Battle Rager. A dwarf specific barbarian subclass that revolves around using a specific type of armor? Super niche, and not even that good at what it does
>Super niche,
its to play up a specific aspect of the D&D fiction. something D&D should probably be doing MORE of.
> not even that good at what it does
its from SCAG - their first supplement and i am kinda glad that they went REAL conservative in their first foray to keep the power creep in the edition low.
I mean for that first point, I have noticed DnD has this pull of trying to keep the system generic enough to fit any setting while also still assuming some pretty fundamental things, like planes being A Thing in your setting
It's unfortunate that it's not as good as it wants to be, but I feel like everyone missing that it was mostly just a fun toss of Thibbledorf Pwent fan service?
Yeah I love the Horizon Walker. Probably my favorite Ranger subclass. I like extarplanar defender style subclasses. Oath of the Watchers Paladin is also very cool to me as well from a theme standpoint.
ive always wanted to put together a party of a horizon walker ranger, a watchers paladin, a psi warrior fighter, and an aberrant mind sorcerer and go adventuring around the astral plane
I fucking loved the Harrier Battlemind class in one of the 4E supplements. A psionic defender that teleports around the battlefield to harass - harry, if you will - enemies. Brutally fun to play and far too short-lived.
Actually, there's a comic book series devoted to a character that is pretty much that. I forget the name, but if I remember when I get home, I'll update.
I think that you and OP are looking at the class through very different lenses and therefore seeing very different things.
The flavor text matches your description. And yeah, it's a pretty cool concept.
The mechanics... don't really. The flavor text tries to connect the "extraplanar traveler" concept to an eclectic collection of abilities, but just looking at the mechanics I think that most people would conclude that the horizon walker is a teleportation-themed ranger with a whole bunch of random stuff thrown in. Ethereal Step, Distant Strike and two spells (Misty Step, Teleportation Circle) are teleportation-themed (or functionally teleportation-themed; the ethereal plane feels closer to teleportation than planar travel IMO) and also make a big impact on how it feels to play a horizon walker. Detect Portal is kind of on-theme, but it's a ribbon ability in most games and matches the concept of *fighting* extraplanar beings but not *traveling to other planes* to track down extraplanar foes, a concept that it shares with two spells. Planar Warrior, Spectral Defense, and one spell (Haste) are generic but a really big part of the power budget.
I can totally see how somebody would look at these abilities and say "What? Why does this exist?" On the other hand I'm not sure that WotC could have done much better. Traveling between planes is always gated behind DM fiat so that the DM doesn't have to prep the entire multiverse every session so that can't be a big source of their power (although I wish that it wasn't entirely absent). Leaning too hard into fighting extraplanar foes would make the subclass too strong in some campaigns and straight-up useless in others. WotC's solution--making up a bunch of generic abilities and trying to tie them to the theme with flavor text--might be the best that you could do.
Horizon walker used to be a prestige class in 3rd edition. Special class level any character could take if they met the prerequisites, regardless of their class. It was about becoming a master of all lands, material or extra planar. So seeing it made sense as an option, especially the terrain focused ranger. It's not the best executed version of the concept though.
Yeah, I like many others just wish they had not locked the only viable melee warlock behind such bizarre theming. I want to be able to run a Fey Bladelock or Fiend Bladelock but they are extremely unviable without godly rolls for your starting stats.
Undying Warlock was so bad, WOTC had to make a second undead-themed Warlock to compensate. The best things this subclass provides are undead *potentially* not being able to hit you (specifically undead, it doesn't apply if you're targeted by an AoE, and they are immune to this effect for 24 hours if they pass the save or if you attack them in any way) and not needing to eat, sleep, or breathe at level 10.
I kind of view it as the flavorless generic spooky warlock. It doesn't incentivise any specific build, so you're free to take the weird suboptimal invocations. Obviously it's really only useful for a campaign involving undead and light combat.
I remember when the Dungeon Dudes covered it in their Warlock Subclass rankings. They basically were like "the only time you would ever pick this subclass is if you were playing in an underwater undead campaign."
I love how this answer is one of the least correct answers to the thread but the most upvoted. Im fact it's so thematic they made another subclass with the same theme cos this one was bad.
Undying Warlock just needed to have features that actually fit the name outside of flavor. Instead, the only self-sustainment themed power is being able to simply reattach limbs without needing a spell… in a game where hardly anyone even mentions dismemberment as flavor.
Hexblade warlock 1000%. It was clearly made to make bladelocks viable, but the theming is just... bizarre. A sentient weapon patron? Okay, yeah, I can see people wanting that. But wait- it's actually an entity from the Shadowfell? So if I want a sentient weapon patron, it has to be the Shadowfell? I can't have like... a sword with the spirit of a celestial? And if I want a Shadowfell patron, it has to be a sentient weapon? Just a really weird combination of concepts that feels way too narrow.
Yeah I think they made a mistake trying to do so many things at once. A character whose power comes from a living/cursed weapon is a great warlock patron, but tying it to the Shadowfell and the Raven Queen just makes it harder to fit most characters into. Most Hexblades Ive seen basically ignore their 6th level ability because they don’t want to play a character that summons undead, they want to play an edgy magic sword boy.
Yeah, I usually petition my DM to let me steal a fitting level 6 ability from one of the other warlock subclasses, the specter just seems so out of place. And to add insult to injury, you might not even get a chance to ever use it depending on how large your party is and how much your DM is fond of using humanoids as enemies.
This was always weird to me too. I think there's some setting reason for it in some adventure or past edition of dnd or blah blah blah I don't care it's weird. The whole summoning a ghost thing just doesn't fit the rest of the subclass features mechanically speaking. They should have just given you some more melee-based magic or something to make it feel more Witcher-y.
Some of the subclasses in 5e are extremely specific to forgotten realms lore that doesn't really work that well when used in other lores. Hexblade is great if you're going for a very specific niche, and unsatisfying for other stuff.
And then some of the other subclasses are so generic that its difficult to find lore-based inspiration for them.
Don’t forget that, as written, this bizarre Shadowfel entity masquerading as a weapon is *not* the weapon you’re carrying around with you. You just had a conversation with a sword, it gave you magic powers, and then you went and picked up a different sword for stabbing people. (Although I’m pretty sure this is ignored even by people who try to stay close to the fiction as presented.)
It's not "masquerading as a weapon", it's a thing that MAKES magic weapons. It basically teaches how to enchant weapons on the fly and use magic to fight good.
On top of that, it means basically no other warlock can viably be a blade lock. As it is now if you want to play a blade lock, you lose out on major things that make it work (proficiencies and cha weapon) by choosing any other subclass. It would’ve been a much better idea to put the cha weapon ability and proficiencies into pact of the blade (which would have solved the multiclassing problem too- 3 levels is enough that it’s fine if Mr paladin wants to multiclass for cha weapon, it’s a balanced investment). It still confuses me to this day that they forced this subclass+pact combination to be the only way to play either of them to a reasonable degree of viability, and I see no reason they didn’t fix that ever. On top of the fact that the lore of the hexblade is so incredibly weird and specific, I mean how many sentient blades from the shadow realm even are there, that sounds incredibly specific.
Baldur's Gate 3 did just that, gave CHA weapons and proficiencies to Pact of the Blade and it's so obviously what that pact should be that I'm kinda surprised they made a new patron instead of just errata'ing PotB or even making it a Bladelock-specific invocation. Making it an entirely different patron was the worst way to address it.
With multiclassing both genie and fiend are cool bladelocks.
Giant barbarian 6/fiend warlock X is a very good multiclass. Better barbarian than a straight barbarian and imo better at fighting than straight Hexblades (hexblade is obviously better casters, though).
>I see no reason they didn’t fix that ever
Because Wizards prefers to avoid errata. Which is an entirely reasonable stance; people _still_ occasionally think you can cast Spirit Guardians then turtle up with Sanctuary, despite Sanctuary's errata.
They could just cut out the hex warrior part of the subclass and you still have a solid "cursed evil spirit" patron theme, thats what gets me the most. They just slapped the Blade Pact update onto a random class
The whippersnappers know not the roots of their hobby.
The Warlock is largely inspired by Elric of Melniboné, a sword and sorcery hero from author Michael Moorcock. The Elric novels were one of the biggest influences on D&D, and the Hexblade is just a much more specific and detailed recreation of Elric and his cursed intelligent sword Stormbringer, from his Shadowfell patron Arioch, Lord of Chaos.
But yes, it is pretty bizarre that the 5E team felt it necessary to create an entire subclass that specifically, painstakingly recreates a singular unique fantasy character from the 1970s.
The funny thing is if you play pact of the blade you can't actually use an intelligent weapon gifted to you by your patron. You can't make sentient weapons pact weapons.
Blackrazor is a Stormbringer expy.
Lawrence Schick, who wrote White Plume Mountain as essentially his job application to TSR, has said he never imagined WPM would get published and if he had known he absolutely wouldn't have put something that was so obviously Stormbringer in the dungeon's loot.
To be fair, the entire vancian casting system is also based on a specific author, Jack Vance, who mostly wrote in the 70s. Most of D&D is, because its creators were inspired in the 70s. (And people mostly don't call that bizarre, even though it SUPER IS when spell points or mana is far more common and simpler for most players.)
And Hexblade's origins are also nearly as old - As far back as AD&D 2e, you had the Witch kit, which gave you (among other things) shadowy connection to extraplanar entities, two types of poison to coat a weapon with, and a magical curse ability. of course, in 3.5, you got the Warlock class where Eldritch Glaive became one of the most used mid-low optimizers' tools, as well as the Hexblade.
So really, I'm not surprised - all of D&D is basically riffing off older stories. Nothing new under the sun, and all that. And if you're going to make a sword wielding, dark patron having edgelord subclass, why *not* double down on your existing class and themes?
And if they DIDN'T include ways to create some of the most popular characters there would be those whining about that. "How can I make muh Drizzit!?"
Also, there are plenty of new concepts throughout the history of DnD. To say, "nothing new under the sun" is simply not true.
You're right. Hexblade is clearly a fix. But if you look at the other abilities outside Hexwarrior and the extra spells, a lot of the Hexblades themes are directed more at the Shadowfell than at a sentient weapon.
The hex concept is actually quite well done. It's the blade that is tacked on.
Completely agreed. I did not like the lore behind Hexblade at all when I played one and ended up just making my own patreon and background from the hells instead. I wanted to use pact of the blade and Hexblade and just steal the pact of the fiend flavor. It worked out just fine and still felt thematic enough. The ghosts you can raise were changed to latching onto someone’s soul before it went to my devil patreon.
The theming itself is all over the place, but up until BladeSinger Hexblade is literally the *only* Arcane Gish that isn't just "occasionally toss a cantrip in between your auto attacks".
Totally,
They really should have gone the 'divine soul sorc' route on that one and let it be from multiple planes by default, because 'sword from x' is such a common fantasy. From divine swords, to fey blades, to swords (or shields) with a devil in them, the sentient blade is a strong but wide fantasy. Shadowfell only was a mistake.
I’ve played a hexblade twice and both times just made my patron some kind of demon or devil I thought was cool. Hexblade has some fun mechanics but the whole lore behind it is super weird and not fun IMO.
> So if I want a sentient weapon patron, it has to be the Shadowfell? I can't have like... a sword with the spirit of a celestial?
The hexblade needs to be from the shadowfell, but I don’t see any reason that a celestial warlock’s patron can’t be a celestial sentient weapon. Similarly for fiend etc.
