A bit of a weird design concept to throw out. It isn't something 5e really does, but I'm more curious about how you'd receive it.

Let's say that Wizards wanted to put out a subclass for each class, but didn't want it to lock out the other subclasses. My personal Examples would be something like Circle of the Dryad or Circle of the Mimic. Similar to Circle of the Moon for Druids, but they let you wildshape into Plants / Constructs... but they don't want you to pick this and be denied Circle of Shepherds, etc... so they turn it into something like a feat tree... or a list of four feats that requires something like, "Be a Druid" and "Have that other Druid feat".

Originally this was in my 5e redesign and was how I'd implement the most popular subclasses (Life Domain, Totem Path, Battlemaster Archetype, etc).

Quote from Erokow32 >>

A bit of a weird design concept to throw out. It isn't something 5e really does, but I'm more curious about how you'd receive it.

Let's say that Wizards wanted to put out a subclass for each class, but didn't want it to lock out the other subclasses. My personal Examples would be something like Circle of the Dryad or Circle of the Mimic. Similar to Circle of the Moon for Druids, but they let you wildshape into Plants / Constructs... but they don't want you to pick this and be denied Circle of Shepherds, etc... so they turn it into something like a feat tree... or a list of four feats that requires something like, "Be a Druid" and "Have that other Druid feat".

Originally this was in my 5e redesign and was how I'd implement the most popular subclasses (Life Domain, Totem Path, Battlemaster Archetype, etc).

 5E would be a better game if it had no classes or subclasses and instead all abilities were selected from trees, but that's a lot of work to build and if you do it as a homebrew you won't see widespread adoption.

There used to be a lot more feat trees in previous editions, they were kind of a mixed bag. Usually, you’d really want the third feat, for example, but would have to take the other two to get to it, and never really use those first two. The term then was feat tax. 
Personally, I kind of liked them, but they also required a degree of system mastery that this edition has gotten away from, where you really, really had to plan out your character level by level. There were more choices, but many choices were bad, and by level 10 or so, it really became apparent who knew the system better, because they just had a more effective character.

Also, it was really more of the illusion of choice. Yes, there were three dozen feats you could pick, but there was almost always only 1 or 2 that were the “correct” option.

I’d actually argue (and I’m not pretending this is my original idea) that subclasses are basically feat trees. You just make one choice when you pick your subclass, it it locks you in to future choices. The game designers picked them for you, since they already had a handle on which ones were the best options. It helps lessen the need for system mastery.

While they’ve kind of stayed away from that, it seems like it’s coming back, with strixhaven, and the dragonlance UA both having some small feat trees tied to your background. If this is a new direction we’ll see in 2024, only time will tell.

Less choice is just bad business, whatever your personal preference may be. Right now, today, you can run a game with all fighter subclasses banned but Battlemaster. Literally nothing is stopping you. Complaining about too much choice is really saying, "I don't want other people to play this way."

I'm not opposed to more feats, but 4e got a lot of blowback for their feat bloat. 5e made a very conscious decision to chop it down to a manageable list, and I think the feat trees we see in Strixhaven were a scramble to come up with something to replace the classless subclasses that we saw in the Strixhaven UA. They feel more like a hasty patch than a well-thought-out design strategy for the future. And the Strix feats are a pale shadow of what was in the UA - they are not nearly enough IMO.

Personally, if they're going to buff backgrounds I'd rather them put all this content there than start to compete with existing feats. The Dragonlance ones feel largely like sacrificing effectiveness for roleplay to me. Well designed content doesn't make you choose between the two.

Quote from quindraco >>

Quote from Erokow32 >>

A bit of a weird design concept to throw out. It isn't something 5e really does, but I'm more curious about how you'd receive it.

Let's say that Wizards wanted to put out a subclass for each class, but didn't want it to lock out the other subclasses. My personal Examples would be something like Circle of the Dryad or Circle of the Mimic. Similar to Circle of the Moon for Druids, but they let you wildshape into Plants / Constructs... but they don't want you to pick this and be denied Circle of Shepherds, etc... so they turn it into something like a feat tree... or a list of four feats that requires something like, "Be a Druid" and "Have that other Druid feat".

Originally this was in my 5e redesign and was how I'd implement the most popular subclasses (Life Domain, Totem Path, Battlemaster Archetype, etc).

 5E would be a better game if it had no classes or subclasses and instead all abilities were selected from trees, but that's a lot of work to build and if you do it as a homebrew you won't see widespread adoption.

 That would be any of many other RPGs, but it definitely wouldn't be D&D.