what mechanical classes are we missing?

[Rfkannen]

So from my understanding the sorcerer was made to fill the need for an arcane spontaneous caster. We no longer really have spontaneous casters in 3e. so my question is; what classes mechanicaly do we need to fill nechies in 5e?

[Madfellow]

So from my understanding the sorcerer was made to fill the need for an arcane spontaneous caster. We no longer really have spontaneous casters, so my question is; what classes mechanically do we need to fill niches in 5e?

I'm not sure that's really what they had in mind when they made the sorcerer. More, it was trying to commit to the "every base class from a Player's Handbook" idea they had going into 5th. Either that or they figured, "We have four divine casters, therefor we need four arcane casters and four non-casters." It kinda bugs me, and I would have prefered it if they had stuck to one of their earlier ideas of combining the sorcerer, warlock, and wizard into one mage class, with each of them being a subclass. It also bugs me that they left out the warlord.

To answer your question though, I'm not sure that they do need to fill any mechanical niches. 5e focuses a lot less on simulationism through game mechanics, and a lot more on facilitating a good story. Also, I get the feeling that the mechanical holes you're referring to would be stuff like psionics, incarnum, vestiges, shadow magic, and true speaking (in other words, more magic).

I'll admit that psionics have become an important part of the game and of multiple campaign settings, so it's probably still needed for 5th and we'll probably get it before too long. Can't speak for the rest though. One other thing that I do think we may need is some expansion on the martial classes, specifically an expansion of options other than tanking and damage output, and especially options that scale in power with level. As much as it bugs me to admit it, it's come up enough times on these forums that I can't just cover my ears and go "la la la!" anymore.

[Madfellow]

{scrubbed}

Rather than new classes, I think what we need is just new options for those classes, like new subclasses. That would avoid redundancy and rules bloat, and it would avoid invalidating the classes we already have in the PHB.

I still don't understand what people mean when they say, "We need a true gish." How exactly are the many many gish options we already have coming up short? :smallconfused:

[hecetv]

People ask this every few months. Try searching if you want less jaded responses once this thread eventually devolves as is its apparently natural course.

The answer is apparently if you believe people on this forum that we need more powerful classes that can fulfill multiple roles with no drawbacks. And esoteric special wizard sorcerers called psions. Or maybe a sorcerer like subclass of monk called a psion.

The hybrids we need are a fighter with smites who also gets wizard progression called a sword spell sage arcanum warlord and we need a cleric wizard hybrid who all of his spells buff and heal and she gets ritual casting like a wizard. Oh also we need about ten more bard subclasses to cover every niche and we need a few subclasses for every class that cherry pick whatever abilities we want from every class without multiclassing.

Which reminds me we need a wizard who gets four attacks and the feat progression of a fighter and gets combat inspiration and access to guns inexplicably which deal more damage than spells anyway. This is different than the sword sage I mentioned. Also a warlock hex blade who is just better.

Basically we need a bunch more classes and prestige classes and specializations like what we have now but with no drawbacks like needing to multiclass or getting fighter spell progression or what have you.

Also a guy who can swing bigger hammers than everyone else and he can make himself more mechanical limbs.

Also a specific caster class who fulfuls a specific but overpowered niche that lets him do anything he wants better than other classes. Oh and a caster who uses strength. Also it would be nice to have a barbarian subclass who casts spells and he gets to cast them in rage with advantage. Also a rogue who gets divination and transmutation and he can use reckless attack but there's no drawback.

Also a fighter necromancer who isn't an evil paladin and his thing is he stitches corpses together in his grim dark laboratory to make a super zombie dragon ogre at level 9. But his culture doesn't find that evil.

And we need a summoner and a mystic theurge. And we need a real gish not what I said earlier those are different classes. A gish is DIFERENT!

[Ralanr]

{scrubbed}

Whenever someone says lack of utility in those classes I usually end up thinking, "Challenge accepted"

I've found the hammer concept to work wonders in many scenarios. Helps move things along and not let it be too complicated.

[Mara]

@Hachtek

Top kek.

I more or less agree. Multiclassing is SO amazing in this edition. Spells have baked-in psionic like mechanics. Actually the monster manual has psionic rules. Just take a character with spellcasting and add (psionic) tag to that ability. BOOM done!

I don't understand gish wants. This edition is dripping with gishes. Most people really just want an Arcane paladin. I don't see why a EK 11/ W 9 doesn't work fine. Valor Bards also make great every-characters (Well I can just heal, other spells, attack twice, and tons of skill monkeying).

Perhaps Warlord is missing? Idk didn't ever look that deeply into 4e. Seems like Battlemaster Fighter is a nod to that concept.

[Madfellow]

Nope, definitely not. The current classes have too much power in their chassis - you wouldn't make a wizard by making it a fighter subclass, you'd make it its own class so it had enough power in the budget for spells to be unique and powerful. For maneuver type systems to work you need to make classes for them so that the primary feature can be those maneuvers - sure, you can have eldritch knight style subclasses that get a smaller and less powerful selection, but the reason they get that smaller collection is the same reason a new system needs new classes, the existing ones have too much power invested in doing their own thing already.

Invalidating the classes we already have in the PHB wise - if making strong and versatile classes invalidates them, then they deserve to be invalidated. Notice no-one is worried about the wizard being invalidated by new classes since the wizard is unique and very competent, so any new class that is introduced is no threat to them.

Gish wise, no true integrators (I would argue the paladin sort of does, but I see where people are coming from in the divine caster/no fireballs kind of sense) exist. Look at the swordmage or duskblade for proper gishes - all the hybrids we have are clunky style do one then do the other types.

Most of the argument usually seems to revolve around the fighter, specifically the battlemaster and its slow progression and lack of utility. Having followed the 5e playtest from the beginning, I got to see the long road that led to the battlemaster as we see it today. In the earlier versions, most maneuvers did not deal extra damage when you used them; in fact, only one of them did that. The problem that Wizards encountered was that in most fights, the extra damage maneuver was almost always the "correct" choice. So in the final version, all maneuvers deal extra damage, and the subclass had to be balanced against that fact. I think that if they had gone the opposite route, and had instead just eliminated the extra damage maneuver and left the rest as they were, the BM could have then kept a lot of its utility, or even been given more.

In addition, a lot of the fighter's power comes from the fact that it gets four attacks by level 20. So when I imagine an alternative to the battlemaster coming down the pipeline sometime in the near future, what I imagine is a fighter subclass that deals less damage but has more options, perhaps even including an option to give up attacks in order to do something else.

Regarding gishes, most people who say that seem to be ignoring spells like Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon, Enlarge, Haste, Swift Quiver, etc. that directly enhance combat ability, as well as the Eldritch Knight's ability to enhance its spellcasting power by hitting stuff with its sword.

[MrStabby]

People ask this every few months. Try searching if you want less jaded responses once this thread eventually devolves as is its apparently natural course.

The answer is apparently if you believe people on this forum that we need more powerful classes that can fulfill multiple roles with no drawbacks. And esoteric special wizard sorcerers called psions. Or maybe a sorcerer like subclass of monk called a psion.

The hybrids we need are a fighter with smites who also gets wizard progression called a sword spell sage arcanum warlord and we need a cleric wizard hybrid who all of his spells buff and heal and she gets ritual casting like a wizard. Oh also we need about ten more bard subclasses to cover every niche and we need a few subclasses for every class that cherry pick whatever abilities we want from every class without multiclassing.

Which reminds me we need a wizard who gets four attacks and the feat progression of a fighter and gets combat inspiration and access to guns inexplicably which deal more damage than spells anyway. This is different than the sword sage I mentioned. Also a warlock hex blade who is just better.

Basically we need a bunch more classes and prestige classes and specializations like what we have now but with no drawbacks like needing to multiclass or getting fighter spell progression or what have you.

Also a guy who can swing bigger hammers than everyone else and he can make himself more mechanical limbs.

