What 5e subclasses do you think most or least fulfill their intended fantasy?

[Rfkannen]

All mechanics can be reflavored, but so far in 5e every subclass has been released with an intended fantasy it was made to fill out (the dead mage who summons the undead, the healing priest, the mage with uncontrollable magic, the person who made a pact with a devil, these are all popular archetypes in fantasy, and 5e has subclasses so players can make characters that fit those story archetyes). What subclasses do you think do the best job at fulfilling their fluff's intended fantasy?

This is not a question about how strong a subclass is, a subclass can be super strong in a way that doesn't make sense with its flavor, or a subclass could be super weak but still manage to feel like a weak version of what it is trying to be.

[Naanomi]

I mean... A little cliche probably, but beastmaster should be 'guy with a cool pet he forms a close bond with and grows together with in his adventures'... Instead he is either 'a guy with a critter he finds in the local area that probably dies and is easily replaceable' or 'some kind of spirit summoner'

[Gtdead]

Hmm, if I had to choose one from each class:

Fighter: Echo Knight (this is bizarre and unique and the mechanics really help sell the concept)
Rogue: Arcane Trickster (This is pretty much exactly what I expected. Not all features feel amazing, but the interaction with mage hand is well done)
Ranger: Gloomstalker (the features fit the concept perfectly)
Monk: Shadow (If he had a bit higher damage potential he would be the real deal ninja, moving through shadows, using stealth tactics etc)
Warlock: Genie (I actually didn't expect this one to be so well done, the vessel and wish really evoke the good old turban wearing genie that grants wishes)
Cleric: Tempest (I'm in love with the concept, although I wish I had access to certain spells. Black clouds appear, a humanoid silhouette takes flight while multiple lightning strikes happen all around. This is something that can be done mechanically and to a great effect. He is also the continuation of Stormlord, another favorite prestige class back in 3.5e)
Sorcerer: Aberrant (special mention to shadow, but Aberrant is really dark and flavorful. Also the mechanics: Subtle suggestion,geas and modify memory can feel like a horror movie when applied in social situations)
Artificer: Artillerist (Actually the main class brings most of the fluff, but artillerist seems a bit more artsy and crafty, not much to say here)
Bard: Eloquence (While eloquence feels the most vanilla conceptually, is the one that makes the most sense to me, however I have to say that I don't really get the Bard fluff)
Barbarian: Zealot (Divine fury unleashed. I really wanted to say Totem but it's just a bunch of passive boosts)
Paladin: Vengeance (Yes, no more boring Paladins. This is the real deal. I play them as Lawful Neutral and they are a mix of justice and righteous fury. The abilities themselves aren't very imaginative, but the complete package is very thematically appropriate, mostly thanks to the overly aggressive nature of features and spells)
Druid: Moon (I feel like the others don't really work well. A lot of passive boni and some twist on the shapeshift feature. Moon augments the most iconic feature and at least for a first few levels, it feels like a dangerous animal too, while the others want to turn into flies and compete with my familiar, special mention to Wildfire because he can do something interesting, but I feel that they could do a lot better)

Saved the best for last:
Wizard: Illusionist (This subclass has the most unique mechanics and they work perfectly thematically. He is the master of the intangible, he can do crazy things that are unique and illusory reality just seals the deal.)

[Jophiel]

Maybe a little more meta than you're looking for but my first thought for Least was "Thief". The subclass is obviously built to harken back to the old school Thief class and... it tries. But the real issue is that all the stuff* that used to be the sole domain of the Thief and the reason why you played the class -- hiding in shadows, climbing walls, picking locks, picking pockets, disarming traps, etc -- has been doled out to everyone and often other players are just better at it than the 5e Thief is because the Fighter has better Strength/Athletics for climbing or the Cleric has better Wisdom/Perception for detecting traps and so forth. There's no taking that back and so the 5e Thief subclass doesn't really so much feel like an old school Thief but rather shines a spotlight on how much they're NOT the masters of those things in modern D&D. I'd rather just play a different subclass and get all new tricks than get the ability to climb or hide a bit better, spread out over 17 levels.

*Excepting Backstab-turned-Sneak Attack which these days is what people mainly build around for their Rogues.

[Angelalex242]

Gotta say, I've always liked, in every edition, the Devotion Paladin/3.5e/2e/1e

I, in fact, do want to be the classic Knight of the Round Table.