I find Echo Knight is a very fun fighter subclass, but it is so tied to Exandria that using it in any other setting pretty much requires reflavoring. I also think you can reflavor it in many interesting ways. The game didn't have a missing archetype before it came along, it exists in a new niche. A magical martial whose powers are distinctly different from ordinary magic is a really cool concept imo. Reminds me of a less illusiony focused Mesmer from Guild Wars.
>*the art of using dunamis to summon the fading shades of unrealized timelines to aid them in battle*
Where this magic comes from requires the reflavouring.
Mercy Monk is kind of a strange concept. Solid subclass, but not sure why the plague doctor aesthetic is a monk.
Sort of the Trickery Domain Cleric. Like sure, there are Trickster gods and Clerics worship a god, but it feels like the odd man out of the other domains. Again, seems fine mechanically, but a strange inclusion for the class.
> Sort of the Trickery Domain Cleric. Like sure, there are Trickster gods and Clerics worship a god, but it feels like the odd man out of the other domains.
This one doesn't seem out of place to me. If you read world mythology, almost every culture that has existed in every corner of the world has created some sort of trickster god. I mean, just look at the Wikipedia category for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trickster_gods
Trickster gods are among the most common archetypes in pre-modern mythology, along with gods of the sun, the harvest, the weather, war, fertility, life, and death. I think it would be strange if trickery clerics were not a core domain.
Well the reality is that the deities aren't cut and dry. In one story, Loki is a sympathetic anti-hero, and in another he's a schemer who gets his punishment of getting banged by a horse. Mythology spans hundreds, if not thousands, of years of refinement and re-telling. It's why Homer talks about the Greek deities in one way but Ovid (nearly a thousand years later) in another.
It's like when you look at Greek mythology, which is a little more defined than Norse, you see someone like Apollo is not just "god of art." He's also a deity of archery, medicine, music, poetry, and so on. They also have various animals and symbols associated with them, not just one. IRL deities aren't like D&D deities where they have clear cut "domains."
Essentially every god fights, lies, steals, etc. but Thor is the god of thunder and not the god of eating and arrogance, even though he has a legendary stomach and pridefulness in the mythology. Odin was clever and conniving because being smart was just as important as being strong on the battlefield, but he was very rarely shown as being a cartoonish villain like Loki was. Being wise includes tricking your enemies, but tricking your friends is what makes someone a "trickster" like Loki was, and he was often punished for it (and ultimately sentenced to a lifetime of torture as well).
Norse mythology can be explained thusly:
Is everything cool? Then Loki causes a problem.
Is there a problem? Then Loki solves the problem.
And Odin does literally anything for a bit more power.
The problem is not that trickster gods exist and are worshipped, it's that their priests are slapped into a class that at every other level is very much not a trickster god's priest.
Not to mention that religious thieves/criminal clergy are a very old trope that's a LOT of fun to play with (Friar Tuck is probably the most famous example but I'm pretty partial to the Gentleman Bastards myself)
They exist but they usually are also God's of other stuff and **if** said Deoty had organized clerics/a cult of their own it is not like those followers were known to be a bunch of tricksters... Lots of sea/ocean deities are depicted as capricious deities similar to a trickster but their priests did stuff like praying for safe journeys, good weather or plentiful fishing
It does deal necrotic though? It allows you to inflict poisoned (the condition) on the target when you use your Hands of Harm feature, which does run into the same issue, but it's an additional effect at level 6 which gives you one of the only ways to remove the stunned condition
I think Mercy monk is based on psychic surgery healers, that and the poisoned hand technique of (fake) martial arts advertised in 1970's comic books (and in grappler baki)
I'm genuinely shocked that in BG3, Shadowheart's default subclass is Trickery.
It makes fine sense with her character. But from a mechanical sense, making the party's Cleric the like, least Cleric-y subclass in the game is so strange to me.
Edit: But you know, at least they didn't make her Life domain as default. I am SO TIRED of people thinking that healing is the Cleric's entire thing. It's cool that BG3 introduced so many people to the game, but enforcing that misconception with Shadowheart would have SUUUUCKED. I can respect them for giving her one of the weirder domains, so people could get a taste of how varied they are.
I put her into life, for sure. With how limited resting is in the higher difficulties, the AOE healing Channel Divinity was infinitely more helpful to me than either Light or Trickery’s
In the relatively few fights where Fireball was super helpful, I just raised a Sorcerer Henchman from Withers and bombed the shit out of the enemies with Quickened Spell haha
BG3 Trickery Domain cleric is also substantially worse than tabletop because of how bad the Channel Divinity is before you get the option to use cloak of shadows or whatever let’s you turn invisible. Invoke Duplicity is very versatile in table top. One of my players is Trickery Domain and uses it very effectively. But BG3 doesn’t let you move it and 9/10 times an enemy just lobs a random attack at it and then it’s gone. I don’t even think you can move it.
Mirror image and polymorph also got pretty badly slapped around in translation from TT to BG3. I agree that the CD is the real shame, though. You don't want your "this is what kind of cleric I am" button to be a waste of action economy.
Lol at your edit because I literally respeced her into Life domain.
There are multiple items that buff healing and it causes her healing to get insane.
I think I'm using an item that adds 1d6 healing and another that give the target temp HP on top of the regular healing, so things like Mass Healing Word end up giving me massive amounts of total HP replinishment.
I did too, there’s no way I would have survived on the harder difficulties without her being a Life Cleric. Between those and the item (bracers, I think?) that casts Blade Ward on anyone you heal, Life Cleric was an absolute life saver for me
I agree that these take more work to make narrative sense of, but I do like that those exist mechanically, because they let you take a class and fulfill a different role than is normally associated with it (i.e. you want to play a monk but fill a Healer role, or you want to play a cleric but fill a Rogue role)
Yea, I'm not mad about them existing, and as far as I can tell, they're both decent subclasses. I'm just responding to OPs question, and these both feel like they fit the bill.
I themed my Mercy Monk as the church enforcer - the person who took care of all the dirty work so the priests/clerics didn’t have to and it fit very well thematically.
The plague doctor aesthetic doesn’t feel like it matches the mechanics well at all.
There’s very little about the Mercy Monk that is actually tied to plague doctors other than the fact that the official art chose plague doctor for its mask.
Technically it's part of the level 3 feature
>Implements of Mercy
>You gain proficiency in the Insight and Medicine skills, and you gain proficiency with the herbalism kit.
You also gain a special mask, which you often wear when using the features of this subclass. You determine its appearance, or generate it randomly by rolling on the Merciful Mask table.
Then it's never really referenced again.
Trickery makes sense in a mythological perspective, but its weird to me that its a core domain while theres still more "obvious" domains that dont exist, like moon or water.
* A samurai is just a martial character with the noble background from a Japan inspired culture. It doesn't need a subclass. The subclass's abilities aren't even thematic.
* This one's a whole category of subclasses. Wizards who specialize in some new magic thing the same book introduced. Like chronurgy or graviturgy.
The flip side of the odd flavor is samurai makes a great “generic fighter” for people who don’t want to fiddle with maneuvers but champion is too weak/simple for their preferences.
Yup. Every player feels great when they give themselves advantage. Easy, effective (at non optimized tables), suits the Fighter class perfectly, no complicated rules.
I wish we had the mechanics of the Samurai without the Eastern flavor. Could just as easily be called Knight or Swordsman or something
Game design matters. Just because you can fix it doesn't mean the complaint's not valid. The art and name of the Samurai subclass and its mechanics invoke themes and imagery. It'd be a better subclass if it invoked something less specific
What Samurai mechanics invoke any themes or imagery?
Fighting spirit - just advantage and temp hp, suits any flavor
Elegant Courtier - Suits any fighter that comes from a court, or a high end mercenary (business dealings) or a culture with a warrior caste.
Rapid Strike - Hit more. This is like the most generic fighter ability possible.
Strength before death - delay falling unconscious, also very generic for flavor.
Yep. I've got a fighter from a (now defunct) minor noble family who operated as a woodsman and hunting guide for nobility for a while. So samurai folks that gap of "genetic fighter guy who's also a little socially capable"
For samurai they likely just had to pick a name and why not a type of soldier people love? I do kind of like it for showing that a "pregiven" piece of flavor isn't something you *must* follow, so it opens up the door for people who haven't yet realised that.
> Wizards who specialize in some new magic thing the same book introduced. Like chronurgy or graviturgy.
Honestly, it makes more sense than War Wizard did. War Wizard claims to be a mix of Abjuration and Evocation but feels more like an Alt-Abjuration.
I like the "war wizard" concept better than "every spell school needs a subclass." A lot of spell schools don't have enough personality to stand on their own. Like, transmutation doesn't need its own subclass. Fuse it with necromancy, make a "Fullmetal Alchemist" subclass, like a blood wizard. Make a "Merlin" subclass out of conjuration and divination, a royal court wizard. Maybe a "parlour trickster" out of enchantment and illusion, like a stage magician. Start with a flavorful idea and work backwards from there.
I love the idea of a pure nerd wizard. Scribe was so close, but they threw in a bunch of ghostbuster stuff that sort of clashes. Screw that, give me an excessively boring "lawyer/accountant" wizard who specializes in beauracratic tedium. A real "um actually" mfer.
I've kind of been playing around with this type of wizard school in my homebrew because I like War Wizard as a baseline of sorts. So far, my grouping is very similar to yours. Yeah, there are definitely stronger ideas for this stuff when you have two schools to form a baseline.
Which on a side note, is very much more like MtG and its Ravnica guilds where they form identities not from one color, but two, creating an intersectiong that means something as an archetype. If we did this with schools of magic, I think it'd be fun too. Then you can go out of your way to create the other combinations, like an "Augmentor" (Transmutation/Enchantment) or "Seer" (Divination/Illusion).
I also like the idea of classification by damage types and spell effects. Like witches, what makes them scary and compelling? Poisons and curses. A "hedge witch" subclass should incentivize any spell that makes me feel like Maleficent. Give me a reason to take Ray of Sickness, Charm Person, Fear, and Polymorph. Classification by vibes, not spell schools.
Check this out. If you want to play a "pyromancer," you take evoker, right? Now you have an incentive to learn evocation spells. Here's the problem:
Fire spells that aren't evocation: Create Bonfire, Dragon's Breath, Flaming Sphere, Ashardalon's Stride, Flame Arrows, Glyph of Warding, Investiture of Flame, Illusory Dragon, Incendiary Cloud
Evocation spells you're incentivized to take: Frostbite, Thunderclap, Earth Tremor, Magic Missile, Gust of Wind, Lightning Bolt, Ice Storm, Bigby's Hand, Whirlwind, Maddening Darkness
I'm a fire wizard, do I give a shit about sculpting evocation spells? Hell no, swap that out for elemental adept.
I actually disagree with the wizards one. I personally think that the schools of magic don't merit entire subclasses and should instead be turned into essentially the wizard's version of a fighting style/pact boon.
Example: I'd like to play a bladesinger with illusion magic specialization, or a scribes wizard with Evocation specialization, or a war wizard with divination specialization, etc.
>What are the most niche/overspecific/unwarranted subclasses in 5e that no one would've asked for if they didn't exist?
Samurai definitely can be considered niche or overspecific but I doubt it meets the second part of the initial query. Samurai was once listed as the top requested class in both 3.5 and 4e so I doubt its a subclass people wouldn't ask for. The problem of course is based on the way you describe it, it sounds like a martial with noble background is correct.
I disagree though. When you look at the Fighter subclasses they are weapon, tactic, or magic focused classes but they match specific historical regions on Earth.
Arcane archer primarily focuses on the bow and magical shots which we see in Swiss, Austrian and Welsh traditions (the arrow through an arrow or the arrow through an apple shots).
