What subclass do you feel should be in another class?

[webyugioh]

What subclass do you think would be better (either mechanically or thematically) in another class?

Personally, I think the Circle of the Stars Druid should have been an Astronomer Wizard.

(If your DM would let you, it would even be an easy conversion. Just change the Starry Form feature to "You can use this feature twice. You regain expended uses when you finish a short or long rest. ", and all Wis to Int. Druid and Wizards gain subclass features at the same levels.)

I love the idea of a Wizard that gains magic by reading/studying the stars.

What do you think?

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I think Draconic should be a warlock, fey should be a sorcerer, arcana archer should be a ranger.

That's from the top of my head.

[J-H]

Soulknife should be a monk or fighter sublcass.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Oath of Glory, thematically, would be much better as a fighter subclass.

We could call it something like Champion, a remarkably athletic gladiator.

[Emongnome777]

I kinda thought Swarm Keeper is more thematically a druid than ranger. But I like the subclass for rangers, so I'm less salty than I thought I'd be.

[Naanomi]

Hunter, Monster Slayer -> Fighter
Beastmaster, Swarmkeeper -> Druid
Horizon Walker, Gloomstalker -> Rogue
Fey Wanderer -> Bard

[ragnorack1]

Rune knight barbarian, could even be split into two subclasses, one that gets larger when raging and a rune based one but would be runic tattoos to be uaed with unarmored defence.
Of course the two could also be smashed together like they currently are.

Works with multiclassing, but battlemaster rogues would be fun as a more "dirty tricks" character.

[paladinn]

Rogue Scout could be a Fighter sub, as originally intended. With a few more wilderness and survival abilities (and d10 HD), it could be a great spell-less Ranger. As it should be, IMHO.

[KorvinStarmast]

arcana archer should be a ranger. Not gonna disagree, if one is to keep Arcane Archer at all ...

Soulknife should be a monk or fighter sublcass. I think it fits monk better than rogue or fighter.

[Dragonsonthemap]

Every time I do this I wind up dissolving Sorcerer and Monk completely, and looking pretty suspiciously at Ranger and Barbarian, and maybe Paladin and Bard.

[MrStabby]

Cavalier -> Paladin
Arcane Archer -> Sorcerer
Battlemaster-> Monk
Circle of the Moon -> Ranger
Fey Pact -> ranger (though we kind of have this now)

[RogueJK]

Arcane Archer -> Sorcerer


Okay, that's actually a cool idea...

Could be sort of the "martial caster" Bladesinger-equivalent for Sorcerers.

I think it could be tricky to balance, though. Spellcasting is strong. Ranged weapon combat is strong. And both of them skip out on some of the drawbacks of melee. Combining them without it being OP would take walking a fine line. (But you at least wouldn't have to worry as much about Arcane Archer/Paladin multiclassing shenanigans, since so many of the Paladin abilities rely specifically on melee.)


I also agree that Scout as a "spell-less Ranger" Fighter subclass would be a great idea, and much easier to pull off.

[mistajames]

I think Eldritch Knight's War Magic should be nixed and they should get the Bladesinger's version of Extra Attack instead. As-is, EK doesn't really get much use out of War Magic.

[RogueJK]

I disagree. As it sits currently, it prevents high level EKs from running around making their full complement of 3x-4x Greatsword+GWM attacks plus stacking Tier 3/4 scaled Booming Blade damage on top of that. That would be noticeably overpowered. Multiple GWM attack is already crazy powerful. Instead, they have to choose between BB+BA Attack for two attacks, or making their full complement of potentially more attacks with no cantrip. Currently, BB + BA Attack is only really the go-to optimal choice from Levels 7 through 10, before the 3rd Attack comes online at Level 11, which is just fine as it is. They get several levels of a nice damage boost (+1d8 and potentially the rider) before having to change tactics and relegating Cantrip+BA Attack to much more niche use.

Cantrips scale through the tiers. Fighter's number of attacks scales through the tiers. It's intentionally designed to not allow them to double-dip on this scaling in Tiers 3 and 4.

(Besides, that's not a suggestion to swap a subclass to another class... That's just altering a subclass ability.)

[Kane0]

Kensei Fighter
Arcane Archer Ranger
Rune Barbarian
Swarm Druid
Star Wizard
Scribe Bard

[MaxWilson]

What subclass do you think would be better (either mechanically or thematically) in another class?

Wild Mages should be wizards. They're mages who have extensively studied and based their magic on the randomness of Faerun's wild magic zones (created during the Time of Troubles). It's a form of metamagic, and it requires study (basically about chaos theory)--it's not just some inborn LOLrandom thing. Therefore they should be wizards.