[JellyPooga]

Maybe a little more meta than you're looking for but my first thought for Least was "Thief". The subclass is obviously built to harken back to the old school Thief class and... it tries. But the real issue is that all the stuff* that used to be the sole domain of the Thief and the reason why you played the class -- hiding in shadows, climbing walls, picking locks, picking pockets, disarming traps, etc -- has been doled out to everyone and often other players are just better at it than the 5e Thief is because the Fighter has better Strength/Athletics for climbing or the Cleric has better Wisdom/Perception for detecting traps and so forth. There's no taking that back and so the 5e Thief subclass doesn't really so much feel like an old school Thief but rather shines a spotlight on how much they're NOT the masters of those things in modern D&D. I'd rather just play a different subclass and get all new tricks than get the ability to climb or hide a bit better, spread out over 17 levels.

*Excepting Backstab-turned-Sneak Attack which these days is what people mainly build around for their Rogues.

Personally, I think the Thief subclass is a strong contender for being exactly what it aims to be. As you say, it hearkens back to the old-school Thief class, but also epitomises the "adventuring rogue" in a way that none can really match. Fast Hands offers a whole new dimension of gameplay that is otherwise often ignored as suboptimal compared to attacking or spellcasting i.e. the ability to use equipment and terrain to your advantage. No other Class or Subclass offers this kind of situational advantage that really nails in the concept of a character that is not reliant solely on their own abilities but of their equipment and environment. Only the Thief is activating traps, tipping tables, swinging from chandelier pulleys and otherwise interacting with the terrain because only the Thief has the ability to do so as a bonus action. Everyone else has to use their whole turn doing such thingd, so they miss out on doing whatever it is that makes them unique. For the Thief, they can still attack or cast a spell (if they have any e.g. from race, feats or multiclassing) while they also lockdown lines of assault, create difficult terrain, extinguish lights, pull down tapestries and otherwise buckle their swash in fantastic deeds of derring-do and canny tomfoolery.Even something as simple as attacking a foe and retreating behind a door, closing it behind you is something the Thief does better because they can lock the door too.

Anyone might be able to get an item out of their pack and use it within a single turn, but the Thief doing so still has thier Action left once they've done it; e.g. get out oil flask (free interaction), pour it all over the floor (bonus action), run (move) and throw a torch at the "fuse" they just made between the barrel of explosives and the safe location around the corner (action).

Yes, a Cleric might have good Wisdom and the Fighter good Strength, but the Thief Rogue not only surpasses them numerically with Expertise and Reliable Talent, as any Rogue might, but also qualitively with their ability to act on the results they get from these kind of checks. No Cleric can search for a trap and disarm it in the same turn. No Fighter is Grappling their foe and slapping them in irons before they get a chance to escape. Anyone might be able to steal the Macguffin from the clutches of the BBEG with a good Sleight of Hand check, but the Thief can shove them from the precipice once they've done it.

Use Magic Device is also absolutely in the wheelhouse of the mundane adventuring scoundrel. They're not some trickster or arcanist, no. The Thief just knows how to use a myriad of different things. Why? How? That's for the Thief to know and the Wizard to get frustrated about not knowing. The Thief steals not only objects, but ideas and knowledge of the practical use of these items, even though they have no innate knowledge of how the underlying principles function.

Reducing the Thief to "the ability to climb or hide a bit better" is missing the main focus of the subclass, which is as a master of being prepared for any situation, whether that be by having and being able to use a myriad of eclectic equipment and magic items, always the right tool for the job, or by being able to react to the circumstances and environment dynamically in the moment. If that's not what being a Thief is all about then I've been watching the wrong movies.

[Jophiel]

Personally, I think the Thief subclass is a strong contender for being exactly what it aims to be.

That's cool. Different opinions and all that. For me, having played 1e (and maybe you have as well; that's not a flex just a point of origin for my opinion), it feels like a warmed over substitute that just makes me think of how much the Thief has been watered down from its roots. Ironically, most of your examples are applications of Fast Hands which wasn't an old school Thief ability.

The Champion fighter feels like an old school fighter, the Life Cleric feels like an old school cleric and the Evoker feels like an old school blasty Magic-User. Thief just fails to capture that for me in a game where the Champion can outclimb and the Cleric can out detect and everyone can potentially pick locks. Yes, Expertise & Reliable Talent exist but they exist for all Rogue subclasses which goes back to "Might as well play a Rogue with new tricks rather than a warmed over 'classic' Thief". Anyway, I'll leave it at that since the thread's not "Debate the Thief subclass". It's not even a bad subclass, it just fails to capture the essence of the 70s/80s Thief class.

[Dork_Forge]

Maybe a little more meta than you're looking for but my first thought for Least was "Thief". The subclass is obviously built to harken back to the old school Thief class and... it tries. But the real issue is that all the stuff* that used to be the sole domain of the Thief and the reason why you played the class -- hiding in shadows, climbing walls, picking locks, picking pockets, disarming traps, etc -- has been doled out to everyone and often other players are just better at it than the 5e Thief is because the Fighter has better Strength/Athletics for climbing or the Cleric has better Wisdom/Perception for detecting traps and so forth. There's no taking that back and so the 5e Thief subclass doesn't really so much feel like an old school Thief but rather shines a spotlight on how much they're NOT the masters of those things in modern D&D. I'd rather just play a different subclass and get all new tricks than get the ability to climb or hide a bit better, spread out over 17 levels.

