And the DM said, Let there be Subclasses: and there were Subclasses.
As I've been planning an overly-large guild-based campaign, I had a hankering for more subclasses; and here they are. Feel free to steal, leave constructive criticism, and generally do whatever you like with these. If you see something overly abusive, overpowered, or underpowered, or actually have some idea of how to better balance some of the more esoteric of these, please, let me know!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lR-X4xUdgFumWXXAw94Tb--8_Ux5B8wT0z9lx7fHKak/edit?usp=sharing
Interesting. It's gonna take some time before I can make any worthwhile critique (that's a lot of subclasses, dude). But I'll definitely give it a good look over.
Thank you for sharing! 
Hmm... to start with, I don't think Shamans should be Barbarians. I just don't see Shamans as being spellcasters that have the largest hit die in the game. And if I got a Goblin Shaman, it's probably not a level 3 with 2 levels of being a bad ass warrior.
I think it would be better to make a Shaman as subclass of Cleric.
No subclasses of Wizard? How about a Witch? Laying down curses and specializing in Enchantment and Transmutation spells?
But, to be totally honest... I'm not yet familiar enough with the system to give a good critique.
I'm definitely interested in building a shadow pact warlock, although I just love the monk/shadowdancer subclass ability too much. I want to be able to transport through shaows like earlier editions. I also prefer to add Creation to the 5th level spell list to mimic conjuring shadowstuff in stead of contagion but then I was always more of a ultility caster than a blaster.
I LOVE these. Some are a bit misses for me – while I think there should be a castery-Barbarian subclass, I don't think the Shaman quite fits into the Barbarian there – the Totem Warrior already does Barbarian spirit companions, and it feels a bit overly magical for a Barbarian to me. I think another Spirit Companion subclass fits somewhere else though; perhaps the Ranger or Druid? The other Barbarians are perfect for me – though their path names could use some alteration; the canon Primal Path names are based around the Barbarian's role in the world, rather than an abstract concept like Echoes or Storm; Stormborn works already for the whirling Barbarian subclass there, though maybe another name would be better. Windrunner? Whirlwind? Stormdancer? Echoes – Thunderborn? That was what it was called in 4e. I'm not a huge fan of the name, though. Maybe there's a Paragon Path or Prestige Class name that could be eaten for this. You also seem to draw inspiration from mountain men and such for this subclass; I like it a lot, and maybe there's a good name from there. Echoing Screamer? Mountain Regent? Mountaineer?
I LOVE your Sorcerer bloodlines (especially my all-time favourite, the Cosmic Sorcerer), Bard colleges (though I think College of Wit, being a more "generic" college, might want a different name – I would suggest "College of Rhetoric"; Wit is a central concept to the College of Lore Bard; also, I still feel the need to create yet another Bard College, since neither of the canon ones nor your 3 emulate the Prescient Bard from Arcane Power), Paladin Oaths and Monk ways. Also Druid Circles and Ranger archetypes; really important for filling in those gaps! Summoner Druid and Throw-weapon Ranger, yes!!!
Gladiator Fighter is good. I don't know if Knight is NECESSARY, but it's not unappreciated, though I think I'll call it the Cavalier (Knight feels too close to Eldritch Knight, and both the 3.5e Knight class and the 2e Cavalier seem to be inspirations). Bloodblade is interesting and quite out there. I don't think I'll use it, but I like the concept of casting from hitpoints. Shadowdancer feels a bit OP to me, and stepping on the toes of the Shadowdancing Monk. Thug is fine, and works well alongside Thief and Assassin as a new Schemey archetype. Warlocks are good and desired as well!
All in all, this is a great supplementary document, and I very well may allow it (with some adaptations) as a supplement to my players when I start my game in a week or two!
Hebitsuikaza: I kind of agree with your point about the shaman, but I I had to come up with enough names that by the time I came up with the idea of that subclass, I was ready to take whatever jumped out at me- and since it was the 4e Shaman, I wasn't quibbling. I may change the name if something more appropriate comes up.
Also, I didn't include any Cleric or Wizard subclasses, even though they have so much open space, because they already have more than 5 subclasses. As I said, I'm planning a many-person campaign, and I wanted to avoid the players stepping on each others's toes if at all possible. But if any of said players wants to create a new subclass for those classes (or I get an idea that will just itch at me until I include it), I'll update the document.
