Bladesingers are widely regarded as one of the best subclasses in the game so I dunno what you all are talking about there. You can do really good damage or just be a wizard which is already extremely strong. You get get your AC so high that only a crit can hit you and then just use Silvery Barbs.
Berserkers were ok just wonky. You could really only use their ability to get free attacks once per day. That ability was really strong though. The capstone is really strong as well. Pack a cleric with greater restoration and you have an extremely strong class.
I've always thought Battleragers were under appreciated. 1d4 damage isnt' good, and it doesn't scale. But what does scale? Strength modifier and rage bonus. The temp HP every round is actually amazing. 3 rounds of combat, that's potentially 15 temp hp, and 30 damage negated (if you're raging and they're doing physical damage). The capstone isn't amazing but 3 damage an attack against you can add up over time.
Purple dragon knight is kinda weird. It's a support subclass on an otherwise offensive powerhouse. I think it's not amazing but I've heard compelling arguments for it to be an ok subclass.
My vote would absolutely be Way of Four Elements monk. The abilities were all under powered for the levels you got them, all required ki, and were always stepping on the toes of the other things monks wanted to be doing.
If we're talking 2024, i think it's hard to say. Everything seems fairly well balanced but I've yet to play using 2024 rules.
Nah, BattleRagers COULD have been really cool, and I make them cool at my table, throwing away WoTC's disregard of them. They should (rightfully) BE one of the main sub-classes as a barbarian, but, open to all races/species.
It's literally, as Tasha/WotC herself said, a College of Swords bard with less health. Honestly, if you want the armor, there is better ways to do it (i.e become a tortle or Lizardfolk). It lacks flair, is rather squishy. If you want a battle wizard, choose War Mage. If you want to be a weird guy that casts spells through his sword, become a College of Swords bard. Either way, it is not fun to play as or unique.
(Sorry went on a bit of a rant there)
Huh? 0.o
We have subclasses that are obsolete with 2024, we have unimproved Monk Subclasses, we a few Rogue Sublcasses which fail at almost everything, but you hit one of the most OP Subclasses in the game, which under 2024 rules is even more OP.
Before we point out it's still a Wizard with access to the most spells and biggest booms, control, and well everything. It also can dart in and out of melee do two melee or one melee and one cantrip attack every turn (with some of the new cantrips OP) plus it has access to the single most broken concentration spell in the game, Conjure Minor Elementals, which is best used in melee distance.
And on top of this, the subclass is tied to the lore of the single best goddess in D&D lore. Eilistraee, meaning you can play a surface Drow Acolyte of Eilistraee for RP. (And the new Acolyte background gives you Magic Initiate Cleric - which you can use with Int.)
Actually, I just don't enjoy playing as Bladesingers. They just aren't really that fun for me. I wasn't really saying the were the weakest subclass (I think that would be Scribe Wizard in a world with very few libraries or access to magical knowledge, but that's purely situational.) I was saying it was the worst subclass to play, in context roleplaying and uniqueness. I think Bladesingers are rather strong, actually. Just... not the sort of class I want to play as.
Even in a Wizards only "weakest Wizards Subclass" nothing you have said is weak, you might have had a bad DM who doesn't understand how to set up a world with fantasy and magic, because Libraries for wizards are in every city, and most large towns. Even in the Ancient Past here on Earth during the middle ages you could find libraries in every city, and scholarly people would be allowed to visit and read the volumes (and make personal notes or copies) while there.
As for Bladesingers, the lore and RP might not be for everyone, and 5th ed doesn't really express how great their lore and history is, but if you want an interesting deep dive read up on Eilistraee and Bladesingers.
Weakest wizard Legacy School of Divination. The new version fixed a bunch of issues it had.
For 2014, Way of Four Elements monk is probably the weakest from what I have looked at but I don't specifically review every subclass, also not a fan of Berserker Barbarian due to how it gives you levels of Exhaustion to use the main feature of the subclass.
For 2024, more time needed but I am not sure there are any bad subclasses in 2024 (at least yet).