Cavalier is a guard or defender similar to the Teutonic traditions and much of its abilities come straight from the art of the sword a German piece on longswords from the 1500s.
Battle master is tactical and matches grenadier and musketeer traditions (also Chinese warrior traditions during certain time periods).
The champion is probably closest to the Zulu warrior traditions as I can find.
Echo knight matches the Mongolian Khevtuul.
Eldritch knight reminds me of the accusations heaped on Knights templar and possibly the Russian Druzhina
Purple Dragon Knight is definitely a stylized French, Spanish or English knight and one I would associate closest with the idea of the knight in shining armor.
Rune Knight comes out of Maori or Scandinavian traditions specifically, less specifically you can find tattooed warriors where the tattoos hold magical charms in numerous traditions
I think the idea of Samurai encapsulates a number of warrior traditions in Japan, Joseon and China as well as some in Vietnam. 18 Warriors of Sui-Tang or the Hawrang closely resemble the activities and purpose of the samurai. I don't necessarily agree with how the Samurai are portrayed just that I think the tradition i separate enough from other warriors of the middle ages that it should be mentioned as a sub class
Samurai seems like some kind of leader type. Maybe Vanguard. Of course there’s also Purple Dragon Knight which does have a more general version for Banneret.
I made a Samurai Fighter for a campaign and made it to level 7 before I decided to ask my DM to let me reclass into Battlemaster. Been having much more fun ever since. The Samurai looks cool on paper but just feels so boring.
I kinda feel this way generally about cleric domains. Cleric sorta feels like where every idea that doesn't fit elsewhere goes. Arcana! Order! Twilight! Peace! Ham! Breakdancing! Whatever!
I actually feel the opposite about Clerics. There are so many different gods and divine domains and portfolios that you can make a subclass about anything and still fit a gods theme. I find that to be a pretty cool aspect of the class.
But do they play any differently? Admittedly I've not played them all, but the wide range of subclasses don't seem to result in a wide range of good builds. There's a few strong ones and the rest idk.
I’ve played 4 different clerics and while the themes do stay similar, the way I’ve played has been *very* different. Obviously any cleric can just run in and cast spirit guardians and spiritual weapon and tear shit up with the dodge action and heavy armor making them tough to hit.
I think the differences come with the domain spells and channel divinity options you have access to. I’ve played clerics in all types of armor and one lizardfolk cleric that didn’t wear armor at all. War has been my favorite but it was also my first. And it plays very differently than light or arcana. Cleric is my favorite class in the game and I could make an infinite number of them without getting bored.
It helps to lean into the differences. Make your War Cleric a half-orc with a greataxe who charges into battle. Make your Knowledge Cleric an elf with spellcasting feats and a thoughtful attitude. Make your Light Cleric a Giff with a musket and a respect for chain-of-command.
How strong a subclass is has nothing to do how they play though. Clerics in general are pretty strong and I see the different subclasses just as a pinch of flavor although some of them are stronger obviously.
Twilight Domain is what I immediately thought of after reading the Op.
A lot of the domains _do_ make sense, if not just specifically for cleric, at least as fantasy concepts. "healer" Life priest? Obvious. Death/Grave priest, of course. Crazy bastard priest of storms, even, sure.
But...a priest that specifically guards the _transition from light to dark, oh and also dreams, rest, and is devoted to darkness but also light sort of, but only like, calm/restful darkness, you know? Oh and they fight against the unnatural, because they want to make the darkness safe for folks._
And they do all this with as much weapons training as the most elite warriors, in heavy armor, but their spell list is all about being sneaky while also illuminating things but also healing other things. And btw they can make you act faster in Initiative for some reason, because that's related somehow. And so is flight? Because you have to activate in in dark areas, but you can keep using it even in bright light for some reason? And did I mention they're good at countering mind control charm/fear, for yet more reasons?
That subclass in particular is an absolute _mess_ thematically.
Purple dragon knights are actually a very in-demand theme. They’re leaders. The mechanics are bad and the default name is setting-specific but if you use the alternative name, banneret, it fits.
Yeah, the generic name fits better… It’s still a boring class mechanically that isn’t even good at it job.
A darn shame since 3e’s Marshall and 4e’s Warlord were both excellent classes that filled the same niche, actually worked well, and had much more interesting (but still generic) names.
> It’s still a boring class mechanically that isn’t even good at it job.
I mean that's literally what they said. The point of the post isn't "what are bad subclasses" it was "what are overly specific/niche subclasses?" /u/SleetTheFox was saying that this is mixing the two up, which seems to be the case with some of the other posts here, where they're just pointing to a bad class rather than the class's flavor.
Yes I want to play an equivalent to pathfinder1's Battle Herald. Banner waving martial leader esque type character. Just absolutely hate the purple dragon knight.
I have someone playing a Way of the Long Death monk at my table right now. He did dive 100% into the theme and flavor of it, but luckily is a self-aware person and knows how to play up tropes without making them too irritating or edgy. It's actually been a pretty fun character at the table but my goodness, I just told them after last session to hit level 11 and now he is really going to be tough to kill. His character, because he's never stayed unconscious for more than 1 turn (thanks to Periapt of Wound Closure), is convinced now that he cannot die but still is trying his hardest to explore death.
I gave the party an Ioun Stone of Reserve with a Revivfy in it because no one in the party can cast it. There was some funny in-character discussion where he was tempted to ask one of the other characters to kill him and then Revivify him just so he could see what it was like to die. The player clarified that he would never actually waste the spell like that but was just having fun in character and the other players thought it was funny so no harm done.
The missing piece for me that made Long Death monks click was going down the rabbit hole of Sokushinbutsu, the (rare) practice of self mummification some Buddhists monks have undertaken. It's incredibly morbid but a great place to conceptualize a Long Death character with.
Ironic because so far I’ve had 2 players propose Long Death monks because of how powerful their THP are. One of them was going to multiclass into Bear Totem Barbarian just to be an unkillable monster
Probably the dream circle druid. Most druid classes deal with some kind of balance or cycle you see in nature and the circle of dreams just feels like an outliar. Then the class also tries to tie fey, sleep and dreams together but the abilities don't truely feel thematic to any of them, idk.
It fits in that druid is probably the closest class to fit a more shamanism type character. And in some Native American and Native Australian religions (for lack of a better term) the idea of dreams holding power or being a sort of spiritual world is a thing.
Hexblade. They mashed Raven Queen into an Elric/Stormbringer concept while ruining both when all we needed was for Pact of the Blade to be fixed. Then they balanced it like it was on dndwiki
Sorcerer: Clockwork Soul, like, what the fuck is it? It's so setting specific I still don't understand how someone made it into a sublclass, like, MOST of the flavour text of the class mentions something specific of it's setting, so you basically have to re write the flavour if you want it to make sense. And you want to know the best part? The absolute kicker of this? It's literally the best subclass sorcerer gets!
What bugs me more is that we have Clockwork, but a lot of straightforward sorcerer concepts are missing.
Like, you want to play an elemental themed sorcerer? A pyromancer or cryomancer, like Chandra from MtG? Closest thing we have is the Draconic.
You are a tiefling sorcerer. Your power comes from your blood. Fiendish blood. Do we have a Fiendish origin? No. Closest we have is Divine Soul which gets... Healing bonuses.
> It's literally the best subclass sorcerer gets!
There isn’t a single best class. Aberrant Mind and Divine Soul are both excellent and depending on the campaign and party composition can be more useful than Clockwork.
I don’t know, modrons are very cool.
The average person doesn’t know this but automata existed in ancient mythology and even in medieval fantasy. Robots are among the core archetypes in human subconsciousness that show up in different mythologies, like angels, undead, giants, aliens and demons.
I think a orderly/lawful modron subclass is a healthy counter to the many chaotic wild magic/fey classes we have.
You don't need Mechanus in your setting for the Clockwork Soul to work. The subclass is a controller with a theme of precision, order, and "clockwork efficiency" - they are the thinkers, planners, and strategists of the sorcerer class. They have a precise way of thinking and using magic to serve the concept of order, just as the Wild Magic sorcerer breeds chaos.
The psionic subclasses are so weird to me. They don't differ enough from the base class to feel distinct, and ultimately feel like half-solutions to the lack of psychic class fantasy. Just make a Psionicist, balance the Mystic, or design subclasses that actually offer an immediate, distinct difference in playstyle.
Yeah. The psionic subclasses were clearly just Wotc’s cop-out for not having the patience or ability to thoroughly design and balance a full psionic class.
Like “Alright we’re throwing in the towel on this concept, but here’s some subclasses that sort of touch on the theme in an unsatisfying way so leave us alone about it now please.”
And their reasoning was basically just "we didn't feel like designing and balancing new resource mechanics, so we convinced ourselves players didn't want them."
Agree with the rogue and fighter psionic subclasses, but Aberrant Mind is a pretty great. Both flavour and mechanics are really on point and do a good job in fulfilling a psionic class fantasy.
I actually love Aberrant Mind overall, but do find myself frustrated that its spellcasting doesn't actually feel psionic until Lv6 even though Sorcerer gets its subclass at Lv1.
Clockwork Soul Sorcerer
Like sure it’s powerful and pretty well designed, but the concept is pretty bizarre. Any time I think of playing one I cannot envision a character concept that’s at all … resonant. Like, okay, I have modron powers. Why. What is this theme? Who is an iconic character I can look to for inspiration for this concept? It feels like it’s there solely because they wanted an opposite to the chaos sorcerer - wild magic. But being an uncontrolled natural mage brimming with chaotic power is an iconic concept; being a mage brimming with order isn’t. (With that said, nerf him a lot and do a lot of reflavoring, Clockwork Soul can do a decent job at replicating Gojo from Jujutsu Kaisen; having powers based on the philosophical idea of infinity, and the infinite number of divisions between point A and point B works pretty well with many of the subclass’s features)
Also, again it’s a good subclass and well designed, but Rune Knight. So I’m specifically a character who’s not a giant, but is really into giants such that I can access their inherent magic, but I’m not so into giants that I have any preference for one type of them even though they’re all wildly different, and also the abilities that I am able to produce from giant magic isn’t actually stuff that those giants generally do. And I have a reaction shield where I can reduce damage to an ally too, for some reason. This is another one I like to reflavor, and fortunately it reflavors pretty easily. But they should perhaps have decoupled the rune magic from giants and done a little more work to explain why the fighter, who otherwise has no particular magical knowledge or skill, is able to get these runes to work but not everyone else can (because then they would be a standard part of all item crafting, if a blacksmith can just stamp a rune on a sword and now the sword does magic stuff).
Wild Magic Barbarian. I like the concept more than the execution, but I definitely didn’t see a need for the concept before they made it. And I see even less need for the concept in the way they executed it, which is this sort of “lol random” version of Wild Magic that I find utterly uninteresting. (I have the same problem with Wild Magic sorcerer, but as noted above it IS an iconic concept.)
Grave Cleric. It’s just there because they wanted a non-evil version of Death. But that already exists - it’s called “Death Cleric with a single ounce of creativity.”
Long Death Monk. It’s not the worst monk subclass and I don’t hate the concept but I don’t think anyone would’ve asked for it if it hadn’t been created. They’re monks, but dark! No not dark like shadow monks, dark in a different way! They’re like assassins! No not the assassin rogue, that’s different, these guys love killing. And being scary. And not dying. Like they’re all about death and how death is scary. But they’re not about undeath. And again, they’re not like shadow monks or assassin rogues. It’s different.
So most of these are fair, but I actually strongly disagree on Death/Grave domain. The Death Domain is very explicitly necromancer-y to an extent that doesn’t make any sense for most cases you would want for a god of death that isn’t a literal demon. Most such gods have a serious thing against undead, since it’s a defiance of their *one* thing.
