So I had a thought about something... there are some subclasses that seem to be intended to be flavored in a way that's similar to other classes... Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are basically Fighter Wizards and Rogue Wizards... Arcane Archer Fighter and Scout Rogue seem to be built as alternatives to Ranger, or Whispers Bard is often described as basically a "Bard Rogue"... there are others as well.
Anyway, I was curious about what everyone's thoughts are on these subclasses. Personally, I generally like them for the sake of letting players get the flavor of a particular class when the actual mechanics aren't appealing... like, if you really want nature powers but you don't want to have the ability to shapeshift you could take Nature Domain Cleric. I would kind of like to see more... we've got Gish melee fighters in a few classes (Swords/Valor Bards, Bladesinger Wizards, Hexblade Warlocks, etc.), but something like, say... Druid doesn't really have a dedicated melee subclass. I'd actually like to see these kinds of things evenly distributed across the classes in some way, but I also understand that it can kind of dilute the game by giving every class a subclass that roughly approximates every other class. Why would anyone play as a Cleric if there's a Wizard subclass that gives you all the healing of being a Cleric plus the versatility of being a wizard?
Why would anyone play a wizard when you can play an Arcana Domain cleric instead? Sometimes the class itself just doesn't do it for you, either for backstory reasons or build reasons, or something else.
The melee druid subclass is called Circle of the Moon. Then again, we don't really have any ranged barbarian or paladin subclasses so I really don't see an issue with all classes not being able to do everything (you don't really have a skill monkey monk subclass either, for example).
That said, options and versatility is always fun. Sometimes you just want something to enhance a concept or the idea you had for your character. For example, I've been toying with the idea of playing a Ranger (probably gloom stalker)/Scout Rogue multiclass. Why? Because it gives me the perfect opportunity to play an explorer type character who is really (and I mean REALLY) good at pretty much everything except anything that has to do with interacting socially with other creatures. They know pretty much everything and they can do pretty much everything, but when dealing with others they're just a bumbling, fumbling confused mess of a genius who is too shy to get their point across properly.
I think that creatures in 5e worlds simply have the potentials to do magic, handle ranged weapons, track etc.
This parallels forms of life on Earth that widely have the potential to sense the presence of light and, among which, eyes have evolved several times.
An armoured combatant or shadowy rogue does their thing but magic is also a thing but, instead of completely dropping their pursuit of fighting or roguish arts to solely pursue magical progression, they keep going with their progression in conjunction with magical dabbling.
Basically, d&d is changing so that various classes and races can more readily overlap with result that they become less distinct.
Even without this, there have previously been multiple ways to fight or do magic etc.
Batman is named the Dark Knight yet could fit with base monk builds. Dr Strange is called the Sorcerer Supreme yet could fit a base wizard build. Gandalf is described as a wizard yet could fit with a base bard build.
I'm not overly fond of how subclasses are handled, especially when there's many that are just 'the [x] version of [y class],' but then the improvements I'd suggest over the fitting of square pegs in round holes so to speak is to bring back class-kits, prestige classes and so forth. But then that just begs the question of "why not play Pathfinder or older editions of D&D?" This doesn't mean improvements can't be made to the current system, of course, it's just that I'm too inexperienced and currently lack the ability to express what I mean to provide any useful suggestions. I just worry about repeating the mistakes of World of Warcraft, where balance equalled homogenisation and everyone had the exact same abilities and talents (feats), roughly reflavoured to suit the class a little bit better. I think it's good that classes need their bases covered by others, especially in a cooperative and collaborative game such as Dungeons & Dragons.
