Disarm is simple. Role 10 over the defenders AC and you can disarmed him instead of causing damage.
Defend is simple. Role over the defenders AC and you can add that difference to your AC or an allies AC next to you. Instead of causing damage.
Move the defender is simple. Role 5 over the defenders AC and you can move him 5ft in any direction, you just have to stay within 5 ft of him at the end of your attack.
Disarm? Like a contested Strength check to take a weapon out of an opponent's hand?
Move the defender? Almost like you're shoving them?
These already exist my guy.
The problem is they're not designed to mesh well with existing actions, so they're not very viable. It takes your action the move the target 5 feet... Unless theirs a cliff or there's some other rare situation, it's almost never better to shove then to simply attack. The situation is worse for dodging, not to mention that dodging can't protect someone else.
Yes, Dodge, Shove, and all of those other irregular options need to be improved upon and expanded. However, why should we add those options to the base Fighter class when we can just improve the versions of them that are in the core rules and are available to everyone, not just Fighter?
I agree. Make the available maneuvers available to all and expand them.
The problem with "vastly more simple" casters is that their complexity is largely baked in. You have to understand the principle of spell levels, spell slots, components and so forth just to make it work. I think you'd have to fundamentally alter how the magic system works to make them "vastly more simple". I think the Warlock is more or less as close.as we're going to get (slots back in short rest, only casts at one level, go-to move is a Cantrip, etc).
I'm fine with the idea in principle, I just don't know if it's feasible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The problem with "vastly more simple" casters is that their complexity is largely baked in. You have to understand the principle of spell levels, spell slots, components and so forth just to make it work. I think you'd have to fundamentally alter how the magic system works to make them "vastly more simple". I think the Warlock is more or less as close.as we're going to get (slots back in short rest, only casts at one level, go-to move is a Cantrip, etc).
I'm fine with the idea in principle, I just don't know if it's feasible.
I've been working on some examples in my spare time. You're absolutely right that it's the spell slots, levels, components, vast number of spells to choose from, etc that make the classes harder to jump into. I have a few different ideas that all cut down on these barriers. Deisgned for new players, or experienced players just looking for a new experience. My goal is to capture the 'magic' of playing a spellcaster, without as much of the mechanical fuss. I'll put them up in the homebrew forum when I get something halfway usable.
Edit:
Because that sounded kind of vague, I thought I'd explain it a little better.
For the Mage class, I'm focusing on cantrips and rituals with new ways to use them. Removing the slots entirely, and limiting selection of leveled spells with more guidance.
For the Priest class, I'm looking at the Rune Knight and Arcane Archer as examples of spell like abilities that don't use actual slots.
They should revamp multiclassing and class construction. Allow better and more functional mix and matching. Stop listing this as a 'option' when they know basically everyone uses it. properly flesh it out so people can truly make the characters they're imagining. But, keep the classes we all know and love as the default 'option packages'.
Multiclassing serves the function of class customization currently, but it is not perfectly suited to it. it asks to trade all of a class progression for all of a different class progression. But does it need to? Why can't a guy be a super inspiring... sorcerer? Why can't a wizard focus on twisting spells and be a metamagic specialist? And, why for the love of god is it not possible for someone to simply make a character around a concept like 'I have every fire spell'?
It seems like a no-brainer to me that every class should be construct-able by complex system of rules and character options, that each class is some end result of a particular spattering of those chosen options. And represented as the default options for players to choose from so they needn't build their own if they don't want to. But then also offer the complex system used to generate those classes as a more in-depth system for those people who do enjoy tinkering behind the scenes and complex character creation.
This would fix the martial Vs caster issue all at once. Since the distinction becomes trivial.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
When building a game, more choices does not always make for a better experience for players. At some point you run into the problem of choice overload, and the player's satisfaction with what they decided to do with their characters goes down and the speed of play gets slower and slower making the experience worse for all involved. Where is that line? Somewhere above one or two options, but probably below a dozen. That is what playtesting is for. Personally, I think the fix is a mix of adding some extra unique abilities for martial characters to give them a niche casters can't touch, combined with a simplification of caster spell lists to make each more focused on one style of play instead of allowing every caster to handle every style (blaster, controller, healer, buffer, etc...).