And while we're at it, the wild magic roll needs to do more than nothing 95% of the time. The way the Tome of Magic introduced wild magic would probably still work in 5E: when you cast a spell, roll on the wild magic table to see how much the spell's effective level is affected by chaos factors. It may go up or down by as much as five levels in extreme situations. On certain rolls, you ALSO get a wild surge, but the level change is the main effect, so it's not like it's disappointing not to get a surge. In fact deliberately triggering a wild surge is pretty dangerous.

So yeah, pretty much everything about 5E wild magic needs to be rewritten to match the Tome of Magic.

[Sception]

Does thinking a subclass should be it's own entire class count? Because I've long advocated for hexblade being its own class instead of a warlock patron.

[RogueJK]

I could get behind that. Sort of a dedicated Gish class with its own identity, like Pathfinder's Magus. Or I guess kinda like what they're going for with some Artificers, just from a different angle without the "steampunk tinkering" shtick.

[Naanomi]

Every time I do this I wind up dissolving Sorcerer and Monk completely, and looking pretty suspiciously at Ranger and Barbarian, and maybe Paladin and Bard.
Ranger would be the first class to go for me... though if you start going down this path too much you kind of end up with the classic ‘fighting man, cleric, wizard, thief’

[Sception]

Ranger would be the first class to go for me... though if you start going down this path too much you kind of end up with the classic ‘fighting man, cleric, wizard, thief’

Why stop there? A thief is just a dexy fighter. A cleric is just a wizard with medium armor proficiency and cure wounds. If you're going down this route there's no reason not to collapse the entire game down to just two classes - 'muggle' and 'magic user'.

[RogueJK]

Why stop there? A thief is just a dexy fighter. A cleric is just a wizard with medium armor proficiency and cure wounds. If you're going down this route there's no reason not to collapse the entire game down to just two classes - 'muggle' and 'magic user'.

3... Mudbloods (half-casters). :biggrin:

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

Beastmaster --> Druid
Moon Druid --> Moon Ranger

Arcane Archer --> Wizard

Chaos Sorcerer --> Chaos Warlock

Anyway,

Ken

[MaxWilson]

Why stop there? A thief is just a dexy fighter. A cleric is just a wizard with medium armor proficiency and cure wounds. If you're going down this route there's no reason not to collapse the entire game down to just two classes - 'muggle' and 'magic user'.

A thief is NOT a dexy fighter, that's the point of having a separate role. 5E made thieves Dexy fighters, but in order for them to make sense as a separate class, the niches have to be distinct--one can't be a superset of the other. Fighters have to be better at fighting, and thieves have to be good at stealing/sneaking/climbing/etc. instead.

You can have a game where the classes were Negotiator, Thief/Intel, Fighter, Wizard, Scientist, and Techie/Mad Scientist. In fact, GURPS: Black Ops does basically this, except that since it's Black Ops there is no negotiation and no Negotiator. :-) But there is Combat, Intel, Science, Technology, Secops, and Psi, where Secops (Security Ops) is basically a generalist cross-trained in everything and responsible for keeping the team alive.

The 5E equivalent would be if e.g. Chainlocks were a Rogue subclass who did their rogue thing (intel gathering) with magic, and other rogues did their thing some other way (social engineering or disguises or aerial surveillance, etc.) and Hexblades were a Fighter subclass who did their fighting thing with magic, instead of having the classes organized along mechanical lines.

[Sception]

3... Mudbloods (half-casters). :biggrin:

That's just multiclassing. Half Caster classes are generally the first targets for the 'streamline classes out of the game' folks.

[rlc]

Off the top of my head, the brute fighter seems like it was trying to be a rogue, so a rogue that’s more like a fighter might’ve made sense instead, though the only major things I can think of are being able to use sneak attack with any weapon (even a great sword would amount to one extra sneak attack die) and maybe a fighting style and second wind.

[Kane0]

I think Eldritch Knight's War Magic should be nixed and they should get the Bladesinger's version of Extra Attack instead. As-is, EK doesn't really get much use out of War Magic.

I could get behind that.


Off the top of my head, the brute fighter seems like it was trying to be a rogue, so a rogue that’s more like a fighter might’ve made sense instead, though the only major things I can think of are being able to use sneak attack with any weapon (even a great sword would amount to one extra sneak attack die) and maybe a fighting style and second wind.

Like an Enforcer Rogue?