I'm glad an attempt has been made for those who don't want to play the 'core' classes as written, and can play them in different ways. No longer does the Cleric have to be a healbot (as mentioned above with the Arcana Domain), no longer does the Warlock have to just use Eldritch Blast (see Celestial). I think my main problem is the stigma and expectation of the classes, especially if - like me - players have come from video games and take great pains to consider party composition. That's something Wizards can't do anything about, that's entirely on me to shift away from, and the best way to do that is play as or with others who challenge those stereotypes. ^^
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
I like these subclasses, but I think that many of them are unnecessary. There are already so many subclasses that I think the game kind of is getting bogged down. The inclusion of these emulator subclasses are not helping. Some of them add a lot to gameplay and can completely change your character, like an arcane trickster, but some of them are blade bards who are just useless.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
I just worry about repeating the mistakes of World of Warcraft, where balance equalled homogenisation and everyone had the exact same abilities and talents (feats), roughly reflavoured to suit the class a little bit better. I think it's good that classes need their bases covered by others, especially in a cooperative and collaborative game such as Dungeons & Dragons.
As a former Resto Druid main, I feel this. The spec lost it's whole identity to the streamline bullcrap they did.
In regards to D&D though, as long the base class features are still unique enough, it should survive. Scout Rogue, for example, still has rogue stuff over Ranger while sharing some other bits. I personally think this is fine.
The subclasses you're talking about are generally not going to do the "emulated" class's "gimmick/schtick/thing" as good as the core class does itself, and even if they come close for the filling of a role they're still not doing it the same way. A Celestial Warlock is not going to be as good a straight up healer as a Life Cleric (unless, maybe, if you get a short rest after every encounter or challenge that results in damage) and they still won't have the other options available to the Cleric class in general (specifically just about all of the Cleric spell list). An Arcana Cleric gets a few specific wizard spells, Arcana proficiency, two cantrips and, if they (or even the campaign) make it to 17th level, four high level spells of choice; that means there are still a whole lot of spells Wizards are going to have access to that they don't. An Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight doesn't come anywhere near the magical potency of any full caster but they do get just enough spells to augment their own class abilities for greater effect at important moments.
If you want to be a silent, ninja-esque killer then you're probably not going to get better than an Assassin Rogue for pure, specialized efficiency. But you can still be competent enough to be effective at that role under many or even most circumstances while also being better at other things with other Rogue subclasses or various Ranger, Bard, or Monk builds or even as a Wizard with very specialized spell selection. It's all about style and flavor. The majority of Fighter, Barbarian, and Paladin builds boil down to, one way or another, dealing damage with melee weapons, but do you want to mix that with mobility, durability, high armor class, or one or more of numerous synergetic relationships with other party members (themselves of potentially varied classes and role foci)?
Each class represents a general core skillset and then the subclasses tweak and augment that basic toolbox to better accomplish specific roles and/or to excel in certain situations as well as being better suited to arranging those situations. It's about style, flavor, and technique. You want to be an armored knight? Paladin or Eldritch Knight if you want some magic to augment your beatdowns (which you choose depending on what kind of magic you want), otherwise Fighter and pick your flavor of beating up bad guys from the various subclasses.
I like them. Assassin is a great example, because I love the assassin archetype but I dislike the mechanics of the subclass. So I'm glad there's other ways to make an assassin that better fit my playstyle. But I also have absolutely no issue with having tons of content, or "bloat" as some people call it. I could see it being an issue for people uninterested in trying out new mechanics though.
I like these subclasses, but I think that many of them are unnecessary. There are already so many subclasses that I think the game kind of is getting bogged down. The inclusion of these emulator subclasses are not helping. Some of them add a lot to gameplay and can completely change your character, like an arcane trickster, but some of them are blade bards who are just useless.
Blades (sword bards) are really good though. But I do agree that there are quite a lot of subclasses and some of them aren't really necessary. Then again, you don't have to include them in your game if you don't want to so for me that's not going to be an issue. :)
I just worry about repeating the mistakes of World of Warcraft, where balance equalled homogenisation and everyone had the exact same abilities and talents (feats), roughly reflavoured to suit the class a little bit better. I think it's good that classes need their bases covered by others, especially in a cooperative and collaborative game such as Dungeons & Dragons.
As a former Resto Druid main, I feel this. The spec lost it's whole identity to the streamline bullcrap they did.