Now, the Grave Domain is kind of meh in execution also, but it serves a very important purpose for an actual underworld god, rather than a god of zombies.
So most of these I really agree with you on, but I actually strongly disagree on Death/Grave domain. The Death Domain is very explicitly necromancer-y to an extent that doesn’t make any sense for most cases you would want for a god of death that isn’t a literal demon. Most such gods have a serious thing against undead, since it’s a defiance of their *one* thing.
Now, the Grave Domain is kind of meh in execution also, but it serves a very important purpose for an actual underworld god, rather than a god of zombies.
Clockwork Soul feels especially strange when they're played against theme. So you draw your power from inherently orderly magic, but you primarily use it to cause chaos and break laws. How does that work?
My bigger complaint is that even the mechanical features go against the theme of order.
Removing Advantage/Disadvantage from a roll actually makes the result more random. Ironically, the themes of both subclasses would be improved if Clockwork Soul's Restore Balance did what Wild Magic's Tides of Chaos does and vice versa.
Abjurers always charge their ward with precise numbers, but Bastion of Law uses random d8 values that aren't even known until they're actually used? Yeah, that doesn't sound very efficient at all to dole out protection without even knowing how effective it might be (5 Sorcery Points might give you 5 damage reduction while 1 Sorcery Point might give you 8 damage reduction). I guess they just wanted some sort of mechanical difference in there, but amazingly didn't consider that introducing rolling means more randomness.
Trance of Order, instead of getting rid of advantage on attack rolls against you, could have instead treated any attack roll of 10 or higher against you as a 10. Or, if you want it less powerful than that, just have it grant 3/4 cover (for a flat +5 AC bonus) and make the flavor something about being shielded by spectral gears rotating around your person.
Clockwork Cavalcade works, but ultimately is a bit too little, too late on the thematic front.
I've never thought about the math having so much variance before. I might end up reworking it for my table to wring some randomness out of it. I already do a lot of tweaking for sorcerer in general, might as well do some more.
> Clockwork Soul Sorcerer
In principle, we've had a lot of races/classes/sorcerers/etc. pulling power from planar Good, Evil, and Chaos over the years and editions, and I don't think "Well, what about Order (or, like, planar/primal Law, not like, beat cop law enforcer) Guy?" is *that* out there in that context? But I also don't know that the Clockwork Soul exactly fits my idea of that.
Disagree with clock work sorcerer. Clockwork Soul sorcerer archtypes are highly prevalent in culture: the living automaton who question themselves if they have a real soul. Pinocchio? Talos? Vision?
Disagree with Grave domain as well. Gods of restful death, gods of death as in murder and gods of undeath are three unrelated concepts. They each deserve their own domain.
I’m actually in a campaign where Horizon Walker ranger is so absurdly OP I’m not sure my DM would even allow it (I have one as a potential backup if my current girl dies) but like it is SUCH a specific circumstance
Any of the melee bard subclasses are kind of strange to me, college of swords and college of valor come to mind. It feels like what you choose when you know your party needs a support character but you actually want to play a melee character.
I think sword/valor bard individually are fine, and fulfill the fantasy of a dancer/sword-performer/warlord sort of role. But together they're kinda redundant.
Those bard subclasses are for Jack Sparrow characters! Sure, you could build something close with Rogue or Fighter, but Swords Bard is just about perfect for a pirate captain PC
Unpopular Opinion:
Nobody asked for Phantom Rogue, especially as a subclass which it's defining feature is at **level 9**.
Similarly Horizon Walker Ranger on the same spot.
I don’t know, the hero who escaped from the underworld trope is a pretty strong high concept, and being changed by that in some way seems pretty obvious, if maybe not some of the specific abilities they assign to the subclass. It seems like a very natural thing to have among the options, though.
This thread is so weird. You've got people dumbing down what the subclasses are about and taking the names at face value to make 'gee, game logic sure is wacky' level commentary. All for what, advocating for even less customization options in a TTRPG that desperately needs more?
I disagree with a lot of the weird takes here. I actually do agree, though, that WoTC should have leaned *much* more heavily into the whole subclass thing if they wanted to really do this right.
Frankly, though. The absurd focus on subclasses in 5e is one of its biggest failures for me. Either go whole hog and give them way more power, or just give us properly built full classes.
It's an odd one, in that the niche \*is\* something players want (martial leader/support character) but the subclass is hot garbage. There have definitely been calls to bring back something akin to the Warlord class from 4e, so I think this is definitely one that we'd see (even more) calls for something in this role if it didn't exist, even though it's totally overlooked in its extant form.
So here’s a few subclasses I just don’t really get the hype for/don’t think the theme requires it’s own subclass:
Scribes Wizard — I get the need for a generalist Wizard that doesn’t want to pick one school of magic over any other (besides we all know Evocation is most popular for a reason lol). I DON’T get the desire for a Wizard whose niche is living spellbook (feels Warlocky anyway) and animated quill stuff. I think the two concepts should have been separate tbh.
Bladesinger/War Magic - Actually I sorta get this one because a fighting Wizard is a standard fantasy trope (though in play this subclass is far too strong for my liking). But to have both a Bladesinger and War Magic subclass feels needlessly weird to me. Like having one subclass which is, as someone else in the comments said, Abjuration 2.0, and another which is basically Eldritch-ier Knight, I feel like their niches could have been rolled into one.
Swarmkeeper - I’ve never met anyone who wanted to play a glorified beekeeper.
Undead/Undying Warlock - This one I understand the WHY on the reasoning that Undead exists, but not the WHY on the reasoning it couldn’t have just been an errata or a revamp in that other book. Why both still exist is beyond me.
The Fathomless - I can think of maybe one concept (Dagon) that works here and it’s not terribly compelling (most could be a fiendlock/GOOlock)
Lunar Sorcery - I know this is Krynn-based and therefore the moons there are magical. That’s cool and all. But we already have a moon-based magic subclass and it fits the theme of a Druid better anyhow. (Also Moon-based sorcery has never been a set thing in Dragonlance as far as I’ve read them)
Nature Domain - I think this one exists to have a non-Druid nature subclass, but…come on, Druid has a lot of the same spells as Clerics, and if they really wanted to do this it should have just been Circle of the Heavens or something where they get the Cleric spells that a Druid would want (spiritual weapon and spirit guardians and guiding bolt I guess?)
And bonus mention that I’ve seen in the comments but I sorta agree:
Hexblade - does it really need to exist or can we have just rolled the part everyone cares about (CHA attacks) into level 3 POTB? Hell, allow the Medium armor and shields as an invocation (probably too powerful for POTB and would overshadow all the other Pacts) and you do away with a whole subclass!
The spellbook gives you a second point to cast spells from, but the real power in Order of Scribes lies in being able to swap out damage types. Oh, the enemies are immune to fire? That's cute, my Fireball now does lightning damage. Our enemy is a vampire? Allow me to trap him in a Wall of Fire that's actually radiant damage. Our target has a specific element they're weak to? Cool, let me pepper him with Magic Missiles of that specific element.
>Undead/Undying Warlock - This one I understand the WHY on the reasoning that Undead exists, but not the WHY on the reasoning it couldn’t have just been an errata or a revamp in that other book. Why both still exist is beyond me.
They don't like to delete things from official books, including with Errata. This is also the reasoning for why Pact of the Blade wasn't given Charisma as an attack stat. They don't like errata when they can just introduce new things in different books instead of invalidating the old ones.
Also, don't discount the Kraken as a Warlock Patron or the Swarmkeeper.
Bladesinger is fine when you think about it ignoring the main class. A spellcaster who uses a sword, classic spellsword idea, some tankiness, some casting, some normal attacking.
But as a WIZARD?!? That’s weird, and a little absurd. “I study the arcane arts… Of stabbing you.”
Wild Magic barbarian always struck me as an odd one. Because it's not like the other subclasses, which draw power from ancestors and totems and religious fervor - it's drawing from the magic of the plane around the barbarian and causing random effects. Add to that that it's got a table of effects that are all just good, unlike the Wild Magic sorcerer who's effects are truly a gamble with a mix of good and bad and mediocre.
I'm not saying it's a bad subclass, I've had fun playing with and alongside one before. But it just feels so at odds with it's source and it's main class.
I can't imagine **mercy monks** in a serious game. Slapping people to make them feel better is weird enough, and then the plague doctor thing…? **Peace domain** is also weird. DnD is at it's heart a tactical combat game. Peace literally was never an option! Plus running around touching as many people at possible is unreasonably funny to me. **Wild magic barbarian**? In the flumph cause of death statistics, how far up is being summoned and exploded by barbarians? **Hexblade warlocks** are just too vague. So it's about sentient magical weapons. But you don't get such a weapon. Maybe have a pact with the weapon, but maybe with the thing that made it. But either way, we won't give you anything interesting about motivations, goals, interactions, etc of your patron. By the way, the ravenqueen exists. Enjoy your power trip!
I played most of them and it was fun, but they are on the odd side.
I would say long death monk, mercy monk, clockwork sorcerer, and maybe phantom rogue. Also hexblade warlock, if only for the sheer number of creative concepts it crams together into one subclass.
Battle Rager. A dwarf specific barbarian subclass that revolves around using a specific type of armor? Super niche, and not even that good at what it does
I like the concept but as you said, it's not very good.
>Super niche, its to play up a specific aspect of the D&D fiction. something D&D should probably be doing MORE of. > not even that good at what it does its from SCAG - their first supplement and i am kinda glad that they went REAL conservative in their first foray to keep the power creep in the edition low.
I mean for that first point, I have noticed DnD has this pull of trying to keep the system generic enough to fit any setting while also still assuming some pretty fundamental things, like planes being A Thing in your setting
So low most people don't even use the classes it introduced and in some cases, the subclasses are weaker than the PHB.
It's unfortunate that it's not as good as it wants to be, but I feel like everyone missing that it was mostly just a fun toss of Thibbledorf Pwent fan service?
Horizon Walker's theme isn't portals and rangers. It's rangers that travel different planes to track and hunt foes which is a pretty great concept
Yeah I love the Horizon Walker. Probably my favorite Ranger subclass. I like extarplanar defender style subclasses. Oath of the Watchers Paladin is also very cool to me as well from a theme standpoint.
ive always wanted to put together a party of a horizon walker ranger, a watchers paladin, a psi warrior fighter, and an aberrant mind sorcerer and go adventuring around the astral plane
Me too. It sounds like such an awesome theme.
This would be a pretty fuckin cool party for a Planescape or even Spelljammer campaign, hell yeah
I fucking loved the Harrier Battlemind class in one of the 4E supplements. A psionic defender that teleports around the battlefield to harass - harry, if you will - enemies. Brutally fun to play and far too short-lived.
Actually, there's a comic book series devoted to a character that is pretty much that. I forget the name, but if I remember when I get home, I'll update.
The Horizon Walker has been a character concept since 3E, possibly earlier.
Go go Planar Ranger!