[Sindeloke]

Swashbuckler was originally a full BAB class, introduced in Complete Warrior, meant to give people who wanted to be a flashy Dex/Int fighter a way to do that without having to accept the squishiness and skulky thematics of the rogue. Giving it to rogues instead of fighters is just... goofy.

[rlc]

Like an Enforcer Rogue?

Yeah. Just, like, a rogue that rewards you for using strength. I’ve seen some good home brew builds out there that do that, but something official would be cool.

[Naanomi]

Swashbuckler was originally a full BAB class, introduced in Complete Warrior, meant to give people who wanted to be a flashy Dex/Int fighter a way to do that without having to accept the squishiness and skulky thematics of the rogue. Giving it to rogues instead of fighters is just... goofy.
In 2e, swashbuckler was a kit that gave you fighter THAC0 for a few weapons

[Sepok]

I think all Warlocks should have been sub-classes of other classes. You bargained for power in that specific class.


Most warlocks would be Wizard/Sorcerer subclasses (Fiend/Old One).
Archfey=Bard/Druid
Hexblade=Fighter
Celestial=Cleric/Paladin

[paladinn]

In 2e, swashbuckler was a kit that gave you fighter THAC0 for a few weapons

In BECMI, the closest thing to a swashbuckler was the rake, basically a non-thieving thief. No Picking Pockets or Backstabbing, but a +1 to CHA and a dodge ability equal to his/her Hide in Shadows ability. Still d4 HD and basic thief attack rolls. There was a lot of house-ruling of the HD to d6.

[Witty Username]

I think arcane archer is poorly served as a fighter subclass, ranger would be my choice, although wizard is also be a good option.
As for the condensing of classes, sorcerer and barbarian are the most likely. Sorcerer being a wizard subclass, and barbarian I think would be interesting as a ranger subclass.

[Joe the Rat]

Not so much "instead" but "and also" for a long of these.

Superiority Dice Rogue would be a change of ethos, as most archetypes are no-cost tricks (AT and the new phantom being notable exceptions). But adding riders to attacks can fit the niche of the he expert blade, or the dirty fighter. For that matter, college of blades lends well to a showy rogue with a flourish. All of this sits in the same concept space that birthed the Swashbuckler.

Rune Barbarian seems an obvious alternative take.

Horizon Walker felt like it should sit in the Paladin camp, but they've gained a similar oath.

[Sception]

arcane archer really would be a great ranger subclass, though. Give them access to the wizard spell list, or at least a set of extra spells from the wizard list, and add the ability to deliver touch range spells via arrows as a defining subclass feature. The core of the subclass pretty much writes itself, and it shouldn't be hard to come up with some additional thematic abilities to fill out the higher levels.

[SirDidymus]

Swashbuckler was originally a full BAB class, introduced in Complete Warrior, meant to give people who wanted to be a flashy Dex/Int fighter a way to do that without having to accept the squishiness and skulky thematics of the rogue. Giving it to rogues instead of fighters is just... goofy.

In 2e/AD&D it went both ways. There were swashbuckler kit in both Complete Fighter and Complete Thief, so you could use it with both classes.

[RogueJK]

arcane archer really would be a great ranger subclass, though. Give them access to the wizard spell list, or at least a set of extra spells from the wizard list, and add the ability to deliver touch range spells via arrows as a defining subclass feature. The core of the subclass pretty much writes itself, and it shouldn't be hard to come up with some additional thematic abilities to fill out the higher levels.

That would be a very lackluster "defining subclass feature".

Rangers have zero offensive Touch-ranged spells. Even if you give them access to the Wizard spell list, Wizards have a whopping two Touch-range offensive spells: the Shocking Grasp cantrip and the 3rd level Bestow Curse spell.

So unless you're intending the Arcane Archer to be delivering healing/buffs via arrow, plugging their ally in the butt with an arrow to heal them (hopefully for more HP than the arrow is dealing in damage...), or shooting their buddy's eye out to grant them the ability to fly, that "touch spell via arrow" ability would rarely ever be used.


Instead, perhaps something like "once per turn you can substitute one of your attacks to deliver a Wizard ranged attack cantrip using your bow, using your DEX instead of your spellcasting modifier for the attack roll, and substituting the range of the bow for the range of the spell". Basically similar to the Bladesinger's ability to enhance one of their attacks for a Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade, only with a ranged weapon. Then you could do stuff like shoot a Fire Bolt arrow or Ray of Frost arrow, and get a damage boost from the arrow damage plus use your higher DEX bonus on the attack roll.

