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

[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.