What class archetypes would you like to see?

[Wartex1]

The title pretty much says it all.

[GraakosGraakos]

I think druids need love, and I think a Circle of the Sun would be cool, focusing on healing utility and shapeshifting into celestial forms like Coatls and, at like 17 or something, minor Angels.

A barbarian archetype that focused on dirty fighting and savagery would be neat. Like the Savage Path or Gladiator or something.

Rangers need...serious help. An archetype focusing on being prepared for everything would be cool. Think a Witcher-esque person using oils and potions they make to get bonuses against their favored enemies (before level freaking 20), and special potions to gain stat boosts or something wis mod/day or whatever.

Warlocks with a shaman pact would be cool. They make a pact with a spirit that gains the ability to manifest and attack. Everyone wants Shaman anyways. There could be a new pact boon too; Pact of the Bell. It would allow you to gain Dominate-esque effects through its invocations and would give you a magic bell that lets you alter your charisma abilities by sounding it.

Monk could have a spirit healer that focuses on using Ki to knit his allies and remove debuffs.

A Bard that uses defensive magic. Like a Warder, inspiring his allies with his mighty prowess with an ancient force that lets them shrug off damage equal to his inspiration dice roll.

[squab]

Give druids Circle of the Dragon because dragons (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InstantAwesomeJustAddDragons).

[Naanomi]

A weapon master type would be nice, either as a fighter or monk (kensai) subclass

[JAL_1138]

A bard with reduced casting in exchange for better melee weapon use than Valor (around midlevel Valor takes off as one of the better archers). Not quite at Eldritch Knight levels of melee skill, but not half bad either. (Yes, I know this is a Fighter/Bard, Paladin/Bard, or even Rogue/Bard or Fighter/Wizard or Fighter/Sorc multiclass.)

[Jermz]

As someone who's currently playing a rogue and isn't totally satisfied with the three official archetypes, I'd be happy to see some sort of scout-skirmisher archetype.

[squab]

A bard with reduced casting in exchange for better melee weapon use than Valor (around midlevel Valor takes off as one of the better archers). Not quite at Eldritch Knight levels of melee skill, but not half bad either. (Yes, I know this is a Fighter/Bard, Paladin/Bard, or even Rogue/Bard or Fighter/Wizard or Fighter/Sorc multiclass.)

A gish class would be nice, but as you pointed out multiclassing is an option.

[DanyBallon]

As someone who's currently playing a rogue and isn't totally satisfied with the three official archetypes, I'd be happy to see some sort of scout-skirmisher archetype.

Here's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?406214-Roguish-archetype-The-Scout&highlight=scout) a roguish archetype I created for the scout.

[PhantomRenegade]

I just want a decent beastmaster.

[ChubbyRain]

Incarnum, Shadow Caster, and Psionic Subclasses that preview Psionic Classes.

[CNagy]

Definitely seconded on psionic archetypes. Fighter needs a Psychic Warrior. Rogue could get a Soulknife. Psion is going to have to be it's own class, but at that point I expect to see it handled like the Wizard with regards to Disciplines.

Sorcerers need more origins. Perhaps Fey, Fiend, and Celestial origins. An elemental origin or two.

This might sound odd but I could see having a Bard college for Shadow magic.

Perhaps some sort of Mystic for a Monk Monastic tradition. It would be a magical monk moving in a different direction than the elements monk.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd like to see a Femme Fatale / Mata Hari archetype for the rogue. This might be playable by a high charisma assassin, but IMO there's a hole in the rogue class. Intrigue as well as a bit of lethality.

(Ischade is a little of what I am thinking here, from Thieves World, but maybe not as magical)

Agree with a Druid, Circle of the Sun as a logical addition. With all of the domains clerics have, a little more fleshing out of Druid would be nice.

Beast master might just need to let the animal attack without eating the Ranger's action.

FWIW: fighters are already weapons masters.

[Steampunkette]

I'd love to see some psionic support. But I'd like to see an alternate Psychic Warrior option built onto Monk or Rogue as a lightly armored Dodge-fighter. Someone who uses Uncanny Dodge as a serious survival tactic while standing toe to toe with enemies, or disengages with a 30ft long TK-assisted Jump to get out of combat.

... though I guess that would probably require it's own separate class, more than likely.

Still! Pretty cool thought for me.

I'd love to see a Hexblade subclass for Warlocks to increase survival and gishiness. And maybe a Fighter subclass that is designed around lighter armor and savage fighting? Could be cool.

Essentially I want lots of Dark Sun content for the PC classes.

How about a Warlock Necromancer Subclass and Undead Hunting Rangers/Rogues/Monks/Fighters? I'd love to get more Ravenloft support from classes, even though my group would never want to play it.

[JAL_1138]

A gish class would be nice, but as you pointed out multiclassing is an option.

Basically I just don't want to need spell slots to do ok in a swordfight. Not great; that's reserved for the fighter, rogue, and barbarian. Still, as of now, weapon damage isn't remotely competitive with cantrips at higher level for anybody else who's not using spells to buff their weapon damage, and I'd rather default to "stab it in the face (or kidneys, if a rogue)" than "hang back and cast Eldritch Blast."

