Subclasses - Doubling Down vs Branching Out

[Zuras]

The other day I got into an argument with JellyPooga about whether Land Druids are better Druids than Moon Druids due to their focus on their core class role of spellcasting, rather than wasting resources on a cool but secondary feature like Wild Shape. Neither party came away convinced from that discussion, but I realized I had some more general thoughts on subclass effectiveness, and in the spirit of providing a room full of eight year olds pudding and yelling "food fight", here they are.

JellyPooga's maxim regarding subclasses is "The subclass that enhances the primary focus is always going to be better than the subclass that detracts from, or worse, sidelines that primary focus."

I have no problem with the idea in theory, but in practice it still seems rather difficult to agree on the relative value of subclasses, since we still can't agree on what the primary focus of a class is, or whether given features detract from a class focus.

The easiest case is the Monk. Open Hand is clearly mechanically stronger than Four Elements, because all the spells and other abilities Elements monks get come from the same resource pool (ki) they are using for all their other monk abilities. On the other hand, the core Open Hand subclass abilities are just gains, not tradeoffs. Open Hand Technique simply enhances your Flurry of Blows at no additional cost, while Wholeness of Body is a separate, totally new resource pool. Even among the Monk subclasses, outside of the clear negative synergy of the Four Elements, it's hard to definitively rate subclasses. For example, I'd rate Open Hand as slightly better than Shadow, mechanically, but because I think Open Hand has slightly better features and stealth often ends up splitting the party, not because I think it's misguided for monks to be good at sneaking around.

Other martial classes with caster subclasses are much better than Four Elements Monks. I never hear complaints about Eldritch Knights or Arcane Tricksters being weak. Granted, their spellcasting comes from a new resource pool, and they immediately gain access to spells that enhance their core competencies (Shield for EKs, Minor Illusion and Mage Hand for ATs), but that seems to support the notion that it's the implementation of the subclass that matters, not simply whether a subclass is doubling down on something they already do versus adding versatility.

On the full caster side, I'd agree that Lore Bards rate above Valor and Swords Bards, and it's a much clearer case of the subclass that doubles down on core features besting the one that branches out into combat than Land vs. Moon Druids. However, I would argue that Lore isn't better because improvements to spellcasting are always stronger than improvements to secondary combat abilities, it's because Additional Magical Secrets is totally awesome, and lets you do your mix and match bard shtick in the meaty levels of most campaigns (6-9) instead of having to wait till 10th level when you're probably at least two thirds through. If Lore Bards got a weaker 6th level feature (say Arcane Recovery and two additional spells known instead) it would be a much closer contest. Conversely, if the Bard spell list had native access to combat buffs like Shield, Blur, Enlarge/Reduce or Shadow Blade, Extra Attack and the bonus weapon and armor proficiencies from Valor and and Swords Bards would be more valuable and again the comparison would be closer.

What has been everyone else's analysis and play experience? Is doubling down on core class abilities always better, or do some subclasses get enough "extra" that branching out into secondary abilities makes for a stronger character? Or is the entire question somewhat irrelevant because the relative value of classes can't be evaluated without considering party composition (does the Lore vs. Valor Bard comparison has a different winner in a 3 PC party?).

[MrStabby]

Tough one. I would usually go for specialism, but some of that may be personal preference.

I guess my view is the pretty bland one that specialism and versatility are both good and it matters how much we trade of one for the other.

I think the lore/valor bard is an interesting distinction. Is the bard primarily a caster or primarily a support caster? If additional magical secrets gets conjure animal and fireball isnt this as much diversification as getting an action that attacks twice? In this particular instance the one that is better depends on game style. Being able to conserve spell slots is more important in some campaigns than others. Likewise for better armour etc.?

Action economy is still king though. What determines power is how good the thing is that you did, not how close to being good were all the things you could do but didnt. In this sense I think that diversity really also depends on what it is. How likely is it that your non specialist action will be better than your core action? This is why I see valor bard as a better subclass than blade singer. So many of the bard spells force saves and dont give the bard any benefit from paralysis of enemies or advantage. The bladesinger already gets spells that fit these circumstances so even doing the same thing has less extra value to them.

Also, sometimes an option does both. Eldritch knights can grab firebolt as diversification but also shield that doubles down on armour proficiencies and fighting style.

[elyktsorb]

I've played a lot of multiclass classes tbh. So what I generally bring to the table is more utility over strong core abilities (since I'm not just making min/max multiclasses all the time) But I do have a direct comparison for the whole Moon Druid part since I played a lengthy campaign as a Moon Druid/Assassin Rogue.

SO. Given my addition to the party, the fact that I wasn't a subclass that enhanced my magic wasn't a terrible thing, I can't tell you how much mileage I got out of the Dire Wolf's tripping mechanic btw. But, I can concede that if I had been just a single Druid and more magic focused, I would have been a lot more effective at magic, but that just wasn't what I was there to do. In fact, this got a little more intricate when I swapped from Moon Druid to Spore Druid (character died and I wanted to try out a Spore Druid/Assassin Rogue since the Poison Damage is on hit and kind of stacks like additional sneak damage, and you can get it all all attacks you make) So I was significantly better at casting spells, as the Spore Druid spell list did come with some neat ones.

I feel like the crux of that argument is that, when you play a Moon Druid, more of your options become 'what can I do as 'this' animal' as opposed to just seeing what you can do with X spells.

