Class : Subclass ratio. Is it off?

[OldTrees1]

Over the course of 20 levels the vast majority of your abilities come from your class. In comparison a small minority come from your subclass. Sometimes this seems ok, but other times it just seems off.

Take the Necromancer for example. The necromancer themed mechanics gained from the subclass are rather sparse in comparison to the generalist wizard themed mechanics gained from the class.

Does anyone else see this as an issue or am I just off my rocker?

[1of3]

I don't think it's an issue. Also I think it is very dependent on class and subclass. Monk Paths are very impactful. And there is a huge difference between Fighter Paths.

A Wizard on the other hand is a spellcaster already. You can't get better than that, so yeah, the Tradition features are nice to have.

[Eslin]

Depends on the class. The wizard gains a massive amount of power from spells, having the best and largest spell list in the game, so their subclass does comparatively little. In contrast a paladin gets a huge amount from their subtype, with each subtype granting them important spells, game changing abilities and their class capstone.

Each class is approximately balanced (some exceptions, rangers are chumps at high levels, casters>martials out of combat etc), but each class has a different ratio of power granted by their subclass.

[Scirocco]

The specialists have a lot more unique attributes vs the banned schools/extra slots of 3.x (UE aside)

So not really.

[Mandrake]

Well, of course, class should be more important since it is a category higher than a subclass. What subclass does is makes you relatively totally different. What I want to say is, when two things are really similar, what you tend to see are their differences. And that is why Eldritch Knight will never be a Battlemaster - it's a whole other story. Another thing, though, is everything else related to the build. If you are EK, you get Intel, which means you know other stuff, and your character is smart, so he has a different background, maybe different skills, or different feats. It might change the weapon he uses, and so on. Same with Necromancer - it affects the cantrips you use, spells you generally take, skills maybe even, and above all the way you flesh out your character, which is a lot more than just that class and subclass table.

[Eslin]

Well, of course, class should be more important since it is a category higher than a subclass. What subclass does is makes you relatively totally different. What I want to say is, when two things are really similar, what you tend to see are their differences. And that is why Eldritch Knight will never be a Battlemaster - it's a whole other story. Another thing, though, is everything else related to the build. If you are EK, you get Intel, which means you know other stuff, and your character is smart, so he has a different background, maybe different skills, or different feats. It might change the weapon he uses, and so on. Same with Necromancer - it affects the cantrips you use, spells you generally take, skills maybe even, and above all the way you flesh out your character, which is a lot more than just that class and subclass table.

Ehhh, not really. An abjurer and a diviner could have identical personalities and play very similarly, subclass is not always important in terms of fluff. It can be, and in a few cases has to be (hello paladin!), but it doesn't have to be relevant.

[Giant2005]

Over the course of 20 levels the vast majority of your abilities come from your class. In comparison a small minority come from your subclass. Sometimes this seems ok, but other times it just seems off.

Take the Necromancer for example. The necromancer themed mechanics gained from the subclass are rather sparse in comparison to the generalist wizard themed mechanics gained from the class.

Does anyone else see this as an issue or am I just off my rocker?

It isn't that different to real life.
For example, it takes about 10 years of training to become a Doctor and a further 4 years to become a specialist. That makes a specialist Doctor approx 28.5% specialist and 71.5% general practitioner which is actually less of a ratio that the specialist Wizards have in DnD 5e.

[Mandrake]

Ehhh, not really. An abjurer and a diviner could have identical personalities and play very similarly, subclass is not always important in terms of fluff. It can be, and in a few cases has to be (hello paladin!), but it doesn't have to be relevant.

Could have, but usually doesn't. And you only have that one game you play in, anyway (in other words, how many wizards to you make or play with).
Another thing is that there are as many as nine schools of magic, but only two or three archetypes per class generally. In that way I think that the Wizard isn't really comparable to other classes. He can get specialized in other ways though - looking at spell selection.

