What classes archetypes offer the least identity?

[jaappleton]

If I phrased the title poorly, my apologies.

We all know each class has subclasses that shape the identity of that. Tempest Clerics evoke a feeling of storms. Assassin Rogues are designed to give a feeling of being a master killer, able to infiltrate undetected.

I'm not asking what individual subclasses don't really offer an identity, or do a bad job of establishing the feeling of what they're supposed to do.

Spellcasters with bonus spells likely get the easiest way of doing this, because their spells are tools able to evoke the feeling of their identity. Fiend Warlocks really help create a feeling of serving a Fiend, for example.

What I'm asking is, what subclasses don't do enough to generate a feeling of playing the archetype?

I don't think Rogues archetypes do enough to contribute to the identity. Perhaps because you only get features from the archetype so sporadically, levels 3 and 9. Perhaps because 3 and 9 are so far apart?

[ImproperJustice]

The main Rogue Archetype I struggle with is the Scout.
It just doesn’t quite do what it should.

[LtPowers]

Way of the Sun Soul. College of Lore. Circle of the Land. Samurai. Banneret.

Scout (and Swashbuckler and Assassin) I'm on the fence with, but I think jaapleton pointed out why: a relative lack of features. Most of the Rogue features are in the base class and there is little to be had in the archetypes until Level 9 or even later. Thief, Arcane Trickster, Inquisitive, and Mastermind seem fine though, so it can be done.


Powers &8^]

[Anderlith]

Honestly all the wizard subclasses except Bladesinger just feel like a wizard with a different robe color.
Most barbarians will act the same regardless of subclass
Bards as well feel the same, just slight differences over whether they fight more or cast more

[Man_Over_Game]

Most barbarians will act the same regardless of subclass

My Ancestral Guardian Barbarian with Mobile has some strong words for you....before he'd talk some smack, punch you, and run away.

Samurai and Hexblade are my biggest gripes.

Samurai: I hit things hard and I take a hit....once?

Hexblade: I eat souls and turn dead people into ghosts and I curse people...because I serve a magic sword?

[Merudo]

Circle of Dreams Druid is underwhelming before level 14.

I can heal, use an alternative to Tiny Hut, and Teleport... because of Dreams?!

[Anderlith]

My Ancestral Guardian Barbarian with Mobile has some strong words for you....before he'd talk some smack, punch you, and run away.

Samurai and Hexblade are my biggest gripes.

Samurai: I hit things hard and I take a hit....once?

Hexblade: I eat souls and turn dead people into ghosts and I curse people...because I serve a magic sword?

Hexblade works much better thematically if you pretend it’s one of the other Patrons but more weapon focused. Like a demon who gives you a soul sucking sword so he can reap the benefits, or a Splinter of Infinity that lets you commune with the things that dwell beyond the void

[Vogie]

Samurai is probably the worst for me, followed by scout rogue

I'm not a huge fan of Bard & Rogue archetype progression. 3rd and 9th? 6th and 14th??

It feels like there's too much built into the bases of those classes.

[strangebloke]

Hexblade: I eat souls and turn dead people into ghosts and I curse people...because I serve a magic sword?

no no no. You don't serve a sword. You serve 'the hexblade' who is some guy in some place who makes swords, and is just called the hexblade because everyone knows about the swords. And maybe he's actually the Raven Queen. We'll see as time goes on.

[Fryy]

no no no. You don't serve a sword. You serve 'the hexblade' who is some guy in some place who makes swords, and is just called the hexblade because everyone knows about the swords. And maybe he's actually the Raven Queen. We'll see as time goes on.

Well done.

[Millstone85]

Well done.Er, that is the actual fluff, as published in XGtE.

[Daphne]

All Sorcerers subclasses imo, it seems like the "true" subclass of the Sorcerer is his Metamagic options. The least bad one is Divine Soul, since you actually can get some options to fill the archetype, I don't understand why WotC removed the origin spells from Storm instead of just making them additional options for the Sorcerer to choose from.

[RickAsWritten]

Monster Slayer Ranger. It should really be called Mage Slayer.