But if you want some 'proof' into the doubling down aspect. I'd look at Rogue. A lot of it's subclasses hardly help the Rogue 'rogue' all that much better. Arcane Trickster just basically dumps good spells to have on top of being a Rouge, Swashbuckler and Inquisitive are the only 2 that give you more options to be able to Sneak Attack (mechanically I mean), and I'd argue that Inquisitive is really 'super' niche and garbage outside of that. Assassin is pretty well known for requiring you to jump through hoops just to make it better, but it arguably does make a Rogue more of a '1 hit kill assassin' sort of person, when it all works appropriately.

Maybe it's more vague to compare to Rogue, since Rogue is a pretty 'utility' class outside of sneak damage, and as such, it really doesn't matter how well the Subclasses actually mesh with Rogue and make it better at 'Rogueness'

But I'll just back to Spore Druid for a moment. Like Land, Spore gives Druids a small collection of additional spells to pick from, it doesn't give the recovery that Land does for those spells, but it does allow you to use Wildshape in line with being able to spellcast by giving you a dose of temp hp while not disabling your ability to cast spells until 18th lvl.

Fungal Infestation, as garbage as that ability is imo, does give you distractions so you can continue to cast spells without being targeted as hard.

Fungal Body quite honestly stomps on the rest of Land Druid's abilities in comparison imo.

I mean if the stipulation for being a 'better' subclass is that it makes it easier for you to do your core class stuff, than consider Spore the best Druid Subclass for giving you 40 temp hp at lvl 5 that you can still cast spells with.

[Zuras]

Action economy is still king though. What determines power is how good the thing is that you did, not how close to being good were all the things you could do but didnt. In this sense I think that diversity really also depends on what it is. How likely is it that your non specialist action will be better than your core action? This is why I see valor bard as a better subclass than blade singer. So many of the bard spells force saves and dont give the bard any benefit from paralysis of enemies or advantage. The bladesinger already gets spells that fit these circumstances so even doing the same thing has less extra value to them.

Also, sometimes an option does both. Eldritch knights can grab firebolt as diversification but also shield that doubles down on armour proficiencies and fighting style.

I’m surprised you would rate Valor Bard as better than Bladesinger.

I agree that Valor gets more from extra attack and weapon/armor proficiencies because Bards otherwise have few tools to directly harm enemies and especially bad options in combat if you don’t want to cast a leveled spell. Two attacks with your secondary stat looks a lot better when your other resource free option is Vicious Mockery at 2d4 instead of Toll the Dead at 2d12.

However, Wizards have access to much better combat spells than Bards, and a Blade Singer can effectively maximize many combat spells, especially the Self only ones wizards normally can’t take full advantage of like Shield, Blur and Shadow Blade. In my book that tilts things in favor of the Bladesinger.

[MrStabby]

I’m surprised you would rate Valor Bard as better than Bladesinger.

I agree that Valor gets more from extra attack and weapon/armor proficiencies because Bards otherwise have few tools to directly harm enemies and especially bad options in combat if you don’t want to cast a leveled spell. Two attacks with your secondary stat looks a lot better when your other resource free option is Vicious Mockery at 2d4 instead of Toll the Dead at 2d12.

However, Wizards have access to much better combat spells than Bards, and a Blade Singer can effectively maximize many combat spells, especially the Self only ones wizards normally can’t take full advantage of like Shield, Blur and Shadow Blade. In my book that tilts things in favor of the Bladesinger.

I am not sure I would say Valor bard is better, but that the subclass adds more. The wizard is so obscenely powerful that you cant really go wrong with any kind of boost. My point was that for a similar set of abilities that gets added, the bard gets more value as it let's them use things like advantage where otherwise they wouldn't. Similar addition but more value due to context.

[Chronos]

Thief is the most "rogueish" rogue subclass, but arcane trickster still helps your roguishness more than thief does. At third level, thief gets the ability to do some things as bonus actions, and some boosts to jumping and climbing. Arcane trickster gets the ability to do those same things as bonus actions, and to do them from 30' away, which often removes the need to climb or jump, and also keeps them safer. They may also plausibly get Minor Illusion, Disguise Self, and Charm Person, and maybe Detect Magic, all of which can help with rogue-ing.

At 9th level, thieves get advantage on Stealth checks, which is nice and definitely fits with rogueishness. Arcane tricksters get to force saves at disadvantage, which is extremely powerful (though not necessarily all that rogueish, even though it is tied to hiding)... but by this point they also have 2nd level spells, which means Invisibility, and can also pick up one of Knock, Enlarge/Reduce, or See Invisibility, all of which enhance your ability to be a rogue.

At 13th level, thieves get an ability that actually makes them more like arcane tricksters, while arcane tricksters get to just say "I have advantage on any attack I want". Plus third-level spells.

It's only at 17th level that the thief gets a better subclass ability than the arcane trickster... but it's still an ability that can be mostly replicated by Haste, which the AT can get at an earlier level.

[Segev]

How is the arcane trickster getting advantage on “any attack I want?”


That said, Thief is underwhelming. The climb thing is nice, but replicated by a feat. The jump distance increase is underwhelming on long jumps, but okay on high jumps. Still not as good as a grunt racial jump, but grunge are not really official.

What if Second Story Work let you make running jumps while climbing, and just added your dex or dex mod to your strength or strength mod on running long and high jumps, respectively?

What if UMD came with a bonus attunement?

The 17th level feature is better than haste for not needing concentration and for being a whole extra turn. But it could honestly just be every turn in combat and still be fine as a level 17 ability. Blisteringly powerful, but it’s not combining with more than 3 levels of any other class, and that at 20th level. And thieves are not spellcasters without careful choice of magic items.

