What's the most boring subclass in 5e (and how you make it more exciting)?

[Wasp]

Hi everyone

Simple question: What do you think is the most boring subclass in 5e? Why? Is it about options? And do you think there is a way to make it exciting or at least interesting to play?

The Champion seems to be the one most people in my bubble think of as "most boring" but maybe that has changed with the newer books?

What do you think?

[Willie the Duck]

IMO Champion is an aside case, because it exists for people who want the mechanical part of their character to get out of the way (have that part of the game be 'boring'). After that, I think Berserker barbarian would qualify as boring -- the major benefit is an extra attack (nice, but boring), and the penalty is exhaustion (crippling, but also kinda boring). The exciting part is figuring out how to get it to work. From Xanathars, Swashbuckler is a hefty upgrade for a melee rogue, but mostly gives them bonuses to hit, a way to get away from an opponent without using a bonus action, and so forth (straight mechanical benefit, rather than interesting new take on things). However the rogue class in general is pretty complex in successful running of it, so it might not count. I'm trying to think of a Tasha's example that qualifies, but none comes to mind.

[jojosskul]

Hi everyone

Simple question: What do you think is the most boring subclass in 5e? Why? Is it about options? And do you think there is a way to make it exciting or at least interesting to play?

The Champion seems to be the one most people in my bubble think of as "most boring" but maybe that has changed with the newer books?

What do you think?

Assassin Rogue. 9 times out of 10 you don't get to use your signature feature, and your level 9 ability is a glorified ribbon. For most of your career, you might as well have picked NO rogue subclass at all.

To fix it? Honestly it would need a complete overhaul and I'd essentially be making up a new subclass. I think advantage on attacks against anyone who hasn't gone before you in initiative is good and should be kept, but they need some built in way to help them WIN initiative. Maybe give them proficiency in initiative rolls, and allow them to take expertise? Then at level 9 (where their current feature is barely better than the Charlatan BACKGROUND feature) give them more ways to take advantage of going first. Maybe adapt some of the new poisoner feat, only slightly better. Give them an actual system for scaling poison creation and allow them to apply it as a bonus action.

Just my thoughts. I personally feel like Assassin is the biggest subclass selection trap in the game. With Champion even though your abilities are "boring" you still get to USE them, and they still actually DO something.

[Contrast]

I suspect not many people would argue with Champion.

I do think there's perhaps an argument particularly at lower levels for barbarian (berserker maybe?). You don't get anything back on a short rest so there's no dynamism there and the opportunity to just be totally tapped in a way most martials can't be. You won't have enough rages to rage every fight (and rage is kinda required to make using reckless attack not a bad idea most of the time). A non-raging barbarian is a very sad thing mechanically.


And do you think there is a way to make it exciting or at least interesting to play?

This is a very individual thing. I've had great fun playing characters in very mechanically simple systems (or in more mechanically complicated systems whilst mostly ignoring mechanics). You just have to find something else to entertain yourself but what works in that regard will be different for everyone - for some people the solution is to just not play classes that don't appeal to them. There's no problem with someone not liking playing certain classes as long as there are some they do like playing.

Champions and barbarians lend themselves very well to describing cool combat maneauvres that are just the attack action reflavoured. One of my favourite moments of playing D&D was playing a barbarian because I was just doing silly mythological hero stuff.

That said, I've recently rebuilt a barbarian of mine into a barb2/rune knight X because I can still do that stuff but now with mechanical choices as well.

[stoutstien]

Boring is hard to quantify but i have a fairly unpopular opinion that most full casters are boring because so much design space is shoved on the spells themselves. There not much competition for seeking certain effects for each spell level and the lists themselves are practically one and the same.
The worst offender is most of the wizard subclasses.

[LudicSavant]

Hi everyone

Simple question: What do you think is the most boring subclass in 5e? Why? Is it about options? And do you think there is a way to make it exciting or at least interesting to play?

The Champion seems to be the one most people in my bubble think of as "most boring" but maybe that has changed with the newer books?

What do you think?

I think Champion is supposed to be like that. I think it's supposed to apply to people who like the kind of fun described here (https://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/) as "abnegation." Or who want a great deal of simplicity for whatever reason.

A player like me would find it boring as sin. But it's not designed for me, as it were.

[Dork_Forge]

Boring is hard to quantify but i have a fairly unpopular opinion that most full casters are boring because so much design space is shoved on the spells themselves. There not much competition for seeking certain effects for each spell level and the lists themselves are practically one and the same.
The worst offender is most of the wizard subclasses.

I second this, a Wizard is usually just defined by their spell list which the subclasses have minimal impact on. It would have been more interesting if a Wizard chose their school at 1st and were restricted primarily to that school with a limited number of out of school picks, like the third casters.

[Man_Over_Game]

Honestly, I'd say most of them. There aren't really that many features that change how you play or the decisions you make.

Horizon Walker? It's a bonus damage rider as a bonus action until level 9 (and who plays a Ranger that far?).

Samurai? Yeah, that's basically a Barbarian in plate (or can be a dex character) with a bunch of extra words.

All of the Rogues need to use Sneak Attack for most of their combat contribution, which only focuses around"hit the guy your tank is adjacent to, that's already probably being attacked and should be focused" or "brainlessly spam Advantage as often as possible".



Not bitter, I'm just trying to point out that the list of "potentially boring" options is pretty vast in 5e. You'll have an easier time figuring out what options don't need any kind of work (Battlemaster, Fathomless Warlock, Divination Wizard, etc.)

[Dork_Forge]

Honestly, I'd say most of them. There aren't really that many features that change how you play or the decisions you make.

Gotta strongly disagree here, partially because some of this is just wrong.


Horizon Walker? It's a bonus damage rider as a bonus action until level 9 (and who plays a Ranger that far?).

Changes damage type, 'who plays x class until level y anyway?' should not really be a criticism of a subclass


Samurai? Yeah, that's basically a Barbarian in plate (or can be a dex character) with a bunch of extra words.

In no way shape or form is a Samurai a Barbarian. I'm assuming you're saying this because of Fighting Spirit and Reckless attack both being advantage, one is limited and protects you, the other is at will and makes you vulnerable.

They don't play the same or work the same.


All of the Rogues need to use Sneak Attack for most of their combat contribution, which only focuses around"hit the guy your tank is adjacent to, that's already probably being attacked and should be focused" or "brainlessly spam Advantage as often as possible".

Of course Rogues rely on Sneak Attack, it's their core damage mechanic baked throughout the core chassis, the rest is wrong though. Alternative ways to get and use Sneak Attack is a common thread in subclasses that directly depart from 'spamming advantage' and 'hitting the guy next to the tank'

Swashbucklers are made for one on ones

Inquisitives can Sneak whomever they like with a check they can make almost an autosuccess

[nickl_2000]

https://i.imgur.com/PjY71cV.jpg



super subjective answer. Personally I love monks, I love the flavor, I love everything about them. Others think they are the stupid.

[RedMage125]

Assassin Rogue. 9 times out of 10 you don't get to use your signature feature, and your level 9 ability is a glorified ribbon. For most of your career, you might as well have picked NO rogue subclass at all.

To fix it? Honestly it would need a complete overhaul and I'd essentially be making up a new subclass. I think advantage on attacks against anyone who hasn't gone before you in initiative is good and should be kept, but they need some built in way to help them WIN initiative. Maybe give them proficiency in initiative rolls, and allow them to take expertise? Then at level 9 (where their current feature is barely better than the Charlatan BACKGROUND feature) give them more ways to take advantage of going first. Maybe adapt some of the new poisoner feat, only slightly better. Give them an actual system for scaling poison creation and allow them to apply it as a bonus action.

Just my thoughts. I personally feel like Assassin is the biggest subclass selection trap in the game. With Champion even though your abilities are "boring" you still get to USE them, and they still actually DO something.

This seemed like a difficult choice, until I read this.

I have played an assassin from 3 to 9 (and I had the Charlatan background), and I would like to confirm all of this. I eventually tired of playing the character, and asked the DM to let me make a new character. My rogue had a narrative out, anyway, having earned a noble title, he basically retired from adventuring.

My artificer is a lot more fun.

[verbatim]

I take issue with subclasses that are so specific you feel limited in flavor:
- Four Elements, Astral Self and Sun Soul Monk's are overly specific expy's of pop culture characters.

- Horizon Walker Ranger obligates your DM to put portals in the campaign just so that they can use their subclass feature.



IMO subclasses that are mainly mechanical/let the player focus on the main class for flavor are fine. Hunter/Champion/Berserker/Open Hand/Kensei/most wizard subclasses are great for when you want to be a ranger/fighter/barbarian/monk/wizard but don't particularly fancy any of the more flavorful subclass options.

[Aett_Thorn]

Just popping in to say that people will most likely even forget to mention the Purple Dragon Knight because it's so bad and boring that people forget it exists.

[Ettina]

Assassin Rogue. 9 times out of 10 you don't get to use your signature feature, and your level 9 ability is a glorified ribbon. For most of your career, you might as well have picked NO rogue subclass at all.

That's heavily dependent on the campaign and DM. I've played games where the assassin rogue got to assassinate turn 1 of every single combat.

[RedMage125]

That's heavily dependent on the campaign and DM. I've played games where the assassin rogue got to assassinate turn 1 of every single combat.

"Surprise" requires a very specific set of circumstances that shouldn't be every combat. 1 out of every 10 maybe be a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much. 1 out of every 5 or 6 is more likely for most people.

[loki_ragnarock]

Wild Magic Sorcerer.

Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.

Cast a spell. Roll a dice. SOMETHING HAPPENS! Your reward? Roll more dice, take more table time, squint at a chart, take more table time digging out the book, the effect happens, no one knows what's going on, DM starts to adjudicate the thing, more table time.

JUST CAST A FREAKIN' SPELL AND BE DONE WITH IT!

And that's the best case scenario, where the DM calls for it every time and doesn't just forget to tell you to roll for the entire campaign and rendering you pretty much without a subclass.
So either you don't have a subclass or you have one 5% of the time. And the payoff is so not freaking worth it.

Best. Subclass. Ever.

[GeoffWatson]

I've played in a group that had two multi-classed Assassins. It wasn't that difficult to get surprise using Stealth, with all characters having decent Dex and pass without trace.

Back to the original point, I'd agree that most of the Wizard subclasses are boring.

[Catullus64]

Wild Magic Sorcerer.

Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.

Cast a spell. Roll a dice. SOMETHING HAPPENS! Your reward? Roll more dice, take more table time, squint at a chart, take more table time digging out the book, the effect happens, no one knows what's going on, DM starts to adjudicate the thing, more table time.

JUST CAST A FREAKIN' SPELL AND BE DONE WITH IT!

And that's the best case scenario, where the DM calls for it every time and doesn't just forget to tell you to roll for the entire campaign and rendering you pretty much without a subclass.
So either you don't have a subclass or you have one 5% of the time. And the payoff is so not freaking worth it.

Best. Subclass. Ever.

I find this assessment of the Wild Magic Sorcerer's gameplay to be inaccurate to everything I've seen of it in action, on both sides of the screen. You have a means of semi-reliably generating surges, it's called Tides of Chaos, and you get it at level 1 (I say "semi-reliably" because it is still limited by your overall spell slots). Most of the effects on the surge table are beneficial or neutral, and very few require any more adjudication than any other effect. I don't know how the vision of Wild Magic which you describe became so memetic, but I don't think it's really true.

As for the most boring subclass, I would say that for me it's probably the Hexblade. Theme has always been my problem with that subclass far more so than its design; for me it seems like the Warlock subclass for warlock players who hate all of those pesky "roleplaying demands" imposed by other patrons.

[Man_Over_Game]

Gotta strongly disagree here, partially because some of this is just wrong.



Changes damage type, 'who plays x class until level y anyway?' should not really be a criticism of a subclass



In no way shape or form is a Samurai a Barbarian. I'm assuming you're saying this because of Fighting Spirit and Reckless attack both being advantage, one is limited and protects you, the other is at will and makes you vulnerable.

They don't play the same or work the same.



Of course Rogues rely on Sneak Attack, it's their core damage mechanic baked throughout the core chassis, the rest is wrong though. Alternative ways to get and use Sneak Attack is a common thread in subclasses that directly depart from 'spamming advantage' and 'hitting the guy next to the tank'

Swashbucklers are made for one on ones

Inquisitives can Sneak whomever they like with a check they can make almost an autosuccess

It's some of the nuances involved with the roles these subclasses fill that are the issue.

For instance, Horizon Walker's problem is that it's shoehorned into a very specific RP niche (you'd think they'd learn from the Ranger's Favored Features), on top of being delayed your coolest, in-theme features for the class. It's fine that its later features are good, but why do we only get a bonus damage rider for that long?

If you were to describe a Barbarian to me, you could probably say it was "A melee-focused class that uses a multi-use, long-rest resource that increases their damage and their defensiveness, and can grant themselves Advantage on their attacks for a penalty". Change some verbiage around and you got the Samurai. Rage/Action Surge+Warrior's Spirit on turn one, hit the biggest thing in the room, do it again in the next encounter.

Yes, there's some differences, but not enough to stop me from emulating it almost perfectly with 2 levels of Fighter with 2 levels of Barbarian. A level 4 character that pulls off a level 3 subclass, which even if it is a little inefficient, it still doesn't justify a specialization that's that redundant.


As for the alternate uses for Sneak Attack, when exactly are those relevant? Because of the fact that characters in 5e are 100% capable until their life hits 0, the winning strategy is to focus fire on one target at a time. And since melee characters deal the most damage, it's generally a smart idea to target the enemies who are adjacent to your front line (who are often the enemy's biggest damage dealers as well). So, the majority of the time, those extra Sneak Attack options are things that aren't all that relevant.
Plus, it's not like Sneak Attack is hard to pull off in the first place. If you have a 90% chance of landing Sneak Attack by default, and your SA buff cut your chance of not getting SA by half, you're still only going from a 90% to a 95%.

They sound cool on paper, but they're pretty irrelevant.

For some reason, adding new mechanics to content just feels really rare in 5e. About 70% of subclass features can be summarized as "Spend a BA/Long Rest resource to..."
Heal some HP.
Do more damage.
Hit more things.
Move more distance.
Etc.

This can be seen on:
Purple Dragon Knight
Samurai
Hexblade
Champion
Valor Bard
War Wizard
Most Barbarians
Draconic Sorcerer
And a bunch of others.

They do more of the thing you'd already be doing, as opposed to giving you more things to do or ways to play the game.

For me, the number of stuff that is more than just a "+1 to THIS NUMBER" feels pretty slim. I've seen more mechanical additions from our Homebrew forum.

So my vote is "Everything that can be emulated with a feat, an extra level for multiclassing, or a minor bonus to something you're already going to be doing without the subclass" is something that should be changed. Which ends up describing like 80% of the game.

It's a strong opinion, and one I suspect most folks won't understand or care about. I was kinda hoping for more for years, but the expansions we got have most of the same habits from the PHB.

Ironically, the best source of content that fought against the issue I'm describing just happens to be one of the least popular they've added (the Artificer), so maybe I'm just talking out of my butt and have no idea what "fun" is for most people.

[loki_ragnarock]

I find this assessment of the Wild Magic Sorcerer's gameplay to be inaccurate to everything I've seen of it in action, on both sides of the screen. You have a means of semi-reliably generating surges, it's called Tides of Chaos, and you get it at level 1 (I say "semi-reliably" because it is still limited by your overall spell slots). Most of the effects on the surge table are beneficial or neutral, and very few require any more adjudication than any other effect. I don't know how the vision of Wild Magic which you describe became so memetic, but I don't think it's really true.