[Naanomi]

FWIW: fighters are already weapons masters.
I mean like 'specialist in one weapon type'; Weapon Specialization has long been part of the game (and had been the fighter's schtick for many editions) but isn't well represented in the current game; maybe just need more feats but could be a subclass as well

Kesai would be more like 'monk with sword focused on sword abilities instead of unarmed attacks'
-----
More sorcerous origins would be good, though 'fey' isn't one I'd choose (seems like the clearest 'wild' choice to me)

A bard more directly focused on mind-control could be fun

A melee based Druid circle (avenging nature and/or guarding sacred places) could have a place; as could a 'bugs/underground' creepy Druid circle; as could a plant-based Druid

Some more cleric domains, especially more 'evil friendly' ones, would be nice for cosmology building but I can't point out one I particularly want to see

Additionally, a few more Warlock Patrons are possible: Eladrin, the Dead, and Genie have both been mentioned in past fluff as sponsoring Warlocks. Other Pact Gifts are possible too, voodoo dolls to expand hex/curse? Tiki masks with intimidation focused powers?

Wizardry has had lots of subfields over the years that could make subclasses... True-naming and Alchemy

In general, psionics can fill in 2-3 subtypes in addition to a base class; incarnum might as well if it sees a comeback.

Racial subclasses might be possible, though most of the old racial kits/PrCs are not very mechanically unique to need them. Warforged PrCs though may be an exception and need subclasses

Other Setting specific stuff as well; if Darksun comes around Gladiator will need to find a way to be a class or subclass out of tradition

[Wartex1]

Looking at these, I'm certain that I've seen most of these floating around as homebrew on these boards, for those who aren't deathly allergic to it. As for Psionics, I made a Psion a while back with its own power system (not just refluffed spells) along with a Wilder Sorcerer subclass. There's also a Soulknife, Psychic Warrior, and Soulbow archetype by some others as well.

Here's a list of all 5e homebrew here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?396519-D-amp-D-5e-Homebrew-Compendium

[PhantomRenegade]

Beast master might just need to let the animal attack without eating the Ranger's action. Nah they need more stuff, particularly having to stop the adventure for 8 hours every two fights because the beast keeps dying isnt fun for anybody.

[xroads]

Beast master might just need to let the animal attack without eating the Ranger's action.

Another option might be to give them access to the same beasts a druid of the moon can shift into. Since they are using their action to attack with their animals anyways, might as well as give them a beast comparable to the moon druids who attack as animals (and moon druids even get the option to heal as a bonus action!)

[SharkForce]

Definitely seconded on psionic archetypes. Fighter needs a Psychic Warrior. Rogue could get a Soulknife. Psion is going to have to be it's own class, but at that point I expect to see it handled like the Wizard with regards to Disciplines.

Sorcerers need more origins. Perhaps Fey, Fiend, and Celestial origins. An elemental origin or two.

This might sound odd but I could see having a Bard college for Shadow magic.

Perhaps some sort of Mystic for a Monk Monastic tradition. It would be a magical monk moving in a different direction than the elements monk.

I feel like psychic warrior would actually be better based around the ranger than the fighter.

[DireSickFish]

I'd like a thug rogue. Something that allows me to use strength and sneak attack. A lot of my rogues in 3.5 were more thugish and less nimble.

[ruy343]

I, too, would like to see a psionics set of classes.

I would also like to bring back the 4E warlord in a sense: Battlemaster can kind of do this, as can Bard and Cleric, but none of them specializes in allowing your friends to attack while you tank. It was a pretty neat concept to me. I think that it would work well as a bard subclass, or perhaps as a fighter archetype (tactician).

I would also like to see a "Path of the Ancestors" barbarian: it just makes sense for a lot of character backgrounds to base your strength off of your ancestral heritage (or that you're the avatar of a powerful warrior reborn).

[Easy_Lee]

Thief Acrobats, or just pole-weilding acrobat in general. It's my favorite class type, but right now the best I can do is monk or ask to finesse quarterstaves on a thief.

[Grayson01]

Definitely seconded on psionic archetypes. Fighter needs a Psychic Warrior. Rogue could get a Soulknife. Psion is going to have to be it's own class, but at that point I expect to see it handled like the Wizard with regards to Disciplines.

Sorcerers need more origins. Perhaps Fey, Fiend, and Celestial origins. An elemental origin or two.

This might sound odd but I could see having a Bard college for Shadow magic.

Perhaps some sort of Mystic for a Monk Monastic tradition. It would be a magical monk moving in a different direction than the elements monk.

Sorcerers got a bunch of support in the Unearthed Arcana/online supplement articles. You might wanna check out some of those, like the stormborn and I thought there was a Elemental one but can't find it.

[Ralanr]

A elemental rager, a tranquil fury type, and a few more totem spirits.