If I had to choose, I might select the Oath of Glory Paladin. Where Oath of Devotion and Oath of Vengeance gets channel divinity options that can be activated when taking the attack action, Oath of Ancients gets a powerful Crowd Control at an action cost but Oath of Glory just gets the ability to distribute some temporary hit points when using divine smite. Using both a spell slot and a channel divinity to get the benefit, but that the spell has to be a particular spell (and not even any smite spell, only Divine Smite works) where divine smite uses a bonus action and requires an attack that hits to be activated. But Oath of Glory still has things going for it, more move speed does mean it can get into melee range faster than any other Paladin.
There's a question about how to rank "bad subclass on a good class". If we count "bad subclass" as meaning that the subclass adds little or nothing to the base class, I would probably go with the 2014 wild magic sorcerer, as it's literally worse than not having a subclass (the 2024 chaos surge table is a lot more friendly).
There are two ways to judge this: rating characters in terms of mechanical effectiveness and rating characters in terms of realising some narrative archetype.
I've no idea if the Rogue Thief subclass is as powerful as some others, but it remains a classic narrative archetype that gamers can relate to and want to play. Personally, I prefer this to a Soul Knife, say, which is designed more on the grounds of mechanical potency. A classic Thief is also easier (for me, at least) to play.
The perfect niche for a Subclass is to be match some sort of classic archetype AND be mechanically effective although there is some debate on this too. For me, the worst are the ones that aren't interesting to play - I'd probably list Soulblade, Aberrant Sorcerer and Psi Warriors as I basically don't like psionics in my fantasy games.
There are two ways to judge this: rating characters in terms of mechanical effectiveness and rating characters in terms of realising some narrative archetype.
I've no idea if the Rogue Thief subclass is as powerful as some others, but it remains a classic narrative archetype that gamers can relate to and want to play. Personally, I prefer this to a Soul Knife, say, which is designed more on the grounds of mechanical potency. A classic Thief is also easier (for me, at least) to play.
The perfect niche for a Subclass is to be match some sort of classic archetype AND be mechanically effective although there is some debate on this too. For me, the worst are the ones that aren't interesting to play - I'd probably list Soulblade, Aberrant Sorcerer and Psi Warriors as I basically don't like psionics in my fantasy games.
The problem is that any of the other subclasses can still be built as a classic thief and still be as good or even better in actual theft in all but exceedingly rare situations. The 2024 version is a little better than the 2014 version, but there, the level 9 is better suited to an assassin than to a classic thief.
(So, feel like this post is a bit irrelevant, but I feel like throwing my opinion out there)
Berserker no longer has fatigue, so that's a major buff. Problem is, much shorter rage...
I think that all the classes have relevance, either good roleplaying, good combat, or good money (thief, I'm looking at you.). However, there is one subclass that lacks any of that.
The Bladesinger Wizard.
It's literally, as Tasha/WotC herself said, a College of Swords bard with less health. Honestly, if you want the armor, there is better ways to do it (i.e become a tortle or Lizardfolk). It lacks flair, is rather squishy. If you want a battle wizard, choose War Mage. If you want to be a weird guy that casts spells through his sword, become a College of Swords bard. Either way, it is not fun to play as or unique.
(Sorry went on a bit of a rant there)
I'm going to have to totally disagree with this. I've played a Bladesinger and she was amazing in combat.
Honestly, I had a totally different experience with the Berserker. I’d save my Berserk for the end of the session, and absolutely annihilate the boss and their lackeys with my glaive. It was pretty fun https://19216801****/https://routerlogin.uno/ .
2014 berserker, battle rager and 2014 champion (for barbarian, barbarian, and fighter, respectively), though I could put blade singer (wizard) down there too (just play a hex blade!).
There are two ways to judge this: rating characters in terms of mechanical effectiveness and rating characters in terms of realising some narrative archetype.
I've no idea if the Rogue Thief subclass is as powerful as some others, but it remains a classic narrative archetype that gamers can relate to and want to play. Personally, I prefer this to a Soul Knife, say, which is designed more on the grounds of mechanical potency. A classic Thief is also easier (for me, at least) to play.