[jas61292]

Personally, I think it can really depend, and that neither going for specialization nor variety is inherently more powerful. It depends a lot on the specific abilities. That being said, I think there is a lot to be said for the synergy of abilities. In the case of Druid, which is the example that brought about this thread, I personally believe that Land druid is, in general, the superior subclass. I think this is a less straight forward example that in should be, as I believe that Moon druid is one of the most poorly designed subclasses in the game, having a power level that jumps back and forth between hilariously broken and incredibly underwhelming. But as a whole, across the full spectrum of the games levels, and especially at the tier two levels that seem to be most common in actual play, Land Druid is easily superior. And the reason for that is partially due to their specialization in what the class is naturally good at, but not entirely. Better put, the reason Land Druid is superior is that it has features that synergize with what the Druid is naturally good at, while the Moon Druid's features actively encourage not taking full advantage of the core Druid ability set. This is not about versatility, as the Moon Druid does have that, and I believe versatility to be quite powerful. Its about how the versatility comes at the expense of being able to do your main thing.

Imagine for a second that Eldritch Knight, instead of being a Fighter subclass, was a Barbarian one. That is kinda like what the Moon Druid is. It gives a cool subset of abilities that can be really fun, but actively clash with the core class. Rage is a Barbarian's bread and butter. A raging Barbarian can't cast spells. Eldritch Knight gives mainly Abjuration and Evocation spells, which are mainly combat spells. In order to take advantage of the subclass abilities, this fictional Eldritch Barbarian would need to not be taking advantage of their classes best core ability. And if that were the case, I doubt this subclass would be looked on all that positively. In fact, I believe the aforementioned balanced issues with Moon Druid are the only reasons that is considered good at all. If the forms you could take were not totally busted at levels 2 and 3, it would lose a heck of a lot of its luster for people.

Ultimately, I think the real thing that determines how good a subclass is is not versatility vs specialization, it is synergy. An subclass that gives a caster martial ability is good if those martial abilities present them with ways to take advantage of their casting ability in ways they could not before. A bard that takes a subclass that makes them better at casting is not necessarily better off than a bard that takes a subclass that makes them better at melee. Bards do underwhelming damage and have underwhelming defense. A subclass that patched up its downsides without interfering with its upsides could be great. But a similar subclass would be of less value to a Wizard or Cleric who are naturally better at offense and defense, either through abilities or spells. For them, the martial abilities would be more of a distraction. A shiny toy that does little to actually improve what they are good at. It would expand their abilities but not synergize with them. At least not without making the subclass far more powerful, which is something neither of those classes need.

Monk is another interesting class to look at for something like this. Open Hand is a classic example of a subclass that doubles down on what the base class is good at, and it does a solid job of it. The Shadow Monk, on the other hand, does far more to expand the Monk's abilities, but unlike Open Hand, does not really do anything that directly improves the core class. However, the powers that they get open up a lot of options for them, and are not unnecessarily resource intensive. What's more, while the base monk might not have any really stealth abilities other than the ability to take stealth proficiency, their core competencies work well with the kind of stuff that Shadow gives, and so it feels quite powerful in its own right. On the other hand, you can look at the Sun Soul monk. Your first abilities from that subclass gives some ranged ability, which adds versatility to what the monk has. The problem is... the versatility does not really synergize. Sure, it kinda lets you use one of the most basic monk abilities at range, but that's about it. In order to take advantage of it, you have to not be taking advantage of all the other core things that monks are good at. It allows the monk to be competent in more situations, but the boost in competency is small, and it lacks real synergy. Now the synergy gets slightly better at level 6, when you can get some decent follow up damage after stunning since a stunned creature always fails a Dex save, but its cost hardly makes it worth the outcome. And also, synergy is an issue again, as while this ability is better with the core monk moveset, it has zero synergy within the subclass itself.

I could go on, but I think the point is clear. The quality of a subclass is all in how well it synergizes with what the character can do. That could be by making your existing abilities directly better, or it could be by adding something brand new, but that can work well in tandem with the existing abilities. But either way, a subclass that does one of those things will be better than one that adds abilities that are completely independent of the core abilities, or worse, clashes with them.

[Man_Over_Game]

I mean, the question is basically "Should I do new things" vs. "Should I do what I already do better?"

On one hand, there's a reason mages don't take Magic Initiate very often.

On the other, there's a reason Power Strike and weapon specialization builds were so common way back when.

Versatility, or identity?


There isn't really a right-or-wrong answer since it boils down to a player's opinion.


Personally, I'm in favor of using classes for class mechanics, leveling into those classes to enhance those mechanics, and multiclassing for different mechanics. If it were up to me, the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster wouldn't exist, but the end result could still be duplicated with multiclassing.

[elyktsorb]

The quality of a subclass is all in how well it synergizes with what the character can do. That could be by making your existing abilities directly better, or it could be by adding something brand new, but that can work well in tandem with the existing abilities. But either way, a subclass that does one of those things will be better than one that adds abilities that are completely independent of the core abilities, or worse, clashes with them.

Eh.. Natural Recovery, Bonus Cantrip, and Circle Spells are great, but that's really all that synergizes imo.

Lands Stride seems very niche, I imagine there's some cheese you can use it for.

And Nature's Ward and Nature's Sanctuary are exceedingly niche. (how many straight beasts/plants do you run into at lvl 14? I know I never ran into very many of them) EDIT So I decided to look to see how niche Nature's Ward is 12/32 Fey creatures can use Fear or Charmed conditions at all, and absolutely 0 Elementals can use Charmed or Fear wtf? Not going to discuss the poison/disease as both are just as if not more, campaign/creature specific)

Like, even if Moon Druid doesn't synergize as good as Land does, at least Moon Druid builds upon a single idea. Land is just a bunch of relatively nature related effects, the ones you get at 2nd level being pretty amazing at synergizing with the core class, while each subsequent one is very meh.