Also a specific caster class who fulfuls a specific but overpowered niche that lets him do anything he wants better than other classes. Oh and a caster who uses strength. Also it would be nice to have a barbarian subclass who casts spells and he gets to cast them in rage with advantage. Also a rogue who gets divination and transmutation and he can use reckless attack but there's no drawback.

Also a fighter necromancer who isn't an evil paladin and his thing is he stitches corpses together in his grim dark laboratory to make a super zombie dragon ogre at level 9. But his culture doesn't find that evil.

And we need a summoner and a mystic theurge. And we need a real gish not what I said earlier those are different classes. A gish is DIFERENT!

I laughed so hard I spilt my tea.

Damn you.





Actually for additional functions/roles, especially with Martial Classes you don't need new classes or sub-classes but more feats could do it. Grapple, Sentinal etc contribute to battlefield control. Magic initiate gives some casting ability, Skulker helps hybrid your build with a stealth class. Skills can be got through feats and so on.

With the greatest number of ASIs fighter could become the most versatile multi skilled characters out there if there were more feats to support them. I know there is not a lot of support for 3rd Edition here but I do think allowing a degree of skill tree progression might help this to allow more significant focusses on one area of expertise.

[Rfkannen]

People ask this every few months. Try searching if you want less jaded responses once this thread eventually devolves as is its apparently natural course.

The answer is apparently if you believe people on this forum that we need more powerful classes that can fulfill multiple roles with no drawbacks. And esoteric special wizard sorcerers called psions. Or maybe a sorcerer like subclass of monk called a psion.

The hybrids we need are a fighter with smites who also gets wizard progression called a sword spell sage arcanum warlord and we need a cleric wizard hybrid who all of his spells buff and heal and she gets ritual casting like a wizard. Oh also we need about ten more bard subclasses to cover every niche and we need a few subclasses for every class that cherry pick whatever abilities we want from every class without multiclassing.

Which reminds me we need a wizard who gets four attacks and the feat progression of a fighter and gets combat inspiration and access to guns inexplicably which deal more damage than spells anyway. This is different than the sword sage I mentioned. Also a warlock hex blade who is just better.

Basically we need a bunch more classes and prestige classes and specializations like what we have now but with no drawbacks like needing to multiclass or getting fighter spell progression or what have you.

Also a guy who can swing bigger hammers than everyone else and he can make himself more mechanical limbs.

Also a specific caster class who fulfuls a specific but overpowered niche that lets him do anything he wants better than other classes. Oh and a caster who uses strength. Also it would be nice to have a barbarian subclass who casts spells and he gets to cast them in rage with advantage. Also a rogue who gets divination and transmutation and he can use reckless attack but there's no drawback.

Also a fighter necromancer who isn't an evil paladin and his thing is he stitches corpses together in his grim dark laboratory to make a super zombie dragon ogre at level 9. But his culture doesn't find that evil.

And we need a summoner and a mystic theurge. And we need a real gish not what I said earlier those are different classes. A gish is DIFERENT!

Lol. Yeah your right, we don't realy need anything as far as I can tell. My thought process for this thread was just when I was thining about why the sorcerer exist, and I remembered reading somewhere that wotc just made it up to show off their new spontaneus caster thing. And I was wondering if 5e had any mechanics like that which need a class for wotc to show off the new system.

Yeah we have a nice selection already, I mean if you want something realy specific you can just homebrew it. I mean I homebrewed a gallant bard, that is litteraly just a bard with 2 level of paladin. There is no need for it, and I never expect or want it to be made by wotc. but if you want something like that, than just make it.

Though I must say, I realy do want an official barbarian that can cast spells while rageing. I know we don't need it and it isnt part of this threads question, but I realy liked the pathfinder rage prophet? Do I think they should make it? NO! why would they do that! their is no need for so many subclasses! but since I want it, ill make one. Or I could just play a barbarian/cleric. That works to.


edit; On thinking again, I suppose I was a bit to extreme, there are some things which would be nice to have. Psionics and the such I think would be cool to have. Not that nececary though.

[b4ndito]

I've always wanted a divine caster like a priest or shadow priest that had a powerful, original spell list.

Really powerful healing spells, protection spells, a control spells that went beyond cleric/Paladin options.

Kinda like the priest in WoW

[Rfkannen]

I've always wanted a divine caster like a priest or shadow priest that had a powerful, original spell list.

Really powerful healing spells, protection spells, a control spells that went beyond cleric/Paladin options.

Kinda like the priest in WoW

I... don't see what the difference would be? Your basically saying a cleric with an originol spell list.

Is this a joke based off of the not needing more classes? If it is sorry, I can be pretty bad at noticing sarcasm in text.

edit; Wait, like a cloistered cleric? A cleric withought the heavy armor? And maybe some wizard conroll spells. But it realy doesnt sound that diffrent, would just be a bit to much.

[Ralanr]

I've always wanted a divine caster like a priest or shadow priest that had a powerful, original spell list.

Really powerful healing spells, protection spells, a control spells that went beyond cleric/Paladin options.

Kinda like the priest in WoW

Sounds like a cleric.

[Fwiffo86]

So from my understanding the sorcerer was made to fill the need for an arcane spontaneous caster. We no longer really have spontaneous casters in 3e. so my question is; what classes mechanicaly do we need to fill nechies in 5e?

To be completely honest... I think the sorcerer wasn't a function of needing a spontaneous arcane caster, but more an evolution of the forgotten realms Spellfire rules.

Raw magic channeled naturally by a person.

[Ralanr]

To be completely honest... I think the sorcerer wasn't a function of needing a spontaneous arcane caster, but more an evolution of the forgotten realms Spellfire rules.

Raw magic channeled naturally by a person.

Then...what are wizards? Magic is a natural force is most settings and wizards are just regular people who learn how to harness it in certain ways.

No, wait...I had a brain fart. Sorcerers are more natural built conduits of the magic within the world, they're the artist to the wizard's mathematician. The wizard has multiple formulas that he/she can apply to the situation. The sorcerer can alter those formulas slightly, effectively bending reality...

So it is not wizards who tell the laws of the universe to do stuff, but the sorcerers.

[Yagyujubei]

I would enjoy a bard subclass that feels more "bardy" none of the bard features really outright say "this is a song you play" (SoR not included) and even though you can fluff anything to fit it, it would be nice for it to actually be built into the class officially.

[bloodshed343]

-snip-

In my opinion, there's a difference between fighting AND magic (such as the EK, who uses mundane attacks combined with stock, wizard-lite spellcasting) versus fighting WITH magic (such as the 4e Swordmage). The closest thing we have to the second type of gish is a 4 elements monk. This wasn't good enough for me, so I made the Janissary. I specifically wanted the Janissary to be less powerful than the paladin, while having more flexibility in attack modes. I did this by limiting it to light armor, scimitars/simple weapons, d8 hit die, and no extra attack/fighting style. To make up for this, they're more mobile, can deal several different damage type with their melee attacks, and can cause status effects similar to cantrips.

Not all homebrew is overpowered Master-of-everything nonsense.

[Ralanr]

Not all homebrew is overpowered Master-of-everything nonsense.

I really wish I was better at judging homebrew. Because you're right on this point.

[mephnick]

snip

Damn, level 20 fighter with full wizard spell progression was my response!

Oh well, good job.

I don't think they need anything that can't be covered with slightly expanded sub-classes. I think the mechanics are all covered. Psionics (which I never liked from a redundancy standpoint) is basically in the book already with spell points, but I can understand wanting an official version of it.

I couldn't care less about vestiges, true speaking or shadow magic. Like psionics they're just complications of things the magic system already gives us.

[Madfellow]

I couldn't care less about vestiges, true speaking or shadow magic. Like psionics they're just complications of things the magic system already gives us.

Amen to that.

[bloodshed343]

True Speaking is cool and should be the default system for magic. Just saying.

