Should there be Subclasses that replace something from the Base Class?

[Kobold Avenger]

It hasn't really be done in 5e yet as all Subclasses add something on top of what the Base Class has, but could there be room for Subclasses that take something away from the Base Class to add in something else the Subclass gets in addition to other things? Some Base Classes like Bard don't leave much to work with like only 3 levels where something is gained, so replacing something like magical secrets to get something else might be an example. Or maybe even more drastic where abilities they got before subclasses get replaced with something new in the subclass.

I think in theory these might be more difficult to balance against other subclasses, as a lot of the ideas behind a subclass is that they usually work along side the base class.

 

[Umbran]

As a design philosophy, I'm going to say that'd be a less-than-great idea. Making things strictly additive has several advantages - and helping to maintain balance is one of them.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

No. It is bad design. If you need to do anything like that, borrow the divine smite idea from the paladin (or pretty much anything post PHB bards do with inspiration or "trade a swing of a sword to cast a cantrip" from the eldritch knight), and have a subclass feature that consumes the class resource to do something else. If that is insufficient, build a new class.

 

[shadowoflameth]

I tend to think not. The levels where characters get something outside their specialty are meant to be things that all members of that class or all characters get. It makes more sense to me to change up the specialty because customizing the characters focus is what those are for. There could be other specialties for example like the Oathbreaker which replaces another specialties abilities with it's own. Say for your bard, for example if he gains a familiar he trades his specialty for one that gets bonuses when his familiar sings along with him, or even a feat that does something like that. Say for another example Duet specialist Requires a familiar. You add twice your proficiency to performance checks when your familiar sings with you, or for a fighter Weapon specialist Requires the character has at least one Maneuver die and knows at least one maneuver. The character gains advantage on attacks when using a maneuver with that particular weapon.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No. It is bad design. If you need to do anything like that, borrow the divine smite idea from the paladin (or pretty much anything post PHB bards do with inspiration or "trade a swing of a sword to cast a cantrip" from the eldritch knight), and have a subclass feature that consumes the class resource to do something else. If that is insufficient, build a new class.

This is on point.

As another example... if you want a druid subclass that doesn't concern itself with wildshaping, rather than remove wildshape as an ability have the character use its wildshape slots to do something else. Same thing with the barbarian and its rages.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Now I'm curious what one counts as a class resource for each class. Some of them are obvious like Ki Points or Bardic Inspiration, but I feel some of them aren't as obvious.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Now I'm curious what one counts as a class resource for each class. Some of them are obvious like Ki Points or Bardic Inspiration, but I feel some of them aren't as obvious.

For wizards and clerics, it is probably just spell slots (pro-undead clerics could just a really good subclass channel divinity to make up for the one they will never use). Normally I would say ranger would be hard, but since most "replace a class feature" things for them involve spell-less rangers, spell slots would work. I am not quite sure how this would work fluff wise, but mechanically, give up one spell slot for an appropriate TOTALLY-NOT-MAGICAL ranger tactic or fighting stance, which will be TOTALLY-NOT-MAGICAL even though it is practically "I cast a spell to give me a fighting stance", but at least the bard (or any class with bonus spells) can't steal it.

Fighters are hard because there are so many fighter gimmicks. Eldritch Knight basically gives up a swing of the sword to cast a cantrip, the battlemaster has martial superiority dice, etc. Since the fighter is so open, you can pretty much fit a lot of subclass gimmicks in there. For a warlord, I guess for every swing of the sword you give up, you can grant an ally the ability to make a simple attack (or cast a cantrip) as a bonus action. At 20th level, a party with one warlord fighter, a rogue, two paladins, and a warlock could come out pretty well for that (on the other hand, a party with a berserker barbarian and a couple of wizards would probably be underwhelmed).

The rogue is pretty open too. The spell thief gives up a swipe of the dagger to cast a spell, but later subclasses tend towards giving the rogue new things to do with bonus actions (which I guess kind of takes away from cunning action). I admit I am not seeing anything that inspires me for the rogue.

 

[Blue]

The UA revised ranger covers what the official staff think n this, though not necessarily in a polished final form sort of way.

The original PHB ranger gained extra attack at 5th level as part of the core class. Like all of the other classes+subclasses in the PHB, nothing was ever removed from the core class.

The revised ranger had a subclass that they did not want to have extra attack. To do that, they redesigned the core class so it no longer had extra attack at all, but did have a subclass feature at 5th. Then, for all of the other subclasses, the subclass granted extra attack in that slot.

So it seems fairly clear that Wizards would only want subclasses to add to the base class, never take away. They would rather redesign a base class to give less and then grant repetitive features to multiple subclasses. And with that in mibnd, you can find the same in the PHB in regards to the armor and weapon proficiencies of the cleric domains. They give the core class the minimum, and then add on for the ones that should be more.

n conclusion, everything we see from Wizards follows the pattern of subclasses only add to core classes, with several examples where it could go the other way including a UA where they had to go out of their way (stripping Extra attack from the core class) to make it so.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Part of the answer to the question depends on another question: who are we talking about?

As far as published material from WotC is concerned, I think [MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION] and others have covered the matter. The revised ranger is particularly illuminating (although its status is now in some doubt).

As far as homebrewing DMs go, though... I, at least, substitute class features quite a bit. I don't think I ever formalize it as part of a subclass, though, it's just on an ad hoc basis.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It really depends. Generally: hell no.
8n the other hand the warlock gets no new invocation at level 3. A design flaw in my opinion since you gain access to pact only invocations at that level. So to take book of shadows which seems essential you need to give up some previous class feature.
I could also see a barbarian skald subclass which I just thought of now that trades rage vs a different ability that allows him to inspire those around him like a bard.
problem is that you now have to look at every feature that might interact with rage and makes such a design quite difficult and maybe even lengthy. But forsaking the urge to run berserk to inspire others is no bad concept at all.