I think something I'd like to know is how exactly Land might be better than Moon in encounters. Like, Moon and Land can do almost all of the exact same things. Moon gets to turn into way more animals, while Land get's a few more spells. Heck, if you play a game where short rests never happen, then Moon and Land are basically the same except for a handful of spells and a cantrip vs being able to use animal forms in a fight much more effectively. I'm just thinking about how many times you turn into an elemental as a moon druid, as opposed to how often you avoid being charmed by elementals or fey as a Land Druid.


Like I mentioned with Spore Druid, that gives you a way to use wildshape and cast spells at the same time before lvl 18, and it's only real difference with land is the lack of spells back on a short rest and the additional cantrip. But I don't think a lot of people think Spore is that great because the whole 'spore aspect' isn't implemented all that well, despite the fact that it's synergy is pretty good.

[Zuras]

Personally, I'm in favor of using classes for class mechanics, leveling into those classes to enhance those mechanics, and multiclassing for different mechanics. If it were up to me, the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster wouldn't exist, but the end result could still be duplicated with multiclassing.

The problem with eliminating Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster is that you end up making a multi-classed character that gives up too many core class features for versatility. The class features that EKs and ATs get to improve their action economy while castin (War Magic and Mage Hand Legerdemain) plus the features imposing disadvantage on saves at higher levels, are what keep them competitive with the other subclasses.

[Man_Over_Game]

The problem with eliminating Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster is that you end up making a multi-classed character that gives up too many core class features for versatility. The class features that EKs and ATs get to improve their action economy while castin (War Magic and Mage Hand Legerdemain) plus the features imposing disadvantage on saves at higher levels, are what keep them competitive with the other subclasses.

Sure, but I think that's a weakness to 5e.

You could, for example, have "Hybrid bonuses" for when you have levels into two specific classes, granting you bonuses towards improving both. For example, a Fighter/Wizard hybrid bonus could be that you can attack as a Bonus Action whenever you cast a spell that has a level that is no higher than both your Fighter and Wizard levels. Barbarian/Sorcerer might cast a spell when you hit 50% HP, while Barbarian/Wizard might cast a spell when a Rage starts, etc.

Or you can just level into Fighter and be better at hitting things than the Fighter/Wizard hybrid who has more tools.

My point is, we already have an option for adding new tools through multiclassing, and having another option to do that through leveling into a primary class just seems like a redundant solution. A Fighter has 2-3 ways of getting arcane-style powers that don't feel different enough to justify having all 3 (Eldritch Knight vs. Fighter/Wizard vs. Arcane Archer), and it feels like it could have been better done had they been serious about multiclassing. I'd be of a different opinion if they were so different that they needed new mechanics (like Battlemaster vs. Champion), but the caster-style Fighter options are basically all "Attack while dealing magic damage" with slight preferences with defense or what you use your Bonus Action for.

If I'm being blunt, I think they did think about it, decided it was way too much work, and then said "multiclassing is a variant rule"...then proceeded to balance everything around multiclassing because it was so popular.

[MrStabby]

Sure, but I think that's a weakness to 5e.

You could, for example, have "Hybrid bonuses" for when you have levels into two specific classes, granting you bonuses towards improving both. For example, a Fighter/Wizard hybrid bonus could be that you can attack as a Bonus Action whenever you cast a spell that has a level that is no higher than both your Fighter and Wizard levels. Barbarian/Sorcerer might cast a spell when you hit 50% HP, while Barbarian/Wizard might cast a spell when a Rage starts, etc.

Or you can just level into Fighter and be better at hitting things than the Fighter/Wizard hybrid who has more tools.

My point is, we already have an option for adding new tools through multiclassing, and having another option to do that through leveling into a primary class just seems like a redundant solution. A Fighter has 2-3 ways of getting arcane-style powers that don't feel different enough to justify having those options (Eldritch Knight vs. Fighter/Wizard vs. Arcane Archer), and it feels like it could have been better done had they been serious about multiclassing.

If I'm being blunt, I think they did think about it, decided it was way too much work, and then said "multiclassing is a variant rule"...then proceeded to balance everything around multiclassing because it was so popular.

You could shuffle some of it into feats. Kind of like "chose one of your spell casting classes. You know and can prepare spells from that class as if you were two levels higher but never higher than that of a character with a class level in that class one level lower than your character level". It would let a caster dip be extended without sacrificing too many levels.

Then add things like war magic and similar as feats (bundled with other stuff as appropriate). It is a bit build-a-bear, but would let you have a decent bit of flexability.

[Segev]

You say it's a weakness of 5e that they "need" subclasses to let you hybridize, but I strongly disagree. "Hybrid mechanics" that try to make up for the flaws of multiclassing by having more complicating rules to the multiclass are actually the weaker design. Subclasses capture specific hybrid archetypes very well. A fighter/mage (Eldritch Knight) also comes out different than a mage/fighter (Blade Singer) by this selection. And you still can multiclass if you really want to fully hybridize for even mixing; the multiclassing rules make EK and Wizard, for instance, synergize about as well as they possibly can, depending on what class level mix you take.

[Pex]

It comes down to personal taste. Different players value different things, and no one is wrong. I'm playing in games where players make build decisions I would never do, but why should that matter? The only thing that absolutely irks me is not having at least 14 CO, but I'm hopelessly biased about it. Other players don't need my approval for their character, and I don't need theirs. I'm not stopping someone playing a Four Elements Monk.

