a background that is just "bonus proficiencies with fluff" (one could make up the fluff without them), and a couple subclass features.

Since you're comparing to 3.5, it's relevant that ALL characters in 5e essentially start with the following feats:

Weapon Finesse
Spring Attack
Half of Improved Bull Rush, Improved Disarm, Improved Grapple, Improved Trip
Ambidexterity (was that only in 3.0e?)
Two-Weapon Fighting
Shot On The Run
Quick Draw

In short, 3.5e as a system has a bunch of built-in rules that ensure your character sucks at most things unless they have a specific class feature or feat that makes you good at it. That meant that in 3.5e you really NEEDED custom classes and feats to make any particular character build viable. You couldn't just play a fighter with a gun, because there weren't the right rules to make that viable; you needed to make a Gunslinger class with its own custom rules. That's not the case in 5e; if your DM says guns are allowed as martial weapons, you can just play a fighter or rogue or ranger or whatever with a gun and things work pretty well.

[MrStabby]

Since you're comparing to 3.5, it's relevant that ALL characters in 5e essentially start with the following feats:

Weapon Finesse
Spring Attack
Half of Improved Bull Rush, Improved Disarm, Improved Grapple, Improved Trip
Ambidexterity (was that only in 3.0e?)
Two-Weapon Fighting
Shot On The Run
Quick Draw

In short, 3.5e as a system has a bunch of built-in rules that ensure your character sucks at most things unless they have a specific class feature or feat that makes you good at it. That meant that in 3.5e you really NEEDED custom classes and feats to make any particular character build viable. You couldn't just play a fighter with a gun, because there weren't the right rules to make that viable; you needed to make a Gunslinger class with its own custom rules. That's not the case in 5e; if your DM says guns are allowed as martial weapons, you can just play a fighter or rogue or ranger or whatever with a gun and things work pretty well.

I am not sure how ALL characters effectively starting the game with the same set of feats helps subclasses be mechanically distinguished from each other.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Since you're comparing to 3.5, it's relevant that ALL characters in 5e essentially start with the following feats:

Weapon Finesse
Spring Attack
Half of Improved Bull Rush, Improved Disarm, Improved Grapple, Improved Trip
Ambidexterity (was that only in 3.0e?)
Two-Weapon Fighting
Shot On The Run
Quick Draw

In short, 3.5e as a system has a bunch of built-in rules that ensure your character sucks at most things unless they have a specific class feature or feat that makes you good at it. That meant that in 3.5e you really NEEDED custom classes and feats to make any particular character build viable. You couldn't just play a fighter with a gun, because there weren't the right rules to make that viable; you needed to make a Gunslinger class with its own custom rules. That's not the case in 5e; if your DM says guns are allowed as martial weapons, you can just play a fighter or rogue or ranger or whatever with a gun and things work pretty well.

Very much this. Most of the default mechanical needs of a 3.5e martial are just flat baked into all characters. So most of the "customization" (which really were just taxes) is already done for you. Which is an absolutely amazing thing. Instead of spending lots of mental overhead tracking all these fiddly prereqs just to get to competent and which lock you into one specific, very narrow path, you just have it. So your class features can actually mean things rather than just being unlocking things you should be able to do by default.

3.5e had lots of "fake" customization. Moving parts for the sake of just having moving parts. Required things you had to have just to play. Or custom classes. Which is painful to work with.

[Dork_Forge]

I am not sure how ALL characters effectively starting the game with the same set of feats helps subclasses be mechanically distinguished from each other.

It means that a lot of the 'customisation' that OP may be used to is irrelvant from a build perspective in 5e, as it's in the general ruleset.

It's all about perspective.

[Man_Over_Game]

Hello.
I don't know if it has been discussed previously (if so please link to the threads), but I feel that 5e builds of a given class are pretty much similar one another, and this is mostly due to the subclass system.

Nope, I agree. It's pretty dumb to have a system that has so many redundant ways to end up with the same character. If I wanted to make an archer that sniped targets with powerful hits before stealthily maneuvering into another position, I could do that as:


Kensei Monk
Inquisitive Rogue
Battlemaster Fighter
Gloomstalker Ranger
Hunter Ranger
Samurai Fighter


And that's before considering the possibilities of what feats can allow you to become.

Sure, you might get some extra stuff in some of these builds you don't care about, but most folks do. When you want to play around a vendetta-oriented vengeance paladin that focuses on critfishing and divine smites, you probably don't care too much about Lay On Hands. But that's just icing on the cake, not something you actually chose the build for, and it's not really a waste so long as it doesn't detract from what you actually want.

And, generally speaking, the things that one character can build around is something someone else can build around in a different way as well.

I think it's a side effect of having a bland, foundational combat mechanic that doesn't really ever get built upon (Attack Action), followed up with spell lists that don't really serve any kind of thematic or mechanical purpose (like how Sorcerer and Wizard spell lists don't really have anything extra "Sorcerous" or "Wizardly" about them). So you might have to suck it up and shoot an ice explosion instead of a fire explosion, but you're still basically playing the exact same way had you had been a different class.


So, yeah, everything is "unique", but only in the sense that your "uniqueness" doesn't really matter. Just because you can make your attacks 20 more feet away at -1 less damage doesn't mean it's all that interesting or different than the last 5 attack rolls.

[rlc]

Again, I'm not saying 3.5 was good, it was not in many aspects. But you had feats, variant classes, racial classes, alternative class features and prestige classes.
In 5e you have feats as a optional rule, that compete with ability boosts, a background that is just "bonus proficiencies with fluff" (one could make up the fluff without them), and a couple subclass features. That's it.


5e had racial classes, but they realized that cut down on customization. They still have racial feats, though. And alternative class features.

And, yeah, you can make up fluff without backgrounds, but why would you use the possibility of having less customization as an argument for wanting more customization, especially since it’s right there in the rules that you can just make up your own background?

[stoutstien]

Nope, I agree. It's pretty dumb to have a system that has so many redundant ways to end up with the same character. If I wanted to make an archer that sniped targets with powerful hits before stealthily maneuvering into another position, I could do that as:


Kensei Monk
Inquisitive Rogue
Battlemaster Fighter
Gloomstalker Ranger
Hunter Ranger
Samurai Fighter


And that's before considering the possibilities of what feats can allow you to become.

