Ok, take this with a grain of salt (or a heaping pile of it) but the Strixhaven UA got me thinking if the idea of subclasses that span several classes could be a look at what might be coming ahead in next edition whether that’s 1 year or 15 years down the road.
I could see them grouping certain classes and standardizing the feature progressions to make multiple class subclasses (MCS) smoother to implement. Right now, the UA has classes that have their subclass feature starting at level 1, 2, or 3 so you kind of have to be careful and not confuse who can get what. But if “casters” were standardized so that warlock, wizard, sorcerer, bard, Druid, cleric all get their subclass features at the same levels, and the base class features might vary, it would make the multiple class subclass easier to build.
And the same could be for “martial classes” for fighter, barbarian, paladin, ranger. Or however they want to categorize them (hopefully not the 4th edition roles, but maybe similar) so MCS’s. Rogues, monks could be another group.
Then you could have base classes and a more modular approach to subclasses.
Again, I’m just throwing this out there to hear other people’s thoughts. And hopefully not start a 6E war.
Would love to see the cross-class subclass mechanic applied to psionic options in that upcoming Dark Sun book that I keep dreaming is on the horizon...
Strixhaven's hocus pokus is all smoke and mirrors misdirection. Next edition there will be two classes: Uses Magic ("Ums") and Doesn't Use Magic ("Dums"). Your Um or Dums' stats are determined by a Rubik's cube, which will replace dice in a forthcoming UA after Hasbro buys Rubik ltd. Stats don't really matter as resources are determined initially through a grabber shooter game based on Hungry Hungry Hippos. Those resources will determine how many Rubik Cubes twists you get to determine how far your Um or Dum goes around the quadrangle "dungeon" board loosely based on Monopoly. Campaigns will be supported by a set which will covey your party as pegs in a mobile vessel over a campaign board with mechanics based on both Life and Chutes and Ladders .... what? They said we'd be seeing D&D. in ways that we've never seen before.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Ok, take this with a grain of salt (or a heaping pile of it) but the Strixhaven UA got me thinking if the idea of subclasses that span several classes could be a look at what might be coming ahead in next edition whether that’s 1 year or 15 years down the road.
I could see them grouping certain classes and standardizing the feature progressions to make multiple class subclasses (MCS) smoother to implement. Right now, the UA has classes that have their subclass feature starting at level 1, 2, or 3 so you kind of have to be careful and not confuse who can get what. But if “casters” were standardized so that warlock, wizard, sorcerer, bard, Druid, cleric all get their subclass features at the same levels, and the base class features might vary, it would make the multiple class subclass easier to build.
And the same could be for “martial classes” for fighter, barbarian, paladin, ranger. Or however they want to categorize them (hopefully not the 4th edition roles, but maybe similar) so MCS’s. Rogues, monks could be another group.
Then you could have base classes and a more modular approach to subclasses.
Again, I’m just throwing this out there to hear other people’s thoughts. And hopefully not start a 6E war.
If this was a view at 6th edition i see we have an upcoming edition to be skipped again.
The UA is super messy imho and doesn't work great at all. I don't even know why they are going down this route in the way they did. It looks wrong and it feels wrong. Very monotonous approach.
And its not like i hate the setting idea - i just strongly dislike the stuff they came up with.
If WOTC has the fortitude to actually abandon classes, good. They're bad game design. The best ttrpgs I've played have consistently just let you build your character in the direction you want, without artificial constraints like having a class mechanic.
But I agree with OldMighty - the UA didn't do a very good job of it, at all, and it really shows. Problems all over, like Bards not being able to take the most artistic subclass, or Druids powered by a college board instead of, well, anything remotely druidic. If you want to do something like this - take a class-agnostic approach and force-fit it onto a strongly classed game like D&D - there's a lot of work you need to do to make it work, and there's no evidence that level of effort went into the UA.
The UA also manages to send a message about game balance I don't think WOTC intended, since all of the subclass benefits are granted at Warlock levels. Bards have to give up a benefit, and various other classes get the benefits at various delays. In my opinion, WOTC basically just admitted they don't even try to deliver on the implicit promise of a level based structure, which is that higher level abilities are better than lower level ones. And giving Bards access without a fourth ability - they just have to shrug and not get one - says a lot about class balance, too, not just level balance. Very disappointing.