Actually expanding current archetypes wouldn't be a bad idea. More Maneuvers, etc.

[dukeofwolfsgate]

An Arcane Archer path for the Fighter. i.e. Imbue Arrow, Enhance Arrow, Seeker Arrow, and Phase Arrow.

[Ashrym]

Basically I just don't want to need spell slots to do ok in a swordfight. Not great; that's reserved for the fighter, rogue, and barbarian. Still, as of now, weapon damage isn't remotely competitive with cantrips at higher level for anybody else who's not using spells to buff their weapon damage, and I'd rather default to "stab it in the face (or kidneys, if a rogue)" than "hang back and cast Eldritch Blast."

Your right. Cantrips really needs some catching up. ;)

Arcane trickster rogue with entertainer background and inspiring leader feat does a pretty bang up job of simulating a more combat oriented bard who doesn't rely on spells to buff weapon damage. Totem barbarian is similar with reflavored abilities matching inspiration over rage.

Feats are what put weapons ahead of cantrips. There are very few cantrips that even try to compete with weapon damage. This is what pole arm mastery looks like on a valor bard, either STR and 2 handed or with shillelagh and CHA based (65% accuracy)...

2*5% crit = 2d8+5 = 1.4
1*5% crit = 2d4+5 = 0.5
2*60% normal = 1d8+5 = 11.4
1*60% normal = 1d4+5 = 4.5
damage = 17.8 pus ~1.92 for extra opportunity attacks from the feat at 1 per 4 rounds = 19.72

compared to using eldritch blasts (65% accuracy)...

4*5% crit = 2d10 = 2.2
4*60% normal = 1d10 = 13.2
damage = 15.4

and without feats using greatsword STR (65% accuracy)...

2*5% crit = 4d6+5 = 1.9
2*60% normal = 2d6+5 = 14.4
damage = 16.3 and still very similar to the edritch blasts, but the eldritch blasts no longer benefit from feats so there's a bit of damage loss there due to disadvantage when enemies are within melee range, or from opponents receiving cover from your party members in melee to create an accuracy drop on the eldritch blasts

an alternatively without feats using dual shortswords DEX (65% accuracy)

2*5% crit = 2d6+5 = 1.2
1*5% crit = 2d6 = 0.35
2*60% normal = 1d6+5 = 10.2
1*60% normal = 1d6 = 2.1
damage = 13.85 and still close to eldritch blasts. it's hard to gauge damage loss on eldritch blast as per above, but this is pretty tight still while affording more skill bonuses, better initiative, and also using the ability score for ranged attacks

so the ranged attacks without feats using longbow DEX (65% accuracy)

2*5% crit = 2d8+5 = 1.4
2*60% crit = 1d8+5 = 11.4
damage = 12.8 and where your biggest gap might be because it's impacted by the same damage loss as eldritch blast without feats


Eldritch blast isn't stronger than other cantrips without the stipulated need that you applied to weapon use with bonuses to damage and magic. Unless you are trying to compare a valor bard needing weapons bonuses to compete with a warlock you haven't lost anything in using weapons over adding that cantrip, and it's no different than having compared your damage to a fighter, rogue, or barbarian that you stated you didn't need.

Cantrip damage, in general, is poor damage. Abilities that add to cantrip damage can be quite good just like abilities that add to weapons can, but comparing a valor bard to a valor bard it's only if you are using battle magic after picking up a cantrip with magical secrets to cast a cantrip then take a bonus action attack there's little reason to favor cantrips. With the battlemagic example, the average increases quite a bit on paper, but you'll find that in practice you'll be casting enough spells by that time instead of cantrips that it's not as big an increase over keeping the bonus action for something else (like animate objects attacks) and making 2 attacks normally.


Unless I misunderstood you. That's entirely possible. ;)

[Dominuce2112]

I have some ideas for classes/subclasses I am going to make.

The machinist (with gunner, artificer and grendier subclasses)

A beast bond barbarian-A barbarian with a pet who will eventually be able to rage with him.

Puppeteer- Kind of like the artficer but I was thinking of having a tank pet, a sneaky pet and...well idk yet.

Id really want to see/create/port Dragonfire Adept from 3.5. That class has a spot in my heart. It was my first real PC.

Seedling druid- plant based.

Blighted/Plague druid- corruption, poison and entrophy based.

Portalmancer- this one was just a light concept. But I was thinking of having a class that can create portals in space and attack thru them. Kind of like Blink from X-men. Reactionary reflection of ranged attacks, melee attack from a distance, teleporting battlefield control kind of thing.

[Wartex1]

There's a Dragonfire Adept on this sight. Check in the Compendium I linked earlier.

[JAL_1138]

Your right. Cantrips really needs some catching up. ;)

Arcane trickster rogue with entertainer background and inspiring leader feat does a pretty bang up job of simulating a more combat oriented bard who doesn't rely on spells to buff weapon damage. Totem barbarian is similar with reflavored abilities matching inspiration over rage.