Sure, you might get some extra stuff in some of these builds you don't care about, but most folks do. When you want to play around a vendetta-oriented vengeance paladin that focuses on critfishing and divine smites, you probably don't care too much about Lay On Hands. But that's just icing on the cake, not something you actually chose the build for, and it's not really a waste so long as it doesn't detract from what you actually want.

And, generally speaking, the things that one character can build around is something someone else can build around in a different way as well.

I think it's a side effect of having a bland, foundational combat mechanic that doesn't really ever get built upon (Attack Action), followed up with spell lists that don't really serve any kind of thematic or mechanical purpose (like how Sorcerer and Wizard spell lists don't really have anything extra "Sorcerous" or "Wizardly" about them). So you might have to suck it up and shoot an ice explosion instead of a fire explosion, but you're still basically playing the exact same way had you had been a different class.


So, yeah, everything is "unique", but only in the sense that your "uniqueness" doesn't really matter. Just because you can make your attacks 20 more feet away at -1 less damage doesn't mean it's all that interesting or different than the last 5 attack rolls.

I see what you are driving at and when it comes to spellcasting and spells I wholeheartedly agree it's much too muddled and samey and lacks identity when in the game structure. OTOH I like how there are multiple ways to build similar concepts. Some of them are edging onto being too similar and some options are a waste of design space but overall I liked the shift from almost mandatory class/role slots to fill in every party.

Its far from perfect but I can appreciate the effort and enjoy how much easier it is to build encounters when roughly each party will have similar tools even if they use them slightly differently.

[Segev]

Nope, I agree. It's pretty dumb to have a system that has so many redundant ways to end up with the same character. If I wanted to make an archer that sniped targets with powerful hits before stealthily maneuvering into another position, I could do that as:


Kensei Monk
Inquisitive Rogue
Battlemaster Fighter
Gloomstalker Ranger
Hunter Ranger
Samurai Fighter


And that's before considering the possibilities of what feats can allow you to become.

I don't see this as a problem. Lots of ways to approach the same general concept? Great! Each will have its own nuances and tricks, and might support different supporting styles of play. I doubt "the guy who snipes with a powerful hit before sneaking to another firing point" is the only thing your character is. Each of those things you list will inform the rest of the character.

[Sorinth]

Nope, I agree. It's pretty dumb to have a system that has so many redundant ways to end up with the same character. If I wanted to make an archer that sniped targets with powerful hits before stealthily maneuvering into another position, I could do that as:


Kensei Monk
Inquisitive Rogue
Battlemaster Fighter
Gloomstalker Ranger
Hunter Ranger
Samurai Fighter



Why is it dumb? I actually think it's a positive that you can make a character concept in many different ways using various classes/sub-classes/feats/backgrounds/etc... as it allows for more creativity instead of forcing you to take a specific class.

[MrStabby]

Why is it dumb? I actually think it's a positive that you can make a character concept in many different ways using various classes/sub-classes/feats/backgrounds/etc... as it allows for more creativity instead of forcing you to take a specific class.

I think the issue, or one issue, might be newer players. If you have three rogues in a party then you get a sense that there will be quite some overlap.

With a monk a rogue a ranger and even say a blade pact warlock with the mobile feat newer players may make decisions assuming there is a greater differentiation between roles than there is.

[Sorinth]

I think the issue, or one issue, might be newer players. If you have three rogues in a party then you get a sense that there will be quite some overlap.

With a monk a rogue a ranger and even say a blade pact warlock with the mobile feat newer players may make decisions assuming there is a greater differentiation between roles than there is.

What decisions are they making and what problems occur?


Because the way I'm seeing it, 5e is actually much better for new players. The fact that you can build the same "character concept" using a multitude of classes/skills/backgrounds/feats/etc... and that they all are fairly similar in terms of power level means that the new player is less likely to fail at building the character they want.

[Man_Over_Game]

Why is it dumb? I actually think it's a positive that you can make a character concept in many different ways using various classes/sub-classes/feats/backgrounds/etc... as it allows for more creativity instead of forcing you to take a specific class.

The point of having a class-based system is to promote individuality, weaknesses and strengths, so that players can feel more important when they're needed amidst a team.

When you have a class-based system where all the classes do the same things, you have to wonder what the restrictions are for in the first place. For me, it just gives the impression that it's poorly designed. Rather than borrowing/referencing features from other classes, or breaking down the walls from one class to another, they opted to just make all of the classes function relatively identically to one another while still maintaining those rigid restrictions for those features or themes.

This has the problems of:

Making it difficult to merge class abilities, since the rules that blend them together are only ever focused on the source rather than the possibilities (See: Caster/Caster or Rogue/Caster hybrids)
Any new additions need to be generically-added, to avoid problem #1, creating a feedback loop where it's impossible to be overly interesting since it means nothing else can work with your features (See: Artificer)


If classes are there to make yourself feel unique, but those abilities end up being used everywhere else and make you feel generic (Ranger), why is there a class-based system in the first place?

And I'm not saying that DnD can exist as a classless system (4e is evidence enough that too much change to the core formula will result in failure), but it feels like it wasn't designed around the class system's importance of "identity" in mind.

It feels more like "Well, we need to make a Druid, so we copy-pasted everything from the Wizard, tweaked some spells and proficiencies, and BAM: Druid! Hey, that worked well enough, let's do it 8 more times!" Consider each class's unique feature, and how often it comes up in that class.


Action Surge/Second Wind: Basically the same from 1-20
Wizards' books: Basically the same from 1-20.
Wild Shape: Unless you're Moon Druid, you're going to be transforming into rodents or birds most of the time.
Clerics have a Short-Rest recharging mechanic. That's about all there is as far as unique class mechanics go in the core chassis.
Sorcerers can buff spells, but generally the best spells to buff are low-level ones.
Rogues get some unique features, but they generally do the same things that everyone else does (move more, hit harder)
Rangers are this weird problem where they have the most unique features of most classes, those features just happen to be useless in most gameplay.


The best example of a feature that actually gets built upon as part of a class identity is Rage (which Barbarians are useless without) and Eldritch Blast (which was not added with balance in mind, and isn't even a necessary class feature).


Consider for example what I would be recommended if I wanted a simple, low-maintenance melee combatant that ran up and hit things very hard and could take good hits. There are two whole classes that fulfill that exact identity, when, with a subclass system, we wouldn't need more than one. I'd be inclined to agree that we have two for different themes, but the official stance from WotC is that thematics described in the book don't matter. Add in the fact that some feats just straight up copy class features, it makes you wonder why the classes were so generic in the first place when the opportunity to copy or invest in those same powers were possible.