[Eslin]

Could have, but usually doesn't. And you only have that one game you play in, anyway (in other words, how many wizards to you make or play with).
Another thing is that there are as many as nine schools of magic, but only two or three archetypes per class generally. In that way I think that the Wizard isn't really comparable to other classes. He can get specialized in other ways though - looking at spell selection.

Kind of my point. A totem barbarian plays a lot more similarly to a berserker than an elements monk does to an open hand monk - the amount subclass matters varies with class to class, which is fine as long as the classes and subclasses are balanced with each other.

[MaxWilson]

Over the course of 20 levels the vast majority of your abilities come from your class. In comparison a small minority come from your subclass. Sometimes this seems ok, but other times it just seems off.

Take the Necromancer for example. The necromancer themed mechanics gained from the subclass are rather sparse in comparison to the generalist wizard themed mechanics gained from the class.

Does anyone else see this as an issue or am I just off my rocker?

The Necromancer is actually rather well-off in terms of flavorful abilities. He eventually gets all of the following on top of regular wizard spells:

1.) The ability to heal 100+ points of damage to himself with a single casting of Vampiric Touch. (Each round for 10 rounds, you do 3d6 necrotic damage and get half of that back in HP; if it kills a creature, you gain 9 HP. Healing scales up if you use a higher-level slot. A character I just started playing carries around chickens, because they are 2500 times cheaper than healing potions, only 2 cp, and once you drain the life out of them you can eat them.)

2.) Skeletons, zombies, ghouls, ghasts, wights, and mummies with approximately double HP and better than double damage. Since Animate Dead also gives you double skeletons from a 3rd level slot, this means that your basic Animate Dead spell is approximately eight times as effective for a necromancer as for a regular wizard, depending on what level he is and how many corpses are available.

3.) Necrotic resistance and immunity to HP drain. This doesn't matter so much if you're not an armored Fighter/Necromancer type on the front lines, but if your DM (like mine) is an old-school DM who believes in really permanent HP drain, you'll be glad to have it even if you only use it once. Necrotic resistance, well, at least you can nuke yourself with the 60' radius Circle of Death and probably not lose net HP (as long as you kill at least one creature with it).

4.) Get a permanent undead minion with no spell slot cost. I suggest a Wight, which you created using Create Undead, and which therefore gets +6 damage to both longsword/longbow attacks. Note that the wight can itself control up to 12 zombies that it creates, and it has an actual mind, so you can assign it independent tasks like "take these 12 skeletons and your zombies and go kill all the goblins you can find down that branch of the tunnel, but don't kill any innocent civilians, and if the opposition is heavy, come back and let me know." Plus, hey, at minimum it's a permanent free "2x +4 to hit for 1d6 + 8 damage" addition to your party that costs you no spell slots at all.

All of this is on top of your wizard abilities (Web spells, Confusion, make a Simulacrum of the ranger for double damage, maybe a Firebolt or two), but the Necromancer-only stuff is enough to make the subclass valuable and distinct.

[Eslin]

The Necromancer is actually rather well-off in terms of flavorful abilities. He eventually gets all of the following on top of regular wizard spells:

1.) The ability to heal 100+ points of damage to himself with a single casting of Vampiric Touch. (Each round for 10 rounds, you do 3d6 necrotic damage and get half of that back in HP; if it kills a creature, you gain 9 HP. Healing scales up if you use a higher-level slot. A character I just started playing carries around chickens, because they are 1000 times cheaper than healing potions, only 2 cp, and once you drain the life out of them you can eat them.)

2.) Skeletons, zombies, ghouls, ghasts, wights, and mummies with approximately double HP and better than double damage. Since Animate Dead also gives you double skeletons from a 3rd level slot, this means that your basic Animate Dead spell is approximately eight times as effective for a necromancer as for a regular wizard, depending on what level he is and how many corpses are available.

3.) Necrotic resistance and immunity to HP drain. This doesn't matter so much if you're not an armored Fighter/Necromancer type on the front lines, but if your DM (like mine) is an old-school DM who believes in really permanent HP drain, you'll be glad to have it even if you only use it once. Necrotic resistance, well, at least you can nuke yourself with the 60' radius Circle of Death and probably not lose net HP (as long as you kill at least one creature with it).