Edit: It would also lower the power gap between martial and casters if designed correctly.

[Submortimer]

One other thing that I do think we may need is some expansion on the martial classes, specifically an expansion of options other than tanking and damage output, and especially options that scale in power with level. As much as it bugs me to admit it, it's come up enough times on these forums that I can't just cover my ears and go "la la la!" anymore.

They just need to do a wholesale conversion of ToB. I don't know anyone that didn't like that book, save for a couple of my friends that dismiss it right away for bieng too close to "Weeaboo Fitan Magic".

[ChubbyRain]

Incarnum, Binding (3e Binder), Post-Lv 8 Martials that aren't just levels 1-8 again, Shadow Caster (3.e), and Truenaming.

Chain Warlock is nothing compared to the 3e Binder. The fluff alone was fantastic and the mechanics were cool as hell.

Truenaming because... Well... Fun?


Edit

If you want the sorcerer to be really awesome, give them the druid spell list... Works wonders. Give them one circle of land spell list addition choice too.

Holy crap did my players love that.

[Slipperychicken]

Someone in another thread wanted a necromancer cleric which didn't get turn/destroy undead.

Also, I hope WotC has the restraint to avoid writing a whole new magic subsystem for psions and truenamers.

[Rfkannen]

Incarnum, Binding (3e Binder), Post-Lv 8 Martials that aren't just levels 1-8 again, Shadow Caster (3.e), and Truenaming.

Chain Warlock is nothing compared to the 3e Binder. The fluff alone was fantastic and the mechanics were cool as hell.

Truenaming because... Well... Fun?


Edit

If you want the sorcerer to be really awesome, give them the druid spell list... Works wonders. Give them one circle of land spell list addition choice too.

Holy crap did my players love that.

Hu sorcerer with druid spell list. How well does that play?

[Galen]

I would like the ability to channel spells through your weapon, a-la Duskblade.
I would like something like a Binder - a chameleon serving whichever master seems to be most useful at the time.

[hecetv]

In my opinion, there's a difference between fighting AND magic (such as the EK, who uses mundane attacks combined with stock, wizard-lite spellcasting) versus fighting WITH magic (such as the 4e Swordmage). The closest thing we have to the second type of gish is a 4 elements monk. This wasn't good enough for me, so I made the Janissary. I specifically wanted the Janissary to be less powerful than the paladin, while having more flexibility in attack modes. I did this by limiting it to light armor, scimitars/simple weapons, d8 hit die, and no extra attack/fighting style. To make up for this, they're more mobile, can deal several different damage type with their melee attacks, and can cause status effects similar to cantrips.

Not all homebrew is overpowered Master-of-everything nonsense.

I'm not actually against home brew. I just feel like this question always turns into "I want MY gish" plus "I want to make Iron Man in a fantasy setting!".

But really whatever it's a team game. If someone wanted to make a class that's way overpowered (not saying yours is haven't seen yours) then who really cares. It's just supposed to be a fun game so it doesn't really bug me.

I will say I don't think people sometimes can see the forest for the trees or whatever in that most archetypes are covered. Again I haven't seen your janissary but it sounds a lot to me like a dex based valor bard who poaches smites from the paladin spell list, but I could be wrong. If I eat those words later my bad. I don't mean any harm by it.

But that's the thing with home brew. Just coz we could home brew anything doesn't mean we need that class as an official option.

[asorel]

I would enjoy a bard subclass that feels more "bardy" none of the bard features really outright say "this is a song you play" (SoR not included) and even though you can fluff anything to fit it, it would be nice for it to actually be built into the class officially.

One of the things that annoyed people about the Bard in previous editions was the emphasis on singing, namely that some could not take the idea of a dungeon-crawling seriously, or thought musical characters in general were silly. Staying away from many explicit mentions of music makes it easier for people to refluff the Bard as an orator, a keeper of lore, or a similar occupation.

[silveralen]

I can think of concepts that would benefit from unique systems, but few that require them. I can think of mechanics that would make certain concepts more viable, but none that outright can't work.

[ChubbyRain]

Hu sorcerer with druid spell list. How well does that play?

Fantastically.

The sorcerer no longer feels like the wizard's kid brother is perhaps the biggest draw to this. You can still get some damage spells and all but metamagic works perfectly with the battlefield control.

The only thing they need would be a better weapon selection (perhaps all simple) and you got yourself a good baseline. Dragon sorcerer is like having a mini barkskin effect on all the time.

There are a lot of nature based spells, the player refluffed the sorcerer as a druid (their hatred of wildshape is where all this can from) but the player even wanted to take Gust of Wind, a spell normally looked over. Heighten Spell Gust of Wind makes for a great BFC, especially on a caster prof with con saves.

I'm the type of DM who likes their players to be challenging, make me as a DM react to them. This may not be for every DM style.

My favorite tactic the Sorcerer and Rogue (strength based) did was the sorcerer stood in the middle of a Spike Growth area and the rogue bull rushed targets near the area so the sorcerer could twin thorn whip them. Blew through some points but it really messed up a lot of minions.

[SharkForce]

one thing i'll say about psionics: you could handle the class with just using existing classes (and new subclasses), but you'd need to make new "spell" lists for them to get the feel right. existing spell lists just won't do that properly.

[silveralen]

one thing i'll say about psionics: you could handle the class with just using existing classes (and new subclasses), but you'd need to make new "spell" lists for them to get the feel right. existing spell lists just won't do that properly.

I'm not so sure about that, if you made an effort to pick out the most fitting spells, especially using older books as a guide, you could do it without undo difficulty. The fact is psionics and spells had a ton of overlap over the years.

[D.U.P.A.]

A class with stances, like hunter and some other from 4e essentials. Not necessarily a ranger, could be anything, but mechanically able to change his stances (+attack,+damage,+defense) at will, having limited stances to choose like battlemaster fighter.

[SharkForce]

I'm not so sure about that, if you made an effort to pick out the most fitting spells, especially using older books as a guide, you could do it without undo difficulty. The fact is psionics and spells had a ton of overlap over the years.

that's about as satifsying as suggesting that you can make a warlord by making a battlemaster fighter and only ever using the maneuvers that match warlord abilities (all one or two of them). you could make something that would have a vague semblance of the warlord that way, and you could make something that has a vague resemblance to psionics by only choosing certain spells, but for anyone who likes psionics (or warlords) it's an incredibly unsatisfying solution that feels like crap.

and if you don't like psionics (or warlords, or whatever else), then quit your whining about how those things need to be made to feel right to the people who love those things, because you're not going to use them anyways, and i can't think of any good reasons to care what the people who *aren't* going to use the material no matter what think of it.

[Grimslade5]

Why do they hate Wildshape

[Rfkannen]

Why do they hate Wildshape

I can kind of understand it. Sometimes you just want to play a nature caster and not have the whole wild shape thing to worry about. If you want to play a pure caster that does all their stuff through spells instead of just being able to shapeshift.

Personally I like wildshape but I get why some might not.

[Galen]

A class with stances, like hunter and some other from 4e essentials. Not necessarily a ranger, could be anything, but mechanically able to change his stances (+attack,+damage,+defense) at will, having limited stances to choose like battlemaster fighter.
Well, there's the Druid, with his "I'm a Bear" stance, "I'm an Eagle" stance, "I'm a Shark" stance ...

[calebrus]

I would like the ability to channel spells through your weapon, a-la Duskblade.

That would be a part of a subclass. No need for an entire class for it.
Ranger and Paladin already have some sort of this ability.
I have created subclasses for Rogue and Wizard with this ability. Doing the rest of the casters as needed would be a piece of cake.

[ChubbyRain]

Well, there's the Druid, with his "I'm a Bear" stance, "I'm an Eagle" stance, "I'm a Shark" stance ...

Because everything awesome, or slightly awesome, must be magic.

There is a difference between martial stances and wildshape.

[D.U.P.A.]