There's a real bug in the system for Tides of Chaos that's indicative of the subclass as a whole "The DM can..."

If the DM has other things on their mind other than the subclass feature that is invoked at their option - like running every NPC, organization, and plot point - then you don't have a subclass. Or if they decide they don't want to deal with it, you don't have a subclass.


Which gets to the heart of the solution; eliminate the d20 mechanic entirely, rolling to see if you roll just gums up the works . Make Tides of Chaos "the sorcerer can." But even then, it's going to be slowing things down to find out you've got a beard made of feathers that explodes when you sneeze.
Sure is great for everyone else at the table. Couldn't have gone without that old chestnut.

[Dork_Forge]

It's some of the nuances involved with the roles these subclasses fill that are the issue.

For instance, Horizon Walker's problem is that it's shoehorned into a very specific RP niche (you'd think they'd learn from the Ranger's Favored Features), on top of being delayed your coolest, in-theme features for the class. It's fine that its later features are good, but why do we only get a bonus damage rider for that long?

All Ranger subclasses are specific niches, Gloomstalker specialises in hunting things underground, Beastmaster specialises in... being master of a beast.

You get a damage bump because the class-subclass relationship within the Ranger has damage bumps come from the subclass. Every class has a set of rough guidelines like this, that's not a bug... it's design guidelines.


If you were to describe a Barbarian to me, you could probably say it was "A melee-focused class that uses a multi-use, long-rest resource that increases their damage and their defensiveness, and can grant themselves Advantage on their attacks for a penalty". Change some verbiage around and you got the Samurai. Rage/Action Surge+Warrior's Spirit on turn one, hit the biggest thing in the room, do it again in the next encounter.

I'd personally include 'Strength dependent' and 'unable to wear heavy armor' in there.

You... are painting with an extremely broad brush here. Rage is something that lasts an entire encounter (usually), Action Surge just gives you an additional action, that is usually used for more attacks. They're only similar in a very, very broad sense (they can both increase your damage output in a limited amount of time and are resources), I'd also never equate a handful of temp hp with resistance.

And what about when you go beyond 3rd level? Where's the bonus to Persuasion and Wis save prof coming from?


Yes, there's some differences, but not enough to stop me from emulating it almost perfectly with 2 levels of Fighter with 2 levels of Barbarian. A level 4 character that pulls off a level 3 subclass, which even if it is a little inefficient, it still doesn't justify a specialization that's that redundant.

What? Not only are you not replicating it, taking a MAD two level multiclass to do anything does not make it irrelevant as a niche.


As for the alternate uses for Sneak Attack, when exactly are those relevant? Because of the fact that characters in 5e are 100% capable until their life hits 0, the winning strategy is to focus fire on one target at a time. And since melee characters deal the most damage, it's generally a smart idea to target the enemies who are adjacent to your front line (who are often the enemy's biggest damage dealers as well). So, the majority of the time, those extra Sneak Attack options are things that aren't all that relevant.

So do all of your games look like a solid frontline that enemies never pass whilst everyone else wears them down?

...What if the party has no 'front liner?'

...What if the party is based around skirmishing and range?

The notion that you can always have a friendly next to who you want to hit and that focus fire is always the best thing to do might work in your experience, but they sure as heck aren't universal truthes.

Swashbuckler making Sneak easier makes their skirmishing style more viable and is valuable in and of itself, I know the Barbarian/Rogue in my game makes plenty of use of it.


Plus, it's not like Sneak Attack is hard to pull off in the first place. If you have a 90% chance of landing Sneak Attack by default, and your SA buff cut your chance of not getting SA by half, you're still only going from a 90% to a 95%.

Having more ways to achieve your core damage is not a bad thing, and even if the difference is that little (which I strongly disagree with), you're still benefitting and neither of them only get an additional method.


They sound cool on paper, but they're pretty irrelevant.

Maybe in your experience, in mine that's not the case at all.


For some reason, adding new mechanics to content just feels really rare in 5e. About 70% of subclass features can be summarized as "Spend a BA/Long Rest resource to..."
Heal some HP.
Do more damage.
Hit more things.
Move more distance.
Etc.

I neither think this is accurate, or even a bad thing if it were.


This can be seen on:
Purple Dragon Knight- changes selfish abilities into group abilities, that isn't common
Samurai- Expands durability, accuracy, as well as boosting out of combat utility
Hexblade- Allows SAD weapon use
Champion- Was meant to be the lightweight subclass...
Valor Bard- It's a martial Bard, what do you want here?
War Wizard- initiative boost and a defensive ability with a trade off
Most Barbarians imposing disadvantage, aoe damage, coming back to life...
Draconic Sorcerer the aim is be more dragon, getting wings, scales and better at an element seem to fit...
And a bunch of others.


They do more of the thing you'd already be doing, as opposed to giving you more things to do or ways to play the game.

I think this is more broad brush thinking, subclasses bring a lot of variety to the classes you listed, including entirely changing inherent dynamics in some instances.


For me, the number of stuff that is more than just a "+1 to THIS NUMBER" feels pretty slim. I've seen more mechanical additions from our Homebrew forum.

This feels like you're reducing any kind of bonus (dice, prof, expertise, advantage etc.) to "+1 to this number" which they really aren't.


So my vote is "Everything that can be emulated with a feat, an extra level for multiclassing, or a minor bonus to something you're already going to be doing without the subclass" is something that should be changed. Which ends up describing like 80% of the game.

Feats and MCing are optional rules no matter how common they are and quite frankly multiple ways of doing the same thing is a feature not a bug.


It's a strong opinion, and one I suspect most folks won't understand or care about. I was kinda hoping for more for years, but the expansions we got have most of the same habits from the PHB.

I don't really get this, subclasses generally follow the rough guidelines they should for their class but even then expansions have featured wild departures from PHB precedent.


Ironically, the best source of content that fought against the issue I'm describing just happens to be one of the least popular they've added (the Artificer), so maybe I'm just talking out of my butt and have no idea what "fun" is for most people.

Least popular..?

[Man_Over_Game]

Sure, but in the end, those things all play similarly.

To show what I'm referring to, here's an example.

Say I want to play a Ranger subclass that afflicts enemies with status conditions with my arrows and uses a lot of magic, like the Seeker from 4e.

After some research, I realize there here aren't really any Ranger options for dealing status conditions, and only a few that focus on magic.

I figure I'm limited to either the Swarmkeeper (who gets their first status condition at level 11), or the Monster Slayer (who uses magic and afflicts status conditions, but doesn't get benefits for doing it with their archery).



However, if I had been wanting to make a melee ranger that dealt on-hit damage that received support by their subclass, I could pick from:
Horizon Walker
Hunter
Monster Slayer
Fey Walker
Swarmkeeper
Gloomstalker (synergizes with Hunter's Mark)

When the reality is, Rangers are a on-hit damage class already with Hunter's Mark. Which is kinda like making a Fighter subclass that makes you good at the Attack Action, or a Rogue subclass that focuses on attacking for the Sneak Attack.

If I was going to do the same thing that I already was doing, why did I bother leveling up?

A subclass, to me, is about expanding your horizons, making your game be more, for how you want to play.

If they aren't doing that, what are they for?

[elyktsorb]

I'm also going to say Assassin Rogue, mirroring the above sentiments, unless you have a very accommodating DM, Assassin Rogue is incredibly not worth it.

And if you do have an an incredibly accommodating DM, other classes that would be 'boring' would be better handled than Assassin, as Assassin's really force the rest of your party to play to their style so not only do you need a DM that manufactures situations where an Assassin can shine, but then the rest of your party has to go along with it.

I'll also throw out that even if you do get to Assassinate targets.. It's not very interesting. As successful Assassinations just serve to kill things faster, that's it. Once you do the Assassination or fail at that, you become a bog standard Rogue with nothing interesting to do. Because I still know a total of 0 people who have ever used their 9th or 13th level ability to any effect (or at all), or played one to level 17 to use Death Strike.

My solution would be to either rework the class or make the 9th and 13th level abilities more usable, or just fit better with the other half of the class.

[Mitchellnotes]

I think the at release pacts for warlocks may be what i would vote for. I think its a combination of the warlock getting essentially two subclasses (pact + boon), and that the bonus spells still have to be selected with a small amount of slots. This has gotten better over time (all of the lock pacts since xanathars add a lot to the base class), but now the original 3 seem a bit underwhelming. At best they add good flavor (and they do have a few good things about them still), but dont add nearly as much as some other classes.

Comparatively, i think its probably fair to say that cleric and wizard gain the least benefit from their subclasses. However, through the bonus spells and benefits of the cleric domains and how the wizard schools benefit specific aspects of the wizard, they add depth to those classes overall. A light cleric really feels like you are burning out evil. A necromancer feels like a necromancer, etc.

I hear the concerns about the ranger, and honestly, i think ranger is just a strange class. I dont think any of the subclasses are boring themselves, it is just that it all comes together a bit strange. For instance, the bonus action to do damage competes with hunters mark which... uses a bonus actiin to do damage... i wish there were a few more subclasses that used a more beastmaster centric template instead.

Overall, i think the class that has the best subclasses both in terms of what they add and in how their features mesh with the character is the druid. There may be some that are mechanically more powerful than others, but they all work and work pretty well.

[Dork_Forge]

Sure, but in the end, those things all play similarly.

To show what I'm referring to, here's an example.

Say I want to play a Ranger subclass that afflicts enemies with status conditions with my arrows and uses a lot of magic, like the Seeker from 4e.

After some research, I realize there here aren't really any Ranger options for dealing status conditions, and only a few that focus on magic.

I figure I'm limited to either the Swarmkeeper (who gets their first status condition at level 11), or the Monster Slayer (who uses magic and afflicts status conditions, but doesn't get benefits for doing it with their archery).



However, if I had been wanting to make a melee ranger that dealt on-hit damage that received support by their subclass, I could pick from:
Horizon Walker
Hunter
Monster Slayer
Fey Walker
Swarmkeeper
Gloomstalker (synergizes with Hunter's Mark)

When the reality is, Rangers are a on-hit damage class already with Hunter's Mark. Which is kinda like making a Fighter subclass that makes you good at the Attack Action, or a Rogue subclass that focuses on attacking for the Sneak Attack.

If I was going to do the same thing that I already was doing, why did I bother leveling up?

A subclass, to me, is about expanding your horizons, making your game be more, for how you want to play.

If they aren't doing that, what are they for?

TBH I'd tell you to play an Arcane Archer and lower your expectations. The reality is that the concept you're looking for is incredibly specific and just not supported in 5e. What you want (in this instance) is basically to spam conditions at range as riders to damage with magic on the side and it has to be an archer. Spamming mutliple different types of conditions at range isn't really supported by anything other than taking a very specific set of spells.

If this was something you'd be looking to actually do, I'd say you were looking to play a Ranger with control and to let go of the notion of needing specific conditions. Swarmkeeper lets you move enemies around right from 3rd level and gives you some control spells and like every Ranger you can take Ensnaring Strike.

Subclasses pretty far and wide let you do things that you can't do normally, the aforementioned Swarmkeepr gives you Mage Hand, control, flight etc. Monster Slayer gives you a kind of Counterspell that also works on general teleportation, Horizon Walker lets you cast Etherealness the list goes on subclasses do let you do things you couldn't before.

And Fighter subclasses do largely make you better at the attack action and Rogue subclasses do often use Sneak in some way.

Are there concepts you want to play that aren't viable in the game that aren't x from edition y?

[Man_Over_Game]

I think the at release pacts for warlocks may be what i would vote for. I think its a combination of the warlock getting essentially two subclasses (pact + boon), and that the bonus spells still have to be selected with a small amount of slots. This has gotten better over time (all of the lock pacts since xanathars add a lot to the base class), but now the original 3 seem a bit underwhelming. At best they add good flavor (and they do have a few good things about them still), but dont add nearly as much as some other classes.

Comparatively, i think its probably fair to say that cleric and wizard gain the least benefit from their subclasses. However, through the bonus spells and benefits of the cleric domains and how the wizard schools benefit specific aspects of the wizard, they add depth to those classes overall. A light cleric really feels like you are burning out evil. A necromancer feels like a necromancer, etc.

I hear the concerns about the ranger, and honestly, i think ranger is just a strange class. I dont think any of the subclasses are boring themselves, it is just that it all comes together a bit strange. For instance, the bonus action to do damage competes with hunters mark which... uses a bonus actiin to do damage... i wish there were a few more subclasses that used a more beastmaster centric template instead.

Overall, i think the class that has the best subclasses both in terms of what they add and in how their features mesh with the character is the druid. There may be some that are mechanically more powerful than others, but they all work and work pretty well.

I think my vote is probably Warlock for overall, I think.

Sure, some things like the GOO and Hexblade just seem poorly designed, but the rest of the options are really dang solid. Eldritch Blast with a couple upgrades is enough to have been a whole subclass feature. Or Silent Image at-will, or the same for Mask of Many Faces.

There are so many cool playstyles you can play off of from Warlocks that are so diverse from each other.

[Waazraath]

Ironically, the best source of content that fought against the issue I'm describing just happens to be one of the least popular they've added (the Artificer), so maybe I'm just talking out of my butt and have no idea what "fun" is for most people.

Sidetrack: I'm not agreeing with everything you say, but regarding the Arteficer, I think it's spot on that it's a class that gets lots of new toys to play with at almost every level. How do you mean they are "one of the least popular" though? If I see them mentioned on this forum, it's mostly positive I think.

Furthermore: the fact that the Artificer gets new stuff all the time, is due to the combination of spells, AND a unique mechanic that improves over the levels (infusions), AND other good class features. In that sense, I understand you're also enthusiastic about the Warlock, since it's the class that resembles this most. But: I don't see how that's commming from the /sub/classes of the Artificer. Ignoring subclasses alltogether, it still gets a lot of new stuf. And going from there, Rangers are half casters as well, that get new stuff to do through them, even if one would agree that the subclasses add little.

[Mitchellnotes]

I think my vote is probably Warlock for overall, I think.

Sure, some things like the GOO and Hexblade just seem poorly designed, but the rest of the options are really dang solid. Eldritch Blast with a couple upgrades is enough to have been a whole subclass feature. Or Silent Image at-will, or the same for Mask of Many Faces.

There are so many cool playstyles you can play off of from Warlocks that are so diverse from each other.

I agree, but I think its the combination of the pact, the boon, the infusions, and the spells that make the warlock so unique. This can be a bit fiddly, but can also come together to work nicely, and as you said, create some really unique combinations. This is a class that supports both a crit-fishing smite build, as well as a generalist build, as well as a build that summons demons, as well as an illusion focused control build, as well as... and the list goes on.

That being said, there are some mechanical things that irk me to no end. It is bizarre to me that this is a class that gets so much summoning potential (with tasha's, they get planar binding and magic circle, access to lots of spells that can make use of planar binding, but can't really do anything with them AND get lots of the tasha's summons spells on their list with spell slots that cap out at 5th level meaning that they for the most part miss out on the 3/attacks a turn and a whole lot of potential there). It's also bizarre that each of their subclasses get so many unique spells on their list that most people will not select because of how the overall casting mechanic works.