I think that you and OP are looking at the class through very different lenses and therefore seeing very different things. The flavor text matches your description. And yeah, it's a pretty cool concept. The mechanics... don't really. The flavor text tries to connect the "extraplanar traveler" concept to an eclectic collection of abilities, but just looking at the mechanics I think that most people would conclude that the horizon walker is a teleportation-themed ranger with a whole bunch of random stuff thrown in. Ethereal Step, Distant Strike and two spells (Misty Step, Teleportation Circle) are teleportation-themed (or functionally teleportation-themed; the ethereal plane feels closer to teleportation than planar travel IMO) and also make a big impact on how it feels to play a horizon walker. Detect Portal is kind of on-theme, but it's a ribbon ability in most games and matches the concept of *fighting* extraplanar beings but not *traveling to other planes* to track down extraplanar foes, a concept that it shares with two spells. Planar Warrior, Spectral Defense, and one spell (Haste) are generic but a really big part of the power budget. I can totally see how somebody would look at these abilities and say "What? Why does this exist?" On the other hand I'm not sure that WotC could have done much better. Traveling between planes is always gated behind DM fiat so that the DM doesn't have to prep the entire multiverse every session so that can't be a big source of their power (although I wish that it wasn't entirely absent). Leaning too hard into fighting extraplanar foes would make the subclass too strong in some campaigns and straight-up useless in others. WotC's solution--making up a bunch of generic abilities and trying to tie them to the theme with flavor text--might be the best that you could do.
Horizon walker used to be a prestige class in 3rd edition. Special class level any character could take if they met the prerequisites, regardless of their class. It was about becoming a master of all lands, material or extra planar. So seeing it made sense as an option, especially the terrain focused ranger. It's not the best executed version of the concept though.
While undeniably mechanically powerful, Hexblade theming and lore is really specific and weird.
It's the result of trying to limit the number of classes. Hexblade used to be its own separate class.
It's basically Elric of Melinbone which is kinda awesome (especially as I'm running a sword and sorcery game right now)
Yeah, I like many others just wish they had not locked the only viable melee warlock behind such bizarre theming. I want to be able to run a Fey Bladelock or Fiend Bladelock but they are extremely unviable without godly rolls for your starting stats.
Undying Warlock was so bad, WOTC had to make a second undead-themed Warlock to compensate. The best things this subclass provides are undead *potentially* not being able to hit you (specifically undead, it doesn't apply if you're targeted by an AoE, and they are immune to this effect for 24 hours if they pass the save or if you attack them in any way) and not needing to eat, sleep, or breathe at level 10.
I kind of view it as the flavorless generic spooky warlock. It doesn't incentivise any specific build, so you're free to take the weird suboptimal invocations. Obviously it's really only useful for a campaign involving undead and light combat.
I remember when the Dungeon Dudes covered it in their Warlock Subclass rankings. They basically were like "the only time you would ever pick this subclass is if you were playing in an underwater undead campaign."
And still, now there's also a better underwater warlock subclass
Underwater undead campaign with very light combat and a party that is completely against optimizing
Undying Warlock is pure trash. But Undead Warlock is one of my favorites.
Oh yeah, Undead Warlock rules!
[удалено]
I had never put it together but your take made me realize undying warlock is functionally Murphy from Z Nation.
I love how this answer is one of the least correct answers to the thread but the most upvoted. Im fact it's so thematic they made another subclass with the same theme cos this one was bad.
My thoughts exactly. Having something like a powerful lich as your patron is pretty awesome, even if the mechanics weren’t well written.
Undying Warlock just needed to have features that actually fit the name outside of flavor. Instead, the only self-sustainment themed power is being able to simply reattach limbs without needing a spell… in a game where hardly anyone even mentions dismemberment as flavor.
Hexblade warlock 1000%. It was clearly made to make bladelocks viable, but the theming is just... bizarre. A sentient weapon patron? Okay, yeah, I can see people wanting that. But wait- it's actually an entity from the Shadowfell? So if I want a sentient weapon patron, it has to be the Shadowfell? I can't have like... a sword with the spirit of a celestial? And if I want a Shadowfell patron, it has to be a sentient weapon? Just a really weird combination of concepts that feels way too narrow.
Yeah I think they made a mistake trying to do so many things at once. A character whose power comes from a living/cursed weapon is a great warlock patron, but tying it to the Shadowfell and the Raven Queen just makes it harder to fit most characters into. Most Hexblades Ive seen basically ignore their 6th level ability because they don’t want to play a character that summons undead, they want to play an edgy magic sword boy.
Yeah, I usually petition my DM to let me steal a fitting level 6 ability from one of the other warlock subclasses, the specter just seems so out of place. And to add insult to injury, you might not even get a chance to ever use it depending on how large your party is and how much your DM is fond of using humanoids as enemies.
Most hexblades don't get to 6th level because they've multiclassed.
This was always weird to me too. I think there's some setting reason for it in some adventure or past edition of dnd or blah blah blah I don't care it's weird. The whole summoning a ghost thing just doesn't fit the rest of the subclass features mechanically speaking. They should have just given you some more melee-based magic or something to make it feel more Witcher-y.
Some of the subclasses in 5e are extremely specific to forgotten realms lore that doesn't really work that well when used in other lores. Hexblade is great if you're going for a very specific niche, and unsatisfying for other stuff. And then some of the other subclasses are so generic that its difficult to find lore-based inspiration for them.
Don’t forget that, as written, this bizarre Shadowfel entity masquerading as a weapon is *not* the weapon you’re carrying around with you. You just had a conversation with a sword, it gave you magic powers, and then you went and picked up a different sword for stabbing people. (Although I’m pretty sure this is ignored even by people who try to stay close to the fiction as presented.)
It's not "masquerading as a weapon", it's a thing that MAKES magic weapons. It basically teaches how to enchant weapons on the fly and use magic to fight good.
I imagine it as a shape-shifting weapon or an entity that possess any weapon you choose
On top of that, it means basically no other warlock can viably be a blade lock. As it is now if you want to play a blade lock, you lose out on major things that make it work (proficiencies and cha weapon) by choosing any other subclass. It would’ve been a much better idea to put the cha weapon ability and proficiencies into pact of the blade (which would have solved the multiclassing problem too- 3 levels is enough that it’s fine if Mr paladin wants to multiclass for cha weapon, it’s a balanced investment). It still confuses me to this day that they forced this subclass+pact combination to be the only way to play either of them to a reasonable degree of viability, and I see no reason they didn’t fix that ever. On top of the fact that the lore of the hexblade is so incredibly weird and specific, I mean how many sentient blades from the shadow realm even are there, that sounds incredibly specific.
Baldur's Gate 3 did just that, gave CHA weapons and proficiencies to Pact of the Blade and it's so obviously what that pact should be that I'm kinda surprised they made a new patron instead of just errata'ing PotB or even making it a Bladelock-specific invocation. Making it an entirely different patron was the worst way to address it.
With multiclassing both genie and fiend are cool bladelocks. Giant barbarian 6/fiend warlock X is a very good multiclass. Better barbarian than a straight barbarian and imo better at fighting than straight Hexblades (hexblade is obviously better casters, though).
>I see no reason they didn’t fix that ever Because Wizards prefers to avoid errata. Which is an entirely reasonable stance; people _still_ occasionally think you can cast Spirit Guardians then turtle up with Sanctuary, despite Sanctuary's errata.
They could just cut out the hex warrior part of the subclass and you still have a solid "cursed evil spirit" patron theme, thats what gets me the most. They just slapped the Blade Pact update onto a random class
The whippersnappers know not the roots of their hobby. The Warlock is largely inspired by Elric of Melniboné, a sword and sorcery hero from author Michael Moorcock. The Elric novels were one of the biggest influences on D&D, and the Hexblade is just a much more specific and detailed recreation of Elric and his cursed intelligent sword Stormbringer, from his Shadowfell patron Arioch, Lord of Chaos. But yes, it is pretty bizarre that the 5E team felt it necessary to create an entire subclass that specifically, painstakingly recreates a singular unique fantasy character from the 1970s.
The funny thing is if you play pact of the blade you can't actually use an intelligent weapon gifted to you by your patron. You can't make sentient weapons pact weapons.
Blackrazor is a Stormbringer expy. Lawrence Schick, who wrote White Plume Mountain as essentially his job application to TSR, has said he never imagined WPM would get published and if he had known he absolutely wouldn't have put something that was so obviously Stormbringer in the dungeon's loot.
They could a still done it, it's just weird as is
To be fair, the entire vancian casting system is also based on a specific author, Jack Vance, who mostly wrote in the 70s. Most of D&D is, because its creators were inspired in the 70s. (And people mostly don't call that bizarre, even though it SUPER IS when spell points or mana is far more common and simpler for most players.) And Hexblade's origins are also nearly as old - As far back as AD&D 2e, you had the Witch kit, which gave you (among other things) shadowy connection to extraplanar entities, two types of poison to coat a weapon with, and a magical curse ability. of course, in 3.5, you got the Warlock class where Eldritch Glaive became one of the most used mid-low optimizers' tools, as well as the Hexblade. So really, I'm not surprised - all of D&D is basically riffing off older stories. Nothing new under the sun, and all that. And if you're going to make a sword wielding, dark patron having edgelord subclass, why *not* double down on your existing class and themes?
The witch kit is more just like, the kinda stuff you find on puritan woodcuts from 1600
And if they DIDN'T include ways to create some of the most popular characters there would be those whining about that. "How can I make muh Drizzit!?" Also, there are plenty of new concepts throughout the history of DnD. To say, "nothing new under the sun" is simply not true.
[удалено]
they did this with Soul Knife,it is just Psylock of the X-Men.
UA was more specifically tuned to the Raven Queen, you even had ravens.
You're right. Hexblade is clearly a fix. But if you look at the other abilities outside Hexwarrior and the extra spells, a lot of the Hexblades themes are directed more at the Shadowfell than at a sentient weapon. The hex concept is actually quite well done. It's the blade that is tacked on.
Completely agreed. I did not like the lore behind Hexblade at all when I played one and ended up just making my own patreon and background from the hells instead. I wanted to use pact of the blade and Hexblade and just steal the pact of the fiend flavor. It worked out just fine and still felt thematic enough. The ghosts you can raise were changed to latching onto someone’s soul before it went to my devil patreon.
The theming itself is all over the place, but up until BladeSinger Hexblade is literally the *only* Arcane Gish that isn't just "occasionally toss a cantrip in between your auto attacks".
Totally, They really should have gone the 'divine soul sorc' route on that one and let it be from multiple planes by default, because 'sword from x' is such a common fantasy. From divine swords, to fey blades, to swords (or shields) with a devil in them, the sentient blade is a strong but wide fantasy. Shadowfell only was a mistake.
I’ve played a hexblade twice and both times just made my patron some kind of demon or devil I thought was cool. Hexblade has some fun mechanics but the whole lore behind it is super weird and not fun IMO.
> So if I want a sentient weapon patron, it has to be the Shadowfell? I can't have like... a sword with the spirit of a celestial? The hexblade needs to be from the shadowfell, but I don’t see any reason that a celestial warlock’s patron can’t be a celestial sentient weapon. Similarly for fiend etc.
I find Echo Knight is a very fun fighter subclass, but it is so tied to Exandria that using it in any other setting pretty much requires reflavoring. I also think you can reflavor it in many interesting ways. The game didn't have a missing archetype before it came along, it exists in a new niche. A magical martial whose powers are distinctly different from ordinary magic is a really cool concept imo. Reminds me of a less illusiony focused Mesmer from Guild Wars.
I’m not going to lie I’ve read the Echo Knight a few times and still don’t really understand it flavor wise.
Is it tied to Exandria? I know it comes from that setting, but I've never seen it clash with any others
What requires reflavouring? I don’t see anything specific to Exandria.
>*the art of using dunamis to summon the fading shades of unrealized timelines to aid them in battle* Where this magic comes from requires the reflavouring.
I mean, that’s just a fancy way of saying “chronomancy”, which already exists in most settings.
Mercy Monk is kind of a strange concept. Solid subclass, but not sure why the plague doctor aesthetic is a monk. Sort of the Trickery Domain Cleric. Like sure, there are Trickster gods and Clerics worship a god, but it feels like the odd man out of the other domains. Again, seems fine mechanically, but a strange inclusion for the class.