4.) Get a permanent undead minion with no spell slot cost. I suggest a Wight, which you created using Create Undead, and which therefore gets +6 damage to both longsword/longbow attacks. Note that the wight can itself control up to 12 zombies that it creates, and it has an actual mind, so you can assign it independent tasks like "take these 12 skeletons and your zombies and go kill all the goblins you can find down that branch of the tunnel, but don't kill any innocent civilians, and if the opposition is heavy, come back and let me know." Plus, hey, at minimum it's a permanent free "2x +4 to hit for 1d6 + 8 damage" addition to your party that costs you no spell slots at all.

All of this is on top of your wizard abilities (Web spells, Confusion, make a Simulacrum of the ranger for double damage, maybe a Firebolt or two), but the Necromancer-only stuff is enough to make the subclass valuable and distinct.

Yeah, those are all really minor in comparison to most other subclasses. That's not a problem though, wizard gets the bulk of their power from their spell list.

[Mandrake]

1.) The ability to heal 100+ points of damage to himself with a single casting of Vampiric Touch. (Each round for 10 rounds, you do 3d6 necrotic damage and get half of that back in HP; if it kills a creature, you gain 9 HP. Healing scales up if you use a higher-level slot. A character I just started playing carries around chickens, because they are 2500 times cheaper than healing potions, only 2 cp, and once you drain the life out of them you can eat them.)

Bag o' chickens, anyone?

[ProphetSword]

1.) The ability to heal 100+ points of damage to himself with a single casting of Vampiric Touch. (Each round for 10 rounds, you do 3d6 necrotic damage and get half of that back in HP; if it kills a creature, you gain 9 HP. Healing scales up if you use a higher-level slot. A character I just started playing carries around chickens, because they are 2500 times cheaper than healing potions, only 2 cp, and once you drain the life out of them you can eat them.)

2.) Skeletons, zombies, ghouls, ghasts, wights, and mummies with approximately double HP and better than double damage. Since Animate Dead also gives you double skeletons from a 3rd level slot, this means that your basic Animate Dead spell is approximately eight times as effective for a necromancer as for a regular wizard, depending on what level he is and how many corpses are available.



I think if you combine #1 and #2, and you animate the chickens instead of eating them, you end up with an army of zombie chickens. Don't know about you, but that's damn terrifying. Zombie chickens...brrr...

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I think if you combine #1 and #2, and you animate the chickens instead of eating them, you end up with an army of zombie chickens. Don't know about you, but that's damn terrifying. Zombie chickens...brrr...

Hack them up, and yet they keep on running around.

[MaxWilson]

I think if you combine #1 and #2, and you animate the chickens instead of eating them, you end up with an army of zombie chickens. Don't know about you, but that's damn terrifying. Zombie chickens...brrr...

Unfortunately, in 5E Animate Dead no longer works on chickens. I wish it were otherwise because it would be flufftastic.


Yeah, those are all really minor in comparison to most other subclasses. That's not a problem though, wizard gets the bulk of their power from their spell list.

I dunno about that. It takes a major feature of the class (minions) and makes it much, much stronger. Seems comparable to Life Clerics (stronger healing) or Champion Fighters (more criticals). A bit smaller than Moon Druids (qualitative improvement in shapeshifting), and a bit smaller than Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster (which add a whole new dimension to their respective classes), and probably weaker than the paladin subclasses... but bigger impact than the ranger subclasses, the cleric domains, the Thief subclass, and on par with the Assassin subclass and the Barbarian totem paths.

Assassin is a pretty good example: in both cases, the base class has an option (sneak attack from surprise/animate skeletons) which is pretty decent but has opportunity costs, and the subclass makes that option 4x better, enough that it becomes a dominant strategy that you want to do a lot.

[Eslin]

Unfortunately, in 5E Animate Dead no longer works on chickens. I wish it were otherwise because it would be flufftastic.