The perfect niche for a Subclass is to be match some sort of classic archetype AND be mechanically effective although there is some debate on this too. For me, the worst are the ones that aren't interesting to play - I'd probably list Soulblade, Aberrant Sorcerer and Psi Warriors as I basically don't like psionics in my fantasy games.
The problem is that any of the other subclasses can still be built as a classic thief and still be as good or even better in actual theft in all but exceedingly rare situations. The 2024 version is a little better than the 2014 version, but there, the level 9 is better suited to an assassin than to a classic thief.
Well, all you are doing here is assessing the mechanical effectiveness of the subclass. It completely misses the point that, narratively, the Thief is a more iconic archetype than other subclasses. Other subclasses may be more effective but still not as iconic in fantasy literature.
2014 berserker, battle rager and 2014 champion (for barbarian, barbarian, and fighter, respectively), though I could put blade singer (wizard) down there too (just play a hex blade!).
Bladesingers have entirely different abilities from Hexblades.
There are two ways to judge this: rating characters in terms of mechanical effectiveness and rating characters in terms of realising some narrative archetype.
I've no idea if the Rogue Thief subclass is as powerful as some others, but it remains a classic narrative archetype that gamers can relate to and want to play. Personally, I prefer this to a Soul Knife, say, which is designed more on the grounds of mechanical potency. A classic Thief is also easier (for me, at least) to play.
The perfect niche for a Subclass is to be match some sort of classic archetype AND be mechanically effective although there is some debate on this too. For me, the worst are the ones that aren't interesting to play - I'd probably list Soulblade, Aberrant Sorcerer and Psi Warriors as I basically don't like psionics in my fantasy games.
The problem is that any of the other subclasses can still be built as a classic thief and still be as good or even better in actual theft in all but exceedingly rare situations. The 2024 version is a little better than the 2014 version, but there, the level 9 is better suited to an assassin than to a classic thief.
Well, all you are doing here is assessing the mechanical effectiveness of the subclass. It completely misses the point that, narratively, the Thief is a more iconic archetype than other subclasses. Other subclasses may be more effective but still not as iconic in fantasy literature.
That's nice, but it's also irrelevant because this thread is about how bad a subclass is, not how iconic it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There’s a few ways to look at this (I’ll try to be unbiased(
Mechanically Bad Subclasses, like the 2014 Way of Four Elements Monk
Subclassss that don’t make sense/don’t really need to exist, like Purple Dragon Knight and Battlerager
Basic Subclasses, such as thief, berserker, way of open hand
Too “Out There” subclasses, Soulknife, Abberant Mind, Clockwork Soul, The Unfathomable, College of Whispers (this one is more abstract than the former categories)
Those last two are kind of opposing. Basic Subclasses are the classic approach, while “Out There” subclasses offer more flavor. I personally like the more out there subclasses, but that’s just me. If you want to play a classic archetype character, go ahead. If you want to play something with more flavor, that’s great too
There are two ways to judge this: rating characters in terms of mechanical effectiveness and rating characters in terms of realising some narrative archetype.
I've no idea if the Rogue Thief subclass is as powerful as some others, but it remains a classic narrative archetype that gamers can relate to and want to play. Personally, I prefer this to a Soul Knife, say, which is designed more on the grounds of mechanical potency. A classic Thief is also easier (for me, at least) to play.
The perfect niche for a Subclass is to be match some sort of classic archetype AND be mechanically effective although there is some debate on this too. For me, the worst are the ones that aren't interesting to play - I'd probably list Soulblade, Aberrant Sorcerer and Psi Warriors as I basically don't like psionics in my fantasy games.
That’s true, but there’s also two sides. Thieves are more iconic, but they could also be considered more basic because of that. Personally I really like the concept of mind flayers and the far realm and the psi-based subclasses, but I understand if you don’t. I like Soulblades because they add a kind of flavor for me that a lot of the other rogue subclasses don’t. If you want to play a classic character, go ahead. I just don’t think you can really judge a good subclass by that because a lot of subclasses, especially ones from Tasha’s and Xanathar’s are meant to add flavor that the base classes wouldn’t really have otherwise, to add something new per se.