Seems silly, I guess.

[Segev]

When you have a class-based system where all the classes do the same things, you have to wonder what the restrictions are for in the first place.

Except that they don't "do the same things." You can use them to build towards a similar goal, but you can't make exactly the same character with each of those. Not unless you're claiming the only relevant part of the character is "sniper with big damage who hides."

[Sorinth]

The point of having a class-based system is to promote individuality, weaknesses and strengths, so that players can feel more important when they're needed amidst a team.

I don't agree with that at all.

The point of a class based system is to simplify the selection/acquisition of features/abilities by grouping them together. It has nothing to do with promoting individuality or making players feel important as part of a team.


When you have a class-based system where all the classes do the same things, you have to wonder what the restrictions are for in the first place. For me, it just gives the impression that it's poorly designed. Rather than borrowing/referencing features from other classes, or breaking down the walls from one class to another, they opted to just make all of the classes function relatively identically to one another while still maintaining those rigid restrictions for those features or themes.

This has the problems of:

Making it difficult to merge class abilities, since the rules that blend them together are only ever focused on the source rather than the possibilities (See: Caster/Caster or Rogue/Caster hybrids)
Any new additions need to be generically-added, to avoid problem #1, creating a feedback loop where it's impossible to be overly interesting since it means nothing else can work with your features (See: Artificer)


You chose a class to gain a certain set of abilities that fit your character theme. What restrictions are you talking about?


If classes are there to make yourself feel unique, but those abilities end up being used everywhere else and make you feel generic (Ranger), why is there a class-based system in the first place?

And I'm not saying that DnD can exist as a classless system (4e is evidence enough that too much change to the core formula will result in failure), but it feels like it wasn't designed around the class system's importance of "identity" in mind.

It feels more like "Well, we need to make a Druid, so we copy-pasted everything from the Wizard, tweaked some spells and proficiencies, and BAM: Druid!"

Consider for example what I would be recommended if I wanted a simple, low-maintenance melee combatant that ran up and hit things very hard and could take good hits. There are two whole classes that fulfill that exact identity, when, with a subclass system, we wouldn't need more than one. I'd be inclined to agree that we have two for different themes, but the official stance from WotC is that thematics described in the book don't matter. Add in the fact that some feats just straight up copy class features, it makes you wonder why the classes were so generic in the first place when the opportunity to copy or invest in those same powers were possible.

Like I said I don't think classes are there to make you feel unique. Why is it a problem that there are multiple ways to build a low-maintenance melee combatant? If you want a low-maintenance melee combatant what benefit is there if there's only 1 specific way to build that character?

[MoiMagnus]

The point of having a class-based system is to promote individuality, weaknesses and strengths, so that players can feel more important when they're needed amidst a team.

I don't think I agree with that. I can't disagree with "promoting uniqueness" being part of the goals of the class system, but I don't think that's the main one.

IMO, Class' main purpose is guidance, so (a) helping the player to build a competent character that match their taste (b) helping the player to understand how their character is supposed to be played by linking mechanics to theme/fluff and (c) giving a clearer vision of an end-goal or archetype toward which the player is advancing when levelling up.

And for this goal, if there is an archetype that you expect to be a common choice by players, it make sense to have multiple subclasses that allow to realise it. And the situation you definitely want to avoid is the trap of "it looks thematically like I can build this archetype with this class but in the end it's just not working and I should have used this other class instead".

[Man_Over_Game]

The point of a class based system is to simplify the selection/acquisition of features/abilities by grouping them together. It has nothing to do with promoting individuality or making players feel important as part of a team.



You chose a class to gain a certain set of abilities that fit your character theme. What restrictions are you talking about?



Like I said I don't think classes are there to make you feel unique. Why is it a problem that there are multiple ways to build a low-maintenance melee combatant? If you want a low-maintenance melee combatant what benefit is there if there's only 1 specific way to build that character?

I'm referring to just any kind of cost. Picking a level into Wizard means that you're less effective if your next level is in Barbarian, and as a result your "Rage Wizard" build just doesn't really work well. The cost it takes to play the way you want to means it may not be worthwhile. You might want to be a "Mystic Theurge" with Cleric and Wizard levels, but how is the game supporting that choice?

A lot of the benefits you are describing are things that are more effective in a class-less system. What exactly does a class system provide what a classless system can't? The general answer to that is individuality and contrast between the players and the world, essentially the same reason 3.5e had Prestige Classes.

As for guidance, DnD started doing it in 4e, but check out the first page of each class. They go into a breakdown of what you should pick for a concept character, down to the skills, the background, the powers, etc. 4e did the same thing, where you could pick a number of powers from a list for your class, but you could specialize by picking a list of powers with some specific stat priorities (like how Fighters can go Strength or Dexterity), and they guided you into that "subclass" (before there was such a thing). An equivalent example would be to have the Samurai be a power choice any Fighter can make, but having the guide suggest that you be a Strength-based character when going down the Samurai-style of powers, since the Temporary HP will get more use, or something to that degree.

It's not that hard to adjust it as "Well, you want a Paladin, so pick up Level 1 Light Magic with the Melee modifier, pick up Level 1 Martial, and Level 1 Knight and you should be good to go". Honestly, those suggestions at the start of the class pages feel silly, when progression is pretty hands-off for the first few levels in 5e, but they'd work well in a system that ran the risk of having too many options to sift through.

[MoiMagnus]

I'm referring to just any kind of cost. Picking a level into Wizard means that you're less effective if your next level is in Barbarian, and as a result your "Rage Wizard" build just doesn't really work well.

Multiclassing is very awkward in 5e, and I really think this is because the game was designed with only single-class in mind, and with multiclassing put as an afterthought. That's why there added spellcasting subclasses to most martial classes and martial subclasses to most spellcasters, rather than trying to make multiclassing like Fighter-Wizard work correctly.

This is also why multiple classes converge to the same archetypes, so that those archetypes are accessible whatever your initial class choice, without needing multiclassing.

[Man_Over_Game]

Multiclassing is very awkward in 5e, and I really think this is because the game was designed with only single-class in mind, and with multiclassing put as an afterthought. That's why there added spellcasting subclasses to most martial classes and martial subclasses to most spellcasters, rather than trying to make multiclassing like Fighter-Wizard work correctly.