While I don't agree with quindraco about Classes in D&D, everything said about the UA is pretty spot on. It is a unbalanced mess. WotC should stick with the Class/Subclass dynamic and tie each of these subclasses to an existing class OR make a whole new generic Student of Magic class for the setting that makes use of these subclasses.
What this UA shows is that this M:tG cross over doesn't mesh well with the current mechanics of 5e and WotC are too lazy to do the work that is required to make it fit.
They already had a mechanic that works in a way - backgrounds.
As shown in the Ravnica sourcebook - an option for "schools" is simply - backgrounds! If you combine this with special feats, that depend on background (& class optionally) - you have a mechanic that doesn't break stuff - but allows players to chose how deep they want to specialize in the schools teachings or stick with things that they deem more important.
That, while still not perfect, works 100x better compared to the mess they presented in this document.
Not exactly the first UA that has objectively problematic content. We'll see what actually sticks.
Pretty much. Lots of people want Psionics, and the Psionics UA was some of the most busted content they ever tried to push. While some of this is powerful, it'll survive playtest because we KNOW there is a setting book coming out. it'll just be how they balance it.
My changes would be:
Healer's Light will get changed to d6 or d4. Level 6 Sage will get balanced around only around 1 ability or 2 getting advantage, not four. Kinetic Artistry will go to PB times per day on the extra effects. Functions of Probability should be PB times per day. Quantum Tunneling I'm fine with since it's a level 14 ability, just needs a tag that "This damage can't be reduced in any way", Inky Shroud should be PB times per day AND the damage should be an intelligence or wisdom save, if you succeed you take none. Infusion of Eloquence needs a Charisma save. Words of Power just needs reworked, if the choice is vulnerability or resistance, there's only one real choice. Witherbloom Adept is weak for a 10th level ability, I'd change it to when you deal necrotic damage or heal a target, you can choose another target within 30 feet to apply the same affect PB times per day.
Topic wise, I like the concept of cross classes. It's essentially already done in some aspects, with how we multi-class or how warlocks can smite, fighters can cast spells and sorcerers can be healers. The functionality is there, it's just how do you balance the abilities against the base abilities of the classes they are in. That's where it gets tricky, when you're introducing something like this 5+ years into a games tenure.
If WOTC has the fortitude to actually abandon classes, good. They're bad game design. The best ttrpgs I've played have consistently just let you build your character in the direction you want, without artificial constraints like having a class mechanic.
Yes, the best RPGs have classless systems, which is exactly why D&D shouldn’t do it. It can’t compete in that arena: classless systems, dice pools instead of d20s, narrative-based systems, those are all (debatably) better than D&D, but they’ve been perfected. And if that’s the experience you’re looking for, you’re better off just playing the games that perfected them.
So let D&D do what it does best, with its distinct brand of accessible, nostalgia-fueled pulp fantasy.
And as for the OP, there is no reason they’re not doing the Background thing they did with Ravnica for colleges. It would be perfect and balanced. Maybe they think subclasses (that most DMs won’t even allow in other worlds) will sell books better? I don’t know.
I agree about the UA being a mess, and WotC does seem to put overpowered features in UA and then tones them down…. usually (I’m looking at you Twilight Cleric).
part of the mess is that the different subclasses come online at different times and feature levels vary. That’s what got me thinking if this is WotC dipping their toes in the water to see how players react if, and that’s a big if, they are looking at possibilities of a new edition. Whenever that might be. And standardizing subclasses to make implementing this idea easier. But the more I think of it, it would be more standardizing the base classes so all classes pick up their subclass at the same levels. Then you can pick from an assortment of subclasses that are not necessarily particular to one class. Though that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have class specific subclasses (like we do now) in conjunction with Multiple Class Subclasses like the UA.
And I’m not saying I would like it if they did, or if they went classless (I cut my teeth on AD&D back in the early 80’s and I like what I likes). But I’m open to see where this goes. If it goes anywhere.
I know its always fun to speculate that these kinds of paradigm shifts are possibly insights into the next edition, but I think it's more likely they're just adding some design variety.
4e had plenty of cross-class material. Paragon Paths, Fighting Styles, feats, etc. Then 5e went another way, only to consider reintroducing the mechanic in basically the same way 4e used it - as optional, mostly setting-based content.