*Excepting Backstab-turned-Sneak Attack which these days is what people mainly build around for their Rogues.

I can see where you're coming from, but the skill checks largely rely on the various Expertises you choose. What the Thief actually gives you does make you better at being a Thief, they can pick locks and pockets as a bonus action, the Fighter might have a good Athletics check but they're still climbing at half speed and so on.

I think the main thing is that 'Thief' is certainly something you can build, but a lot of games don't lend themselves to constantly using Thief stuff.

[elyktsorb]

I think Moon Druid is probably the epitome of 'this subclass represents the generic druid fantasy' to a tee and is probably my pick for number 1 for that. Wildfire Druid is a pretty decent take on the Druid with an elemental/animal companion deal.

Subclasses that do it the least.. Well 4Elements Monk is pretty on the nose, I'm not sure anyone who's played one every feels like a master of the elements, considering you don't really use all of them.

Wild Magic Barbarian feels very not 'wild' really. Or Magic either tbh. Assassin wins at the 'it's not that I can't make you feel like an Assassin, but the other Rogue subclasses do a better job at it than me' award.

I'll add to the Thief discussion in that I've played a Thief rogue quite a bit (I'm playing one right now!) and I like the class, who else can stabilize a dying enemy and put manacles on them in the same turn? That said, the Thief subclass doesn't really scream 'Thief' to me, who I imagine to be more of a character who is good at stealing outright, and while some of it's skills can help with that, Arcane Trickster is probably better at that with Invisibility and Invisible Mage Hand.

[Bjarkmundur]

Now I've probably spent more time Daydreaming DnD than actually playing it, but these are the results of my fantasy fantasies:

I've played both Vengeance and Devotion Paladin, and they both REALLY draw you into the theme. I'm really looking forward to playing Oath of Heroism next :D

Sorcerers by their very nature are really fantastic. The fantasy of "I am the power, I am the surge" is such a great X-Men type fantasy. Even though I usually use some kind of Spell Point Homebrew, I think both the Divine Soul and Pheonix Origin really hit the mark.

Arcane Trickster, and to a lesser extent, the Eldritch Knight are really cool, and do what they're supposed to do really well. It's more about the image you have in your head rather how it plays. Eldritch Knight had such main-character vibes, and Arcane Trickster can really be the life of a party.

I've seen the Glamour bard played once, as a "Princess who's been locked in the tower all her life and is now catching up on all the experiences she missed." It fit the theme perfectly, and every single Spell and ability really reinforced the persona of the a chart who uses the emotions of her enemies to get what she wants.

Some honorable mentions are the entire Artificer and Barbarian class.

I've seen some characters completely fall flat of delivering, but I'm not sure if it was the fault of the class, the character or the player. I've never seen a warlock or monk that REALLY makes you feel like you're looking at a warlock or a monk...

There are some good ones that I don't have enough experience with to comment on, so don't think these are the ONLY characters that I've ever seen work.

[JellyPooga]

That's cool. Different opinions and all that. For me, having played 1e (and maybe you have as well; that's not a flex just a point of origin for my opinion), it feels like a warmed over substitute that just makes me think of how much the Thief has been watered down from its roots. Ironically, most of your examples are applications of Fast Hands which wasn't an old school Thief ability.

The Champion fighter feels like an old school fighter, the Life Cleric feels like an old school cleric and the Evoker feels like an old school blasty Magic-User. Thief just fails to capture that for me in a game where the Champion can outclimb and the Cleric can out detect and everyone can potentially pick locks. Yes, Expertise & Reliable Talent exist but they exist for all Rogue subclasses which goes back to "Might as well play a Rogue with new tricks rather than a warmed over 'classic' Thief". Anyway, I'll leave it at that since the thread's not "Debate the Thief subclass". It's not even a bad subclass, it just fails to capture the essence of the 70s/80s Thief class.

I'll agree that it doesn't do a good job of replicating the old school Thief Class in facsimile, but I think it captures the essence of it, i.e. of a Class that allows you to participate in an area of the game that other classes do not. In old school d&d that was climbing, hiding, and all the other thief skills (including using magic items...or was that 2e? I forget); other classes could do these things but they didn't because there were few, if any, rules for it and/or they weren't good at it. They weren't given the opportunity/permission to, so it just didn't happen.

