Transplanting Subclasses

[LibraryOgre]

Just a thought experiment... which subclasses could be transplanted to other classes with relatively little mechanical adjustment (however you want to take that)?

Like, I think Champion and Battle Master could be dropped into any number of other classes with relatively little modification... they might not be a great addition to a wizard, but they don't have much that they hang on the mechanics of a fighter.

[nickl_2000]

Druid Circle of Land could easily be dropped into another caster class with 1 slight modification.
It would feel a little odd, but I think every single Paladin Oath could be dropped into another class.
Hunter and Beast Master should be able to be converted
Rogue Thief and Assassin could as well.
Draconic Bloodline could go almost anywhere
Wild Magic could go to other casters
Most Warlock could also go somewhere else, although flavor would be messy.


I didn't look carefully beyond PhB, but it seems like most could be converted.

[No brains]

It would probably be feasible to transplant any cleric and paladin subclass. They both have mechanical and flavor background to exchange. They can even work thematically for a cleric having a crisis of faith and failing to commit until a later level or a paladin who is so certain that they know their commitment at level 1.

Since they are both large, level 1 subclasses, cleric domains and sorcerer origins could probably be exchanged with minor tweaks. We just have to decide the exchange rate between channel divinity and sorcery points.

Beastmaster from ranger is probably going to be meh on any class.

[MrStabby]

Wizard schools would probably work for casting classes. Some would be better than others.

Bard collages could work between casting classes in terms of coherence, but getting two attacks on a cleric might be a bit much. Lore bard on a warlock might make magical secrets a bit abusable, but probably not too bad.

Ranger... again needs spellcasting for the extra spells on some of them, but generally the subclass is really strong but the base class is weak so I would worry from a balance perspective. Things like a Gloomstalker Paladin would be a bit overpowered.

Some classes just won't work: barbarians need rage, monks need Ki, sorcerers sometimes need sorcery points for subclass abilities.

Some could be really interesting, others a little dependent on how strict the copying of abilities is. Monk with an arcane trickster subclass seems really fun, but loses out due to being even more MAD than normal.

Some could be a mess but still very powerful. Warlock abilities reference each other quite a lot - a subclass allowing certain invocations and similar. That said, a hexblade paladin would miss out on many abilities and still be quite powerful.

[Man_Over_Game]

There are two concerns you want to address when looking into something like this:

How sensible is the result (or, how dependent is the subclass on the superclass features)?
How balanced the result is.


For example, most of the Fighter subclasses should probably stick with the Fighter, because all of the Fighter subclasses rely on attacking multiple times, and often have some sort of synergy with Action Surge. As long as the swap has some sort of synergy, it'd probably work out fine.

What you could do is divide the martial subclasses and classes into lists, with classes ordered by Number of Attacks, and subclasses ordered by Number of Attack Enhancements Per Round, and start mix-matching them.

For example, the Champion would do well on the Barbarian (but not much on anyone else), the Arcane Archer would do well on the Ranger or Rogue (because of the fact that those classes predominantly make fewer attacks, and the Arcane Archer has few attack resources). Something that probably wouldn't work is the Samurai, who is dependent on the shear number of attacks the Fighter provides, as well as the little competition for the Bonus Action from the default Fighter.

An example of something that doesn't work is something like the Life Cleric. Few other builds can utilize ranged healing spells like the Cleric can, and so swapping it out will neither make sense or be useful in almost any way.



As for casters, it's a little more list-dependent than anything. The Sorcerer has the best spellcasting feature in the game (Metamagic) so its spell list is a bit more restrictive, and a lot of its spells are very generic and easy to use. The Wizard can afford to learn an abundance of spells, and it's a utilitarian by design, so it can afford to have a lot of weird, niche spells that can be enhanced from class features. This is important, because a Wizard wouldn't be able to do much with the Sorcerer's spell list (too restrictive) and the Sorcerer wouldn't be able to fully use a Wizard's spell list (too broad).

There are a few exceptions, though. A Storm Sorcerer's features could get some mileage out of a Druid, as could a Tempest Cleric's. A Necromancy School Cleric would probably do very well. Mostly, it comes down to recognizing what subclasses are dependent on trends in the spell list, and seeing what spell lists have those same trends.

For example, Evoker can't go anywhere but Sorcerer and Wizard, because of a distinct lack of Evocation spells. Good luck being a Transmutation specialist as anything but a Wizard. Nobody would really care, though, if you took the Grave Cleric and put it on a Wizard or Sorcerer, because the Grave Cleric doesn't really interact with the Cleric spell list.