The balancing issue would be stacking scaling cantrips on top of Sharpshooter at higher levels. In Tiers 3 and 4, that would probably be overpowered. Bladesingers avoid that by not being capable of stacking GWM, since they're limited to one-handed weapons. Also, unlike Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade that are designed to account for the weapon damage dice by nature of not adding any additional damage dice until Tier 2, the various ranged attack cantrips would be providing an extra dice of damage. So that alone could be overpowered.


The counter to that might be something like paring it down to simply "when you Cast a Spell with a ranged attack roll spell or cantrip, you can deliver that ranged attack spell/cantrip with your bow, using your DEX instead of your spellcasting modifier for the attack roll, and substituting the range of the bow for the range of the spell". That would still allow them to make that Fire Bolt bow attack with the additional arrow damage, but in turn they'd only get that one arrow that turn, limiting the Sharpshooter cheese. And it would also allow them to use it with leveled spells as well, for stuff like a Chromatic Orb bow attack or Melf's Acid Arrow bow attack. But the Arcane Archer, by nature of being a Ranger, wouldn't have the spell slots to be spamming leveled spells with his arrows, which helps balance that by limiting it to occasional use.


Edit: Well, the math doesn't really work out in favor of the single cantrip arrow per turn, unless you're not going to be using Sharpshooter anyway. The standard Tier 3 Ranger with Longbow can be doing 2d8+10 (average 19) with their two attacks in a turn. A Tier 3 Ranger with Longbow and Sharpshooter can be doing 2d8+30 (average 39).

The Tier 3 Arcane Archer with Longbow and Fire Bolt could be doing 1d8+3d10+5 (average 26), so that's higher than the Ranger without Sharpshooter, but noticeably less than the Ranger with Sharpshooter. The Tier 3 Arcane Archer with Longbow, Sharpshooter, and Fire Bolt could be doing better at 1d8+3d10+15 (average 36) with their action, but that's still less damage than simply taking their normal two attacks with Sharpshooter. So there's no incentive to use the cantrip arrow, unless you want to inflict the rider from something like Ray of Frost or Chill Touch on an enemy that round and are willing to trade a chunk of damage in return.

By comparison, a Tier 3 Warlock with Agonizing Eldritch Blast can be doing 3d10+15 damage (average 31.5) with their action, and a Tier 3 Fighter with Longbow and Sharpshooter could be doing 3d8+45 (average 58.5) with their action (but the whole point of a Fighter is to be able to pump out lots of weapon damage).


So it's a tough balancing act. Giving them straight Bladesinger-like cantrip substitution would be overpowered. But limiting them to one spell/cantrip arrow attack per round is slightly underpowered compared to just the old standby of two Sharpshooter attacks. The one spell arrow per turn setup is likely the better balanced option, but the optimizers would turn their noses up at it. Still, almost certainly a better option than the current iteration of the Arcane Archer.

[Sception]

fair enough. There are certainly far fewer offensive touch spells in this edition than I thought. Still, I don't feel it would be too difficult to get the base concept into a workable form.

[RogueJK]

fair enough. There are certainly far fewer offensive touch spells in this edition than I thought.

Yeah, even across all the classes, there's only 4 offensive touch spells in the game: Shocking Grasp, Inflict Wounds, Bestow Curse, and Contagion.

I guess Plane Shift counts too as a partial 5th one, if used for its banishment component (but Rangers don't get 7th level spells anyway).

[Sception]

there's also self range spells that let you make melee spell attacks while they're active, and a hypothetical arcane archer ability could theoretically be worded to work with them as well, but an alternative ability that just lets you replace your spell range with your bow's range when casting spells would work better. But then you're not adding the spell to a ranged attack you're already using, and a half caster isn't going to get very far casting single target damage spells, regardless of the range.

So maybe it doesn't write itself quite as easily as I thought. :p

[Katzekerl]

Watcher oath seems more fitting on a wisdom based class than charisma, make it a cleric of Heimdal.

[Luccan]

Swashbuckler was originally a full BAB class, introduced in Complete Warrior, meant to give people who wanted to be a flashy Dex/Int fighter a way to do that without having to accept the squishiness and skulky thematics of the rogue. Giving it to rogues instead of fighters is just... goofy.

In addition to what others have pointed out about pre-3.5 Swashbucklers, the 3.5 Swashbuckler notably comboed well with Rogue (it was always better than single-classed and baseline better than Swash/Fighter), so any decent Swashbuckler could do Rogue stuff anyway. It's not really weird even by the 3.5 standard, especially with the removal of BAB and rogues getting an HD bump. Plus, most Fighter subclasses don't really push you to Dex or Str. Except Arcane Archer, but I think that has more to do with how ranged weapons work than a deliberate attempt on the designers part to make a dedicated Dex Fighter.