Maybe it's not an identity problem, but Transmutation Wizard doesn't really feel like someone who can change the very nature of reality itself. You have a pet rock. The rock let's you have a pseudo-Feat. Later, you can destroy your pet rock to do stuff that other classes can do better and earlier.

And as mentioned above, several Rogues, Samurai, Dreams Druid.

[jaappleton]

Monster Slayer Ranger. It should really be called Mage Slayer.

Maybe it's not an identity problem, but Transmutation Wizard doesn't really feel like someone who can change the very nature of reality itself. You have a pet rock. The rock let's you have a pseudo-Feat. Later, you can destroy your pet rock to do stuff that other classes can do better and earlier.

And as mentioned above, several Rogues, Samurai, Dreams Druid.

Now I have this idea of a Transmuter that's absolutely bat**** insane, and talks to the rock like a madman.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Aside from Hexblade, which does everything to tell you to fluff it yourself shy of literally saying that in print, Land Druid does the least to get me thinking "wow I really feel like a king in my favored land".

It's barely more than an expanded spell list. I wouldn't say it's necessarily a bad subclass (I'll be honest, Druid doesn't entice me much to begin with so this is pretty biased) but it's boring. Other subclasses offer you incredibly powerful and unique skills. Land gives you water spells because you lived by water. You're not even better at it than other Druids.

I'd say the fault is on Moon Druid for overshadowing it, even in it's niche.

Oath of Ancients has always irked me a bit. The Aura is the entire sell of taking this subclass. The channel divinity is just fine and up until your capstone you don't see anything else the paints you as a champion of nature and harmony. Terrific mechanically but there's no strong push to even embrace the "green knight" archetype until 20th level. It's more like you took "The Oath of Resist Spell Damage".

[Man_Over_Game]

Aside from Hexblade, which does everything to tell you to fluff it yourself shy of literally saying that in print, Land Druid does the least to get me thinking "wow I really feel like a king in my favored land".

It's barely more than an expanded spell list. I wouldn't say it's necessarily a bad subclass (I'll be honest, Druid doesn't entice me much to begin with so this is pretty biased) but it's boring. Other subclasses offer you incredibly powerful and unique skills. Land gives you water spells because you lived by water. You're not even better at it than other Druids.

I'd say the fault is on Moon Druid for overshadowing it, even in it's niche.

Oath of Ancients has always irked me a bit. The Aura is the entire sell of taking this subclass. The channel divinity is just fine and up until your capstone you don't see anything else the paints you as a champion of nature and harmony. Terrific mechanically but there's no strong push to even embrace the "green knight" archetype until 20th level. It's more like you took "The Oath of Resist Spell Damage".

I think the Land Druid was supposed to be more of the Wizardy sort of Druid. Lots of magic, all the time. I agree that the Land choices should be more well-defined, though.

Oath of the Ancients' flavor really comes from the bonus spells it provides. Things like talking to animals and such really bring the druidic vibe. Unfortunately, people don't really care all that much about spellcasting on a Paladin, as it just gets in the way of them punching things really hard, so those things really fall by the wayside.

[GlenSmash!]

Er, that is the actual fluff, as published in XGtE.

Which is why listing it's fluff to make fun of it was a joke well done.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Most of the time i realize the issue i have with a subclass/class is that the identity they tell you in the book is not what i imagine my character as, so with that to an extant alot of subclasses don't do it for me. Probably should have read those flavor texts instead of skimming the first time i picked up the book.

[qube]

Honestly all the wizard subclasses except Bladesinger just feel like a wizard with a different robe color.
Most barbarians will act the same regardless of subclassquite true.

At least in olden editions IIRC half their spells were of the chosen school.
Heck, in the olden fearun (in game) days, the arcanists of netheril could only learn high level spells of their chosen school. No "I'm an evoker using foresight to boost my attacks" nonsense.

[Millstone85]

Which is why listing it's fluff to make fun of it was a joke well done.I see.