This is also why multiple classes converge to the same archetypes, so that those archetypes are accessible whatever your initial class choice, without needing multiclassing.

Sure, and that could totally work!

The problem is now they added a second system (subclasses/feats that copy powers), instead of focusing on multiclassing for the same effect. "It didn't work the first time, so we added on something else that hopefully does what it should do instead!"

Which feels like someone tacking on more code to fix a prior problem. It doesn't get rid of the first problem, as much as it just makes the symptoms go away. I can't honestly say that it's worse of a solution, or that it even matters if an individual feature sucks if other parts of the system make that problem not matter as much.

But, for me, it matters. There are things that subclassing/feats can't do when multiclass should (like supporting Rogue/Caster hybrids without a level 9 Arcane Trickster feature), and it would have been able to had they focused on fixing what was broken than adding stuff so that people could still find ways to get most of what they want.

But you make a valid point. I can argue whether classes/multiclasses/subclasses suck, but I can't argue as to whether it actually matters if they do (since there are other parts of the system that makes most of those issues irrelevant).

[Sorinth]

I'm referring to just any kind of cost. Picking a level into Wizard means that you're less effective if your next level is in Barbarian, and as a result your "Rage Wizard" build just doesn't really work well.

A lot of the benefits you are describing are things that are more effective in a class-less system. What exactly does a class system provide what a classless system can't? The general answer to that is individuality and contrast between the players and the world, essentially the same reason 3.5e had Prestige Classes.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes by picking Barbarian instead of Fighter you have a different set of abilities, but I don't really understand how this is some sort of "restriction" or how this would be any different under a different system.

Also a classless system would actually promote "uniqueness" since the combination of feature would naturally be much higher then a class system where features are grouped together. The main benefits of a class system is simplicity.


Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like you are saying that 3.5 had more options but you seem to not be factoring in where the editions are in their life cycle. Like yeah the Rage Mage isn't really viable in 5e right now, they have only just briefly touched it with the Wild Magic Barbarian. But it's not like the Rage Mage was viable in 3.x from the outset either. It was only when a specific splat book with that prestige class came out that it became a possibility. So it seems like an unfair comparison since there was so much more content generated for 3.x whereas 5e WotC is still in the process of generating that content.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes by picking Barbarian instead of Fighter you have a different set of abilities, but I don't really understand how this is some sort of "restriction" or how this would be any different under a different system.

Also a classless system would actually promote "uniqueness" since the combination of feature would naturally be much higher then a class system where features are grouped together. The main benefits of a class system is simplicity.


Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like you are saying that 3.5 had more options but you seem to not be factoring in where the editions are in their life cycle. Like yeah the Rage Mage isn't really viable in 5e right now, they have only just briefly touched it with the Wild Magic Barbarian. But it's not like the Rage Mage was viable in 3.x from the outset either. It was only when a specific splat book with that prestige class came out that it became a possibility. So it seems like an unfair comparison since there was so much more content generated for 3.x whereas 5e WotC is still in the process of generating that content.

I am vehemently against allowing stupid decisions that might seem smart. Sorcerer/Paladin works exceptionally well, Fighter/Sorcerer works well enough, Barbarian/Sorcerer does not work at all; all mostly due to the fine print. Despite appearing as equals at first glance, it's very specific use/abuse of rules that determine whether one choice is valid.

And that's not because of general-purpose rules that dictate how effective those things are. Paladin/Sorcerer works well because Sorcerer-specific mechanics and Paladin-specific mechanics just happen to have a very small niche where they're allowed to work together (Cantrip weapon attacks and spending spell slots for damage).

The classes are built around focusing on what that class does, without any real regard of what it means for anyone else, which is why you end up in weird situations where nobody but Barbarians can really leverage Rage correctly (and so Barbarians are often not multiclassed into). Despite multiclassing being a fairly big deal, it feels pretty damn haphazard. It feels like it was an afterthought that became the foundation on which individuality was built from. But individuality should not be something that can be quantified. Just because you happen to be a Sorcerer/Paladin does not mean you should be inherently better than my Barbarian/Sorcerer.

But which is the bug? The boon, or the penalty?

I'm inclined to think it doesn't matter, that both are complete accidents and shouldn't be used as examples (since they weren't intentional design choices in the first place and don't represent the design choices of the game)...which basically means that multiclassing isn't really something that's supported.

So, yes, optimization is possible, but was it intentional? It doesn't feel like the system is encouraging you to become relevant when becoming unique, it feels more like you're having to find a way to stay relevant when doing so in spite of the system. For instance, Paladin/Sorcerer combos are really strong...except for the fact that they only function with a very specific gameplay mechanic, otherwise they blend barely any differently than a Ranger/Druid combo (which is never brought up).

You can't even mix 5+ levels of almost any two martial classes because they copy-pasted the most important martial features and forgot to figure out how to make them stack.

Had Divine Smite been designed around everything outside of the Paladin class, and Rage following the same treatment, we wouldn't be running into an issue where 20% of the forum is about Sorcerer/Paladin optimization. It just happens to be the one example that works, so much so that the theme is also one of the stupidest and it's popular in spite of that.

[ZRN]

I am not sure how ALL characters effectively starting the game with the same set of feats helps subclasses be mechanically distinguished from each other.

Because lots of character concepts that would have required a lot of specific feats and class abilities to be effective in 3.5e are more likely to just work in 5e.

In 3.5e, a swashbuckling fencer, a rifleman, a longbow sniper, a mounted knight, etc. would all require different classes and/or prestige classes. In 5e, a battlemaster fighter can do any of these, and generally more easily and effectively than a dedicated 3.5e class or prestige class would be able to, just through allocating ability scores, selecting equipment, and MAYBE picking a feat or two. And it's not like all of these options are mechanically identical in 5e: the different equipment, skills, feats, etc. has an obvious and direct impact on what each character can do and how they're played, even though they all get Action Surge and Second Wind.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Because lots of character concepts that would have required a lot of specific feats and class abilities to be effective in 3.5e are more likely to just work in 5e.

In 3.5e, a swashbuckling fencer, a rifleman, a longbow sniper, a mounted knight, etc. would all require different classes and/or prestige classes. In 5e, a battlemaster fighter can do any of these, and generally more easily and effectively than a dedicated 3.5e class or prestige class would be able to, just through allocating ability scores, selecting equipment, and MAYBE picking a feat or two. And it's not like all of these options are mechanically identical in 5e: the different equipment, skills, feats, etc. has an obvious and direct impact on what each character can do and how they're played, even though they all get Action Surge and Second Wind.