[noob]

Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid and Cleric should be bard subclasses?

[Witty Username]

This conversation seems to speak to the lost flexibility of 3.5.
Swashbuckler could mix well with rogue or fighter.
Arcane archer could mix well with ranger/wizard but fighter, sorcerer and such could still succeed.
Shadow dancer could fit well on rogue and monk.
All of these are now one subclass, for one class. And the others are left on the roadside.

[rlc]

This conversation seems to speak to the lost flexibility of 3.5.
Swashbuckler could mix well with rogue or fighter.
Arcane archer could mix well with ranger/wizard but fighter, sorcerer and such could still succeed.
Shadow dancer could fit well on rogue and monk.
All of these are now one subclass, for one class. And the others are left on the roadside.

That just means that there’s different flexibility. Just because the name “swashbuckler” or “arcane archer” go to specific classes doesn’t mean that you can’t do something similar with a different class.

[noob]

That just means that there’s different flexibility. Just because the name “swashbuckler” or “arcane archer” go to specific classes doesn’t mean that you can’t do something similar with a different class.

Bow use support is low if you are going to play a casting focused class.

[RogueJK]

Bow use support is low if you are going to play a casting focused class.

That's true for Sorcerer, Cleric, or Druid...

However, a Warlock makes a dandy "Eldritch Archer" if you reflavor your Eldritch Blasts as you channeling your magic through a bow, shooting arrows of concentrated magic, and occasionally busting out a bigger specialized Shatter arrow, or Hypnotic Pattern arrow, or Banishment arrow from your quiver (ala Green Arrow). Makes for a much more flavorful "magical archer" than the Arcane Archer.

And a Bladesinger Wizard using a Hand Crossbow with XBE is a potent "magical crossbow archer", doing the Hand Crossbow + Attack Cantrip "magical crossbow bolt" + BA Hand Crossbow routine while Bladesinging.

Even a Valor Bard can be a viable "magical archer".

(Heck, even among Fighter subclasses, a DEX-based Eldritch Knight makes for a better "magical archer" character than the Arcane Archer, although their magic will be primarily defensive-focused.)

[noob]

That's true for Sorcerer, Cleric, or Druid...

However, a Warlock makes a dandy "Eldritch Archer" if you reflavor your Eldritch Blasts as you channeling your magic through a bow, shooting arrows of concentrated magic, and occasionally busting out a bigger specialized Shatter arrow, or Hypnotic Pattern arrow, or Banishment arrow from your quiver (ala Green Arrow). Makes for a much more flavorful "magical archer" than the Arcane Archer.

And a Bladesinger Wizard using a Hand Crossbow with XBE is an extremely viable "magical crossbow archer", doing the Hand Crossbow + Attack Cantrip "magical crossbow bolt" + BA Hand Crossbow routine while Bladesinging.

Even a Valor Bard can make for a better-feeling "magical archer" than the Arcane Archer fighter subclass.

(Heck, a DEX-based Eldritch Knight makes for a better "magical archer" character than the Arcane Archer.)
Warlock substitute archery instead of supporting it.
Bladesinger wizard does not support archery very much but it is a way to use the attack action.
EK is good at being a magical archer.
I have no clue how to use archery on a valor bard efficiently.

[Dienekes]

I actually kind of like the idea of an Arcane Archer in the Fighter class. Mostly because I find some small value in the concept of the magic/warrior class that doesn’t have to deal with spell slots.

If I wanted to make a magic archer Ranger I wouldn’t make it a subclass. I’d just make various archer focused spells as exclusive to the Ranger spell list.

I do kind of think Rune Knight makes more sense as a Barbarian since it fits so well as an add on to rage.

Swashbuckler as a concept I think works better as a fighter. The whole style of fighting is known for making many quick attacks. Why would you put it on the class designed around making one huge smash of an attack each round?

As a related aside. I really don’t think the class based around fighting with daggers and other small light weapons should have been designed around smashing things really really hard once per turn.

[RogueJK]

Warlock substitute archery instead of supporting it.

That "Eldritch Blast quasi-Archer" example does, but you can build an effective Bow-wielding Warlock by going Hexblade Blade Pact and taking the Improved Pact Weapon, Thirsting Blade, and Eldritch Smite invocations. You then supplement your archery with spellcasting, and boost your archery effectiveness with stuff like Hex and Spirit Shroud, and the Hexblade's access to the Branding/Banishing Smite spells, plus Hexblade's Curse for increased crit range and additional damage.