In regards to D&D though, as long the base class features are still unique enough, it should survive. Scout Rogue, for example, still has rogue stuff over Ranger while sharing some other bits. I personally think this is fine.
Yeah, it'd be really boring if the game basically because chess (everyone has the same powers and abilities) but I like how you can make similar characters in many different ways. To continue the video game simily, that allows for replayability. One of the reasons why Baldur's Gate 2 is generally considered a better game than BG1 is the characters finally have a high enough level to get different abilities to make them different from each other. In BG1 a fighter isn't that much different from a paladin, for example.
I like them. Assassin is a great example, because I love the assassin archetype but I dislike the mechanics of the subclass. So I'm glad there's other ways to make an assassin that better fit my playstyle. But I also have absolutely no issue with having tons of content, or "bloat" as some people call it. I could see it being an issue for people uninterested in trying out new mechanics though.
I'm of the same mindset when it comes to this bloat concept. I never understand people who complain that the game introduces so many new subclasses or races, and proudly declare everyone should just limit themselves to the PHB. Like... that's fine if that's what someone wants in their game, but I don't see anything wrong with just letting everyone else enjoy other options.
That said, the problem I've noticed is less that the subclasses homogenize the game too much (which is one of the potential worries I had about the types of subclasses I was initially talking about), but the bigger problem is Feature Creep, where one Subclass ends up being considered the absolute "Best" of all the options available to a particular class. Stuff like Gloomstalker Ranger, Hexblade Warlock, Bear Totem Barbarian (kind of weird how it's not just a subclass, but one option within that subclass).
I wonder how much things will change here in next 2 years when the "updated/reimagined/rebalanced" version of the game comes out. I bet a lot of the Core Subclasses get "updated/reimagined/rebalanced" to be better than any of the current subclasses. The "current" subclasses will still be compatible, but not as good, which fulfill the promise of backwards compatibility while opening the door for "updated/reimagined/rebalanced" versions of current subclasses in future books.
That said, the problem I've noticed is less that the subclasses homogenize the game too much (which is one of the potential worries I had about the types of subclasses I was initially talking about), but the bigger problem is Feature Creep, where one Subclass ends up being considered the absolute "Best" of all the options available to a particular class. Stuff like Gloomstalker Ranger, Hexblade Warlock, Bear Totem Barbarian (kind of weird how it's not just a subclass, but one option within that subclass).
Funny thing though is that, except for very special circumstances those subclasses aren't really that great. Don't get me wrong, they're all really good subclasses but they're all somewhat of a one trick pony. The Gloom Stalker's invisibility can be countered by any cantrip that produces light, the Hexblade is a really good blaster but can be lacking in other areas and the Bearbarian has the same problems that pretty much all barbarians have. I think it's more that the community tends to focus mostly on combat when it comes to deciding what a "good" class or subclass is and forgets about the other aspects of the game. Depending on the situation I'd say the Fey Wanderer beats out the Gloom Stalker, for example.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I had a thought about something... there are some subclasses that seem to be intended to be flavored in a way that's similar to other classes... Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are basically Fighter Wizards and Rogue Wizards... Arcane Archer Fighter and Scout Rogue seem to be built as alternatives to Ranger, or Whispers Bard is often described as basically a "Bard Rogue"... there are others as well.
Anyway, I was curious about what everyone's thoughts are on these subclasses. Personally, I generally like them for the sake of letting players get the flavor of a particular class when the actual mechanics aren't appealing... like, if you really want nature powers but you don't want to have the ability to shapeshift you could take Nature Domain Cleric. I would kind of like to see more... we've got Gish melee fighters in a few classes (Swords/Valor Bards, Bladesinger Wizards, Hexblade Warlocks, etc.), but something like, say... Druid doesn't really have a dedicated melee subclass. I'd actually like to see these kinds of things evenly distributed across the classes in some way, but I also understand that it can kind of dilute the game by giving every class a subclass that roughly approximates every other class. Why would anyone play as a Cleric if there's a Wizard subclass that gives you all the healing of being a Cleric plus the versatility of being a wizard?