Feats are what put weapons ahead of cantrips. There are very few cantrips that even try to compete with weapon damage. This is what pole arm mastery looks like on a valor bard, either STR and 2 handed or with shillelagh and CHA based (65% accuracy)...

2*5% crit = 2d8+5 = 1.4
1*5% crit = 2d4+5 = 0.5
2*60% normal = 1d8+5 = 11.4
1*60% normal = 1d4+5 = 4.5
damage = 17.8 pus ~1.92 for extra opportunity attacks from the feat at 1 per 4 rounds = 19.72

compared to using eldritch blasts (65% accuracy)...

4*5% crit = 2d10 = 2.2
4*60% normal = 1d10 = 13.2
damage = 15.4

and without feats using greatsword STR (65% accuracy)...

2*5% crit = 4d6+5 = 1.9
2*60% normal = 2d6+5 = 14.4
damage = 16.3 and still very similar to the edritch blasts, but the eldritch blasts no longer benefit from feats so there's a bit of damage loss there due to disadvantage when enemies are within melee range, or from opponents receiving cover from your party members in melee to create an accuracy drop on the eldritch blasts

an alternatively without feats using dual shortswords DEX (65% accuracy)

2*5% crit = 2d6+5 = 1.2
1*5% crit = 2d6 = 0.35
2*60% normal = 1d6+5 = 10.2
1*60% normal = 1d6 = 2.1
damage = 13.85 and still close to eldritch blasts. it's hard to gauge damage loss on eldritch blast as per above, but this is pretty tight still while affording more skill bonuses, better initiative, and also using the ability score for ranged attacks

so the ranged attacks without feats using longbow DEX (65% accuracy)

2*5% crit = 2d8+5 = 1.4
2*60% crit = 1d8+5 = 11.4
damage = 12.8 and where your biggest gap might be because it's impacted by the same damage loss as eldritch blast without feats


Eldritch blast isn't stronger than other cantrips without the stipulated need that you applied to weapon use with bonuses to damage and magic. Unless you are trying to compare a valor bard needing weapons bonuses to compete with a warlock you haven't lost anything in using weapons over adding that cantrip, and it's no different than having compared your damage to a fighter, rogue, or barbarian that you stated you didn't need.

Cantrip damage, in general, is poor damage. Abilities that add to cantrip damage can be quite good just like abilities that add to weapons can, but comparing a valor bard to a valor bard it's only if you are using battle magic after picking up a cantrip with magical secrets to cast a cantrip then take a bonus action attack there's little reason to favor cantrips. With the battlemagic example, the average increases quite a bit on paper, but you'll find that in practice you'll be casting enough spells by that time instead of cantrips that it's not as big an increase over keeping the bonus action for something else (like animate objects attacks) and making 2 attacks normally.


Unless I misunderstood you. That's entirely possible. ;)

A VB with a rapier and shield, or a longbow without spells (with spells, doi is doing 2d8+Dex mod + Dex mod at 11. And 2d8+2xDexMod at 20. To do better weapon damage, you either need to 1) sacrifice an ASI for a feat, which is an optional rule, play a very specific style using a particular category of weapon, sacrifice AC for STR since you don't get heavy armor, and further sacrifice AC for two-handed, and sacrifice your spellcasting DC and attack roll, or 2) use two weapons and, if no feats, which again are optional, limit yourself to verbal-only spells; or 3) use spells to increase weapon damage.

In other words, I'd like to not have to use an extremely specific build with a particular weapon or combo of two weapons, or a spell (including Animate Objects or shillelagh), to be decent in a swordfight, with a sword. Decent. At 11, rogue's doing d8+6d6+dex (or 33.05, with Dex 20) per hit, with a rapier on sneak attack, which is phenomenally easy to get in games I've been in. Two attacks is doing 13.9 (Dex 18), EB is doing 17.325 (3d10) on all three hitting without using a bonus action. TWF (no feat) is doing 15.025 if all three hit, but only at the cost of a bonus action. Likewise, polearm master costs a bonus action.

Whereas, EB allows me to also cast a bonus action leveled spell. So, it makes no sense to waste a bonus action on a chance at 2.6 to 3.6 damage (ballpark) when I could, say, hand out Inspiration or cast Healing Word. One extra attack for 3 with 18 dex comes out to 26.175 on all three hitting (PM with two attacks comes out to 16.87 on all three hitting before OA, costs bonus) and leaves the bonus action open. Still worse than the rogue, still worse than the fighter, but competitive.