[MrStabby]

There are two concerns you want to address when looking into something like this:

How sensible is the result (or, how dependent is the subclass on the superclass features)?
How balanced the result is.


For example, most of the Fighter subclasses should probably stick with the Fighter, because all of the Fighter subclasses rely on attacking multiple times, and often have some sort of synergy with Action Surge. As long as the swap has some sort of synergy, it'd probably work out fine.

What you could do is divide the martial subclasses and classes into lists, with classes ordered by Number of Attacks, and subclasses ordered by Number of Attack Enhancements Per Round, and start mix-matching them.

For example, the Champion would do well on the Barbarian (but not much on anyone else), the Arcane Archer would do well on the Ranger or Rogue (because of the fact that those classes predominantly make fewer attacks, and the Arcane Archer has few attack resources). Something that probably wouldn't work is the Samurai, who is dependent on the shear number of attacks the Fighter provides, as well as the little competition for the Bonus Action from the default Fighter.

An example of something that doesn't work is something like the Life Cleric. Few other builds can utilize ranged healing spells like the Cleric can, and so swapping it out will neither make sense or be useful in almost any way.



As for casters, it's a little more list-dependent than anything. The Sorcerer has the best spellcasting feature in the game (Metamagic) so its spell list is a bit more restrictive, and a lot of its spells are very generic and easy to use. The Wizard can afford to learn an abundance of spells, and it's a utilitarian by design, so it can afford to have a lot of weird, niche spells that can be enhanced from class features. This is important, because a Wizard wouldn't be able to do much with the Sorcerer's spell list (too restrictive) and the Sorcerer wouldn't be able to fully use a Wizard's spell list (too broad).

There are a few exceptions, though. A Storm Sorcerer's features could get some mileage out of a Druid, as could a Tempest Cleric's. A Necromancy School Cleric would probably do very well. Mostly, it comes down to recognizing what subclasses are dependent on trends in the spell list, and seeing what spell lists have those same trends.

For example, Evoker can't go anywhere but Sorcerer and Wizard, because of a distinct lack of Evocation spells. Good luck being a Transmutation specialist as anything but a Wizard. Nobody would really care, though, if you took the Grave Cleric and put it on a Wizard or Sorcerer, because the Grave Cleric doesn't really interact with the Cleric spell list.

I don't think the cleric domains go at all well with other classes, but for me it is the channel divinity "here is a new thing you can do with the uses of channel divinity that you don't have because you are not a cleric". It works for paladins and that is about all.

The other abilities are fine - life cleric healing on a bard for example. Even the heavy armour has a place there. In general this is something that can be very powerful, without being a good fit. A cleric domain on a sorcerer for example is overpowered: 10 more spells known, better armour, spells from multiple lists - the whole mis-match on the channel divinity is probably worth it. Even on a sorcerer life cleric sub-class is still good for the healing ability as the character would get access to healing spells through the sub-class anyway.

[Trustypeaches]

The design space subclasses fill is different for each class; and I'm not just talking about how their features interact with the class's core toolkit.

You need to consider a lot. How strong is the subclass, how many features does it have? How strong are each of those features individually, and at what levels do they receive them? Does it fit with the core classes power progression or does it leave dead levels or create large power spikes?

[rbstr]

Most archetype features need to be fiddled with to put them on different classes, if only a little bit.
Sometimes, if features are gained at similar levels and are of similar power you can port them directly when they don't use class-specific resources.
Oftentimes, classes are build on similar templates.
1/2 casters are most similar in this way, because they have both spell levels and extra attack taking up whole levels' feature budgets. Casters are the next-most-similar.
Martials (including 1/2 casters) do many similar things as well. Everyone gets a 11th-level combat boost, for instance, sometimes archetype sometimes class-based.

Like the level 3 and 7 Paladin/Ranger archetype stuff is basically interchangeable. The 11th-level ranger feature could basically be exchanged with for improved divine smite. The higher-level features would require a bit of porting.

[Max_Killjoy]

The subclasses seem to work very differently depending on the specific class.

In a way it would be nice if they were more interchangeable, it would make certain builds a lot easier.

All I'm going to say on the matter.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Nobody would really care, though, if you took the Grave Cleric and put it on a Wizard or Sorcerer because the Grave Cleric doesn't really interact with the Cleric spell list.

Certainly nothing pesky like their defining 1st level class feature that allows them to use the maximum number on a die when they target an unconscious creature with a healing spell.