In 5e, everyone can use skills but not everyone uses equipment or the environment for much the same reason as no-one in 1e tried sneaking or picking locks. The 5e Thief, however, is encouraged to explore this aspect of the game by making it permissive. "Go see what might happen when you think about the possibilities of this otherwise unexplored aspect of the game" is just as applicable to 1e Thief Skills as it is 5e Fast Hands and to a lesser degree UMD. That's what makes the Thief hit the target for me.

[Martin Greywolf]

Draconic sorcerer is... a disappointing one to me. It starts off pretty good, what with more resilience, but after that? I was expecting a turn into a dragon capstone, and I got fear aura that anyone that matters can pretty much ignore. Even the associated element is a letdown, you'd expect to be able to switch your spells to it, but no, it ionstead forces you to pick spells of a certain damage type to make it useful, with a class with very limited spell selection.

[Sneak Dog]

Barbarian is disappointing. They're just not very strong? A strength focused bard will surpass them in generic feats of strength.

Fighter battlemaster is kind of disappointing. They have a couple of tricks, but don't feel like an expert swordsman cutting their way through a battlefield, or being a master of a martial art able to pull off wacky moves as a result. It doesn't feel like a master of war nor combat.

Paladin is good though. Have appropriate auras representing your sheer inspirational presence aiding allies at your side. Smite your adversaries with divine justice. Variety of subclasses to pick your ideology.

[Psyren]

+1 to Thief feeling really unique to play. It's not the strongest rogue out there but you'll be doing stuff no other subclass will.

Most and Least for me are both Moon Druid. It's the quintessential druid fantasy for me, the primary spellcaster that can give up its spellcasting temporarily to transform and wade into melee (or scout ahead) but can benefit from spells it's already cast. But the CR scaling for beasts is all over the place, being utterly OP at low levels but almost negligible at high levels, and you end up just being a fat block of bonus hit points taking up space on the battlefield later on. Elemental forms are interesting but you're only ever to do that 1/short rest, and they scale weirdly too.

[Sception]

Most: conquest paladin. In a few simple class features and bonus spells it manages to completely change how the parent paladin class feels and plays in a way that brings the conqueror's thematic identity to life on the game table.

[Naanomi]

I don't feel great about Trickery clerics... I would want a cleric that is sneaky/tricky; but what we got doesn't really seem to fill any role particularly well (and doesn't give me the skills to be really sneaky myself in most cases)

[Sorinth]

That's cool. Different opinions and all that. For me, having played 1e (and maybe you have as well; that's not a flex just a point of origin for my opinion), it feels like a warmed over substitute that just makes me think of how much the Thief has been watered down from its roots. Ironically, most of your examples are applications of Fast Hands which wasn't an old school Thief ability.

The Champion fighter feels like an old school fighter, the Life Cleric feels like an old school cleric and the Evoker feels like an old school blasty Magic-User. Thief just fails to capture that for me in a game where the Champion can outclimb and the Cleric can out detect and everyone can potentially pick locks. Yes, Expertise & Reliable Talent exist but they exist for all Rogue subclasses which goes back to "Might as well play a Rogue with new tricks rather than a warmed over 'classic' Thief". Anyway, I'll leave it at that since the thread's not "Debate the Thief subclass". It's not even a bad subclass, it just fails to capture the essence of the 70s/80s Thief class.

But is that Champion subclass or is it the Fighter base class that gives that old school fighter feeling? Because I'm not sure which champion features are really providing that feeling. I do find Thief sort of fits the old school Thief fantasy but it's for sure doing it in a different way so I can see why you might find it off.

I find most subclasses do a pretty good job of fulfilling their intended fantasy so it's hard to really say one fulfills it more then the other. For those that fail I'd nominate 4E Monks. Perhaps it's not the absolute worst to fulfill the fantasy but like Beastmaster it's just so janky that it just doesn't work.

[Psyren]

I agree that Champion could use a bit more oomph but still keep its simplicity. The biggest offenders for me are Improved and Superior Critical - they're just not impactful enough for when you get them. I would get rid of IC entirely and reshuffle the others as follows:

• 3rd-level - Additional Fighting Style (Champions should be able to switch-hit or use the best weapons they find easily. This would also make Champion a more competitive dip compared to other Fighter subclasses, especially in feat-less games.)
• 7th-level - Remarkable Athlete
• 10th-level - Superior Critical 18-20
• 15th-level - {something new here - maybe another Fighting Style now that Tasha's added more, or maybe another ASI, or maybe a saving throw prof or two.}
• 18th-level - Survivor is fine, but I'd buff it from 5+Con to 10+Con per round. I'd also let this feature give you advantage on a Death Save some number of times per long rest.

[loki_ragnarock]

Least:
Peace Cleric. They make you better at hitting things.
They. Make. You. Better. At. Hitting. Things.
Peace Cleric. Hitting Things.