There are two ways to judge this: rating characters in terms of mechanical effectiveness and rating characters in terms of realising some narrative archetype.
I've no idea if the Rogue Thief subclass is as powerful as some others, but it remains a classic narrative archetype that gamers can relate to and want to play. Personally, I prefer this to a Soul Knife, say, which is designed more on the grounds of mechanical potency. A classic Thief is also easier (for me, at least) to play.
The perfect niche for a Subclass is to be match some sort of classic archetype AND be mechanically effective although there is some debate on this too. For me, the worst are the ones that aren't interesting to play - I'd probably list Soulblade, Aberrant Sorcerer and Psi Warriors as I basically don't like psionics in my fantasy games.
The problem is that any of the other subclasses can still be built as a classic thief and still be as good or even better in actual theft in all but exceedingly rare situations. The 2024 version is a little better than the 2014 version, but there, the level 9 is better suited to an assassin than to a classic thief.
Well, all you are doing here is assessing the mechanical effectiveness of the subclass. It completely misses the point that, narratively, the Thief is a more iconic archetype than other subclasses. Other subclasses may be more effective but still not as iconic in fantasy literature.
Mechanics facilitate narrative, though. There is most definitely no rule anywhere preventing other subclasses or even other classes from playing the role of 'thief.' When someone else in the party is as good or better than doing what your does, plus having additional benefits, where is your character left, narratively?
There are two ways to judge this: rating characters in terms of mechanical effectiveness and rating characters in terms of realising some narrative archetype.
I've no idea if the Rogue Thief subclass is as powerful as some others, but it remains a classic narrative archetype that gamers can relate to and want to play. Personally, I prefer this to a Soul Knife, say, which is designed more on the grounds of mechanical potency. A classic Thief is also easier (for me, at least) to play.
The perfect niche for a Subclass is to be match some sort of classic archetype AND be mechanically effective although there is some debate on this too. For me, the worst are the ones that aren't interesting to play - I'd probably list Soulblade, Aberrant Sorcerer and Psi Warriors as I basically don't like psionics in my fantasy games.
The problem is that any of the other subclasses can still be built as a classic thief and still be as good or even better in actual theft in all but exceedingly rare situations. The 2024 version is a little better than the 2014 version, but there, the level 9 is better suited to an assassin than to a classic thief.
Well, all you are doing here is assessing the mechanical effectiveness of the subclass. It completely misses the point that, narratively, the Thief is a more iconic archetype than other subclasses. Other subclasses may be more effective but still not as iconic in fantasy literature.
Mechanics facilitate narrative, though. There is most definitely no rule anywhere preventing other subclasses or even other classes from playing the role of 'thief.' When someone else in the party is as good or better than doing what your does, plus having additional benefits, where is your character left, narratively?
That doesn’t follow.
There are mechanics in a board game - even things like Chess or playing Snap with a deck of cards. These games don’t facilitate narratives at all though.
The same is true in D&D. Just because something provides a mechanical advantage doesn’t mean it captures the imagination of the player. A Thief remains a popular subclass because it is archetypal. It doesn’t matter how mechanically superior other subclass builds might be, people will still keep picking the class that captures their imagination the most.
There are two ways to judge this: rating characters in terms of mechanical effectiveness and rating characters in terms of realising some narrative archetype.
I've no idea if the Rogue Thief subclass is as powerful as some others, but it remains a classic narrative archetype that gamers can relate to and want to play. Personally, I prefer this to a Soul Knife, say, which is designed more on the grounds of mechanical potency. A classic Thief is also easier (for me, at least) to play.
The perfect niche for a Subclass is to be match some sort of classic archetype AND be mechanically effective although there is some debate on this too. For me, the worst are the ones that aren't interesting to play - I'd probably list Soulblade, Aberrant Sorcerer and Psi Warriors as I basically don't like psionics in my fantasy games.
The problem is that any of the other subclasses can still be built as a classic thief and still be as good or even better in actual theft in all but exceedingly rare situations. The 2024 version is a little better than the 2014 version, but there, the level 9 is better suited to an assassin than to a classic thief.