Let's list all the healing spells that can heal another creature that are on the Sorcerer and Wizard List:
-Life Transference, doesn't work with this feature because they are healing proportionally to a damage die you rolled targeting yourself.
-Wish

I think plenty of people would care at the prospect of being saddled with a class feature that is unusable.

As for my take on the main topic, the more I think about subclasses, the more I see at least one aspect of them linked to a core class feature. Fighter's tend to have features that assume they're attacking more than another class, Barbarian's augment their rage, Rogues have features that assume they can sneak attack, Druid augments Wildshape, Clerics gain additional Channel Divinity. The list goes on.

Except for Rangers. Ranger subclasses don't interact with their base class features at all. It would be easiest to trade Ranger subclasses away, there aren't any ties to their base class to change and it would require a minimum amount of work to tailor another subclass to a Ranger.

Paladin could also work but a lot of the identity of their subclasses is tied directly to divine magic and ironclad devotion to a certain cause. There aren't any class features that will flatout not work but certain base class features have synergies with subclass features that it might feel a little empty to not have them paired.

[Man_Over_Game]

Certainly nothing pesky like their defining 1st level class feature that allows them to use the maximum number on a die when they target an unconscious creature with a healing spell.


I forgot about that one. I misremembered their level 1 feature as only being the Spare the Dying at range. My bad.

War Cleric, Tempest Cleric, or Knowledge Cleric are good examples, though.

[Misterwhisper]

I so want a swashbuckler fighter. Where is my freaking duelist subclass....

Also way of shadow rogue just give them casting like an arcane trickster but shadowy type things and a shadow jump for advantage as a bonus action.

[Man_Over_Game]

I so want a swashbuckler fighter. Where is my freaking duelist subclass....

Also way of shadow rogue just give them casting like an arcane trickster but shadowy type things and a shadow jump for advantage as a bonus action.

You could make a ludicrously good duelist by just mixing the Swashbuckler with the Battle Master. Dance in-and-out as you attack him with your Reaction for off-turn Sneak Attacks. Or maybe you Trip him, follow up with a combo, and use your mobility to move away, leaving him with halved movement on his turn while you're 30-60 feet away. You can even use daggers for a ranged option and make the most of your Dex stat and Dueling Fighting Style.

5 Fighter -> 3 Rogue -> Rest Fighter would be how I'd do it.

[Hytheter]

The subclasses seem to work very differently depending on the specific class.

In a way it would be nice if they were more interchangeable, it would make certain builds a lot easier.

All I'm going to say on the matter.

I'm torn. On one hand it would add a lot to customisation, but on the other it might make classes feel more samey and it's nice to have subclass features that directly interact with the main chassis. I guess the latter could be handled by having a mix of class-based and general subclasses though.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm torn. On one hand it would add a lot to customisation, but on the other it might make classes feel more samey and it's nice to have subclass features that directly interact with the main chassis. I guess the latter could be handled by having a mix of class-based and general subclasses though.

I think a better way of doing it is just opening up more multiclass options.

Does a Monk really need a Rage feature? Or could you just find a way to make a Barbarian/Monk multiclass work? Most of the features are frontloaded, anyway, so it's not like you'd need a lot of investment to make something like a Rage Monk work if the multiclassing opportunity was there.

I created a list of Prestige Options (in the signature, list of balanced changes to primary stats that open up multiclassing while maintaining balance) around that very concept. A few examples (and examples of the archetypes) of what I mean:


Intelligence Bard (Travelling scholar)
Charisma Cleric (Healing others through words)
Intelligence Cleric (Studious Priest)
Charisma Druid (Speaks to all creatures)
Strength Monk (Force and Finesse)
Intelligence Monk (Studious combatant, learned monastic secrets)
Intelligence Ranger (Studies the land as a guide)
Wisdom Sorcerer (Semi-psionic caster)


If those, and similar options were on the table, there wouldn't be much that people would be missing, right?

The question then would be to determine how to balance those options with the defaults, which is where the Prestige Option link comes in. Each option has unique requirements to prevent any kind of ludicrous multiclass builds, and a brief analysis as to what problems each requirement solves.

[Hytheter]

I think a better way of doing it is just opening up more multiclass options.

...No. The idea appeals to me specifically because you'd be able to get more potential diversity without having to multiclass.


Does a Monk really need a Rage feature? Or could you just find a way to make a Barbarian/Monk multiclass work? Most of the features are frontloaded, anyway, so it's not like you'd need a lot of investment to make something like a Rage Monk work if the multiclassing opportunity was there.