Twilight Cleric. A random assortment of grade A++ class features wrapped in the thinnest veneer of a theme that has no bearing whatever on those features. Less than the sum of it's radical parts.

Most wizards. Gaining a benefit of your subclass only in the instances where you *don't* pick your free spells from your spell school is a bit off putting.

Berserker Barbarian. Punished for using their subclass feature.

Beastmaster Ranger. Punished for taking their subclass.

Most:
Champion Fighter. He does what he says on the tin. He keeps it simple, clean, and efficient.

Eldritch Knight Fighter. She fights and casts spells. She, too, does what she says on the tin.

Valor Bard. You want the character that can do everything, well here's a subclass that lets you fight, too. This character is that character, without multi-classing; the ultimate generalist.

Lore Bard. They drink and know things. The bardiest bard.

Knowledge Cleric. They also drink and know things. Like it says on the tin. Features and spell list are a slam dunk for theme.

[Joe the Rat]

Cleric: Tempest (I'm in love with the concept, although I wish I had access to certain spells. Black clouds appear, a humanoid silhouette takes flight while multiple lightning strikes happen all around. This is something that can be done mechanically and to a great effect. He is also the continuation of Stormlord, another favorite prestige class back in 3.5e)

Good to see another Stormlord fan. A little more spell support would have been nice here, but it is probably the most evocative of the core in terms of impact. Nature Cleric is something of a fail - it's not quite druid-y enough in its layout. Life makes you a super-healer, but really comes across as Cleric Generic. Which I suppose means it fulfills the role of "Templar Font of Deific Might" without digging into any specific type.

Warlocks - I am split between the Genie and Celestial - both of these really change up the role and appearance of the Warlock - as well as elemental preferences. I think I'd favor Genie, as this really carries a clearer picture of who you work for. So long as you have your personal poké ball in hand, even the generic workhorse EB carries a little Patron flavor.
If there's a fail case, I'm nominating Hexblade. It does really well on the "Badass magic fighting guy" and "curse-maker extraordinaire," but it's badly muddled. Am I working for a Sword? Am I working for a (not defined in this edition) Dark Power? Am I the anti-Archfey? Is this really just the "Insert Patron of your choice because if you want to sword, this is the swording Patron, never mind the other baggage" option?

Fighter: the best and worst is Eldritch Knight. It does what it is supposed to do (be a Fighter with a little magic mixed in), but not what people expect (Heavy metal arcane caster). War Wizard and Bladesinger carry off that fantasy better (either as a high-defense mage, or a magic defense swordsman). But if you want to supplement your fighting with a splash of magic, it's pretty good.

Monk's Four Elements is definitely the breaker - you are a martial artist with elemental oomph, not someone who uses forms to spellcast. If you want to be Aang, you will be disappointed. If you come at it trying to be Scorpion or Rain, you'll fare far better.
Compare to Sun Soul - it's not the best, but it delivers on the promise of fire and light. If you want to be an elemental specialist, or are looking for laser fists and to change the color of your hair, this one fits many aspects.
For the subverted expectations prize, Drunken Master. It works exactly like you would expect Drunken Boxing to work, but drinking is not actually a component of the Tradition, which surprises and disappoints people.

[Jophiel]

But is that Champion subclass or is it the Fighter base class that gives that old school fighter feeling?

Fair question but I think that Champion at best complements the classic Fighter and, at worst, avoids tripping over the concept. So I consider it a success.

[H_H_F_F]

If there's a fail case, I'm nominating Hexblade. It does really well on the "Badass magic fighting guy" and "curse-maker extraordinaire," but it's badly muddled. Am I working for a Sword? Am I working for a (not defined in this edition) Dark Power? Am I the anti-Archfey? Is this really just the "Insert Patron of your choice because if you want to sword, this is the swording Patron, never mind the other baggage" option?

Hexblades can't get a break. In 3.5, they have a solid (IMO) thematic componnent, but utterly botched mechanics. In 5E, it's the other way around.

Either take some hexblade mechanics and make them into an improved pact of the blade any patron can give, or give people an interesting patron. Could have been something like a sword wraith, or a representation of a witch king of Angmar style entity. A hag would work well with the curse theme, as well as with a "made a deal asking to be the best warrior in the world and wim glory" theme. Instead, they went with "it's a weird sword from the shadowfell or something, I don't know".

Every other warlock subclass heavily leans on extremely mythologized patrons. I don't know why the hexblade deserve what they got.

[KorvinStarmast]

What subclasses do you think do the best job at fulfilling their fluff's intended fantasy?