Well, there's the Druid, with his "I'm a Bear" stance, "I'm an Eagle" stance, "I'm a Shark" stance ...

I had in mind that, but I meant something that can be changed at will (Druid has limited uses except lvl 20) and making not such drastic changes.

[ChubbyRain]

one thing i'll say about psionics: you could handle the class with just using existing classes (and new subclasses), but you'd need to make new "spell" lists for them to get the feel right. existing spell lists just won't do that properly.

The spell point variant would have to be enforced on the character or else people would complain it doesn't feel right.

[silveralen]

Because everything awesome, or slightly awesome, must be magic.

There is a difference between martial stances and wildshape.

I was going to point out EK buffs could stand in, but then i figured someone like this would pop in. Despite it already being made 100% clear the only issue being discussed is mechanics, not fluff (and power source is fluff). Doesn't matter if bonuses come from spells or stances, all the same mechanically. Well, except people would expect stances to not require concentration and be usable as many times a day as they want and have no restrictions in an edition that has tried to remove the majority of such things. Which really goes back to points hecetv made.

[ChubbyRain]

I was going to point out EK buffs could stand in, but then i figured someone like this would pop in. Despite it already being made 100% clear the only issue being discussed is mechanics, not fluff (and power source is fluff). Doesn't matter if bonuses come from spells or stances, all the same mechanically. Well, except people would expect stances to not require concentration and be usable as many times a day as they want and have no restrictions in an edition that has tried to remove the majority of such things. Which really goes back to points hecetv made.

Fluff has everything to do with it. The mechanics behind said stances would work differently if they weren't magic.

Of course knowing 5e if they weren't classified as magical then they would most likely be useless after level 8 or only allow said noncaster to do *maor damage*.

Mechanics come from fluff, though fluff is mutable it doesn't change that fact. We think or see something that we want to emulate on paper and we give it mechanics.

Saying "just use a magic system" doesn't really cut it if the player wants stances that aren't magic. I would love to see some ToB type stances in 5e, could make for a hell of a lot interesting Fighter than we have now (and pretty simple too).

Wildshape mechanics may be in the game, but a stance mechanic can still be added that works with the fluff of any other class that isn't a druid. The druid comes with a lot of baggage after all. Can't wear metal, has spells, knows a secret language automatically, and so on...

How would you explain that your fighter could only do two stances a day for a number of hours equal to X. They couldn't split up those hours at all and got worse ability scores when they adopted those stances? It doesn't make sense.

Saying that you have to make a mechanic magic in a fantasy system is very disingenuous to the genre as a whole. Just because you can't imagine a non-caster who has effective stances and such doesn't mean others can't.

[Vortling]

Mechanically speaking we're missing a class that covers at-will party friendly AoE crowd control that the 3.5 Dragonfire Adept did. Some of the fluff and mechanics reside in the sorcerer class but it doesn't cover all of it.

More generally speaking we're missing classes who have the capability to run the mechanical style of 4e leaders and 4e controllers as most of the support and control options are locked behind rest gates. This makes it difficult to make support or control your primary function as you are quickly reduced to using basic attacks or cantrips which focus heavily on damage.

[ChubbyRain]

Mechanically speaking we're missing a class that covers at-will party friendly AoE crowd control that the 3.5 Dragonfire Adept did. Some of the fluff and mechanics reside in the sorcerer class but it doesn't cover all of it.

More generally speaking we're missing classes who have the capability to run the mechanical style of 4e leaders and 4e controllers as most of the support and control options are locked behind rest gates. This makes it difficult to make support or control your primary function as you are quickly reduced to using basic attacks or cantrips which focus heavily on damage.

Casters do great things starting around level 4 or 5 for controlling and leading since around that time they start getting enough spell slots to sling spells. The game was balanced around the idea that casters get X spells per long rest after all.

Sure you can only cast spells X times, but by the game that is all you should need... Unless the DM goes specifically against this idea in which case you are screwed either way.

[Strill]

In addition, a lot of the fighter's power comes from the fact that it gets four attacks by level 20. So when I imagine an alternative to the battlemaster coming down the pipeline sometime in the near future, what I imagine is a fighter subclass that deals less damage but has more options, perhaps even including an option to give up attacks in order to do something else.If a Fighter's DPR were top-tier, I'd agree with you, but Barbarians and Paladins can do better, while also having crazy auras or resistances. That's why I think Battlemaster is just straight-up underpowered, and should unlock stronger maneuvers and more dice at higher levels.


Regarding gishes, most people who say that seem to be ignoring spells like Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon, Enlarge, Haste, Swift Quiver, etc. that directly enhance combat ability, as well as the Eldritch Knight's ability to enhance its spellcasting power by hitting stuff with its sword.
There's no point in enhancing your spellcasting ability like that when your spells aren't worth using in the first place. The opportunity cost of not attacking is greater than the benefits of casting a spell.

That's why I like this homebrew (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/302fe8/revising_the_eldritch_knight/) which allows Eldritch Knights to sacrifice one or two attacks in order to cast a low level spell.

[1of3]

So from my understanding the sorcerer was made to fill the need for an arcane spontaneous caster. We no longer really have spontaneous casters in 3e. so my question is; what classes mechanicaly do we need to fill nechies in 5e?

I'm not sure, I understand your question correctly, mind you.

But there currently is no class with What Persistent Bonus Do i Bring Today? Like 3e Binders or Incarnum classes.

[Cazero]

About stances : I don't see how introducing a stance based class would improve anything. Most martial classes (especially the monk) should already adopt various stances as part of their different possible actions and maneuvers, chosing the right one at the right moment to benefit from all of the bonuses with none of the drawbacks. Like facing, a stance is something you can change in one second, and introducing mechanical restriction on it will only create arbitrary punishment for not picking the 'right' one.

[SharkForce]

If a Fighter's DPR were top-tier, I'd agree with you, but Barbarians and Paladins can do better, while also having crazy auras or resistances. That's why I think Battlemaster is just straight-up underpowered, and should unlock stronger maneuvers and more dice at higher levels.

fighter DPR *is* top-tier, and shouldn't be beaten by barbarians or paladins unless we're assuming they always get opportunity attacks every round or something like that.

paladins and barbarians both get close to the fighter in DPR, but should not surpass under ordinary circumstances.

[Strill]

fighter DPR *is* top-tier, and shouldn't be beaten by barbarians or paladins unless we're assuming they always get opportunity attacks every round or something like that.

paladins and barbarians both get close to the fighter in DPR, but should not surpass under ordinary circumstances.

With feats like Polearm Master giving up to two additional attacks per round, Vengeance Paladins getting Hunter's Mark, and multiclass opportunities like Ranger 3 for Horde Breaker to get yet another attack per round, or Champion Fighter 3 for double crit chance, it's very possible.

[Madfellow]

With feats like Polearm Master giving up to two additional attacks per round, Vengeance Paladins getting Hunter's Mark, and multiclass opportunities like Ranger 3 for Horde Breaker to get yet another attack per round, or Champion Fighter 3 for double crit chance, it's very possible.

Fighters can get Polearm Master too, and they get more feats over the course of their career so it's less of an opportunity cost for them to take it. Likewise, fighters can also multiclass with rangers. And saying, "Barbarians and paladins can outdo fighters... if they multiclass as fighters," seems kinda silly to me.

[Strill]

Fighters can get Polearm Master tooAnd they also lose more from it, since they have to downgrade their attacks from a 2d6 to a 1d10. That matters less to a Paladin or Barbarian who have fewer attacks but deal more damage with each one.


and they get more feats over the course of their career so it's less of an opportunity cost for them to take it. Allright.


Likewise, fighters can also multiclass with rangers.And in doing so lose their level 20 extra attack, so they're just ending up worse off.


And saying, "Barbarians and paladins can outdo fighters... if they multiclass as fighters," seems kinda silly to me. I don't see why. Just because the class has a decent level 3 ability that's worth multiclassing for doesn't mean the rest of it is good.