I dunno about that. It takes a major feature of the class (minions) and makes it much, much stronger. Seems comparable to Life Clerics (stronger healing) or Champion Fighters (more criticals). A bit smaller than Moon Druids (qualitative improvement in shapeshifting), and a bit smaller than Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster (which add a whole new dimension to their respective classes), and probably weaker than the paladin subclasses... but bigger impact than the ranger subclasses, the cleric domains, the Thief subclass, and on par with the Assassin subclass and the Barbarian totem paths.

Assassin is a pretty good example: in both cases, the base class has an option (sneak attack from surprise/animate skeletons) which is pretty decent but has opportunity costs, and the subclass makes that option 4x better, enough that it becomes a dominant strategy that you want to do a lot.

Champion fighters are useless though, they don't count in the ratio because like beastmasters they don't give the power they should. Minions are not a major feature - animate dead armies are often binary anyway (you either can use them and they win or can't use them).

[Strill]

Yeah, those are all really minor in comparison to most other subclasses. That's not a problem though, wizard gets the bulk of their power from their spell list.

You must be blind or something. Getting 9 permanent minions at no cost is absolutely ludicrous compared to other subclasses.

[Eslin]

You must be blind or something. Getting 9 permanent minions at no cost is absolutely ludicrous compared to other subclasses.

Not when the point is class to subclass ratio and the class can gain over a hundred minions.

[MaxWilson]

Not when the point is class to subclass ratio and the class can gain over a hundred minions.

Normal wizards gain minions which are about 25% as strong as Necromancer minions, and must dedicate spell slots to do it. For an enchanter or an illusionist, it's a very non-obvious choice. I expect most of them to avoid it.

For the Necromancer, the cost-benefit tradeoff is different: the minions are better and some of them are free. So why not?

[TheOOB]

Champion fighters are useless though, they don't count in the ratio because like beastmasters they don't give the power they should. Minions are not a major feature - animate dead armies are often binary anyway (you either can use them and they win or can't use them).

As for as damage output goes Champion fightings stay fairly consistent with other fighters. They are not amazing, and maybe a little boring the play for some people, but they are not terrible.

[OldTrees1]

So far the following points have been made (valid or invalid):
1) That subclasses are balanced against each other
[obviously invalid when the question is about the Class:Subclass ratio]

2) Some subclasses(like Monk) have a big impact while others don't. Possibly for Class:Class balance reasons.

3) Subclasses impact how you use the Class.

4) Subclasses are supposed to be tiny. (Doctor vs Specialist example)


@3
Let's stick with the Necromancer for a moment:
Level 2: Bag of Chickens healing or Occasional minor healing in combat (depending on how you metagame it)
Level 6: You undead have 2xhp and 2xdamage
Level 10: Resistance to a rare type of damage and immunity to a rarer effect
Level 14: Command 1 undead (since it stops obeying if you use the single target ability again).
In comparison the class just gave you 1st/3rd/5th/7th level spells. Which has a bigger impact:
2: Silent Image or healing
6: Stinking Cloud + minions or tougher minions
10: Scrying or Resistance to Necrotic/Immunity to health reduction?
14: Planeshift/Teleport or Commanding an intellegent undead?

In my opinion the Necromancer Subclass adds less necromancy to a character than the Wizard Class adds non necromancy.

@4
That is fine for a Generalist build but a Specialist should have more of a focus on their specialty. Consider a Scientist(Biologist(Geneticist(Cancer Researcher(specific area)))), this is an example of a depth based specialization that is common in the sciences. This Cancer Researcher knows more about Cancer than they do about the other sciences. I personally would expect the same level of specialization from an arcane researcher that is specializing in a branch of magic.


@2
Looking at the examples listed in this thread (Necromancer, Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, Moon Druid ...) I have to agree that the Class:Subclass ratio varies from class to class. I can see the point that since Wizards also gain spells on the same levels as their Specialization features, those features would need to be weaker than the Specialization features of non/third/half casters. My personal response to this balance issue would be to give everyone more abilities but that goes against the simplicity 5E was going at.