To make the subclass choice more meaningful, and fix some of these other issues, I would make 2 changes to the warlock. First, I would change mystic arcanum from 1/day spell to a 1/day spell slot and allow it to be used to cast any spell they know from that slot. I would also not give that mystic arcanum spell, but rather allow warlocks to choose any spell from their list as a spell known for it (this allows for multiple level 6-9 spells being known as well). In addition, I would give them all of the subclass expanded spells without them needing to add it as a spell known (changing it from an expanded list to a bonus list). This would increase the overall spells known from 19 (15 from levels 1-5 and 4 from mystic arcanum) to 25 (15 from their spells known from levels 1-9 and 10 from their bonus lists). This also changes how the warlock looks from other classes by limiting their spellcasting not necessarily from what spells they know but rather choosing the best option for their limited spell slots between short rests. It also makes the subclass selection a lot more meaningful as the bonus spells become a much stronger reason why someone may choose a subclass (the fiend pact has a really solid spell list with some just great spells but can be hard to justify because there are other options that usually could suffice from the general warlock list). It also changes the warlock from feeling like they have to use the "one spell slot per fight then eldritch blast spam" as it gives the potential to have a pretty good spell for the given situation, but requires a bit more thought in terms of resource management.

[jojosskul]

I'm also going to say Assassin Rogue, mirroring the above sentiments, unless you have a very accommodating DM, Assassin Rogue is incredibly not worth it.

And if you do have an an incredibly accommodating DM, other classes that would be 'boring' would be better handled than Assassin, as Assassin's really force the rest of your party to play to their style so not only do you need a DM that manufactures situations where an Assassin can shine, but then the rest of your party has to go along with it.

I'll also throw out that even if you do get to Assassinate targets.. It's not very interesting. As successful Assassinations just serve to kill things faster, that's it. Once you do the Assassination or fail at that, you become a bog standard Rogue with nothing interesting to do. Because I still know a total of 0 people who have ever used their 9th or 13th level ability to any effect (or at all), or played one to level 17 to use Death Strike.

My solution would be to either rework the class or make the 9th and 13th level abilities more usable, or just fit better with the other half of the class.

Just got back to this thread but you've expanded on my original point beautifully and said it better than I probably could have. Keeping it to PHB, compare it to even the Thief. I've played both Assassin (though not for long) and Thief (up to level 10), and I was using Fast Hands several times a combat. Helped that I took the Healer feat, but still, it gives a creative player a ridiculously high number of options.

Assassin you're at best using your special thing once per combat. And still staying PHB only, Arcane Trickster adds spellcasting to the mix to keep things interesting.

In the right party, in the right kind of campaign, with the right DM, Assassin CAN shine. But even in those campaigns, the higher level Assassin abilities can arguably be done almost as well as a level 2 Warlock with Mask of Many Faces, the Actor feat, and the Charlatan background. In much less time. It's hard to ask your party, "Hey, can we put our urgent adventuring business on hold for a week while I make up a fake merchant ID for myself. Also can you talk to that shopkeep for three hours so I can pretend to be them later?"

In theory? Those abilities are super cool and emulate a lone assassin taking his time to infiltrate and plan before eliminating an important target, and now that I look at them maybe I'll make an enemy NPC assassin that has done some of these things in a game I DM. But PCs aren't lone assassins, unless you're DMing a one on one game and you're basically fantasy Dexter assassinating the wicked... and... ummm... ::furiously begins taking notes::

[stoutstien]

The assassin is messed up on a lot of different levels. Everything but their capstone is situational and each one of those features is made to be really difficult to work together. Saying that I can't call them boring. They fall in the same category in my mind as the champion fighter. It's like trying to race an ice cream truck around the Nüringburgring.

[Man_Over_Game]

Furthermore: the fact that the Artificer gets new stuff all the time, is due to the combination of spells, AND a unique mechanic that improves over the levels (infusions), AND other good class features. In that sense, I understand you're also enthusiastic about the Warlock, since it's the class that resembles this most. But: I don't see how that's commming from the /sub/classes of the Artificer. Ignoring subclasses alltogether, it still gets a lot of new stuf. And going from there, Rangers are half casters as well, that get new stuff to do through them, even if one would agree that the subclasses add little.


I agree, but I think its the combination of the pact, the boon, the infusions, and the spells that make the warlock so unique. This can be a bit fiddly, but can also come together to work nicely, and as you said, create some really unique combinations. This is a class that supports both a crit-fishing smite build, as well as a generalist build, as well as a build that summons demons, as well as an illusion focused control build, as well as... and the list goes on.

That's why. Every artificer has a core mechanic that they can't really change from. Each artificer relies on making items, sharing them with the team, and they always get some kind of damage bonus from the subclass. In the end, one artificer isn't going to play too differently from another, as the subclass features you pick from don't really change the core mechanics you're going to be getting most of your value from.

The same isn't quite as true for a Warlock. I could be an Archfey control specialist, a GOO manipulator with a familiar scout, or a Fathomless zoning/blaster specialist, and get those builds started as early as level 2. The only thing they're missing is more melee support, and that's just because they screwed up Pact Weapon and tried to patch it with Hexblade.

I will say that the Artificer sets a pretty damn good bar, due to how diverse their core mechanics are in the first place. I just think the Warlock is able to break out of its own damage-focused stereotypes with the illusion, control, and scouting support options (while most Artificers will be spamming weapon or Cantrip damage for most turns).

I don't think every class needs to have that level of diversity, but it'd be nice if the majority of the roster weren't on the opposite side of the scale.

If people wanted "Simple" or "More of the Same", make that an option. Making it the default just feels lazy to me.


Are there concepts you want to play that aren't viable in the game that aren't x from edition y?

I've always been interested in a mage that afflicts themselves to empower their spells. Blood magic, curses, doesn't matter, something with a little more risk and reward than usual.

I've also been interested in a melee class that worked around zoning effects. Could be something like casting Spike Growth and tanking around it, or maybe conjuring walls around him to protect his allies and trap his enemies.
The Spike Growth example is possible through multiclassing, but it gets expensive very quickly when you start to want newer spells and stay a frontline tank, and the only other options for zoning is the "Stand in Front of the Squishies" strategy for Cavaliers and other OA melees.

The reason I'm passionate about this is because of the number of times I've just wanted something that could have been done, and we instead got more of the same. The number of times I've been disappointed by looking at the Barbarian subclasses and though "Oh, this one just wants to hit things with melee attacks and is good at taking damage" is too damn high. Why haven't we gotten a "warcry" support Barbarian yet? Or one that becomes Large and throws objects at people?

We've gotten 8 Barbarian subclasses over the last 7 years, and 6 of them still use the same Barbarian formula of "Get better at attacking the thing in front of you, get better at taking damage" for their core features.

It's been 7 years since it was started, I want more than that.

[Nemenia]

Sure, but in the end, those things all play similarly.

To show what I'm referring to, here's an example.

Say I want to play a Ranger subclass that afflicts enemies with status conditions with my arrows and uses a lot of magic, like the Seeker from 4e.

After some research, I realize there here aren't really any Ranger options for dealing status conditions, and only a few that focus on magic.

I figure I'm limited to either the Swarmkeeper (who gets their first status condition at level 11), or the Monster Slayer (who uses magic and afflicts status conditions, but doesn't get benefits for doing it with their archery).



However, if I had been wanting to make a melee ranger that dealt on-hit damage that received support by their subclass, I could pick from:
Horizon Walker
Hunter
Monster Slayer
Fey Walker
Swarmkeeper
Gloomstalker (synergizes with Hunter's Mark)

When the reality is, Rangers are a on-hit damage class already with Hunter's Mark. Which is kinda like making a Fighter subclass that makes you good at the Attack Action, or a Rogue subclass that focuses on attacking for the Sneak Attack.

If I was going to do the same thing that I already was doing, why did I bother leveling up?

A subclass, to me, is about expanding your horizons, making your game be more, for how you want to play.

If they aren't doing that, what are they for?

I know I'm alittle late to the party, but I can counter all of this with the name of someone from this very forum. LudicSavant. Their builds can create vastly interesting characters with mechanical depth beyond what your describing.

[Morty]

Sure, but in the end, those things all play similarly.

To show what I'm referring to, here's an example.

Say I want to play a Ranger subclass that afflicts enemies with status conditions with my arrows and uses a lot of magic, like the Seeker from 4e.

After some research, I realize there here aren't really any Ranger options for dealing status conditions, and only a few that focus on magic.

I figure I'm limited to either the Swarmkeeper (who gets their first status condition at level 11), or the Monster Slayer (who uses magic and afflicts status conditions, but doesn't get benefits for doing it with their archery).



However, if I had been wanting to make a melee ranger that dealt on-hit damage that received support by their subclass, I could pick from:
Horizon Walker
Hunter
Monster Slayer
Fey Walker
Swarmkeeper
Gloomstalker (synergizes with Hunter's Mark)

When the reality is, Rangers are a on-hit damage class already with Hunter's Mark. Which is kinda like making a Fighter subclass that makes you good at the Attack Action, or a Rogue subclass that focuses on attacking for the Sneak Attack.

If I was going to do the same thing that I already was doing, why did I bother leveling up?

A subclass, to me, is about expanding your horizons, making your game be more, for how you want to play.

If they aren't doing that, what are they for?

My only contribution to this thread would have been to relate my snoozeworthy experience with a Scout Rogue, but instead I'm just going to sign my name under all of this and your other posts in this thread. It's not as if other rogue subclasses are much better than scouts.

[Man_Over_Game]

My only contribution to this thread would have been to relate my snoozeworthy experience with a Scout Rogue, but instead I'm just going to sign my name under all of this and your other posts in this thread. It's not as if other rogue subclasses are much better than scouts.

I do think the AT is pure gold. Illusion and Enchantment magic naturally works with the Rogue's skill sets to become more, the enhanced Mage Hand does the same; you are simultaneously different than a normal Rogue but also better of a Rogue at the same time.

My only complaint is that it's the only way to get some kind of benefit for multiclassing into a Caster (other than just skills) and doesn't get that until a fairly high level, but that's more of a criticism of the Rogue Class and how much of a dead-end it is for casters than an actual problem with AT's. That's like saying that the Wild Magic Barbarian subclass is flawed because its spellslot recharging still doesn't justify multiclassing into caster levels, when you're working with the Barbarian class.

I'd include the Thief with the AT, but there just aren't enough item options for Fast Hands to actually stand out. Your options are basically "create a patch of difficult terrain with a non-scaling DC" and "Cast a melee version of Healing Word by spending a feat". It could be better than that, but it takes a lot of DM fiat (more items, using Fast Hands on the environment, having a use for climbing all the time, etc.). It would have gone a long way to have a more rigid list of benefits, like improvements to grappling hooks or whatever, so it was more designed like the Artificer.

More AT-style subclasses are the way to go, it's just a shame that it's the only one of its kind.

And...yeah, sorry about the scout. I always thought it looked terrible on paper, thanks for the heads up.

[jojosskul]

Honestly, I think the AT is pure gold. Illusion and Enchantment magic naturally works with the Rogue's skillets to become more, the enhanced Mage Hand does the same. My only complaint is that it's the only way to get some kind of benefit for multiclassing into a Caster (other than just skills) and doesn't get that until a fairly high level, but that's more of a criticism of the Rogue Class and how much of a dead-end it is for casters than an actual problem with AT's.

I'd include the Thief, but there just aren't enough item options for Fast Hands to actually stand out. Your options are basically "create a patch of difficult terrain with a non-scaling DC" and "Cast a melee version of Healing Word by getting a feat". It could be better than that, but it takes a lot of DM fiat (more items, using Fast Hands on the environment, having a use for climbing all the time, etc.)

More AT-style subclasses are the way to go, it's just a shame that it's the only one of its kind.

And...yeah, sorry about the scout. I always assumed it looked terrible on paper, so thanks for the heads up.

AT is definitely the gold standard, but just want to speak up a bit more in defense of the Thief.

Fast Hands doesn't only include Use and Object, but also Sleight of Hand. This allows you to do anything you could do with sleight of hand as a bonus action, such as plant something on an opponent OR take something from them such as a sheathed weapon/component pouch. Yes you can also do this with mage hand legerdemain, but it's in addition to the other benefits.

Also one object you can frequently interact with in environments are doors. And frequently, those doors have locks. With use an object, it's possible to both open and close a door on the same round and still take a regular action, or you could close a door AND lock it if you're trying to trap someone/thing etc. etc. That's just one example, but you're always going to be fighting in SOME sort of environment, and you can likely think of some way to interact with it using Fast Hands.

There are a few other objects that work with Fast Hands as well: Oil, Tinderbox, Acid, Alchemist's Fire, Basic Poison to name a few.

Finally, compared to Assassin, and most other rogue subclasses (excepting the AT) the Thief's higher level abilities are STELLAR. Level 9 being the worst, and that emulates effectively an uncommon magic item so it isn't bad. Level 13 Use Magic Device is amazing in anything except the lowest of low magic campaigns and opens a ton of options, and if you get all the way to 17 you get an ENTIRE EXTRA TURN the first round of every combat.

Sorry, I love Thief Rogues. Has anyone made a guide for them already? I need to check, maybe I'll make a guide for them.

[Nemenia]

AT is definitely the gold standard, but just want to speak up a bit more in defense of the Thief.

Fast Hands doesn't only include Use and Object, but also Sleight of Hand. This allows you to do anything you could do with sleight of hand as a bonus action, such as plant something on an opponent OR take something from them such as a sheathed weapon/component pouch. Yes you can also do this with mage hand legerdemain, but it's in addition to the other benefits.

Also one object you can frequently interact with in environments are doors. And frequently, those doors have locks. With use an object, it's possible to both open and close a door on the same round and still take a regular action, or you could close a door AND lock it if you're trying to trap someone/thing etc. etc. That's just one example, but you're always going to be fighting in SOME sort of environment, and you can likely think of some way to interact with it using Fast Hands.

There are a few other objects that work with Fast Hands as well: Oil, Tinderbox, Acid, Alchemist's Fire, Basic Poison to name a few.

Finally, compared to Assassin, and most other rogue subclasses (excepting the AT) the Thief's higher level abilities are STELLAR. Level 9 being the worst, and that emulates effectively an uncommon magic item so it isn't bad. Level 13 Use Magic Device is amazing in anything except the lowest of low magic campaigns and opens a ton of options, and if you get all the way to 17 you get an ENTIRE EXTRA TURN the first round of every combat.

Sorry, I love Thief Rogues. Has anyone made a guide for them already? I need to check, maybe I'll make a guide for them.

Pretty much all of this, and much of the same can be said for the other classes disparaged thus far, like Gloomstalker, which I absolutely love. The people in this thread seem to have trouble looking beyond the tiny box they put each class in.

[Man_Over_Game]

AT is definitely the gold standard, but just want to speak up a bit more in defense of the Thief.

Fast Hands doesn't only include Use and Object, but also Sleight of Hand. This allows you to do anything you could do with sleight of hand as a bonus action, such as plant something on an opponent OR take something from them such as a sheathed weapon/component pouch. Yes you can also do this with mage hand legerdemain, but it's in addition to the other benefits.

Also one object you can frequently interact with in environments are doors. And frequently, those doors have locks. With use an object, it's possible to both open and close a door on the same round and still take a regular action, or you could close a door AND lock it if you're trying to trap someone/thing etc. etc. That's just one example, but you're always going to be fighting in SOME sort of environment, and you can likely think of some way to interact with it using Fast Hands.

There are a few other objects that work with Fast Hands as well: Oil, Tinderbox, Acid, Alchemist's Fire, Basic Poison to name a few.

Finally, compared to Assassin, and most other rogue subclasses (excepting the AT) the Thief's higher level abilities are STELLAR. Level 9 being the worst, and that emulates effectively an uncommon magic item so it isn't bad. Level 13 Use Magic Device is amazing in anything except the lowest of low magic campaigns and opens a ton of options, and if you get all the way to 17 you get an ENTIRE EXTRA TURN the first round of every combat.