Bard: Glamour, Whispers
Cleric: Life, Light, Arcana, Grave
Druid: Most of them
Barbarian: Zealot, Totem Warrior
Fighter: Cavalier, Battle Master (Have not played Rune Knight, so don't know) (But with mounted combat only modestly supported, Cavalier is maybe a stretch)
Monk: Open Hand, Mercy, Shadow
Sorcerer: Draconic Origin, Divine Soul, Shadow
Paladin: Devotion, Ancients, Crown
Warlock: Any Tome 'Lock. (Special nod to GOO)
Wizard: Evoker, Transmuter
Ranger: Hunter and Gloom Stalker
Rogue: Thief, Arcane Trickster, Swashbuckler (SCAG version)
Artificer: none of them.

A note about Wild Magic Sorcerers. The concept is great, the implementation unfortunate.

[LudicSavant]

Examples of great fantasy fulfillment:
- Diviner. Portent lets you predict a result before it happens and plan accordingly. "This is the moment in my visions! Act now and you will succeed! I have foreseen it!" The "matryoshka doll spell slots" really encourages people to use their divinations on the regular instead of being too afraid "in case they need the slot for Fireball." It also leads to some pretty different playstyle opportunities overall.

In fact, the potential fantasy fulfillment here is what originally made me decide to purchase 5th edition as I was browsing through it at the shop, skeptical after my experience with 4th. If I had instead read the Beastmaster, I might not be here today.

- Evoker. Overchannel captures that Megumin energy of throwing all your power into the biggest explosion you can heedless of the consequences to your own body. And Sculpted Spell takes away the hesitation to use your big explosions, because hitting allies is no longer a concern. Evoker also does more than most Wizard subclasses to alter the effectiveness of a generic color-rating list of spells (for example, stuff like Dawn goes from red to blue), and allows you to access fundamentally different control strategies than would otherwise be possible (like Sculpted Sickening Radiance or Sculpted Wall of Stone), capturing not only the "explosion wizard" fantasy but also the tactical war mage (better than the actual War Mage subclass, I'd say). Evocation is not only the school of blasts, but the school of walls, too.

- Paladins.
The oath rework was a fantastic step out of the dark ages for the Paladin, opening it up to a wider variety of fantasies. What's more, it did a good job of capitalizing on many of them mechanically. The way smites work capture the feel of saving up all of your righteous feelings for that decisive blow against the Big Bad. The aura makes you feel like a protector, always staying close at hand to save your allies. The summoned steed is one of the more functional minions in 5e, able to actually act in a reasonable fashion (in stark contrast to, say, the Beastmaster's minion).

- Zealot Barbarian.
You throw yourself heedlessly into danger to terrorize your foes, knowing that your god will raise you to fight again. Works pretty much exactly like people seem to expect it to.

- Life Cleric
This dramatically improves your ability to heal, to a point that it transforms the playstyle. Often you will hear that Clerics shouldn't heal in combat much, that they can't keep up with damage. Well, the Life Cleric really can, and damn well.

Examples of poor fantasy fulfillment:
- Both core Rangers, but the Beastmaster especially. Not only does feel it soulless, phoned in, and generic, but your dog can't even do basic dog things. Hey, your master went unconscious, what does Lassie do? Go tell someone that you fell down a well? Maybe feed you a potion like the rescue St. Bernards of legend? Maybe get angry and attack the one who hurt their master?

Nope, they sit there and Dodge, spinning in circles as if you just dropped the controller for a remote control robot. That's unacceptable for a living creature who's your friend and companion in a goddamn roleplaying game. Heck, it'd be unacceptable for a half-baked AI buddy in a video game made 15 years ago, let alone today.

You come in wanting to be Lyon the Beast King, high fantasy beastmaster. But you can't even make a pass at the low fantasy cop with a dog Houndmaster in Darkest Dungeon. Ugh.

- Four Elements Monk: This is pretty obviously supposed to be a bender, and wow does it not even come close to fulfilling that fantasy. You have altogether too few abilities to be particularly adaptable with any one element, let alone all four like the Avatar. You only have a couple of spells, period, over your entire progression. And even this small allotment of tricks is reserved for special occasions, since your default uses of ki will still be better in some situations.

- Many of the Druids. It's not nearly as bad as the Ranger, mind, but it's still bad enough that... well I think one big poll thread a while back kinda highlighted the issue for me. In said thread, people rated classes by power, and then rated again by how much they liked the class. Druid was pretty much the only one that rated near the top on power, but near the bottom on enjoyment. (For other classes, they was a soft correlation between perceived power and enjoyment in the polls).