Well, all you are doing here is assessing the mechanical effectiveness of the subclass. It completely misses the point that, narratively, the Thief is a more iconic archetype than other subclasses. Other subclasses may be more effective but still not as iconic in fantasy literature.
Mechanics facilitate narrative, though. There is most definitely no rule anywhere preventing other subclasses or even other classes from playing the role of 'thief.' When someone else in the party is as good or better than doing what your does, plus having additional benefits, where is your character left, narratively?
That doesn’t follow.
There are mechanics in a board game - even things like Chess or playing Snap with a deck of cards. These games don’t facilitate narratives at all though.
The same is true in D&D. Just because something provides a mechanical advantage doesn’t mean it captures the imagination of the player. A Thief remains a popular subclass because it is archetypal. It doesn’t matter how mechanically superior other subclass builds might be, people will still keep picking the class that captures their imagination the most.
Even in Chess, the mechanics drive the narrative. King's pawn advances cautiously, or king's pawn, in its opening move, charges forward narratively describing the movement of a pawn are still limited to a pawn's moves. 'The Queen's Bishop jumps over the pawns guarding it to set up outside their shield wall' is not a valid chess narrative.
Similarly, in Snap, one player picking up all the cards as they shout 'Snap!' and then declaring themselves the winner is a narrative but not one valid within the rules of Snap.
Something being mechanically superior in D&D may not capture the imagination but does not limit the imagination, either. Again, there is neither any rule against any class calling themself a thief, functionally being good at thieving, or, actually stealing any given thing of playing them that way, even if they are completely inept at it. Not sure how or why there would have to be an actual 'thief' subclass for someone to imagine their character as a thief.
And picking something that captures the imagination most then finding it is not as good at what you imagined as you hoped is not normally be considered the makings of a good class choice.
The whole point of D&D is to provide mechanics that work to capturing the imagination. I could very easily create a game and just say "you get to add your level to any rolls you make to which I think "thiefy" applies. Job done. The reason why we each pay hundreds to WotC is so that they come up with mechanics that help develop the narrative associated with the archetype (that are also balanced and interesting).
You can take any subclass and play it as any sub-archetype. The question is whether those mechanics evoke that sub-archetype while providing power (and are hence balanced). You can play an Illusionist while technically being an Evoker, but the Evoker sucks at providing that narrative immersion via mechanics. Hence, the Thief needs to feel "thiefy" by providing "thiefy" mechanics, provide power (i.e. be good at being a thief) and do so better than other Subclasses.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If we're talking 2014:
Bladesingers are widely regarded as one of the best subclasses in the game so I dunno what you all are talking about there. You can do really good damage or just be a wizard which is already extremely strong. You get get your AC so high that only a crit can hit you and then just use Silvery Barbs.
Berserkers were ok just wonky. You could really only use their ability to get free attacks once per day. That ability was really strong though. The capstone is really strong as well. Pack a cleric with greater restoration and you have an extremely strong class.
I've always thought Battleragers were under appreciated. 1d4 damage isnt' good, and it doesn't scale. But what does scale? Strength modifier and rage bonus. The temp HP every round is actually amazing. 3 rounds of combat, that's potentially 15 temp hp, and 30 damage negated (if you're raging and they're doing physical damage). The capstone isn't amazing but 3 damage an attack against you can add up over time.
Purple dragon knight is kinda weird. It's a support subclass on an otherwise offensive powerhouse. I think it's not amazing but I've heard compelling arguments for it to be an ok subclass.
My vote would absolutely be Way of Four Elements monk. The abilities were all under powered for the levels you got them, all required ki, and were always stepping on the toes of the other things monks wanted to be doing.
If we're talking 2024, i think it's hard to say. Everything seems fairly well balanced but I've yet to play using 2024 rules.
Nah, BattleRagers COULD have been really cool, and I make them cool at my table, throwing away WoTC's disregard of them. They should (rightfully) BE one of the main sub-classes as a barbarian, but, open to all races/species.