Sorry, I love Thief Rogues. Has anyone made a guide for them already? I need to check, maybe I'll make a guide for them.

TBH, it might just come down to a personal limitation. I'm not really all that creative, and the uses for those items just don't register in my head as being worthwhile, and I think I'm hitting a block as to the kinds of synergies you can come up with when you're using those things as a Bonus Action to then followup with some kind of Action. I think those items start losing value once you hit like level 5, but that could just be because I'm comparing them to spells and haven't really seen much use of usable items in any of my games.

So you could very well be onto something, just hard for me to envision I guess.


Pretty much all of this, and much of the same can be said for the other classes disparaged thus far, like Gloomstalker, which I absolutely love. The people in this thread seem to have trouble looking beyond the tiny box they put each class in.

I do think that the Gloomstalker is pretty cool with the invisibility thing. Rangers don't naturally have a whole lot of support for super-stealthy stuff, and the Gloomstalker fits that niche well. At least, it does at level 3. Beyond the darkness invisibility effect, it's basically a generic damage-dealing combatant, starting with the other half of the level 3 features (which don't really have anything to do with darkness or stealth), all the way up to their capstone. The only other support they get for stealthy stuff is through their bonus spells, and it's not like Rangers get many spell slots to spare in the first place.


Now consider the Shadow Monk. The only power they get that is a "generic" bonus is their capstone, which is only 25% of their subclass features (which is perfect, because you don't want your thematic powers to come too late, like with the Horizon Walker). The rest is all something that pushes the character more towards the concept of "Shadow Monk". It's not like they're missing out on those generic buffs in the first place - they're still getting them from normal Monk levels.

Compared to the Shadow Monk, the Gloomstalker feels like a Hunter with a special, stealth-related Feat added on.

And that might be enough for some folks, I'm just of the opinion that the subclasses should be a bit more specialized. If they were too heavy-handed on the stealth element, and if I didn't want too much "Stealthy-Shadow" stuff from the Gloomstalker and wanted something a little simpler and straightforward, I could just multiclass into some Fighter or Rogue levels and played something very similarly to what the Gloomstalker is already giving us without the shadow-invisibility (Action Surge + Second Wind for more attacks and durability which matches up with other Gloomstalker ability roles, Uncanny Dodge = Shadowy Dodge).

Having more options to end up with the same results is fine, but I'm of the opinion that having a more diverse spread of results is better. We have a lot of ways to use our Reactions to "Hit a thing" or "Block a thing", which is great if that's what you're wanting to do. Yet, there aren't many options for folks who don't want to do those things with their Reactions, yah?

I think it's better for someone to have to settle for what they want and get it in a roundabout way than not giving someone else an option. Each time that something generic is added, something new isn't.

Which is why I'm so bitter about all of the "Spend a BA to deal +X damage" and "Spend a Reaction to block X damage", because I see all the stuff we missed out on in lieu for... easier combat, I guess. Like that was what 5e needed tweaking on.

[Dork_Forge]

I've always been interested in a mage that afflicts themselves to empower their spells. Blood magic, curses, doesn't matter, something with a little more risk and reward than usual.

I like the idea of blood mages, not sure we'll ever see an official one in 5e though. Blood Hunter touches on this a little, and whilst it is homebrew, it's probably one of the most widely accepted homebrews.


I've also been interested in a melee class that worked around zoning effects. Could be something like casting Spike Growth and tanking around it, or maybe conjuring walls around him to protect his allies and trap his enemies.
The Spike Growth example is possible through multiclassing, but it gets expensive very quickly when you start to want newer spells and stay a frontline tank, and the only other options for zoning is the "Stand in Front of the Squishies" strategy for Cavaliers and other OA melees.

Spike Growth is a Druid and Ranger spell, you can do what you want with a Moon Druid or just a Ranger, you don't need to multiclass.


The reason I'm passionate about this is because of the number of times I've just wanted something that could have been done, and we instead got more of the same. The number of times I've been disappointed by looking at the Barbarian subclasses and though "Oh, this one just wants to hit things with melee attacks and is good at taking damage" is too damn high. Why haven't we gotten a "warcry" support Barbarian yet? Or one that becomes Large and throws objects at people?

Both of those concepts are kinda just covered in the Fighter instead (PDK and Rune Knight), it feels like a lot of what you want just isn't where you expect/want it to be.


We've gotten 8 Barbarian subclasses over the last 7 years, and 6 of them still use the same Barbarian formula of "Get better at attacking the thing in front of you, get better at taking damage" for their core features.

It's been 7 years since it was started, I want more than that.

Totem: Can basically be what you want it to be, utility ritual magic

Beserker: Half of the features are nothing to do with taking or dealing damage.

Battlerager: mix of offense and defense, but also encourages grappling

Ancestral Guardian: Group protection and divination

Storm Herald: Mixture of offense, defense, support, and control...

Zealot: Literally has a battlecry ability that you were just asking for

Beast: Mobility buffs, yet another battlecry ability

Wild Magic: All kinds of effects, including buffing and teleportation

That doesn't look at all like 6/8 are about just dealing or taking damage better. Those things are certainly included a lot, because it's a Barbarian and those are things that Barbarians look to subclasses for.

I think part of the issue here is you may only be looking at the inititial subclass abilities instead of the whole subclass.



I do think that the Gloomstalker is pretty cool with the invisibility thing. Rangers don't naturally have a whole lot of support for super-stealthy stuff, and the Gloomstalker fits that niche well. At least, it does at level 3. Beyond the darkness invisibility effect, it's basically a generic damage-dealing combatant, starting with the other half of the level 3 features (which don't really have anything to do with darkness or stealth), all the way up to their capstone. The only other support they get for stealthy stuff is through their bonus spells, and it's not like Rangers get many spell slots to spare in the first place.


Now consider the Shadow Monk. The only power they get that is a "generic" bonus is their capstone, which is only 25% of their subclass features (which is perfect, because you don't want your thematic powers to come too late, like with the Horizon Walker). The rest is all something that pushes the character more towards the concept of "Shadow Monk". It's not like they're missing out on those generic buffs in the first place - they're still getting them from normal Monk levels.

Compared to the Shadow Monk, the Gloomstalker feels like a Hunter with a special, stealth-related Feat added on.

And that might be enough for some folks, I'm just of the opinion that the subclasses should be a bit more specialized. If I didn't want too much "Stealthy-Shadow" stuff from the Gloomstalker, and wanted something a little simpler and straightforward, I could just multiclass into some Fighter or Rogue levels and played something very similarly to what the Gloomstalker is already giving us without the shadow-invisibility (Action Surge + Second Wind for more attacks and durability which matches up with other Gloomstalker ability roles, Uncanny Dodge = Shadowy Dodge).

Having more options to end up with the same results is fine, but I'm of the opinion that having a more diverse spread of results is better. We could be doing more with our Reactions than "Hit a thing" or "Block a thing", yet there aren't many options for folks who don't want to do those things, yah?

Out of 6 abilities, the Gloomstalker has two that are about hitting things. You just seem to be writing off the bonus spells, when frankly you shouldn't. Rangers get enough slots to use their spells for things like the Gloom's bonus spells because they use the attack action primarily in combat.

There also seems to be a disconnect here, ALL of the Ranger subclasses are about defending against different types of threats, Gloomstalker isn't a stealthy Ranger, it's a Ragner that specialises in dealing with creatures of the Underdark. That involves some stealth, but it also involves defending your mind against the various mental effects that are common from Underdark creatures.

Shadow Monk and Gloomstalker Ranger couldn't be further apart from function, the only common thread is that they both work with dark conditions.

[Nemenia]

TBH, it might just come down to a personal limitation. I'm not really all that creative, and the uses for those items just don't register in my head as being worthwhile, and I think I'm hitting a block as to the kinds of synergies you can come up with when you're using those things as a Bonus Action to then followup with some kind of Action. I think those items start losing value once you hit like level 5, but that could just be because I'm comparing them to spells and haven't really seen much use of usable items in any of my games.

So you could very well be onto something, just hard for me to envision I guess.



I do think that the Gloomstalker is pretty cool with the invisibility thing. Rangers don't naturally have a whole lot of support for super-stealthy stuff, and the Gloomstalker fits that niche well. At least, it does at level 3. Beyond the darkness invisibility effect, it's basically a generic damage-dealing combatant, starting with the other half of the level 3 features (which don't really have anything to do with darkness or stealth), all the way up to their capstone. The only other support they get for stealthy stuff is through their bonus spells, and it's not like Rangers get many spell slots to spare in the first place. It feels like a Hunter with a special, stealth-related Feat added on.

Compare that to the Shadow Monk. The only power they get that is a "generic" bonus is their capstone, which is only 25% of their subclass features (which is perfect, because you don't want your thematic powers to come too late, like with the Horizon Walker). The rest is all something that pushes the character more towards the concept of "Shadow Monk". It's not like they're missing out on those generic buffs in the first place - they're still getting them from normal Monk levels.

To add onto what Dork Forge was saying, you seem to have simply decided that the gloomstalker is just a "shadow ranger" and thats all. It isn't. It's an ambusher. Someone that hunts other predators. It's all about having a really powerful first round. to play off their exceptional abiltiy to hide from monsters. And this makes it a great class or dip for anyone who wants to focus this playstyle without being an assassin.

[HappyDaze]

I find the Life Cleric to be incredibly boring. I also find that it is quite effective. Still, given the choice, it is probably the last type of Cleric I would opt to play.

[Mitchellnotes]

Pretty much all of this, and much of the same can be said for the other classes disparaged thus far, like Gloomstalker, which I absolutely love. The people in this thread seem to have trouble looking beyond the tiny box they put each class in.

I think that classes being "disparaged" may be a bit much. There are some legitimate criticisms being surfaced regarding the mechanics and scaling of some of the subclasses. I love the flavor and themes of the Ranger subclasses, but how they come together does leave a bit to be desired. As an example, in the PHB, a dual wielding beastmaster ranger does not work due to the mechanics of the class. In the PHB iteration, commanding the beast to attack isn't the same as taking the attack action, so you don't get the offhand attack. While this has mostly been fixed in the Tasha's update at this point, it is still an example of where clunky design starts to impede what someone may want to do with the class.

For a scaling example, I would surface the storm herald barbarian. While there are 3 options for the 3rd level feature, this can only change when your character levels and two of the options (desert and tundra) only scale up to either doing 6 damage or giving 6 thp as a bonus action at 20th level. Comparably, the artificer's turret (which they can change whenever is summoned) can do either 2d8 aoe damage (save for half) or giving 1d8+int temp hit points using the same bonus action at level 3. Now, to be fair, the Storm Herald's aura does pick up some other features as they level up, but other subclasses pick up additional features as well.

Comparatively, there are some classes where the subclass features just end up meshing extraordinarily well with what you would want to do with the class. I would throw out conquest paladin as an example of a class/subclass combination that just works together. All of the features line up. The bonus spells enhance the subclass features, and there is even built in features that help support the character when a creature is fear immune. On top of all of this, the mechanics of the class end up supporting the overall theme.

To a certain extent, this is all moot because while there may be some more clunky subclasses, they can all be viable and fun. I would look at this less as what may be a "boring" subclass vs what subclass may be a bit more frustrating due to design.

I'm also a little annoyed that there isn't a great option for thrown weapon users outside of the artificer class

[Man_Over_Game]

I like the idea of blood mages, not sure we'll ever see an official one in 5e though. Blood Hunter touches on this a little, and whilst it is homebrew, it's probably one of the most widely accepted homebrews.



Spike Growth is a Druid and Ranger spell, you can do what you want with a Moon Druid or just a Ranger, you don't need to multiclass.



Both of those concepts are kinda just covered in the Fighter instead (PDK and Rune Knight), it feels like a lot of what you want just isn't where you expect/want it to be.



Totem: Can basically be what you want it to be, utility ritual magic

Beserker: Half of the features are nothing to do with taking or dealing damage.

Battlerager: mix of offense and defense, but also encourages grappling

Ancestral Guardian: Group protection and divination

Storm Herald: Mixture of offense, defense, support, and control...

Zealot: Literally has a battlecry ability that you were just asking for

Beast: Mobility buffs, yet another battlecry ability

Wild Magic: All kinds of effects, including buffing and teleportation

That doesn't look at all like 6/8 are about just dealing or taking damage better. Those things are certainly included a lot, because it's a Barbarian and those are things that Barbarians look to subclasses for.

I think part of the issue here is you may only be looking at the inititial subclass abilities instead of the whole subclass.



Sure, they can technically do some of the things I'm talking about, but it's not like being a Zealot makes you a support character.

As for the dealing/taking damage element, I'm asking why we needed those to be subclass benefits in the first place. We all know that the difficulty of 5e is low enough that anyone can succeed without optimizing, and the AT showcases how a subclass with hardly any combat support can still be really powerful, so is the barbarian chassis just inherently worse than most other classes, or do we not need those generic combat buffs from their subclasses?




Out of 6 abilities, the Gloomstalker has two that are about hitting things. You just seem to be writing off the bonus spells, when frankly you shouldn't. Rangers get enough slots to use their spells for things like the Gloom's bonus spells because they use the attack action primarily in combat.
...
Shadow Monk and Gloomstalker Ranger couldn't be further apart from function, the only common thread is that they both work with dark conditions.

I'm not just talking about damage, but things that don't really add to the theme and instead add to generic combat. Their abilities are:
Git Gud at Darkness Stuff.
Bonus to Initiative and first-turn attacks.
Resist mind stuff.
Attack when you miss.
Make enemies miss you.

About half of the subclass identity is about generic combat buffs.

If it was more about attacking underdark things, they could have gone the route of being able to have Blindsense for fighting in magical Darkness or seeing through magical Darkness, being able to make antidotes off of poisonous or mind-altering enemies, or turning psychic damage back on their source. There're options. Heck, those options could just be oriented around being better at Stealth, yet that's not a word that comes up once in the Gloomstaker page.

[stoutstien]

I would say the barbarian chassis is generally worse than a lot of the others but being not as good doesn't really mean boring.

From a DM perspective trying to fix barbarian is a puzzle so they've actually become one of the most entertaining things to look.

[Mitchellnotes]

I would say the barbarian chassis is generally worse than a lot of the others but being not as good doesn't really mean boring.

From a DM perspective trying to fix barbarian is a puzzle so they've actually become one of the most entertaining things to look.

I don't know that I would love to play a barbarian straight to 20, but i would easily multiclass with one. Barbarian/Rogue or Barbarian/warlock would be my go to's with a fun shoutout for a moon druid with berserker barbarian dip.

[stoutstien]

I don't know that I would love to play a barbarian straight to 20, but i would easily multiclass with one. Barbarian/Rogue or Barbarian/warlock would be my go to's with a fun shoutout for a moon druid with berserker barbarian dip.

They definitely have a alluring quality to them. One of the reasons why I have come to recognize some of their weak points is because I've seen so many of them. One of the big considerations when making changes to a class is not to remove any of that quality it already has. It has that odd placement of appearing simple but actually having a pretty complex relationship with the toggle it does have for boosting damage and survivability and increasing incoming damage as a risk involved.

I think I actually have it figured out I just need to clean up the writing and I'm waiting for a little bit more feedback.

[Dork_Forge]

Sure, they can technically do some of the things I'm talking about, but it's not like being a Zealot makes you a support character.

I never said they were, I was pointing out something you listed as wanting exists in two different Barbarian subclasses already. It does however mix up what you do, as does all of the subclasses.