[Man_Over_Game]

You say it's a weakness of 5e that they "need" subclasses to let you hybridize, but I strongly disagree. "Hybrid mechanics" that try to make up for the flaws of multiclassing by having more complicating rules to the multiclass are actually the weaker design. Subclasses capture specific hybrid archetypes very well. A fighter/mage (Eldritch Knight) also comes out different than a mage/fighter (Blade Singer) by this selection. And you still can multiclass if you really want to fully hybridize for even mixing; the multiclassing rules make EK and Wizard, for instance, synergize about as well as they possibly can, depending on what class level mix you take.

I dunno, just seems kind of a waste. A Bladesinger isn't much more than a temporarily higher AC and a Concentration bonus on a Wizard. Eldritch Knight just seems like having a few levels into Wizard and being able to attack after a cantrip.

If you had to multiclass Abjuration Wizard and Battlemaster Fighter to replace the EK or Bladesinger, the result wouldn't be that far off the mark. So similar, you could almost summarize the differences with a feat.

To me, that's a problem. I'm not saying we should lose content, but I am saying that we already have.

[Zetakya]

On the full caster side, I'd agree that Lore Bards rate above Valor and Swords Bards, and it's a much clearer case of the subclass that doubles down on core features besting the one that branches out into combat than Land vs. Moon Druids. However, I would argue that Lore isn't better because improvements to spellcasting are always stronger than improvements to secondary combat abilities, it's because Additional Magical Secrets is totally awesome, and lets you do your mix and match bard shtick in the meaty levels of most campaigns (6-9) instead of having to wait till 10th level when you're probably at least two thirds through. If Lore Bards got a weaker 6th level feature (say Arcane Recovery and two additional spells known instead) it would be a much closer contest. Conversely, if the Bard spell list had native access to combat buffs like Shield, Blur, Enlarge/Reduce or Shadow Blade, Extra Attack and the bonus weapon and armor proficiencies from Valor and and Swords Bards would be more valuable and again the comparison would be closer.

For my part I think you have the Bard subclasses the wrong way around. Valor is the one that focuses on the core competency (Bardic Inspiration) and enhances it (Combat Inspiration). It's Lore (Cutting Words, turning it into a debuff instead of a buff) that branches out.

Likewise, Additional Magical Secrets is largely used to allow you to branch out beyond the core competencies of the Bard. You've already got most of the party enhancements that you can get in the Bard spell list.

[Segev]

I dunno, just seems kind of a waste. A Bladesinger isn't much more than a temporarily higher AC and a Concentration bonus on a Wizard. Eldritch Knight just seems like having a few levels into Wizard and being able to attack after a cantrip.

If you had to multiclass Abjuration Wizard and Battlemaster Fighter to replace the EK or Bladesinger, the result wouldn't be that far off the mark. So similar, you could almost summarize the differences with a feat.

To me, that's a problem. I'm not saying we should lose content, but I am saying that we already have.

I don't know the Bladesinger. At all. I don't have the book it's in. But I would be curious to see a build for an EK, Bladesinger, and Abjuration Wizard/Battlemaster Fighter for comparison's sake, demonstrating at what levels you get what abilities and how they're comparable. (Or, if needs be, a different Abjuration Wizard/Battlemaster Fighter to compare to each of them.)

I know that's a lot of work to ask for, though, so don't feel obligated. I'm just curious, and it would be a way to prove your point if you're interested in doing it.

[Man_Over_Game]

For my part I think you have the Bard subclasses the wrong way around. Valor is the one that focuses on the core competency (Bardic Inspiration) and enhances it (Combat Inspiration). It's Lore (Cutting Words, turning it into a debuff instead of a buff) that branches out.

I disagree. Bardic Inspiration isn't the only reason to play a Bard. Skill enhancement is a big reason, as is the support playstyle of its spell list. I don't think that Lore really deserves it's use for Bardic Inspiration (it's too good for how generic and powerful the rest of the chassis is), but the rest of the subclass seems to yell "MOAR BARD", while Valor comes off as "MOAR FIGHTER".

If you dipped a few levels into Fighter as a Lore Bard, you wouldn't really be that far off from being a Valor Bard.


I don't know the Bladesinger. At all. I don't have the book it's in. But I would be curious to see a build for an EK, Bladesinger, and Abjuration Wizard/Battlemaster Fighter for comparison's sake, demonstrating at what levels you get what abilities and how they're comparable. (Or, if needs be, a different Abjuration Wizard/Battlemaster Fighter to compare to each of them.)

I know that's a lot of work to ask for, though, so don't feel obligated. I'm just curious, and it would be a way to prove your point if you're interested in doing it.

Off the top of my head, the Bladesinger's main thing is that it gets a Short Rest-based Rage feature that gives you a bonus to Concentration and AC equal to your Int mod, while also giving you some extra movement speed. You can't Rage if you are using 1 weapon in 2 hands, a Shield, or anything heavier than Light Armor.

At level 5, it gets Extra Attack. At some other higher level, you can expend spell slots to reduce incoming damage (like Divine Smite).

That's about all there is of note (or that I can remember).

The Extra Attack is kinda useless, since you're better off maintaining Concentration on a big spell safely, can't cast a cantrip and use it, and you still only have a 1d6 Hit Die. The damage mitigation effect is nice, but you have enough life at that time to take a hit in the first place (as life scales faster than damage), as well as being able to afford any escape you'd want (like Misty Step). At later levels, due to the high hit values of stronger enemies, your main benefit is your Concentration bonus.

In a way, the War Wizard and Bladesinger fill kind of the same niche, except Bladesinger's a bit better against martials, while War Wizard is a bit better against casters (like an Abjuration Wizard, but more generic).


If I were to do it, I'd make the EK copycat focus around using GWM, knocking enemies Prone through maneuvers, and using Shield with your Abjuration Ward for a powerhouse that can take and receive a lot of punishment. Probably 1 Wizard level for every 3 Fighter levels.