Honestly, this approach makes a lot of sense with this setting (whether or not the crossover needs to exist in the first place is another matter). It's a bit clunky, asks for a good bit of reflavoring for some classes, and definitely needs some balancing, but I don't think the major flaws here are coming from the cross-class system.
Then you could have base classes and a more modular approach to subclasses.
If you're going to go that far with customization you might as well just go with a classless system where players just have a pool of points to buy abilities and features, ranging from hit dice, attack/damage bonuses, spell slots, feats, etc. You'd basically be looking at a cross between a 3.5 fighter (where the primary class feature was "pick a feat at first level then every even numbered level) and a World of Darkness character sheet. That would allow for maximum customization, but it would also make the character creation process inherently more complex and more difficult for new players hearing something along the lines of "Here's a 200 page book full of abilities, pick some that add up to 20 build points and that's what you start with."
Then you could have base classes and a more modular approach to subclasses.
If you're going to go that far with customization you might as well just go with a classless system where players just have a pool of points to buy abilities and features, ranging from hit dice, attack/damage bonuses, spell slots, feats, etc. You'd basically be looking at a cross between a 3.5 fighter (where the primary class feature was "pick a feat at first level then every even numbered level) and a World of Darkness character sheet. That would allow for maximum customization, but it would also make the character creation process inherently more complex and more difficult for new players hearing something along the lines of "Here's a 200 page book full of abilities, pick some that add up to 20 build points and that's what you start with."
I don’t know if I would want them to go all the way to a classless system. But I could see them implementing this kind of subclass feature in the future.
Right now fighters get their subclass features at 3, 7, 10, 15, 18
paladins get theirs at 3, 7, 15, 20
Rangers at 3, 7, 11, 15
If people like this kind of subclass options as in the Strixhaven UA, then in a new edition they could possibly have fighter, paladin, and Ranger get their subclass features at 3, 7, 15, 18. Then you could still have class specific subclasses like battlemaster, oath of vengeance, Hunter but then have something like Psi Warrior that is available to all three classes.
Fighters could still get their action surge, second wind, extra ASI’s, etc. paladins their smites, channel divinity, etc. and Ranger their favored foe, etc. But then certain subclasses could be available to all three depending on how you want to develop your character.
Again, I’m not saying this is something they should do, and I know this UA is setting specific, but they are trying this out for a reason. And I wonder if this is how they are looking to the future D&D.
Every WotC edition has offered options to modify and customize your character beyond your primary class. That doesn't make them classless or likely to result in a classless edition down the line. D&D is a class-based game. Always has been, almost certainly always will be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If WOTC has the fortitude to actually abandon classes, good. They're bad game design. The best ttrpgs I've played have consistently just let you build your character in the direction you want, without artificial constraints like having a class mechanic.
Yes, the best RPGs have classless systems, which is exactly why D&D shouldn’t do it. It can’t compete in that arena: classless systems, dice pools instead of d20s, narrative-based systems, those are all (debatably) better than D&D, but they’ve been perfected. And if that’s the experience you’re looking for, you’re better off just playing the games that perfected them.
So let D&D do what it does best, with its distinct brand of accessible, nostalgia-fueled pulp fantasy.
And as for the OP, there is no reason they’re not doing the Background thing they did with Ravnica for colleges. It would be perfect and balanced. Maybe they think subclasses (that most DMs won’t even allow in other worlds) will sell books better? I don’t know.
I think it's a bit of an over-read that having cross class options at the level of subclasses available in D&D is indicative of an effort to move into a the space of class-less gaming. I'd even argue that options push D&D roles further into class/role based character building than class-less systems.
I play a lot of games that different dice mechanics and character development tools. I wouldn't say they're better than D&D. As you indicate D&D certainly does accessibility better than a lot of the other games. Also, not sure if D&D is really nostalgia driven. Sure there's a big nostalgia element to the market, but I wouldn't make it an exclusive or even mind driver. D&D, especially, 5e has got a lot of "who moved my cheese" for the grognard set, as well as the let's roll up some characters and kill some evil crowd.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't know the ratio of players who started with 5E vs those who started with any earlier edition, but I'd bet that ratio doesn't support the notion of D&D being nostalgia driven (anymore). Pre-5E I'd have felt differently, but the growth during those editions doesn't compare to what's been happening the last couple of years.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Classes are probably the best (possibly the only good) part of D&D. That’s not to say class-based systems are inherently better than classless ones; they both have strengths and weaknesses. But D&D (5e especially) does a usually-good job of creating characters that feel meaningfully different from each other, with strong gameplay tools that reinforce the unique nature of each character. If D&D became classless (without overhauling everything else to the point of being unrecognizable), it would be worse than Pathfinder, which is not something I say lightly.