Marandahir: thank you for all the compliments! And thank you especially for the idea of renaming Wit to the College of Rhetoric; as you may guess, while I was coming up with Bard College names, my with was stretched further than I'd like, although they came out acceptably. Interestingly, the College of Music was initially going to be the College of Prescience, but I couldn't for the life of me come up with an appropriate Bardic Inspiration ability. You can still see the remnants of the College of Prescience in their Level 6 ability!
Finally, while it isn't immediately clear, the Shadowdancer's ability to teleport through shadows is functionally quite a bit different from the Monk's, and inferior in a lot of ways, despite coming at a later level. The Monk's ability is incredibly good, as it works as a bonus action, eating through half of their available damage of that turn, but letting said Monk make a clean getaway or effortlessly give chase; it works best in a combat scene. However, the Rogue's ability to teleport, although it goes much futher, works as an action. So it works better as an out of combat or pre-combat option, letting you sneak past guards to set up your trap; or, in a bad scenario, making a last-ditch getaway. I should probably reduce the distance it goes though; looking at it now, 200 feet seems really excessive. Maybe 100 feet?
Love Shadowdancer sense sharing.
Speaking of sharing, thanks 
.
As I look over the College of Music again, I don't see a unifying story to the features. I can tell you're going for something out of Virtue of Prescience, but can't quite get the subclass.
I think I'm going to drop that one and homebrew my own in its place; no worries though; so many of these are great and will save me hours of homebrew work developing them!!
Oops. It caught my attention that one of my class houserules made it through my filter. The Gladiator's Grit abiltiy references the "Focus" feature; to align with RAW, that should be Second Wind, and not temporary hit points. The document has been changed to correct this (and change that Bard subclass's name).
Oki man... Here's my toughs on your subclasses, overall good job man! Some are to OP, but most are "playable". Tried to be constructive, you work hard there and you deserve credits for it. hope my pointers would help better the subclasses. But if you don't like them, ignore me I based my comments on what i feel the original classes cores are. Yours might not be the same...
Barb 01: wrong class! a shaman is a caster 1st, melee 2nd, it would be better with druid (since they're animal/ element focus)
Barb 02: level 3 ability, at will as a bouns action is a bit to much, cool but to much.The rest is thematic and oki.
Barb 03: this one i don't like, more off hand attacks (better than a fighter?) more speed at level 6 (when you just add some at level 5), i don't know... need some work.
Bard 01: like!
Bard 02: nice concept, very "bardish".
Bard 03: look a lot like Valor Bard from PHB... little bit more tactics oriented, like the vibe, undecided if to strong or not.
Druid 01: original, feel like a druid, love the beast focus.
Druid 02: good one...
Druid 03: i would give regen bonus instead of healing bonus, make more sense for a sun druid (healing is for cleric), rest is fine.
Fig 01: at 7th level, you should not give a feat as a class feature, and besides why would a gladiator be so alert? Level 15th ability is a bit strong, instead go with more dices.
Fig 02: ho boy... don't like this one at all, reactions galore on a knight, no... will fit a swashbuckler best. And you're confonding knight with cavalier, a knight is a noble 1st, a rider 2nd.
Monk 01: remove weapon effects, having 2 weapon attacks with a FoB is already powerful. Really like level 6 and 11 abilities, level 17 need a bit of rework.
Monk 02: love it!, my favorite so far.
Pally 01: love the fluf, and abilities, but, again you give a feat as class feature (level 15 ability)
Pally 02: pretty decent, all in all.
Rng 01: finely a thrower subclass... I love it!
Rng 02: sniper... way to strong, 4x weapon damage and 2x mod... the rest is pretty OP also, all except the level 7 ability... to me, the worse sub so far, way unbalanced.
Rng 03: why a ranger sub? this should either be a sorc/ wiz sub or better yet: a warlock! not fitting a ranger and the powers are all "wrong"
Rog 01: again, to strong and unbalance, why would you play any other rogue? and change the name, the monk already have a shadowdancer.
Rog 02: yessss back on tracks! vandalism is awesome!
Scr 01: you lost me at :divine... being able to cast divine (heal spells) as an arcene is jsut wierd... and totally OP, i can see a celestial sorc that use radiant powers, but not this.
Scr 02: unholy **** Batman! now that's way to much goodies into one sub, make the eldritch knight look like a wimp. Seriously, cool theme, but way to strong.
Scr 03: love the phase, the uniqueness of each, a bit powerful at times, but very cool.