For the Bladesinger copycat, I'd reverse it. Prioritize Wizard, eventually capping Fighter to level 6 to afford War Caster, maybe Mobile while maxing out stats, using Battlemaster Maneuvers for as-needed mobility and defenses while maintaining powerful Concentration spells on myself, using my Action Surge to max out my damage on spells like Shadow Blade. Fewer attacks, but bigger spells.

The second example (Bladesinger) doesn't quite hit the mark, but I think it'd feel a lot closer to how the Bladesinger is supposed to feel. It almost seems like it's supposed to be a buff-based Gish that enhances himself as he dives into combat while brandishing a sword, but they didn't do it correctly. With the lack of synergy with the Attack Action to incorporate your full casting, and low HP, you don't ever get to feel like a "super-magical Paladin" character, but you instead you basically feel like a Sorcerer control specialist with Mobile and Medium Armor you picked up somewhere.

If you want an accurate but lazy way of duplicating Bladesinger, get 1 level of Fighter, War Caster, Mobile, and just be whatever Wizard you want.

[Segev]

Interesting, and thanks for the info. I can provide a little of the background on Bladesinger from 2e (or 1e, whichever introduced it), because I had a friend enamored of the kit. It was an attempt to make the elven gish that was always the reason elves got to be fighter/magic-users in 1e. I think it was actually a fighter/magic-user kit; you had to be playing that multi-class. (1e and 2e multi-classing looked a lot like gestalting in 3e, except you split your xp between the classes, so you leveled up slower.)

The big thing for the bladesinger was that it could cast with one hand and attack with the other, basically letting you get off a spell and an attack in the same turn. It was...pretty hax, by the edition's standards.

Duskblades were, I believe, 3.5's attempt to make them work as a base class. There was a PrC called "Bladesinger," but IIRC it wasn't...good.

PF1's Magus is probably one of the best gishes out there, and if you taught somebody from the mid-90s about PF mechanics, told them it was a secret project for a new edition of D&D by TSR, and that the classes were code-named so nobody linked them to the D&D classes they "really" were, my belief is that they'd take one look at the Magus and his sword-and-spell style and say, "Ah, so that's really the Bladesinger, then?" (I'm actually pretty sure Magus was PF's take on the Duskblade.)



One thing in your post, though:


The Extra Attack is kinda useless, since you're better off maintaining Concentration on a big spell safely, can't cast a cantrip and use it, and you still only have a 1d6 Hit Die. The damage mitigation effect is nice, but you have enough life at that time to take a hit in the first place (as life scales faster than damage), as well as being able to afford any escape you'd want (like Misty Step). At later levels, due to the high hit values of stronger enemies, your main benefit is your Concentration bonus.

Isn't this contradicting itself? Or at least at odds? "You're better off maintaining Concentration on a big spell safely," implying you're taking too big a risk (especially with having "only...a 1d6 Hit Die" as you point out), but then you say the damage mitigation is nice but imply it's not needed due to having "enough life to take a hit in the first place."

Wouldn't the damage mitigation + the extra attack let you wade in, keep that Concentration up, and then jet out when you can't mitigate effectively anymore?


I do agree that you can make a reasonable gish with Fighter 1/Wizard X. Really, elves get there almost on their own just with elven weapon proficiencies. Mountain Dwarves get there so well taht at some point I want to play a Mountain Dwarf wizard who looks like a fighter in half-plate most of the time, and the fact that she's a spell-slinger hopefully will come as a surprise to enemies. (The concept as I currently have it is a metalworker, good at black and whitesmithing, who uses create bonfire and control flames to get a nice, even, controllable heat on her stuff as she smiths. With her strength and armor, she's also prone to grappling and shoving people prone in her bonfires.

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing in your post, though:



Isn't this contradicting itself? Or at least at odds? "You're better off maintaining Concentration on a big spell safely," implying you're taking too big a risk (especially with having "only...a 1d6 Hit Die" as you point out), but then you say the damage mitigation is nice but imply it's not needed due to having "enough life to take a hit in the first place."


The damage mitigation requires your Reaction and only lasts for that one instance of damage. The issue is that your features are optimized for melee combat, but few melee combatants would expect to only be hurt once per round at that level (10). You also can't afford to use your Shield spell to avoid a barrage of attacks in the same round, since it competes with your Reaction. The best case scenario for this feature is one where you're relatively safe and don't expect many incoming attacks. That is, a Wizard that stays in the back.

If you did want to use your Extra Attack feature with a safe strategy, like using a Whip, there aren't too many instances where it'd be better than just casting the spell you'd otherwise be casting at level 5+, Concentration or otherwise. No fighting style, no emphasis on your weapon attribute (I guess if you want really high AC and don't plan on casting non-buffs?), So 2d4+6 for ~11 damage per round just doesn't seem all that impactful when you can just cast Fireball once, and there aren't many spells that can make your attacks bridge that gap without more time or more risk.

[Starbuck_II]

PF1's Magus is probably one of the best gishes out there, and if you taught somebody from the mid-90s about PF mechanics, told them it was a secret project for a new edition of D&D by TSR, and that the classes were code-named so nobody linked them to the D&D classes they "really" were, my belief is that they'd take one look at the Magus and his sword-and-spell style and say, "Ah, so that's really the Bladesinger, then?" (I'm actually pretty sure Magus was PF's take on the Duskblade.)

.

Duskblades are like a reverse Magus, instead of a few spell slots, you have a huge amount of spells slots compared to other casters (lower level ones though).
Also, Dusk cast spontaneously, magus had to pick a choose.
Plus, Dusks have full bab, Magus had delayed.

