Homebrew Class Design

[GalacticAxekick]

In the Player's Handbook, class and power source are almost synonymous. A Fighter is someone who uses sheer martial skill. A Wizard is someone who casts studied spells. A Cleric channels divine power. And so forth. Of course, two Fighters can master unique weapons, armours and techniques. Two Wizards can specialize in unique schools and learn unique spells. Two Clerics can revire unique gods and channel unique powers. Outcomes vary wildly, even with the same basic power source. And so PHB classes rarely prescribe a build, role or even culture.

When I write homebrew or look for interesting homebrew, I'm typically looking for ways to expand on this idea. With the martial classes especially, I'm interested in seeing new round-by-round options and features to distinguish builds within a class, rather than new classes that share power sources with old.

Coming to this forum, though, I noticed a lot of people take the opposite approach. I see a lot of homebrew that makes a class out of what I'd consider a build (such as Samurai or Knight classes, which I'd lump with Fighters, or arcane specialists I'd lump with Wizards). And I see even more homebrew that makes class out of what I'd consider a multiclass (such as Spellsword classes, which mix a martial and magical power source). The PHB has shades of the latter with the spellcasting subclasses of Fighters, Rogues and Monks, as well as the half-casting Paladin and Rangers. But then, those are some of the things I specifically aim to remove with my homebrew.

So I was wondering, what do you look for/aim for in homebrew classes?

[khadgar567]

In the Player's Handbook, class and power source are almost synonymous. A Fighter is someone who uses sheer martial skill. A Wizard is someone who casts studied spells. A Cleric channels divine power. And so forth. Of course, two Fighters can master unique weapons, armours and techniques. Two Wizards can specialize in unique schools and learn unique spells. Two Clerics can revire unique gods and channel unique powers. Outcomes vary wildly, even with the same basic power source. And so PHB classes rarely prescribe a build, role or even culture.

When I write homebrew or look for interesting homebrew, I'm typically looking for ways to expand on this idea. With the martial classes especially, I'm interested in seeing new round-by-round options and features to distinguish builds within a class, rather than new classes that share power sources with old.

Coming to this forum, though, I noticed a lot of people take the opposite approach. I see a lot of homebrew that makes a class out of what I'd consider a build (such as Samurai or Knight classes, which I'd lump with Fighters, or arcane specialists I'd lump with Wizards). And I see even more homebrew that makes class out of what I'd consider a multiclass (such as Spellsword classes, which mix a martial and magical power source). The PHB has shades of the latter with the spellcasting subclasses of Fighters, Rogues and Monks, as well as the half-casting Paladin and Rangers. But then, those are some of the things I specifically aim to remove with my homebrew.

So I was wondering, what do you look for/aim for in homebrew classes?
depends on class like wizard and sorcerer to not act like grope mages, bard that knows when to shut the f up and barbarian who dont be a murder hobo.

[JoshuaZ]

In the Player's Handbook, class and power source are almost synonymous. A Fighter is someone who uses sheer martial skill. A Wizard is someone who casts studied spells. A Cleric channels divine power. And so forth. Of course, two Fighters can master unique weapons, armours and techniques. Two Wizards can specialize in unique schools and learn unique spells. Two Clerics can revire unique gods and channel unique powers. Outcomes vary wildly, even with the same basic power source. And so PHB classes rarely prescribe a build, role or even culture.

When I write homebrew or look for interesting homebrew, I'm typically looking for ways to expand on this idea. With the martial classes especially, I'm interested in seeing new round-by-round options and features to distinguish builds within a class, rather than new classes that share power sources with old.

Coming to this forum, though, I noticed a lot of people take the opposite approach. I see a lot of homebrew that makes a class out of what I'd consider a build (such as Samurai or Knight classes, which I'd lump with Fighters, or arcane specialists I'd lump with Wizards). And I see even more homebrew that makes class out of what I'd consider a multiclass (such as Spellsword classes, which mix a martial and magical power source). The PHB has shades of the latter with the spellcasting subclasses of Fighters, Rogues and Monks, as well as the half-casting Paladin and Rangers. But then, those are some of the things I specifically aim to remove with my homebrew.

So I was wondering, what do you look for/aim for in homebrew classes?