For the Necromancer, the cost-benefit tradeoff is different: the minions are better and some of them are free. So why not?
Only the single undead at 14th level is free since the Necromancer class feature does not affect how many undead you retain control of after they are 24hours old. You still control the 4x sacrificed spell slot that the Evoker controls.

[Abithrios]

Personally, I wish subclasses were stronger. As it stands, if you want to introduce powerful new mechanics, you cannot use subclasses. For example, any fighter archetype has to be balanced around having four attacks. If you want to do something Tome of Battle-style, you have to keep it quite modest, because you are putting it on an already strong base class--that or make a new base class.

[MaxWilson]

In my opinion the Necromancer Subclass adds less necromancy to a character than the Wizard Class adds non necromancy.

I seem to have been unclear. Apologies. Let me clarify:

I agree that the bulk of the character features come from Wizard and not from Necromancer. I am just fine with this. I was addressing a perceived argument that the Necromancer gains little from Necromancy--that the subclass was particularly weak. I think your "Stinking Cloud + minions" trick (for which, thanks!) shows exactly why this is false. Quadruple-strength minions in a stinking cloud of poison is fantastic, even though normal wizards can still do the basic trick.

I'm arguing that Necromancers are above-average in their class:subclass ratio. I'm not arguing that class:subclass is less than 1:1.


Only the single undead at 14th level is free since the Necromancer class feature does not affect how many undead you retain control of after they are 24hours old. You still control the 4x sacrificed spell slot that the Evoker controls.

This is why it's important that the Necromancer gets quadruple-strength minions. (I highly recommend Inspirational Leader on top.) For any given army strength an Evoker could field, a Necromancer can field the same army strength for 1/2 of the spell slot cost, or 4 times the strength for an equal cost. (I'm relying on the artillery equation here, which means I'm assuming missile and not melee combat.) A smaller number of stronger minions also fits better into enclosed spaces and is less vulnerable to AoE damage.

And yes, the 13 free undead that you get at 14th level (because wights get 12 free zombies) is important precisely because it is free. Just think about all the hoops a fighter jumps through to get one extra attack doing 1d8 + 15 points of damage, and reflect that the 15th-level Necromancer gets a minion doing (2x 1d8 + 8, albeit at only +4 to hit) for free. Plus possible zombies. An Evoker could try to duplicate the trick, but it would only get (2x 1d8 + 2 at +4 to hit) and it would cost him his 8th level spell slot. An Evoker would never do this.

[OldTrees1]

I seem to have been unclear. Apologies. Let me clarify:
First let me reword since I think something was missed.
The Wizard Class gives a character some(X) Necromancy goodies and some(Y) non-Necromancy goodies. The Necromancer Subclass gives some(Z) Necromancy goodies.

Independant of your own inferences, I conclude that Y>>Z and I find that to be a problematic premise for class design. (although X+Y=<Z would be a problem in the other direction)


I agree that the bulk of the character features come from Wizard and not from Necromancer. I am just fine with this. I was addressing a perceived argument that the Necromancer gains little from Necromancy--that the subclass was particularly weak. I think your "Stinking Cloud + minions" trick (for which, thanks!) shows exactly why this is false. Quadruple-strength minions in a stinking cloud of poison is fantastic, even though normal wizards can still do the basic trick.

I'm arguing that Necromancers are above-average in their class:subclass ratio. I'm not arguing that class:subclass is less than 1:1.
Ah. No, I do not think the Necromancer Subclass is particularly weak. It is just a theme I am drawn to and thus I noticed my disappointment there first.* I think the Quad strength ability was really nice.

But at the end of the day any Wizard(Necromancer) I build is more of a Generalist than a Necromancer even if a Wizard(Necromancer) is more of a Necromancer than _average class(subclass)_ is a _subclass_.

*It was one of the 4 things I checked before I bought the book.


PS: Thanks for explaining the free undead Wight trick thing.

[MaxWilson]

Ah. No, I do not think the Necromancer Subclass is particularly weak. It is just a theme I am drawn to and thus I noticed my disappointment there first.* I think the Quad strength ability was really nice.