Anyway, here is what annoys me the most with that fluff. Every other patron has been a category. For example, the Fiend can be any powerful fiend. So why make this one actually the Hexblade?

[Yora]

I think it's actually Ranger. I can'r really imagine any ranger who isn't Blandy McBlandface.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think it's actually Ranger. I can'r really imagine any ranger who isn't Blandy McBlandface.

I actually really like the Horizon Walker. Portals, laser shots, teleportation. It's very..."colorful"?
The Monster Slayer also has some pretty cool stuff going for it, when you consider its spell list.
I could see the Beast Master be a bit more vivid if it had an expanded spell list for talking with animals or mimicking them.

The Hunter and the Gloom Stalker are the bland ones to me. "I attack more". Cool, good for you. I think these are what we imagine when we imagine the Ranger, because you don't see many people playing anything else. People just really like shooting stuff.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Heck, in the olden fearun (in game) days, the arcanists of netheril could only learn high level spells of their chosen school. No "I'm an evoker using foresight to boost my attacks" nonsense.

I would love for this to be a thing. Except not by school, but by theme, which is both narrower and broader than a school of magic (which I've never liked, they seem totally thrown together without significant thought). And not just for wizards, for all spell-casters.

Something like:
You've always got unrestricted access to the "generalist" spells of your class, but those are pretty basic. Then you choose a specialty theme and a secondary theme. The following table gives the highest spell level you can select for spells from that theme. Your specialty is always at "full strength", the others lag behind.



Highest Spell Level
Secondary
Others


0-2
0
---


3-5
2
0


6-8
5
2


9
8
5



So a wizard with the specialty of Elemental Blaster and a secondary of Wards would have access to meteor swarm as a 9th level spell, but not wish. And he wouldn't get animate dead until very high levels at best. But he'd get access to antipathy/sympathy as an 8th level spell.

The big problem would be ensuring that you had a bunch of themes and that the spells were spread properly between them.

[poolio]

no no no. You don't serve a sword. You serve 'the hexblade' who is some guy in some place who makes swords, and is just called the hexblade because everyone knows about the swords. And maybe he's actually the Raven Queen. We'll see as time goes on.

Ditto, i have a player who worships a god of chaos as a paladin, and asked me about multiclassing worlock hexblade, asked if he could still fallow the chaos god and told him of course, the way i spin it is the god gives him more power by blessing his pimp cane sword (it's a really...odd, kind of game) and if/when his character dies, the sword will gain his sentience.

I think a lot of the newer sub classes thay keep putting out are kinda pointless, i mean if you put the right spin on it, you can make pretty much anything.

Samurai? Battlemaster fighter, "your cunning mind allows you more options on the battlefield" and they already get extra non combat proficiencys.

Scout? Thief rogue (or any ranger really) they're flavored to be quick and nimble in both body and mind, the bonus action item interactions are perfect for trying to make rough quick maps of enemy movements and positions, climbing up trees for better vantage points.

[GlenSmash!]

Is it weird that I like the ones that offer the least Identity?

I can pick a Background like City Watch or Mercenary Veteran and really play up that part of the identity with out it being overshadowed by a class or subclass theme.

[Man_Over_Game]

I would love for this to be a thing. Except not by school, but by theme, which is both narrower and broader than a school of magic (which I've never liked, they seem totally thrown together without significant thought). And not just for wizards, for all spell-casters.

Something like:
You've always got unrestricted access to the "generalist" spells of your class, but those are pretty basic. Then you choose a specialty theme and a secondary theme. The following table gives the highest spell level you can select for spells from that theme. Your specialty is always at "full strength", the others lag behind.



Highest Spell Level
Secondary
Others


0-2
0
---


3-5
2
0


6-8
5
2


9
8
5



So a wizard with the specialty of Elemental Blaster and a secondary of Wards would have access to meteor swarm as a 9th level spell, but not wish. And he wouldn't get animate dead until very high levels at best. But he'd get access to antipathy/sympathy as an 8th level spell.

The big problem would be ensuring that you had a bunch of themes and that the spells were spread properly between them.