Exactly. Most of the "options" in 3e actually went to filling in the holes required to get a baseline-effective character, and in doing so locked you into a single playstyle hard. But only for martials. All of those extra feats you got in 3e? You didn't have any left once you spent them to cover your feat taxes to enable your, and if you did it in the wrong order, your build was dead in the water. Effectively, most of 3e's "options" were phantoms, being either a) traps or b) required for specific builds but traps otherwise.

Whereas a 5e battlmaster fighter gets all of those "feat tax" ones out of the box and then has feats (and or ASI's) to customize further.

3e's only real "advantage" was that it had a slew of (mostly broken and/or partially-functional) interacting subsystems which allowed a lot of unintended strong builds. And considering that those builds also tended to create strong arms races, I'm not sure how much that's a feature rather than a bug. And it was hellish for new players. I'm relatively familiar with the d20 model, and putting together a competent basic character in PF took me 4-5 hours using a specialized character builder and advice from others! And that wasn't even an optimized one.

-------

In my current game of 5e, I have two Sorlocks. That means they're identical, right? Not even close.

Sorlock 1 is a Hexblade 7, Shadow Sorc 1 (dip taken mostly for thematics). His playstyle is almost entirely melee, using spells to add damage.

Sorlock 2 is a Divine Soul 4, Fiend Warlock 4 (going divine soul from here on out). His playstyle is entirely ranged + utility.

And character-wise, they're almost entirely (and inadvertently) opposites. Sorlock 1 is dark and brooding, an amnesiac owned by a talking cat, searching for his forgotten history[1] who really is (personality-wise) much more like a wizard. Sorlock 2 is a people person who got tricked into a pact and is actively opposing his patron (who is really just using reverse psychology, oddly enough).

[1] The player and I established the bare bones of his backstory, then he left the rest up to me. And it's been amazing--I've been able to weave bits and pieces of this backstory into the campaign and he's discovering it as we go along. Having player-DM trust for things like that makes a huge difference IMO.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I guess I'm just going to flat out disagree with the OP. We are 6 * 12-17 level campaigns into 5e with 30 or so characters under our belt. So, numerous classes have been duplicated, and each one of those was an individual in their own right, not just thematically, but mechanically as well. I suppose there might be some classes where there are options that are just so superior to others where a some tables you could feel 'behind' through your options, but I can't say any one of our characters has run across that.
I would say this is due to multiple good fighting and spell options, multiple good feats, multiple good races, multiple good magic items, and huge variation in the the abilities of key baddies.

[HPisBS]

...
The classes are built around focusing on what that class does, without any real regard of what it means for anyone else, which is why you end up in weird situations where nobody but Barbarians can really leverage Rage correctly (and so Barbarians are often not multiclassed into).
...

You mean "Casters don't multiclass into Barbarian."

Barbarians mesh pretty well with most Str-based characters, especially ones that like to crit fish thanks to Reckless. Rogues and even Paladins obviously love that advantage (despite the Paladin's spellcasting). Fighters' Action Surge and extra Extra Attack means more hits to deal Barbarians' extra Rage damage. Even their extra ASIs can combine well with a Barb dip, since it'd help you push Con to 20 for both extra hp (with resistance) and naked AC.

- This is all before factoring in subclasses, like how a super simple and straightforward Barbarian 2 / Champion X will really love all the free advantage.

(I say this as someone who doesn't really find Barbarians appealing to play. Like, at all.)


Edit:
As for the larger thread: despite the class, and then subclass rails, there's still a deceptively large amount of customization baked in to many of them. Even something as simple as which Fighting Style you pick can dramatically change how you play. Do you go with the straight bonus to melee damage, AC, or ranged accuracy? Or do you go with Blind Fighting and open up Darkness / Fog Cloud tactics with the party?

[noce]

It doesn't feel like the system is encouraging you to become relevant when becoming unique, it feels more like you're having to find a way to stay relevant when doing so in spite of the system.

This is part of what's behind my reasoning.
People in this thread claim that you have options when you clearly haven't. For example:


I would say this is due to multiple good fighting and spell options, multiple good feats, multiple good races, multiple good magic items, and huge variation in the the abilities of key baddies.

Let's take paladin.
If you don't want to cut out multiclassing, you never go Dex.
You either go feat human or half elf if you have space for elven accuracy.
You either go polearm master, sentinel or both.
You take two of athletics, intimidation and persuasion, and you probably take a background that gives you the option left.

Are you sure there really are multiple good fighting options, multiple good feats and multiple good races?
What I'm saying is that the oath subclass blatantly fails to differentiante anything:

any paladin will mostly spends slots in the same way, his oath does little to customize his daily picks
a multiclassed dex paladin will have a hard time with stats no matter his oath, and there's no oath that specifically differentiates from the others when going dex anyway
a twf or ranged paladin doesn't even have the appropriate fighting style

And so on.

So, you can call your character a paladin, an avenger, a holy vindicator, a divine knight, a pious guardian, but every paladin is basically the same build with a couple minor changes.

EDIT: edited based on feedback

[Kane0]

Let's take paladin.
If you don't want to cut out multiclassing, you never go Dex.
You either go feat human or half elf if you have space for elven accuracy.
You either go polearm master, sentinel or both.
You take two of athletics, intimidation and persuasion, and you probably take a background that gives you the option left.

Are you sure there really are multiple good fighting options, multiple good feats and multiple good races?
What I'm saying is that the oath subclass blatantly fails to differentiante anything:

any paladin will mostly spend slots on divine smite and smite spells regardless his oath
a dex based paladin can't compete no matter what oath he picks, unless he stays pure paladin maybe
a twf or ranged paladin doesn't even have the appropriate fighting style

And so on.

Are you talking in terms of optimization? I dont see a problem with shield master on a pally, or others like alert, inspiring leader and fey touched come to think of it.

Theres nothing bad about going pure dex pally, its actually fairly desirable depending on what your party needs.

And my pally definitely blessed a ton, smites only came out to save a combat going poorly.