Since 5E did away with delayed fighting and everyone cast sponatanously, Magus would love being converted (probably get 2nd attack delayed till 7th).
Only, the ability to cast while fighting and having a huge spell slots would make Dusk any good.

Honestly, I would wonder what a converted Dusk would look like. Who needs higher lv spells when you have a huge amount of 1st and 2nd lvs.

[Segev]

Duskblades are like a reverse Magus, instead of a few spell slots, you have a huge amount of spells slots compared to other casters (lower level ones though).
Also, Dusk cast spontaneously, magus had to pick a choose.
Plus, Dusks have full bab, Magus had delayed.

Since 5E did away with delayed fighting and everyone cast sponatanously, Magus would love being converted (probably get 2nd attack delayed till 7th).
Only, the ability to cast while fighting and having a huge spell slots would make Dusk any good.

Honestly, I would wonder what a converted Dusk would look like. Who needs higher lv spells when you have a huge amount of 1st and 2nd lvs.

It'd be hard to convert either without them being, "Why not just play an EK?"

Though I suppose you could do them as a new base class. ...or a Bard archetype?

[SLOTHRPG95]

It'd be hard to convert either without them being, "Why not just play an EK?"

Though I suppose you could do them as a new base class. ...or a Bard archetype?

Paladin Archetype, with some blasting Oath Spells and a few extra archetype ability to boost that aspect? Honestly, vanilla Paladin already feels halfway to Duskblade to me, since the first time I read Divine Smite I just said to myself, "it's a streamlined version of Arcane Channeling, and that's what I always used most of my slots on anyways."

[Segev]

Paladin Archetype, with some blasting Oath Spells and a few extra archetype ability to boost that aspect? Honestly, vanilla Paladin already feels halfway to Duskblade to me, since the first time I read Divine Smite I just said to myself, "it's a streamlined version of Arcane Channeling, and that's what I always used most of my slots on anyways."

I would almost agree, except they take their Oath at 2nd level, and Divine Sense and Lay on Hands are first-level. Hard to refluff those to something arcane in the first place; impossible when you have them for a whole level before you could take the Oath that would change that.

Though this does give me an idea for taking the Thayan Warrior PrC (whose name I can't remember) from C. Warrior that was supposed to be for specially-trained bodyguards for the red wizards, and maybe making an "Oath of Protection" out of it. And not making it actively worse than taking levels of fighter. >_>

[MaxWilson]

I would almost agree, except they take their Oath at 2nd level, and Divine Sense and Lay on Hands are first-level. Hard to refluff those to something arcane in the first place; impossible when you have them for a whole level before you could take the Oath that would change that.

You start getting mechanical benefits from the Oath at third level.

But there's nothing stopping you from taking an oath earlier than that, even if you don't start getting mechanical benefits from it yet.

[Segev]

You start getting mechanical benefits from the Oath at third level.

But there's nothing stopping you from taking an oath earlier than that, even if you don't start getting mechanical benefits from it yet.

My point was that a subclass needs to be able to make flavor adjustments from level 1 if you need to adjust flavor for the class. Otherwise, you're not working with a subclass, but a reflavored class. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a different mode of operation. It isn't nearly as widely applicable, and doesn't fill the same niche.

[ZRN]

I'd say there are probably too many variables here to make a blanket argument - not only the vagaries of the class/subclass in question, but also the group composition, campaign focus, etc. all play into which subclass would be "optimal" for a given player.

[Theodoxus]

I'd say there are probably too many variables here to make a blanket argument - not only the vagaries of the class/subclass in question, but also the group composition, campaign focus, etc. all play into which subclass would be "optimal" for a given player.

This is my thought too.

I will say though, that if subclasses didn't exist, you could more easily rank the classes in a classic Tier style. Some, like Fighter, are quite bland such that subclasses very nearly have to branch rather than enhance. Champion comes closest, but everything that isn't a second fighting style is actually branching out from core fighter.

[SLOTHRPG95]

My point was that a subclass needs to be able to make flavor adjustments from level 1 if you need to adjust flavor for the class. Otherwise, you're not working with a subclass, but a reflavored class. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a different mode of operation. It isn't nearly as widely applicable, and doesn't fill the same niche.

So let it be a reflavor, and let's leave it at that. Generally speaking, reflavoring vs. a new subclass is indeed a big difference, but I'm not sure how it changes the feasibility of using the Paladin chassis to make a 5e Duskblade. It's just a question of labelling.


I'd say there are probably too many variables here to make a blanket argument - not only the vagaries of the class/subclass in question, but also the group composition, campaign focus, etc. all play into which subclass would be "optimal" for a given player.

Yeah, as to OP's core point, I think this summarizes things nicely.


I will say though, that if subclasses didn't exist, you could more easily rank the classes in a classic Tier style. Some, like Fighter, are quite bland such that subclasses very nearly have to branch rather than enhance. Champion comes closest, but everything that isn't a second fighting style is actually branching out from core fighter.

I'm not sure how Remarkable Athlete or an improved crit range are really branching out, unless you're specifically building a crit-fisher off of the latter. Survivor I see as more of a paradigm shift towards an attrition-focused Fighter, but that comes at 18th and could also be argued to just boil down to "doesn't die as fast" if you're not changing your tactics accordingly.

[Segev]

So let it be a reflavor, and let's leave it at that. Generally speaking, reflavoring vs. a new subclass is indeed a big difference, but I'm not sure how it changes the feasibility of using the Paladin chassis to make a 5e Duskblade. It's just a question of labelling.