IMHO yes and no, there can be a learning curve for a game but how a game's foundation is constructed and how it has designed its moving parts can be a huge issue.
They should revamp multiclassing and class construction. Allow better and more functional mix and matching. Stop listing this as a 'option' when they know basically everyone uses it. properly flesh it out so people can truly make the characters they're imagining. But, keep the classes we all know and love as the default 'option packages'.
Multiclassing serves the function of class customization currently, but it is not perfectly suited to it. it asks to trade all of a class progression for all of a different class progression. But does it need to? Why can't a guy be a super inspiring... sorcerer? Why can't a wizard focus on twisting spells and be a metamagic specialist? And, why for the love of god is it not possible for someone to simply make a character around a concept like 'I have every fire spell'?
It seems like a no-brainer to me that every class should be construct-able by complex system of rules and character options, that each class is some end result of a particular spattering of those chosen options. And represented as the default options for players to choose from so they needn't build their own if they don't want to. But then also offer the complex system used to generate those classes as a more in-depth system for those people who do enjoy tinkering behind the scenes and complex character creation.
This would fix the martial Vs caster issue all at once. Since the distinction becomes trivial.
I would like to see this but I do not think it can be done in 5e with the focus on simplicity in all things. TO me this does not mean 5e is not a good game IMHO it is extremely good and being simple and that makes other things harder to do, such as muticlassing.
In general I think the simple argument is trying to say I want a 1 roll to hit and then 1 roll to damage and have parity with other classes and be superior where I am supposed to be superior. I do not see how they are going to do it and have the abilities make sense with how 5e's foundations are. Cold they do something like the bugbears you get +2d6 damage on the first round, yes but to me that ability does not make sense how it is written as IMHO it should not apply to spells.
So a simply and damage inflation idea without good rational IMHO would make the game worse even if it has the desired result or bringing more parity to the martial vs everyone else issue.
I've only skimmed through this, so I'm sorry if it's been asked already.
But is it possible to modify a poll after its created and add more options? Because what I would really prefer is a new class added for Warriors that is vastly more complicated, and new classes added for both Mages and Priests that are vastly more simple. So everyone can get what they want. Some other people seem to feel the same.
I've already said what I feel about simplicity and complexity, and the various ways these terms are used, and the many ways you can introduce options without adding complexity, in other threads. I don't think any of that needs rehashing here too. So I'll stay out of that. But I'd like to answer the poll honestly.
The game has 12 classes already, 13 with the artificer. It's a big enough number. I'd rather not go back to 3.5e with its gazillion of classes, some of them being only a couple of features different from the next. I believe subclasses are capable of simplifying gameplay, though not vice versa, as you can't cram much into four features. I already made an example of a simplifying wizard subclass - first feature lets you ignore friendly fire (Sculpt Spells), another could let you ignore cover and spread all your AoE spells around corners, another might let you ignore resistances - just become a happy careless blaster who doesn't concern themselves with tactics and blasts stuff.
That's fair, but if we're talking about what we'd like to see, then more classes is still my choice. Personally I think there is room for 4 in each class group. I can't really answer the survey with the choices provided.
I think your results will be skewed because a lot of people want new options. Whether it's for the Fighter, or their own favorite class. Not many people want to take away things from a class that people already enjoy. The ones who like the Fighter already don't want to ruin the fun for the ones who like the Wizard already. So by presenting it as the only two real choices other than doing nothing, people will lean towards the one with more options. Or they'll have to just abstain.
I just don't think you'll get good representative data from this. Only because it presents the choice as largely binary, when those aren't the only solutions.
None of the options on the poll are optimal decisions, in my mind at least. Why? Because all these options involve either doing nothing about a known issue, or taking options away from people who enjoy a different playing style. These are not the only options.However, the way the poll is done, it makes it seem that way. So I didn't vote and I won't vote, until another poll with more options is added to this thread. Until then, I think the data you get from the poll will be skewed because there are so many, much better options (such as adding a new complex martial class and a new simple spellcasting class to the PHB) that are not represented on the poll.
None of the options on the poll are optimal decisions, in my mind at least. Why? Because all these options involve either doing nothing about a known issue, or taking options away from people who enjoy a different playing style. These are not the only options. However, the way the poll is done, it makes it seem that way. So I didn't vote and I won't vote, until another poll with more options is added to this thread. Until then, I think the data you get from the poll will be skewed because there are so many, much better options (such as adding a new complex martial class and a new simple spellcasting class to the PHB) that are not represented on the poll.