[Waazraath]

This is part of what's behind my reasoning.
People in this thread claim that you have options when you clearly haven't. For example:

Let's take paladin.
If you don't want to cut out multiclassing, you never go Dex.
You either go feat human or half elf if you have space for elven accuracy.
You either go polearm master, sentinel or both.
You take two of athletics, intimidation and persuasion, and you probably take a background that gives you the option left.

Are you sure there really are multiple good fighting options, multiple good feats and multiple good races?
What I'm saying is that the oath subclass blatantly fails to differentiante anything:

any paladin will mostly spends slots in the same way, his oath does little to customize his daily picks
a multiclassed dex paladin will have a hard time with stats no matter his oath, and there's no oath that specifically differentiates from the others when going dex anyway
a twf or ranged paladin doesn't even have the appropriate fighting style

And so on.

So, you can call your character a paladin, an avenger, a holy vindicator, a divine knight, a pious guardian, but every paladin is basically the same build with a couple minor changes.

EDIT: edited based on feedback

I don't see this. There are folks on these boards adamently arguing against using spell slots for smiting, for the relative low damage you get out of spell slot compared to other usages (personally, I think it depends on the situation, but "mostly spend slots smiting" isn't a given). Ranged and twf pally's not having the appropriate fighting style is true, and I wouldn't mind if it would be available, but both are viable without (and post tasha's, you can pick up that fighting style with a feat). No, there are no 'dex oaths', but why is this bad? You can play an ancients paladin both dex and str based, and both are equally viable, but they will use different armor and weapons, and probably have different skills. That's more diversity, not less, the way I see it.

[diplomancer]

This is part of what's behind my reasoning.
People in this thread claim that you have options when you clearly haven't. For example:



Let's take paladin.
If you don't want to cut out multiclassing, you never go Dex. (1)
You either go feat human or half elf if you have space for elven accuracy. (2l
You either go polearm master, sentinel or both. (3)
You take two of athletics, intimidation and persuasion, and you probably take a background that gives you the option left. (4)



I numbered your claims, so I could comment on them:
1- maybe yes, but that's a big IF, since single-class Paladins are a top of the line class; furthermore, plenty DMs handwave multiclassing requirements- a houserule, but a very common one; so common, in fact, that it's even implemented in DNDBeyond's character builder.

2- not true even with point-buy or standard array. Definitely not true if rolling, since a 16 is considerably more likely than a 17. Post-Tasha's, I'd say Yuan-Ti truebloods are probably better than these two options. Mountain Dwarves are also better than V. Humans Post Tasha's, at least from level 8; start with 17 Str and Cha, round them up to 18 at 4 (you are now already equivalent to the V. Human; he has one more feat, you have one more ASI), get the feat the V. Human got at 8 (you are now better than the V. Human, having perhaps the same stats and feats, but darkvision, plenty of tool proficiencies and poison resistance, which is quite useful, against one extra skill; your movement penalty is not so relevant when you are mounted).

3- I did go PAM with my Paladin; at level 12. After getting Mounted Combatant (which I believe is THE most important Paladin feat; you can't use PAM if you can't reach your enemies, at later levels there are many rounds you can't do it if your steed dies). I can't say I felt hobbled in any way.

4- Mostly yes (though athletics only for Str Paladins), but I don't think there is much of a problem with that; Paladins aren't skill monkeys, so their skills are a very small part of what they do.

[stoutstien]

This is part of what's behind my reasoning.
People in this thread claim that you have options when you clearly haven't. For example:



Let's take paladin.
If you don't want to cut out multiclassing, you never go Dex.
You either go feat human or half elf if you have space for elven accuracy.
You either go polearm master, sentinel or both.
You take two of athletics, intimidation and persuasion, and you probably take a background that gives you the option left.

Are you sure there really are multiple good fighting options, multiple good feats and multiple good races?
What I'm saying is that the oath subclass blatantly fails to differentiante anything:

any paladin will mostly spends slots in the same way, his oath does little to customize his daily picks
a multiclassed dex paladin will have a hard time with stats no matter his oath, and there's no oath that specifically differentiates from the others when going dex anyway
a twf or ranged paladin doesn't even have the appropriate fighting style

And so on.

So, you can call your character a paladin, an avenger, a holy vindicator, a divine knight, a pious guardian, but every paladin is basically the same build with a couple minor changes.

EDIT: edited based on feedback

Had to look through my notes so it took me a bit. Of the 36 paladins I've seen at my tables in 5e (popular class) only 1 fits your parameters.

[noce]

Had to look through my notes so it took me a bit. Of the 36 paladins I've seen at my tables in 5e (popular class) only 1 fits your parameters.

This is actually good news, thank you.
I don't have your experience with this edition, and many replies to the thread agree with you saying that there are a lot of ways to customize a character.
So it just seems that I initially overestimated the importance of your subclass in defining the mechanical aspect of your gameplay.


Though...a burglar should feel quite different from a serial killer, while a Thief feels quite similar to an Assassin.
I can't deny that, for example, a Psi Warrior tasting like a strawberry flavored Battle Master just pisses me off.

[StoneSeraph]

Let's take paladin.
If you don't want to cut out multiclassing, you never go Dex.
You either go feat human or half elf if you have space for elven accuracy.
You either go polearm master, sentinel or both.
You take two of athletics, intimidation and persuasion, and you probably take a background that gives you the option left.


Here's the most memorable paladin I've seen to date:
Oath: Ancients
Didn't go DEX? [X]
Variant Human or Half-elf? [X]
Polearm Master? [ ] Sentinel? [ ] Both? [ ] (Resilient[CON], then War Caster at L4)
Athletics? [ ] Intimidation? [ ] Persuasion? [X] (Guild Artisan background)

This paladin went max-CHA support-tank, either using his presence to obstruct and soak damage or hold back and maintain Concentration on spells (which, given his Constitution saves, was damn near impossible to break, if you could hit him at all). One of his more memorable moments involved getting in a giant's face and restraining it with his Channel Divinity feature while the rest of the party dogpiled.

Here's the most recent one:
Oath: Conquest
Didn't go DEX? [X]
Variant Human or Half-elf? [ ] (Half-orc)
Polearm Master? [ ] Sentinel? [ ] Both? [ ] (Mounted Combatant at L4)
Athletics? [X] Intimidation? [X] Persuasion? [ ]

This paladin is gunning for the hardcore wrathful smite lockdown option offered by her subclass, hoping to maximize field presence with the find steed and find greater steed spells (plenty of overland action in this campaign).