Huh? 0.o
We have subclasses that are obsolete with 2024, we have unimproved Monk Subclasses, we a few Rogue Sublcasses which fail at almost everything, but you hit one of the most OP Subclasses in the game, which under 2024 rules is even more OP.
Before we point out it's still a Wizard with access to the most spells and biggest booms, control, and well everything. It also can dart in and out of melee do two melee or one melee and one cantrip attack every turn (with some of the new cantrips OP) plus it has access to the single most broken concentration spell in the game, Conjure Minor Elementals, which is best used in melee distance.
And on top of this, the subclass is tied to the lore of the single best goddess in D&D lore. Eilistraee, meaning you can play a surface Drow Acolyte of Eilistraee for RP. (And the new Acolyte background gives you Magic Initiate Cleric - which you can use with Int.)
Even in a Wizards only "weakest Wizards Subclass" nothing you have said is weak, you might have had a bad DM who doesn't understand how to set up a world with fantasy and magic, because Libraries for wizards are in every city, and most large towns. Even in the Ancient Past here on Earth during the middle ages you could find libraries in every city, and scholarly people would be allowed to visit and read the volumes (and make personal notes or copies) while there.
As for Bladesingers, the lore and RP might not be for everyone, and 5th ed doesn't really express how great their lore and history is, but if you want an interesting deep dive read up on Eilistraee and Bladesingers.
Weakest wizard Legacy School of Divination. The new version fixed a bunch of issues it had.
For 2014, Way of Four Elements monk is probably the weakest from what I have looked at but I don't specifically review every subclass, also not a fan of Berserker Barbarian due to how it gives you levels of Exhaustion to use the main feature of the subclass.
For 2024, more time needed but I am not sure there are any bad subclasses in 2024 (at least yet).
If I had to choose, I might select the Oath of Glory Paladin. Where Oath of Devotion and Oath of Vengeance gets channel divinity options that can be activated when taking the attack action, Oath of Ancients gets a powerful Crowd Control at an action cost but Oath of Glory just gets the ability to distribute some temporary hit points when using divine smite. Using both a spell slot and a channel divinity to get the benefit, but that the spell has to be a particular spell (and not even any smite spell, only Divine Smite works) where divine smite uses a bonus action and requires an attack that hits to be activated. But Oath of Glory still has things going for it, more move speed does mean it can get into melee range faster than any other Paladin.
There's a question about how to rank "bad subclass on a good class". If we count "bad subclass" as meaning that the subclass adds little or nothing to the base class, I would probably go with the 2014 wild magic sorcerer, as it's literally worse than not having a subclass (the 2024 chaos surge table is a lot more friendly).
There are two ways to judge this: rating characters in terms of mechanical effectiveness and rating characters in terms of realising some narrative archetype.
I've no idea if the Rogue Thief subclass is as powerful as some others, but it remains a classic narrative archetype that gamers can relate to and want to play. Personally, I prefer this to a Soul Knife, say, which is designed more on the grounds of mechanical potency. A classic Thief is also easier (for me, at least) to play.
The perfect niche for a Subclass is to be match some sort of classic archetype AND be mechanically effective although there is some debate on this too. For me, the worst are the ones that aren't interesting to play - I'd probably list Soulblade, Aberrant Sorcerer and Psi Warriors as I basically don't like psionics in my fantasy games.
The problem is that any of the other subclasses can still be built as a classic thief and still be as good or even better in actual theft in all but exceedingly rare situations. The 2024 version is a little better than the 2014 version, but there, the level 9 is better suited to an assassin than to a classic thief.
I'm going to have to totally disagree with this. I've played a Bladesinger and she was amazing in combat.
Honestly, I had a totally different experience with the Berserker. I’d save my Berserk for the end of the session, and absolutely annihilate the boss and their lackeys with my glaive. It was pretty fun https://19216801****/ https://routerlogin.uno/ .
2014 berserker, battle rager and 2014 champion (for barbarian, barbarian, and fighter, respectively), though I could put blade singer (wizard) down there too (just play a hex blade!).