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Why would anyone play a wizard when you can play an Arcana Domain cleric instead? Sometimes the class itself just doesn't do it for you, either for backstory reasons or build reasons, or something else.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
The melee druid subclass is called Circle of the Moon. Then again, we don't really have any ranged barbarian or paladin subclasses so I really don't see an issue with all classes not being able to do everything (you don't really have a skill monkey monk subclass either, for example).
That said, options and versatility is always fun. Sometimes you just want something to enhance a concept or the idea you had for your character. For example, I've been toying with the idea of playing a Ranger (probably gloom stalker)/Scout Rogue multiclass. Why? Because it gives me the perfect opportunity to play an explorer type character who is really (and I mean REALLY) good at pretty much everything except anything that has to do with interacting socially with other creatures. They know pretty much everything and they can do pretty much everything, but when dealing with others they're just a bumbling, fumbling confused mess of a genius who is too shy to get their point across properly.
I think that creatures in 5e worlds simply have the potentials to do magic, handle ranged weapons, track etc.
This parallels forms of life on Earth that widely have the potential to sense the presence of light and, among which, eyes have evolved several times.
An armoured combatant or shadowy rogue does their thing but magic is also a thing but, instead of completely dropping their pursuit of fighting or roguish arts to solely pursue magical progression, they keep going with their progression in conjunction with magical dabbling.
Basically, d&d is changing so that various classes and races can more readily overlap with result that they become less distinct.
Even without this, there have previously been multiple ways to fight or do magic etc.
Batman is named the Dark Knight yet could fit with base monk builds. Dr Strange is called the Sorcerer Supreme yet could fit a base wizard build. Gandalf is described as a wizard yet could fit with a base bard build.
Perhaps it goes to support the view that there's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not overly fond of how subclasses are handled, especially when there's many that are just 'the [x] version of [y class],' but then the improvements I'd suggest over the fitting of square pegs in round holes so to speak is to bring back class-kits, prestige classes and so forth. But then that just begs the question of "why not play Pathfinder or older editions of D&D?" This doesn't mean improvements can't be made to the current system, of course, it's just that I'm too inexperienced and currently lack the ability to express what I mean to provide any useful suggestions. I just worry about repeating the mistakes of World of Warcraft, where balance equalled homogenisation and everyone had the exact same abilities and talents (feats), roughly reflavoured to suit the class a little bit better. I think it's good that classes need their bases covered by others, especially in a cooperative and collaborative game such as Dungeons & Dragons.
I'm glad an attempt has been made for those who don't want to play the 'core' classes as written, and can play them in different ways. No longer does the Cleric have to be a healbot (as mentioned above with the Arcana Domain), no longer does the Warlock have to just use Eldritch Blast (see Celestial). I think my main problem is the stigma and expectation of the classes, especially if - like me - players have come from video games and take great pains to consider party composition. That's something Wizards can't do anything about, that's entirely on me to shift away from, and the best way to do that is play as or with others who challenge those stereotypes. ^^
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
I like these subclasses, but I think that many of them are unnecessary. There are already so many subclasses that I think the game kind of is getting bogged down. The inclusion of these emulator subclasses are not helping. Some of them add a lot to gameplay and can completely change your character, like an arcane trickster, but some of them are blade bards who are just useless.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
- Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert
As a former Resto Druid main, I feel this. The spec lost it's whole identity to the streamline bullcrap they did.
In regards to D&D though, as long the base class features are still unique enough, it should survive. Scout Rogue, for example, still has rogue stuff over Ranger while sharing some other bits. I personally think this is fine.
