cbwjm
Seb-wejem
Every time you cast a spell you may fly 10 feet. You have to actively choose to do so, you aren't automatically propelled whenever you cast a spell.
D&D 5E Subclasses impact on class value
WayOfTheFourElements
Hero
Yes, that makes it a little better, but it doesn't explain why the ability works that way from an in-game perspective or why I can create a storm sorcerer with being able to cast a single storm-related spell.
I'm not saying the mechanics are bad. I'm saying the ability doesn't feel right to me.
Last edited:
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
Yeah, I realised that as I went back and kept reading. The problems of answering something before you catch up on the thread.
As is, if I were to want to explain it, I'd say that each spell they cast enables them to draw upon some of the strands of magic used to cast the spell to trigger their inborn talent to briefly fly.
WayOfTheFourElements
Hero
I guess my problem is that I like the idea of the class, I like 98% of the execution, but certainly makes the other 2% that drives me nuts stand out.
I think the value of the subclass is depending on the different base class. Lets take Barbarian for a moment. For the most part, no matter what path you end up taking, it starts to feel same-y. A Bear barbarian isn't really acting that different from a berserker, nor from a wolf barbarian. Sure, the wolf barbarian is going to stick closer to the party, and the eagle runs around more, but that's not really a major difference to me - its stuff a base barbarian would likely do anyways. Just some bonuses for some certain tactics. And, even then? Any barbarian will use those tactics if necessary.
Then, we look at the bard, who goes from gish to pure caster Pretty huge variance there. Druid who goes from shapeshifter to caster (at least level 2-11, at which point things break down). Well, that's just an issue if we're going to see more variance from these two options, though. Gish and pure caster - are we going to see actual meaningful differences in the future?
The wizard who, despite all subclasses having access to each spell, very deliberately has a different focus - blaster, undead army, summoner, buffer, etc. They all really play differently if you follow the spell types.
Some classes come off as vastly different, some come off as wildly variant. Some are in the middle.
Then, we look at the bard, who goes from gish to pure caster Pretty huge variance there. Druid who goes from shapeshifter to caster (at least level 2-11, at which point things break down). Well, that's just an issue if we're going to see more variance from these two options, though. Gish and pure caster - are we going to see actual meaningful differences in the future?
The wizard who, despite all subclasses having access to each spell, very deliberately has a different focus - blaster, undead army, summoner, buffer, etc. They all really play differently if you follow the spell types.
Some classes come off as vastly different, some come off as wildly variant. Some are in the middle.
Last edited:
Some of the UA Barbarian Subclasses do encourage some very different play styles.
Zealot can afford to act more suicidal, Ancestral Guardian is massive turned towards a more defender role to the point of competing with the Paladin and Battlemaster for best defender, and Storm Herald has strong enviromental adaptions and a dangerous magical aura.
Last edited:
Nah, even those really feel same-y. You're using your bonus action and reaction to od something slightly different with Ancestral Guardian, but turn by turn? You're still going into a rage, you're angling so that you still hitting critters (or get hit!) with a big weapon every turn. It doesn't really -feel- different. Many barbarians act suicidal in the first place - that's the point of their THP and reslience in the first place! Storm Heralds don't really do much of anything but add a bit more damage to those around them or grant you an elemental resistance which, except fire, is generally going to not come up in play.
I don't consider these meaningful changes unless it has a strong impact on your turn-to-turn choices, both in combat and out. Barbarian generally fails to do so.
The fighter sub-classes should have been classes by themselves, then the champion, battle master and eldritch knight would have received proper treatment. So with 5E, some classes work well with subclasses because mechanics are in synch, there is a niche, and there is possibility for expansion. Overall, it works much better for casters, versus martial characters.
SmokingSkull
First Post
I'll just agree to disagree, at the end of the day I like what I have as a Monster Hunter and appreciate it as the Fighter subclass that it is. I would hate for it to be a class on its own or heaven forbid it being a subclass for some other class like Ranger. Bad enough there isn't enough flavor in Fighter subclasses in general, base Fighter I could understand but to me there is no excuse. That being said the three (four if you count SCAG) work well enough but for a guy like me I shouldn't have to play some other class to "be" a Monster Hunter or whatever character I want to play especially as far as Fighter is concerned. Hell, in another campaign I'm in I'm playing a Paladin who will eventually take up the "Oath of Knowledge", it's a custom subclass cause the three in the PHB don't fit the concept and going Knowledge Cleric isn't an answer for me.