Sure, if you're only in it for the base class features, that's simple enough. But what if it's not Rage that interests me so much as the Totem powers, specifically*? Or conversely, what if I want to be a Way of Shadow* Barbarian? In a multiclass build, no matter where you set the break point you're losing out on important stuff from both sides while also picking up a lot of unwanted clutter. It'd be a lot cleaner and nicer to just be able to play Barbarian from one to twenty while also picking up shadow step and cloak of shadows along the way.

*Obviously these both hinge on the main class somewhat in their current state, I'm just using them for the sake of example, though a hypothetical modular subclass system might make these more class-agnostic.

[Theodoxus]

To the OP, I moved Arcane Archer to Ranger, but only because I took away archery as a supported combat type from fighters. Let the guy who has "range" in their name be the ranged guy.

As for making subclasses truly modular, it would make the game a different animal. I'm not against it, but I caution it would bring back the feel of 4th edition Paragons, and that will bring with it the gnashing of teeth associated with all things 4E.

I'd also caution, beyond the feel, as to what the point of base classes would be.

You'd have "Rage guy", "Unarmed strike guy", "heavy armor guy", "Ranged guy", "Sneak attack guy", "Spellguy (Cha)", "Spellguy (Int)" and "Spellguy (Wis)".

At that point, might as well make the generic classes from 3.5's Unearthed Arcana: Adept, Scoundrel and Warrior, give the player x points to build their base and then provide fully fleshed out subclasses to bolt on to.

And again, you're no longer looking at anything remotely 5E in flavor.

It's a great thought experiment, especially in lieu of the rash of 6th Edition threads that pop up from time to time - and (despite my caution) I'd be pretty excited to help work on this kind of project.

[Hytheter]

I'd also caution, beyond the feel, as to what the point of base classes would be.

You'd have "Rage guy", "Unarmed strike guy", "heavy armor guy", "Ranged guy", "Sneak attack guy", "Spellguy (Cha)", "Spellguy (Int)" and "Spellguy (Wis)".

At that point, might as well make the generic classes from 3.5's Unearthed Arcana: Adept, Scoundrel and Warrior, give the player x points to build their base and then provide fully fleshed out subclasses to bolt on to.

I don't think that's quite fair. Most of the classes as they stand still have a lot of flavour in the base package. The monk would still have martial arts, unarmoured defense, unarmoured movement, ki, and all those monky things. Modular subclasses would just open the scope of what kind of monk you can be - on top of the standard options you could have a Thief Monk, or an Assassin Monk, or an Eldritch Knight Monk, or a Battlemaster Monk, or Totem Monk, or a Hunter Monk, or a Beastmaster Monk, and so on. But all of these would still undeniably be Monks, not merely "unarmed strike guys".

Now admittedly it does get a little fuzzy with some of the casters. Cleric Domains as giving any class a religious slant works decently, with the cleric proper being the true "emissary of a god" archetype (as evidenced by their spell list and channel divinity), but it's hard to contemplate what a Transmutation Barbarian is supposed to be, or how a Fiend Pact Wizard is meaningfully different from a plain old Warlock. But like I said earlier, I think it would be a reasonable solution to have both class-specific and more general archetypes.

[Arkhios]

Paladin Oaths could replace their Oath Spells and one of the Oath Channel Divinities with the equivalent from Cleric's domains.

And, to be honest, doing that the other way around could also be interesting choice.

Of course, you might want to do the swap case-by-case as some oaths and domains might not be perfectly aligned with each other.

Likewise, I've long thought that you could use most fighter archetypes (the "obvious" exceptions would be at least Eldritch Knight and Arcane Archer) as a substitute for a paladin who has fallen, but who's not evil. Since the point of having fallen means that a Paladin's Sacred Oath would have to change to Oathbreaker (which I find very strange, tbh), losing one's conviction for a cause could just as well mean that you lose the benefits of the Sacred Oath. So, a fallen paladin would lose the bonus spells known and whatever comes from the Oath, and replace the features with Fighter archetype's features whenever applicable (for example, paladin doesn't gain a sub-class feature at 10th or 18th level, so obviously fighter archetype features would be omitted on those levels; or, in the case of a paladin's 20th level oath feature, the fighter's 18th level subclass feature could be bumped up there)

[alchahest]

Champion and battlemaster both function extremely will with barbarian, paladin, and rogue. being able to turn misses into hits, or conversely, add to crit range without sacrificing spell slots for paladin, additional dice on crit for barb, or sneak attack dice for rogue is actually a really potent ability even if you don't have 3-4 attacks a turn.