The subclasses you're talking about are generally not going to do the "emulated" class's "gimmick/schtick/thing" as good as the core class does itself, and even if they come close for the filling of a role they're still not doing it the same way. A Celestial Warlock is not going to be as good a straight up healer as a Life Cleric (unless, maybe, if you get a short rest after every encounter or challenge that results in damage) and they still won't have the other options available to the Cleric class in general (specifically just about all of the Cleric spell list). An Arcana Cleric gets a few specific wizard spells, Arcana proficiency, two cantrips and, if they (or even the campaign) make it to 17th level, four high level spells of choice; that means there are still a whole lot of spells Wizards are going to have access to that they don't. An Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight doesn't come anywhere near the magical potency of any full caster but they do get just enough spells to augment their own class abilities for greater effect at important moments.
If you want to be a silent, ninja-esque killer then you're probably not going to get better than an Assassin Rogue for pure, specialized efficiency. But you can still be competent enough to be effective at that role under many or even most circumstances while also being better at other things with other Rogue subclasses or various Ranger, Bard, or Monk builds or even as a Wizard with very specialized spell selection. It's all about style and flavor. The majority of Fighter, Barbarian, and Paladin builds boil down to, one way or another, dealing damage with melee weapons, but do you want to mix that with mobility, durability, high armor class, or one or more of numerous synergetic relationships with other party members (themselves of potentially varied classes and role foci)?
Each class represents a general core skillset and then the subclasses tweak and augment that basic toolbox to better accomplish specific roles and/or to excel in certain situations as well as being better suited to arranging those situations. It's about style, flavor, and technique. You want to be an armored knight? Paladin or Eldritch Knight if you want some magic to augment your beatdowns (which you choose depending on what kind of magic you want), otherwise Fighter and pick your flavor of beating up bad guys from the various subclasses.
I like them. Assassin is a great example, because I love the assassin archetype but I dislike the mechanics of the subclass. So I'm glad there's other ways to make an assassin that better fit my playstyle. But I also have absolutely no issue with having tons of content, or "bloat" as some people call it. I could see it being an issue for people uninterested in trying out new mechanics though.
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
Blades (sword bards) are really good though. But I do agree that there are quite a lot of subclasses and some of them aren't really necessary. Then again, you don't have to include them in your game if you don't want to so for me that's not going to be an issue. :)
Yeah, it'd be really boring if the game basically because chess (everyone has the same powers and abilities) but I like how you can make similar characters in many different ways. To continue the video game simily, that allows for replayability. One of the reasons why Baldur's Gate 2 is generally considered a better game than BG1 is the characters finally have a high enough level to get different abilities to make them different from each other. In BG1 a fighter isn't that much different from a paladin, for example.
I'm of the same mindset when it comes to this bloat concept. I never understand people who complain that the game introduces so many new subclasses or races, and proudly declare everyone should just limit themselves to the PHB. Like... that's fine if that's what someone wants in their game, but I don't see anything wrong with just letting everyone else enjoy other options.
That said, the problem I've noticed is less that the subclasses homogenize the game too much (which is one of the potential worries I had about the types of subclasses I was initially talking about), but the bigger problem is Feature Creep, where one Subclass ends up being considered the absolute "Best" of all the options available to a particular class. Stuff like Gloomstalker Ranger, Hexblade Warlock, Bear Totem Barbarian (kind of weird how it's not just a subclass, but one option within that subclass).
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I wonder how much things will change here in next 2 years when the "updated/reimagined/rebalanced" version of the game comes out. I bet a lot of the Core Subclasses get "updated/reimagined/rebalanced" to be better than any of the current subclasses. The "current" subclasses will still be compatible, but not as good, which fulfill the promise of backwards compatibility while opening the door for "updated/reimagined/rebalanced" versions of current subclasses in future books.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Funny thing though is that, except for very special circumstances those subclasses aren't really that great. Don't get me wrong, they're all really good subclasses but they're all somewhat of a one trick pony. The Gloom Stalker's invisibility can be countered by any cantrip that produces light, the Hexblade is a really good blaster but can be lacking in other areas and the Bearbarian has the same problems that pretty much all barbarians have. I think it's more that the community tends to focus mostly on combat when it comes to deciding what a "good" class or subclass is and forgets about the other aspects of the game. Depending on the situation I'd say the Fey Wanderer beats out the Gloom Stalker, for example.