Soo..what your saying is; the poll about simplicity vs complex is too simple and you prefer it to be more complex? That's meta man...
How much can you add to the class system as it is before you need to redo everything? Or is it as simple as changing the "one rule to rule them all" idea for some classes and leaving the other classes alone? Can you do this while keeping with the ideas (I have heard talked about and they probably have changed since I do not try and keep up with this stuff) they want to not change? Does the ideas presented in the battlemaster and or ideas from other games such as stances and techniques fix the system or a leaky patch until D&D 6E the Golden Child (I gave it a code name just for fun)?
I think there needs to be some major changes to fix the martial problem and I have just not seen anything like that in the playtest material. And as I said the martial issue(s) would have been the first thing I would have tried to fix (and have ideas about fixing) before I launched any playtest and not tried to just come up with stuff as playtest goes on. But then again maybe it is a windows Me edition vs windows 2000 and you have to show people you can only expand products so far before you need a complete redo.
They should revamp multiclassing and class construction. Allow better and more functional mix and matching. Stop listing this as a 'option' when they know basically everyone uses it. properly flesh it out so people can truly make the characters they're imagining. But, keep the classes we all know and love as the default 'option packages'.
Multiclassing serves the function of class customization currently, but it is not perfectly suited to it. it asks to trade all of a class progression for all of a different class progression. But does it need to? Why can't a guy be a super inspiring... sorcerer? Why can't a wizard focus on twisting spells and be a metamagic specialist? And, why for the love of god is it not possible for someone to simply make a character around a concept like 'I have every fire spell'?
It seems like a no-brainer to me that every class should be construct-able by complex system of rules and character options, that each class is some end result of a particular spattering of those chosen options. And represented as the default options for players to choose from so they needn't build their own if they don't want to. But then also offer the complex system used to generate those classes as a more in-depth system for those people who do enjoy tinkering behind the scenes and complex character creation.
This would fix the martial Vs caster issue all at once. Since the distinction becomes trivial.
This would have to be incredibly complex if it's capable of constructing the current classes and allowing other options as well.
There would be such a vast power difference between those who take a pre-written class and those who make their own.
Not everybody multiclasses. I don't know where you got that idea.
Most likely less than 5% of players would ever touch it.
If you can make your own martials and you can make your own casters, I don't see how the distinction becomes trivial. There are still martials and there are still casters, and there's nothing you suggested that makes them equal (except more ways to min-max martials, but those apply to casters as well).
Feats can do a lot of what you are suggesting. What if you want to be a super inspiring sorcerer? Inspiring Leader. Why can't a wizard focus on twisting spells and become a metamagic specialist? They can, with Metamagic Adept. Feats make far more sense than what you are suggesting and allow similar multiclass-less customizability, and 1D&D is really honing in on feats.
What happens to subclasses? They don't really seem to fit in with this idea.
This wouldn't be Dungeons and Dragons. Dungeons and Dragons has classes, but your suggestion makes those just samples. Just like backgrounds are basically gone in 1D&D, since nobody is going to say "I'm a Charlatan, which means I have +2 to to Charisma, +1 to Dexterity, and proficiency in gaming sets." No, they're going to say "I get a +2 to Charisma and a +1 to Dexterity" since there's no need to name it. Suddenly people would stop being Sorcerers and Bards and instead start being arcane casters with full Inspiration Dice at level 3, 1/3 metamagic starting at level 6, two spells from any list at level 13, d6 hit dice, proficiency in simple weapons and light armor, and uncanny dodge at level 15.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
How much can you add to the class system as it is before you need to redo everything? Or is it as simple as changing the "one rule to rule them all" idea for some classes and leaving the other classes alone? Can you do this while keeping with the ideas (I have heard talked about and they probably have changed since I do not try and keep up with this stuff) they want to not change? Does the ideas presented in the battlemaster and or ideas from other games such as stances and techniques fix the system or a leaky patch until D&D 6E the Golden Child (I gave it a code name just for fun)?