That said, subclasses that work with multiple classes seems interesting? It’s pretty clear that they’re trying to tack this on and I’m not sure it entirely fits (different classes get different numbers of subclass features, and this UA’s means of handling that isn’t exactly elegant), but it’s certainly got potential.
I don't know the ratio of players who started with 5E vs those who started with any earlier edition, but I'd bet that ratio doesn't support the notion of D&D being nostalgia driven (anymore). Pre-5E I'd have felt differently, but the growth during those editions doesn't compare to what's been happening the last couple of years.
So many things coming together that the previous editions simply couldn't take real advantage of cause it either was in its infancy or simply not around yet. VTTs, Twitch Streams, Youtube channels... a growth in positive reception of the game itself over time - through either other media (tv) or personalities (Critical Role, actors, show hosts etc.)
The fact how 5e is designed and how much simpler the barrier of entry and character management is compared to earlier editions made things possible as well imho. A new 3.5 wouldn't have made it that far for sure.
And since 2020 the pandemic was like an unguarded dragon hoard that companies could take advantage of or benefit from.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok, take this with a grain of salt (or a heaping pile of it) but the Strixhaven UA got me thinking if the idea of subclasses that span several classes could be a look at what might be coming ahead in next edition whether that’s 1 year or 15 years down the road.
I could see them grouping certain classes and standardizing the feature progressions to make multiple class subclasses (MCS) smoother to implement. Right now, the UA has classes that have their subclass feature starting at level 1, 2, or 3 so you kind of have to be careful and not confuse who can get what. But if “casters” were standardized so that warlock, wizard, sorcerer, bard, Druid, cleric all get their subclass features at the same levels, and the base class features might vary, it would make the multiple class subclass easier to build.
And the same could be for “martial classes” for fighter, barbarian, paladin, ranger. Or however they want to categorize them (hopefully not the 4th edition roles, but maybe similar) so MCS’s. Rogues, monks could be another group.
Then you could have base classes and a more modular approach to subclasses.
Again, I’m just throwing this out there to hear other people’s thoughts. And hopefully not start a 6E war.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I rather like it, but I also think it is tricky to balance. So in general I hope they figure it out and implement it.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Would love to see the cross-class subclass mechanic applied to psionic options in that upcoming Dark Sun book that I keep dreaming is on the horizon...
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Strixhaven's hocus pokus is all smoke and mirrors misdirection. Next edition there will be two classes: Uses Magic ("Ums") and Doesn't Use Magic ("Dums"). Your Um or Dums' stats are determined by a Rubik's cube, which will replace dice in a forthcoming UA after Hasbro buys Rubik ltd. Stats don't really matter as resources are determined initially through a grabber shooter game based on Hungry Hungry Hippos. Those resources will determine how many Rubik Cubes twists you get to determine how far your Um or Dum goes around the quadrangle "dungeon" board loosely based on Monopoly. Campaigns will be supported by a set which will covey your party as pegs in a mobile vessel over a campaign board with mechanics based on both Life and Chutes and Ladders .... what? They said we'd be seeing D&D. in ways that we've never seen before.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If this was a view at 6th edition i see we have an upcoming edition to be skipped again.
The UA is super messy imho and doesn't work great at all. I don't even know why they are going down this route in the way they did. It looks wrong and it feels wrong.
Very monotonous approach.
And its not like i hate the setting idea - i just strongly dislike the stuff they came up with.
If WOTC has the fortitude to actually abandon classes, good. They're bad game design. The best ttrpgs I've played have consistently just let you build your character in the direction you want, without artificial constraints like having a class mechanic.
But I agree with OldMighty - the UA didn't do a very good job of it, at all, and it really shows. Problems all over, like Bards not being able to take the most artistic subclass, or Druids powered by a college board instead of, well, anything remotely druidic. If you want to do something like this - take a class-agnostic approach and force-fit it onto a strongly classed game like D&D - there's a lot of work you need to do to make it work, and there's no evidence that level of effort went into the UA.