Not sure how you're arriving at 60 and 65% accuracy, but I suck at math. Vs 17 AC? (1-((17-8-1)*.05) = 60%, 1-((17-9-1)*.05=65%)

Lvl 11 vs AC 17
Rogue, rapier Dex 20: 21.48
VB, rapier Dex 18: 8.34
VB, EB Cha 20: 11.26
VB, TWF Dex 18: 9.05 (so I've used a bonus action to do less damage than EB, in melee)
VB, STR 18, PM: (2d8*1.05+4, +d4*1.05+4, at 60%)= 12.05 and costs a bonus action for an increase of 0.785 points of damage over EB, although the OA is nice (extra 5.23 when it happens--say 50%, for 2.62, total of 14.67, so I've taken a feat, built STR instead of Dex, limited my casting due to not taking Warcaster instead, limited my AC, foregone a shield, and spent a bonus action for 3.41 damage and reduced range)

If I got 3 attacks, though,
3 attacks, Dex 18--no action surge, no fighting style--16.065. (increase of 4.8 with Dex build, shield, no bonus action, no feat). Of course, Smites, ranger spells, and feats throw the balance of the 3rd attack out of whack, which is why a spell-stealing 9th-level caster doesn't get it.

Rogue is a poor MC for Bard due to overlap--VB is kind of lousy for multiclassing--but Rogue 3 adds 2d6 from Sneak Attack, leading to 9.64 on a SA, meaning I've spent 3 levels grinding as a rogue (giving up zilch but a kind of lousy capstone) for 14.88 average from a rapier attack, although that delays Magical Secrets for another 3 levels if taken before 10.

I'm counting SA as always happening for rogues since I've never yet seen a melee rogue not get it. Not once have they failed to get it somehow. Whether in AL, home games as a player, or home games as a DM.

I dislike the spell school restrictions on EKs and ATs, or else I'd take one of those and call it a day.

If my math is off, I suck at math and am slightly south of sober :smalltongue:

[Dominuce2112]

There's a Dragonfire Adept on this sight. Check in the Compendium I linked earlier.

thanks for the link!

[JellyPooga]

I'd like a thug rogue. Something that allows me to use strength and sneak attack. A lot of my rogues in 3.5 were more thugish and less nimble.

I'll second this on the proviso that it doesn't allow Sneak Attacks with a Greatsword again! That always struck me as a little...odd. Limited additions to the weapons you can Sneak Attack with would be nice for this (at least include the club...classic Thug weapon!) and perhaps a focus on Intimidation and knockouts/stun.

[Ashrym]

A VB with a rapier and shield, or a longbow without spells (with spells, doi is doing 2d8+Dex mod + Dex mod at 11. And 2d8+2xDexMod at 20. To do better weapon damage, you either need to 1) sacrifice an ASI for a feat, which is an optional rule, play a very specific style using a particular category of weapon, sacrifice AC for STR since you don't get heavy armor, and further sacrifice AC for two-handed, and sacrifice your spellcasting DC and attack roll, or 2) use two weapons and, if no feats, which again are optional, limit yourself to verbal-only spells; or 3) use spells to increase weapon damage.

If feats are considered optional then there are more ASI's for less issues with ability scores. With feats they are more workable. The AC is only one difference with a smaller investment in DEX for medium armor or once medium armor is known then a person can just learn heavy armor for +1 STR and no DEX investment as a possibility getting back to feats (because heavy armor is cheaper than pumping DEX).

It looks like you want a DEX build that doesn't sacrifice spell casting, otherwise there's no real need to hold on to as much CHA and 16 works. The post to which I first replied indicated less spellcasting so it's only a couple of inspiration dice you are giving up for better combat simply by focusing on healing or utility spells.

At 11th level it's

2*5% crit: 2d8+5 = 1.4
2*60% normal: 1d8+5 = 11.4
damage = 12.8

vs

3*5% crit: 2d10 = 1.65
3*60% normal: 1d10 = 9.9
damage = 11.55

At 11th level the bow or rapier is higher before spells and feats, and before any damage loss on the eldritch blast from lack of feats. Feat costs are required by both styles because of melee range disadvantage and cover issues into melee from ranged attacks that need to be kept in mind.

You also don't have to limit yourself to verbal only spells. Carry a spell component pouch and when you cast a spell sheath your sword without spending any action per the rules. This allows you to cast a spell with the now free hand. On your next turn, draw your sword without any action and attack. If you are using a bonus action for something you can use it before or after your action, normally. This costs you a proficient weapon for reactions so you might use your shield as a makeshift weapon and attack without proficiency as the impact. If you are using a bow it's been confirmed you only need 2 hands to fire it, not to hold it as well.


In other words, I'd like to not have to use an extremely specific build with a particular weapon or combo of two weapons, or a spell (including Animate Objects or shillelagh), to be decent in a swordfight, with a sword. Decent. At 11, rogue's doing d8+6d6+dex (or 33.05, with Dex 20) per hit, with a rapier on sneak attack, which is phenomenally easy to get in games I've been in. Two attacks is doing 13.9 (Dex 18), EB is doing 17.325 (3d10) on all three hitting without using a bonus action. TWF (no feat) is doing 15.025 if all three hit, but only at the cost of a bonus action. Likewise, polearm master costs a bonus action.

The issue here is we're no longer comparing a bard with weapons to a bard with eldritch blast. For weapons to be an option over eldritch blast we should should still be looking at the bard on both styles. The questions is, do you want to play bard, or do you want to play a rogue because you want sneak attack and don't want to be using spells so much? That's why I suggested an arcane trickster with an entertainer background as the same concept but better damage and less spells.