We can even assume your above criteria for two separate Oaths and produce different approaches to combat; a Devotion PAM/Sentinel builder won't have nearly the mobility of a Vengeance PAM/Sentinel; and the Channel Divinity options of the Devotion paladin are better suited for multiple enemies as opposed to the Vengeance paladin's single-target focus.

Moreover, I don't see how going DEX removes the possibility of multiclassing; I would imagine a DEX Paladin/Rogue has a solid amount of power, particularly if they get the drop on a target in melee to combine Sneak Attack and Divine Smite damage. Would it be optimized? - no, probably not, and it has "edgelord" written all over it, but I suspect it would be fun to play as a darker agent of a deity's agenda.

[sophontteks]

Hello.
I don't know if it has been discussed previously (if so please link to the threads), but I feel that 5e builds of a given class are pretty much similar one another, and this is mostly due to the subclass system.

For example, let's say I play a rogue in a lvl 1-10 game, there's only one distinguishing feature of my subclass until level 8, and another one at 9. To me this means that whatever subclass I pick my options and my gameplay will be mostly the same.

Other classes have the same problem: a sorcerer has only two defining features at level 13, since the third is at level 14. It's true that in this case you can customize your spell list, so a divine soul will obviously feel different from a draconic sorcerer, but it's also true that there's often a list of best picks you're going to derail from just not to feel identical to every other sorcerer you've seen played before.

Rogues have most their features in their base class, for sure. For sorcerers, however, you miscounted. They have 2 level 1 features and 1 level 6 feature. By level 6 they have 3 features total. For the most part their features completely change how they play, and come online very early. Their features tend to be very strong. I play a lot of sorcerers and the subclasses tend to completely change how I will play.

Rangers too don't deserve this criticism. Fey wanderers are one of the best social subclasses in the game while all other rangers are terrible with charisma. Swarmkeepers get a swarm for battlefield control. Beastmasters have a pet. These are pretty significant changes.

Druids too have subclasses that completely change their playstyle, espesially fire, moon, shepherd, and constellation. Warlocks change from blasters, to charmers, to gishes with theirs. Even those classes traditionally leas defined by their subclasses have seen some major changes with tasha subclasses, like monks and fighters.

While many classes have similiar playstyles, the subclass features tend to be pretty defining.

[Morty]

Sure, and that could totally work!

The problem is now they added a second system (subclasses/feats that copy powers), instead of focusing on multiclassing for the same effect. "It didn't work the first time, so we added on something else that hopefully does what it should do instead!"

Which feels like someone tacking on more code to fix a prior problem. It doesn't get rid of the first problem, as much as it just makes the symptoms go away. I can't honestly say that it's worse of a solution, or that it even matters if an individual feature sucks if other parts of the system make that problem not matter as much.

But, for me, it matters. There are things that subclassing/feats can't do when multiclass should (like supporting Rogue/Caster hybrids without a level 9 Arcane Trickster feature), and it would have been able to had they focused on fixing what was broken than adding stuff so that people could still find ways to get most of what they want.

But you make a valid point. I can argue whether classes/multiclasses/subclasses suck, but I can't argue as to whether it actually matters if they do (since there are other parts of the system that makes most of those issues irrelevant).

I definitely agree that multiclassing feels like it's tacked onto a system that was built without it in mind. Classes are generally written in isolation, then multiclassing comes along and lets players splice them together. It feels like the designers didn't want multiclassing to exist, but players insisted, so it had to be added.

I also certainly felt what the OP is talking about when I played a rogue. Once I picked my subclass, I had made most of the choices I was going to make. All that remained were some feats, but I also needed some ASIs to keep my dexterity high. And I'm not convinced my rogue would have played substantially differently if I'd picked another subclass; the biggest choice I actually did make was decide which skills to focus on.

[Dork_Forge]

I can't deny that, for example, a Psi Warrior tasting like a strawberry flavored Battle Master just pisses me off.

Having played both, I not only strongly disagree with the asseertion, but I'm very curious why you thought that to begin with. Is this just because they both use dice pools?

[Man_Over_Game]

You mean "Casters don't multiclass into Barbarian."


The main feature for taking Barbarian levels is Rage.

Rage has two requirements:

Don't cast spells
Don't wear heavy armor


It's also entirely focused on Strength.

So take out all of the build options that might have an issue with those limitations.

Things taken off the list are:
Paladins, Rangers, Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Bards

And things possibly removed from the list are:
Fighters, Monks, Rogues.

So we have 3 out of 11 possible classes left.

Now remove the subclasses from the possible classes that don't fit, for just a quick tally.
Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster, Elemental Monk, Sun Soul, Kensei...

So Rage removes the possibility of 8 classes and 5 subclasses from the 3 classes remaining.

Tack on the fact that you want to avoid having redundant Extra Attack features, and now you're limited to having a max of 4 levels into 2/3 of your non-barbarian classes.


It's a bit restrictive, yah?

[Sorinth]

Though...a burglar should feel quite different from a serial killer, while a Thief feels quite similar to an Assassin.

By feel quite different are you talking about how they interact with the whole game or specifically just combat?

I can see why if sticking just to combat those two subclasses might not "feel" different, but at the end of the day nothing about Burglar tells me anything about how they should feel in combat so it's not surprising that they would feel generic. The real problem there is Assassin is a bad subclass, but that's it's own issue and has little to do with the overall theme of class/subclass "uniqueness".

[Dork_Forge]

The main feature for taking Barbarian levels is Rage.

Rage has two requirements:

Don't cast spells
Don't wear heavy armor


It's also entirely focused on Strength.

So take out all of the build options that might have an issue with those limitations.

Things taken off the list are:
Paladins, Rangers, Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Bards

And things possibly removed from the list are:
Fighters, Monks, Rogues.

So we have 3 out of 11 possible classes left.

Now remove the subclasses from the possible classes that don't fit, for just a quick tally.
Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster, Elemental Monk, Sun Soul, Kensei...

So Rage removes the possibility of 8 classes and 5 subclasses from the 3 classes remaining.

Tack on the fact that you want to avoid having redundant Extra Attack features, and now you're limited to having a max of 4 levels into 2/3 of your non-barbarian classes.


It's a bit restrictive, yah?