I guess what I'm getting at is that a subclass should not require a reflavoring, and a reflavoring should theoretically work with the same theme of reflavor applied to any possible subclass. You could definitely make a single subclass and reflavor combination and just say that's your character, but that becomes a one-character thing. That's cool, but it is...different...then making a proper port of something from one edition to another.

That's where I get hung up on this.

Now, maybe you could make a duskblade/magus base class that looks an awful lot like the paladin, and then come up with its own subclasses.

I could also see Sorcerer as a chassis for Magus, though "Magus" makes a thematically weird bloodline. But the sorcery points can replace the arcane pool, and the subclass can come with the appropriate proficiencies in weapons and armor. Might even get Extra Attack at 6th level.

[Zuras]

Personally, I think it can really depend, and that neither going for specialization nor variety is inherently more powerful. It depends a lot on the specific abilities. That being said, I think there is a lot to be said for the synergy of abilities. In the case of Druid, which is the example that brought about this thread, I personally believe that Land druid is, in general, the superior subclass. I think this is a less straight forward example that in should be, as I believe that Moon druid is one of the most poorly designed subclasses in the game, having a power level that jumps back and forth between hilariously broken and incredibly underwhelming. But as a whole, across the full spectrum of the games levels, and especially at the tier two levels that seem to be most common in actual play, Land Druid is easily superior. And the reason for that is partially due to their specialization in what the class is naturally good at, but not entirely. Better put, the reason Land Druid is superior is that it has features that synergize with what the Druid is naturally good at, while the Moon Druid's features actively encourage not taking full advantage of the core Druid ability set. This is not about versatility, as the Moon Druid does have that, and I believe versatility to be quite powerful. Its about how the versatility comes at the expense of being able to do your main thing.

Imagine for a second that Eldritch Knight, instead of being a Fighter subclass, was a Barbarian one. That is kinda like what the Moon Druid is. It gives a cool subset of abilities that can be really fun, but actively clash with the core class. Rage is a Barbarian's bread and butter. A raging Barbarian can't cast spells. Eldritch Knight gives mainly Abjuration and Evocation spells, which are mainly combat spells. In order to take advantage of the subclass abilities, this fictional Eldritch Barbarian would need to not be taking advantage of their classes best core ability. And if that were the case, I doubt this subclass would be looked on all that positively. In fact, I believe the aforementioned balanced issues with Moon Druid are the only reasons that is considered good at all. If the forms you could take were not totally busted at levels 2 and 3, it would lose a heck of a lot of its luster for people.


Ah, but making a functional Eldritch Barbarian is actually quite feasible. If you make them a 1/3 caster refreshing on a short rest, then give them a spell list with spells that work with core Barbarian abilities, like Armor of Agathys and Aid, you would have excellent combat buffs with a few spells known left over for out of combat utility. Usually the key for mixing martial abilities with spellcasting is to abuse self-only spells, and making a Barbarian caster is no different.

Moon Druid is still amazing, even at higher levels, mainly because you can leverage many spells, especially self-only ones, in ways that a Land Druid just can’t, thanks to your improved Wild shapes.

[MaxWilson]

Personally, I think it can really depend, and that neither going for specialization nor variety is inherently more powerful. It depends a lot on the specific abilities. That being said, I think there is a lot to be said for the synergy of abilities. In the case of Druid, which is the example that brought about this thread, I personally believe that Land druid is, in general, the superior subclass. I think this is a less straight forward example that in should be, as I believe that Moon druid is one of the most poorly designed subclasses in the game, having a power level that jumps back and forth between hilariously broken and incredibly underwhelming. But as a whole, across the full spectrum of the games levels, and especially at the tier two levels that seem to be most common in actual play, Land Druid is easily superior. And the reason for that is partially due to their specialization in what the class is naturally good at, but not entirely. Better put, the reason Land Druid is superior is that it has features that synergize with what the Druid is naturally good at, while the Moon Druid's features actively encourage not taking full advantage of the core Druid ability set. This is not about versatility, as the Moon Druid does have that, and I believe versatility to be quite powerful. Its about how the versatility comes at the expense of being able to do your main thing.

I feel like this would be closer to being true if Land Druids got more good non-concentration spells on their bonus lists, or if druids had more good non-concentration spells in the first place. Without that, Moon Druid actually has the better synergy.

[Warlush]

What has been everyone else's analysis and play experience?

In my experience it really depends on the party, and the campaign. A wizard and a fighter might benefit more from a valor bard in a combat heavy setting, but would rather have a lore bard in an urban or political campaign. A party of 6 with a druid, wizard, and sorcerer would have more use for a blade warlock than a tome warlock.

In theory crafting we often leave out the elements that we can't control or quantify. Mostly meaning whatever DM you get stuck with makes the most difference.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I guess what I'm getting at is that a subclass should not require a reflavoring, and a reflavoring should theoretically work with the same theme of reflavor applied to any possible subclass. You could definitely make a single subclass and reflavor combination and just say that's your character, but that becomes a one-character thing. That's cool, but it is...different...then making a proper port of something from one edition to another.

That's where I get hung up on this.

Now, maybe you could make a duskblade/magus base class that looks an awful lot like the paladin, and then come up with its own subclasses.

I could also see Sorcerer as a chassis for Magus, though "Magus" makes a thematically weird bloodline. But the sorcery points can replace the arcane pool, and the subclass can come with the appropriate proficiencies in weapons and armor. Might even get Extra Attack at 6th level.

I can't speak to Magus, since my PF experience is generally a bit weaker and I've also never played one, but as for Duskblade, I'd still say worst-case scenario just reflavor Paladin generally irrespective of subclass, and live with slightly dissonant bonus spells if that's how you'd like to roll with your port. But I'll leave it at that since I don't want to derail this thread any further.