I think there needs to be some major changes to fix the martial problem and I have just not seen anything like that in the playtest material. And as I said the martial issue(s) would have been the first thing I would have tried to fix (and have ideas about fixing) before I launched any playtest and not tried to just come up with stuff as playtest goes on. But then again maybe it is a windows Me edition vs windows 2000 and you have to show people you can only expand products so far before you need a complete redo.
I wish the dev team good luck.
I don't think you need to redo everything. Fighters already have a gradient on their subclasses between the most esoteric and most straight forward options. It's not perfect for everyone, but having things like rune knights and echo knights and battlemasters clearly provides some sliding scale.
Feats, since those are being pushed a little more, can also be a way to tweak a class to add more or less one way or another.
The bigger problem, imo, is that some classes don't really have any of this variability baked into them. There's not a lot you can do to dramatically change how a Barbarian feels in the way you can for a Ranger or Fighter. But I don't think you need to redo everything so much as just provide a variety of subclass options and make sure subclasses have room to breathe.
The biggest systemic change that I think should happen is just giving subclasses more design space to express themselves, especially at early levels. I've had more players bummed out by how poorly their level 3 features express their subclass identity than anything else when it comes to frustration in this regard.
They should revamp multiclassing and class construction. Allow better and more functional mix and matching.
This sounds like D&D should simply pick another classless game system and stick the D&D label on it.
They are already moving towards a race-less game system - choose the name of the race, and give it whatever abilities you like.
You are not the only one who has noticed this and people I talk to and groups I have played with are generally disappointed with it. It sounds good in theory but often in practice it leads to silliness (unless you run a very cartoon like game).
I see so many people on these forums looking for permission to do something instead of just asking their DM and coming up with any rules for it at their table.
If someone wanted to play a Bugbear they and the DM came up with the stats and we played on. We didn't need 100 official races.
They should revamp multiclassing and class construction. Allow better and more functional mix and matching.
This sounds like D&D should simply pick another classless game system and stick the D&D label on it.
They are already moving towards a race-less game system - choose the name of the race, and give it whatever abilities you like.
You are not the only one who has noticed this and people I talk to and groups I have played with are generally disappointed with it. It sounds good in theory but often in practice it leads to silliness (unless you run a very cartoon like game).
I have a theory about this, it's quite heavy and too long to go into here, but if I was to summarize it would say "Players only think they want unlimited options, as soon as give you them that, they lose interest and stop playing".
We have already seen this sort of thing play out repeatedly in the lifespan of D&D. With 3e, with 4e and now we are doing it with 5e. 5e's popularity is built around the Players Handbook, a book with plenty of options but limited non the less. The game cannot be improved by adding more options, it can be improved by creating better-limited options.
More than that though the more options you add the more you define what is not an option. When all you had was a fighter class that could hit stuff... within that, you had Rangers, Barbarians, Amazons, Knights, and everything else your imagination could conjure up that defines a warrior. As soon as you added a Barbarian and Ranger class you defined that Knights and Amazons don't exist and so if you want to play one, a new class must be created!
This is the problem with selectable options replacing imagination and narrative flavor. For all the effort of modern option-heavy games desiring to be narrative-focused games, they are actually quite stifling to creativity because they over-define what is available in such a way that it comes to the exclusion of everything else. Rather than offering creative tools, they give us a box of ever-increasing size, but always, still just a box. A box, who's merits we obsess over, complain about and allow to block our imaginations by demanding "official support" for X or Y option that is missing within the box.
I think we agree, a game has to have some method of expansion unless that is the design of the game and when you get to a point where people want more then the original game design offers you tend to have problems.
Infinite options are a problem quality options in quantity can be done if the foundation of the game is designed for it. 5e's foundation is not that way and that is ok and it works great for what it is, I might even say excellent.
"I know what you want better than you do" is such a toxic mindset. Completely misses the point as to why people sometimes want more mechanical options, too.
"You can't play a knight because barbarians exist" is one of the most bizarre takes I've ever read, too.
I see so many people on these forums looking for permission to do something instead of just asking their DM and coming up with any rules for it at their table.
If someone wanted to play a Bugbear they and the DM came up with the stats and we played on. We didn't need 100 official races.