(It's just that this "real archer" Warlock will eventually lag behind the EB "quasi-Archer" in damage in Tiers 3 and 4, and won't have the additional control effects of pushing/pulling with EB... Still a better "magic archer" than Arcane Archer, though.)



I have no clue how to use archery on a valor bard efficiently.

You get Extra Attack, so you're already on par with other non-Fighter archers (like Rangers and the above Bowlock) for number of bow attacks.

You're also a full spellcaster, so you can toss out spells as needed, reflavoring them as coming from "magic arrows" as appropriate.

You use Magical Secrets to poach specific non-Bard spells to enhance your capabilities with the bow, like Magic Weapon/Elemental Weapon/Holy Weapon, Haste, Swift Quiver, Conjure Volley, etc.

To get Archery fighting style, you can either take the Fighting Initiate feat, or dip a level of Fighter.

Take the Sharpshooter feat, and use your spells like Faerie Fire or Slow (or Bless through the Fey Touched CHA-half-feat) along with Archery fighting style to help offset the attack penalty.


You can do the same with a Swords Bard too, if you have another means to gain Longbow proficiency, like a Fighter dip or Elf race. Despite the name, your Blade Flourishes can be applied to bow attacks too. This one actually works better than Valor, provided you don't mind the 1 level Fighter dip and minor delay to your Bard levels. (You'll probably want to take that at first level, for CON save proficiency along with Archery fighting style and Longbow proficiency, and just be a standard Archer Fighter for the 1st level until you switch to Bardcher.)

[noob]

I actually kind of like the idea of an Arcane Archer in the Fighter class. Mostly because I find some small value in the concept of the magic/warrior class that doesn’t have to deal with spell slots.

If I wanted to make a magic archer Ranger I wouldn’t make it a subclass. I’d just make various archer focused spells as exclusive to the archer spell list.

I do kind of think Rune Knight makes more sense as a Barbarian since it fits so well as an add on to rage.

Swashbuckler as a concept I think works better as a fighter. The whole style of fighting is known for making many quick attacks. Why would you put it on the class designed around making one huge smash of an attack each round?

As a related aside. I really don’t think the class based around fighting with daggers and other small light weapons should have been designed around smashing things really really hard once per turn.

Sneak attack is supposedly about having an attack hitting the right spot rather than a stronger attack.
Ex: you can not sneak attack walls for exploding them violently.
But yes in 3.5 the swashbuckler is essentially a character using a fighter chassis that is trading feats for real class features.
Maybe an alternative would be making swashbuckler rogue lose their sneak attack in exchange for more attacks?

[Dienekes]

Sneak attack is supposedly about having an attack hitting the right spot rather than a stronger attack.
Ex: you can not sneak attack walls for exploding them violently.
But yes in 3.5 the swashbuckler is essentially a character using a fighter chassis that is trading feats for real class features.
Maybe an alternative would be making swashbuckler rogue lose their sneak attack in exchange for more attacks?

That’s what it’s supposed to be, but the gameplay is making one very high damaging attack each round, with a dagger, that somehow deals more damage than an axe to the head. And it’s not like it uses the mechanics of accuracy to imply making a more difficult attack. Which somewhat amusingly is better represented with the GWM feat.

It’s a bit silly is all.

[noob]

That’s what it’s supposed to be, but the gameplay is making one very high damaging attack each round, with a dagger, that somehow deals more damage than an axe to the head. And it’s not like it uses the mechanics of accuracy to imply making a more difficult attack. Which somewhat amusingly is better represented with the GWM feat.

It’s a bit silly is all.

Now I must make an homebrew path of strength rogue subclass that replaces sneak attack by hitting really really hard.

[Garfunion]

On the topic of arcane archer, I would actually take a page from the alchemist Artificer archetype. Give the arcane archer spell slot progression and a list of arrows that they could make. They would be able to make one randomly for free while at the same time sacrificing their spell slots to make more.

[Throne12]

Hunter, Monster Slayer -> Fighter
Beastmaster, Swarmkeeper -> Druid
Horizon Walker, Gloomstalker -> Rogue
Fey Wanderer -> Bard

Lol so duck the Ranger.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

At my table we tend to allow you to take whatever Subclass you want so long as you can make it fit in the hole of the class you are and have fluff/flavor to explain it.

I have someone who took Bladesinger as a Sorcerer, Draconic Bloodline as a Bard.