--------------------

In order for Fighters to actually be the best DPR they need a magic weapon with a damage bonus like Flame Tongue or Frost Brand that can benefit from their extra attacks.

[Madfellow]

And they also lose more from it, since they have to downgrade their attacks from a 2d6 to a 1d10. That matters less to a Paladin or Barbarian who have fewer attacks but deal more damage with each one.

For the first 10 levels of the game, barbarians, fighters, and paladins all make the same number of attacks (excepting the berserker barbarian, but that comes at a high cost). So let's consider the polearm vs greatsword question from level 11 onward for a fighter. Essentially, they're choosing between 3d10+1d4 and 6d6 for their damage output. The former deal 19 damage on average per turn (not counting Strength bonus), the latter deals 21. That's only 2 damage of difference.

And keep in mind that a paladin that uses its bonus action to make an attack with the butt end of his polearm is not using that bonus action to cast a Smite spell.


And in doing so lose their level 20 extra attack, so they're just ending up worse off.

No, they're just getting that extra attack sooner.

[Strill]

For the first 10 levels of the game, barbarians, fighters, and paladins all make the same number of attacks (excepting the berserker barbarian, but that comes at a high cost). So let's consider the polearm vs greatsword question from level 11 onward for a fighter. Essentially, they're choosing between 3d10+1d4 and 6d6 for their damage output. The former deal 19 damage on average per turn (not counting Strength bonus), the latter deals 21. That's only 2 damage of difference.You're not accounting for Greatweapon fighting style. The relative damage is 21.9 vs 25, for a difference of 3.1 damage, which increases to 5.13 at level 20 when they get their third extra attack.

A Paladin, on the other hand, synergizes with Polearm Master, gaining an additional opportunity to apply damage from Improved Divine Smite and Hunter's Mark.


And keep in mind that a paladin that uses its bonus action to make an attack with the butt end of his polearm is not using that bonus action to cast a Smite spell.Meh? Were you expecting to use bonus-action smites all that often anyway? If the status effect is particularly relevant, then sure, but if it was just damage you wanted, well then that bonus action attack gives you another opportunity to smite normally.



No, they're just getting that extra attack sooner.A worse version of it.

[charcoalninja]

Biggest reason the "just use spells!" solution that keeps getting mentioned doesn't work for Psionics or Marital tactic classes is that the fluff of spellcasting is married to the mechanics on a very disruptive level.

For example if we use the Eldritch Knight spells like haste to mimic a battle stance that's all fine and good... until the enemy caster dispels it. Now your martial mundane kata master you were playing can't use his tricks in Antimagic, and somehow can't adopt his berzerker stance because an enemy caster counterspelled. Not to mention the limitations on use are patenly unpleasant. X/day resources on a Mundane character are frustratingly jarring.

With Psionics you run into the Telepath having the D&D Enchanters dillema of not actually being able to use any of their magic with any degree of subtlety because they all have verbal components, and you have to make gestures and other WIZARD type spellcaster things, not mind type mystic things. Or that you have to have a spellcasting focus. That's just the tip of the flavour iceberg as far as Psionics are concerned.

Then there's the additional issue of not being able to do any of this in anything remotely resembling organized play, having to beg every DM of any group you ever join every time for permission to play a pretty broad selection of characters. I know a lot of people don't mind begging the DM for all of their fun (see martial stunting in every Caster vs. Martial thread ever) but for players like me it's a playstyle that's decidedly lothesome.

Then there's the playstyle issues of 5e lacking many effective 4e type leader options so there's still a few holes in the game that could use some filling up.

[Madfellow]

You're not accounting for Greatweapon fighting style. The relative damage is 21.9 vs 25, for a difference of 3.1 damage, which increases to 5.13 at level 20 when they get their third extra attack.

A difference of 3 or even 5 damage per round is marginal, especially at the levels we're talking about.


A Paladin, on the other hand, synergizes with Polearm Master, gaining an additional opportunity to apply damage from Improved Divine Smite and Hunter's Mark.

While the battlemaster keeps on chugging away with superiority dice, which refresh more often than the paladin's spells.


A worse version of it.

Given the choice between an extra attack at level 3 that has to target an adjacent foe, and an extra attack at level 20 that can target anything, I'll take the first one thanks.

[charcoalninja]

A difference of 3 or even 5 damage per round is marginal, especially at the levels we're talking about.



While the battlemaster keeps on chugging away with superiority dice, which refresh more often than the paladin's spells.



Given the choice between an extra attack at level 3 that has to target an adjacent foe, and an extra attack at level 20 that can target anything, I'll take the first one thanks.

Battlemaster's superiority dice last him all of a round and a half if he uses it on each attack to maximize his alpha strike. A paladin's spells last considerably longer than that.

[Fwiffo86]

Battlemaster's superiority dice last him all of a round and a half if he uses it on each attack to maximize his alpha strike. A paladin's spells last considerably longer than that.

Smite does not. I would state that the majority of the paladins damage actually comes from use of smite, and it is nor more readily available than superiority dice.



Given the choice between an extra attack at level 3 that has to target an adjacent foe, and an extra attack at level 20 that can target anything, I'll take the first one thanks.

I personally would take the extra attack that can target everything every time instead of an attack requiring a trigger effect hands down. Especially one as poor as "adjacent" foe.

[silveralen]

How would you explain that your fighter could only do two stances a day for a number of hours equal to X. They couldn't split up those hours at all and got worse ability scores when they adopted those stances? It doesn't make sense.

Remember how in ToB you could enter a "stance" which let you track enemies by scent, but if you wanted to also knock people down every time you hit them or deal extra damage your nose suddenly clogged up?

4e had stances usable once a day for some classes, or only usable once an encounter (so if you left it you couldn't go back).

Like I said, I think EK buffs (haste being the most obvious) make more sense for stances that wildshape, but the issues you brought up will be present in any case.

Duration hardly matters. That can be the exhaustion of entering into the proper state of mind, while maintaining it is fine unless something actively disrupts it or the warrior chooses to leave it. See? Stances with concentration explained at no real cost of immersion. It makes as much sense as stances ever did.


For example if we use the Eldritch Knight spells like haste to mimic a battle stance that's all fine and good... until the enemy caster dispels it. Now your martial mundane kata master you were playing can't use his tricks in Antimagic, and somehow can't adopt his berzerker stance because an enemy caster counterspelled. Not to mention the limitations on use are patenly unpleasant. X/day resources on a Mundane character are frustratingly jarring.

Well, we have established that being in a fantasy game lets you do things you couldn't in the real world, correct? That's because fantasy worlds are filled with magic.

Such things briefly disrupt the fighter's connection to the magical nature of his world, jarring him from the focused mindset of his stance.

Per day abilities make as much sense as per encounter or "I recharge whenever I do a fancy pose!". Recharge mechanics, regardless of when they recharge, aren't going to make sense except as the fighter getting tired out. Because such abilities will need to recharge. No you don't get 10 different buffs you toggle on and off at will and I surely can't imagine anyone expects to.

[Ralanr]

Well, we have established that being in a fantasy game lets you do things you couldn't in the real world, correct? That's because fantasy worlds are filled with magic.


Just wanted to bold this. Even low fantasy has some magic, usually evil and rare, but it was there.

As much as it is in our nature to apply real world logic to these settings, it can be detrimental to the process. It's clear these games do not run on the same logic as our world does.

Non-magical example: Polearm master applies to quarterstaves but not spears, which are mechanically the same thing except for a different damage type.

:smallannoyed:

Final note: Yes I know you can just refluff it to allow spears. That's not the point. The point is that this situation proves that RL logic is not as strong as we think it is in these games.

[Strill]

A difference of 3 or even 5 damage per round is marginal, especially at the levels we're talking about.It's enough for people to say Savage Attacker is a great feat.