I mean, you could just make it so that a Wizard can only naturally learn spells of his School. Then just have the Bladesinger and War Mage learn spells of any school, but only learns 1 per level. Would put a lot more emphasis on finding spells to learn.

[Anderlith]

I would love for this to be a thing. Except not by school, but by theme, which is both narrower and broader than a school of magic (which I've never liked, they seem totally thrown together without significant thought). And not just for wizards, for all spell-casters.

Something like:
You've always got unrestricted access to the "generalist" spells of your class, but those are pretty basic. Then you choose a specialty theme and a secondary theme. The following table gives the highest spell level you can select for spells from that theme. Your specialty is always at "full strength", the others lag behind.



Highest Spell Level
Secondary
Others


0-2
0
---


3-5
2
0


6-8
5
2


9
8
5



So a wizard with the specialty of Elemental Blaster and a secondary of Wards would have access to meteor swarm as a 9th level spell, but not wish. And he wouldn't get animate dead until very high levels at best. But he'd get access to antipathy/sympathy as an 8th level spell.

The big problem would be ensuring that you had a bunch of themes and that the spells were spread properly between them.

This is close to what Warhammer & MERP do. It’s how I like magic to be done. A tight list of really thematic, & I unique spells. Not a thousand slight alterations of form & function.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, you could just make it so that a Wizard can only naturally learn spells of his School. Then just have the Bladesinger and War Mage learn spells of any school, but only learns 1 per level. Would put a lot more emphasis on finding spells to learn.

I just strongly dislike the whole "schools of magic" thing. They're not well thought out (in practice--they're much better in principle), nor are they balanced at all. They're a hodge-podge of semi-sorta-related spells. To make that work you'd have to completely rewrite the entire set of spells, reassigning the schools around until they make some semblance of sense.

It all goes back to my biggest dislike of D&D in general--the ravioli nature of the spells. Nothing's connected, there are no themes or threads to follow. Just a bunch of atomistic, individual spells organized into class-based spell lists, so every "optimized" caster looks the same, regardless of sub-class, characterization, or anything else.

Oh well, it's not something that's likely to ever change.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But to actually be on topic...

I'd say rangers in general. When I tried to distill the "essence of the classes" for a poem I wrote, I had a real hard time with the ranger stanzas. There just didn't seem to be anything unique there.

As for subclasses, the one that doesn't live up to its claims is probably the Assassin rogue. It would better fit as the Spy rogue--the only real directly "assassination" part is so situational and hard to pull off (at least in games I've been in).

[noob]

Also since there is no universal school wizard then no wizard could cast wish if we cap spell level for spells out of school.
Anyway it would just be one more reason to play a bard or a druid or a cleric or a sorcerer instead.
I think the fighter and wizard subclasses are quite weird like for example what is the thematic difference between an eldricth champion and a bladesinger other than maximum spell level and that one fights harder than the other?
Or yet what is the difference between a brute and the other fighter archetypes about hitting people(battlemaster is a bit different because it involve hitting in three or four different ways).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Also since there is no universal school wizard then no wizard could cast wish if we cap spell level for spells out of school.
Anyway it would just be one more reason to play a bard or a druid or a cleric or a sorcerer instead.

I would apply similar considerations to all spell-casting classes. Each class could select from different themes, modified by subclass choice. And there wouldn't be schools as we know them, there would be themes. All spells would be on one or more themes--overlap would be just fine. So some wizards would be able to cast wish, but only those with the appropriate specialist theme or themes.

[noob]

I would apply similar considerations to all spell-casting classes. Each class could select from different themes, modified by subclass choice. And there wouldn't be schools as we know them, there would be themes. All spells would be on one or more themes--overlap would be just fine. So some wizards would be able to cast wish, but only those with the appropriate specialist theme or themes.

What would you replace magical secrets by then?
Would that not just make bards being even better relatively to the other casters?

[Man_Over_Game]

I just strongly dislike the whole "schools of magic" thing. They're not well thought out (in practice--they're much better in principle), nor are they balanced at all. They're a hodge-podge of semi-sorta-related spells. To make that work you'd have to completely rewrite the entire set of spells, reassigning the schools around until they make some semblance of sense.