Why is this? Well, let's take a look at some of the Druid's best tools. The Conjure X line gets a lot of hate, and I'd say it's well deserved, not just for any balance issues, but also for its theme. Summoners don't wanna just go "Hey, whatever swarm of 8 DM-determined creatures are listening, help me!" They wanna go "Pikachu, I choose you!" or "I howl to call up my trusted wolf pack" or "Yes, I start riding a tyrannosaurus." Moreover, the "DM chooses the creatures" aspect makes the success or failure of using your spells feel less like your accomplishment and more like the DM simply deciding if you win or lose.

What about Spike Growth? It too is quite powerful, but it's powerful in a way that feels a little weird, and really taking advantage of it (by dragging people back and forth at high speeds) feels a bit like an exploit.

Goodberry spam? Again, the best way to use it is kinda janky -- hedging your spell slots from a previous day. It also is infamous for ruining wilderness survival games, which is a kind of game that the kind of people with Druid fantasies often want to play.

What about a Moon Druid's Wild Shape? Well, it works... alright, but it could definitely be better executed in terms of fantasy fulfillment. It puts too much focus on being an HP sponge. It also rewards you mechanically for staying in hp sponge forms between fights (you can even short rest as them!) in order to maximize resources, and that's kind of against how transformer druids work in a lot of fantasy stories, who tend to switch back out of their combat form when the fighting's done. Not only that, but actually staying in bear form for hours makes a player not talk, in a roleplaying game. Yeah, communicating in bear can be a cute gimmick... but not for long.

Land Druids just have a slightly adjusted spell list and that's it in terms of connecting to their chosen domain. I dunno about you, but I think a Coast Druid could have more to it than being a normal druid with Natural Recovery and Misty Step added to their list.

Mind, again, these cases aren't nearly as bad as what was done with the Ranger, but I think there's definitely room for improvement here.

- Bladesinger (pre-Tasha's): People would often point out that this class works just as well if you don't get into melee at all. It had a lot of abilities that just made you a generically better caster, and the Extra Attack didn't synergize with the new melee cantrips that were supposedly made for them. The Tasha's one on the other hand is quite possibly overtuned, but at least gives you some more concrete encouragement to actually jump into melee and start using Booming Blade on things.

The Hexblade has a somewhat similar issue -- it makes a very competent weapon-wielding gish and is capable of fulfilling that fantasy well enough... but it could just as easily ignore that and just be a generically superior Eldritch Blaster. Why?

Least:
Peace Cleric. They make you better at hitting things.
They. Make. You. Better. At. Hitting. Things.
Peace Cleric. Hitting Things.

They even make particularly excellent Necromancers, better than Grave or Death. There was a whole thread about that a while back. And some folks posted some builds related to that notion on the Eclectic thread, too.

Rest in Peace clerics?

[dafrca]

I have not seen Eldritch Knight in this thread so I am asking, what is the consensus?

Or is it so "blah" it is neither good or bad at fulfilling its stated role?

[Willie the Duck]

I have not seen Eldritch Knight in this thread so I am asking, what is the consensus?

Or is it so "blah" it is neither good or bad at fulfilling its stated role?

Arcane Trickster, and to a lesser extent, the Eldritch Knight are really cool, and do what they're supposed to do really well. It's more about the image you have in your head rather how it plays. Eldritch Knight had such main-character vibes, and Arcane Trickster can really be the life of a party.

Least:
Eldritch Knight Fighter. She fights and casts spells. She, too, does what she says on the tin.

Fighter: the best and worst is Eldritch Knight. It does what it is supposed to do (be a Fighter with a little magic mixed in), but not what people expect (Heavy metal arcane caster). War Wizard and Bladesinger carry off that fantasy better (either as a high-defense mage, or a magic defense swordsman). But if you want to supplement your fighting with a splash of magic, it's pretty good.

Personal opinion -- it captures the concept Fighter-Mage* fairly well, it's just that that concept, as a whole, is a little underwhelming. I am distinguishing the concept from other Gish concepts where the casting is a little more directly integrated into the fighting (such as self-buffers like 3e CoDzilla or 5e hexblades with AoA or the like), using spells or spell currency through your attacks (3e Duskblade or 5e Paladin) or where you spend many rounds casting and fighting fluidly together (perhaps a 5e sorcadin with quickened spell). Instead, this character mostly either spends the round fighting, or casting, but not both**. For being able to do either to be balanced, neither can be too close to full strength (as good at it as someone without the option to do the other), yet because each round you are only doing one, it can tend to feel a little underwhelming. This has been a needle the game has been trying to thread for nearly a half-century. Honestly, I think the concept would have been better served with an arcane half-caster in the paladin-ranger model, if for no other reason than because players could live their power fantasy of having a guy who swings a sword or throws a fireball sometime in the levels most groups routinely play. That said, the class certainly isn't horrifically underbalanced (or worse yet, not do what it seems is the intended fantasy, like the penalized-for-your-archetype ones) -- offering up some unique abilities one might want even if the base concept wasn't your #1 priority (i.e. you might simply want to play a fighter, and pick EK because it does what you want).
*I'm choosing this term to represent this concept, which is arbitrary, but I feel in-keeping since I think the EK is meant to evoke the concept of the AD&D Fighter-Magic User
**excepting some combat-cantrips-while-attacking, which is nice and all but doesn't fundamentally change playstyle most of the time

[Saelethil]

I have not seen Eldritch Knight in this thread so I am asking, what is the consensus?