There's nothing saying that traditionally Dex classes wouldn't work with a Barbarian (Monk would of course be MAD to meet the requirements), actually:

-I have a Barbarian 7/Rogue 5 in one of my games, he not only deals a lot of damage with Sneak, but he has a lot of versatility and durability granted by the Rogue levels in a lot of ways

-Barbarian/Monk can work well as long as you focus on unarmored defense. I don't know why you singled out the Kensei, being able to still use a longsword is nothing but good and the Rage bonus damage works well with unarmed strikes. Nowadays all you need is to start V. Human, grab Unarmed fighting style from the feat and you're off to the races.

-Besides the Cha min. 13 why wouldn't a Barbarian/Paladin work? Smiting works just fine in Rage, as does Lay on Hands, casting gives you out of combat utility and certain buffs like Aid. You're a burst damage Barbarian that takes care of their own between combat healing and can bring someone back up if necessary, that seems pretty good to me...

-Rangers, there's plenty here for a Barbarian too from the subclasses and between combat fare, looking at it, it's a little dicey but you may even be able to use the new favored foe depending on your DM

MCing a Barbarian isn't anywhere near as restricted as you seem to think.

[Sorinth]

The main feature for taking Barbarian levels is Rage.

Rage has two requirements:

Don't cast spells
Don't wear heavy armor


It's also entirely focused on Strength.

So take out all of the build options that might have an issue with those limitations.

Things taken off the list are:
Paladins, Rangers, Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Bards

And things possibly removed from the list are:
Fighters, Monks, Rogues.

So we have 3 out of 11 possible classes left.

Now remove the subclasses from the possible classes that don't fit, for just a quick tally.
Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster, Elemental Monk, Sun Soul, Kensei...

So Rage removes the possibility of 8 classes and 5 subclasses from the 3 classes remaining.

Tack on the fact that you want to avoid having redundant Extra Attack features, and now you're limited to having a max of 4 levels into 2/3 of your non-barbarian classes.


It's a bit restrictive, yah?

Both Paladins and Moon Druids are great multiclass options with Barbarian. And frankly I've seen effective Bard/Barbarians as well (Though they had great rolled stats).


Also Barbarians not multiclassing well into caster is not a 5e thing so doesn't seem relevant to the threads main point.

[StoneSeraph]

It's a bit restrictive, yah?

If you so choose; no one is stopping you from limiting yourself.

In the meantime, Juvenal the Barbarian / Lore Bard is combining his Rage, Expertise in Athletics, and Cutting Words to break down his foes, mind and body. When he's not outraged, he has a few healing spells on the backburner for emergencies or out-of-combat maintenance.

His friend Sue the Barbarian / Moon Druid just transformed into a bear via Wild Shape and popped Rage so she could better chomp on the offending hill giant. Juvenal keeps a few of her goodberries in his pocket just in case.

[HPisBS]

There's nothing saying that traditionally Dex classes wouldn't work with a Barbarian (Monk would of course be MAD to meet the requirements), actually:

-I have a Barbarian 7/Rogue 5 in one of my games, he not only deals a lot of damage with Sneak, but he has a lot of versatility and durability granted by the Rogue levels in a lot of ways

-Barbarian/Monk can work well as long as you focus on unarmored defense. I don't know why you singled out the Kensei, being able to still use a longsword is nothing but good and the Rage bonus damage works well with unarmed strikes. Nowadays all you need is to start V. Human, grab Unarmed fighting style from the feat and you're off to the races.

-Besides the Cha min. 13 why wouldn't a Barbarian/Paladin work? Smiting works just fine in Rage, as does Lay on Hands, casting gives you out of combat utility and certain buffs like Aid. You're a burst damage Barbarian that takes care of their own between combat healing and can bring someone back up if necessary, that seems pretty good to me...

-Rangers, there's plenty here for a Barbarian too from the subclasses and between combat fare, looking at it, it's a little dicey but you may even be able to use the new favored foe depending on your DM

MCing a Barbarian isn't anywhere near as restricted as you seem to think.

Beat me to it.

Paladins don't need heavy armor, either. A Barb/Pally may not be able to afford a full 14 Dex, but half plate still wouldn't be a bad choice. Dork_Forge already hit the other Paladin-shaped nails on their heads.

Plus, both Paladin and Ranger get a Barbarian a nice Fighting Style, and Rangers' spell lists are already mostly focused on utility. Being part Barbarian just incentivizes leaning into that even more.

Also, let's keep in mind that Barbs only have a limited number of Rages per day. When you run out, or when you want to conserve Rages for more important battles, having a few magical options to use instead can only be a good thing.



His friend Sue the Barbarian / Moon Druid just transformed into an T-rex and popped Rage so she could better chomp on the offending hill giant. Juvenal keeps a few of her goodberries in his pocket just in case.

Quibble: T-Rex is too high of a CR. (He'd have to cast Polymorph.) You want something like a bear or a giant scorpion for your example. :smalltongue:

[StoneSeraph]

Just had a fun thought with Ancestral Barbarian / Cleric or Wizard - use animate dead to produce minions for yourself, then use the Rage perks to tank for them. You're neither casting nor Concentrating when using your bonus action to issue commands to your undead.

On the flavorful side, whether Tammosch is pious or pensive, whenever he flies into Rage, he summons the spirits of dead compatriots to fight alongside their reanimated corpses. People die, but friendships last forever. :smallbiggrin:

[stoutstien]

This is actually good news, thank you.
I don't have your experience with this edition, and many replies to the thread agree with you saying that there are a lot of ways to customize a character.
So it just seems that I initially overestimated the importance of your subclass in defining the mechanical aspect of your gameplay.


Though...a burglar should feel quite different from a serial killer, while a Thief feels quite similar to an Assassin.
I can't deny that, for example, a Psi Warrior tasting like a strawberry flavored Battle Master just pisses me off.

Online discussions tend to focus on the little parts of the game that are universal for most tables. so it's rule interactions and PC optimization for those interactions. Once players and DM start playing the game the other 90% of the game gets involved. Suddenly dealing 5% more damage is less important than protecting that goblin you adopted or learning some new languages because you just got warped to a different reality.

On psi warrior- at face value they seem very similar to BM but they are surprisingly more akin to a EK with weaker but sharable spells. Defensive in nature with on tap bursts of damage and mobilty. Guarded mind is what indomitable should have been from the start. That capstone might be the best subclass one. Hard to say with RK right next to it. I would advise given the PW a good shake before writing it off as a knock off BM.