War 01: wierd and fun... ;)
War 02: classic evil, scary, bad ass warlock... so good!
Well here is it...
Um... The Bloodblade...
I can't think of a situation where at 17th level losing 60 hitpoints to cast a 5th level spell is a good deal.
If all we get is Fiat, can I go with Barchetta? I love that song.
Thanks again for the thoughts! My thoughts:
I wanted to make some sort of Barbarian caster, and I liked the idea of casting during rage, so I just tried to come up with an appropriate name. Shaman jumped out, but a lot of people are having trouble with it; I'd love to hear some suggestions on what it could be instead.
I agree that at-will frightening might be a bit overpowered, but I'm a bit stymmied as to what to do with it instead. Activating only on a kill would work, but then the barbarian doesn't get to be scary at all against solo creatures. And going down to once per rest seems a bit underpowered. I think I'll have to see how it works out in play; after all, each enemy can only be frightened once.
For the storm barbarian, if I remember correctly it mathed out properly against the Berzerker barbarian. Those exhaustion rages ramp up quickly; after one, you're at disadvantage to all ability checks, two hits half speed, and three hits disadvantage on ALL attack rolls! And they persist pretty nastily too. I added the speed so that the barbarian wouldn't be able to jump further than they could move (once they hit that 24 Strength). But now that I think about it, creatures with base 25 speed would still fall into that problem. So that's something I have to think about now.
As for the fighters... Technically, the Alert ability for the gladiator does mostly stack with the Alert feat; the feat tacks on +5 initiative more, and denies advantage when being attacked. I was thinking of the gladiator being sensitive to danger, because who knows what another gladiator will do to him while he's asleep? So I guess I could change that ability to not being automatically surprised when asleep. For Grit, does 3d10 + your fighter level hitpoints sound right, then?
Lots of people have been talking about the cavalier thing too. I can definitely change that in a future revision. This was a case of mechanics coming before the title of the subclass. It was mostly sparked by Lawolf (I think... if I'm misattributing this, please don't crucify me!) talking about the lack of a 4e style defender because of a lack of reactions. So that came first, but it didn't occupy enough design space, so the mounted combat part came in. I also wanted to make the Protection fighting style more viable; that's why not all of the reactions can be used for opportunity attacks (also damage output and potential Rogue multiclass shennanigans).
The monk weapon flurry of blows damage output isn't actually an issue after level 5; monk weapons do 1d6 damage at most, and get replaced by the Martial Arts attack die! Unless the player is using one with a versitile property, I guess... so I might add a clause that the weapon must be wielded one-handed. I'm slightly worried about dual wielding and stacking different afflictions on one enemy, but unless someone wants to give me an example, that might have to wait for actual play to test. The level 17 ability is a reworked Destructive Wave, so it SHOULD be balanced. I think. It does about the same damage (5d10 + 8 = 35.5 damage, 10d6 = 35 damage), and takes up almost a third of the monk's ki. If you don't like the wuxia feel it has, that's perfectly fair, though.
Agh. You've caught me. I really do give a feat as a class feature. In my defense, the book half-does it with the dragonblood sorcerer. I still can't think of anything else that'll really give the Sacrifice paladin the necessary bulk at high levels, though.
The Skirmisher ranger is actually throwing out the same damage as normal, except all at once rather than over two turns. It's balanced against the damage subclass from the Hunter archetype. The hunter would make two attacks (2d8), and get in two colossus slayer damage boosts (another 2d8) for a total of 4d8 plus twice his ability modifier! In fact, he would actually put out four more damage if he had the Dueling fighting style. And max damage on a crit isn't all that bad either; that's only hitting 1d8 + 47 damage once every ten turns or so (given that the skirmisher is only attacking every other turn)! And in comparison, a 11th level fighter with no feats could be putting out 3d8 + 15 damage each turn; coming up at 6d8 + 30 = 57 damage over the two turns, no crits involved! I am quite worried about this subclass, but not the combat damage; I'm worried if it'll be fun to play. Attacking only once every other turn sounds like it could be quite boring...
The Bloodblade was made by the request of one of my players. It may not be particularly rangerish, but it does look like it'll be fun to play. Or at least really, really scary to play as.
Is the shroud thing what's setting everyone off to the rogue? That could definitely easily be moved down to a short rest ability, or at least requiring an action to place it on an enemy (which sounds much more appropriate to me; the whole point of the shroud is supposed to be to get the rogue to focus on one enemy instead of bouncing around at will).