It seems that there are three separate issues you are discussing here. One is things that could be fluff rather than crunch with very little work or even just a tiny bit of crunch change (the Samurai or Knight examples). The second is specialization of an existing class. The third is combining power sources. It seems to me that the first is more problematic because it is essentially unnecessary work and comes from the wrong-idea that what one is is one's class. The second seem less problematic- there's a limit to how much specialization one can do in an existing class, and if one wants very high specialization, making a class wholesale for it may be necessary. Similarly, the third type, seems reasonable to me: often attempts at multiclassing will result in less overall power and ability than a single class that does the two things together. Doing that sort of combination effectively purely by multiclassing can be tough.

[JoshuaZ]

depends on class like wizard and sorcerer to not act like grope mages, bard that knows when to shut the f up and barbarian who dont be a murder hobo.

I have no idea what a "grope mage" is, and the rest of what you have seems to be about the fluff and roleplay, having nothing to do with the class design at all. What is your point?

[khadgar567]

I have no idea what a "grope mage" is, and the rest of what you have seems to be about the fluff and roleplay, having nothing to do with the class design at all. What is your point?
grope mage a spell caster besides magus who decides getting melee is best option instead of chucking magic missile or fireball from range.

[JoshuaZ]

grope mage a spell caster besides magus who decides getting melee is best option instead of chucking magic missile or fireball from range.

So, you want mages who don't engage in direct combat? And the rest of your comment about bards and barbarians with specific fluff? What does it have to do with the OP's question?

[khadgar567]

So, you want mages who don't engage in direct combat? And the rest of your comment about bards and barbarians with specific fluff? What does it have to do with the OP's question?
what i want is basicly if you dont have any class abilities that give you melee prowess then stay the f out of fighters way so he can do his job properly. my problem isn't to much with class its more with players who dont understand what the class entails .

[JoshuaZ]

what i want is basicly if you dont have any class abilities that give you melee prowess then stay the f out of fighters way so he can do his job properly. my problem isn't to much with class its more with players who dont understand what the class entails .

Which then has what to do with this thread at all?

[GalacticAxekick]

It seems that there are three separate issues you are discussing here. One is things that could be fluff rather than crunch with very little work or even just a tiny bit of crunch change (the Samurai or Knight examples). The second is specialization of an existing class. The third is combining power sources. It seems to me that the first is more problematic because it is essentially unnecessary work and comes from the wrong-idea that what one is is one's class. The second seem less problematic- there's a limit to how much specialization one can do in an existing class, and if one wants very high specialization, making a class wholesale for it may be necessary. Similarly, the third type, seems reasonable to me: often attempts at multiclassing will result in less overall power and ability than a single class that does the two things together. Doing that sort of combination effectively purely by multiclassing can be tough.

Regarding the second issue, I feel subclass is a powerful tool to create specialization within a class, and that features such as spellcasting, eldritch invocation, fighting style and feats help classes specialize even further. For instance, I'd be very critical of a pyromancer class when really, an evocation wizard with the right set of spells, a plane-touched Sorcerer subclass or so forth could accomplish the same thing. The same for a chronomancer or technomancer or any spellcaster I can imagine, really (though homebrew spells would be necessary).

Regarding the third issue, I think multiclassing should be taken into consideration when classes are designed; it's a core feature of the game, after all. And I think a lot of the abilities gained through half-caster (sub)classes could be modeled as features intrinsic to their respective halves. For instance, the Eldritch Knight's War Magic grants a single weapon attack as a bonus action following your cantrip. It's gained well after your Extra Attack, so you're essentially trading one strike for a cantrip. Instead, I'd grant all Fighters a single weapon attack as a bonus action following any action besides the Attack and Disengage actions. This would let pure Fighters charge (Dash + Strike), fight defensively (Dodge + Strike) and so forth, while letting Fighter/Casters access War Magic (and more, in fact, since they could cast a full blown spell + Strike, and a spell of any school!). Here we have more options than the half-caster offered.

But also, I don't think you mentioned, what do you look for or aim for in homebrew?

[JoshuaZ]

Regarding the second issue, I feel subclass is a powerful tool to create specialization within a class, and that features such as spellcasting, eldritch invocation, fighting style and feats help classes specialize even further. For instance, I'd be very critical of a pyromancer class when really, an evocation wizard with the right set of spells, a plane-touched Sorcerer subclass or so forth could accomplish the same thing. The same for a chronomancer or technomancer or any spellcaster I can imagine, really (though homebrew spells would be necessary).