The only real answer I have here for you is rogues do more damage that bards, but that's because bards cast up to 9th level spells and rogues do not. Which is more important to us is how we select the chassis for our concept.


Whereas, EB allows me to also cast a bonus action leveled spell. So, it makes no sense to waste a bonus action on a chance at 2.6 to 3.6 damage (ballpark) when I could, say, hand out Inspiration or cast Healing Word. One extra attack for 3 with 18 dex comes out to 26.175 on all three hitting (PM with two attacks comes out to 16.87 on all three hitting before OA, costs bonus) and leaves the bonus action open. Still worse than the rogue, still worse than the fighter, but competitive.

Not sure how you're arriving at 60 and 65% accuracy, but I suck at math. Vs 17 AC? (1-((17-8-1)*.05) = 60%, 1-((17-9-1)*.05=65%)

I wasn't using AC 17 at a specific level. As I've learned in many, many damage calculations discussing these things, proficiency bonus increases as target AC's increase (roughly) so once the attack modifier caps then accuracy is roughly constant as levels increase give or take because not all monsters have the same AC's regardless. It's simpler and faster to place a constant that can be modified instead of recalculating AC accuracy every time the calculations are done. 65% was consistent when I was recalculating at various levels, is realistic for the common AC's at the levels used, and since it's applied fairly to both styles works. Don't give yourself extra work if you don't need to. ;)

So 5% of the time, critical damage applies on any given attack. 60% is the remainder of the accuracy where normal damage applies after criticals and before misses on 65% accuracy. It's much quicker that way and remains accurate in the comparison between both case studies.

On that note, I posted 2 1d8 attacks above compared to 3 1d10 attacks for a bard because ability modifier damage won't apply to the 3rd blast as 2*5>1d10 damage the weapons are more before feats and magic items. You can also poison a weapon and cannot poison an eldritch blast, and as mentioned, there is an accuracy loss moving from ranged attacks when within melee range or if your own party is in the way creating cover for your targets so the eldritch blast damage is slightly inflated.

You have the bonus action remaining in both cases and using it for a pole arm or hand crossbow build with feats can leave spell damage further behind. The problem with simply giving more damage to the base subclass is those other options can still be invested towards a cumulative effect, possibly quadratic effect, and turn the class into a monster after the investment.


Rogue is a poor MC for Bard due to overlap--VB is kind of lousy for multiclassing--but Rogue 3 adds 2d6 from Sneak Attack, leading to 9.64 on a SA, meaning I've spent 3 levels grinding as a rogue (giving up zilch but a kind of lousy capstone) for 14.88 average from a rapier attack, although that delays Magical Secrets for another 3 levels if taken before 10.

I'm counting SA as always happening for rogues since I've never yet seen a melee rogue not get it. Not once have they failed to get it somehow. Whether in AL, home games as a player, or home games as a DM.

I skipped your calculations because I posted mine for the same level and explained how it was calculated. Like I mentioned, it's not MC I was looking at, but a completely different class built on the same or similar character concept. A person could pull it off with a blade warlock too. I always look at concept first and matching mechanics second that might meet that concept before recreating a wheel, so to speak.

MC delays are annoying, I agree. Keep in mind that 3 rogue levels on a bard would give up the capstone, 1 ASI/feat, a 7th level spell slot, a 6th level spell slot, and magical secrets for 2 more top level spells that would be nice to have on top of delayed class progression. Bard capstone is pretty meh, but a 7th level spell slot has a bit of value.

I always add sneak attack to my rogue damage calculations too. It's incredibly easy to qualify for it in melee. We're back at comparing rogue abilities instead of bard weapon versus bard cantrips.


I dislike the spell school restrictions on EKs and ATs, or else I'd take one of those and call it a day.

Both still gain spells outside of the school access, and AT spells are similar to one of the common spell styles bards use. The trick to expanding that list is to MC with a wizard and the other is give up the feat for ritual caster. In the end, if you're looking for a versatile character who has more melee damage and high magical ability the other option is a blade pact warlock, and in the warlock's case it's harder to build for weapons over eldritch blast instead of easier because of agonizing blast availability. It can be done but without feats in that investment you would be left behind at 17th level unless you shell out gp for poisons consistently. Warlocks blade pact is dependent on pole arm master or great weapon master with frequent enough advantage, or both feats, to make it worthwhile over eldritch blast when bards don't have to make up the damage bonus agonizing blast provides at 65% accuracy on 4 attacks over 2 attacks.

At 17th level, magic items still keep just a plain 1d8 long bow or rapier ahead of just a plain eldritch blast from a bard. My advice is to simply invest in the feats and appropriate ability score, take a hit in spellcaster ability score as you focus that way, and make spell selection appropriately. Since you seem like you want healing based on your responses it's fairly easy.