The UA also manages to send a message about game balance I don't think WOTC intended, since all of the subclass benefits are granted at Warlock levels. Bards have to give up a benefit, and various other classes get the benefits at various delays. In my opinion, WOTC basically just admitted they don't even try to deliver on the implicit promise of a level based structure, which is that higher level abilities are better than lower level ones. And giving Bards access without a fourth ability - they just have to shrug and not get one - says a lot about class balance, too, not just level balance. Very disappointing.
While I don't agree with quindraco about Classes in D&D, everything said about the UA is pretty spot on. It is a unbalanced mess. WotC should stick with the Class/Subclass dynamic and tie each of these subclasses to an existing class OR make a whole new generic Student of Magic class for the setting that makes use of these subclasses.
What this UA shows is that this M:tG cross over doesn't mesh well with the current mechanics of 5e and WotC are too lazy to do the work that is required to make it fit.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
They already had a mechanic that works in a way - backgrounds.
As shown in the Ravnica sourcebook - an option for "schools" is simply - backgrounds! If you combine this with special feats, that depend on background (& class optionally) - you have a mechanic that doesn't break stuff - but allows players to chose how deep they want to specialize in the schools teachings or stick with things that they deem more important.
That, while still not perfect, works 100x better compared to the mess they presented in this document.
Not exactly the first UA that has objectively problematic content. We'll see what actually sticks.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Pretty much. Lots of people want Psionics, and the Psionics UA was some of the most busted content they ever tried to push. While some of this is powerful, it'll survive playtest because we KNOW there is a setting book coming out. it'll just be how they balance it.
My changes would be:
Healer's Light will get changed to d6 or d4. Level 6 Sage will get balanced around only around 1 ability or 2 getting advantage, not four. Kinetic Artistry will go to PB times per day on the extra effects. Functions of Probability should be PB times per day. Quantum Tunneling I'm fine with since it's a level 14 ability, just needs a tag that "This damage can't be reduced in any way", Inky Shroud should be PB times per day AND the damage should be an intelligence or wisdom save, if you succeed you take none. Infusion of Eloquence needs a Charisma save. Words of Power just needs reworked, if the choice is vulnerability or resistance, there's only one real choice. Witherbloom Adept is weak for a 10th level ability, I'd change it to when you deal necrotic damage or heal a target, you can choose another target within 30 feet to apply the same affect PB times per day.
Topic wise, I like the concept of cross classes. It's essentially already done in some aspects, with how we multi-class or how warlocks can smite, fighters can cast spells and sorcerers can be healers. The functionality is there, it's just how do you balance the abilities against the base abilities of the classes they are in. That's where it gets tricky, when you're introducing something like this 5+ years into a games tenure.
Yes, the best RPGs have classless systems, which is exactly why D&D shouldn’t do it. It can’t compete in that arena: classless systems, dice pools instead of d20s, narrative-based systems, those are all (debatably) better than D&D, but they’ve been perfected. And if that’s the experience you’re looking for, you’re better off just playing the games that perfected them.
So let D&D do what it does best, with its distinct brand of accessible, nostalgia-fueled pulp fantasy.
And as for the OP, there is no reason they’re not doing the Background thing they did with Ravnica for colleges. It would be perfect and balanced. Maybe they think subclasses (that most DMs won’t even allow in other worlds) will sell books better? I don’t know.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I agree about the UA being a mess, and WotC does seem to put overpowered features in UA and then tones them down…. usually (I’m looking at you Twilight Cleric).
part of the mess is that the different subclasses come online at different times and feature levels vary. That’s what got me thinking if this is WotC dipping their toes in the water to see how players react if, and that’s a big if, they are looking at possibilities of a new edition. Whenever that might be. And standardizing subclasses to make implementing this idea easier. But the more I think of it, it would be more standardizing the base classes so all classes pick up their subclass at the same levels. Then you can pick from an assortment of subclasses that are not necessarily particular to one class. Though that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have class specific subclasses (like we do now) in conjunction with Multiple Class Subclasses like the UA.
And I’m not saying I would like it if they did, or if they went classless (I cut my teeth on AD&D back in the early 80’s and I like what I likes). But I’m open to see where this goes. If it goes anywhere.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I know its always fun to speculate that these kinds of paradigm shifts are possibly insights into the next edition, but I think it's more likely they're just adding some design variety.