But at the end of the day any Wizard(Necromancer) I build is more of a Generalist than a Necromancer even if a Wizard(Necromancer) is more of a Necromancer than _average class(subclass)_ is a _subclass_.

*It was one of the 4 things I checked before I bought the book.

PS: Thanks for explaining the free undead Wight trick thing.

Two points:

Necromancers have always been generalists, as far back as I've been playing the game (2nd edition). One of the cool things about specialist Necromancers in 2nd edition was that they still had access to all the best wizard stuff like Teleport and Fireball. (I think they were barred from Enchantment and Illusion, but don't quote me on that.) So partly this is a matter of different expectations: I don't want Necromancer features to eclipse Wizard features, I just want necromancy to be a particular strength.

However, I will say also that when I first looked at the 5E PHB, I was also disappointed in the Necromancer subclass. It looked as if the best stuff in 5E was all about Enchanters and Conjurors. I've since changed my views in some respects. Abjurors are pretty neat, because they get bonuses to Counterspell; and Enchanters aren't as great as I thought because the main thing I was looking at was social: the ability to use the Friends cantrip without permanently souring relations--and it turns out that Bards with Enhance Ability are simply better at that kind of thing than Enchanters.

And I've changed my views on Necromancy. I pointed out the trick with Vampiric Touch and Grim Harvest because to me that is the difference between a 2nd level feature which is utterly "meh" and a 2nd level feature which is actually kind of awesome. It's not "regain 18 HP in combat by spending a precious 6th level spell slot to cast Circle of Death," it is "regain all HP without a short rest using a single 3rd level spell slot by ruthlessly draining the life out of lesser creatures." For a regular back-lines Necromancer this might only matter occasionally when you get hit by AoE effects or Disintegrate; for a fighter/necromancer hybrid like Bauchelain or Korbal Broach it's the bread-and-butter of your after-combat recovery.

Likewise, the Create Undead spell is the difference between a situational, 14th level power, "Oh, I can temporarily dominate a vampire if my DM ever has us run across one, whoopee," and a self-empowered, "I can create a mummy or a wight and keep it permanently."

Essentially, I've gone from viewing the 5E Necromancer as a one-trick pony with 1/4 subclass features that are useful to a pretty good subclass with 3/4 subclass features that I'm glad to have. The 10th level feature, not so much, but 3/4 is a pretty good ratio, especially with Animate Thralls being as good as it is.

(Incidentally, my preferred Necromancer style is not to animate as many thralls as my spell slots can support; that leads to logistical and social problems and also crimps your general wizardly potential. Instead, I'd rather have only a handful of well-equipped undead, perhaps 6 to 12 skeletons in chain mail and with longbows, shields and long swords, and then use them as a sort of bodyguard unit together with my Wight lieutenant. Because I'm trying to keep the number of bodies down to a relative minimum, the extra HP and damage are important to me. An Evoker who tried this would find his handful of bodyguards brittle and relatively weak in combat, and he'd end up doing most of the work himself with his spells unless he had a whole mob of bodyguards, which among other things doubles the cost of their equipment.)

[OldTrees1]

Two points:

Necromancers have always been generalists, as far back as I've been playing the game (2nd edition). One of the cool things about specialist Necromancers in 2nd edition was that they still had access to all the best wizard stuff like Teleport and Fireball. (I think they were barred from Enchantment and Illusion, but don't quote me on that.) So partly this is a matter of different expectations: I don't want Necromancer features to eclipse Wizard features, I just want necromancy to be a particular strength.

Different expectations is a good way to put it. You want a Wizard(Necromancer) and I want a Necromancer(Wizard). This is one reason I prefer Prestige Classes for the added flexibility to create both your and my expectations.

[MaxWilson]

Different expectations is a good way to put it. You want a Wizard(Necromancer) and I want a Necromancer(Wizard). This is one reason I prefer Prestige Classes for the added flexibility to create both your and my expectations.

Yep. Well-said.