One last thing to keep in mind. If you do like things like hypnotic pattern, a 17 DC instead of a 19 DC having skipped some CHA investment means an area including 10 targets only 8 would fail instead of 9 out of those 10 targets on that difference targeting a poor save stat. Large area DC spells have little lost impact over -1 or -2 DC's when the proficiency bonus still gets that DC fairly high.

As an exercise in damage, for fun, human bard with great weapon master as the free feat and back to your 11th level comparison, using improved invisibility for advantage and -5/+10

2*5.25% crit: 4d6+5+10 = 3.045
2*56% normal: 2d6+5+10 = 24.64
damage = 27.685

3*5.25% crit: 2d10 = 1.7325
3*81% normal: 1d10 = 13.365
damage = 15.0975

Notice how the weapon is much better than eldritch blast at that point. That's what impact the feat and spell does, before also adding a magical weapon or other bonus. If that greatword using never took another feat, his ability scores end like this on a standard spread.

STR: 20
DEX: 14
CON: 14
INT: 8
WIS: 10
CHA: 18

That caps his AC, he can swap for CON 16 and CHA 16 if he wants, he can change to sharpshooter and DEX for something like this...

STR: 10
DEX: 20
CON: 14
INT: 8
WIS: 12
CHA: 18

and pick up another feat, or add CHA to 20, or add CON to 16.

The room is there to pick up a big damage feat and spells available to use it, and get high CHA. You could skip invisibility for faerie fire with the CHA.

Hopefully this helps with some ideas. Keeping on topic, it's alwasy possible for something with a bit more but likely it's replacing the battle magic ability with something else as your best option to prevent accidental monster building. Perhaps something similar to the peerless skill idea where you gain the ability to add bardic inspiration to your own AC or damage.

[PoeticDwarf]

I'd like to see a fighter archetype just based on archery. You can make a nice fighter archer but if you use your rapier you do often the same amount of damage and if you're a champion you have dueling and archery at higher levels I think.
A ranger/hunter can use bow spells and volley but a fighter is never really focussed on archery.

[Steampunkette]

Battle,masters are the best archers. Hands down.

[ChubbyRain]

I'd like a thug rogue. Something that allows me to use strength and sneak attack. A lot of my rogues in 3.5 were more thugish and less nimble.

Nothing currently stops you from going strength based rogue. Actually, strength based Vhuman + moderately armored + shield master is a fantastic combo. My friends and I call this build the "Cunning Knight". Makes for the best sword n board combo in the game (uncanny dodge is blocking with your shield).

You can be strength based and use melee weapons for sneak attack. You can use your strength on ranged thrown weapons like daggers.

You are stuck with your same weapons but that is mostly a fluff issue. As long as the damage die is d4, d6, or d8 then there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to sneak attack with the weapon.

The weapon restriction is just as bad as the EK/AT spell restriction.

[Naanomi]

Mountain Dwarves make pretty spiffy 'thugs' as well; though they don't get the shield prof so shoving people over with shield mastery and stabbing them does fade away sadly

[ChubbyRain]

Mountain Dwarves make pretty spiffy 'thugs' as well; though they don't get the shield prof so shoving people over with shield mastery and stabbing them does fade away sadly

Halariously well.

There really is no reason not to let that dwarf use axes/hammers to sneak attack as long as the weapon dies d8 or less base damage. Damage types don't play that big of a role. I could see a dwarven battle rogue take twf as to go big hammer/big axe.

[Ashrym]

I usually play a champion fighter with the skilled feat and the urchin or criminal background if I want the thug rogue archetype. It just uses extra attacks for sneak attacks.

The archetype I would like to see is McGuyver. The INT character who uses skills and knowledge instead of sneak attacks, and isn't magical.

[Anderlith]

Yes! A factotum would be a great class or archetype. Anything that uses Int as a main focus really.

[Naanomi]

I was thinking of potential new Paladin Oaths (one of the harder new classes to brainstorm I think) and an Oath of Healing/Peace/Mercy would have potential. Focus on Healing, social skills, and Damage mitigation; with vows like 'always seek a peaceful solution; never refuse to aid those in need; seek to redeem those who oppose you rather than destroy them'

[Steampunkette]

How about an Oath of Redemption focused on giving people a chance to be good, turning evil creatures into allies, and generally working towards making the world a better place by fixing what's wrong with it, rather than killing evil? Social Skills, Charm Effects, and eventually the ability to go "Helm of Opposite Alignment" on Evil folks. Could be fun!

How about an Urban Barbarian build? Less "Wanders the Wilds" more "Jekyll and Hyde" or Gaston.

How about a Primal Sorceror or Wizard build that focuses on reflexive or instinctive casting?

Maybe a Circle of Rot druid that focuses on Blights, Poisons, Diseases, and the natural state of decay in the world.

Could do a nice "Taproom Trouncer" monk subclass that turns all the esoteric teachings of monasteries into a dwarf with a mohawk beating the crap out of people with beermugs and broken bottles.

How about a Thrown Weapon subclass for Rogues, Rangers, or Fighters? A build literally designed to chuck different weapons downrange.