While the battlemaster keeps on chugging away with superiority dice, which refresh more often than the paladin's spells.
What does that have to do with anything?



Given the choice between an extra attack at level 3 that has to target an adjacent foe, and an extra attack at level 20 that can target anything, I'll take the first one thanks.Ok.

[I3igAl]

An non-warriorish priest. More like a wizard, than a cleric. Something like the 3.x Archivist.

[asorel]

An non-warriorish priest. More like a wizard, than a cleric. Something like the 3.x Archivist.

Mechanics-wise, this would be something with d6 hit dice that prepares spells from an entire list?

[Oscredwin]

An non-warriorish priest. More like a wizard, than a cleric. Something like the 3.x Archivist.

What do you want beyond that a lore bard or wizard with the Acolyte Background doesn't give you?

[Knaight]

I'm not so sure about that, if you made an effort to pick out the most fitting spells, especially using older books as a guide, you could do it without undo difficulty. The fact is psionics and spells had a ton of overlap over the years.

That's largely because psionics is a magic system. Look at 3.5 psionics - most of the powers were basically spells with a vaguely science-sounding (but not at all scientific) name attached to them, and for all the complaining that they "felt sci-fi" I'd consider them more than magical enough for their inclusion to take a nominally sci-fi setting deep into fantasy. Refluffing gets considerably harder when there's a notable difference to begin with.

[Ralanr]

An non-warriorish priest. More like a wizard, than a cleric. Something like the 3.x Archivist.


Mechanics-wise, this would be something with d6 hit dice that prepares spells from an entire list?

I feel like you can just play a cleric with no armor to simulate this effect.

[Strill]

I feel like you can just play a cleric with no armor to simulate this effect.

They would need some benefit to compensate.

[Ralanr]

They would need some benefit to compensate.

Why? It feels like a role playing choice more than a mechanical choice.

[asorel]

Why? It feels like a role playing choice more than a mechanical choice.

This thread is geared towards mechanical niches, not refluffing existing content. The latter is not without use, but isn't strictly relevant to the subject at hand. From a mechanical standpoint, the proposed 'fix' needs something to provide incentive for not wearing armor.

[silveralen]

This thread is geared towards mechanical niches, not refluffing existing content. The latter is not without use, but isn't strictly relevant to the subject at hand. From a mechanical standpoint, the proposed 'fix' needs something to provide incentive for not wearing armor.

It has mage armor on it's spell list? If it only has light armor prof to start with, that's a pretty good incentive.

[Madfellow]

From a mechanical standpoint, the proposed 'fix' needs something to provide incentive for not wearing armor.

Mage Armor. Done.

Edit: Ninja'd

[Tenmujiin]

Out of curiosity, why do some people hate the idea of having classes that work similarly but with wildly different fluff? Why is sorcerer so much more acceptable that Psion, sure you can re-fluff spells to make a wizard into a "Psion", you can re-fluff wizard even more easily into a sorcerer or druid but suddenly those classes are more acceptable because they are in the PHB? There is nothing wrong with class (or sub-class or feat or spell) bloat in my opinion so long as the new options don't outclass the strongest option from core.

Refluffing isn't always an option, my group basically doesn't allow it and so it becomes important to have a class with that fluff from an official source.

[MrStabby]

One mechanic that is missing and I used to like in 3rd ed is touch attacks.

I had a caster who was a close combat character who specialised in taking down heavily armoured guys with touch attacks. It would be nice to have some features somewhere that simulated this.

[Strill]

One mechanic that is missing and I used to like in 3rd ed is touch attacks.

I had a caster who was a close combat character who specialised in taking down heavily armoured guys with touch attacks. It would be nice to have some features somewhere that simulated this.

Shocking Grasp.

[MrStabby]

Shocking grasp only gives advantage. Being able to take a (admittedly useful) cantrip is not the same as being able to build a class round a mechanic. In terms of being able to take abilities that augment it, I think you basically have dragon sorcerer level six or eldritch knight warcaster abilities.

If you try and make a character out of shocking grasp it is not only under-performing but also really not a lot of fun at all.

[silveralen]

Any spell that targets a saving throw gets around armor and can be used up close without penalty. So there certainly are plenty of options similar to that.


Out of curiosity, why do some people hate the idea of having classes that work similarly but with wildly different fluff? Why is sorcerer so much more acceptable that Psion, sure you can re-fluff spells to make a wizard into a "Psion", you can re-fluff wizard even more easily into a sorcerer or druid but suddenly those classes are more acceptable because they are in the PHB? There is nothing wrong with class (or sub-class or feat or spell) bloat in my opinion so long as the new options don't outclass the strongest option from core.

Refluffing isn't always an option, my group basically doesn't allow it and so it becomes important to have a class with that fluff from an official source.

Well, firstly because your table is a bit of an outlier tbh. I've never had that issue.

Secondly because the thread is talking about strict mechanics, we have had other threads where other things were discussed.

[MrStabby]

Any spell that targets a saving throw gets around armor and can be used up close without penalty. So there certainly are plenty of options similar to that.



A reasonable point. A spell that has a dex save gets the same feeling. Now all I need to do is to be able to sneak attack with it...

[Mara]

One mechanic that is missing and I used to like in 3rd ed is touch attacks.

I had a caster who was a close combat character who specialised in taking down heavily armoured guys with touch attacks. It would be nice to have some features somewhere that simulated this.
Well the lack of touch AC is a problem for this.

Casters can also hit targets with the same accuracy as fighters, so the NEED for touch spells is non-existent.

Aren't monks specialized in taking down heavily armoured guys with touch attacks?

[silveralen]

A reasonable point. A spell that has a dex save gets the same feeling. Now all I need to do is to be able to sneak attack with it...

That'll be far more tricky since 5e rogue specifies weapon attacks, specifically finesse or ranged weapon attacks. So you can't even sneak attack with a spell like shocking grasp or vampiric touch.

There is some support for this in EK as you pointed out, but even that's an attack that can be a sneak attack+a spell and requires a pretty sizable 7 level dip. Though poison spray+sneak attack from a MC fighter/rogue would be a lot of dice getting thrown about.

So spell sneak attacks are a mechanic that's missing for the most part.

[MrStabby]

That'll be far more tricky since 5e rogue specifies weapon attacks, specifically finesse or ranged weapon attacks. So you can't even sneak attack with a spell like shocking grasp or vampiric touch.


Yes, this is exactly my problem. There are missing mechanics.

I do love 5th edition for both balance and simplicity but the lack of options does mean that unless you go down a few narrow archetypes (Guy with crossbow (s), Focussed Magic User, Burly Person With Polearm or a couple of others you are pretty infective and there are not so many rules to support it.

The writing was justifiably conservative but the narrowness of applicability of certain abilities that resulted from it is as limiting as the lack of classes. I think they did the right thing as later releasing classes is more controlled. This means we cant have someone better at getting critical spell damage by using the Champion with spells or by using a rogue to add sneak attack damage. Again it is understandable as scaling cantrips now mean you would not always be using resources to do this. Still it is annoying.

[Slipperychicken]

An non-warriorish priest. More like a wizard, than a cleric. Something like the 3.x Archivist.


I feel like you can just play a cleric with no armor to simulate this effect.

Take a cleric domain which doesn't give heavy armor proficiency (i.e. knowledge, life, light), have a low strength, and rely on spells. If the ability to wear a breastplate shatters your immersion, then someone can make a subclass which trades out medium armor and shield proficiency.

[Gnaeus]

I want to see mostly:
Monster classes. Or LA, or something else that allows play as non-humanoids.
A dedicated pet class. Something like PF summoner. Beastmaster Ranger doesn't really cut it because: 1. The mechanics are weird and slightly subpar and 2. Its power is limited by the fact that it is basically a spellcasting combat class that happens to have a pet. I'd much rather see something that was more focused on the pet.