It all goes back to my biggest dislike of D&D in general--the ravioli nature of the spells. Nothing's connected, there are no themes or threads to follow. Just a bunch of atomistic, individual spells organized into class-based spell lists, so every "optimized" caster looks the same, regardless of sub-class, characterization, or anything else.

Oh well, it's not something that's likely to ever change.

I'm not sure what you mean on that end. It takes a second to understand how it's sorted, at first, but it makes sense to me.


Abjuration: Denial.
Conjuration: Summoning physical, real objects and things.
Divination: Seeing/Learning
Enchantment: Mind Magic
Evocation: Energy Creation, which can be healing or burning.
Illusion: Manipulating pseudomatter, which is to say, matter that we simply occasionally believe is real (and occasionally can be!)
Necromancy: Life Energy/Souls
Transmutation: The manipulation of real matter.



Which makes me think that they're building blocks needed to create a fantasy world. Matter needs to exist on a physical location (Conjuration), it needs to change (Transmutation). Energy (Evocation) also needs to exist to create more change. For living matter, you need knowledge (Divination) and a soul (Necromancy). To keep everything under control, you need an understanding of how things could be (Illusion) as well as a way to stop it from reaching that point (Abjuration).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not sure what you mean on that end. It takes a second to understand how it's sorted, at first, but it makes sense to me.


Abjuration: Denial.
Conjuration: Summoning physical, real objects and things.
Divination: Seeing/Learning
Enchantment: Mind Magic
Evocation: Energy Creation, which can be healing or burning.
Illusion: Manipulating pseudomatter, which is to say, matter that we simply occasionally believe is real (and occasionally can be!)
Necromancy: Life Energy/Souls
Transmutation: The manipulation of real matter.



Which makes me think that they're building blocks needed to create a fantasy world. Matter needs to exist on a physical location (Conjuration), it needs to change (Transmutation). Energy (Evocation) also needs to exist to create more change. For living matter, you need knowledge (Divination) and a soul (Necromancy). To keep everything under control, you need an understanding of how things could be (Illusion) as well as a way to stop it from reaching that point (Abjuration).

The theory of the schools is fine. But the way that spells are organized is totally arbitrary and not balanced at all. A lot of it is just out of past-edition nostalgia. And it doesn't work for enforcing thematic differences between the characters at all. I'd probably leave the schools in as the subclasses, but theme them more as schools of thought, applicable to how wizards cast spells only rather than something more fundamental than that. A cleric would sniff at the thought that you can so neatly divide Divine Power up that way, but do something similar by domains. A sorcerer would laugh, since it's all just magic, and who needs schools. Fussy wizards, always trying to categorize instead of living the magic. They'd protest that it's not analyzable, it must be understood holistically. Etc.

And @noob--bards would (in my half-thought-out version) have more restricted themes, but occasionally get the chance to emulate a particular spell from other themes. It would probably count as a secondary theme, so no top-level spells with that. At this point it's a pipe dream, and quite a bit off-topic.

[LtPowers]

I should have included Transmuter in my list. =)


All Sorcerers subclasses imo, it seems like the "true" subclass of the Sorcerer is his Metamagic options. The least bad one is Divine Soul, since you actually can get some options to fill the archetype, I don't understand why WotC removed the origin spells from Storm instead of just making them additional options for the Sorcerer to choose from.

Have you played with a Wild Magic Sorcerer in the party?


Powers &8^]

[mephnick]

Wizards. The entire class is just a walking spell list. Generally, the same walking spell list. It's easily the least thematic class in the game for me. It's the textbook example of how removing restrictions actually makes the game worse. Diviner ability is neat though.

[Man_Over_Game]

Wizards. The entire class is just a walking spell list. Generally, the same walking spell list. It's easily the least thematic class in the game for me. It's the textbook example of how removing restrictions actually makes the game worse. Diviner ability is neat though.

This I can agree with when it comes to some of them.