[ChubbyRain]

Maybe a Circle of Rot druid that focuses on Blights, Poisons, Diseases, and the natural state of decay in the world.


Circle of blight.

The 3.5 Blighted was awesome even if it technically made itself fall and lose class features.

[D.U.P.A.]

Some sort of urban ranger, that is not tied to nature that much. I know it sounds like fighter rogue, however these 2 classes do not have spells.

[ChubbyRain]

Some sort of urban ranger, that is not tied to nature that much. I know it sounds like fighter rogue, however these 2 classes do not have spells.

I'm with you, the 1/3 spell casting sucks, I would rather see the ranger base adapted.

3e had some cool urban druid/ranger/barbarian stuff.

[AmbientRaven]

I'd like to see more Ranger, Rogue, Fighter, Paladin and Barbarian options.

I've worked on a mounted based fighter, as well as a new ranger archetype.
I'll be working on a raging druid archetype (Mainly because in my game the druid is starting to like the taste of humanoid flesh so we may have her swapping to a rage based druid shifter that loses spell slots Its in the weorks atm though so only rough drafts)

[Brendanicus]

Psionic archetypes would be awesome.

A preparation-based, boyscout style Ranger would be awesome. Im not sure how thther crunch would work. Bonus tool proficiencies, for starters.

A mounted fighting style, but not archetype, should happen.

Edit: Blighters need to happen. There also needs to be a Jungle option for Land Druids.

[PoeticDwarf]

Battle,masters are the best archers. Hands down.

They aren't based on archery, are they?
If you're a battlemaster most features just work with melee attacks, not all of them, but many.

[PoeticDwarf]

Psionic archetypes would be awesome.

A preparation-based, boyscout style Ranger would be awesome. Im not sure how thther crunch would work. Bonus tool proficiencies, for starters.

A mounted fighting style, but not archetype, should happen.

Edit: Blighters need to happen. There also needs to be a Jungle option for Land Druids.

You have some nice ideas, especially the jungle option, jungle exsists right?

[Naanomi]

You have some nice ideas, especially the jungle option, jungle exsists right?
We've counted Jungle under Forest for rangers/Druids; just like we considered costal to cover aquatic terrain. Blighters would be fun, and could be fluffed to cover both evil Druids and fungal/rot/bug Druids

Barbarian is a hard one for me to think of new ideas, most things I consider are either obviously multiclassing, would work best as feats, or are just a refluff of totem barbarian (this is how we handled 'ancestor worship' barbarians)

[Ashrym]

They aren't based on archery, are they?
If you're a battlemaster most features just work with melee attacks, not all of them, but many.

Taking the archery fighting style and feats makes the PC based on archery. The archetype is easy. Fighters and rangers both get fighting style.

The ranger has hunter abilities and spells to support it. The EK is an alternative magical archer to the ranger but I don't think it matches the arcane archer as intended without MC, at least.

The battlemaster maneuvers specify which are melee: lunging attack, parry, riposte, and sweeping attack are melee; feinting doesn't require melee but it is a target within 5 ft.

Disarming attack, distracting strike, goading attack, maneuvering attack, menacing attack, precision attack, pushing attack, and trip attack are all options for ranged attacks to go with the remaining maneuver options and gives some interesting ranged attack options like tripping a flying creature or burning superiority dice with action surge for a big knockback effect.

Battlemaster is my preferred archer build too and I think it meets the archetype.

[Ralanr]

Yes! A factotum would be a great class or archetype. Anything that uses Int as a main focus really.

Take away spell casting and my interest is brought to attention.

[Naanomi]

Oath of Obedience Paladins are also needed... Your classic Samurai and Dark Sun's Templars need a path to follow the absolute authority of a leader and laws without concern for moral alignment behind it

[Brendanicus]

Oath of Obedience Paladins are also needed... Your classic Samurai and Dark Sun's Templars need a path to follow the absolute authority of a leader and laws without concern for moral alignment behind itHonestly, that seems so obvious in hindsight. I'm surprised that it's not core.

[Steampunkette]

Wow that's... That is actually brilliant and it needs to be put together, ASAP.

[Ralanr]

oath of obedience paladins are also needed... Your classic samurai and dark sun's templars need a path to follow the absolute authority of a leader and laws without concern for moral alignment behind it


honestly, that seems so obvious in hindsight. I'm surprised that it's not core.


wow that's... That is actually brilliant and it needs to be put together, asap.

we must fund it immediately!

[Easy_Lee]

Oath of Obedience Paladins are also needed... Your classic Samurai and Dark Sun's Templars need a path to follow the absolute authority of a leader and laws without concern for moral alignment behind it


Honestly, that seems so obvious in hindsight. I'm surprised that it's not core.


Wow that's... That is actually brilliant and it needs to be put together, ASAP.


we must fund it immediately!

I started a crowdsourced thread over in the Homebrew section which might be used to build the Oath.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?419918-Paladin-Sacred-Oath-Oath-of-Obedience