Honestly, the only place it gets hard is when the slots don't line up or when the final ability is way late compared to when you should get it.

[Kane0]

At my table we tend to allow you to take whatever Subclass you want so long as you can make it fit in the hole of the class you are and have fluff/flavor to explain it.

I have someone who took Bladesinger as a Sorcerer, Draconic Bloodline as a Bard.

Honestly, the only place it gets hard is when the slots don't line up or when the final ability is way late compared to when you should get it.

Thats not a bad concept, might be some brew potential in that

[Garfunion]

At my table we tend to allow you to take whatever Subclass you want so long as you can make it fit in the hole of the class you are and have fluff/flavor to explain it.

I have someone who took Bladesinger as a Sorcerer, Draconic Bloodline as a Bard.

Honestly, the only place it gets hard is when the slots don't line up or when the final ability is way late compared to when you should get it.

I always felt that they should have a baseline the archetype system so that it progresses evenly through all classes. Thereby allowing them to create a form of prestige class system.

[Naanomi]

At my table we tend to allow you to take whatever Subclass you want so long as you can make it fit in the hole of the class you are and have fluff/flavor to explain it.

I have someone who took Bladesinger as a Sorcerer, Draconic Bloodline as a Bard.

Honestly, the only place it gets hard is when the slots don't line up or when the final ability is way late compared to when you should get it.
Works ok until the abilities reference class abilities you don’t have... Spellcasting or Sneak Attack being the most common; or adding spells to your spellbook for classes that don’t have one. Wildshape also I suppose

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Works ok until the abilities reference class abilities you don’t have... Spellcasting or Sneak Attack being the most common; or adding spells to your spellbook for classes that don’t have one. Wildshape also I suppose

We go through on case by case because of that.

In the two examples, given Bladesinger fits into Sorc without issue other than you don't get Song of Defense and Song of Victory until later. Player was willing to do that.

Bard with Draconic Bloodline hit a snag where level 6 lets you use Sorcery Points to grant Resistance and has a level 17 ability that there's no gap for. Player ended up giving up the fear in exchange for the Resistance being just always on. No balance issues found really.

[JackPhoenix]

That’s what it’s supposed to be, but the gameplay is making one very high damaging attack each round, with a dagger, that somehow deals more damage than an axe to the head. And it’s not like it uses the mechanics of accuracy to imply making a more difficult attack. Which somewhat amusingly is better represented with the GWM feat. .

Considering the requirement for sneak attack is the target being distracted somehow (either by other enemies in combat, or the rogue having an advantage), it definitely does use mechanics to imply it's more difficult to achieve.


We go through on case by case because of that.

In the two examples, given Bladesinger fits into Sorc without issue other than you don't get Song of Defense and Song of Victory until later. Player was willing to do that.

Bard with Draconic Bloodline hit a snag where level 6 lets you use Sorcery Points to grant Resistance and has a level 17 ability that there's no gap for. Player ended up giving up the fear in exchange for the Resistance being just always on. No balance issues found really.

Whhy not use Bardic Inspiration instead? That way, you get to do the same choice sorcerers do: do you use your points to buff the team/for metamagic/to make more spell slots, or to give yourself resistance? And while you have less BI uses than the sorcerer has SPs, it come back at short rest instead of long rest.

[Dienekes]

Considering the requirement for sneak attack is the target being distracted somehow (either by other enemies in combat, or the rogue having an advantage), it definitely does use mechanics to imply it's more difficult to achieve.

Which are all taken away by the Swashbuckler subclass anyway which is what started this conversation.

That and I just don't think they do a particularly good job doing it. It's not like you're stabbing someone in the back here, you just need someone else next to some giant and now cool you can get the perfect attack on their toes.

It does a poor job of portraying an actual assassination or modelling knife combat. I just do not like that mechanic.

It is of course functional to give Rogues a distinct playstyle. But that's about as far as I'll give it.

[GiantOctopodes]

Just want to say I'm a big fan of the mix and match concept to expand on what is possible to cover from a fluff perspective as nicely as possible. I love this thread and these ideas, I'd love to see some of them fleshed out a bit in terms of how to deal with references to class features that don't exist in the subclass etc. Great stuff!

This is very obvious I feel but Way of the Shadow is fantastic on Rogues, just replace the ki point reference in the Shadow Arts with "a number of times per short rest equal to your proficiency bonus" and it works out fine.

[Chronic]

I personally use the genie warlock subclass as a sorcerer subclass. It seems to fit so well I was kind of surprised it end up as a warlock thing.