Conjuration and Transmutation do feel a bit bland.

However, I do see Illusionists play the part, and Evocation Wizards, although cliché, are often seen hurling Fireballs like it's their job to.



I would expect to see a Diviner casting this combo: True Seeing > Legend Lore > Arcane Eye > See Invisibility upcasted > See Invisibility > Mage Armor. All with the same spell slot, all giving you relevant information or a free buff in the matter of 30 seconds.

Summarized, I tell the DM I cast a level 6 spell slot to see through illusions, allow two allies to see invisible things, learn information about the place we're adventuring through, summon an invisible flying eye to scout things for us, and set my armor AC to 13.

Which is very much a Diviner way of doing things.

[Bjarkmundur]

I agree wholeheartedly. I sometimes feel backgrounds give more character than many, of the subclasses.

That might just be the way they are presented, tbh. I remember reading the "you can perform at taverns and gain free lodging" feature, and getting more of a Bard feel than the entire Bard Class itself. But then again, if I had only the background and no class, my Bard wouldn't survive 5 minutes of adventuring.

Maybe classes are more combat oriented than we'd care to admit.

[Arathryth]

I agree wholeheartedly. I sometimes feel backgrounds give more character than many, of the subclasses.

That might just be the way they are presented, tbh. I remember reading the "you can perform at taverns and gain free lodging" feature, and getting more of a Bard feel than the entire Bard Class itself. But then again, if I had only the background and no class, my Bard wouldn't survive 5 minutes of adventuring.

Maybe classes are more combat oriented than we'd care to admit.

This right here. The thing to understand, the class isn't the character, it just the way the character fights. Their personality, motivations, etc. Are more a function of their background, alignment, goals, flaws...you know the actual character stuff.

[mephnick]

I would expect to see a Diviner casting this combo: True Seeing > Legend Lore > Arcane Eye > See Invisibility upcasted > See Invisibility > Mage Armor. All with the same spell slot, all giving you relevant information or a free buff in the matter of 30 seconds.

Which is very much a Diviner way of doing things.

I'd love that. My experience with 20+ Wizards in 5e is that they all take the same spells (Fireball, Counterspell, Fly, Wall of Force, etc) so every Wizard looks the same other than the once a session their sub class ability matters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This right here. The thing to understand, the class isn't the character, it just the way the character fights. Their personality, motivations, etc. Are more a function of their background, alignment, goals, flaws...you know the actual character stuff.

Not just how they fight, but that's a large part of it. It's how they approach challenges while adventuring. What's in their toolbox, so to speak. But the same set of tools can be used in a lot of different ways by a lot of different people. Similarly, you can make a lot of different characters out of the same mechanical bits and bobs. That's one reason I don't feel like there's a lack of content.

[Shuruke]

So far ive played every rogue archetype up to 11
And the one I had the identity issue with was assassin because even with alert a d20 can still screw u over on Intiative. Which means no advantage on first attack. And I only did the assassinate crit a few times.

The ones with most identity were Thief, Trickster, Mastermind. At least in my opinion

I also really liked Swashbuckler and Inquisitive because they change the formula for sneak attack which really opened up the idea of fitting what they do and can be used often.

For me it boiled down to - Features I can use on my terms such as fast hands, mage hand/spells, having a plan or outwitting enemy.

And features that overall changed the choices you make during the three pillars


The class I have issue with is barbarian
Outside of totem which feels extremely flavorful and can be modified to be unique to almost every character.

I haven't played the ancestral one, but the u.a for it really fit what I was looking for and felt vastly different then a normal barbarian

Zealot smashes the nail in my books

However I have issues with berserker and Stormherald

Berserker doesn't feel like anymore of a raging mad man than a normal barbarian because how much u have to restrain from using feature
Its essentially a once per long rest feature but u can use it more if u wanna be real tired all day after being angry for few minutes.
Some of its other stuff is really nice and the players I've had use it really enjoyed it


Storm herald
I'm currently playing one, and I just don't feel like I'm summoning a raging storm
Doesn't quite feel like a force of nature as you rage that enemies should fear

Tbh I personally would've been happier if it was stronger , took an action , but using your action on it kept the rage continuing to go.
When you get extra attack u could continue the storm and make an attack

With that u could easily turn the 2 damage from fire to instead 2d4+rage modifier to creatures of choice
Arctic shield u would instead choose you and one other creature for 1d8+rage

And lightning would be 4d6+rage dex half to one creature

Each time rage modifier goes up each one gains an additional dice.

