I was looking at homebrewing more subclasses when I took a hard glance at the distribution of subclass features for all the classes in 5e. I'm looking at the classes from a strictly mechanical standpoint.
Of the Thirteen (13) official classes:
Three* (3) classes get five (5) subclass features - Cleric, Druid, Fighter
*Note: Paladin gets Four (4) subclass features but also get an aura range increase independent of those features. Does this count as an additional feature? Wouldn't say so myself.
One (1) class gets three (3) subclass features - Bard
The remaining nine (9) classes get four (4) features each.
Of note, Clerics have the largest gap between Subclass features (Level 8 to Level 17).
Personally, I think the base features of the Bard class make it strong enough despite receiving the fewest subclass features, though I recognize that certain Bard subclasses are vastly superior mechanically to other Bard subclasses. I also think Clerics could get knocked down to 4 or even 3 subclass features and most Cleric subclasses would still be powerful (or even overpowered).
My questions for you all is, given the base features of a class do you feel the distribution of subclass features is adequate when comparing classes? Do you think changing how many (or at what level) subclass features are granted would make lesser used classes more desirable or mechanically more equal? If so, what changes would you like to see?
This is a question I've been grappling with a lot. Specifically because the monk is the most mechanically dense class, but is really boring, bland, and generally doesn't do anything because how similar all subclasses are for monks.
Quality or strong theme seems to be more important. Looking at the monk again, we have a ton of kung-fu masters, and a ninja, but no boxer and no luca wrestler... but they're more about Power anyway, so how about Barbarian? We have a ton of fur covered ax wielders, but still, nothing evocative. Compare that to the others with much more compelling subclasses in feel.
I agree on Monk. It seems WoTC looked at Stunning Strike and thought "Well, shouldn't need much more than that so fluff all around".
I also agree with Barbarian. Unlike FIghter (Eldritch Knight) or Rogue (Arcane Trickster), the Barbarians key class feature, Rage, doesn't really allow for much deviation from the core class concept (being a tank, bruiser, etc.) though there is a decent spread of flavoring for that concept.
Clerics? Well, they can do literally anything. Blaster, Tank, Bruiser, Support, Healer, Battlefield Control, etc. Again, I think Clerics would still be quite versatile and powerful even if they were to lose 1 or 2 subclass features (depending on the subclass of course.
My questions for you all is, given the base features of a class do you feel the distribution of subclass features is adequate when comparing classes?
I think the distribution is not relevant actually. Tbh, the quality of the feature and how soon it becomes available is more important than the sheer number of features any given class have.
Do you think changing how many (or at what level) subclass features are granted would make lesser used classes more desirable or mechanically more equal?
No. Once again, it's not about quantity, it's about quality and timing. For example, Cleric's abilities at lv 2 (Channel Divinity options - that are usually very niche) and 8 (Divine Strike/Potent Cantrip) are not very impactful, but add more flavor than anything else. Would adding something like this make the Monk more viable? Honestly, no.
If so, what changes would you like to see?
For me, what needs to change are mostly base classes. And, honestly, the only one that actually needs to change is the Monk - Monks need to be fully revised imo.
The Ranger Optional Features makes them very viable (I would love to have a better starting equip. set for them as well, but that is another subject).
And Sorcerers, imo, the only tweak they need is to have the sub-classes giving extra spells (Like the ones in Tasha's) - and that has nothing to do with the amount of features, but actually the quality of the features.
Good day All!
I was looking at homebrewing more subclasses when I took a hard glance at the distribution of subclass features for all the classes in 5e. I'm looking at the classes from a strictly mechanical standpoint.
Personally, I think the base features of the Bard class make it strong enough despite receiving the fewest subclass features, though I recognize that certain Bard subclasses are vastly superior mechanically to other Bard subclasses. I also think Clerics could get knocked down to 4 or even 3 subclass features and most Cleric subclasses would still be powerful (or even overpowered).
My questions for you all is, given the base features of a class do you feel the distribution of subclass features is adequate when comparing classes? Do you think changing how many (or at what level) subclass features are granted would make lesser used classes more desirable or mechanically more equal? If so, what changes would you like to see?
A good book and a cup of tea.
Homebrew| Bard: College of Composition
Feedback Appreciated!
This is a question I've been grappling with a lot. Specifically because the monk is the most mechanically dense class, but is really boring, bland, and generally doesn't do anything because how similar all subclasses are for monks.
Quality or strong theme seems to be more important. Looking at the monk again, we have a ton of kung-fu masters, and a ninja, but no boxer and no luca wrestler... but they're more about Power anyway, so how about Barbarian? We have a ton of fur covered ax wielders, but still, nothing evocative. Compare that to the others with much more compelling subclasses in feel.
I agree on Monk. It seems WoTC looked at Stunning Strike and thought "Well, shouldn't need much more than that so fluff all around".
I also agree with Barbarian. Unlike FIghter (Eldritch Knight) or Rogue (Arcane Trickster), the Barbarians key class feature, Rage, doesn't really allow for much deviation from the core class concept (being a tank, bruiser, etc.) though there is a decent spread of flavoring for that concept.
Clerics? Well, they can do literally anything. Blaster, Tank, Bruiser, Support, Healer, Battlefield Control, etc. Again, I think Clerics would still be quite versatile and powerful even if they were to lose 1 or 2 subclass features (depending on the subclass of course.
A good book and a cup of tea.
Homebrew| Bard: College of Composition
Feedback Appreciated!
My questions for you all is, given the base features of a class do you feel the distribution of subclass features is adequate when comparing classes?
I think the distribution is not relevant actually. Tbh, the quality of the feature and how soon it becomes available is more important than the sheer number of features any given class have.
Do you think changing how many (or at what level) subclass features are granted would make lesser used classes more desirable or mechanically more equal?
No. Once again, it's not about quantity, it's about quality and timing. For example, Cleric's abilities at lv 2 (Channel Divinity options - that are usually very niche) and 8 (Divine Strike/Potent Cantrip) are not very impactful, but add more flavor than anything else. Would adding something like this make the Monk more viable? Honestly, no.
If so, what changes would you like to see?
For me, what needs to change are mostly base classes. And, honestly, the only one that actually needs to change is the Monk - Monks need to be fully revised imo.
The Ranger Optional Features makes them very viable (I would love to have a better starting equip. set for them as well, but that is another subject).
And Sorcerers, imo, the only tweak they need is to have the sub-classes giving extra spells (Like the ones in Tasha's) - and that has nothing to do with the amount of features, but actually the quality of the features.