As for the dealing/taking damage element, I'm asking why we needed those to be subclass benefits in the first place. We all know that the difficulty of 5e is low enough that anyone can succeed without optimizing, and the AT showcases how a subclass with hardly any combat support can still be really powerful, so is the barbarian chassis just inherently worse than most other classes, or do we not need those generic combat buffs from their subclasses?

Different classes are designed differently. AT doesn't need to add an explicit damage buff because Sneak Attack increases every other level. That said, AT just gets to pick Wizard spells and can take SCAGtrips, Shadow Blade etc. to ramp up their combat.

Barbarian typically looks to its subclasses for either damage or durability to some extent, to build on the core theme and support higher level play beyond Extra Attack and initial Rage benefits. That's not a bad thing, it's how the class/subclass dynamic works for Barbarians and even then, there's still utility and other abilities mixed in at different levels that you just are either missing or choosing to ignore in favour of what level 3 gives.


I'm not just talking about damage, but things that don't really add to the theme and instead add to generic combat. Their abilities are:
Git Gud at Darkness Stuff.
Bonus to Initiative and first-turn attacks.
Resist mind stuff.
Attack when you miss.
Make enemies miss you.

About half of the subclass identity is about generic combat buffs.

If it was more about attacking underdark things, they could have gone the route of being able to have Blindsense for fighting in magical Darkness or seeing through magical Darkness, being able to make antidotes off of poisonous or mind-altering enemies, or turning psychic damage back on their source. There're options. Heck, those options could just be oriented around being better at Stealth, yet that's not a word that comes up once in the Gloomstaker page.


Did you read the theme that you're criticising?


Gloom Stalkers are at home in the darkest places: deep under the earth, in gloomy alleyways, in primeval forests, and wherever else the light dims. Most folk enter such places with trepidation, but a Gloom Stalker ventures boldly into the darkness, seeking to ambush threats before they can reach the broader world. Such rangers are often found in the Underdark, but they will go any place where evil lurks in the shadows.

They're literally about ambushing monsters before they can get to civilisation, preferably in dark environments. That necessitates being good in the dark and being good at ambushing, which the Gloomstalker achieves very, very well.

If you make a subclass so specific as you seem to want to, then the reality is that it will be absolutely useless in a great number of situations and 5e just doesn't have the subclass output to tolerate that kind of hyper specific niche. A balance needs to be struck between hitting a specific theme whilst also being useable in pretty much every game. That's why 'generic combat buff' is present, hyper specific stuff will be great when you can use it and dead weight the rest of the time, which will be most of the time.

[Man_Over_Game]

If you make a subclass so specific as you seem to want to, then the reality is that it will be absolutely useless in a great number of situations and 5e just doesn't have the subclass output to tolerate that kind of hyper specific niche. A balance needs to be struck between hitting a specific theme whilst also being useable in pretty much every game. That's why 'generic combat buff' is present, hyper specific stuff will be great when you can use it and dead weight the rest of the time, which will be most of the time.

See, I don't think that's necessarily true in actual gameplay.

It is for something like a Barbarian, because it's hard to proactively leverage the Strength attribute without the DM directly adding a Strength problem, but nobody has any issues with a specialized socialite that uses Insight with Detect Magic. Making someone invisible in dim light or darkness? That's useable in like 60% of situations, and even more when you include the options magic gives you.

A few examples of specialized characters that seem to do really well because of good design are:
AT Rogues
Shadow Monks
Life Clerics
Light Clerics
Nature Clerics (Sans the whole "Heavy Armor" bit, that was obviously a balance choice)
Tempest Cleric
Circle of the Moon
Archfey Warlock
Illusion Wizard
Evocation Wizard

And that's just from the PHB. Unique does not have to mean niche. Something like the GOO is a better example of what you're describing: Unique, but also useless the majority of the time, and that can really just be mitigated with common sense.

[BerzerkerUnit]

I second this, a Wizard is usually just defined by their spell list which the subclasses have minimal impact on. It would have been more interesting if a Wizard chose their school at 1st and were restricted primarily to that school with a limited number of out of school picks, like the third casters.

Counterpoint, I won't take Animate dead unless I plan on taking full Necromancer...

[Nemenia]

See, I don't think that's necessarily true in actual gameplay.

It is for something like a Barbarian, because it's hard to proactively leverage the Strength attribute without the DM directly adding a Strength problem, but nobody has any issues with a specialized socialite that uses Insight with Detect Magic. Making someone invisible in dim light or darkness? That's useable in like 60% of situations, and even more when you include the options magic gives you.

A few examples of specialized characters that seem to do really well because of good design are:
AT Rogues
Shadow Monks
Life Clerics
Light Clerics
Nature Clerics (Sans the whole "Heavy Armor" bit, that was obviously a balance choice)
Tempest Cleric
Circle of the Moon
Archfey Warlock
Illusion Wizard
Evocation Wizard

And that's just from the PHB. Unique does not have to mean niche.

Of the subclasses you listed,
AT rogues are just a generic rogue with some levels in wizard and improved mage hand
Shadow monks are literally just generic ninjas
Life and Light clerics DO work in every situation because they are just the generic "good" clerics
A nature cleric is a druid

And all but the first 2 of these are just full casters. Wizards in particular are famous for having subclasses that do basically nothing on their own. You just seem to have an issue with martials, or anyone that doesnt have a flashy effect.

[Man_Over_Game]

Of the subclasses you listed,
AT rogues are just a generic rogue with some levels in wizard and improved mage hand
Shadow monks are literally just generic ninjas
Life and Light clerics DO work in every situation because they are just the generic "good" clerics
A nature cleric is a druid

And all but the first 2 of these are just full casters. Wizards in particular are famous for having subclasses that do basically nothing on their own. You just seem to have an issue with martials, or anyone that doesnt have a flashy effect.

I picked those subclasses because those subclasses do what they say on the tin.

Lemme break this down for the Light Cleric.

So the Light Cleric is all about...Light. And anything that has to do about light.

So he gets:
Bonus Light Cleric spells.
A bonus Light cantrip.
Blinds enemies that attack him.
Dispels magical Darkness.
Blinds enemies that attacks allies.
Deals extra damage with cantrips (which is basically a Cleric class feature, all clerics get this or the weapon version).
And a supermagical aura that radiates a ton of light and makes enemies in that aura weak to your fire and radiant spells.

Of every one of those features, only one doesn't directly contribute to the "Light" theme of the subclass, and even that is basically a class feature in the first place.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, there's the Battlemaster, which I also think is really damn good design. It does more Fighter-y things, which could come off as bad, but it does so by adding more to your Fighter gameplay. Sure, your standard rotation is to Action Surge in Round 1, hit the first thing you come across, use Second Wind when you hit 50% HP, and repeat the process. But add in some Battlemaster levels and now your Fighter gameplay is dramatically changed. You might try to use Evasive Maneuvers to move into their back line, Goading Strike while kiting to distract their heavy hitter, or Commander's Strike to leverage your Rogue's attack against a target that's near him to clear some space for him. It adds more to your generic Fighting stuff, sure, but it also adds more to that as well.

Even if I don't like how limited some of the caster subclasses you point out are in how much they add to the gameplay, the caster gameplay is already pretty diverse from the get-go. Whereas if I played a Samurai vs. a Barbarian, I'm basically making most of the same decisions, with the only real fulcrum being "Do I Reckless Attack or not?" Martials kinda need something with a little more juice in their subclasses, the Attack Action rules for all of them are pretty unilaterally the same, with variance on mostly range vs. quantity vs. size (which all sum up to be basically the same number at the end of the day).

The Attack Action is a pretty simple, stable foundation. It's perfect to be built upon, so it seems odd to me that the Battlemaster is still the only real example that tries to work around that. Everything else is the same "+X damage" and Advantage.

[Dork_Forge]

See, I don't think that's necessarily true in actual gameplay.

It is for something like a Barbarian, because it's hard to proactively leverage the Strength attribute without the DM directly adding a Strength problem, but nobody has any issues with a specialized socialite that uses Insight with Detect Magic. Making someone invisible in dim light or darkness? That's useable in like 60% of situations, and even more when you include the options magic gives you.

Are you talking about proactively leveraging outside of combat? I'm not sure why you're mentioning Str in regards to niche subclass design to be honest, Str is not the most useful of stats but it governs a lot of things that can certainly be useful: carrying capacity, climbing (athletics), grappling, shoving prone, jumping etc. If you want to make use of it you can.


A few examples of specialized characters that seem to do really well because of good design are:

I'm really confused what your idea of specialised is to be honest at this point.



AT Rogues Regardless the school limitation, adding Wizard casting to anything is going to do the opposite of specialise unless you limit yourself in the spells you choose. Unless your idea of specialisation is 'has casting'
Shadow Monks ...function as a generic Monk for the most part with enchanced stealth, I'd find this more convincing if they could see through their own Darkness
Life Clerics You're not going to be healing most of the time, you're still defined by what spells you take and cast.
Light Clerics So now generic combat ability (disadv on attack) is a good thing?
Nature Clerics (Sans the whole "Heavy Armor" bit, that was obviously a balance choice) adding Druid magic to a Cleric... what is really specialised here? Isn't one of your complaints about replicating things with MCing or feats?
Tempest Cleric You literally used the Dragon Sorcs specialisation as a bad thing but you use this as an example you like? Why?
Circle of the Moon Literally all about combat, something you've found bad about others?
Archfey Warlock
Illusion Wizard Not sure what you mean here, defined by the spell list
Evocation Wizard Not sure what you mean here, defined by the spell list



And that's just from the PHB. Unique does not have to mean niche. Something like the GOO is a better example of what you're describing: Unique, but also useless the majority of the time, and that can just be mitigated with common sense.

So you were trying to establish the above as unique...?

Unique how and to what? Unique as in you can't do those things as that class otherwise? Unique as in not found in other class/subclasses?

What actually makes something good to you because what you've presented seems wildly contradictary to be honest.


Counterpoint, I won't take Animate dead unless I plan on taking full Necromancer...

Necromancer is a school that more strongly encourages it's niche, but the fact remains that any Wizard can just take Animate dead and get an undead bodyguard. Given the nature fo the spell and how many spells Wizard get, it's not even really high cost. If you happen to have a 3rd level slot at the end of the day, then you can have a skeleton to watch throughout the night and gaurd you the next day if you want.

[Nemenia]

Are you talking about proactively leveraging outside of combat? I'm not sure why you're mentioning Str in regards to niche subclass design to be honest, Str is not the most useful of stats but it governs a lot of things that can certainly be useful: carrying capacity, climbing (athletics), grappling, shoving prone, jumping etc. If you want to make use of it you can.



I'm really confused what your idea of specialised is to be honest at this point.






So you were trying to establish the above as unique...?

Unique how and to what? Unique as in you can't do those things as that class otherwise? Unique as in not found in other class/subclasses?

What actually makes something good to you because what you've presented seems wildly contradictary to be honest.



Dork makes all my points way better then I do, so I'm just gonna let him argue from here

[MaxWilson]

My only contribution to this thread would have been to relate my snoozeworthy experience with a Scout Rogue, but instead I'm just going to sign my name under all of this and your other posts in this thread. It's not as if other rogue subclasses are much better than scouts.

I actually like Scouts, especially with the Mobile feat. They are very good at breaking contact: Mobile ensures that the enemy has to Dash to catch up to you, so they can't attack this round, and then Scout reaction moves you another 20' so next round you can just double-Dash 120' without taking any opportunity attacks.

I would totally play a Ancestor Barb/Scout (Tarzan) for the challenge.

[Man_Over_Game]

Are you talking about proactively leveraging outside of combat? I'm not sure why you're mentioning Str in regards to niche subclass design to be honest, Str is not the most useful of stats but it governs a lot of things that can certainly be useful: carrying capacity, climbing (athletics), grappling, shoving prone, jumping etc. If you want to make use of it you can.



I'm really confused what your idea of specialised is to be honest at this point.






So you were trying to establish the above as unique...?

Unique how and to what? Unique as in you can't do those things as that class otherwise? Unique as in not found in other class/subclasses?

What actually makes something good to you because what you've presented seems wildly contradictary to be honest.

Sorry, I meant that as two different things. That was in direct response to things that are specialized towards a theme aren't inherently useless, as long as their niche is generally useful. I still think most of those things are a bit too simple (the Light Cleric can't, for example, proactively blind enemies and doesn't have any benefit for imitating it with spells like Guiding Bolt), which means there is room to take them further, but they still take those concepts pretty far and make them work.

But I realize now that it could just very well be that you're right about Ranger subclasses being centered towards a very specific niche of enemy, it just feels very inconsistent. Horizon Walker's use of portals feels very specific compared to something like the Monster Slayer or Hunter. Beastmaster apparently focuses on beasts, but only does it through commanding one (and otherwise doesn't get any support for supporting/slaying animals). Swarmkeeper controls a swarm, but doesn't have any benefits related to insects or other Tiny creatures.

In fact, after thinking about it, the Gloomstalker, Horizon Walker, and the Fey Wanderer seem to be in their own classification of "Ranger Subclasses that focus on a specific threat". I guess you can throw Hunter in there, too, if you consider the custom fighting style as a means of tailoring for a specific enemy. I guess I always thought Ranger subclasses were focused more on function than the target, but you could be right about them supporting their own theme.

I do think that most of what it gets is pretty generic, despite having a very specific intent towards "Mind Flayer Slayer", and I guess that I kinda wanted more than "Deal X more damage in the first turn" or "Be really good at avoiding attacks". Those aren't really things that change how you play (which is lacking in case folks care more about interesting gameplay than the theme), although I admit that the darkness-invisibility thing may very well be enough on its own.

[Morty]

I do think the AT is pure gold. Illusion and Enchantment magic naturally works with the Rogue's skill sets to become more, the enhanced Mage Hand does the same; you are simultaneously different than a normal Rogue but also better of a Rogue at the same time.

My only complaint is that it's the only way to get some kind of benefit for multiclassing into a Caster (other than just skills) and doesn't get that until a fairly high level, but that's more of a criticism of the Rogue Class and how much of a dead-end it is for casters than an actual problem with AT's. That's like saying that the Wild Magic Barbarian subclass is flawed because its spellslot recharging still doesn't justify multiclassing into caster levels, when you're working with the Barbarian class.

I'd include the Thief with the AT, but there just aren't enough item options for Fast Hands to actually stand out. Your options are basically "create a patch of difficult terrain with a non-scaling DC" and "Cast a melee version of Healing Word by spending a feat". It could be better than that, but it takes a lot of DM fiat (more items, using Fast Hands on the environment, having a use for climbing all the time, etc.). It would have gone a long way to have a more rigid list of benefits, like improvements to grappling hooks or whatever, so it was more designed like the Artificer.

More AT-style subclasses are the way to go, it's just a shame that it's the only one of its kind.

And...yeah, sorry about the scout. I always thought it looked terrible on paper, thanks for the heads up.


AT is definitely the gold standard, but just want to speak up a bit more in defense of the Thief.

Fast Hands doesn't only include Use and Object, but also Sleight of Hand. This allows you to do anything you could do with sleight of hand as a bonus action, such as plant something on an opponent OR take something from them such as a sheathed weapon/component pouch. Yes you can also do this with mage hand legerdemain, but it's in addition to the other benefits.

Also one object you can frequently interact with in environments are doors. And frequently, those doors have locks. With use an object, it's possible to both open and close a door on the same round and still take a regular action, or you could close a door AND lock it if you're trying to trap someone/thing etc. etc. That's just one example, but you're always going to be fighting in SOME sort of environment, and you can likely think of some way to interact with it using Fast Hands.

There are a few other objects that work with Fast Hands as well: Oil, Tinderbox, Acid, Alchemist's Fire, Basic Poison to name a few.