Maybe that'd be to strong
But I think itd b good because it would add choice for action rather than slapping on a kinda meh bonus action
(I like arctic alot but if your that grouped its asking for aoe, I also like fire but the changes to damage and not being able to exclude allies really puts strain on it bring any good. Lightning is still good but I liked u.a. just feel like nerf came because for a bonus action every turn for an entire combat they were worried)

[TyGuy]

Great analysis Shuruke. The core chassis of barbarian is so solid that I overlooked the subclasses, but your points are accurate.

What should be the cornerstone "MEGA RAGE" feature of berserker really doesn't cut it. And despite being my favorite concepts, zerker and storm turn me off with their comparably lack luster mechanics. Also, stinks that everything is tacked on BA so my idea of a dual wield barb is even less appealing.

[Shuruke]

Great analysis Shuruke. The core chassis of barbarian is so solid that I overlooked the subclasses, but your points are accurate.

What should be the cornerstone "MEGA RAGE" feature of berserker really doesn't cut it. And despite being my favorite concepts, zerker and storm turn me off with their comparably lack luster mechanics. Also, stinks that everything is tacked on BA so my idea of a dual wield barb is even less appealing.

That was my exact thought
I hadn't looked at barbarian at all for while but then I really loved my dual wield axe Berserker in for honor and wanted to make it in dnd.
Well totem it is. .

I feel like if they went through every base class and made a formule. Then see how they could make the formula change

Fighter- makes more attacks than any class. Other than bonus action heal bonus action is open for other things. Action surge to make more attacks or other actions

Tactician allows the formula for attack to be more compelling adding the choice of if I hit I can do x or if I'm being hit or missed I can do x. Along with things to use bonus action for

Eldritch knight- adds spell casting, adds option for bonus action attack when casting cantrip or bonus action Cantrip with attack. Making the normal formula unique.

Champion just gives small boost to formula.- you crit on a 19 with your many attacks. Now this just isn't very interactive or formula changing. They get half prof to str and dex which is good for intiative. But.
What if champion gave options to formula.
Something like , every missed attack against an enemy creature, and every landed attack on you gives you a champion counter. Before making an attack you can use your bonus action to consume champion counters to a max of 5 to increase crit range to 15-20 for that attack. When you action surge you can cash in all counters to gain expertise on every attack. The max amount of champion counters you can have are up to your level.

Then at later level when it goes to 18-20 on normal champion the amount of counters they can use increases to 10.


I'm sure their is ways to do that for casters as well

Would it be balanced I have no idea
But there needs to be a common road between
The archetypes with all the options and the ones that don't really compare
And I think just looking at each class as a formula kinda shows based off of what is very popular those are the ones where you choose when to use x feature and it gives more optioms and depth (doesnt need to be lots) to the formula of what u do in combat.


Just seems to me that the ones that fail to live up to flavor are the ones that don't really change the base class on a meaningful formula like way.

Even just looking at transmuter and conjuration wizard
They tried to change a formula for when u come up to x scenario u can have x options but with outside of combat things there isn't a good way to do find a formula for all campaigns and dms
Now if transmuter could once per short rest change the material something is made out of in a small fashion such as
A modified heat metal spell but instead you change an enemies carried weapon to lead halfing damage with it (could gove disadvantage but disadvantage to hit with no save might be an issue) on attacks with that weapon

Conjurer would get a familiar as if using find familiar spell. But this one can only take the help action and acts on wizards Intiative. has hp = to 3x wizard level. And if it dies casting a conjuration spell brings it v back with spell level x3hp