[MrStabby]

Take a cleric domain which doesn't give heavy armor proficiency (i.e. knowledge, life, light), have a low strength, and rely on spells. If the ability to wear a breastplate shatters your immersion, then someone can make a subclass which trades out medium armor and shield proficiency.

Oh crap. Either life gives heavy Armour or I think I may have lied to one of my players...

Hoping you mean Nature? Although I could easily have made a mistake.

[MrStabby]

I want to see mostly:
Monster classes. Or LA, or something else that allows play as non-humanoids.
A dedicated pet class. Something like PF summoner. Beastmaster Ranger doesn't really cut it because: 1. The mechanics are weird and slightly subpar and 2. Its power is limited by the fact that it is basically a spellcasting combat class that happens to have a pet. I'd much rather see something that was more focused on the pet.

Hmm. Monster stuff would be good. I wouldn't mind that. I did like the templates that we had before but being able to level up as a Vampire of Lich would be cool.

[charcoalninja]

Oh crap. Either life gives heavy Armour or I think I may have lied to one of my players...

Hoping you mean Nature? Although I could easily have made a mistake.

Life gives heavy armour.

[Alikat]

@Hecetv

You're my new favorite person on this board and I wish I could signature that entire post.

[Slipperychicken]

Life gives heavy armour.

Nuts. I really should have caught that, since I have a cleric in my game wearing heavy armor.

[Vogonjeltz]

Non-magical example: Polearm master applies to quarterstaves but not spears, which are mechanically the same thing except for a different damage type.

Uh, the Quarterstaff or Short Staff is actually thicker, and heavier, than a Short Spear, which is also a thrown weapon whereas the staff is not. Also, the means of fighting with a Spear is strictly speaking different than the stances and hand positions employed in fighting with a staff.

They're different weapons and the similarities end at them both having a wooden component.


Back to the original question: I look forward to Psionics, of which the most important iconic powers are all on display in the movie Scanners: Matter agitation, telepathy, body switching, telekinesis, etc...

I would imagine you could just port the XPH over ditching the feats, converting the races to 5e and scaling back the power points to reflect the number of spells per day that each class typically gets for 5th.

Yes, Psionics very often had corrolaries to magic spells, but there was also the massive advantage that psionics enjoyed in being able to suppress visible effects for the sake of subtlety.

Bonus: you'd get to play that Ominous Latin Chanting ("DOMINUS!!!") anytime you stare at something and set it on fire or throw it.

[Logosloki]

Whilst I do think the 5th edition sorcerer are more psion-like than caster-like I would like psionics to be introduced into the mix as a base class. As well as a dedicated non-magical archer, a summoner class, racial classes and some setting classes.

On the big picture, way I see it there should be three combat systems - each with their own subtleties - Divine/Arcane, Psionic and Maneuvers.

[Fwiffo86]

Whilst I do think the 5th edition sorcerer are more psion-like than caster-like I would like psionics to be introduced into the mix as a base class. As well as a dedicated non-magical archer, a summoner class, racial classes and some setting classes.

On the big picture, way I see it there should be three combat systems - each with their own subtleties - Divine/Arcane, Psionic and Maneuvers.

Psion: I can see the need for this as long as the mechanics are divorced significantly from previously established mechanics.

Non-Magical Archer: The fighter who uses bows. This does not need a class, but instead maybe more trick shooting feats/BM maneuvers would suffice. I can't see a good reason to create an entire class/sub-class around this concept at all.

Summoner: Proper spell selection here also covers it. I could see the need for more "control" over what is summoned, but this is hardly worth an entire class/sub-class.

Racial Class: Wut?

Three Combat Systems: I agree, as long as they interact with each other properly.

[Naanomi]

Many of these (summoner, archer, racial classes) can be built with new subclasses, spells, and feats. I'd personally prefer new base classes to be very rare (psionics and maybe artificer being the only I can think of offhand) and instead use other systems to explore mechanical concepts in the existing framework

[Madfellow]

I'd personally prefer new base classes to be very rare (psionics and maybe artificer being the only I can think of offhand) and instead use other systems to explore mechanical concepts in the existing framework

Artificer is actually a subclass of wizard. WotC released an experimental version in the first of the Unearthed Arcana columns. You can look it up on their website. It's part of the Eberron package.

(Speaking of, we're actually overdue for a new one of those. The first two both came out the 2nd of February and March.)

[SharkForce]

Many of these (summoner, archer, racial classes) can be built with new subclasses, spells, and feats. I'd personally prefer new base classes to be very rare (psionics and maybe artificer being the only I can think of offhand) and instead use other systems to explore mechanical concepts in the existing framework

you're probably thinking of summoner in the sense of someone who can summon creatures, which definitely can be done.

when people ask for a summoner, more likely they're thinking of the pathfinder summoner, where beginning from level 1 you have a customisable creature (called an eidolon) which essentially handles all hand-to-hand combat for you, and you have a 6-level spell list (probably best to condense to 5) that lets you support your eidolon for the most part... so what they're asking for isn't really someone focused on summoning monsters (though the summoner can do that, too), but rather someone who focuses most of their class abilities on a single specific summoned creature instead of on themselves.

[silveralen]

We do have beast master ranger which is close to that, but lacks customization (and is meh) and doesn't have quite the sort of spell list you might expect.

[Madfellow]

Actually, I think the druid already is a great summoner.
Level 5: Conjure Animals
Level 7: Conjure Minor Elementals
Level 7: Conjure Woodland Beings
Level 9: Conjure Elementals
Level 11: Conjure Fey

[Gnaeus]

We do have beast master ranger which is close to that, but lacks customization (and is meh) and doesn't have quite the sort of spell list you might expect.

I'm not wedded to the necessity of a 6 level spell list. I would, in fact, rather have less of a spell list than more. A big part of the problem of the beast master is that most of its power comes from the ranger chassis and comparatively little from the pet. You can't make the pet too much stronger without reworking the chassis or you wind up with something OP.

Better would be a petmaster class, with relatively little personal oomph, but pets that were similar in power to a PC. Subclasses might be based on the type of pet, and whether it was summoned with divine magic, arcane magic, or trained naturally.

[SharkForce]

Actually, I think the druid already is a great summoner.
Level 5: Conjure Animals
Level 7: Conjure Minor Elementals
Level 7: Conjure Woodland Beings
Level 9: Conjure Elementals
Level 11: Conjure Fey

again, yes you can summon creatures. but that probably isn't what people mean when they ask for a summoner.

[Naanomi]

again, yes you can summon creatures. but that probably isn't what people mean when they ask for a summoner.
True; demons and Elementalist spring first to mind. Also, I'd like a summoning spell at spell level 1-2 to really feel like a summoner my whole career

[ChubbyRain]

I now think that we need a final fantasy type summoner.

1: PC is removed from play till the summon leaves.
2: Beefier summons (similar to wildshape but a little better)
3: You could make a subclass for any class to do this. I specifically like Monk and Barbarian for this.
4: The summoned creature isn't real, like in 3.5 or Final Fantasy X, this way two people fighting may summon the same creature.
5: PC controls the type and actions of summoned creature.

[Anderlith]

At least two base classes with INT as a primary stat.

I want an Alchemist, a mundane who can create wizard like effects. Sure I could just refluff wizard but there is a lack of class style with that approach & doesn't have a lot of special options they could have if they were just Alchemists. Are they a bombtosser? Are they focused on transmutation? Are they a crafter/gadgeteer?

I also want a base gish class that doesn't have to split it's loyalties with a traditional build & one that has a bit more inclusive spell list than just two schools. Make it have spellcasting like a warlock but give it better combat abilities instead of Invocations & such with a unique spellcasting list with spells a gish would want.

More subclasses would be awesome. & more uses for INT

[Fwiffo86]

I now think that we need a final fantasy type summoner.