Finally, compared to Assassin, and most other rogue subclasses (excepting the AT) the Thief's higher level abilities are STELLAR. Level 9 being the worst, and that emulates effectively an uncommon magic item so it isn't bad. Level 13 Use Magic Device is amazing in anything except the lowest of low magic campaigns and opens a ton of options, and if you get all the way to 17 you get an ENTIRE EXTRA TURN the first round of every combat.

Sorry, I love Thief Rogues. Has anyone made a guide for them already? I need to check, maybe I'll make a guide for them.

The elephant in the room is that there aren't many subclass abilities that can come even close to offering the same kind of utility that spells do. I can't really speak for thieves, but I'm rather sceptical.

[Mitchellnotes]

They definitely have a alluring quality to them. One of the reasons why I have come to recognize some of their weak points is because I've seen so many of them. One of the big considerations when making changes to a class is not to remove any of that quality it already has. It has that odd placement of appearing simple but actually having a pretty complex relationship with the toggle it does have for boosting damage and survivability and increasing incoming damage as a risk involved.

I think I actually have it figured out I just need to clean up the writing and I'm waiting for a little bit more feedback.

I think the overall weakness of the class is the reliance on a several times a long rest feature. Most of the features (and pretty much all of the subclass features) key off of raging which has a limit based on long rests, and a hard penalty if CC'd. A barbarian without the ability to rage still has some benefits, but so much less than what they would typically have. That's one of the appeals of combining it with rogue or warlock. Rogues can do what they do pretty much all day (and have abilities that synergize well with the other barbarian features), and warlocks recover their features on a short rest. Monks would potentially get similar benefits, but monks and barbarians typically don't mesh well (str vs dex focus, ends up being mad, etc)

[Frogreaver]

Mechanically id through life cleric into the mix. Very boring mechanics.

Thematically id put down all the wizard subclasses as boring except maybe blade singer.

[Tawmis]

Hi everyone
Simple question: What do you think is the most boring subclass in 5e? Why? Is it about options? And do you think there is a way to make it exciting or at least interesting to play?
The Champion seems to be the one most people in my bubble think of as "most boring" but maybe that has changed with the newer books?
What do you think?

I think it all depends on how you run with it.
Currently I am playing a Fighter (Champion) Dwarf in an Out of the Abyss game.
I've talked as the traditional "dwarf accent" that so many use (Irish - why are they Irish anyway?).
But because of Out of the Abyss, he's acquired some Madness - one being he hears a voice that whispers bad ideas to him.
This made me at Level 6, pick 1 level of Warlock.
I flavored it as - it's a demonic voice - and when I use Warlock skills my character functionally "blacks out." So when I use Eldritch Blast - my character won't remember doing it.
When another big bad showed up before the portal to the surface (avoiding spoilers) - he got another Madness that made me obsessed with death. I tied this in to the death of a NPC prisoner my character had become very close to - and now he wants to find a way to restore her life.
I briefly had a temp madness of believing I was infected with Lycanthropy - so when we reached a specific part, the DM mentioned that certain people changed - my character ran around believing he too had changed.

So you can take any "boring" thing - and if you really want to make the most of it - it's not about options - it's about the personality of the character.

Because if you're just interested in dice and damage, then it doesn't matter what you play. They're all the same at that point. Just doing the same thing a different way.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think it all depends on how you run with it.
Currently I am playing a Fighter (Champion) Dwarf in an Out of the Abyss game.
I've talked as the traditional "dwarf accent" that so many use (Irish - why are they Irish anyway?).
But because of Out of the Abyss, he's acquired some Madness - one being he hears a voice that whispers bad ideas to him.
This made me at Level 6, pick 1 level of Warlock.
I flavored it as - it's a demonic voice - and when I use Warlock skills my character functionally "blacks out." So when I use Eldritch Blast - my character won't remember doing it.
When another big bad showed up before the portal to the surface (avoiding spoilers) - he got another Madness that made me obsessed with death. I tied this in to the death of a NPC prisoner my character had become very close to - and now he wants to find a way to restore her life.
I briefly had a temp madness of believing I was infected with Lycanthropy - so when we reached a specific part, the DM mentioned that certain people changed - my character ran around believing he too had changed.

So you can take any "boring" thing - and if you really want to make the most of it - it's not about options - it's about the personality of the character.

Because if you're just interested in dice and damage, then it doesn't matter what you play. They're all the same at that point. Just doing the same thing a different way.

DnD is an RPG. And if some folks care more about the RolePlaying, I think it's fair to say that others care more about the Game.

And for those that care more about the RP, I think that a single "Champion" subclass for every class (assuming they're balanced well) is a perfect fit!

[Dork_Forge]

Sorry, I meant that as two different things. That was in direct response to things that are specialized towards a theme aren't inherently useless, as long as their niche is generally useful. I still think most of those things are a bit too simple (the Light Cleric can't, for example, proactively blind enemies and doesn't have any benefit for imitating it with spells like Guiding Bolt), which means there is room to take them further, but they still take those concepts pretty far and make them work.

Light just means light+fire in practice and it's nothing but fluff on the warding flare ability, you're not actually blinding anyone, you're specifically causing disadvantage. Maybe it's that the fluff is more obvious, but it really just seems like you prefer the fluff of Light Cleric vs other fluff you've disliked for being 'generic combat abilities.'


But I realize now that it could just very well be that you're right about Ranger subclasses being centered towards a very specific niche of enemy, it just feels very inconsistent. Horizon Walker's use of portals feels very specific compared to something like the Monster Slayer or Hunter. Beastmaster apparently focuses on beasts, but only does it through commanding one (and otherwise doesn't get any support for supporting/slaying animals). Swarmkeeper controls a swarm, but doesn't have any benefits related to insects or other Tiny creatures.

In fact, after thinking about it, the Gloomstalker, Horizon Walker, and the Fey Wanderer seem to be in their own classification of "Ranger Subclasses that focus on a specific threat". I guess you can throw Hunter in there, too, if you consider the custom fighting style as a means of tailoring for a specific enemy. I guess I always thought Ranger subclasses were focused more on function than the target, but you could be right about them supporting their own theme.

Hunters are specialists, this makes sense given there is only two subclasses in the PHB, but that is their niche, they choose and focus on a specific kind of target.

Beastmasters embody the friendship and connection between civilisation and nature, using that bond to fight things that threaten both.

Gloomstalkers are lowlight ambush specialists, they work best in the Underdark but their abilties are designed to also be generally useful. This is good design not bad.

Horizon Walkers are for Planar Threats, the detect portals thing is a thematic ribbon that you're hung up on. They get to make their damage Force, which is little resisted and a great tool against planar threats. Their spell list is thematic but generally useful, Etherealness is good for scouting, Distant Strike is an astonishingly good skirmishing ability. Spectral Defense is a flavoured defense ability. It's all pretty on theme whilst still being useful, the most contentious thing amounts to a ribbon in design space.

Monster Slayers focus on magical threats, the fluff even gives you a list. Their abilities are fantastically tailored to this, including an alternative to Hunter's Mark (that can also stack) that avoids counter spell/dispel magic. Great since you're likely hunting things that are casters/caster like.

Fey Wanderers are Rangers for both traditional civilisation and fey, hence the fey twists, they gain fey abilities to defend them.

Swarmkeepers are basically the same kind of thing as Beastmasters. They bond with nature to protect it.

All of this is pretty well covered in the fluff of each subclass.


I do think that most of what it gets is pretty generic, despite having a very specific intent towards "Mind Flayer Slayer", and I guess that I kinda wanted more than "Deal X more damage in the first turn" or "Be really good at avoiding attacks". Those aren't really things that change how you play (which is lacking in case folks care more about interesting gameplay than the theme), although I admit that the darkness-invisibility thing may very well be enough on its own.


You, again, seem to not be taking Iron Mind or the spell list into account.

At no point is Gloomstalker ever claiming to be a Mind Flayer slayer, Underdark covers a wide array of enemies. Being invisible to a great deal of them is a huge boon to that theme yes.

[Mitchellnotes]

Thematically id put down all the wizard subclasses as boring except maybe blade singer.

Wizards in general really gain the least from their subclasses given how much the base class gets from spells. I think that the subclasses do do a good job in supporting what you'd want to do with that school (i think other than the blasedancer that the non-school specialty subclasses feel a bit bizarre), so while not very exciting, i think they tend to function ok overall

[Theodoxus]

I've also been interested in a melee class that worked around zoning effects. Could be something like casting Spike Growth and tanking around it, or maybe conjuring walls around him to protect his allies and trap his enemies.
The Spike Growth example is possible through multiclassing, but it gets expensive very quickly when you start to want newer spells and stay a frontline tank, and the only other options for zoning is the "Stand in Front of the Squishies" strategy for Cavaliers and other OA melees.


Spike Growth is a Druid and Ranger spell, you can do what you want with a Moon Druid or just a Ranger, you don't need to multiclass.

It's also a bonus spell for Nature Clerics, which also provides heavy armor and would allow you to easily tank around it. Now, arguably, Clerics don't get wall spells... so Druid would definitely be the way to go for that - but then again, wall spells are higher level, so trying to get them and be a strong tank at the same time would be far more difficult. I think you'd be better off with a magic item emulating the wall creation aspect, if that was what you really wanted.

As for what's the most boring subclass... to me, it's the Hexblade. It trivializes any mutliclassing with a melee class that you might want to do. It's pretty much the only option for blade pact warlocks who want to make the most of their pact; it's oddly synergistic with evokers... it's just too good and does too much - which makes it boring. How I would make it more exciting? split up its features into the Pact of the Blade and new Invocations. Kill it dead and spread its ashes around for other subclasses to enjoy.

Honestly, I'd do the same with Battlemaster. Make maneuvers a core Fighter ability, drop Student of War, or roll it into the base class, it's a marginal ribbon at best. Know Your Enemy should be a base Fighter ability, any Fighter worth their salt sure be able to size up their competition. Heck, I think the 1 minute observation time is even a bit long, but a single action is too short, and we don't really have a time frame between the two... so it's ok. The rest of the subclass abilities are just in regards to superiority dice, so would likewise be rolled into the class. Grant Combat Superiority at 2nd level instead of 3rd; could lower additional dice to 6th and 14th levels as well. Making it base line would massively open up options for all the other subclasses and take Champion specifically from a decent 'no frills' class to one that has some pretty fun synergy (and for those who don't want 'added complexity' they can either just ignore the SD and maneuvers, or take the more generic damage boosting Precision Attack or grab Parry or Rally for a small defensive boost...

But I guess my answer isn't really in the spirit of the question... oops.

[Tawmis]

DnD is an RPG. And if some folks care more about the RolePlaying, I think it's fair to say that others care more about the Game.
And for those that care more about the RP, I think that a single "Champion" subclass for every class (assuming they're balanced well) is a perfect fit!

I wasn't knocking RP vs not. I was merely saying - that a person can make the most out of any class, depending on what they do with the character.

I was just using my Dwarf Champion as an example, since the OP mentioned that Champions were boring - and how I enhanced it (because let's face it - it's attack, second wind, and/or extra attack) - was by RPing to add flavor to my character. So I felt like I was more than just someone swinging a weapon.

[Yakmala]

Champions are typically considered a boring subclass. I played a Champion, and not as a newbie, knowing full well that almost all of their abilities are passive. It was... Relaxing. But that was what I was going for. I'd just gotten done playing a Druid, managing wild shapes and summons and spell lists and I wanted to play something with simple mechanics as a counterbalance to the Druid's bookkeeping.

I enjoyed it. Not worrying about the mechanics allowed me to focus more on the roleplaying aspects of the Champion. I did get the occasional crit, but if you spend your entire session anticipating a crit, you are going to spend many evenings disappointed.

Were I to modify the Champion to make it more exciting, I'd double down on the passive abilities. Let them remain the "auto-pilot" class but give players more options as to what that means for them. Give them multiple passive upgrades at various levels that players can select from, giving the players choices that sculpt the Champion into more of a leader, weapons master, brute, etc.

[Dork_Forge]

It's also a bonus spell for Nature Clerics, which also provides heavy armor and would allow you to easily tank around it. Now, arguably, Clerics don't get wall spells... so Druid would definitely be the way to go for that - but then again, wall spells are higher level, so trying to get them and be a strong tank at the same time would be far more difficult. I think you'd be better off with a magic item emulating the wall creation aspect, if that was what you really wanted.


Good point, I think Moon Druid would deal with the wall tanking pretty well and for what it's worth Rangers get Wind Wall too.

I agree with Hexblade actually, one of the things I really dislike is 'may as well include Hexblade' 'Need a Warlock level or two, so it may as well be a Hexblade' it just overtook the other options i ncommunity build choices so strongly (and imo undeservedly). Bah, bah!

[KorvinStarmast]

I find the Life Cleric to be incredibly boring. {Scrubbed}

My life cleric was the party leader, despite her having a 9 charisma. (She eventually retired at a major commercial town and took over care taking duties at a shrine to her deity when she discovered that a drunken evening's carrying on had, oops, resulted in her pregnancy).

Any sub class can be boring in the hands of a player who is mailing it in. The solution? Don't be boring. :smallcool:

{Scrubbed}
Recommendation: Play the game for what it is-a game.

The play's the thing

[HappyDaze]

{Scrub the post/quote}

My life cleric was the party leader, despite her having a 9 charisma. (She eventually retired at a major commercial town and took over care taking duties at a shrine to her deity when she discovered that a drunken evening's carrying on had, oops, resulted in her pregnancy).

Any sub class can be boring in the hands of a player who is mailing it in. The solution? Don't be boring. :smallcool:
{Scrub the quote/post}
Recommendation: Play the game for what it is-a game.

The play's the thing
Even with roleplay, the Life Cleric is essentially the "default generic good-guy cleric" and anything he can do, many more mechanically interesting Cleric options can do too. Sure, the Life Cleric heals more, but any other Cleric can heal adequately if they want to along with doing some other cool stuff.

[Dork_Forge]

Even with roleplay, the Life Cleric is essentially the "default generic good-guy cleric" and anything he can do, many more mechanically interesting Cleric options can do too. Sure, the Life Cleric heals more, but any other Cleric can heal adequately if they want to along with doing some other cool stuff.

What Cleric can heal themselves at the same time as others without blowing resources on a big spend like an aoe heal?

What Cleric can completely forget about healing spells and prep all the other cool things because they're prepped anyway?

You could string the same Argument on the War Cleric (among others) you can hit things with a weapon as any Cleric, so why bother with Life? Because you want to be better at that thing.

Maybe you don't want to be adequate at healing, maybe you want to be good at it.

If you don't enjoy healing, then that's okay... not every subclass has to appeal for everyone, but some people want to play healers.

[Theodoxus]

I've given the old college try to many different race/domain combinations for my Clerics. The only one that managed to get any traction that wasn't a Hill Dwarf Life Cleric was a High Elf Life Cleric in a OotA game where he stumbled upon the Lightbringer sword early on and I used it to annoy the half-drow a-holes in the party.

Life is my bag, exactly for the reasons Dork Forge says. So much so, that I've had 3 Hero Forge mini's made for my HDwarf Cleric, of varying levels. One day I'll probably spring for the bronze one that I'll keep on my mantle. I love the little dude so much.

The fun thing is, even with Tasha's allowed at the table, I don't need to use it, everything lines up perfectly. At most, I might swap out the axe proficiencies for more tools...

[LudicSavant]

Even with roleplay, the Life Cleric is essentially the "default generic good-guy cleric" and anything he can do, many more mechanically interesting Cleric options can do too. Sure, the Life Cleric heals more, but any other Cleric can heal adequately if they want to along with doing some other cool stuff.