4e had plenty of cross-class material. Paragon Paths, Fighting Styles, feats, etc. Then 5e went another way, only to consider reintroducing the mechanic in basically the same way 4e used it - as optional, mostly setting-based content.
Honestly, this approach makes a lot of sense with this setting (whether or not the crossover needs to exist in the first place is another matter). It's a bit clunky, asks for a good bit of reflavoring for some classes, and definitely needs some balancing, but I don't think the major flaws here are coming from the cross-class system.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
If you're going to go that far with customization you might as well just go with a classless system where players just have a pool of points to buy abilities and features, ranging from hit dice, attack/damage bonuses, spell slots, feats, etc. You'd basically be looking at a cross between a 3.5 fighter (where the primary class feature was "pick a feat at first level then every even numbered level) and a World of Darkness character sheet. That would allow for maximum customization, but it would also make the character creation process inherently more complex and more difficult for new players hearing something along the lines of "Here's a 200 page book full of abilities, pick some that add up to 20 build points and that's what you start with."
I don’t know if I would want them to go all the way to a classless system. But I could see them implementing this kind of subclass feature in the future.
Right now fighters get their subclass features at 3, 7, 10, 15, 18
paladins get theirs at 3, 7, 15, 20
Rangers at 3, 7, 11, 15
If people like this kind of subclass options as in the Strixhaven UA, then in a new edition they could possibly have fighter, paladin, and Ranger get their subclass features at 3, 7, 15, 18. Then you could still have class specific subclasses like battlemaster, oath of vengeance, Hunter but then have something like Psi Warrior that is available to all three classes.
Fighters could still get their action surge, second wind, extra ASI’s, etc. paladins their smites, channel divinity, etc. and Ranger their favored foe, etc. But then certain subclasses could be available to all three depending on how you want to develop your character.
Again, I’m not saying this is something they should do, and I know this UA is setting specific, but they are trying this out for a reason. And I wonder if this is how they are looking to the future D&D.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Every WotC edition has offered options to modify and customize your character beyond your primary class. That doesn't make them classless or likely to result in a classless edition down the line. D&D is a class-based game. Always has been, almost certainly always will be.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think it's a bit of an over-read that having cross class options at the level of subclasses available in D&D is indicative of an effort to move into a the space of class-less gaming. I'd even argue that options push D&D roles further into class/role based character building than class-less systems.
I play a lot of games that different dice mechanics and character development tools. I wouldn't say they're better than D&D. As you indicate D&D certainly does accessibility better than a lot of the other games. Also, not sure if D&D is really nostalgia driven. Sure there's a big nostalgia element to the market, but I wouldn't make it an exclusive or even mind driver. D&D, especially, 5e has got a lot of "who moved my cheese" for the grognard set, as well as the let's roll up some characters and kill some evil crowd.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't know the ratio of players who started with 5E vs those who started with any earlier edition, but I'd bet that ratio doesn't support the notion of D&D being nostalgia driven (anymore). Pre-5E I'd have felt differently, but the growth during those editions doesn't compare to what's been happening the last couple of years.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Classes are probably the best (possibly the only good) part of D&D. That’s not to say class-based systems are inherently better than classless ones; they both have strengths and weaknesses. But D&D (5e especially) does a usually-good job of creating characters that feel meaningfully different from each other, with strong gameplay tools that reinforce the unique nature of each character. If D&D became classless (without overhauling everything else to the point of being unrecognizable), it would be worse than Pathfinder, which is not something I say lightly.
That said, subclasses that work with multiple classes seems interesting? It’s pretty clear that they’re trying to tack this on and I’m not sure it entirely fits (different classes get different numbers of subclass features, and this UA’s means of handling that isn’t exactly elegant), but it’s certainly got potential.
So many things coming together that the previous editions simply couldn't take real advantage of cause it either was in its infancy or simply not around yet. VTTs, Twitch Streams, Youtube channels... a growth in positive reception of the game itself over time - through either other media (tv) or personalities (Critical Role, actors, show hosts etc.)
The fact how 5e is designed and how much simpler the barrier of entry and character management is compared to earlier editions made things possible as well imho. A new 3.5 wouldn't have made it that far for sure.
And since 2020 the pandemic was like an unguarded dragon hoard that companies could take advantage of or benefit from.