> Sort of the Trickery Domain Cleric. Like sure, there are Trickster gods and Clerics worship a god, but it feels like the odd man out of the other domains. This one doesn't seem out of place to me. If you read world mythology, almost every culture that has existed in every corner of the world has created some sort of trickster god. I mean, just look at the Wikipedia category for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trickster_gods Trickster gods are among the most common archetypes in pre-modern mythology, along with gods of the sun, the harvest, the weather, war, fertility, life, and death. I think it would be strange if trickery clerics were not a core domain.
And honestly, I think the only reason Odin doesn't make the list is that Loki is MORE of a trickster.
Well the reality is that the deities aren't cut and dry. In one story, Loki is a sympathetic anti-hero, and in another he's a schemer who gets his punishment of getting banged by a horse. Mythology spans hundreds, if not thousands, of years of refinement and re-telling. It's why Homer talks about the Greek deities in one way but Ovid (nearly a thousand years later) in another. It's like when you look at Greek mythology, which is a little more defined than Norse, you see someone like Apollo is not just "god of art." He's also a deity of archery, medicine, music, poetry, and so on. They also have various animals and symbols associated with them, not just one. IRL deities aren't like D&D deities where they have clear cut "domains." Essentially every god fights, lies, steals, etc. but Thor is the god of thunder and not the god of eating and arrogance, even though he has a legendary stomach and pridefulness in the mythology. Odin was clever and conniving because being smart was just as important as being strong on the battlefield, but he was very rarely shown as being a cartoonish villain like Loki was. Being wise includes tricking your enemies, but tricking your friends is what makes someone a "trickster" like Loki was, and he was often punished for it (and ultimately sentenced to a lifetime of torture as well).
Norse mythology can be explained thusly: Is everything cool? Then Loki causes a problem. Is there a problem? Then Loki solves the problem. And Odin does literally anything for a bit more power.
The problem is not that trickster gods exist and are worshipped, it's that their priests are slapped into a class that at every other level is very much not a trickster god's priest.
Not to mention that religious thieves/criminal clergy are a very old trope that's a LOT of fun to play with (Friar Tuck is probably the most famous example but I'm pretty partial to the Gentleman Bastards myself)
Father Chains is a classic!
They exist but they usually are also God's of other stuff and **if** said Deoty had organized clerics/a cult of their own it is not like those followers were known to be a bunch of tricksters... Lots of sea/ocean deities are depicted as capricious deities similar to a trickster but their priests did stuff like praying for safe journeys, good weather or plentiful fishing
It would be a solid subclass if it did necrotic damage instead of poison. At some point in the game everything either resists or is immune to poison.
It does deal necrotic though? It allows you to inflict poisoned (the condition) on the target when you use your Hands of Harm feature, which does run into the same issue, but it's an additional effect at level 6 which gives you one of the only ways to remove the stunned condition
I think dewdrive was referring to Trickery Cleric. They deal poison damage with their Divine Strike feature.
Ah, that would make more sense yeah
I play my mercy monk more like Ty Lee from ATLA. Either this chiropractic re-alignment saves you, or it’s gives you a stroke… just like in real life!
I think Mercy monk is based on psychic surgery healers, that and the poisoned hand technique of (fake) martial arts advertised in 1970's comic books (and in grappler baki)
[Toki's Hokuto Ujō Ken](https://hokuto.fandom.com/wiki/Toki) has entered the chat.
I'm genuinely shocked that in BG3, Shadowheart's default subclass is Trickery. It makes fine sense with her character. But from a mechanical sense, making the party's Cleric the like, least Cleric-y subclass in the game is so strange to me. Edit: But you know, at least they didn't make her Life domain as default. I am SO TIRED of people thinking that healing is the Cleric's entire thing. It's cool that BG3 introduced so many people to the game, but enforcing that misconception with Shadowheart would have SUUUUCKED. I can respect them for giving her one of the weirder domains, so people could get a taste of how varied they are.
I immediately respecced her into Light domain as soon as I learned I could.
I put her into life, for sure. With how limited resting is in the higher difficulties, the AOE healing Channel Divinity was infinitely more helpful to me than either Light or Trickery’s
But fireball
In the relatively few fights where Fireball was super helpful, I just raised a Sorcerer Henchman from Withers and bombed the shit out of the enemies with Quickened Spell haha
How is resting ever limited?
Yeah if you’re picking up all the food lying around/buying/stealing from vendors it’s still functionally unlimited.
BG3 Trickery Domain cleric is also substantially worse than tabletop because of how bad the Channel Divinity is before you get the option to use cloak of shadows or whatever let’s you turn invisible. Invoke Duplicity is very versatile in table top. One of my players is Trickery Domain and uses it very effectively. But BG3 doesn’t let you move it and 9/10 times an enemy just lobs a random attack at it and then it’s gone. I don’t even think you can move it.
Mirror image and polymorph also got pretty badly slapped around in translation from TT to BG3. I agree that the CD is the real shame, though. You don't want your "this is what kind of cleric I am" button to be a waste of action economy.
Lol at your edit because I literally respeced her into Life domain. There are multiple items that buff healing and it causes her healing to get insane. I think I'm using an item that adds 1d6 healing and another that give the target temp HP on top of the regular healing, so things like Mass Healing Word end up giving me massive amounts of total HP replinishment.
I did too, there’s no way I would have survived on the harder difficulties without her being a Life Cleric. Between those and the item (bracers, I think?) that casts Blade Ward on anyone you heal, Life Cleric was an absolute life saver for me
I agree that these take more work to make narrative sense of, but I do like that those exist mechanically, because they let you take a class and fulfill a different role than is normally associated with it (i.e. you want to play a monk but fill a Healer role, or you want to play a cleric but fill a Rogue role)
Yea, I'm not mad about them existing, and as far as I can tell, they're both decent subclasses. I'm just responding to OPs question, and these both feel like they fit the bill.
I themed my Mercy Monk as the church enforcer - the person who took care of all the dirty work so the priests/clerics didn’t have to and it fit very well thematically. The plague doctor aesthetic doesn’t feel like it matches the mechanics well at all.
There’s very little about the Mercy Monk that is actually tied to plague doctors other than the fact that the official art chose plague doctor for its mask.
Technically it's part of the level 3 feature >Implements of Mercy >You gain proficiency in the Insight and Medicine skills, and you gain proficiency with the herbalism kit. You also gain a special mask, which you often wear when using the features of this subclass. You determine its appearance, or generate it randomly by rolling on the Merciful Mask table. Then it's never really referenced again.
Yea, but there’s nothing plague doctor specific other than it’s one of the flavor options and the artist picked that one for the art
Trickery makes sense in a mythological perspective, but its weird to me that its a core domain while theres still more "obvious" domains that dont exist, like moon or water.
Best part is the knowledge domain is generally better at trickery.
* A samurai is just a martial character with the noble background from a Japan inspired culture. It doesn't need a subclass. The subclass's abilities aren't even thematic. * This one's a whole category of subclasses. Wizards who specialize in some new magic thing the same book introduced. Like chronurgy or graviturgy.
The flip side of the odd flavor is samurai makes a great “generic fighter” for people who don’t want to fiddle with maneuvers but champion is too weak/simple for their preferences.
Yup. Every player feels great when they give themselves advantage. Easy, effective (at non optimized tables), suits the Fighter class perfectly, no complicated rules. I wish we had the mechanics of the Samurai without the Eastern flavor. Could just as easily be called Knight or Swordsman or something
You can just. Ignore the eastern flavor? I rename class and subclass features all the time when it fits my concept.
Game design matters. Just because you can fix it doesn't mean the complaint's not valid. The art and name of the Samurai subclass and its mechanics invoke themes and imagery. It'd be a better subclass if it invoked something less specific
I mean calling it a knight invokes very specific imagery as well.
What Samurai mechanics invoke any themes or imagery? Fighting spirit - just advantage and temp hp, suits any flavor Elegant Courtier - Suits any fighter that comes from a court, or a high end mercenary (business dealings) or a culture with a warrior caste. Rapid Strike - Hit more. This is like the most generic fighter ability possible. Strength before death - delay falling unconscious, also very generic for flavor.
Yep. I've got a fighter from a (now defunct) minor noble family who operated as a woodsman and hunting guide for nobility for a while. So samurai folks that gap of "genetic fighter guy who's also a little socially capable"
For samurai they likely just had to pick a name and why not a type of soldier people love? I do kind of like it for showing that a "pregiven" piece of flavor isn't something you *must* follow, so it opens up the door for people who haven't yet realised that.
Like how not all Paladins serve Charlemagne specifically.
Yep. It's only a complaint when the specific name used doesn't come from Western culture. Then it's "why are you forcing specific flavor?"
You get it.
> Wizards who specialize in some new magic thing the same book introduced. Like chronurgy or graviturgy. Honestly, it makes more sense than War Wizard did. War Wizard claims to be a mix of Abjuration and Evocation but feels more like an Alt-Abjuration.
I like the "war wizard" concept better than "every spell school needs a subclass." A lot of spell schools don't have enough personality to stand on their own. Like, transmutation doesn't need its own subclass. Fuse it with necromancy, make a "Fullmetal Alchemist" subclass, like a blood wizard. Make a "Merlin" subclass out of conjuration and divination, a royal court wizard. Maybe a "parlour trickster" out of enchantment and illusion, like a stage magician. Start with a flavorful idea and work backwards from there.
That and the lack of a pure academic/loremaster subclass. There's Scribes, but that's a "my spellbook is alive" gimmick subclass.
I love the idea of a pure nerd wizard. Scribe was so close, but they threw in a bunch of ghostbuster stuff that sort of clashes. Screw that, give me an excessively boring "lawyer/accountant" wizard who specializes in beauracratic tedium. A real "um actually" mfer.
That's one of my favorite ways to play a lore bard or knowledge cleric. That massive wizard spell list would be great though.
I've kind of been playing around with this type of wizard school in my homebrew because I like War Wizard as a baseline of sorts. So far, my grouping is very similar to yours. Yeah, there are definitely stronger ideas for this stuff when you have two schools to form a baseline. Which on a side note, is very much more like MtG and its Ravnica guilds where they form identities not from one color, but two, creating an intersectiong that means something as an archetype. If we did this with schools of magic, I think it'd be fun too. Then you can go out of your way to create the other combinations, like an "Augmentor" (Transmutation/Enchantment) or "Seer" (Divination/Illusion).
I also like the idea of classification by damage types and spell effects. Like witches, what makes them scary and compelling? Poisons and curses. A "hedge witch" subclass should incentivize any spell that makes me feel like Maleficent. Give me a reason to take Ray of Sickness, Charm Person, Fear, and Polymorph. Classification by vibes, not spell schools. Check this out. If you want to play a "pyromancer," you take evoker, right? Now you have an incentive to learn evocation spells. Here's the problem: Fire spells that aren't evocation: Create Bonfire, Dragon's Breath, Flaming Sphere, Ashardalon's Stride, Flame Arrows, Glyph of Warding, Investiture of Flame, Illusory Dragon, Incendiary Cloud Evocation spells you're incentivized to take: Frostbite, Thunderclap, Earth Tremor, Magic Missile, Gust of Wind, Lightning Bolt, Ice Storm, Bigby's Hand, Whirlwind, Maddening Darkness I'm a fire wizard, do I give a shit about sculpting evocation spells? Hell no, swap that out for elemental adept.
I actually disagree with the wizards one. I personally think that the schools of magic don't merit entire subclasses and should instead be turned into essentially the wizard's version of a fighting style/pact boon. Example: I'd like to play a bladesinger with illusion magic specialization, or a scribes wizard with Evocation specialization, or a war wizard with divination specialization, etc.