I actually think the Life Cleric is rather mechanically interesting. Their healing differences are big enough to open up a new playstyle for Clerics -- actually burst healing in combat. And the fact that their level 6 ability heals themselves as well as another encourages switch-tanking, and their Channel Divinity healing a lot (but only on targets below 50%) makes it suitable for big in-combat swings rather than just topping people off. Even if you're just using it for non-combat healing, it means you're using up a lot less slots for that, and thus have more resources to do other things.

People might not think of this as new because "other Clerics can heal too," but to me that's like saying "other Clerics can cast AoEs too" when you're playing a Light Cleric. The way I play a healer when I play a Life Cleric is different than when I'm playing most other Clerics.

[stoutstien]

I actually think the Life Cleric is rather mechanically interesting. Their healing differences are big enough to open up a new playstyle for Clerics -- actually burst healing in combat. And the fact that their level 6 ability heals themselves as well as another encourages switch-tanking, and their Channel Divinity healing a lot (but only on targets below 50%) makes it suitable for big in-combat swings rather than just topping people off. Even if you're just using it for non-combat healing, it means you're using up a lot less slots for that, and thus have more resources to do other things.

People might not think of this as new because "other Clerics can heal too," but to me that's like saying "other Clerics can cast AoEs too" when you're playing a Light Cleric. The way I play a healer when I play a Life Cleric is different than when I'm playing most other Clerics.

Aye. A good example of simple tool making for interesting play experiences. You don't need complex options to make good ones.

[HappyDaze]

Aye. A good example of simple tool making for interesting play experiences. You don't need complex options to make good ones.

I think it makes for an effective character, but not an interesting one.

[Theodoxus]

I would argue that no character is interesting solely based on their written background, race and class. It's how the player brings it to life that makes it interesting. You might have a Bond that's "My character's sister always nagged him to use his Moradin-given talents to go adventuring instead of laying about the house." And there might be an interesting story there - but just reading that on the character sheet isn't interesting.

Corollary: give me your most exciting/interesting character concept and I'll make it so boring in play you'll want to kick me from the table.

[Deathtongue]

I'm going to go with Necromancer, especially pre-Tasha's Necromancers.

1.) Until you get to T2, you don't get to even play your archetype. T1 Evokers still get to blast, T1 Illusionists still get to make illusions, T1 Graviturgists still get to control gravity, T1 Bladesingers still get to stab people in melee, even T1 Transmuters (which I think are uniformly the weakest wizard subclass) still get to change something into something else. T1 Necromancers... suck a little bit of the hit points from their target. Weaksauce. Necromancers need to be able to boss around a skeletal dog or zombie butler from level 2, tops, for flavor reasons if nothing else. Whether it's a class feature or something like 'Animate Minor Undead'.

2.) Because of the way the Necromancer is designed (your summoning quality doesn't get better until very late in the game, but you do get much more of them), if you want your minions to keep parity you either have to end up ignoring your Necromancer shtick or you end up being increasingly obnoxious as you make more and more attack rolls to keep up. Danse Macabre and Summon Undead really did help alleviate these issues, but the problem remained -- I straight up didn't use Animate Dead on my Necromancer after going into T3, despite bounded accuracy, for that reason. I stopped playing the character at around L13.

If the game wants the Necromancer to go around with a permanent horde of minion attendants, I really recommend the game limiting the absolute number of minions you can have while also increasing minion quality over time. Rolling six attack rolls in one turn (three from your Summon Undead Spirit cast at L6, two from your Skeletal Cavaliers, one from your Gravekeeper Mummy) is okay, rolling twenty attack rolls is some hot garbage.

[stoutstien]

I think it makes for an effective character, but not an interesting one.

There is a mixture of complexity that overlaps with what one finds interesting. You need that variety to give the full range of player types something to enjoy. A lot of systems fall into the habit of lining up complexity with effectiveness. 5e broke away from that a little by just reducing the ceiling down and tried to to prevent too much in the way of stacking effects.

[LudicSavant]

Aye. A good example of simple tool making for interesting play experiences. You don't need complex options to make good ones.

Yeah. All of those factors I named are notable because they lead to actual playstyle differences, rather than just differences in effectiveness. A Life Cleric doesn't really play like "a different Cleric subclass but more." They play like their own thing, even if that thing is "an in-combat healer" which some people assume is the Cleric default because of assumptions brought in from other games. Even though 5e Clerics usually aren't actually like that.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think it makes for an effective character, but not an interesting one. I suppose that one can go back to 'there's no arguing about matters of taste' and that will suffice.
I agree with Ludic based on my experience with three different Life Clerics.

[Ettina]

I'm going to go with Necromancer, especially pre-Tasha's Necromancers.

1.) Until you get to T2, you don't get to even play your archetype. T1 Evokers still get to blast, T1 Illusionists still get to make illusions, T1 Graviturgists still get to control gravity, T1 Bladesingers still get to stab people in melee, even T1 Transmuters (which I think are uniformly the weakest wizard subclass) still get to change something into something else. T1 Necromancers... suck a little bit of the hit points from their target. Weaksauce. Necromancers need to be able to boss around a skeletal dog or zombie butler from level 2, tops, for flavor reasons if nothing else. Whether it's a class feature or something like 'Animate Minor Undead'.

My DM let my necromancer get a crawling claw familiar from find familiar. Seems like a good solution to making a T1 necromancer actually feel like a necromancer.

[Deathtongue]

My DM let my necromancer get a crawling claw familiar from find familiar. Seems like a good solution to making a T1 necromancer actually feel like a necromancer.That's all I want. It can be something in pure roleplay like the ability to resurrect CR0 creatures who can't attack.

The other problem I have with necromancer will require some more thought. There needs to be a way to restrict the number of individual creatures a Necromancer can control/use Undead Thralls with/etc. (maybe Spellcasting Modifier plus Proficiency Bonus?) but also a way to increase summoning quality. Hopefully tie them together somehow, i.e. 'creating a Wight with this spell counts as controlling three creatures if your proficiency bonus is +4 or less'.

[HappyDaze]

That's all I want. It can be something in pure roleplay like the ability to resurrect CR0 creatures who can't attack.

The other problem I have with necromancer will require some more thought. There needs to be a way to restrict the number of individual creatures a Necromancer can control/use Undead Thralls with/etc. (maybe Spellcasting Modifier plus Proficiency Bonus?) but also a way to increase summoning quality. Hopefully tie them together somehow, i.e. 'creating a Wight with this spell counts as controlling three creatures if your proficiency bonus is +4 or less'.

I never really saw a problem with the numbers from an immersive point of view. The issue is that the mechanics make running hordes a PITA. Considering how little gold gets used though, there's really not much stopping any PC from hiring mercenaries in bulk to get the same effect. This has the added bonus of providing the necromancer with new bodies when the mercenaries get wiped out.

[opticalshadow]

Wizards in general really gain the least from their subclasses given how much the base class gets from spells. I think that the subclasses do do a good job in supporting what you'd want to do with that school (i think other than the blasedancer that the non-school specialty subclasses feel a bit bizarre), so while not very exciting, i think they tend to function ok overall

as a lover of wizards i agree and have been dissapointed since day 1.

I think each subclass has like, one good ability, but i hate how atleast all the phb subclasses waste an entire level milestone on "can write in book for cheap" its so mind numbingly boring as a level stone, and honestly isnt good enough on its own to even been a sole level milestone. i think they could have really done some cool things (some of it is, the capstone to illusionist is great, heck even the earlier make minor illusion better is great) but overall it seemed like what was posted here, they have a spell list, what more do you need?

[Dork_Forge]

as a lover of wizards i agree and have been dissapointed since day 1.

I think each subclass has like, one good ability, but i hate how atleast all the phb subclasses waste an entire level milestone on "can write in book for cheap" its so mind numbingly boring as a level stone, and honestly isnt good enough on its own to even been a sole level milestone. i think they could have really done some cool things (some of it is, the capstone to illusionist is great, heck even the earlier make minor illusion better is great) but overall it seemed like what was posted here, they have a spell list, what more do you need?

The savant abilities are not standalone, they are ribbons gained alongside the main school feature are second level.

Realistically you could cut them out entirely and it wouldn't really feel like any design space was lost, they're just a shallow attempt to encourage you to grab spells you're meant to be focusing on.

[Luccan]

The savant abilities are not standalone, they are ribbons gained alongside the main school feature are second level.

Realistically you could cut them out entirely and it wouldn't really feel like any design space was lost, they're just a shallow attempt to encourage you to grab spells you're meant to be focusing on.

Which is kinda silly, actually, since if I'm theming my wizard around my school, I'm gonna try and grab the best spells from my school on level up. And I actually find myself ever so slightly repelled from school spells on level up in other cases because I know I can copy them a little cheaper than other spells I want as well

[Mitchellnotes]

Which is kinda silly, actually, since if I'm theming my wizard around my school, I'm gonna try and grab the best spells from my school on level up. And I actually find myself ever so slightly repelled from school spells on level up in other cases because I know I can copy them a little cheaper than other spells I want as well

This isn't really the purpose of the thread, but what if instead of the scribing benefit, a wizard with that subclass could learn 1 more spell within that school on levelup? It removes the odd disincentive, supports the theme of specializing, but wouldnt be that much of s power boost as ostensibly wizards are adding additional spells anyway.

[Frogreaver]

I suppose that one can go back to 'there's no arguing about matters of taste' and that will suffice.
I agree with Ludic based on my experience with three different Life Clerics.

I think there’s at least 3 axis for evaluating boring

Thematic
Mechanical
Emergent qualities

The life cleric is very thematically generic. It’s hard not to call it boring in that sense.

Mechanically the life cleric gets extra healing. Almost exclusively extra healing. That’s a pretty boring mechanic.

However, the emergent play from those mechanics is a cleric that can actually function differently in combat than any other. You can actually play a life cleric as an in combat healer and so on this one aspect the life cleric isn’t boring.

*character personality also serves to make a class/subclass not boring but that can be applied equally to any class IMO.

[quindraco]

This isn't really the purpose of the thread, but what if instead of the scribing benefit, a wizard with that subclass could learn 1 more spell within that school on levelup? It removes the odd disincentive, supports the theme of specializing, but wouldnt be that much of s power boost as ostensibly wizards are adding additional spells anyway.

Yes, this would fit in far better with the actual rules of the game.

[Dork_Forge]

This isn't really the purpose of the thread, but what if instead of the scribing benefit, a wizard with that subclass could learn 1 more spell within that school on levelup? It removes the odd disincentive, supports the theme of specializing, but wouldnt be that much of s power boost as ostensibly wizards are adding additional spells anyway.

IMO Wizards don't need even more spells for free. I'd ratehr see one of their two level up spells restricted to their school.

[Mitchellnotes]

IMO Wizards don't need even more spells for free. I'd ratehr see one of their two level up spells restricted to their school.

I dunno, it would provide some space to pick the "slightly less than optimal spells." With just over 40 spells to choose from, I'm going to guess that there are about 60-75 spells that people are going to typically pull from when selecting spells at the level up. For instance, just in the first level, off the top of my head, grease, fog cloud, shield, magic missile, absorb elements, tasha's uncontrollable hideous laughter, detect magic, feather fall, mage armor, and sleep are often cited (and that's leaving some out likely) that most people are going to likely choose either quite a few or most of as their selections. There might be some deviation here or there, but a lot of spell lists tend to look very similar. This would provide an opportunity to select some of the spells that may be more borderline, but still be useful for that specific school that could give it flavor, and ultimately would still be limited by # of spells prepared.

How many evokers have you seen prepare lightning bolt over fireball? Sure, it could happen, but if you had an extra pick, why not pick up lightning bolt to have it in case it comes up as a great choice as opposed to "not quite fireball"

[MaxWilson]

Which is kinda silly, actually, since if I'm theming my wizard around my school, I'm gonna try and grab the best spells from my school on level up.

The mechanics don't really support this concept though. E.g. Portent encourages Diviners to focus on offensive spells, like Enchantment and Abjuration, not Divination.

[Dork_Forge]

I dunno, it would provide some space to pick the "slightly less than optimal spells." With just over 40 spells to choose from, I'm going to guess that there are about 60-75 spells that people are going to typically pull from when selecting spells at the level up. For instance, just in the first level, off the top of my head, grease, fog cloud, shield, magic missile, absorb elements, tasha's uncontrollable hideous laughter, detect magic, feather fall, mage armor, and sleep are often cited (and that's leaving some out likely) that most people are going to likely choose either quite a few or most of as their selections. There might be some deviation here or there, but a lot of spell lists tend to look very similar. This would provide an opportunity to select some of the spells that may be more borderline, but still be useful for that specific school that could give it flavor, and ultimately would still be limited by # of spells prepared.

How many evokers have you seen prepare lightning bolt over fireball? Sure, it could happen, but if you had an extra pick, why not pick up lightning bolt to have it in case it comes up as a great choice as opposed to "not quite fireball"

Having to make decisions isn't a bad thing, the fact that they get 8 1st level spells is already generous, assuming they only choose spells for their current highest level slot then they're getting 4 spells of each level after 1st.

If you're easily filling up 4 spells of each level with plenty left over, then I'm going to hazard a guess that's a Wizard with a weak theme in their list.

An Evoker would be much more encouraged to (in your example) also choose Lightning Bolt if they had to make an Evocation choice at both 5th and 6th level.

A problem with the Wizard is a lack of defining class features, a massive spell list and the ability to take a huge amount of those spells without needing to find them. Adding restriction helps build theme and identity without adding wood onto that bonfire since your suggestion could lead to say an Illusionist knowing more spells that aren't illusions as a result.

[Luccan]

The mechanics don't really support this concept though. E.g. Portent encourages Diviners to focus on offensive spells, like Enchantment and Abjuration, not Divination.

Oh sure, in terms of power and versatility it's not the best play, but I mean literally building around the spell school not just the subclass.

[Darc_Vader]

IMO Wizards don't need even more spells for free. I'd ratehr see one of their two level up spells restricted to their school.

In theory that’s a good idea, but I don’t think it would work perfectly. It would reduce the number of largely identical spell choices early on, but take a look at say, Abjuration Wizards: I guarantee with a rule like this 95% of Abjuration Wizards would end up with Shield, Absorb Elements, Mage Armour, Protection from Evil and Good, and Counterspell by level 5, and that’s assuming they don’t want to grab more than one of those at a time (presumably most will want both Mage Armour and Shield at level 1). Heck the only second level Abjuration spell they get is Arcane Lock. Spells just aren’t evenly spread across spell schools enough for this to work imo.

[Dork_Forge]

In theory that’s a good idea, but I don’t think it would work perfectly. It would reduce the number of largely identical spell choices early on, but take a look at say, Abjuration Wizards: I guarantee with a rule like this 95% of Abjuration Wizards would end up with Shield, Absorb Elements, Mage Armour, Protection from Evil and Good, and Counterspell by level 5, and that’s assuming they don’t want to grab more than one of those at a time (presumably most will want both Mage Armour and Shield at level 1). Heck the only second level Abjuration spell they get is Arcane Lock. Spells just aren’t evenly spread across spell schools enough for this to work imo.

Most Wizard want a lot of those spells anyway and you don't need to take a spell of that level. There's only Arcane Lock at 2nd level, but there's 6 1st level Abjuration spells. Whilst the spells aren't evenly distributed, there's enough of them that it shouldn't really be a problem.

Similar spell lists I don't really see as an issue either, the lists will still differ in the free choices they get and at the end of the day why shouldn't the lists of two Abjuration Wizards be very similar? They're both abjuration Wizards and they'll never be identical.

