Subclasses - Doubling Down vs Branching Out

[Segev]

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

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

That's where I get hung up on this.

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

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

[Zuras]

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

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

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

[Warlush]

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

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

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

[SLOTHRPG95]

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

That's where I get hung up on this.

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

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

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