When I was around 10-12 years old and playing AD&D, I needed official content but around 13-16 we started hacking the system with other systems and strait up creation of content. Some of it worked well some worked well for that campaign as it was designed for only that campaign setting and its unique rules (for example use a WWIII war game to play a G.I Joe Cartoon campaign) as well as bring rules from other games we liked more then rules printed for AD&D into AD&D.
But I can say everyone is not that way and a lot more people I know want good solid core like material in books they decide to spend $$$ on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree. Make the available maneuvers available to all and expand them.
The problem with "vastly more simple" casters is that their complexity is largely baked in. You have to understand the principle of spell levels, spell slots, components and so forth just to make it work. I think you'd have to fundamentally alter how the magic system works to make them "vastly more simple". I think the Warlock is more or less as close.as we're going to get (slots back in short rest, only casts at one level, go-to move is a Cantrip, etc).
I'm fine with the idea in principle, I just don't know if it's feasible.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I've been working on some examples in my spare time. You're absolutely right that it's the spell slots, levels, components, vast number of spells to choose from, etc that make the classes harder to jump into. I have a few different ideas that all cut down on these barriers. Deisgned for new players, or experienced players just looking for a new experience. My goal is to capture the 'magic' of playing a spellcaster, without as much of the mechanical fuss. I'll put them up in the homebrew forum when I get something halfway usable.
Edit:
Because that sounded kind of vague, I thought I'd explain it a little better.
For the Mage class, I'm focusing on cantrips and rituals with new ways to use them. Removing the slots entirely, and limiting selection of leveled spells with more guidance.
For the Priest class, I'm looking at the Rune Knight and Arcane Archer as examples of spell like abilities that don't use actual slots.
They should revamp multiclassing and class construction. Allow better and more functional mix and matching. Stop listing this as a 'option' when they know basically everyone uses it. properly flesh it out so people can truly make the characters they're imagining. But, keep the classes we all know and love as the default 'option packages'.
Multiclassing serves the function of class customization currently, but it is not perfectly suited to it. it asks to trade all of a class progression for all of a different class progression. But does it need to? Why can't a guy be a super inspiring... sorcerer? Why can't a wizard focus on twisting spells and be a metamagic specialist? And, why for the love of god is it not possible for someone to simply make a character around a concept like 'I have every fire spell'?
It seems like a no-brainer to me that every class should be construct-able by complex system of rules and character options, that each class is some end result of a particular spattering of those chosen options. And represented as the default options for players to choose from so they needn't build their own if they don't want to. But then also offer the complex system used to generate those classes as a more in-depth system for those people who do enjoy tinkering behind the scenes and complex character creation.
This would fix the martial Vs caster issue all at once. Since the distinction becomes trivial.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
IMHO yes and no, there can be a learning curve for a game but how a game's foundation is constructed and how it has designed its moving parts can be a huge issue.
I would like to see this but I do not think it can be done in 5e with the focus on simplicity in all things. TO me this does not mean 5e is not a good game IMHO it is extremely good and being simple and that makes other things harder to do, such as muticlassing.
In general I think the simple argument is trying to say I want a 1 roll to hit and then 1 roll to damage and have parity with other classes and be superior where I am supposed to be superior. I do not see how they are going to do it and have the abilities make sense with how 5e's foundations are. Cold they do something like the bugbears you get +2d6 damage on the first round, yes but to me that ability does not make sense how it is written as IMHO it should not apply to spells.
So a simply and damage inflation idea without good rational IMHO would make the game worse even if it has the desired result or bringing more parity to the martial vs everyone else issue.
The game has 12 classes already, 13 with the artificer. It's a big enough number. I'd rather not go back to 3.5e with its gazillion of classes, some of them being only a couple of features different from the next. I believe subclasses are capable of simplifying gameplay, though not vice versa, as you can't cram much into four features. I already made an example of a simplifying wizard subclass - first feature lets you ignore friendly fire (Sculpt Spells), another could let you ignore cover and spread all your AoE spells around corners, another might let you ignore resistances - just become a happy careless blaster who doesn't concern themselves with tactics and blasts stuff.
That's fair, but if we're talking about what we'd like to see, then more classes is still my choice. Personally I think there is room for 4 in each class group. I can't really answer the survey with the choices provided.