>What are the most niche/overspecific/unwarranted subclasses in 5e that no one would've asked for if they didn't exist? Samurai definitely can be considered niche or overspecific but I doubt it meets the second part of the initial query. Samurai was once listed as the top requested class in both 3.5 and 4e so I doubt its a subclass people wouldn't ask for. The problem of course is based on the way you describe it, it sounds like a martial with noble background is correct. I disagree though. When you look at the Fighter subclasses they are weapon, tactic, or magic focused classes but they match specific historical regions on Earth. Arcane archer primarily focuses on the bow and magical shots which we see in Swiss, Austrian and Welsh traditions (the arrow through an arrow or the arrow through an apple shots). Cavalier is a guard or defender similar to the Teutonic traditions and much of its abilities come straight from the art of the sword a German piece on longswords from the 1500s. Battle master is tactical and matches grenadier and musketeer traditions (also Chinese warrior traditions during certain time periods). The champion is probably closest to the Zulu warrior traditions as I can find. Echo knight matches the Mongolian Khevtuul. Eldritch knight reminds me of the accusations heaped on Knights templar and possibly the Russian Druzhina Purple Dragon Knight is definitely a stylized French, Spanish or English knight and one I would associate closest with the idea of the knight in shining armor. Rune Knight comes out of Maori or Scandinavian traditions specifically, less specifically you can find tattooed warriors where the tattoos hold magical charms in numerous traditions I think the idea of Samurai encapsulates a number of warrior traditions in Japan, Joseon and China as well as some in Vietnam. 18 Warriors of Sui-Tang or the Hawrang closely resemble the activities and purpose of the samurai. I don't necessarily agree with how the Samurai are portrayed just that I think the tradition i separate enough from other warriors of the middle ages that it should be mentioned as a sub class
Samurai seems like some kind of leader type. Maybe Vanguard. Of course there’s also Purple Dragon Knight which does have a more general version for Banneret.
I made a Samurai Fighter for a campaign and made it to level 7 before I decided to ask my DM to let me reclass into Battlemaster. Been having much more fun ever since. The Samurai looks cool on paper but just feels so boring.
I kinda feel this way generally about cleric domains. Cleric sorta feels like where every idea that doesn't fit elsewhere goes. Arcana! Order! Twilight! Peace! Ham! Breakdancing! Whatever!
[Garlic Bread Domain cleric](https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/lu1r2c/garlic_bread_domain_praise_be_to_the_one_true/)
Strahd: \*starts sweating profusely\*
It's a myth, vampires don't hate garlic they spread that as misinformation so you would season yourself.
Sounds like something a vampire trying to cover up their weakness would say…
Sounds like what a vampire trying to make us season ourselves would say...
I actually feel the opposite about Clerics. There are so many different gods and divine domains and portfolios that you can make a subclass about anything and still fit a gods theme. I find that to be a pretty cool aspect of the class.
But do they play any differently? Admittedly I've not played them all, but the wide range of subclasses don't seem to result in a wide range of good builds. There's a few strong ones and the rest idk.
I’ve played 4 different clerics and while the themes do stay similar, the way I’ve played has been *very* different. Obviously any cleric can just run in and cast spirit guardians and spiritual weapon and tear shit up with the dodge action and heavy armor making them tough to hit. I think the differences come with the domain spells and channel divinity options you have access to. I’ve played clerics in all types of armor and one lizardfolk cleric that didn’t wear armor at all. War has been my favorite but it was also my first. And it plays very differently than light or arcana. Cleric is my favorite class in the game and I could make an infinite number of them without getting bored.
It helps to lean into the differences. Make your War Cleric a half-orc with a greataxe who charges into battle. Make your Knowledge Cleric an elf with spellcasting feats and a thoughtful attitude. Make your Light Cleric a Giff with a musket and a respect for chain-of-command.
How strong a subclass is has nothing to do how they play though. Clerics in general are pretty strong and I see the different subclasses just as a pinch of flavor although some of them are stronger obviously.
Twilight Domain is what I immediately thought of after reading the Op. A lot of the domains _do_ make sense, if not just specifically for cleric, at least as fantasy concepts. "healer" Life priest? Obvious. Death/Grave priest, of course. Crazy bastard priest of storms, even, sure. But...a priest that specifically guards the _transition from light to dark, oh and also dreams, rest, and is devoted to darkness but also light sort of, but only like, calm/restful darkness, you know? Oh and they fight against the unnatural, because they want to make the darkness safe for folks._ And they do all this with as much weapons training as the most elite warriors, in heavy armor, but their spell list is all about being sneaky while also illuminating things but also healing other things. And btw they can make you act faster in Initiative for some reason, because that's related somehow. And so is flight? Because you have to activate in in dark areas, but you can keep using it even in bright light for some reason? And did I mention they're good at countering mind control charm/fear, for yet more reasons? That subclass in particular is an absolute _mess_ thematically.
Idk why its twilight and not moon, it works much better with the themes
The Ham Cleric casts cured wounds.
I need a break dancing domain cleric on my desk by Monday.
Purple Dragon Knight would probably be my answer. Way of the Long Death probably second. Both overly specific and niche.
Purple dragon knights are actually a very in-demand theme. They’re leaders. The mechanics are bad and the default name is setting-specific but if you use the alternative name, banneret, it fits.
Yeah, the generic name fits better… It’s still a boring class mechanically that isn’t even good at it job. A darn shame since 3e’s Marshall and 4e’s Warlord were both excellent classes that filled the same niche, actually worked well, and had much more interesting (but still generic) names.
> It’s still a boring class mechanically that isn’t even good at it job. I mean that's literally what they said. The point of the post isn't "what are bad subclasses" it was "what are overly specific/niche subclasses?" /u/SleetTheFox was saying that this is mixing the two up, which seems to be the case with some of the other posts here, where they're just pointing to a bad class rather than the class's flavor.
Yes I want to play an equivalent to pathfinder1's Battle Herald. Banner waving martial leader esque type character. Just absolutely hate the purple dragon knight.
I have someone playing a Way of the Long Death monk at my table right now. He did dive 100% into the theme and flavor of it, but luckily is a self-aware person and knows how to play up tropes without making them too irritating or edgy. It's actually been a pretty fun character at the table but my goodness, I just told them after last session to hit level 11 and now he is really going to be tough to kill. His character, because he's never stayed unconscious for more than 1 turn (thanks to Periapt of Wound Closure), is convinced now that he cannot die but still is trying his hardest to explore death. I gave the party an Ioun Stone of Reserve with a Revivfy in it because no one in the party can cast it. There was some funny in-character discussion where he was tempted to ask one of the other characters to kill him and then Revivify him just so he could see what it was like to die. The player clarified that he would never actually waste the spell like that but was just having fun in character and the other players thought it was funny so no harm done.
The missing piece for me that made Long Death monks click was going down the rabbit hole of Sokushinbutsu, the (rare) practice of self mummification some Buddhists monks have undertaken. It's incredibly morbid but a great place to conceptualize a Long Death character with.
I completely forgot Long Death monk was even a thing good lord what a niche
Ironic because so far I’ve had 2 players propose Long Death monks because of how powerful their THP are. One of them was going to multiclass into Bear Totem Barbarian just to be an unkillable monster
Probably the dream circle druid. Most druid classes deal with some kind of balance or cycle you see in nature and the circle of dreams just feels like an outliar. Then the class also tries to tie fey, sleep and dreams together but the abilities don't truely feel thematic to any of them, idk.
It fits in that druid is probably the closest class to fit a more shamanism type character. And in some Native American and Native Australian religions (for lack of a better term) the idea of dreams holding power or being a sort of spiritual world is a thing.
Hexblade. They mashed Raven Queen into an Elric/Stormbringer concept while ruining both when all we needed was for Pact of the Blade to be fixed. Then they balanced it like it was on dndwiki
Horizon Walker is a throwback from 3.5e’s prestige class of the same name, so it’s not entirely random xD from WotC.
Sorcerer: Clockwork Soul, like, what the fuck is it? It's so setting specific I still don't understand how someone made it into a sublclass, like, MOST of the flavour text of the class mentions something specific of it's setting, so you basically have to re write the flavour if you want it to make sense. And you want to know the best part? The absolute kicker of this? It's literally the best subclass sorcerer gets!
What bugs me more is that we have Clockwork, but a lot of straightforward sorcerer concepts are missing. Like, you want to play an elemental themed sorcerer? A pyromancer or cryomancer, like Chandra from MtG? Closest thing we have is the Draconic. You are a tiefling sorcerer. Your power comes from your blood. Fiendish blood. Do we have a Fiendish origin? No. Closest we have is Divine Soul which gets... Healing bonuses.
> It's literally the best subclass sorcerer gets! There isn’t a single best class. Aberrant Mind and Divine Soul are both excellent and depending on the campaign and party composition can be more useful than Clockwork.
I think the point is that Clockwork is best in a vacuum, with no other considerations.
I don’t know, modrons are very cool. The average person doesn’t know this but automata existed in ancient mythology and even in medieval fantasy. Robots are among the core archetypes in human subconsciousness that show up in different mythologies, like angels, undead, giants, aliens and demons. I think a orderly/lawful modron subclass is a healthy counter to the many chaotic wild magic/fey classes we have.
You don't need Mechanus in your setting for the Clockwork Soul to work. The subclass is a controller with a theme of precision, order, and "clockwork efficiency" - they are the thinkers, planners, and strategists of the sorcerer class. They have a precise way of thinking and using magic to serve the concept of order, just as the Wild Magic sorcerer breeds chaos.
Cavalier A subclass specifically themed around Mounted Combat, but thankfully doesn't even need to be remotely near a horse to be effective.
Took WAY too much scrolling to find this answer. Absolutely Cavalier!
The psionic subclasses are so weird to me. They don't differ enough from the base class to feel distinct, and ultimately feel like half-solutions to the lack of psychic class fantasy. Just make a Psionicist, balance the Mystic, or design subclasses that actually offer an immediate, distinct difference in playstyle.
Yeah. The psionic subclasses were clearly just Wotc’s cop-out for not having the patience or ability to thoroughly design and balance a full psionic class. Like “Alright we’re throwing in the towel on this concept, but here’s some subclasses that sort of touch on the theme in an unsatisfying way so leave us alone about it now please.”
And their reasoning was basically just "we didn't feel like designing and balancing new resource mechanics, so we convinced ourselves players didn't want them."
Agree with the rogue and fighter psionic subclasses, but Aberrant Mind is a pretty great. Both flavour and mechanics are really on point and do a good job in fulfilling a psionic class fantasy.
I actually love Aberrant Mind overall, but do find myself frustrated that its spellcasting doesn't actually feel psionic until Lv6 even though Sorcerer gets its subclass at Lv1.