1: PC is removed from play till the summon leaves.
2: Beefier summons (similar to wildshape but a little better)
3: You could make a subclass for any class to do this. I specifically like Monk and Barbarian for this.
4: The summoned creature isn't real, like in 3.5 or Final Fantasy X, this way two people fighting may summon the same creature.
5: PC controls the type and actions of summoned creature.

We call them druids with Wildshape. :smallsmile:

[ChubbyRain]

We call them druids with Wildshape. :smallsmile:

Wrong mechanics.

I'm not just talking about having beasts. Beats are boring and somewhat lacking. Give a specific list of Espers/Summons.

You don't summon an imp, you summon Ifrit the fire Esper, Shiva the ice Esper, or Leviathan the sea monstrosity.

Wildshape makes for a good base, sure, but it needs expanded upon and fixed in order to being us a FFSummon mechanic.

[silveralen]

Wrong mechanics.

I'm not just talking about having beasts. Beats are boring and somewhat lacking. Give a specific list of Espers/Summons.

You don't summon an imp, you summon Ifrit the fire Esper, Shiva the ice Esper, or Leviathan the sea monstrosity.

Wildshape makes for a good base, sure, but it needs expanded upon and fixed in order to being us a FFSummon mechanic.

I.... don't think that's likely to come anytime soon. The closest thing we ever got to those were..... I honestly can't think of anything in dnd even vaguely like that. Vestiges I guess are the closest if you squint real hard.

[Submortimer]

Artificer is actually a subclass of wizard. WotC released an experimental version in the first of the Unearthed Arcana columns. You can look it up on their website. It's part of the Eberron package.

(Speaking of, we're actually overdue for a new one of those. The first two both came out the 2nd of February and March.)

Yeah, but most folks that I've talked to (and also myself) feel that this is a cheat to the 3.5 Artificer. It just BARELY captures the feel of the class, and while it's alright in it's own light, it's not REALLY an artificer.

[Rfkannen]

I.... don't think that's likely to come anytime soon. The closest thing we ever got to those were..... I honestly can't think of anything in dnd even vaguely like that. Vestiges I guess are the closest if you squint real hard.

As much as I would like to see that kind of summoner, and I agree it is something that d&d is missing, I agree that we will never get it.

My personal favorite summoning system is that in anima beyond fantasy. I would LOVE to see that in d&d, but I senserly doubt we will ever get it. Or honestly, if it would fit d&d.

[Theodoxus]

A lot of these mechanical options could easily be handled by a feat.

Sneak attack with spells? Create a feat that expands the ability to sneak to any single target spell that requires an attack roll.

Casting spells through weapons? Create a feat that lets you channel a spell through your weapon. Regardless of the spell, it only affects the target.

Zen Archery? (or really any aspect of a class you want changed to a different stat) Create a feat that allows you to change an attack stat from one to another. Con based sorcery; Wis based archery; Int based divine magic...


People go on and on about new classes or subclasses, and forget about the power and ease of creating feats to cover these niche variables. The 'Duskblade Feat' expands the Gish concept from just an EK like fighter build, or martial wizard build to allow any class willing to expend a feat on it, to swishypoke a spell into a foe. It'd be great for a Lorebard to get both a rapier strike and shocking grasp in one fell (probably advantaged) swoop! And since feats are rare, it's an actual opportunity cost - but one that's less costly than fighting for a niche subclass.


As for psionics, while I dabbled in them in 2nd ed, I really liked them in 3rd (really really in 3rd and less so in 3.5). I liked the metamagic-y feel of being able to pick your energy type, the ability to have different shapes of the effects, the fact (in 3.0) each discipline was tied to a different attribute. So, yes, it's possible to cobble together a decent psionic spell list from the core books, the powers would need to be more generic in their descriptions and allowed to be built into a specific effect on the fly. (On top of the already discussed point system and such.)

[Vogonjeltz]

A lot of these mechanical options could easily be handled by a feat.

Sneak attack with spells? Create a feat that expands the ability to sneak to any single target spell that requires an attack roll.

Casting spells through weapons? Create a feat that lets you channel a spell through your weapon. Regardless of the spell, it only affects the target.

Zen Archery? (or really any aspect of a class you want changed to a different stat) Create a feat that allows you to change an attack stat from one to another. Con based sorcery; Wis based archery; Int based divine magic...


People go on and on about new classes or subclasses, and forget about the power and ease of creating feats to cover these niche variables. The 'Duskblade Feat' expands the Gish concept from just an EK like fighter build, or martial wizard build to allow any class willing to expend a feat on it, to swishypoke a spell into a foe. It'd be great for a Lorebard to get both a rapier strike and shocking grasp in one fell (probably advantaged) swoop! And since feats are rare, it's an actual opportunity cost - but one that's less costly than fighting for a niche subclass.


As for psionics, while I dabbled in them in 2nd ed, I really liked them in 3rd (really really in 3rd and less so in 3.5). I liked the metamagic-y feel of being able to pick your energy type, the ability to have different shapes of the effects, the fact (in 3.0) each discipline was tied to a different attribute. So, yes, it's possible to cobble together a decent psionic spell list from the core books, the powers would need to be more generic in their descriptions and allowed to be built into a specific effect on the fly. (On top of the already discussed point system and such.)

I would be hesitant to start tossing in feat bloat, especially adding in any feat any activity that could plausibly be achieved via the current system. (That would lead to players thinking they can't do the action without the feat, which goes against the core principles of 5th edition.)

Also the duskblade lore bard sounds rather OP to me (basically getting the Eldritch Knights 7th level feature, but better).

[weaseldust]

If we think of the Paladin as a Cleric-based half-caster and the ranger as a Druid-based half caster, there is room for three more half-casters, one each for the Bard, Sorcerer and Wizard. I don't think anyone is clamouring to play a half-caster based on the Sorcerer, so the class isn't missing in that sense, but the current class system clearly leaves a space where that class could go, kind of like the periodic table before we found the missing elements.

[Oscredwin]

Sneak attack with spells? Create a feat that expands the ability to sneak to any single target spell that requires an attack roll.


Does Eldritch Blast Count? If so, an EB rogue just became the highest DPR class due to four chances of landing SA. Also, all your attacks just gained 4-16 damage at levels 5+, making this much better than sharpshooter.

If you're doing SA with cantrips (not spells), it should be with an unimproved cantrip.

OTOH, I would love to play a High Elf Thief (sage background) who sneak attacks with a ray of frost. Give him the old school standard magic-user motivation (find magic artifacts and spells and knowledge) but as a rogue.

[I3igAl]

What do you want beyond that a lore bard or wizard with the Acolyte Background doesn't give you?

That's actually quite a solid idea.

But it was more about being Cleric reduce armor proficencies, reduce Hd and give them some other stuff instead.
For example an extra spell per day, more flexible casting or just extra skills.

The D&D cleric just doesn't really work well for most other fantasy priests from Robert E. Howard to World of Warcraft.

[asorel]

Does Eldritch Blast Count? If so, an EB rogue just became the highest DPR class due to four chances of landing SA. Also, all your attacks just gained 4-16 damage at levels 5+, making this much better than sharpshooter.

If you're doing SA with cantrips (not spells), it should be with an unimproved cantrip.

OTOH, I would love to play a High Elf Thief (sage background) who sneak attacks with a ray of frost. Give him the old school standard magic-user motivation (find magic artifacts and spells and knowledge) but as a rogue.

Eldritch Blast stops being a single-target spell after 5th level, meaning it wouldn't be eligible for the feat as described.

[Ralanr]

That's actually quite a solid idea.

But it was more about being Cleric reduce armor proficencies, reduce Hd and give them some other stuff instead.
For example an extra spell per day, more flexible casting or just extra skills.

The D&D cleric just doesn't really work well for most other fantasy priests from Robert E. Howard to World of Warcraft.

Eh, just because all clerics can gain the ability to wade into the front lines doesn't mean they all have to be less squishy. I know the knowledge, light, and trickery domains don't give heavy armor prof.