Regarding the third issue, I think multiclassing should be taken into consideration when classes are designed; it's a core feature of the game, after all. And I think a lot of the abilities gained through half-caster (sub)classes could be modeled as features intrinsic to their respective halves. For instance, the Eldritch Knight's War Magic grants a single weapon attack as a bonus action following your cantrip. It's gained well after your Extra Attack, so you're essentially trading one strike for a cantrip. Instead, I'd grant all Fighters a single weapon attack as a bonus action following any action besides the Attack and Disengage actions. This would let pure Fighters charge (Dash + Strike), fight defensively (Dodge + Strike) and so forth, while letting Fighter/Casters access War Magic (and more, in fact, since they could cast a full blown spell + Strike, and a spell of any school!). Here we have more options than the half-caster offered.

I agree that you can do this, but there are some limits. For example, if wouldn't quite feel like someone is a serious pyromancer if they can spend a day and then change everything to say chronomancy spells, or even if they switched to say electricity (so still being evocation focused). So there are some limits. I do like your idea for fighters.






But also, I don't think you mentioned, what do you look for or aim for in homebrew?

Well, I thought breaking down the question was more useful. I'm still learning 5ed enough that I haven't really developed a clear direction for classes. I'm not sure in general that people develop this. At least for previous editions, it seems that people when evaluating others homebrew care more about something feeling *different* than existing material or fixing some unbalanced thing rather than any overarching design goals. But that's just my impression, and it might be that I'm projecting my own preferences onto others.

[GalacticAxekick]

I agree that you can do this, but there are some limits. For example, if wouldn't quite feel like someone is a serious pyromancer if they can spend a day and then change everything to say chronomancy spells, or even if they switched to say electricity (so still being evocation focused). So there are some limits. I hadn't thought of thought! Good point!


Well, I thought breaking down the question was more useful. I'm still learning 5ed enough that I haven't really developed a clear direction for classes. I'm not sure in general that people develop this. At least for previous editions, it seems that people when evaluating others homebrew care more about something feeling *different* than existing material or fixing some unbalanced thing rather than any overarching design goals. But that's just my impression, and it might be that I'm projecting my own preferences onto others. Nah, that makes sense. I think a lot of homebrew is trying to meet an immediate need and not to fit into any longstanding design. "I need a homebrew spellcaster class for my setting". "I need a homebrew warrior suit X's character concept".

[Steel Mirror]

I like to see innovative takes on mechanics which make a class which feels and plays very different from anything already available. To take your pyromancer example, yes, I think that a basic pyromancer could be accomplished by someone who plays a sorcerer or wizard and chooses mostly fire spells. The rest is flavor. So if you made a new Vancian caster with some dedicated fire class abilities and a spell list heavily skewed towards fire, it's probably playable, but maybe it's not different enough for me to include in any of my games.

If, on the other hand, you make a caster who relies on skill checks and modular at-will riders to create a free-form caster who doesn't even have 'spell slots' like the other casting classes do, and who is also a pyromancer, that's kind of cool and more interesting. Playing that isn't going to feel like playing any sort of wizard, even one who likewise specializes in fire, so it's a cool new thing to consider and experience, and might attract a bit more excitement.

Subclasses based on flavor also don't bother me, just because you call it a "dervish" or a "soul reaper" doesn't mean that I can't take it and play it using whatever fluff I like. The mechanics still should be distinct from existing options, though, and if they dovetail well with the fluff then all the better.

I really admire people who make whole classes and subclasses, because I'm still not at the point as a brewer where I feel confident about tackling all that yet. I'm reading up on what lots of people have done in preparation for trying my hand at some caster classes for a 5E modern adaptation, but I admit it's a daunting prospect for me!

[Llama513]

When I am looking for or designing homebrew I am seeking something that is not yet in 5e, whether that means something completely new, or bringing a class or subclass from an older edition in that I really enjoyed, that is what I look for

[Arkhios]

When I am looking for or designing homebrew I am seeking something that is not yet in 5e, whether that means something completely new, or bringing a class or subclass from an older edition in that I really enjoyed, that is what I look for

This. Or, like I did with Warlord, expand on a prevalent concept (or concepts) already presented with the 5th edition rules, and try to pull off a more refined big picture with looking back at a version of that concept in an earlier edition. For me, designing Warlord wasn't a straightforward project and took about 10 months to become what it is now.