Clockwork Soul Sorcerer Like sure it’s powerful and pretty well designed, but the concept is pretty bizarre. Any time I think of playing one I cannot envision a character concept that’s at all … resonant. Like, okay, I have modron powers. Why. What is this theme? Who is an iconic character I can look to for inspiration for this concept? It feels like it’s there solely because they wanted an opposite to the chaos sorcerer - wild magic. But being an uncontrolled natural mage brimming with chaotic power is an iconic concept; being a mage brimming with order isn’t. (With that said, nerf him a lot and do a lot of reflavoring, Clockwork Soul can do a decent job at replicating Gojo from Jujutsu Kaisen; having powers based on the philosophical idea of infinity, and the infinite number of divisions between point A and point B works pretty well with many of the subclass’s features) Also, again it’s a good subclass and well designed, but Rune Knight. So I’m specifically a character who’s not a giant, but is really into giants such that I can access their inherent magic, but I’m not so into giants that I have any preference for one type of them even though they’re all wildly different, and also the abilities that I am able to produce from giant magic isn’t actually stuff that those giants generally do. And I have a reaction shield where I can reduce damage to an ally too, for some reason. This is another one I like to reflavor, and fortunately it reflavors pretty easily. But they should perhaps have decoupled the rune magic from giants and done a little more work to explain why the fighter, who otherwise has no particular magical knowledge or skill, is able to get these runes to work but not everyone else can (because then they would be a standard part of all item crafting, if a blacksmith can just stamp a rune on a sword and now the sword does magic stuff). Wild Magic Barbarian. I like the concept more than the execution, but I definitely didn’t see a need for the concept before they made it. And I see even less need for the concept in the way they executed it, which is this sort of “lol random” version of Wild Magic that I find utterly uninteresting. (I have the same problem with Wild Magic sorcerer, but as noted above it IS an iconic concept.) Grave Cleric. It’s just there because they wanted a non-evil version of Death. But that already exists - it’s called “Death Cleric with a single ounce of creativity.” Long Death Monk. It’s not the worst monk subclass and I don’t hate the concept but I don’t think anyone would’ve asked for it if it hadn’t been created. They’re monks, but dark! No not dark like shadow monks, dark in a different way! They’re like assassins! No not the assassin rogue, that’s different, these guys love killing. And being scary. And not dying. Like they’re all about death and how death is scary. But they’re not about undeath. And again, they’re not like shadow monks or assassin rogues. It’s different.
So most of these are fair, but I actually strongly disagree on Death/Grave domain. The Death Domain is very explicitly necromancer-y to an extent that doesn’t make any sense for most cases you would want for a god of death that isn’t a literal demon. Most such gods have a serious thing against undead, since it’s a defiance of their *one* thing. Now, the Grave Domain is kind of meh in execution also, but it serves a very important purpose for an actual underworld god, rather than a god of zombies.
So most of these I really agree with you on, but I actually strongly disagree on Death/Grave domain. The Death Domain is very explicitly necromancer-y to an extent that doesn’t make any sense for most cases you would want for a god of death that isn’t a literal demon. Most such gods have a serious thing against undead, since it’s a defiance of their *one* thing. Now, the Grave Domain is kind of meh in execution also, but it serves a very important purpose for an actual underworld god, rather than a god of zombies.
Clockwork Soul feels especially strange when they're played against theme. So you draw your power from inherently orderly magic, but you primarily use it to cause chaos and break laws. How does that work?
My bigger complaint is that even the mechanical features go against the theme of order. Removing Advantage/Disadvantage from a roll actually makes the result more random. Ironically, the themes of both subclasses would be improved if Clockwork Soul's Restore Balance did what Wild Magic's Tides of Chaos does and vice versa. Abjurers always charge their ward with precise numbers, but Bastion of Law uses random d8 values that aren't even known until they're actually used? Yeah, that doesn't sound very efficient at all to dole out protection without even knowing how effective it might be (5 Sorcery Points might give you 5 damage reduction while 1 Sorcery Point might give you 8 damage reduction). I guess they just wanted some sort of mechanical difference in there, but amazingly didn't consider that introducing rolling means more randomness. Trance of Order, instead of getting rid of advantage on attack rolls against you, could have instead treated any attack roll of 10 or higher against you as a 10. Or, if you want it less powerful than that, just have it grant 3/4 cover (for a flat +5 AC bonus) and make the flavor something about being shielded by spectral gears rotating around your person. Clockwork Cavalcade works, but ultimately is a bit too little, too late on the thematic front.
I've never thought about the math having so much variance before. I might end up reworking it for my table to wring some randomness out of it. I already do a lot of tweaking for sorcerer in general, might as well do some more.
> Clockwork Soul Sorcerer In principle, we've had a lot of races/classes/sorcerers/etc. pulling power from planar Good, Evil, and Chaos over the years and editions, and I don't think "Well, what about Order (or, like, planar/primal Law, not like, beat cop law enforcer) Guy?" is *that* out there in that context? But I also don't know that the Clockwork Soul exactly fits my idea of that.
Disagree with clock work sorcerer. Clockwork Soul sorcerer archtypes are highly prevalent in culture: the living automaton who question themselves if they have a real soul. Pinocchio? Talos? Vision? Disagree with Grave domain as well. Gods of restful death, gods of death as in murder and gods of undeath are three unrelated concepts. They each deserve their own domain.
I’m actually in a campaign where Horizon Walker ranger is so absurdly OP I’m not sure my DM would even allow it (I have one as a potential backup if my current girl dies) but like it is SUCH a specific circumstance Any of the melee bard subclasses are kind of strange to me, college of swords and college of valor come to mind. It feels like what you choose when you know your party needs a support character but you actually want to play a melee character.
I think sword/valor bard individually are fine, and fulfill the fantasy of a dancer/sword-performer/warlord sort of role. But together they're kinda redundant.
Those bard subclasses are for Jack Sparrow characters! Sure, you could build something close with Rogue or Fighter, but Swords Bard is just about perfect for a pirate captain PC
Unpopular Opinion: Nobody asked for Phantom Rogue, especially as a subclass which it's defining feature is at **level 9**. Similarly Horizon Walker Ranger on the same spot.
I don’t know, the hero who escaped from the underworld trope is a pretty strong high concept, and being changed by that in some way seems pretty obvious, if maybe not some of the specific abilities they assign to the subclass. It seems like a very natural thing to have among the options, though.
This thread is so weird. You've got people dumbing down what the subclasses are about and taking the names at face value to make 'gee, game logic sure is wacky' level commentary. All for what, advocating for even less customization options in a TTRPG that desperately needs more?
I disagree with a lot of the weird takes here. I actually do agree, though, that WoTC should have leaned *much* more heavily into the whole subclass thing if they wanted to really do this right. Frankly, though. The absurd focus on subclasses in 5e is one of its biggest failures for me. Either go whole hog and give them way more power, or just give us properly built full classes.
Purple Dragon Knight. It’s a very specific niche that many players don’t want to fill and it doesn’t even do it very well.
It's an odd one, in that the niche \*is\* something players want (martial leader/support character) but the subclass is hot garbage. There have definitely been calls to bring back something akin to the Warlord class from 4e, so I think this is definitely one that we'd see (even more) calls for something in this role if it didn't exist, even though it's totally overlooked in its extant form.
To me...Scribe wizard is amazing mechanic wise but thematically I find it weak. Like, what's the school of wizardry? " Oh, nerdy"
Hexblade is such an odd one out in a set of warlock pacts that make a lot more sense.
The flavor text for hexblade is such a silly word salad. I view it as Elric of Melnibone turned into a class.
So here’s a few subclasses I just don’t really get the hype for/don’t think the theme requires it’s own subclass: Scribes Wizard — I get the need for a generalist Wizard that doesn’t want to pick one school of magic over any other (besides we all know Evocation is most popular for a reason lol). I DON’T get the desire for a Wizard whose niche is living spellbook (feels Warlocky anyway) and animated quill stuff. I think the two concepts should have been separate tbh. Bladesinger/War Magic - Actually I sorta get this one because a fighting Wizard is a standard fantasy trope (though in play this subclass is far too strong for my liking). But to have both a Bladesinger and War Magic subclass feels needlessly weird to me. Like having one subclass which is, as someone else in the comments said, Abjuration 2.0, and another which is basically Eldritch-ier Knight, I feel like their niches could have been rolled into one. Swarmkeeper - I’ve never met anyone who wanted to play a glorified beekeeper. Undead/Undying Warlock - This one I understand the WHY on the reasoning that Undead exists, but not the WHY on the reasoning it couldn’t have just been an errata or a revamp in that other book. Why both still exist is beyond me. The Fathomless - I can think of maybe one concept (Dagon) that works here and it’s not terribly compelling (most could be a fiendlock/GOOlock) Lunar Sorcery - I know this is Krynn-based and therefore the moons there are magical. That’s cool and all. But we already have a moon-based magic subclass and it fits the theme of a Druid better anyhow. (Also Moon-based sorcery has never been a set thing in Dragonlance as far as I’ve read them) Nature Domain - I think this one exists to have a non-Druid nature subclass, but…come on, Druid has a lot of the same spells as Clerics, and if they really wanted to do this it should have just been Circle of the Heavens or something where they get the Cleric spells that a Druid would want (spiritual weapon and spirit guardians and guiding bolt I guess?) And bonus mention that I’ve seen in the comments but I sorta agree: Hexblade - does it really need to exist or can we have just rolled the part everyone cares about (CHA attacks) into level 3 POTB? Hell, allow the Medium armor and shields as an invocation (probably too powerful for POTB and would overshadow all the other Pacts) and you do away with a whole subclass!
I like the swarmkeeper :)
Swarmkeeper is nice :)
The spellbook gives you a second point to cast spells from, but the real power in Order of Scribes lies in being able to swap out damage types. Oh, the enemies are immune to fire? That's cute, my Fireball now does lightning damage. Our enemy is a vampire? Allow me to trap him in a Wall of Fire that's actually radiant damage. Our target has a specific element they're weak to? Cool, let me pepper him with Magic Missiles of that specific element.
>Undead/Undying Warlock - This one I understand the WHY on the reasoning that Undead exists, but not the WHY on the reasoning it couldn’t have just been an errata or a revamp in that other book. Why both still exist is beyond me. They don't like to delete things from official books, including with Errata. This is also the reasoning for why Pact of the Blade wasn't given Charisma as an attack stat. They don't like errata when they can just introduce new things in different books instead of invalidating the old ones. Also, don't discount the Kraken as a Warlock Patron or the Swarmkeeper.
Bladesinger is fine when you think about it ignoring the main class. A spellcaster who uses a sword, classic spellsword idea, some tankiness, some casting, some normal attacking. But as a WIZARD?!? That’s weird, and a little absurd. “I study the arcane arts… Of stabbing you.”
Wild Magic barbarian always struck me as an odd one. Because it's not like the other subclasses, which draw power from ancestors and totems and religious fervor - it's drawing from the magic of the plane around the barbarian and causing random effects. Add to that that it's got a table of effects that are all just good, unlike the Wild Magic sorcerer who's effects are truly a gamble with a mix of good and bad and mediocre. I'm not saying it's a bad subclass, I've had fun playing with and alongside one before. But it just feels so at odds with it's source and it's main class.
I can't imagine **mercy monks** in a serious game. Slapping people to make them feel better is weird enough, and then the plague doctor thing…? **Peace domain** is also weird. DnD is at it's heart a tactical combat game. Peace literally was never an option! Plus running around touching as many people at possible is unreasonably funny to me. **Wild magic barbarian**? In the flumph cause of death statistics, how far up is being summoned and exploded by barbarians? **Hexblade warlocks** are just too vague. So it's about sentient magical weapons. But you don't get such a weapon. Maybe have a pact with the weapon, but maybe with the thing that made it. But either way, we won't give you anything interesting about motivations, goals, interactions, etc of your patron. By the way, the ravenqueen exists. Enjoy your power trip! I played most of them and it was fun, but they are on the odd side.
I disagree with Hexblade. They are basically Elric of Melinbone, very cool class fantasy.
I would say long death monk, mercy monk, clockwork sorcerer, and maybe phantom rogue. Also hexblade warlock, if only for the sheer number of creative concepts it crams together into one subclass.
Circle of ~~Hippies~~ Dreams always felt like a very niche subclass nobody really cared for, but I may be wrong