[Mitchellnotes]

Most Wizard want a lot of those spells anyway and you don't need to take a spell of that level. There's only Arcane Lock at 2nd level, but there's 6 1st level Abjuration spells. Whilst the spells aren't evenly distributed, there's enough of them that it shouldn't really be a problem.

Similar spell lists I don't really see as an issue either, the lists will still differ in the free choices they get and at the end of the day why shouldn't the lists of two Abjuration Wizards be very similar? They're both abjuration Wizards and they'll never be identical.

I guess my biggest issues with this is that 1) wizards have a lot of variation in terms how many spells are available per school per level and 2) what do you do for the non phb wizards that aren't associated with a school? It seems odd to restrict the phb subclasses more than the ones released later. Giving 3 with 1 being from the school lessens the impact of the spells in a school by level issue and still gives a minor benefit over restriction

[Dork_Forge]

I guess my biggest issues with this is that 1) wizards have a lot of variation in terms how many spells are available per school per level and 2) what do you do for the non phb wizards that aren't associated with a school? It seems odd to restrict the phb subclasses more than the ones released later. Giving 3 with 1 being from the school lessens the impact of the spells in a school by level issue and still gives a minor benefit over restriction

This has the inverse problem, what do you give nonphb classes? Whilst also adding a straight buff to an already overtuned class that gets the most spells in the game.

As for nonphb classes judgement calls would need to be made, like abjuration/evocation for the War Wizard, Chronurgy spells for the Chronurgist (I doubt there's enough of these so mixing would be best), anything with a ritual tag + another school for scribe etc.

When you try to add incentive to do school based stuff via additional spells on a Wizard I just feel like it'll result in more generalists, since they would have been taking some of those spells anyway and now have a bunch of free opportunities. To use the Fireball + Lightning Bolt example from earlier, what to say the Wizard doesn't offload both onto that extra spell over level 5/6 and just end up with more non evocation spells?

[Mitchellnotes]

This has the inverse problem, what do you give nonphb classes? Whilst also adding a straight buff to an already overtuned class that gets the most spells in the game.

As for nonphb classes judgement calls would need to be made, like abjuration/evocation for the War Wizard, Chronurgy spells for the Chronurgist (I doubt there's enough of these so mixing would be best), anything with a ritual tag + another school for scribe etc.

When you try to add incentive to do school based stuff via additional spells on a Wizard I just feel like it'll result in more generalists, since they would have been taking some of those spells anyway and now have a bunch of free opportunities. To use the Fireball + Lightning Bolt example from earlier, what to say the Wizard doesn't offload both onto that extra spell over level 5/6 and just end up with more non evocation spells?

Some of this is supposed to already be built into game mechanics. That they already have the level 2 ability implies that they are intended to get additional spells through their time as a wizard. This takes that out of dm fiat (also known as something a dm has to remember to include or its wasted) and removes the odd anti-synergy with how wizards just level up. This shouldnt throw balance off (given that again it should be happening anyway), especially as the PHB wizards would still be limited to the same number of spells prepared.

Additionally, for most of the PHB wizards, the level 2 abilities tend to be weaker (with the notable exceptions of divination and evocation). Both bladedancers and war wizards get significant defensive buffs which while they have limitations are still strong abilities. I'd take either option over the conjurors summon item or necromancers very limited chance to get thp.

Granted this is a benefit at every level, i still think that since that research should be an available option it becomes a modest power boost but would actually feel like a class benefit and fit the fantasy of a specialist wizard.

Bladedancers getting the ability to attack and cantrip is a far larger power boost than this, but has still been seen as acceptable.

[Dork_Forge]

Some of this is supposed to already be built into game mechanics. That they already have the level 2 ability implies that they are intended to get additional spells through their time as a wizard. This takes that out of dm fiat (also known as something a dm has to remember to include or its wasted) and removes the odd anti-synergy with how wizards just level up. This shouldnt throw balance off (given that again it should be happening anyway), especially as the PHB wizards would still be limited to the same number of spells prepared.

Additionally, for most of the PHB wizards, the level 2 abilities tend to be weaker (with the notable exceptions of divination and evocation). Both bladedancers and war wizards get significant defensive buffs which while they have limitations are still strong abilities. I'd take either option over the conjurors summon item or necromancers very limited chance to get thp.

Granted this is a benefit at every level, i still think that since that research should be an available option it becomes a modest power boost but would actually feel like a class benefit and fit the fantasy of a specialist wizard.

Bladedancers getting the ability to attack and cantrip is a far larger power boost than this, but has still been seen as acceptable.

I don't see the whole learning additional spells thing as something that needs to happen by default, if they come across it as default loot great (and the standard in published adventures overly supports them) but I see it purely as a ribbon to support their downtime 'research.'

The prepared spells thing is somewhat a limit, but them being able to ritual cast off book already makes their prepared options pretty generous in comparison to other full casters.

I think ideally* I'd strip it to one free pick per level then the subclasses just get spells added to their book like Cleric domains (not prepared though). That gives the class theme without inflating the existing powerlevel

*Ideally I'd just rip out Arcane Recovery


For the Bladesinger new Extra Attack... I didn't realise it was 'accepted' favourably, my perception of the reaction was 'they really did this? Yeah I'll abuse that' 'This is a bit much' 'not at my table'

I fall into the last category.

[Mitchellnotes]

I don't see the whole learning additional spells thing as something that needs to happen by default, if they come across it as default loot great (and the standard in published adventures overly supports them) but I see it purely as a ribbon to support their downtime 'research.'

The prepared spells thing is somewhat a limit, but them being able to ritual cast off book already makes their prepared options pretty generous in comparison to other full casters.

I think ideally* I'd strip it to one free pick per level then the subclasses just get spells added to their book like Cleric domains (not prepared though). That gives the class theme without inflating the existing powerlevel

*Ideally I'd just rip out Arcane Recovery


For the Bladesinger new Extra Attack... I didn't realise it was 'accepted' favourably, my perception of the reaction was 'they really did this? Yeah I'll abuse that' 'This is a bit much' 'not at my table'

I fall into the last category.

I think i'm starting to see where the disagreement is coming from. I know we are starting to stray off topic a bit (but still in overall class design). I guess i don't see why when clerics and druids have access to their full lists why wizards would need to be so limited in their spell selection. Sorcs, bards, and locks have additional features to make up for their more limited lists, but wizards are all about their spells. Do you mind sharing if you feel the same about cleric and druid spell access, and if not, what the difference is?

[Dork_Forge]

I think i'm starting to see where the disagreement is coming from. I know we are starting to stray off topic a bit (but still in overall class design). I guess i don't see why when clerics and druids have access to their full lists why wizards would need to be so limited in their spell selection. Sorcs, bards, and locks have additional features to make up for their more limited lists, but wizards are all about their spells. Do you mind sharing if you feel the same about cleric and druid spell access, and if not, what the difference is?

They're designed entirely differently, whilst Clerics and Druids can choose from their entire list everyday they still use the same prepared formulat the Wizard does. The kicker is that if Clerics and Druids want to ritually cast anything it has to eat up their prepared spells.

The other half of the equation is the lists just aren't comprable, the Wizard list is huge and has basically whatever effects you want to create except healing/revival. If you just wiped the Wizard casting and made it literally the same it wouldn't be the same level of power.

I don't like that Wizards are all about their spells, I find the encouragement of spell spam and generalists utterly bland of identity whilst stepping on everyone else's toes. If Arcane Recovery was swapped out for something with actual character it'd solve a lot of my problem with Wizards, because suddenly they can't spam levelled spells to fix things. Instead endurance casting becomes the purview of the Land Druid, Sorcerer and if a longggg day a Warlock.

The other issues are technically fixable but won't happen:

-Wizards giving them basically all the spells when new stuff comes out

-Shrodinger's Wizard being a thorough annoyance, because 90% of the time someone says 'martial vs caster' it's 'subclassless Fighter vs an undefined but well equipped Wizard'

[Mitchellnotes]

They're designed entirely differently, whilst Clerics and Druids can choose from their entire list everyday they still use the same prepared formulat the Wizard does. The kicker is that if Clerics and Druids want to ritually cast anything it has to eat up their prepared spells.



I hear the issue of wanting more for wizards, but i guess i dont have concerns about wizards having larger access to their list, and i don't mind if they are a class focused more around their spell list. Esp given the much broader access other classes have.

Edit: what do you see the space for wizard being then if not the class focused on their spells and options? As you said, warlocks are endurance casters that have fewer tools but can use them more. Sorcerers have the more focused list that they can do more with through metamagic. Bards are a balance between spells, being able to pull specific tools from anywhere, and other strong features. Clerics are the closest mirror to wizard but their list isn't as expansive but they can choose anything on it. Druids are similar.

[Theodoxus]

Most Wizard want a lot of those spells anyway and you don't need to take a spell of that level. There's only Arcane Lock at 2nd level, but there's 6 1st level Abjuration spells. Whilst the spells aren't evenly distributed, there's enough of them that it shouldn't really be a problem.

Similar spell lists I don't really see as an issue either, the lists will still differ in the free choices they get and at the end of the day why shouldn't the lists of two Abjuration Wizards be very similar? They're both abjuration Wizards and they'll never be identical.

Talk about making boring subclasses. If Wizard subclasses all become 90% clones of each other? No thank you.

I get that the subclass choice shoehorns you a bit into at least similar roles, but say, a nuclear wizard with hexblade is going to play quite differently than a more traditional evoker, both in what spells they take and use on the regular, as well as actually wading into combat or staying as far back as they possibly can. Same with an Abjurer, say, a deep gnome who is constantly regenerating his Arcane Ward with at-will Nondetection and thus willing and happy to go toe to toe on the front line, compared to a High Elf, who is using his spells to ward his party or hinder his foes through controlling aspects and whose AW is really only threatened by the occasional ranged attack.

As for Diviner, am I the only one unfortunately enough to play with a jerk Wizard who loved to torment the party by giving low 20 rolls to teammates trying to make saves? No? Just me? cool. cool. cool.

[Dork_Forge]

Talk about making boring subclasses. If Wizard subclasses all become 90% clones of each other? No thank you.

I get that the subclass choice shoehorns you a bit into at least similar roles, but say, a nuclear wizard with hexblade is going to play quite differently than a more traditional evoker, both in what spells they take and use on the regular, as well as actually wading into combat or staying as far back as they possibly can. Same with an Abjurer, say, a deep gnome who is constantly regenerating his Arcane Ward with at-will Nondetection and thus willing and happy to go toe to toe on the front line, compared to a High Elf, who is using his spells to ward his party or hinder his foes through controlling aspects and whose AW is really only threatened by the occasional ranged attack.

As for Diviner, am I the only one unfortunately enough to play with a jerk Wizard who loved to torment the party by giving low 20 rolls to teammates trying to make saves? No? Just me? cool. cool. cool.

What you're talking about doesn't really have much to do with what I actually suggested. One's a multiclass and the other's a race+feat combo, all I suggested was restricting on of the two level up spells to the school they chose. That would make lists similar in that they'd largely be comprosed of what the Wizard is actually meant to be studying/focusing on, but still leaves a free spell pick every level for whatever customisation.

And... That sounds like a terrible party member, ouch

[Beelzebubba]

I dunno, I think the Wizard problem is just due to internet optimization rather than anything else. If you choose to pick a theme and run with it, they become unique.

I have a Divination Wizard that does almost no direct damage, and all his stuff is protection/support/utility. Stuff like 'Leomund's Tiny Hut' and Alarm for security. Counterspell/Dispel to foil enemy plans. Slow to debuff enemies. Levitate to get around obstacles. Polymorph for utility more than single-target removal. He's 90% reactive and spends his action on Dodge most combats.

I have a Gith War Wizard that's built around psionics. Mind Sliver, Cause Fear, Suggestion, Mind Spike, Phantasmal Force, and Clairvoyance are obvious. Erupting Earth and Hypnotic pattern for offensive crowd control. Intellect Fortress to protect the Barbarian against other casters. He has War Caster and enough tankiness to mix it up with his Greatsword and Booming Blade.

They play *completely* differently. They both pull their own weight, and are fun and effective.

Will theory-crafters necessarily approve? Nah. There's one 'best list' that happens when people only focus on only the top 5% of spells. Widening your selection to include spells that are situational, but more flavorful, then seeking out situations to use them is IMO a lot more fun.

[quindraco]

I dunno, I think the Wizard problem is just due to internet optimization rather than anything else. If you choose to pick a theme and run with it, they become unique.

I have a Divination Wizard that does almost no direct damage, and all his stuff is protection/support/utility. Stuff like 'Leomund's Tiny Hut' and Alarm for security. Counterspell/Dispel to foil enemy plans. Slow to debuff enemies. Levitate to get around obstacles. Polymorph for utility more than single-target removal. He's 90% reactive and spends his action on Dodge most combats.

I have a Gith War Wizard that's built around psionics. Mind Sliver, Cause Fear, Suggestion, Mind Spike, Phantasmal Force, and Clairvoyance are obvious. Erupting Earth and Hypnotic pattern for offensive crowd control. Intellect Fortress to protect the Barbarian against other casters. He has War Caster and enough tankiness to mix it up with his Greatsword and Booming Blade.

They play *completely* differently. They both pull their own weight, and are fun and effective.

Will theory-crafters necessarily approve? Nah. There's one 'best list' that happens when people only focus on only the top 5% of spells. Widening your selection to include spells that are situational, but more flavorful, then seeking out situations to use them is IMO a lot more fun.

I don't understand your point. Both of your wizards you described as having spells commonly considered top tier. For example, any wizard without Alarm in their spellbook needs to get on that ASAP. Polymorph is in the top 1% of spells, let alone top 5%. Where are the situational but flavorful spells you're arguing in favor of?

[Asmotherion]

Wild Magic Sorcerer.

Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.
Cast a spell. Roll a dice. Nothing happens in exchange for taking more table time.

Cast a spell. Roll a dice. SOMETHING HAPPENS! Your reward? Roll more dice, take more table time, squint at a chart, take more table time digging out the book, the effect happens, no one knows what's going on, DM starts to adjudicate the thing, more table time.

JUST CAST A FREAKIN' SPELL AND BE DONE WITH IT!

And that's the best case scenario, where the DM calls for it every time and doesn't just forget to tell you to roll for the entire campaign and rendering you pretty much without a subclass.
So either you don't have a subclass or you have one 5% of the time. And the payoff is so not freaking worth it.

Best. Subclass. Ever.

How often you roll is very DM dependant. It can be fun or boring depending on your DM. What I dislike however is how some WMS can actually kill you and your group. TPK by lolrandom is never fun at any table. So, yeah, I dislike this subclass, but for an entire different reason, and a couple flashbacks.

[Mitchellnotes]

I don't understand your point. Both of your wizards you described as having spells commonly considered top tier. For example, any wizard without Alarm in their spellbook needs to get on that ASAP. Polymorph is in the top 1% of spells, let alone top 5%. Where are the situational but flavorful spells you're arguing in favor of?

I agree, I don't think the answer to the problem that there are a lot of spells on the wizard list that don't see much use is in limiting spell selection further. The more selections are limited, the more it will push people to selecting stronger spells or more widely applicable spells, which is going to result in less variety between lists. This isn't limited to wizards (bards, sorcs, and warlocks experience it as well, but in different ways due to class features etc), but it is a bit more obvious with wizards given how large their spell list is. If I only had 1 general spell option per level on level up, I'd have a hard time choosing telekinesis over wall of force for a 5th level spell if neither of them was provided in another way. However, i would happily make use of telekinesis if I had it as an option.