The divine bloodline sorcerer was another player request, as was the demonic; the promised divine bloodline from the playtest is something my group has desired for quite a while, as has the caster/melee duality of the old dragonblood sorcerer. I think you're on to something with the divine spells, though. I don't think it's necessarily overpowered giving the sorcerer healing spells (other than, perhaps, a Twinned Raise Dead), but the sorcerer feels like it should be blasty.
I am worried about the Demonic sorcerer, mostly because I'm struggling to fully balance it. The idea is that if you spend pretty much all of your spells on the transformation, you end up at around Fighter level combat abilites. It requires quite a bit of investment to hit usable melee levels; just dumping 20 points in and calling it a day leaves you significantly weaker than the Blade Warlock. 60 points leaves you with a paladin's level of spells and damage, and 100 points leaves you at fighter level damage, but no Action Surge. You can still have a level 9 spell in the back to make up for that, though (as converting all of your spells to sorcery points gives you 109 total sorcery points, including the 20 you start with at 20th level). For anyone who wants to help me balance this subclass, you can hit 5th level fighter parity at level 6 (with 5 net spell levels left over), 11th level paladin damage at level 13 (with 7 net spell levels left over), and 20th level fighter level abilites at 19th level (with 9 net spell levels left over at 20th level). All of this is without all the bells and whistles that those classes get though, and requires turning yourself from a caster to a squishy melee person with no shield proficiency. And then you have build choices that may leave you split; do you go for optimizing your melee potential or spells? and so on.
Oh, boy. That was a mouthful. I'm glad if you got some ideas you liked out of it, though!
Jell_Moo wrote:
Redblue200 wrote:
Or you can cast a 5th level Cure Wounds and heal 52 hitpoints. Or two 3rd level Cure Wounds and heal 50 hitpoints. Or, if you really don't want to spend anything of consequence, you can throw three or four 1st level Cure Wounds at the ranger. Remember, this is also a 17th level cleric; Clerics of Life heal maximum hitpoints with their spells. Unless you're still in combat after a minute, the action cost isn't terribly significant, either. And if you've been fighting for 10 round straight, you probably have bigger things to be worried about, if you're still alive.
In general, I'm trying to NOT have it be the optimal option. Rangers have their own spells, and they (as well as the other subclasses; they don't give a huge combat boost) shouldn't be overshadowed. But sometimes you just to fire out a Cone of Cold, consequences be darned; and this type of ranger can do that.
Redblue200 wrote:
Well, this actually brings up a point that I'd like to ask; what WOULD you consider balanced? This subclass is one of those that is very hard to properly balance, so I verged on the side of trying to not make it abusive. I'd love to get some feedback on what others think is more appropriate. Also, sorry if I sounded a bit snarky in those last two posts; I was under the malign influence of a Lagiacrus, and it was somewhat souring my mood.
Honestly, I think the first thing to establish is whether you'd like to have the Bloodcasting be a resource driven mechanic, or a sharp "hard decision" to make.
Assuming the 17th level Ranger has, let's say, a 14 Con, he will have an average of about 132 hitpoints. Spending 60 hit points on a spell is definitely a high cost scenario. Depending on how a battle goes, it could mean that you have a dead Ranger a minute after the battle.
My inclination might be something along the lines of: The cost is 5 hit points x the spell level being cast. So 5 hit points for a 1st level spell, up to 25 hit points for a 5th level spell. However, these lost hit points cannot be healed via magical means. The only way to regain these hit points is after a long rest.
I think this makes it a bit more of a tactical decision, insomuch as your pocket Cleric isn't going to be of help. Each time you use the feature, you get progressively weaker as the day goes on.
Ooh. I DO like that. I'd rather like to tie it into lowering maximum hitpoints for the day, like undead, but that could still be undone by a Greater Restoration. I could just add an extra clause that disallows that, though.
Redblue200 wrote:
Well, gosh darn it, you're right! Doubly so in my setting, where diamonds are priced much higher than their spell component "worth." Putting a 500 gp price on a life means that people burn through diamonds pretty quickly; and diamonds aren't the most comon of occurrences anyways. I also really like that idea because it gives the Mastery of Pain ability a nice dynamic; do I use it now, to help deal with this Red Dragon's fire breath that I can currently have enough hit points to stay concious through, or save it until my max hit points are lower?