[Witty Username]

I personally use the genie warlock subclass as a sorcerer subclass. It seems to fit so well I was kind of surprised it end up as a warlock thing.
Eh, getting stuff from another entity that you are in negotiations with does genie in the magic lamp pretty well I think. Sure sorcerer should get a genie bloodline but genie pact doesn't seem like something warlock shouldn't get.
That being said that may drift into a thought I've been having recently that warlock is better at the sorcerer theme than the sorcerer.

[Chronic]

Oh I didn't say the warl9cj shouldn't get it, I just feel the sorcerer simply feels better at it. I know people don't like sorcerer thematically but I must say i don't care much for theme if they feel good to play, and to me they feel good mostly.

[Witty Username]

I personally use the genie warlock subclass as a sorcerer subclass. It seems to fit so well I was kind of surprised it end up as a warlock thing.
Fair enough.


Hunter, Monster Slayer -> Fighter
Beastmaster, Swarmkeeper -> Druid
Horizon Walker, Gloomstalker -> Rogue
Fey Wanderer -> Bard

I feel like Swarm keeper would be redundant with the spores druid.
Ditto with the Fey wanderer with the college of glamor, the beast master with the Shepard druid, and gloom stalker with the assassin.

Trading hunter for arcane archer seems fair, I think Monster slayer is an iffy fit for fighter though. To clarify, I think a "Monster slayer" subclass would fit for fighter but as written Monster slayer is more in theme with "Witch hunter". Also, battle master may be too good as I feel like it is about as good at carrying the themes as any of these sub classes.

A teleport rogue definitely should be a thing, I feel like I would tie it to a bonus action ability rather than part of the attack though to better open traversal. Maybe look to the way of shadow as well for inspiration.

[paladinn]

Sure sorcerer should get a genie bloodline but genie pact doesn't seem like something warlock shouldn't get.

Has anyone come up with a genie-soul sorcerer yet? Wonder what the special spell list would be like. Wish once/day? :P

[Naanomi]

Has anyone come up with a genie-soul sorcerer yet? Wonder what the special spell list would be like. Wish once/day? :P
Kaladesh pyromancer could be a decent Efreet-soul

[dmhelp]

Has anyone played where players can choose any viable subclass? So you can play a battle master rogue only gaining 4 tier powers but you can’t play a draconic bloodline fighter. You can play a fiend wizard but not a fiend barbarian. And maybe throwing in ASIs if you are fitting a 4 tier subclass in a class that normally has 5 tiers.

I think in most cases it wouldn’t be too bad balance wise. I could see limiting it to single classed characters (otherwise you could do things like 2 hex warlock/18 bladesinger sorcerer).

[Fynzmirs]

Alchemist should be an alchemist subclass.

[Floorlock]

I personally use the genie warlock subclass as a sorcerer subclass. It seems to fit so well I was kind of surprised it end up as a warlock thing.

I know what you mean in a lot of ways.

I'm actually planning out a potential Arabian Nights type of campaign and one of the players might actually be using the Genie Warlock to essentially just play out a full-fledged Genie.

I'm basically going to let them ignore almost all instances of the Warlock fluff and just play it as though they were just rising within their own innate Genie powers.

I mean...really the class seems to be all about making YOU a genie as opposed to having you be in a pact with one. I mean...YOU obtain a magic lamp that's essentially YOUR extradimensional living space that YOU can eventually bring other people into. YOU then gain resistance connected to a type of genie related element and YOU gain the ability to fly and float around as a genie would.

I realize that limited wish and the eventual wish spell itself could be fluffed as asking for wishes from your genie patron...but, really they're just as easily fluffed as YOU casting and granting wishes yourself.

So, I'm just going to allow them to play it off as a rusty genie bound to a lamp that gets found by one of the other player characters.

I guess that's really how it is a lot of the time with Warlock and Sorcerer, though. There's quite a bit of overlap. It makes sense that people often ask for similar types of subclasses from both of them. Quite often there seem to be cries for both a Fey Sorcerer and a Draconic Warlock.

[Witty Username]

Warlocks in general do a pretty good job portraying innate magic, between invocations that grant permanent effects, eldritch blast, and powerful spells virtually every combat.

[JellyPooga]

I would absolutely love to see the Oath of Vengeance features (except maybe the wings part at lvl.20) on a Rogue chassis.

It totally works for Paladin, don't get me wrong, but those Vengeance features on a Rogue would really accentuate the Rogues role as being a complete thorn in the enemies side.