Overjoyed follower of Jeff, the Evil Roomba!
Well, all you are doing here is assessing the mechanical effectiveness of the subclass. It completely misses the point that, narratively, the Thief is a more iconic archetype than other subclasses. Other subclasses may be more effective but still not as iconic in fantasy literature.
Bladesingers have entirely different abilities from Hexblades.
That's nice, but it's also irrelevant because this thread is about how bad a subclass is, not how iconic it is.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
This really turned into a “Is Bladesinger Good?” debate lol
Hi Chat
There’s a few ways to look at this (I’ll try to be unbiased(
Mechanically Bad Subclasses, like the 2014 Way of Four Elements Monk
Subclassss that don’t make sense/don’t really need to exist, like Purple Dragon Knight and Battlerager
Basic Subclasses, such as thief, berserker, way of open hand
Too “Out There” subclasses, Soulknife, Abberant Mind, Clockwork Soul, The Unfathomable, College of Whispers (this one is more abstract than the former categories)
Those last two are kind of opposing. Basic Subclasses are the classic approach, while “Out There” subclasses offer more flavor. I personally like the more out there subclasses, but that’s just me. If you want to play a classic archetype character, go ahead. If you want to play something with more flavor, that’s great too
Hi Chat
That’s true, but there’s also two sides. Thieves are more iconic, but they could also be considered more basic because of that. Personally I really like the concept of mind flayers and the far realm and the psi-based subclasses, but I understand if you don’t. I like Soulblades because they add a kind of flavor for me that a lot of the other rogue subclasses don’t. If you want to play a classic character, go ahead. I just don’t think you can really judge a good subclass by that because a lot of subclasses, especially ones from Tasha’s and Xanathar’s are meant to add flavor that the base classes wouldn’t really have otherwise, to add something new per se.
Hi Chat
Mechanics facilitate narrative, though. There is most definitely no rule anywhere preventing other subclasses or even other classes from playing the role of 'thief.' When someone else in the party is as good or better than doing what your does, plus having additional benefits, where is your character left, narratively?
That doesn’t follow.
There are mechanics in a board game - even things like Chess or playing Snap with a deck of cards. These games don’t facilitate narratives at all though.
The same is true in D&D. Just because something provides a mechanical advantage doesn’t mean it captures the imagination of the player. A Thief remains a popular subclass because it is archetypal. It doesn’t matter how mechanically superior other subclass builds might be, people will still keep picking the class that captures their imagination the most.
Even in Chess, the mechanics drive the narrative. King's pawn advances cautiously, or king's pawn, in its opening move, charges forward narratively describing the movement of a pawn are still limited to a pawn's moves. 'The Queen's Bishop jumps over the pawns guarding it to set up outside their shield wall' is not a valid chess narrative.
Similarly, in Snap, one player picking up all the cards as they shout 'Snap!' and then declaring themselves the winner is a narrative but not one valid within the rules of Snap.
Something being mechanically superior in D&D may not capture the imagination but does not limit the imagination, either. Again, there is neither any rule against any class calling themself a thief, functionally being good at thieving, or, actually stealing any given thing of playing them that way, even if they are completely inept at it. Not sure how or why there would have to be an actual 'thief' subclass for someone to imagine their character as a thief.
And picking something that captures the imagination most then finding it is not as good at what you imagined as you hoped is not normally be considered the makings of a good class choice.
The whole point of D&D is to provide mechanics that work to capturing the imagination. I could very easily create a game and just say "you get to add your level to any rolls you make to which I think "thiefy" applies. Job done. The reason why we each pay hundreds to WotC is so that they come up with mechanics that help develop the narrative associated with the archetype (that are also balanced and interesting).
You can take any subclass and play it as any sub-archetype. The question is whether those mechanics evoke that sub-archetype while providing power (and are hence balanced). You can play an Illusionist while technically being an Evoker, but the Evoker sucks at providing that narrative immersion via mechanics. Hence, the Thief needs to feel "thiefy" by providing "thiefy" mechanics, provide power (i.e. be good at being a thief) and do so better than other Subclasses.
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.