I think your results will be skewed because a lot of people want new options. Whether it's for the Fighter, or their own favorite class. Not many people want to take away things from a class that people already enjoy. The ones who like the Fighter already don't want to ruin the fun for the ones who like the Wizard already. So by presenting it as the only two real choices other than doing nothing, people will lean towards the one with more options. Or they'll have to just abstain.
I just don't think you'll get good representative data from this. Only because it presents the choice as largely binary, when those aren't the only solutions.
Stegodorkus is speaking my mind^
None of the options on the poll are optimal decisions, in my mind at least. Why? Because all these options involve either doing nothing about a known issue, or taking options away from people who enjoy a different playing style. These are not the only options. However, the way the poll is done, it makes it seem that way. So I didn't vote and I won't vote, until another poll with more options is added to this thread. Until then, I think the data you get from the poll will be skewed because there are so many, much better options (such as adding a new complex martial class and a new simple spellcasting class to the PHB) that are not represented on the poll.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Soo..what your saying is; the poll about simplicity vs complex is too simple and you prefer it to be more complex? That's meta man...
:)
Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying lol :)
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.some basic questions:
How much can you add to the class system as it is before you need to redo everything? Or is it as simple as changing the "one rule to rule them all" idea for some classes and leaving the other classes alone? Can you do this while keeping with the ideas (I have heard talked about and they probably have changed since I do not try and keep up with this stuff) they want to not change? Does the ideas presented in the battlemaster and or ideas from other games such as stances and techniques fix the system or a leaky patch until D&D 6E the Golden Child (I gave it a code name just for fun)?
I think there needs to be some major changes to fix the martial problem and I have just not seen anything like that in the playtest material. And as I said the martial issue(s) would have been the first thing I would have tried to fix (and have ideas about fixing) before I launched any playtest and not tried to just come up with stuff as playtest goes on. But then again maybe it is a windows Me edition vs windows 2000 and you have to show people you can only expand products so far before you need a complete redo.
I wish the dev team good luck.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
This sounds like D&D should simply pick another classless game system and stick the D&D label on it.
They are already moving towards a race-less game system - choose the name of the race, and give it whatever abilities you like.
I don't think you need to redo everything. Fighters already have a gradient on their subclasses between the most esoteric and most straight forward options. It's not perfect for everyone, but having things like rune knights and echo knights and battlemasters clearly provides some sliding scale.
Feats, since those are being pushed a little more, can also be a way to tweak a class to add more or less one way or another.
The bigger problem, imo, is that some classes don't really have any of this variability baked into them. There's not a lot you can do to dramatically change how a Barbarian feels in the way you can for a Ranger or Fighter. But I don't think you need to redo everything so much as just provide a variety of subclass options and make sure subclasses have room to breathe.
The biggest systemic change that I think should happen is just giving subclasses more design space to express themselves, especially at early levels. I've had more players bummed out by how poorly their level 3 features express their subclass identity than anything else when it comes to frustration in this regard.
You are not the only one who has noticed this and people I talk to and groups I have played with are generally disappointed with it. It sounds good in theory but often in practice it leads to silliness (unless you run a very cartoon like game).
I so much agree with Biglizard.
I see so many people on these forums looking for permission to do something instead of just asking their DM and coming up with any rules for it at their table.
If someone wanted to play a Bugbear they and the DM came up with the stats and we played on. We didn't need 100 official races.
I think we agree, a game has to have some method of expansion unless that is the design of the game and when you get to a point where people want more then the original game design offers you tend to have problems.
Infinite options are a problem quality options in quantity can be done if the foundation of the game is designed for it. 5e's foundation is not that way and that is ok and it works great for what it is, I might even say excellent.
"I know what you want better than you do" is such a toxic mindset. Completely misses the point as to why people sometimes want more mechanical options, too.
"You can't play a knight because barbarians exist" is one of the most bizarre takes I've ever read, too.
When I was around 10-12 years old and playing AD&D, I needed official content but around 13-16 we started hacking the system with other systems and strait up creation of content. Some of it worked well some worked well for that campaign as it was designed for only that campaign setting and its unique rules (for example use a WWIII war game to play a G.I Joe Cartoon campaign) as well as bring rules from other games we liked more then rules printed for AD&D into AD&D.
But I can say everyone is not that way and a lot more people I know want good solid core like material in books they decide to spend $$$ on.