Or is it so "blah" it is neither good or bad at fulfilling its stated role?

I think it pretty much does what it says it does, a Fighter with a bit of magic to supplement their fighting, it’s just that a lot of people expect them to be slinging more spells, at which point Bladesinger is probably a better fit as a caster that supplements with fighting.

[Dienekes]

Some of the least:

Swashbuckler Rogue. Is the highest of the least. It's a good subclass, and it does half of what I expect a Swashbuckler to do. It's movement options are great, and Panache is a type of ability I had hoped we'd see so much more of in the game than we actually do. But... it's a swashbuckler. It's a fighting style that is defined in media by making numerous incredibly quick attacks, and it got put on the class that only makes one massive damage attack per round. It just doesn't fit. Yes, I know I can just imagine that I'm making multiple attacks or whatever nonsense. It's mechanics still do not fit what I expect to be doing when sitting down and playing a Swashbuckler.

Mastermind Rogue and Purple Dragon Knight. I put them together because they're both attempts to make a clearly mundane support/debuff character but again they're shackled onto classes that are almost entirely focused on attacking every round in combat. Scrap them both and make the Warlord class already so we can get the right chassis to make these kind of characters.

Frenzied Berserker. I think I get what they're trying to do. The Trump Card ability that you use only as your last resort. Something both awesome and terrible, an ability that will make every other player at the table hush when you say you're using it and ask "Are you sure?" That kind of thing has a lot of narrative weight, and it can be awesome. Frenzy, is not that ability. It is at the same time to weak to be such a finisher, and the penalty just not big enough and simply annoying to use. And even if it was perfectly designed to fit the role I described, then it should not be the central ability of the subclass. That thing is a Ribbon at best. Something that should only come up a handful of times per campaign, not something you math out to see if it's useful to use in this specific combat.

Four Elements Monk. Sold as "play Avatar in your D&D." It is very bad at that. You'd expect, like, your normal attacks to be able to shoot out some fire or water or whatever. Or at least have unique and interesting mechanics to get the elements to really flow from you being a monk. But no. It's just cast some spells. And unlike Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight you don't get a new pool of resources to use the spells, so it's fighting even harder with the stuff your class was supposed to be doing.

Beastmaster. Some of the above I don't understand how they got there. But I feel for WotC on this one. Trying to balance the action economy fairly is difficult. Trying to do that when one player has two characters is harder. Having to do that in such a way where the second character feels like a pet and not some brain dead zombie is even more difficult. And trying to do it all with the handful of levels you have in a subclass while trying to keep it tied to a class that has to stand on its own without a pet at all is darn near impossible.

Cavalier. It's theoretically the subclass for those who wish to play a knight. It is remarkably bad at being a knight. No defensive options, doesn't even have a benefit for charging into combat until 15 and a fair few abilities that ask you to instead stay put. Honestly, remove Born to the Saddle, replace it with something about Perception or Insight rename it the Bodyguard and call it a day.

[Psyren]

I have not seen Eldritch Knight in this thread so I am asking, what is the consensus?

Or is it so "blah" it is neither good or bad at fulfilling its stated role?

I think it started "blah" but has steadily gotten better with more material, like BB/GFB.

[LudicSavant]

Adding to my previous list:

Mastermind Rogue. The level 17 ability is something they desperately need early on in order to actually be pulling elaborate mastermind schemes and cons in a high magic world... because of pesky level 2 spells reading their minds. But they get a passable counter to a 2nd level spell at... level 17. Ugh. And by level 17, they need abilities appropriate to dealing with that higher level world of Tippyverse intrigues, and just don't.

Insightful Manipulator (the level 9 ability) is a redux of the terrible Battlemaster ability, and just like the Battlemaster's ability it's extremely stingy and finicky with information compared to its competition. It struggles to be considered a third rate information gathering ability, let alone second rate. And the Mastermind should be first rate.

Master of Tactics starts out... okay, but doesn't scale well, especially since it's competing with the Rogue's wealth of native bonus actions.

For the Mastermind Rogue, the abilities are too little, too late... if they ever come. It's just altogether too sparse at what it does, especially considering the incredible wealth of inspiration for this archetype in fiction. Where are all those cool abilities from fiction?